Scotty

As I read this I was reminded of a documentary I saw years ago. It had to do with young gay men who were very religious Catholics. As they became aware of their feelings for other young men, they felt emotionally tortured, and had no idea what to do. They thought it was evil, that such feelings were unnatural, and didn't want to tell anyone. Joining the church seemed to be an escape. No one would wonder why they weren't dating girls, not marrying and having children. And through good work and constant prayer they could hope to right the blot on their moral character created by such evil feelings. It didn't work out that way. Not for all of them anyway. But where were their eyes to turn within the Church? As we know, it often turned to the only males they had access to, and who were unlikely to be reporting them, that is, young males, boys. I know that the old refrain says that paedophiles are not necessarily gay. Even paedophiles who are heterosexual can molest young boys. I don't really know enough about paedophila to say for certain. I do know, though, from reading a bit on it, that the pope is misusing the term, just as the media misuses the term. A paeophile is someone with a mental illness, and their normal range of attraction is children under 8 years of age. Paedophiles get sexually aroused in boys and girls as young as infancy. The older the children are, the less interest paedophiles have in them. But almost all the tales of child molestation we read about don't feature five year old. Almost all the cases which the media are reporting feature adolescent boys, the mormal victim age range about 11-14. That seems to be the case with Catholic priests. It also seems to be the case with famous Canadian cases, like at Maple Leaf Gardens, the native schools, the boy scouts and the Catholic brothers. Almost every major case seems to feature adolescent boys. Paedophiles, for the most part, simply aren't interested in adolescent boys. Gay men are. There has always been a stream of thought that the interest of gay men in younger teens was a kind of instinctive cultural or gentic confusion in that young boys have smooth, hairless bodies, ie, more like women, but were still male. In any case, there isn't much doubt that in gay culture, 'pretty' young men are pretty darn popular. So I think the pope and the headline writers need to reconsider whether they're aiming at the right group at all. I don't think 2% of Catholic clergy are paedophiles. I think most of those child abusers are simply gay men. http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/pope-francis-one-in-50-catholic-priests-bishops-and-cardinals-are-paedophiles/402336/

And what measured and sensible cuts to education and public services would you accept? So your way to save money is by taking all the students currently under the Catholic boards and putting them under the public boards. How exactly would this save money given most studies I've heard of claim not only that Catholic schools provide better educations but do so more efficiently and effectively? Getting rid of teacher testing is just a guarantee of lousy teachers, and on a macro scale that costs us money. In fact, we should be making it much easier to fire nonperforming teachers.

When? Cite? At the debate when he was challenged on how many he would get rid of he said "None". Explain why, please. If they've already got a 1 to 1 ratio of EA's to special needs students how can that possibly get any bigger in a special school? How can it not get smaller? And a desk and a room cost the same wether it's for special needs students or anyone else. On a macro scale there's no cost increase.

How is that possible? With EAs in a regular school you're talking about a 1-1 teacher student ratio. Don't you think if they put fifteen of them into a special class they'd need less than 15 people taking care of them?

So do you think it would help our economy to hire 100,000 more government workers then? Or maybe 200,000? Or 500,000?

But those aren't their peers. And they used to be in special classes, not just so more attention could be paid to them but so they didn't interfere with the education of other children.

Their first year in power, the Liberals brought in a huge tax increase, including the new health care premium which, taken together, would have completely eliminated the deficit. In fact, during the Liberals' time in power they have increased taxes by 50%. The problem is they've INCREASED SPENDING by 75%!! So are you going to try to tell me that Ontario has grown by 75% since 2003? AS for inflation, it's been moribund at best, averaging 1%-2% during that time. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/17/ontario-budget-wynn/

I heard a new campaign commercial today - from the Ontario Nursing Association. Much like the OPP they bemoan Hudak being a danger to the public who will fire nurses (He's specifically said he would hire more nurses) and then linked him to Mike Harris. The two things which really irritate me about these types of commercials is, first, they're outright lies, and second they pretend their concern is for the public when 100% of their concern is for themselves and their pay cheques. Same as the OPP. They're not worried Hudak would be a danger to public safety, but that he'd be a danger to their fat and growing wallets. And I'm hearing and seeing more third party ads than I am from the actual campaigners, all of them from government unions who have been paid off by the Liberals over the past ten years.

That is the Tea Party position, of course, it is the position which has allowed third parties, mostly wealthy people and corporate lobby groups, to spend fortunes on US election campaigns. We don't want that sort of thing here. Would you like to allow corporations and wealthy people to spend as much money as they want on third part advertising during elections?

I'm not good at debating paranoid delusions.

What spending limit? And the tories are not the only part which runs ads outside elections. The federal Liberals are running ads now.

We've seen how third party advertising in the states has turned politicians into whores at the trough and poisoned public debate. We don't need that happening here, and it looks like that is precisely what has happened in Ontario, with government uinons greatly increasing their advertising, in support of the Liberals, and in response getting fat pay increases by the Liberals. And it doesn't look any better when corporations and billionaires do it.

Perhaps if he keeps moving further and further away he'll eventually come to that strange little bizarroland where you live.

Maybe you can help me out by informing me of a topic in which you contributed anything of subtance or value. You can skip this one, obviously.

I admit I had not really realized how much money was being put into third party advertising before. I know it's illegal at the federal level and do not follow provincial politics as closely. But the intervention of the OPP union in taking out anti-Tory ads in support of their enormous salaries and guaranteed increases caught my attention, as did this column by John Ivison. Spending by third parties often dwarfs that of the official parties. In the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection in 2012, the teachers’ unions spent $1.5-million on anti-Hudak ads, compared with $370,00 by the Liberals and PCs combined. - Ivison I find that shocking and unacceptable that third party advertising, who are mainly public service unions, are far outspending the official parties in political advertising during elections. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/02/john-ivison-if-opp-unions-attack-on-hudak-is-not-illegal-it-is-at-least-unprofessional/

Boston poilice don't make as much as in Ontario. http://www1.salary.com/MA/Boston/police-officer-salary.html CHP and LAPD salaries are not quite up to par with the OPP, though I'll grant you they're in the same neighborhood. San Fransicio, however, seems to be in a class all by itself. Mabe it's that mentality, like they have in Seattle, which just declared a $15hr minimum wage, but SFPD have a ridiculous salary and benefit package. Not only is their top salary $112k but they get 90% of that for a pension. But I'd like to note that these are not indicative of the salaries paid to police in smaller California cities. The issue in Ontario is that the mandatory arbitration all municipalities are forced to make use of pegs the salaries their police get to the OPP. It doesn't matter if they're a small town cop or not, they still get the same high salaries, and that's without any regard to what the municipality can afford to pay. http://www1.salary.com/CA/police-officer-salary.html But in any case San Fransisco has a booming economy and a budget surplus. If it can afford such lavish salaries, then so be it. Ontario clearly can not.

Hudak has insisted he will not cut any police jobs. The union is worried more about whether he will do as municipalities have been begging and rejigger the arbitration rules which have seen their salaries go sky high. That and a salary freeze. As for what salaries 'others' make. I consider it a public safety issue more than anything else. I don't resent police getting $100k. I resent the fact that in order to pay those huge salaries we have to have far fewer police (and firefighters). You could say the same about teachers. In order to afford those huge salaries we need to have fewer teachers with bigger classrooms. And all of it on borrowed money.

As far as I know only the Toronto police have supported candidates in the past, but that amounted to a press release, not an advertising campaign. That's a far cry from a TV ad where a uniformed OPP officer gets out of a marked OPP cruiser and tells the camera that the tories are a danger to public safety...

It is hypocrtical, but then, that is what unions are all about. And just as the teachers unions will scream about how it will harm education if they don't get big, fat raises, so too do the police unions claim that if their wages are frozen (Hudak has promised no job cuts) it will harm public safety. The wages of all new firefighters and police should be lowered by about one third. I'm not against reasonable compensation, but they've gotten ridiculous. Blue collar jobs which require little education, a minimum of training, no unique skillset and have no scarcity of applicants should not get six figure incomes.

It is the first time a police force has taken out advertising in a political campaign. I think the law against 3rd party advertising at the federal level needs to be extended to the provincial level.

I respect the job police and firefighters do, but the salaries have simply gotten ridiculously out of wack. These are jobs which have long lines of eager applicants, so why are we paying such a premium? Why are we paying them so much more than their counterparts elsewhere in the world? Do you think the firefighters and police in England are incompetent compared to ours? They only earn about half as much, you know.

What part of 'as far as I have been able to determine' do you not undrestand? I have looked for higher paid police and haven't found any. Perhaps you'll have getter luck.

There are not, as far as I know, any restrictions with regard to people defending themselves during a war when being shot at.

Agreed. They should not have even bothered to negotiate for him.

Yes, I shudder in fear every time I look south! Like you, I could only pray we had peace loving neighbors like the Russians or those gentle religious folk in Afghanistan or Iran! You are a truly wise man... or whatever you are.