Lost in Manitoba

Capital Punishment is a tricky subject. I think of it as 'is life sacred or not?'. This should be a yes or no question, not a 'well if...then'. Obviously our hope is for rehabillitation, as in the offender being trained to become a usefull member of society and never committing an offence again. There are some crimes that are so horrible though that rehabillition is not a viable option, such as acts of terrorism, serial rape, and really any other acts that tend to be committed by sociopaths. For instance, a person like bin Laden is unlikely ever to realize that the murder of innocent children is wrong so the only hope to prevent him from committing further transgressions, without capital punishment, is to detain him in prison until the end of his days. Then the question arises 'is this really better or more humane than capital punishment?' I would say yes. Psychologists can profile hime, doctors can examine him, biographers can write about him, all in an effort to determine what makes a man like this, and what we can do to try and prevent this in the future. Death is the quick fix. No good comes from it. It's a postponement of future problems. I say, if it's of no use to society, don't do it. Beyond capital punishment, I have to say that our legal and penal system is much too soft. The 'nanny state' mentallity that is sometimes talked about on this site is real and it's biggest problem is that it takes away our sense of individual responsibillity and accountabillity. Understanding that a criminal came from an abusive home and got neglected by the system is one thing, but to forgive him his crime because of it is another. Punishment is too lax. Not that criminals think logically before they do the things they do, but I think most people have an ingrained risk assessment always going on, even if just subconciouslly. If the payoff is worth the risk, then whats to stop them from taking that risk? " I can steal this DVD player from the store and if I get caught the minimum is 6months probation and maximum is a 2yrs sentence(out in six months). Look at murder, for instance. Taking a persons life should affect yours forever. How many times do you see in the news some guy getting out in under ten years for murder? That's sickening! Friends and I sat around talking once of what we would do if a female friend or maybe a sister was raped. The general consensus was to have a couple of drinks and go kill the guy who did it. We figured that with the court taking alcohol being a factor and the emotional duress we were under, we would get a maximum of 10yrs, and out long before that. A small price to pay for protecting your kin. What messed up thinking. Is this what the justice system wants, people taking advantage of our weak laws to commit murder?

Harper will not ever be the Prime Minister of Canada. Leader of the Opposition is all he will ever achieve in this this lifetime. If that's what you want, Merry Christmas, you got it. The angry white men have their mascot. Cheers.

We see how well that has worked for the priesthood Not to get into the long discussion, but it all boils down to 'sex sells'. People are born with hormones, corporations take advantage of that to make money. The beer commercial, the music industry, television and movies, and so on and so on. Just as violence begets violence, so too does sex beget sex. Britney Spears, showing off the midriff, grinding in her videos, promote young girls to dress the same and act the same. It makes young boys to expect this of the girls, which also promotes the girls behavior. Viscious circle kind of thing. I'm sure everyone can think of examples of this.

Good God, next thing you know women will try to gain the vote and people of colour will want to own property 'ghasp'! Your argument is ridiculous. I do love the story of you father in law though. Yeah he is a hero and definitely deserves recognition as such. Is such heroism, though, and courage along the same lines as say, Nelson Mandela? or the women's sufferage league? Your father in law was doing his job, a career choice to be the guy to run into burning buildings and risk life and limb to save the life of another. The fight for equality or against injustice, is a massive thing that is beyond the individual person. It may prove to change the lives of everybody in this society from that moment foward. It can shape society itself and the attitudes and prejudices, beliefs and misconceptions, of every member of that society. Your father in law improved the life of one person, by saving them. The gay marriage may improve the lives of many many more.

Freedom of Speach, or libel and defamation of character. Though not a fan of over-regulation of something like the internet, which is a dream of ultimate freedom of expression, it bugs me that you can use some-one else's name to get hits and make money or an audience. I am a big fan of MMA, being boxing, judo, and tae kwon do for years, and watch pretty much every PPView that comes on. Recently, after a match, I checked the web to see if the fighter had a site. Lo and behold, some ass had registered the 'guys name' .com and was commenting on how many hits the site got after the dude fought, and was offering to sell the site to businesses (most likely porn). Another one I remember was something like when msnbc came together and a guy had registered the name as .ca or the like. Anyway, this other site was hard core porn, obviously bad for business for the real msnbc, and they ended up buying the domain name for some big bucks. I had tried a site for VISA that was the same, it was big chicks doing nasty things to themselves. Anyway, how can anyone rationalize this as being fair? In the real world would a store like McDonalds not devour in court an attempt at making a MacDonalds? So how fair would it be of me to make a web site mapleleafweb.ca that was actually an NDP supporter site? Hey.........

The first Gay Marriage and the Unknown Soldier have something in common though, Craig. It's called freedom. The Unknown Soldier, fighting against oppression, fighting for freedom, for the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... Exactly what gay people want.

The question is was he misled? Not everyone I meet, do I ask what there age is, and typically you guesstimate age on attitude, personallity, and behavior. If these girls were 'prowling' on the internet or at parties, especially if these parties were comprised of the guy's peer group (roughly the same age) than he probably had every reason to assume the girls were of the same age(roughly). As we see, though, assuming things can be costly. I thought a couple months would suite him better though. The parents of the girls, and the girls themselves, should also have some sort of fine or punishment slapped on them. The parents might have some sort of parenting class to go to, and the girls should see a counsellor, maybe, to be sure they are aware of the repercussions of their actions. Awareness must be raised, tolerance must be lowered, on this sort of thing. It's a harsh example he's making, but it is an example. I have a similiar story that happened to myself while I was driving taxi as a part time job, couple years ago. I used to pick up this girl on a regular basis from a resteraunt that she worked at. It was usually around 10pm when it closed and she seemed to work full-time. Every time I pulled up, she'd be sitting outside reading a textbook. I ASSUMED she was in university. Anyway, a few months go by and she asks if I want to go for coffee. Sweet, I was thinking. Anyway, long story short, sitting there having coffee, and I find out she's 14yrs old, in grade 9. (14 in GRADE 9) Holy SH!T ! (I was 25) Needless to say the conversation kinda died and I got out of there ASAP. To my defense: Age is hard to determine these days, with clothing style being what it is, early physical maturation and so on. And call me naive, but I don't expect 14yr olds to be holding down full-time jobs, flirting with adults, or even be well spoken enough to seem interesting to an adult. That is naive though. It's not a stretch of the imagination to see that if we went to a party instead of for coffee, that if alcohol was involved, that maybe the question of age may never have come up, and maybe things would have progressed beyond talking. Being the adult I would have to accept the responsibillity of my actions, but I would also hope that the courts would try to make sure that she was aware of the consequences of her actions (or inaction maybe) and that she would never be involved in something of the sort again. *As another note, if I had been charged in a scenario like that, I can't even begin to fathom how I would continue with my life. My friends and family know me well enough to trust I wouldn't have knowingly done it. Public perception is different though. Who in my community would give me the chance? So many doors would be shut to me (such as crossing the border). While predators must be punished, and the laws must be harsh, it's hard to imagine the damage to individuals who might not be deserving of so weighty of a punishment.

Don't kid yourself, the states have regional squabbles as well, but agreed they are by and large American first. You cons should be very happy to see the NDP under Layton being very active out there. You guys have nothing to lose and everything to gain by Jack's activism. I predict the NDP going up very soon in the polls, and depending on the Con race, you guys taking a nice jump as well. Though I'm not a supporter, I'm hoping for a good leadership show.

What power does the finance minister have? Doesn't he have restraints put on him by his boss? People talk of Martin being responsible for destroying the Millitary, but if he didn't make those cuts, wouldn't he have been replaced by someone who would've? I think ultimately this is another thing to lay at the feet of Chretien. As for Pratt, I think it is a good sign he was rebelious against Chretien (or outspoken at least), when it came to the castration of our millitary. Saying there isn't a freeze on the millitary just because we're getting some choppers, to replace the SeaKings, by the end of the decade, doesn't mean that the budget itself will be increased. That apperently will come after a 'review of foriegn policy'. CBC made a good point today though. In the ten years of Chretien, he didn't visit the Defense bldg once. In Martin's first week, he was there discussing the future.

What if we could subdue or crumble terrorists states by using their tactics against them? Why not train young men to fly their planes into their buildings? Wouldn't public sentiment of that terrorist state by so overwhelming that they must rise up and change their ways? Get real. Their are some things that one should not do. Torture is one of them. Either you believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, or you don't. The thinking of tribes (or countries) must stop. It's funny that many people who find death so easy to dish out are usually the same ones who are staunchly anti-abortion. Well, which is it, is life sacred or not?

I laughed when I heard this on the radio, thinking what the reactions on this forum might be. For all of you that think it's stupid and not a just ruling, look at the bright side; Martin will have to make some sort of comment on it, and if the Canadian public is not with him, it is one more vote for the United Right come election time.

Courageous has too much of a positive conotation. I'd agree that they were firm and decisive in their actions, and definitely we don't see too much of that in our politicians.

How would the public view a politician who didn't want to be sworn in using the Bible? We have ethnic MP's in Canada, does anyone know of a case of any being sworn in on the Koran? What about a true atheist? It's pointless to get him to swear on a book of faith he doesn't believe in, that he'll uphold the laws of the land and do the job he's been charged with.

Good thing for my welfare province that your attitude is not the norm in the GTA, isn't it. Thank God the pinko NDP and bleeding heart Liberals are the ones that people vote for. I see no reason to get huffy, Craig. I'm all for fiscal management and major overhaul of all government management and social spending. I just don't think it's a reasonable compromise to become a bigot or religious zealot for good government. In a utilitarian view, isn't it more sound to include everyone in society, to induce a state of (enforced) harmony, so that the societal machine runs more smoothly and efficiently. Let gays get married = more financial stabillity = buying a house + car = good for economy. or boy smokes weed socially = boy gets caught = boy goes to jail = prison spends money on housing him (negative) = boy gets out without training or hire-abillity (negative) = boy goes on assistance or shady lifestyle (negative) = net drain on society for smoking weed.

What's the alternative? The Cons? Yeah right. Won't sell my soul for better fiscal management. If one of my friends turns out to be gay, damn rights I'd like for him to be able to be married. If my neighbors son is caught smoking weed, damn rights I don't want his future ruined because of it. And if the Guys below us have a moron for a leader and insist on defying the international laws, well I just hope we don't have our lips too firmly attached to that moron's ass to say something. Sorry, the party of Angry White Guys isn't for me.

Any move to attract more people to the millitary must come after a clear agenda or mission statement is made for our forces. We can't simply be the peons of the US, it seems degrading and redundant. I agree that domestically we must be in alliance with the US, patroling our borders and continental defense. Abroad, however, we have to assume a different role. We'll never have the hardware or the budget of our neighbors. We'll never have the strength in numbers. This is fact. We need to, first, find out what we want to do abroad, and secondly, find out what we are prepared to do abroad. If we wish to be peace keepers (as opposed to peace makers) than we need to look at how we can best go about this, in terms of troop strength, equipment, and financial committment. After we figure all this out, we need to go about giving young Canadians the incentive to join. This can come in the form of an appeal to patriotism, sense of adventure, or humanitarianism (I don't think that's a word). We can also look at the biggest lure in the US recruiting program, the Montgomery GI bill. Sign on for a term and get free University. Almost every single person I knew in the USN enlisted for this very reason. A secondary financial incentive was pre-approved home loan you were eligble for (only in the US dammit!). Both of these incentives cost money in the short term but obviously are economic boosters in the long term. All we need is enough public outcry to spur the political will.

I'm glad I'm not nor ever will be the PM. I'd probably be so hated that I'd be the first PM to be assasinated. At least I'd make the public take an interest, which you can't say about most politicians.

Why the hell would the province be allowed to keep the GST? It was created to pay off the National Debt wasn't it? Then use it for that, not for petty cash. Or get rid of it (like that will happen)

Out of that list I had to vote for Martin, begrudgingly. Crazy to see that GWB got more than one vote. But regardless...... I was wondering about Manning. He never made it. Some blame him for the Liberals ruling the country for the past decade. I myself never voted for him but also saw him as an extremely smart man. Why was it that he couldn't get the votes? And what type of PM would he have been? Any ideas?

People have thrown around Day's name a bit here. Wondering if there was any comments from him about a potential leadership bid? Also, would Day pose more of a threat to Lord or to Harper? Any opinion on that?

I was just listening to a political analyst from Langley on the radio talking about Saddam. Believe it or not, there seems to be people willing to defend him. Halabjah(?) apperently may be defendable due to the fact it was occupied territory by the Iranians. He suggested that the #'s of deaths too, was fiction by the press. Interesting to hear different views on this. As for Milosovich, I'm waiting to hear what's going on with Clark being in court.

I think Riff is a Liberal. Maybe if we support him he'll appoint us to some juicy position in the gov't! Or at least give us some good contracts. I actually chose him because he seems to think logically, is open-minded, and doesn't wave his bible around like a nutbar.

You figure Harpy has experience that Lord doesn't? Interesting.

Interesting article on epigenics in this months SCIAM.

This just may change everything. With Lord running, it will force Martin to act decisively and quickly. We'll get to see if there is anything to him, and if his promises of change are more than the typical Liberal lies. Lord, depending on what he steps up with would probably secure many many votes. Interesting debates to follow within the Cons. Does Harper have the smarts? Probably. Does he have the charisma? No. A poll here would be intersting.