<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/556163</link>
		<description>Comments by Chrystal Ocean</description>
<item>
<title>RealityTVFan.org : Beauty &amp; the Geek Aus 3 - Episode # 3</title>
<link>http://www.realitytvfan.org/2012/10/19/beauty-the-geek-aus-3-episode-3/#IDComment467922289</link>
<description>Not sure why, but this is one of my favourite reality TV shows. It&amp;#039;s even up there with Project Runway! However I&amp;#039;d like to see the producers add more contestants, a twist to the voting criteria for the couples elimination and at least two more questions to the quiz at the end of each episode. IOW, the format should make it more difficult to vote couples for elimination, more difficult to stay in the game and should add the ability of couples who haven&amp;#039;t a vote the ability to throw a wrench into the competition. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.realitytvfan.org/2012/10/19/beauty-the-geek-aus-3-episode-3/#IDComment467922289</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Cat stares down alligator </title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/cat-stares-down-alligator/#IDComment109912151</link>
<description>So does this mean the NDP could conceivably form the government after the next election? Or, better, that the Greens might get two or more MPs? </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/cat-stares-down-alligator/#IDComment109912151</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Daylight Savings Time is bad for health, scientists say</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/daylight-savings-time-is-bad-for-health-and-the-environment-scientists-say/#IDComment106766775</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;d prefer to remain on Standard Time. The dark mornings are more depressing than dark evenings. Makes it hard to get up and feel lively. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/daylight-savings-time-is-bad-for-health-and-the-environment-scientists-say/#IDComment106766775</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Mandatory reading on the volunteer census</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/30/mandatory-reading-on-the-volunteer-census/#IDComment89788805</link>
<description>Your post headline: &amp;quot;Mandatory reading on the volunteer census&amp;quot;  If it&amp;#039;s voluntary &lt;i&gt;it&amp;#039;s not a census&lt;/i&gt;. Stop helping to promulgate Harper spin! </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/30/mandatory-reading-on-the-volunteer-census/#IDComment89788805</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : We&#039;ve been wrong about everything</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/16/weve-been-wrong-about-everything/#IDComment87124867</link>
<description>Apps must not have read the memo that more Canadians are turning off beer and switching to wine. As for this Canadian, the last time she watched a hockey game, the Toronto Maple Leafs had just won the Stanley Cup - in 1967.  </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/16/weve-been-wrong-about-everything/#IDComment87124867</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : UPDATED: Do only winners get to head coalition governments?</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/10/do-only-winners-get-to-head-coalition-governments/#IDComment79486214</link>
<description>&amp;quot;formal &amp;#039;coalitions&amp;#039;, i.e. where there is a quasi-merger&amp;quot;  No. A &lt;i&gt;coalition&lt;/i&gt; is a partnership between or among distinct entities. A &lt;i&gt;merger&lt;/i&gt; dissolves those entities into one. The &amp;#039;quasi&amp;#039; qualifier is useless, given the key terms define different things. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:18:41 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/10/do-only-winners-get-to-head-coalition-governments/#IDComment79486214</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Who would benefit the most from a Liberal-NDP coalition?</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/07/who-would-benefit-the-most-from-a-liberal-ndp-coalition/#IDComment79021275</link>
<description>Fourth option: Sixty+ percent of Canadian voters. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:51:40 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/07/who-would-benefit-the-most-from-a-liberal-ndp-coalition/#IDComment79021275</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : &#039;If the heart of our democracy is Parliament, then the heart of Parliament is question period&#039;</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/28/if-the-heart-of-our-democracy-is-parliament-then-the-heart-of-parliament-is-question-period/#IDComment77542160</link>
<description>Chong: &amp;quot;the heart of Parliament is question period&amp;quot;  No, the heart of Parliament is committees. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 19:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/28/if-the-heart-of-our-democracy-is-parliament-then-the-heart-of-parliament-is-question-period/#IDComment77542160</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Mark an X if you want a tax break</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/26/mark-an-x-if-you-want-a-tax-break/#IDComment77253043</link>
<description>&amp;quot;[P]ortions of financial contributions to parties are tax deductible.&amp;quot;   That&amp;#039;s a non-refundable credit. Ergo, it doesn&amp;#039;t help people whose incomes are too low for them to pay income tax. It&amp;#039;s also why people who would like, but haven&amp;#039;t the means, to donate to a political party are given a democratic boost by the per vote subsidy to parties.  If the same principle applies - non-refundable rather than refundable credit - to the proposed credit for voters, then Alberta would see little change in voter turnout. The people most likely to be persuaded to vote because they&amp;#039;d get paid to do it, still won&amp;#039;t.  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 22:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/26/mark-an-x-if-you-want-a-tax-break/#IDComment77253043</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate Barack Obama’s performance in his first year in office?</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/25/on-a-scale-of-1-5-how-would-you-rate-barack-obama%e2%80%99s-performance-in-his-first-year-in-office/#IDComment54214897</link>
<description>Option 6: Predictable </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/25/on-a-scale-of-1-5-how-would-you-rate-barack-obama%e2%80%99s-performance-in-his-first-year-in-office/#IDComment54214897</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : The tally</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/24/the-tally/#IDComment53711045</link>
<description>You omitted &lt;a href=&quot;http:\/\/challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com\/2010\/01\/report-duncan-capp-rally.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Duncan&lt;/a&gt;. We may be tiny, but we matter. Count: 35. </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/24/the-tally/#IDComment53711045</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : In defense of the simple life</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/21/in-defense-of-the-simple-life/#IDComment53194669</link>
<description>Ironically, people at the bottom of the income ladder - I&amp;#039;m talking the lowest decile, not quintile - also face too many choices, which they must make every day. The stress caused from this is both felt and visible, in terms of eroding health and ability to get around; added stress, for example, increases the likelihood of disability. Having to make so many choices is a &lt;a href=&quot;http:\/\/economicusridiculous.blogspot.com\/search\/label\/Choices&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;key theme&lt;/a&gt; in blogs by people of very low-income. It&amp;#039;s an exhausting fact of life for us. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/21/in-defense-of-the-simple-life/#IDComment53194669</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Torture: the Liberals knew?</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/13/torture-the-liberals-knew/#IDComment51930648</link>
<description>Agree with Paul Wells. Glad to hear Iggy supports those dates for an inquiry. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/13/torture-the-liberals-knew/#IDComment51930648</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Olympic secrets revealed</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/12/olympic-secrets-revealed/#IDComment51700321</link>
<description>There&amp;#039;s another &lt;a href=&quot;http:\/\/challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com\/2010\/01\/olympics-for-athleticism-or-atheletic.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;aspect&lt;/a&gt; to the issue that I find disturbing. Just what are the winter Olympics about? Athleticism or sports equipment and the manufacturers who make it? </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/12/olympic-secrets-revealed/#IDComment51700321</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Look at us, doing stuff</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/11/look-at-us-doing-stuff/#IDComment51588566</link>
<description>Anyone read lips? Maybe they&amp;#039;re talking about their Olympic plans? </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/11/look-at-us-doing-stuff/#IDComment51588566</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Parliament: who needs it?</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/10/parliament-who-needs-it/#IDComment51439241</link>
<description>Which is what I said on Dec 30, Mr. Coyne: &lt;a href=&quot;http:\/\/challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com\/2009\/12\/get-rid-of-parliament.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Challenging the Commonplace: Get Rid of Parliament&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/10/parliament-who-needs-it/#IDComment51439241</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Loonie losers</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/05/loonie-losers/#IDComment42142177</link>
<description>If online US retailers would sell to Canadians, a flood of Canadian shoppers would occur. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/05/loonie-losers/#IDComment42142177</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Is low cholesterol a sign of cancer?</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/04/is-low-cholesterol-a-sign-of-cancer/#IDComment41963574</link>
<description>Then there are vegans. Absent any animal products in their diets, vegans&amp;#039; blood cholesterol levels are kept low; and vegans  develop fewer cancers. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/04/is-low-cholesterol-a-sign-of-cancer/#IDComment41963574</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Cowichan Tribes considering suing the Hudson’s Bay Company</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/cowichan-tribes-considering-suing-the-hudson%e2%80%99s-bay-company/#IDComment38753526</link>
<description>I live in the Cowichan Valley and would have donated my non-native fingers to the task. Islanders would have come through and fulfilled any orders handily. ;-) </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/14/cowichan-tribes-considering-suing-the-hudson%e2%80%99s-bay-company/#IDComment38753526</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Macleans.ca : Steve Jobs denies Apple has any interest in e-reader market</title>
<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/11/steve-jobs-denies-apple-has-any-interest-in-e-reader-market/#IDComment34016815</link>
<description>I hope they make one, as do many longtime Mac users who&amp;#039;ve expressed such interest. Either that or enable their current devices for e-books, which I suspect is where Apple is going to go. For example, that quote from Jobs is interesting by its specific reference to &amp;#039;dedicated&amp;#039; devices vs. &amp;#039;general purpose devices&amp;#039;.  </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/11/steve-jobs-denies-apple-has-any-interest-in-e-reader-market/#IDComment34016815</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>