Saturday, April 11, 2009

Daily Digest April 11, 2009



Changing horses in mid-stream

Make the rules mean something

Government dependency
If there must be a recession, one of the best places to spend it is in Ottawa.

Troubling times for Tories

Avert a Tamil bloodbath

Moral logic and the American dream

'Callous ... sad and unnecessary'
all 211 news articles »

The joy of Easter morning

Auto industry support crucial

Canadian warship mollycoddling Somalia's pirates

Looking forward

Teen's sentencing provokes heavy website debate

Protect Google's freedom

Grits, Tories switch teams on carbon tax

Alberta must legislate a grip on its spending

Conservatives should address anti-male bias

Not so loud with demand for federal cash

The right man

Stimulus central? Alberta

Ottawa's auto warranties guarantee is welcome, should help boost sales

Flood of funding belies economic woes

HIV/AIDS is just one risk of sexual activity

Premier ignoring gangland realities



1,000 days and counting on an end to Afghanistan

Afghan people must 'see a difference' in their lives, general says
Canadian on campaign to show mission is about more than fighting

The Vietnam War lesson we must remember when Afghanistan votes
Saigon's rigged presidential election undermined U.S. efforts decades ago; similar corruption in Kabul can only aid the Taliban today.,0,6461806.story

Anger after Afghan family killed in US raid

Pakistani precipice
Country coming close to predicted 'failed state' status

Afghan cleric defends contentious marriage law

Top Afghan cleric defends Shia law

Afghanistan Won't Legalize Forced Marital Sex, Ambassador Says

Day cools rhetoric on U.S. meat labels

Ottawa) The Department of Public Works has ignored the criticism passed with another contract for $ 19.7 million to the firm Lockheed Martin Canada, a subsidiary of American armaments giant Lockheed Martin to develop a program computer for the next census in 2011. =

Bay Street's top distress players think of themselves as 'reverse' M&A players, and they're in demand

Pension splitting tips for couples

Trade Minister Stockwell Day begins visit to China

When it comes to healthcare, the U.S., Britain and Canada are hurting,0,3092824.story

Troubling times for Tories

Interview: Flaherty says he's sticking with budget

Canada's left-wing, unconservative, compromise-ridden Conservatives

Cauchon rejects kickback allegation in suit that has little to do with him

The Tory feud
Ignatieff hopes to exploit Conservative divisions over former prime minister Mulroney

'Callous ... sad and unnecessary'

Canadian's return blocked by UN: Ottawa

Ottawa mulls aid to diversify parts plants

University education not meant for everyone

Prime Minister Harper's Easter video message to Christians

Where's the Outrage for the Cybersecurity Act?

Laying siege to the human-rights industry

 In the depths of despair, the press win
Slowly but surely, the press who had first adored Kaylee Wallace's parents for their openness and availability began to turn on them, and the circle was nearly complete

Dying for a futile cause?

The Mulroney - Schreiber Affair
. . . this is potentially a very big scandal still unfolding in Canada.

Le Christ et les soldats : des rapprochements à faire?

Les obligations internationales avant la Charte

Un géant américain de l'armement participera encore au recensement

L'ancien ministre libéral Martin Cauchon nie des allégations

L'Autorité palestinienne demande l'annulation d'une exposition canadienne

La Teoria Conspiratoria
The Road to Area 51,0,3355162.story

Black market nukes
Low budget journalists can find them
but the "security establishment" lets them run wild



Down near the bottom of the lengthy consideration of the meaning of the word ethics at is the definition that most clearly states what ethics is about, "rules or principles of behaviour".

"Behavior that is unpleasant or not fair is acceptable during an argument or competition." is the meaning ascribed to "All is fair in love and politics"." .

An article that "senior Conservatives contacted select reporters to tell them that Mulroney was no longer a member of their party."
alls this "a cheap shot" that "made Harper look more ruthless than he already did, even before the Toronto Star reported yesterday that he had personally approved the plan to leak the Mulroney membership story."

Two sayings came to mind in the disputation about ethics and moral compass between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition this week: "Let he who is guiltless throw the first stone" and ".those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Did the actions recited in the LTE that follows exemplify ethical rules of behaviour or the "All is fair..." approach ?

A question upon which there undoubtedly will be no consensus, but one to consider into the future.

Letter to the Editor <>
Subject: Stone throwing: Best done after self evaluation.


So "The prime minister argued that his rocky relationship with Brian Mulroney proves he values ethical government - and the Liberals don't." did he? (1)

Was welshing on his promise to see the softwood lumber dispute through to the end of the court process we were winning an example of ethics in action? (2)  Would those harmed by his reversal on income trusts agree he values ethical government? (3)

While he it seems views training Committee Chairs to prevent work from being done, (4) using M.P.s mailing privileges to their constituents for purely partisan purposes (5) and what others have termed the 'in and out scam" (6) as ethical, many do not. And few there are who agree countenancing an approach being made to persuade a dying man to change his vote for gain is an ethical practice.

Stone throwing is best not done by those living in glass houses, particularly when far from guiltless.

(1) Harper says Ignatieff has no moral compass on Mulroney issue

(2) HARPER HALIFAX  SPEECH Wednesday September 7, 2005

(3) Canadians paid a high price for Flaherty's income trust reversal

(4) Tories blasted for handbook on paralyzing Parliament

(5) RCMP probe allegation that wheat board voter list was improperly accessed

(5) Tory mailout draws strong objections

(6) The In and Out Scam


From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re: 'Province of losers' warning is coming true, Paul Willcocks, April 10

Re: 'Province of losers' warning is coming true, Paul Willcocks, April 10
According to BC Medical Association research, as the B.C. Liberals rapidly ramped up gambling in the province, the number of British Columbians with severe gambling problems more than doubled between 2002 and 2005.
The provincial health officer also recently reported higher alcohol consumption and binge drinking among youth across B.C. in the past six years concurrent with a rash of new private liquor stores authorized by government.
And as the government has drastically reduced eligibility for welfare and failed to provide enugh drug treatment programs and low- income housing, we have also experienced a massive increase in homelessness in this province.
The B.C. Liberals pride themselves on being great economic managers.  Our cup runneth over.
Larry Kazdan,
Vancouver, B.C.
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: re Somolian Pirates


I would ask readers of the DD to go to and look up "The Pirates of
Somolia".   There is a piece narrated by Joe Schlessinger.  He lays out the
Truth about who the Real Pirates are including Canada. And the corruption of
all the nations crying about piracy there. Personally I am sick and tired of
having my Country show up on the rotten side of just about everything  when a
few layers are peeled of the Onion . And to make it worse our Country is
getting sicker and sicker.  Our politics has always been sick at the core,
but, we did enough GOOD to get, and probably deserve, good vibes from the rest
of the world. I see no good in Harper and his sad bag of bastards.

Ray Strachan

Pirates of Somalia
From: "Serge Crespy"

Dear Joe:
From the North Pole to Tierra Del Fuego, "We are Americans!"   An American from Canada; An American from Mexico, Peru, etc.; all, equal in identity to Americans from the The United States of America.   There is no monopoly on Amerigo Vespucci's derived trademark name:  "AMERICA".   
The Union of  European Nations are in sync with the times; it is time for the "AMERICAN UNION" to manifest itself as being the foundation for our "Continental Politics"........  The poverty prevailing, in the multitude of America's countries, should not deny an identity as being primarily "AMERICAN".
Serge Crespy
Collingwood, Ontario


 An observation:  Upon Googling myself, "Serge Crespy",  my article on  "Same-Sex Marriage" does not appear, however, my article of appreciation forwarded to you for printing does appear......... As sheep being led to the appropriate pasture!
Best Wishes, Joe;                       
From: The Natroses

Hi Joe,   Has anyone find the pirate situation off the coast of Africa amusing in the sense, that the pirates is a result of the policies of the world leaders and their do nothing approaches when it comes to any country in Africa. Politicians should live by words such as "

Cynics argue in an age of global recession, terrorism and geo-political upheaval, religion is meaningless. That it's at best a crutch for the naive, at worst a contributor to the world's ills.

But the cynics are wrong because they mistake human fallibility for God's plan.

A plan that is relevant in any age.

Its messages are simple but powerful -- about the importance of faith, hope and love, the latter expressed through charity.

In that context, consider these simple but vital tenets of faith, common to Christianity, Judaism, Islam and indeed all the world's great religions.

That we are our brother's keeper; that we should treat others as we wish to be treated; that we are judged not by our words, but our deeds; that charity is not an optional activity we do to feel good about ourselves, but a divine commandment to be performed humbly in the service of others.

In practical terms, this means visiting the sick, consoling the bereaved, giving a portion of one's earnings to the poor, seeking forgiveness from those we have wronged.

Words to live by.

Ultimately, faith means trying to live as God wants us to, knowing we will fail, but always striving, and not just on Easter and Passover, but on every day of our lives." (The Sun -
Too bad our politicians do not live by these words, no matter what country or what color of politics that are at play. Our world leaders should live by these words, and maybe Somalia and other countries would not have to resort to being pirates on the high seas. Oppress people will find a way to overcome the yokes of oppression that are designed to keep the majority at bay. Bowing down to their political masters and hoping for the crumbs that have been carelessly brush off the heavily laden table of the political masters, will only bring inequalities among the majority.

Perhaps the world would not be in such a big mess, if our world leaders practice we are our brother's keeper in all things.

From: Zeb Landon
Subject: Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Apr. 17-19:
(speakers: Robert Bateman/ Vandana Shiva/Shiv Chopra/ Sally Fallon)

I was riveted, listening to Vandana Shiva, PhD, on CBC Radio this week.  (She studied physics at Western U., but returned to India and has worked successfully with farmers for many years.)

   This no-nonsense, very articulate woman describes some agri-chemical "Green Revolution" catastrophes in India.  -- And also that hope is now returning to farmers using organic methods, traditional small plots, and over a hundred seed banks, etc.  (Thousands of farmer suicides followed the attempted "modernization" model of corporate farming, as well as tragic damage to the soil.) 

India's farming experience should be watched by us, if for nothing else than to learn how others cope with the bumpy road in farming.

    She is one of four speakers coming to Toronto April 17-19 to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. -- click here for details:

You can listen to the condensed version of the interview with Dr Shiva via the CBC podcast linked below this paragraph.
CBC Radio | The Current | The Best of The Current Podcast     --    0/04/09: Vandana Shiva   [mp3 file: runs 27:25]
                                                                                           " Even in the midst of a global recession, India's economy is often described as a miracle. But not for the country's impoverished farmers. Vandana Shiva is [...] trying to change that."
    Robert Bateman, Shiv Chopra, PhD, and Sally Fallon (see her on YouTube)  are included in the lineup of speakers, that is about, "  consumers must choose foods and products which do no harm to people, animals or our planet. Our speakers will explain how we can promote biodiversity, use organic traditional farming methods, create ecologically based communities, eat local foods and preserve the environment for our children. It's time to wake up and educate ourselves about the long-term effects of high-tech agriculture and corporate globalization. "

  / Z.

From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Steve Pete and Jase


I notice that our brave trio, Steve, Pete and I guess  Jase (?) are going to
protect us from The Great Russian Bear.   Of course they are going to do it in
their regular  fashion  (fascist)  .They are going to force Russia to let us
know ,when they, are going to fly in International Air Space. How to make
friends and influence people. I have had plenty of misfortune in my life but I
now rate the worst, as having to live under the inept leadership of these
Three Stooges .Anyone have a guess as to where they are getting their advice
from ? Could it possibly be from the Madmen who are spearheading The New World
Order?  To make it happen faster, they feel they have to create chaos,which of
course is total Madness driven by  Power and Money.We have
Monsanto,manufacturing poisons and patents on agricultural seeds. Pharma
Companies manufacturing  VIRUSES.  Would that be to thin out the worlds
population ?     Why else?    We are allowing madness to take over and I
believe it is irreversible . I wish I were  the one who is MAD. That is how I
will be seen by those playing the fiddles while Rome Burns. Too bad there are
so many fiddlers. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Ray Strachan

From: Bill Longworth
Subject: Re: Toronto Star Article...Failing Economy Creates a Nation of Part-Timers

Hi Joe.  You may wish to re-print this letter in the "Daily Journal" that I wrote to the Toronto Star editor in response to the story, "Failing Economy Creates a Nation of Part-Timers" published in the April 10, 2009 edition of the Toronto Star.  By the way, keep up your great work.  I find it invaluable.  Bill Longworth

Toronto Star,
Letter To The Editor

Re: Failing Economy Creates a Nation of Part-Timers, Pg. 1 headline and story, Toronto Star, April 10, 2009

Dear Sir:

Part Time Work is not attributable to the failing economy.

The Headline of Friday, April 10's Toronto Star blares "Failing economy creates a nation of part-timers." This headline and feature story is both misleading and ill-informed.

In point of fact, those full time jobs redefined as part-time will never come back even with an economic turnaround without government action.

The nature of work in Canada is changing. The incidence of part-time work has been a growing trend even in boom times and has been adapted by even the largest employers like Microsoft, IBM, and General Motors, not to mention employers like McDonalds, grocery chains, and retailers and is endemic in professions like nursing and university teaching. Recent Stats-Can figures, compiled before the present downslide, identifies 23% of the Nation's (and Ontario's) workers as part-time, contract, or casual non-permanent employees.

This short-sighted employer greed to enhance their bottom lines on the backs of workers, and lack of social consciousness, has produced two classes of workers--permanent employees with their benefits packages and those classified as part-time, contract, or casual employees who may be working side by side with their full time peers doing exactly the same work but with different compensation packages. This, in itself, is discriminatory and the different treatments would not at all be allowed if the differences were defined as racial, religious, or gender. In fact, this "classification" discrimination has led to giant compensatory settlements in America.

An equally serious national problem, though, is the heightened insecurity of part time, contract, and casual work which effectively blocks 23% of the workforce from the purchase of "big ticket" items thus reducing this 23% of the workforce from consumption beyond their basic needs, thereby hurting the national economy.

In the past, when governments found serious and unfair inequities in the workplace, they introduced "equal opportunity" and "pay equity" legislation to correct the inequities. It is time for governments to act once again to correct this problem to stem the changing nature of work in Canada before all employment becomes part time, casual, or contract employment with its resulting devastating impact on the Canadian economy.

Bill Longworth,
Oshawa, Ontario

Is Bill alone in his concern?
Subject: RE: Daily Digest April 10, 2009
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"

From: Tom Brewer

In my opinion Stephen Harper's handling of the Mulroney membership problem will set the stage for Canadians in how they look at Harper in the future. If he dares try to clam up some of the stalwarts who have already spoken out it will tarnish and in my opinion finish him.
I dare suggest he(Harper) had better be ready to lay the proof out for all to see. Mulroney like wise needs to come forward and give us his story, not a story passed on by someone else.

I suspect that what's really going is that Mr. Harper's attempting to lay the present CPC as the new foundation for future Canadian Conservatism. And he's trying to do this essentially by saying that the former PCPC, RPC (Reform), CA (Canadian Alliance) and its predecessors no longer exist and that the 'new' CPC is NOT their descendant ... that it's a new party created ex nihilo (from scratch).
You'll notice that Mr. Harper has often talked about Canadian Conservatism but never (at least never to a broad public, as far as I remember) talked about Conservative parties that preceded the present CPC. The result (likely intended) was to obscure the CPC's heredity and let time erase all trails leading back.
Now, this Mulroney thing has popped up and Mr. Harper and Company have chosen to exploit it. They're using it as an opportunity to make it understood that 'that was then, this is now' and that the CPC is a fresh start for Canadian Conservatism, unhampered by the past and old-time feuds.
On the one hand, the 'new start' approach has the advantage of smothering previous PCPC-RPC-CA feuds and identity clashes. On the other hand, it has the disadvantage of denying notable characters and accomplishments. So bye-bye, MacDonald, Borden, Bennett, Diefenbaker, Mulroney, short-term seatwarmers, and House of Commons Conservative men and women of note.
This all will take some time to fully cement as a foundation, and a future CPC Leader could attempt to revive 'Old Conservatism'. But he'd be doing so late in the game, after years will have passed and memories will have faded, and there'd be a risk of fracturing the CPC's unity along regional-philosophical-identity lines (PCPC-RPC-CA).
Harsh to say, but many feel that Mr. Mulroney would be best 'forgotten but not gone'. But if he keeps popping up in the news because of this Schreiber-Airbus (or anything else) business, many will want to make 'forgotten AND gone'.
From: Beverley Smith

re The Sneeze
I loved this story and sent a copy to each of my four - adult-kids.

I think that the schools make a mistake to not mention religion itself since it is a powerful and for many people vital part of life. It's fine to not endorse any particular but pretty wise to be well informed about many.

I fully agree. But I feel that it should be taught IN ITS ENTIRETY for what it is and how it evolved. And that's far from an obvious thing ... 99.9%+ of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others have no idea of their religion's history, nor have their churches or their schools taught them how things came to be. (That being said, I'm willing to believe that followers of recent religions that aren't based on personalized deities, e.g., the Sikhs, are an exception to this).
The unfortunate truth is that modern-day religions have such long and involved histories and long evolutions that it's too much to ask that everyone know all the details. However, we do The People a disservice in not revealing to them that their mass-religions are NOT things that arose from various gods' commanding their prophets in various ways (through disembodied voices, speech inside their heads, 'miracles', leaving signs and written stuff around to be discovered) or actually hanging in person with people.
When first presenting religion to kids in primary school, it's entirely appropriate that the basics (or to cynical folks, the la-la-la aspects) of religion be taught, provided that various pertinent religions be given significant-enough coverage (so not so much nature-worship of the Sarawak in Borneo, but more discussion of First Nations religious concepts along with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Shinto, thrown in). Add to that a broad discussion of ethical thought (as part of and separate of religion) of various nations throughout the ages, and we'll be able to give our kids a broad of understanding of what religion and ethics are all about. The concepts and the history behind them could then be further discussed in high school. This wouldn't result in anything near deep understanding of religion and ethics, but it would serve as a good base from which people's could then build their characters, even if that means contesting and turning away from those principles.
That'll take  lot of work, folks, to devise a basic, comprehensive program. But it'd go a long way towards everyone's getting a better understanding of how other people think and feel. And it's about time that we do so ... one could argue that until as late as the 19th century (the long-range, Steamship Age and the early International Telegraph) and perhaps even as late as the mid-20th century (the early Air Age), nations and cultures had nothing more to deal with (at the cultural level) than neighbouring cultures. But especially now, with incomparably increased international migration, communication, interaction, and cooperation, the time has come for Humanity to take a step up on the rising path of ethico-religious thinking.
Note that by 'Humanity', I mean the great majority of people worldwide and NOT an international, educated elite. The latter is already forming on its own; it doesn't need our help. But there's a lot of work to  be done in opening Humanity's eyes, 'enlightening' it to a better understanding what and how it thinks and feels, and how and why that came to be. And, in my mind, that would be a great complement to mankind's ever-increasing, dare I say 'transcendent', technical excellence.
I'm under no illusion that everyone everywhere will 'rise' at the same time or, for that matter, that everyone WILL 'rise'. But even partial, tentative steps in broadening (and somewhat deepening) Humanity's understanding of itself can only be a good thing.
Personally, I feel that the Canadian Provinces are ideal places for this kind of thing to take off. It would be a shame to waste all their pent-up potential by not even realizing that it exists.
(All this from Easter bunnies and egg hunts ... Thank You, DD, for being a forum that inspires us all).
Brad Thomson
I am honestly confused about something. Harper is fighting against gun control, while the Americans are fighting heavily for it. This seems odd. Harper did a complete about-face on global warming, why not on gun control?
'Gun control' in Canada means something different than it does in the US, so Canadian politicians are under little (if any) influence based on American arguments. Plus, to my knowledge, the CPC's argument (which excludes whatever Mr. Harper may have said before its formation) has been that the 'long-gun registry' has been useless and expensive. I've yet to hear the CPC declaring itself against 'gun control', although some non-officials may take it to mean that.
Some background: 'The Americans' aren't fighting heavily against control. 'Americans fighting heavily' is a contradiction; whom are they fighting against? It's 'themselves', not outsiders, which means that Americans are very divided over the issue. Thus, SOME Americans are fighting against gun control through political means; some are fighting for; many feel one way or another but don't 'fight'; and many don't pay much attention one way or another.

Just a quick comment on why that's so: from the violent birth of its independent history, many Americans have believed that government is an instrument of the Devil that just can't be avoided and should therefore be limited, constrained, and strongly supervised. And given this thinking, and the fact that the various regions that comprised the original Thirteen Colonies were very different from one another, the Founding Fathers devised a federal political system whose parts and the whole were very similar to that of 16th-century Tudor England.
The People, and the individual States that made up the Union, were suspicious of three things when it came to the Federal Government: tyranny, enforced by taxation and a standing army. 'Americans' (broadly speaking) were largely to taxation for whatever reason, right from the start, for various tyranny. Opposition to 'tyranny' (or simply to having others telling them what to do) was the driving reason (along with taxation) behind the American Revolution. And a Federal standing (permanent, professional) army would have to be maintained through taxation and could be used for tyrannical purpose.
Thus, the American's emphasis on 'militia' (that is, non-soldier free men called to arms) being 'necessary to the security of a free State' (or something like that) as opposed to permanent taxation and a standing army: a standing army (and consequent taxation) would cost too much, and it would enable the Federal government to tyrannize the States and The People. On other words, the Founding Fathers believed that a given State's (as in individual US States) security could be ensured on the cheap by its calling on its militia only when the latter was needed. In such a case, a State would pay militiamen and provide them with the means to operate only when needed: thus, no permanent tax; and no permanent army (as well as no need for one).
For militia to be rapidly mobilized, however, and for citizens to be able to defend themselves in last resort, enabling men to join a militia meant that they had to have and bring their own arms when called up. And thus, the legal basis for those Americans who believe that there should be no gun control.
But late-18th century thinking, whether appropriate or not back then, no longer reflects modern reality. Each US State now has a National Guard that is overseen by respective States' Governors. Each National Guard performs the tasks that would be assigned to State militias, so National Guards ARE in effect each State's militia. (No State has a non-National Guard militia to call up). Thus, no militia that every free person (now not only men) can join means no right to bear arms: there IS no reason for everyone to bear arms.
Now, just try telling that to the anti-gun-control lobbies and their supporters in the US, let alone survivalists and various others who believe that the US federal government has been taken over by shadowy groups (and to some is actually run by Jews forming ZOG, the 'Zionist Occupation Government') and is out to tyrannize them and the world.
So, Mr. Harper's being anti-gun-control: not that I've ever known of. And Canadians not necessarily following the US example: that's a  perfectly legitimate position, agree with it or not.
Before any rogue and criminal government can implement tyranny, they must disarm the population. This is what is going on in America. Why have the higher controlling powers not told Harper to do the same?
'Rogue and criminal government': much more of a possibility in the US given the way its political system is made. In Canada, this doesn't apply.
On the same-sex marriage issue, I do not understand why we are still hearing biological arguments. Who cares if two men or two women get married? I happen to be heterosexual, that's the way God made me, but he made many others homosexual. So what? Live and let live.
Hear, hear. Like many other Canadians, I'm a married hetero who has no kids so I'm a 'self-correcting problem of natural selection' if one's to follow 'biological arguments'. But to a large degree that's no longer a problem: at seven billion and rising, the world's population can amply satisfy future generations' genetic needs; and the same applies to homosexuals.
The same-sex marriage issue still shocks in that the 'original' version of marriage is still within the living memory of many of us. For example, during the 60s or 70s, the Government of Quebec took over the marriage business when it created the Ministry of Civil Status ('Ministere de l'etat civil', or something like that), which became the sole, legally-recognized agency that could grant (and recognize) legal marriage. (I say 'recognize' because it doesn't consider marriages that don't meet Quebec's criteria (e.g., polygamy, underage spouses, etc.)) to be legal). Prior to that, various churches married people and kept their marriage records, along with their birth and death records; 'the government' didn't. Now, Quebec's government can issue me a legal birth-certificate when I ask and pay for one, and my original one, issued by the North American branch of the Greek Orthodox is a historical artifact.
So, what does this have to do with the 'original' and the current definition of marriage? Basically, during the lifetimes of most of us reading this, 'the government' took over the marriage business and thus made it a civil rather than a religious one. Legally speaking, only 'the government' and its legally-recognized agents (e.g., Justices of the Peace) can execute the legal act of marriage in a prescribed way and only if the spouses meet certain legal requirements. Religions, sects, cults, or any individuals can marry or be married all they want and it'll stay a religious thing; but those who don't legally marry don't benefit (and don't get encumbered) by the privileges and obligations of legal marriage.
In other words, in Canada, marriage has been taken over by 'the government' and what it says is what's legal, no matter what a given religious institution may think or say about it. And as times goes by, the "what's a real marriage" issue will fade away.
But as I have suggested before, we need to stop thinking, wondering and writing about these types of issues. The left versus right paradigm is a hoax to keep us off track, to prevent us from looking at what really matters.
Yup. The left-versus-right thing is a concept that's been outdated since the 19th century, in my mind. The original clash of 'privilege, establishment' ('the right') against 'the mass' of common folk ('the left') has to a large degree been made obsolete in the West. With few exceptions, no one in modern Western democracies, as an individual, is entitled to privileges that aren't available to everyone, privileges necessary to holding public office being an exception. Also, 'the mass', through mass education, has evolved from the largely rural, often unenfranchised 'great unwashed' with primary-level education (if even that) to a balanced, well-educated urban-and-rural citizenry. As for those in between (bourgeois, professionals, etc.), there are many more of them than there ever has been.
So, with state- and socially-established privilege having been abolished, there's really no more 'right' in the original sense. And so-called 'parties of the (real) Left' are far from having the support of the majority of voters in any country. Note that by the 'real' Left I mean I mean those who are for 'solidarity', 'the people', and whatever, without putting too much thought on how that can be achieved. Democratic Socialists, who like most electable parties are more 'managerial', don't fall under this definition.
So, no more established privilege means no more 'right'. And a greatly-reduced (in proportion) 'great unwashed' means no more 'left', de facto.
These days, domestic democratic politics are more about money and wealth, their management, setting frameworks wherein people can prosper through their own efforts, setting regulations for public safety, and a spreading of wealth through government supports and insurances. In other words, domestic democratic politics have become managerial after having been adversarial. (With some notable exceptions, the US being the main one).
It is subterfuge, nothing more. Look at Obama, ... he is even more quickly running roughshod over the Constitution (guess he must be a fascist).
The lack of precise definition of the US Presidents' power is a known problem of the US Constitution. There are all sorts of interpretations and loopholes that pretty much enable clever Presidents (and clever staffs) to get away with all sorts things. Witness the US presence in Afghanistan: for the US to go to war, the US Congress has to agree to committing the US to war. But Presidents have committed the US to violent military action without Congressional approval by claiming that "it's not war, it's police action" (or whatever).
So running roughshod over the US Constitution isn't anything unusual in the US. Presidents, Congress, agencies, and what-not all do it to varying degrees. It can even be argued that the judiciary does so too. Witness the US Supreme Court's suspending the vote count in Florida back in 2000, when George 'Dimbulb' Bush beat Al 'Robotron' Gore. The US is a country ruled by men, not laws, so Canadian standards and ways of thinking do NOT apply there.
He is accelerating the fake war in Afghanistan (guess he must be a conservative).
'Fake war' .. there ya go.
He is concerned about global warming (guess he must be an idiot, for that is a hoax too, ironically Harper was correct before the higher powers suddenly told him to see the light).

Strictly speaking, the global warming yada-yada that everyone's taking for granted isn't a hoax; it's a fraud. We're nowhere near being able to tell what drives Earth's climate (witness present-day weather reports projected a few days in advance, let alone what the weather will be like in a year or a decade), we've little data on how different factors interact, and we're not entirely sure of all the factors that heat and cool the earth. Anyone who says that he or anyone else knows that the Earth is warming AND that it'll continue AND that we can stop it AND that if we don't we're doomed to disaster, and who claims that he knows this with any degree of confidence is lying, period (Al Gore! ... I mean, think about it; when's the last time YOU'VE taken a US politician at face value). And that includes real-life scientists and bureaucrats (from the UN!) who claim that it's 90% certain that increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a one-way road to disaster.
That being said: the may be something behind carbon dioxide driving global warming and its leading to future trouble. In such a case, since we're flying blind, it's incumbent upon us to look into by funding lots of research into global climate dynamics, etc, etc. In addition, it can be reasoned that we ought to take some sensible precautions of various forms. But running around playing Chicken Little doesn't cut it.
We need to wake up, and fast. Pay attention to what is happening, not to what the media tells you is happening.
Professor Brainiac says read, and what you read ought to be books. 'Rapid-fire' media such as newspapers and TV news are necessarily limited to 'he said, she said, and this reporter says ...' current events described in a stripped-down, conscise manner.  Magazines are time-delayed and they can come up with interesting ideas and ways of seeing things. But only books from varied times and places can give one a sense of where we are, where we've been, and (more or less) how we got here.
Read books, folks, read books! The rest can to a large degree be considered entertainment.
Read between the lines, this is where truth resides. The Rockefellers, Rothschilds (their real name is Bauer), the Queen of England, the Pope and a few others have taken control of the entire planet though the IMF. They are pure evil. They are satanically possessed madmen and women bent upon the complete destruction of the planet.

Someday someone will have to explain to me how they get to reach the top and then convince plebes like us that it's all for the greater good.
AIDS was invented in a CIA laboratory.
And the CIA's inoculating Great Apes and having them eaten by African bush hunters in order to infect mankind in unpredictable ways. Pure GENIUS, those guys!
Obama is not African-American.
('Ba-RACK Obama? I thought you said Ba-LACK Obama!'). Ah, semantics. It is true that it takes more than being black and American to make da boyz in da 'hood consider you to be a 'niggah' just like them. But still ....
All of them are Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Club of Rome.

I'm white, middle-aged (45 IS middle-aged, right?), an engineer and an MBA. So dammit, when do I get MY share of plunder and privilege?
From: "Brian D. Marlatt"
Subject: Moral Compass.

The attempt to discredit the Leader of the Opposition and to give credit to Stephen Harper which is not his due is by turns diatribe and apologia full of false claims and CPC assertions.
Truth is, the day before Mr. Harper said that, Mr. Ignatieff 'visited' (whatever that means) and made an 'I'm listening respectfully" speech in rural Alberta. Mr. Harper's response was to remind the folks back home which tough guy is really on their side.
Context is all.