Hux

Too bad they didn't make an Other Ones 2000 version...... Best band in the world. sigh.... Best band in the world.

Hype can't trump that first listen though, I remember Booche told me "There and Back Again" was gonna be our generations Sgt. Pepper....yeeesh.

The Slip should consider farming their vocals out to Geddy Lee.

Cool. Couple things, You've got some facts wrong, Harris did not balance the Ontario budget in 1995, it was 2000, so Martin did not follow his lead, if anything the reverse. Then.....the Harris gov't actually went back into deficit, ie. when the party was taken over by Eves they lied during the 2003 election saying they had killed the deficit when there actually was a 6 billion dollar deficit. Hence the whole McGuinty's a promise breaker because he actually had to raise taxes (when they realized the mess they actually were inheriting) when he said he wouldn't. And most of the Kyoto stuff happened while Chretien was PM, so give him his due, Project Green that was released under Martin brought Canada much closer to reaching our Kyoto commitments than anything under Chretien, he basically signed the deal and ignored it. Aggghhhhh I can't get sucked in today I have to work! Oh, and without knowing your age most of Canada's public debt was likely accumulated while you were alive, while Trudeau started deficit spending in the early 70's, and left a sizeable debt when he left in 84, it was during the Mulroney years our debt grew exponentially, most people especially Conservatives like to pin the debt on Trudeau when it was actually Mulroney who did by far the most damage.

There's no question you've indentified the Conservative approach from a super macro level. But this program was not the one that was preventing the country's books from improving, the savings of cutting this are something like .000004 % of total Gov't expeditures - a drop in the bucket. It has been identified (by political pundits, etc) that this is largely an ideological cut, ie. because it largely funds left-wing groups and causes (see my post above). OH - I'm extremely pleased to be the one to break it to you SS, but the previous Liberal government elmininated the Budget deficit in 1998 and paid down over $60 billion in our national debt. It's all about choices - you can be socially liberal AND economically prudent. A Liberal Gov't would balance the books and still maintain this type of program.

So you've admitted your opinion has changed from the beginning of this discussion. This is progress. I think you have to recognize the way you came out swinging at the beginning of this discussion, defending the killing of this program saying first it threatened the legitimacy of the Supreme Court (?), then this very dubious statement: This statement (seemed!) to speak to a certain view about equality in our society, and seemed to indicate your view that no groups deserve the special treament that this program provided - which set off a few alarm bells, not just from me. Hard to argue such a view is not right wing (libertarianism and conservativism share a lot) The CPC may say they cut the program as it wasn’t transparent enough, and you seem to agree, but it’s been widely reported that this cut was generally about principle/morals, namely that the CPC leadership is opposed to many of the legal changes this program has enabled, ie. Advancement of minority rights such as the fight for same-sex equality, language issues, first nations, etc. You may not be socially conservative, but you’re giving these guys a free pass if you think it was truly done because of lack of transparency. The Prime Minister and most of his Cabinet are social conservatives (Ref-oooorm!), each of them has a public record and it’s clear where a vast majority of them stand on these kind of issues. This is probably the first real conservative government this country has ever had. Mulroney….not even close.

Um...you should scroll back through the archives of this forum, for months you have laid out a great deal of your "point of view" on a wide range of issues, (safe injection sites, social programs, taxes, and now legal aid for minority interests) that have definitely been noticed by people who post and many who don't. They're generally pretty strong views. I'd say we have a pretty good idea of where you're coming from. Seriously, read back a little. I'd really like to hear your response to hamilton as well. Also, can you explain what would attract a staunch libertarian to the NDP? That's one I've never heard. It would honestly be great to meet you and discuss this stuff, it would be less frustrating for both of us, as you could toss a drink at me if you think I'm being a dick, and I could maybe pry answers where you would otherwise go off on a tangent or ignore a counter-point, that often happens in here.

Threatening the legitimacy of the Supreme Court? WTF!?!?! A healthy judicial system is one that is breathing and evolving as society advances, not one that is static and in which any challenges are viewed as a threat - yeeeesh, that is NOT a socially liberal view. You see, this is where I call a spade a spade. A spade in this case is a hard-right libertarian view most common in the Republican Party and Reform Party wing of the CPC. (Which I beleive to be fundamentally un-Canadian as well) The very fact that you identify minority communities as "interest groups" indicates your failure to indentify inequality and that some individuals and groups in Canadian society do not have equal access to the legal system, in your view it seems everyone is starting from an equal footing, and therefore you see assistance through this program as favourtism. Wrong. There is a great deal of social and economic inequality in Canada (Stn Mtn's post and experience in that field is concrete proof that it exists in the legal system), the fact that you don't see that is crazy.

Ollie is bang-on. Ooops, maybe I shouldn't agree with him, our conspiracy will be exposed!!! That you would justify killing the court challenges program and use foreign aid to Africa as an example is so ridiculously ironic and philosophically inconsistent I can only laugh. And the rationale you give for killing the program - that the public wasn't give enough info on where $ was spent: a) could be used to justify killing pretty much any federal government program, with foreign aid spending being pretty much at the top of the list. goes against the very essence of the program itself, ie. a tool to protect minority rights, if a majority of the general public had to see/approve of every single program we'd still have Japanese in iternment camps and slavery in the southern U.S. Birdy you should be in the Republican Party. Do you think if you born into poverty your perspective would be different?

You'll note the cell number which I selected.

NO! Please stay in Toronto, the last thing we need is you voting CPC in a close riding!

This community is not exactly a microcosm (sp?). Buzz Hargrove and the CAW were the biggest boosters of strategic voting in the last election and they do not represent any party.

Manipulative? um yeah, duh, that's the point. If you think manipulation has no place in politics you have your head in the clouds (or somehwere a little more fecal-y). There has been all kinds of research on voter motivation ie. some people vote for the local candidate, some the national party, some the leader, etc. If you are voting for the local person hoping they will be a good MP, vote for who you want, if you truly are hoping for a gov't closest to NDP principles explain to me how by not strategically voting (in a key riding) you AREN'T potentially allowing the CPC to win and thus enabling a To me NOT voting strategically in a key riding, is compromising your values. I use the ice cream example, if the NDP is dark chocolate with almonds, and the Liberals are chocoloate, why would you could choose vanilla (Conservative) instead of chocolate!? spite or just compromising your true taste/favourite=principles?

There is a huge difference. Here's an example: the Democrats can't even say that as a party they support a woman's right to choose, there is much more of a "right wing plank" in the Democratic Party than the Liberal Party, they're actually closer to the Canadian Conservative Party. Canada is one of the most left wing social democratic nations in the world due in no small part to the Liberal Party being in power for most of the last century. The proof is in the puddin'. No, just don't complain about Harper and the Conservatives forming the Gov't. You're riding went NDP not because you were brave enough to vote for who you want, but because it is one of the few ridings in the country that is actually winnable for them. Everyone complains about our electoral system, well guess what? You're not going to change the system by ignoring the reality of it, or through "principled" voting for who you want to form the gov't by supporting the local candidate who represents that party. Until the system changes, play the game, if progressive voters (Green, NDP) were a little more strategic - to illustrate this did you know it would have taken less than 500 strategic votes in key ridings to stop the Conservatives from forming the Gov't? There ya go, if progressive voters did this the Conservatives would be lucky to elect anyone outside of Alberta. Strategic voting would allow for a gov't that would better represent the views of Canadians. But alas here we are, and I honestly think that these amateurs in power and their shit-show government bodes very well for the next government being Liberal, and won't be close enough that strategic voting will even be necessary.

I also think Ghandi would make a good Canadian Prime Minister but he has the same chances as Layton I'm afraid to tell you. The political ground game is my job folks, there are ridings that the NDP for historical, demographic, and philosophical reasons will simply never ever ever win. If you can show me the 120+ ridings needed for the NDP to form a government I will gladly have that debate.

Show me the 120+ ridings that the NDP can win and form a gov't with. I dare you.

It's that kind of thinking that allowed Harper to win. It's literally impossible for the NDP to form the federal government in Canada.

This says it all!

I don't think the medical marijuana funding was really related to the decrim issue, the (previous) federal (Liberal) government already approved medical expemptions for pot, and this funding was likely tied to that, ie. the system by which people get on that list, its administration, $ for research into what sick people should get it, etc. ie. decrim for the public is a separate issue. But, I would like to hear from some of the people in the medpot game and hear their take on the cuts.

Taj is good! He has his new bionic hip joint, was in pain the first night, but now has his morphine drip all figured out. They are allowing him to have one beer a day, and they keep it in the fridge for him and have put a big medicine lable on it, pretty funny, and of course he choose La fin du monde 9% alc beer for his daily shot. He's out on Tuesday am!

Ms. Hux, I am taking a batch of garden fresh stuff that Taj grew himself, so I'm more the delivery guy than the source of the goodies. I'm going to print this thread out and give it to him tonight.

I don't believe he has a stereo or walkman/ipod or anything actually....

The Ottawa high-priest of hippiedom Taj is going under the knife at 11am this morning, his long wait for a new hip is finally going to happen. Dude's been in some serious pain for awhile, I'm sure he'll miss the prescription pain killers a little, but being able to walk is a good thing. He'll be at Ottawa General for a few days then begins his recovery, I'll be heading out later this eve to deliver some organic goodies for him so he doesn't have to eat hospital food. I'll update y'all on how he's doing, but if anyone wants to send anything his way, lemme know!

Here's a great piece by John Ibbitson further to this issue..... Stacking the courts: fair play? JOHN IBBITSON Globe and Mail Earlier this year, David M. Brown spoke to a gathering of Christian law students at which he stressed the importance of being not simply a lawyer, but a lawyer in Christ. "In a culture where choice stands as a new god," he warned, they must not be tempted by appeals to set aside faith when practising law. "As a Christian lawyer, you are called to practise your trade and conduct your life in accordance with your faith," he maintained, "recalling, all the time, that your dignity consists in one's membership in the community founded and sustained by God, and that your freedom lies in the resulting moral responsibility, and not in some free-standing notion of freedom or autonomy." This week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Mr. Brown to the bench. One day, he might rule on the legality of abortion. For decades -- even generations -- Liberal governments have appointed judges who generally subscribe to a small-l liberal approach to jurisprudence. Broadly (even simplistically) speaking, a majority of the Canadian judiciary adheres to several fundamental principles: that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can and should be broadly interpreted to maximize individual and group rights; that the courts have an obligation to defend and even expand those rights, if and when legislatures are unwilling to do so; and that any particular religious belief should have minimal impact on legal reasoning -- indeed, can be seen as contrary to it. Mr. Harper, as a social conservative, is bothered by this liberal bias in the Canadian judiciary. Since he's the Prime Minister, it is within his power to appoint judges with a very different bias. If he is Prime Minister long enough, Mr. Harper could appoint enough conservative judges to one day fundamentally shift the judicial consensus. Ability to shape the Canadian judiciary is one of the more formidable, if subtle, of prime ministerial powers. It should be emphasized that Mr. Brown is eminently qualified to sit on the Ontario Superior Court. He is a distinguished commercial lawyer and has been chosen for his expertise in that field. He has also represented socially conservative and religious groups in several high-profile cases. In Brillinger v. Brockie, for example, he defended the right of a printer to refuse to do business with a gay-rights organization. Arguing on behalf of the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, Mr. Brown maintained that the law "does not require a person to provide a service to a cause or public advocacy group with which a person disagrees on sincerely held conscientious or religious grounds." Was Mr. Brown simply representing a client who had obtained his services? Was he simply defending the sanctity of freedom of religion and conscience within the Constitution? One suspects not. In a 2004 legal debate on proposed same-sex-marriage legislation, Mr. Brown vigorously opposed the new law. "Within a few generations, marriage will have no practical meaning," he warned, "and society will be the worse for that." So when Mr. Brown has represented socially conservative legal challenges, it is clear that he has done so as a matter of personal and religious conviction, and not simply in defence of freedom of religion. Gay-rights and other social activists complain that Mr. Harper is trying to stack the courts with judges in harness to the religious right. Of course he is. But Paul Martin appointed Rosie Abella -- who, as sole commissioner of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, literally invented employment equity -- to the Supreme Court. Turnabout is fair play. But if you were wondering how Mr. Harper will contain the restlessness of the social conservatives in caucus, here, in part, is your answer: judicial appointments. And remember: Mr. Harper doesn't have to placate the social conservatives in his caucus. He is one of them himself.