en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/728045 Comments by JCherniak http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/26/carney-this-time-its-different#IDComment138272725 Look at the chart again. This is about growth and it hasn't been negatives since the early 1940s. If it were real dollars, I suspect you would see why the actual boom is longer than you would expect historically. Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:09:41 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/26/carney-this-time-its-different#IDComment138272725 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/27/is-canada-a-nation#IDComment137938607 II often wonder whether it's proper to refer to myself as a Canadian Jew or a Jewish Canadian. It is two different identities and I think I ultimately put Canadian first (which actually makes me a Jewish Canadian), but I know there are many people (of many beliefs) who put religion first. I don't qestion their loyalty to the country as a result - I think that it means they want the country to comply with certain beliefs (multiculturalism being the one that many can agree on without conflict). Similarly, is it wrong to suggest that Canada can have multi-nationalism? I know I don't like the idea, but I'm not completely decided yet on whether I am outright opposed to it. Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:01:23 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/27/is-canada-a-nation#IDComment137938607 http://stevejanke.com/archives/312968.php#IDComment133356233 I think that actually supports my view. If the Tory ad buy is already done, wouldn't they be stuck with a huge expenditure early in the campaign that they cannot use later in the campaign when it matters the most? I'm pretty sure that spending limits are determined by when the product is provided and not when the money was booked. Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:48:09 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/312968.php#IDComment133356233 http://stevejanke.com/archives/312968.php#IDComment133174252 Sorry, but this analysis is more amusing than interesting. I'll give you a much more simple answer - The sooner an election comes, the sooner the Conservatives are bound by spending limits. Why let them campaign for an extra two weeks unaanswered? Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:59:50 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/312968.php#IDComment133174252 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/12/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-stephen-harper/#IDComment51716089 Andrew, this policy has been obvious for some time now. The only joke is the fact that the media required the PM to admit it before they would believe it. Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:52:26 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/12/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-stephen-harper/#IDComment51716089 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/31/the-story-the-mainstream-media-buried-except-never-mind/#IDComment50223848 I could have sworn I read about this in the Globe and Mail... just... yesterday. Sun, 3 Jan 2010 15:26:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/31/the-story-the-mainstream-media-buried-except-never-mind/#IDComment50223848 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/lets-argue-heatedly-about-part-x-of-the-rules-of-the-senate-of-canada/#IDComment49682973 Making it a 24 hour break does not mean they only have 24 hours to write. They need merely decide today and announce later. Also, let's assume this is about the Senate. Why not let Parliament return as scheduled then just proroge before the Olympics? If they are waiting till March either way, the only reason to prorogue now is to stop MPs from meeting and holding the government to account until then. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:29:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/lets-argue-heatedly-about-part-x-of-the-rules-of-the-senate-of-canada/#IDComment49682973 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/lets-argue-heatedly-about-part-x-of-the-rules-of-the-senate-of-canada/#IDComment49652366 I don't see why it matters. They could have prorogued as of the day before Parliament was scheduled to return for 24 hours. The fact that they did not do this is evidence that there is more to the story. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:14:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/lets-argue-heatedly-about-part-x-of-the-rules-of-the-senate-of-canada/#IDComment49652366 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49650407 lol. Note the 1996 - 2003. Compare those seven years to Stephen Harper's four and you have your answer. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:09:38 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49650407 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295957.php#IDComment47750345 Come on Steve. If you believe what you've written, then you're the one who's sick. Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:46:11 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295957.php#IDComment47750345 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47486841 I'm only going on what Kinsella's said about a "kid" being responsible. Maybe you have a point, but maybe the new safeguards deal with precisely this issue. I didn't mean to suggest that the Liberals have made no embarassing techincal screwups. This just seems to be the first under Ignatieff that is purported to be "outrageous" and requiring of an apology. Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:21:53 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47486841 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47476084 In both cases, it is a matter of bad judgment online. The contest was "where would Harper rather be". The dumb picture's answer was "being shot by Jack Ruby". Funny? No. Worth national media attention? Also a big "No". Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:13:10 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47476084 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47475642 If this were a Big Idea meant to win an election, then I would actually agree. However, I'm not so sure that it is reasonable to judge the entire Liberal strategy on the basis of one kid given too much freedom to make a mistake online. If it happens again, then you might be on to something. Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:09:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47475642 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47472881 I don't think the "reasons" are very complicated. It isn't a big deal. Get over it. Here's what I wrote on July 23, 2008 (no longer linkable): "I was not outraged by the picture. I don't believe the picture puts Stéphane Dion in danger and I am quite certain that wasn't really the Tory intention. It is more likely that some summer intern posted the picture thinking it was funny." Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:50:52 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47472881 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47468533 A reporter who agrees that this isn't a story? I'm shocked. Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:12:04 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/16/hint-lol-doesnt-stand-for-liberal-opposition-leader/#IDComment47468533 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/monday-caption-challenge-no-3/#IDComment47016630 Conservatives cheer before the last remnants of the Old Parliament are swept away by the peaceful flame of amateur sport. Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:53:45 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/monday-caption-challenge-no-3/#IDComment47016630 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/10/what-signal-does-barbie%e2%80%99s-burka-send/#IDComment46765852 "That “Drop Fees” campaign would never dream of dressing up its poster gal as June Cleaver, Donna Reed or any other outmoded sitcom mom in twin-set and pearls. Golly, that would send all sorts of disturbing signals to today’s liberated females, wouldn’t it? What signal is Barbie’s burka sending? That, in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, women were forbidden by law from ever feeling sunlight on their faces? Hey, there’s a positive message for young girls." That should have been the lead paragraph. It sums up the whole argument perfectly. Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:05:40 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/10/what-signal-does-barbie%e2%80%99s-burka-send/#IDComment46765852 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/27/liberals-play-the-victim-on-israel/#IDComment46428778 "What did the Tory literature (“these vile flyers”—the Toronto Star), widely distributed in Liberal ridings with large numbers of Jewish voters, actually say? Not that the Liberal party was anti-Jew, or even anti-Israel, but only that it had not been as robust in the defence of Israel as the Tories have been." That is an outight falsity. They accused the Liberal party of engaging in and "anti-Semitic conference". Normally I can see the reason in your column even when I disagree, but this is a huge exception. Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:41:44 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/27/liberals-play-the-victim-on-israel/#IDComment46428778