Scotty

I'm not sure what planet you saw that on, but in fact, US crime rates have fallen enormously. However, the US is a very poor comparison. You can't look at what's done there and say that since it didn't work there it won't work here. Their socioeconomic situation is not comparable to ours.

And do you think 3 1/2 years constitutes a lengthy sentence for what he did?

What struck me about the following story, was the apparent lack of concern on the part of the Ontario Crown, and the lax request for a sentence of no more than 3 1/2 - 4 years - for a man who, completely unprovoked, beat and kicked an innocent man to the point of permanent brain damage. Given our matching lax parole laws, this means this particular criminal, presuming the judge sides completely with the Crown and gives out 4 years, will most likely serve no more than 2 years in prison for destroying another man's life. An undercurrent here is that the second man was an illegal drug user, though that was not related to the crime, who lived in a rooming house. If the criminal in question, Brandon Stewart, had instead beaten a 'respectable' middle-class professional, would the Crown be calling for somewhat more of a punishment? Citizen My own handy justice meter says ten to fifteen years would be more appropriate. This was not a first offense, nor even a first violent offense, and this person seems a danger to society.

Don't think of it as running away. Think of it as laughing in contempt and pity, shaking my head, and moving on to find grownups to converse with.

Think of the plane as merely transporting the government workers who accompany him, including security, while he pays his own fare. It's not up to him to pay for those guys, and no one can fairly suggest that because of security he isn't allowed to go on holidays for the decade or more he's in office.

We have tax treaties with other nations which say that citizens are taxed in the nation in which they are working and living and being paid. We can't double tax people, else any Canadian working abroad would have to pay taxes in that nation, and then pay taxes here for the same income.

I'm unaware of a single instance where a police officer was attacked by protestors. Since you seem to believe otherwise you can no doubt provide the list of casualties from among the ranks of those in blue suffering under this terrible assault... Or at least the number of those arrested and charged with assaulting police... Or something?

You can describe Chretien's frequent travel as an abuse of the taxpayer quite honestly and without bias. You cannot so describe Harper's travel. Chretien's travel went far beyond what mere reimbursement of a commercial ticket could at all credibly excuse. Chretien should have reimbursed us for his pay cheque, given he spent most of his time on holidays. And having the jet take a quick jaunt to Boston is one thing. Having it fly you to Australia and then on to Japan and India is quite another when done again and again and again. Chretien defined abuse of travel privileges.

And it works best in the 'hick' states, where the yokels will buy anything as long as some slick commercials tell them that's the "murickan way!".

I wasn't aware you had a point. Certainly none has been evident in your postings thus far.

They had a lot more to complain about.

Anyone else notice that all the "right to work" states are the ones with the highest unemployment, the lowest wages, the lowest productivity, and the lowest standards of education?

I wouldn't have complained about Chretien going to a hockey game, so no, it's not quite the same. The level of picayune sniveling is far higher when it's Harper doing something than when it was Chretien or Martin.

The forum certainly was around then. But there really is no comparison between Harper and Chretien. Chretien made lavish use of the Challengers and other government jets. Sometimes it seemed like life was one long holiday for the man. He flew EVERYWHERE, taking vacations, some thinly disguised as business trips, all over the world every couple of months. On one occasion in some craphole of a country, the jet broke down and he was delayed hours while another was brought in. In response, he ordered that a second challenger was to trail the first everywhere, just in case the first broke down. And no Liberal EVER complained about any of it.

Harper paid what he would otherwise have paid to get a flight there, and paid for or was given his own tickets. All the added expense is simply because the security requirements do not allow him to travel on commercial flights or to travel alone. Ever. Anywhere. So that meant a number of security people, and probably aides had to accompany him, and he had to take one of the government jets. That cost is born by taxpayers, but it is the cost of security. It is not a benefit which Harper receives. I'm pretty sure that at this stage he'd be delighted to be able to go somewhere alone without his ever-present minders. I know of no one in public life who has ever confessed to enjoying having all those security people around them. And if you saw any portion of the video of him at the game you would have seen a number of gentlemen in suits with plastic badges around him checking people out and making sure no one came near. Some would have been RCMP and others would have been Secret Service. I doubt the Americans complained about the added cost, either. They recognize that the cost of security is what it is, and you don't take chances with it. It's routine. The cost of doing business. And no, it's not fair to suggest that the guy forgo any and all personal visits or trips anywhere in order to save money. You might as well demand that his personal limo only travel between work and home and that he never go anywhere else, like to a movie or play, because of the added cost.

One presumes that Irving will have on hand a number of experts in the field as advisers. Also, these ships are to be built and put into service over something like 15 years, aren't they? So it seems to me that once you've figured out how to build one succesfully -- well, you now have that experience you're talking about, so building number two and three and four just makes you even more experienced.

We should encourage anarchy? That's what you're suggesting. Imagine if pages did this all the time, jumping in to interrupt question period, perhaps, or to interrupt members talking on bills. Imagine if the messengers and security people joined in.

If you are trusted with a duty, betraying that duty had better have an awfully tall imperative behind it. She never would have had the chance to be in there, remember, had she not promised to follow the rules and dictates of the Senate, and almost certainly sworn an oath. And she betrayed that for what exactly? Because she wanted to make a meaningless gesture and get on TV.

Yes, the NDP is opposed to it. Last time around the opposition all united to block the Tories from going forward with this.

Nor here. That's because people are largely ignorant about life elsewhere. Most people in Canada and the US don't realize that in most civilized countries the people simply assume that they will get at least a month off for vacation right from the start, unionized or non-unionized job. Do you think Americans and Canadians wouldn't WANT to have such benefits? I believe they simply don't realize how ordinary such benefits are elsewhere, and that yes, despite the howls from business, it really is quite possible to have a successful and stable country even by letting your workers have a five or six weeks off every year.

Most of which is a bare 2 weeks. Now why don't you tell us why the United States is too poor a country compared to, say, Brazil or Finland or Germany, to let it's people take a four or five weeks off to relax.

Agreed. However, that was done by the Toronto Police Department, and the mayor of Toronto was a pretty leftist guy, so I don't see how you can blame the Tories.

Then you should be happy Stephen Harper is determined to address this situation by giving you guys more ridings.

What you really mean is that since most people won't agree with the changes you want you think rioting and being violent might let you have your way anyway - somehow - if you can intimidate everyone through your violence.

While the ordinary plebes get zilch.