Perelandra wrote:FYI, Hava is not a native english speaker, and green text indicates the use of sarcasm. Hope that helps and carry on.Feilan wrote:I am, overall, more confused than ever by this latest response from you.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by hava1 » Fri May 06, 2011 3:49 pm
Perelandra wrote:FYI, Hava is not a native english speaker, and green text indicates the use of sarcasm. Hope that helps and carry on.Feilan wrote:I am, overall, more confused than ever by this latest response from you.
by hava1 » Fri May 06, 2011 3:54 pm
Canadian_watcher wrote:hava1 wrote:Whenever you see thorns, keep in mind a rose is attached to it...i memorize that in such moments/
Not always. There was a tree overhanging my peaceful patio - its branches were very thorny & quite dangerous. It didn't flower but would grow berries that turned black and fell into our food.
I lived with it for years but last week I cut that tree down.
by Canadian_watcher » Fri May 06, 2011 3:58 pm
hava1 wrote:i meant to compliment , and will stick with that.
In Israel you would be charged with criminal offense for taking a tree down, unless you apply for a special license from the nature conservation authority and they examine your need vs the tree's rights, and in most cases deny the application if other less drastic means can be found to remove the nuisance.Canadian_watcher wrote:hava1 wrote:Whenever you see thorns, keep in mind a rose is attached to it...i memorize that in such moments/
Not always. There was a tree overhanging my peaceful patio - its branches were very thorny & quite dangerous. It didn't flower but would grow berries that turned black and fell into our food.
I lived with it for years but last week I cut that tree down.
by Feilan » Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 pm
Perelandra wrote:FYI, Hava is not a native english speaker, and green text indicates the use of sarcasm. Hope that helps and carry on.Feilan wrote:I am, overall, more confused than ever by this latest response from you.
hava wrote:Thanks, but if she greens my quote does that means she perceived my words as sarcastic ?
by hava1 » Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Feilan wrote: I think Hava's use of written English is excellent, powerful, and capable of a wide range of subtleties that generally take second language learner's so, so, so long to work out. h.
by Perelandra » Fri May 06, 2011 4:36 pm
Oh OK, I'm sorry to have interrupted your dialogue. I agree that her English is excellent and admire her persistence. The only thing I would add that I see in her writing is a definite, sometimes dark(?), sense of humor.Feilan wrote:I am aware of both of these things, but thank you for this constructive aside. If I were not so aware, I would be glad to be told.
I teach English as a Second Language to Adults. I think Hava's use of written English is excellent, powerful, and capable of a wide range of subtleties that generally take second language learner's so, so, so long to work out.
by Feilan » Fri May 06, 2011 4:43 pm
... *(the rose, not the thorns! 
)
! An ESL teacher who would dare be sarcastic about such a thing ought to be dealt with in harshest terms. 
and now the not so closeted fascists among us turn that distinction into a slur and call us anti-american.by Canadian_watcher » Fri May 06, 2011 4:47 pm
by Feilan » Fri May 06, 2011 5:25 pm
by MinM » Fri May 06, 2011 7:10 pm
Vegas-vacationing NDP MP still missing in action
By Andrew Mayeda and Amy Minsky, Postmedia News May 5, 2011
OTTAWA — The search continues for Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the New Democrat MP who took a trip to Las Vegas during the election campaign and will now make an annual salary of $157,000 as a member of Parliament.
Brosseau won the Quebec riding of Berthier-Maskinonge on Monday despite the fact she doesn't speak French well and didn't mount much of a campaign. The single mother works at a campus pub at Carleton University in Ottawa and lives in nearby Gatineau, Que., about 300 kilometres southwest of the riding.
Brosseau was one of a number of relatively inexperienced MPs swept into office on Monday night, when the NDP captured a record 102 seats, including 58 in Quebec.
An NDP spokesman said Brosseau participated in a conference call with the NDP caucus on Thursday in which party leader Jack Layton greeted his greatly enlarged team and began to lay the groundwork for the return of Parliament in the coming weeks.
But the party continued to refuse requests to interview Brosseau. Since being elected, she has been brushing up on her French and receiving other training to prepare for life as an MP.
"She does speak some French, but she wants to be ready to support the people of Berthier-Maskinonge, because that's what she's been elected to do," said Karl Belanger, Layton's senior press secretary.
It's expected Brosseau will give her first interview to local francophone media in the riding.
Party officials were even being coy about the whereabouts of Brosseau, who is likely to attract a big media scrum on her first day in the House of Commons.
"I believe she's in the region here," said Belanger.
Belanger wasn't sure if Brosseau has ever been to the riding. An NDP official in Montreal said the party doesn't have an office in the riding.
Before Brosseau was swept into public office, she was the assistant manager at Oliver's, a campus pub at Carleton University in Ottawa. On a quiet afternoon at the pub, with three customers and two employees in the large, stale and dimly lit room, Brosseau's boss, Rod Castro, had only nice things to say about her.
"You know, she was a good worker, she was nice and kind, and she was an animal activist," he said, noting he knew the full-time employee on a professional level, and not a personal level.
He gave Brosseau this week off, but he said he doesn't expect her to return to the job.
He hasn't received her official notice though, because employment paperwork goes through the student union, which runs the bar.
Castro said he's only touched base with Brosseau once since election day.
"We were on the phone, and I congratulated her. We joked a bit," he said.
Her successful campaign was "very surprising," he said — especially since he hadn't even known she was running until a few weeks into the campaign.
Still, he's sure she'll do a good job in Parliament, he said, adding he wished someone had asked him — a Carleton political science graduate — to run.
Despite the gentle encouragement Brosseau may be receiving from those who know her, she has been placed under the public microscope.
This week, she came under scrutiny over the nomination papers that allowed her to stand as an NDP candidate. One of the individuals whose name appears on the papers told Radio-Canada this week that he didn't recall signing them.
The man also said the version of his wife's signature that appears on the forms looks nothing like her real signature.
Brosseau's party website describes her as a "dedicated community activist and volunteer" who has spent years finding homes for stray animals in her community. She has a diploma in advertising and integrated marketing communications from St. Lawrence College in Kingston, Ont.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decisi ... story.html
by Jeff » Fri May 06, 2011 9:06 pm
He was dubbed The Man Who Wasn’t There – Jim Hillyer, a first-time Conservative candidate in the southern Alberta city of Lethbridge.
Mr. Hillyer replaced a popular outgoing MP in the Tory stronghold, but set about a quiet absentee campaign that stirred an uproar in the tightly knit community, which is accustomed to meeting its candidates.
He earned his moniker from a local newspaper after failing to show up at a pair of debates, repeatedly refusing interview requests and declining to speak to a local blogger who used Twitter to track him down while he was door knocking, an activity he said was more important. (In a video of the encounter posted online, Mr. Hillyer said he couldn’t talk because he had to use the bathroom.)
by Canadian_watcher » Sat May 07, 2011 8:09 am
by Jeff » Sat May 07, 2011 8:30 am
Honestly the idea of not sitting never crossed my mind. I am someone with a strong will and I'm also a very stubborn woman. Once I decide to do something, I stay determined to do it. I am very loyal. I've always supported the NDP and I plan to do the same thing for for the people of my constituency.
by Feilan » Sat May 07, 2011 10:36 am
Jeff wrote:Electoral waves elect unlikely MPs. Ordinary people who allow their names to be put forward as candidates by their parties in places where it's presumed they have no chance. Then get on with there lives. Unless they're elected. It's happened with every party. Funny though, I don't remember this scrutiny of Mulroney's new Quebec backbench in 1984. Judging by how they turned out, there really ought to have been some.
The Conservatives did it this election, too. Except it happened in a southern Alberta riding they were guaranteed to win.
Ruth Ellen. by vanlose kid » Sat May 07, 2011 1:16 pm
$30 Billion Pension Surplus Fight Continues?
Submitted by Leo Kolivakis on 05/06/2011 22:52 -0400
Via Pension Pulse.
Amy Minsky of Postmedia News reports in the Ottawa Citizen, Top court OKs appeal in PS unions' $30B pension fight:
Federal unions and retiree groups will continue their decade-long legal fight to get $30 billion of their pension plan fund back from the government.
The Supreme Court of Canada decided Thursday that the plaintiffs had legal grounds to appeal a 2007 decision that said 700,000 public servants, military and RCMP personnel were not entitled to any of the $30-billion surplus in their pension plans.
The surplus has been at the centre of a historic legal battle for more than a decade, which began shortly after the Chrétien government used the surplus in 1999 to help offset the deficit.
"It was a money grab," said Patty Ducharme, national executive vice-president with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, one of 18 unions involved in the battle. "The federal government has a responsibility to its employees, to the plan members; but they just took that money out of the plan and stole it."
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2007 ruled against unions, which had filed a claim in 1999 to force the government to return the $30-billion surplus to the plan.
The plaintiffs also lost their appeal.
Pensions continue to be at the tops of many baby boomers' minds, as thousands prepare to retire from the public service over the next several years.
This battle began months after Parliament passed Bill C-78, amending the law governing public service retirement benefits.
The revision gave government permission to use surpluses from its employees' pension funds and either spend the money or transfer it to the general government coffers.
Before the legislation was amended, the Treasury Board had no legal authority to relocate or redistribute the surplus, according to the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
So even though government abided by its laws when it used the surplus to offset the deficit, Ducharme said the government's actions were "immoral and unethical," and that the money was "stolen" from public servants.
The Ontario court rejected the claims, and instead accepted the government's argument that the $30 billion at the centre of the dispute was not a surplus, but rather an accounting device used to monitor government liabilities.
A spokesman with the Treasury Board said the government could not comment on the case since it is before the courts, but assured public servants they would continue receiving their benefits.
Shortly after the government appropriated the pension surplus, it increased the amount its employees were required to pay into the fund - something Ducharme said is backwards and unfair.
"If they had done one or the other, it probably wouldn't have been quite as offensive.
"But they did," she said. "If there's money enough to take $30 billion out of the fund, but then you crank up the amount the employees have to pay, somehow it just doesn't seem right.
"You're getting it from both directions."
The National Union of Public and General Employees released this statement:The Supreme Court of Canada has granted the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) application for leave to appeal a longstanding pension case.
In October 2010 the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed PSAC's case against the federal government for expropriating $28 billion from the federal superannuation fund.
At issue is the fact that the federal government raided a $28 billion surplus from the public service, RCMP and Canadian Forces pension plans after passing legislation that restructured the way the plans are managed.
PSAC claims that the government breached the trust of plan members, violating its fiduciary duty and not meeting its obligations.
In addition, PSAC maintains that the removal of $28 billion in pension contributions, impacting 700,000 employees, is a matter of national importance.
The union believes that the trial judge incorrectly concluded that the Superannuation Accounts had not accrued assets. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the government was required to and did put aside real funds to deal with its pension obligations, along with funds collected from plan members' contributions.
PSAC also disagreed with the trial judge's conclusion that the government had no fiduciary obligation toward plan members and toward their interest in the surplus. The evidence presented in the case established that this was true.
The Court of Appeal found that the federal government did have the discretion to remove the surplus funds, even if it resulted in higher pension contributions for plan members. PSAC believes that the government must be held to account for its actions and that the funds should be restored to the pension fund.
This is an interesting case. The big issue is who does the pension surplus belong to, the plan sponsor (Government of Canada) or the employees represented by the unions? Some argue that investment gains should belong to the plan sponsor because it allows them to lower the cost of funding the pension and in the case of a shortfall, they're on the hook for topping up the pension plan. Others argue that pension surpluses belong to employees because without their contributions, these surpluses wouldn't exist.
I think there is a case to be made on both sides but using pension surpluses to pay down deficits and then increasing the contribution rate is a low blow. I can understand why the unions are fighting this case hard. Hopefully, it won't take another decade to resolve it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/30-bil ... -continues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
