Evening Star

Yeah, 9M isn't even the correct number of people who voted in the 2011 election.

Huh? If anything, wouldn't the BQ only further split the left vote, especially seeing as how they're an actual left-wing party?

I gave you some answers in my post. Mulcair has experience with being a prominent member in a major provincial cabinet. I don't know what you consider a 'real job' but he has significant accomplishments as a lawyer and public servant and has taught university. Topp was deputy chief of staff to the premier of Saskatchewan. He has an insider's perspective on Romanow's battle with the deficit. Nash was in charge of major labour negotiations on behalf of CAW. Want to tell me what experience Stephen Harper had with the sorts of things you're asking about prior to becoming PM? I'm especially interested in hearing about his 'real jobs'.

Yeah, tbf, speaking about major issues in front of a large group can be nerve-wracking. I made all kinds of blunders in front of the class in my first year of teaching. This was an embarrassing mistake but not more than that. I think it would make more sense to call this discussion a diversion from the content of her speech, to be honest. I defended Peter Kent the same way when he wouldn't answer about what ozone was fwiw. (I don't remember you calling for a resignation that time, Bill.)

I think cybercoma's comments were a pretty reasonable and appropriate response to prior comments on this thread. They don't seem like a 'diversion' to me.

This is a depressingly stupid blunder, by the way, and certainly more noteworthy than MPs looking at a lyric sheet while singing the bilingual anthem.

They're nothing compared to Harper's numbers in Calgary Southwest, I'll give you that!

It was not her decision to Photoshop the photo.

We're talking about all-day junior (4-yr-old) kindergarten?? I didn't realize that.

This makes sense to me. I haven't followed the issue closely. Has anyone advocated/defended full-day kindergarten on educational grounds?

45-29 in 2008, 48-34 in 2006.

Why do I suspect that no answer will satisfy you? Getting elected (repeatedly) and running political machines seem like pretty relevant qualifications to be leader of a political party, don't you think? And in those areas, other candidates seem far more experienced than Martin Singh. I could point to things Mulcair's experience in Charest's cabinet with environmental policy and with the 1995 referendum, to Topp's experience as Romanow's deputy chief of staff and NDP campaign director and with directing ACTRA, to Dewar's and Nash's work in Parliament and Nash's with CAW but these things are widely known already and can be easily looked up.

Afaik, he's a white guy from a Protestant family who converted to Sikhism. I'm willing to believe that he has grown since the first debate. It still seems rash to assume that it is only racism that makes him a less likely candidate than people with the experience and accomplishments that Mulcair, Topp, Nash, and Dewar have.

I only really watched the first debate but then, Singh seemed very much to be a single-issue candidate who was fixated on small businesses, especially his own. Has he shown more depth? I have no issue with his turban and beard. (Mulcair has a beard too!)

There might be a strategic element to it but I do think that the candidates are respecting the supremacy of the party when it comes to policy. Tbh, I always found it a little bizarre when leadership candidates in other parties would rip into each other - after all, they'd have to work together on the same team once the contest was over. Either way, it seems to put the lie to August's theory that the fatal flaw of leftists is that they can never agree/get along.

I'm also curious what you think would actually be an effective strategy for involvement in situations like Rwanda and Darfur. I agree that UN peacekeeping-type efforts might be futile. But do you think mass killing of civilians and destruction of civilian institutions would help?

The morality, I guess. I think we can probably agree that it achieved what it set out to do.

To be clear, what is your opinion of the US Army's handling of the Plains 'Indians'?

If it's subjective and subtle in nature, it's probably not obvious. Perhaps "bias" was the wrong term for me to use wrt the Post and Star but they both have clear e.g. editorial positions, to the point of endorsing candidates in every election (Conservative and NDP in the last election, respectively). These endorsements are a matter of record and clearly testify to the stances taken by the editorial boards of those papers. They both run editorials and opinion pieces in every issue that give opinions on the issues. These tend to reflect distinct points of view (Heather Mallick vs Christie Blatchford). I just checked the current issues online and their perspectives are pretty evident. (Imo, it might actually go a little further than this: compare e.g. this headline in the Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/07/dan-gardner-conservatism-in-canada-would-be-called-socialism-in-the-u-s/ to the headline used for the same piece in the Ottawa Citizen: http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/books/item/91-harper-conservatives-more-canadian-than-conservative ) I don't see anything comparable in the CBC. Power and Politics, for example, bends over backwards to have one representative of each major party on every panel. (I just went to the website for a sample. A panel featuring Ian Capstick, Stockwell Day, Liza Frulla and John Ivison, for example, definitely doesn't seem biased to me.) A previous time when I was debating the same topic with someone on this board, I went to the CBC site and did a search for pieces on Harper vs pieces on Ignatieff and didn't see evidence of any strong bias. So it's not obvious to me at all and I'd want to see someone back up the claim if they're going to make it. There are many writers and scholars who have studied media bias: they're able to research the sources and show methodology to support their claims. It does seem like something that can be supported by more than purely subjective impressions. I haven't heard of any studies that have shown a strong political bias in CBC coverage. (Fwiw, btw, many people on Babble strongly believe that the CBC is biased in favour of corporate power and against the NDP.)

I disagree that this is obvious. I've questioned this claim several times on this board and have never seen anyone actually back this point up. It's obvious to me what the biases of the National Post or Toronto Star are: their editorials are quite open about their leanings. I don't see anything comparable on CBC.

Fair point, but substitute "abuse" for "kill" in my question. Quebec is not biting us (least of all you as an American)! They are a valuable and significant part of the country (and have been since its founding) with much to offer. Just because there is a (largely moribund) separatist movement within the province does not mean that the entire province is somehow an antagonist to the rest of the country, nor that they should be denied the constitutional entitlements that any other province is also entitled to.

We do insist on this, surely? English classes were still mandatory when I was in school and I understand they still are. Do you just mean that the quality of English teaching leaves something to be desired? If so, I tend to agree. I'd be in favour of bringing back more rigorous instruction in petty matters like grammar. (I have to say that I'm comparatively impressed by the writing skills of students in SK though.) Does this mean it's OK to kill people as long as other people from the same culture are also being killed by their compatriots? Why should they not be? What would be the purpose of forcibly removing the option? It's not like they would receive subsidies if they ever actually decided to separate (which I don't see happening in the foreseeable future). Are you really concerned that Americans are failing to honour their own culture?

Actually, I think MPs should exercise some independence. Most people can't keep up with all the information on every issue so it makes sense that they elect someone whom they trust to be capable of handling that responsibility on their behalf without needing to consult the public every single time. I am 100% fine with responsible, as opposed to strictly representative, democracy. My issue is just that MPs, the officials who are actually elected directly by constituents for this purpose, are not even really able to do that most of the time in our system: they just have to vote along party lines.

What about TFSAs and income splitting?

Excellent idea. But to be precise, party leaders are actually chosen by paying delegates from the party, not the membership at large, right?