fellowtraveller

Yes, though much of that revenue will come in DVD rentals. Very few movies are re-released at theaters. I certainly have done this,,,, for example I went to see Frozen River last year becauswe Melissa Leo was nominated and it was well worth the look. This year I'll be going to Crazy Heart because it is nominated, and has the excellent Jeff Bridges. Normally, I'd be projectile vomiting after being exposed to that much C&W music but perhaps it will be good.

It's certainly only a priciple, no Prime Minsiter has paid any attention to the House of Commons unless absolutely forced to do so. Why would they, since as long as their whips maintain discipline the Opposition is irrelevant in terms of governance?

It is pretty obvious why the Academy has expanded to ten nominees- an attempt to gain more buzz and spread the wealth- and many many movies get serious money tossed their way after the Awards. Even if the movie is well past a theater run, DVD rentals will shoot up. I watch perhaps 50 movies per year in thaters, and think this is one of the weakest crops in years. Two that I liked a lot get zero attention: Moon and Sin Nombre, both low budget movies with casts few have heard of.

Jones is a Truther, which is a polite way of saying a total blithering idiot.

Are you serious? Shell has some major Dutch shareholders, that doesn't mean a wooden shoe store in Fort McMurray is going to prosper.

good points William, aid to the less fortunate is an utter waste of money. Will you lead the campaign to get back every penny we are wasting on Haiti?

The one and only reason that Harper is interested in the welfare of women and children is because he eats babies. That fact is not on any policy papers but it is on the daily menu at 24 Sussex.

I don't believe a word that 'charities' like this say about what gets them their gravy. It reeks of self-interest.

That is ultimately what the Chinese got, or less. They were ripped off at every step of the way. But they aren't needed and won't get in this time. The projects are back on line in Alberta, or enough of them that development will be at a more sedate pace. Canada can rejoice, their gravy train is returning to the track.

If God didn't want me to eat meat, why did He make it taste so good?

You really, really need to do even a tiny bit of research. If you did, you'd know that several billion dollars worth of deferred oil sands projects that were on hold in Alberta are now underway, all announced in the last few months and last few days.

Chinese workers were brought in to weld at a huge project a few eyars ago, when it was impossible to get enough tradesmen. All those agreements are expired and there is sufficient Canadian labout available. There won't be any or many Chinese nationals on site.

Perhaps you could explain where you get this incorrect and ridiculous comment? You and the Globe don't seem to know that Shell currently operates a huge petrochemical complex and refinery at Scotford near Fort Saskatchewan near Edmonton (I'm surprised at the Globe ignorance). They just spent a couple of Billion expanding their capacity.

So you are stating that both Madame Clarkson and Madame Jean sucked their way into their jobs? That seems a little harsh. By the way, is this one of your posts that were hijacked by the mods and reposted with spelling and grammatical mistakes?

I know I lack the qualifications to be GG- I'm not small, not vital, not a woman, not a visible minority and have neer worked for CBC. But I think I'd be suited. I don't support any party but will kick in $5K to any party or combo of parties for a five year appointment. How are my chances?

In time we will learn exactly what happened when Harper went-a-courting to the GG when the Coalition threatened his govt, which hasd just been formed via election with close to a majority. Interesting factoid - Harper was inside chatting for a few hours instead of the normal few minutes required for the GG to receive advice(direction really) from her First Minister and chief advisor- the PM. I think what was said was that she told him what was going to happen- she would go along with prorogation to allow a cooling off period, but that the chips would fall where they would when the House reconvened in January 2009. If the Coalition forced a confidence vote, they would form the govt. She is bound to do what she thinks right for Canada, and likely did not see the benefit of an election a few weeks after the one just held. That means she would feel the same a few weeks later too - and told Harper that- and of course the Coalition would have no interest in an election which would risk their control- they would simply form the govt. In the meantime, it became crystal clear to everybody over Xmas and early January that the Coalition had miscalculated badly, they would be absolutely flayed alive if they carried through with the coup. Cadians overall had a very visceral reaction aginst the coalition. Polls showed huge support for Harper and the Tories, in the 60% range. So: no coup happening, no election possible meant- status quo. The smartest thing Ignatieff ever did was to back away completely from that Coalition, he and the Liberals would pay a very longlasting price if they had proceeded.

Most infuriating case? Easy : Adscam, in which hundreds of millions of dollars were stolen from the public purse by politicians, and none of them were charged or went to jail.

Since when did the PMO have the ability to control the House? Since 1867. Here is a exercise for you: count the number of members bills (govt or Opposition) that pass in any given session. The number is generally zero. Where does the legislative inmpetus and the party Whip take their orders from? PMO of course. In norma;l times, it runs the country without input or interference from anybody or anything. The very existence of an Opposition is largely irrelevant, as witness watch their antics in the House any day. Theater, and bad theater at that. Coups need not involve violence at all, where did you get that odd idea? The Coalition lost the election again to the Tories, who very nearly had a majority, and were facing more years of eating the steady diet of turd sandwiches they had enjoyed so much. They took their (legal) chance at doing what the elctorate did not want, and lost. Harper took the (legal) option of dissolving Parliament and revealing what Candians really thought about the Coalition. In the meantime, Rome burned.

That's it, the only improvement you have to the basic governance is to move some civil servants from one office to another? You have it backwards too on removingt the PM by vote of the MPs in that party: the Brits have that and it is superior to us.

Is there any chance that the CBC, our nonpartisan and completely unbiased national broadcaster, will mention this case anytime soon? There was megacoverage live at Tory headquarters went it first hit the media, where are they today?

Parliament imp[lies the Commons and the Senate, both of which have really very little to say about the governance of the country. Our country is run via the PMO office, with occasional lulls into something approaching democracy during minority govts. If you like how our Parliament works, you must be happiest with the rule of Harper or Paul Martin at few years ago. It does not work at all during majority govts. The PMO presents legislation, they pretend to discuss it, then it gets passed. End of story. A recent example of 'Parliament is boss' occurred when the loyal Opposition attempted a legal coup to accomplish what they had failed to do at the ballot box just a few weeks before. The govt of the day stalled their legal coup with some entirely legal manouvering of their own. Do you think either episode was Canadas finest hour? A demonstration of how well it all works? Do you recall the visceral reaction that followed from normally apathetic Canadians I noticed you did not answer my question of how you would fix the deficiencies in our system. Oversight?

Agree with first part in that union opposition to this sort of initiative is part of it, though politicians forget that if it is the right business decision they will gain respect from taxpayers in two ways. First, those that are not blinded by ideology will acknowledge it was the right business decision. Second, there are taxpayers who acknowledge and support a govt that can and do make hard or unpopular decisions, not just easy ones. It is one of the biggest failings of our politicians, they refuse to make the tough decisions in fear of the electoral result. I respect somebody who stands up and tells me why they did what they did. I might still think they are wrong, but they will earn my respect for making a hard choice and sticking with it.

It may have been designed that way, but it is no longer functioning at any level. I'd suggest our particular brand of Parliament is one of the worst remaining from the British legacy. The UK has done it a bit differently than us, for example the parliamentary committees are much more powerful, and MPs may choose to dump the PM, their leader(eg Margaret Thatcher). WEhat has happened here is the Senate was once designed and operated as a check and balance to the Commons, and now is simply a useless and provocactive appendage. The Commons has become a place where the majority ruling party is obliged to run through the sham of debating a legislative agenda, then pounding it through regardless. The few minority govts we've had can be exceptions, but only to a certain extent. It is the only time that the Opposition has any relevance at all, really. The end result is that, for a long time now, the Prime Ministers Office is the government. What they want, they get.

But wouldn't the act of voting no confidence be a demonstration of that governing system in and of itself? Assume that every MP was not a coward, and voted out the Tories. How exactly would you have them act afterwards to improve the sytem you hate?

Software? Why would a couple of thousand Mom and Pop operations have any in terest in some bloated corporate software? The stock belongs to the LCBO wholesale division, they will sell it to the new retailers of course. The euipment? What equipment does a liquor store have? A couple of old pallet jacks and some shelves? Worth very little to anybody. Why wouldn't you have liquor sales for a couple of months. The devolvement of a completey non-essential service would not come as any surprise to anybody, a years notice would suffice.Note that a number of the old govt liquor stores in AB, particularly in small towns, were bought by former employees and reopened as private stores. Not everybody treasures a lifetime as a cashier, business owner appeals to some.