Moonlight Graham

On another note, kissing a woman with a mustache sucks.

culture. social norms. Legs aren't usually seen as a sexual turn-on for women, they generally dont care about hairy legs. If most women thought hairy legs were hideous & shaved legs much more attractive, i'd be in the shower breaking out the Gillette Mach whatever right now!

I think she has guts for doing that. Although what she was protesting aka 'Harper' was a somewhat ridiculous, i mean we don't need an Arab-style uprising since we are a healthy democracy that just had an election that elected the man and his party. But she still has every right to protest, it is guaranteed to her in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Her protest was peaceful and silent, i'm sure Gandhi would be proud. It certainly beats taking a gun (or a pie) and physically attacking the man. It got her to the very top of the national headlines to get whatever message (however you may feel about it) she had out. I tip my cap to her.

Massive enough to work about 3 days a week. They do some fine work in committees , i never said they are useless, but they aren't exactly going to keel over from work-related stress.

Which isn't as bad as it sounds, because they all have great health insurance coverage

Not bloody likely! From the article you posted: In other words, hey sounds great!...just don't let it affect me & my cushy job. Easily one of the best jobs in Canada. Work 3 days a week (plus lots of extra vacation time), fantastic pay/benefits, not overly demanding work, virtual guaranteed job security until you're about ready to die, no boss riding your ass. Why ruin a great thing!

Interesting. Here's what the original CBC article stated: Here's what that gazette article states, a quote from MacKay or Jay Paxton (whoever that is): So both articles say 'no permanent bases', but suggest...something. Whatever, it could still mean Canada rents out a hanger or 2 at an airfield in these countries. maybe that doesn't qualify as 'large permanent bases'. If i had to choose, i'd go with the Le Devour article over the CPC gov on this one.

Interesting. Here's what the original CBC article stated: Here's what that gazette article states, a quote from MacKay or Jay Paxton (whoever that is): So both articles say 'no permanent bases', but suggest...something. Whatever, it could still mean Canada rents out a hanger or 2 at an airfield in these countries. maybe that doesn't qualify as 'large permanent bases'. If i had to choose, i'd go with the Le Devour article over the CPC gov on this one.

I dont like city bus strikes or Canada Post strikes. IMO they should both be designated as "essential services", forcing these people to work even if they strike.

Well, this is interesting to say the least. Much more detail is needed as the article is pretty bare. If anything, sounds expensive.

I think a lot of this is effed up. I dont have much of a problem with "test tube babies" being tested for severe disabilities/defects, but as for choosing the sex or whether you want a blonde or brunette baby I think is not by cup of tea. I can see the appeal of choosing sex, especially for those that have, say, 3 girls already and would really like a boy. But IMO this is a dangerous slipper-slope, because eventually we'll be able to choose just about every genetic trait we wish for our children...so where will it end?

complete b.s. They utilize extensive empirical research/statistics and the scientific method as any science does. Me thinks you need to check the actual definition of 'science'.

Senate reform falls on the left-right spectrum??

I agree totally. This means that some people's mindsets need to change in order to reach such a goal.

There exists many people on both sides who don't care if the other side is 'satisfied' with a deal, as long as they what they they want.

Visiting Afghanistan and speaking to the troops, Harper says: Al-Qaeda presence in the country is hugely reduced, but i'd say you're overstating it a bit there Stephen. Will this be a "Mission Accomplished" moment for Harper? Any other thoughts?

It infers it isn't a constitutional amendment. Read the every end of article. This is not a new idea. The term limits and advisory elections to the Senate is similar to Bill C-19 and C-20 that came up a few years ago. The CPC are trying to get around the constitutionality of this Senate reform by not making Senators DIRECTLY elected. Citizens in provinces will be able to vote for the Senator(s) they want the PM to appoint to the Senate. The PM will then, presumably, use these election results to appoint any senatorial openings. But as the article states, the PM is not legally bound to use these election results in choosing who to appoint to the Senate. It can be ignored at whim, basically. A very good analysis article by Jack Stilborn on Senate reform: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0742-e.htm#bbillc20

Please tell me how people liking the the auditor general and the GG more than our elected officials means our democracy is just fine as it is?

Minus being strong on arctic sovereignty, IMO Harper and the CPC rank quite poor on foreign affairs/policy: - eager to please the oil people funding/lobbying his party (not to mention working for or being elected to the party as well) based on the their eager participation in the poorly-planned shit-storm that is the Libya mission. - Harper supported Canada joining the "coalition of the willing" in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If he were in power in 2003, damn sure Canada would have been in there. - dumped on Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. - Ramped up Canadian military involvement in the shitstorm that is Afghanistan, and wasting time & money training a military/police that will extremely likely use such training & equipment to stage a authoritarian military coup vs the "democratic" regime put in. May even have our guys killed some day in the future by the weapons/training we're supplying them. May have never even agreed to end the "military mission" so soon if they had a majority previously. - Yet another party that is a disaster on international development (including exploitative trade policies with developing nations), plus put their personal religious stipulations on maternal health initiates for other cultures.

Be aware this was recorded around 2007 so the references are a bit dated. But super hilarious stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyFeXFGFuTE&feature=related

How does the PM/gov picking the GG not make it partisan? I mean that just because the opposition chose the GG, that doesn't mean the GG will act in a partisan way if their role is to be bipartisan, like GG is now, or the auditor general, or speaker of the house.

People have problems with appointments. But appointing non-partisan positions such as the auditor general and the GG shows that the can and often do stay non-partisan and can function very well. Hell, i (as do many Canadians) like the auditor general and GG more than pretty much all elected politicians in the House. That says a lot about our "democracy" doesn't it?

That's why i suggest the official opposition do it. That doesn't make it partisan, it simply removes the PM's power to appoint his/her own power check. If you don't like either of those, then what about selection by a multi-party committee? Or let the Senate appoint it, or a multiparty senate committee? Or let the provincial premiers choose. Or throw some alphabet soup on the floor and see whose name it most resembles. Or elect a president. The main point is, we have many options beyond having the monarch as our head of state.

Certainly not. The GG has certain "reserve powers", which by convention they rarely use but it provides a check on abuse of power by the PM/government. For example, the GG can refuse the PM's recommendation of proroguing parliament or calling an election, can refuse appointments, refuse to ascent bills, and dismiss the PM if they refuse to step down after an election (which actually did occur in the late 19th century).

Oh, and here's my favorite: there was no such legal entity called a "Canadian citizen" until the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act. Before then, we were all British subjects. For someone like me who didn't live through most of these events, it's amazing to me how long it took Canada to become legally independent from Britain.