kimmy

I expect the main reason that natives are over-represented in the correctional system is... because they commit more crimes. There is most definitely a problem, but I believe the problems start far before things ever get to the correctional system. -k

No courage. Yes. I meant to say that. With Layton's plans for the "new Green economy" and "Green Cities", I wonder if he fancies himself the Wizard. -k

You mean Harper is the Chosen One of the Illuminati? If that's the case, then he'll certainly be Prime Minister soon. After all, the Iluminati control everything. What do you think now, Sweal? It's inevitable! MWA-HAHAHA -k {I Miss Trudeau is so totally going to hate getting sent to Christian Re-education Camp. HAHAH that'll be hilarious.}

Paul Martin as "no testicles". -k

I.e. regardless of what the real evidence may be, you condemn them. Regardless of what Grewal might have snipped from the tape, what's still there doesn't speak well for Murphy or Dosage. Whether they're sincere or not, they're certainly trying to lead Grewal into thinking favours will be granted in exchange for his vote. Nothing in the evidence so far indicates anyone was willing to try to tamper with the commisioner's findings. Murphy mused about seeking an interim report. Whoop de doo. It was still up the the commish whether he'd give it. Murphy suggests he could approach the ethics commissioner as a political favor for Grewal. I find the suggestion offensive, and evidently so does Shapiro. -k

With the caveat that I don't think this question is very telling on the question above, I answer this one with a 'depends'. It depends on whether the someone holds that buying power based on merit or not. If someone has earned their $60,000 through only the most meritudinous of activities, they should be able to spend it on a ridiculous SUV... but not on surgery to save their own life? -k

But obviously healthcare is more than just an insurance system. The healthcare system is also a production facility (in a sense) that requires massive capital to build and maintain. Isn't reducing the scarcity of the resource the most logical answer to the problem? People who support increased private participation in the health system believe that it will spur investment in the facilities and personnel that we need. Suppose-- hypothetically-- that I've won the Super-7 and I've got 12 million dollars sitting around burning a hole in my pocket. (let's hold that thought just a while longer. ) I hear on the news one night that the wait-list for MRI scanning is ridiculously long, and putting peoples' lives at risk. A bright idea strikes me. I phone up Siemens and ask them to send me one of their shiny new MRI machines, I lease a little building just out of town. I incorporate Kimmy Imaging Inc, offer stock options to lure some experienced techs from the US, and we're in business. So, how have I affected the greater good? Well, I've just increased the infrastructure of the healthcare system by several million dollars. I've added to the capacity of the system-- we can now perform more MRI images than we could before. Even if only 10% of the people on the waiting list for MRIs can afford my rates, the waiting list for MRI services gets shorter for everybody. I don't see how any of this hurts public healthcare. Who said we're talking about the market alone? -k

Why should that line of argument only apply to healthcare? If you feel that it's applicable to healthcare, why should it be any less applicable to other fields of enterprise? Is it fair that someone can by a $60,000 vehicle, when that sum of money could provide food and housing for many homeless people? Is it fair that General Moters can manufacture these vehicles when those manufacturing facilities could be used to construct agricultural equipment that could save lives in less developed countries? Is it fair that I Miss Trudeau is working at a Starbucks, when he could be using his effort to help the poor? Ultimately, yes: our society places a value on giving people the freedom to choose their own path, even if their choices run contrary to "the greater good". If you ask the cosmetic surgeon whether it's fair that he should be able to mangle Michael Jackson's grill instead of saving lives, I think he'd probably tell you that he improves peoples' quality of life. Turning a black man into a caucasian woman is not a typical example of what he would do. Burn victims and breast cancer survivors are probably grateful that some surgeons focus on cosmetic surgery rather than life-saving procedures. People who've suffered disfigurement through accident or violence. People born with hare lips or cleft palettes. People born with deformities that limit their social opportunities. These are clear-cut examples of why we have cosmetic surgeons. There are obviously more ambiguous cases. There are people who have no specific deformity, yet are so far from what our society considers attractive that their social opportunities suffer... so is it easier to rebuild society, or rebuild someone's face? If a woman is so upset about the size of her breasts that it has damaged her self-esteem, is there anything actually *wrong* with her getting implants? Who is to say it doesn't improve the quality of her life? But instead of looking at the clear-cut cases, or even the grey areas, you reach straight for the absurd in Michael Jackson's halloweenish visage. (was the jaguar lady busy?) Overall, I suspect that cosmetic surgeons do a great deal of good, and I don't see that prohibiting them from doing discretionary surgeries is going to save any lives anyway. -k

That the tapes appear to be edited does make me think worse of Grewal, but it doesn't make me think any better of Murphy and Dosage. Murphy's apparent belief that they could get the ethics commissioner to gloss things over for Grewal is a telling comment about the Liberals' mindset. -k

Thanks so much, Sparhawk. It's nice to see a Liberal supporter who's willing to look beyond the partisan bickering to take a broader look at the issue. A lot of the discussion in this thread reminds me of the 2000 election, when Chretien, Clark, and McDonough were blasting at Day over 2-tier health... it came out in the press that Clark and McDonough had both sent relatives for expensive (but prompt!) treatment in the US, while Chretien had jumped weeks of waiting-lists by receiving next-day treatment at a Canadian Forces hospital. I don't think anybody intends to collapse the public healthcare system. Your phrasing it in such terms is just cheap melodramatics. I can vouch for this from personal experience. When my family returned from Ottawa, there were few physicians taking new patients. My options were either a doctor in the far north end of Edmonton, or one in Leduc. Leduc is closer... so if I want to visit my doctor, I go for a 45 minute bike ride down Highway 2. -k

who? -k

I could believe that Grewal initiated contact. I could believe the reverse, too. I think most likely a "matchmaker" of some sort was involved, just as Mr and Mrs Peterson were in the Stronach defection. CTV Ottawa bureau chief Fife said weeks ago that Liberal insiders were talking about using senate appointments and ambassadorships to get some Conservative MPs out of the House of Commons to solidify the Liberals' position. Eureka's take was that they would do it, they just wouldn't be this clumsy about it. And, as the tape shows, they weren't clumsy. No specifics discussed, no hard commitments made. At one point one of the Liberals says as much, telling Grewal that they can't give him any specific promise because they have to maintain deniability, all while essentially assuring him that good things would happen for him if he followed through. Did Tim Murphy really phone to PMPM to discuss the situation, or did Murphy just tell that to Grewal to keep the wheels greased? We can only guess. Did Murphy and Dosage really intend to give Grewal some reward if he followed through, or were they just trying to string him along long enough to win the crucial votes that week? We can only guess at that, too. Did Grewal intend from the start for this to be a "sting" operation, or was he initially hoping to be on the receiving end of some grift? We'll just have to guess at that too. I think that the Liberals insistance that "no offer was made" is dependent on a pretty literalistic use of the word 'offer', just as Bill Clinton's insistance that he "did not have sex with that woman" as dependent on a pretty literalistic definition of the word 'sex'. They might not have made a specific offer, but pretty clearly Grewal was assured that good things would come to him if he cooperated, and he was 'offered' the chance to meet with PMPM in person to discuss that further. (would Paul Martin take such a meeting? I suspect he would. He might find that he and Grewal "have a great deal in common", to coin a phrase.) My opinion is that of Murphy, Dosage, and Grewal, I wouldn't leave my purse unattended with any of them. -k

Key word: "or". Surely Grewal had Grewal's consent to record Grewal's phone call? As the call-recording software site contends: "one-party consent". -k

Sorry, your reference contradicts you. -k

Just because you post something over and over doesn't make it any more true. Here's my post from the other thread: Perhaps the RCMP are not pursuing wiretapping charges against Grewal and the CPC because what Grewal did is not wiretapping and is not illegal. It's been pointed out to you time and again that this was not a wiretap, which is defined as monitoring of a conversation by a third party. It has also been claimed repeatedly here that it is legal to record a phone converstation that you're part of. While I'm sure there are more thorough treatments of the subject, this site was the first that popped up in my search:Call recording in Canada This call-recording software vendor makes the same claim. Call recording software site That sounds pretty clear to me. Can you provide anything to the contrary? -k

So, do you suppose CTV was leaked some of the transcripts? Or was their article yesterday just based on the previous information or speculation? -k

We shall find out soon. The tapes are to be turned over to the RCMP today. -k

Perhaps the RCMP are not pursuing wiretapping charges against Grewal and the CPC because what Grewal did is not wiretapping and is not illegal. It's been pointed out to you time and again that this was not a wiretap, which is defined as monitoring of a conversation by a third party. It has also been claimed repeatedly here that it is legal to record a phone converstation that you're part of. While I'm sure there are more thorough treatments of the subject, this site was the first that popped up in my search:Call recording in Canada This call-recording software vendor makes the same claim. Call recording software site That sounds pretty clear to me. Can you provide anything to the contrary? -k

Yahoo news: Chretien drops federal court bid to remove Gomery I wonder if he had any encouragement from current Liberals? I could see a conversation going something like... PMPM: "Please drop your case to have Gomery removed." Chretien: "No." PMPM: "Please?" Chretien: "No." PMPM: "Please?" Chretien: "No." PMPM: "Please?" Chretien: "No." PMPM: "Please?" Chretien: "No." PMPM: "Pretty please?" Chretien: "Welllll maybe." Although the bid could be resumed later, I kind of doubt it will be. The article states: Translated: "it is too late to prevent Brault from testifying." -k

Certainly a valid concern. -k

And some stayed and joined the Taliban instead. And some came afterward to join the Taliban. Surely you're not under the impression that that Lind fellow was the only foreign Muslim zealot who went to Afghanistan to join the Taliban. Do we always recognize the "de facto authority"? What if the defacto authority in Afghanistan had been a local warlord? Presumably more than 3 countries... -k

Harper has not accused all individuals within the party of being corrupt. He has accused the party of being a corrupt organization; a fair case can be made that it is. -k edited to add: You wanted to discuss the accusations against the Liberals, and 3 posts later we're talking about Stockwell Day's religious kookery. What's next, dinosaurs? Each time I read this, I find it more cryptic.

Are you retarded, or is that just what passes for humour in Fish-Nuts, Nova Scotia? Personally, I have no complaint about the prospect of a gay wedding on TV. I have no plans to watch it, either. I can't really see why any wedding should be on TV; unless perhaps it were Prince Harry. The gay wedding won't even be the most offensive thing on TV on the day it airs. -k

Oh, I like Con llogic! Stockwell Day was leader of an education institution that taught that democracy was wrong because it elevates man over God. Therefore ALL Conservatives oppose democracy. And apparently Liberal logic is that it's always a good time to change the subject. You're taking your own thread off topic. How does that make you feel? I don't think the claim is that "ALL LIBERALS" are corrupt. Just that the extent of the criminal activities, and the highly-placed positions of the participants, makes the claim that "it's just some Rogue Elements™" somewhat strained. -k

Penticton makes Red Deer look like "Gay Pareee" by comparison. -k