fellowtraveller

I know at the time when the leadership campaign was on that union leaders and Liberal votes were joining the PCs just to vote for a candidate. Is it not beyond the realm that the PCs elected someone they might have done otherwise? One of the reasons I am against one member, one vote is that it does seem too easy for outside parties to hijack the leadership of another party. The delegate system is fraught with problems as well but what we saw in Alberta was a leadership campaign that had plenty of non-PCs voting. Stelmach's rural roots do not fit Alberta's charging urbanism. Calgary and Edmonton are huge cities and they are largely underrepresented in the new government. The leadership vote was not so much a vote for Stelmach, it was a vote against Morton - and a decisive vote at that. The 'discontent' is based on a Calgary perception that they are somehow underreprsented in Stelmachs cabinet. Despite having had local Clagary premiers for much of the last 25 years, and having had both Dinning and Morton as local candiates in the leadership. Calagry has traditionally had the lions share too of money for schools and infrastructure for quite some time. Metro Edmonton has many Opposition members, unless Stelmach appoints some Liberals and NDP to cabinet posts that can't change. Edmonton has long been the source of the Oppositioon in Alberta, another thing that Calgarians hate about the place. I do hope Bronconnier runs for the Liberals. he comes across as a first class a**hole interested only in what he can grab. A crushing defeat might shut his whining down for a few minutes.

Every debate* on health care should begin with this mantra, recited by every person: "There will never be enough money to keep everybody alive forever. Never." * Whenever we mature enough to actually have a debate without rampant ideology taking over, and devoid of anecdotes about Aunt Tillys treatment problems.

When I saw the title "new Moderator" I just naturally assumed I'd see my handle. There must be some mistake.

Wouldn't it be easier and more practical (from management and operating perspective) to simply allow such interest groups to offer voluntary courses and programs, within public schools, as long they satisfy certain curriculum requirements (i.e being educational, in line with the laws and traditions of this country, etc) and taught by a professional teacher? Of course, financing of such courses would be subject to sufficient registration, not unlike courses offered by colleges or e.g city recreational programs. Did you actually read my post, which is two above yours? Edmonton has many schools, so it is no special effort to have entire schools dedicated to whatever special interest is required by the community. Why teach Chinese language immersion at 17 different schools, instead of the successful approach is simply having a Chinses immersion school? It makes staffing much easier. So no, it isn't easier or more pratcical to offer 'voluntary' courses. Every student at a special interest school is there voluntarily (or more accurately at their parents wish), all teach minimum provincial curriculums, all taught by certifed teachers. Note that students in Alberta may attend any public school of their choice, subject to space availability. If you attend outside your district, parents must also get their kids to school. Oh yeah, many of the special schools - like the hockey, ballet, soccer, military academy and others are geared only to specific age group, often junior high.

Fortunately, Fontaine simply does not have the chops to control an increasing large and vocal minority of First Nations people. he is permanently yesterdays 'leader'. Burn, baby, burn.

We can be certain that Iran does not yet have nukes, because Israel has not yet attacked Iran. But Israel would be brain dead if they did allow Iran to get the capability. And brain dead is something Israel has never been. There is a bad moon rising.......

Toyota can also be competitive because their competitors do not make vehicles that people want to buy. That would change when the manufacture of F-150s moved to South Korea and the price went down 30%. People pay a premium for quality ( which is the case for Toyota now, they are expensive and rarely discounted). They will not pay the moon for a car, especially cars like Toyotas that don't have the mystery cachet of Porsche or BMW. If cars that are cheap and of decent quality are brought to North America, people will buy them too. Hyundai is a good example of this, and they will put a serious dent in Toyota here.

Of course, if the Big Three declared bankruptcy here and migrated offshore, every other manufacturer faced with high labour costs- including Toyota- would follow suit. What choice would they have?

Will you be happy when this policy is taken as justification for the requirement that we taxpayers fund Jewish, Muslim and Hindu schools too? I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of virtually any special interest group within the publc school system. One condition: that the minimum provincial curriculum be taught by licensed and accredited teachera. beyond that, who cares? FYI, the Edmonton Public School bOard has this system of inclusion and it has been a success. They have many other special interest groups and schools too. It is a big tent.

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith. Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature. And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do. That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile. I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people. There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found. Right. And quite remarkably, those older people tend to move to precisely the religion that they were brought up in - or atleast, in over 90% of cases where this phenomena is known to occur. If your theory was even remotely credible, then these 'older people' might be expected to adopt a variety of different religous views. They generally don't. You are correct in one respect though. People as they age often do 'come back' to the religion that they 'drifted' away from in their younger days. Picking or choosing amongst a hundred various sects amongst the Christian religion is of course equally simple. Indeed, in well over 90% of cases, they will magically choose the one that they were brought up with. Remarkable coincidence that. If you are going to assert that religion isn't inherited from your parents (as is the statistical case of over 90% of Americans who claim to be religious), then you have to offer a more convincing argument. P.S. Your assertion that my argument here is "facile" is troll bait. I replied politely. I don't always reply to troll bait with such politeness. Nor are you own troll baits very polite, although the beatings you've suffered ought to eventually tone you down. Is it possible that people return later in life to the religion of their upbringing because that is the type of spirituality they are familiar with rather than because of some learned response during youth? Isn't it possible that the object is not a return to a specific religion as much as a quest for spirituality? Is it more reasonable for an elderly European or North American grandma who was raised a Presbyterian to seek out spirituality in an ashram or in a church? The immediate problem you are having is in the facile assumption that religion is the equivalent of spiritualism...one is a method and the other an object. But your larger problem is that facile undergrad philosophy majors learn in a sort of linear modelling that precludes thinking outside the box. Couple that with the arrogance of atheism and all that ever emerges is strawmen. People returning to the religion of their youth is quite natural, and in no way discredits their quest for faith and spirituality. It is quite likely that some who do beome religious do return to the religion of their family. I guess it is familiar. But - they rejected it once, so they are equally likely to accept whatever seems right at the time their spiritual quest occurs, which is much more likely to be independent at age 28 than at age 8. It may be natural to return to the religion of childhood, but it is far from preordained. Indeed, whacko outfits like Scientology and many others count on it. And I am not talking at all about deathbed conversions, I'm referring to young adults that seek answers in organized religions - and find them. It does not matter so much that the answers may be rote dogma, it matters that they exist and are consistent. People seek simplicity and stability and fellowship and a sense of belonging. Organized religion provides much of that, it is not hard to see why people seek it.

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith. Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature. And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do. That explanation - religion or faith is inherited- is more than a bit facile. I've noticed many people return to their faith or discover faith later in life. They are not inbred hillbillies either, but thinking caring and intelligent people. There are a couple of explanations for this. The most likely is that as people get older, they tend to move beyond the questions of where the next party might be found. They ask themselves why am I here?, what is my purpose in life?, does anybody love me, what is the point of it all? Virtually every religion not only has a prepackaged set of answers to these questions, they have a group of people willing to help explain it all in their context. They have a place where you can gather, a worldwide network of support and comfort. You can join a tribe, in a time when families are spread far and wide. It is more than join a tribe, yopu will be welcomed to a tribe, something that has appealed to our forebrains forever and a day. Mambership is simple, all that is intially required is to accept the first premise of the religion as fact. With Christianity, there are a couple of them, starting with 'Jesus died for your sins' or 'God created Heaven and the Earth". Once you accept one of those, all the rest fits pretty well.

Right. Should we wait till they have 100 missiles? 200? How many missiles should we let them get before we attack a terrorist organization? Do you ever think before you type? Scott - Palestine is an occupied territory as such the people there have a right to defend themselves and attempt to regain their lands. All would be so easily solved if Israel would dismantle the settlements and get the heck out. Period. 50 missles is nothing - what about Israels hundreds of nukes? And here bloated defense forces? All propped up by the US military industrial complex and the US GOP. Oh, and of course I think before I type, why with the insults all the time? Hamas was democratically elected. Hamas held to a ceasefire for over 18 months, while Israel did not. In fact Israel is currently violating another ceasefire term by flying over Lebanese airspace (something she has Never stopped doing). Besides that - the one screaming for war seems to be the right wing extremists leading the land of Israel. They called for war with Iraq, they are calling now for war with Iran. Fine if they are the ones who will fight it - but they won't be - they are proxy warriors and need only call on their puppy the US. So, who REALLY wants this? The average person in Israel (probably not) the average Palestinian - probably NOT either. Those who beleive in Greater Israel (ie LAND and RESOURCES now belonging to others) YES. That has been the political aim of the Zionist ideology since its inception. (I'll wait for your next insult with anticipation!!) Other than Hamas being elected, my search for any facts in this post has been completely in vain. Imagine being surrounded by people who want to turn your home and your family into a puddle of melted glass, and repeatedly tell you that. And they mean it. For sixty years. Israel has decided not to be obliterated. Shame on them.

I totally agree. I looked at the seawall around stanley park yesterday. There is still a good 4 feet of excess wall, even at the highest tide. By my calculation, that gives us thousands of years to build another foot or two onto the wall. Lemme see, first we'll have to find some money for an environmental impact study of adding a couple of feet...... duke it out in court with the Friends of the Old Seawall......monitor the scrap between Vancouver and the province over funding.....blame it all on the Conservative federal government, who will deny that there is an ocean at all then finally cough up.... find a contractor who has not retired from the 2010 windfall...... Thousands of years? Could be close......

Would you agree that virtually any aid given to any country is political in nature? You support aid given to nations that have 'common issues'? Isn't that simply a euphemism for supporting a regime that you happen to agree with? 'Peace and stability'? Syria and North Korea are examples of countries that have 'peace and stability' internally, there is no dissent allowed. By sending those countries major aid, aren't we supporting that regime, using your criteria?

Yep. Here's a scenario this whole thing reminds me of: "Mommy!!! I keep hitting the wasp nest with a stick and they keep attacking me!!!" Can anyone say 'provocation'? Yep, I knew ya could! Seriously though, the West has turned into the little bully of the schoolyard who happens also to be the teachers pet - she continually dips other's ponytails into inkwells then screams bloody murder when called onto the carpet for her bad behaviour - even going so far as to blame the poor girl whose ponytail is now blackened! (Cuz - you know those terrorists all wear ponytails). But hey guys, keep praying for more war - I'm sure you'll get it! Do you guys have orgasms when they bomb those nasty Muslims? So, to summarize your postion, which does seem a bit contradictory: the West should comply with the basic premise of the artickle, and back out entirely from the Middle East, allow those societies to realize their own dreams without the poison of our cultures? No more bullying, a complete lack of involvement? They don't really need or want our money or help anyway, since so many states in the region have so much oil money. Is that what you are saying? After all, providing aid of any sort to anybodyis a political statement, a 'provocative act', right?

I believe it was George Bush who pointed out that Islam is a religion of peace. Luttwak disagrees with President Bush, and goes on to list the curiously long ltany of conflicts, some of them apparently without end or any conceivable solution other than the complete obliteration of every infidel on the planet. Maybe he is a bigot. That does not make everyhting he says wrong.

Which is summarized IT'S BEST TO IGNORE THE MIDDLE EAST. From the National Post.....

I wonder how Blair or his cronies would measure 'success' in the Middle east?

You (and I) are lucky enough to live in free countries that provide a modicum of good government. Actually, quite a bit of good government. Lack of patriotism = ingratitude. 'Does your vision of 'good government' encompass the absolute right of any citizen to take a dissenting view, and express that dissenting view in public? I am entitled to many rights as a citizen, and obliged to undertake certain repsonsibilites. Being 'grateful' is not part of either.

What 'mission' is being referred to here? As I understand it, Canada has committed to a combat role until February 2009 in Afghanistan. I was not aware that the presence of Candian troops in Afghanistan overall had any end date. And I agree with whomever surmised that Harpers statements contain nothing new, just a reiteration of previous commitments and comments.

As a general rule, I'm inclined to agree. There appears to be a 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' component to atheism these days that has not been present previously. The traditional position of atheists towards religion is to generally dismiss it and/or ignore it (as none of my business). Anecdotal evidence drawn from numerous forum discussions suggests that for many atheists, this is no longer the case. One might speculate that this may be in reaction to the rise of the politically ambitious US religious rightwing during the 1980's. As for the environmental movement, I wouldn't put them in the same category of 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' type theists or atheists. They do appear to share the same passion of their cause which is the prime similarity, but the behaviour appears to be entirely different in terms of motivation and application. Au contraire, I see a strong link between the fundies and hardcore environmentalists - a link that goes well beyond mere 'passion' and extends to faith. Yes, Faith, that heartland of ambiguity where unquestionaing acceptance of an initial premise can lead to the oddest of undertakings. Where believeing unquestioningly that 'God created the heavens and the Earth ' can be quickly and effectively leveraged into killing little brown people without any brain sweat at all. Faith, where we blindly accept what a scientist says as Truth - and extrapolate that into the oceans rising 20 feeet in the next decade. Let's face it , few of us have any clue at all about the purported facts of climate change, and couldn't begin to understand the computer models and complexities of what we are told - and told by people who also have no way at all of verifying the information. Isn't that akin to faith? "I'll believe you because you seem trustworthy and sincere" is the level that this important discussion is at for people who belive very fervently in science explained badly by people who don't know. Sorry, I digress and I'm threadjacking my own thread.

Yup, wonder if she's a "Dominionist" too LOL I believe Elizabeth May has stated she is not opposed to SSM and is pro-choice right, so does this mean she is lying? I don't think so, I think it proves that there are other issues other than those two, that the 'evangelicals' are interested in, just as most other people are, religious or otherwise. The difference I think is in how it is spun and who's doing the spinning. - After Mays comments a couple of months ago it would be a stretch to describe her as pro-choice. I'll see if I can Google her comments on abortion, which were made at a church service where she was a guest - a frequent thing for her. I wouldn't be surprised if the evangelical fundies did jump on her bandwagon, they have no natural home now that Harper has refused to entertain any more chat on SSM, abortion or any of the usual flashpoints.

About as much as Topaz's comment about Calgary pollution (which is non-existent). Sorry to threadjack but this made me smirk. Most times when I drive or fly in from the north, there is a large blob of murky pall hanging smack over Calgary. if the wind isn't blowing, your air quality is not good Geoffery. It is not occasional, and worse in the winter.

That annoying little twerp George WiththelongGreekname that hosts The Hour on CBC (which should be named The Eternity) had Christopher Hitchens on the other day. Poor George was in way way over his head and new it. He kept trying to throw softball questions at Hitchens, who was having none of it. Then Geo tried to suck up to him, but Hitchens wasn't having any of that either and kept yanking George back on task, which from the guests point was to disembowel organized religion. Which he did, succinctly and quickly. George was very very happy to see him gone. Poor boy.

The reasons why the family chose not to recite the pledge do not matter. There are many Caucasian non-immigrant families that would do the same thing, so I find the ethnic reference to be a bit disturbing. What does matter is that they are free to recite or not recite, that is their right to free expression. It is also the same right of the OP to feel disgusted and say so. You can't have it both ways.