I absolutely agree. Karygiannis is the prototypical "entitlement" pol. It's true that he works fairly hard in his constituency and therefore gets reelected, but over the last couple of years he's made some really inane statements. Consider also that despite being an MP for 14 years, he's rarely acheived anything in Cabinet: oooo, he was Minister for Democratic Renewal...that went well, didn't it? Oh, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Elections don't change fundamental economics. IF (and that's a big "IF") the NDP were elected, especially to a minority government, the sun would still set in the west, the sky would still be blue, and the NDP would have to deal with fiscal and economic realities.____It's likely that there would be fairly significant "capital flight" in the short-term, as corporate interests would seek to impose their interests on the government. In the longer term(six months to a year), however, it's likely that they would come back...because the fundamentals, in Canada, are still sound. If there's money to be made, capital interests will be here to make it. They've done so in any number of far less stable (or palatable, for that matter) regimes
Yeah...I would say that, as a political pundit, Cherry makes a good sports commentator.
Ummmm....you ARE aware that much of what goes on in the HoC is predetermined, right? Pretty much everyone there can count, and knows what the outcome of ANY initiative is likely to be. And that speeches in the HoC are NOT intended to "convince" the other honourable members, but are rather designed for public consumption, through things like this blog? And that even the Conservatives, when one of their members is speaking in front of the cameras, all move to fill up the seats behind the speaker?
The "important" work of the HoC is NOT done in QP, or debate in the House itself. The important work is done in committee rooms, or in members' offices. That's where the real horse-trading goes on. "Debate" of a foregone conclusion is merely "The Show"
Interestingly, NO provincial premier has gone on to be Prime Minister of Canada. Ever.
Or maybe...site as in "web site"...
I appreciate how many people in hopeless situations may be attracted to this creed, especially in "early historical" times, but it provides no "comfort" or "explanation" to me. You're welcome to it, enjoy it, whatever gets you through the night, I'll never deny anyone the right to believe what they choose. Just please extend that same courtesy to those who choose NOT to believe what you believe in. (I think that's a version of "The golden rule", isn't it?)
For God (who?)so loved the world (how?) He gave His only begotten Son (evidence of parentage? evidence of "only"?) that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (how's that been delivered on?)For God did not send His Son into the world (did "God" send anyone, anywhere?) to condemn the world (proof?...and what if he did?) but that the world through Him might be saved. (errr...from what...salesmen?)
Pretty good pitch(EVERLASTING LIFE! CALL AND ORDER NOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU TWO!), but really only believable if one suspends disbelief. It doesn't seem all that productive to quote Scripture (written and edited by who, and with what agenda?) to people unless you're pretty sure that they share the faith you have in the existance of YOUR god in the first place, because it will fall on deaf ears. And if they do share your faith, you're preaching to the choir loft. What's the point?
Funny thing about "common sense" though, Emily; it doesn't seem to be that "common"! And in societies that promote individual interests over collective ones (consciously and deliberately or not!) "common" sense would justify individual actions that are injurious to the functioning of the society. So an imposed "restraint" on the actions of individuals that is justified by invoking a "higher power" (which could literally be ANYTHING, really) makes sense.
And yes, I recognize that terrible things have been done in the name of "God"...by human beings. But good things have been done as well. In both cases, though, "God" has been inert, that is, not an active participant in what has been done in his/her/its name.
The invocation of "God" and "God's will" as a justification for human action has always struck me as a blatantly transparent grab for power, power that is held to be beyond questioning, unlike any other forms of power. To me, this fundamentally attacks the very basic human capacity of reason and of being able to question "Why". Again, it doesn't really matter if the invocation of "God" is in the service of good OR evil actions, it is nontheless an attempt to "trump" human beings collective responsibility to justify their own actions.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig