tml12

For the most part, that is a solid article. Canadians can afford to think that this is a country that doesn't need a military as long as the U.S. is around to defend Canada. If Canada had any other country as their neighbours, this peacekeeping myth would never have taken shape. Prime Minister Harper has shown real leadership on military issues.

Obviously a lot of people don't care about anything other than themselves and will engage in all sorts of destructive behaviour if there no negative consequences. That's where penalties and taxes for such behaviour come in. That's a tough one Saturn. Are you arguing that not enough people have a good sense of personal responsibility so they need the state to pressure them into conforming to a certain societal position?

\ Yes. Most politicians are. Honest people don't get elected. Unfortunately, most times that's probably true.

The only reason Garth did it was, because of well - Garth. He opines on his blog garth.ca, of providing "leadership through principle and independence." - but by joining the Liberals he is giving up both of those. Face it, its the Liberals who have perfected rigid party discipline. Wajid Khan was told to follow the party line or leave. Wonder if Dion has read Turner's blog yet - I think that's a pretty fair statement. If he was a true opponent of party discipline and that's why he left the rigid Tory caucus, he'll be an independent fast enough in the next Liberal government.

Ah, media bias dicussions...

I keep hearing that Canada gets a free ride. What exactly have we been protected from that we couldn't do ourselves? Canada gets a free ride because we allow the U.S. to pay for our defense.

I don't think I'd be as dismissive of what the feeling of the riding might have been. I suppose Turner will find out what those feelings are come the next election. However, Turner himself was a popular choice in the area. It is possible that the force of his own character could have seen the riding re-elect him as a Green. I think ultimately he sold out the the Liberal machine.

He figured the Liberals have the best political machine there...it was a politically salient decision.

He was hated for being a polarizing figure...other than that he wasn't that corrupt.

That's an interesting idea.If someone tries a Charter defence using section 27, the Supreme Court could just back away and say it will leave the issue up to the legislature. (Given our interventionist court, that might be surprising but it has on occasion avoided decisions.) That would be a form of democratic dialogue not current found on the S.C.C.

Agreed, which is their biggest liability.

Canada will never be a bilingual country, just a country where there are people who speak many different languages. That's probably a fair statement, although I'll bet there are more allophones than francophones currently in Canada.

I never heard of any federal mandate to make Canada 'officially bilingual' although it is something the feds are trying to promote but without much success as the French language for all practical purposes is obsolete making it a dysfunctional non commercial language, basically suitable for private use. Trudeau introduced official bilingualism in 1969 and since then it has become a cultural myth of Canada.

Turner should have practiced what he preached and remained an independent until the next election. If, in fact, he polled and saw that the residents of his riding were leading Liberal and, as such, he became Liberal...did that affect his decision? What if the constituents were leaning NDP? It just seems a bit sketchy.

Probably true, although among other things it allows Dion to save the Liberal brand from the party's own inability to cut greenhouse gases.

If Canada is truly going to be a bilingual country, it should at least start with having a bilingual capital region. I have not been to Gatineau, but if that city's policy is unilingual French and Ottawa is being forced to go bilingual, I think that is unfair.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Bible. Ted Morton's academic writings have nothing (so far as I know) to do with the Bible or Christianity or religion in general. He has written about judicial supremacy, the Court Party thesis, justices making public policy, etc. Ted Morton is not known across Canada as being Pat Buchanan, rather he is known as being a conservative who is concerned about judicial power. Calling him all those names means nothing to me because it's not how I look at him at all.

I would hope that aren't pro-harper...or pro-dion...or pro-taliban jack......the only pro they should be is pro-fessional Well, in theory, yes.

WDW, I'd like to know exactly how you think that takes away from my earlier posts.

CBC has never liked Martin after the 1995 budget. Doesn't mean they are pro-Harper...far from it.

CBC is pro-liberal and that's where my tax dollars were going. It would be the equivalent for you if you lived in the States and your tax dollars were going to a Sean Hannity/Ann Coulter lovefest. I bet you'd LOVE that...

It will be close, although I think it might be 1998 all over again with a slight PQ victory. Boisclair is toast if he loses this one.

I think and hope you're wrong. Harper did not make as much of a deal out of income trusts as the Liberals did with the GST. As well, the GST affects everyone who lives in Canada as well as anyone who comes here. The income trusts don't nearly have as far-reaching an effect.

Good for the Harper government, bad for the left-wing media, of course.

Fear not...Oprah will be on in a couple of others. Until then, I'm sure you'll find the afternoon cartoons packed with stuff for you to occupy your time.