jacee

Programs for kids are not frills. They are essential to minimize future costs and maximize human potential. It's clear to me that there are people who just do not comprehend that human services are more important than snowplows and garbage trucks and other mechanical toys. And it's clear that those who don't understand are those who know nothing about human services and shouldn't be making decisions about children's programs because they do not respect children.

I don't see how that applies to this situation. There's no difference in "expectations" or decision-making here, just a different format for a parole hearing.

Well I see the picture is getting through ... lots more retired elders, lots fewer working age, lots of health care, pensions ... Of course nobody complained when they were making big profits from the big population of big consumer boomers ... and paying less and less in taxes thus failing to invest for future essential services.

I also heard that he said he saved many lives by steering the ship into shallow water. Unh Hunh ... Then he fell into a lifeboat. Unh hunh ... I think I smell a lawyer ...

Beats kids stealing and selling weed in their leisure time though.Every healthy community MUST have leisure time activities for every kid. Ask the police.

He shouldn't be picking on children looking for cuts. These are programs for inner city kids and famulies with few resources, designed to keep kids oof the streets an out of the crime that surrounds them, programs arising from past experience and known to be effective. Any short term financial 'gain' is at long term expense ... ie, not smart. What kids do when they're not in school is critical to our whole society too.

Well said.

Enbridge subsidiaries reported 175 pipeline leaks in U.S. since 2002: data Life as we know it ... Why is it they still can't do their job right? Oh ya, skimping on safety for profits ... in the most profitable business there is. Ya, that breeds trust!

Ya time for them to stop the gravy boat.

If, as dre says ... "corporations ... companies ..." Ie PRIVATE SECTOR PROFITS Wanna make a guess about what party gives the most taxpayer money to the RICH? It isn't the 'socialists'. I agree that public money is being misused. We may disagree about who's doing the misusing.

Oops! Bad post.

Ahhh ... the arrogance of youth! But boomers will be the healthiest, longest-living generation in history, and not idle either. The new retirement"turning point." While 76% of baby boomers intend to keep working and earning in retirement, on average they expect to "retire" from their current job/career at around age 64, and then launch into an entirely new job or career. ... As a result of living longer, baby boomers plan to be"younger" longer and to work longer. And as has been the case throughout our lives, the younger generations will continue to hate us for our impact on the markets - catering to us has driven fashion and many other sectors - and on jobs - we have plugged up their job opportunities, holding firm to our senior positions - if we don't retire, they don't get jobs/promotions. Most of them wish for us all to go away and DIE! But reality is such that we'll continue to annoy them with our numbers and demands - for health care, and jobs without ageism barriers, etc. The struggle for rights and equality will continue into retirement. They're going to get VERY tired of hearing about our aches and pains. And as usual, they won't really appreciate the battles we fight that benefit them, ungrateful wretches that they are! I wouldn't be surprised if the 'euthanasia' debate shadows most of our retirement, and when they finally do get those senior positions we vacate at retirement, they'll finally be able to use their power against us. Scary thought, really ... No, not really ... SILVER POWER!!!

Yes, you've been quite clear about your preferences.

Interesting. I know that there won't be as many poor old women, left destitute by their husband's death: We have had good jobs/businesses ourselves, and have good pensions/savings. I think that will be a major difference from previous generations. Baby boomer women are better educated, more independent, are simultaneously juggling more work and family responsibilities and are more financially engaged than any generation in history. According to the survey, married baby boomer women are more than six times more likely to share responsibility for savings and investments investments compared to their mothers' generation (33% now vs. 5% then). ... It's not about the money. While 37% of the baby boomers in the survey indicate that earnings is a very important part of the reason they intend to keep working, 67% assert that continued stimulation and challenge is what will motivate them to stay in the game. http://seniorliving.about.com/od/retirement/a/newboomerretire.htm

I would say that OWS has been incredibly successful at focusing a lot of issues, and a lot of public consensus, on the growing wealth disparity between the richest few and the rest of us. From your link: Two out of three Americans now perceive strong social conflicts over the income gap — up sharply from two years ago. Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center has an idea what's behind the increase. "The Occupy Wall Street movement kind of crystallized the issue: 1 versus 99. [it's'Hell no, we won't go,' going back to the Vietnam era," he says. "[it] certainly triggered a lot of coverage about economic inequality." Over the last three decades, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans more than doubled their share of national income, while the bottom 80 percent saw their share shrink. Taylor says majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans now see the income gap as a cause of friction. Democrats, independents and even Republicans now see the income gap as a cause of friction.

Then he'd better be locked up to prevent lifelong damage to children's lives. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Impact Pictures of children being sexually assaulted are pictures of crimes and of victims. Those viewing them are criminals. You aren't deceiving anyone here, and don't deceive yourself: There is NOTHING that is not criminal about sex with children. If a woman is raped pictures of the rape are posted publicly, how many years have to go by before it no longer bothers her? Is it ok to view pics of a child's sexual assault once the child victim reaches the age of majority? Is that your claim? Would you enjoy sharing pics of yourself being sexually assaulted as a child? Should you have to tolerate them being in circulation? Are you reconsidering your statements at all? Viewing child porn is NOT a victimless crime, and it is a crime.

They're still listening to rock ‘n roll, having sex and taking drugs, although the substance of choice for many is Viagra now. Mostly, they lead productive ordinary lives. But the transit of 10 million baby boomers into senior citizenship will tilt Canada's social and cultural landscape as the aging “me generation” dominates the next 20 years. Statistics Canada says at least 1,200 boomers a day will turn 65 in that time, shooting up the proportion of senior citizens to one-quarter of the population from about 14 per cent today. The number of seniors will grow from approximately 5 million now to somewhere between 9.9 million and 10.9 million in 2036. http://www.thespec.com/iphone/news/article/654486--the-silver-tsunami The population of over 65's rises from 15% to near 30%, while the population of 15-64 year olds drops from 70% to 60%: The working-age population will be only 30% of the population, compared to 55% at present. Of course most of us early baby boomers are pretty self sufficient financially in retirement, so perhaps the impact on public budgets won't be as feared. Late boomers now 40-50, may have had more earnings/pension disruptions in the economic race to the bottom though. Maybe we'll be too busy to spend our health care dollars, travelling, protesting, meditating and eating free happy hour 'health' nibblies.

That'll take a decade or more and cost billions. No employer will want to miss out on that deal, so suddenly everyone earns only $20,000 ... and nobody's paying taxes or buying products. This is how the race to the bottom ends.

Spending cuts ... pffft Political smoke and mirrors. It all depends how Harper defines "spending". Quite a lot of "spending" is hidden as Flaherty's "tax credits" for politically selected target groups: In his first few federal budgets, Mr Flaherty created a wide range of tax breaks aimed at specific elements of the population. Groups on the receiving end of new deductions included construction workers, public transit riders, seniors and parents of sporty kids. ... Some of the credits – like the $725-million a year n lost revenue for an employee stock deduction – are often criticized as perks for the rich. Yet other deductions, such as the Child Tax Credit, are geared toward lower-income families. Toby Sanger, senior economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said in an era of restraint, he believes all sides of the political spectrum should be able to agree that these credits need a review.“ It makes the tax system more complicated and people end up getting accountants,” he said. “Frankly, the spending would be a lot more effective if they just spent it directly.” http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flahertys-tax-credits-cost-ottawa-billions/article2296695/?service=mobile But then Harper couldn't claim to be cutting spending. Smoke and mirrors ...

Well said.Harper's hissy fit about "foreigners" is pathetic, but shows his frustration that he couldn't find a behind-the-scenes way to control the hearings. (Note: It doesn't matter whose mouth it comes from, it's Harper's words.) Blowing up environmentalists is what he and the oil gang would like to be doing I'm sure, if they thought they could get away with it, like the CIA gets away with blowing up an Iranian scientist. But the evidence doesn't support Harper's claims of environmentalist foreigners hijacking' the review process: Hudema points out that "the overwhelming 'foreign' influence is from oil companies, not U.S. foundations or environmentalists." According to Environmental Defence, an Ontario-based environmental group, there are 10 foreign oil companies registered as nterveners, but not a single environmenta organization from outside the country on the ist. "In fact, most if not all are B.C.-based organizations, including many from northern B.C.," states the website. Environmental Defence points out that of the 4,522 people who have registered in the oral submission category, "a search of the registry indicates that 3,587 of these people, or 79 per cent of the total, are from British Columbia." BUT ... Some 'intervenors' have never heard of Gateway SO ... The question becomes ... did Harper/oil industry fraudulently put names of "foreign" environmentalists on the list to bolster their case and support Harper's hissy fit? I suspect so.

Nothing was "given", only placed in trust for us, a trust that can be revoked. Nobody gave away their right to existence, currently threatened by industrial environmental devastation. You misinterpret or underestimate the power of democracy in the hands of the people. 'Just sit quietly while we destroy your habitat.' Yeah, there's wisdom for ya! Not the kind of 'wisdom' we pay our representatives for though. Tell ya what ... You just sit quietly while we protest. K? What's to get all upset about? A bunch of artsie hippies gotcha scared?

.Translation: CPC guy says he'll stick a knife in the neck of anyone who protests the pipeline. It's quite clear really. That's just his usual sense of humour ... I think. Of course if protesters start dropping like flies ... Well, you heard it here first, right from the horse's hind. And as for Harper's hissy fit via Oliver puppet ... ppphhhtttt! He just figured out that he may not win this one. He has no strategy except dictating - yelling and calling people names. Too bad so sad, it's all goin' bad for him. Maybe he should have just worked for the US oil companies directly, instead of pulling this 'leader of a democracy' charade, sucking money out of taxpayers to fund his personal oil lobby aka PMO.

Ah ... but do you see that that is only your own dissenting opinion, not the rule of law in Canada? As such, it shouldn't be taught to students as 'fact' as it isn't. In 'fact', the Supreme Court uses the land 'surrender' procedures in the Royal Proclamation 1763 to evaluate the validity of such 'surrenders' and to determine what rights apply on 'surrendered' and 'unsurrendered' land (ie, "unceded land". Thus, while the geography specified in the RP is specific and eastern, the relevance of the processes described has been found to be useful for establishing consistency in application across the country. In all numbered treaty areas as elsewhere, hunting, fishing and sometimes trapping rights were retained by Indigenous Nations even on 'surrendered' lands, indicating a more general right to sustain themselves on the land. The Government of Manitoba recognizes it has a duty to consult in a meaningful way with First Nations Métis communities and other Aboriginal communities when any proposed provincial law, regulation decision or action may infringe upon or adversely affect the exercise of an aboriginal right or treaty right of that Aborigina community. This duty arises out of the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. http://www.manitoba.ca/iem/mrd/mines/procedures/index.html The duty to consult doctrine in Canadian law is a doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This doctrine says that governments making decisions that may have an impact on Aboriginal rights or treaty rights have a duty to consult the potentially affected Aboriginal communities even prior to final proof of the rights in court or final settlement on the rights in negotiation processes. The Crown's Duty to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal Rights ... by Dwight Newman, Associate Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan

I think he should be incarcerated forever, the scum sucking pig! However, it isn't for the court to hold him to higher standards: that's for the church ... to make sure he NEVER reoffends, and to withdraw him from any contact with children. His credibility as a spiritual advisor he has destroyed all by himself.