Molly

>cynic< A fence post is better than Harper because a) you darned well know where it stands, and it's not going to kneecap you if you don't watch it every second. >end of cynic<

... and then explain to taxpayers why it was important for them to recieve no assurance that his word was worth anything? Explain why his budget was no good, if anyone could actually check up on whether he was following it? Even the Tory spinmeisters couldn't put a good face on that one.

Well, it would be danged interesting to watch him try to fight an election campagn based purely on an unwillingness to submit to oversight--- unwillingness to show that he's actually living up to his word, and abiding by his own budget!

Hahahahahahaha! If it makes you feel good to think that, then have at it.

It's a toss, Blueblood- election or coalition as the alternative. But Harper has had his last credible run at forming a majority. He's done like dinner, and pretty much has been since the end of November. He put his foot in it, right up to his neck. Boy oh boy, have we seen a shift in the balance!

However... Iggy is performing rather well just now. Harpers future, and that of the Conservatives, is in bigger trouble than the economy!

SOME tax cuts can be quite directly stimulative. I don't think an income tax cut is effective on that front, but the ones to do with housing likely are. Just like some spending is just urinating money against the wall (bigger cabinet, for instance) while infrastructure spending- assuming the money actually gets out there- directly and immediately creates both employment AND physical assets that we will benefit from for decades to come. How it's cut, and how it's spent is more meaningful than just that either has been done.

Riverwind, I challenge that. Prorogation completely removed that particular bill from the table. No other procedural stalling could have done that. That was a classic 'mulligan' (among a group of my friends, a bid of 'two clubs', laughingly allowed any time within bidding, and used as an escape clause whenever someone has aggressively, inanely, run themselves into impossible territory, and knows it.) It was absolutely an avoided, not a delayed, vote.

In direct answer to your question, Dr. Greenthumb, my neighbour uses medicinal pot. (All paperwork in order.) He's been through every nasty addictive pain-killer in the book, complete with all the side effects.... weaned himself off of LOTS of morphine/day and replaced it with carefully selected varieties of pot, used as necessary. It's not perfect- he has to change varieties from time to time, as he seems to build immunity- but his quality of life and day-to-day function is vastly improved. He can now walk more than the length of his driveway (so he actually is losing weight); he has about three times as many functional hours in a day as he did before- not retired to bed by 4 or 5 in the afternoon as he was before. I haven't seen him wince, or go white, or suffer hot flashes since he got off that morphine. It truly is a huge difference.... a Godsend.

I don't use the stuff, and don't admire the general effect on casual smokers (drunk or stoned, neither is wise or charming)-- and I don't for one second believe that new-agey 'focussed mind over the action inside cells' bushwah either... and I do know some fat, stupid stoners... and I figure it is somewhat addictive, and generally none too good for a body when used recreationally... ... but relative to a LOT of other things out there, from cigarettes to Big Macs, booze to snowmobiles, it's pretty darned harmless. It also has great medicinal potential (seen that in action). I figure that chasing it around, suppressing it, obsessing over it, is a wicked waste of time, money, sweat, policing, moral outrage, etc. etc. etc. and gets in the way of exploring its potential usefulness.

There's plenty wrong with it, Topaz-- not the least of which is the expectation that there will likely be all sorts of red-tape obstruction on the spending side of it.... but it's not all horrible, and frankly, SOME action is darned well urgent. The employment sitution right here is visibly even worse today than it was two weeks ago, and there's a 'tumble' effect that isn't slowing down. This employer fails, therefore that one is on the way out fast, and that ends the next.... not pretty at all. From a state of 'anyone who was willing to show up semi-regularly can be working TODAY' to scrounge and pray and call in markers, and then if you are really lucky.... all in a matter of 3 or 4 months. I want this one passed, not because I particularly like it-- it holds some of the worst elements of all ideologies-- but because we don't have time to wait 'til it's perfected. We are just going to have to bite the bullet, and prepare to pay the piper if and when we have the capacity to do so.

And- you just RE-made my point in that reply to Sharkman.

I 'condone a Muslim cleric advocating the beating and raping of their wives' to exactly the degree that I condone a Roman Catholic priest chastizing a battered, raped wife for apparently deserving such abuse, and sending her back to 'try harder'.

Vengeance-based 'justice', rather than corrections-based.... Vengeance is outrageously expensive, at best morally doubtful, and pretty ineffective at preventing additional crimes.

Sharkman, the explanation is found in the motivation of the person who raises the question. Mr. C has made it abundantly clear that his motive was to fire up a chummy little hatefest, whereby we would all tut-tut about those terrible, terrible Muslims, cherry-picking outrageous phrases from Imams with roots in cultures far different from our own, in order to damn all concerned. It's phoney to the core--- mendacious-- bigotted. If we want to know the effect of Islam here, it is easy enough to ask a local Imam. I don't think you'll find many who agree with this guy-- and many who would be embarrassed by him, and angry that he's giving 'regular folks' a bad name. That would be just about precisely the way your own local Anglican priest would feel about the Reverend Hagee, for instance, or the way Mr. C feels about the awful rash of pedophile priests, or the general run of Mormons would feel about the likes of Winston Blackmore. If I believed for one second that Mr. C's great concern actually was for the welfare of abused women instead of cheap bigotry points, I'd cut him some slack. But if it truly was, then he'd be interested in other aspects of woman abuse, and not keep trying to herd conversation back to how only MUSLIM women are victimized by their religion.

After last years very cynical budget announcement of federal money for GO services near his riding (completely bypassing GO planners, and impossible to accomplish as planned on the back of that envelope) I'm hard pressed to consider him 'upstanding'. I do have faith that he can predict with some accuracy. I do not, however, trust those predictions to be accurately reflected in the budget. And no, I don't believe that the sun will come out in a magical glow to evaporate the deficit and consequent debt.

How is a non-binding plebiscite more useful than a poll? At todays rates it would cost in the neighbourhood of $30,000,000 more than a comprehensive poll... so why on earth would we wish to spend that money?

..but have they turned over the leaf under which they will actually KEEP that promise? Their record on promise- keeping isn't heartening. 15 minutes and we'll find out.

Really? We are supposed to rail against the blackness of the kettle, and just pretend that there aren't any pots around here-- certainly no pots trying desperately to lead the chorus....

Hm. I wonder what the non-Christian citizens of any number of nations would say about that. I'd bet some feel more than a little threatened by fundy Xtian USA. (Even some of us in the western world look nervously over our shoulders to see if they are gaining on us.)

But if you are the typical sample of an everyday Christian's moral compass, I think we can pass on that suggestion, too.

Well it sure as H-E-double-toothpicks wouldn't be our political leaders!

I just spent some time googling terms like 'Godly submission' in a Canadian context. I had quite a few eye-rolls and even more good laughs at the results, but I think that I should render this gem in cross-stitch: "After studying God's word this week I have come to this conclusion: No Christian man wants his wife to look like a fundamentalist."

Yes. And Kingspan should win it. Had Brantford disclosed the claim, even if they felt it was frivolous, so that Kingspan could make their own determination of whether they were willing to shoulder the risk, then there would be no claim. Brantford had that obligation, and failed to fulfill it, to Kingspans loss, and so, they owe reparations. Easy-peasy.

What is frustrating about it, though, is that a budget is much more than 'the sum of its parts', and when it's handed out piecemeal, for response one line at a time, the 'whole' is obscured. That said, unless leakage unevenly telegraphs something directly useful for speculative purposes, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.