“Hostel Booking Site Giving Away a Free iPad to Savvy ... - PRLog (free press release)” plus 1 more

---

Hostel Booking Site Giving Away a Free iPad to Savvy ... - PRLog (free press release) Posted: 28 Apr 2010 11:31 AM PDT PR Log (Press Release) – Apr 28, 2010 – Travel in style this summer with the latest Apple gadget, the iPad. Use the travel apps, read iBooks on the plane, find the hostel for you, log on to Facebook, YouTube, check your email, surf the net..you name it! HostelsClub is giving away an iPad  for FREE to the lucky Facebook fan just in time for summer, so become a Facebook fan today! All HostelsClub.com Facebook fans (over 18 years old) past and present (excluding HostelsClub staff and their family members) are eligible, so become a fan before May 31, 2010 and take advantage of our latest giveaway! Here are 5 top reasons why iPads can come in handy for travelers: 1.   Weight –It only weighs 1.6 lbs which is much less than most laptops and even than my purse for that matter! 2.   Battery life – The battery life is claimed to last for 10 hours which is very handy when stuck somewhere that doesn't have any plugs nearby. 3.   3G – Now you can bypass local cable companies to access the internet, which saves you money on international plug ins, internet café searching and conveniently works in airports, hotels and hostels that you'll be visiting along your trip. 4.   Convenient design – If you are used to flying a lot you know how small the plane trays can be and the iPad fits conveniently on the tray allowing you to type easier too, especially if you have the iPad case. 5.   Picture download capability – If you buy the camera connection kit, it will allow you to easily upload your photos while on the road! While iPhones are small and handy, this device is just a bit larger and has more functions to play with! Become a HostelsClub facebook fan and enter the chance to win! Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

After the Speaker’s ruling: Where do we go from here? - Toronto Star Posted: 29 Apr 2010 01:00 AM PDT Speaker Peter Milliken wipes his brow while reading his ruling this week that opposition Members of Parliament have the right to ask for uncensored Afghan detainee documents from the government. Blair Gable/Reuters The Speaker of the House of Commons has now ruled that parliamentary privilege has been breached by the government's refusal to release unredacted documents to the Commons committee on the Afghan detainee transfer issue. Parliament's case has been upheld in principle, while the two sides to the bitter dispute over disclosure have been admonished to sit down together and find a solution within the parameters of his decision, in a two-week time frame. This is a wise and prudent decision with serious consequences for the constitutional relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government. In the days ahead, the responses from both sides will be decisive in determining the ultimate impact of the ruling. The government could, of course, simply comply with the ruling and turn over all the requested documents in unredacted form to the committee under appropriate conditions of secrecy (in-camera hearings, publication bans, perhaps a special swearing-in of members). This might seem unlikely given the government's consistent refusals on disclosure, both to the committee and to the Military Police Complaints Commission. What are the other options for the government? • The government could try to evade the constitutional issue by calling a full public inquiry. All three opposition parties are on record as agreeing that a public inquiry is the best route to getting to the truth. If an inquiry were called under a commissioner who commanded respect across party lines, with appropriate terms of reference, the House might withdraw its demand for documents. The upside of this option for the government is that it punts the issue far downfield. The Air India inquiry will only produce its public report in June, after four years. Yet up until now the government has steadfastly refused all calls for an inquiry. • A second option is a reference to the Supreme Court on constitutionality. The executive would be asking the judicial branch to adjudicate a constitutional dispute with the legislative branch. The problem is that a reference to the judiciary denies the parliamentary argument, supported by the Speaker, for the supremacy of Parliament. It is possible that the court might refuse to hear the reference as beyond its jurisdiction. Finally, it would place the Harper government in a curious position, since the Conservatives have inveighed relentlessly against "judge-made" public policy. Reference to the court would be an extraordinary example of the "judicialization of politics" that the Conservatives have warned against. • The Prime Minister could play political hardball by threatening to treat a resolution to hold the executive in contempt of Parliament as a vote of non-confidence, and force an election. The threat of an election might act as a deterrent to head off open confrontation by the opposition. The unpredictability of the electorate should also be a deterrent to Harper. Prorogation turned out to be unexpectedly unpopular. Forcing a fourth election in six years could cause a voter backlash, especially against the background of high economic uncertainty. The Prime Minister would have to consider the strong likelihood that even if he were returned to office, it would be with another minority, in which case the dispute would be back to square one. What are the options for Parliament? • Parliament could simply back down. If it does so in response to the calling of a public inquiry, the opposition saves face by pointing out that it was only its pressure that forced the government to do what it had insisted it would never do. If a public inquiry were to be headed by someone seen as a partisan Tory, or if its terms of reference were so narrow and restrictive as to cast doubt on its usefulness, the opposition will be hesitant to back down. Without a credible public inquiry, it would amount to an abject surrender to a virtual prime ministerial dictatorship over Parliament. • Parliament could vote to hold the executive in contempt. This would be unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history. In Britain one would have to go back to the era of the civil wars in the 17th century when Oliver Cromwell's Parliament confronted Charles I (not an encouraging precedent for Harper, as Charles ended by having his head cut off!). It is not clear what such a vote would bring about in practice, other than precipitating an election. Parliament could try to enforce its demand for documents by threatening the minister of justice with arrest for non-compliance, but this seems an outcome as extreme as it is improbable. Alternatively, were the government to simply ignore a contempt vote and try to proceed with business as usual, we enter into uncharted waters. • Parliament could proceed with legislation giving its demand for documents statutory authority. This would have to pass the Senate, which now has a slight Conservative majority. While Harper could call upon his appointees to vote down legislation passed by the elected chamber, it would sit very oddly with his campaign for an elected upper house. Finally, if it cleared both houses, the Prime Minister might try to persuade the Governor General to withhold royal assent, but this would be a very tough sell both to the vice-regent and to the democratic electorate. All the options available to both sides point to lurking dangers. In the absence of clear precedents, available guides are like those medieval maps that signified the cartographer's ignorance with the notation: "Here be dragons." The most sensible course of action for both parties would be to take the Speaker's admonition to heart, sit down together and work out some acceptable compromise. If the government would drop its unjustifiable insistence that Members of Parliament have no more rights to sensitive information than members of the general public, the opposition parties should also consider recognizing that disclosure of some protected information to politicians, even in a secure setting, might be damaging to Canadian interests. Foreign governments and their agencies providing confidential documents to Canada under strict caveats on disclosure are unlikely to agree to their documents being opened to parliamentarians. They could shut off intelligence exchange with Canada in retaliation, with damage to Canadian interests resulting. This is a practical constraint that need not impinge on parliamentary access to unredacted information from sources within the Canadian government. Reasonable compromises could be made, given good faith on both sides. Reason and good faith, however, seem to be in very short supply in Ottawa. But before pushing matters to the brink of unprecedented confrontation, both sides should ponder the warning: Here be dragons. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

You are subscribed to email updates from Maps Guides - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610