Evening Star

On the other hand, you do raise a rather valid point here:

He honoured the obligation for the couple of years that he was paid to do so. Now the constituents get to vote for someone else to represent them. I'm not a CPC or Prentice fan at all but I don't see the issue here. Quite agree with Smallc.

If I'm understanding, that's what's going on, right? These are government-funded public utilities, not privatized corporations?

It does seem a little different when we're talking about public utilities though.

Ha, I wondered if it was just a statement of libertarian 'principle' or if there was some economic reason behind it.

Mostly in the last 25 years, though, right? For decades before, both PC and Liberal governments seemed happy to develop and expand Crown Corporations and they were effective and successful in a number of cases.

Why is that bad?

As for the Bush demonstration, I guess this was York's side of it: http://news.yorku.ca/2005/01/20/york-u-says-no-to-violent-protest-condemns-disruption-of-classes/

Why did I never hear anyone on the right complain about the use of actual academic disciplinary actions and arrests by police against anti-Israel and anti-Bush protesters at York?: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1901 These are cases where the power of authority was genuinely used to stifle free speech with actual disciplinary sanctions, as opposed to a case where a widely published author was invited to give a paid talk and was then treated a little paternalistically and eventually had her talk cancelled. U of O was disrespectful to Coulter and handled the situation idiotically. I just don't think it's at all comparable as a free speech issue. (If it were up to me, I would just not have invited her in the first place and no one would have complained about free speech, although the end result is the same.)

As opposed to his laissez-faire, neoliberal side...?

A part of me is a little disappointed too. I was hoping they'd give their SK seats to the NDP.

So if they had never booked Coulter in the first place say, on the grounds that she's a moron, it would be a non-issue but because they changed their minds after booking her, it's a violation? The line seems a bit fine.

It's a clumsy way of handling the situation but it's not an infringement on freedom of speech. Events can be cancelled for any number of reasons, including organizers changing their minds.

I don't know if I have a strong opinion about the Steyn/white supremacist issue but I don't even think it's a relevant issue whether universities are public or private when it comes to Ann Coulter's cancelled talk at U of O. Not giving someone a platform to speak is not the same thing as denying someone her right to free speech. Coulter has spoken on many other campuses. If most of us asked to be able to give a talk at U of O, we might get turned down as well. While I can see how a private organization could have the right to restrict entry to anyone they want, how far are we willing to take that? What if a private business wanted to e.g. restrict non-white customers from entering or ask them to sit at separate tables at a restaurant?

Ha. I'm being a little half-serious here - although publicly owned oil does seems to be working in Norway. My understanding of resource economics is pretty superficial. I enjoyed the Grant Devine interview in any case!

Actually, yeah, kind of.

I'm the only one who kind of feels like Potash should be renationalized, right?

Oh, that's interesting. I actually didn't know that anyone saw the G&M as left of centre in the context of mainstream Canadian media.

Man, I was so let down by Dosanjh and Kennedy for not even fucking SHOWING UP to vote on McKay's private member's bill. (And where did G&M reader = NDPer thing even come from??)

More, surely!

Like, in the Graham-Alward contest, Alward was the one opposed to selling off a public utility and increased tax cuts, right? Not exactly evidence of a shift to the right.

Yeah, and AFAIK Danny Williams and David Alward are relatively centrist.

xposts Dancer explained that better than I did.

Right... I guess I just thought of Hitler's ambitions of global conquest as being driven by more than just a concern for resources. But, OK, yeah, resources were definitely important.

How was WWII about resources?