Naci Sey

Seems to me that: those who want to believe in the NP story do; those who don't want to believe in it don't; those who want to await verification before deciding do, and once further evidence comes in judge that most of the story is false.

Astute comments. I agree that most Canadians who might be labelled anti-USian are instead anti-GWB and that the latter really took off after 9/11. However, there has been a growing lack of respect for USians since Bush's 2004 re-election. It's the old Chinese proverb: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I've signed the back of my driver's licence for organ donation, am a blood donor and would actively campaign to help others 'see the light'. However, I don't think it's right for government to force organ donation (or blood transfusions), which is what the new law could amount to for some people. The devil is in the details. Just how onerous would the process be for someone to opt out of organ donation? One alternative might be to have the issuing officer for identity cards/driver licences, or the person who accepts the application forms (or whatever), to ask the person to read the back of the card and sign yea or nay. Then the officer witnesses the signature.

I was using sarcasm.

Here's the full text of Morgan's Dec 7/05 speech to the Fraser Institute. I've quoted the portion below, as it highlights for me further stereotyping by this man. So not only are Toronto's crime problems due largely to Jamaican immigrants, the country's problems are due largely to people in poverty. Every person in poverty is lazy and is justified in blaming only laziness as the cause of their situation.

To me this is a typical Harper tantrum. His first choice for the commission didn't pass the committee, so instead of offering an alternative, he dumps the commission entirely. He's thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Harper's first choice wasn't a good one. Criticism of the selection came immediately, even before Morgan sat before the committee. A former CEO of a major corporation, who has regularly and sizeably contributed to the Conservatives, who has deep links with corporate Canada - how is this a good candidate for the ETHICS Commission? There were sure to have been many people far more suitable. Alas, they weren't buddies of Harper.

Is that not a contradictory statement? How can something that is ineffectual cause anyone trouble? No, it's not contradictory. My point is, we can't have it both ways. The logic doesn't work. Either the Senate is ineffectual or it's able to cause some government trouble. If it's able to cause trouble, then it isn't ineffectual - it has an effect, although some people may not like it. What we're all after, I suspect, is to have the Senate given more power, for that power to be clearly defined and for the Senate to function under an Accountability Act of its own. On the election of members to the Senate, I'm uncertain and need to think more about the arguments pro and con.

Is that not a contradictory statement? How can something that is ineffectual cause anyone trouble?

I've been a census-taker for StatsCan and also value the quality of the work that they do. While I don't like the Lockheed connection with this year's census, that's not going to stop me from filling out my census form. I visited the StatsCan online site today. Seems to take forever for the security thingie to finish its verification process... Anyway, once I was in, I was immediately ticked off. The very first question, which isn't a question but an assumption, is for your telephone number. Not all households have a telephone. Where do you go if you want to comment or ask what you're to do with this required field in the event you don't have a phone? You click the Help button. Guess what? There's a toll free help line you can call. No online feedback form or email option. Re the length of the form you received, I know that for the 2001 census, 1 out of every 5 households received the long version of the form. I guess you just got lucky this time.

I agree that this is a step in the right direction. Criminalizing possession of small amounts targets the wrong people.

My quick answer is: It depends. A couple of boards I've seen recently have posters who are heavy into character assassination. Makes no difference what you write. They'll rearrange the words or spin new meaning from perfectly innocent posts. If the moderating doesn't take care of such things, then I'm happy to remain under a pseudonym. On a board like this - which to my limited exposure, seems respectful and well-moderated -, I'd have no problem using my real name, which is my preference anyway. Another consideration would be for politicians or people who may run for political office in the future. Whatever you write on these boards under your real name becomes accessible fodder to any member of the public, including people with questionnable ethics. That said, I usually include sufficient info in my profile that people will be able to sort out who I am. I figure that anyone who's inclined to look me up is more likely just to be curious rather than mean-spirited.

We have never been more attached in community than we are now. Just think of the Internet, TV, world trade, cellphones, cheap long distance calls, air travel. It is easier for individuals to communicate and deal with one another, to form communities or participate in the larger community, than at any time in our history. I agree with Michael on this. Wherever I look as I walk down a street, I see people talking on their cell phones, watching TV in their living rooms, or working/playing on their home computers. Where there is another person present, there is no engagement with them. Instead, the person on the cell phone, watching TV, etc. is involved with someone else who is disembodied in a kind of virtual reality. There is less and less face-to-face interaction. Now I'm not a Luddite and confess to being more comfortable communicating via computer than in person. But that's part of my point. I see more and more of this in other people. We are turning to our electronic toys rather than to each other. BTW, the highly visual French comedy/satire Playtime, made in 1956 and re-released on video in 1967, is apropos to this topic. It scores the point that certain technologies encourage, rather than discourage, isolation. The movie stars Jacques Tati, as M. Hulot. If you don't speak French, that's no barrier. There's little dialogue.

Betsy: "Rising divorce rates, single mothers, drugs, STDs, teen pregnancies, and all other social ills are choking us up." Society is becoming increasingly individualistic. A myriad of things might be the cause of this, but I'd guess that a list of the biggies would include i) corporate greed, which pushes consumption and ii) psychology, which suggests that any healthy person must be constantly aware of, and thus monitoring, his/her own feelings and behaviour. Both encourage a focus on 'me', while the first helps to create a thirst for frequent change (for all things - and people - new). In a world that's constantly changing, it's not surprising that marriages are threatened or, for that matter, that marriage itself is becoming an anachronism.

Using that line alone won't give you an accurate picture, not without considering the fact that some people may have earned enough to pay CPP from self-employment but not enough to pay taxes. That depends what you mean by accurate. I wouldn't consider CPP contributions to be the same as income taxes. That's my point. Line 435 is intended to include any CPP contributions payable by the self-employed. Someone may owe $0.00 in taxes from their s/e, but a non-zero amount for CPP.

Using that line alone won't give you an accurate picture, not without considering the fact that some people may have earned enough to pay CPP from self-employment but not enough to pay taxes.

Could you give reasons why you favour Dryden, other than his being a hockey legend and studied law while playing pro hockey? I don't see either of those as being politically relevant.

I understand your points, Betsy. Perhaps one way of thinking of it is that placing the offender's name on the Sex Offender Registry is part of the sentence for their having committed a sexually-related crime. Another issue is whether our justice system is intended to punish or rehabilitate and whether it's effective at either, especially the latter. ETA: As a couple of other posters have suggested, I'd support voluntary castration as a way of getting an offender's name off the registry. (Also just noticed FTA's earlier post on the registry and sentencing.)

Serious policy discussion? I've registered. Who's next?

Yes, if A had a position B didn't like, the post would be cherry-picked to death. And if that didn't work, then B would simply impute A as having an extreme or reverse position, without any regard to what A had written. Ditto. I agree that the welcome mat to views other than NDP got badly frayed over the election period. I wish we could all just get along. So do I. I'm bewildered by the nastiness of some of these boards. Where are all the people who just want to debate the issues - without invective, without insults, aiming for understanding of differences and making our own positions more clear? Could you PM me with some suggestions? I'm feeling quite lost since the babble blow-up and am looking for some friendly places to share ideas.

No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians. Thanks but its spelled wrong and I can't correct it. I believe the NDP do want PR, probably because it might be to their advantage, also the Greens would have had a few seats under PR. I wondered about that! Went to put in two 'b's and one 't', checked back and Oops, I'd got it wrong. Yes, they do, but they want a certain kind of PR, which is not a problem in itself. However, it's that type of PR which turns up in their proposed ethics package. While in one place in their literature - I think it was in their convention materials - a citizens assembly is mentioned, there was no mention of it in their campaign or website materials. That worries me. They want PR, but also want it stipulated in advance what the system will look like.

The things you list are just excuses people tell themselves to justify the behavior in their own minds. They are not even good excuses. I used to think that there were other causes to my obesity, like my completely inactive thyroid for instance. But if you look around many people with the same problem as I have are healthy and a relatively 'normal' size. It takes an honest look within (not easy ... trust me) to see what really happened. It started as soon as i was out on my own. My meal choices were what I wanted to eat instead of what was good for me. I did this to myself through my choices in life. It doesn't matter what other lies I want to tell myself, I did this. And with congenital hypothryoidism (not just underactive, inactive from birth) I have what a lot of people would consider a good excuse. But what most people don't know is that with proper treatment (ie. hormone replacement/control) I should live as any other person--weight gain/loss included. You can blame poverty all you want, but I guarantee you each of these people know in their core that its not true. And with an honest look within they can even tell you why. That people aren't responsible for their obesity is nonsense. In my battle today, I am making much better decisions and making slow progress because of it. With help I've learned how to make good food choices. Because of how I programmed myself to eat before they are hard, but I still make the right decision. Without consequences or responsibility for one's actions how would they ever know to turn it around? I was 350 pounds because I made bad decisions. I am 335 and losing now because I saw the consequences of my actions and those if I continued as I was. And part of that was taking responsibility for my own well-being instead of making excuses as to why I shouldn't have to. That you've been able to choose to lose weight and follow through on that choice is great, Hicksey. It would be wonderful if everyone else in your position could do the same. But no one else is in your position. Arguments from individual cases to entire populations don't work. Imagine that each of us was born into and raised in identical situations, even identical families and communities. No two of us would have identical options, since no two of us are the same. We each have our own set of talents and weaknesses, and this will affect what our options are. Taking the original scenario further, imagine that not only are we born into and raised in identical situations, but that WE are identical - i.e. we're clones of the same person. Even so, philosohers would argue that because we each stand in a different relation to all the others, our experiences will not be the same. As to this: "You can blame poverty all you want, but I guarantee you each of these people know in their core that its not true." Tell that to the mother of four children, one special needs, a woman who has fled a life-threatening situation. Tell her, as she and her children leave with nothing but the clothes on their back, that she has the same choices you do.

Hi: (a refugee from rabble? - Ah huh )I'm not against those measures actually, I do think corporate and union donations should be limited, not sure about indivudual donations, maybe $1,000.00 is too low? When I was employed where there was a union, I was furious that my membership dues went to the NDP. I'd have been as peeved if they went to any other party. How dare union management decide which party to support and then use my dollars for political influence! Similar issue with corporations and other business. These entities cannot vote. Only their shareholders and employees can. Unions and business should not be permitted to fund political parties. Therefore, I'm really pleased to see the Accountability Act cut them out (hope that part of it goes through).The $1,000 limit evens out the sphere of influence, which I support. No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians.

This is one of the best responses I've heard on the whole marriage issue. Does anyway know the history on when and why government got into the marriage business in the first place? I'm wondering if it was precisely because they had linked survivor and other benefits to wedded couples. Or may it have been an equality issue, viz non-religious having no other recourse? I'm not posing these as rhetorical questions. I know nothing about the history of this issue and would appreciate hearing from those who do. That seems the most sensible and fairest solution.

I'm pleased to see some of the measures, e.g., the banning of corporate and union donations and the reduction to $1,000 for individual donations. The CPCs never said it would be in their Accountability Act, but I'm disappointed not to see Electoral Reform there. It was something the NDP were proposing, although certain of the specifics had me hesitating.

Just finished viewing it. Almost brought me to tears, particularly as the woman said there was nothing they could do, no one to turn to.