Progressive Tory

The trouble with Harper's tough on crime policies, is that it appears to be paving the way for private prisons. There are some things that should not be for profit, and the prison system is one of them. Rehabilitation or prevention of repeat offending, is not top of the list. Maintaining prison population and prospective profit is. I learned after living under Mike Harris to always read between the lines. Back door prison privatization? (Scroll down) "While these negotiations continue, a federal review of prisons is being carried out by Rob Sampson, who, as a Mike Harris Ontario cabinet minister, was the chief architect of the province's short-lived experiment with private prisons and "boot camps." Sampson served under Harris as privatization and then as correctional services minister. He played a key role in establishing a private prison experiment. After five years of management by a Utah-based American correctional corporation, the Ontario "superjail" at Penetanguishene was returned to public sector management by the McGuinty Liberals, citing high operating costs and poor performance." I did and still do like the concept of 'boot camps', but not American style, and definitely NOT PRIVATE!.

Where did that come from? Unbridled sensuality and debauchery? If I'd know that I might have become Liberal sooner. I grew up in a Liberal, Roman Catholic household, and we weren't even allowed to say 'pregnant'. Pearson was an Evangelist and a Liberal who won a Noble Prize for creating the 'Peacekeepers'. 'Tolerance for' does not mean 'promotion of', and the misconception that all Conservatives are pure and good and Liberals are wanton and bad, is ridiculous. The problem with the Conservative movement was that it was hi-jacked by the Christian radicals and morphed into something barely recognizable by any long term Conservative. As a former PC supporter, I now see the Party as being made up of two main groups: the extreme Right and the extreme corrupt; which makes a very bad combination. The same thing happened to the Republicans in the U.S., who hit bottom with Sarah Palin, and are now in the process of rebuilding. Fiscally Conservative now only means dropping programs not accepted by the Christian Right. It clearly does not mean what it used to mean.

If the Reformers do regroup and break away, I don't think Harper will have Alberta sewn up. I've gone down the list and don't see any prospective leader being able to get support but both wings. Prentice is liberal minded and not socially conservative. MacKay the same. Charest won't be welcome in the West, and Stockwell Day won't win support in the East. The Globe and Mail gave quite a list, but left out Bernard Lord, that I saw in another article; and John Baird's name has also been tossed around. (One poor soul suggested Maurice Vellacott. Egads!) It's going to be an interesting year.

Parents allowing foul language from a 9 year old, are not the norm; and I don't really view that as a social problem. I went to a separate school where catechism was taught for the first hour of every day. We were told that only Catholics were going to heaven and it was a sin to enter any other church. I met a new friend at the beginning of the summer when I was about eight, but was devastated when I learned that she was Protestant. I avoided her after that. I vowed that my children would never be taught such narrow minded views. They all went to public school and are doing fine. The manipulation is in faith based schools. There is a blogger that I like to read from time to time. He is an Evangelist who graduated from Briercrest Bible College. One post entitled "Be Careful... You might go Liberal" (you'll have to scroll down about half way for this post) discusses what he achieved from Briercrest; a grounding in his faith and a secure foundation in the scriptures. However, he also studied 'philosophy' bible school style, which did nothing to prepare him for the real world. "Philosophy involved challenging one's deeply held beliefs and searching out logical argumentation to support each one. That was something I had not been taught in the few courses I took in philosophy at college. In fact, the idea of examining one's deeply held beliefs for the corresponding logical argumentation seemed to be lacking from most of my bible courses. Assumptions were made and we worked from there. Now I loved the time I spent at college, but unfortunately I was not taught to examine my beliefs in an appropriate manner." "So they say going to university makes you a liberal. It has the potential to destroy your faith. They say that the more education you get, the more you tend to be liberal. In Evangelical circles, Liberal is a bad word.... The funny thing is, I still hold the same theological principles that most of them do.... I don't think Liberal is a bad word. Does more education 'turn you liberal'? Maybe it does - if what education does is open your mind to properly and carefully examine one's belief such that they are appropriately justified through some logical mechanism, even if that logical mechanism leaves some gaps or holes to be filled in by faith. Does education 'turn you liberal'? Maybe it does - if it teaches you to understand that people are different and that one view of the world is not the only view held, and that the diversity of views is a good thing." Not all Evangelicals are Conservative. Not all 'good' children go to private faith-based schools. Children need to understand that one's religion does not give them any special place in the 'real' world by divine right. It may give a good grounding, depending on your views, but at some point they have to be able to 'mingle' and open their minds to other possibilities. There can be more than one definition of 'family', and I'm glad that I live in a world that is moving toward acceptance of that.

This is not a left wing, right wing issue. Allowing acceptance of all family dynamics, is a good thing for society at large, and the children who don't grow up in what was once considered the 'typical' family. I don't believe that Canada's social values are at an all-time low. Relationships between parents and children are closer. The old 'children should be seen and not heard' is a thing of the past and as a result children are much smarter and better prepared to handle 'real' life. They are also more tolerant. In the 1950's children with disabilities were put in homes and hidden away, like they never existed; and so were social problems. In the 1950's when TV shows suggested that there was not a drug problem, there was actually a rise in heroin use and marijuana was a mainstay of the 'beat generation'. The Andy Griffith show took place in the South, but there was not one single black face; at a time when racial tensions dominated the region. It was just illegal to show any of this on television, which suggested that all 'families' were white and Christian and the worst problems could be settled with a family meeting. And yet, when we look at those shows now, we see that most adults smoked and the first thing they did when they came home from work was pour a drink from the bar that was always set up in the living room. Denying there were no social problems didn't mean they didn't exist, but taking them out of hiding, now means we can deal with them, and look for real solutions. Private schools create a false sense of what is acceptable, and do not prepare children for the real world.

Exactly. Farmers have always been held in high esteem. Long hours, hard work. It's a dying breed, much to our detriment.

Oh, Ethanol. The boondoggle of the 21st century. It takes more fossil fuels to create ethanol than the energy obtained from the product. The federal gov't is pouring money into it's production, despite the fact that we are decades away from it being a viable option. It does help big business and corporate farms, but not the average farmer; and is an environmental nightmare.

While I personally find them harmless things, knowing they are not historical re-enactments, but parts in a contrived history; there are enough people who do believe in their authenticity and claim false pride at the expense of others. If enough people felt insulted, and public emotion exploited for political gain; it was really the only thing they could do. Cancel it. We just went through an embarassing separatist campaign and don't need more reasons to alientate Quebec or polarize Canadians.

The Reform won 60 seats in 1997 to become the official opposition; however, the Liberals had a Majority with 155 seats, so could not be held to the fire by anyone. The Reform always hated the Liberals, but a lot of the bickering at the time was between the Reform and the PC; both laying claim to the Right.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with family life, just the perception of what family life is supposed to be. It's not always husband, wife and children. Sometimes it's a single mom, a single dad, a blended family, two moms, two dads, etc. We often have the notion that if we don't live in a 'typical' family, then we've failed. TV shows of the 50's and 60's set lofty standards, and gave the illusion that all of live's problems could be solved in 22 minutes. I saw a documentary years ago called 'The Brady Bunch Syndrome' ... perfect house, perfect children, perfect life; but out of reach for the average family.

Wow. That would be like asking what is the meaning of life? We could give vague ideologies, but the election was more about winning, than selling an agenda. From what angle are you conducting your research?

You're absolutely right. Most written history of Canada only barely reflects our actual history. It started with Francis Parkman, who in the 19th century, was asked to fabricate a chain of events with what written materials he could find, to validate British claims to the country. Of course, in order to do that, we have to believe that 13 men in Kebec ruled over hundreds of thousands of First Nations; or that 50 men at Port Royal did the same. The first Europeans to visit Canada were fur traders, cod fishermen, clerics and adventurers; and the early treaties were for trading rights; not land acquisition. Read European history of the period and Canada barely gets an honourable mention. We only became a part of their history later when we were pencilled in. Re-enactments are a rather silly thing... usually short on history but long on play acting. This one has only gained notoriety because it's been made a political tool.

I do find the whole thing a little odd. But, like you say; Only in Canada.

I read that as well, and I'm sure there are probably other Liberals (who knows, maybe even a few Bloc and NDP) also in favour of it, or at least accepting of it. My point is that the Conservatives have some fences to mend in Quebec after their December Separatist Extravaganza. It's all about politics. If Duceppe can stir up emotions and rally Quebecers over this issue, it's just one more nail in Harper's coffin when it comes to winning back any support from that province. This might have been a good opportunity for him to say, 'you know what. If you feel that strongly about this, we'll claw back the funding'. (They can't really stop the event I don't think, can they?) It would then be a non-issue for Duceppe, who I'm sure doesn't like the idea of the event, but if he can score a few political points over it, all the better.

That surprises me, and I don't quite follow the logic here: "...the job losses in agriculture are due in part to the evolution of the industry, with farmers aging and farm size increasing." What do old farmers and large farms have to with it? Wouldn't that increase the need for agricultural workers?

Oh, no. What can that mean? Actually, we probably agree on a lot of things. There are no easy answers. $40,000 per year does seem steep, but could also be looked on as an investment, if it means they don't become repeat offenders, but tax paying citizens. I live in a prison town. Kingston Pen, Millhaven, Collins Bay, etc. I seem to remember a few years ago they tried something like 'Scared Straight' out at Millhaven. Can't remember too much about it and again it was only for potential career criminals. I guess we can all agree that we need to look at the root problems of crime for the long term, but also need some form of short term solutions. I don't believe in throwing teenagers in with the general prison population, for obvious reasons; but do like a form of 'boot camp'.

It was a boring movie. I really looked forward to watching it but was disappointed.

Did anyone here ever watch the Scared Straight Documentary!? It was based on a program where 'at risk' youth spent time in a federal prison and the convicts revealed what really takes place behind the prison walls. "The last sequel, hosted by Danny Glover, showed that the majority of the teens in the original program were, in fact, "scared straight" and went on to lead happy, productive lives." Again it would only be for repeat offenders and aspiring career criminals. Does anyone think that's a good idea?

The Opposition were not for more spending, just effective spending. They were also against permanent tax cuts that could extend the deficit once the recession was over. I wasn't voting Liberal then, but had to admit that they did a good job cleaning up after Mulroney. They had to make some very tough choices, but in the end it worked. Sadly, their 13 billion dollar surplus was dwindled away so that we started this economic downturn with no money in the bank. We don't really know what a Liberal or even a Coaliton budget would have looked like. Maybe it wouldn't be much better. I just trust them to handle the economy wiser than it has been the last three years. Lowering taxes while increasing spending. No sound economic theory supports this. (George Bush did. Enough said)

I've read all the comments and there are some very good suggestions. Publishing names may be fine, but could also just boost their street creds. I agree with the very public humiliation of doing jobs like cleaning garbage at or around the offender's school. In Ontario the Mike Harris gov't started a 'Project Turnaround', which included boot camps for young offenders. We tried one, but it didn't work for a variety of reasons. 1. It was voluntary. They should be mandatory for repeat offenders. 2. They were private. They should not be for profit, which will put the emphasis on rehabilitation, since there is no monetary gain for prolonging their stay or encouraging their return. 3. The pilot camp was based on those in the U.S. - The residents were forced into 16 hour days, which was fine; but most of the 'training' was military style. Lots of marching and saluting the flag. It should instead focus on victim impact, life skills, job training, and education. I also agree that the root cause of most crime is poverty, so social programs are imperative. I only support the boot camps for repeat young offenders who seem destined to become career criminals.

"Some Tories refused to speak about the re-enactment, express support for it, or say how much federal money might be spent on it." There are two sides to every story. "This celebration of a military event will just revive old political, religious and ethnic antagonisms. It is the use of history as a political weapon." Francoise Le Jeune, who heads the University of Nantes' Centre for the Study of Canada, said it is important for a young country like Canada to find unifying landmarks." This has the potential to be used as a political weapon, that could have a very negative impact on the Conservatives. With bloggers and message boards now suggesting that Harper is actually forcing the re-enactment. I don't believe that he is, but if Duceppe can manipulate public emotion, it may bring more Quebecers clamouring to the Bloc and protesting the Government's stand on the issue. This presents an opportunity for Harper to mend some fences, but so far he is just staying mum.

But doesn't tracking you down using the phone company require contact with the phone company? Constantly watching a screen to keep tabs on employees seems like a violation of privacy. How far are we willing to allow ourselves to be micro-managed? I read '1984' when I was in highschool, never really believing that it would, or could ever be a reality. Trust is obviously the issue, but then some bosses just like the control.

First off, I'm not a techno-wizard, by any stretch. I don't even own a cellphone. However, I came across an article recently that gave me pause. In an era of videotape and GPS, it seems that we're always connected to something or someone. A new innovation from Google, known as 'Google Latitude', now allows you to have a GPS system built in to your mobile device. Part of it's promotions says: "Latitude is a new feature for Google Maps on your mobile device. It's also an iGoogle gadget on your computer. Once you've opted in to Latitude, you can see the approximate location of your friends and loved ones who have decided to share their location with you. So now you can do things like see if your spouse is stuck in traffic on the way home from work, notice that a buddy is in town for the weekend, or take comfort in knowing that a loved one's flight landed safely, despite bad weather." However, one blogger brought up a point that may be worth discussing. What if your boss wants you on Google Latitude? Often the cellphones belong to a company. Is this an infringement and can you refuse? Delivery drivers usually have GPS in their vehicles, anyway. But if your job involves a lot of time out of the office, do you feel that your company has the right to know where you are at every moment of the day? After hours? Not at all?

Actually, I prefer puppies. However, there is a vast difference between religous sects and religous extremists. I consider myself an agnostic. I respect any faith that encourages it's followers to do good. I detest any faith that encourages it's followers to be arrogant based on that faith. And I abhor any faith that encourages violence in the name of that faith. To suggest that there are more Canadians against Christians than there are against Muslims is preposterous. It's a matter of degree.

Exactly, except that they are not always so subtle. I also find that far too many of the 'Ten Commandment' zealots, support war, so should only have nine commandments. But then a gov't must also often lie to gain support for war, so we now have eight commandments. Hmmm....coveting our neighbour's goods ...oil... seven commandments. They'll need a smaller sign.