Charles Anthony

How about every single person (including the photographer) standing by who saw this happen and did not stop it? Where would they rank?

You provide the answer "they wouldn't let her die" already. All we have to do is wait throughout the summer and we will learn who "they" happen to be!! Whoever is financing her will likely be the first to intervene if she comes close to death. I can not see people who disagree with her intervening to save her life.

Let me simplify. Increased price DOES NOT automatically translate into increased profit -- regardless of the product or service or market structure. Then, from where will the profits come???? Profit is the difference between total revenue and total cost. Yes, price enters into the calculation of total revenue but the calculation does not stop there. Price also has an inverse relationship between quantity sold. In other words, if you plan to raise prices you should also plan to reduce the total number of sales. Charge all you want. If people can not afford your price, you are not guaranteed all of the sales that you want. Thus, the misconception: If this basic economic principle is still too difficult to understand (or too easy to misrepresent), here is an illustration: Imagine all of the oil producers being under the impression that rising prices translate directly into rising profits. Under this premise, they raise the price of oil to $1,000 a barrel. The only people in the world who can afford it are Bill Gates and The Queen and they each only need one barrel of oil a day. What was once a multi-billion dollar industry has now been reduced to a $1,000,000 industry in annual revenue. Sounds profitable???? A lot of raging socialists do not realize that capitalists (or more accurately, suppliers) do not have all of the power. However, that is a topic for a different thread.... Now for the supply side of the equation. Once all of the current reserves (forget about the accounting defintion of reserves, I am talking about the real physical quantity that we are able to extract with current technology) are depleted (and I do not care how long that takes) how do we know that we will be able to extract even more oil? If we develop a new technology to extract oil at that point, how do we know that consumers will be able to afford the higher cost? The answer is simple: we do not know unless we start looking at researching for that technology NOW not later. Thus, my original statement:

To add to everybody's understanding of the basic economics: we are hoping that the neverending supply of current deposits in Alberta stay the same with respect to ability to extract. Once that changes, our comception of profitability will change. We do not know if the technology exists to make even-more-difficult-to-extract-oil of the future affordable.

We may discount the United Nations but we may still abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even if they created it. If the United Nations declared that the Earth was indeed round, would we object because it came from THEIR mouths? Some people may look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and say that it embodies truths that simply were never before declared officially by any organization.

The only thing that I see wrong with tossing out Michael O'Malley is that he is still required to pay taxes to the same school board -- he can NOT opt out. Now, to start the devil's advocacy.... It is not. However, in this case, it is the school board that has an issue not the Church. What is to stop the same thing from happening in a public school system? From the article, it really sounds like he is just being penalized: "Williams said McMahon ruled that O'Malley cannot run in the next civic election in 2007, but that he would be free to seek the seat again in 2010." He is being permitted to run again. It sounds like at least one parent is on former-trustee Michael O'Malley's side. From the same article: "But parent Eric Coyle called O'Malley's ouster "a crying shame."" Who gets to speak for this parent? Nobody. The whole point of democracy???? Hmm... that sounds like the topic for a different thread.... Hmmm.... maybe democracy is just the most strategic and stable tool with which to acquire power? Maybe she spoke for the same parent who misses O'Malley? Maybe O'Malley should count his blessings. Maybe the board should have sued HIM instead and asked for his salary back because of breaching his duties.

A Municipal Issues discussion would start with a bunch of people posting discussions to which most other members of the forum will NOT relate. Eventually, the only threads that will continue will be ones that evolve into: 1) common universal municipal themes 2) members giving advice on how THEIR municipality dealt with issues Threads that are too esoteric will die quicker than in the Provincial or Federal Issues category. As an aside, municipal politics are more important to people on a day to day basis than federal politics. We can live without our federal government a lot longer than we can without our municipal government.

Thank you. At least somebody knows how to read. I thought it was obvious but obviously not -- people choose to read what they want to read, funny, is it not?

Have no fear. All of you can explain the EXACT SAME EVENTS with evolution. Choose your antidote.

That is possible. I can see that happening. That is possible, too. However, I can not see that happening. I do not know enough. Please give more details about this possibility. Specifically: Explain what Russia is doing in Palestine.

Let me rephrase the question: If every single person being addressed was an indisputable self-proclaimed free-willed Christian except for The Administrators of this public school, would it have been wrong even if she was starting to preach? Wrong does not mean "invalidate the policy" for every other public school. Wrong means a violation of individual rights of the people present (specifically: students and Administrators) during this event.

Interesting. Little Prince Edward Island did not. One of the biggest Canadian history lessons that I learned was skepticism and doubt: in a Prince Edward Island museum. They had a dramatization of the signing of Confederation. It was portrayed as a great big party in Charlottetown -- but not all provinces signed on. I thought: "Hmmmmm...... Here we have the host province, P.E.I., abstaining from Confederation..... What EXACTLY was going on here???? There has to be more to this story...." It looked too much like a great big business deal. If tiny little P.E.I. was able to abstain from Confederation, why did the other provinces sign on? What (and at whose expense) did they trade? It all goes back to size of government: the bigger the government, the less representation the citizens have.

Where are these neverending reserves? Why is the price going up? Profitable? Just because a "price" of a product or service goes up, it does not automatically equate to increased profits -- particularly when the cost of production goes up at the same time. People are complaining of prices being too high now, what will make them be able to afford the even-higher-prices of the future???? The price is going up and we are resorting to more expensive (more difficult to extract) sources of oil. Cheap oil must be getting more scarce.

Approved and told by whom? The Administrators! Yes, I am pointing this out in a sarcastic and a snarky way because it is important to note, from the same article: She had popular support from her peers. If (I know this is a big "if" but I want to closely examine the principle of church-state separation), every single person being addressed was a Christian except for The Administrators, would it have been wrong? (even if she was starting to preach in a public school)

Nobody should be obligated to "provide" people with transportation regardless of where they choose to work.

I would like to see a Municipal Politics category.

Good heavens! A policy whereby only the people who use something are required to pay for it -- how could we dream ofs such a thing?!?!? On top of that, the policy reduces the charges upon people who do not use it -- but previously paid for it! This is too radical! This will lead to anarchy! Tolls discourage joy-riding and encourage car-pooling. Hey! All of the raging socialists and reflexive freeloaders should be on board with this one, right? Not. Quoting from the same article: They are right: it is not a magic wand. It is efficiency and fair policy.

I agree. (Not that I am one to support publicly funded parties -- even national ones!) It is highly disrespectful for performers to spew out one-sided political rants in front of a crowd at a national holiday given that tax-payers paid for the celebration. Harper referred to Le St-Jean-Baptiste as being a holiday for all Canadians to celebrate and he is right. Nobody is excluded. If you look at the history of the holiday, it can conceivably be described as a proud national holiday for Catholics, too.

Wrong. I have heard the same logic from "the other side" of the issue. I will be specific but you will have to be open-minded. You do not have to believe the assumptions but try to be creative and follow it. Here goes: Some people believe man is made in the image of God. They believe that each child is born entirely pure and looking into the face of an infant is looking directly at God. Thus, an "unwanted" pregnancy is God's only way of intervening: coming to the victim and rejuvenating the victim's life -- if the victim accepts. Thus, the burden of being a victim of rape (or carrying a bastard-child or being unmarried or missing out on education or carreer opportunities) is outweighed by the gift of life. Again, if the victim accepts the gift, the unwanted pregnancy is a regrettable but necessary reality.

Good example. What should we do with such a refugee? Should we let him stay and escape justice?

If the "refugee" arrives on our land, we have the obligation to hear his plee -- and we do. The only difference with adultery or homosexuality is that Canada does not consider them crimes. Period. I would hope the principle of reciprocity did not apply as it would if the alleged crime was murder.

We do not have the right. Our Bill of Rights forces the obligation upon us. At the same time, the US can simply look at us as harboring a criminal until we give him up to them under their terms.

What exactly do they regret (assuming they voice their opinions specifically)? If they could go back in time, do they suggest that they would have taken the chance of carrying the children to term? Do they doubt the advice, in hind sight? What exactly were the conditions?

My initial gut reaction (before trying to reason it through) is that I object to all of the above. However, I derive some comfort in the following facts: 1) if everybody in Canada is being snoopervized, we are dealing with a huge amount of information most of which will be the same 2) only real oddballs will stand out I try to put myself in the shoes of a "spy" snoopervizer (whatever you want to call them) and I bet that normal (who are not conspiring to overthrow the government or plan terrorist attacks) people who deposit large sums of money or receive weird packages will still look different from truly dangerous people. The worst thing that could happen is for the "spies" to make a grand mistake and blow their own cover. For their "spy" tactics to continue to work, they must be a lot more careful than we can imagine. Statistically, the odds are in the favor of innocent people.

Excellent. I would say that you put the thread to an end. Except.... do we have such an agreement with the US?