ReeferMadness

I think you're living in a dreamworld. Do some research. Despite spending millions (or billions in some cases), spills don't get cleaned up. The company makes a show of it, gets the stuff that's easy to soak up and leaves. If the government really insisted that companies clean the stuff up properly, the companies would be bankrupted.

What do you mean "the regions have an equal number of senators"? Ontario & Quebec - 24 BC & Alta, Sask, Man, Nfld - 6 NS & NB - 10 PEI (much smaller in Area & population than Vancouver Island) - 4 What is equal about this? And are you saying that each province is it's own "region"?

Not a good example. The relationship between Pakistan and the US is complicated (arms trade, some commonality of political purpose, etc). And drones are not an invasion. Talk to us again when the US sends ground troops.

It's ironic that the USA seems to have become one of the world's foremost invaders of privacy. It was Ben Franklin who said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Those words seem prescient at the moment.

I'm not sure how you see it as a sideshow. Canadians using services where the servers reside in the US (which includes Google, Facebook, and a whole truckload of other online services, including Maple Leaf Web ) are having their privacy routinely and egregiously invaded by a government over which they have no control or say. (And no, I'm not talking about Harper, despite the obvious similarities). Even if you just send an email, it is likely to be routed through the USA. And since we're not US citizens, we have far less protection. We should all be outraged. But this type of nonsense has become so commonplace, who has the energy?

What it is (currently, at least) is a joke. I would be happy to see it reformed but this would open up the constitution and the chances that a fair solution would be agreed to are remote.

Does this explain why Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have 10 senators while BC with twice the population of both combined has 6?

There is some truth to your statement but this is a gross simplification. It certainly is true that in many cases, unions are able to command higher wages, at least in the short term. And it is true that this sparks envy in people who don't enjoy the same benefits or protections of the union. And it is also true that this envy is stoked by right wingers who simply want unions to go away. However, most people who spend any significant amount of time in a unionized environment will agree that there are people who deserve to be fired but won't be due to the union. And union rules are often obstacles to productivity (and sometimes harmonious workplace environments). And I have personally known lots of union members who question the wages of other groups of union members. I understand that a big reason behind the increase in inequality over the years is directly due to the low rate of unionization. However, I also recognize that unions are often their own worst enemies. They are bureaucratic and often dominated by idealogues who romanticize striking and advocate class warfare.

And you determine that how?

Which is likely because there aren't any.

Exactly so and there are studies that back this up. Not only is prohibition ineffective, it's counterproductive.

I think the government should focus on providing good, objective information on the risks and controlling the potency. Providing people understand the risks, adults should be able to decide for themselves that they put in their bodies. Much has been made of the fact that pot i much more potent than it once was. However, the same thing was happening to liquor during prohibition. Alcohol percentages were going up and booze was being laced with less than wholesome substances. If drugs are legalized, there will be more ability to control what goes into them.

I agree there is some hypocrisy in the way that we use sex as way of marketing damned near everything and then demonize anyone who is guilty of even minor sex offenses. However, that in no way excuses this guy's behaviour. If this guy finds himself attracted to early pubescent girls, that's one thing. But in society, we're all expected to control our impulses. If he can't he needs help. Unfortunately, he is wholly unlikely to get it in our criminal punishment institution (let's not call it a justice system which it is not).

You and I can agree on the goal of "sustainable development" - but what does that mean? To me, it means hard caps on the overall impact to the planet inflicted by our species as a whole. And those hard caps are set cautiously according to scientific consensus at a point in time. Lakes, rivers and oceans are cleanest where they have not been impacted by industrial development. That, unfortunately, doesn't leave much. If you're contending that overall, rich countries are cleaner than poor ones, that's an interesting thesis. Perhaps you could support it with data. I would say (again) that rich countries don't pollute less than poor ones (on a per capita basis). However, they do export their pollution to poor countries.

That's untrue and unfair but hey, this is the internet. Say whatever you want. Nobody's listening anyway. That's a very superficial approach to resolving a set of complex issues. Simply limiting the power of parties won't address them all. Parties play a valuable role in defining the political landscape. Most people vote for parties, not candidates. Parties are part of the modern reality and they are here to stay. The objective should be to update the rules and define the appropriate role for parties within modern politics, not just try to regress the state of party politics to an earlier time.

I'm not sure the Libs would be much better but they can't possibly be any worse. And I think that most of the country is arriving at the same conclusion.

None of the options is correct. Clearly, Harper will continue on his trip, claiming it's vital to Canada's national interest. Harper will hope that meanwhile, this will all blow over. Flunkies back home will answer questions (or more accurately, avoid answering them).

Yes, we have a dependency on fossil fuels, like we have a dependency on economic growth. Much like an addict has a dependency on crack. The growth can't last forever - neither can the fossil fuels. The only question is whether people will learn to acknowledge environmental limits before we destroy ourselves. Clearly, you are a lost cause.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that climate models are not that accurate. The science is complex and relatively new. Models often have to go through a 'trial-and-error' cycle before they get perfected. But conclusion can be drawn from this? If the model can be wrong in one direction now, it could just as easily be wrong in the other direction later. The climate is not a linear system. There is no assurance that once changes start, we will be able to do anything to change them before they have catastophic consequences. This is what scientists have been trying to tell us. But too many people only understand that it will just make the gas for their garden tractors and 4x4s more expensive. Sadly, it also doesn't surprise me that many would seize upon this as an excuse to continue to change the composition of our one and only atmosphere. Devotion to economic doctrine is a belief system. It's more religion than science. The only thing that really surprises me is that our species has survived as long as it has. Contrary to popular belief, it definitely isn't due to average intelligence.

The premise for your post is patent nonsense. The most recent Liberal administrations were the most financially prudent ones in my lifetime. The Chretien/Martin Liberals, whatever their sins, left Canada is a great financial position. It's only because of them that Harper can brag about Canada's financial performance. From a financicial standpoint, Harper has run the government no better than Trudeau. At least Trudeau, however, cared enough for the disadantaged to spend the money on them instead of his wealthy buddies.

The $90K is a smoking gun that ties the scandal right to the PMO. Maybe you could write it off as a buddy helping a buddy if.... It were 50 bucks and not $90K One of the buddies wasn't a senator and the other wasn't the PM's right hand man there weren't reports that the $90K was being used to squelch an audit into illicit expenses there weren't reports that PMO lawyers were involved in the deal

If only Harper and Wright had consulted with Derek before they made the rash decision for him to resign! Derek could have told them there's nothing wrong with cutting Duffy a cheque for $90K to try to avoid an audit of his expenses.

Having listened to most of Harper's droning, what strikes me most is how absolutely uninspiring the man is. He talks like an administrator, not a leader. I'm sure someday, he'll make a fine ambassador to some backwater nation.

Harper is just telling the audience what a big admirer of the USA he is. Nobody doubts that but maybe someone should remind him of the disparaging remarks he's made about Canada in the past.

Our political system is a relic of earlier times. The power that used to (theoretically at least) reside with elected members has been sucked into the parties. Very few people actually understand how the system was originally intended to work or why it doesn't any more. It's time for an update.