|
Conservatives lead Liberals by 12% nationally (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
easy there...I won't go off on a rant, because I've never suggested that all people advocating for religious freedom are "anti-gay" (though some are).
yes, to you and a lot of other people, it's about a man and a women coming together before god. That's fine. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic high school, etc...I'm very very aware of the sacraments and in no way mean to disparage them with my LEGAL argument.
That people have different *ideas* of what is "marriage" is kind of irrelevant to the *fact* that marriage is also a civil status that is granted and recognized by the state. No one is "redefining" the Church...how can you suggest this? You still get married in the Church and you still *have* to file for a marriage license from the state to have that marriage be legally recognized. *Nothing* has changed for the Church other than their definition of marriage and the state's definition of marriage is no longer the same. I don't think that complaint carries much legal weight though, do you?
While people have a right/freedom to practice their religion, they do not have right to use that religion to determine, or infringe upon, the civil rights and liberties of others. So long as "marriage" is a civil status, that's what's happening...people are using religion to deny a *civil* status from being granted to others.
So how to satisfy relgious organizations desire to protect their sacrament of marriage while not denying equality under the law to all people, gay and straight?
A solution, one which I generally support too, is to do away with civil marriage. Leave "marriage" as a religious sacrament and create a new civil status for ALL couples, not just gay ones (to avoid the "same, but different" criticism levied, rightfully so, at those who advocate for gay "unions"). There is a small issue of whether or not people will accept this...i.e. will there be a backlash against the gays for "destroying" civil marriage altogether, instead of just being frowned upon for redefining it.
I suspect that this is a much larger, more complex task than simply redefining marriage to include same-sex couples...but maybe not? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
please tell me how your beloved jack layton can explain being against private health care yet it has come out today that he had surgery at a private clinic in the 90s.
Hypocrisy perhaps?
hmmmmmmm |
half rebuttal...half shameless plug ;)
The Shouldice Hospital is the facility in question. I was there when I was 19 and will be checking in again on Wednesday to repair a hernia on the other side :(
It has been around for over 50 years and remains the *only* private facility grandfathered from the old OHIP plan...i.e. you do not pay to go there, other than for a semi-private room (which is covered under many employer benefits). It is also a not-for-profit facility.
IMHO, this is not the same as the private clinics being discussed today where you would pay a substantial annual fee and they still bill the system for routine care...or where you would just flat out pay for services.
It's also not about "bypassing the system" to get rapid treatment...if I recall when I booked my surgery, the wait time is well over three months right now...no longer than going to your average laproscopic surgeon.
Yes, it's a private clinic...Yes, Layton went there some time ago. I think the above at least mitigates the simplistic "Layton went to a private facility years ago, but now says he never would" position. In the flavour of his stance against two-tier healthcare, he's not a hypocrite. He's arguing against wealthy people getting more rapid and/or better care because they can afford it.
Side note: for what it's worth, it's an internationally renowned facility...The last time I was there, in our small group of 20 who were admitted that week, there were patients from around the country, one from Florida, one from the UK, and one from Brazil. The surgeons use what was a pioneering technique 60 years ago that arguably remains superior to even modern laproscopic techniques due to a recividism rate far below the norm...I'd *highly* recommend anyone who requires a hernia repair to go there instead of opting for day surgery.
www.shouldice.com |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
easy there...I won't go off on a rant, because I've never suggested that all people advocating for religious freedom are "anti-gay" (though some are).
yes, to you and a lot of other people, it's about a man and a women coming together before god. That's fine. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic high school, etc...I'm very very aware of the sacraments and in no way mean to disparage them with my LEGAL argument.
That people have different *ideas* of what is "marriage" is kind of irrelevant to the *fact* that marriage is also a civil status that is granted and recognized by the state. No one is "redefining" the Church...how can you suggest this? You still get married in the Church and you still *have* to file for a marriage license from the state to have that marriage be legally recognized. *Nothing* has changed for the Church other than their definition of marriage and the state's definition of marriage is no longer the same. I don't think that complaint carries much legal weight though, do you?
While people have a right/freedom to practice their religion, they do not have right to use that religion to determine, or infringe upon, the civil rights and liberties of others. So long as "marriage" is a civil status, that's what's happening...people are using religion to deny a *civil* status from being granted to others.
So how to satisfy relgious organizations desire to protect their sacrament of marriage while not denying equality under the law to all people, gay and straight?
A solution, one which I generally support too, is to do away with civil marriage. Leave "marriage" as a religious sacrament and create a new civil status for ALL couples, not just gay ones (to avoid the "same, but different" criticism levied, rightfully so, at those who advocate for gay "unions"). There is a small issue of whether or not people will accept this...i.e. will there be a backlash against the gays for "destroying" civil marriage altogether, instead of just being frowned upon for redefining it.
I suspect that this is a much larger, more complex task than simply redefining marriage to include same-sex couples...but maybe not? |
I do agree, there needs to be a change and I do believe I'd agree with separating the word, "Marriage" out of state paperwork.
"Marriage" presents too strong a connection for some people to be mucked with and that's where the backlash is coming from in my eyes.
A simple word like "Union" would suffice without any connotation to race, religion or sex for the purposes of a State stamp; everyone wins... :D |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Side note: for what it's worth, it's an internationally renowned facility...The last time I was there, in our small group of 20 who were admitted that week, there were patients from around the country, one from Florida, one from the UK, and one from Brazil. The surgeons use what was a pioneering technique 60 years ago that arguably remains superior to even modern laproscopic techniques due to a recividism rate far below the norm...I'd *highly* recommend anyone who requires a hernia repair to go there instead of opting for day surgery.
www.shouldice.com |
brother and good friend (double hernia) went there, its supposed to be really good. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
half rebuttal...half shameless plug ;)
The Shouldice Hospital is the facility in question. I was there when I was 19 and will be checking in again on Wednesday to repair a hernia on the other side :(
It has been around for over 50 years and remains the *only* private facility grandfathered from the old OHIP plan...i.e. you do not pay to go there, other than for a semi-private room (which is covered under many employer benefits). It is also a not-for-profit facility.
IMHO, this is not the same as the private clinics being discussed today where you would pay a substantial annual fee and they still bill the system for routine care...or where you would just flat out pay for services.
It's also not about "bypassing the system" to get rapid treatment...if I recall when I booked my surgery, the wait time is well over three months right now...no longer than going to your average laproscopic surgeon.
Yes, it's a private clinic...Yes, Layton went there some time ago. I think the above at least mitigates the simplistic "Layton went to a private facility years ago, but now says he never would" position. In the flavour of his stance against two-tier healthcare, he's not a hypocrite. He's arguing against wealthy people getting more rapid and/or better care because they can afford it.
Side note: for what it's worth, it's an internationally renowned facility...The last time I was there, in our small group of 20 who were admitted that week, there were patients from around the country, one from Florida, one from the UK, and one from Brazil. The surgeons use what was a pioneering technique 60 years ago that arguably remains superior to even modern laproscopic techniques due to a recividism rate far below the norm...I'd *highly* recommend anyone who requires a hernia repair to go there instead of opting for day surgery.
www.shouldice.com |
Alot of what is proposed are the kind of facilities that shouldice is. Private run but publicly funded which layton is against. The fact that he couldnt even tell the difference except that its a well reknowned hospital should say something about how well it would work. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...son0114/BNStory
| quote: |
Who is Stephen Harper?
By JOHN IBBITSON
Saturday, January 14, 2006 Posted at 2:13 AM EST
After failing to bring down the Martin government last spring, Stephen Harper disappeared. He didn't just disappear from public sight. His staff couldn't reach him either. He wouldn't return calls, avoided meetings. He was sulking, and he was thinking.
And then he came back. “He decided he was willing to give it one more shot,” as someone who was there describes it. The Conservative Leader threw himself into preparations for the election campaign to come; he subjected himself to a barbecue-circuit pre-election tour; he made changes to his staff, resolved to control his notorious temper, and hammered out a detailed policy platform that aimed to put to rest Liberal accusations of a secret Conservative agenda.
It was worth the effort. Some time in early February, unless the plurality of you who now support him change your mind, Stephen Harper, at the age of 46, will become the 22nd prime minister of Canada. You probably know his policies and his priorities, though some of you still suspect his motives and his agenda.
But voters don't cast a ballot based exclusively, or even primarily, on the platforms of competing parties. They vote for the guy they trust most, or distrust least. It is probably fair to say that Stephen Harper is winning this election because he is less distrusted than Paul Martin.
Advertisements
Click Heread1
Register
ad1
Stock Profile Quote
For an in-depth look at Canadian and U.S. stocks. Enter your stock symbol here. GO Symbol Lookup
Sponsored by:
BMO
For an in-depth look at Canadian and U.S. stocks. Enter your stock symbol here. Symbol Lookup
Sponsored by:
BMO
But the question still hangs out there: Who is Stephen Harper? What is he like? Is he really that cold and remote? How would he react in a crisis?
What kind of a prime minister would Stephen Harper make?
One clue to an answer might lie in his asthma.
Mr. Harper has suffered from asthma since childhood. Even today, it can hamper his performance, bothering him for weeks at a time, and then abating. When Mr. Harper was young, asthma limited his ability to play team sports, especially his beloved hockey (although he has never been comfortable playing on a team).
He compensated by taking up track and field in high school. One person who has watched him suspects asthma might contribute to a tendency Mr. Harper has to fade in the final stretch of a long campaign.
Mr. Harper is an avid reader of biography (and history and economics and politics and philosophy; as for fiction, not so much), so he will know that a common denominator informs the early lives of most prominent figures. Something — some disability, some circumstance — removes exceptional people from the pack at a young age, leaving them isolated, but also leaving them able to assess objectively, from the outside, what others inside the pack simply take for granted.
This may be reading too much into a common ailment. “Asthma has been a factor, at times,” acknowledges John Weissenberger, one of Mr. Harper's oldest friends. “But I wouldn't make too much of it. It comes and goes.”
Whether it was asthma or something else, Mr. Harper arrived in Calgary after a middle-class, suburban Toronto upbringing a formidably intelligent but very introverted young man, attracted to the outsider mythology of the West, angry at the centrist, central-Canadian consensus of this country's political and intellectual elites, and impatient to shake that consensus.
“What drove him into politics was indignation, outrage,” argues commentator William Johnson, who has written a biography called Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada. It was ideology, not love of the game, that Mr. Johnson believes pushed Mr. Harper into public life.
“One thing that I would say about him, with great conviction, is that he's a straight arrow,” Mr. Johnson believes. “What you see is what you get. He's not good at acting or pretending. He doesn't weep with widows and hug every orphan in sight, and he won't wear a hundred hearts on his sleeve. By character and by principle he opposes all the photo ops and false sentiments” that are part of political theatre.
(This has contributed to the ongoing tension, sometimes shading into mutual hostility, between Mr. Harper and the media, which he considers too often biased, ill-informed and lazy. It has been said that one of the great transformations of this election campaign is that Mr. Harper no longer displays open contempt for the press gallery. Now he hides his contempt.)
The young Stephen Harper had no ambition, initially, to enter politics, planning instead to pursue a PhD in economics and to craft a persona as a public intellectual.
But the drift of Mulroney conservatism away from any semblance of a libertarian agenda brought Mr. Harper to the Reform Party, and ultimately to a seat in Parliament; his impatience with Preston Manning's populism sent him fleeing to the ideologically more comforting National Citizens' Coalition; the disarray of the Canadian Alliance party under Stockwell Day lured him back into politics; the threat of unending hegemonic Liberal government under the then-popular Paul Martin spurred him to negotiate the union of the Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties, and the implosion of the Martin government and its troubled re-election campaign now has Mr. Harper on the cusp of real power.
In all that time, has he changed? Some, but not much.
One person who has known the man for a long time and remains profoundly ambivalent about him (and who asked not to be named), argues that the key to figuring out Mr. Harper is to understand that he always believes he is the smartest person in the room. University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan is perhaps Mr. Harper's closest political confidant, but the Conservative Leader has had no real mentor (something that personally disappointed Mr. Manning, who had hoped to be one) because he has never encountered anyone he considered markedly wiser than he is.
His enemies consider this arrogant, intolerant and narrow minded.
“He surrounds himself with like-minded people and doesn't want input from others who have a different viewpoint,” maintains Belinda Stronach, the star Conservative MP whose defection to the Liberal front bench saved the Paul Martin government from defeat last spring.
“Stephen never wanted anyone around who would challenge your ideas. If you did challenge his ideas, he would shut you out.”
To his friends, Mr. Harper's intellectual confidence is one of his greatest strengths. Someone who knows Mr. Harper very well believes that people don't understand that he asserts strong views in order to have them challenged. What he really wants, this person believes, is to be confronted by someone who is prepared to stand up and state an opposing case. If that case is compelling enough, Mr. Harper will modify his stand, as he has on everything from bilingualism to multiculturalism to abortion, where his views have migrated closer to the mainstream.
That is not political opportunism, his supporters maintain; that is simply a young man maturing.
Then there is the question of his temper. Mr. Harper's can be formidable. (It seems to be an occupational hazard with politicians.) The Conservative Leader may end most speeches with “God bless Canada,” but when he loses his temper he can let forth a stream of profanity that would make a longshoreman blanch. When things go very wrong, he simply disappears, something he has done repeatedly during times of political crisis, from the day he discovered Preston Manning wasn't listening to advice on fighting the Charlottetown accord, to the day Paul Martin kidnapped Belinda Stronach from Mr. Harper's caucus.
Detractors maintain these retreats are displays of petulance: Stephen picking up the ball and going home. Others say no, it's simply how he thinks. He expects something to happen, it happens differently, so he retreats to examine his assumptions and plan a response. Considering that he has gone from being a graduate student to prospective prime minister in less than 20 years, this has to be said: It works.
He has succeeded in recent months in keeping his emotions more closely in check. In 2004, a frustrated Mr. Harper lashed out at aides when the campaign stumbled. This time, after a rocky start, he remained calm, rallying the team in a conference call and sloughing off a couple of campaign misfires.
He remains a control freak. Mr. Harper learned to delegate some of the details of campaign strategy this time out, but the word on the ground is that he still makes all the major decisions, including where to tour, and co-writes campaign press releases with Calgary MP Jason Kenney.
Mr. Johnson is right, and Canadians have long since figured it out: Mr. Harper lacks the ability to publicly empathize. It is unlikely that a Prime Minister Harper would ever speak for the people, comfort them, move them, as Bill Clinton did after the Oklahoma bombings, as Tony Blair did by reading from First Corinthians at Diana's funeral, as Paul Martin did at the memorial service for the police officers killed at Mayerthorpe. Mr. Harper is just not that kind of man.
But he is not an automaton. Mr. Harper was at the Mayerthorpe service, and when he recounted it later to his staff, tears filled his eyes. When the family cat was run over by a car outside Stornoway, Mr. Harper was distraught. The staff in his office circulated a condolence card, and not in jest.
And he has his passions. He is writing a book on the history of hockey, and has been working on it every night, even during the campaign. Mr. Harper knows a lot about hockey. In the last election campaign, the Air Canada crew circulated a hockey trivia quiz, Mr. Harper won, with only one wrong answer, which he promptly challenged, claiming the answer on the quiz was wrong. (Whether Mr. Harper or the quizmaster was right has been lost in the mists.)
He is equally passionate about movies, often citing lines or scenes from films both popular and obscure to make a point with staff. And although Mr. Harper doesn't appear to have any long-time friends he feels comfortable kicking back with — “Stephen is not a kick-back kind of guy,” one observer puts it — everyone agrees he draws strength from his wife Laureen, his emotional opposite, an outgoing, lively confident woman, “a farm girl from Alberta who drinks beer from a bottle” as one person put it, who travelled the world on her own when she was younger, and who started up and ran her own communications company. They have two children, Ben, 9, and Rachel, 7, who Mr. Harper walks or drives to school every morning.
He has mellowed in recent years, say his defenders; not enough, say his detractors. For Rick Anderson, an independent consultant and former aide to Preston Manning, this is the crucial question.
“If Stephen Harper is a success as a prime minister — and I think all of us would want him to succeed — it will be because of the ways he has matured over the past five or 10 years, as we have all matured, and learned to combine his idealism with respect for the views of others,” Mr. Anderson says.
And if he fails, “it will be because he has not learned that wisdom.”
And what is success? By Mr. Harper's standards it would be realigning the responsibilities and fiscal resources of the federal and provincial governments, lessening the chronic warfare between them; toughening the federal stand against secessionism in Quebec, while bolstering federalist forces; expanding the military, increasing productivity and lowering taxes, while preserving a balanced budget and paying down the national debt; restoring public trust (or at least reducing public disillusion) in the federal government and its public service.
It is a bold, controversial and potentially polarizing agenda: Only a very skilled prime minister could manage it.
There are two contradictory attitudes that a successful politician must embrace. The first is a sense of confidence: knowing who you are, what you want to accomplish, how you plan to get there. The second is a sense of humility: You must be able to recognize when you have made a mistake, learn the right lessons and grow as a result.
Mr. Harper emphatically possesses the first half of this necessary contradiction. He has demonstrated that he grasps the importance of the second half. But even those who know him best admit he has yet to master the art of reconciling and embracing the two.
And that is where Stephen Harper is at, on the brink.
|
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
I thought that was kind of a strange article, but then again all of the media has been acting a little strange during this election campaign. Some interesting facts in there (as well as some things that didn't look a whole lot like facts).
Anyway, also interesting to me is that the Globe has officially endorsed Stephen Harper in today's editorial. I'm sure that won't mean anything to Star readers, but I know that many here considered the Globe to be Canada's most intelligent and rational newspaper, so there it is. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Alot of what is proposed are the kind of facilities that shouldice is. Private run but publicly funded which layton is against. The fact that he couldnt even tell the difference except that its a well reknowned hospital should say something about how well it would work. |
maybe, but not necessarily...it existed before public healthcare. Who's to say that allowing dozens (or hundreds) of new places will result in the same way?
Some people also propose facilities that:
- have a membership/annual fee, or user fees, to join.
- are a "for profit" business.
- will in theory provide more individual (re: "better") care than the public system.
- have faster times to obtain certain services.
that is two-tier health care...not the same as Shouldice.
I don't see a problem with expanding privatization per se...but two-tier healthcare, which already exists elsewhere, is not acceptable, IMHO. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I don't see a problem with expanding privatization per se...but two-tier healthcare, which already exists elsewhere, is not acceptable, IMHO. |
Two-tier health care is used *everywhere* that universal medical care is offered, except in certain Communist states (and Canada).
What's not acceptable is enforcing inadequate care on everybody as an alternative to accepting the possibility of inadequate care for a very small number of people. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I read your whole post...but really it stops here, doesn't it? |
It doesn't "stop" there, it's where I recognize our differing perspectives on the issue.
| quote: | | Until a marriage license is issued by the state, it's only a "marriage" in the eyes of those involved. If you get married in the Church and don't get a license, it's NOT a legal marriage. |
I'm not too particular about it being a LEGAL marriage anyway. If I'm married in a church by a minister in a marriage that is recognized by God (as I believe I will be). Then I don't really care about it being LEGAL or not (except for the neato tax-breaks).
| quote: | | So long as marriage is also a legal status, the Church has no business preventing gays from marrying (civil marriage). |
Agreed 100% within the context of civil marriage. The Government is not the Church, and vice-versa, and the Government has a mandate to uphold the rights of EVERYONE.
| quote: | | The argument you seem to be putting forth, and many (myself included) would support it, is for a separate legal term for civil marriage FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just gays. |
Not quite, what I'm saying is that it's a non-issue to me because in my personal perspective, a homo-sexual marriage isn't a "real" marriage (regardless of whether it's 'legal' or not). Based on that perspective, I really don't care what the government says on the issue, as long as Churches aren't FORCED to perform homosexual marriage cerimonies. Following from that, my percieved intent behind Paul Martin's decision is much more important to MY voting choice than the actual decision on gay-marriage itself. The reverse is true for you, you don't care what the intent was, as long as the right decision (from your perspective) was made.
| quote: | Let the Church keep marriage as a sacrament...but then ALL civil "marriages" would be termed something else (unions, for eg). What can't be done is to have civil marriage remain "marriage" for hetero couples, but be "unions" for gay ones.
"Same, but different" doesn't cut it. |
But what you just said IS "Same, but different", only instead, the sacramental marriage is no longer the same as civil marriage (as opposed to the gay marraige vs hetero). However, I really wouldn't have a problem with that viewpoint, as long as the 'sacramental' marriages would recieve the same Government treatment as the civil marriages. As I said, to me, it's a matter of semantics more than a matter of substance. Where the homosexual community seems to want to be included and grouped in with everyone else, I'm sure that many practicing Christians (and other religious groups) would be more than happy to have the two types of marriages (civil and religious or sacramental, not hetero vs gay) be distinguished by differing terms, as long as the same treatment is provided to each group by the Government (tax breaks, and whatever else married couples get from the Gov.). Based on what I've grown to believe through my Christian walk, I believe that morality can not be legislated, you can't FORCE people to be moral beings, they must CHOOSE to be so. In fact, attempting to FORCE them usually makes them fight back even harder. God gave us all free-will, the ability to accept or reject Him, and telling homosexuals "NO, you can't be treated equally under the LAW (which is now a worldly institution, seperate from the Church) because you're a sinning, immoral, FAG!" does NOTHING to help the Evangelical cause. Especially when you consider that being gay is no different in God's eyes than having premarital sex, or stealing a cookie when your mom told you not to. A sin is a sin is a sin. Based on this perspective, I believe that you can't make homosexual marriage ILLEGAL. But if that's the case, then distinguishing between religious and civil marriage rather than homosexual and hetero would probably be the perfect, and correct way to handle the issue in a way that satisfies EVERYONE.
Of course, then you'll probably get a group of agnostics and atheists claiming the 'right' to a sacramental marriage. :crazy: |
|
|
| MarkT |
I really think you're missing the point...I'm hearing a lot of "I think" and "from my perspective" stuff (which is fine, though irrelevant).
the point is that Church and state are separate. anything to do with a legal status is NOT the business of the Church...just as anything to do with the Church's principles, teachings and sacraments is not the business of the state.
"same, but different" in a legal sense is a relevant issue. "same, but different" in a legal status vs. a religious status is not.
i.e. we all have a right to equality under the law. we also all have a right to practice our religion. what we do NOT have is a right to have our religious sacrament remain the same as a legal status. it was never the same anyway, except in name.
what you "care about" regarding marriage is also irrelevant. THE FACT is that a marriage is a legal status in this country...whether you care or not if your Church-granted marriage is legal or recognized by the state is also irrelvant.
I'm not attacking your views...I'm pointing out that what you're saying is not logically relevant to this debate.
this is a debate about extending a legal status to gays. it has nothing to do with the Church, other than the Church is seeking to protect it's rights to stick to it's teaching and principles (which includes not granting or recognizing same-sex marriage).
I would, just as much as you, fiercely defend the Church's rights in this regard...I do not support a religious agenda that seeks to define a LEGAL STATUS, as the Church has no business in that sphere. |
|
|
| Spam |
| Um... I thought I just agreed with you. Anyway... The 'I thinks" and etc. are more to explain my point of view, not to add to the debate. I like to get other's points of view as well, not just their opinions, because knowing how a person thinks helps to understand a person's opinions and keep things civil. My opinions, which are ultimately formed by myself based on my personal view-point, shape who I will vote for and what policies I feel are important. I never meant to get into a real debate over the gay marriage debate specifically, I think it's been dealt with just fine. The whole gay marriage debate seems incredibly over-hyped to me because Church's aren't forced to marry gay couples anyway. Like I already said, since the Law and the Church are seperate (Law being run by the Government), and Church's aren't forced to perform the marriage cerimonies, that's enough of a distinction for me. The entire issue should be dropped, but your idea on how to deal with the semantics of seperate religious and legal marriages was one I like, not because I care much about it (like I said, the whole issue is a matter of semantics, not substance), but because it could be a really good compromise to quell the whole issue, since apparently, it hasn't already been. |
|
|
|
|
