November 30, 2006
The Canadian Political Blogosphere Search Page
Wondering what bloggers in the Canadian political area are saying about the news of the day? New to Angry in the Great White North is the Canadian Political Blogosphere Search Page, a collection of customized Google search engines that will search the blogs (as defined by the appropriate blogrolls) for the search terms you specify. I hope the search engines will become a means of driving traffic to those blogs, regardless of their political persuasion, that are not getting the traffic they deserve.
Try it out, and hopefully you'll find them useful.
And though I appreciate the traffic, you don't have to return to Angry in the Great White North for every search. Click the "Add to Google" button and the corresponding search engine will be added to your personalized Google homepage.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:17 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How very magnanimous of you.
A useful tool for any and all.
Thank you.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 30, 2006 03:33 PM (GqO0P)
2
What if I'm a political blogger but don't want to hitch my wagon to any of the blogrolls? Do I have any options?
Posted by: Road Hammer at November 30, 2006 04:42 PM (hkwnD)
3
http://www.nonpartisancanadians.org/
I'll add a search engine for these folks as well.
Posted by: Steve Janke at November 30, 2006 10:52 PM (c+/wx)
The murder of Alexander Litvinenko, social media, and Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a remarkable tool. By allowing the masses to create entries for an encyclopedia, a hugely important online research source has been constructed in record time.
The news that the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko by means of a dose of polonium-210 is a great example of how the Wikipedia plays out. Is it self-correcting? Sure seems to be.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 4 kb.
November 29, 2006
Catholic Carnival #95
The 95th Edition of the Catholic Carnival is up at phatcatholic apologetics.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
The Carnival of True Crime Blogs
The Carnival of True Cime Blogs LII is up at The Trenchcoat Chronicles. A mix of reporting on crimes being perpetrated as we speak, recent crimes and their resolutions, and a look back at some famous crimes of yesteryear, it makes for great reading.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
06:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
November 28, 2006
London North Centre: NDP loses an election, a lot of credibility, but earns a new label
The London North Centre by-election in Ontario is over. No surprise that the Liberal Party held on to the seat that has been a safe one for a decade and longer. The story in this by-election is the rising fortune of the Green Party, almost entirely at the expense of the NDP.
In fact, the Green Party crushed the NDP.
So who's the "wasted vote" now?
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:36 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Bob Rae would agree that NDP is a wasted vote - this has been one of his reasons for jumping ship and trying to be perceived as a Liberal.
Posted by: Katy at November 28, 2006 11:26 AM (27ap9)
2
So what? The reality is their leader was running, a leader is always (supposed to be) a strong candidate. All three major parties come in third place in different ridings all over the country, it's not a big deal.
Also, there is a difference between "almost all," as you say, and the situation here. The Greens gained 11%, 10% from the NDP, 6% from the CPC, and 5% for the Liberals. Granted, most of their gain came from the NDP, but the amount the NDP "lost" was not even half of the Greens' gain.
Posted by: RP. at November 28, 2006 12:31 PM (Zkt83)
3
Eep. 11% = 21%
Posted by: RP. at November 28, 2006 12:35 PM (Zkt83)
4
According to my math half of the increase of the green vote did indeed come from the NDP.
Green=+21%
Lib=-5%
Cons=-6%
NDP=-10%
Posted by: paulsstuff at November 28, 2006 04:16 PM (uOsUo)
5
Perhaps much of the gain occurred because fewer voters showed up for a less consequential by election, which created an opportunity for the Green Party to work really hard to muster a credible showing. It does seem to show, however, that the Green Party has displaced the NDP as the anti-establishment vote.
Posted by: murray at November 28, 2006 04:33 PM (dw9A3)
6
According to one of the MSM sites, voter turnout was around 42% for london and an even more dismal 34% in the Quebec riding. I don't know what the usual voter turnout is in a by-election, but that seems pretty low.
Posted by: Pat at November 28, 2006 06:41 PM (j4tnX)
7
Murray, you are likely correct that teh low voter turnout had an impact. For these parties, though the image of momentum is important. If voters who are on the fence see the Green party as a real option with a real chance of winning, they are more likely to switch in increasing numbers.
Posted by: davey at November 28, 2006 07:22 PM (Y0Xc8)
8
Murray, you are likely correct that the low voter turnout had an impact. For these parties, though the image of momentum is important. If voters who are on the fence see the Green party as a real option with a real chance of winning, they are more likely to switch in increasing numbers.
Posted by: davey at November 28, 2006 07:23 PM (Y0Xc8)
9
I guess I'll take your word for it, paulsstuff. I was never so strong at math, but I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that 10 was less than half of 21.
Anyway, the only point I was trying to make is you can't discern a trend from one incident. The NDP also came in 2nd in the Repentigny by-election, ahead of the Liberals. I'm not going to suggest that the NDP is now the 2nd place party in Quebec because of it.
Posted by: RP. at November 29, 2006 08:08 AM (Zkt83)
10
And of course, by 2nd, I meant 3rd, but still ahead of the Liberals.
Posted by: RP. at November 29, 2006 08:13 AM (Zkt83)
11
Of course, by 2nd, I meant 3rd.
Posted by: RP. at November 29, 2006 08:15 AM (Zkt83)
12
Ok,if it makes you happy they onle accounted for 48% of the greens increase.As for Repentigny i'm pretty surry ndp was third, a little ahead of the libs.
Posted by: paulsstuff at November 29, 2006 08:35 PM (uOsUo)
13
LONDON NORTH CENTRE
253 of 253 polls reporting
38,123 of 89,139 registered electors (42.8 per cent)
Glen Pearson, Liberal: 13,287 (34.9)
Elizabeth May, Green: 9,864 (25.9)
Dianne Haskett, Conservative: 9,309 (24.4)
Megan Walker, NDP: 5,388 (14.1)
Steve Hunter, Progressive Canadian: 145 (0.4)
Robert Ede, Independent: 77 (0.2)
Will Arlow, Canadian Action: 53 (0.1)
REPENTIGNY
217 of 217 polls reporting
31,143 of 85,264 registered electors (36.5 per cent)
Raymond Gravel, Bloc Quebecois: 20,635 (66.3)
Stephane Bourgon, Conservative: 5,822 (18.7)
Rejean Bellemare, NDP: 2,183 (7.0)
Christian Turenne, Liberal: 1,940 (6.2)
Jocelyne Leduc, Independent: 390 (1.3)
Mahmood Raza Baig, Canadian Action: 95 (0.3)
Regent Millette, Independent: 78 (0.3)
Posted by: paulsstuff at November 29, 2006 08:39 PM (uOsUo)
The Pink Book: First comes work, then comes pay equity for women
The Liberal Party Women's Caucus has released the Pink Book. In it, it makes an interesting point about pay equity.
To me, though, if you are going to advance the cause of women's rights in the workplace by providing equal pay for work of equal value, you first need to find a woman to do the work.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
07:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.
1
This could be an artefact caused by generating their documents on a network. If I don't change the author on 'word' files at work they pop up as being authored by 'ehelpdsk'. Which can be a bit embarrassing...
Posted by: Iron Oxide at November 28, 2006 08:59 AM (h3RCj)
2
You might want to ask yourself... what kind of jobs is Judy Sgro talking about?
This is the same woman who was hip-deep in the dodgy business of sneaking foreign strippers under the Canadian immigration radar.
OTTAWA -- Immigration Minister Judy Sgro is defending the government's policy of admitting foreign exotic dancers to work in Canada, saying the strip club business is "a strong industry" with "lots of customers."
If the Liberal women's caucus thinks lap dancing is an 'strong industry' that provides 'great job opportunities' to our daughters... they really need to visit 'sniffers row' at the local strip club.
Posted by: neo at November 28, 2006 09:32 AM (rw4FC)
3
These people are missing a major point, too.
How many women *want* these jobs in the first place?
How many women would *prefer* to stay home for their childrens' early years rather than use daycare?
How many women, when forced to leave the home for a job, go out of their way to choose jobs that allow them flexibility, often forsaking great pay?
As a family, we chose for me to stay home with the kids. They're older now, but we also chose to home school, so I'm still at home. After 10 years at home, our situation changed and I did work outside the home for a while. I got the same starting wage as anyone else who had the same job, and I certainly didn't find any lack of opportunites, even when living in a job-poor community.
I have no desire to climb the corporate ladder. Thankfully, my husband has a job that allows us to do this. I appreciate this beyond words. He'd much rather be home with the kids, too, but with his training and aptitudes, he can command the higher wages. I don't have his skills and, to be honest, I don't want them. My skills run in different directions.
There are more important things than money or jobs. Families who choose to have a parent at home make great economical sacrifices to do so. You can't put a price on that. The most rewarding part of all is we have daughters who not only believe they can go into any career they choose, but also have their priorities straight, and understand that it's people that are important, not money, jobs and titles. That's something Stronach and Sgro don't seem to understand.
Posted by: Kunoichi at November 28, 2006 01:44 PM (GC+CP)
4
There are competent women who can do the work but I suspect they are out running their own businesses. Would they want to work for this crowd? Like they could try to hire Kate of SDA but we doubt she would do it - even for free dog food for life.
Posted by: Ww at November 28, 2006 05:57 PM (yzOzm)
5
All you beautiful ladies out there don't have to worry. Soon, it will be wear the burka, or get a good beating. Now, get that house clean!
Posted by: Leatherneck at November 28, 2006 07:48 PM (D2g/j)
6
Leatherneck
You forgot about the stoning for adultery, a friendly gang rape for looking at a man, hanging and/or severe whipping/beating for having the audacity to suggest that a woman needs an education, and on, and on......
These silver spoon fed r-tards are real pieces of work. The fact that they focus on everything but the woman who need help is very telling about their own narcissism.
Posted by: missing link at November 28, 2006 08:04 PM (VnZwz)
November 27, 2006
Michael Richards: The Responsibility Game and Personal Character
Even Michael Richards continues to apologize for his racist tirade caught on video at the Laugh Factory comedy club, the "victims" are demanding cash. And so begins the game of moving responsibility around. The rules are simple. Responsibility cannot be shared, it can only be assigned entirely to one person. Whoever ends up with the responsibility loses and has to pay the other players money.
The funny thing about the responsibility game is that, when you think about it, the winners are actually the losers. At least you would think so if you valued personal character over money.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:23 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 879 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I wonder how our guys in Afghanistan are doing?
Haven't heard much about them lately. I noticed on the DND website that 4 of them were decorated for valour -the first time the new military bravery decorations have been awarded since they came out in 1993. I don't recall hearing about that anywhere else. Not newsworthy I guess.
Sorry, I shouldn't wander off topic. After all, this Richards story is huge. It must be -it's garnering more ink and air-time than the Dawson College shootings did. In fact, can anyone here name one murder in Canada this year that's excited more comment than this story about a has-been celebrity who uttered the N-word? In a foreign country.
Granted, that uttering the N-word is by far a more serious offence than murder, rape, child molestation, terrorism, treason or anything else you care to name -so why don't the Yanks just execute the bugger and be done with it? Then we can all get back to explaining to our children the easier, less important events of our times.
Whatever the hell they are...?
Posted by: up north at November 27, 2006 03:26 PM (O+JYS)
2
Richards was relentlessly provoked by a couple of hyenas, with no route for escape, as you pointed out, and he snapped; now he is going to pay a heavy price for the rest of his life, while the hyenas will be able to retire off their efforts.
Just appalling.
Posted by: EBD at November 28, 2006 02:50 PM (kdCZT)
3
"I was humiliated, even scared at one point."
That is the most completely lawyer-made-up statement I've ever heard in my life.
Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2006 03:04 PM (bTfLd)
4
Janke your commentary is utterly preposterous. It's just another example of blaming the victim. First of all, even though the two guys heckled Richards (by the way, we don't no what they said or how long the heckling went on; was it an hour or a minute?)are you actually suggesting Richards was justified in spewing the most vile, disgusting racial slurs he can think of? Isn't that a little like dropping an atom bomb on someone who hit you with a pea shooter?
Secondly, comedians know that heckling goes with the territory, as a result, they should have material ready to diffuse such behavior without resorting to the most offensive epithets used towards black people.
As for Richards being captive on stage, give me a break!!! He's not a 10 yr. old giving a book report in class. He's a seasoned performer who chose a profession where you perform in front of people. He was the one on stage with the microphone that night, so obviously he had a forum that allowed him to point the two men out and make them objects of ridicule.
Regarding the statement about what we teach our kids, how do you know Richards is going to go to his with lessons about tolerance? For all you know he's going to go back to them with tales about how evil the black man is.
As for the post above criticizing the media for reporting on this issue, news stories aren't limited to rapes, murder, child molestation, etc. News outlets have the ability and the duty to report on all types of issues. Including a volatile one like this involving a public figure.
I just don't understand how or why white people defend ignorant behavior like Richards'. If you truly want us all to "get along", this isn't the way to do it.
Posted by: flash at November 29, 2006 11:25 AM (4oIC6)
5
Well flash,
I suppose we will have to get rid of Chris Rock before us Crackers can get along with you rap stars.
Posted by: Leatherneck at November 29, 2006 05:13 PM (D2g/j)
6
flash,
My point is that this guy isn't a public figure. He's a celebrity. This story belongs in one of the umpteen dozen magazines that cater to the people who have nothing better to do than religiously follow the lives of the most useless, frivolous people on the planet.
If a politician, a cop, a teacher -anyone on the public payroll had popped off like that then yes- it would be news. Especially if it was a Canadian.
I'm not defending what Richards did -it's indefensible. Whites are not supposed to use the "N" word. Thank you -we get it.
My objection to all this isn't so much with the media as it is with the people -of whom there are far too many in this country who can tell you every detail of who's married/divorced/laid/drunk/drugged/charged/whatever in Hollywood, but they can't get a simple 50 word news article correct. That'd be fine except these same idiots vote.
As far as Richards? Shun the asshole. I wouldn't have given the idiot the time of day BEFORE he did that and I certainly wouldn't now. If you're really offended with what he said and you want to go punch him in the mouth, you may do so with my blessings. Just don't bombard me with all the details. I think we've all got a lot more to worry about -including racism- without wasting our time and energy paying attention to -and getting all worked up over- a bunch of narcissistic degenerates south of the border.
Posted by: up north at November 30, 2006 01:20 PM (xOyZb)
7
Why this intense burst of concern over a small crowd of creeps, on both sides, some where down in the USA. Everyone knows they are are mostly loudmouths. If you
really want to get steamed up about unreasonable and truly malicious demeaning of others why not go to work on the Premier of Alberta. The other day on TV he made a remark about a female MP that leaves one stunned for its sheer visciouness. No one could possibly defend it. No one could possibly let it pass by. But here you are , with the rest of the knuckle draggers in that benighted place, and it seems that is exactly what you are doing. You will all pretend, it appears, that it just did not happen.
It did, you know, and you are all now seen dumping the bucket of sh.. that belongs on his head, on your own.
Posted by: garhane at November 30, 2006 04:05 PM (j8KE0)
8
Richards is under great stress as a stand - up. He is a good comedic actor. The two are vastly different.
Here is Responsibility and lack of Character on an international scale.
Russia is fleecing the *unguarded unaware* on the internet . No sense leaving all the scams and knock-off profits to China.
There are many examples where Western governments can not get any help or cooperation from Russian authorities. This is one example in the music downloads game.
[ Warning, if you go to these sites, you risk downloading some nasty surprises. There is no free lunch. For your information. Be aware and avoid learning the hard way as I did buying Cigs for a friend at half price . . . There is no free lunch.]
Allofmp3.com is one of many internationally based download sites that the U.S. and several other countries are trying to close down. Music labels and movie studios say that such sites are not authorized to sell music and don't compensate copyright holders.
The move is a setback for Allofmp3.com, which has come under continued U.S. pressure in recent months. In October, Visa announced that it would no longer process the company's credit card transactions.
Allofmp3.com has denied charges of piracy by pointing out that the company is compliant with Russian copyright law. It says it is careful to pay royalties to artists via the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, which claims to represent copyright holders.
tiny url.com/ycc3vt
[Don*t be fooled by the headline. Russia agrees easily but often fails to comply.]
The U.S. has never recognized that organization as legitimate and, as part of the agreement, requires Russia to stop such groups from *acting without right holder consent.*
From Cnet News ====== TG
Posted by: TG at December 01, 2006 03:06 PM (2GVBQ)
9
Hello first time to come to this forum, I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f
Posted by: Nike LeBron 8 at December 02, 2012 02:14 PM (k7y+7)
November 26, 2006
Who wants to buy some C-4 explosive online?
Why would someone from the UK be be looking for C‑4 explosive online?
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:27 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Guess they aren't using 'the gelly' anymore...
Posted by: Selma at November 26, 2006 11:56 AM (ifUn9)
2
Maybe some curious person trying to find out if it is possible to do so? Say for an article on his blog. I know I do some very strange searches myself at times to find info for a post. But then that just does not have the appeal as what you are suggesting.
Posted by: Tim at November 26, 2006 12:38 PM (OSaxi)
3
Sign me up, we'd like to try it out at the quarry....we're getting a little bored with 60% dynamite and ANFO....
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at November 26, 2006 01:03 PM (Y1ykG)
4
Wow....well here is hoping that MI5 is paying attention.
Good for you for posting
Posted by: Stephen at November 26, 2006 08:18 PM (PizTn)
5
Probably some MI6 spook checking to see if Britain's total I-net civlian surviellence software was working.
Then the "sale" would be recorded on CCTV video and audio from one or more of the 4 million surveillance cameras in public places....with one camera for every 14 Brits public surveillance is not only part of the "new" UK "security culture", but entertainment as well as some cable feed companies patch CCTV street camera feed into their home channel package offerings.
Ya can have yer UK Sir Percy!...stick a fork in 'er she's done Nigel....choked to death on her own paranoid statism.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at November 30, 2006 09:58 AM (e1kRH)
Rowan Williams: Blogs play a role in Anglican battles between the left and the right
It is fascinating to see where blogs crop up, and just how seriously the content is taken. In this case, the former and current Archbishops of Cantebury, George Carey and Rowan Williams, respectively, are engaged in some serious fighting over the direction the Anglican Church is taking. One of the tools in that fight is a blog maintained by George Carey's son, Andrew. Other Anglican blogs are playing equally significant roles in the fight.
Just as we've seen in the secular political arena, blogs seem to be used more effectively by conservatives to keep up pressure on liberals holding the reins of power.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:35 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1102 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Correct me if I am wrong Steve, but didn't Martin and the Libs want to impose real time monitoring of things like yahoo and msm messenger. This all at the ISPs expense of course,or they pay $50,000 fine. Just like Trudooooh and his "you will go metric, you will pay or you will be jailed". I haven't heard what happened to the idea maybe you can update us. This was of course before blogs became so favourite. We all know what they will try to do if they get re-elected. The party of freedoms is so much against the freedom of speech.
Posted by: Pissedoff at November 26, 2006 09:17 AM (t6NgY)
2
Another interesting question to ask is,"Why the egregious confusion amongst our leaders?"
There's still a long way to go on both sides. In the case of the orthodox churches, very few leaders have been able to articulate or defend some very old principles such as the rejection of gay marriage or the rejection of women priests. The left can't explain why they want these things, and the right can't explain why it's wrong. This should be a slam-dunk for the conservatives. New believers seek clarity and leadership. But as usual, we're paying with our wallets for our leaders to learn on the job like apprentices when they should be on top of these subjects already. We can be forgiven for expecting better of our leaders.
Posted by: Layon de Lumber at November 26, 2006 04:41 PM (1dKxB)
3
Here we go again!
While I initially found myself taking Carey's side on the issue, the total absurdity of the situation hit home when I read that Carey's camp calls "allies of Rowan Williams the real fundamentalists".
There is so much confusion in that organization, that no one seems to know what is "fundamental" anyway. I don't expect any resolution for these people as long as they are carried away on whatever wind of doctrine seems politically correct this month or next.
Steve, I love your sense of irony concerning the "incorporeal universe". I also agree with your observation that conservatives are making better use of blogs to support their views, but not due to any lack of effort by web-savvy liberals.
It is simply that blogs strip away the things that liberals rely upon to win their battles.
The winning stroke in any debate, religious, political, or otherwise, is a debillitating ad hominem attack that plants doubts in the public minds, and causes the opponent to wilt in the face of off-topic, un-defendable accusations. It has worked for generations in all walks of life, regardless of the issue, and regardless of the forum.
That is until now.
Why? Because the inherent worth of an argument cannot be squashed on a blog as easily as it can on TV and other media outlets that practise selective reporting; omitting any tidbit that might refute the position their editorial board has decided to endorse, and repeatedly broadcasting the ad hominem debillitation of the day.
No, the power of a public forum like this blog is that each argument is unhindered by any adversary, and is available to be read by all, just the way the writer intended; pure and unadulterated.
Every argument is presented on it's own merit, and we can all read a multiplicity of views, agree or disagree, and perhaps even be persuaded to adjust our own opinions.
The reason that blogs appear to be more effective for conservatives is a combination of two factors.
Firstly, the ad hominem attacks that are rendered impotent in this forum, are primarily used by opponents of conservative ideas.
Secondly, proponents of conservative ideas usually have valid and principled reasons for believing what they say, and the strength of their arguments is generally sufficient to defeat shallow liberal platitudes.
Proponents of liberal ideas generally base their arguments on the poll of the day, and winning at all costs, not on priciples that can withstand the tests of time. Liberal thought rarely runs any deeper than "down with the conservatives". If it did, then we would see more of it in the forum of ideas, and liberal victories would be founded on well-won debate, rather than slander and ridicule.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen many examples of the former, but are deluged with examples of the latter.
And so, while bishops Carey and Williams exchange ad hominems, trying to establish who is the least "fundamentalist", we can just shake our heads and wonder how the Anglican Church, ostensibly representing the conservative side of the political spectrum, descended from heights of sacred significance to the crumbling facade we witness today.
Could it be simply that liberals have taken over.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 27, 2006 05:16 AM (h3dn9)
4
Scott Merrithew re the confusion and chaos in the Anglican Church vis a vis the gay issue: "we can just shake our heads and wonder how the Anglican Church, ostensibly representing the conservative side of the political spectrum, descended from heights of sacred significance to the crumbling facade we witness today.
"Could it be simply that liberals have taken over?"
As a cradle Anglican and one who has had intimate ties with the Anglican Church all of my life--until a year and a half ago, when I left the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic--I can answer Scott's question in a word:
Yes.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 27, 2006 06:33 PM (SIY9j)
5
Oh, and another thing:
All of this wrangling going on between Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity, all because of the gay agenda and the very small percentage of the population that fall into the gay category--not all of whom are in favour of the activist agenda, BTW--has created a scorch and burn policy in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches.
Gay activists and their apologists are forcing their agenda on the people in the pew who, if they were individually polled, would probably say a resounding "NO!" to the apostasy that has resulted. Activities which, for millennia, have been forbidden in Scripture--for the health and well-being of men and women--are now not only allowed but are championed. Never mind that same-sex sexual activity has led to an unprecedented epidemic of sickness and death in the gay community, the Church seems to think that it must, in the name of a false "equality," "openness," and "tolerance," defend these sexual preferences.
"Without a vision, the people perish," is exactly where the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches find themselves today. I'm giving them about 10 years before there is a total collapse. When the over-sixty generation, who tend to generously finance the church, are gone, that'll pretty much be it. The hierarchies may be able to limp along for a few more years on endowments, which are far more numerous and generous in the Episcopalian Church than in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the individual churches will be closing down in unprecedented numbers.
"For Wales, Richie? For Wales?" (From "A Man for All Seasons," when Sir Thomas More discovers that Richie Rich has sold him down the river for a place of honour in Wales, then a backwater of the Kingdom.)
Posted by: at November 29, 2006 08:45 AM (CDHVN)
6
Above post is mine: posted at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 29, 2006 08:47 AM (CDHVN)
7
The democratic process works well for nation states, allowing the population to guide the hand of a representative government. However, it undermines the authority of any organization that is based on an established set of foundational precepts, like a Church, or school, or club.
Majority rule does not mean that the majority is right; it only ensures that the fewest number of people are discriminated against.
In any church, synagogue, or mosque, the leadership is responsible for guiding the people.
Traditionally, churches, synagogues, mosques, schools and clubs had well-defined standards of operation, any divergence from which was identified and addressed in some fashion.
One pertinent effect of that was to discourage people from attending regularly if they did not endorse the standard.
Why is that acceptable in such an organization and not society as a whole? Because membership in these organizations is purely voluntary, with no legitimate repurcussions if a person chooses not to attend anymore. (I say legitimate because apparently a person who decides to quit a mosque is targeted for elimination by their family)
The tendency to relax any traditional standards in the church as an intentional strategy to increase church attendance in the midst of an increasingly non-christian society, has had the predictable result of empowering those who have no interest in foundational precepts, and diluting the relevance of the church in society.
This tactic is probably due to the misguided notion that the most important measure of a church's success is the number of members, so any effort to increase that number is warranted, even if it means sacrificing a foundational precept or ten.
An example of this carried to it's natural conclusion is something that happened in Thornhill, suburb of Toronto.
An old church with a very small number in attendance, had their Annual General Meeting and a motion was made by a relatively new member, to change the denomination of the church. There were not enough members in the quorum to prevent it, and now it is a completely different congregation. (I don't know enough of the details to state it as fact, but my memory tells me it was from a protestant denomination to an Islam mosque.)
That is an extreme example, but the same thing is happening to varying degrees in the Anglican Church and others.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 30, 2006 02:26 PM (GqO0P)
8
My son and I feel very comfortable with the kindness and treatment plan we have experienced through Feil ortho!!! Thank you!!|;
north face online store
Posted by: north face online store at November 21, 2012 11:11 AM (QkIdl)
9
Big Strong Erections
Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 05:49 PM (O7a0w)
November 25, 2006
Limiting Federal Spending Powers: The real means for democratic renewal
In Canada, we forget what federalism means. Powers are not shared between the provinces and the federal government. They are divided. But the federal government in decades past has been encroaching on and collecting provincial powers, as depicted in this cartoon from Australia, another nation organized around federalism.
Finally, that state of affairs has been recognized by the only person that matters -- the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rumoured to be planning to limit federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but not only that, amend the Constitution to that effect.
A minority government, and he's going to amend the Constitution. Wow!
What people think this is about money. It is, of course, but it also a means of democratic renewal. Perhaps the only way that matters.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:48 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 5 kb.
1
It's a difficult thing to amend the constitution to eliminate federal control of spending in areas outside federal jurisdiction, especially since in the constitution as it stands there is no such federal control and no possibility of any such control. The federal spending power as we know and love it is entirely illegal and unconstitutional. Sadly, that matters nothing to the Liberal judiciary, nor will any change to our meaningless sham constitution.
Posted by: ebt at November 25, 2006 06:45 PM (s2bzU)
2
I hope Harper can get an ammendment to the consititution to get out of equalisation payments. The payments should be made province to province instead of throught the federal government. It's the provinces that do the paying but it's Ottawa that gets the credit.
Posted by: Fiumara at November 25, 2006 11:48 PM (/F0Ou)
3
You're on the right track Steve, but I don't think you've thought this one all the way through yet.
certain responsibilities that are most closely tied to regional variations -- education, natural resource management, and such -- are left to the regions to manage.
Quite right. Things like these should be devolved to the regional level. But at what "regional level" is the power mostly rightfully exercised?
If you think that tens of thousands of overeducated and overpaid bureaucrats in Toronto, controlling tens of thousands more pencil pushers working in regional provincial government offices across the province, who control thousands more municipal or county-level bureaucrats, who control vast systems of schools and hospitals, each with their own overhead fat of managers, assistant managers, secretaries, counsellors, psychologists, union flacks, etc. is the most efficient way to prescribe Tylenol #3 to people with headaches and teach their kiddies how to read and do sums, then dream on. In fact the best devolution of power is right to the level where that power will be used most effectively - to the individual.
The reason why you're discussing how to give power "back to where it belongs", at the provincial government level (allegedly), is really nothing but the result of how placing power into the wrong hands in the first place inevitably resulted in inefficiency, waste and corruption. Governments fail upwards. When municipal governments tried to provide roads, schools, economic development, etc. in the early 19th century they failed - because communism always fails. By the time of the BNA, these failures had been passed on upwards to the next level of government, which was at that time the capitals of British provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. So that's where the BNA assigned the power, where it was already at. But a hundred years later the various provincial governments' communistic failures were finally becoming too big to ignore. The failure was manifested in exactly the same way at the provincial level as the failures had been at the the municipal level in the good olde days - most of the governments could no longer raise additional tax revenues, and no one would lend them money any more for their bogus, wealth-killing boondoggles. Fortunately (for the nitwits and fuckups working in municipal and provincial governments), along came Lester B. And Pierre E., with the next and most obvious solution to their dilemma - expand the tax base, and present an even bigger and more polished face to the big banks and moneylenders, and tell them how this time, all of the stupid government megaprojects and welfare programs were not just political pork and corrupt vote buying, but were investments in the future.
But like I said, communism always fails, and until it runs out of steam (in bankruptcy or occasionally in a world war), people will always try to help it fail upwards. The creation of the EU and its recent expansion to the east is a recent example of this. So are institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and God forbid it should come into being, the Kyoto Protocol. Bigger and bigger bureaucracies and legal/regulatory bodies are the classic commie response to the inherent and inevitable failures of commie powergrabs and money grabs. Expand the net. Expand control. Nothing's wrong with socialism, it's these damn provincial bumpkins that just don't get it!
That's what you're up against, bro. The problem is not that a piece of paper sitting in a glass box in Ottawa called The Constitution has been "violated". It's still sitting there, it's still as good as the day it was written, and it's still as completely useless as it ever was. The problem is that your own unwritten, unconquerable rights were surrendered, voluntarily, to a bunch of con men selling phoney bottles of freedom and prosperity labelled "Trust Me I Know What's Best For You".
Posted by: at November 26, 2006 12:35 AM (a0Sy/)
4
Anonymous at Nov 26, 12:35am: I don't quite understand your vision. Do you see any role for government at all?
Posted by: A at November 26, 2006 12:05 PM (YK2nB)
5
Preston Manning and Michael Enright were discussing this tightening and efficiency direction with a lot of very good sounding logic this morning.
Encouraging that the Fraser Institute is dreaming up ways to incorporate environmental resposibility into our economic mix.
Manning makes sense too, when he suggests measuring public and private medicine side by side and using the results to get the BALANCED mix.
Canadians like balance. The days of all left OR all right are gone. Nothing is a simple black or white. There has to be a careful balance of what works for best results.
Harper*s efficiencies and ethics will contribute to Canada*s true potential.
I remind you of the massive flood of public money syphoned off by the Liberal$.
** The 200 List ** There are many copies around the web. Scroll down 6 posts at:
http://Redpin.Anchorpin.com
Lots to work with there. = TG
Posted by: TG at November 26, 2006 01:53 PM (2GVBQ)
6
Anonymous at Nov 26, 12:35am: I don't quite understand your vision. Do you see any role for government at all?
Frankly, no. But even if you find this too big of a fish to swallow all at once, then you should at least be able to see that practically every new task which government has taken for itself in the last century and a half or so - health, education and welfare being three of the biggest - has been done on utterly spurious grounds and with disasterous results. Throughout history people were able to provide for themselves perfectly well in these areas, as long as their own governments didn't interfere (which unfortunately they have a habit of doing, by destroying trade and commerce with taxes, inflation and wars). There was no "education crisis" in the 19th century which should have led to the creation of provincial departments of education. In Ontario what happened was that trade barriers prevented sensible and wealth-increasing trade with the USA, which led to lower prices for farm products and higher prices for imported goods. There were other governmental barriers against building mills and mines. Government caused the problem of slow or stagnant economic growth, but then tried to appear magnanimous by providing "free" schools. I'm sure it was very similar in the other future provinces of Canada. The "British Way" meant being forced to trade with British and British-owned companies, to the point of poverty. There was also a huge religious and ideological battle between Family Compact prigs like Bishop Strahan and the "evils" of republicanism, catholicism, you name it. Whatever endangered their special privileges and special power must be propagandized against, as a matter of life and death. That is the genesis of Canadian "public" (i.e. Protestant) schools.
Medicare sprang up in the 20th century in a similarly dubious way. First of all, doctors were handed government monopolies in the form of the officially sanctioned medical licensing boards. This is bad but it might not have been so bad, if governments had not embarked on disasterous policies of war, taxes and inflation through the whole period from WWI, the roaring 20s, the great depression, WWII, the cold war, and right up to the present day. As doctors were progressively able to price their services higher and higher, ordinary folks' paycheques were more and more ravaged so they were less and less able to pay for doctor's visits and medicines, that's when noisy and economically ignorant demagogues like Saint Tommy of Douglas were able to start singing about the eternal joys of "free" medical care.
The welfare industry also got going in the 20th century. Greater and greater government taxation and regulatory interference made it harder and harder to start a business and employ people. Society became split between those enjoying government jobs and government-protected or subsidized jobs, and "the rest". It was a simple matter to fire up the propaganda machine and blame "capitalists" for the growing unemployment lines, but in fact capitalism is what makes jobs and creates wealth - it's government that destroys capitalism and thus destroys the jobs and the wealth. But instead politicians and bureaucrats rode in on a white horse with "relief" for the poor ... and a new industry was born.
I'm not saying cut all these things overnight (though I would like to and it would be far less painful than most people think). I'm saying, wake up and start seeing what the growth of government really is: a boondoggle and not a boon.
Posted by: at November 26, 2006 08:11 PM (a0Sy/)
7
Finally, some governmental recognition that "Fiscal Imbalance" is a myth.
As people like Andrew Coyne have shown repeatedly, among federations, Ottawa already keeps the smallest share of revenues of any central government in the world, and of the money they do transfer to the Provinces, they place the fewest strings.
About those transfer payments: federal transfers to the provinces is at an all-time high, despite the fact that 8 out of the 10 provinces are running surplus budgets.
The fact is, the provinces have always had the ability to reject any federal money for items under provincial jurisdiction; but, frankly, they have been all to happy to play along rather than fund their own programs through their own provincial taxes. The Federal Government has no means of raising capital that the Provinces don't have -- in fact, with respect to things like resource rights, the Provinces have more money streams from which to draw.
If the Feds want to limit their spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction -- it is NOT because of increasing federal encroachment, it is because of decreasing provincial accountability. This change is to protect the Federal government, not limit them, and it is welcome.
Posted by: Bob at November 27, 2006 05:02 AM (Lmg9H)
8
ebt,
Please give me some examples of the "Liberal Judiciary" forcing a Province to accept the "illegal and unconstitutional" "federal control of spending in areas outside of federal jurisdiction." Any example will do.
The fact is, that the Federal government does NOT control spending outside of their jurisdiction, because the Provinces are, and always have been, free to reject any offers of Federal money. The fact that they consistently refuse to do so in order to avoid having to raise their own money through taxation is not a problem created by the "Liberal Judiciary" -- it is a problem created by the "Avoid-Taxes Conservative" Provincial Governments.
Posted by: bob at November 27, 2006 08:36 AM (Lmg9H)
9
The federal government routinely places conditions on transfers to the provinces. (Consider the Canada Health Act.) Under the constitution Ottawa cannot put conditions on payments to provinces, or on any payment made for provincial purposes. It can contract with the provinces to discharge federal responsibilities, and impose conditions that way. Or it can turn money over to the province or any person, without condition, in the expectation that the desired result would occur anyway. But it certainly cannot constitutionally do what it openly does.
I am not bob's tutor and have no intention of spoonfeeding authorities to him.
Posted by: ebt at November 27, 2006 05:53 PM (7y2db)
10
bob
how about the federal firearms registry. clearly registration is provincial, the SCOC let it through on the basis it was ment to fight crime but did not require that the feds prove it actually fought crime.
Posted by: Phil at November 27, 2006 10:42 PM (Lvekz)
11
ebt,
The irony must be lost on you, given that those dastardly liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court Bench recently overturned a Quebec Law preventing people from buying private health insurance (Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General).
You also entirely miss the point -- the Provinces are all free to ignore the CHA if they are willing to raise their own money -- an option that both Quebec and Alberta have recently considered. And frankly, given that the Provinces have the responsibility for running the programs, they should also have the responsibility of funding it. Perhaps Alberta could consider actually using the Healthcare Premiums it charges for . . .duh . . .health care, instead of simply putting the money into general revenue and using it to fund rebate cheques in election years.
Posted by: bob at November 28, 2006 05:16 AM (Lmg9H)
12
As bob knows very well, the Chaoulli case had nothing to do with federal funding or with the federal government at all. Nor was it in any respect an "activist" decision. Very much the opposite.
Bob also knows that in law the provinces are free to take any money the federal government gives them and use it any way they see fit. Having once decided to give money to a province, the federal govermnment cannot put any condition on payment of the money.
Yes, the provinces are free to turn down conditional payments, because all such payments are illegal.
Posted by: ebt at November 28, 2006 05:11 PM (7y2db)
13
Hey, you got the activist joke. Good on you.
However, I'm still waiting for you to show me the clause in the Constitution where it dictates that the Federal Government can't put strings on money for health care. As the Kirby report shows, it doesn't exist, since the Constitution is silent on the Federal goverment's mandate to raise money for Health Care.
Again, I'm confused why you are upset with the Federal Government rather than the Provincial Governments who whine about increasing Federal control while happily accepting their money. There's an old saying that the guy who pays the band can pick the songs. The Provinces can't have it both ways -- either pony up and take responsibility for your own programmes, or work within the constraints of accepting somebody else's money.
Posted by: bob at November 29, 2006 01:52 AM (uvT7t)
14
ebt, stop spouting nonsense.
There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in ANY part of the Canadian Constitution dictating how Federal Funds should or should not be distributed to the Provinces, with the notable exception of the Constitution Act 1907.
Section 36(2) of the 1982 Constitution is the closest we get:
"Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making Equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." (Subsection 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982)
Note, first of all, that this is talking about equalization payments and nothing else. Second, note that even in THIS context there is no discussion of whether the payments should or should not be unconditional. Certainly by convention equalization payments have always been, and continue to be, unconditional (as they most certainly should be); but this is NOT enshrined in the Constitution.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, note that any money transfered for social programs (e.g., Health, Education, etc.) is NOT part of the equalization program, and is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
To be specific, the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) and the Canada Social Transfer (CST) are acts of legislation -- not Constitutionalized laws.
So, please, on what basis are you justified in making your continued assertions that the Federal Goverment is acting illegally by placing conditions on such transfers? And how, with some examples please, have the liberal activist judges helped to further this? Please stick to the topic at hand and don't cite judicial activism in other spheres such as gay marriage, etc. I'm interested in your reasoning on the illegality of conditional transfer payments.
Posted by: bob at November 29, 2006 06:36 AM (Lmg9H)
Charles Leblanc acquitted -- Blogging is a trade in Canada
Canadian bloggers have scored a victory. Charles LeBlanc, who runs a blog known to the police in New Brunswick, was arrested by those police in June 2006 when he took pictures of a demonstration of which he was not a participant, but to post on his blog. Those charges have been dismissed, and the judge decided the LeBlanc was legally engaged in "plying his trade".
Blogging is a trade? Not bad. But ideally, blogging could be considered a profession one day, not unlike journalism. But for that to happen, bloggers will have to establish some ground rules.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:11 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 656 words, total size 5 kb.
1
...definately a code of conduct.
But given the freedom we have right now with blogs, it wont' be long before legal beagles will start shutting them down.
Thank God the Liberals aren't in power, else I'd probably not be able to post this...
Laugh if you may, a legal action threat letter to an ISP is all that is needed.
Posted by: tomax7 at November 25, 2006 11:59 AM (jHhd0)
2
Let*s not forget:
[1] Liberal oppression from Kinsella upon SDA
[2] Low voiced phone calls from PMO Dithers office of big legal sticks to the Halifax Dominion Epaper. Exposed and nullified by reader supporters and the editors.
[3] Andrew Coyne*s swamping by Jr. Liberals [ suspected, I admit] when he did not have the time to edit filthy comments.
Little guy Charles Leblanc was stepped on by the Irving*s Police, so I don*t care if he is Liberal or NDP, slapping down a guy taking pictures openly in public is WRONG!
http://OldMaison.blogspot.com
= TG
Posted by: TG at November 25, 2006 04:07 PM (2GVBQ)
3
I would agree on journalism as a "trade". I would not elevate it to a profession. It requires no special training, and perhaps even, not special skills beyond basic writing and reading comprehension. Like basic assembly line work, once you learn where the nuts and bolts go, you just keep putting them in the same place each time. And like sloppy assembly line work, sometimes you wind up with nothing but crap. [Now - here comes the apology to assembly line workers - you ARE worth more than journalists, even if the work gets boring as sh*t. At least assembly line work is honest work. A widget doesn't try to be anything more than a widget.]
Posted by: Skip at November 25, 2006 07:13 PM (kKnn7)
4
Gotta disagree Steve. Blogging's strength is that it is "wild", as in undomesticated. There's no rules, no agreements, no "proper" way things are done.
Journalism is a profession and is therefore subjects to all manner of strictures, biases and constraints that don't affect bloggers. Bloggers can (and will) post pretty much -anything- at all.
Included in anything is a large ammount of crap of course, but us readers are capable of sorting wheat from chaff for ourselves.
Freedom is messy!
Posted by: The Phantom at November 25, 2006 09:33 PM (nAMT1)
5
I agree with The Phantom.
The last thing bloggers need (or hopefully want) is control, bureaucracy and interference.
Sure, there are a lot of awful blogs out there, but so what? One click and you're outta there. There are a lot of good ones too.
The beauty of blogging is that it is completely free - free of charge and free of control. Free market, except there's no commerce, except for a few who run ads.
Unlike the msm, the bias is right up front. It's a personal view of events and issues which you never see in the msm, especially in terms of detail.
The good bloggers already have standards. They check their facts, do actual research, don't libel or spread gossip - unlike the msm. Bloggers even admit when they've made a mistake, that says it all.
No tastemeisters, no fees, no regulations. That's the life for me!
As for the 'trade' thing, plying one's trade is an old expression. MSM Journalists are 'professionals'? Nope. Professionals are self-employed and self-governing, such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, etc. If a bloggers' association were formed, they would be more in line with a profession than the msm journalists are today.
I remember checking out LeBlanc's blog awhile ago. Looks as though he is the victim of a vendetta.
Good post, Steve, as usual.
Posted by: Selma at November 26, 2006 09:19 AM (ifUn9)
Posted by: A at November 26, 2006 11:56 AM (YK2nB)
7
The real issue here is that the Pigs are scared of the truth.
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at November 27, 2006 05:15 AM (Y1ykG)
8
Raymond: "The real issue here is that the Pigs are scared of the truth."
...that was really intelligent...yep
Posted by: tomax7 at November 27, 2006 09:19 PM (hIfQC)
9
Soddisfare emozionante. Siete buoni a fotoricettore-progettate!
Posted by: sesso at December 20, 2006 05:20 AM (yNMmW)
November 24, 2006
Abotech: A major law firm shows interest
I spotted an interesting search while reviewing my traffic log. Someone at the law firm of Heenan Blaikie has been researching elements of the Abotech story.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:23 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Well,they might be looking at Frank Brazeau, or they might be looking at you.
Since you are now "plying a trade", you might be a larger target than you realize.
Posted by: john at November 26, 2006 06:49 PM (4cWxS)
2
Brazeau is suing the Crown and you may be a target if you printed things that aren't true....
Posted by: at November 26, 2006 07:44 PM (HitUG)
3
I guess that's how they want to scare you all off. Can you afford bigger lawyers than they can? That's the game they'll try here. Funny, but I've had police officers lie through their teeth to a Judge, to try to get me put away. Odd, how the State can lie all it wants, and the ones we entrust with its operation, to steal all they want...while the Police sit idly by.
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at December 02, 2006 09:54 AM (Y1ykG)
4
I talked to Brazeau and yes he is going after certain people who posted lies on the internet and who fired him for no reason.
Posted by: at December 05, 2006 08:49 AM (jYZIJ)
5
Wholesale Jerseys
Posted by: Cheap Lions jerseys at November 29, 2012 08:18 AM (4wzxQ)
Toronto Police Grow-Op Video
more...
Check out this video taken by Toronto police officers after a major bust of a marijuana grow-op on Jane Street:
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
04:27 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that there seems to be a disproportionately high number of Vietnamese names mentioned in news releases of drug related arrests? Not just in Toronto, but Winnipeg, certainly Edmonton, everywhere across the nation, in fact.
Are all these Nguyens, Phams and Dinhs born and bred Canadians with a love of King and Country and a Maple Leaf tattoed on their arse? If not, then why isn't there a vast fleet of rusty freighters heading back across the Pacific with all these drug growers aboard -shipping them the hell home?
Posted by: up north at November 24, 2006 05:29 PM (Yvodc)
2
Yeah what about the fact that the Vietnamese mob has moved into this city and taken over? Is the media blind to this?
Posted by: Real Conservative at November 24, 2006 08:55 PM (EZLLA)
3
"likely to die from the fire started"....like has ANYONE DIED YET? No. Gee....why don't you lay the "tears falling from the cheek of a small child" routine on us all?
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at November 25, 2006 08:59 AM (Y1ykG)
4
I imagine prospective rents in the building for new tenants will be comparatively low!
Posted by: Jill at November 27, 2006 11:39 AM (j/eWI)
5
Wow dude, the vaperrrrrs!
Posted by: Leatherneck at November 27, 2006 10:27 PM (D2g/j)
6
Odd how no-one(cops especially)don't seem to care about Native Housing here in Qannadda, where 50% of Rez homes are mouldy. Most of GULL BAY'S residents have been living in Blunder Bay for THREE YEARS, at the taxpayers' expense. Why don't the Pigs get all ant-sy about this? Why? Because they're all SOCIOPATHS, more interested in the FAT PAYCHEQUES they get for playing TOUGH GUY with SICK JUNKIES.
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at November 28, 2006 01:45 PM (Y1ykG)
7
OK Raymond, I'll answer your cry for attention.
First off, cops aren't there to worry about your housing. They're there to worry about the people who live in the housing.
Secondly, topping the list of people who don't care about Native housing is the people who live on the "Rez(s)". We air-freight boilers and water-treatment plants and generators and everything else you could possibly imagine up to the reserves. We send technicians up to set them up, to come back up and fix them and to train people on the "rez(s)" to operate the damned things. Operating them also includes maintaining them. It isn't tough or complicated. But try to find someone on a reserve who actually gives enough of a sh*t to do that.
Instead, what we do -at taxpayer expense, as you pointed out- is replace these things every few years. Even though they're designed to last 20 years. And we send more technicians -who have to stay indoors at night for their own safety. And to a man they come back just shaking their heads at the 'couldn't give a sh*t' attitude they invariably run into.
We build new housing. They get gutted for firewood because people are just too lazy to go out and cut their own firewood. Please don't bullshit me. I live up here. Far enough north to be surrounded by Indian reservations. There are plenty of tough, hard-working Aboriginals here, but there are also plenty of people who are quite content to remain helpless and play the victim card. And lots of race-pimps who are quite happy to USE your people for their own ends. Wake the hell up.
Thirdly, going back to the topic posted here:
The cops (don't say "pigs" it's ignorant. OK? please?) are dealing with the drug growers -not the junkies. Besides, who ever became a junkie because of pot? Hmmm?
P.S. People do die in fires started by faulty wiring. We save the "tears falling from the cheek of a small child" for when we need to justify pumping more millions into the Indian reserves.
Posted by: up north at November 28, 2006 08:06 PM (RiIV8)
8
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/AG/2006/11/29/2545880-sun.html Here are your PRECIOUS PIGS in ACTION. Stealing from the taxpayers.
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at November 30, 2006 10:38 AM (Y1ykG)
9
My problem is more with the money from these operations being used to fund overtly criminal and violent activities. When you buy pot from these guys you KNOW thats going to a 9mm. Besides, growing your own is so much more fun.
Cheers from Victoria
Posted by: David Markin at January 05, 2007 12:20 AM (IB4NO)
10
The person has essential Reserves of health but how to keep this reserve longer? WBR LeoP
Posted by: Marina at February 01, 2007 06:35 AM (+bDlM)
Michael Ignatieff snatches Stephane Dion organizers
Liberal leadership candidate and acknowledged front-runner Michael Ignatieff has received the support of three organizers for the Stephane Dion campaign. These defections seem significant, but then I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the Dion organization.
The only reaction from the Dion camp seems to be to eliminate references to these traitors.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
03:24 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 4 kb.
1
That's too bad. I'd take Dion over a Harvard airhead anyday.
Posted by: johndoe124 at November 24, 2006 03:49 PM (zTXCu)
2
Dion would be a much better choice for them than Buffalo Bob or Professor Iggy. They wouldn't be wise enough to choose Dion though.
It's flash and dash and no substance they like. Just someone to put up front and sell their snake oil, fool enough people to get into power, the usual con job.
Posted by: Liz J at November 25, 2006 06:16 PM (+MqBf)
How to improve your Google ranking (and Yahoo...and MSN)
Such a little thing has the potential of having such an impact -- your sitemap. I don't mean your navigation bar or a web page listing your pages. I mean that XML file you generate every time you re-index your blog. You are generating an XML sitemap, right? And submitting it to the major search engines -- Google, Yahoo!, and MSN?
If not, read on.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:30 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 971 words, total size 7 kb.
1
...hmmm will have to keep an eye on this as I rank high (#1-5 spots) in Google, MSN, Yahoo without a site map at all.
Just plain ol' HTML coding and a few rules I follow.
Try these search phrases for instance:
- calgary microsoft trainer
- microsoft trainer
- calgary mct
- aplus notes
- mcse notes
- web design notes
- please laugh
- tom mclaughlin
- cisco router commands
- calgary microsoft office training
- calgary web designer
- computer help notes
- internet chat abbreviations
- tcp made easy or tcp/ip made easy
- digital smiles
- faith assembly
- hobart freeman
- bev mclaughlin
- valhalla tours
...and this from a guy who didn't know how to code a hyperlink to "page 2". Let alone know you can call "Page 2" something else like "contact me", "my services" and so on.
So I searched Alta Vista (Googe wasn't around then) for someone with "Page 2". Found it! Then copied their code with glee and guess what happened after when you clicked on "Please click here for Page 2"?
Yep, ended up at that other guys...
*sigh*
I miss those simple HTML days...
Posted by: tomax7 at November 25, 2006 11:17 AM (jHhd0)
2
...in the spirit of fairness here are my rules:
1. Use Page Titles on every page.
2. Use ALT tags for all images.
3. Use keywords throughout your page.
4. Manually submit your site every month.
5. Link to your site from others.
6. Use a lot of sub-folders, not 'root' heavy.
7. Don't use a lot of Flash(r) banners/pages.
Don't:
1. Use ghosting (white words on white backgnd).
2. Use keywords helter skelter
3. Use "submit your site to 600,000 engines"
4. Believe every help idea you read, including me.
Posted by: tomax7 at November 25, 2006 11:30 AM (jHhd0)
3
hello
Posted by: michael@gmail.com at May 05, 2007 02:45 PM (dugLW)
November 23, 2006
Stephane Dion aka The Trouble Fixer!
National Newswatch is reporting on an interview given by Stephane Dion to Tom Young, a New Brunswick radio host. In it, Stephane Dion calls himself the "trouble fixer".
Somehow, I doubt Stephane Dion wore a cape and flew into the room to announce in a baritone to the PM and his staff, "Eet is I, zee Trahhble Feexur!"
In fact, based on what people have been telling me, the truth is much more pedestrian. But no less signficant. I just don't see why Stephane Dion feels the need to embellish.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
05:13 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 644 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Didn't Dion also claim to have written the Clarity Act all by himself, when it has since been revealed that Harper had a big hand in its composition?
What a bozo... Next thing you know, he will be claiming how he advised God to create the Earth.
Too bad liberals don't believe in promoting God in politics (unless his last name was Trudeau), because this guy would certainly be a savior. Toob bad he speaks English like a handicapped robot.
Posted by: Jarrett Bezaire at November 23, 2006 10:53 PM (iqXXk)
2
What's really too bad, is that Harper has just sold the farm. By partisans on the right, this is being spun as a Brilliant Move by Harper, Calling the Bloc on their Bluff, Turning the Tables on the Bloc, etc.
Sadly, as Coyne has detailed excrutiatingly, it is simply feeding the fire.
Dion, by supporting this move, has just killed his credibility as the one guy who (used to) stands for Federalism.
Posted by: bob at November 24, 2006 04:30 AM (Lmg9H)
3
Is there any difference between Harper's conception of "nation within a nation" and the "distinct society" of the last decade? Well, except for the fact that "nation" is so much more of a loaded term, and therefore more easily coopted by First Nations and Separatists as a way to continue furthering their blackmail?
Coyne is right -- Harper hasn't defeated the Bloc at their own game, he has just given the game away.
Posted by: roger at November 24, 2006 05:38 AM (Lmg9H)
4
Any difference other than one involved constitutional changes and "nation within a united Canada" does not?
The Nationals "at issue" panle on wednesday was interesting. Coyne looked tearful while Gordon Gibson summed up most westerners position pretty well; As long as it does not give any special or increased powers to Quebec, who cares?
No constitutional amendments, boxed the Bloc in, gave a smackdown to the Liberals and once again proved the NDP irrelevant.
I see Iggy as liable for blame for raising the whole issue in the first place. He gets a temporary boost but may ultimately pay the price for starting the mess.
Harper wins on so many fronts. Once more he outfoxed, outflanked and surprised the pundits. All in a days work.
enough
Posted by: enough at November 24, 2006 09:58 AM (ucHAZ)
5
No constitutional amendments, boxed the Bloc in, gave a smackdown to the Liberals and once again proved the NDP irrelevant . . . I see Iggy as liable for blame for raising the whole issue in the first place . . . Harper wins on so many fronts.
It is this extraordinarily contradictory attitude that is so confusing. It smacks of pure partisanship.
Iggy advocates recognizing Quebec as a nation (without constitutional ammendment), and most conservatives rip him apart for selling out to separatists, etc.
Harper advocates recognizing Quebec as a nation (without constitutional ammendment), and it is seen as a shrewd move "on so many fronts."
Ignatieff should be blamed. Harper should be lauded.
It is also strangely out of line with the CP's previous policies. As Well's points out, in 2003 Scott Reid objected to the use of the word "nation" to describe Quebec because of the "conflation between whatever nation might exist, whatever people might exist and a state. The attempt here is to create a nation state."
Reid was right then, and it is right now. "Distinct Status" was clear in its bounds. "Nationhood" is so ambiguous that it will be used to attempt to wring "national powers". Charest's comments are just the beginning:
"This will have significance, both in domestic law and on the international stage. It changes the way our laws are interpreted. It changes the way Quebecers will see their future because the recognition of Quebec as a nation is a way for us to occupy the place that is owed us in Canada and elsewhere in the world."
Whether Charest's interpretation has legal merit is irrelevant. It is the impending argument that matters. There are two probable results, and one improbable:
1) The Feds will crack again and grant further special powers on the basis of nationhood.
2) the Quebecois will recognize that this is an entirely empty and meaningless statment, and react against it.
3) Quebecois will be pleased as punch to be recognized as "a nation" without any other concessions, and everything will go only happily ever after.
Somehow, I doubt that the third option will fly -- and the fact that the Bloc intends to vote against it is just the earliest proof.
And this doesn't even touch the queue of other interest groups who will be requesting "nation within a nation" status (First Nations, Acadians, Albertan Ukrainians, etc.).
Posted by: bob at November 24, 2006 10:52 AM (Lmg9H)
6
Correction. Iggy did want to put this in the constitution where it would have legal ramifications.
The resolution refers to the Quebecois, not Quebec. Huge difference.
Bob's 3rd option is possible.
There are about 5000-6000 nations in the world. Peoplegroups with distinct cultures, languages/dialects, and societies. 97% do not have their own nation state or are they recognized in their countries' constitution.
I opposed Meech and I voted against Charlottetown because they wrote Quebec a blank cheque and froze any future Constitutional change. (Quebec veto.)
I support this motion as written. The Quebecois are a nation. Anybody who is interested in "people groups" would recognize this. This does not provide them with special powers. Quebec is not a distinct society worth constitutional recognition.
First Nations and Acadians are nations. I would support any similar resoltion recognizing that as well. First Nations have special rights because their nationhood was recognized as a part of treaties. The terms of those treaties were the basis for national rights. Quebec is welcome to try and negotiate a special deal, but the rest of Canada would have to agree.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 24, 2006 01:19 PM (F47cQ)
7
The number of nations in the world depends on your definitions and criteria. Some would put it well over 10,000. Factors are language/dialect, race (genetics), geography, religion, caste, music, culture and political boundaries. The last item is the least important.
This is why the "Quebecois are a nation" statement bothers French Canadians outside Quebec. They feel excluded from this nation definition. They belong to the people group of French Canadians.
However, over time political boundaries do help form new national identities. An artificial British drawn boundary divided my wife's tribe in two. Now this is leading some to think that those in the other country are part of a different tribe with a different name yet a common language and culture. East Germans were developing their own nation with its own dialect and culture. Reunification is erasing that difference, but to everyone's dismay in Germany they have found out that they are indeed two nations now.
By the way, my wife's tribe fought a 30 year battle for independence from India. They lost, but they did get their own state. They are a unique nation, not an independent country. Sort of like the Quebecois; lost the war, but not their national identity.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 24, 2006 02:17 PM (F47cQ)
Stephen Harper constantly surprises everyone -- because they keep judging him by old standards
Prime Minister Stephen Harper shocked Ottawa by taling a motion, to be voted on next Monday, to recognize Quebec's national character -- in particular, though, it is a recognition of Quebeckers, not the province of Quebec. The move preempts a similar motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois that would have been voted on next Tuesday (a motion that, of course, omitted any mention of Canada). More importantly, it provides an opportunity for the 10 Tories MPs from Quebec to vote for a resolution in supporting of Quebec's "nationality" without the dangers inherent in the separatist version of the sentiment. The Conservative Party as a whole can campaign in Quebec without the Bloc or the Liberals sniping at the candidates for having voted against a "nationality" resolution.
All in all a brilliant move, if a gutsy and risky one.
What's strange, though, is the amount of ink being used to describe just what a surprise this was. How many times does Stephen Harper have to surprise people before people stop being surprised?
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:09 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1045 words, total size 8 kb.
1
PM Harper has made some decision that are clearly to the benefit of Canada not so much the Consevative party.
We are no longer mush on the international scene.
Posted by: at November 23, 2006 06:14 PM (KqGpk)
2
Leadership is a bitch. Sometimes one has to, well, lead. We have forgotten what that means. Whether you agree or not with the Quebec motion, Stephen Harper is demonstrating that he sets the agenda.
Poor Liberals. Their "train wreck" of a convention was going to be exciting in a morbid sort of way. Now, thanks to Mr. Harper, it will just...yawn.
Take the lead, and hold it. Well done!
Posted by: john at November 23, 2006 08:18 PM (7ppVp)
3
A Leader who leads, what a novel idea! To make such a decision on short "notice and getting the NDP and Liberals onside as well is quite amazing.
With this move he stole the thunder from the Liberal leadership yawn-in and took the wind out of the sails of the Bloc.
What could be better than that?
Posted by: Liz J at November 23, 2006 09:40 PM (mG6nL)
4
Uh-huh, except the prospect of Quebec being a 'nation' within Canada makes my skin crawl.
I've seen this movie twice before(Meech and Charlottetown) and I don't like how it ends.
Posted by: Ace at November 23, 2006 10:54 PM (BwdwJ)
5
Steve says, "Yet each time it [PMSH's deft political finesse] happens, the press is shocked and surprised. I suppose the effect of 13 years of Liberal Party rule is going to be hard to erase."
It's not just that after 13 years of Liberal rule the MSM has very lowered expectations of the Canadian government, it's very much that Prime Minister Harper is A CONSERVATIVE.
The left-leaning, liberal press think that Conservatives are stupid, lumpen, idiots, out-of-touch not only with the times but with reality--THEIR REALITY, THE ONLY REALITY--so they find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, though this is changing, to admit that what PM Harper does, EVER, is clever, effective, and sometimes even brilliant. To give him even faint praise is like shooting themselves in the foot.
Their whole modus operandi, for decades, has been to ridicule Conservatives, to paint them as Neanderthal know-nothings, so imagine their chagrine, their having to eat crow, when PMSH proves them wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Canadian press wants to re-elect the Liberals so they can enjoy their perks and privileges again. No wonder they hate to admit that Prime Minister Harper has done it again: that is, has pulled off a brilliant move. God forbid that Canadians should find out that the Conservatives have actually formed a pretty good government, because if the Conservatives get back into power after the next election, it's bye, bye perks and privileges, bye bye a seat in the Senate, and bye, bye a whole lot of agenda items the left-libbers feel are essential in maintaining "Canadian values."
Posted by: at November 23, 2006 11:32 PM (oOldR)
6
Sorry. The 11:32 p.m. post is mine.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 23, 2006 11:33 PM (oOldR)
7
BATB: You are so right on!
Harper is doing what he has to do, delivering his messages to the people himself, unfiltered and un-spun by the Liberal media hounds and hacks.
It's straight,unembellished information they can criticize but they can't doctor up the message.
When the people get straight messages they are able to make informed choices through factual information.
It may be that the MSM hacks and hounds are worrying about their employment. With their credibility having been damaged badly of late it has to be of concern to them that newspaper sales and TV Political and News program viewer-ship down and dropping.
Add to that the number of Media Liberal A**lickers who have taken jobs as Liberal advisers, Susan Murray and Maria McClintock, come to mind.
Remember too the senate seat for Jim Munson for loyalty to Chretien and the penchant for choosing TV journalists as Governor Generals.
The values the Liberals speak of are values for themselves, how they can con the people into voting for them with bribes and handouts, not values of the ordinary Canadian.
Posted by: Liz J at November 24, 2006 10:26 AM (/g5qQ)
8
Yesterday's Globe p. 1: "Nobody saw this coming!"
Today's Globe p. 1: "Here's the Inside Story!"
Right. The inside story. From the Globe and Mail. The people so far inside that they didn't see this coming. Dear Lord.
Posted by: ebt at November 24, 2006 04:26 PM (7y2db)
9
Ace try to get past the wording 'Nation'.It is the move that Harper made to make Duceppe accountable to the Parliamentary process.Poor Iggy thinks this is all about him...the guy has delusions of grandeur. I'm so enjoying the pace that Harper keeps.The press can't keep up with him. The old method of talking around in circles is past and so is the 'answering silly questions from the ppg.'
Posted by: vf at November 24, 2006 09:27 PM (WCIRg)
10
Mr Harper,May appear to be runnin on a full head of steam,but if an election is called is he going to leave a legacy like Brian Mulroney signing all these contracts for military hardware and than be defeated in an election and have numerous parties sue the new Canadian goverment when those contracts are canceled,much in the same way as Brian whatever his name was.
Posted by: J J at November 25, 2006 05:00 PM (aCBoY)
11
Ace, Meech and Charlottetown were proposed constitional amendments. This is a proposed resolution of Parliament. If you don't know the difference, then you just don't know enough about this country to form opinions on its affairs, and you should get out of the deep end now and stop wasting your time talking nonsense.
Posted by: ebt at November 25, 2006 06:48 PM (s2bzU)
November 22, 2006
Weird stuff going on with the Pajamas Media Netflix ads [Updated]
As part of the site upgrade, I've been testing all the links, including the ads running on the right rail provided by Pajamas Media. That's when I noticed it. I have never been able to get to Netflix. The same problem is happening on the Pajamas Media page, so I know it wasn't something I did.
What is disturbing though, is that the Netflix ads are taking me to spyware sites and pyramid schemes. Something rotten has infected Netflix, and I'm afraid it is using Pajamas Media and my site to direct people to these unsavoury corners of the web.
Update: Maybe it is redirecting me because my IP address is in Canada? But I'm still disgusted at the stand-in sites being called up.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:39 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 893 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I wondered why you were even linking to Netflix since we can't use the service in Canada. I thought someone should be contacting Zip.ca to get them to advertise in that space instead.
Posted by: Kathryn in Canada at November 23, 2006 06:49 AM (msm1c)
2
Looks like Doubleclick is detecting that you are browser is in Canada, where Netflix isn't interested in advertising, and so they are showing you another ad instead.
Which is stupid in more than one way - if you click on the banner ad, you don't want to see an unrelated product. And if they can detect your country, why don't they show only country-approriate banner ads in the first place?
Posted by: Brian at November 23, 2006 12:08 PM (Re4vL)
3
...good to see someone (Steve) with intestinal fortitude to check the advertising on their sites.
Sneaky folk these low life adverts are eh?
Posted by: tomax7 at November 23, 2006 04:01 PM (jHhd0)
4
I've just been hanging out not getting anything done, but so it goes. It's not important. I haven't been up to much today.
- stevejanke.com t
spaghetti alla carbonara
Posted by: Uhbygctfx at December 29, 2006 12:00 PM (al3G9)
The Google Search Box and AdSense Precision Matches
The Google search box has be successfully integrated into the new blog structure. Because of my rewrite of the blog into discrete pages, I can do things I couldn't do before, and I hope it turns out to be a profitable change.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:24 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 731 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I don't know whether you can use Sitemaps with your platform, Steve, but they really improved my search rankings. Might be a way for you to increase directed traffic. Or you could trigger a non-confidence vote in Parliament and cause another federal election. I expect that would work, too.
Posted by: Rob Hyndman at November 23, 2006 07:22 AM (ucgyc)
2
Way ahead of you on that one, Rob. I polished off my sitemap XML template on Tuesday, and have been generating the XML file from it with every posting. Includes links to the major tabs as well as the content itself. Submitted it to Google and Yahoo. I haven't done MSN yet, but I understand they're doing the same thing.
I'll be posting something about Sitemaps today for other bloggers to learn from.
Good to know that a sitemap actually helps, though. I was going on trust and hope.
On a related note, in the "I can't believe I didn't do this before" category, I fixed my blog template for individual postings so that it picks up the Movable Type keywords I add to every post (and use for Technorati tag generation) and creates the meta keywords tags in the header of the posting web page. I don't think it'll make much difference, but if Google does look at those tags to reinforce the content analysis, then maybe it'll be worth a few kicks up the search rung.
Cheers!
Posted by: Steve Janke at November 23, 2006 08:36 AM (27ap9)
3
It makes sense to have a way out for the visitor so to speak. If they are going to leave your site anyway, googling away might be the way to go, if you can generate some income from it. I will keep it in mind, thanks for the great tip.
Don
http://sixtyseven-days.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Don at November 24, 2006 01:03 AM (y0VfA)
Income-splitting will give same-sex couples something to think about
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is rumoured to be ready to introduce some form of income splitting for all Canadians in a legally recognized marriage.
Will this plan bring gays in larger numbers over to the Conservatives?
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:35 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Income splitting will help gays and straights, blacks and whites, men and women, etc., etc. We've heard enough garbage from the left on this subject.
Nobody except bitter feminists are opposing this idea.
Posted by: William E. Demers at November 22, 2006 10:02 PM (BfZkT)
2
Well then, take a long hard look at this. I quote this person from Garth Turner's blog who has done some calculations on how the splitting would benefit couples of different income levels.
"By my calculations I get the following:
At 50K a couple saves about 1200$
At 100K a couple saves about 3811$
At 200K a couple saves about 8063$
I used UFILE 2005 and kept everything very simple.
By jmccain on 11.22.06 5:51 pm "
This whole plan, as you can see, is a plan to benefit the rich as the Conservatives are famous for. SOMEBODY has to pay the taxes, and if the rich gets breaks, guess who gets to make up the difference?
Posted by: Marg at November 22, 2006 10:20 PM (wHVzd)
3
Income splitting would be capped for individuals that make over $200,000 as the top marginal tax rate kicks in at $100,000 so there is a limit to how much the "rich" can benefit.
There always has been a penalty for single incomes with a stay at home mom- or is that a bad term today as well.
The conservatives should consider the income splitting for sure and also raise the minimum level where no tax is paid so that lower income people get some benefit that they would not get from income splitting.
By shrinking the tax revenues and giving money back to the people, it will give taxpayers more choice where to spend their money( not on beer and popcorn!) but the best part is that it reduces the amount of our money( the taxpayers) that they have to waste away on government programs that are not necessary.
This move would be very popular with middle class Canada-
Posted by: Peter at November 22, 2006 10:33 PM (WcCjZ)
4
So, Marg...
Perhaps you can tell us exactly how many couples in Canada make over $200K combined? And perhaps you could tell us exactly how much this will impact tax revenues as compared to the other two income brackets you mention, which more accurately reflect the great majority of Canadians? And perhaps you could you could truthfully analyze the blended net benefit of this strategy to Canadian couples?
I thought not.
Posted by: pheenster at November 23, 2006 01:49 AM (AoPlt)
5
Marg bleats, "This whole plan, as you can see, is a plan to benefit the rich as the Conservatives are famous for." (Um, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not a multi-millionaire, like ex-PMs Trudeau, Chretien, and Martin, nor are many of his cabinet ministers personally wealthy, or any that I know of, unlike many in the Liberal Party.
So, I don't know what you're talking about.
Also, the CPC has put programs in place to HELP lower income families, especially when it comes to daycare. Anyone who thinks that $100/child-under-six/month is insignificant has never lived on the one income my family has--or millions of other Canadian families. The Liberals were only interested in helping the very rich (their friends and often themselves) or the very narrow special interest groups they coddled, including the radical feminists who, BTW, do nothing without government funding, which is why they're fretting now. Other groups roll up their sleeves and work hard to forward their agendas WITHOUT government dollars.
A $1200 tax break for my familyh would be very welcome. How do we know that the families living on $100,000 or $200,000 aren't providing jobs for others? Marg must be a socialist who is envious of anyone who makes more money than her and her family, and wants to see an even split, whether it's deserved or not.
No thanks. Not in my Canada.
Posted by: 'been around the block at November 23, 2006 08:49 AM (K0K5h)
6
Steve: They'll have to put the "progress" back into "progressive" and explain to the gay community that punishing the Tories for what happened in the past during the marriage debate then is foolish, considering the benefits that the Conservatives are offering all married couples in the future.
I dunno. The CPC's insistence on revisiting the same-sex marriage debate is only likely to reinforce within the the LGBTQ communities the perception that the Tory vision of Canada is incompatible with gay/lesbian rights. The often acrimonious debate was not merely something that "happened in the past." Uniting the "right" helped get PM Harper elected, but I suspect the Tories will find it increasingly difficult to appeal to the myriad interests of its diverse constituencies. The income-splitting thing may appeal to its fiscal conservative base (including middle- and upper-income bracket folks in the gay/lesbian communities), but the CPC's ongoing efforts to appeal to its social conservative base (via the SSM thing, among others) may drive those coveted gay/lesbian voters away just as quickly.
Opposition to gay marriage for many conservatives, including myself, was never about bigotry or hating gays or any of the other insults thrown at us during the debate. It was about the implications to the social fabric of this country by expanding the notion of marriage so much that it loses its most basic biological underpinning...
For better or for worse, in our day and age, sexual orientation--like gender/sex and race/ethnicity--is a core component of individual and group identity. Identity politics operates on at least two fronts: (1) preserving that group identity; and (2) being recognized, in society and in the law, as equal and legitimate and worthy. Identity-based advocacy movements are not amenable to distinctions like "I can tolerate your lifestyle, but also I think that your lifestyle, if granted the full spectrum of rights and legal status as my lifestyle, poses a threat to the social fabric of this country."
For the record, I'm not really opposed to income-splitting in principle, even though it's quite obvious that it benefits couples more than singles, single-income families more than dual-income families, and high-income families more than middle-income families. Also, I don't think basing it on # of kids is such a great idea. Two major caveat: I would oppose this income-splitting thing if (1) it is affordable federally only through the wholesale slashing of social programs; and/or (2) it becomes the only tax reform initiative on the agenda, displacing efforts aimed at, say, reducing the tax burden of truly low-income households.
Posted by: A at November 23, 2006 12:07 PM (YK2nB)
7
Why is it that everytime a tax change that could benefit everyone is everyone concerned that it will be effect the rich more? I don't care about the rich, we don't live in the same world or have the same concerns for the most part. I care that it will effect me, that it may have some larger benefit for the rich and super-rich is irrelevant to me and a red herring. Do most people realize how easy is it for a low income (or low middle income) married couple to easily be seen by Revenue Canada earning above 50K? With most tax deductions really only available to the upper middle class (have you maxed out your RRSP deduction limit?, I didn't think so). With each year I see my taxes rise and very little I can do about it. A $1200 benefit? Bring it on, and thank you Prime Minister Harper for recognizing commited couples like no other government has for a very long time.
Posted by: William Ferris at November 23, 2006 01:52 PM (f2loy)
8
Some people don't know how to do taxes...like Marg. Income splitting has no benefit for the rich or the poor. It benefits families that earn more than the basic personal exemption and less than the top marginal tax rate. That's it.
This issue shows just how radical some people are. The fact that it benefits middle class families with one stay at home parent is just more than anti-conservatives can bear.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 23, 2006 04:00 PM (F47cQ)
9
Hello again A,
This discussion is about income-splitting, not same-sex marriage, which I to am opposed to. But you brought up a point I have to comment on. Same-sex marriage to me is not about rights. I have no problem with same-sex couples enjoying the same rights. What I oppose is redefining the word ‘marriage’ to do it. If one of the centuries-old criteria can be negotiated then why can’t the others. And our courts don’t need to hear arguments from wing-nuts for the definition of marriage to change to ‘legalize’ things like polygamy, bigamy, incest and so on. The Charter, flawed as it is, will encourage such arguments. That we have changed the definition will only encourage this nonsense. My second reason for opposing it stems from the fear that some day a clergy member will be facing a discrimination charge. Whatever Parliament says about protecting clergy, the Charter is designed to allow people to say things like ‘my right to get ‘married’ in a place of worship by clergy supersedes your right to practice your faith.’
Truly low-income households pay very little in tax. Rich people pay over 50% of their total income in various taxes and surtaxes and provide services and jobs to every other class. The arguments that they should pay more, or not pay a bit less are foolish and short-sighted. They are the ones who are best able to vote with their feet and go to another country.
Marg,
Your view of taxes and the economy is very simplistic and linear. When you write that ‘SOMEBODY has to pay the taxes’ you assume that there is no tax benefit to leaving money in taxpayer’s pockets. With respect to taxation, we are well beyond the point of diminishing returns. It is counter intuitive, but LOWERING taxes can indeed bring the same or more money into government coffers. It’s a basic concept of economics that you clearly haven’t seen yet. But that’s ok, neither have the NDP, or the Liberals who took us to this point of over-taxation.
Posted by: Gargoyle at November 24, 2006 09:53 AM (VpT98)
10
Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...
Posted by: Brice Hodgson at April 17, 2007 03:55 AM (GKP4X)
11
Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...
Posted by: Francis Schramm at April 27, 2007 05:59 AM (jsNEA)
12
Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...
Posted by: Milton Behrens at April 27, 2007 07:01 AM (H2DjF)
13
The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...
Posted by: Alijah Stanford at April 27, 2007 08:20 AM (Zcdd7)
14
The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...
Posted by: Cooper Grimes at April 27, 2007 01:41 PM (nkG5R)
<< Page 1 of 3 >>
153kb generated in CPU 1.9655, elapsed 1.9065 seconds.
110 queries taking 1.5642 seconds, 390 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
110 queries taking 1.5642 seconds, 390 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
