Molly

Mmm no, I can't agree with you on some things there. there is a presumption of joint ownership of wealth through a joint venture. first demands that evidence of 'joint venture' be established, and simple cohabitation doesn't do it. "Many" isn't "all". And on this: " I believe that it is court rulings like this one which change society's opinion on what the obligations are of a cohabitation relationship rather than just being reflective of the current societal opinion." I'd say you have the cart before the horse- that the courts are simply reflecting what's going on in the real world, not leading it. I have to run away from this for now (darn it), but I will return to this conversation.

Deadly serious. Scotty noted: "For every raise in the minimum wage you'll have employers trying to figure out how to do with less staff. Or how to defray their costs by outsourcing so they don't have to pay benefits." Exactly so. Everyone's work (at any given task) is worth what their product can be marketed for/ what it would cost to replace their effort. Unless you can propose some alternaive valuation method, that's the math the world is going to use... And everyone's capacity to contribute is someplace on the great continuum- some worth nearly nothing, and some very valueable indeed.. The great value of various sheltered workshop systems is the simple human dignity involved in doing something productive and recieving a commensurate reward. That's separate from social need, which is also, separately, acknowledged. The fact that the productivity of an individual may not be of sufficient value to cover the cost of their care should not prevent them from doing swomething of value... ...nor should the the social welfare system- concerned with the minimum needs of all citizens- rely on the (unwilling) altruism of employers. And, any given employment situation involves a mixture of quite a few conditions that all go into the pool to determine whether the employee finds it a desireable position... (Some people would pay for the opportunity to do things that you couldn't get me to do with a gun to my head.) Wages aren't the only criterion determining the desireability of a job. SOME of the working poor have actively chosen that lifee for reasons of their own. Is it so terrible that they should be allowed that negotiation?

How so? If productivity does not determine the value of work performed, then what does? How is productivity divorced from the contemporary workplace, and how would you more objectively/verifiably express productivity than by measuring the product?

This is offensive. My bona fides are at least as valid as your own, and I'll thank you to take your nose out of the air and address the ideas instead of inventing a position for me so that you may disapprove of it.

Thanks for bringing this one up, Renegade. I share your concerns, but this tends to satisfy those concerns: “Unlike much matrimonial property legislation, the law of unjust enrichment does not mandate a presumption of equal sharing,” he said. “However, the law of unjust enrichment can and should respond to the social reality identified by the legislature that many domestic relationships are more realistically viewed as a joint venture to which the parties jointly contribute.” That's a HUGE difference from formal marriage.

For some of them, absolutely nothing. (For others, the constant cost of training new staff, the lack of productivity of the ones who stay, etc. etc. etc...) Is that really all that bad a thing?

Hold on. Productivity is what determines the value of a job. Workers are not equal or interchangeable, and however you cut it fiscal sanity is part of the employment/wage decision process. It's all very well to propose paying people according to their needs (and wants and wishes) to perform a task, but the more they cost, the easier it is to invent a machine to cost-effectively replace them. The employer's goal isn't 'to employ people'. The employer's goal is to cost-effectively accomplish a task. Joe Palooka who can make 4 widgets/hour on his best day may or may not be worth a minimum wage that allows him to move out of his parents' basement, so yes indeedy, HIS work isn't worth doing or paying someone to do. Now Elsie Palooka on the other hand, has greater manual dexterity, a lick of sense and some work ethic, and averages 8 widgets an hour... and thus is worth 2X any wage that Joe is worth (with a little premium thrown in, because the lack of headache is worth something)... Is Joe unemployable at any price just because he can't achieve that threshold of productivity? Should Elsie's job be eliminated because Joe can't achieve a minimum threshold of productivity? Just how would a non productivity-based wage system work?

Also from that link: In an interview, Mr. Tremblay said he is fighting because he believes French Canadians have become too “pliant” in accommodating minorities while failing to stick up for their own beliefs. At least 90 per cent of Saguenay is Catholic, he said. “Why is it us Christians that always have to bend? Our values have no importance. You try stopping a Jew or Muslim from praying where he wants,” he said. “We’re ready to respect everyone, but we also want to be respected. It’s gone too far. “ I find this perspective completely bizarre- irrational, presumptive, based on entirely false premises and downright ignorant. In the first place, his assertion that 90% of the citizens are Catholic is extremely, extremely unlikely even if 100% of them were born into culturally Roman Catholic families. Even given that Saguenay citizens are older, less educated, economically poorer and every other demographic more inclined to practice a religion, it could still only have a leg in truth if one assumes that Catholicism is the default polition- that every person who has not loudly, actively repudiated Catholicism is a Catholic. The further stretch that this is somehow Christianity vs. (Islam, Judaism, what-have-you) is equally rediculous. It's imposition of religious practice on pointedly secular, inclusive activities. The most preposterous sentence in his comments? "We’re ready to respect everyone.." Actions speak louder than words, Buddy.

And I didn't say anything about a need for a referendum. One need not have a referendum in order to establish some semblance of mandate. However, unless I see some evidence that the question of enforcing Christian religious practice on municipal government was discussed during the election, and the mayor at some point stated his opinion and his intention to play religious enforcer and scofflaw, then I stand on that statement: there is no mandate.

From your own link: Still, the pro-secular group that pushed for the prayer ban in Saguenay says it will continue its fight to strip religion from public spaces. The Mouvement laïque québécois, or secular movement of Quebec, says it was dismayed with Mr. Tremblay’s insistence on fighting the court ruling. The ruling last Friday came after a citizen, Alain Simoneau, complained that the council prayer violated his freedom of conscience. The court agreed and awarded him $30,000 in damages. “Ours is not a struggle against symbols, it’s a struggle to maintain the neutrality of public institutions,” said Luc Alarie, the group’s lawyer. Mr. Simoneau was awarded damages after suffering from sustained harassment as well as being publicly ostracized by Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Alarie said. That would, I believe, be a pretty good example of public outcry. Not so apathetic, those folks from Saguenay.

Neither you nor anyone else yet knows whether the town deems the prayer appropriate. After the next municipal election there will be some indication, though no doubt it won't be the only issue upon which folks base their vote. Until then? Pfft! There is no such mandate. However, even if it is does gain apparent approval at such a municipal election, religious practice is still not a matter of majority vote, and dictating public religious practice sure as H-E-double-toothpicks doesn't fall under the unilateral jurisdiction of mayors.

Honestly, not to me. Is there any government form in use in any nation that is more... dispersed... and less focussed on a single, individual (despot ) than a parliamentary system? This is a government system of concensus, of the supremacy of the representatives sent to talk it over. The prime-ministerial figurehead can be replaced in a heartbeat by an acting prime minister, without the need for a bunch of consultation or pre-planning... and fairly regularly, is, without any particular fanfare. Heck, even the decision about who should step into the post is left undecided until such a transition is needed, and then, that person is chosen by a party caucus, without even the input of parliament. Even the speaker gets more scrutiny. The prime minister really isn't all that important to the process of government!

It does seem , for lack of a better word, awfully 'presidential'. After all, what is a prime minister ? The leader of a political party. Not unique. Easily replaced. Parliament is supreme, not the prime minister. The GG is the head of state, not the prime minister... Wa-ay too much focus where it doesn't really belong.

Got any kids, Bonam? You might want to see enough of them to be able to recognize them and have them recognize you. Their grandparents... might not want to take time off work to babysit 'em.

Fair enough. Now... 40 cops X $200,000 each = $8 million, not $80 million, soooooo... um.... what about the other $39 mil?

Is that NOT Ms. Oda, or NOT NOT Ms. Oda?

Hold on half a moment here. What, exactly is 'the proposed situation'? Do you have any stats defining the working poor? (Not those on social assistance.) Who are these people? So someone said 4% of workers are at minimum wage? Of that, how many are their own primary breadwinner? How many would consider their actual wage to be the lesser part of their income (tips and gratruities; room and board etc.)? How many have been engaged at that job long enough (more than 3 months) to be off probation? What constitutes 'poor', and how did these folks find themselves in that situation? How many, for instance, are self-employed, and tolerating the poverty in hope of building up that enterprise?

Obviously. (What? Do I have to add tongue in cheek, and not just ?) The excercize does add some perspective, though. What services could you cover with round-the-clock wages for 100 well-paid souls?

Don't dismiss the prospect. Just as necessity is the mother of invention, a layoff notice is the mother of many a small business. Nothing focuses the business-sense parts of the mind more effectively than being forced to add pawn shops and food banks to the list of the days activities. Yes, you can actually borrow a shovel to take from door to door, offering to clear sidewalks and driveways.

Let's see.... 100 grand per cop makes 470 cop-years. Drop say 70 for round numbers to cover holidays and sick days and whatever, leaves a pool of 400 fully available for 5 shifts/week, to cover 21 shifts/week... 2000 divided by 21 makes about........ 100 gendarmes guarding the PM at any given time of the day or night? No excuses if he gets popped with a pie.

None of the rest of us does, either... but then, how much does it cost to buy a soapstone carving for the missus?

Of course one would expect to hear that style of reference from time to time, but it's unlikely that the entire caucus, and the whole corps of writers of speeches and press releases would suddenly, casually, coincidentally fall into full-time preferential use of it for no reason, all at the same time.

The question is "Should cabinet ministers falsify documents to try to hide the fact that they've made a political, not a practical decision, and then lie about it?" My answer is NO! NO, no, no! What's yours? ..................................................^ .................................................. not

Speaking of "Harperites", has anyone noticed that the Tory talking heads have begun consistently referring to 'The Harper government', not the Conservative government, the government of Canada, the federal government, the 'new Conservative government' or any of the thousand other more likely permutations? Sounds like the spin doctors are focussing even more strongly on the PMO than in the past. They are talking tribe/team/leader rather than policy even more strongly than in the past. (That makes me expect even more below the belt, character-assassination ads.) Reminds me of a teenage girl from the Phillipines who we got to know during the Marcos regime. Everything seemed to be predicated on 'President Marcos', all government services his gift. Worse, sentences were twisted about to include his name even when it was complicated and completely unnecessary to do so, all to indicate him as everyone's personal benefactor. It was an interesting ( and sort of spooky) brand of brainwash.

Yep. I can't disagree with that. I don't entirely disagree with the defunding either, because it chaps my butt to see religious groups managing taxpayers money, but the buck-passing and (habitual) lying about it bugs me even worse.