Recent comments
Other News Stories
-
by Castlegar Source on May 23 2013 -
by Trail Champion on May 23 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on May 23 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on May 22 2013 -
by Contributor on May 22 2013
Opinions
-
by Andre Carrel on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Murray Dobbin on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Joseph Hughes on Thursday May 23 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on Monday May 20 2013 -
by John King on Thursday May 16 2013
IT NEVER FAILS TO AMAZE ME THAT THE 99% HAVE A HATE FOR CORPORATIONS OR THE 1% AND YET DISPROVE IT BY PUTTING IN A GOVERNMENT FINANCED BY BIG CORPORATIONS!!!! TELL ME PLEASE WHERE ARE THE BRAINS OF THE 99% AT ELECTION TIME?
...That is not the question.
When asked about their fondest dream, how often will people (often yonger ones) quickly declare "Peace on Earth"... however they can't even make peace with their brother and sisters.
The statu quo... the way that the senate is used is not an option. It might be very useful to reform or even abolish the senate. However this is almost like the pie in the sky dream of peace on earth.
Practically we should look at what is the main goal of that institution: "A sober second thought".
This means that all the senators should be only senators. It is inconceavable that the senate would just be a pale copy of the house of commons with the grouping of the participants under the same political banners.
A Senator should be a totally impartial person whose judgement will not be tainted by a close association to any political party.
A Senator should not be allowed to participate in any overt political activity (fund raising, campaining).
A Senator should be focussing only on giving a "sober, impartial, fair, second thought".
The lack of total, primordial and blind commitment to the political views of any political party, might make it less probable that some decisions will be so devoid of common sense. That truth will be distorded to make it fit as neatly as possible with the views of a policitical party.
That a few senators abused the system with an unshakable sense of entitlement is not surprising. To have received their posting, most of the senators have the type of connections at the upper level that is a fertile ground for that sense of entitlement.
This is not the major issue. The major issue is the interpretation of the facts or distorsion of reality to prove their point of view. The political parties who are given these free munitions to annoy the currently guilty party, are much busier at making as much political mileage of the situation as to get at the source of the problem. And of course the guilty party will do anything to make the problem go away while providing as little ammunitions as possible to the other parties.
I have never eaten at the Element, and I likely never will, as well as 4 other Restaurants in town, sorry . . . not.
Mobile food servers service a clientele that will not affect the type of eatery as the Element, but likely effect the bottom line of places like A&W. I don't hear them whining. Mobile eateries are a historical part of Canada's Entrepreneurial small business scene.
I am a self employed small business/owner operator, and know how tough it is and can be, and I see the turn over of businesses in Castlegar, and how many empty retail spaces there are. Castlegar is a tough place to run a business.
People have a right to employ themselves, and in this area it is a necessary, and viable part of the business scene.
Is there a limit to how many restaurants in town, or is there a limit to how many tire stores in town . . . No.
I would also suggest looking at the mobile establishment, each is not a cheep endeavour, and it is not a case of simply applying for a health board approval and then receiving it.
If the food is no good, or unhealthy they will not last, and will they stay open in the winter . . . maybe not. This is a FREE ENTERPRISE country, and we should respect a persons right to earn a living, all be it legally.
I think food trucks are a great idea. On the odd occasion I bother going out to eat in Castlegar anymore I'm generally disappointed by the mediocrity of the food at most places - not to mention the fact that many of the menus are pretty much the same as they were 5, 10 years ago. If restaurants offered an exciting NEW summer menu, maybe the food trucks wouldn't be quite as appealing to people.
And even if they are, so what? Food trucks can allow greater flexibility and creativity in their food than a brick and mortar place often does. On the other hand, they have more limited supplies in stock and they have to make pretty much all of their money in the summer. Yes, I know those are the fat months, but still, a restaurant has an advantage there. If restaurants are losing business, it means they need to get more creative. Maybe Florio should get a food truck, too.
Come on, grow up, people. No one said owning a business is easy. You can't open a place, set a menu, then put your feet up until retirement. Things change and you need to change, too. Hey, maybe you just need an inventive taco menu.
With such a small voter turn out, which I understand to have been just over 50%, the win by Michelle Mungall of around 50% of those who voted means she had only about 25% of possible voters tick her box. That means 75% didn't vote for her.
It is a shame that so many people don't use their vote. It's a very sad comment on the state of politics today. Do about half the population have no trust in democracy? Or is it the style of politics that is at fault? I am sure the the ridiculous and frequently childish adversarial attitude often heard and seen in the legeslature and parliament does not help people respect those in office. Also the much demonstrated dishonesty surely can't help any political cause.
With STV dead and gone maybe reform of referendums might provide more depth to democracy and participation.
A tiny detail on the double majority, it is not 60%, it is "more than 50%". The real catch, however, is that this percentage is calculated on "the total number of registered voters in British Columbia", and the double majority aspect requires that "more than 50% of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in British Columbia" vote in favour of an initiative.
If that standard - more than 50% of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts - were to be applied to form a majority government, we would never again see a majority government in this province.
That statute is a farce, a cynical and malicious one at that.
Andre, the goverment pulled a fast one on the "HST" referendum by ignoring the 60% double majority any government requires for a referendum.
STV was lost through by the misinformation campaign run by the "NO" side and Bill Tieleman. Tieleman convince everyone they couldn't understand arithmethic.
Tieleman is NDP progeny.
The only party that chose a position during STV were the Greens. Their endorsement probably didn't help: characterising STV as a fringe cause.
STV would was been a huge improvement. Sad.
Its the Albertans that have the worst driving attitude, they are very aggressive here in B.C., cause a lot of problems. They should stay in their own Province!
I have a picture that I took on Kirkup early May. It is a single set of ski tracks dissappearing towards the top of Kirkup. It is obvious from the tracks that there was about 50 cm of beautiful snow. When I looked back at the date of that picture I could see that I made those tracks in May.
Pitty that I can't attach it here
We had a chance at "a little propoertional representation" and the first time around a clear majority (not a first-past-the-post majority, but nearly 58% of the votes cast) was in support of it.
But the government, elected with 40-some percent of the popular vote, used its parliamentary majority to insist that, for referendum purposes, majority meant not 40% but 60%. So we did not get STV on the first crack. In its benevolence the government gave us a second shot at it and the second time around an overwhelming majority voted to maintain the status quo. And that's what we have today.
We could have changed it, but making a change would have meant trying something new, something different, and that would be ... un-Canadian?
I've got no love for the Liberals—zero—but the map's pretty clear that whoever it was who came out to the polls in BC's rural interior, with the exception of our pocket in the southeast, they were swinging hard for the Liberals. Big, fat, money-grubbing, resource-sucking, democracy-deaf red all over the place...
A little proportional representation would go a long way towards dealing with tiny margins that turn into hefty majorities, and it might inspire more people to vote too.
I'm surprised to see the math and learn that the margin was less than 5%.
What were they in 2009?
My own philosophy is that if the Liberals dont start to acknowledge rural BC, we need to stop sending them money.
To win with 50 seats and 30 of them within commute of Stanley Park tells the story. The rest of the province is beyond Hope.
Is it any wonder they don't hear us? They don't need us. We just don't matter.
Perhaps the Kootenays need to become the 11th province and the Northwest coast number 12.
They didn't close any hospitals in Surrey or Abbotsford.
Every time I go to see a doctor in Vancouver, it's like a $1000 tax for living where I do.
"A Corporation has the same legal status as an individual, and that is a serious problem."
That statement, Charles, needs close attention because it does not mean what it says.
The "same legal status" does not imply equality. Corporations do not age, hitting one below the belt does not constitute common assault, and killing one does not amount to murder.
As the 19th century US labour organization "Knights of Labor" warned in its first constitution:
"The alarming development and aggressiveness of great capitalists and corporations, unless checked, will inevitably lead to the pauperization and hopeless degradation of the working masses."
Many in Bangladesh today would agree.
There was a time when powerful politicians recognized the problem. Andrew Jac kson, 7th US President, in his 1837 farewell address:
"... unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."
Amen! (What response to Jackson's warning is reasonable today?)
OBVIOUSLY HARPER IS WILLING TO SELL CANADA AND LEAVE IT'S CITIZENS TO SUCK WIND,WE NEED TO LET HIM KNOW WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF GIVING ALL OUR RESOURCES AWAY AND LEAVING US LOOKING TO THE PAST WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAD A SAY IN MATTERS.
Sad to see all our media so bought and sold by the corporate lobby.
This article is nothing but blatant fear mongering with nothing but conjecture and fear mongering backing it up.
I'll never vote Liberal, unless it means stopping Harper, who is by far, based wholly on his actions in office, the most dangerous affront to Canada and Canadian democratic process who ever was.
RIGHT ON ALL CANADIANS SHOULD VOTE FOR HIM AND THE JACK A-S RUINING CANADA. SELL OUT AND GIVE ALL TO CORPORATIONS AND LEAVE NOTHING FOR US. WE NEED TO NATIONALIZE NOT GIVE AWAY OUR RESOURCES.
Had you asked that question, Paul, you would most likely have received the kind of answers I look for in such meetings: answers that give a hint of how a candidate thinks, of how a candidate may respond to as yet unknown future situations. Beware however, the thumbs count on my comment suggests that this may not be a popular approach to candidate selection.
I was one of the 38 people.
I regret that I did not ask a question. I wanted to give ample opportunity to the other participants to aks their questions. I wanted to ask my questions towards the end. However suddenly I heard that the next two questions would be the last ones.
Here is what I did not contribute:
First I wanted to congratulate the four candidates for offering to represent us. This is where democracy really starts. We need people who are ready to do the job. Congratulations to all four of you.
My questions would have been something like: Most of us have read your positions on most topics or we can read them somewhere. What really interests me is What kind of person are you? Could you give us an example of some concrete actions that you have done to improve our area and how they illustrate how you would be an ideal person to promote our area in Victoria?
Thanks for this, Adrian.
What is to be done about this mess? Certainly politicians and the bankers and big business for whom they are a mouthpiece—the destructive and dangerous system you allude to—do not have the answers. Not the right ones.
Realizing this (again) last night helped swing my vote from a bland dutiful one for the NDP to a personally fulfilling (if hopeless) one for Joseph Hughes.
Both the independents were a breath of fresh air. Byles TED idea is fantastic, and one I've heard in various forms for some time. If it weren't for the stalwart opposition to real democracy and real participation by the powers-that-be, this idea could truly change our democracy into something that functions for us, rather than for an extremely wealthy elite.
Byles, though he may be imbued with excellent ideas, integrity, and humour, needs to identify a politically astute, factually informed, and eloquent friend to be the frontman and champion.
Someone like Joseph Hughes, for example. Articulate and passionate is right. Here's the kind of guy who will go to bat for our region in Victoria and at least knock some of their dopey heads around...even if that goes nowhere in the coming years. It's not going anywhere anyway.
Perhaps the NDP are a better evil in the near term to the Liberals, but both parties help convince the masses that voting is a waste of time. Business as usual.
And for those who weren't there, Katrine Conroy made it clear that she doesn't think the province should go stepping on school district toes, those "duly elected" and thus sanctified bodies.
Change? Yeah right.
Here is my take on the elephant's identity.
Citizens (which includes the responsibility to pay taxes and participate in their own governance) do not need to hear candidates spout the platform of the party they represent. You don't have to go to a meeting for that, you can sit in your most comfortable chair at home, coffee at hand, and read all about it in flyers, pamphlets, newspapers, or your techno-gadget.
Nor does it contribute much for candidates to spell out where they stand on specific questions. For the most part, that can be deduced from the platform of the party they represent.
As to techno-wizzardry, hmm, I'd be one surprised monkey if somebody could explain to me that the problem with our democracy is a lack of electronic gadgetry.
Rousseau recognized a few years back that it is impossible for all the people to meet all the time to make all the decisions. It is democracy's central problem. The creation of elected assembly was seen as a solution to that problem.
Taking a minute to think about it, what is the most important question a citizen needs to come to terms with before marking a ballot, before appointing somebody else to make binding decisions on his part?
Well, how about trying to figure out HOW candidates THINK? How do each one of the candidates standing before you think? How do they reason? How do they determine values? How far are they willing to go, internally within the party, to engage in the forming of a party position?
I don't care what a party stands for, but I do wonder how the people who formulate the stand taken by the party approached the issue, how they weighed the options, and how they ultimately came to take the stand they took. How does a party deal with minority views within its own ranks? To what degree does a party consider and reflect on views taken by the variety of citizens who make up a community (be that a municipality, a province, or a country). To what degree is a party going out to try and understand the views of those who see the world through different glasses?
I do not need to attend a meeting to decypher a rubber stamp, but I do need to attend a meeting to try and understand HOW candidates think, HOW they reason, and HOW open they are to reconsider their own views and beliefs that may, on second thought, have been formed in haste.
Yes Kyara
Makes on wonder why the candidates would even bother showing up to these events when their time could be spent much more wisely knocking on doors and talking face to face with people. Most of the people I think have their minds made up before the event. Just saying
I'm glad they found the electrical hook up but otherwise, money well wasted. Pretty sure there is lots of coke dealers in this town
I'll miss you, Mona.
I hope your new endeavours bring you joy and riches :)
Regards,
Kyra
Thank you for all the good wishes and comments about my past work. I am so proud of the Sentinel and worked hard to ensure balanced information was there for the people of the region. It was hard to let go - but I'm so happy that the site is in good hands!
Thank you all again for your support and input over the years!
Mona