Jump to content

mentalfloss

Member
  • Posts

    577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mentalfloss

  1. Just as Harper was starting to recover from his Senate failings. This looks like it will hit even harder since it's coming from the house and enforced by E.C.
    Mr. Del Mastro, MP for Peterborough, Ont., is facing four charges in connection with allegations that he exceeded his campaign spending limit and filed a false accounting of the expenses incurred to win office in the 2008 federal election.
    “In our electoral system, it is fundamentally important that the spending and contribution limits enacted by Parliament be respected. It is also essential that the reports and information provided to Elections Canada be accurate and truthful,” said Yves Côté, Commissioner of Canada Elections. “We will continue to be vigilant to ensure that these rules are observed.”
    Mr. Del Mastro is charged with exceeding the limit that a candidate can contribute to his own campaign when he allegedly paid an election expense of $21,000 from his own pocket. The personal limit was $2,100.
    Both the MP and Richard McCarthy, his official agent in the 2008 campaign, are charged with exceeding the $92,655.79 election expenses limit for the Peterborough race. They are charged with submitting an electoral campaign return that omitted to report a contribution, and election expense, of $21,000, and instead reported an expense of only $1,575. This, Elections Canada alleged, was submitting a material statement they knew or should “reasonably … have known” was false or misleading.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-mp-dean-del-mastro-charged-by-elections-canada-with-concealing-21000/article14547903/

  2. Time to drop the brain drain and strengthen our environmental policy.

    Angela Merkel will make a special visit to Halifax this week to highlight the work of climate scientists, a stop that underscores the German Chancellor’s focus on science and the environment in a summer when those same issues are dogging Canada’s Prime Minister.

    Georg Juergens, the deputy head of mission at the German embassy in Ottawa, said the aim of the visit is to highlight the importance of science as a driver of future growth.

    “We always like to include a talk with students or have an event at a university when we do visits like these, because if you talk one leader to another that’s all very fine, but you have to have an impact as well,” he said.

    “Universities are our futures. Canada and Germany are both knowledge societies. We are a relatively small amount of people and we need to have an above average amount of brains.”

    Merkel’s visit to climate scientists heightens contrast with PM on environment policy

  3. You and I have a different definition of Utilitarian, MF! I use it in the context of being concerned with what will work. You are defining it as something we decide to do or not do, according to the worth of the result.

    To make things more confusing for you, neither of your comparative statements really conflict with each other since the motivation still is the consequence.. and utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.

    The consequence therein, being the net effect of some value of happiness, or pleasure or simply mutual preference, depending on the type of utilitarianism.

  4. Why on earth would he think such a thing? The papers are full of reports of such shootings!

    A utilitarian would think that because the total number of people involved in all shootings is a relatively small number compared to the total number of people within a particular territory and the rest of us really aren't affected in any significant way. In the neighbourhood which is the site of some major event like this, there may be cause for concern. But on a city-wide level or provincial, federal, or international level - it doesn't really matter much.

    Something like this may happen again next month or in a couple of years. With the crime rate constantly going down anyway, it really won't make any significant difference to national security if we enact some kind of policy change unless we're absolutely certain it would completely eradicate all forms of violence.

  5. As a Utilitarian, I point to the very fact that such violence is happening today as proof that their methods aren't working!

    As a Utilitarian, you should be more concerned about the degree and scope of pain and suffering that is endured by those involved in these situations as well as the likelihood of recurrence.

    You can throw that in your cost-benefit analysis, and you would probably find that this whole thing is really not a big deal at all, but it is a good PR opp for the politicians.

  6. They have a horrible track record for seat predictions I don't know why anyone would trust them. I understand the method but there is to little info in polls in Canada to do what they try to do.

    Huh.. So don't bother with seat projections in future posts then?

  7. I've found that every time someone lashes out at dissenting opinion as lefty, wing-nut, pinko, etc.. It only strengthens the critic's point and marginalizes their own.

    This appears to be happening in Ottawa as well.

    The Economist, a mostly right-leaning British weekly, criticized the Harper government for giving the opposition an opening by being inflexible and claimed the Prime Minister was “intolerant of criticism and dissent.”

    It warned Harper the NDP under Thomas Mulcair was fast becoming “more credible.”

    “Thomas Mulcair has started well, imposing party discipline, dropping leftist talk and moving towards the centre. He has called for a balanced approach to developing the tar sands, taking more note of environmental worries. He kept the party quiet during four months of student demonstrations against rises in tuition fees in Quebec — a silence that seemed to flummox the Conservative attack machine,” the editorial said.

    The Economist to Harper: Your bullying ways are giving the NDP a chance

  8. Why do we reward corporations with low taxes if they aren't putting revenue to good use?

    This is one of the worst records in Canadian history and one of the worst among developed economies. Unless productivity improves, the Canadian economy will be condemned to a very low rate of growth, and in turn this will impinge upon Canadians’ incomes and the ability of governments to fund the programs the public desires.
    Traditionally Canadian businesses blame the tax regime for both outcomes. The large jump from the small business tax rate to the general rate has been described as an obstacle to growing out of the small business tax ranks. And indeed, prior to the beginning of the corporate tax revolution in 2000, businesses faced a higher marginal tax rate on corporate income as they began to lose the small business preferred rate than the marginal personal income tax rate they would face if they took money out of the enterprise. But that is no longer the case. Yet we still observe a cluster of businesses right under the small business income tax threshold.

    Similarly, high taxation on capital might have once explained the lack of capital expenditures in Canada but that no longer cuts it as an explanation, especially relative to the United States. Yet, it is puzzling why Canadian businesses didn’t ram machinery and equipment investment through the roof from 2003 to 2007 when they had unprecedented retained earnings..

    Drummond: Business out of excuses in productivity slump | Productive Conversations | Financial Post

  9. To me, this reasoning suggests that there is a strong possiblity that, in the real world, ending supply-mangement will bring no significant savings for the Canadian consumer.

    It also depends on the rate of consumption and how much this hits the average consumer's wallet.

    No one is really clamouring to end supply management so that they can save a few bucks every week.

×
×
  • Create New...