<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for tigerinexile</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/tigerinexile/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/tigerinexile/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 16:01:54 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: &amp;#8216;Bow your head, Canada. #RIP Elijah&amp;#8217;</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/17/bow-your-head-canada-rip-elijah/#comment-911543681</link><description>&lt;p&gt;For the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, aboriginal leaders were in the room and endorsed the deal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;That's what Elijah Harper achieved -- politically, they can't be left out.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;That said, it's a tragedy Meech Lake didn't pass.  Charlottetown had to be defeated, but the most controversial provisions of Meech Lake ("distinct society", etc.) aren't anything that the federal government hasn't already conceded since then.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 16:01:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The last time the Conservatives launched attack ads&amp;#8230;</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/17/the-last-time-the-conservatives-launched-attack-ads/#comment-866667872</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Trudeau is starting from a little further ahead -- 43-30, I believe I saw?  Dion was up 38-32 at one point, Ignatieff 38-33.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So maybe it's a little different this time?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:41:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Shocker*: NDP MP to Bloc! (*not a shocker)</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/28/shocker-ndp-mp-to-bloc-not-a-shocker/#comment-816626622</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well, it shows why Mulcair had to TRY.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;His caucus would've fractured otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:08:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Quebec universities: the McGill problem (hint: it&amp;#8217;s not a problem)</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/23/quebec-universities-the-mcgill-problem-hint-its-not-a-problem/#comment-809742010</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I have a remarkably controversial idea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So if the Pequistes really, really don't want to fund McGill, why don't they... let McGill charge higher tuition rates!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shocking thought, that.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:32:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Mulcair agenda for constitutional change</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/31/the-mulcair-agenda-for-constitutional-change/#comment-797761666</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The great virtue of the Clarity Act is its lack of clarity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's more just putting the separatists on notice that the feds will have their say when the time comes, if they try to pull a fast one for the next referendum, if there is one.  It's a timeline of responses, not a spelling out of them.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:07:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Prime Minister Harper&amp;#8217;s inner circle</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/29/prime-minister-harpers-inner-circle/#comment-782312032</link><description>&lt;p&gt;True, you don't want him having "zampolit" status, to pull the title from "The Hunt For Red October"...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:45:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Thomas Mulcair, the NDP and the Clarity Act</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/28/thomas-mulcair-the-ndp-and-the-clarity-act/#comment-782299322</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Won the popular vote, 44%-38%.  Federalist parties won 37 seats in QC in that election (2000), and the Bloc won 38 seats.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:33:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Prime Minister Harper&amp;#8217;s inner circle</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/29/prime-minister-harpers-inner-circle/#comment-782281299</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Better to have one guy explicitly doing it than having the whole staff on it.  In theory.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:16:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Prime Minister Harper&amp;#8217;s inner circle</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/29/prime-minister-harpers-inner-circle/#comment-782280529</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"Sir?  Sir?  You've got to get out of here, you're late for your next appointment."&lt;br&gt;*ignored*&lt;br&gt;*sighs*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;*calls next destination on cell*  "The PM's running a little late today..."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:16:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Let the Liberal blood sport begin</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/12/let-the-liberal-blood-sport-begin/#comment-731662917</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Don't agree with that at all.  The CPC has been darned smart about how they've gone about things since 2003.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But Trudeau is clearly head and shoulders above the other contenders in the Liberal race.  So far.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 09:21:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Let the Liberal blood sport begin</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/12/let-the-liberal-blood-sport-begin/#comment-730286586</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Justin's got this.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:56:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Go, Justin, go! The hopes and dreams of Maclean&amp;#8217;s are with you!</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/26/go-justin-go-the-hopes-and-dreams-of-macleans-are-with-you/#comment-663604327</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think the Liberals would be fools not to give him a serious look, but they'd be bigger fools not to put him through his paces in the leadership race.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:16:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Go, Justin, go! The hopes and dreams of Maclean&amp;#8217;s are with you!</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/26/go-justin-go-the-hopes-and-dreams-of-macleans-are-with-you/#comment-663499999</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Pumpkin guy for PM!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:53:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: New Democrat Campaign Message: Grandma, Cliff, Some Assembly Required</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2012/08/11/new-democrat-campaign-message-grandma-cliff-some-assembly-required/#comment-616496994</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The Dems were always going to go after the Ryan plan.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So it's right that we should have Ryan on the ticket to defend it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: His Initials Are W.A.R.</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2012/08/07/his-initials-are-w-a-r/#comment-612784068</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Root may or may not be brilliant in other spheres, but in this situation, he probably doesn't know what he's talking about.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Parents can't get rid of their child's American citizenship, nor can said child get rid of it until he or she reaches the age of majority, which by then had been lowered to 18.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;American citizens who grew up abroad CAN be considered as international students -- in college, I had that happy status (US citizen, but part of the international students' association), but this has nothing to do with any of that other stuff Root is insinuating, and it sure wouldn't show up on an academic transcript.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Obama's hiding anything in his college transcripts, it's probably:&lt;br&gt;A.  Lousy grades, a la John Kerry; and&lt;br&gt;B.  A course list that would make a Marxist blush and feel like he's the right-winger in the room.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:56:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The feds are buying Frank Meyers&amp;#8217; 200-year-old farm</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/21/at-war-with-the-feds/#comment-567033489</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree that property rights should be in the Charter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It just wouldn't have any impact on this case.   If the government wants to expropriate your land for public use, and offers full financial compensation, that land is getting taken even with a property rights amendment.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:36:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The feds are buying Frank Meyers&amp;#8217; 200-year-old farm</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/21/at-war-with-the-feds/#comment-567031482</link><description>&lt;p&gt;GFMD:  One could, theoretically, write a property rights amendment that would allow for no expropriations whatsoever, but there's nowhere in the common law world that has anything like that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Jaws:  About use and enjoyment of property -- this is the federal government, and so it's covered by the old 1960 Bill of Rights, which DOES have property rights protections.  (In its equivalent section to s. 7 of the Charter.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But again, all that any of that does is guarantee compensation.  Which is already on offer here.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:34:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On a federal government working with the PQ</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/25/on-a-federal-government-working-with-the-pq/#comment-566798546</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Firewall letter was about assuming sole power in areas of provincial jurisdiction -- set up a provincial police force (like Ontario, Quebec) instead of hiring the RCMP on contract, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Marois's plans include stuff like setting up a separate Quebec citizenship unilaterally, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Well, if it got TOO bad, there's always reservation and disallowance. But that'd be throwing jet fuel on the fire...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:29:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On a federal government working with the PQ</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/25/on-a-federal-government-working-with-the-pq/#comment-566785925</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Nothing's stopping them whatsoever.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But: the current arrangements give Quebec dairy farmers around 50% of the country's milk quota, if I remember correctly.  Quebec can't secure its farmers that guaranteed market unilaterally.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:13:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Three reasons Harper is going easy on Mulcair</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/24/why-harper-is-going-easy-on-mulcair/#comment-566025147</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Even if Harper is Mackenzie King redux, King lost elections from time to time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But the flip side of that is, the Canadian left isn't necessarily rid of Harper even if he loses in 2015.  Could sit out a term in opposition the way King did.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:07:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harper wonders how bad his luck can get in Quebec</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/22/harper-wonders-how-bad-his-luck-can-get-in-quebec/#comment-565461921</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Courts change.  What is viewed as self-evidently constitutional one decade is struck down in the next.  Ordinary citizens understand this at some level.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the notwithstanding clause is what finally guarantees that Quebec legislators will have the final word on stuff like the sign laws.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:05:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harper wonders how bad his luck can get in Quebec</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/22/harper-wonders-how-bad-his-luck-can-get-in-quebec/#comment-565329420</link><description>&lt;p&gt;When Mulcair is at 38% in the national polls?  No way -- the man thinks he can be the next prime minister.  And he just might be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Charest, by contrast, led a fifth-place party.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(That said, wouldn't put TOO much stock in current polls - Dion and Ignatieff had similar leads in their early days at Stornoway, too.)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:03:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harper wonders how bad his luck can get in Quebec</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/22/harper-wonders-how-bad-his-luck-can-get-in-quebec/#comment-565138401</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Quebec isn't leaving.  If they'd really wanted to, they've had plenty of opportunities to since 1976.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;French is well protected.  The notwithstanding clause protects their language laws if ever future courts strike them.  The federal government is bilingual enough, and there seems now to be a convention that the PM must be bilingual.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only way this marriage is breaking up is if the rest of Canada gets together and votes to kick Quebec out.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The same is true, incidentally, about "Western alienation".  All these regionalisms are paper tigers.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:50:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The feds are buying Frank Meyers&amp;#8217; 200-year-old farm</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/21/at-war-with-the-feds/#comment-561862060</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Even a property rights amendment -- even the broadest ones proposed by Reid and Hillier -- would allow for this sort of expropriation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There has always been, even in eras with the strongest protection of property rights, the ability of the government to expropriate land for public use, with full compensation at fair value.  If there were not, it wouldn't be possible to build highways.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A property rights amendment affect regulatory takings -- for when the government effectively takes away part of your land's value but not the whole.  Stuff like the Greenbelt.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:26:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: In the shadow of depravity, Conservatives choose vengeance over justice</title><link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/17/in-the-shadow-of-depravity-conservatives-choose-vengeance-over-justice/#comment-560555775</link><description>&lt;p&gt;65% of Canadians support the death penalty under some circumstances.  45% would support legislation bringing it back to Canada now.  (This column is probably aimed at the 20% who support capital punishment in principle but don't want to have that debate now.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;75% of Canadians support the current state of federal law on abortions (i.e., no criminal sanctions).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whatever elite opinion happens to be, popular opinion is understandable and even makes sense.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tigerinexile</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:40:43 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>