Lets have a summary of your unscrupulous postings.

First, you accused me of supporting Harper, when, in my initial post I openly declared myself as not a Harper supporter.

Second, you accuse me of belittling those opposed to this particular prorogation, when, in fact I repeat over and over that I am indifferent to this particular prorogation.

Third, you change your story and your terms again and again. You started by with the absurd and stupid suggestion that:

“…would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a figure head then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons?”

Now I have suggested to you, on constitutional grounds, that such rules are impossible to be imposed on THE POWER OF PROROUGATION THEMSELVES. To have a rule that ensures that NO minority government can prorogue is not what Mr Ignatieff is suggesting – it is what you are suggesting. To have a rule that says that no government can prorogue for “partisan reasons” is also not in the suggestion made by Mr. Ignatieff it is your own personal wet dream yet again. My harsh response to you was for the stupidity of the above suggestion and the fact that the terms which you chose to describe when parliament can be prorogued (“partisan reasons” in particular being the most annoying term you used) are by nature nebulous. What is and what is not a partisan reason. In a democracy, and on a legal document, this wording would be unacceptable which is why clearly it comes from a cheerleading teamster and not a carefully thought-out systematic political response. I have never stated, at anytime, an unwillingness to review the House Rules of Standing (which are easily amended and ultimately non-binding) that may exert some effect on how future governments prorouge. Nor have I ever suggested, as you imply through your poorly written innuendo, that am opposed to any review of the reasons or issues surrounding the prorogation. Indeed my initial article was a comment on how people are grossly ill informed on issues and a general call for the passionately uninformed to research before they speak.

After my first rebuke, you then back-peddled to this blatant misrepresentation of your initial position…

“What I was interested in was Mr. Ignatieff’s idea — which guess what, is the SAME as MY idea (the ONLY idea I put forth, read back through my posts if you are thinking otherwise…am I repeating myself? I better keep that up so you get it). His [Ignatieff's] idea is simply to put limitations in place (RULES) for when a PM can request prorogation – he named the cases that should not be allowed and they are perfectly in line with the point of stopping the abuse of prorogation for partisan reasons.

This of course is not Mr. Ignatieff’s position. Mr. Ignatieff’s position is to increase accountability and cross-party communication when the PM, who will always have full constitutional authority to do so, wishes to prorogue. But you say: put limitations in place (RULES) for WHEN A PM CAN request prorogation. This is entirely different from Ignatieff’s position and is you putting your own words in the mouth of a political leader that you like. They are stupid words to put in his mouth, and incidentally make you look very absurd. Again it is clear that you are lost on the plain meaning of words.

Fourth, there is the very dumb and lexically ridiculous assertion that you made that:

“…there would be no watchdog required as all of the questions to be asked are matter of fact and thus are “yes/no” answers:”

This is a stupid statement however as the terms you used in your previously posted question are nebulous and exactitutes would have to be determined. Still, you go on…

“Mr PM, we [YOU FAIL TO CLARIFY WHO IS ASKING AND ON WHO"S BEHALF????] must ask you the following questions before you can claim your prize of prorogation!!

Question #1: “Is the government facing a non-confidence vote?” yes / no

Question #2: “Is the government under parliamentary order to hand over documents?” – yes / no

If you answered “yes” to either of the above questions then prorogation is not allowed….I’m sorry, try again later”

First, to be fair these suggestions are different for what you initially said was “non-partisan reasons”. These are more specific and soemwhat better thought out. Still, you have the arrogance to trumpet this bullshit:

“What I was interested in was Mr. Ignatieff’s idea — which guess what, is the SAME as MY idea (the ONLY idea I put forth”

Your capacity for backpedaling and misrepresenting your own ignorance are truly astounding.

Either way, the position that you took is a categorically different position than the initial one[s] you made (I hold it a perhaps pleasant thought that while arrogant you are at least capable of some social evolution). Still, in the above, most recent suggestion that you made, even if it were just the GG asking [you don't say who] this it would be an increase in watchdog-like powers – s/he does not have the constitutional authority for this, nor could such an inflamation of her powers be awarded to her by Parliament. This suggestion is also NOT what Mr. Ignatieff has proposed so I see no reason why you think that by agreeing with him you validate your own stupid ideas.

Mr. Ignatieff, in contrast, is only seeking to inflame the non-binding and ultimately irrelevant House Standing Rules which any leader could, but would be unwise to, walk right over if need be the case. This rather petty and overly trumpeted reform is because House Standing Rules are subservient to our very vague and badly articulated “Emergencies Powers” under which prorogation can also be used. Your suggestion, which initally proposed either an inflation of the GG’s actual powers, or those of Parliament’s, to have an effect on the actual powers of prorougation are categorically different than Mr. Ignatieff’s procedural remedies which do not affect that power in any way save for the time restriction that he wants to propose. The issue of the length of Parliamentary adjournment that a PM could request proroguing seems rather set in the constitution, so I don’t think that this particular suggestion by Mr. Ignatieff has any merit. At the same time, I can see the tactical benefit of mentioning it even if the issue of time periods on prorougation are, in reality, already set in stone.

Now, for the last time, Parliamentary requests to submit information are carried over the next session. This is precisely why Mr. Ignatieff has, in a bid for administrative expediency, suggested that Parliamentary committees continue if Parliament is prorogued so that the committed can continue working. This is Mr. Ignatieff’s most important suggestion and most likely the one that he will be able to push as a House Standing issue. I am not opposed to anything of this sort, nor do I see any effective barrier to its passing. It is likely that we will see this, at least, as an outcome of the last couple of months. Either way, Parliamentary requests for information are commonplace and, under your suggestion, (not the suggestion now made by Mr. Ignatieff, that you undoubtedly now agree with) one would have to determine what constitutes a relevant “document transfer” . Under Mr. Ignatieff’s better thought out suggestion work simply continues.

Finally, and this is most significant. The suggestion, by Mr Ignatieff, not you, that allows:

“Prevent[ion of a] a request for prorogation if a matter of confidence has been scheduled in the House unless the House consents;”

…will not go anywhere on the basis of our constitution again. This is because it potentially removes a power from a minority PM but effectively grants one to a leader who can stack the house. I am not sure how the Liberals managed to be so careless with that one, but it will be the one that turns the whole affair on their heads if they are not very very careful. Either way this particular clause is an empty one with no real future.

As for your lame need for law professors, which you seem to pretend or imply are somehow more informed and able to access information on this (and unanimous in their love for the liberal party) on the subject I refer you to a nice and rather neutral article on the powers of prorougation (which also demonstrates that the reside in the GG) and outlines nicely the nature of the relationship between elections, the PM and the GG. This of course is written by in response to last year’s prorougation and is generally of the position that I hold. A good reading of it will allow anyone to assess both the merits and deficits of Mr. Ignatieff’s suggestions and go a long way to informing people of the respective powers of office. I should also note that Mr. Peter Hogg former Dean of Osgood Law School, who if you have ever spent a day studying law can easily be seen in my camp on this whole issue – namely that this prorogation is not as dangerous as the one last year (you know the one in which he personally advised the GG to go ahead with while acting as the GG’s counsel and advisor while standing in the Room with her and Mr. Harper) and that suggestions to amend the powers of the GG and PM will be met with only limited success. House Rules of Standing are a great way to pretend to have done something significant, but, in the end do not address underlying structures. To their credit, they may allow a mechanism where opposition parties may more rapidly criticism the ruling party, which in my mind, is always a good thing.

There is also this

http://www.thebruns.ca/content/2010-01/prominent-law-scholar-tackles-prorogation

and this onthe subject of the more conservative NDP proposal

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/why-the-globe-prorogation-editorial-fails/article1441818/

Anyone who makes it through this little reading list and traces the credentials of its authors can see very quickly than amending that actual powers surrounding Prorogation are tremendously difficult. That which is not specifically listed in our constitution are still implied in the Constitutional Conventions that our courts also have to uphold. This is why I am so adamant that your (Darren’s) incoherent and ever changing suggestions don’t have a chance, that Mr. Ignatieff’s may, but only on a few points, and that most of this talk about reforming prorogation at the roots of its powers is really just political white noise happily broadcast to people who don’t know any better. Need I remind you Darren stupid and impossible legislation is proposed all the time, and by all parties. God, a lot of it even passes before it is found to be illegal. Again, rule by law, not by Parliament is the system we have here. Ignatieff could go through all the motions of passing his entire proposition (though in reality he never could) and still have it squashed by some low-bench court. I just hope, for administrative, and tax saving purposes, that millions of dollars and time is not wasted on this rather small issue of reform. Use it to point to Harper as despotic – that is fine, that stimulates debate, but don’t go tinkering with an unfixable machine – for the most part our Parliamentary rules and Constitution are really just like the ugly fat girl at the party, if you don’t feed her she will leave you alone and only the drunk and “motivated” types try to pretty her up for their own lowly uses.

http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-welcomes-liberal-support-for-new-democrat-proposal-to-limit-prorogation-powers

http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17360_liberals-pledge-to-prevent-abuse-of-prorogation

As they say — How do you like them apples? LOL

I could have easily cited them and given you links to the details on all of them or the general summery posted above from one of my local news papers, but that would be getting off topic as they have nothing to do with why the issue I was discussing. Learn to stay on topic please – it will help you with future communications. I have no idea where you are living, but I’m here in Ottawa and this stuff is pretty common knowledge around here and makes for nice water cooler discussions.

“correct their opinions in the face of scholarly rebuke when citations and logical mechanics are given”

Guy, understand your “scholarly” (in your own mind) rebuke is nonsense thus not worth acknowledging or dealing with. There would be no watchdog required as all of the questions to be asked are matter of fact and thus are “yes/no” answers:

Mr PM, we must ask you the following questions before you can claim your prize of prorogation!!

Question #1: “Is the government facing a non-confidence vote?” yes / no

Question #2: “Is the government under parliamentary order to hand over documents?” – yes / no

If you answered “yes” to either of the above questions then prorogation is not allowed….I’m sorry, try again later

If you want to debate more, then please find a law professor to back up your claims by showing that limiting the prorogation option can not be done by incorporating such requirements as those laid about by Ignatieff.

Truth had you pegged from the start: “You are an idiot”

Your guidelines, those you now mention to have been supported by Mr. Ignatieff, contain nebulous and vague terminology (partisan, non partisan reasons, best interest e.t.c) that, since such terminology is not legal, can not be given clear operational definitions. Thus, what you fail to understand, is that it is structurally impossible to allow your suggestions (which are in contravention of section 38 and therefore also illegal whether you have the correct terminology or not) without an overseeing body, tribunal, deferment to a court, or Parliamentary appointee. We can bitch back and forth over whether such thing should or should not be called a watchdog or described as powers analogous to a watchdog, or whether they should simply be called increased regulations, but is is clear on the logic alone that there WOULD HAVE TO BE AN INCREASE OF REGULATIONS and a body of some sort granted the power to uphold them (which incidentally – and I will say it one last time just to annoy you – IS LIKE a watchdog). My point, my underlying thesis, is that it is illegal to have anything like this over Parliament – even if the structure is contained within Parliament itself. The comments of Mr. Ignatieff – specifically the ones you placed in quotes – do not contradict this fact.

Now you have said this:

“His [Ignatieff's] idea is simply to put limitations in place (RULES) for when a PM can request prorogation – he named the cases that should not be allowed and they are perfectly in line with the point of stopping the abuse of prorogation for partisan reasons.”

…you also say (and I agree with you) that this is the crux of your own argument. What Mr. Ignatieff does not understand, or is pretending not to know and hoping he can drag along some cheap supporters with (as many students of Isaiah Berlin tend not to understand and also do) is that there are underlying laws that interfere with political wet-dreams like the one you have suggested.

All political parties rally up their supporters under stupid sloganeering and impossible promises. The Tories have been known to pontificate on the “end of Quebec separatism”. This frequent Tory slogan, as most in Ontario seem to be aware, is also impossible legally – it simply can not be done! Our lame and poorly thought constitution prevents such sensible interference in the mandate of openly subversive political parties. We will be stuck with separatists as long as there are people who want to separate. If, one happy day there are no longer any Quebecois cowards, we will still, by merit of our own laws, be susceptible to future separatist agendas. The same is true if one wishes to reform the rules surrounding proroguing parliament. If Ignatieff and others want to talk about reforming Parliamentary rules (and being the political whores politicians all are, I am sure that they will) it will only be to excite the politically ignorant. Political parties do this all the time, but, when it comes down to it, you and I live in a society that is ruled by law, not by Parliament or sloganeering reformers who, like Mrs May, can not tell their sweaters from their trousers. Whether I am in some small Canadian minority or not (and I have no doubt that I am in the minority on this case – and sadly lumped with neo-cons), I am undoubtedly correct on this opinion. The Parliamentary legislative sections of our constitution are clear and easier to read than most other sections. There is no appropriate legal mechanism to overrule them without a fundamental rewriting of the very nation of Canada. For your proposal to occur our nation would have to cease to exist and a new one built in its place.

So, to summarize, as I feel that to do so would be useful to you. Watchdog or not, you require an illegal increase of powers and regulations to someone if yours or Mr. Ignatieff’s suggestion is to be viable. Since this suggestion is illegal anyway, I consider it political puppetry of a very condescending and Machiavellian type. I find it odd to have to argue with someone (often on the plain meaning of words and in the face of your constant neglect of our founding documents) over whether you are being strung along by a very unoriginal Harperesque political technique, plagiarized right out of a muck-raking Tory handbook. Ultimately that is my opinion of your position, that it is an uniformed, ignorant, and weak one to say the best of it. I come to the table with legislation, the law, and our constitution and you come back-peddling on the plain meaning of words, with selective quips from a non-binding political rally, and with some bloated and overconfident assurance that you are part of a majority on the issue. It is clear that we have exhausted our patience with each other on this issue and I fail to see how I can make my position any more clear and how I can outline (what you call mind-reading) the logical and practical implications of your illegal suggestion any more. Reformation on the rules of prorogation will never happen, no matter who you vote for because there is not a single person, institution, or power, created or otherwise, in Canada with the authority to make it happen.

The best case scenario is the one described by myself and Mr Nelund, that there will be increased political awareness as to how prorogation is used and parties will now, and in the future, pause before they use it. For me this is a good thing because I dislike anything that any government does when it can openly rely on the ignorance of its opposition and, worse yet, its supporters. As to this army of law professors, media and policy hacks you refer to, I think they would, as most do, appreciate informed discussion and thus NOT discussion of your variety. If any of the aforementioned were to be as arrogant AND ignorant as your self and come to me making suggestions about my analytical abilities and sensibilities WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CITE PROROGUED LEGISLATION THAT THEY HAVE READ, WERE LACKING BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE ROLE OF LAW AND PARLIAMENT in our federation, and worse yet could not respond or correct their opinions in the face of scholarly rebuke when citations and logical mechanics are given, my response to them, though Legion be their name, would be: “take a number, get in line, and kiss my ass” . The long length of this majority’s line would not shatter my resolve in the least but would instead warm the very cockles of my heart. Given, however, where the lips of pseudo-intellectual liberals may have been, I may have to burn through a lot of ass-sanitizer and buy new pants at the end of it, but this would be a small burden in the face of such easy an gratification.

THE END

Cheers

I thought I’d add a suggestion.

Your not impressing anyone with your wordy responses or your elitist attitude. You might think your responses are cute or witty, but in truth they are simply irrational (killing straw-men is a victimless crime) and ignorable. If you’d take a minute to read up what’s going on in the world and see with fresh eyes, you might learn a thing or two about the here and now. Considering how far of the mark your thoughts are on this subject and in particular my responses, and in comparison to law professors, media inside and outside of this country, and political analysts, I strongly suggest you rethink your entire approach to political analysis and commentary.

Just a suggestion. Hard words to hear I’m sure, but I think many would agree with me.

How do you keep thinking that I want a watchdog or ever did?? Now your spending way to many bytes trying to justify how you think you are a mind reader, despite me having said the opposite? Save some this site some hard drive space and just take people at their word…please. I’m doubting that I’m the only person who’s called you on this wonderful ability you have of putting words in people’s mouths — stop — stop now.

If you had taken the time to just read what I said, instead of typing endlessly on what I didn’t say, you’d have seen that I talked about “guidelines”. You assumed this meant watchdog, where most would read RULES or CRITERIA. A simple set of criteria that must be met before prorogation is allowed is ALL I’ve put forth, nothing more!

Here’ it is, for you to read again…(and read it over one more time after that too, just to let it sink in) :

“Perhaps something as simple as clearly defined guidelines for when prorogation is acceptable, that attempt to counter partisan only reasons?”

That’s it, that’s all – that’s all I suggested.

What’s interesting to me, and gives me hope, is that I heard the exact same sentiment expressed today — by someone who probably knows a little more about what is possible then you or I — Michael Ignatieff basically said the SAME THING. Wow – imagine that?!

I was at the rally on Parlaiment Hill with around 4,000 other people (more uneducated, illiterate low brows as you’d like to call us, who know nothing about and don’t care about politics or democracy…like me). I had the opportunity to listen to several speakers, including Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff and Elisabeth May explain what CAN be done.

I already knew Jack’s proposal was to require a vote prior to allowing the PM to request a prorogue…I wasn’t impressed with that solution as it comes with it’s own problems (as debated in the UK in 2007 when they tried to enact a similar change), but it’s better then nothing.

What I was interested in was Mr. Ignatieff’s idea — which guess what, is the SAME as MY idea (the ONLY idea I put forth, read back through my posts if you are thinking otherwise…am I repeating mysef? I better keep that up so you get it). His idea is simply to put limitations in place (RULES) for when a PM can request prorogation – he named the cases that should not be allowed and they are perfectly in line with the point of stopping the abuse of prorogation for partisan reasons.

Here’s exactly what he said to the crowd just feet away from me:

“You do not want Parliament to be shutdown when a Prime Minister is facing questions that he must answer. You do not want Parliament shut down when a Prime Minster is facing a vote of non-confidence. You do not want Parliament shut down when parliament has asked a Prime Minster for documents and he has failed to do so. You have said very clearly, across the country, through demonstrations everywhere that you want limits placed on the prorogation power of the Prime Minster and I am here to tell you…I am here to tell you that my party will work in Parliament to do just that.”

Funny, how although you seem to think nothing can be done with your vast knowledge of parliamentary procedure and constitutional law, you are pretty much alone in that view….want another cup of Status Quo or are you good?

I did miss a point though on the subject of “Darren”. Darren sir, you can not propose, in light of the constitutional provisions that I have cited, to not have Parliament Prorogued if the reason for doing is Partisan. That would be, as I need to remind you Darren (again and again), an illegal proposition. Strangely, though Darren, you do not want to call it that. Such a thing would, in order to be administered, require a regulatory agency or body or person to ensure that, if Partisan reasons abound (whatever that might be twisted to mean) that Parliament stays in session. Someone (Darren) would have to do this job and much of that job would be very subjective interpretation. Since you reject this function being served by the GG in its present form, the next best solution, if we ignore the illegality of your absurd proposition, is that it falls to the Speaker of the House. Darren you also seem to not realize that it is traditional to refer to regulatory bodies, persons, or agencies as “Watchdogs”, but let’s ignore all that. For the last time Darren I don’t care what you call your queer suggestion of “ensuring Parliament does not prorogue for Partisan reasons”, because frankly you lack the legal and political vocabulary to articulate it.

My point is, that whatever you call whatever it is you actually want, the only thing it really would be is illegal and a watchdog (though for some odd reason you feel the need to shy away from that word). It doesn’t matter if you call it a regulatory body, inflamed powers granted to the GG, or to speaker of the House, whatever! if it is any bit, any iota more than Fraser’s and my own opinion that the only regulation the matter needs is the hesitation a party may get in considering public opinion, then what you are suggesting must be some kind of watchdog! Despite your hand waving and claiming I can’t read (straw-men and what not) your suggestion can not be anything else. You, on the other-hand, are playing a sad little game of back-peddling on what you are saying all-the while trying to preserve the impossibility of your initial suggestion without admitting that your were ignorant and wrong. A straw-man is simply a made up enemy; but what I have been battling with you is the rewording of your own ego and your inability to accept the logical and legal implications of your own error. This has not been a straw-man argument at all but rather a slow and methodical evisceration of your cognitive abilities and political understanding.

I know that this is the case when you try to reach out and sound reasonable with absurd statements such as these:

“I never suggested how we might do this in ANY way. I’m open to suggestions as to how to do this. Perhaps something as simple as clearly defined guidelines for when prorogation is acceptable, that attempt to counter partisan only reasons?”

This is a stupid suggestion. It is a stupid suggestion because we have a constitution that does not allow for this kind of suggestion. Now, I am not the type to believe that just because a proposition is in the constitution that it is correct, but the fact is, that if such constitutional provisions exist, and they do, that there IS NOT GOING TO BE THIS KIND OF CHANGE. Defined guidelines and such, as you suggest them, are impossible as they do not meet the criteria set in ss. 38(1)a-f. I have cited this section now several times. Your suggestion, and the persistence it comes with, is both tedious and meaningless. No party and no party leader would ever support you (except Mrs. May perhaps – but she is not really a leader but rather a form of Karmic humor in the form of the Pillsbury Dough Boy with a sex change – sorry I can never get tired of making a farce out of that woman). There is no middle ground on which we can meet on this issue. It is sad that we cannot find this, but I can find no merit in impossible suggestions. I should like to live in a fairy tale one day where I do not have to pay taxes and have the government rewrite the biochemistry guiding my telomeres so that I never get cancer or die, but that is not going to happen either.

Perhaps, because of your persistence, I am going to reach out a bit of a hand. Please propose to me how you would set up a regulatory body, rule, or piece of federal legislation (ignoring the fact that it is illegal to do so) that would stop Parliament from proroguing strictly for Partisan reasons. Understand that in doing so you need a standard as to what is and what is not a partisan reason that can be drafted clearly and concisely and that you need some standard to which “categories of a PM’s motivation” are gauged. Also you need something, someone, some standard that is impartial and external to do this. That is your challenge.

From this little pipe dream (and for your convenience) I have omitted the fact that you need to also regulate how to pass such a thing in such a manner so as not to break another rule (namely that parliament cannot bind itself or future parliaments). If you can do this because maybe (though I doubt it) this is my own cognitive hurdle in understanding this precious suggestion of yours, then perhaps you could show me how such a thing and process would not be watch-dogesque (yes that is a new word and you may use it if you like). Of course your suggestion fails anyway because it is illegal, but at least we could get to the bottom of this whole straw-man business that you accuse me of. In other words Darren: Do you have what it takes to truly test the possibility that I am misreading what you write? Would you say so in light of things that you have written such as these key five supposedly misunderstood passages:
1. “- I specifically said I don’t want a watchdog,
- I did say I don’t want them to be able to do it for PARTISAN reasons. Meaning, I don’t want them to be able to prorogue simply because it’s a tactical advantage for them, it should be for, as it’s intended, the best interests of the country.”

2. “No watchdog – of course I don’t want a third party monitoring our government, that’s ridiculous and frankly you should be embarrassed at having magically transformed a direct statement saying the opposite into that! Staggering.”
(Note that I – Travis – never said such a watchdog or body or whatever would be non-government. Doesn’t matter because this stemmed from a previous comment)

3. “You honestly think that proroguing parliament is reasonable when the MINORITY government doesn’t want to abide by the demands of the opposition? Is that the “democracy” you want? Or would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a FIGURE HEAD [my emphasis] then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons?”

4. “I’ll break it down for you (read slowly, concentrate and remember to breath):
1) I’m not proposing a watchdog
2) No minority government should be allowed to prorogue government for PARTISAN reasons”

5. “You honestly think that proroguing parliament is reasonable when the MINORITY government doesn’t want to abide by the demands of the opposition? Is that the “democracy” you want? Or would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a figure head then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons?”

All these passages seem to me is white-noise oddly constructed to advocate a watchdog of some sort with regulatory power, that somehow is not called “a watchdog” but instead “a figure-head”. I have insisted on the watchdog language purposefully, since, in light of the illegality of the suggestion that is what it would have to be. I would hope that you don’t backpedal any further and make some stupid suggestion like “ well I meant a private sector power” which clearly as per section two you do not (that by the way would be also known as “the role of think-tanks and media”). Anyways you have been rather consistent on this incoherent point. How is it that a “figure-head” would be different than a watchdog? Maybe you and I define that word differently (though mine is lexically correct). Still, my definition of “watchdog” has been rather clear, and my expounding on it has shown that it, by definition, subsumes what you call “a figure-head”. How is it that “a figure-head”, as you propose it would be any different than the watchdog I have been describing all along (that is, one that assures through regulatory means and overseeing power that Parliament is not prorogued for Partisan Reasons)? Good luck answering that! You see it, your suggestion, really makes no sense in light of words and their meaning (not to mention our legal system).

Now hopefully Windows is working well. I hate it when I type too fast and get prepositions muddled and type “is” instead of “I” and am left finding other mistakes of that type (could be the Johnny Walker). Again, sorry for that.

Cheers.

Darren, on the issue of “watchdog” the GG IS A FIGURE HEAD. I can think of no other job in this country that best exemplifies, from an essentialist perspective, the definition of figure-head. You would like to make the difference between what you propose and a “watchdog” but actually that is impossible simply on the lexical issues of it! A group, or individual that monitored Parliament, would not only be illegal, but would have watchdog-like powers.

Again, for your own reading, I am saying that what you are proposing regardless of you NOT WANTING TO CALL IT THAT, must, by logical default be a watchdog and that such a thing, as you wrote it at the time, is is a legal impossibility. I am happy that you have clarified yourself by agreeing with Neuland, but that does not forgive your poor thinking and composition.

Also, you silly silly, man I stated that I was indifferent, MANY MANY times, to the prorogation. That is categorically different than supporting it. I stated my indifference based on the fact that most of the bills that Mr. Neuland has been gracious enough to provide on this post are bunk and really headed for nowhere. I know this because I have read many of them and can gauge their author’s efficacy in the house. It is clear that you have issues with literacy so I am not surprised that you have to end being so publically dissected by calling me a conservative – which at any rate I am not. I should like to warn you also of libel which protects persons like myself from illiterate innuendo.

Mr Neuland, I too am usually rather disturbed by most Conservative reforms to Criminal Law and Justice. H. L. Mencken, if I can paraphrase him, said that whenever there is a Southern Election, there will always be a southern hangin’. This about summarizes most Conservative attempts to reform the legal system – and this is dangerous.

Why then would I support prorogation? Well. I do not. I TOLERATE IT, though in this case because the Liberal Bills proposed were not urgent and can be heard again in Spring without any detriment to the Canadian people. The only bill is resent not being heard concerns the status of Indigenous Women, but that will, for obvious political reasons, be brought back again – I predict, actually that it will pass with little or no revision.

The prorogation is also seen by many a Liberal party policy author as a good time to review the Conservatives own, poorly thought squelched bills. Which always creates some good counter policy. If there is any reason to oppose it, it is because Harper is now free to stack the Senate. Mind you, he was free to stack it anyway, but the effect will be to stack it without the voice of opposition whose inevitable media criticisms will now be not-so-heard.. As such I see the prorogation as a media, not a political tactic. This of course has backfired and made Harper look Machiavellian. Well he is, and those who didn’t know it at the time know it now so by trying to avoid appearing flirtatious with despotism he has demonized himself as worse than he really is – except in the eyes of his supporters who are plenty more than most blogging on this site might like to admit.

Still yet , all this has also shown the media and academics how opportunistic Ignatieff is and how he is just as willing to use this whole prorogation issue to play on general Canadian ignorance (becoming more Harperesque – and yes I invented that word but you can use it if you like). The only one who has benefited from this whole last two years is the NDP. I favor this at present because I see discourse in Canada generally torn between socialism and free market capitalism (well actually this is a simplification of what I believe). In such a model of discourse the Liberals really are just one annoying red blot in the middle of real change or transition to either Swedish or American style politics. Regardless the sooner that Canadians sort out this conflict the sooner we can decide on our rather undecided political flavor as country.

To your suggestion that the Canadian people serve as a “watchdog” over Parliament proceedings, I could not agree more. Which is why I have stated that I support the INFORMED PROTESTERS on Jan 23. While I am indifferent, and will likely sleep in that day, I feel it a good thing as it raises awareness to what prorogation is. Seeing as this word was not in the collective Canadian vocabulary until virtually two weeks ago, I am happy that some measure of civic understanding is being improved upon. The retards out there trying to reform Parliamentary proceedings in the face of our constitution, however, can go and suck one.

I am happy Mr. Neuland, that you are obviously in contrast the 95% of “Darrens” in the world and have, unlike him, formed your opinion on the basis of facts and a reasonable understanding of our system instead of just gravitating towards the arguments whom you thought “sounded best”. The move by Harper was undoubtedly sneaky and meant to send a confidence message to the opposition and other parties. I am not so sure, however, whether it was premature. By that I mean, that I am open to the suggestion that he may have more than enough support to carry on and even take a majority in the next election. One effect that is often ignored in Canadian public discourse, is the effect the Glenn Becks and Bill O-Reily’s have had on Canadian Christians and conservatives. There is a huge longing for American free market capitalism in Canada that is often ignored and Harper is seen as a means to an end in this respects. Liberal policy in this regard has focused on Corporate Tax Breaks and tax Shelters (I could go at length on this) but this has only catered to big business and thus out of the reach of those who want this type of reform. Harper, I think was testing the waters of his support, and now doubt, will be head counting on the 23rd. For someone like me who sees either pure free market or socialism as viable in our resource rich population deprived Federation, this prorogation does not bother be because it will push us in either one or the other direction (either in the way of socialist or free market confidence). For those who are disturbed by a move toward the free-market. The appropriate response is to spend the evening making cardboard plaques and makings sure you have enough red left markers and a warm hat tomorrow.