Riverwind

The 'rumors' did not surface until around 2000 even if the program was operating since 1996. By that time the leadership battle was in full swing. I suspect Martin did use the rumors as a way to sway supporters - but it is not something he would say publicly - that kind of public infighting does not happen in party politics while the party is in government. Would you expect the minister of immigration to take responsibility for the mad cow problem? how about expecting the minister of defence to take the fall for mismanaged fisheries? Ministerial responsibility applies only to the department that was responsible for spending the money and possiblly the Prime Minister. The department that handled the sponsorship moneys was public works which was headed by Gagliano until 2002. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to over see how the money is spent. Unlike you, I believe in only punishing the guilty. The Gomery evidence shows that Gagliano was probably the person most responsible for the mess and Chretien was a close second. Martin was clearly a bystander in terms of his official capacity and all your attempts to paint him as more involved presume that he had a duty to overstep his authority as Minister of Finance because he heard some 'rumors'. I certainly do not accept government corruption and I expect the _guilty_ to be punished. If Gagliano or Chretien were still around I would definitely would not be defending the Liberals today. The question comes down to how credible is Martin's claim that he was 'out-of-loop' on the sponsorship file. If he was out of the loop then he can be trusted to clean it up and fix the government auditing mechanisms that failed to detect the fraud sooner. If he wasn't then we need someone else. I think Martin is credible because it does not make sense that such an ambitious, politically astute person would risk everything to participate in a scheme that was so blatently illegal and unethical. To answer the obvious question: why not get rid of Martin just to be on the safe side? Because I intensly dislike so many of the policies and positions put forward by Harper and company that I would rather take my chances with Martin than risk a Harper government.

Bigdude, polls go up and polls go down. Leadership will take second place to policy when people come to vote.

You are probably correct that extremists would have tried to use Afganistan as an excuse if the invasion of Iraq never happened. However, the difference is these extremists would not have the unspoken 'moral' support from moderates in virtually every Islamic country nor would there be the moral support from significant segments of the population in Western countries. In other words, the Iraq invasion pissed aways all of the good will and sympathy the Americans had after 9/11 and created an environment where muslims feel like they are helpless victims of an American bully.

We are talking about a period of time when Martin and Chertien were battling over control of the Liberal party. From what I have heard the two did not communicate directly at all: so the opportunities for such casual inquiries did not exist. Even if Martin launched his own investigation without the approval of the Chretian camp it is unlikely that any of Chretian's people would have told him anything about what was going on. If you want to disagree look at how these people stonewalled in front of the Gomery inquiry - why would they have been anymore forthcoming with someone who was the 'enemy'? First, Rumors circulate all of the time in Ottawa. The only thing unusual about the sponsorship rumors is the fact that they turned out to be true. It is easy to point fingers after the fact. Second, the opposition and media have blown the sponsorship scandal out of proportion, a 100 million out of the federal budget wasted over a number of years is equivalent to a few lattes/year for the average family. An ethical person could be very concerned about the problem but not see the urgency in dealing with it. Remember: most of the money was lost overpaying for services delivered - something that is, sadly, very common place in the gov't. A reasonable person hearing rumors about cash in envelopes would likely dismiss them as exagerations. Third, many people criticizes Martin for pushing so hard to replace Chretien. It is possible that Martin's disgust over the rumors regarding the sponsorship scandal was one of things motivating him. I believe that once he heard the rumors he may have quietly looked into it and then decided that he wanted to know nothing more until he took over as leader - his thinking would be that he could clean it up then. In short, they are many logical and reasonable reasons why an ethical person who was not in charge of the government and was not part of Chretien's 'inner circle' would not have acted decisively and publicly on this issue at the time. That is why it is not enough for you to say 'he must have been ok with it' or 'if he did not know he is an idiot'. Gomery's report may not answer all of the questions but it will provide a more balanced analysis than any of the partisan rhetoric (from both sides) than we have heard to date.

Right, it was just a convenient, if unvoiced, excuse to help justify the rediculous cost of the war to the american public. The Iraq war was all about proving to the world that the US could and would invade any country that defied them. It was gamble that could have paid off but has turned into a miserable failure.

Which is exactly my point. Don't judge people in public life until all the facts are looked at by people without a political agenda. If this turns out to be a smear campaign orchastrated by Dosanjh then my opinion of Dosanjh will drop even further (if that is possible).However, there are clearly facts that need to be examined in this case - it does have the appereance of inpropriety. If Grewal did nothing wrong then move on.

Why does the system need to survive? Why is equality of opportunity fulfillment of rights and not a violation of rights? What are rights anyway?Whenever humans gather in groups they must have a 'system' that defines what sort of behavoirs are acceptable and which are not. In addition the system must have a way of punishing those who break the rules. This is true of our society today and it is definitely true of the anarchist society you advocate. The only difference between the two are the rules and the means of enforcement. An anarchist system has never collapsed. Everyone has an incentive to support the system because creating a State requires the effort of many who will not end up benefitting from it. Every anachist society that you have ever mentioned has collapsed. Usually because people who did not benefit from the system did not support it. Any purist capitalist society which puts property rights above all else will inevitably produce a system where a small number of people control most of the wealth. You could say that is human nature because some people are just smarter than others but that does not change the fact that extreme inequality will lead to resentment among those who are at the bottom of the pile. The anarchist system offers nothing to those at the bottom - just a brutal existance as virtual slaves of those with 'property'. Which is my point: these people will inevitably seek to over throw the system that only benefits the few. A democratic system like we have today creates a more stable society because, even if similar inequalities exist, those at the bottom have power through the democratic insitutions and receive something back from society via government programs such as education, police and emergency services.

The court system uses terms like 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' because too many people are quick to jump to conclusions based on little or no evidence, and, as a result, innocent people are sent to jail or have their reputations ruined. You can make an argument that the 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is too stringent for people in the political area. However, when it come to the question of if Martin was an activate participant in the sponsorship scandal, there is no evidence that would meet even the 'balance of probabilities' test. This is a perfect example of how closed minded you are: you have decided in advance that Martin must be guilty and if Gomery exonerates him your explanation is the the 'judge must be corrupt'. There is a huge difference between hearing rumors and not being certain they were true and actively participating and abetting the fraud. Martin probably heard rumors but conservatives are alleging he actively participated in the fraud. There is no logical or factual evidence to support such a conclusion. I am not the one accusing judges of being corrupt and saying you can't believe them if they say Martin is innocent. I made the crack about conservatives making up evidence because of the doctored Grewal tapes and the fact that they are already trying undermine Gomery's report by claiming that his report will be a whitewash because his 'mandate' does not allow his to name names (as if that makes any difference - if he thinks someone is guilty it will be obvious in the report even if he does not say it outright).

The attacks on Madrid and London were a direct result of the involvement of those countries in Iraq. If there was no Iraq there would have been no attack. Iraq has given the anti-american terrorists a bunch of new recruits that never would have considered being suicide bombers before. The london bombers were not considered to be radicals before the event.Slightly less than 50% amercians hate bush and his foriegn policy. Close to 90% of people in the rest of the world feel the same. You do the math: bush is making more enemies than friends. That will translate into more terrorists over time.

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack.

I give him the benefit too - I see no reason for him to resign or otherwise be punished until the proper investigations are complete. My responses on this thread were mainly about pointing out Conservative hypocrisy since the nature and evidence of wrong doing on Grewal's part's is quite similar to the allegations being thrown at the Liberals. You know perfectly well that Harper would have been on cross country tour screaming 'corruption' if a Liberal MP was found to have engaged in similar shady activities but when it comes to his own MPs, Harper is very quick to dismiss charges of corruption.

All media organizations are caught in a vicious circle were they are forced to choose stories and biases that will not offend their target audience. Because if they do offend someone, that person is likely to find another source for news. The result is we see independent islands of media preaching to converted (left or right wing) and each group seeing the other as sadly misinformed/ignorant people. At one level I don't blame people for seeking media sources that make them feel comfortable. I find it very difficult to read the National Post at times because the coverage (IMV) is so ridiculously biased. It would be much easier to get my news only from sources that make be feel comfortable. I short the media does not decide what we think - it just tries to figure out what we alredy think and repeats that to us without challenging our sensibilities.

This is typical of conservative slander of the PM and the Liberals. Are you suggesting that everyone accused of doing something wrong must be guilty because only the guilty claim to be innocent?At least Ebbers was entitled to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, he was only found guilty because their was concrete testimony from people he worked closely with and documentation that proved that his statements were lies. There is no such evidence in the case of Martin. If anything the fact that no concrete evidence has come out linking Martin to the sponsorship scandal suggests that there is none. Too many people would benefit if he could be taken down - it would not surprise me if the Conservatives try to manufacture evidence - just like the Grewal tapes - if the Gomery report is not to their liking. That said, unlike some people, I will keep an open mind and I will reserve my final judgment until the Gomery report comes out.

Yes, since these people are paid to research the issues and become better informed. That is the fundemental problem with gov't by referendum: most people don't have the time to become properly informed even if they have the ability. That is why paying a qualified individual to work full time on our behalf makes sense to make political discisions makes sense.

I agree that he probably heard many rumours - if the conservative and bloc heard the rumors he must have. However, there is a big difference between hearing rumours of shenanigans and actively participating in them. That is a important distinction that our media and oppositions parties are not capable of comprehending, as a result, Martin feels he has to deny any knowledge.So this poll means nothing. If I was asked I would probably agree that he knew more than he is telling but at the same time I do not believe he actually participated in the fraud. I might change my mind if someone can actually come up with evidence instead of the hearsay and innuendo. However, the fact that after all of the coverage of Gomery the fact no one has produced any evidence of direct involvement by PM PM is a strong sign that there probably was not any.

It could also be a strategy to put the opposition off base. They need the support of opposition parties in the fall to keep going now that the NDP deal is done. Dropping rumors of an early election may be just that. I also heard rumours of other strategies such as cancelling the fall session of parliment entirely.Personally, I think PM PM would not go for a fall election unless absolutely forced to since it would be politically very difficult to govern a minority after Gomery is released (as you point out). However, in minority parliment the Libs may not have a choice.

I have come the conclusion there is no such thing as unbiased media. Anyone who writes or reports on anything likely has a view point that colours the coverage. Furthermore, as our choices in news sources increase market forces cause many media outlets to cater to their core support which often means running stories that will not offend anyone in their target audience. That is why a newspaper in Calgary needs to show an extreme right wing bias where as a Toronto daily has to be extremely left wing.To get around this I try to get by news from different sources with different biases so I can hear all sides of the issue and form my own opinion. I find CBC Radio, the Globe and Mail, the Economist magazine and Google News to be the best place to find reasonable unbiased opinions and different perspectives. I will also read the the National Post periodically but I find the substance to blatant partisanship ratio a little to low to make it worth paying for a subscription.

Absolutely no evidence has come out at Gomery that proves that all Liberals are corrupt. A few yes - even probably some senior Liberals like Gagliano. Furthermore, most of the most sensational testimony was by people with a strong incentive to twist facts to make themselves look better. A judge in a public commission is allowed to report on facts only. You sound like you are nostalgic for the good old days of Senator Macarthy and the Salem Witch Trials. Rough translation: I don't care about the facts and the evidence I am want to lynch them anyways. I know it is difficult to comprehend but it is quite likely that PM PM had nothing to do with the corruption. It is also quite likely that he heard the rumours like everyone else but decided to stay deliberately as ignorant as possible until he could win the leadership and the clean up the mess. Is he a saint? No. Has he been fast and loose with the truth about how much he did know? Probably. Is he guilty of the deliberate theft of tax payer dollars: extremely unlikely.

This list left out Dihydrogen-Oxide: a substance proven to kill even healthy people that are exposed to large enough quantities.

From the CBC report: It appears even the conservatives are admitting irregularities.

I heard 'the' guy - i.e. the very person who is claiming that Grewal did not give him receipts. I did not hear a reporter, I did not hear a pundit. I heard the accuser say in his own words what he was accusing Grewal of not doing.There is substance to this allegation that cannot be dismissed unless someone can show the accuser is lying. This is not an example of a reporter making something out of nothing.

I actually heard the guy talking on the radio. He said quite clearly:1) Grewal asked that the check made out to Grewel personally - this act itself is against the election act. 2) He repeatedly asked Grewal's riding association for a receipt and was told that there was no record of the transaction. 3) He has a record of Grewal cashing the check (i.e. he has evidence that the transaction occurred). There are serious allegations here which fall into the same category as the allegations the Gomery inquiry is looking into even if on a smaller scale. This story is really about how people living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Get real, if a similar allegation was dug up about a Liberal MP the conservatives would have been howling for blood - their entire political strategy is based on convincing the public the Liberals are corrupt and the Conservatives are not. This is why the Grewal story is relevant: it contradicts the public image the the Conservatives are trying to manufacture.

Acts committed by a few Liberals out of thousands of party workers - if those misdeeds mean that all Liberals are corrupt then Grewal's misdeeds mean that all Conservatives are corrupt.

Kimmy, your analysis is good but I argue that you drew your conclusions based on the preconceptions you had when you did your research. It is possible to take the exact same passages and draw the conclusion that Paul is perfectly fine with monogamous homosexual relationships (or at worst has no opinion) Basically, the operative word in that sentence is 'offender' not 'homosexual'. If you replaced 'homosexual' with heterosexual you would never to interpret the passage to condemn heterosexuality: only those heterosexuals that committed some kind of offence. In addition, you are dealing with a translation of a concept from another language and society that maybe not be easy to translate. Other translations refer to 'sexual perverts' or 'sodomists' instead of 'homosexuals'. We also know that even in our society today people confuse homosexuality with pedophelia. It is quite likely that the confusion existed back then too.When you look at the different translations of this passage you get a clear picture that Peter is condemning is a specific sexual act and not all homosexual relationships. This passage is also clearly condmening the sexual act and not the relationship. The operative word in the sentence is 'indecent act' not indecent relationship.Of course it is impossible to go back and ask Peter for clarification which is why it is next to impossible to know for certain what Peter intended. If we want to get into a battle of interpretations I think most Christians should choose the one that is most consistent with Christ's overall message: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'