That's what I thought, too. Then I read this today:

Unfortunately, Alberta's isn't that great. This article mentions having to move equipment from hospital to hospital in taxis. My dad, because of Redford's (and previous Premiers') health care cuts, has to spend his time in one hospital, and will have to be moved back and forth to another one on the other side of the city up to three times a week for the treatment he needs. The Conservatives keep pushing for a more privatized health care model - which means cutting funding for the nurses to staff the beds at the hospitals.

After reading Rob's blog, it's probably best to change the second link to http://robrhinehart.com/?p=298. Adding his third post about it may be beneficial, too: http://robrhinehart.com/?p=474.

So if it's distributed digitally, it'll be worthless?

Maybe it's just differences in education in different parts of the country (although, considering the political leaning of Alberta, and especially the town I grew up in, it was probably just my specific teachers), but I was taught that Socialism and Communism are not the same - Socialism being a combination of Capitalism and Communism using the selected best bits of each to form a mixed economy. And I agree (if I'm reading your "ruin things" correctly) that it's too bad that more people can't see Harper and the Tories he's leading for what they are. Although, with only 40% of the popular vote, I guess most of us tried to get rid of them and screwed ourselves through split-votes.

You do realize that the person you replied to is from Canada (a Socialist country), right? Socialism, unlike Communism, does allow for private ownership.

I didn't want to have an enormous summary, so I didn't flesh that out. FTA:

Now, as someone who has been the target of many a vicious attack from commenters or forum posters, I can understand frustration with the nature of online anonymous criticism. But to actually try to make such a thing illegal? You wade into dangerous waters that anything resembling freedom of speech will likely drown in. And that’s overlooking the free speech implications trampled by banning pornography and file-sharing as well, two provisions getting less attention due to the severity of the libel section.

Via CBS, a senator who opposed the bill explains its potential ramifications:

“If you click ‘like,’ you can be sued, and if you share, you can also be sued,” said Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, one of the lawmakers who voted against the passage of the law.

“Even Mark Zuckerberg can be charged with cyber-libel,” the senator said.

The provision, according to Guingona, is so broad and vague that it’s not even clear who should be liable for a given statement online. And if you’re found guilty, get ready to spend up to 12 years in prison.

Guingona poses the question, who exactly is libel for the libel? Is it the person who made the statements? Anyone who reblogged or retweeted them? The website on which the comments were made? Anyone who commented in assent or even clicked ‘like’? The way the law is worded, the Filipino police could actually charge you with simply criticizing them or the government in a way they deem “malicious,” a word very much open to interpretation.