I hate the Media - they should register as lobbyists

I want to know how by suggesting a technical amendment to a piece of legislation in order to preserve its original intent, a lawyer evolves into a "shill for an evil industry."

I generally don't like to ban things, but I don't think there is a single rationale person who doesn't support the original intent of bill c-32 - as its alternate title calls it - the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act.

Frankly, I don't see the appeal of candy flavoured anything but candy. But, admittedly, I am not the target of the legislation.

That said, in drafting the bill, Health Canada has gone over the edge. They purport to ban all additives to Tobacco for flavouring purpose - even if the intent is not "confectionery." The effect is to ban all cigarettes made of burly tobacco. That is code for - all American blended cigarettes.

Now, I am not an expert on cigarettes, but I know what is targeted towards kids from a flavour perspective. It is NOT Camels or Winston's. I have smoked 25,000 cigarettes in my life (I actually did some back of the envelope math) and I can tell you that they are fucking gross. There is no "child" in the universe who would want to smoke them - they taste like ass. The ads they have tell me they are targeted at cowboys.

They say, cough, that anything that makes a cigarette less harsh, will make it less attractive to kids - ergo, it is aligned with the intent of the bill.

That is kind of like saying "We know that kids love candy, and that is why we should make glue smell less like aylmers glue, and more like Uhu- so the kids are less likely to sniff it."

And all the while, we are allowed to add lime to Bud Light. That doesn't make it more attractive to kids, right? And the exception the Act provides for menthol, that is OK. I mean, that only tastes like a candy cane.

Retarded. Oh, and by the way did you know that the bill will violate NAFTA and the WTO. Who cares?

Of course, suggesting this means you are evil and are trying to make kids smoke. What bull shit.

Worse still is the "balanced" coverage we get from Sarah Schmidt (whose story I refuse to link to because it is so bad) that calls anyone who suggests amending the act to make it smarter and less "trade war" sensitive. How the hell can her fluff piece NOT be considered advocacy? It is shocking to me.

PS - the cigarettes this bill bans will still be available to kids through the illegal market. It is half of Ontario's sales now, and this bill just gives them a brand new monopoly on a product that they can sell. And they don't check for ID.

PPS - Ontario is now suing for $50 Billion to recover the costs of health care. Why no $750 Billion? I mean seriously, if you are going to make up a ridiculous number, why not make it uber-ridiculous.

And now, Canada's Senate has the chance to save the day - and 100% of the Quebec Conservative Caucus agrees the bill should be changed. Maxime Bernier, afterall, causes cancer.

Just once, it would be refreshing to see a Minsiter admit they were wrong instead of painting themselves into a corner and then fighting their way out while walking all over the paint anyway.

That paint, however, can't be too bright, or might attract stupid children who don't know any better. God, they better not drink it.

Beast in the EAST

Nothing sweeter than winning the division by beating the Red Sox.

I can't wait for October baseball.

Colonel Crazy to visit Newfoundland

Ok- There is JUST SO MUCH material to work with here:

I hear that the despot is going to meet with Colonel Ghadafi.

I figger no other leader can stop this man, he might as well try soviet af-danny-stan.

How the frig is he going to put up that sail he calls a tent in Newfoundland?

If you think they celebrated like madmen when the lockerbie bomber got home to libya, you should see what we do to people who kill Anglicans here.

Club a Ghadafi, save a seal.

Ok- Seriously. What the FUCK is he doing in Newfoundland? Looking for offshore Oil investment?

Climate Change- Half Seriously for us, more seriously for them

The issue just means a lot more to this guy:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail/410/0410200.html

Part of me has already made Atlantis jokes, Namor jokes - hell, I have even made immigration jokes. For him, however, it is far more grave.

According to the front page of the Globe and Mail he said:

"On cue, we stand here and tell you just how bad things are. We in the Maldives desperately want to believe that one day our words will have an effect, and so we continue to shout them even though, deep down, we know that you are not really listening."

That sir, is how you get your point across.

Now, I don't want to pretend that Canada is UNaffected by the changing climate - but compared to these guys, we have nothing to worry about. If I thought that Canadian policy would make a lick of difference, I would be the first to the front of the line - JUST TO SAVE THIS GUY's COUNTRY.

Lead by example doesn't work in this case. I am saddened, but it doesn't.

OUT-Remont

I don't like internal feuds. I don't like internal feuds in Quebec. I don't like internal feuds in Quebec that involve winnable ridings.

Coderre v. Cauchon

Wanna fight over Ungava Nord, knock yourself out.

Outremont is a problem - but maybe we should all start talking about the elephant in the room

The Liberals DON'T want to win in Outremont.

Really.

The want Mulcair to win it again. That way, when he crosses the floor to join that party, it looks soooooo much sweeter. I mean seriously, now that Iggy has turned the tables on Jack, how long can Mulcair really wait until he says "I cannot personally remain in a party that will allow this man to remain Prime Minister." It writes itself.

When Mulcair quit Quebec politics - remember, he was the liberal Environment Minister under Jean Charest - it was because of...oh right, something about not being quite angry enough on the environment.

He was, however, a featured minister in what is arguably the most conservative government Quebec has ever had.

Fast forward a few days to when Mr. Mulcair decided to run in a federal by-election as a member of the NDP. He rejected the liberal leader, Stephane Dion, because of his views on nationalism in Quebec. His views on Kyoto, however, very strong. It must have been a tough decision to not support Dion who was arguably the least popular politician in he history of the province.

Next time, I think the challenge will be significant. Mr. Ignatieff is marginally less hated.

So, who else has held this riding? Oh, no one really- just Jean Lapierre (BQ turned Transport Minister and Mr. Cauchon, a Chretien era Justice Minister). I guess they love high profile cabinet ministers in this riding.

Imagine their glee when they will get one.

The McChrystal Report and Implications for Canada

I have said it many many (many) times - this is a stupid place to be as a comfortable middle power.

The General says we have to change strategies


And I think he is right. Our strategy should be "get the fuck out" as quickly as possible before we lose another series of soldiers to a cause no one really understands or that we are in any way responsible for.

They actually want to re-integrate the very people we deposed.

Lunacy.

The dumbest part is when commentators (with all their expertise) suggest that by pulling out, we (the Ignatieff (L - Manchester) royal we, the USA) would be open to more attacks by pulling out.

Sorry, what? We leave a place where we are already the target by virtue of being there, and the people who attacked us for being in Saudi Arabia will have a new training ground from which they can attack us?

Please. If the same resources that are currently being expended in Iraq and the 'Stan are redeployed to the West, there is nothing that could get through that wall.

Unless they are already inside it - something that a continued presence in the area will only embolden.

The Decision

Of course, I am not sure I agree with the reasoning though support the decision.

Mr. Justice Shore

This was an EXCELLENT chance to deal with a nuisance suit the way it should have been dealt with - curtly.

Instead, by accepting the premise of the questions posed to it, the Court meandered onto a long discussion of constitutional conventions and created all kinds of rationales for appeal. As I learned at the Federal Court of Appeal not so long ago, while the reasons for a decision can't be appealed, errors of laws that underlay those reasons can.

So, I have two criticism, and one observation.

First of all, you cannot create a constitutional convention by enacting a statute. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an imbecile. By (lack of) definition, a constitutional convention is something that evolves over time.

Second, political decisions are reviewed ALL THE TIME by courts. Usually, however, it is a decision of a lowly ministerial designate who makes an administrative decision with political ramifications. I think what Mr. Justice Shore meant to say is that "political decisions that are entirely political" are not reviewed - like who gets to be the Minister in charge of shoes.

Observation - this decision was written/crafted this way by a judge who isn't a dummy. He WANTS the federal court of appeal to hear this case, and then in turn he wants the Supreme Court to rubber stamp it. It is almost as if he wants the leading case on constitutional conventions to stop being Black because the issues were so brutal. I think he is right.

Personally, I don't like it when judges play politics either. I am, despite my politics, a strict constructionist. I don't like Parliaments who pass laws that are designed to abrogate constitutional dogma unless they have the stones to actually do it. I think this case should have stuck to the issues as the Court saw them - and ignore the questions asked by the petitioners. For example, did the law pass constitutional muster when it was passed (no) and did the clause in question have the legal authority to stop the election. The fall session of last summer is pretty good evidence that it did not.

This decision should have been two pages - and the second page should have been a MASSIVE costs award, which was entirely waived because of who the petitioners were and the service they were providing to society - what malarky.

I am so sick of H1N1

I saw to things I have never seen before yesterday

1) A recalcitrant John Baird. It is almost as if they drew straws at Cabinet to see who would have to say "I'm sorry" in the House of Commons. He actually seemed genuine and sincere.

2) Actual questions of substance in the House of Commons with actual answers of substance.

So, here is the bottom line - there is no UNIVERSE where this clusterfuck can actually be blamed on the tories. At best, it was a poorly timed administrative error. At worst, it was a poorly executed response to a plea for help. Most likely, it was a bit of both. They have protocols to follow - I would recommend they insert a new step in their pandemic protocols

Step X.1 - Ask if they need body bags.

That said, can we drop this story already. Yes- it is the worst flu to hit Canada for a generation. Yes, some populations are more exposed. Yes, people will get sick. Yes - but, good lord there must be other news. Every time they report another case of the flu killing someone, people will get more terrified of something that they should not be worried about.

It is almost supposed to be how it works

The government introduces a bill, idea, resolution - and then the opposition parties decide if they want to support it.

If only "running the government" wasn't tied to that support. Swoon.

Cost of an Election

$300 Million per vote, is about $10 per peron, right?

I must have a MacDonald lying around here somewhere. I would pay it, would you?

That should be the ballot question.

If I lived in South Western Ontario, and I could vote

I think the only question I would ask would be candidates is "what are you doing to return what was once the Engine of the Canadian Economy to its state of prominence."

I don't believe that any election is a waste. 300 Million to have the right people in charge doesn't seem like that much.

In fact, it seems like it costs about ten bucks a person.

If I could spend $10 to got an vote, I would.

A case for an "imposing legal cost" award

I hate Duff Conacher SOOOOOO MUCH

So, this is interesting. I love it when the defence will be one sentence.

56.1(1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

Right. So, the court will look at the subsection DIRECTLY ABOVE the very subsection that the idiots at Democracy Watch are trying to use to sue the Government. If their argument is that the PM has to loose the confidence of the House of Commons, I would like to see them find that subsection/qualifier in the statute. Not only is it the subsection directly above the one that gave rise to the so-called cause of action, but it occurred in the very same series of amendments. So, you couldn't even invoke an argument from the Hansard about how the latter subsection informed the existing bill.

The Prime Minister didn't call an election. The Governor General did. She acts on the PM's advice, but the discretion is HERS - and that discretion is NOT qualified in the statute. That was the entire premise behind the coalition, remember?

This case should be dismissed with EXTREME prejudice. With 110% of costs being awarded to the federal government. I hope it bankrupts democracy watch, they are idiots who don't' know what they are talking about.

He is just absolutely nutty

Sometimes a picture is worth 1,000 words

And sometimes people are just nuts.

On the other hand, I think it would make for a very interesting debate on the floor of the United Nations, when, after the resolution fails, a member of the Iranian delegation makes the same motion for dealing with Israel.

Lets get the seals!

They are now coming up on land to get us

Are you serious?

Maybe it isn't sharks we should be at war with, but with all of the creatures of the sea.

I think my new reaction to Europeans is to say "we are just defending ourselves."

WHY?

I hate elections- I am trying to get some work done here...

I think we need a "causal link" approach to this election-

"Here is what the conservatives have done/not done, and here is what we will do differently."

I don't think I have seen that demonstrated very clearly yet