Friday, March 31, 2006


What faith closely matches my personal and moral viewpoint? The Belief-O-Matic is going to tell me.

The top score on the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches your beliefs. However, even a score of 100% does not mean that your views are all shared by this faith, or vice versa.

Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in order of how much they have in common with your professed beliefs. The higher a faith appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with your thinking.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (97%)
3. Liberal Quakers (91%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (87%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (77%)
6. Neo-Pagan (70%)
7. Nontheist (69%)
8. Bahá'í Faith (62%)
9. New Age (60%)
10. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (55%)
11. Reform Judaism (53%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (53%)
13. Taoism (53%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (48%)
15. New Thought (46%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (44%)
17. Scientology (43%)
18. Jainism (42%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (39%)
20. Jehovah's Witness (34%)
21. Sikhism (34%)
22. Islam (26%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (26%)
24. Hinduism (25%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (23%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
27. Roman Catholic (13%)
What is Unitarian Universalism? [Wikipedia, Unitarian Universalism]

Unitarian Universalism (UU or UUism) is a theologically liberal, inclusive belief system. The name resulted from the consolidation of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations in 1961. Unitarian Universalists claim a theological orientation that aspires to creativity, freedom, and compassion; respect for diversity and interconnectedness; and spiritual growth and justice-making through worship, fellowship, personal experience, social action, deeds, and education. Freedom and responsibility in the search for meaning serve as a touchstone for Unitarian Universalists. The term "Unitarian Universalism" overlaps with Unitarianism and Universalism, though properly speaking the latter two terms refer historically to separate movements.
Interesting. I'm going to do some digging into the top three (Unitarian Universalist, Secular Humanist, and Liberal Quaker) and see if it holds true.

They Hate Us For Our Freedoms]

Tags: , ,

Colin Mayes

The Bill Graham Unintentional Irony AwardTM goes to ...

Colin Mayes
Conservative MP, Okanagan-Shuswap

... for his suggestion that journalists be "hauled off in handcuffs [if they] fabricate stories, or twist information and even falsely accuse citizens."

Because politicians never do this.

I was going to suggest the Joe Volpe Say Something Dumb AwardTM, but I'm too pretty to be "hauled off in handcuffs".

Updated: Mr. Mayes has retracted his statement. I don't know if he has to return the award yet. I'll have to take it back to the Academy.

All kidding aside, I think it was the right thing to do.

Updated x 2: Thanks to an anonymous commenter, I think Mr. Mayes gets to keep the award since he was sued for libel.
The former mayor of Salmon Arm, who resigned to run for the Conservative party in the federal election, is being sued for libel and defamation. Colin Mayes wrote a letter that was published in the Lakeshore News newspaper. It was in response to allegations Greg Husband made during his unsuccessful campaign for the mayor's job about the city's financial affairs and the circumstances surrounding the building of a new city hall and court house in Salmon Arm. Husband says after consulting a lawyer, legal action is the only way he can clear his name in the community. His lawsuit also names the newspaper and its publisher, alleging the headline to the letter was defamatory.
Tags: , , ,


I was going to say that two out of three ain't bad, but I didn't feel like quoting Meatloaf.

The (unofficial) results of the three by-elections are in and I congratulate Christine Elliott and Lisa MacLeod on their victories in Whitby-Ajax and Nepean-Carleton respectively.

Christine defeated former federal Liberal MP, Judi Longfield, by over 1,300 votes.

Lisa soundly took the riding of Nepean-Carleton.

Peter Tabuns, the NDP candidate for Toronto-Danforth, defeated Liberal star-candidate Ben Chin and PC candidate Georgina Blanas - so it's a half-full, half-empty glass thing.

Here are the results from Elections Ontario.

Lisa MacLeod, Progressive Conservatives; 17,311 (57.6%)
Brian Ford, Liberal; 9,457 (31.4%)
Laurel Gibbons, NDP; 2,489 (8.3%)
Peter Tretter, Green; 634, (2.1%)
John Turmel, Independent; 112 (0.4%)
Jurgen Vollrath, Freedom Party; 74 (0.2%)

Peter Tabuns, NDP; 13,064 (47.8%)
Ben Chin, Liberal; 10,636 (38.9%)
Georgina Blanas, Progressive Conservatives; 2,713 (9.9%)
Paul Charbonneau, Green; 582 (2.1%)
Wiktor Borkowski, Family Coalition; 132 (0.5%)
Franz Cauchi, Freedom Party; 93 (0.3%)
Carol Wielhorski, Independent; 62 (0.2%)
Mehmet Ali Yagiz, Independent; 49 (0.2%)

Christine Elliot, Progressive Conservatives; 15,843 (46.2%)
Judi Longfield, Liberal; 14,529 (42.3%)
Julie Gladman, NDP; 3,204 (9.3%)
Nick Boileau, Green; 307 (0.9%)
Paul McKeever, Freedom Party; 198 (0.6%)
Marty Gobin, Libertarian; 139 (0.4%)
Victor Carvalho, Family Coalition; 102 (0.3%)

Tags: , , ,

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Food Court Cereal Wars

Apparently, not only is there demand for food court cereal, but there is active market competition for its uniqueness [, Cereality sues Ohio-based Cerealicious for trademark infringement]:

Cereality Cereal Bar & Cafe has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio – Eastern Division, against Cereals, L.L.C.

The lawsuit alleges that Cereals, doing business as Cerealicious, has infringed on the trademarks of Cereality. The suit accuses Cereals of unfair competitive activities in the launching, promotion and franchising of Cerealicious.
What made me do more digging was I saw another food court cereal place in BCE Place, downtown here. I think it was Cerealicious, because I don't think I'd make that name up ... but it's definitely different than the Cereal Bar at Commerce Court.

Tags: ,

Three By-Elections in Ontario Today

If you're in the ridings of Nepean-Carleton, Toronto-Danforth, or Whitby-Ajax, get out and vote.

In the Scarborough-Rouge River by-election on November 24, only 19% of the riding voted. Some blamed the weather, others blamed voter apathy. Some, like me, blamed both.

The weather forecast for Toronto (and by extension, Whitby-Ajax) is going to be sunny with some clouds, hitting a high of 14°C. Ottawa is going to be the same, hitting 15°C. So, nobody can blame the weather for not voting.

Voting hours are 9 am to 8 pm. For more information, you can peruse the Elections Ontario site, or hit the links above to go right to your riding.

Tags: , , , , ,

Friday, March 24, 2006

Random Thought for Today : Food Court Cereal

I was walking around the Toronto underground the other day, and I noticed that in the Commerce Court food court, a new place called "Cereal Bar" is opening - it's going to offer cereal.

Is there demand for cereal from a food court? Is it so hectic now, that Froot Loops in a bowl is an inconvenience?

My thing would be, there are food court burger joints and food court salad joints - usually selling their prime products for around $8 because they claim the ingredients are gourmet or special.

Is a bowl of cereal at this place going to be $8, because I choose from an array of gourmet milks (dijon milk?) and cereal toppings?

Tags: ,

Webster's Word of the Day : Macaroni

I was originally going to complain that I got "macaroni" as my word of the day, but I had no idea there was an alternate defintion.

macaroni \mak-uh-ROH-nee\ noun

1 : pasta made from semolina and shaped in the form of slender tubes
2 *a : a member of a class of traveled young Englishmen of the late 18th and early 19th centuries who affected foreign ways b : an affected young man : fop

As you may have suspected, the "macaroni" in the song "Yankee Doodle" is not the familiar food. The feather in Yankee Doodle's cap apparently makes him a macaroni in the now rare "fop" or "dandy" sense. The sense appears to have originated with a club established in London by a group of young, well-traveled Englishmen in the 1760s. The founders prided themselves on their appearance, sense of style, and manners, and they chose the name Macaroni Club to indicate their worldliness. Because macaroni was, at the time, a new and rather exotic food in England, the name was meant to demonstrate how stylish the club's members were. The members were themselves called "macaronis," and eventually "macaroni" became synonymous with "dandy" and "fop."
And, I did think that when Yankee Doodle stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni, it was of the pasta variety. Learn something new everyday.

Tags: , ,

Monday, March 20, 2006

Once More into the Ethics Mess

And that is that [CBC, No rules broken in Emerson affair: ethics watchdog]:
Neither Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor International Trade Minister David Emerson broke any rules when Harper persuaded Emerson to cross the floor just after the recent federal election, the country's ethics commissioner said Monday.
This result just proves why the Prime Minister should not have done this:
"The Prime Minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned, moreover who has been found in contempt of the House," said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications.

"This Liberal appointee's actions have strengthened the Prime Minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."
What are we to conclude by these statements since the Ethics Commissioner ruled in favour of the Conservative Party?

There is nothing wrong with playing the game by the rules that are in place now, even if you do not like them. If we must change them, change them in due course.

I'm glad to have seen that Mr. Harper did indeed consult with Mr. Shapiro on the matter, as noted in the CBC article.

And now, for the fourth time, I'm done with this Emerson thing.

Tags: , , , , ,

Afghanistan, Part 2

Paul Heinbecker, quoted in the Hill Times, follows nicely with my previous post on Canada's role in Afghanistan - what it is and what it should be [The Hill Times, PM Harper attaches 'a lot of his political credibility' to Kandahar military operation: MP Kenney]:

Paul Heinbecker, now director of the Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University, and former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that the Conservative government could win more favour for the war by trying to distance the Canadian agenda from the American one, and the hand over of leadership to NATO will help.

"The U.S. has an agenda in central Asia that isn't the Canadian agenda," Mr. Heinbecker said in an interview. "By that I mean strategic relationships in which a refurbished role with India is part of it; also bases throughout central Asia, also pipelines, oil companies. These are part of the U.S. agenda, it's not part of the Canadian agenda. The extent to which you involve yourself as a kind of partner with the U.S. but with different objectives, you risk being confused by others as being part of the U.S. enterprise overall. That's a very dangerous place to be."

Mr. Heinbecker said that Canada's objectives are to help establish a functioning government in Afghanistan, along with economic activity, education, infrastructure, and promote human rights and create stability to avoid the incubation of terrorist activity.
I think giving leadership of the overall mission to NATO would be a positive step. As long as the mission is lead by the United States, I think questions of Canada's role in Afghanistan will be constantly criticized.

Tags: , ,


Sally Armstrong's piece in today's Globe & Mail articulates a good reason to be in Afghanistan [Globe & Mail, We've forgotten why we're really in Afghanistan, via Google]:

The assumption that the international community invaded [Afghanistan] in 2001 to rescue the people is wrong. Coalition forces entered Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and dismantle the Taliban. The cameras that followed them happened to trip over burka-clad women, the highest infant mortality rate in the world, the lowest life expectancy and a human-rights catastrophe. Consequently, in November of 2001, Canada and others agreed in Bonn to repair Afghanistan's infrastructure, reform its judiciary, restore the rights of women and girls, and establish security.
Further on:

But just like ants attracted to fresh sources of food, the Taliban and their al-Qaeda cohorts have crawled back out of the woodwork to chew on the underbelly of the Canadian military resolve. In the process, the programs for those who were supposed to be rescued have fallen off the radar screen. The women and girls who paid the biggest price under the Taliban risk being sidelined once again. Their concerns -- education, health, the brutal treatment they are subjected to -- are being lost while budgets and time lines are refocused on the insurgents.

The Bonn agreement cannot be fulfilled without the military there to provide security. But security is only one of the parts that will make Afghanistan whole. Canadians have done impressive work to deliver the promises made in Bonn.

Sally's piece says two things and in all the discussion about Afghanistan, sometimes we forget one when arguing against the other.

  • Canada has made a committment to bring social justice to Afghanistan.
  • Canadian troops provide security.

Simply put, Canada cannot deliver on its commitment to help rebuild in Afghanistan without a troop complement of some kind. Some argue that the role of our troops has changed - that it's no longer about rebuilding Afghanistan, that it is about rooting out terrorists and insurgents.

I don't think anyone is arguing against Canada's role in rebuilding Afghanistan.

Well, to me, you can't have a rebuilt Afghanistan as long as there are those within who seek to undo it. We can pull out, and hope that Afghanistan is rebuilt by somebody else, or we can maintain a presence and ensure it's done right.

Updated: Whoops. This published before it was finished. I wanted to conclude that it's important that at the same time as we're attempting to make Afghanistan more secure we cannot let the rebuilding stop.

While in the initial stages of rebuilding, the infrastructure is vulnerable. If however, you show Afghanistan what social justice means (and some have seen it), those who would seek to dismantle it will become weaker.

Updated x 2: Forgot the G&M links.

Tags: , ,

Saturday, March 18, 2006

With Full Apologies to Spirit of the West

You'll have to excuse me, I'm not at my best.

If I see another green beer, it'll be way too soon. Yellow beer, that's okay. Brown, black - sure. Green, no. It is now just after 10, and I can finally focus my eyes on something bright.

There is essentially two colours of green beer on St. Patrick's Day: Palmolive and barf olive - and I drank a lot of both.

Tags: ,

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Membership Should Have Privileges

Following my post on the state of political parties in Canada, I'd like to write about what I think is a problem with political parties: the open membership policy.

Yes, I know, It's just always the way its done - sign up lots and lots of members. The problem is, we tend to sign up casual members, sometimes at the expense of the stalwart members.

You might argue, that signing up lots of new members for a party is a good thing. And, you'd be right, if those new members were actually interested in the party. More often than not, they don't care. They get signed up with the promise of a barbecue, a party, or to support a friend who wants to be a candidate. They pay their $10, hold up a "YAY JANE DOE" sign, then disappear once their friend wins - all in the span of about a week.

Then, when Jane Doe is canvassing, these friends are nowhere to be found - leaving those who are actually interested in helping, to pick up the slack. Stalwarts weren't part of the initial rush, but stalwarts are supposed to carry the momentum. This is especially disheartening when the nominated candidate is weak or, in the worst case scenario, an embarrassment.

What causes this phenomenon? A few things, in my mind.
  • Most political parties have a relatively cheap membership fee, usually in the $10 range. Meaning joining a political party requires no effort other than depriving yourself of a few Tim Hortons coffees. So, convincing friends and associates to come out and support you is not such a big deal. $10 is less than 2 pints ...
  • Membership requires absolutely no effort. You don't have to volunteer, donate, or put in lawn signs on a foggy night where nobody puts on their porch light so you can read the address on some wild dark rural road. You're not even obligated to campaign or vote for the person you help get voted in. You're not even obligated to vote in the election, period.
  • Voting within the party rarely has a membership length requirement. Some votes usually come with a "you must be a member by" date in order to vote, but it's usually a week or two before. So, Jane is on fire getting the members of her golf club, union local, or bird-watching society signed up just in time to vote for her.
So, I've argued why party stalwarts shouldn't be a member of a political party, but what about the hoi polloi?

Simply put, there is generally apathy towards political parties because there is apathy within political parties. Short of the hardcore followers, who seem to be generally uber-positive about everything within their political party of choice, most of us like being involved on a less intense level, so we are easily discouraged when political parties become, well, political.

And, as mentioned in 604 Plonker's post referred to in my last post, those involved with political parties sometimes get discouraged when the political party takes a directional turn that we don't agree with, or are trying to be everything to everyone and in turn become nothing to everyone. Many people, who classify them as "political", want to pursue a particular agenda (environment, women's issues, lower taxes, etc.) but become political party roadkill because they have to either support or defend other agendas that they either don't care about or care differently about.

Now, if we're classed as the "stalwarts", and we lack excitement, how are we supposed to go out and advertise by word-of-mouth how great it is to join a political party, when we spend a lot of time complaining about them (this post not included). Even if I'm quiet about my misgivings, I'm not about to go out and share the pain by recruiting all my friends.

What do you think about this political party apathy? Is it less about the political parties themselves or about the apathy towards politics in general? A bit of both?

If we weeded out casual members by addressing my above three points, would we clear up apathy for political parties?

Tags: , ,

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Are Political Parties in Decline?

I read the following article over at the Hill Times [Hill Times, Political parties in state of deep decline, political operatives say]:
"Political parties have been in a general state of decline for some time," according to a discussion paper released last week by the Public Policy Forum and Crossing Boundaries written by Graham Fox. "While they retain some capacity to bring people into the democratic system and--by and large--do elections well, their capacity to be more than electoral machines has severely declined."
Do you think political parties are becoming irrelevant or out-of-touch with individual Canadians? Obviously political cynicism is to blame for a lot of feelings of contempt towards political parties, but do you have any other suggestions on how to get individuals involved in the political process?

I have a couple of micro-suggestions (well below curing what ails the Canadian political system).
  • Most political party riding associations are only active during election time. At which point, they're out begging for donations, calling for individuals to support a candidate, knocking on doors during Survivor and phoning constituents during dinner. I think if riding associations became more active in their communities during the "off-season", they would show that they're not just about getting some yahoo elected. Perhaps riding associations could get involved in community events - sponsoring charity work, community activism, etc.
  • Some political party riding associations usually rely on a core group of association veterans to lead volunteer and contribution efforts. New ideas and new methods are usually frowned upon. Worse still, volunteers who actively supported a different candidate for nomination are sometimes turned away.
I have another suggestion, but I'm going to devote another post to it.

Updated: 604 Plonker, from I didn't get where I am today..., has an article entitled "Britain to tackle democratic apathy - is Canada next?", discussing the political party problem in the United Kingdom. Very interesting read.

Tags: , ,

Friday, March 10, 2006

Ethics Mess

The opposition has called into question the motives and promises mades when David Emerson crossed the floor to join the Conservative Party cabinet. A complaint was made, and the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Bernard Shapiro, will conduct an investigation.

And, as also reported, the opposition has called for an investigation into Belinda Stronach's defection to the Liberal Party from the Conservative Party [, Federal ethics battle gets nasty].
New Democrats requested Friday that an ethics investigation into David Emerson's jump to the Conservative cabinet just days after being elected as a Liberal should be expanded to include Stronach's Tory-Liberal leap of last May.
Hat tip, Section 15.

The current Conflict of Interest Code's (2004) purpose is to:
(a) maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of Members as well as the respect and confidence that society places in the House of Commons as an institution;

(b) demonstrate to the public that Members are held to standards that place the public interest ahead of their private interests and to provide a transparent system by which the public may judge this to be the case;
Et cetera.

This code must be enforced.

Irrespective of your feelings about Mr. Shapiro and whether he is a partisan appointment, Prime Minister Harper has a duty to play by the rules until the rules are changed and his refusal to cooperate with Mr. Shapiro sends a poor message about a campaign run on accountability and ethics.

That said, now that Mr. Shapiro has to investigate Belinda Stronach's defection it would look exceedingly silly for Mr. Harper to all of sudden suggest that Paul Martin was well within his rights to appoint Belinda Stronach as a cabinet minister.

Mr. Harper needs to get out from under this cloud and fully support and cooperate with Mr. Shapiro.

Tags: , , , , ,

Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot

Somebody, please tell me this is fake.

Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot

PS: Normal posting to resume shortly.

Tags: , ,

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Ontario PC Party Nomination Meetings - Updated

Here are the updated nomination meetings, courtesy of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

Date: Saturday, March 4th, 2006 at 10am
Location: Centurion Conference and Event Centre,
Empress Room, 170 Colonade Road South, Nepean (map)
Candidate for Nomination: Lisa MacLeod

Date: Monday, March 6th - Registration: 7pm, Meeting begins at 7:30pm
Location: Estonian House, 958 Broadview Avenue (map)
Candidate for Nomination: Georgina Blanas

Date: Monday, March 6th, 7:00 pm
Location: Le Gala Banquet Hall, 65 Sunray Street, Whitby (map)
Candidate for Nomination: Christine Elliott

Tags: , , ,

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Best Disclaimer Ever

Inside an electronics package is a diagram on a poster of the parts that are included, and the title:

Here's What You Should Have

Right below the diagram is the following disclaimer:
[Manufacturer] reserves the right to change the package contents at any time, therefore the actual package contents may be different form the package contents listed in the poster.
Best ever.

Tags: , ,

March 30th By-Elections - PC Party Nomination Meetings

Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory today welcomed the announcement of three Ontario by-elections saying they will give voters an opportunity to send a message to the McGuinty Liberals.

"“These by-elections will give Ontarians an opportunity to punish Dalton McGuinty for his lack of leadership and countless broken promises," said Tory. "“Ontarians are reeling from the biggest tax increase in Ontario history and Dalton McGuinty'’s biggest broken promise. His lack of leadership on the major issues facing Ontarians has seen 80,000 manufacturing jobs lost across Ontario over the past year; an alarming increase in violent crime; and an energy sector plunged into chaos."

The Ontario PC Party will be fielding three strong by-election candidates who will be nominated this weekend:
  • In Nepean-Carleton, former Conservative aide Lisa MacLeod will be the candidate.
  • In Toronto-Danforth, Greek restauranteur Georgina Blanas will be the candidate.
  • In Whitby-Ajax, there is a contested nomination between Christine Elliott and Ian McNeil.
"“On March 30 voters in three different ridings across the province will be able to send an message to Dalton McGuinty that we'’re tired of his promise-breaking, unaccountable government," said Tory. "“Ontarians deserve strong and competent leadership from elected officials who will do what they say they will do."”
Nomination meetings:
Date: Saturday, March 4th, 2006 at 10am
Location: TBA
Candidate for Nomination: Lisa MacLeod

Date: Monday, March 6th - Registration: 7pm, Meeting begins at 7:30pm
Location: Estonian House, 958 Broadview Avenue (map)
Candidate for Nomination: Georgina Blanas

Date: TBA
Location: TBA
Candidates for Nomination: Christine Elliott and Ian MacNeil

Tags: , , ,

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Negative Option Organ Donation in Ontario

I know I'm a little slow on commenting on this debate as it came up awhile ago.

Right now, there are two private member bills coming before the Ontario legislature as it relates to organ donation [CTV, Ont. considering two organ donation laws]:
Conservative Frank Klees introduced a private member's bill Wednesday to force every citizen to respond yes, no, or undecided about their organ-donation wishes.

In Klees' plan people who are 16 or older would be required to make the choice before getting a new or renewed driver's license or health card.

The bill will compete in Ontario's legislature against another private member's bill introduced last week.

New Democrat member Peter Kormos tabled a private member's bill that, if passed, would presume everyone agrees to organ donations unless they have said otherwise.
Right now, Ontarians have the option to sign an organ donor card when they receive their driver's license. It is, however, not a legally binding document and final decisions regarding organ donation rests with the next of kin.

Now, as a strong supporter of organ donation, I truly believe that any measure that encourages individuals to make the conscious decision to donate. and report that there are nearly 4,000 Canadians awaiting organ donation; 1,812 in Ontario (as of December 31, 2003).

I don't feel entirely comfortable with somebody else making the decision for me, or a decision on behalf of my next of kin. Making a decision about what becomes of me is very personal, and can be extremely difficult for those left behind.

Now, the two bills before the Ontario legislature are entirely different in their context.

Mr. Klees' bill essentially requires an individual to make a decision (or to make a decision to remain undecided) in order to renew their driver's license or health card. You have to clearly mark 'yes', 'no', or 'undecided'. The concern of course is that people will mark 'no' or 'undecided' in record numbers. I think most Canadians support organ donation, but simply fail to fill out their organ donation cards for whatever reason. Frank Klees quotes numbers of 96% support organ donation, but only 45% actually fill out organ donor cards - but, I don't know where the numbers come from. 96% seems kind of high - and people can support other people doing anything.

Mr. Kormos' bill proposes the negative option consent. That is, if you don't specify what your intentions are, it is assumed that you have offered consent - regardless of what your true intentions are (which would never be known) and regardless of what your next of kin or power of attorney would request. Mr. Kormos is right to suggest in the same article that a person's organs are useless to them after death, but the problem is it's not to Mr. Kormos to decide what happens to someone after they die.

The state has no right to dictate what happens to my remains any more than it has to decide how my body is treated after death.

I believe that it's wrong to not donate healthy organs. But, it's even more wrong to take on the role of power of attorney over what happens to someone's remains under the premise that they have no use for them anymore. I can't tell somebody to donate their organs.

Reminds me of an old joke. A guy is in front of a judge for car theft. He says that he didn't think he was stealing anybody's car because it was parked in front of the cemetery and he thought the owner was dead.

I support Mr. Klees' bill.

Tags: , ,

The Ironing is Delicious

Dalton McGuinty wants Stephen Harper to say, "Unlike Paul Martin, I will look Ralph Klein in the eye and say ... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Tags: , ,