kimmy

It already is, to an extent. The enormous sums of equalization money generated from Alberta over the past several years have allowed PMPM to transfer money to poorer provinces without dipping into the big federal surplus that was created by cutting transfers to the provinces in the 1990s... so Alberta's revenues have been helping the federal government keep chipping away at the national debt. -k

I agree with all that. I think Iraq has proven to be a costly mistake, but I think it's very naive to think that we'd be all cool with the Islamists right now if it weren't for the Iraq invasion. It's a ridiculous claim, in my opinion, and yet you're far from the first person to offer that viewpoint. ok, now this, on the other hand, is less promising... First off, it's not "that list the National Post is circulating." The audio tape in question was circulated all over the world, starting with Al Jazeera, and analyzed by experts around the world, and is widely believed to be the real thing. I know that some people believe you can discredit a news article by mentioning that it came from the Post, but in this instance the source material is tape that is well-known and widely believe to be legitimate. Secondly, the Bin Laden tape was not the only source mentioned. The same sources are referenced by the Toronto Star article I linked to, if that makes you more comfortable: and And if warnings from 3 years ago or 1 year ago aren't fresh enough for your liking, then how about one from last week: --from the same Toronto Star article. Is that more to your liking? -{Kilo India Michael Michael Yankee}

I agree with this part. The invasion of Iraq has proven to be a huge mistake that has undoubtably inflamed the fervor of the fanatics, and driven some Muslims towards extremist doctrines. The continuing occupation of Iraq is also diverting resources that could better be used elsewhere. So going to Afghanistan after Al Qaeda was ok, and justified, in your opinion? That's how I feel too. But let's be clear: Muslim extremists do not share that view. As I keep saying... just because it seemed like a reasonable step to us westerners doesn't mean that the terrorists will agree that it was reasonable or justified. As you'll recalled, Bin Laden and friends were more than a little upset that we joined the invasion of Afghanistan: National Post: we're still on Al Qaeda's list And interestingly enough, all of this comes just as Canada is set to step up operations in Afghanistan. I find it baffling that some people think our decision not to go to Iraq makes us safe from the extremists. I find it baffling that people seem to think that if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would not now seeing these attacks carried out in the name of Afghanistan instead. Why do people think the extremists see a difference between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq? Do you think extremists thought it over an decided "you know, the invasion of Afghanistan was probably justified, but I'm pretty angry over Iraq." Nonsense. The extremists view the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as one and the same: infidel aggression against the ummah. -k

When a topic like this is raised, the platitudes start flowing. "Can you put a price on a human life?" "We're talking about people, not numbers." Well, our healthcare system has no choice but to look at numbers, and they have to put a price on a human life. If providing exotic treatment for just one person costs a sum of money that could have hired 5 nurses or opened 10 hospital beds or provided home-care for 200 people, then providing exotic treatment for that one person has come at the expense of others who need healthcare. -k

eureka, I don't know what ulterior motives may have underlain the carnage in East Timor. I don't know what ulterior motives may have underlain Australia's decision to intervene (although, "because the UN asked them to" might be one explanation.) However, Bin Laden himself declared that intervention to be "a trespass against Islam" and warned of dire consequences. And after the Bali bombing he issued a tape praising it as a deserved retribution, though stopped short of claiming responsibility. -k

No, it's not. The Bali bombing took place *before* the Iraq war. Dozens of Australians were targeted and murdered by Al Qaeda because Australia intervened in East Timor. Quite clearly the Islamists have other gripes than just the Iraq war. -k

I didn't say that being in Iraq was "right". I did say that there are situations where doing what's right (ie, helping in Darfur, or Australia's intervention in the East Timor genocide) will make us targets. Please read more carefully. -k

Ramzi Yousef, chief architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, wanted to kill 250,000 Americans (not chosen at random-- this was the number killed when the Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yousef believed that if he could kill 250,000 Americans, he would prove to the Americans that they were in a war.) He selected the WTC because it was the only target be believed was remotely close to the scale he envisioned. -k

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack. This is just not sensible. If terrorists did not have Iraq to justify their actions, they'd have Afghanistan. If they did not have Afghanistan, they'd have East Timor (the justification for the Bali bombing, according to them.) If not that, then they'd have Western policy regarding Israel, or western involvement in the middle east going back 60 or 100 years. Unless you can find a way to erase the past, there's no way of removing the potential justifications for revenge. As I keep saying, setting our policies with the goal of not upsetting someone else is doomed to fail because we have no control over what upsets other people... especially people who already have a chip on their shoulder and people who do not have a history of objectivity or open-mindedness. And if the goal of not offending Muslims clashes with our belief in "doing what is right", what then? Al Qaeda terrorists killed Australians in response to Australia's intervention in the crisis in East Timor. Should Australia have stayed out, and let the genocide continue? Some Muslims were upset by the presence of western military in Indonesia to provide aid following the tsunami. Should we have kept our personnel at home to avoid offending people? Should we provide assistance in the humanitarian disaster in Darfur? I mean, it's a crisis... surely nobody would be upset if we helped stop the bloodshed and the mass displacement of people by the militias, right? Well, that'd be the western view, anyway. The Muslim world might not view things the same way. For one possible interpretation, visit Al Jazeera English, click on their "Cartoons" section, and check out the animated political cartoon for August 27, 2004. Al Jazeera English It depicts a meek, mild-mannered representative of Sudan's Islamic government, going to extraordinary lengths (pole-vaulting!) to meet with the rebels to extend a hand of friendship. The brutish rebel, seated in comfy chair, extends a hand also... a huge spring-loaded boxing glove labeled "Foreign Hand", which punches out the government representative. Sure, it's just a political cartoon. But if a political cartoonist interprets western involvement in the Sudan as outsiders taking sides against an Islamic government, don't you think Islamist militants might see it that way too? So... if some pan-African group comes to us requesting Canadian money and personnel to assist in resolving the situation in Darfur, should we help? Or should we stay home out of concern that some Islamist somewhere is going to interpret our actions as a trespass against Islam? -k

If something were to happen to pm the pm,then she would become am the pm. Do you think she'd be a worse PM than Paul Martin? I'm not even sure that THELIBERAL would be a worse PM than Paul Martin. -k

Well obviously they can't just go calling an election, after PMPM went on TV to plead with us to understand how important it is to get all the facts from Gomery before he calls an election. But what if they "accidentally" (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) lost a confidence vote and had no choice but to go to the polls? The question is, of course, how to (as they say in the movies) "make it look like an accident." -k

...such as by talking a long walk of a short pier? I have not really moved at all; I've always been in favor of clean air; my objection is not to the goal but to our government's notions of how to achieve this goal. Rest assured that we'll always have lots to argue about; I've not suddenly developed a love of corrupt politicians, bloviated verbiage, or ineffectual national institutions, and I still think that the Maple Leaf is a moronic symbol for this country. Even if you live to be 100 (that would be another 5 to 10 years, I imagine?) we'll have lots of things to bicker about until the end of your days. Why? because I care that much. -k

On "whingeing": I believe Argus had speculated that Eureka and The Sweal were actually one and the same, noting that both had said "whinge," a word seldom used in Canada. On the supposedly declining quality of debate: uh, maybe. I think it varies day to day and thread to thread. Certain topics elicit certain responses from certain posters which inevitably lead to the thread going downhill. Like, at this point I think any thread pertaining to Gomery or sponsorship immediately polarizes everybody and discussion turns hostile very quickly. -k

Oh goody. Once again, the usual fallacy rears its head: If somebody's talking about changing Canadian healthcare, they must be talking about adopting a US model. Because after all, there's not more than 2 healthcare systems in the world. -k

These are not carcinogens... but all of them impair breathing and are irritants and risk factors especially to people with existing lung problems. I have returned. I wanted to add: some quick counting on my fingers leads me to thing that roughly half of Canadians live in our 6 largest centers-- Greater Toronto Area, Montreal and neighboring communities, Greater Vancouver Area, National Capital Region, Calgary and neighboring communities, and Edmonton and neighboring communities. Most or all of these cities are growing very rapidly... and as a result will probably face increasingly serious air-quality problems affecting more and more people. I think that even if this is not recognized as an issue of national importance right now, it will be before too long. -k {Look at me, sounding like Jack Layton. Who'd have expected?}

Sorry; quite far from Niagara. Good luck with your event though. -k

I'm so glad that there are still people here who can take things in the spirit they're intended. Good article, also. Further to the effects of air pollution on healthcare, I found this page at Health Canada that discusses the issue: Health Canada Air Quality While I'm not sure whether I can trust a site that has graphics that look like they were done by an 8-year old handicapped child working with Microsoft Paint, the discussion does raise some points worth considering. Cybercoma seems to assume that lung cancer would be the relevant metric in measuring the impact of air quality issues. I think that's a very limited perspective. In other words, people with existing heart and lung problems are at greater risk and require more treatment because of the additional stresses resulting from air pollution. The leap from lung problems to heart problems is straightforward: if your lungs are less efficient, your heart has to work that much harder to supply oxygen to the tissues of your body. In other words, air pollution might also play a role in creating these conditions in the first place, but we don't have hard science to back up that theory yet. Nonetheless, respiratory problems like asthma are growing at rapid rates, and whether pollution is actually causing it or not, the combination of more people with asthma and more pollution will inevitably lead to rising healthcare expenses. The statistics here indicate that respiratory problems caused almost 300,000 hospital visits-- 9% of the total-- in 1996. Health Canada: air pollution components These are not carcinogens... but all of them impair breathing and are irritants and risk factors especially to people with existing lung problems. More later; have to run. -k {running}

Who do you suggest be given that role and why do you feel it is so important? Allow me to clarify: when I said I doubt anybody in government is very qualified for that role, I mean that I honestly don't think that any of our elected officials in Ottawa are experts in security or terrorism-prevention or emergency services coordination. However, we do (I hope) have people in CSIS and the RCMP and the Canadian Forces who are experts in those areas. I think that the role of the minister is to be a capable organizer and lobbyist and facilitator, to listen to the real experts, find out what they need, and give them the tools and resources to do their jobs. And I do think that Anne McLellan is as good at that as any MP in Ottawa. Why do I think it's important? Because if we have an emergency, whether it's a terrorist attack or a natural disaster or man-made disaster of some kind, peoples' lives depend on an efficient and coordinated response. -k

(whoops. wrong button...) -k

Sparhawk, my intention is not to defend or justify Christian theology. As I've said before, I'm not a Christian. My goal here wasn't to jump into a theological debate (for which I'm uniquely ill-prepared) but simply to do some research and objective analysis of claims being made. And, I did not start with any preconceptions: I did not know what the New Testament had to say about same-sex marriage when I started doing my research. Nor do I have any vested interest in the discussion: I'm neither a Christian nor an opponent of same-sex marriage. To briefly respond to the two points you raise... ...I'll just point out that the text you've quoted is from a modern translation. I an quite doubtful that the original text (or even earlier english versions) used "indecent act" and "offender". My intention wasn't to endorse the Christian interpretation of that scripture, it was just to point out that Biblical opposition to homosexuality can be supported by chapters in the New Testament as well as in Leviticus, and therefore Christians willful disobedience of other laws laid down in Leviticus is not the "gotcha" that Black Dog seems to think it is. And rather than starting a new message to respond to Black Dog, I'll just continue here. I don't think Christians are being selective here. I think Leviticus seems to have been pretty much rejected. Implication for the same-sex marriage debate: none, because there is New Testament scripture which specifies against homosexuality too. Are Christians in error in not obeying the laws set forth in Leviticus? Who am I to say? I spent a few minutes of looking into the issue, and found some discussion to the effect that the Epistle to the Hebrews directs Christians not to be bound by rabbinic law. I also found some question as to the origin of the cleanliness laws set forth in Leviticus. The definition of "clean and unclean" animals predates Moses. There is contention as to whether Leviticus is part of the gospel given to Moses, or just a collection of rules already observed. I think I've shown Christian opposition to same-sex marriage is not dependent on Old Testament scripture. I think the question of whether Christians should obey the Old Testament's ban on certain food types and other practices is somewhat outside the scope of this message board. I don't actually know what the official church line is. However, it is certainly no secret that many Christians do not obey Old Testament teachings on these issues (otherwise Ham wouldn't be the traditional Easter supper for so many...) and I suspect there is probably a theological explanation as to why this is. It might have to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews as I mentioned earlier, or it might be something completely different that I didn't come across. I simply don't care to research it any further. I'd also question as to whether quotation you mentioned means what you say it does. Was he referring to the entire body of rabbinic law? Or just that given to Moses? Or was he speaking metaphorically ("the law" perhaps meaning society and its institutions?) I think if the interpretation was as iron-clad as you suggest, no Christians would eat pork, and Christians would stone to death anybody who mowed his lawn on a Saturday. On the issue of why Christians don't follow the regulations set down in the Old Testament... I'm sure there's a formal explanation. I don't care enough to find it. Perhaps one of the Christians on the board can help; otherwise, if this is really eating you, perhaps take it up with a member of your local clergy. -k

Can you provide any details of what you're referring to? Does Anne McLellan have too much power? I've always kind of had the impression that Deputy PM was one of the crappiest jobs in Cabinet, but I honestly don't know. Does the Deputy PM do anything other than serve as a human shield for the Prime Minister? From the reference to unaccounted-for deportees, I gather it's Annie's role as Minister of Public Safety and Preparedness that you're concerned over. And frankly I doubt there is anybody in government who is particularly qualified for that role. The posting needs a minister who is prepared to delegate, listen to experts, put ego aside, put functionality ahead of style (ie, be bland and efficient) and be ready to absorb public abuse. These are all qualities that I think Anne McLellan has, moreso than most of her cabinet colleagues. -k

I believe the issue with Leviticus is not overly complicated. I think while the Jewish regard it as god's law, Christians regard it as Jewish law. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage would certainly be more credible if it were based on a New Testament source rather than dredging up Leviticus each time this comes up. Is there a New Testament opinion one way or the other? I'm not a Christian, but I shall use my amazing powers of research to gather information. This passage... suggests Jesus viewed marriage as being a man and a woman. There also appear to be a number of letters from Paul that object most strenuously to homosexuality... Paul asserts that homosexuals won't go to heaven... And here... well... uh, Paul seems to have been having a bad day when he wrote this one... (more Wrath for you, buddy. Step away from the idol. Now.) Now, I'm not exactly sure how Paul's letters fit into the overall scheme of things. From what I've been able to gather, Paul's letters in the New Testiment were written between around 50 and 58 AD, somewhere around 20 years after Jesus died. So, while Paul might be one of the key figures in interpreting and promoting Jesus' teachings, how sure can we be that he got it "right"? Paul, from what little I've read of his writings, seems to have a judgmental nature that doesn't seem in step with Jesus himself. Nonetheless, Paul is a key figure in the Christian faith, and his writings seem to be considered to be important and authoritative interpretations of Jesus' teachings. So, given that Christians attach importants to Paul's portions of the New Testiment, there does seem to be support for Christian opposition to same-sex marriage. And Jesus himself, while not promising wrath for homosexuals, does seem to endorse a man-woman definition of marriage in his own words. Black Dog, would you consider this a fair examination of why Christians can be opposed to same-sex marriage without also opposing shrimp and pork-chops? -k

I can't hear the name Marc Garneau without thinking of a Tonight Show where Jay Leno mentioned Garneau in his opening monologue. It went something along the lines of... (giggle!) -k

Nice try, nut-cup, but I admitted nothing of the sort. Nowhere did I say that I think the gun registry saves hundreds of lives. I'm still not sure it's saved any. Here's what I said: I didn't even say it has saved one life. I said that at most, it could save a few hundred lives a year. That's because gun violence claims at most a few hundred lives a year in Canada. But as I said, I didn't want this thread to get sidetracked. Gun violence affects a comparatively small number of lives in Canada; air quality problems affects millions, and claims many lives. It's a much bigger issue; yet doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a priority in Canada. So... by selecting Rick Mercer as the spokesman for the One Tonne Challenge, I gather they're trying to capture the interest of the "snarky homosexual" demographic? Well, critics of Kyoto point out (perhaps correctly) that if the world's largest producers of air pollution and greenhouse gases aren't on-board, then marginal increases in efficiency in Canada aren't going to make much difference. But what about quality of life in Canada's major urban centers? Emissions from Toronto vehicles might make up only a tiny percentage of the gases that are causing global warming, but they make up a large percentage of the gases that are causing air-quality problems in Toronto. And, again, if we've agreed to reduce our emissions, then we ought to do it, don't you think? If we're going to sign agreements, we ought to honor them. Well, there are many days I would agree with you. Believe me, I've often felt that the rest of you could use a little thinning out, to leave more room for me. However, I'm not entirely sure that pollution is a suitably efficient method of reducing the population, either. Perhaps restrictions on retail of hand-grenades could be loosened. However, as much as I'd personally love to kill a bunch of you off, our government sadly feels that preserving, protecting, and prolonging lives is a priority. They even spend tremendous money providing medical treatment for people to stop them from being sick or dying. Since combatting the effects of airborne pollutants are a major expense of our healthcare system, it seemed to me that putting more money and a more thorough approach to reducing airborne pollutants might partly pay for itself in reduced medical costs. -k

While cooperating with China's censorship policies certainly isn't going to win Microsoft many fans, I don't think the onus is on Microsoft to be an agent of change. When foreign businesses come to do business in Canada, we expect them to either follow our rules or stay home. And that appears to be what is happening with regard to Microsoft doing business in China. China's conditions for doing business appear to be a lot more restrictive than Canada's, but the theory still seems the same: follow the rules or stay home. Microsoft's mandate is, as has been pointed out, to do business or not do business. Their mandate is not to attempt to change other societies. Would the people of China be better served by having government-censored internet services, or none at all? Ultimately, I think that the Chinese government will find that this is more than they can handle. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but someday people are going to look at this as one of the straws that eventually broke the camel's back. -k