Ezra's response:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aadae/aadae5d8efe49ba70bd74c069dd1d9b39ceee4ff" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/94d68/94d68579bdf41568034ac14f9ea958a75bb2ed30" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b7c5/1b7c59f831370d8fd6ec1e8862f3a14a5cea4b80" alt=""
And here's what I think they look like:
Note that Styrofoam snow is an old standby in Xmas tree decorating.
And here's a good explanation of what the "Ararat Anomaly" really is.
PS. Or the snow might be this stuff.
He's quite right: looking through the Open Parliament references , you find a whole three pages worth of MP debate on this bill, extending from about May of 2009 until the end of March 2010. Of the Tory Caucus, only Terence Young, James Lunney, Ed Fast, Jacques Gourde, and Steven Blaney bother to raise the government's objections. Furthermore, their arguments come slathered in rhetorical goo touting the Conservatives commitment to official bilingualism. This is an interesting contrast to the response from grassroots conservatives, which has veered towards the apocalyptic. So what's going on? Clearly, the government is walking on egg-shells over C-232.
One possibility, that Gunter raises but seems to discount, is that the Tory strategy is to let the bill die in the Senate. With a government plurality in the upper chamber, that seems a likely outcome, especially since the new Senators tend to vote like CPoC back-benchers, and since independent Senator Elaine McCoy has expressed her disapproval of the bill in fairly strong language.
Beyond that, there is some question as to how onerous the new requirement would actually be. Max Yalden writes that
[Dan] Gardner is not altogether accurate when he says that the proposed bill would "bar anyone who is not fully fluent" in the two languages from appointment to the Supreme Court. What it says is that a person may be appointed who "understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter" which is a quite different, and less demanding, criterion.
This point gets expanded upon in Ms. McCoy's comments section:
Drastically less demanding. And I'm sure you know that simply understanding speech is quite different from the requirement to be fully bilingual, or be able to speak or write fluently. And you are too canny to confuse the difference between interpreters and translators. The bill has the very mild aim that the Supreme Court meet the same basic standard as all other courts, the Federal Court, Tax Court, Court of Appeal, etc., which have all had the same requirement for years now, with no noticeable problem. It is a standard the Supreme Court has itself approved and advanced, for all other Federal courts and institutions. And eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices currently meet that mild criterion of oral understanding, and it was nine of nine until recently, and I know of no-one that has accused those courts' composition as evidence of lower legal standards...Oh well! The Ceej must think they're special! Steyn never apologizes, no matter how big the screwup. For example, this column still remains on the Macleans website. In it, Steyn accuses CHRC investigator Dean Steacy of illegal acts, based on the say-so of a couple of Neo-Nazis. When the RCMP cleared Mr. Steacy, what did we get out of Macleans or Mr. Steyn? Nada.
And speaking of illegal acts, it look Shaidle's husband, in the context of his endless Muslim bashing, is down to publishing kiddy-porn. I'm not going to link to him, but it seems to me that he has gone to a very dark place, and then decided it wasn't dark enough.
Like punks playing Springsteen, with a bit of the Pogues thrown in, and more guitars than Lynerd Skynerd.
Although I would advise Mr. Stickles, who just might just be a Rawwk genius, to lose the beard. Beards and Rawwk don't mix. Jim Morrison died after he grew a beard. Think about it, son.
I think what Bill means is that he came to town once and seen hisself a neegro. But maybe I'm over-analysing.
And on the capital city of the new Ontario:
One guy wrote it up, here in my own riding, that we'd have it in Bognor. That's where I live ... and we have a new bridge.... We didn't have a bridge for a long time and we argued and fought about it and finally they built us one.