Spiderfish

I think you give the young Mr. Trudeau a bit too much credit. A rookie at bat is what comes to mind, not the calculated patience of a veteran. It may be that his handlers are telling him to keep his mouth shut until they can figure out the dilemma of how to inject some substance into the content without him stepping in it.

Not so, we are getting to know a few things about his ideals… We know he supports increased “family class” immigration, but at the same time can’t disagree with the exalted Dr. Suzuki and his idea that immigration is bad for this country. We know that he supported the long gun registry, yet describes it as a failure. We know that when it comes to terrorist attacks, the primary importance is to understand the root causes, by understanding the feelings of exclusion that the attackers must surely possess. We know he has a level of admiration for dictatorships such as China and their efficiencies to turn the economy around. We know that as a Liberal, he feels that this country is better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans, and that “Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda.” We are starting to get to know him, and I'm sure we will get to know him a lot better over the next couple of years.

On what basis? His admission of pot use and stance on legalization of it? Or is it his youth, his shiny hair and charisma? Sure...Trudeau opens his mouth...Liberal leadership convention sometime early in 2016.

The link provided indicates that overall the party is satisfied with their leader in Alberta. Of course, they were satisfied with Stelmach as well... I'm not sure I would go so far as to defining a leadership review as an attempt at overthrowing the leader.

If a succession plan is simply "thrown together" by people outside of the lines of power, how can it hold any weight? Are you suggesting a coups? Things don't work that way in a healthy democracy.

It doesn‘t matter, no one fails anyhow so who cares whether it can be done or not. Someone else will figure it out.

I disagree, I just gave an example of a resource that is basically gone, in large part as a result of over hunting by native population. Check out the state of commercial fishing on Lake Manitoba for another example. Thousands of pounds of walleye are harvested by natives every year, not for food, but for sale. I've seen it personally, and I've seen the product. Much of the fish they sell are so undersized it takes half a dozen fish or more to make a pound for sale (they sell by the pound). Commercial fishing has been steadily declining on the lake despite strict resource management, nothing there to fish within the management size limits and quotas which commercial operations have to follow. If we want to talk management and sustainability, we have to look at it ALL, not be selective.

The Quebec Government may disagree with you on that point.

Conservation may have a chance if the rules are applied to everyone. If there are exemptions, it cannot be managed efficiently or successfully. I happened to be talking to a Conservation Officer last week after being served a subpoena by him to testify as a witness on a matter that occurred in a Provincial Park. I asked him about moose populations in this park, as it is hunting season. He said they basically have no moose in the park, which surprised the heck out of me since it is prime moose habitat. He said too many animals have been harvested and the population has basically collapsed. I asked him why it wasn't managed better, and he told me that they are managing what they can, and even have no hunting in much of the area. However there are several native reserves nearby and hunting parties come in to hunt for food and basically take anything that moves (his words). He told me that he personally has come into some of these camps and seen 40 animals hanging, they process them right there and even package it all up and then go home. He said it's frustrating, the government is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. They get blamed for mismanagement when the stock collapses, and if they try and take any action, they are blamed for violating treaty rights.

The term "green" has been misused so much as to be basically irrelevant, except when it comes to justification for higher prices and taxes. Everything has an impact, and despite the best intentions, this cannot be avoided. A good example is the LEED program for Building Construction. It is so full of contradictions, it would be laughable if not for the fact that it increases the cost of construction of a new building by 40-60%. FSC certified wood will give you LEED points, sure, but the only certified suppliers are in the states. Costs quite a bit and it's pretty hard on the environment to bring non-local building materials in. And the LEED requirement for reflective roofing is great if you're in California, but basically useless in Canada. We would be better off with black roofs since they are covered in snow for over half the year. Hard to justify the extra 40% increase in material and installation for a negative environmental return. Bringing similar policies and strategies and enshrining them into our constitution would not be wise.

Playing the xylophone on Layton's bones isn't exactly what I would consider a beacon of integrity.

I think Peter MacKay would be an excellent choice.

I think a succession plan is proactive and smart, it prepares and conditions both the party and the leader for the change instead of throwing someone into the mix cold. Some individuals can hit the ground running, but not many. Look at the struggles the Liberal party has had with their last 3 attempts at installing a new leader. A plan is a framework, it's not an order. Part of the intention of succession is to vet out the suitability and acceptance of the future leader without committing him fullly.

I think Justin needs to get his own material... although, I suspect the only thing that will make him look dimmer using someone elses lines is watching him come up with his own.

I think there's one of two things going on here. Either he has completely lost it and the internal filter has switched off, or he's deluded himself into thinking this schtick is somehow working for him...or maybe both. "I made mistakes...I smoke crack sometimes, I'm human." I wonder if he watches his tv interviews afterwords and thinks to himself... 'man...wish I hadn't have said that'.

I did, just as bubber did when he claimed: As I've already stated, the video is irrelevant now anyway, Rob is toast. He can fight all he wants, but all he's doing is digging himself in deeper and embarrassing himself further.

I think I could agree fully 100% with everything you say, and you still would argue.

I'm not on any bandwagon, I think Ford needs to step down and get help. I get the feeling this is no longer a discussion on the issue.

Yeah, those powerful evil corporations...and unions. The things they try.

Bubber could. 99% may be a little high, given that there really was little risk of getting caught in a lie if there was no video. But I get your point. I guess when the destruction of soemeone's political career and annhialation of their character and personal life is at stake, 99% certainty or whatever it works out to is enough for some, and not so much for others. I never said the claims were untrue, I said I was reserving judgement until the story could be substantiated.

How do you know they were telling the truth? Their firsthand eyewitness testimony (or claim) also happened to be an accustation. You can't fault people for wanting some substantiation to the story, only a vigilante would want otherwise.

There likely is a video. I’m sure the reporters likely saw a video that shows exactly what they claim. My certainty that I believe their story does not substantiate their claim. Rob Ford’s own admission of crack smoking doesn’t even substantiate their claim, but it does lend great support to it. At this point the video is completely irrelevant anyhow, so not sure what you’re point is.

Their claim was unsubstantiated, ie. no video.

The hyena remark was a play on Black Dog's "last thrashings of a dying beast" metaphore, and was in reference to the media’s behviour, not Fords. There is indeed one man responsible for Ford's demise.

The whole story started with an unsubstantiated claim that two reporters saw Ford smoking crack in a video. It is still uncertain what is exactly on the video, but the claim must have enough validity to force Rob to come clean and admit to smoking crack. Ford is now claiming that a former female staffer lied when lodging an accusation against him about certain sexual advance he made. Who knows where this may lead. Maybe Ford is a tweakin, smokin, womanizing drunk who goes around the office all day regailing his female coworkers with his appetite for pie, or maybe this is what could be referred to as throwing gasoline on a fire (or inferno in this case). Given the level of intolerance these days for any kind of sexual misconduct in the workplace, the fact that this just happens to be coming out in the middle of a public flogging of Ford does give some feeling for skeptacism, or at least further investigation. It is surprising that an accustaion like this would not have been brought out before now. Of course, I was a bit surprised by the revelation that the mayor smokes crack, I guess anything is possible with this guy.