Molly

I found the comments in that G&M link danged amusing. For those confident and loyal Tories among 'em I must say: The upstanding patriot in me could live with Prentice, but the vindictive shadow within my nature would relish Harper hanging around as long as possible.

But I bet you watch more BBC news than FOX, and know the identity of 'she who must be obeyed'.

Well, if we are going to reach that far... there are several nations closer to us than Mexico, we have more media contact with several of them, and more in common with most of them. (I love British mysteries and sit-coms.)

Then I have to come back to BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba being politically quite different from Alberta. They are every bit as western, and are every bit as familiar with the 'horse for me and and a rabbit for you' treatment that lesser population groups can expect (maybe moreso). Yet all three exhibit a great deal more political nuance than 'Conservative good, Liberal bad. Ugh!', none of them put up the howls of indignation at 'slights that aren't' that Alberta is rapidly becoming as famous as Quebec for.... Why? (It's only fair to tell you... I'm an oilpatch westerner, transplanted to Ontario only a few years ago.) Trudeau is every bit as unpopular in Saskatchewan as he is in Alberta, and for the same reasons-- but Alberta was unstintingly Tory blue before he came along, as narrow and populist, as 'if it's good for me, to Hell with you'. Forgive me for thinking it has less to do with the federal Liberal party than it has to do with the folks of the province of Alberta.

Ahhh! Post 158... Well said, Canadien.

Bill..... ooh. Yes, sensitivities are that high, and not without good reason... ... but the consistency of that vote is largely sheep-thinking based. The west (including BC and the Gappers) has lots of reason to distrust any government dominated by 'east of the lakes', because sheer weight of numbers, and interests that are inconsistent with those of the population bases mean they've been screwed over time and time and time again, usually with Central Canada either oblivious or cheerleading, and NEP is the big punctuation mark that made collars smoke well beyond Alberta borders. That explains (some, but not all), but does not justify a notable lack of nuance in Alberta-self-identified politics. If it were so, then those other three western provinces would be equally monochromatic, but they are not. NEP has been milked to death-- it's 30 years ago, after all-- and doesn't justify thoughtlessness, hypocricy, blind ignorance, bandwagonism and general offensiveness-- TODAY. That's something else entirely. (A dirty habit?) It is completely fair to suggest that one provinces consistent, long, long-standing monopolitic= SHEEP.

Time is a factor and a guideline and something of a means to measure change, na85, but the biggest real factor is "How much has changed?". An election over Christmas would likely have a nearly identical result to the one in October, so what value would it have? None. One in February would definitely differ somewhat from October, but if the GG guesses that it would not be enough of a change to alter the dynamic in the HOC, then she would still see no merit in going back to the polls. The same applies at 6 months or 9 or any other time... has anything changed enough that going to the polls would yield a different, hopefully more workable, dynamic in the house? If the answer is no, then an election would be valueless. If the answer is yes, then it's time to break out the campaign signs. By the end of 9 months, it's reasonable to assume that there has been some shift, even without being able to point to any events. (And before 6 months, that not much has changed, even if one can point to some events.) The conventions for the most part just quantify common sense without absolutely binding. We are still pre-6 months, and there is urgency to the nations business, so if the budget was to fail, the opposition would get a shot almost as a certainty, but once there's a budget, I'd say we've had more than enough change to justify an election, so any confidence issue after that would likely send us to the polls, 6 months or not. (IMO)

Yep.. Trudeau ran deficits, and Mulroney -- who ran on cutting them-- ran up even bigger ones, and left us financially belly up for when the 90's hit, so by the end of his administration we had 4X the debt Trudeau left us with, and were darned near bankrupt (to the degree that nations can be). Deja vu. Harper and Mulroney are peas in a pod, attempting to govern from a nearly identical ideological position and trying to co-ordinate exactly the same voter support base. A fair case can already be made that Mulroney is the more fiscally responsible of the two, because even though he didn't cut spending, he at least didn't cut revenue either, and left in place some of the means to actually pay the bills he was running up. (I'm no fan of Mulroney either, but he was right about both NAFTA and the GST.)

At the expense of all sorts of things. Paying off stale bills and old debts like the ones Mulroney ran up is no easy thing. That's exactly why we aren't perfectly thrilled with a big fat deficit this time either.... at some point, the piper must be paid.

Don't congratulate us heartily. I said a 'stupid' up there, with regard to the King-Byng crisis. (I'll let it stand and take my lumps...)

"But that does not mean that we should go light on the Imam either just because he is also being attacked by Christian fundamentalists!"-- WIP You know, WIP, over the years, I have broken up lots of fights among children. Those kids always felt they were completely justified in pummelling their fellow- and generally they had a serious point. But even though they did have a valid point, and the justification of bad acts by the one to whom they were dishing licks, I never once saw my appropriate role as being to ignore the active assault, and use my acknowledgement of the victims poor conduct as a valid reason to get in a couple of my own kicks at the victim, and walk away from the assault in progress. I don't see much reason to take that approach here, either.

LOL Yep. Clear as mud. How about being a bit more specific in your question, na85. The GG will generally 'accept the advice of her minister' (the PM), and precedent plays a huge role, but it's a judgement call, with smoothely functioning governance as the priority. King-Byng describes the only previous minority coalition- a spectacular failure- but where there has been no activity since the last election, and no good reason to expect a new election to change the makeup of the house, it would take a more creative mind than mine to come up with any other alternative. At this stage of the game, with a little more water under the bridge, if sending them back to patch up their differences didn't solve anything, she'd likely call an election rather than offer it to a coalition. (I look forward to reading Jean's description of these events, when she is no longer GG.)

I'd say nature with some certainty, just because of the universality. Seriously, has any archaeologist ever found any occult/reverence-free society, anywhere, in any age, even wildly beyond a mere 10,000 years of 'tradition'? Not to my knowledge. I could see it as an offshoot of socialization, by which the fate of an individual is very dependent on the 'pack' - it's strength, and his place within it. The instinct to show dominance to that which is weaker, and exhibit acknowledgement to that which is stronger is necessary in a social group. That which is essential but beyond ones ability to fully anticipate, or to control is clearly 'stronger', and therefore deference is instinctive.... I also see a possible connection to basic self-awareness/ imagination/ the concept of future. We are somewhat driven to control our surroundings -- but some things are well beyond control . Attributing personality to those things - deifying them- is a tool by which we can convince ourselves that they can be influenced (through bribery, persuasion, empathy-seeking...).

"It wouldn't be tolerated from Christian fundamentalists." That's just not true either. It IS tolerated from Christian fundamentalists in North America ..every ...day - if not exactly those words, then beyond all doubt, the spirit of those words. 'Submission' goes routinely without challenge. Stories like that of my neighbor are not at all uncommon. Unnumbered oddball sects maintain all sorts of bizarre sexist heirarchical rules that they justify with whatever mythology they espouse! I have a neighbour just a couple of houses down who is a scripturally-justified servant and walking uterus; one of my daughters best pals has parents doing their best to scuttle her athletic and professional endeavours, insisting that as female, she's on a freight train to Hell for daring to have a life... It's just not true WIP, it's just NOT TRUE! "nevertheless, condemnation of the Imam is warranted." Well, duh! Did you see any defense of him in this thread? I saw condemnation after condemnation--- just not in isolation.

Kimmy... interesting. I see very little transfer to other organized, structured religions, but a great deal of shift to very subjective 'maybe it carries a label, and maybe it doesn't' forms of spirituality. Lots play with Buddhism, read up on the philosophy behind martial arts, take up Tarot or buying prisms--- have their aura read, listen to whale song..... take their vacations in search of power vortices, search for ghosts and spirits, begin describing themselves as animist, or pagan, or Wiccan, or .... etc. etc. etc. I'm beginning to believe that a spiritual sense must be some interesting Darwinian side-effect- hard-wired- because it does seem to be universal or nearly so. After all, who among us has never felt a sense of reverence? The lack of it is sociopathic. The rejection of organized religion appears to me to be a (sane) rejection of the actual organization/authouritarian part. (Along with some dismissal of the mythology upon which they are3 based as.... myth.)

Let me be the first one to point out the obvious: Isn't screw-up and cover-up pretty much what you have to expect when you override the safety regulator, as a matter of partisan politics?

Topaz, I'm sure we ALL have him on probation. (At least, those of us with a lick of sense, and not so bound by the partisan that we can't see what's in front of our eyes.) I have to admit, though, so far, he's a breath of fresh air. (And that actually surprises me.)

I am amazed, Argus, that you are the only one to comment, and that your comment was so restrained at that. The man, bland as he is, inspires strong, strong feelings. Between the provincial and federal roles he has held, he's been the rep of my riding several times. I've had occassion to campaign both for and against him-- both being a different kind of adventure than usual campaigns. The loyalty held for him is personal and completely overrides the partisan. They aren't swooning for him for his good looks and dynamic personality, or for who the leader of any party might be, but because he worked his butt off in back rooms to get such wheels as could turn, to turn in a direction that would help them when they needed some help, and did so with the utmost integrity. No fireworks or flash-- no skullduggery-- just effect and respect, discretion and constancy. However, I share your revulsion for McGuinty. He's as hollow a log as I've ever seen.

(Full moon?) What? Not enough spitting and scratching of privates for you?

(Right now, we have high fuel prices relative to shockingly low oil prices.... There's a disconnect.)

LOL I'd still bet that Alberta remains a wall-to-wall Conservative gimme for a few more years.

WIP, I have respected the content of your previous posts, but this time, I think that you, and Sam Harris have both missed the boat. To be perfectly honest, I see the Muslim activists, Christian theocrats, and fascist and neofascist movements to all be nothing more than different coloured blocks in the same set. Each has their own (irrational) authouritarian view of the world, and they are simply squabbling among themselves as to which should be acknowledged as supreme. Reality is, they are all rediculously wrong, all for the same reasons. That 'Muslim activists are generally part of the coalition of the left' strikes me as an utterly bizarre statement. I'd say it is based in logic similar to Mr. Canadas insistence that I approve of the opinions of the Imam, simply because I disapprove equally of the dangerous flaws of his own creed (and conduct), (yet I would protect his right to believe it)..... and if it bears any hint of truth, it is simply because the fascists and the Christian theocrats are loud in our ears through numbers and proximity, jointly expressing more than enough disapproval for all of us. We don't need to jump on that bandwagon for there to be plenty of folks on board already. (And some might even see a need to protect the right to hold that belief system, too.) One of the major flaws that those three ugly sisters have in common is the belief that morality is anything other than subjective-- and to adopt 'objective moral standards' is to preempt their dominance by becoming them.

Yeah, fair enough. That would still be the exact logical crux of it.... throwing it out for fear of scrutiny. Not a strong position to work from. And you are right about the rest of it, too. Not many people smiling at that man right now, nor feeling sorry for him either.

Sauce for the goose...

...perhaps we could eqaully summarily execute the judges, police, prosecutors etc. involved in the wrongful conviction..... .....then they'd be mighty carefuly never ,never, never to railroad anyone else ever again....