I suppose a logical corollary of this would be the criminalisation of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Given that you view the foetus as a child and that alcohol consumption during pregnancy results in permanent and irreparable damage to the child, would you then support alcohol consumption during pregnancy being charged as aggravated assault causing bodily harm? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Thank you, Craig. That's one of the more comprehensive and well written replies I've read on the subject.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain that the Taliban monitor the statements of Liberal candidates, looking for the nuance between "aided and abetted torture, if the Taliban prisoners are to be believed" and what Prout said. Good call on that one.
Because the Taliban wouldn't've known anything about what happened in Afghan prisons, and are quite likely to stick entirely to the truth.
You're right, this candidate is endangering Canadians. Because once the Taliban get their copy of the Caledon Enterprise in the mail, they'll actually want to kill Canadians. As opposed to before, when tribal and religious fervour could only muster a half-hearted IED or ambush here and there.
Dear Toporious, sarcasm aside, please think before you post.

The story behind this article is less the divisiveness of Obama than the decoupling of right-wing rhetoric from reality. The fact that one in 10 Americans believe that their president was born in Kenya, and that a far higher proportion feel that he is a Marxist/Communist/Socialist indicates that the splintering and tribalisation of political discourse in the States is having very real and very negative policy implications.
We can quibble over how Obama could have better handled both the stimulus package and healthcare debate, but the fact of the matter is that the Republican Party and many independent libertarian voters are simply angry with everything political in Washington without knowledge or understanding of the issues. Mass political illiteracy and FOX News have poisoned American politics, to the point where it's becoming one of the biggest obstacles to the country's progress and prosperity.
But it certainly makes me feel better about Canada.

I can't say I've been particularly happy with Immigration Canada's recent decisions. As if the absolutely shameful treatment of Abousfian Abdelrazik wasn't enough, we appear ready to deport someone who risked his life to bring justice on a dictator. I understand that we generally don't want to have members of violent regimes immigrating to Canada, but this case is very clearly exceptional. And I'd add that we currently have many members of terrible regimes quietly living in Canada (take Désiré Munyaneza, a Rwandese génocidaire), but the difference is that these people lied about their pasts.
Cindor Reeves trusted the fairness of the Canadian immigration system in coming to Canada and disclosing his past. I'd hate to see his faith disproved by him being deported and murdered on his return to Liberia.

If Jason Kenney or anyone from Immigration Canada happens to read this, I'd appreciate a response.

I hate to say it, but neither Canada nor the States have the best healthcare systems in the world. American healthcare costs the highest % of GDP in the OECD, if I remember correctly, and healthcare is becoming a budgetary vacuum for Canadian provinces, where more and more money can be poured without significantly improving results. We both have a lot to learn from more innovative countries. Our laurels are hurting us.

In trivial news, the spellcheck used by Maclean's does not recognize Canadian spelling. Fail.

The Leg is full of liberals? You must use a very interesting definition of liberal. The PC Party has the interesting distinction of no longer being either progressive or fiscally conservative. And as for being liberal, I can tell you that a very large proportion of them are not liberal either by the American definition (left-wing), the Canadian definition (moderate taxation, significant spending on education and programs) or by the classical definition (which would equate to transparent government, perfectly equal rights for every citizen including gays, and importantly, neither deficits nor subsidies for favoured sectors.
I'm not a great fan of the Alberta Liberals and I have some respect for Danielle Smith, but I can say without a doubt that we do not need more ideological conservatives.

Personally, I think that Monte Solberg wrote in his blog the appropriate Conservative response here. http://bit.ly/p78fU
It's a personal choice about whether or not the government should be funding parade-type events, but there is no way that Ablonczy should be punished for it, lobby group outrage be damned.

Option 2 isn't realistic in a recession, and the deficits big enough to require huge growth to even reduce it.

Option 3 is very short sighted given the economic times. Buy high, sell low may a popular government strategy but it's pretty poor economics. There's no point selling even AECL right now for the prices we'd get on it. Wait til assets are properly valued before selling them