Evening Star

I basically agree with this.

I don't entirely disagree here but I'm not that thrilled about an unelected body killing a bill in the way that they did, even though I know that it is perfectly legal and constitutional. "Sober second thought" also doesn't mean forcing an unexpected vote and defeating a bill without sufficient debate. But "unfortunate" mostly just meant that I liked the bill and thought it was unfortunate that it was defeated in this way. I'm allowed, right? You're right that an elected Senate could often offer even stiffer opposition to the Commons but its powers would seem more legitimated by democracy. I actually don't advocate an elected Senate though.

Explain? "Wealth" = income + assets - liabilities, right? I would that that would be even more unequally distributed.

Having said all this, why were those 15 Liberal senators absent?

Some xposts in there. That was to TB. (If we're going to get partisan, it was an NDP member's bill and the NDP has always advocated abolishing the Senate altogether. Not sure why this has become an issue about the Liberals.)

I said "unfortunate" not "unconstitutional". (And, yeah, I suspected you'd have to go back 20 years.)

When is the last time they actually voted down a bill that passed the Commons? I don't even think it's a partisan issue. This was a good bill. It was ratified by the elected house. It is unfortunate IMO that the unelected upper house chose to vote it down, instead of providing 'sober second thought' and e.g. suggesting changes.

Here's a TD report (presumably not a left-biased source) based on Stats Can figures again, considering the data from 1999-2004: http://www.td.com/economics/special/dt1206_wealth.jsp

This (and Wild Bill's preceding post) don't make sense to me. Chart B here: http://benmuse.typepad.com/ben_muse/2005/11/oh_canada_so_fa.html#more seems to show that the top 10% of earners accounted for over 40% of total income in the country in 2000. This review quotes a CCPA paper written using StatsCan figures: http://www3.sympatico.ca/ian.g.mason/Rags_and_Riches.htm The 'real money' does seem to be towards the top.

Strongly agree with KeyStone. The political cost of raising taxes back to a sustainable level in the future + the insufficient level of sustainable investment in public infrastructure will likely straitjacket future governments.

Adding to the chorus, you never see Conservative signs in Windsor. However, I think there might be a case to be made that the CPC does hate union labour, lower-class urban minorities, and students.

Isn't he Foreign Affairs critic??

Just want to note that 'liberals' and 'human rights campaigners' do certainly target these issues: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_stoning http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-on-situation-in-iran for instance Even just a glance at Avaaz's 'highlights' page shows that they focus on issues around the world, without any particular focus on Israel: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/highlights/#human_rights (I just picked Avaaz because they seem like the sort of 'liberal' group that is usually a target of these kinds of comments.) When I was more of a human rights activist in the 90s, I focused much more on Burma and East Timor than on Israel.

Not because you'd vote for Fantino though, right?

Do you not see a difference between donations from unions of wage-labourers and donations from (presumably the administration/management of) public utilities?

I think there is, going by the article: It's totally possible that Bevilacqua is also guilty of similar things (and a stealth campaign does seem a little dishonest) but that's another issue.

My generation has lolcats, man.

Would China seriously refuse our grain, which presumably benefits them as much as us, because our govt officials attended the Nobel Prize ceremony?

Ha, some of the details were a little fuzzy in my memory. Now I recall that it was in fact Coulter's own people who cancelled her U of O talk, not Houle: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spurned-in-ottawa-ann-coulter-gets-a-big-welcome-from-calgary/article1511247/ His worst crime, then, was being a little condescending and simply stating the reality that there is a difference between Canadian and US laws concerning free speech. (Note that I personally actually prefer the US law.) Right-wingers really are a sorry bunch of crybabies! Nicky's dead on here:

To be clear, I (another self-confessed left-winger) also believe that Coulter deserves the right to speak and even that Houle/Rock handled the situation very badly and should have let her speak once they invited her. I just don't think that this case was a violation of her Charter right to freedom of expression. By the way, I would also favour an American-style approach to freedom of speech and hate speech laws. (I don't actually favour e.g. the use of 'free speech zones' as is actually practised.)

I know that. I just think it's unlikely that ostensibly 'liberal schools' would have a vested political interest in 'quietly slipping Orwell down the memory hole' if they were in fact on the democratic left.

WTF, Shady? What's that even in reference to? Do you seriously need proof of Orwell's socialism? (I can provide it if you do...)

Just want to note that Orwell was a dedicated socialist, as much as right-wingers might like to claim him.

Noble is Jewish himself btw. But yes, it's possible that his article might be a little one-sided. I do remember that you were quick to comment on the treatment of G20 protesters so fair enough.

It is. That doesn't mean they're not important though. And compared to many other countries, we don't really have all that many great historical buildings. The Parliament buildings are magnificent. We need to maintain them.