SaggyBalls

Why not have it based on kilometres driven and the fuel efficiency of the vehicle driven? I suppose it would be a slight hit on families driving SUVs and Minivans compared to the compact car, but this could be taken into account, no? People shouldn't have to be coerced into getting back to Public Transit. It needs to be more comfortable and convenient. Thanks for the link, Thorgnor. I saw that earlier. It seems to me that the current concept of 'growth' is how many more people move to an area or how many jobs are created. It's a shame that the details in our collective standard of living and opportunities to free ourselves from struggles of daily life are neither easily measured nor recognizably valued by planners.

Of course there's voting, but then there's sharing your understanding and keeping your eyes andears open for ways to make the shift. Seems to me that as far as what you can do you're doing. I think that building homes and buying into dwellings give the consumer the biggest opportunities to vote for 'Green Architecture' easiest.

I've been affected by cancer and agree that it is a 'sexy' issue. Politically correct or not it's realistic dialogue. The game is stupid. I want to stop playing.

oh! well you're onto something... ...but lobbying is costly. And necessary.

good call on the nut-driver, T.

One part Rum (dark, spiced, or white (if that's all you have) One part Southern Comfort Shaken with ice, Served with lime and soda water or ginger ale I like them in tall glasses as it's thirst quenching (and the rum makes the drink sweet) but for a double cocktail, try it with ginger beer. It's called the Dixie Pirate and it's great in the summer...or in the carribean. I like a rye and ginger with a splash/half oz of amaretto. I couldn't find a name for it anywhere when i was looking, so I dubbed it a 'volleyball' And a suprising great bevvy for the purpose drinkers is a dognose. Drop (or pour) a shot of gin into a pint of beer. chug (or sip). Very nice with a shot of lime cordial. Those are 3 strange drinks with more than one shot each. If you try them all and like any of them enough to have another, it'll be a nice afternoon for you that day.

I would like to put my rideshare feelers out and try to help someone fill a vehicle that (fingers crossed) is travelling westward. Hoping to get to Toronto or South-Westward at the end of the month to see some people and make some music. Thanks for your time in reading this.

Co-Housing doesn't have to be intrusive as long as that's the goal of the group. In time we'll probably see sides of the movement make it sort of a shared facilities condominium aesthetic - considerate volume development...at least that's where I see it having the most potential in my life. Sure a few regular community meals, events, or gatherings are nice, but I want to be able to use a workshop or have a huge organic garden without having the entire responsibility of caring for it. Help and Sharing, Birdy. Help and Sharing. Anyway, the 'architect' designs. it's up to the community to make demands on the architect and find ways to implement the designs. I like your ideas. how do we ensure we get these rooftop parks and pedestrian zones?

The 'what people want and need' concept is interesting... ...how do we gauge this? a free market? If we take that into account, people want single family dwellings, lots of cars, lots of fancy silly crap, among other things. How can we accomplish this without creating an enormous drain on resources and infrastructure? Is the answer more single-family dwellings, or in designing communities with multi-family dwellings, cohousing communities, housing cooperatives, loft living, and multi-use development? I admit that it is quite nice to be in a house with a lawn and some space from time to time, but how much of that is really important to hold as necessity and how much can we adapt the concepts of space/healthy solitude to value a synthesis of suburbia and urban living? there's the 'people want' and the 'people don't really understand what they want' sides of the argument/discussion and both sides can quite easily become insulted by the other without proper understanding.

I think it's high time that someone makes the case well that design need be valued. It is very easy for many people to side with the 'it's too expensive/frivolous' side of things, but as people begin living more closely together (and it's gonna happen) architecture - civil(? bridges, roads, walking paths, etc.), landscape(parks, boulevards, to create a sense of organic space), and traditional (? cool buildings) - will be the one thing people may regret not demanding in spaces everywhere. I most often think of architecture as being buildings, but I was thinking about this earlier today...if we don't organize and plan our space to ensure that we're comfortable when we've built our towns and cities to capacity (and start tearing down subdivisions to put up apartment buildngs) then there'll probably be more 'heated' discussion as time goes on. Cost versus Value? Am I the only one that sees how we've been bullied into being cheapskates when it comes to urban planning and community design?

Ann Coulter's not THAT awful... ...she's just biased. And almost has an adam's apple.

Way to go, you dirty old man.

I knew this wasn't the place to argue.

more retarded than bruno's balls in eminem's face.

They all look like caricatures. The problem isn't Elizabeth May. People just don't give the Greens enough credit for being a viable party.

you've let them dupe you into thinking you're right about them.

alphanerd - i think he's into trannies.

that's why he wrote.it.down.

I want Ontario to not be a tertiary (that's right...thirds or worse) produce market anymore...may as well grow it here while we're at it.

Broadcasters Begging for Bailouts - Again. After being turned down twice, Global TV, CTV and CBC are back demanding a bailout of hundreds of millions of dollars. Without mincing words, this is a tax. It is a direct tax on you and 10 million Canadian families who are cable or satellite TV subscribers. These broadcasters are threatening to cut local newscasts, cut jobs and close television stations. They are holding you hostage demanding a tax on subscribers as the ransom. This TV tax will result in a $6 a month increase in your cable or satellite bill. That’s $72 more per year – for no new programming and no new jobs. Because Canadian consumers would get nothing in return and the broadcasters would make no commitments to sustain local programming, the CRTC has twice denied the broadcasters’ demand for the TV tax. But that hasn’t stopped them. Don’t put another tax on Canadians. Canadians are already overtaxed and facing tough times as the global recession deepens. They deserve better from the broadcasting business – more innovation, better Canadian programming, more local information, more competition and better service. They don’t need to pay another tax rewarding broadcasters’ poor performance. How can you believe what they say? They are asking you to save local TV when in fact they have been starving local programming across Canada for years. Look no further than your own local station or Sault Ste. Marie, Barrie, Timmins, North Bay, Windsor, Brandon and Wingham. More hypocrisy. At Shaw, we believe television has a bright future; that’s why we took CTV up on its offer to purchase a number of local stations. We are already producing over 9000 hours of local programming on our community cable channels. Broadcasters need to be held accountable. Canadians should not have to pay to fix broadcasters’ problems. They’ve spent billions of dollars acquiring foreign programs, TV stations and newspapers and now they say they’re broke? Can CTV explain why they spent millions last year to purchase U.S. programming that will sit on the shelf just to keep it out of the hands of their competitors? These private companies need to be held accountable for their decisions. They should spend less time misleading Canadians and more time managing their businesses and producing local programming. The sky is not falling. Canadian broadcasting faces an exciting future. The government has done a remarkable job kick-starting the economy, creating jobs, eliminating unnecessary taxes and assisting Canadian television production. A new tax would drag this progress down. If the broadcasters get this bailout, you can be sure they will be back for more. We think it is time to speak out, we should say no to this tax. Jim Shaw CEO & Vice Chair Shaw Communications Inc.

*sigh*

*cough*