Recent comments

...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 think a mini roundabout would have been good for this intersection. The rules are easy. Sometimes when 2 vehicles reach the stop signs at the same time,some are not sure who should go first. roundabouts work great to keep the flow of traffic moving but at a slower speed. (plus i love roundabouts!!!)

Great food and friendly owners.  Love that they have gluten free options!

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.  

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.

Interesting menu --- tried something different each time, haven't been disappoimted yet.

PEOPLE ARE SO NICE  HELPING THIS LADY BUT TOO BAD SHE DIDN'T HELP HERSELF BY HEADING WARNINGS ABOUT SMOKING FOR THE PAST 40 SOME YEARS.

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?

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.

Thanks Lizanne. I will update it accordingly. 

Love that Bodhi and Soul offers gluten-free options!