Molly

I think it would be a bad thing. That general attitude of respect allows us to have the services of folks who are not pathological glory-seekers.

Hardly. I'm not missing the point, but outright disagreeing with it. For those who enter politics, that which they do publicly is very public... but their private lives are, for the most part, left quite private. They do not have to deal with groupies and paparazzi; their private files are not rifled; they have discreet affairs that are not commented upon. Their sicko brother-in-law is never mentioned, and the only way we'd know if they have tattoos and appendectomy scars is if they choose to display them. Unless they start dragging their spouses and children up onto the podium, no one cares much whether those others exist. They have only, really, to answer for the opinions they publicly express. Both of the samples you brought up were clear examples of the publicly stated opinion, and the less-publicly held one being in apparent disagreement, indicating outright mendacity-- which is something the public has a right to know about and to consider. The worst recent case of intrusion was that of Ruby Dhalla, but frankly, love her or hate her, was justified because it spoke directly to her integrity. Those who are not misrepresenting themselves, and who are not among the tiny handful of top dogs, have little to be concerned about.

LOL No. That became a national story because he was fool enough to say some jackass-stupid things to a camera, then leave the tape behind for political opponents to find! He may as well have delivered it 'in a plain brown wrapper'. That wasn't an intrusion into his private life! That was self-inflicted wounds!

I propose that the deeply disinterested would become VERY interested in a hurry, if they began to run into things that dissatisfy and discomfort them. So long as they have no great problems.... they will remain 'apathetic'. they feel no need to know the mechanics of how their needs were met. I am, for instance, deeply disinterested in the foundation of my house... but should it fail- not perform to my satisfaction- I'd be obsessing about it in a hurry. I care not a whit about vehicle repairs, until my vehicle ceases to function; snow removal, until my snow isn't removed; taxation, until it becomes more than I'm getting back in services; constitutional matters, until I feel hard done by. Non-voters are signalling.... satisfaction.

Apathy is one word, and disgust and disengagement can accurately describe some folks' failure to vote, but as a rule votes are cast to change things that are wrong, not to support things that are right. Failure to vote is usually attributable to general satisfaction with the status quo.

It's illogical to the point of rediculous to expect that a political movement would gain 30 -40% of popular support 'off the top', since even well- established, centrist, big-tent ones have difficulty accomplishing that. Fact is, the Canadian system is highly volatile, and extremely welcoming to new styles of thought, as indicated by the very existence of the Conservative party, the Bloc, the Greens, and even the NDP. You might want to revisit your expectations.

I'd like to thank you for posting that Gordiecanuck ( and to ask Bonam to start a different thread about that hobby horse, somewhere else.) It's an interesting read, and I largely agree with the descriptions within it, but it certainly points out my own position, on the very outside edge of the Liberal party, but not so far over as to be able to accept Harperism. Folks have been given to calling the parties, if not the philosophies, centrist Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but they are NOT.

But neither was that an intrusion into his private life. Generally, when you stand at a podium and orate, it's considered a public airing of your POV.

This is an attitude that annoys me no end. If you want greater, and more nuanced influence than you currently exercize, there's plenty of room to go get it... but it takes the investment of time and effort and thought. If nuance is your bag, then start by evaluating your own representative, voting based on local worth-- and if your rep is found wanting, by seeking out someone more worthy. If you are too damned lazy to work within the system as it is, even so far as exercizing more than kindergarten nuance in the marking of the X you have, then why should we give a rip about your whines that the system doesn't offer you effortless additional nuance- enhanced influence?

Wow. There's some serious thread drift, and a set of statements that scream for reply! I would suggest that reduced birthrates, rates below replacement, represent a success!. 'No time, no money' as reasons not to breed willy-nilly basically translates to 'other, more desireable things to do with my time and money'. Through the 18th, nineteenth and early 20th centuries, health and healthcare improved, so infant mortality fell, exploding population. It wasn't until the latter part of the 20th century that it was within reach to do anything to prevent having more children than you were willing to raise!

Hmm. Bits I agree with there, and some that I disagree with. I don't really see such a huge difference. It's still 'use it or lose it'. Frankly, the US is as much a threat to our northern sovereignty as anyone across the way, and I don't agree that the old, similar threat was 'more percieved and political than real'. It was VERY real. This is compelling, and there is a great deal of urgency to it, to deflect alternate claims before they gather a great deal of steam, but that one was, too. In seeing a huge similarity between them... it matters not whether the settlements be 'farmers and shopkeepers' or drillers and miners. It only matters that they be there and put down roots. Military outposts help, but are mostly symbolic and ' breaking trail'. On their own, they are a piddling form of claim. People living and working there permanently - citizens at risk- confirm a real claim. Challenging, yes, but essential. To enable permanent settlement, there must be dependable, year-round transportation links. Not ice roads or outpost barges, but a link by land. I question the necessity of provincehood. I see your point, since the federal government is poor at local administration and sustained focus, but at the same time, only direct, heavy, ongoing federal investment can accomplish what needs to be done, AND province status carries downside demands, implications/effects. I question whether present population is enough to stably carry/maintain provincial status. And the necessity of it? I don't really see much benefit until there's enough population to demand and effectively sustain it. I'd say we're on the same page, and arguing details, though: HUGE investment, and the establishment of popultion are urgently needed.

Neither do I, but you don't have to go so far as espousing transubstantiation to consider communion to be a very big deal - a very serious, sacred thing- not just symbolism, and not just a routine 'going through the motions'. I don't know if ritual gets any bigger than that. I can guarantee you that my mother would recoil in horror at the idea of dissing the consecrated host, and she's not Catholic.

I agree, Jerry. It's 'national railroad' kind of vision/will, but absolutely essential. The railroad was built in answer to "54'40" or fight". We face a similar challenge now, and must answer it in a similar way.

Just as an additional note, though, being recognized by strangers is disconcerting/uncomfortable. I used to do a lot of writing/speaking, and so would often have someone out of context trot up to me to strike up a conversation as though I had ever laid eyes on them before in my life.... I really hated that. Some enjoy it, but I definitely did not.

You know, that doesn't really happen a lot, except to a handful of top dogs. Most politicians aren't really under any greater personal scrutiny than, say, business owners... like the guy who owns the big local car dealership. Most are just exactly that anonymous, even on their home turf. The higher they climb, of course, the more intrusion there is, but a backbench MP is nobody in the grand scheme of things. Lots wouldn't be recognized by more than a few even in their home constituency. The vast majority of people can't be bothered finding out what their policies are, much less gossip about their private lives; don't know their name, much less their face and personal history. I'm a political junky like everyone else here, but I have two spectacular occasions under my belt of spending signifigant time socializing/arguing with cabinet ministers... one provincial, one federal... in which I didn't realize their identity until told late in the conversation. Who knows whether there might have been more times, only with no buttinski around to point out identities.

.. and anyone wondering if it works could ask John turner whether elected governments are answerable for the appointments they make.

It shouldn't have been reported as news to the mainstream. The whole circumstance is personal and private. And in the end, I don't believe it anyway. I can't believe that he could be ignorant about the sacramental importance of communion, or that he would treat it frivolously- as a matter of faith. much less political appearances. A stunning accusation.

Ew! At risk of REALLY being accused of being a Harper-hater, that's stunningly gauche! One isn't ever forced to take communion. but if doing so, to profane it is dispicable! I thought he was a Christian!

Yes, but that's common. Not radical at all.

Standing! Applauding! YES, August!

Wow, what a silly tempest! You'd think I said Calgarians eat roast kittens on a stick!

The security of the secrecy of that X is the primary responsibility of the folks who work at the polls. It's not to challenge potentially un-qualified people, but to secure the rights of everyone who appears to claim their vote. I get the feeling that most of the folks who advocate electronic voting have never worked at a poll to see the process from that side.

I'm glad you jumped in there, Dave. Well said. I was wondering whether I really wanted to get deeply into it... That old description of the Senate as the house of Sober Second Thought is very accurate, and the value of it is stunningly underestimated. They save us being governed by high-profile whim du jour. It's not their only function by a long shot, but it's the most valuable, IMO.

There is no technology that will protect voters from interference at their own end of the link, and guarantee privacy _while_ they vote. Benny brougt it up a good long while back. Even if you can solve the security issues, the list issues etc. etc. etc., if you can't prevent someones vote from being strongarmed at the moment they are marking their X, then you have a bad system. If a computerized system can prevent an abuser from standing beside the computer while the members of his household are marched through to place their X where they are told to place it... then, and only then, will it be secure enough.

And the NDP is wrong. Interesting that the NDP and CPC seem to think alike in so many ways....