Wild Bill

Well, art is a subjective thing. If someone were called upon to actually DEFINE some of those "neutral citeria" I would much rather it were you and not me who had to come up with the answers. I'd find it easier to make a soup sandwich!

Well, how about discovering if indeed Elections Canada ignored similar actions by other parties, which after all is the very basis of the lawsuit.

Might be a good thing if it was a boycott! Sometime last year Harper was being cautioned while visiting China about provoking them about human rights for fear of affecting trade. He said something to the effect that since the trade was so drastically skewed in China's favour perhaps that shouldn't be a worry. I think he has a good point. Although it's true that some individual Canadian businesses are making a great deal of money it would seem that as a nation we have a huge level of deficit in our trade with China, by a quantum level. The question then becomes, if this is true then when some Canadian talking heads are saying don't provoke China you have to wonder who's side they're on...

"Oh it's 'Tommy this' and 'Tommy that', and 'Chuck 'im out, the brute!' But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot." ---Rudyard Kipling (as best as I remember) Hey AG, here's one countryman who says "Thank You!"

Doesn't look like much of a break in the total price of diesel to me! If this gets implemented, all I care about is the financial incentive to me. In other words, is it worth it to buy a diesel car? Wilber's point seems to be that diesel is cleaner and therefore price savings to an owner of a diesel car should be encouraged. Jdobbin seems to be arguing more from an academic standpoint. I think most Canadians would only care about the price at the pump and how far that tank will get them, whether it is gas or diesel. If the savings of running a diesel are not significant and obvious no one will likely bother. Which gets back to Wilber's argument, that isn't the plan supposed to have reducing carbon emissions as its PRIMARY goal?

The debate between BK and Argus reminds me of those "starving artist" cheap oil painting commercials we used to see back in the late 80's. I finally heard the story of the source of their inventory and found it kind of amusing! Apparently, they all came from the Netherlands. The government of the time (and perhaps that of today, I don't know) would buy artists' works to keep them employed as artists. The problem of course was that nobody amongst the public would buy them afterwards! They were nothing special, after all. Eventually, there were warehouses and warehouses of oil paintings that nobody wanted, paid for by the government to keep artists employed. Somebody bought them up for pennies and flogged them on North American TV, a la K-Tel. The problem with government support for the arts is that the process is controlled by the government, who decides which artists are worthy of support and which are not. Historically, bureaucrats are very, very bad at this sort of thing. The system is really political by definition, in that it is really all about who knows who. We have had a similar situation here in Hamilton, ON with a local arts complex called Hamilton Place. It was built to help shed the image of a "lunch bucket" town. For years now they book "artsie acts" for which few people will buy tickets. When they start to get into financial trouble they then book popular artists. So we get a few weeks of Tom Jones, Bachman and Cummings followed by some opera and an ethnic dance troupe called "The Lutonian Cheese Dancers". The LAST thing any of these artsies would want is to be forced to survive on ticket sales alone! Yet if you asked many of these "art supporters" they would define themselves as democratic.

I suspect that your vision of those old days is pure Hollywood! There was no way people could have been being shot en masse down every street, every night that the saloons were open. From what I've read about those days, people for the most part were pretty law abiding. There were some criminals of course but there was also a lot of quick and effective vigilante justice. People were a lot more self-reliant than perhaps we are today. They had to be to survive! If some punk was killing down at the saloon I would think that a couple of the locals would have simply shot him and thrown him in a ditch. Problem solved and everyone else could get back to planning the next church picnic.

I wasn't making any attempt at all to prove the charges true! Or false, for that matter. I simply pointed out that EC had investigated themselves and reported that they didn't do what they were charged with. Would you have expected them to investigate themselves and report "Yes we did, by golly!" and then head into court?

I could have respected the Liberal cuts a lot more if there had never been a Jane Stewart with the HDRC money scandal, Shawinigate, the wasted billions on the gun registry and of course, AdScam. I no longer felt proud for bearing up under necessary cuts. I felt like a chump as a working man tax payer being the only one taking the hit.

I just can't get into them, Rue! To me, they all seem like those Beach Party movies from the early 60's, only in another language. Lots of singing and dancing, lots of flirting and bikini equivalents but nobody actually does anything actually adult. I found Frankie Avalon boring then and I find Bollywood movies to be the same today, for the same reasons. As for the helium, could you imagine "Alvin and the Chipmunks take Bollywood"?

Well, EC may have said that but that doesn't make it true! After all, EC is being sued! If M Mayrand were to say that other parties HAD done the same then EC loses! I would have been very surprised if EC's internal investigation had come to any other conclusion. Why would you expect them to admit their guilt? That would immediately put M Mayrand's butt in a sling! What will be more interesting is to see what evidence the Tories will bring to the trial. One would assume that they have sufficient evidence to substantiate their charges. If they don't, then they deserve what they get. Somehow, I don't think they would have been THAT dumb!

Special circumstances? How about the fact that we're dealing with political parties? After all, Dion just got an extension on paying his leadership debts! Apparently it was against the rules. Elections Canada seems to have pulled an extension out of their collective butt. Some pigs are more equal than others, as Orwell wrote.

You west coast folks should take a tip from David Miller, the mayor of Toronto. Simply ban all guns, especially gun clubs. Presto! Problem solved! Just ask him!

These are the same folks who show up at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq and yell "Ha-ha! God's Will! Looks good on ya!" They are fundamentalists to the extreme, with a big dollop of snide nastiness thrown in as well. I wouldn't bother doing a google. It will make you sick and disgusted.

What's your point? That because Harper is being unreasonable with mandatory sentencing over a marijuana plant that we should not have mandatory sentences for violent crimes? I wasn't aware that we have to apply it to EVERYTHING!

Exactly! They have a right to knock at the door and we have the right to refuse to open it!

I think you might have missed the point that a traveller would not get his laptop back for some time. Certainly, long after his trip to the US was over. The reason given is that the security folks need time to dump the hard drive and inspect all the data in case it had info on how to build WMDs or something. Consider the plight of a salesman. His laptop is his work tool. Take it away and there is no point to his US trip. No more PowerPoint presentations. Back to an easel and flip charts. I wonder if the same seizure rules are being applied to executives of GM when they cross back and forth. Canada and the US do ZILLIONS of dollars in trade across the border, EVERY DAY! It's one thing to say that security trumps trade. While of course security is necessary that's still too simplistic. There's enough people losing their homes and jobs without adding to it without considering the effects of some security measures. The issue is not about laptops, per se. It's about whether or not there's a useful amount of data likely to be inspected, balanced against the time involved with the inspection. ANY security idea pulled out of some Deputy Dan's butt is not as good as any other! I mean, these are the same people that banned nail clippers from airplanes! Is no one auditing these people for the EFFECTIVENESS of their methods? Or can they just apply any cockamamie idea they please? Ah well, you get the help you pay for, I guess.

Fair enough! You are supporting the idea that there are alternate sources that will be more cost-effective on a macro level, i.e. large scale generation of electricity. Fortunately, I'll likely be dead by then. As a techie I still see nothing in the immediate future to help folks like me. I guess what bothers me most is this common misconception that the "brains" will eventually produce anything needed. Science doesn't work like that. In many cases it's perfectly possible that there isn't a better solution. Perhaps this is a modern thing. We've had over a century and a half of extremely rapid technological innovation. To a technically educated mind this seems only a natural progression. To a layman it often appears to all just be "magic". If you think of it all as just magic then ANYTHING becomes possible! You might have to throw a lot of money at the techies to feed them while they work but if you do then you can ask or demand anything and they will provide. Politicians often exhibit this behavior. For example, my area of Canada used to grow a lot of grapes. Our government responded to some rather alarmist eco-lobbyists with thin science by banning the only crop spray effective against mildew, which is an expensive problem with grape farming. Of course, the farmers pointed out that there was no known alternative but the politicos assured them that the science boys would have an alternative toute suite. Of course, it has never shown up. The grape crop here is a shadow of its former self. Grapes from upper New York came across the border and captured the market. Of course, the American farmers could use the spray with impunity. There was no photo-op in applying the ban to imported grapes. When I hear you talk about how increased costs of energy will automatically generate new, cheaper sources I'm afraid I hear that same faith in "magic". It's entirely possible that we are already using all the cheap methods of energy production. We can invent new ones and improve on old ones but they will only offer limited or no cost savings. If that's the case, increasing our living costs out of some belief that this will promote cheaper solutions to avoid the pain is simple cruelty.

Well, I would say that you prove my point! The issue isn't failure or successes. The issue was that they were gathering intel on women's rights groups. My point was that it was a necessary part of their function. How do you know which groups are dangerous until you check them out? Use Dora the Telephone Psychic?

Noted.

I don't understand why you keep posting these examples of what really is just typical politics. There were innumerable examples of Liberal governments doing exactly the same thing. Perhaps it is the hypocrisy of the initial Harper claim of open government. To many of us more open government would have been a welcome change. Of course, the Reform/Alliance promptly became Mulroney II, the sequel. So we're right back where we started. Preston Manning knocked his heart out for nothing, it would seem. Still, what's your point? In our disgust with the Tories for breaking their word and trying to soft-pedal negative reports we should switch our vote to the Liberals, who will also soft-pedal reports but at least never promised to be good? It is not logical to vote for a bad alternative just because the incumbent has a few flaws too. We Canadians are used to flawed choices. I fail to see your goal.

Once again we see that hind sight was 20/20. I remember those days. Younger folks may not be aware that many groups were actually fronts for radical leftwing politics, including women's rights groups. It wasn't all just about bra burning or womens' rights. Just ask older Quebecois if they remember that poor minister being murdered by those FLQ animals. Today one of the murderers teaches at a Quebec university. Anyhow, it was the RCMP's job to gather intelligence against any possible threat. Unless they were psychic, how could they know if any womens' group was on the up-and-up unless they checked them out? Everybody's beaking off about how could they investigate these groups and no one is mentioning if the reports said that this particular one was harmless, this one had a few wackos in it and this other one had a VERY HUNGRY WOMAN who should be avoided at all costs if she had missed a meal! Sorry. I shouldn't have made that last politically incorrect joke but I just couldn't help it. Anyhow, we shouldn't judge by today's standards. If the RCMP had spent more time infiltrating some of those groups Pierre LaPorte might be alive today...

No Tory witnesses? Isn't that a bit much, even for a partisan committee? Geez, some folks complain about too many Tory lawsuits against the Liberals yet they'll stack a committee witness list. Politics, plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, plus la guerre...

Not that I agree with you but you do realize, if you extend your argument you cannot claim that all the people who didn't vote agree with YOUR postition? It's not likely but still possible that each and every one of them agrees with Harper.

Here in Ontario just a few years ago the NDP defined anyone earning more than $60k/yr as rich. Including Toronto!