Feb. 28 - Just when you think it's the last word on something ... according to Canadians are open to missile plan from the National Post, Canadians seem to "oppose it in practice, support it in principle."

A recent Compas poll indicates that:

The survey shows 54% oppose Canadian participation in the shield and 36% support it. But while opposing the shield itself, many respondents support the principles behind its creation.

For example, 56% said Canada should help protect North America against missiles, while 53% said it cannot be an independent country if it relies on the United States for protection.

Furthermore, 53% of those surveyed believe Canada needs to protect its cities because the country does have enemies and only 30% give credence to the argument that increased military spending will provoke others to attack Canada.

[...]

There is also a dwindling belief the United States would help defend Canada against an international attack, the poll suggests.

In April, 1998, 32% of respondents said they had "a lot of confidence" the Americans would protect Canada. By April, 2003, the percentage who gave the same answer fell to 19% and in the new poll, the number stands at 13%.

Only in Quebec is the opposition to missile defence unshakeable, according to the COMPAS poll. In that province, respondents reject the program by a ratio of three to one. Mr. Winn [COMPAS president Conrad Winn] suggested Quebec has a long history of opposing military programs, dating back to the Boer War.

(Link via Canada Free Press.)

Posted by: Debbye at 03:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 28 - Startling article by Judi McLeod and David Hawkins in Canada Free Press about Canada's hidden, media-ignored role in electronic warfare.

Weapons of electronic intelligence and electronic warfare are where the nation of Canada holds the cutting edge.

Through an intricate series of subsidiaries and sub-contractors, leading back to the blind trust running his Canadian Steamship Lines company, Prime Minister Paul Martin is still at the epicenter of that cutting edge.

In the development and design of Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) for military aircraft, Canada maintains a first-place role.

IAPs are published instructions to pilots, specifying a series of aircraft maneuvers that must be executed for the aircraft to transition safety from an en route driving final approach, when flying by instruments.

In addition to CMC and BAE selling flight simulators in the global marketplace, Lansdowne's project managers also conduct something called "Lessons Learned" or what the Americans would call, "Red-Team Analysis" for NORAD's war games--including the simulations carried out on, and just prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Irrefutable proof that NORAD was conducting "simulation experiments" at the same time as the attacks, exists.

It was alleged confusion from these war game simulations that gave the NORAD commanders the convenient (and at the time, credible) excuse to order all U.S. Air Force military bases to "stand down" when they were about to scramble jets to escort or shoot down the alleged hijacked aircraft that nearly one hour later, crashed into several buildings.

Explaining the 9/11 collapse of NORAD command, control, communications and intelligence (C31 war-room) systems, the 9/11 Commission report cited a failure of imagination where no one (in America, at least) conducted "Red Team"--analysis as seen through the eyes of the enemy on how to convert hijacked jets into fuel-laden, precision-guided, un-intercepted missiles. (See www.9/11 Commission Report).

It now appears that project managers for the then-Paul Martin-owned Lansdowne Blind Trust Company were conducting Red-Team Analysis, in support of Canada’s participation in NORAD’s 9/11-style war games–but they just didn’t happen to share their web-enabled war-room insights with Canada’s allies in America.

The 9/11 Commission claimed that prior to September 11, 2001 no one was looking for possible telltale indicators that may have aroused suspicion. Indicators, such as prospective Arab-speaking terrorist group members using the CSL blind trust concealed behind Lansdowne to buy advanced flight simulators from companies such as CAE in Montreal, or flight-training lessons from corporate giants, such as Bombardier, which operates the NATO flight-training schools in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

Is CanadaÂ’s role in the ongoing attacks on the American-led "Coalition of the Willing", one of counter-counter terror?

Posted by: Debbye at 03:16 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Feb. 28 - Mark Steyn looks at the President's recent European trip and the Aftermath balance sheet.

Mark re-states something about life in Europe that we in North America find incomprehensible, i.e., the failure of European countries to bring Muslim immigrants into the mainstream and, although he doesn't state it, provide them with economic freedom, i.e., employment:

Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, Mr. Bush found time to cast his eye upon Europe's internal affairs. He told his Brussels audience, in his tour's first speech, "We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands."

The Euro-bigwigs shuffled their feet and stared coldly into their mistresses' decolletage. They knew Mr. Bush wasn't talking about anti-Semitism in Nebraska, but about France, where for three years there has been a sustained campaign of synagogue burning and cemetery desecration, and Germany, where the Berlin police advise Jewish residents not to go out in public wearing any identifying marks of their faith. The "violence in the Netherlands" is a reference to Theo van Gogh, murdered by a Dutch Islamist for making a film critical of the Muslim treatment of women. Van Gogh's professional colleagues reacted to this assault on freedom of speech by canceling his movie from the Rotterdam Film Festival and scheduling some Islamist propaganda instead.

The president, in other words, understands that for Europe, unlike America, the war on terror is an internal affair, a matter of defusing large unassimilated radicalized Muslim immigrant populations before they provoke the inevitable resurgence of opportunist political movements feeding off old hatreds. Difficult trick to pull off, especially on the Continent where the ruling elite feels it's in the people's best interest not to pay any attention to them.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

Feb. 28 - On Monday, 10,000 Lebanese defied a ban on demonstrations to press their demands for Syria's withdrawal (10,000 in Beirut Join Protest Against Syria) as the Lebanese parliament opened in its first session since former PM Rafik Hariri's assassination of Feb. 14. [13:00 - This just in: Lebanese government resigns! Also, the crowd size is now estimated at 25,000.]

Syrian president Assad denies any involvement in the bombing which killed Hariri and told an Italian newspaper that to do so would have been an act of "political suicide." That may seem self-evident given ensuing events, but was it so February 14? Of course not.

CNN estimated there were 50,000 protesters in Martyr's Square and elaborates on the ban:

An estimated 50,000 people gathered Monday in Beirut's Martyr Square despite an order a day earlier by Lebanon's Interior Ministry for military forces to "use all necessary means" to make sure the demonstrations did not take place.

What I find most hopeful is that past differences between Lebanese factions seem to have been overridden by the desire to take back control over their own country (see this article on the tent city.) One of the arguments against any form of consensual government functioning in the Mid-east has been conflict - often armed - between religious, tribal and ethic groups which had been arbitrarily lumped together to form a "country" although there were few ties other than geography which bound the inhabitants into a cohesive unit.

The Iraqi people have shown that they can find common ground which can benefit all the Iraqi people and, perhaps more significantly, reach compromises. Although this unity is still in its infancy, within that transcendence of narrow self-interests lies the seeds of the future for countries of the Mid-east.

The question of Syrian involvement in Hariri's assassination is almost moot. Although it serves as a rallying cry for those tired of Syrian occupation and domination of Lebanon, the long supressed aspirations of the Lebanese for national sovereignty lie at the heart of the crisis in Lebanon and defiance of the ban against demonstrations spring from a recognition of the rights of free men and women.

There's been much discussion about Thomas L. Friedman's column in the NY Times yesterday, The Tipping Points (see extended entry for item) in which he discusses three tipping points in the Mid-east: Iraqi elections, the Lebanese defiance of Syria, and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, but he doesn't tie the events together satisfactorily.

The impetus for change - and that's at heart what the tipping points represent - stem from U.S. response to the events of Sept. 11. Those who observed that the tensions in the Mid-east were reaching critical mass were shocked into recognition that these conflicts had ceased to be spectator sport and had landed in our front yards and that we had to do something, not just anything, and it had to be something that could provide hope to counterpose against the despair of death cultism.

We were paying attention to root causes, but we chose to go the hard course and press to change the biggest root cause from which the others stemmed.

Fact: No democracy has ever gone to war against another democracy.

Fact: One of the characteristics that has propelled homo sapiens forward is our ability to look at what others have done and to adapt it to fit ourselves.

Conclusion: If one people in one country in the Mid-east (besides Israel) can form a government based on and adherent to the recognition of human rights and consensual rule, others will believe that they too can do so and strive towards that goal.

I supported the Iraq war not due to any fears about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction but because it seemed fertile ground for planting the seeds of democracy and, as we had to start somewhere, it seemed natural to pick up where we had (regrettably) left off in Gulf War I.

The Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution and the courageous voter turn-out by the Iraqi people on January 30 are, I think, part of an ongoing revolution which is peaceful by nature but determined in intent (as indicated by the steadfastness of the Lebanese) and the only question now is in the specifics: where the impact of these marches to freedom will next be made manifest.

The United States and the Coalition of the Willing can take credit for planting the seeds, but it is those who strive for freedom who deserve credit for taking these bold steps toward a new future. I don't know how it will all end, but I have to believe that we have averted a war of civilizations that would have seen the destruction of one and the diminishment of the other. more...

Posted by: Debbye at 11:34 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1597 words, total size 10 kb.

Feb. 28 - This could be titled "Look what we found" as Syria tries to placate Iraq and the USA with the capture of Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan (Syria captures Saddam's brother) by suddenly locating someone on the "Wanted" list:

Iraqi officials yesterday said Syria had captured and handed over Saddam Hussein's half brother, a most-wanted leader in the Sunni-based insurgency.

The action was described by Iraqi authorities as a goodwill gesture by Damascus, but it followed months of Syrian denials that fugitives from the ousted Saddam regime were hiding on their territory.

Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, who shared a mother with Saddam, was nabbed with 29 other fugitive members of the former dictator's Ba'ath Party in Hasakah in northeastern Syria, 30 miles from the Iraqi border, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The U.S. military in Iraq had no immediate comment.

Posted by: Debbye at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 28 - True, somewhat grim title but I feel an anger at the pit of my stomach that has no words over this latest outrage (Car Bomb Kills at Least 115 in Iraq.)

I realize that the death cultists have little recourse but to murder and spread mayhem; after all, what else to they have to offer? On my better days I try to pity them for their failure to embrace the gift of life, but most days I just hate them.

FoxNews reports (at least on the televised coverage) that those present worked together to load the wounded onto ambulances and gather body parts of the dead. It's some comfort to see that solidarity and humanity in the middle of the wreckage, and not a day goes by that I don't see new reasons to respect the courage of those trying to build a new nation.

Courage. What a small, pitiful word for such a breathtaking concept.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:34 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 27 - I don't often get depressed after reading an Andrew Coyne post, but when he's right, he's right, and his conclusions about The missile defence decision are bang on:

... the only objection most of the critics have is that it involves a) the Americans, and b) military hardware. And because a good number of these people are to be found on the Liberal backbench, the Prime Minister feels obliged to kowtow to them. So we will make critical decisions on foreign and defence policy based on purely internal politics -- internal, not as in Canada, but as in the Liberal Party.

I had followed Bob's link to a Toronto Star editorial which criticized Martin's decision not to participate in the missile defense shield program and noted but couldn't comment on this assertion until the inner ranting ceased:

Yet, if Martin failed a leadership test, Bush also failed to make a decisive case for joining. And Harper offered Bush no comfort. This was a systems failure from the get-go. The Three Amigos never got their act together.

So much for the much-ballyhooed Canadian sovereignty. By blaming Bush, the Toronto Star editorial concedes that Canada's leaders don't have the capability (or balls) to provide leadership on issues that concern the defense of Canada.

The Star editorial ends with misplaced optimism

If that [increased military spending in the recent budget] doesn't buy us credibility with allies, nothing will.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:22 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

Feb. 25 - There's been commentary aplenty over the hounding of Jeff Gannon, but the best (and funniest) response I've seen thus far is from John Hawkins, who applies the Gannon Standard to a certain "real," "non-biased" journalist who is not a reporter - she's a columnist - but who is a regular at White House press conferences.

I won't tell you who that might be, but if you think "Queen of the Editorialized Question" you'll probably have it figured out.

By the way, second runner-up for best and funniest response is Ann Coulter, in Republicans, bloggers and gays, oh my!

Have a good weekend, everyone. As Dennis Miller used to say on SNL, I. Am. Out of Here.

Posted by: Debbye at 04:41 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've always been a huge fan of Dennis Miller. I love the ending quote, Debbye. As for the content of your post, I'd only like to add this opine: how petty can the left wing get? Gannon has quickly become the Richard Jewel of the 21st century, the poor guy.

Posted by: Rafer at February 25, 2005 10:19 PM (Ojo2r)

2 You've completely missed the point Debbye. 1) The Maureen Dowd article was criticizing the Bush press room for keeping her out (despite being from the most respected news daily in the country), but they allow in a man from the Talon News (a right-wing front website and nothing more)... Her criticism had nothing to do with him being gay. (YOU and Ann Coulter are the ones being petty for implying it) 2) The criticism of Gannon for being gay is in no way homosexual. When the side that actually stands up for Gay rights points out that Gannon is gay, it is only to point out once again that the right-wing is being hypocritical. While it contains many who happen to be homosexual, they still say they don't like gays in order to keep the religious crowd on their side. 3) Oh, yeah, there is SOME relevance to the gay-angle... He isn't just gay, which is acceptable even to you apparently... HE WAS A MALE PROSTITUTE, which is considered bad whether your left-wing or right-wing remember. Please read some alternative viewpoints next time and actually weigh them against each other. Simply parroting opinions from www.rightwingnews.com and Ann Coulter Op-Ed's will do nothing more than make you sound stupid and uneducated. (which I know is in fashion across the U.S.of A.)

Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 26, 2005 09:13 PM (Ojo2r)

3 Upon re-reading, in 2), I should have said the gay-angle of the Gannon critique was in no Way HOMOPHOBIC, not 'homosexual' as I accidentally typed. I felt I should point this out because the only response I would probably get otherwise would be a right-wing-nutjob simply telling me I'm wrong because I used the wrong term.'

Posted by: Rafer's MOM Again at February 26, 2005 09:15 PM (Ojo2r)

4 Life must be good if the most the left can dig up on the Bush White House is this silly bit of trivia. 1) Gannon had a day pass. Dowd could have gotten a day pass too (if you don't apply, you don't get one). What's the problem here? So Gannon was guilty of asking lame questions, but so does Helen Thomas. And you are saying people should get worked up about this? Whatever. 2) Uh...have you ever thought that maybe Republicans don't care about someone's sexual orientation as much as the Democrats think they do. Interesting that right wing nutjob sites like the Daily Kos seemed to be the most interested in Gannon's sexual orientation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/174746/7900 a "While it contains many who happen to be homosexual, they still say they don't like gays in order to keep the religious crowd on their side." Please enlighten me. Who are these "they" people? Or are you just making this stuff up? I've heard that Dick Cheney's daughter is gay. (Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards made a point of repeating it for some reason . I don't think the Cheneys' don't love their daughter any less). Interesting knots that the left ties themselves into. Gannon can't really be gay because he's a Republican? Condi Rice can't really be black since she's a Republican? The US political left is just waay too funny. 3) So are you suggesting that access to the White House should be based on an investigation of someone's sexual history? Are you scared that he was a prostitute (you must be is you had to write it ALL IN CAPS). Please clarify. One last point. From your first post: "Simply parroting opinions from www.rightwingnews.com and Ann Coulter Op-Ed's will do nothing more than make you sound stupid and uneducated. (which I know is in fashion across the U.S.of A.)" From your second post: "I felt I should point this out because the only response I would probably get otherwise would be a right-wing-nutjob simply telling me I'm wrong because I used the wrong term.'" Let me get this straight...you call other people "stupid and uneducated" and then you stereotype anyone challenging you as a "right wing nutjob". Now, that doesn't sound very intelligent. Is that all the rage from where you are or do you just enjoy living an irony free lifestyle? Seriously, I have a (reasonably) open mind if someone makes a logically consistent argument. This doesn't seem to be it. Care to try again? Debbye, interesting series of recent posts. You seem to attract the cutest trolls. Don't seem like the sharpest knives though.

Posted by: Warren at February 27, 2005 01:25 AM (bbB+U)

5 Nice come back, Warren (and good to see you again.) Actually, there's only one troll. He amuses himself by using different names.

Posted by: Debbye at February 27, 2005 11:55 AM (1UGQM)

6 I suspected. Should I reactivate my Best of Joey contribution?

Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 12:38 PM (EzNXf)

7 Here you go, Mr. Warren, (and Rafer I suppose)... You didn't have a chance to begin with, but good try anyways. I was very impressed with your arguments at first. It wasn't until I started to pick away at them that I realized you were just labelling me most of the time and ignoring my main points. ------- 1) I don't think people should get worked up about the day passes, but if Dowd is REJECTED despite being from the NYT and Gannon gets in every day on that same day pass, then we MIGHT have a problem. That's the part of my post that you didnt' address by the way. I didn't forget. 2) On accepting gays, I have no doubt that many republicans don't have a problem with homosexuals. On this website particularly I don't think you guys hate them or anything. You just don't want them to marry. I know for a fact (because I watch American TV) that there ARE millions of right-leaning "right wing nutjobs" that hate gays. This is basically impossible to deny. It is common knowledge that the Republicans represent the religions nutballs who hate gays. On the topic Cheney's daughter, I was assuming her existence. I was also reminded of the Alan Keyes daughter situation which is much worse. I'm not saying the Cheney's hate their daughter, and Cheney coming out on the side of gay marriage was commendable. That must have taken huge balls. The point on the fact that many republicans are gay but cover it up is simply my earlier point of hypocrisy again. Gannon is simply one example of a "hard right" politico who for some reason would rather have the political benefits of the Republicans while defacing those that are like him. On Condi not being black because she's republican. I made more sense than that. Let us point out here that the left doesn't tie themselves into knows. The truth of the matter is that the right-wing dominated news outlets LABEL the Left as tying themselves in knots. While Kerry's "flip flops" were easily explainable, he had nowhere near the capability to defend himself publically when he was lambasted from all side with the LABEL. (Not that me OR John Kerry is a liberal in the first place, in any real sense of the word. That's another problem altogether, with people like Kerry and I again LABELLED before we can defend ourselves. In any other country but the U.S., the view of myself and especially Kerry would be centrist, if not slightly conservative.) 3) Oh my god, I can't believe you just defended a gay prostitute, meanwhile, trying to label me a homophobe. Again, you blatantly disregarded the main point I was making. (Same problem with labels as before) Questioning my intelligence because I call you a "right wing nutjob"... AGAIN you ignore the facts. I just used good arguments to deflate each one of your attacks, which upon a first read seemed reasonable. On a second read, I simply realized that you weren't addressing what I'd said. I call you people "right wing nutjobs" because I'm playing at your level... All over the right wing news and blogospher, suppossed left wingers are called "kooks" and other similar labels to what I call you. There you go. None of your arguments could stand up to a simple retort based on the facts already presented in my first articles responding to Rafer.

Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 04:30 PM (Ojo2r)

8 "None of your arguments could stand up..." Despite judgment having been rendered, I would like to make a few points. "While Kerry's "flip flops" were easily explainable... he was lambasted from all side with the LABEL." That would be from the Bush campaign side and the (pro-Bush??) MSM? If you believe that Kerry was unfairly pegged as a flipflopper then you are waaay into faith based belief. You have stars in your eyes. To be a Republican and gay is to invite the most virulent hatred, not from the right, but from the left and yes, from gays. It is no wonder Republican gays are more secretive after watching the public lynching of Gannon by liberals and leftists and the apologists for the lynch mob, like you. " It is common knowledge that the Republicans represent the religions nutballs who hate gays." It is also common knowledge that the Democrats represent the anti-religious nutballs who hate America, freedom and democracy. While it is true that not all Democrats fall under this description, it is certainly true that those type nutballs vote Democratic and not Republican. They also hate capitalism and free speech. In fact, the Democratic Party represents those who support speech codes and the criminalization of 'verbal harrassment'. They support all manner of restrictions meant to stifle free speech in America, as Canadians have done with their Orwellian speech codes. You are quick with the generalizations, which condemn Deomocrats more so than Republicans. Republicans don't hate gays. I don't. Most do not support changing a thousands years old tradition to include anything that people wish it to include. It is as simple as that. For many gays, including the ones who masturbate and feign anal sex in front of St. Patricks Cathedral to show their tolerance for others, it will always be all or nothing. They will increasingly have to settle for less, as people like myself tire of being abused as hatemongers and homophobes after supporting gay rights for years but not being willing to support gay marriage. Civil unions? Sorry, not enough, you f**king bigot. See, that makes a hatemonger feel good to be able to express such hate, but it leaves people like me scratching our heads and wondering why we should support people who hate. I'll also say that you would be taken more seriously if you did not use multiple avatars and fake email addresses. I'm usually dismissive of comments from fake addresses, but using different avatars is just pathetic. All in all, you definitely qualify to be a Kerry supporter. You are trolling, and shaming any real liberals.

Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 06:41 PM (EzNXf)

9 testing

Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:19 AM (Ojo2r)

10 MikeM, I am not into faith based belief... that's for you guys... Let's recap. Bush hasn't banned gay marriage or abortion... He flip flopped on the reason for war... And you and his followers still follow blindly. THAT is faith-based political beliefs. Don't force me to defend Kerry. I don't even like him. I just now he was a more reasonable candidate than George W. Bush, and he was mislabeled as a flip flopper and anti-American. It was an extremely unfair election. Kerry didn't have the guts to defend himself, and for that reason I think he's a horrible politician.)

Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:20 AM (Ojo2r)

11 I keep getting some error...

Posted by: I give up at February 28, 2005 12:26 AM (Ojo2r)

12 I can see why he would be the choice for you. Out of 300 or so fellow swift boaters, only SIX could be found to support his version of WarriorKerry. 200 plus said he was a liar, a traitor, and unfit to command. The rest refused to be quoted. His political career was begun and grew on his record as an anti-veteran, slandering his 'band of brothers', then he goosestepped across the DNC stage as proud Vietnam veteran WarriorKerry, scourge of the VC. Definitely your type of leader. Almost every self-critique by Democrats cited Kerry's flip flops as the primary reason for his defeat. Yet you see it as much ado about nothing, an illusion, that only you had the sense to not see. Not surprising. Sorry about Saddam.

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 02:04 AM (EzNXf)

13 PS When are you going to stop hiding and what are you so ashamed of?

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 02:05 AM (EzNXf)

14 Rafer (in all of your incarnations): Mikem is such a dogmatic hack that he has gradually turned the corner from "agressive defender of Debbye's honor and democracy" (odd coincidence there) to "hilariously oblivious self-parody". To which you will respond with something about all "liberals" (Amrican "liberals" at that.Ha) hating America and God you're boring

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 11:23 AM (CI79g)

15 Oh my God, this is too rich. It IS you, Joey. I recognize the "...and God you're boring" and "Debbye's honor" remarks as well as the sdfsd addresses. How very rewarding. I actually shamed you into changing your online name. I am laughing my butt off at the thought of you embarrassing yourself so badly that you felt the need to reinvent yourself. Not only that, but your ego did not survive intact and you have emerged with multiple personalities/avatars, the better to show support from others. Lord, I am unworthy of this honor. For those who missed Blackglasses in his previous life as 'Joey', the following is a limited collection of his attempts to point out how dumb Americans are. Best of Joey (1 - 3) “You are either very funny, or very dumb. I going to assume you are very dumb..." "We all know you aren't a vetran. You are much to fat too leave your house" "Have you ever had sex with a human womam?" Welcome home, Joey etc. And thanks for this gift, sincerely.

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 01:43 PM (EzNXf)

16 Thanks? (I guess)

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 12:13 AM (Ojo2r)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

(Kevin Lamarque / Reuters)

Feb. 25 - Damned straight they're cheering and clapping! And it's not only about sex appeal, but also about assertiveness, confidence, and the many good qualities of American womanhood.

All the same, I wonder if this picture will begin to appear in foot lockers (Betty Grable is sooo yesterday ...)

There's a more intellectual commentary at the WaPo on Condi's attire, but I think they missed the point.

Posted by: Debbye at 04:01 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 25 - Greg Weston sees a bright side to Martin's decision to stay out of missile defense:

If average Americans had been following Paul Martin's stand on U.S. missile defence, they would surely be relieved by yesterday's announcement that Canada will not be part of it.

An Armageddon warhead incoming at four kilometres per second is no time to be sharing command and control of North American air defence with a dithering prime minister.

Prime Minister Paul Martin is insisting that United States seek permission before firing any missiles over Canada.

14:13 - The latest test shot down a short range missile. 5 out of 6 - not bad for a system that "doesn't work." (via Peaktalk.)

Feb. 26 - Terrific post from Evan at 101-280 - Sweet Surrender not only on the ballistic missile defense (BMD) controversy but on the future of NORAD and the state of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:30 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 24 - If you have time (and even if you don't) I strongly recommend reading the article Dire Straits by Austin Bay in the Weekly Standard about the growth of terror networks in the Southern Pacific.

Posted by: Debbye at 10:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 24 - Syrian troops says it will move troops stationed in Lebanon to the east, i.e., the Bekaa Valley, a region of some interest after it was cited as one of the places Saddam's elusive WMD were said to have been hidden. (That's just one of many theories, okay?)

When even CNN used death quotes in their web site article this morning, I found myself with little to add (Syria 'commits' to Lebanon pullout) but I am struck with one hopeful (if fleeting) notion: is it remotely possible that the media, administration and American people are all of one mind on Lebanon?

Posted by: Debbye at 08:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 24 - US Amb. Paul Cellucci reflects the confusion of many Americans:

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

There is more about US reaction to the latest Martin decision along similar lines as the first linked item in Missile decision prompts U.S. warning. Everyone is saying what you'd expect them to say, but it's all so very pro-forma that I wonder if Martin's announcement could really have been that much of a surprise.

But the timing! Need I even bother to go into the timing of Martin's announcement? The NATO conference was earlier hyped as being the ideal setting for Martin to step onto the international stage and reveal himself as a statesman capable of playing an intermediary role to reconcile Old Europe and the USA. Instead it became the setting for establishing more distance between Canada and the USA!

And what of NORAD? The 2004 amendment to the NORAD agreement to which Frank McKenna, the next Canadian Ambassador to the US, alluded expanded NORAD's mission and thus allowed Canadian personnel assigned to NORAD to track incoming missiles.

Future repercussions are a possibility, though, and opting out of missile defence could alter Canadian role in NORAD:

... retired lieutenant-general George MacDonald says that while excluding itself from the plan may ultimately change Canada's role in Norad, it won't end it. "Canadians will not have any participation in the actual decision-making or the rules of engagement or anything to do with ballistic missile defence," said MacDonald, a former vice-chief of defence staff and now a consultant.

"We will simply be feeding the system. And the question that ultimately may be asked is whether this is still an important mission for Norad to do."

At some point, MacDonald says, the Americans may want to lop off the warning element of missile defence from Norad altogether, thereby excluding Canada from the process outright.

Pieter has some thoughts on the matter, and an excellent insight on those matters which, being "unspeakable" in Canada, help explain how the Opposition "failed the test of political competency."

23:22 Paul is in top form:

Extensive discussions between Mr. Dithers, Pierre Pettigrew - AKA Ludicrous Hair Man -, and Screeching Bill Graham...that sure does inspire a lot of confidence somehow, doesn't it?

The Three Stooges sort of come to mind for some reason...

Feb. 25 - 00:31: There's a lengthy (for us) thread over at the Shotgun.

New Sisyphus weighs in as, again, do the commenters.

From the Telegraph (UK):

Canada has turned down the Bush administration's pleas to join its missile defence programme, dealing a further damaging blow to relations between the North American neighbours.

Paul Martin, the prime minister, has secretly conveyed the decision to Washington despite a personal request from President George W Bush to think again.

[...]

The decision is believed to mark the first time in decades that Canada had refused a US request to join a strategic programme to defend the North American continent. (Bolding added.)

Feb. 25 - 14:29: It actually has gotten worse. See here.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:43 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 682 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Cheers for the link, Debbye.

Posted by: Paul Jané at February 25, 2005 02:33 AM (FOtPl)

2 You're welcome! (Now get back to your homework ...)

Posted by: Debbye at February 25, 2005 04:27 PM (YRSpS)

3 Wow. I wish I could see or read the reactions to that truth-filled assessment. Indeed, Canada is certainly cozying up to Kofi, EU and the gang. Oh well... birds of a feather...

Posted by: Michael at February 26, 2005 01:36 AM (/eGwj)

4 What's wrong with the EU- especially the WEU? I'v never understood this argument by you right wingers. Its just "HOHOH I HATE THE EU" without any valid reasons. I know loons like Jerry Fawell don't like it- but that can't be the only reason- can it? As for birds of a feather, may i remind you that roughly 2/3 of the EU memberstates (including several "old Europe" members like Spain) participated in the Iraqi debacle of 2003. Explain- what's wrong with the EU?

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 12:23 PM (Ojo2r)

5 Nothing's wrong with the EU. When run and organized properly, it can be a helpful ally. When the leaders of France, Spain, and Germany undermine the protection of the free world, insult and defile the American soldiers burried at Normandy beach - then there's a problem. Chretien and Martin have aligned themselves with their French bretheren so many times that they're practically European now. I'm not going to go any farther than that. I'd be better off talking to this wall in front of me than try to explain to a lib why America is the good guys.

Posted by: Michael at February 27, 2005 03:43 PM (BQ8wu)

6 "When run and organized properly, it can be a helpful ally." By "run properly" assume you mean "turn it into an American dogsbody" I don't know how they're defling the dead at Normandy as well (which is a cheap emotional off topic attack that's usually the last resort of bad writers) by choosing not to fight another war in which tens of thousands of civilians have died and was built upon flimsy pretenses in the first place. Maybe the memory of senseless wars in which thousands have died are far too strong in the minds of many people to rush into war like the Americans have done many times in the past. And Europe never threatened the security of the "free world". It wasn't like France pointed their nukes at North America and Germany pulled out of NATO. Besides, we all know Iraq never was a threat to American security anyways. Just admit that. Please? (PS i never called the US the "bad guys"- I'm Canadian. they've never bombed my country or supported death sqauds in it. So they're still OK in my book. As long as they keep talking baout their love of "freedom" (but not liberty) they're A-OK!)

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 05:07 PM (Ojo2r)

7 Michael wrote that "America was the good guys". Yes indeed they are, but right now they are beseiged by a gang of outlaws. They have committed war crimes, violated the Geneva Conventions, and did so on orders from the top. It was Rumsfeld himself who said that the "Geneva Accords do not apply" to the conflict in Afghanistan for example, but somehow did apply in Iraq, at least until he violated them in Abu Graub. The strategic defence of North American Airspace is going to require some serious fresh thinking that is going to involve Canada, Mexico and the United States, but not under this current regime in Washington. NORAD needs to be rebuilt, not simply tinkered with in the face of Russian announcements for the deployment of new hypersonic strategic cruise missiles. Russia and China have nuclear weapons and are refining both the weapons and and the means of their delivery. It is clear that the missile defense shield is a technical impossibility at the current time and the current state of the art, but its certainly correct that work should begin anew as to what needs to be done about the rising threat, not so much from North Korea as from China and increasingly Russia itself. Russia today still have some 18,000 nuclear warheads or more. A new arms limitation treaty that would permit some modernization that would increase security and also provide for the decommissioning of these existing stockpiles is ESSENTIAL for all these countries, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL. We need a new NORAD structure for the twenty-first century that includes Mexico, Canada and the United States. However, it is not going to happen with this current Administration in Washington.

Posted by: Joe Green at February 27, 2005 05:12 PM (5dXW9)

8 You can be mean Joe Green.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 06:00 PM (Ojo2r)

9 "It was Rumsfeld himself who said that the "Geneva Accords do not apply" to the conflict in Afghanistan for example..." He said no such thing. He said that the Geneva accords do not apply to terrorists, either in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, which is absolutely true. The fact is, if you do not sign the Geneva accords, you do not have their protection. If you do not fight in uniform, you do not have protection even if you sign. But the United States has always said that we would treat prisoners humanely. With that said, what happened did not by any stretch arise to the charge of war crimes. The US armed forces discovered the abuses, the US investigated, and the US prosecuted. Your statement of "on orders from the top", war crimes, etc is just typical Bush/Hitler accusation without evidence or logic. I was curious earlier about your sources, but now that I have read your idea of fact, I'll pass on the request. Sorry about that Saddam thing, but you need to get over it. I notice that they always feel free to criticize America, Britain and Australia but never dare to anger their enemies with charges of war crimes and abuse, even when they saw off the head of a woman who has given her life to helping Iraqis. Very Canadian.

Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 08:35 PM (EzNXf)

10 "if you do not fight in uniform, you do not have protection even if you sign." This inspired a long post. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. Both the United States and Iraq are signatories. Secondly, if you infact insist that "terrorists" should not be afforded protection under the Geneva convention, then by all means they should be considered CIVILIANS and afforded the same rights, if not better. Rumsfeld did say such a thing. The United States acted in such a manner from Sept 2001 onward. In fact, by January 2002, Rumsfeld, under international pressure, acknowledged that the Conventions do apply to all of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, reversing earlier statements to the contrary. But, even today, Amnesty International and the Red Cross suspect that systemic human rights abuses are taking place in US military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. As for the Geneva convention not applying to you if you are not a signatory, since the treaty has been ratified and upheld by some many countiries for such a long time, it is considered to be customary and gradually becoming an international norm. Violation of customs and norms is considered a war crime/crime against humanity as well (there was no Geneva convention and very little treaties regarding the conduct of international conflict prior to 1949, yet Nazis were tried foo offenses that violated international customs and norms-as well as the Big Four). A more contemporary example of this (that you may like) surrounds the display of POWs by the press and military officals. Neither the US or IRaq has signed the 1977 amendment to the convention, yet the customary belief was so strong that the United States claimed that Iraq was committing a war crime when it showed American POWs(notwithstanding the fact that Iraq was awash in thousands of journalists at the time). How very American (though since you opine on Canadian politics, i suspect you are Canadian). Shooting your mouth off on something you know nothing about.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 11:17 PM (Ojo2r)

11 What you quoted directly contradicts the point of view you are defending. You can't fight in civilian attire and be covered. You have to at least wear distinctive markings recognizable from a distance (see your own post above). I guess that eliminates every terrorist and Taliban along with Michael Moore's freedom fighters in Iraq who you cry over because they get their picture taken with underwear on their heads. All that your talk of war crimes accomplishes is to point out the high standards that you hold the US to while ignoring, deliberately, your own responsibilities for the horrendous abuses of the regimes you refuse to criticize. Citing the Red Cross and Amnesty Int'l does the same for them. Those organizations barely raised a peep while real war crimes were committed against millions of people in the totalitarian regimes that were overthrown. Amnesty Int'l fought desperately to prevent Saddam from being brought down. I lost a very good friend, a member of the AI group that concentrates on issues relating to torture, because our friendship could not survive his insistence that Saddam's continuing torture and killing of his people was preferable to the civilian deaths that would result from the Iraqi war. He also refused to give credence to the idea that Arabs could handle democracy, a remark I found racist and pathetic. I reminded him that the Democratic slaveholders in America's South said the same about blacks handling freedom. The Red Cross, after refusing to publicize incredible atrocities, including the Holocaust during WWII, based on their 'principles' suddenly decided that the US deserved condemnation so much that they broke the rules that prevented them from revealing that millions of Jews were being murdered. Sorry, Americans know that politics and not principle is involved there. It is the same politics that places Libya at the head of the Human Rights Commission after Lockerbie and rule by military dictator for 20 years, along with Syria. Give me a break. American forces have shown remarkable restraint in dealing with terrorists in Iraq and around the world. That the US would punish our own soldiers for abusing prisoners while the murderers of the Iraqi people and their hopes for democracy are cheered by people like you and Michael Moore is indicative of the 'moral force' behind you. Terrorists should be treated even better than civilians?? OK How brave of you to condemn American, British and Australian actions for freedom and democracy while you avoid the battle. And yes, very Canadian.

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 12:04 AM (EzNXf)

12 ***Long post alert.*** Wow. Mikem knows better than international lawyers, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, The ICC, Strageitc institutes, legal and political academics, former JAGs, The ICJ, IR specalists, human rights groups, hundreds of years of internationally customs and norms, and the basic democratic principles that western democracies are founded upon. Pray tell sir, please tell me names of your alma maters. I am intregued as to who as instructed you in the ways of the world. Also you have deliberately misconstrued by post and attempted to throw it off topic by Michael Moore attacks(?), mentioning Nazis (Godwyn's law) and bizzare personal anecdotes that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. I won't respond to each of your logical errors (there are many), but I will assure you i did not contradict myself. If the insurgents are not considered by the US to be an international volunteer corps (likely in Afghanistan) or part of a mass national levee(or uprising, which is taking place in Iraq reagrdless of how you spin it) then the US should consider them to be civilians. Its not to say that they aren't fighting (they are) but just playing by the rules of the international game. Give combatiants their legal rights set out in treaty and custom, or treat them as civilians. Its that simple. Don't make up stuff about "enemy combatiants" and act like hypocrites while men(who could be innocent-and yes, it has happened, especially at Gitmo) languish in jails without basic legal protections while the US talks about the ideals of "Freedom" and "Democracy". Does it hurt your feelings that The Economist (a right wing and one of the most influential policy and finance mags)has condemend the US for human rights abuses in Iraq and Gitmo? So offended they were that they endorsed Kerry over Bush(!). Guess you better add The Economist to the every growing pile of "liberal" media. The US supreme court also maintains that persons detained on military bases have a tangible connection to the United States and should be affored the constitutional protections that apply to any resident of the US. That includes freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, habeus corpus rights, etc. At it involved a case during the "war on drugs"-not a conventional war. So at the very least, the insurgents in American custody should be afforded some of the rights as a citizen, albeit in from a military legal framwork and one that deals with the issues surrounding terrorism and international conflict. The US should respect the international ideals set out in custom, treaty and norms. Afterall, they had a role in developing it in the first place. As for you criticism of of Amnesty International and the IRCS as humanitarian groups that for some reason love dictators, well, I'd refrain from making such statments in the future. It doesn't make you look very smart. Many Western democracies like the US, the UK, France and Canada have appeared on Amnesty International's shit list, sharing space with secular and religious states, left and right wing dictatorships. They care about human rights, not some murky secret agenda. I'm sure you will respond with exaggerations, maybe some Nazi/Stalinist references, bizzare anecdotes, invoke the names of Michael Moore, Susan Sontag and Noam Chomksy (your Muses?) and once again ignore every point that contradicts you makes you look like a fool. I suspect "unelected judges" will make a cameo as well. PS: The US has committed several massive human rights abuses in the past without the perpretators ever seeing justice. They adopt a higher moral ground along with many other western democracies, but they are by no means angels.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 11:58 AM (CI79g)

13 You are still arguing that terrorists, because they cannot be considered soldiers in the sense that those treaties are meant to cover, should be treated as civilians. My answer is OK, you do that. America will treat terrorists and combatants hiding in civilian clothes as they should, locked up until the end of the conflict. If you had any sense of real ethics, you would have at least spent a word or two condemning the terrorists who kill civilians and Coalition soldiers to prevent democracy from taking root in Iraq and Afghanistan. But your arguments are not meant to ensure civilized behavior, they are meant to legitimize terrorist actions against others by demanding that the terrorists be treated like peaceful protesters. How about condemning the terrorists, man of many names for once, instead of condemning those who battle them? Or are your sympathies with them?

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 12:49 PM (EzNXf)

14 Wow. That was a sad reaction. You ignored everything else out of what, fear? willful ignorance? That's not what i said. You seem to be either trying to be taxing to me or just very thick. I said if the US won't treat the insurgents as POWs with all the protections afforded to them by law and custom (because they are enemy combatiants) then they should classify them as civilians. This is not because they are civilians, but because it is wrong to leave anyone in legal limbo. And yes, it is. Its a waste of time at this point to explain it to you why, as i have done so already over the last 2 points. Too bad. I was hoping to engage you in a serious discussion, but you jump to the stupidest conclusions possible. Very sad. I guess that happens when i love terror and hate democracy as you claim. I just posted two points calling for the US and people like you to respect democracy and human rights (as well as international custom and law) and yet you seem to think i support terrorists. Yes. Anti-Western and anti-democratic terrorist sympathizers hide behind western law, treaty and custom all the time. (of course, in your troll's little schema, they probably do) I certainly hope you don't act this way in real life among real people. I can see why you lost your friend as you claimed. Because you are a knee-jerk idiot who jumps to cliched plaitudes and strawmen when he's faced with a serious debate. Good job.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 04:36 PM (NjfE5)

15 Nothing like hearing a lecture from someone who uses multiple avatars to build phony support for his repetitive claims of American evil around the world. Your demands for Americans to walk the perfect line in dealing with terrorists is just a whining lament that terrorists and dictatorships are losing ground around the world. I don't have to apologize for each and every sin an American soldier makes because they are all magnified in excruciating detail so that the do nothings like you can feel justified in standing behind while others defend freedom and democracy (I know, it makes you sick to hear that.) Again, hold yourself and the terrorists you defend to the same standard.

Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 01:15 AM (EzNXf)

16 Shrill.

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 03:19 AM (Ojo2r)

17 krill

Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 05:27 PM (EzNXf)

18 Last Word. I win.

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 02, 2005 02:03 AM (Ojo2r)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Feb. 23 - I have to go to work shortly, but it's (hopefully) the last night working this stupidest of stupid schedules so will try to be cheerful, etc.

Just for the record, I hate it when some poor, bewildered man (like, oh I don't know, a respected academic at a leading university) has to apologize for speculating or musing on forbidden topics. It reminds me too much of the "confessions" Soviet and Chinese officials used to make shortly before they were sent into exile or were executed.

So although it's definitely not PC, I find the following side-achingly funny and, in its own twisted way, think it deserves an honourable mention during Estogen Week.

Schwarzenegger Accused of Being Anti-Women and issues a pro-forma apology. My favourite excerpt:

"But I realize that some women are angry with me, and for that I apologize. But let's be honest. When I apologize to women I don't mean a word of it and neither does any man in America.

a) roll your eyes,
b) write down a really good phrase for future use,
c) curse him for being a Wimp and Traitor to Manhood,
d) forgive him, or
e) pump your fist and chalk up another victory for Women's Rights.

Feb. 24: I was unforgiveably sloppy in not making it clear that the linked post was satire and not a true news item. I apologize for the lapse.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 23 - Despite the murders, bombs and kidnappings, Iraqi men keep enlisting in the security forces (Iraqi police defy danger.)

"The danger is everywhere, but to serve your country is much better than to be afraid and do nothing"

Posted by: Debbye at 08:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 23 - Paul Martin, please call home. There seems to be some confusion as to Canada's participation in the Missile Shield Defense program (Missile muddle.)

As the article notes, the amended NORAD agreement makes Canadian participation in the program de facto but there is a loophole if one squints hard enough. Bob explains better than I could.

A generous interpretation is that the Canadian government wants to pretend they aren't protected under the shield in order to placate any one of the xxxx groups lined up to scream hysterically about the weaponization of space, the environment, Canadian sovereignty or the relative merits of Final Fantasy VIII; a less generous interepretation is that they don't know what the hell they're doing.

I expressed a wish long ago that the USA could implement the missile shield without defending a reluctant Canada, and now I read that Japanese inclusion could make that happen. Wouldn't that be interesting!

Via Peaktalk, a CS Monitor headlines nails it: US allies: Australia signs up, Canada signs off (Australia is sending 450 more troops in Iraq in order to protect Japanese engineering teams.) The article points out a key difference: Howard has a majority government and Martin has a minority one, and who really doubted the outcome when Martin decided to form a government with the NDP?

Posted by: Debbye at 07:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 23 - Good reads about Lebanon:

The Washington Post has a very suggestive article on Beirut's Berlin Wall and notes that a "tent city" has been set up of protesters. I immediately thought of Ukraine.

Amir Taheri (who should need no introduction) in People Power Hits Lebanon.

Anyone who lives in or near the LA area should check this out: Demonstration in support of Lebanon sovereignty in LA.

Events in Lebanon could still go tragically wrong, but the sheer will and confidence exhibited by the Lebanese after so many years of occupation by Syria is so uplifting that I just want to savour it.

Freedom is on the march, and it's never too late to join.

Feb. 24 - More on the tent city here:

The tent city rose up near the immense crater created by the blast that killed Mr. Hariri and 16 others, peopled by protesters who refused to go home after a demonstration Monday described as the largest anti-Syrian protest ever held.

Divided into small groups according to affiliation -- the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) in one area, the followers of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt in another -- the camp has been growing daily since Monday.

Inspired by December's Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia a year earlier, the protesters have begun to call their action the "Cedar Revolt" in a tribute to the tree that adorns the Lebanese flag.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 23 - Welcome to readers sent by Ilyka.

Continuing to celebrate Estrogen Week up here:

Glenda takes a strip off the proponents of national day care with - what else? some common sense:

Are the old white guys in suits asking us to embrace institutionalized day care because it's better for our kids?

Looks to me like they want us to believe that the woman who lives down the street, (the woman I know and trust ) who looks after my kids is providing inferior care. That my kids are not going to be healthy, well adjusted and intellectually ready for school if my mother or my sister agrees to look after them while I work.

Ken Dryden can blow early learning out his ass. There is a reason rich folks hire nannies and live-in house keepers. They know and can afford what is best for their kids. The rest of us do the best that we can. And that doesn't always include institutionalized day care.

If Wal-Mart was simply trying to bust unions, they would have closed in October, instead of spending months trying to negotiate. In all that time, however, the union didn't budge an inch, making it patently obvious that the union's negotiaters weren't looking for a workable settlement; instead, they were trying to make a political point.

Kate has only just returned to Saskatchewan after attending a dog show yet I found her post on the show strangely appropriate (I've taken the quoted section very much out of context):

Yeah, I'm a bad loser. A really, really bad loser. I don't make scenes or get in people's faces, but I bitch and complain with the best of them. I don't apologize for it, either. An aversion to losing is a fundamental ingredient to competitive success.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser".

The Essay explains the intricacies of being a Ninja Wife. Please note she lives in Edmonton, which explains why she has so much confidence in her ability not only to find a doctor but to find one who can remove an alarm clock from (I hope) a forehead.

Lastly and back-to-the-original-pointedly, The Truth About York takes up the cause of a one conservative female who just might have the mettle to withstand a grilling before a Senate Commiteee and even (gasp!) the Sept. 11 Commission.

(Although this is not how I had planned to spend my night off, this celebration provided an additional upside: there is a Law of Unintended Gratification!)

Posted by: Debbye at 12:33 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 4 kb.

Feb. 22 - I'll celebrate Estrogen Week in my own back yard!

Welcome to readers sent by Ilyka.

Kateland looks at the disapproval of Canadians over American attempts to encourage the growth of democracies and notes the Canadian fondness for China and Cuba:

Geez, what do you expect from a country where an elected member of the ruling political party can stand up and say, "The government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society" and the official Opposition and/or the Canadian public did not howled her down in outrage. She should have been run out of Parliament on a rail and not returned with a majority.

Marzi has decided she's changed her mind about Michael Moore (in a wickedly wonderful way) and notes his silence after the Iraq elections.

Angua lists reason 4532-76Q why the U.N. is more useless than a bag of doorknobs (scroll down):

I am not actually that picky -- some graffiti on a London synagogue is fine by me if that means that someone somewhere will do something other than tsk about Sudan.

Broad at bat made me laugh while reminding me how grateful I am that I don't have daughters. Her writings are fun and warm, and she proves that you don't need to be a political blogger to demonstrate courage.

More tomorrow.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 22 - From this morning, Martin quiet at NATO summit:

BRUSSELS (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin tiptoed around the edge of the limelight Monday prior to the NATO summit as U.S. President George W. Bush's attempted reconciliation with Europe took centre stage. [Aside: What. Ever.]

[...]

Prior to the gathering in Brussels, senior federal officials played up Canada's role as a potential intermediary between the world's only remaining superpower and a continent that is routinely alarmed with the unilateral bent of the Bush administration.

But there has been no evidence of any fence-mending diplomacy by Canada, as none of the prime minister's bilateral meetings during the summit include any outspoken opponents of U.S. foreign policy.

Nevertheless, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew insisted that Canada's role, although unseen, was still important.

"It is a very natural role for Canada to play a bridge between the United States and the European Union," he said.

"We have a lot of friends in Europe. We are highly regarded on the positions we've taken. At the same time, we are the United States' immediate neighbour, their best friend."

From this evening: the Prime Minister broke his silence to address the delegates on Iran:

Prime Minister Paul Martin warned NATO leaders Tuesday that they should be prepared to stand up to Iran in order to check the Islamic republic's potential nuclear ambitions.

He told the 25 other alliance leaders at the end of their one-day summit in Brussels that the Islamic republic poses a "serious proliferation threat."

While "diplomacy and dialogue" remain a top priority, the prime minister said the world community "must be prepared to stand behind our words with stronger measures, if necessary."

Tougher measures could include UN-mandated sanctions, but U.S. President George W. Bush has repeatedly suggested he's prepared to use military action if diplomacy fails. (Bolding added.)

Given the results of a recent poll, Yanks "Slick" (sic) and Tired of U.N., I don't think U.N. imposed sanctions are going to be well received by either the American public or Congress. (NY Post link via Neale News.)

The PM was at least more candid than his "senior federal officials:"

Prior to the summit, federal officials played up Canada's potential role in bridging the gap between Europe and the United States, but Martin admitted he was largely on the sidelines.

"The truth of the matter is, to the extent there was a rift, I think it was healed by President Bush and the Europeans," he said. "Canada has a pretty good understanding of both sides and we'll continue to play the role."

Posted by: Debbye at 07:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.