Icebound

The voting public will basically sell their grandmother if it saves them five dollars. Worse, the DONATING public will donate to the tyranny, if they think it will somehow save THEM a nickel in the immediate future. In Nov 18th Macleans... Kenneth Whyte has an excellent article on Senator Gerstein's speech at the convention. The parts that the media didn't cover... the parts that had nothing to do with paying Duffy's bills. http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/06/bay-street-no-longer-matters-in-ottawa/ If we are wondering why Harper introduces bizarre policy, that article answers the question... it is because policy now is NOT directed to soothe corporations, nor is it directed for the good of society, nor is it even directed to satisfy the party's voter's supposed wishes. It is strictly directed to satisfy those that donate to the party. It is the polls of DONORS that matter, not the polls of the "voters" which the media publishes. Donations will easily translate into voters. It allows us the media space to convince voters that "selling your grandmother will save you a nickel, and we are the ones who can do it". ... ...

Perhaps.... But does that mean that Harper and Mulcair must admire Mussolini for getting rid of the Senate? ...

You won't have to go far to get people to agree that mandatory minimum sentencing should be repealed. Judges don't like it. It generally targets minorities. It does not translate into any sort of deterrent to crime. And worst of all.... it is way too expensive for the taxpayer in relation to the perceived benefit. But that's another thread. ... ....

Just watching Mulcair and others (including Sun News) having fun with Trudeau's statement about "loving" China. I have to give Sun News credit for running the whole clip.... although they only talk about the first line... ” You know, there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar.’ I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting. But if I were to reach out and say which…which kind of administration I most admire, I think there’s something to be said right here in Canada for the way our territories are run. Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are done without political parties around consensus. And are much more like a municipal government. And I think there’s a lot to be said for people pulling together to try and solve issues rather than to score points off of each other. And I think we need a little more of that. But Sun News can now report that I prefer China.” Much laughter ensued.

The entire Rob Ford story in 2 minutes and 50 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNhsaPi79z0

"....investigative journalism ... is distinct from apparently similar work done by police, lawyers, auditors, and regulatory bodies in that it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and closely connected to publicity...". ...from Wikipedia quoting media theorist Hugo de Burgh. This is a man who is supposed to be the leader for 2.8 million people. He is supposed to provide inspiration and leadership in times of peril. Wouldn't it have been an international spectacle if Toronto received a 9-11 type disaster during a Ford "episode"? It definitely IS the job of investigative journalism to uncover the character of this person. Their disclosures led to the further investigations that have got us to where we are. That is what good investigative journalists do. They put their reputations on the line with the truth, or they soon would become the guys chasing ambulances for the tabloids. Yes, we all sympathise with the fallible man. But when the fallible man is leading 2.8 million people, investigative journalism has the duty to inform them.

Apparently Doug now wants Chief Blair gone. Blair is biased, because Blair saw the videos. Ya think?? http://www.citynews.ca/2013/11/05/doug-ford-says-toronto-police-chief-blair-should-step-aside/

There are always people who buy cigarettes on the black market because it saves a dollar... pay cash in order to hide HST, etc.. As long as they save a buck because he scrapped the auto surcharge... do they care what sort of people the leader of the country's largest city associates with, how be behaves, or what kind of a city it will be in ten years from now... or even two years from now?

Exactly. Unfortunately, Canadians get blinded by the red herrings of Mikey's living and Pam's travel, and forget all about Stevey's ethics. That's why Mike and Pam get brought up in every answer during QP. Redirection, the tool of the magician. Trying to escape the flames in a puff of smoke?

The good news in all this is that maybe all Senators will question the wisdom of blind loyalty, when their role is actually supposed to be independent thought. ... and maybe the Canadian public are becoming more aware that a separate and independent senate is actually necessary as a counter-balance to the tyranny of overwhelming majorities and controlling prime ministers. Abolition of the senate should be a non-starter in a democracy. The first plank in Mussolini's manifesto (okay... the FIFTH plank) in 1919 was the abolition of the senate... for the very reasons that it gets in the way of all-controlling power. Now it DOES need reform. And the primary reform that it needs is that Senators must cut political ties. Money scandals are small potatoes, compared to the fact that SENATORS actually sit in the caucus together with the COMMONS. Talk about conflict-of-interest. Oh, let me assure you... Duffy and Wallin, et al, will never be favorites of the left.... but even THEY have realized that their blind loyalty was misplaced. ...

Well, well, well..... Duffy's criminal defense lawyer, Donald Bayne, just threw a big bomb into the middle of the room. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-s-lawyer-says-expenses-approved-by-senate-pmo-1.2128886 Duffy was totally within the rules, but the rules were politically embarrassing when he actually used them. So they concocted the whole scenario to make it look like he was abusing the rules,. The article in the link is way too brief. The complete news conference by Bayne had a lot more pertinent information and snippets of evidence. I hope somebody puts it up in its entirety. If Harper thought he had trouble before, the next few days and weeks should be entertaining as hell.!!!

I won't agree or disagree with this statement. But I would ask you to check out the 1960's experiment where very nice people were coaxed, not coerced, into doing very terrible things..., Willingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Monuments are distractions.... we put up a monument...walk by it and say, "Oh, how terrible"... and walk on. Do we really study the history to understand what happened, why it happened, and how to look for the same signs in today's societies? ... ...

Up from what? From where it SHOULD be, or from where it is "now"? Rates have evolved to where they are now through a not-so-transparent evolution that has you paying some arbitrary rate which may or may not reflect your driving style.... and where you have no way in hell of knowing whether you are overpaying or not. At least a consistent algorithm in all cars would treat all drivers the same. But whether you pay more or not is not the question in this thread.... the question is whether you would "have" to provide personal information to get the desired result.... which is to calculate and charge a premium based on risk.... And my argument is simply that we are not using our technology correctly.... that we can still produce the result which the providers want.... and do it without showing them our detailed personal information. If only somebody would spend a little more effort instead of those quick-Band-Aid solutions that our western society is so good at. ...

Here is some good news for Ashley; its not going to cost her as much as she thought: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/10/good-news-obamacare-raped-future-26-year-old/70397/ " Maybe both sides of the debate should spend a little more time vetting their young spokespeople."

When it comes to "innovation"... the greatest innovators are the ones who went out and experimented and made mistakes. There will always be students who do that.... But computers allow students to AVOID mistakes. They can use their computer to "calculate" the correct "answer", or to "find" the "correct answer", or even to PLAGIARIZE the correct answer. (you can do all that without computers, but it takes longer ) A computer allows them to be one more level removed from the actual "problem" that they are supposed to be solving. And because of that... computers may neither help nor hurt "real" education... they might help us get an "answer" more quickly, but they will do nothing to help us apply that answer to a real-life problem.... unless we actually get up from the keyboard/touch-screen and go out and EXPERIENCE that problem, make several mistakes trying to solve it... and then come up with a total innovation that did not come from the classroom specifically, but from classroom, experience, experimentation, intuition and maybe even a little bit of good luck.

I am only saying that there should be NO NEED for you to "volunteer ..your ... information". Their software ON YOUR CAR could identify what sort of risk you are, and just give the insurer that one output..."this guy is a 3 out of 10", or whatever. Whether you are a 3 because you commute 4 hours a day on heavy traffic.... or because you take many long trips to your mistress at 2:00 in the morning.... does not need to be any of their business.... Their software has taken that into account, but the insurer does not need to know the specifics. NOW... if you want to dispute the software's findings, THEN you would have to go through an arbitration which WOULD open the raw data, but that would be up to you.

Smart meters for electricity, GPS tracking for insurance purposes, etc. etc, .... are all excellent, perhaps necessary, technologies for eliminating fraud, ensuring fairness, and keeping cost under control. The problem is that the technology is being implemented ass-backward. No service provider needs to know anything about HOW I use his service... all that information can be calculated IN MY HOME, (or on my car) and a final total forwarded to him. He can upload updated rates or firmware revision to my calculating device but downloads NOTHING from it, except a FINAL TOTAL of what I owe... Now, if he does not trust the "security" of the device that he installed in my home..... well, then.... that tells us something about whether such tracking devices should exist in the first place. In detail.... There is no need... with todays technologies... for the power company to know when, or even how much, electricity I used, in order to bill me. The "smart-meter" in my house could contain all the information necessary to do the calculations and simply send a number at the end of the month to the utility...."this guy owes $256.31" or whatever. Similarly, the "tracking device" installed in the car can, at the end of the month or whenever... simply calculate... "based on this guys driving habits, he should pay <whatever> for next month's coverage...." Nothing else need be uploaded. (....Sure, insurance is meant to be "in advance" so last month's activity may not be a good indicator of next month's coverage... but the actual gps information does no better. From the insurer's point of view, it will actually round out in the long run... from the insured's point of view, it may be a pain to be paying a big premium for the month right after retirement, just because I did a lot of high-mileage commuting the month before.... but it, too, will average out in the long run.....)

+1 ...increasing the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor. I think Karl Denninger: Leverage has it right. Time to stock up ...

Probably. But then, they do not apply to private companies either. The Government, like any business, has a forecast of expected revenues and expenditures. They may or may not meet their targets, just like the private business. Presumably both know what they can afford in terms of employee benefits. Yeah, the government can raise taxes. Of course, the private enterprise raises its service rates with no reason either.... We love to talk about "competition", but my main monthly expenses... transportation, communication, heating and energy.... are all increased at will by the provider, so what's the difference? ...

There is a well known correlation between religious fervor and poverty. As Muslims become more affluent, religion will become less important. If they DO NOT become more affluent relative to the rest of the world, then of course, anything can happen and DoP can gloat in his successful predictions. But that, again, is not unique to Muslims. If the North American capitalist economy continues the way it has.... and the rich-poor division keeps growing.... then the first jihad that we may see will not be by Muslims. It will be poverty-level wage-earners burning down the executives and politicians gated communities. ...

No. I am trying to show you that ANY group of people, that are invested in some symbol of their union, may get violent when that symbol is attacked..... and especially if they are high on something. High on excessive patriotism, high on religious fervor, or high on just plain beer. Outrage is not unique to Muslims, and yet the world continues to exist. ...

The fact is that the banks are doing pretty well and have been doing so "forever". Credit unions do not have nearly the same clout. What was the point of tinkering with the credit union tax rate in the first place? (even the "correct" version) http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1134031/increased-income-taxes-disappoint-credit-unions ...

Government employees.... like all employees.... are paid by their employer. (We can argue that Bell Canada employees are also paid by their little old lady shareholders, but that is hardly the point.) Employees are paid by the employer, and the employer pays them, because their employer has some job function for them to do. Every so often, like all companies, the employer does a "re-organization" that may end up severely reducing the number of jobs available... or perhaps creating new ones. But no matter... if the employer agrees to a contract that defers some benefits to be paid later as a pension... instead of now as a salary... then it is his duty to fulfil it. As for the "basic economics of the free market system". The basic economics of the free market system would indicate that, over time, we become more efficient at providing goods and services. Thus there should be a net deflation with time in both prices and wages. How is that working out? ....

Oh, YOU WILL pay. You will either pay to allow employees a decent wage and a comfortable pension.... OR You will have to pay to look after them on the welfare rolls and/or government handouts..... OR You will pay when they burn down your gated community in desperation. But there is no such thing as "not me".... You WILL pay. I will submit that option 1 is the most comfortable for you and also the most productive for society. I suggest accepting it. .

I doubt it. Its done for a pittance, all right, but the "bulk mail" rate is probably way cheaper than hiring their own contractor.