dnsfurlan

That's an excellent point, Neal. I know so many of us on the right tend to yell "media bias" every time we watch the news. But does it really matter? Actually, I think it does. In a way, I think it forces conservative candidates to be better than liberal candidates have to be. I don't know, maybe thats the way it should be. I guess my gripe with apparrent media bias is what I think is a lack of professionalism. Think of what we expect from all of the sectors of society and democracy meant to serve the people. Then look at some of the pot shots the media like to make in their coverage of things like politics. I guess I just don't like to see that kind of stuff in societies that are considered to be advanced. If we expect a certain level of ethics and professionalism from politicians, for example, then we should expect it from the media too. Of course, this does not apply to all of the media. But I think there is enough of it around to create an atmosphere of mistrust out there. I don't think that's a good thing. For example, you had Walter Cronkite, who was generally labelled as the most trusted voice in America. Now, after he's finished communicating to millions of Americans daily, he admits that he was a liberal all along and that liberalism is a more balanced and correct philosophy for society. Why didn't he admit this while reporting on events such as the Tet Offensive in Vietnam? I don't think media bias wins elections for people. I just think it sets a double standard that I don't think is fair or very professional. Just my two cents worth. For Ernie Eves, it just means he has to get his act together. I have seen some signs of it. Lets see if he can force Mcguinty to come out from behind the media image he is trying to portray to the media and to the rest of us. Leadership is about more than image. It is also about aura. I think Eves has some of it. I don't think McGuinty does. With the way the media tends to cover events, I think it just means that Eves has to speak to the people instead of the media. Thats what George W. Bush did to get elected President of the United States.

Now that a few days have passed since the start of the campaign, I couldn't help buy notice a trend in some of the media coverage so far. Journalists seen to be buying into the theory that Dalton Mcguinty has remade himself since the last election, in part because of a media image makeover he's been working on for the last four years. This adds to my admittedly biased observation that I think the media is cheering for McGuinty to win the election. Since when is a media media image consultatin a replacement for an actual aura of leadership? Why not let viewers and voters decide if McGuinty has improved his presentation, instead of immediately buying into the Liberals' assertion that he has because he's been listening to media image consultants? And if you think my observation of media McGuinty cheerleading is patently biased, think about it a bit more. Don't you think many in the media, who are admittedly liberal in their voting preferences, think that it may be a time for a change. And if McGuinty presents himself better than the last time, it gives people a good reason to consider voting for him, so my media theory goes... I know. I know. I'm a conservative who wants to see media bias everywhere. Nonetheless, I think it is hard to argue that it does not exist. For example, I was wathcing a news piece on the supposedly conservative Asper's Global News yesterday. In doing a story on Howard Hampton's appeal among union workers, the reporter felt it necessary to add commentary to the effect that the PC goverments of Harris and Eves have led to the gutting of social services in Ontario. Whether or not this is true, I think its safe to say that such a sweeping generalization has no place in a piece meant to cover the news - not make it or editorialize on it. Just some more thoughts.

Come on. Its these universities who are bending over backwards to implement affirmative action policies. They want minority students to be accepted. The problem is that not enough of them are getting grades that allow them to do so. That is at the core of the problem. Qualified minorities are not being turned away. Otherwise unqualified minorities are being accepted because of racial preferences. Simple as that, eh? What do you make of Colin Powell, Condy Rice, Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, etc, etc. How in the world did they get in to good schools? Lets not kid ourselves. If a student has the grades, they will get into a good school somewhere. This is not 1940. Its 2003. Society changes, even without governmnet intervention.

Actually, I have had my doubts about Arnold ever since he gave his first interview as a candidate on NBC (I think it was the Today Show). I guess I have two main concerns about his candidacy: 1) His actual qualifications. From the outset he has been discounting the need for experience, since experienced politicians are the ones who have created the mess in California in the firs place. However, you still need qualifications to be a governor of a state - one of the world's largest economies nonetheless. Quite frankly, I have yet to hear him spell out those qualifications. I know he has been in business for himself. And he's a big-shot movie star and movie maker. But what makes him think he can make decisions that will affect the livelihood of millions of Californians? 2) His ability to perform as a politician. So far, he has talked in generalities and has given very scripted answers to very scripted questions. But can he think on his feet? Does he have some grasp of policy? Can he attack Bust-A-Move with any kind of deftness and slight-of-hand? At some point he will need to get from behind the veneer he has erected for himself thus far and prove to everyone he actually has what it takes to do the job. He has to prove to people that he is not in over his head.

In following the election and reading some of the stuff going on, sometimes I find I have to stop myslef and ask the simple question: WHAT? This is what McGuinty had to say about Tory government spending Liberals' McGuinty attacks Tory spending: I wonder if he would have the same thing to say about the federal liberals, or about past ontario liberal goverments. Since when do Liberal governments ever care about tax dollars? Its fine to criticize the goverment on this account, I suppose. But just how in the world would Mcguinty actually improve the situation? Does he actually have a plan for fiscal management? How does he intend to respect tax dollars? The more I listen to Dalton the more I think he's the Ontario version of Al Gore. Eves has already taken him to account on some of his criticisms. I just hope he continues to debunk some of the unsupportable claims coming from the liberals. Its always more effective to counter demagoguery with facts and principle. I wonder if Eves can keep it up. I think the last thing Ontario needs is for Al Gore (Mcguinty) to run the province.

I'm not sure when this changed into a topic about America. This is a forum about Canadian politics. Nevertheless, even talking about the United States, I still see affirmative action as wrong-headed. Are there some serious racial issue still to be addressed in that country? Yes. I fear, however, that leftist policies such as AA tend to make the problems worse rather than better. Like so much on the Left, it sound nice. But does it really fix the problem? You mentioned statistics about race in America. What about statistics about AA? Does it actually work? Does it adress some of the deeper problems of racism in America? Frankly, even some conservatives in America favor AA, partly because fixing the real problems involves a lot more work. Indeed, I think the Left actaully contributes to some of these problems, because teachers unions, black leaders, and leftist organizations tend to berate any changes that could affect their own interest and agendas. Take school vouchers, for example. Black parents tend to like them. Liberal interest groups don't because they infringe upon the public education school system - which often is part of the cause of the problem. Most of the schools blacks attend are public. Yet they are clearly not doing the job. And whenever reforms are suggested, the liberal establishment, including teacher's unions, stand in the way of any attempt to change the system. In my opinion, society should try to offer oppportunity. This is not being done in public schools in America. Affirmative Action will not change it. If anything, it will only reward it, I fear. Just a note: at the University of Michigan, where blacks have been chosen on the basis of race, its not only whites who have been kept out. Asian students have also been made casualties of the University's desire to be selective about race. This adds to my belief that Leftist programs quite often make the problem worse rather than better. (Public financing of campaings I think is another example of this, but that is clearly off topic).

I'm not the one who came on here accusing conservatives of not being able to support their positions with reasons and facts. You should have been trying to explain things before making the accusations. Is it enough? Lets' see: This is a reform? Affirmative action has been around for decades.People trying to use the goverment to advance their minority agenda is nothing new. I thought it was curious when you said you wanted reform, because the Left has not come up with a new idea since the 1960's. Affirmative action does not discriminate? By definition it discriminates. It chooses a certian group of people over others based solely on their minority status. And why does diversity have to be achieved by AA? Isn't Canada already diverse enough without the need to implement a program that rewards people for their skin colour and gender? Why do people need a hand out from the government in order to get ahead? Can't people make it without getting favors from the government. Are you people afraid that minorities can't make it on their own. Are Canadians by nature a racist people? I don't think so. There are numerous example of how minorities have succeeded without so called affirmative action. I'll give you two: -Back Athletes: once they were given the opportunity to play Big League sports owners would have been crazy to prevent the best players from playing on their teams. And black athletes now dominate professional sports. -IT experts from India thriving in silicon valley. India produces some of the finest IT experts in the world and California can't hire enough of them. These people didn't neeed affirmative action. They simply made themselves better than the rest. Who in the world is denying minorities opportunities? Again, are white Canadians a racist people? I don't think so. People get ahead by displaying excellence. Aren't minorities capable of excellence? Or do you just like the idea of trying to stick it to successful white people, or having the government do things for people instead of people actually doing things for themselves? The only time people on the Left ever care about defecits is when conservatives make them. George Bush is pursuing a policy of economic growth - which is starting to pay off - while at the same time fighting terrorism, getting rid of enemies of freedom, recovering from a recession left by Clinton/Gore which they lied about, and dealing with the Enron scandals which were allowed to occur under Bill Clinton's good times presidency. And, despite this, many conservatives are not happy with Bush's spending habits. They think he is liberal in this regard. Do you actually know anything about Canadian politics? I can't believe you actually wrote that. We have had a seperatist party as our official opposition, we have had two referendums on seperation over the last twenty-five years, we have a region in the West that has felt alienated for generations, our last federal election was as personal as they come, and people have been calling the Alliance racist and intolerant since I can remember. For one thing, I don't remember the Americans worrying about whether their country will break up within the foreseeble future.Where does some of this stuff come from? What about some ambition and hard work, like everyone else who wants to succeed? Don't you have any faith in people? Do we need government to solve all our problems? Are Canadians a bunch of racists just waiting to punish minorities who want to make a better living for themselve? We keep hearing from the Left that Canadians are a compassionate and kind people. Yet here you are telling us that we need government to be compassionate on our behalf. And what generations of suffering are you talking about? Where is all this human misery that the rest of us seem to be missing out on?

Aren't you the one preaching to the rest of us about the need to rely on facts and reason. Yet, when you're provided with them you simply shrug them off and content yourself with being satisfied, regardless of any FACTS provided.Furthermore, don't you think Canada is dependent on the United States both economically and militarily? Must be nice to feel so satisfied when someone else is pulling so much of the weight for you!

What is so rational about your post? What valid facts and reasons do you provide? Its easy to think you are rational. But where is your proof? Its been my experience that people on the left do not provide reasons and facts in the slightest. As an example, you might want to look at Black Dogs attempts at argumentation in the forum about Paul Jackson. What exactly are the reforms you are looking for? In what way is the United States less stable than Canada? I'm just waiting to read what reason and logic you are going to provide for us on those counts, for example. You didn't want to do it the first time around. Maybe the second time's the charm, right? Let's see.

I think you keep it short because you don't have much to say. First, you fail to acknowledge the very real possibility that governments can squander the wealth that their jurisdictions produce. This topic has sidetracked somewhat from my original point, which was that so many give the federal liberals credit for the economy when the most prosperous provinces are run by conservatives. According to your logic, no governments should ever get credit for any economies. And is it just a coincidence that Ontario and Alberta have been run by conservatives for the last decade and that they have been the engine for the Canadian economy? Hasn't history proven that when you have low taxes and a pro-business jurisdiction economies grow and societies flourish? Just take a look at Canada. The provinces that are the most socialist in nature end up taking billions from the ones that aren't. BC used to be one of the have provinces until Glen Clark and co. turned it into a have-not. It must be nice for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to espouse statist government when they take so much from the ones that aren't. Can you actually give me examples of countries or jurisdictions that prosper more under leftist regimes than under conservative ones? Even when they gain some measure of success do they do it by co-opting conservative ideas and making them their own, like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and Jean Chretien. I've got some news for you. Capitalism and freedom actually work. Why begrudge it?

Finally something exciting to talk about in the world of politics. I think it will be fascinating to see how this plays out in Ontario. Actually, I do think this election is up in the air, and much of it depends on the performances of the party leaders, espeically Eves and McGuinty. Already a debate is being framed around the issue of leadership. This has been a weakness of McGuinty in the past, but I also think that Eves still has something to prove in this area. Personally, I have a hard time seeing McGuinty projecting an aura of leadership around himself. Some in the media may think he's ready for the challenge. I'll believe it when I see it. As for Eves, I think the book is still out on the guy. Frankly he seems a bit more tired a politician than I thought he would be. But if he can come across as someone who can take charge of the province and continue the successful policies of the Tories then he might have a chance. Part of the problem is that he has had a year to do this. Maybe he's gotten all the kinks out. Anyhow, I think he's going to need to be sharper in the campaign. I think Howard Hampton is going to be the wild card in the race. I do think he sometimes gets carried away with the shrill rhetoric. For example. using the gay marriage issue as an excuse to attack Eves' personal situation. The logic of this excapes me and I think can be easily defended (eg. Eves choice to not be married has nothing to do with the public policy stance of recognizing gay and lesbian marriage) However, it is clear that Hampton is umapologetic about using government in order to solve some perceived problems in the province. Actually, I think this might play well to people who have not liked the flirtation with private sector solutions that Mike Harris displayed for the last two terms. Unfortumately, I still think many Ontarians feel safer with the idea that big government can somehow pacify many of these so-called problems. The challenge this poses for Eves and McGuinty is interesting. I think it will force Eves to articlate a principled argument for a continuing of conservative rule in the province. For McGuinty, I think it puts in in somewhat of a hard place, since he has to face challenges from both sides while appearing to lead at the same time. It might make him look like a waffler. Just some thoughts. Looking forward to the next 30 days.

Do you even know what a recession is? The fact is that the American economy is not in one ie) it is not experiencing negative growth. In fact, it has been growing for most of Bush's presidency. Again, I think it would help your arguments if you actually knew the facts. No, my point was that they do whatever it takes to gain power in order to enact their ideology, which they are never up front about in the first place. Don't you understand the "nuance" of my point? Again, try to get it right. I'll name you a number of sources in this country that are left or lean that way: CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Global Television, etc. Yes, Global TV, despite the supposedly conservative Asper control of it now. Most of what people see and read in this country comes from somewhere on the left. A mogul doesn't have to run a media outlet, or have a high profile, in order for it to expouse a certain political bias. Can you name me the mogul of the New York Times? Nevertheless, he's cleary a liberal. Actually, this is a generally accepted fact even within the media in this country. . The National Post was seen as the only alternative to the prevailing norm of Canadian media. Now that Black doesn't run it any longer, even that is no longer as clear a fact as it once was. I'm not sure why people on the left keep arguing this fact. You would think they would actually chersh diversity, instead of belittling it when a bit of it occurs in the media. Again, unfortunately, you are not arguing with facts and reason. You may have some swampland in Florida, but what does that have to do with the arguments we are making here. What, afraid to stick with the arguments? You have argued with conservatives before? Well, the arguing you have done here hasn't been very impressive, so I don't know who it is that you've been arguing with. Maybe your imagination? Because, clearly, as I have already pointed out twice, you do tend to get personal and offer justifications that are not born out by the facts. Thinking Conrad Black still owns media here, thinking the US is in a recession, thinking rich people are greedy and don't already pay their fair share of taxes... and the list keeps on going. You were even scolded by the moderator for your antics. What does that say about your ability to argue with conservatives? Try to get your act together before you try engaging in a political discussion.

If you can't argue against your opponents I guess you just go personal, right? This is your argument against Bush's economic policies? Pretty lame. Of course they do. That was my point in the first place- they do what they say they will do, unlike liberals who only say what they have to in order to enact an ideology people don't actually believe in. And since when are tax cuts only for the rich? You have something against rich people? Of course not! How else would you fund your socialist schemes. You just gotta love it when lefties point to a few exceptions to the rule and tell others they are the rule. Also, Izzy is a well know friend to the federal Liberal pary. And, in case you didn't notice, "Tubby" Black no longer controls media interests in Canada. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually got your facts straight? It must be nice to think like that. That way, you don't have to face the reality that conservatives back up their arguments with facts, reason, and logic, instead of misrepresentation, reaching, rhetoric, and straight out cluelessness.

Due to the wonder of the internet I have come to read and admire the writing of Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson. Like many conservative columnists for Sun Media, he does have a tendency to come across as a curmudgeon. However, his insight into the merits of conservatism vs. liberalism/leftism is unmistakeable. In his most recent column, Martin made a mess, he makes a terrific point. Recent history should make it clear that leftist governments spend more time politicking and pork-barreling than they do displaying sound managerial ability. Then conservatives have to come in an clean up the mess. And the cycle is a vicious one, since liberals demagogue issues to death, especially focusing on the apparent short term consequences of policy enactments. Its just too easy to tell people that the state of the economy, for example, is the direct result of the governmnet currently in power. Its too bad that voters tend to buy into this myth. Take Bill Clinton, for example. He came into office after a very short recession was already over and the economy was already starting to boom as the result of the massive growth policies of Ronald Reagan. When he left office, the economy had shrunk for the entire last year of his presidency, a fact which they witheld during Al Gore's entire 2000 campaign. George W. Bush comes in an has to deal with the mess, but is starting to see his own growth policies help the slumping economy - which is still not in recession. And lets not get into the war on terrorsim and what Bill Clinton did about that for eight years. Take Jean Chretien. Unquestionably, the economy and government finances have benefited from Free Trade and the GST, thanks to Brian Mulroney. The liberals come in, ride the crest of a charging American economy, gut health care and the military while their at it, and then brag about their prowess at fiscal management. I guess its easy when others do the dirty work for you. Will people ever learn that Lefties only care about power and ideology? If conservative policies were enacted ALL THE TIME the streets would be overflowing with honey and happiness. Well, maybe not. But wouldn't things be running smoother? Just another example: The two most prosperous provinces in this country, Ontario and Alberta, have adopted conservative policies for the last decade. But you never hear this mentioned as a potential reason for the state of the Canadian economy in general. Liberals?Lefties mess things up. Conservatives come in and do what is right for their countries. We can only hope that these lessons will be learned sooner rather than later!

Aren't you playing the exact same game you claim "right wingers" play? Aren't you simplifying, categorizing, and accusing in the same way believe some on the right do? Being conservative means being many things. Yet you seem to pick out a few and draw your own conclusions from them. Accusing people on the right of being childish. Yes, that's real grown up. Whats wrong with wanting to preserve the institution of the family? I think you fall victim to a kind of thinking prevelant among people on the Left. If there are examples of some things that are bad, just thwow it all away, right? Because some families aren't working doesn't mean that people still shouldn't strive to have families. Is that what you are advocating. That we should forget families altogether? Don't you think that families are better than the alternatives, even if some families have trouble working? What is so childish about such a perspective on life? What in the world are you talking about? What other way is there to make money? What other economic system works? Even socialist countries rely on capitalism as the engine of their economies, despite their attempts to stifle it. For someone who believe in maturity, I don't see much mature thought in what you are criticizing here. I don't know where this stuff comes from, since it doesn't come from reason and logic. This is rich, coming from such mature thinking that you display on these boards. And I don't quite understand the alternative you are advocating. What, you don't think people should have convictions and be capable of acting upon them? You don't think good and evil exist in this world? You think it is immature to actually take stands on issues? Again, I don't know where some of this stuff comes from. Oh, those leaders of men are the ones you consider so wise and intelligent. I've got some news for you. Those guys might be great scientists, but do such men lead people with thought and action? Are such men responsible for for the freedom and prosperity we all enjoy today? And if you're going to throw around some accusations, and call people on the right immature, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to suggest that much of what you have to say betrays something not uncommon on the Left- weak thinking.

Canada stands for Freedom. Plain and Simple. Our culture and history determine what form of freedom manifests itelf in this great land. But lets not make any mistake about it. Freedom is the one defining characteristic of a nation that allows its citizens to live up to their full potential and to lead happy lives. "Oh Canada... Glorious and Free..." Amen. As for social justice, lets leave that for the communists. As for opportunity regardless of sexuality, lets leave that for France, or the Playboy channel. Are there not more important defining characteristics for this country than a focus on who screws who?

Scotchneat, Marriage is a social value, as well as a religious institution. You don't have to belong to a religion to believe that something like traditional marriage is good for society. You brought up religion, I didn't. You also seemed to be obsessed with this slippery slope argument. Again, its not the only one being used here. Why are you trying to frame the debate on your own terms? Also, just because homosexuality can be accepted doesn't mean you have to accept homosexual marriages. Current society tolerates alternative lifestyles. It doesn't mean we have to recognize them as marriages. If most people think as you do then why the need for the courts. A referendum would do just fine, wouldn't it? And where is the terrible injustice in excluding homosexual relationships from the definition of marriage? Doesn't dignity come from within? All people have all the same rights in this country. If people want to get married, they can find someone of the opposite sex to get married to. If people want to chose something else, where is the indignity in that? Now, I know that the argument can be turned the other way around. That is, what is the harm in allowing gay marriage? It won't detract from heterosexual marriage, right? Well, I think it comes from a continuing erosion of the traditional family and of traditional values. Furthermore, what exacerbates the debate is the attempt to have the courts define what marriage is. If your cause is just, your arguments well reasoned, and the people as open to your views as you say, then there shouldn't be any severe obstacles on the road to a democratic changing of the values set by society, should there be? However, with the way this thing is going down, its as though the people on your side are afraid of debating the issue. You just want to ram it through the courts, don't you? And, even though it is certainly not the only argument, you have not addressed the slippery slope argument. If we allow homosexual relationships into marriage, what else needs to be let in? Instead of complaining about this specific line of reasoning, why not address it? How will the slippery slope be avoided?

Marriage is a legal construct? Thats all it is to you? And those arguing against "homosexual marriage" don't just rely on the slippery slope argument. Have you been actually reading these forums? You may want to advocate something simply by characterizing the other side as "ridiculous" and suggesting that because it will be a fait accompli it shouldn't be bothered with anyway. Accrding to that logic, why should homosexuals bother bringing this to the courts? If its going to happen anyway, lets just let it happen. Why argue it in front of the courts? Doesn't that adhere to your happy-go-lucky philosophy? I thought we lived in a democracy, where people can have a say if they disagree with something. Don't you like hearing what the other side has to say on issues affecting our society? Or do you think that everyone should just let things happen, regardless of whether it might be right or wrong?

Lost, The problem with your theory about the work that judges do is that interpretation becomes activism, especially when judges decide to write into the Charter things that were never there in the first place. Part of the problem that I have with this issue of same-sex marriage is that the Court is treating marriage as though it were an issue of rights rather than one of values. It also bothers me that it is already seen as a fait accompli that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gay marriages. Is the Court so steeped in its own ideology that it cannot decide these issues with some greater degree of objectivity? Why is this marriage issues seen in terms of human rights? Why does the Court have to decide how society is to define marriage. If a father and daughter want to get married is that an abridgement of equal rights if they are excluded from marriage? Is this also the case if somebody wants to be married to more than one person? Why should polygamists be denied their right to be recognized as being married? The very idea of recognizing marriage is an act of exclusion. You just don't recognize all relationships as marriages. The very notion that society can't chose on its own how it will define marriage I think defies common sense and logic. The Court sees it as a violation of rights so, presto, gays can be married too. I guess I would have far less difficulty with this if the Courts were to allow the people to decide what a marriage really is. I'll say this again: the same people who accuse the Right of trying to force their values on society turn right back and try to get the courts to do their work for them. At least Stockwell Day tried to get elected. And when he wasn't, he didn't ask the Supreme Court to intervene. Also, regarding Neal F.'s sentiment about the apparrent popularity of the courts, nobody even knows who these judges are. Yet, somehow the media is always telling us how the Charter is so popular among the Canadian people. Well, the fact that politicians are scared to use the notwithstanding clause may lend some evidence to the claim. But maybe there is something else at play. Maybe the notwithstanding clause is a trigger you only pull if you think it will kill the beast you're trying to slay. Otherwise, it only makes it angrier and could come back to eat you. The notwithstanding clause is divisive. The Supreme Court making rulings has not been, even in the States. Controversial decisions get made and people learn to live with them. It may be peaceful. I'm not sure if it is a shining example of democracy at work. Sometimes democracy has to be messy in order for freedom and justice to prevail.

With the Pope weighing in on this issue, does anybody have an idea of what some of the legal ramifications might be in relation to religions if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage? I know that a part of the reference the Chretien government sent to the Court explicitly states that the ruling is not to apply to how various religions define marriage. But I wonder. Its the position of Stephen Harper and the Alliance that if the Supreme Court of Canada approves gay marriage, which many seem to think is a certainty, then the top appeal courts of the provinces will eventually apply that standard of discrimination to religious institutions - something that has happened in other cases (I think one example was a homosexual teacher in Alberta who was not allowed to be fired by a religious school board on the basis of sexuality). Does that argument actually hold any water? Are there any legal minds out there who might have a clue. I think this is one of the more important points in this argument, since many might relent if assured that gay marriage will only be civil - and not religious?

According to columnist Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail (in an article I provided a link to in another forum), the Supreme Court is ultimately going to decide this because: - Since we adopted the Charter in '82 we became a constitutional democracy and left it to the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what passes as law in this country (something to that effect) - Yes, there is the notwithstanding clause, which allows the federal or any provincial government to withdraw from any court decision for a period of five years. But Simpson thinks that there is no government that would do this, mostly because the courts are seen as more popular than the legislatures. So, if you believe Simson, the Supreme Court is going to decide this and no one is going to stop it. I don't quite agree with this defeatist perception of the system. Such a state of affairs cannot remain indefinitely. At some point, I think Canadians will want to take some power away from the courts. The question is whether the issue of gay marriage is it. Could Ralph Klein possibly use the clause in order to avoid having to issue licenses for such marriages? He has talked about it. Doing it is quite different.

Claire Hoy is one of the few truly conservative commentators in Canada. (Along with Don Cherry) If you want to know more about conservatism you can learn a lot about it from Mr. Hoy. Although I obviously don't agree with him on everything, he was always my favourite on Michael Coren's show- back when I used to watch it. Claire Hoy is a good example of why conservatism usually beats modern Leftism on the merits of the arguments. And this article is a classic example of it. Frank Graves and his ilk will keep on trying to sell us a bill of goods. Claire Hoy and his will keep on trying to debunk it. I think its kind of a shame their aren't more conservatives in the public eye like Mr. Hoy. Well, maybe someone will come along and provide conservatism with more public acceptance in this country - or at least bring it out in the open. In the States, there was really no one before Rush Limbaugh entered the scene in the late eighties. (A fact which might dispel the myth that the States has always been home to extrem right-wingism. Before Reagan came along, Republicans were supposed to be moderate - just like Alliance members here are always chastised for apparently not reflecting the moderate Canadian voter. We'll see.)

America is an a**hole nation? If theyr'e a**holes than what does that make us? The toilet? We import so much culture and economic activity from them that it makes our fate and status inevitably linked to theirs, doesn't it? And I find it amusing that America is referred to as dictactorial when we have had one-party rule in this country for most of the last century.

Some people are talking about changing that law so that the Canadian governor of Michigan (I don't know her name) can have a chance of running. That kind of talk about a newbie governor, however, is usually rampant chit chat - nothing much more. I think to change the law the constitution would need amending - not an easy thing to do. What's the law here in Canada? Does a person need to be born here in order to be PM? Hmmm.