Wilber

Only if you have a gun. If you don't have a gun that works then you need to look for other alternatives. Needlessly provoking the dog in such a situation serves no purpose. There is a painful series of injections which can save a human if used early enough but otherwise, if a rabid dog bites a person or other animal, they all die, including the rabid dog. There are no other alternatives.

Here is a link to the scale: http://www.icbc.com/insurance/pdf/APG26web.pdfI think it would work as a standardized model in a private insurance system as well since higher risk drivers do pay more (BTW ICBC makes a profit). Insurance companies would complain because they would lose the ability to arbitrarily manipulate premiums. Consumers win because they get predictability without shielding irresponsible drivers from higher rates. While I think ICBC does a pretty good job in general, my main problem with them is that the Government has turned them from an insurance company to the god of all things automotive. They have jurisdiction over licensing, testing, you name it. There are conflicts of interest here and in the fact that by arbitrarily assigning a certain amount of blame to both drivers, they can jack up both their rates. I've never had an accident claim with them so I can't speak personally but I do know people who have been upset that they have had to hire a lawyer to fight their own insurance company. I just buy the basic insurance from them for that reason. If I do have a claim, the private insurer I use for the optional insurance just might stick up for me. Wishful thinking maybe, but they could have an incentive ICBC does not. All things considered, ICBC has done some good things and provided a stabilizing influence on insurance rates in BC. The province is better off with them than without, IMO. Wasn't there a US Senator or Congressman who once said, "the size of the civil service shall not exceed the population of the country" or words to that effect? Wise man (or woman).

The Western Standard is a tabloid trying to exploit a controversy. The cartoons were available on the web - there is no reason to further aggravate the situation by printing the cartoons.The violent reaction of the Muslims unacceptable and unjustifiable but that is how they reacted and we cannot pretend it did not happen. One does not deal with a rabid dog by poking it with a stick. I'm glad someone finally had the cojones to print them. I'm sure we've all been offended by many cartoons for many different reasons during during our lifetimes. We get over it. The whole idea of terrorism is to modify someones behavior by the use of fear and the so called independent western press along with the politically correct western public has been suitably modified. If it wasn't for the riots and killing there would be no need to reprint them, they could and probably would have been ignored if not condemned out of hand. Printing them is not a matter of keeping people informed but making the statement that a free press will not be dictated to by a mob. You deal with a rabid dog by shooting it.

A woman would knowingly have to falsely accuse someone of a crime and possibly see them wind up with a criminal record and go to jail. I don't doubt someone would try it but I don't think there are many people who would go that far. Certainly not an epidemic. It would sure up the incentive to use proper birth control in the first place.

I think you mean illegal...and yes I agree with that. I think you both missed the point. I think the original poster meant that in order get abortions anyway women would claim rape. In that case, wouldn't she also have to press charges against an individual and lie under oath in court?

I expected no less than angry retorts. The same people who hate killing babies would kill me. Interesting how morality works. Does that mean you do think it is killing babies or was that a Freudian slip?

I'm sure people will still be debating this long after I'm gone and that is how it should be. It is far too important an issue to become complacent. I'm not religious. I would be an atheist except for the fact that I can't prove there is no supreme being any more than a believer can prove there is, therefore I am an agnostic. I've always thought of myself as pro choice. I think I can appreciate how difficult a decision this would be for most people so I won't second guess them, categorize them or call them names. I do firmly believe, although I am the first to admit I don't know exactly when, that there comes a point when an abortion is in fact, taking a human life. I do get angry when people try to blow it off as just "a bundle of cells". We are all just "a bundle of cells". I'll respect their decision but not their dishonesty. In another thread FTA Lawyer asked "WTF does this have to with jail sentences and bail conditions for violent crime?" Good question but I do think it has one thing in common. More and more our society is putting "responsibility" a distant second to "rights", if in reality it is considered at all.

I hate having to quote myself... The best deterrent to crime is guaranteeing criminals will be caught. (**rant** or increasing the standard of living for all) The police keep catching the 5% but we don't do anything with them. That's what "known to the police" means.

Read my reply to speaker. The severity of sentences has little to no effect on the possibility of a crime being committed. What does have a impact is the swiftness and certainty of capture and punishment. If the chances of being caught are near 100% then the crime rate will fall to near zero. Why use up precious resources by locking up criminals for overly long periods of time (more time in prison so they learn from other inmates how to be better criminals) when you could be using the same resources to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms. How do you prevent crime if you keep turning the criminals loose to commit more crimes? 80% of crimes are commited by about 5% of the population.

But who says he's going to be a criminal just because he's been born to that kind of circumstances? A good number of success stories actually started on those dire backgrounds. Are you saying that all children born to a single mom, into poverty, with no father around, no social net, will end up criminals...therefore we ought to slaughter them before they're even born? I'm saying that the best judge of whether or not the child will be born into the right set of circumstances, and whether or not the parents are emotionally able to deal with that child, is the parents, and in particular the mother. The right to choose should be left to the individuals who are directly responsible for that child. Nearly twenty seven years ago to this day, my wife gave birth to twin boys by Cesarean. She was overdue and the doctors felt it would not be safe to deliver them normally. Eight weeks later when I was in Toronto on business, I got a call from my father. It was a nice warm day and my wife had the twins in their buggy out in the back yard while putzed around in the garden. When she went to feed them, one was not breathing. The autopsy found nothing, it was diagnosed as SIDS. Even though you and the government may say otherwise, no one will ever convince me that little boy was less deserving of life nine weeks before, than he was on the day he died.

SO we're all on board. Dump the subsidy and bring in a proper daycare program that actually addresses the problem. It's still a subsidy, but one that benefits double income families more than single income families.

If money is not an issue why do they need mine?

The President does not have the same power within his party as our Prime Minister. He does not sign anyones nomination papers. He must be nominated and elected on his own. The US Cabinet is made up of unelected appointees of the President. He cannot punt anyone other than his own appointees. The Senate and Congress appoint their own house leaders, the President has nothing to do with it. It is this separation of powers that makes their system fundamentally different from ours.

I'm arguing in favour of daycare spaces as opposed to Harper's childcare subsidy. What's the difference? You are putting more money into the system which will effect prices. You are still subsidizing childcare only now you are giving an even bigger advantage to those with two incomes while penalizing single income families even more.

What do you mean by "compete?" Why is there a "competition"? Are you talking about "Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" syndrome? I'm talking about the market, which is inherently a competition. For example, couple A and couple B place competitive bids for their dream house. Couple A has two incomes and couple A has one, so couple A is obviously in a better competitive position to buy the house. When two-income families become the norm and people are bidding what they can afford to pay on houses, the cost of buying a house rises to the point where it is very difficult for a single-income family to compete. (The market has a natural tendency to drift towards what people can afford--that's why house prices go up when interest rates go down.) I'm confused. Are we talking about a child care subsidy or a mortgage subsidy? Won't subsidizing childcare just put more money into the system and have the effect of driving house prices up even more?

No, it is the fact that representatives and the head of government are elected separately. The President is not the party leader in the same sense as a Prime Minister. He cannot discipline members of the Senate or Congress and he cannot try to control them by offering rewards such as Cabinet posts. In short, they do not owe their positions to him in any way.

We are spending up to 80 million on the Gomery inquiry. Why quit now?

In theory, partisanship would play less of a role. But it hardly seems that way in the United States... When it comes to the way representatives vote, partisanship does play less of a role in the US. Checking an incumbents voting record at election time is important in the US. It means next to nothing in Canada.

There is no such thing as a preterm fetus that can live by itself outside the womb (i.e needs nothing more than food and water). Preterm fetuses require extraordinary medical intervention and must live in an artificial womb (a.k.a incubator) until they are viable. In many cases, preterm babies have nothing to look forward to but a life with multiple severe disabilities. As a result, some parents (with the co-operation of medical professionals) choose to let nature take its course and provide only food and water to the baby. Whether that is an ethical thing to do or not depends entirely on your religious convictions.Which brings me back to my original point: there is massive grey area between conception and birth where a fetus becomes human. WTF does this have to do with jail sentences and bail conditions for violent crime????!!!!????!!!!???? Start a new thread. FTA Good idea. I just find this an incredibly difficult question. I'm always amazed at how simple others see it.

That's true, that is a reality, but is it not a balance? When we vote for a candidate, in fact, we are voting for three entities. The local candidate, the prime minister himself, and the political party the candidate is associated with. When I vote, I take all three into consideration, since I cannot vote for each seperately. If my local candidate, whom I voted for, decided to cross the floor, I would feel betrayed by him and it would seem to me that my vote is worth even less than I originally thought... I don't dispute that, but which one do you want your candidate to put first. If you voted Liberal when Chretien was Prime Minister, should all Liberals have sat as independents until there was another election after Martin took over? Which comes first, person, party or leader? Different people will have different priorities. While many are upset with Emerson for crossing, there are others who have said they held their noses and voted for him in spite of the fact he was running for the Liberals. It's a fact of life in our system that we elect individuals even if we don't vote for them as individuals.

I find it interesting that so many people make such a fuss over a bundle of cells. From a purely biological perspective the DNA of a fetus is 95% the same as the DNA of a pig or a mouse yet we have no particular concern about terminating the lives of those creatures if they are inconvenient for us.I feel the decision about when a mess of cells attains 'humaness' is a religious decision - not a scientific one. For that reason, the only reasonable approach to give individuals the power to make the choice that conforms to their religious views. Forcing a women to bare a child to term and then give it up for adoption is nothing more than imposing the religious views of a minority of the population on someone who does not share those religious views. Would you say that a fetus that is capable of living on its own outside the womb is just mess of cells, because in Canada that mess of cells gets absolutely no protection from law until it leaves the womb.

If a person decides to leave their party and sit as an independent what is the difference? The voters didn't elect an independent either. One cannot cross the floor to the government side and then claim to be an independent. The way Canadian party discipline operates, voting against the party line on confidence issues will just get you thrown out of caucus and you will wind up an independent by default. While we may chose to vote for a party, the reality is we elect individuals to Parliament and must judge them on what they do when they get there.

"Sentencing is supposed to be about the three things: deterrent, rehabilitation and retribution. " What about protecting the Innocent? Is that not supposed to be part of sentencing? What about the mom and her two kids in a mini van who get wiped out by a meth addict car thief who has dozens of convictions and has never seen more than a couple of days in jail? Don't they deserve any consideration? By all means rehabilitate when you can but get these people out of the system and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to themselves or anyone else.

Unlike other countries which have abortion laws that do support choice, Canada has none at all. There is no point at which a pregnancy cannot be legally terminated for any reason. Even though I believe it is basically a matter of conscience, I find that very disturbing.

Not trying to draw any comparisons concerning the relative merits of individuals but it might be worth remembering that Winston Churchill crossed the floor twice during his career. Some called him a whore as well but he didn't do so badly for his country. It's a risky maneuver and only time will tell if it was a good one.