fellowtraveller

....delete

Sure he does. he is still remembered for his part in the cod wars, where our navy stared down a emitre fleet of Spanish fishing dories. Though it is true that many Westerners don't know what a cod is, and would be very suspicious of the critter if they did know.

Correct. They control admissions, licensing, curricculum and graduation of physicians, including foreign doctors. Actually, the medical industry has an obvious reason for controlling the pie they all enjoy chowing down on. On the other hand, doctors trained in many foreign countries are simply not good enough. I wish it were otherwise- but it is not.

"Bitter"??? I'm not sure what you mean. I simply outlined a very plausible political strategy. McKenna is a young and clever man. He is easily the most electable candidate, and he knows it. he Also knows the effectiveness of waiting waiting waiting. Let the Liberal executive get the Party finances sorted. Let the Tories have a little time to hang themselves. Let the lesser candidates declare too early, and never peak. Give the Liberal executive time to relaize he is the best choice. Give Canadians time to calm down after a couple of tumultuous years, when they'll be anxious and ready for a new face- McKennas face. Then ride up the middle on a white horse and claim the prize. It has been done before, what was that guys name - Bill Clinton? If you don't think this is possible, why did McKenna invest so much time in 2005 quitely cultivating support for a leadership bid? Do you really believe he suddenly changed his mind? Why? Why do you think he took the Ambassadors job in the first place? Isn't it the perfect place to be visbile but not too accountable, as he would be in Parliament? It was a terrific spot to be seen but not blamed. McKenna is a smart guy, and would be a formidable opponent for Harper. We have not seen the end of him, not nearly.

It would be a big mistake to assume this is McKennas 'final answer'. Since there are no other heavy favorites out there, a winning strategy would be to bide his time, then walk over water as the Liberal saviour. FRank wqill be keeping his hand close to the pulse from now on, he has an ego and wants the job (as PM)How many times have we seen 'declare early, lose momentum'? Plenty of time before any leadership convention. Brian Tobin is a likely choice if McKenna doesn't descend from the heavens in a few months.

Sorry, but this represents a worldview that is on a par with Neville Chamberlains appeasement to Hitler in the 1930's. Hamas represents, publicly and without equivocation, policies that are simply unacceptable. There will be no waiting and hoping that they might back off "they have no hidden agendas of destroying any of its neighbours". There is nothing hidden in their agenda. They are engaged in a holy war with Israel as the target. It is up to them to renounce all of that first, not up to us to recognize their horror and hope they change. Recognition lends legitimacy, and Hamas have long been identiffied as international pariahs and rightfully so. To recognize them will extend and deepen the strife in the ME. I do regret that the Palestinian people may suffer, but that is their choice.

You are making an assumption that Canadians will not support public radio directly, and I have given you a concrete and verifiable example of a major station that has done that very thing. Those few that listen to CBC radio are strong supporters and loyal listeners. I'd very much like them to have an opportunity to demonstarte that loyalty and commit,ent, instead of insisting that all taxpayers pay for their information and entertainment. If you are committed to our governemtn paying for information and entertainment for its citizens via the CBC, then you won't have any trouble also approving my invoice to the govt for magazine subscriptions, DVD rentals, movie passes, Internet access and cable TV bills. Fair enough? Info and entertainment for all, not just a few.

I agree about Hamas, but don't see how it will seriously affect Harper. Those Canadians that support Hamas - or more accurately hate Israel - don't vote for Harper and never will. The key in this situation is the reaction of the European community, who are huge financial backers of Fatah/Palestine. If they reverse themselvs and support Hamas, it will set back any progress in the ME badly. Israels reaction is also worth watching. A significant part of the PAs operating budget comes from customs duties collected by the Israelis and kicked back to Fatah/PA. Can't see that continuing.

I got one of these as an Xmas gift from somebody who does not know anything about my political views(she had just returned from Cuba). I'm going to wear it as a stealth shirt, some people will have a rude awakening when they try the 'revolutionary brother' routine with me.

Not quite. Looks like Brian Palister, Mantoba Tory MP, may quit to run for Mantoba Tory leader. That will leave the total at 123+29+1=153 , at least until a byelection.story Pallister had 70% of the popular vote, and a 20,000+ margin, so the Tories could run a fencepost and still win a byelection. Rona Ambrose is seriously babelicious, she can be Minister of Looking Good. Preston Manning would be a great pick for Ambassador to the US. I cannot think of a better one.

Why do you say that? TV: Every network in Canada does just that, except they call it advertising revenue. Except the CBC. Radio: here is an example of an outstanding public radio stationCKUA that exists almost entirely on subscriptions/donations from listeners, plus a small amount of advertisng revenue. It was formerly an expensive outlet financed by the Alberta government. Now it is a popular and very good station - and I send in $50 to $100 as do many others. I say both are a problem - the bias and me paying for it. In the Mulroney era, the CBC was criticized as being a Tory tool. Same accusations for the last 13 years of Liberals. Bias, the possibility of bias, and the perception of bias are all equally damning. State propaganda organs have no place in a modern democracy. Dump TV entirely, and let the avid and loyal listeners/supporters of CBC fund CBC Radio themselves. Put your money where your mouth is. This is not 1930, and radio technology is hardly cutting edge - we are not reaching far into the faint ether to touch the hearts of settlers in sod huts.

Contrived? Perhaps, but it was at least a direct response to actual comments made by Wilkins. Martin used to just lash out without provocation about the Yanks whenever the polls dipped .05%.

The very first place I would look is Indian Affairs. Next would be Industry Canada and the traditonal pork barrels of AOC and WED. Far far more money in any of those ministries than in the gun registry.

China has been a hybrid market economy for about 30 years. There were two significant acheivements under the long gone Communist regime. The people enjoyed relative security from external threats, although they experienced ongoing terror from their own government. The Communists also did a pretty good job of avoiding mass starvation.

Linking to the Parkland Insitute is ilke linking to the collected wisdom of Harpo Marx.

I'd vote for Hedy in a heartbeat too. Scott Brison as well. How much for a Liberal Party membership?

The CBC was not an issue during the campaign, but I recall hearing as aside from Harper that maybe the time had come to look at dumping the parts of the network that were available commercially. That likely means English language TV... What do you think?

Funny, but in 14 years I don't remember hearing one word from the CBC about Chretiens or Martins visits to doctors or hospitals- other than Martins physicians linkage to private clinics.

What are you talking about? It was fully covered in my paper today, though certainly not an interesting story. It would have been much spicier if he visited Martins private clinic.

This guy must be an Alberta correspondent for the CBC and/or the Grope and Flail. It overlooks some realities: -when Klein took over , oil prices were very low and remianed low until the last few 4 or 5 years. Alberta had a large debt, a large deficit in 1993 and things were not good in any sector. Somehow he misssed the usual Candian reaction , which is to raise taxes. Instead, he cut taxes and cut costs - and created an environment that made jobs. All of this was underway well before resource prices soared. - he did many things that were widly unpopular then, and still now with some morons. Unions especially public sector unions don't like him - they included whittling the bloated civil service, whittling the bloated welfare rolls and most importantly- overhauling both the education systems and health care administration. Billions in savings.

I'm not sure how your title relates to the body of the OP, but I'll give it a whirl. Of course God is a human construct. Have you ever seen a potato or a gopher praying? As a species we haven't done much of building Him either, we argue and kill each other endlessly over His Name and His word.

What we have now in the Senate is a chamber of discussion, not a chamber of decision. A second chamber of decsion IS a check and balance agisnt the tyranny of the PMO. I do not agree that the House should be the sole place where legislation is debated and decided. "how do you think electing a senate would change this balance" There is no balance in our current system. I seek to establish a balance.

You are assuming that MPs and the House of Commons have 'power', which is not really true. The extremely sad reality of our 'system' is that MPs do what they are told by their parties, period. In a majority govt - which is normal - the Prime Ministers Office is nearly wholly responsible for the legislative agenda. Nothing happens in the House or Senate unless apporved and presented by the PMO. The House rubber stamps whatever the PMO tells it to. The Senate does the same. There are no checks and balances. This is what must change.

The way it is supposed to? Or your version of that? The chief concern over proprep is the definite possibility of chronic legislative paralysis. Of course, sometimes that is OK, but not always. The best govt has adequate checks and balances... something that is almost entirely absent from our system. Proprep does not remedy that, not on its own. i might be interested in proprep if we had two elected legislative bodies, but only for one of them. In a country so decentralized as Canada, we also need a means of representation from the regions. Perhpas a form of proprep would be appropriate for that chamber.

No they cannot, unless they somehow violate 150 or so years of tradition and practice. The GG invites the party with the most seats to form a govt. She will only turn to other options if theat party refuses to form a govt, which has not happened. And the only option ever considered is to call another election. So, the NDP and Liberals cannot and will not 'form a government'. Next. More baloney. Where do you come up with this stuff.? There was no place on any ballot that said "Not Harper". The reality is that more people voted FOR Harper and his polices than voted FOR any other party and their policies. Please try and grasp this simple fact. I think Harper should and will adopt this tactic early: right in your face momma. Canadians do not want another election, period. If Harper wants to get stuff passed, he has two routes available with his weak majority. He can just lay it out there in the House and dare the others to bring him down. Or he can try to manipulate the rules of confidence(as did the Liberals successfully) and claim a controversial bill as being a 'free vote'. I like the former approach, it will work for a while and allow him to accomplish something in the next couple of years. He'll save the 'free vote' for stuff he really doesn't care much about, but has to address sometime, somehow - like same sex marriage.