Molly

Well, THAT's species-ism of the highest order!

That's a completely incorrect guess where I'm concerned, Kimmy. Utterly, and entirely wrong. Giving votes to parties, not individuals, defeats the purpose of representation, and defeats accountability. Voting on a purely party basis is a luxury that can only be afforded by those living in constituencies whose basic interests are top-of-mind to the majority... because any harm to them is unlikely, regardless of what party wins or how incompetent or dishonest they might be, and the benefits to those constituencies will be well-looked after. Dare be in a less than universal position... (rural or northern, for instance), or be dependent on a non-standard income source (seal hunting, or grain production, for instance, instead of manufacturing or oil production) then you can't afford to be represented by some random party hack , regardless of the party, or that party's policy package. You MUST have a competent representative, with a bone-deep loyalty to constituency over party, or you may as well not bother to vote, or elect any representative at all.

So why do it? Why seek such a statement? Why should it be assumed that there must be a fundamental conflict between HIS science and HIS faith? I believe you will find, Oleg, that the revisionists, trying to prove or disprove Christianity or Atheism in Darwin are on a completely false, and meaningless trail. The 'state of his soul', or whether he worried about it is irrelevant to the fact that he described the observable in a manner that was helpful and enlightening to those who followed. If others find some conflict between HIS science and THEIR belief system, then they are the ones with a problem... trying to reconcile what they choose to believe with the observable/predicable/usable information he brought to folks' attention. Further, his public stature is irrelevant to his accuracy. His proposals stand on their own merit, not on his 'star quality'.

You mean, like Teflon? Except... they lie. About the most important things. They climb on a moral high horse, and before the words have fully left their mouths, do the very thing they condemned, except bigger and moreso, and absolutely deliberately. I'll never, ever forgivethe Emerson affair, and I'll never forget the Cadman affair. IMO, that's not clean. It sets a new standard for foul.

There we have the two grand statements. #1: Your Faith is irrelevant to everyone but you. It is yours, yours alone. #2: 'ID theory', which is a faith, not an evidentiary matter, is equally irrelevant to everyone who doesn't have their intellectual cart before the horse. It becomes a matter of wider 'interest' only in that it is being persistently thrust on the unwilling, into an arena where it does not belong-- not by being within itself persuasive, and certainly not by being a useful working theory, but by way of politics, and law, games of semantics, evangelism and of deceit.

Pa dump BUMP!

Yes. (Explaining a punch line: 'God' is a subheading under 'religion'. 'Man-made' goes without saying.)

... it's not necessarily '9 weeks' either. For someone who works part-time-- maybe even CAN't work full-time, but is still dependent on the income, still required to pay ei premiums-- a layoff is still a major problem, and they've darned well paid for the coverage.

This paragraph does not sit well with me... probably because you particularly refer to 'a poor mother'. I don't want to tell the stories (not all mine to tell), but I've run across too many women in particular, who, when facing tragedy/crisis, had that situation compounded (if not outright created) by their faith/religion. Examples that might fit within my list would be those who are trapped in horrific marriages/life circumstances through their faith; those whose faith demands harm to their children; those whose faith, when challenged by tragedy, is found wanting; those who take the tangent that they are being punished by their God-- that they are deserving of random tragedy... Too many times, I've seen women who had to abandon their faith in order to begin reconstructing their lives; and too often I've seen women seek the comfort and safety of their god in a crisis, only to realize to their horror that they are, as you say, looking into the empty abyss. Religion WAS borne from the need to control the uncontrollable/ to find security where there is none. It lives on largely as a habit- a cultural construct, a social habit- rather than a truly considered reflection of HONEST faith. When faith is employed in lieu of other responses-- as in as a substitute for what might be more durable coping mechanisms, or as a substitute for dealing directly with the problem at hand (like praying for rain, instead of digging a well)-- it is wholly destructive. So, as they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, but I truly wonder, at the moment of death, how many actually remain faithful believers. Dawkins and his sort are not in the business of providing crutches and safety nets, but they do alert folks that the crutches they have in their personal stockpile might be made of rubber and cobwebs. I'd say that forewarning is worth something.

Fair enough, Hydraboss- this one is pretty much an off-topc topic- but take a look through those appendices, and draw your own conclusion. Where would YOU suppose the fellow was when he fell? (That's a retorical question, btw.) That paperwork is, to say the least, awfully interesting.

Anyway, I call inclusion of party names 'misleading', because it suggests that folks are electing a party, or even a policy package, rather than a representative... but they are not.

I'd prefer to see no information beyond the candidates name. If voters are so poorly informed that they don't know which one they want to vote for (whether their reason is party affiliation, or charming good looks) then better that their votes be completely random, leaving the real decision making to the folks who've informed themselves and devoted a moments thought to it. Machio... while you are proposing scenarios... how about the circumstance where folks elect someone based on an assumed understanding of the principles of the party, AND their official platform, only to have the elected PARTY do the opposite. In such a circumstance, a representative who crosses the floor is 1) betraying that party but 2) keeping faith with the folks who voted for him. I lived in a provincial constituency where exactly those events occurred. (Glen MacPherson, NDP/Lib, Sask.). For him to have faced the choice between continuing to support the NDP (completely unacceptable to his consitituents) or resigning (leaving his constituents with no voice at all, while they were being gutted by their provincial government) would have been unfair to them IN THE EXTREME.

And yes, IMO, open nominations are extremely important. I dislike the very idea of parachute and/or appointed candidates-- it's disdainful of true democracy-- but I also see those things having a place. My tolerance is because I don't like seeing 'the right thing' ending up bypassed just because the rules-to-excess writers didn't happen to foresee unforseeable circumstances. I'm rather fond of the idea of the buck eventually stopping with some ONE individual actually making a decision, and wearing it. It takes a little trust, but call me a cockeyed optimist. Most folks who take a keen interest in politics are motivated by 'the greater good'.

I understand... but no, my view of political parties is a long shot from the Borg version. Party membership is a tradeoff. Work with like-minded folk... and for their help, be willing to support them on issues that are important to them, but of no great consequence to you. When push comes to shove, a single issue can far, far, far outweigh any party loyalty. IMO a representatives priorities should be 1) common sense; 2) the best interest of the constituency; 3) the best interest of the nation/province/municipality/what have you; 4) the best interest of the party.... in that order. Personal best interests don't even make the list, because, darn it, it's "public service". If you aren't willing to sacrifice yourself in service to the public, don't apply.

Why 'hypocrites'? The very nature of a 'party' is an 'all for one/one for all' agreement... which means what goes on in one riding does have an effect on other ridings. The questions/problems are common to all parties/ all ridings, and the solutions have not been perfectly ironed out by any of them. (If there's hypocricy involved, it is adherence to a belief that the rules that any one party has chosen are perfect-- then not quite following them.)

I would have hoped that you posted that editorial because it was (and it was) refreshing and interesting... not as a cynical reconfirmation of stereotypes you plan to take to the grave anyway. There are far more than two solitudes in this nation, civil or otherwise.

The trouble with so harshly restricting membership benefit (6 months minimum to vote) is that so very much of the membership base comes directly from recruitment during nomination campaigns. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the membership recruitment that keeps a riding association alive. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, perhaps, Muddy.

It doesn't matter how often GGs have disagreed with the advice/wishes of the minister, JBG. What matters is that GGs consent/agreement must be sought. They have the right to say no, and the responsibility to do so if it is in the best interests of the nation. (How often does one dismiss the proposals of ones doctor or accountant or lawyer? For most, it's not often, but even if it NEVER occurs, that still does not give those advisors final authourity in the affairs of those they serve.) An election would have been the least likely option largely because (at least two) other perfectly acceptable options existed. You might not like it, and certainly Mr. Harper didn't, but that parliamentary makeup was the the expressed will of the people of Canada. Before the will of the people is dismissed, it is incumbent on all concerned to make the attempt to earn their paychecks and reimbursements by actually making the attempt to govern. Don't, btw, be so sure that a new election would have resulted in benefit to the Conservative party. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they might have been SEVERELY punished for the hubris that precipitated that crisis.

Excuse me... he was spoon-fed the Xtian creation myth as the only explanation to the same degree that everyone else of his age/time/place was. His theory did not spring, fully-formed, to his conciousness, upon his birth. He pulled together tenuous strings of evidence, to come to a radical, completely revolutionary conclusion. How could anyone rationally expect him to never have marvelled at, and doubted, his own conclusions?! What's more, his conclusions are not in conflict with the notion of the existence of a creator, except to the degree that SOME devotees to particular creation myths invent one. Certainly feel free to explore any aspect of the man and his ideas that you wish... or any other danged thing that tickles your fanny... but for the life of me, I don't understand what you get out of this single-minded, no-holds-barred windmill hunt.

BTW, going directly to election would have been a completely silly choice, since parliament had, at that point, done nothing whatsoever since the last. A new one could not be expected to provide a different result . Realistically, her choice was prorogue, or ask the coalition to form government.

No, JBG. The normal sequel to a non-confidence vote is a DECISION. Sometimes the right choice is completely obvious, and sometimes not so much, but if the job of GG is practiced only by binding formula, then it would be pointless to maintain the office. The example set by King-Byng is that the GG can do almost any darned thing he/she figures will be best for the nation. The lady/ the office is not a rubber stamp. SURPRISE!

The beauty of having a GG is that a GG does not have hands tied into a hard and fast formula of action. The GG is an _individual_, with just enough room to practice plain old common sense. I don't really believe, for all the sniping back and forth, that any other option did make sense. Another election would have been stupid, wasteful, pointless. Appointing the coalition to form government with a lame duck as PM would have been hopelessly unstable and of doubtful validity. Proroguing.... distasteful as it was... gave a good solid backhanded slap to all of the practitioners of hubris, and sent everyone into a corner for a well-deserved time-out. If no one learned anything, or pulled in their horns, there would be plenty of opportunity to remove the government, and replace it with newly elected representatives. Gold star to the lady. Gold star to the position.

60,000 voters... but only a few dozen (at most) who would actively seek them out to get their take on a particular question. (And of those, probably half are considering volunteering to help with the campagn.)

Refreshing to see the subject addressed that way, though... in French.

What utter tripe! If you are concerned about a leader never having held down a real job, look a little farther to the right.