There will be much wringing of hands and knashing of teeth over the crossing of Khan to the Conservative benches this morning. In the interest of full disclosure, I was of a mixed mind about both Stronach's and Emmerson's defections, but that was more of a questioning of motives than saying that floor-crossing per se is wrong.
When you go to vote, you are voting not for a party, but for an individual. The respective parties all endorse particular candidates for election as Members of Parliament (and I pray someday Senators), but in reality, it is the individual who is being elected to represent the interests of their constituents.
I disagree with anything that would prevent floor-crossing in the future. I am from the Reform wing of the party, particularly the small "d" democratic tradition. Requiring MPs to remain where they are elected means that party leaders have even more control over those MPs.
I believe that MPs need to have the right to vote based upon a variety of factors: the platform they were elected on, the platform of the party (think of David Kilgour and his personal crusade against the atrocities in Darfur, which differed from the Liberal Party for whom he ran), the wishes of his/her constituents, and ultimately, the MP's own best judgement about what is best for his/her country.
So long as party leaders can expel members from caucus for voting against the party line, a MP must have the same right to leave. And he/she should not be consigned to the purgatory that is the lot of Independent MPs. Like it or not, the House of Commons is a house of parties, and even though backbench MPs are close to powerless, unaffiliated MPs are even more so, as they miss out on committee assignments, turn in Question Period rotation, support for private members bills and motions, just to name a few items.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Another take on CEO Pay
Our unbiased researcher friends at the Candian Centre for Policy Alternatives (alternatives to what exactly?) released a report this week that says, in essence, that the average CEO (average of the top 100 companies...that's not skewing the average at all is it?) earns the same amount by 10am on January 2nd as the average Canadain makes all year. Their (and the MSM) spin on it was "Those greedy bastards!"
I on the other hand took it an entirely different way..."Holy Crap, I want to do that!" Seems those on the left can't undertand the concept of ambition, and bettering ones lot in life, only envy for those who do (and have)...count me as motivated to match the achievement, not envious of those who have already done so!
I on the other hand took it an entirely different way..."Holy Crap, I want to do that!" Seems those on the left can't undertand the concept of ambition, and bettering ones lot in life, only envy for those who do (and have)...count me as motivated to match the achievement, not envious of those who have already done so!
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Confession of a Religious Darwinist
Does the title sould contradictory? I don't think so, and I hope to explain why...
In an earlier article (Can God Exist within Science?) I described two of the great scientific theories of the 20th Century, and how they leave room for God to still exist and exert influence on the Universe. I would like to now deal with the third leg of the altar of science today, and that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as described in the book The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.
So, I'll deal with a few issues here:
1) How can the age of the Earth, as measured by geologists and the time required for evolution be squared with the description of Creation contained in Genesis?
The classic way to get around this one is to say that the length of the "day" was not determined unil later in Creation, but I don't think this stretch is necessary.
My opinion is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but does not, and was not intended by God to be, the literal truth. Abraham and Moses could not have ever understood the timeframes represented by the some 15 billion years that have passed since the Universe came into existence. God revealed to them that He had created the Universe in a way they could understand, not the literal truth. By the same token, I believe that many great minds over the centuries like Newton, Einstein, Heizenberg, Fermi, and even Darwin came to the revelation of their truths through Divine Inspiration, and God revealed additional truth to mankind when we were ready to understand it.
2) How could Evolution have produced such complex life?
One attempt many religious people have made to discredit Evolution is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, saying that Evolution cannot be true because it is insufficient to describe the complexity of life on Earth.
Again, I think that they are missing an opportunity to fit into the holes in Evolution and exploit them, and rather attacking a theory with much evidence backing it directly.
The Origin of Species, despite its title, describes only how life forms evolve from other life forms. It does not describe how life itself started, or how the first lifeforms came to be on the Earth.
One scientific explanation, abiogenesis (life from lifelessness) has never been able to be experimentally duplicated, and has the same amount of scientific evidence behind it as Creation does.
Evolution & Religion Together
Evolution is not opposed to religion. In reality, the theory of abiogenesis is the antethisis of Creation, not evolution. It is my belief that God set the first life forth on Earth, in the full knowledge that thanks to His Law of Natural Selection, that life would multiply, evolve, and eventually give rise to intelligent creatures who would wonder about His creation.
Now here's the kicker: Scientists cannot disagree with me, as their theory of creation has the same amount of evidence, and is as much a testament of faith as Genesis is.
In an earlier article (Can God Exist within Science?) I described two of the great scientific theories of the 20th Century, and how they leave room for God to still exist and exert influence on the Universe. I would like to now deal with the third leg of the altar of science today, and that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as described in the book The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.
So, I'll deal with a few issues here:
1) How can the age of the Earth, as measured by geologists and the time required for evolution be squared with the description of Creation contained in Genesis?
The classic way to get around this one is to say that the length of the "day" was not determined unil later in Creation, but I don't think this stretch is necessary.
My opinion is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but does not, and was not intended by God to be, the literal truth. Abraham and Moses could not have ever understood the timeframes represented by the some 15 billion years that have passed since the Universe came into existence. God revealed to them that He had created the Universe in a way they could understand, not the literal truth. By the same token, I believe that many great minds over the centuries like Newton, Einstein, Heizenberg, Fermi, and even Darwin came to the revelation of their truths through Divine Inspiration, and God revealed additional truth to mankind when we were ready to understand it.
2) How could Evolution have produced such complex life?
One attempt many religious people have made to discredit Evolution is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, saying that Evolution cannot be true because it is insufficient to describe the complexity of life on Earth.
Again, I think that they are missing an opportunity to fit into the holes in Evolution and exploit them, and rather attacking a theory with much evidence backing it directly.
The Origin of Species, despite its title, describes only how life forms evolve from other life forms. It does not describe how life itself started, or how the first lifeforms came to be on the Earth.
One scientific explanation, abiogenesis (life from lifelessness) has never been able to be experimentally duplicated, and has the same amount of scientific evidence behind it as Creation does.
Evolution & Religion Together
Evolution is not opposed to religion. In reality, the theory of abiogenesis is the antethisis of Creation, not evolution. It is my belief that God set the first life forth on Earth, in the full knowledge that thanks to His Law of Natural Selection, that life would multiply, evolve, and eventually give rise to intelligent creatures who would wonder about His creation.
Now here's the kicker: Scientists cannot disagree with me, as their theory of creation has the same amount of evidence, and is as much a testament of faith as Genesis is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)