Molly

CRTC =/= newspapers. Apple rules generally have very little regulatory effect on oranges. From your link: "...ast, if we preserve the CRTC rule regarding falsehoods we are retaining a regime wherein broadcasters are held to a higher standard than print publishers. How can that dichotomy be justified?" To the degree that it's true, (though the assertion of higher standard is very, very, VERY arguable) the greater public impact - broader, more passive exposure by way of a very finite and necessarily regulated medium - is plenty of justification.

Yeah- integrity never counts when your guy is the dirty shirt. At some point your concience and your dignity must cringe at the idiocy that partisan hack-hood puts you through.

I just wondered whether you had bothered to read it before linking it since it doesn't really seem to be particularly on point, to make any point, or to provide any information that's useful to this conversation. I honestly expected you to be expressing something useful or interesting and not just filling space with chaff, but apparently I was wrong. No biggie. I'll just remember for next time, and expect less from your links.

Meh. Scribblet has the wrong end of the stick with that comment anyway. Loosening up the requirement in this way would reduce the number of complaints-in-waiting, not add to them. Adding the word 'knowingly' is the freedom to claim black is white, so long as you play stupid.

Ah. We arrived in Ontario from Saskatchewan at the end of the Harris and Romanow administrations, moving in no small part to access an academic opportunity for one of our kids. The shrieking about the Ontario education system having been gutted and destroyed- stripped down, starved of funds and robbed of it's heart- was at maximum decibel level... but what did we see and experience? Our sprout entered a system that offered opportunities beyond our wildest dreams, a system that spent money as though there was no end to it- had a habit of waste and entitlement that made us cringe at every turn - and yet maintained negligible performance standards for anyone. (We were gobsmacked by the open political partisanship of staff, too. Eye-poppingly unprofessional.) The entire premise of outrage, therefore, was... bogus. Laughable, even. And, most of the issues I had/have are based in the notion that the cost-cutting/accountability demanding was barely begun, and that a pendulum swing to restored or additional spending was premature.

WTF? Read your link?

So maybe YOU should make a FOI request to find out who wants to know.

Deleted for reduncy

I have no problem with that, at all. I mean, it's nice if you are flush, but when there are debts and shortfalls in more fundamental places that's a fairly harmless/painless place to trim a budget... and there are very few families that have more unavoidable eye issues than my clan. Now, that old pit-bull ban- that's as dopey a thing as I've ever seen a government waste time on. I have, at best, mixed feelings about some of the money that was put back into schools, though some of the things I'm disappointed by do not really belong on the provincial government doorstep. (Why do so many Ontario politicians seem to have so much difficulty discerning the things that are under their own jurisdiction from the things that are the bailywick of other levels of government?) I have to call myself a beneficiary of the greenbelt designations since our property is 100% pure developement land, and instituting the greenbelt advanced developers' interest in it by 20 miles and 20 years. (Thank-you, Dalton.) And, of course, I have electricity bills...

Silly to look at me with such a question. Ontario provincial politics is a wasteland. Mr. Mcguinty's only defense is that he was minutely less rediculous or dangerous than John Tory.

I am honestly surprised that a FOI request actually CAN be made anonymously. Someone has to sign it. Someone has to specify what they are looking at. Someone even has to pay for it. Why is that info more secret than what is being requested? While it could open requesters of information to intimidation just for asking- a valid concern- it's oxymoronic. Soooooo... if someone submitted an access to info request requesting the name of whomever requested that info, they should get it? No?

Might help if indicated who you were talking to.

And someone asked why I call this lot 'mendacious'...

...thereby absolving the Conservatives of any and all sin, for all time, no matter how blatant, nor how heinous. Aaaaaaaaaa-men.

So why shouldn't stuff like water works and garbage collection be provided by private enterprises?

Thank-you... and it's done.

With your permission, I'd like to steal that as a tagline/thought for the day.

Cities and towns across the country currently share an annual pot of just over $2 billion from the federal gas taxes collected at the pumps. While municipalities are free to pick their own projects, the federal government stipulates the gas-tax money can only be used for infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water treatment systems THAT's the part that should be getting some attention. Gas tax money is already committed- commited to help with grossly underfunded essentials. Raiding that pot to buy some votes with cirucuses is irresponsible, and completely unacceptable.

Well, that assessment is quite the conversation-stopper. I can't help but think, though that 'Conservative' is such a habit in Alberta- a tradition and a fashion more than an actual philosophy- a required label rather than an actual description of the politics- that sooner or later folks will acknowledge the meaninglessness of it and start voting for truth in labelling. As in... instead of voting for the NDP-thinking guy who sought and got the Conservative nomination, just vote NDP instead.

You are right in that sometimes that's exactly how it goes... but you are also dead wrong. GP gets and keeps the records, co-ordinates between experts, and in the end, is the only one who can interpret what's going on and make use of the information for what comes after. If you've never needed the involvement of a good GP who knows you, that's great for you- honestly a good thing, and I hope you never do need more than a walk-in clinic. Just sayin', when you do need them, you really, really need them.

That's fine so long as you suffer only occassional, common-as-grass, acute medical needs, but as soon as you run into something complex or chronic, continuity becomes very, very important.

Need it on the way IN to the voting booth, to steel our nerves for the task ahead, and again on the way out to wash the horrible taste out of your mouth. A couple more later, so a person can sleep with that on their concience.

Dunno about that. My own experience of rural areas is that there's precious little opportunity for the truly ignorant. There are some, certainly, but if you really really want to find an uniformed and un-analytical/ ignorant/ sexist/racist/religious nutcake, you shouldn't be looking among pragmatic, independent and self-employed folks- which is what the majority of rural people are. Look instead among those who are well-rewarded for fairly menial, repetitive work that entails little responsibility.... aka urban settings.

That's a big yupper there, Wylie-boy. You are.

I hear you, Bill,. I hear you. Not just cheerless, but downright dishonest, too-- that 'cost to the taxpayer' thing being exhibit A. The more recent stuff - laws against smoking outdoors, and/or in ones own space, vehicle or workshop; laws advancing even futher into folks' lives by threatening that simple freedom in rented spaces.. just un-freaking-believeably intrusive! Obesity is at least as costly to the public. Would folks tolerate similarly intrusive rules with respect to poor food choices? No soft-drinks in a vehicle/ doughnuts must be hidden behind a curtain/ produce ID to buy a chocolate bar/ no street meat on public streets and no greasy burgers in public places/ no microwave food in rented apartments; taxes on these things, of course, should inflate their retail value by a factor of at least 10 ... That's a serious digression, though. I'm in nearly categorical agreement with Charter. rights on this one: that if it's posturing (likely), then it's a race to the lowest common motive, an appeal to uninformed, thoughtless, knee-jerk prejudices which would suggest that Mr. Hudak would not be a great choice for premier; and if it's honest intention/belief/policy, then it's thoughtless knee-jerk prejudice, which ]would suggest that Mr. Hudak would be a poor choice etc.