Shwa

Not if the victim is involved in the retribution process. The problem is for all those crimes that are not "hug a rapist" what do you believe then - we should keep the prisoners in longer, so they are not contributing members of society for a longer period of time just to assuage the victim's feelings? What you are basically saying is that we need to spend billions more on "basically opinion."

That's right. So if the recidivism rate is low, keep them in longer. That makes no sense whatsoever. So You Want to Know the Recidivism Rate If the recidivism rate is high, I can understand, but that would essentially mean throwing money at a system of rehabilitation that is not working. But if the recidivism rate is low, chances are you can release people earlier since the chances of the re-offending is also low. So why would you want to keep people in prison longer again? Do you have a reason for this?

So if someone shoots you and steals your property (aka "the spoils"), you'll be OK with it, because they are "victorious" over you? Or do you arrive at another conclusion because you believe in "the law?"

What "Canadian social services" - outside of those deemed to be within the treaty agreements - do First Nations people use Shady? If you want them to pay taxes, give them all their land back and they will re-negotiate a new deal just for you.

Well apparently you hadn't figured in reality for your little rant: Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006 The data is 5 years old, but still current enough to show you that you don't know what your talking about. Here maybe this will help you out: Welcome to Canada's Export E-Business Portal

That's right. So if the recidivism rate is low, keep them in longer. That makes no sense whatsoever. So You Want to Know the Recidivism Rate If the recidivism rate is high, I can understand, but that would essentially mean throwing money at a system of rehabilitation that is not working. But if the recidivism rate is low, chances are you can release people earlier since the chances of the re-offending is also low. So why would you want to keep people in prison longer again? Do you have a reason for this?

But is that the necessary conclusion though? As I see it, privatizing the management of the library system in Toronto won't necessarily result in a commodification of the public trust (of books, information, space), remove the space from public access nor remove some sort of library-ish prosperity for the workers. A careful set of operational agreements and support specifications could mitigate all those concerns. However, even better, is the idea that the librarians themselves can form a company to do this, and leverage all that expertise. It is one thing to look at a single source option, and quite another to explore possibilities. For example, the old employment offices used to offer employment counselling. This function was eventually peeled off into private hands. But since there was a dearth of firms that could provide this expertise, many new ones were created by former employment counsellors. Now they operate these little private employment agencies that contract for services. The cost of those employees to the government was off-loaded and, in the long run, accounted for savings I am sure. Why not the same with library staff and systems? I see this as an economic opportunity within an obviously neglected 'knowledge sector' that is perfectly in keeping with our 'service economy.' However, if someone in the Toronto library system has the chops to create something competitive, they should get off their hands and plan.

Well in defence of D'Souza, he did say 'cultural left' as opposed to 'economically left.' By conjuring up this nice, neat term, D'Souza now has a nice, neat category to lump all those culturally progressive characters into, regardless of any of their real world affiliations. It's almost magical! Fiction writers often do this. Tolkien had his Middle Earth; Lewis had Narnia.

We are trading with China now and money spent is an investment. Edicts without reason don't fly. Why? So no investment in the "global economy?"

What's worse is when they all learn our particular brand of hyperbole to try and fit in with the rest of the hysterical pantywaists that clog every system we know about, especially the Internet.

This is immaterial. The decision was made at the request of, and in cooperation with, "an Indian and band." From the story, it looks like there was a high level of cooperation too since other First Nations police services were involved. Provincial jurisdiction is not in question here, but unilateral search and seizures from various police forces. This particular execution was not unilateral which is further suggested by the participation of other FN police forces. Only when there are unilateral acts, which is not the case here. The Indian Act provides for agreements to be struck between reserve and non-reserve authorities for all kinds of services. No doubt there are cooperative policing agreements for situations just like this. Apples/Oranges. This doesn't appear to be the case from the published news article which gives the impression of a perfectly legal action by way of the instruments of the Indian Act.

And more expensiveness. That awesomeness is pricey! Prison costs soar 86% in past five years: report Which begs the questions as to which insider will get the graft when all those prison building contracts get `tendered.'

Nope. Here is what the Indian Act says, and I quote directly: Note that the seizure can be "at the instance" of "an Indian." The singular cannot be under-emphasized, there it is, in black and white. So while a challenge could be made on the general application of this section, in a wider context, this particular incident was perfectly legal under the terms of the Indian Act.

I completely agree, but does library management include modern business practices which would lend themselves to making a library - even a public one - more cost efficient? What I see here is a business opportunity more than anything, for library management firms. What I don't like about LSSI is that they are the only one.

A very interesting topic that spans outside of the mere local, but since the article specifically refers to Toronto, it starts here. Rather than placing this at the end of the 'Ford Era' thread I figured a separate thread because there is more at stake - or to discuss - than simply the situation in Toronto. Would privatizing Toronto’s libraries really save money? The idea is intriguing and could actually start up library management companies here. I mean, there are more ways to outsource than a single option, or so they should. If they can do this with solid deliverables, sound support agreements, why not? One of the complaints is the library as a public space, but does a privately run or outsourced space necessarily mean it is not a public space?

Perhaps there is a general application that needs to be looked at from a Charter perspective, but the article says this: "I think we have worked with the SQ on this and the dialogue has improved in our community. - Sohenrise Paul Nicholas, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake” clearly suggests there was plenty of legal cooperation and the whole operation was conducted via well established processes under both the Indian Act and CCRF.

Another sign of the "Ford Era" in Toronto? In the story below I refer to the high level of bullshit coming from one of the actual Fords. It is this bullshit, easily digestible soundbytes designed to appeal to ignorance, that makes the Ford Nation look like a bunch of dolts. Doughnuts vs books? In Ford's Etobicoke, it’s 3-1 Seriously, if you want to make cuts and enact other austerity measures Doug, nut up about it. Plus don't use doughnut analogies when you could stand to lose a few pounds.

No, I said read a history book and then qualified it by saying IF you are the type that can accept history as an indicator. The secondary thought would be that by using the historical category, you might be able to see some connection - both in the distant and recent past - that would show how immigration has been beneficial to the economy. You failed on two counts: English comprehension and basic historical analysis. Oh no, you see, by merely indication what I was going to supply you with, I gave you a hint as to how you might proceed to give yourself a clue. That you missed this indicates more of your high functioning internal fiction engine. Nothing more. That is why the poster above said that "it is widely accepted." The idea of deconstructing causual relationships has and, in this case, there is no warrant. If you think there is then - as the other posters have requested - it is incumbent on you to show how there isn't a causual relationship, no linkages and no connections. So far you haven't given any account of your side of the argument whatsoever except for your 'impression.' You'll have to do better than that. Here, let me help you out: CIC Research and Statistics This is the official governmental site dealing with Immigration and related issues, research and statistics. Show me how - in this research material - that immigration isn't beneficial to the economy because all these experts are saying that it is.

Is that what I am saying? Or is that all you are getting? There is a difference. For one, you asked for "evidence" and I have suppplied a whole category of evidence. All you supply (above) is how it was back in the day for you, the .I was going to supply links to sources about Canada being in the G7, G8, G20, etc. How our economy is doing comparatively worldwide, how it has grown and so forth, but I suspect that you would prefer your internal fiction over anything I can cite. In other words, reality is overmatched against your fixed ideas.

PMO & Treasury Board. I don't think it is as easy as A% from all departments, but I have seen that sort of thing back in the day. A 10% trim broken down by the value of a specific department and then handed over to departmental senior management to implement. Not all ministries are created equal in political value...

Ummm. I think it is called a "history book." Depending on whether you take "history" as "evidence" mind you...

This is an interesting point because what usually happens is that a certain percentage is given to the senior managers of the public service bureaucracy and they generally determine where the cuts will happen. In effect, the people who are likely to support the public service and qualified to cut it down - the managers - are actually the ones that make the real decisions. Now there are ideological adjustments to the bureaucracy of course, but these sort of programming adjustments happen all the time and especially when there is a new government that want to install their version of what government ought to be. But pure cuts to the numbers are done by senior management who balance the work load with the capacity of the work force.

Didn't you hear? They are "Job Creators" the newest Internet meme sensation. They get a bye for creating all those jobs which drive our economy. If we give them less pay, Aramgeddon will ensue and there will be no Rapture for the lefties. (which is no problem since everyone knows that lefties tend to be agnostic or atheist anyways) Please keep up with your current events.

Tonto called. He wants his continent back.

It might be if he had omitted to illustrate a process - a well known process - and left it at mere opinion. But the process remains a fact and his opinion of Mayor Ford is neither here nor there. I don't think you have to be of any particular ideology to see how the process works and how it is being clumsily manipulated.