Molly

"A fetus is human, by the way." So is my severed arm, but it would be rediculous to confer rights to it. There's a difference between being 'human' and being 'a human'.

The whole cloning thing is going to be a quite the ethical dilemma. When there ceases to be any concrete reproductive difference between an embryo and a sloughed-off skin cell, the task of saving all those 'humans' from their murderous hosts will become overwhelming.

I just figure it's worth remembering come election time: EI was very, very badly managed. We might wish to replace the manager.

The 'conscription' coalition IS the only previous federal coalition government- as in: formed temporarily, post election, in order to govern- but then, there's only been 11 minority governments, and coalitions are a fairly extreme way of dealing with minorities. During off-hours, though, parties in Canada have been very good at joining forces, dissolving and rejoining some other party in order to realize an election victory. Just look at the historic party names: Unionist;Liberal-Progressive; Progressive Conservative; CCF-NDP; Alliance, and now Conservative all over again..... all are coalitions. Coalition is very different from a commitment by one to provide temporary support to another. It's the difference between taking part in the decision-making, and not. It's the difference between forming a partnership with someone vs. hiring, or contracting their labour. It's not a small distinction. It is the distinction between the Liberal/NDP coalition and the Bloc side deal. The Bloc took, and wanted no management role-- neither it's priveleges, nor it's responsibilities. It doesn't matter a jot to me which of those roles they had chosen-- I would have welcomed their participation in governance-- but it is a matter of FACT. If we are confusing a willingness to provide limited support with entering into coalition, then there have been 11 'coalition government' in Canada, including a Liberal/Conservative coalition in the last parliament, and not just that single one. Your assertion that 'provincial politics is quite different' is simply false. In every parameter that matters, provincial governments operate identically to federal ones, right down to having a Lieutenant Governor to call the shots when the politicians can't get their acts together. And Saskatchewan is only the most recent, not the sole provincial coalition government to use for illustration. Expand, if you will, on why you see ideology, rather than 'big tent' politics changing the realtive ease with which influence can be wielded outside caucus rather than in it. I don't follow.

"Does the agreement have penalty provisions? I don't know. " Dissolution. The same penalty that applies to single party governments who are rife enough with internal disagreement to lose the confidence of the majority. NOT, NOT, NOT a 'coup', but the expression of the wishes of the majority of parliamentarians. Parliament is just plain NOT a republican enterprise, JBG. There is no ballot for 'prime minister', nor for preferred party. We elect representatives, JBG, not governments. A new election, without some reason to believe that the outcome would change, would be an asinine waste of time, money and effort. Not only was it not 'the best', but should rightly be placed as the third priority option. Both other options would, and should, be tried first.

Hear, hear.

Ahhh Muddy-- it wasn't an argument. Just a (should have been kept private) contemplation. Any 'point' was bound in the final paragraph... "Was this woman 'the accuser' or merely the complainant?" To my mind, that makes a difference. I'm still contemplating, though, the two continuums of facial coverings and religious vs. traditional activities. Certainly the wearing of hats and veils was, in the 50's and 60's, fashion-- AND a 'tradition'/social expectation--- but I also know that my mother would have been acutely uncomfortable to enter, particularly, a church without a head-covering. She would have felt vulnerable, and been embarrassed to a degree similar to a present -day 20 year-old being requred to doff her shirt in public. I'm just wondering how fair it is to ask this, particularly under circumstances under which embarrassment and vulnerability are already enough to drive one away entirely. Whether it is deemed fair or not, it certainly isn't kind, and shouldn't be dismissed cavalierly, as though it is meaningless. It risks, at very least, treading on someones moral code, and that's not small beans. But where in that does fashion become morality, since the 'rightness' of modesty and 'wrongness' of immodesty is part and parcel of both fashion and morality---and where, further inside that, does morality become religious conviction, since modesty=morality and morality is defined by so many as religious conviction? Is it fashion, tradition, moral stricture or religious rule that prevents me from leaving the house without my pants? (And would the correct answer for me be the same correct answer for you?) I find it a puzzle. Further to that, while we object to burka, and even the facial veil, hats and scarves are maybe okay.... and I can put on a batch of makeup that would prevent you ever knowing what I look like. Many, many, many folks dye their hair (or wear wigs) wear false teeth, and glasses (some even with deeply coloured lenses) that seriously alter the look of and cover most of their face.... What criteria should we be using to decide what is and is not allowed? Appearance can misrepresent as easily as truthfully present a person. Some defendants, for instance 'clean up real good'. So, I wonder how much of the question is based in cultural unfamiliarity (pointedly NOT using 'Islamophobia', because I don't think it extends that far except for a few people) rather than reason. I don;t have the answers. Just questions.

That point "It's okay to deny human rights to the unborn. Right?" is utterly specious under these circumstances. I reserve the right to use deadly force to prevent myself from being killed, as does the pregnant 9-year-old, and pretty much everyone else, including MonytBurns. Though one might suppose human status for a glob of cells, and trump up a case of 'conflicting interests' to prevent the girl from recieving assistance, in this case, the question is one of "1 survivor vs. 0 survivors", so no such conflicting interest exists.

JBG and Peter F.... you both seem to be missing the point of what a coalition IS. (It's not the first one in Canadian governments, by a long shot. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.) One party is not bound to support legislation of another, and neither is supporting legislation merely inspired by themselves. BOTH are at the table, functioning, for that time, as a single party. They would be 'bound to support' legislation of their OWN construction. Both provide cabinet members; both caucuses participate. The Bloc deal was a side agreement, for support on confidence issues, and not participation in the coalition. The NDP under Romanow formed a coalition with the Liberal party in Saskatchewan a few years ago. It was not just an offering of confidence in the NDP. The entire Liberal caucus was in cabinet. JBG, the suggestion that the smaller party members would prefer they remained a rump in opposition leans to the notion that this is a team sport, rather than governance. The ideas and policies can be far, far, far more effectively expressed from cabinet than from a distant outpost on the opposition benches.

I wonder how many Christian outfits still use the sort of dress code I grew up with. Ladies wouldn't enter a church, or often be seen in 'dressup' public without a hat, preferably, ONE WITH A netted VEIL covering at least the eyes. Short sleeves were questionable, too, even for us kids. I know that the Catholic branch that one of my daughters best buds belongs to demands very high level modesty: no bright colors, dresses always, and always too long, with neckline to wrists firmly covered. A lot like Hutterites/Mennonites and so on. I wonder if we would demand that a Hutterite woman remove her scarf in court, or whether the outrage is reserved for followers of Islam? Question: Is this woman 'the accuser', or merely the complainant? If the latter, the judge erred. There is only conversation to be had if she is the former.

"Sure it's likely an extremely rare occurrence.......I hope it's rare for 9 year old girls to be raped"..... It's not.

The notion that backbench MPs are powerless ignores the fact that they have the kind of access, credibility and influence with the folks with the final word, that lobbyists WISH they could get. They have the highly enhanced power of persuasion- the opportunity to convince their fellows. The achievement of concensus isn't just party leaders duking it out--- It's backbenchers letting their own party know what they will or will not go along with, and what they demand in return. It doesn't all show in the HOC. Politics is sooooooo much more than just a show of hands..... Folks voting 'party first and only', or 'party leader only' are abdicating responsibility. We (they) get precisely the representation they voted for and deserve. If they vote for a crook or a political whore, then that's what they get. If they've got one, then it's because that's who they voted for. I can think of three that I voted for in spite of their party affiliation- one Liberal, one Reform, and one NDP. I'd still be pleased to be represented by any one of them. The few times I've voted for 'party' without regard to the candidate have all provided stinkingly poor representation. We point the finger at politicians for being slimeballs, but we're the ones who choose them for the job.

Jeepers, Blue! For someone who so often asks for a cite, you sure throw out a lot of doubtable statements! BUT... even you have to admit that Reform, no matter how many good ideas it carried, also had quite a burden of 'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots', and the Conservative Party still provides a welcoming home for anti-abortion, pro-US, and excessively militarist sentiments. I don't recall ever needing the LPC to point out any of those things, since Reform and CP displayed them well enough all on their own... but feel free to provide cites to confirm the assertions.

Yes... in a perfect world.... I must admit, though, I'd like to see party discipline systems gutted. We'd be a better nation for it. I also appreciate that senators, by being beholden to no one, serve us in ways that an elected senate cannot. They aren't subject to the whim du jour, and can take a more sweeping view of the national future. There's some merit in having that. Electing senators removes that angle of their relevance.

There's Newfoundland resentments, and there's PQ sovereigntists... and then there's the Alberta firewall. In order for Harper worshipers to legitimately call anyone else a separatist, then Harper must personally wear that label, too. Hyperbole is not constructive. Over-labelling is divisive-- much more divisive than honest expressions of discontent from folks with darned good reasons to be discontented. Conservative thoughtless, shameless name-calling, as a substitute for thought and conversation, is one of the reasons I've come to so wish us rid of them. It's a schoolyard bully game, not governance.

And giving a couple of grams to a buddy is... trafficking. It strikes me that the distinction isn't a meaningful defense for a casual user.

A most interesting thread it was, too. The most recent comment in it referred to genetic screening in order to produce a deaf child, and a government backing down from defining deafness as a serious flaw, the selection of which would be unlawful. It's an interesting case of reverse-eugenics, since only the most militant 'deaf culture' zealots would define the absence of a sense as anything other than a serious flaw.... I also imagine a looming loss of genetic diversity... rather like that which we see in domestic plants and animals. While it is generally desireable to be large and blond, we may find a species need for short/dark genes at some time in the future, and find them in short supply! (Time for another sci-fi wonderment.) I'm disinclined to want to interfere in parents decisions, though, even seeing the very obvious problems, and foolishness of some folks' choices- largely because I have faith in Mom Nature and time to overcome nearly anything. Gender imbalance would soon correct itself; subsequent deaf generations would tire of the zealotry and darned well fix it; and a mass die-off of humans would probably protect our longer-term survival.

Prohibition (of something so accessible) just makes 'criminal' millionaires, and eliminates quality control--and does little to actually limit production or use. Alcohol use was not much harmed by prohibition; attempts to limit access to tobacco is just making wealthy black-marketers... same with pot. What I find a bit hilarious is the thought that prohibition is likely driving any reality to the 'gateway drug' theory.

Yeah... and the Conservatives believed they would lose, not gain ground in any election so near the last, and were no more eager to face an early one than the Liberals were..... so they floated the coalition balloon but didn't push the non-confidence button during the window during which a 'coup' might have occurred. Would'a, could'a, should'a... Fact remains, Harper (and his party) is on record as thinking it was a great idea when the shoe was on the other foot. The only folks who don't see a perfect parallel are those who are blinded by the guiding light.

........so, I had to Youtube the whole scene again, after reading this thread... The choice was not 'Tazer vs. gun', nor even 'Tazer vs. (pepper spray/baton/barehand wrasslin' etc.)' The choice was between 'Try to talk to this man vs. do something completely stupid and counterproductive'. Incompetence/negligence by airport staff set up the situation, and incompetence by police killed the man. I hope his mother sues the socks off both airport authourity and police. Had there been even one reasonable person attending in a position of even minor authourity, this incident would never have happenned. (And yes, the police did know that he spoke no English. The bystanders told them.)

Bollucks! John tory went down this time for the same reason he missed during the general election... he was grotesquely out-of-touch with the voters. I was looking forward to voting PC during the general election, right up until he bypassed caucus to announce faith-based religious funding as party policy. Even when forced to back down on it, he didn't understand why it was a disastrously awful idea, or that he had mis-stepped by not running that one by caucus first. Under the circumstances, I was amazed that he didn't resign after the general election- the loss was, after all, entirely his fault-but staying on was very much in keeping with his history of 'not getting it', as was his decision to try to claim a seat that someone else had managed to earn in spite of him. He's a loose cannon with incredibly bad political instincts.

One of the rules is that "WE" make the rules, and anyone who becomes part of the "WE" contributes to that task. Once allowed in "THEY" _are_ "WE", and 'their'/OUR opinion matters. The definition of "WE" seems to be the part some folks struggle with.

Yep. When their mother is long dead, and those older kids are in their seventies, beginning to lose a step, and wishing for a meaningful retirement, they'll still have a dependent sibling.

Yes it does. All sorts of terrible things happen, unanticipated... but when the risk is known to be EXTREME, fault accrues.

It's also a pretty wild stretch to say that one doubtful decision made in youth= permanent irresponsibility, and poor parenting. I doubt any of us noble taxpayers would manage to pass that test. And if parenthood is also to be subjected a means test, I wonder how many of us would pass that test, either, while still young enough to have children. Not many, I suspect. In 'the good old days', the grandparents of the world paid their fealty and support to the following one largely through direct labour. Now we do it in cash. It is a minor adjustment to the times.