myata

What was his "desire" to blow the whole thing when he never really intended to follow through? Let me guess... must be unabated caring for those poor recipients.. and now they gonna get whole lot more, thanks to great Iggy. What a joke!

There was no implication of perfection, as can be deduced from "and for worse". Only the commonsense that in a truly democratic system, my democratic choice shoud matter, as it very obviosly does not under the current system. One ignores rational, thinking and freedom at the peril of (eventual) madness and paralysis. We do not have the freedom to elect NDP or Greens or any other new party into government, period. It's simply not in the cards, out of question, completely and finally, and it is dictated by this majoritary representation system, where a party with 45% would get nearly all, while one with 20% - barely anything. A party cannot jump from 10% popularity to 30 or 40% overnight, and the system is rigged in such way that any new party will be reduced to obscurity from Day 1. Get it folks, finally: this system is made so that only two could ever, theoretically, govern: 1) "Iggy"; 2) "Harper". That is the nature and true spirit of our democracy. Like a two year old, we get to chose between an apple, and banana, banana, and apple, that's all there's.

Here we go. It only remains to be asked, do we really need a working responsible democratic representation, where our choice would actually matter (for better, and for worse)? Or just a political theatre a la "Hockey Night" would suffice, as long as there's something to get heated about (and let out steam, once in a while)?

Not really. My beef is that the pseudo "choice" I'm getting is not at all the same as the choice I'm making. Just too bad for the "conditions". My understanding of rational and common sense won't change just because somebody some X generations back set up the system this way, nor because the political elite of today thinks it's to their great disadvantage to even think of changing it. I'd go with the former. However, if it's not something the majority of my countrymen would be interested in, I'd be no more interested to play pointless "Harper" vs "Iggy": who'll win? spectacle / lottery / entertainment channel.

It's an illusion to think that some sort of community representation could fix the wrongs of the "first past" system. It's started as community representation in the first place, each riding electing a representative to the House. Then the parties have figured out that with party organization, it's much easier and efficient to appropriate bunches of representatives and obtian control of the House. Going back in time won't do anything, other that getting rid of party politics altogether. The only options we have are 1) exactly two parties can govern; or 2) more than two parties can govern, and it should be pbvious to any anybody who isn't stuck with one of the two, which one it should be, I mean we're all grown up people why do we need our choices filtered for us that way?

Well, if it has to be our particular (i.e majoritary) version of representation, I fully understand those folks who don't even bother to vote. Always, at any time, and in every election the choice would be obvious and hugely exciting: "Harper" or "Iggy", "Iggy"/"Harper", and so on, to infinity. No matter what they do, or don't that one part would never change. I'll think maybe of striking the same route, perhaps making exception in an occasional rare case where the choice actually has a meaning. We aren't two year olds given a fake choice as a ruse for something we cannot have/do. If I can't meaningfully vote for a party of my choice, why would/should I bother at all? First the behemoths had created a system in which only they, and they only can govern. Then they try to steer your vote their way saying that (in the system they created) any other choice would be meaningless. That's (controlled) democracy, folks. Rejoice!

These commissions must go. The only real issue is the practical resort to legal action in case of actual discrimination. Society in general should be able to care of this kind of issues.

Do we really have to change Constitution for that? We know that riding boundaries can be changed without such terrible cost? In any case, I'm no expert, if it is so, then maybe it still have to be done! How long can we be stuck in the 18th centutry?! Are we still political infants here (unlike most of the developed world) who need their vote to be interpreted, so when I e.g. vote for NDP (not that I ever did) I actually mean to say "I don't care to vote for either of the two behemoths, so I chose to spoil my vote in that way"?? We're a democracy, right? So, the choice we make must be the choice we make, and not its weird reinterpretation (20% of popular vote = less than 10% of the House, 45% = 80%, etc) via antiquated representation system. Finally; both behemoths have learned the act of claiming anything of actual real change value impossible, impractical, prohibitive, risky, and such and so and yada all too well. It only suits them, because any step of actual real change value inherently carries risk, and in this duopoly, risk almost by definition means giving advanage to the opponent. Maybe it's the general societal trend of aging society, those first signs of approaching old age marasmus when every minor step calls for near infinite consideration and in the end never gets made? If so, we're all doomed anyways, but the point is, we could at least try!

Long live, Higgy!

I'd agree these corporate perks, "contracts" and payouts should end. No need to pretend we're matching the marketplace tit for tat, we're not. If those "best and brightest" folks can find the same kind of job in the market with superior pay and benefit let them do it by all means. Just hire somebody competent enough to manage a handful of people and an average size high tech project there should be thousands of people with competence out there. These folks are get paid like they're inventing thermonuke energy, or a cure for cancer, while all they produce is a pathetic far.. (and a lot of expense claims for that).

Let's look closer at this great "win-win": first, Iggy goes somewhere and threatens an election. Then he goes somewhere else, and signs a pointless paper to avoid the election. Wow! What a terribly smart move (no, not for the country itself, it's gotten nothing, nada, no election that it didn't want anyways, and yet another "commission to study" that'd hopefully chip us for less than a milllion $$ - at least I'm hopeful) but to keep Iggy in the view, while him not doing anything for it.

Plus, some form of electoral system that would ensure that legislature actually reflects the opinions in the country. Why would a party with 20% of votes be reduced to meaningless hanful representation? Why a political begemoth with less than 50% of votes should be getting nearly all of representation in the house? We aren't 18th century political infants anymore to be democrtically guided that way. We know who we want to vote for, and we have the right to make our opinion count, and be heard!

If Harper commits to an electoral reform (with some way to hold him to the promise, which he would have to think up, and work very hard to convince us of any credibility), I'll vote for his party that one time. Because it'd be in the best interests of the country.

And the two power behemoths go on trading their meaningless pas in the neverending dance around the sugar cone. Another commission that "can't promise any results", an outstanding achievement! What the country really needs is a reform of electoral system. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to seriously consider this idea: myself & call on anybody interested, to never again vote for Liberals until they commit to supporting the electoral reform & bringing in some form of proportional system. If that would cause them lose some elections, even to the dreadful Harper, so be it, longterm benefit to the country would by far outweigh these minor setbacks.

Quarantines aren't really applicable; while restricting freedom of movement, they don't really impose on one's body per se; and I have yet to see a "mandatory vaccination"; though in a case of some super deadly epidemics I concede could be a possibility due to grave threat to public safety. Which abortion in no way could be (no other individual is harmed or affected in any way, other than self appointed affictionadoes, in their psychic ways). So the case is empty, really. Nothing there, but the self appropriated right to make moral choices for others and control their lives.

And even that is only the secondary issue with (self claimed) "pro life" position. Even if there was a way to "maximize" creation of "new life" by restricting abortions, the fundamental question, can / should a capable adult individual be forced to do something with their own body they do not wish to, still remains to be answered (that question, as I understand it, gave grounds to deeming prohibition of abortion illegal on "privacy" grounds in the US). And if interference by state in the "bodily" matters is considered acceptable, should / why it only be limited to abortions, and not a whole host of other, more essential for public health, issues? (obesity, genetic diseases, etc).

Of course it has nothing to do with "caring for life", while everything with power and dominance over another individual. True caring begins with recognising the other for one's equal as a human being, and that includes recognising and respecting their right to make choices even if they're different from what we'd like. Remove that right to make own choices, i.e freedom, and all your "caring" stuff becomes plain and empty bs, an obvious disguise for "do as I like because I know best what's good for you".

And again, why would somebody get so worked up about these "babies" that do not even exist yet, while there's any number of real actual living babies and children (and adults not to forget - i.e. individuals) who need help, care and protection right here and now. Not to mention any number of possibilites of getting one's own baby (in a variety of ways) to show exemplary care of? Why does it have to be somebody else's choice one has to get so worried about, rather than one's own? Excuse me, but whenever I see those nosy pushy individuals running around with unasked for benefits and advice they simply have to bestow on you (whether you want them or not), I can't help to think that they are trying to sell something of questionnable quality, and I can't care less whether their goods are of physical, or moral nature.

Mismanagement follows money and happened, happens and will happen in public and private busness alike. The head of the department has to be given some freedom on how to spend the funds, or we won't see anything at all happen here ever, only endless discussions and meetings (a la City of Ottawa vs LRT). I think two greatest weaknesses that need to be addressed are 1) recruiting and 2) transparency. How can we make sure that the head of agency with million spending budget does not happen to have an overspending ego, some orders of magnitude above their budget? Maybe in the recruitment phase, make emphasis on knowledge and qualifications, as opposed to starry track record?? No need to pay megabucks, these people aren't there to invent a rocket. All bonuses are tied to performance i.e. concrete delivered result. Pay increases are spaced over time ladder fashion, starting from very modest level, and again tied to concrete delivered result. If that turns off those great business stars, so be it, may be it isn't too bad, let them go and design new business models in the cutthroat volatile markets, here we only need people with basic competence who can devise a plan for a simple project and see it to completion. I mean it's not like those people were inventing a new treatment for cancer, only a big database. Every bank, company and your community library has one. With transparency, it's even easier. All contracts above certain minimal amount are posted on the department's or organisation's Web (and minimal amount isn't millions, rather something like 2 or 5 or 10 K). Certainly, with all related details. There's no silver bullet against misuse but keeping things clear, simple and transparent, clearing up those little nooks where money tend to go out of sight, would be the best strategy to minimize it.

Well it's a very serious test for Obama's administration now. If they accept this "state that isn't really a state" proposal, all promises and expectations will go up instantly in a big puff of smoke. It'll be back to square one - "peaceful" talk with very different "reality on the ground". I can't see how, short of insisting persistently, clearly and inambiguously on fair conditions for peace: complete stop to settlements, negotiated borders, compensation to the victims of creation process, and security to Israel - the US could any longer credibly pretend to not taking one side in this conflict. Any attempts to "mediation" from that position indeed would be pointless and doomed to fail from the start, as it happened on countless previous occasions.

And so, late term lifesaving zeal alongside liberating bombing campaigns. A moral paradox? Not for us. Because we, and only we know every life's worth and which one is worth living (more than another).

I think one (sane and adult individual) has full, complete and unrestricted freedom over their own body. It may be one of the few exceptions where the statement should be absolute and unrestricted in any way. Before we understand that simple truth fully and completely, we better stay in figuring out our own affairs, rather than rush sorting out (and messing up) those of the others.

And yet it's their "liberty" that we ostensibly come to love so much, even to the point of what would appear to bystander as an obsession. As as obsessions go, more often than not fotgetting to ask whether the feeling is mutual.

Maybe in the land of the free, I don't know? In this country, I'm not aware of any legislation restricting suicide attempt by a sane adult individual. But of course this is way off topic. And of course, controlling others bodies and foreign lands thousands miles away are very consistent, and in fact belong to the same ideology. The same one btw that so likes to put certain "liberty" on its banner.

Indeed, some (many) of us seem to be unsure whether a sane grown up person should be allowed a full and unrestricted control of their own body. Yet we're much less confused about going into strange remote lands and intstructing them, oftentime by force, on the process to create their government. Go figure us out!