It's a true yawner - nothing has changed, just shifted a little.Peter MacKay - defence - are they for real? Good grief.
Dion's criticisms were pretty well as expected. He basically wants Harper to enact the Liberal agenda. He acted kind of cocky, but Duffy wasn't much impressed, wondering later why some Liberal N.B. MPs weren't around to be with Dion in Moncton. Who could blame them, as they know they won't be riding Dion's coat-tails to re-election.
Ha!!Chalk one up for Duffy for mentioning that embarrassing moment.
From the CBC link:""What we see with Mr. MacKay, the foreign minister moving into defence, is someone who has defended Mr. Harper's policies in Afghanistan," Layton told reporters at Rideau Hall."Mr. Layton continues to amaze with his lack of logic. Did he expect to be named to cabinet instead of MacKay?
I do not see any thing horrible in this shuffle but as far as Afgan is concerned, they have to start getting the message out. Mr MacKay is fluent in both official languages, it is time for the govt to start to boast about the positive things that are occurring, and we can worry about the opposition crying Propaganda later. At least that way the Canadian public will have firm information on which to base their decision of support/non support.
Dion's criticisms were pretty well as expected.Dion has Bush-in-mouth disease.
"Dion has Bush-in-mouth disease."Very good one, Joanne!
lol! Thanks Gabby. That one just came to me. ;)
wondering later why some Liberal N.B. MPs weren't around to be with Dion in Moncton.Yeah, Dion does not seem to be doing very well at his meet & greet sessions this summer.
I like how the Liberals and NDP think that patronizing women is more important than finding the best people to run a country.
You know I asked about forty females this question at work today concerning male/female ministers, 35 of them said it doesn't matter to them in the slightest who the minister is so long as they get the job done. The only caveat was that the minister responsible for SOW should be female. Makes sense to me. Heck when I task someone to do something at work, I pick the person that can get the job done in the most efficient way, I do not care if they sit or stand to pee and neither should the country so long as the best person gets the job done.
You know I asked about forty females this question at work today concerning male/female ministers, 35 of them said it doesn't matter to them in the slightest who the minister is so long as they get the job done.Thank you for doing this survey, Kingston! ;)Actually as a female, I am more offended by the opposition's attitude that women need some kind of special 'string-pulling' to be able to qualify as a candidate.Women do need assistance with juggling family & political duties, but doesn't everyone these days?
People like Jane Taber totally annoy me. Who is she and her elitist journalist group of friends to decide what the majority of Canadian woman want or think. I suggest she get off her butt and walk over to a neighbors or down to the community farmers market and ask the question, do you care if a minister is male or female or do you want the best person qualified to do the job no matter what their gender. Then she might have something to talk about.
I think Jane Taber's and Susan Delacourt's whole agenda is to somehow get the Liberals back in power.
Well if they ever plan on moving into the GG house they had better hope so.
lol!!! Jane Taber as G.G.!That might be enough to make me leave the country. ;)
kingston, your survey produced results I would expect to see, given the question.Try this question instead (in a less wordy way in conversation though):"If there were two candidates, equally qualified, and the number of current holders of similar positions does not reflect the composition of the community, would you favour hiring the equally qualified candidate from the under-represented group, or the over-represented group?"You will get a lot of answers that approve of achieving a balance that is reflective of the larger community, but only if we ensure that we are never putting unqualified people in place.This is the real question in any kind of system that says "hire more women" or "hire more minorities". We hardly ever hear that the candidates are to be "equally qualified", instead we hear "quotas".For some reason, we are told to accept that nearly all the holders of the position are male (or female), and that there is some reason, other than bias, for the composition of holders of the position not reflecting the community.It is politically incorrect these days to suggest that there could be any subconscious bias in play. In some cases, there are not enough qualified candidates in the first place, which is entirely acceptable as an explanation of the difference. You could wonder why there aren't enough candidates, but that is a different question and has no bearing on a hiring situation. But when there are enough qualified candidates, then the difference needs to be explained.In most other areas, a statistical anomaly is not accepted as "chance". Try that one if you are consistently winning in any casino game. Even if they can't prove you are cheating, they will probably ban you anyway if you keep winning. For some reason, they don't buy the theory that these kind of statistics lie and that the game is actually fair.
The chance of finding two people who are exactly equally qualified for the same job, especially at a ministerial level, must be close to nil. I think what it comes down to is, is that difference enough to justify not hiring a woman or visible minority.
LS throws in the arbitrary "IF" as if that's the way the Libs did it when they were "in power".How do you find total 'equals' in those situations LS?How's the weather there in La La Land?hahahahahaha
LS throws in the arbitrary "IF" as if that's the way the Libs did it when they were "in power".Sorry for using a word with two letters in it. Must be hard for you to deal with, judging from all the projections you chose to attach to my question.How do you find total 'equals' in those situations LS?Not sure. But you people are the ones who claim "disagree with the government" equals "treason", and "talk to the taliban" equals "mental illness", and "climate change science" equals "religion".So you should have no trouble finding job candidates that you can consider "equal". Even if they really are not.The chance of finding two people who are exactly equally qualified for the same job, especially at a ministerial level, must be close to nil.I'm sure you have some research to back up "it must be close to nil". Oops, no you don't.How's the weather there in La La Land?hahahahahahaThe weather is great. Never been to La La Land.How's life in ad hominem land?So I assume you support discrimination, since you ridicule any attempt to address it as bad.Nothing new then.But it would be interesting to hear from kingston, since that is to whom the question was addressed. "john doe" and "anon" seem to be more interested in attacking me.Oh, and you spelled "Hahahahaha!" wrong, anonofool!
LS. I would argue that the hypothetical situation you propose never occurs. There are never two candidates that are equal in all ways. For example, both candidates may have the same degree but one may come from a less prestigious university or may have had a less well known supervisor.They may be 'equally qualified' but they are never equal. If a job requires a minimum of a B.Sc, one may have a B.Sc, but the other may have a Ph.D. In which case, both candidates are 'equally qualified' but one is obviously better. (unless they are 'overqualified' - but ignoring that)Since everyone is unique someone will always have something that makes them better suited for the job than the other. Its just a matter of spending the time looking for it.As for the Harper cabinet... there is a limited number of women in his caucus, hence there is a limited number of women in his cabinet. Probability states that his cabinet should look similar to his caucus if you consider men and women to be equal in their talents.
LS. Oh, and your comment about johndoe needing research is incorrect. You have provided no evidence to suggest that they are not unique. When you bring up research showing that such a situation does in fact exist with two people being exactly equally qualified and equal in all respects then you can accuse others of lacking the necessary background research.Otherwise you are a pot calling a kettle black.And johndoe wasn't attacking you, he was debating your argument. So it is unfair to accuse him of making ad hominem attacks (when he obviously didn't).
Well, you guys will have to wrap up this debate soon because I'll be putting on comment moderation soon - Not because of you guys, but I'm going to try to get right away from the computer for a while, so I don't want the spammers to take over.Feel free to leave a comment anyway though. It's just that it might sit in the queue for a while.
Post a Comment