Molly

You've got an insultingly low opinion of your fellows. (Wonder whether it's a case of the dirty dog smelling himself.)

What do you consider 'from the start'? Ignatieff was the annointed next even before Martin stepped aside. Dion was the time-out, the chastisement of the muckety insiders for being just a little too presumptuous, only ever chosen/expected to last long enough to lose an election... but Ignatieff remained the leader in waiting. People would have to be assassinated for Rae to gain the leadership. He can have as much or more authourity as whoever the leader might be from now 'til he feels like retiring, but he will never have that leadership.

You're right, Bill. It does make sense that way.

The vast majority of house pet ownership = Animal abuse masquerading as entertainment (/companionship/mutual support/love) Anyone who might have a cat declawed, or keep a Border Collie in an apartment has to have a lot of nerve to object to to a bull ride, a calf rope or a horse race.

Better to have someone whose motives and direction we DO know, and don't like...

"Environmentally sensitive" seems to mostly mean "home to well-to-do and politically connected".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation Eco-anything seems to be something that Ontario screws up royally. Nearly any eco-friendly initiative can be made self-financing (or benefit producing)... This kind of sneak-it-in, no-rhyme- or-reason, no-way-to-avoid-it-by-doing-the-right-thing fee costs at every step, and accomplishes next to nothing.

Each of those three deserves to be debated in the house, examined for its own merit. None of them belong in the the budget, buried and whipped. The sleaze becomes suffocating even before one looks at the substance.

Heh! I actually agree, Bill. As much as I loathe the Harper/CPC government, if the Liberals won't call them on the stuff that matters, they are just as bad. Complicit.

Typical Harper/CPC sleaze. They live within the letter of rules (most of the time), but smirkingly 'fart in the general direction of' the reasons behind those rules. Incident after incident... I don't take crap like that from any other quarter of my universe, and don't respect it any place that it appears.

double post

TMI... we live in a neighbourhood that is of extra-special interest to the conservation authourity. Council recently expanded CA authourity, to spite one council member-- all very petty and childish. We dont have anything to do with that personality conflict, but got sideswiped. So... one of our neighbours made the grave error of appearing on the C.A radar, by innocently asking about obligations/restrictions. Now he can't even bring in enough topsoil to finish leveling his lawn without being obliged to first pay for an environmental assessment. In principle, everyone (or nearly everyone) is thoroughly in favor of environmental protection, and is willing to go along with a LOT over it... but there comes a point when the red tape, unjustified expense, intrusion and interminable delay is so very far over the top and beyond reason, that you just ... spread the topsoil/ cut the trees/proceed with real life, and pay the fine if one is assessed. If the process takes 14 or 15 years from the time the ball is set in motion... wow. That's a little much. 14 or 15 months is long time in most folks' plans.

I've just read several pages of this conversation-- in amazement. Harper stepped into the PMO during very good times, with his most effective competitor in disgrace, the opposition divided, leaderless and in utter disarray. Political strategists pray every night and every day for circumstances just like that. If Harper couldn't convert to a majority under political circumstances that literally could not be any more advantageous, then he doesn't deserve to stand in the same room, leadershipwise, with Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien (Pearson, Diefenbaker..) much less be congratulated for wishful speculations of that he might do, should he ever be granted that elusive majority. No. He gets to go over to that other place with Clark, Turner, Campbell.... Ha! Now that conditions are slightly less than ab-so-lutely ideal, Harper and his minions could even end up bounced and replaced by a party that has been so devastated, and is so weakened that speculation about it blinking out of existence is perfectly plausible. Strong leader!~ Great leader!~ Effective leader!~ Pah!

So far, after at least 4 years, this group has collectively managed to be.... less hazardous, effective, or interesting than Wiebo Ludwig. Sounds like mooks to me too.

Operative words: "gone bad"; "out of control"; "completely helpless"... It was a colossal waste of money. The buck stops.... where? The only thing more pathetic than claiming that the CPC has been 'fiscally responsible' is the feeble, clutching-at-straws insistence that no matter how badly the CPC government screws up, all others must be worse.

That's quite the curmudgeonly rant... and it convinces me only that you are grumpy. I could argue with it, I suppose, but I'd guess it's largely rhetorical anyway. You already know, and the fact is, a first-time membership doesn't buy much beyond bare welcome and a lot of junk mail, but it's telling that you presume to be the told/sent and expect not to be one of those figuring out the message, and short listing messengers.

One doesn't need to be 'a whore for a political party' in order to be deeply involved in that party, either. On the whole, it's naive to believe that you'll have much influence on what is actually done in absence of having some involvement in party activity. A bit, maybe, in very narrow parameters, but in broader, pholosophical ways, your letters to the editor and passionate rants to your representatives don't accomplish much beyond the venting of your spleen. None of the parties are static. The nature of them is determined entirely by the folks who choose to support them, and not at all by those who don't.

A great truth of internet argument: If your question is prefaced "Are you asking..." or "Are you saying...", the answer is "No." usally with the addendum,"Quit trying to put idiotic words in my mouth.", or something obscene about a strawman.

How many downtown hotels were inside the fence? (The Harbour Westin with its satellite fence is a pretty good hike from the convention centre- and it opnly has 1000 rooms anyway.) By my count, it's 0.

You say 'it' as though the format was/is immutable. Any given doubtful decision seems to becompelled only by the other questionable decisions.

He's engaging in the same sort of hyperbole that he's denouncing.

Thanks be to God!!!! ................ Re: cost of party: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828308--g20-canada-s-billion-dollar-summit-mystery?bn=1 According to Ward Elcock, former head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, summit organizers will deploy about 19,000 security personnel over the three days of meetings that begin Friday. They will have to be fed, housed and paid considerable sums in overtime. By comparison, about 4,000 police were on duty for last fall’s Pittsburgh G20 meeting. There were about 5,000 for the G20 gathering in London. “You’ve got roughly five times the police force,” said Davies in Pittsburgh. He roughly multiplied that city’s $18 million summit costs by five. “That takes you to about $80 million.” What about the remaining $800 million? “Maybe someone added on an extra zero?” suggested Davies.

For pity sake... have you ever been to the GTA to count the hotels? There are hotel rooms strewn from Hamilton to Kingston, and from Lake Ontario all the way to Huntsville. (LOL Half of them were already set up in Deerhurst anyway.)

How about right here: the numbers you cite are not what it costs, but what was spent. I can buy a car for $100,000... but I can buy a car for $500. Trotting out either number to say 'this is what cars cost' is an idiots game. I do not, cannot, will not accept that a weekend whoop-up must necessarily set us back $1.2 billion (excluding damages inconvenience and lost opportunity). If it truly costs $40 a nose for every man woman and child in this entire country, then no, we can not afford it... but I do not for one millisecond believe that it must cost that much. Start trimming out the gazebos and fake lakes, the 'party on the government dime' delegation members and the $100,000/weekend police officers... you might be surprised at how much savings could be found.

Yessssss! Me, too.