>> ^jonny:

dead


Thanks. I can't find a replacement.

You mean housing prices? Yeah, I'm aware that many houses cost more than $260k. The title is a just reference to Glengarry Glen Ross.
>> ^kir_mokum:

you do not live in vancouver.

you do not live in vancouver.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

Doesn't this need a *Canada for making fun of Vancouver?

I know Sifty, tell me I'm powerless, I know you hate me.

You didn't hear me.

I was saying the Media Research Center's writing is biased, so they're not a reliable source.

And no, I don't mean they're biased because they point out negative things about media sources other than Fox. I mean, the style of writing is biased, as I pointed out above. Do you have anything better, or perhaps some examples of your own? Anything as awful as Fox's purposefully misleading coverage?>> ^quantumushroom:

How much effort was put into this "fakeout" when the dweeb who was there can so readily "expose" it?
Sorry gang, you can call this "trickery" or what-have-you, and even if you had a signed confession from Stossel that his intent was to dress up Bolton, what the libmedia does around the clock with manipulative rubbish, plus their backup Democratainment Wing (Vancouver nee Hollywood), you've still got a ways to go, removing the sequoia from thine own eye before the mote in FOX's.

How much effort was put into this "fakeout" when the dweeb who was there can so readily "expose" it?

Sorry gang, you can call this "trickery" or what-have-you, and even if you had a signed confession from Stossel that his intent was to dress up Bolton, what the libmedia does around the clock with manipulative rubbish, plus their backup Democratainment Wing (Vancouver nee Hollywood), you've still got a ways to go, removing the sequoia from thine own eye before the mote in FOX's.



>> ^dag:

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:
QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

Vancouver hockey fans laugh at your "riot".

Nice. I have driven up and down different parts of 1-5, from LA to Vancouver, but never such a long trip in one go. Taking the coast is a slow slog. A cool route would be taking 101 north from SF to see the redwood and the coast, and then scooting back to 1-5 via 199 and Grants Pass.

Aside from the terrain, the night sky is stunning in the more isolated parts of 1-5. Driving around the Cali/Oregon boarder in summer months and seeing the milky way from a convertible is breathtaking.

Also, there's the State of Jefferson, which is cool.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^longde:
Take I-5 from SF to Portland. Some amazing scenery on that trip, especially it you're willing to go off track a little; and good beer at the end.

I've traveled from LA to Seattle by car 6 times in the last 6 months because moving to Seattle and visiting friends and such. Besides getting my time down to 17 hours for the trip I've seen some great stuff and I've never regretted driving even though I take the boring route. I want to do a Coastal Road journey next time...I think it'll be a lot of fun.

What else are they supposed to do ? How often does it snow like that in seattle I wonder ? sometimes but not very often, if its anything like Vancouver then this is a sufficient solution.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^therealblankman:
Vancouver was recently named the third worst-dressed city in the entire world, behind only Maui Hawaii and Orlando Florida (shudder). Why you may ask? One word... lululemon.
http://travel.ca.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=30567563&
amp;page=8
canada, viral, commercial

That's insane. I am totally digging the yoga pants fad. Just because some people can't wear them doesn't mean no one should!

It's all about what's appropriate to wear in any given situation. Yoga pants are inappropriate anywhere but the gym. Just as it's inappropriate to wear Spandex bicycle shorts unless you are actually riding a bicycle, or to wear Speedo trunks unless you are actually swimming. Imagine running into me at some trendy bullshit over-priced coffee bar in Kitsilano (I'm looking at you, Cafe Artigiano!) and I'm wearing my Speedos!
Yes I own a pair of Speedos, and yes I can pull off that look .


Whats appropriate to wear in any given situation is what you feel comfortable in or what you want to wear. Anyone telling you different need to mind their own business and find something better to do with their time. I do understand the requirements of a dress code for work but anything else is my decision. If ya don't like it tough. So called "fashion police" will be beaten and thrown to the sloths.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^therealblankman:
Vancouver was recently named the third worst-dressed city in the entire world, behind only Maui Hawaii and Orlando Florida (shudder). Why you may ask? One word... lululemon.
http://travel.ca.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=30567563&
amp;page=8
canada, viral, commercial

That's insane. I am totally digging the yoga pants fad. Just because some people can't wear them doesn't mean no one should!


Also... cameltoe.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^therealblankman:
Vancouver was recently named the third worst-dressed city in the entire world, behind only Maui Hawaii and Orlando Florida (shudder). Why you may ask? One word... lululemon.
http://travel.ca.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=30567563&
amp;page=8
canada, viral, commercial

That's insane. I am totally digging the yoga pants fad. Just because some people can't wear them doesn't mean no one should!


It's all about what's appropriate to wear in any given situation. Yoga pants are inappropriate anywhere but the gym. Just as it's inappropriate to wear Spandex bicycle shorts unless you are actually riding a bicycle, or to wear Speedo trunks unless you are actually swimming. Imagine running into me at some trendy bullshit over-priced coffee bar in Kitsilano (I'm looking at you, Cafe Artigiano!) and I'm wearing my Speedos!

Yes I own a pair of Speedos, and yes I can pull off that look .

>> ^therealblankman:

Vancouver was recently named the third worst-dressed city in the entire world, behind only Maui Hawaii and Orlando Florida (shudder). Why you may ask? One word... lululemon.
http://travel.ca.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=30567563&
amp;page=8
canada, viral, commercial


That's insane. I am totally digging the yoga pants fad. Just because some people can't wear them doesn't mean no one should!

Vancouver was recently named the third worst-dressed city in the entire world, behind only Maui Hawaii and Orlando Florida (shudder). Why you may ask? One word... lululemon.

http://travel.ca.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=30567563&page=8

*canada, *viral, *commercial