gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : The Commons: The House always wins

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:17:54 +0000

We did have an election. Harper's party only got a minority. Thanks be to God.

Macleans.ca : Shelly Glover versus the world

Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:37:23 +0000

Q "How can she sit there and, week after week, just throw out demonstrably false statements like the Liberals voting against these bills? " A She works for Stephen 'It-Doesn't-Have-To-Be-True-Just-Believable' Harper

Macleans.ca : Shelly Glover versus the world

Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:12:52 +0000

These apparently come from a Stats Can survey where respondents are asked whether they hav ebeen victims of certain types of crime in the last 5 years, reported or not. From that they deduce the 92% figure. But the cons' use of this is pretty selective - these same surveys also apparently demonstrate that crime rates are, wait for it, dropping. The conservative don't like that particular statistic, though.

Macleans.ca : Shelly Glover versus the world

Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:59:48 +0000

Yet another example of how reality and conservative viewpoints tend to be two separate beasts entirely.

Macleans.ca : The insight of Shelly Glover

Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:00:22 +0000

That's a huge aprt of the problem with pretend-to-be-tough-on-crime rhetoric is that it never has to solve the very problem it purports to target. If crime rates go up, well then, "we've got to get even tougher!" If they go down, well, they are going down, and you see the type of legislation and rhetoric they offer.

Macleans.ca : The insight of Shelly Glover

Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:53:51 +0000

Agreed.

Macleans.ca : The insight of Shelly Glover

Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:30:51 +0000

Aha, but then does the format of the GSS not refute her claim that (declining) crime rates are only because people are not reporting them? Asking whether you have been a victim of crime in the last five years would tend to capture reported *and* unreported crime, would it not? But then I suppose I could skew those statistics any way I wanted.

Macleans.ca : The fan club

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:00:17 +0000

Yeah, talk about lack of support. I would say that the silence from caucus has been deafening, except it hasn't been quite *that* silent.... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hele...

Macleans.ca : Fan mail

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:57:01 +0000

I agree with john g to an extent. But at which point does ties to a particular party preclude an individual from having and offering impartial opinions? I tend to lean left and as such tend to find fault with much of what this current government does, and would likely say so were a camera pushed in my face for comment on any particular issue. I have no fomal ties to the Liberal party -yet. But then what *if* I did have ties? If I got so fed up with the current government that I started volunteering, donating, etc for an opposition party. Does that make my opinion in any man-on-the-street interview illegitimate?

Macleans.ca : Rights and Democracy: Notes on the value of a man's signature

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:44:47 +0000

Someone named Kady O'Malley has been following it too. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/author/...

Macleans.ca : A sad day for fans of Michael Ignatieff caricatures

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:09:09 +0000

Too bad. Used as it was intended, the concept was pretty good. But once the Cons came to power and started abusing it like they did, it had to be scrapped altogether.

Macleans.ca : Heroes of academe

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:06:06 +0000

To be honest, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, either. But I do find myself looking askew at some of this overt militarism and rah-rah glorification of the army lately.

Macleans.ca : Heroes of academe

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:41:23 +0000

.....all of which they know about when they sign up. They know the risks going in. But the point made in the article is that these deaths put inordinate hardship on the children and families left behind. Can this statement not apply to ANYONE? "““When a soldier is killed, life stops for his or her family. Plans change, goals may no longer be obtainable,” said CFB/ASU Petawawa Commander LCol Keith Rudderham. “Children don’t just lose a parent, they lose a role model, a cheerleader, someone to push them towards higher learning. Some children also lose the financial ability to attend college or university.”” Do the survivors of military deaths have a monopoly on misery as compared to anyone else?

Macleans.ca : Heroes of academe

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:20:36 +0000

Losing a parent is a horrible thing, and puts extra hardship on children who go to university. So, why not offer the same deal to children of other dead public servants? How, or why, is being the child of a dead soldier any different or more deserving of support than that of a dead firefighter, dogcatcher, veterinarian, driver's license issuer........?

Macleans.ca : Coulter at UOttawa: song of the predictables

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:33:22 +0000

I actually agree to a couple of your points, but you can't ascribe this trait of not listening to othger opinions as 'leftist' alone. Intolerant radicals and bigots exist at both ends of the spectrum - and *certainly* exists amongst right wingers and conservatives.

Macleans.ca : Coulter at UOttawa: song of the predictables

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:24:40 +0000

And this only applies to liberals, does it? The Conservative government wouldn't even allow into G. Galloway into the country, for pete's sake.

Macleans.ca : Coulter at UOttawa: song of the predictables

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:21:39 +0000

So not only are the universities, the media, and a minority of looney students lefty liberals, but the police forces as well? Well, they do support the long gun registry, so perhaps you're not entirely paranoid.

Macleans.ca : I apologize if my graciousness offends

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:41:54 +0000

Sigh. It's cheap, and I would prefer the Libs let it go, but when you play in the same sandbox as Harper, maybe you gotta stoop to the tawdriness from time to time. Hey it's been working for Harper.

Macleans.ca : What shall we tell our children?

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:40:42 +0000

Again, squirming. Harper's only purpose in writing that letter was to declare his willingness to form a coalition, not to helpfully point out arcane trivia and theoretical possiblities that were within the GG's options.

Macleans.ca : What shall we tell our children?

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:19:43 +0000

It's funny to watch how conservatives have to squirm to explain why the coalition was illegitimate (which was, btw, the exact same thing when it was Dion and Layton supported by Duceppe in 2008 as when Harper proposed his Harper-Layton-Duceppe coalition). So how would conservatives re-write the rules? "The government must maintain the confidence of the House" is appended with "except for the first few weeks after an election, during which period the govenrment doesn't need the confidence of the House because people just finished voting". "Some policy positions invalidate full participation in parliamentary coalitions. Policies which would invalidate this participation may include separtism, but is to be left up to whatever the conservatives decide at the moment." "If the largest member of a coalition has less votes than the largest single party in parliament, then the coalition is illegitimate. The total of all votes for each coalition party is irrelevent." And the master rule - superceding all others, is "Notwhitstanding all or any other rule on coalitions, if Stephen Harper does it, it's okay."