SpankyMcFarland

Well, there were some good reasons to go to Afghanistan, initially at least.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1456058-trial-for-doctor-accused-of-trafficking-starts-with-push-to-drop-evidence 50,000 pills to one person sounds like something that should have been spotted earlier.

I notice the school reports for my nephews here, aged 13 and 15, are much less detailed and critical than the ones my nieces, aged 6 and 9, get in the UK. It's all 'Great job! Keep it up!' stuff.

What? Could you expand on that?

One problem is that physicians themselves have underrated the danger of giving these drugs to healthy young people. First do no harm.

Opioids should always be used at the lowest possible dose and for the shortest duration possible. http://www.painmedicinenews.com/Clinical-Pain-Medicine/Article/05-16/Opioid-Prescribing-by-Dentists-After-Tooth-Extraction-Found-Likely-Excessive/36090/ses=ogst Canadians are still not seeing the connection between illegal opioid use and overprescribing of prescription opioids.

A friend of mine was talking to her son on the mainland. He had been in for wisdom tooth surgery a few days earlier and sounded confused. Turned out he had been put on opioids for pain. They were consigned to the garbage bin in short order.

There were a lot of politicians, newspapers etc, calling for him to join Bush in Iraq.

Perhaps a country can only tolerate a certain amount of vision? I would argue that Trudeau's three principal successors were all pragmatists who worked within the framework created before them. Their shared beliefs on free trade and fiscal rectitude have served us well. Chrétien and Trudeau offer the biggest contrast in personality and I still wonder what Chrétien really thinks of his mentor. Apart from watching the quids, Chrétien showed good instincts elsewhere. I don't think any sane person would fault him now for keeping us out of Iraq.

In the post-PT era, there is no contest on deficit slaying. Chretien turned the tide and is the clear winner. Look at the figures. He may had some luck on his side but he deserves credit for what he achieved. Only partisan goggles can stop people seeing that.

Let's not get carried away here. Harper had a small surplus for the election. Before that, he ran up deficits.

I can see 'French' and 'English' but I don't really see Catholic vs non-Catholic as a dividing factor any more. Did many people care Paul Martin was Catholic, for example? I don't remember it being mentioned. We have had a flurry of Catholic PMs after a very long period without them but that will subside. Dion was a mistake. Some people do not look like leaders. Why repeat it?

I can't see how anybody rates Alexander as leadership material. Like Leitch, he's a talented guy in the wrong line of work - petulant and dorky. He just lands himself effortlessly in needless controversies and he's no man of the people either.

He could have done a lot worse than he has done so far.

JT has done well on the tricky Trump file so far, better than most expected I would say. The budget deficit has been a bit scary. The big question is, which Conservative will face him? Too far out of the mainstream will finish their chances.

Trump himself has questioned NATO's future. The US administration does not speak with one voice any more.

Back on topic...this fellow seems unfit for trial. It goes to show how much mayhem one sick individual can cause in the internet age.

Not a big swing against an incumbent government. There will be sterner tests ahead in more competitive ridings.

So a transgender person would conceal that fact? Really? And someone in a wheelchair would claim he isn't? That's been done before, of course. Voters deserve the whole truth regarding anything that might affect performance, e.g. diabetes, hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, cancer. In the past, these have been concealed. FDR was completely unfit for office in his last term. There could be some limit on divulging more minor conditions and sexual/reproductive issues. HIV or HepC should be divulged, though. Voters are sophisticated in these matters. People knew about Cheney's past but he was still chosen as VP running mate twice.

Yes, let's review. It's a good idea. You don't actually have to wait for Canada to do it.

It's not currently illegal for candidates to release their own records. They are not OBLIGED to do so. That is what I would change. My citizen status is utterly irrelevant if the suggestion is good. Ditto what Canada does. Must you slavishly copy Canada now? What happened to the exceptional nation? Candidates have been moving the right direction for many decades. Now the US is sliding backwards.

I would limit it to Presidential candidates and Presidents. These people are obviously not simply private citizens. They may have the fate of the world in their hands. I have yet to see one good argument against my proposal.

It is clearly in the interests of the state for the public to be well informed on the health of candidates on an ongoing basis. There are numerous examples in US and foreign history of serious illnesses being concealed. We are not talking about ordinary private individuals here but people who wish to be elected to an extraordinarily stressful and responsible job that controls a vast nuclear arsenal. Such a person is too important to have any expectation of privacy. The public will get used to hearing about blood pressure and diabetes in short order. On financial disclosure, Senator Lindsey Graham intends to introduce a bill to ensure that this be mandatory for the next election and that nobody can pull a Trump again.

Nobody is barred from releasing their own records and there is no good reason not to. As I have already mentioned, history is replete with dangerously ill leaders who should not have been working. This is 'suddenly' a problem with Trump because he has refused to release relevant financial and health records, unlike his predecessors from both parties. IMO both Clinton and Trump should have been more candid on the health front: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-13/do-presidential-candidates-have-right-keep-their-health-private And then we have the issue of tax returns where Trump has failed completely. It's probably more important than with any previous candidate to see those returns, given what we know already.

I would be grateful if you could explain what you mean there. To me, Chong seems unusually candid on what he would like to see with regard to parliamentary reform e.g. committees etc. By any reasonable Canadian standard, I am not a 'leftist', having voted for PC and Liberal candidates over the years. By MLW standards, however..... Why are only leftists smug? I don't think I have ever accused anybody of being that. Anyway, it's hardly the biggest sin in the world.