Molly

Doh.

LOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_fede...ults_in_Calgary "Calgary is, by far, the most conservative major city in Canada. This political leaning goes back to the days prior to Alberta's creation as a province, when ..." So what part of "by far" don't you guys understand? WTF? Have you never _been_ to Calgary? Or is the word 'radical' the problem? "rad·i·cal (rd-kl) adj. 1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem. 2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education. ..."

Geoffry, I lived in Calgary for several years, and in ranchland/oilpatch for many, many more. It's not as though I don't know whereof I speak. And I didn't make the comment as a criticism, because I happen to like and share many elements of the Calgary perspective.... but anyone who suggests that the Calgary approach to life is typical, or 'non-radical', is dreaming, whether they live in Calgary, or Toronto, or in Timbuktu!

I honestly disagree with both of those statements. Well, Joe and Jane might so think, but I do not. I've known too many who were sincere in their intentions, and who did their best to be honorable in their actions. And my greatest fight with Harper is that I DO percieve it as much more than any who have (successfuly) gone before. Harper feels like we are living 'Animal Farm'. He lost my optimistic withholding of judgement the day he swore in his first cabinet, and my opinion of him and his followers has gone downhill from that.

Well... Calgary actually IS a radical ideological world, very atypical of Canada as a whole, and at the very outside edge of the normal political spectrum. Is this news? I doubt that it is to most of the folks from Calgary! They know darned well that if they look to the right, they see no one, but if they look to the left, they see a horde.

One extremely high profile case of the application of a mandatory minimum was Robert Latimer. In spite of horror from the jury, and an attempt by the judge to apply a more realistic sentence, the mandatory minimum was upheld by the Supreme Court, because, in spite of flying in the face of ' the beliefs of most Candians regarding fundamental justice', it was _the law_. Mandatory minimums are thoughtless, knee-jerk, anonymous vengeance- an expression of the worst that humanity has to offer. They express a shockingly cavalier attitude to justice. They do not uphold it.

I object to the spin of the words 'soft on crime'. One need not be 'soft on crime' to see mandatory minimum sentences as utter stupidity. One need not be 'soft on crime' to respect the role of judges (and juries) and expect them to have a better take on a given situation than do short-term MPs on a mission of public posturing, who never have and never will hear the particulars of what they are pre-judging. The bills offered are less 'tough on crime' than they are 'don't give me details. Details hurt my head.' Details like cost and outcome and actual justice....

It doesn't follow that since one dog peed on the carpet (and was severely punished for it) other dogs should habitually pee on the carpet, with impunity. The ad is a disgrace.

Obviously not hiding it very well.

Nope. I don't agree with that. We might not retort, but we do definitely take note, and we judge the character of the speaker based on what he has said. And we just might quit doing business with the guy or even try to get him fired, depending on how sensitive a role he is filling.

re: part-timers. No flipping kidding! Contrary to common opinion, part-time work is often a matter of necessity, in which full-time is impossible or next-to. Replacing a part-time skilled job is a very tough road. Folks who want skills generally want full-time employees. Folks who hire part-time generally do so to avoid having to pay benefits or appropriate wages. Finding a new part time job often becomes a choice between working hours beyond ones capability (whether that means neglecting ones other commitments like school or child-care, or hospitalizing onesself) or doing shitwork for abusive wages. When one pays for insurance, one hopes to actually be insured. I wonder just how many seniors whose retirement fund isn't going to cover their needs, who can't physically work full-time but bring huge skills to the job, are finding themselves out of work and out of luck? (How many of those are particularly desperate because their retirement fund melted down at the same time as they lost their necessary supplement part-time job?)

Disengagement is a direct result of governments saying one thing, and doing another. Fiscal conservatives, for instance, must feel that their vote has been betrayed. And that is a direct result of the all-powerful political machines-- leadership cults over seeking true constituency representation, party affiliation being more important than even honesty or competence, much less personal opinion. Parties, and representatives, are more rewarded for being mendacious chameleons, rather than for having principles or even wits. When intentions are unknown, it becomes an exercize in tic-tac-toe.

That's hilarious! First insist that, because the parties do what parties do, we should provide them with even more, and more direct power by taking it away from constituencies.... then, because constituencies will obviously be very badly (if not un-) represented, propose adding another 'elected chamber'! When your fixit requires that large a patch before it even starts, it's tough to think of it as an 'improvement'.

The fact is is wouldn't be a bloody bit different from present. Folks at the polls have no way of knowing the veracity of anything-- whether non-picture ID belongs to the person holding it or not, whether it's valid or forged, whether the person standing in front of them is a citizen.... It is a fact that the system leans heavily on goodwill and personal integrity. So far that trust has been justified.

Oh for pity sake.... you know what happens if you have no paper whatsoever to indicate who you are or where you live? You take an oath, and/or get someone on the list to confirm it. That's what you do any time there's reason to question. In this country we have trouble with too few folks voting, not too many. Since there hasn't been a rash of veiled people being one of two or more trying to vote under the same name, or lots of veiled folk voting while not on the list, then it really isn't a problem so far. Until there appears to be such a problem, getting ones tail in a twist over it is seeking an excuse to exercize plain old racism.

How many would be this bent about money going to a Y? Or some other sport excellence training facility? This might be structured as a private club, but it provides the same services as if it was publicly owned, for a similar out-of-pocket individual cost. By providing those services, they are saving the municipal government from having to do it with tax money. Our local curling rink is structured as a private club, too, and as such, is probably better run, cheaper and more publicly available than if it was municipally owned and administered.... and no one would bat an eyelash if they recieved serious grant money to upgrade that facility. I honestly don't see pork here.

Yes... IF sensible sentencing in that particular situation would be under two years, and the criminal is no threat to public safety. A conditional sentence for manslaughter is very rare, but it does happen. But don't leave the implication that manslaughter=murder. Manslaughter is accidental death, by definition. That could easily be a hockey fight, or a car accident, or minor chicanery that turns out very, very badly. It doesn't necessarily include serious wrongdoing- just a serious outcome.

Far be it from me to let the Conservatives off the hook for much, but I don't have a big problem with this.

That wouldn't include conditional sentences then, since they are only an option on snetences under 2 years, and the criminal no threat to puclic safety.

You beat me to that, Smallc. The very vast majority of what goes on in the courts doesn't get near the newspapers, because it's run-of-the mill, and stunningly uninteresting. Dumb people who did something dumb, pay an appropriate price for their foolishness-- and will never, ever do it again. And I do fully understand what you are asserting, Argus... but the very vast majority of crimes ARE on the paltry end of the scale, not just by actual occurrence rate, but by the very nature of the system. There is considerable overlap between crimes and grey area for judgement calls between them.... for instance it can be quite fuzzy as to when trespassing becomes break and enter; when assault becomes sexual assault, or whether it's aggravated or even 'with a weapon'; or when simple possession becomes 'for purposes of trafficking'. What might be an extraordinarily stiff sentence for one charge is low for another, but police and prosecutors tend to be ambitious in laying charges, seeking the maximum charge that can be shakily supported. When one might reach for a higher sentence, the need has been precluded by a more serious charge. Again, I wonder why you would expect anything other than a very high concentration of sentences at the very lowest end, with only occassional incidents of much higher?

I don't understand why you would expect any other pattern. The more puny an act, the more common it is; the more egregious, the less common . A bell curve it ain't, but rather a steeply downsloping line.... as in lots and lots of petty thefts, but very few murders. Within the scope of and description of any single crime, the graphic results should be the same: lots and lots of 'bad decisions', and far fewer deeply malicious, intentional criminal acts.

Hardly a worthy goal of the JUSTICE system. Judges are the ones who actually get to hear the complicating and mitigating details of the events, unlike legislators who are apparently operating on stereotypes and assumptions, without benefit of the rest of the story.

I'd make the case that they are FAR more educated regarding the issues and the methods with which they are dealing. No one so far as I can see is suggesting that politicians are a superior form of human, but they are specialists in 'the art of the possible', within their particular milieu. Those who demand something closer to rule by referendum neglect the notion of compromise-- the hope/effort to cause the least harm while also benefiting the greatest number. 'Rule by direct referendum' votes are not weighted as to need/intensity... whether a vote is of critical importance, or just tic-tac-toe... they lack nuance entirely, neglect amelioration of hardship. They cannot reflect the fact that the vast majority of the folks extending those votes don't have a sniff of a clue of the implications or complications of what they are voting on. A rep is a lot more than just a simple messenger! A negotiator is more like it, but even that falls short.

Some will recieve more than the minimum as they do now, but none will recieve less, even if less is more appropriate. Juries will not be informed that a mandatory minimum exists, and so will be put in the position of delivering verdicts that are miscarriages of justice. And asking judges to find someone innocent when it has clearly been proven that they have committed a crime.. is asking that judges over-rule legislators in order to correct the opportunism and short-sighted hubris that those legislators should be responsible enough to control in themselves.

That comes even more to the forefront with regard to late-term abortions, the hypocricy even more keen. Who are the unadoptable children? A disproportionate number of them are the very ones that a mother might have mourned, but aborted.