Comments for Mader Blog

Comment on The Daily Mader – May 5, 2011 by Catelli

Catelli — Thu, 05 May 2011 15:42:56 +0000

As a nonpartisan, I don't want an ideologically driver party. I want a pragmatic, evidence based policy party as viewed through a progressive or liberal lens. I don't know if that is even possible in any political system, but that's what I want.

Comment on The Daily Mader – May 3, 2011 by David Mader

David Mader — Tue, 03 May 2011 17:47:57 +0000

Thanks Iain. As you suspect, it's not quite as cut-and-dry as those left-leaning sources would suggest. It's true that the Conservatives were found in contempt of Parliament – by a vote of the three opposition parties. That's not a criminal conviction, of course, and nothing the Conservatives did was a violation of any criminal law (or any civil law, for that matter). Rather, the House of Commons determined that the government had acted with contempt. It's up to the House to regulate its own affairs, not the courts; and the punishment that the House meted in this instance was to vote down the government and trigger an election. Query whether that was, in fact, punishment.

With regard to campaigning on election day, it's also not at all clear cut. The charge, as I understand it, is that Harper was made available for radio interviews on e-day. But while the Elections Act does prohibit certain forms of paid advertising on e-day, and specifically paid advertising that promotes a particular party or candidate, there's nothing in the act that bars a candidate, or party leader, from making statements more generally. There was a lot of discussion of this on twitter after many MPs announced that they would be suspending their twitter accounts for the day at the suggestion of certain Elections Canada officials. Reporters – and especially the CBC's Kady O'Malley – spent much of the day trying to get a clear ruling or explanation from Elections Canada, but received contradictory messages from different Elections Canada officials.

The point is, the Elections Act is pretty vague, and a lot depends on how you interpret words like "advertise." But it's important to note that even if the Tories did violate some part of the Elections Act, that wouldn't be a criminal offense, and it certainly wouldn't make them ineligible to hold office. (The same is true with respect to the so-called "In and Out" affair, in which the Conservatives took advantage of a loophole in election finance laws which Elections Canada subsequently determined to be a violation.)

Comment on The Daily Mader – May 3, 2011 by Iain

Iain — Tue, 03 May 2011 17:26:56 +0000

Welcome back Maderblog!!
Great piece to get things rolling again.

On the subject of the election: As you know I'm not a Conservative supporter and as I result I end up reading a lot of the anti-Harper stuff that gets written, simply because of the sources I tend to lean towards. A lot of those sources are still talking about Harper's "crimes". Namely, being found in contempt of parliament, and the latest one which suggests he may have violated election law bu campaigning during the blackout.
Left leaning newspapers, individuals etc are calling for investigation and suggesting that Harper should be found guilty and thus no longer be elligible for office.
What's your view on these issues? Are they issues? Is it all being blown out of proportion just so we have a reason to hate Harper? I can't imagine it's as cut and dry as some people suggest because if it was Harper would already be under arrest…

Comment on Honduras Round-Up by SouthAustin

SouthAustin — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:38:24 +0000

Sometimes I wonder if people like you can really be as stupid as you sound. If it is indeed an act, then congratulations – you've convinced me that you have less intellectual capacity than a fruit fly. The whole premise of your argument is that "it's not a coup because the people involved in the coup said it's not a coup". If you're lost here's a hint – I just paraphrased this part of your first quote "that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system". I bet any number of child molesters, rapists and other assorted criminals would love to appear in a court before the likes you. They would say "I'm not guilty because I say I'm not guilty' and you would immediately bang the gavel and say "case dismissed". If I were you I would get out of the blogging business – you've already embarrassed yourself , your parents and anyone that's even distantly related to you.

Comment on Moving Forward in Honduras by Brad

Brad — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:35:08 +0000

As a Honduran-American w/ bachelor degree from Notre Dame U ('78), I am truly surprised at the State Departments' attitude with regards to what happened here. NOT A COUP – first of all. Hondurans have been on the edge of their seat for several years while the lunatic (Zelaya) ranted and raved all the Chavez inspired idiocy. Barack, Hillary, please wake up and smell the coffee….it's getting very late and peoples' respect for the good ol' USA is quickly waning (foolishly spending what little there was) – is this what you want? If you're going to shoot yourself in the foot may I suggest aiming a little higher like the femoral artery of the inner thigh. WAKE UP!!

Comment on Moving Forward in Honduras by rob fletcher

rob fletcher — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:48:22 +0000

just let's work towards freedom in this county so that their people can stay there or go back to their homeland…this would make them happy.

Comment on Moving Forward in Honduras by Rental

Rental — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:33:12 +0000

I am so happy to doing comment first but the situation in Honduras is completely opposite, next weeks will be very difficult for Honduras people. I hope that situation is solved as early as possible.

Comment on On Abortion and Equal Rights by Angelica

Angelica — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:53:02 +0000

And by the way on your comment about self-defense, I think it is kind of poor and irrelevant as to the baby being the attacker. The baby is pure innocent and if it does poses any threat to the mother's health or life, it is not intended as to using the term self-defense in the way that you used it by law is not applicable.

Comment on On Abortion and Equal Rights by Angelica

Angelica — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:44:18 +0000

I don't beleive that anyone including doctors, mothers or whoever should decide if the mother should live or the baby if any of those would be in risk, I think no harm should be done to the baby regardless of saving the mother. It is still choosing if one aborts a child to save the mother, it is still murder. I think that no one should be playing God in choosing who lives and who dies. Personnaly I would give my life to save my child/baby in me and would be very upset the rest of my life if knowing a doctor would of killed my child in me to save my life. I'm a Christian by the way and pro-life. If anything like my little nephew 11 years old said and I agree, a mother should risk her life for her child and that is love and like he said give them their chance to live too. A mother should always think about her children first and then herself, the children comes first. Even a man will risk his own life jumping in the river to save a child's life, even if it is not his own child.

Comment on Harper on Honduras by Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:02:03 +0000

Hi David,

Good post. My wife mentioned that Harper was supporting Zelaya, and it quite disappointed me (though, I'm used to the disappointment). However, upon reading his comments (which I found through your site), I agree that he might be hedging and taking a diplomatic route, while trying to help the real democrats in Honduras. Well, I hope that's what he's doing. I don't think I'm quite as optimistic as you. If you're interested, I wrote a post about it at http://cannedgoodsandammunition.blogspot.com/2009…

Anyway, good posts, and I'll be sure to stop by this blog again.

Cheers,
Jon