April 18, 2005
George lets 'em have it
Apr. 18 - George Steinbrenner is not happy with the performance Yanks record. (Others, of course, are delighted.)
Orioles 8, Yankees 4: With Only 150 Games to Go, Steinbrenner Checks In:
The offense is batting .208 with runners in scoring position, including 4 for 21 over the weekend. The starters have not had a quality start (at least six innings and no more than three earned runs) in nine games. The bullpen has been abysmal, and the Yankees have given up at least seven runs in every loss.
It seems their dismal record has been a solid team effort.
The CNN poll on their home page asks if Steinbrenner over-reacted in criticizing "the highest-paid team in baseball." 85% had said "no last time I checked, which is the first time I can recall so many people siding with George S.
Manager Joe Torres must feel like hockey coach Harry Neale, who is reputed to have said "We can't win at home, we're terrible at home, and my failure as a coach is that I can't think of anywhere else we can play."
Since I'm on a sport topic, it is worth while to mention Lance Armstrong's decision to retire after the Tour de France in July.
I have to go to a meeting tonight and then to work. So long!
Posted by: Debbye at
05:35 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.
1
George should chill out about the Yankees and revel in the fact that he owns the favorite, Bellamy Road, in the upcoming Kentucky Derby. And with the incredible success Bellamy Road's trainer Nick Zito has been having this spring (he has at least 3 or 4 Derby contenders), I wouldn't doubt that the thought has crossed Steinbrenner's mind to hire him as the Yankees manager.
Posted by: TimR at April 18, 2005 09:21 PM (rr+yX)
2
I'm no fan of the Yankees, but whatever bad karma they deserve is paid off by working for Steinbrenner.
PS: It figures. I move from Baltimore back to DC and the Orioles sweep the Yankees.
Posted by: mikem at April 18, 2005 10:36 PM (EzNXf)
3
It couldn't happen to a nicer team (the Yankees) - after all what do you expect for about $200 million.
Posted by: John B at April 18, 2005 10:48 PM (ju7Wp)
4
$200 million? Yikes! Last I checked they were overpaid at $80 million. Sheesh.
George has a pont that they're not earning their pay. But, I mean, he's the guy thta paid them...
The Mets, on the other hand, seem to've finally found their groove...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 18, 2005 11:50 PM (Ns1Gb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 17, 2005
The iconic Ann Coulter
Apr. 17 -
Time Canada on
Ann Coulter. Good read thus far (I'm only on page 3.)
(Via Neale News.)
Posted by: Debbye at
08:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
Australian troops head for Iraq
Apr. 17 - PM Howard of Australia told the soldiers departing for Iraq
"You go with our support, our prayers and our good wishes for a safe mission and a return home for all of you."
Members of the Al Muthanna Task Group have already begun departing for southern Iraq, with the navy's heavy-lift ship HMAS Tobruk setting sail from Darwin with 200 crew and 20 Australian light armoured vehicles with little fanfare yesterday.
The troops, mainly from Darwin's 1st Brigade, will be deployed by sea and air during the month.
Mr Howard, joined by Defence Minister Robert Hill, and Defence chief General Peter Cosgrove, attended a barbecue to formally farewell the bulk of the troops at Darwin's Robertson Barracks.
Thank you, Mr. Howard, for being a 100% ally.
Apr. 20 - 04:25: The DoD press release is here.
Posted by: Debbye at
11:58 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One wonders about John Howard's moral compass when you read stories like this. Sending troops into causes that lack a "just cause" is the most irresponsible thing that a civilian leader can do.
This is the kind of irresponsible politics that gets people killed for no good reason. Howard wants to curry favour with an inept and incompetent American President that started a War in Iraq on a foundation of lies and deceit.
This deployment will not change the course of life in Iraq, but its likely to get Aussie troops killed or maimed for no just cause.
Its sad, how Howard manipulated the electorate, by withdrawing forces before the election and then sending them back after he fooled Australian voters.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 17, 2005 03:45 PM (5dXW9)
2
Back off, Joe. This is one post where you don't belong.
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 03:59 PM (KCctB)
3
One post where he doesn't belong? How about one blog where he doesn't belong?
I'll leave out one country where he doesn't belong (or should that be two countries?).
Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2005 04:12 PM (PuNh2)
4
Debbye wrote:
"Back off, Joe. This is one post where you don't belong."
Why don't you explain that Debbye. You are an American living in Toronto, Canada. I am a Canadian living in Alberta, Canada. I am at home. You are not.
The topic of the blog was Australian troops head to Iraq. I commented that the PM of Australia drew down the Australian troop levels before the elections and is now restoring them, having misled and fooled Australians about the war in Iraq.
You want me to "back off"? Explain yourself.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 17, 2005 04:37 PM (5dXW9)
5
Or do you and Kate at smalldeadanimals in Saskatchewan work for the same paymaster in Washington?
I think the public that visits this blog would appreciate knowing that. Who is paying the piper?
Posted by: Joe Green at April 17, 2005 04:40 PM (5dXW9)
6
Hundreds more bodies just found in mass graves and some people still wonder if we had any just cause to end Saddam's murderous rule. Sad. Play ostrich all ye like, Joe. The troops'll keep doing the good work. May your chains sit lightly upon you.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 17, 2005 07:46 PM (bFfj3)
7
I never said that a "just cause" did not exist in Iraq. What I said was that the US illegally invaded a sovereign country without authorization. Britain did likewise. As such, they are liable for damages, and war reparations to the citizens of Iraq.
There was a way to take down the Saddam Hussein Government in Iraq that would have been far less bloody and would have not taken anywhere near as long to restore order, peace and good government. To say nothing of electric, telephone, and water utilities and medical care.
It required the US and Britain, together with other members of the Security Council to reach a finding that Saddam's defiance of the Security Council Resolutions was unacceptable, and that the Government of Saddam Hussein was a "criminal government" and that all sovereign nation states, the Security Council and the armed forces of Iraq itself were obliged to arrest the members of the Government, and bring them to justice at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
Had that happened, had 400,000 troops from the United Nations massed on ALL the borders of Iraq including Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the regime would have collapsed in a matter of days. There would have been no need for extensive military operations, and there would have been no looting. Indeed, the Iraqi Army itself would not have been disbanded, and there would have been no need to rebuild one.
And, anyone firing upon such incoming troops would have been automatically charged with war crimes.
Today instead of a growing force of insurgents of some 200,000 Suni Arabs organizing to repel the American invasion, most of these troops would have come home, and order would have been restored in Iraq without the 100,000 plus dead Iraqi civilians, women and children.
There would be some 1500 American servicemen that would be alive today, and there would have been far fewer than 37,000 American servicemen who sustained serious maimings and injuries. The numbers for the British is also very high and very tragic.
Of course, in the single area where a "just cause" existed, in terms of Saddam Hussein's criminal record of mass murder and mayhem, that is the one area that George Bush refused to enter and execute.
Unlike Bill Clinton who led NATO into a war against human rights abuses, George Bush declined to do so. With that single act, he lost all moral authority to lead the United States, and certainly the moral authority to lead the worlds democracies to restore civility and lawfulness in Iraq.
Right wingers hate it when you point to their guy and find him wanting. But that is exactly what has happened.
The Americans and the British and even the Australians are going to pay a very high price for this vigilante form of anarchy.
Kofi Annan is right. Its an illegal war. And nothing that can now be said can erase the stain of that truth.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 17, 2005 08:17 PM (5dXW9)
8
Do you see any blog ads on this page? I pay the piper, Joe -- with blood, sweat and tears. I also have something called a job, which doesn't leave me time for trolling on other blogs.
As T.S. pointed out, there are hundreds of mass graves of Iraqis who were brave enough to stand up to Saddam and paid with their lives -- and the bastard also took the lives of their young children.
I have read comments by jerkoffs like you with a clenched jaw and tried not to lash out at the idle, sanctimonious verbiage you emit but don't you freaking mess with the valiant Australians! You don't have the creds because this once proud country of Canada has become an international joke.
Coward! Canada is now in a quagmire of corruption and lies because people like you were too busy gossiping about the neighbours and why? because it was too damned hard to tend to your own house.
You still don't get it - it isn't the USA that's on trial, it's the rest of the world.
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 08:32 PM (k7/Bm)
9
I think that guilty verdict came in a while ago.
Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2005 08:49 PM (PuNh2)
10
Joe, therein is the contest, I think. When does doing what we "know" is right have to obey protocol (Law)?
As a "protocol addict" I tend to want to meet you on rule-of-law grounds. But, as a "liberty lover", I tend to want to beat the snot out of you. I bet that there's a way to really explore this, not on just where we fall in theb debate, but on how we apply our love of Liberty and our love of Law, and how they sometimes seem to be at odds with each other.
Or not. Whatever. You know how to reach me...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 17, 2005 11:57 PM (hcKm5)
11
In addition Joe, though I disagree with you, it's difficult to muster much sympathy for your case when the organization you consider to have some sort of moral authourity is the ... _U.N._ and where other members of the UN, like France, basically said "No how, no way, never ever" .
Of course, the French did that out of deep moral conviction, and there was no financial or other evidence of connivance.
And gosh darn, the UN itself is above any reproach of having any financial interests that might have some influence on it's decisions.
Besides if you want to argue minor legal mattter, perhaps you can enlighten me, since the 1991 cease fire had been broken in spirit and in letter by Saddam, could operations not simply resume at any time without any further input?
Posted by: FRed at April 18, 2005 08:47 AM (bL0CM)
12
"What I said was that the US illegally invaded a sovereign country without authorization. Britain did likewise."
I assume you're an attorney, Joe? I'd hate to have a battle of wits with the unarmed. If you're opposed to the war on political grounds, have the honesty and courage of your convictions to make a policy argument rather than hiding behind legalisms that hold no water.
Legally, the war was a recommencement of active hostilities that had been temporarily suspended in 1991 by a ceasefire--not an armistice, let alone a peace treaty--the terms of which Saddam repeatedly and almost constantly violated. Indeed, every single time one of his AA guns painted its radar onto a US or British plane patrolling the no-fly zones (and there were hundreds of such instances) was an overt act of war.
Posted by: Dave J at April 18, 2005 10:54 AM (kLLbt)
13
Joe:
Re: "..... together with other members of the Security Council to reach a finding that Saddam's defiance of the Security Council Resolutions was unacceptable,..."
What fairy tale world are you living in? The UN is the most morally corrupt (and possibly criminally corrupt) organization in the world. Saddam already had France on the payroll not to mention half of the UN.
Do you really think all of the Iraqis who were indebted to Saddam (e.g. the Saddam Fedayin) would cooperate with a new regime - i.e. help slit their own throats?
Posted by: John B at April 18, 2005 11:33 AM (ju7Wp)
14
John B wrote:
"What fairy tale world are you living in? The UN is the most morally corrupt (and possibly criminally corrupt) organization in the world."
Then why on earth do you Americans remain in that kind of corrupt international organization???
Its very simple to quit. Just pull out, renounce your treaty obligations under the Charter, and save yourself the money. Why the hypocrisy of pretending to be concerned with world peace when in fact you Americans are war mongers looking for some "action"?
At least the rest of the world could then respect you Americans for having the courage of your convictions.
And indeed, the UN SHOULD leave US soil when that happens. Im Canadian, I strongly support the UN, but at least we would no longer have the constant American manipulation of this international body for its own decrepid and immoral ends.
And perhaps we would then all see better where the bear shits in the woods and make new security arrangements for ourselves and our friends.
As for Canada's Foreign Policy vis a vis the US, my view is to let it freeze over and move into a very deep freeze.
The first to go would be the US Customs Agents now operating in Canada and we SHOULD revert to a full and formal relationship with the use of Passports and other complete border formalities.
If that leads to delays in trade, too bad, so sad, but we can go back to what we had before without all the disputes over softwood lumber, cattle and a host of other things we do not need to have conflicts over.
And Canada can become much more self sufficient, starting with the Armed Forces that should NEVER AGAIN depend upon the US for support in places like Rwanda for example.
Everyone is criticizing the PM over Dafur, but the facts are that placing thousands of Canadian troops in harms way and having to depend upon the US for support would just be a repeat of the problem that General Dellaire encountered in Rwanda. As Dellaire tried to stop a genocide, American diplomats and intelligence operatives in New York were working to sabatoge General Dellaire sensitive mission to stop mass murder in Africa.
The US and Bolton are posturing, and I am sick of it. Its immature and childish, and like most of the rest of the world, I am sick and tired of this adolescent American behavior.
The US is capable of much better behavior. Its time to do just that and stop acting like the global brat. Either that, or act like adults and leave an organization that you are not in agreement with. Its long overdue to call America's bluff.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 18, 2005 07:33 PM (5dXW9)
15
Dave J wrote:
"I assume you're an attorney, Joe? I'd hate to have a battle of wits with the unarmed. If you're opposed to the war on political grounds, have the honesty and courage of your convictions to make a policy argument rather than hiding behind legalisms that hold no water."
I have on many ocassions and I will again here.
First of all, no democratic nation ever goes to war without a "just cause". It utterly immoral to your own troops and its utterly immoral to civilians, women and children in harms way to do anything otherwise.
The US has the most advanced and sophisticated information gathering system in the world. It many not know the worlds secrets, but it surely knows what it does not know. For the Americans to claim they had credible intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons along with the missiles to carry such warheads to Europe and American was an outright lie.
Now, the analysis of threats to ones national security is not based upon irrational fears. It comes from detailed analysis and study. In no way shape or form can it be said Saddam's Iraq posed a credible threat to American national security. In fact during that time, Saddam's Iraq did not even pose a credible threat to the national security of Israel.
If the US had evidence that caught the Russians and the French in cheating with Saddam in the Oil Smuggling and Oil for Food Program, then IT SHOULD HAVE CONFRONTED these countries in the Security Council with its hard evidence IN PRECISELY THE SAME MANNER THAT JACK KENNEDY CONFRONTED RUSSIA during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with pictures, data and other material that could not allow the Russians to slink away. Russia after that UN presentation by the US, took a terrible hit in its reputation, and it never fully recovered its prestige after that that speech by Ambassador Stevenson.
Had the US done exactly the same thing, PUTIN and CHIRAC would have been driven into a political corner that in Chirac's case would have almost certainly cost him the leadership of France.
Not only would have truth prevailed, American prestige would have risen even higher than it was in the aftermath of 911. And that was because America was following its "prime directive" in seeking the truth, and in seeking the moral authority to lead the democratic nations of the world.
Instead, the US played the harlot.
The point of this, is simply that careful US leadership and patience WOULD have won a Security Council Resolution declaring Saddam Hussein a Criminal Government, and that the UN Blue Helmets were authorized to move into Iraq for the explicit purpose of taking down the regime, arresting its members, and bringing them to justice before the International Criminal Court of Justice in The Hague. The Blue Helmuts of the United Nations would have prevented the widescale looting, it would have prevented the kinds of casualties that we have seen in Iraq every since the "Mission Accomplished" banners were broken out, and by now, most of this force would have passed on their duties to the Iraqis themselves.
THAT is what COULD HAVE HAPPENED and that is what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Instead what the Bush Administration has showed the world, are all the reasons that America has lost its moral authority to lead the democracies.
That is where the "neocons" have led you. And I must say, you are now "stuck" because there is no way out.
Jean Chretien spoke for MOST CANADIANS when he said "no UN mandate to invade Iraq - No Canadian troops!". It was the precise and right answer to the Bush war mongers.
Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations said it best. "This is an illegal war".
The reasons why its illegal is as plain as the United Nations Charter itself, and the US in this instance has shown the world that its word is no good when it comes to treaties and international agreements because it does not do what it says it will do.
Instead, George Bush strolled into the General Assembly, reminding me of Hitler strolling down the streets of Paris after the Blitzkreig.
Even Yassar Arafat's famous pistol does not rival this "ultimatum performance".
Posted by: Joe Green at April 18, 2005 07:55 PM (5dXW9)
16
FRed wrote:
"Besides if you want to argue minor legal mattter, perhaps you can enlighten me, since the 1991 cease fire had been broken in spirit and in letter by Saddam, could operations not simply resume at any time without any further input?"
I do not know if you have been following the news, but its crystal clear that the legal advisors to the British Prime Minister were giving him explicit legal advice that British participation with the United States was almost certainly illegal without further and explicit mandates from the Security Council to take military action.
Robin Cook the Foreign Minister of the day, resigned over the issue. And the senior Counsel to the Prime Minister's Office likewise resigned. Both refused to lie to Parliament. All of which, has been published in the British Press, and all of which is going to be major factors in the coming British elections.
Blair deserves to lose the election over this single issue. Just like the former PM of Spain.
Its too bad, because I liked Tony Blair.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 18, 2005 08:28 PM (5dXW9)
17
Debbye wrote:
"You don't have the creds because this once proud country of Canada has become an international joke."
I sure do. I am a Canadian citizen. I served for many years in the Armed Forces of Canada. We do not go to war lightly or easily. I have every right and all the credentials to express a detailed opinion on this misbegotten war in Iraq and why Canada rightly refused to get into an "illegal war", as characterized by the Secretary General.
Unlike you, I respect the United Nations, and I expect that Canada, unlike America, will honour its international treaty obligations to the UN Charter.
Finally Debbye, you are not the only person here who works for a living. Its just that most of us do not moan and groan about it.
As for the Aussies, just like for Americans, I am deeply saddened when good men fall because fools do not know how to resolve their conflicts and disputes.
You have a clown and a fool for president. Sorry to be that blunt about it. But its time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld feel you can bully the world because you are bigger or more powerful. You are going to find out, just like the schoolyard bully found out, that sometimes little guys can make your life pretty uncomfortable.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 18, 2005 08:39 PM (5dXW9)
18
Joe is shameless.
All I have to say is this:
everytime you go to buy something made in Canada (even better if it came from Quebec), just start thinking about how much we support ya!
We have to get rid of these freakin' commies that are running this country!
Posted by: Brian Walsh at April 18, 2005 09:26 PM (vAI+5)
19
You are a shameless piece of Canada, Joe Green. You falsely accuse Debbye of accepting payola for her blogging efforts, from her "paymaster in Washington". She defends herself by stating that she pays for everything herself.
Your response is not an apology nor a withdrawal of your charge. Instead you attack her for responding at all, describing her denial of your charges as moaning and groaning about having to work. Just pathetic, just Joe Green.
You really have no shame. And from once again reading another long tome from you explaining that Canadian and UN inaction garners international respect and action by the US breeds disrespect, I have to assume you will not improve.
PS: Long ago, intelligent anti-war commenters dropped the "just a few more years of sanctions and Iraq would now be free" line of thought. It was just too risible and transparently false to withstand the guffaws that immediately followed. You didn't get the message, of course.
Quit trying to defend Canadian cowardice, just accept your place in the world. Switzerland has made billions from standing on the sidelines of history. Canada will learn to do the same. In the meantime, get out of the way of those who liberate others and at least salute your Australian and British brothers for their willingness to lay it on the line.
Posted by: mikem at April 18, 2005 10:29 PM (EzNXf)
20
Joe, that's quite a bit you've posted since I was last here and I'm not going address every point because, oy, that would take all night. I'll just this:
Hmmm.
The people who say the things that you do have some things in common. They are not soldiers and they not oppressed. The opinions that matter most are those of the liberated and the wanna-be liberated, and of the soldiers who are willing to risk their lives to liberate them. They value the same thing, and will thank you very much for not standing in their way.
We can yammer on all day and all night about
lies vs faulty intelligence or
bullying vs rescue. But all we'd be doing is arguing about whose more important or who deserves deference: the tyrant or the People.
We side with the People. By siding with the U.N. you are, as recent history shows, siding with the tyrants.
Sic semper tyranus. A dios.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 18, 2005 11:13 PM (Ns1Gb)
21
And another thing...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal;
That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights;
That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;
That to secure these Rights governments are instututed among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed.
This is what we're fighting for. Do you agree that this is even WORTH fighting for? 'Cuz right now I'm not so sure. Do you agree with the adage
Sic Semper Tyranus? Yes, or No? Don't wait for the translation...
Yes, or No?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 18, 2005 11:26 PM (Ns1Gb)
22
Joe Green has previously registered his disdain for those words. In fact, Joe used the occasion of Terry Schiavo's dying days to get a dig in at Americans, stating that she was dying to pay for the Founding Father's sins in declaring independence from Britain.
Real classy guy, that Joe.
And Canadians whine about not being respected. Gee, I wonder why.
Posted by: mikem at April 19, 2005 05:27 AM (EzNXf)
23
Well said, people.
It pains me sometimes that more people in this part of the world don't seem to recognize how important Australia is, not only in the war on terror but their overall importance in the South Pacific.
It donwright infuriates me when Canadians knock Australia.
Fact is, any time there is an emergency in that region it is Australia who steps up to the plate and gets the job done.
The first responders to the December tsunami were the Australians, who deployed their air force to get aid to the survivors. (The U.N. hadn't even scheduled its first meeting yet, and even I can't deny that the U.N. leads the world in scheduling meetings.)
What did Canada do? Wait -- and raise money that didn't help anyone because there was no way to airlift supplies to the victims. They didn't even decide to deploy their disaster relief team (DART) until over a week later which was able to assist people who were alive only due to the incredible efforts of the US and Australian military.
Canada talks but Australia acts -- and their actions save lives. Their deployment to Iraq will be to protect the Japanese civil construction teams, another humanitarian effort.
While Canada was giving money to the Tamil Tigers, Australia deployed its troops to protect the inhabitants of East Timor.
Moral compass? That needle isn't pointing north but spinning wildly and trying to find a moral pole because moral relativism is destroying the ability to know right from wrong.
Posted by: Debbye at April 19, 2005 09:13 PM (KwCoG)
24
God bless the Aussies. They must use wheelbarrows to haul their balls around. It's a pity the Canadians have let theirs atrophy.
Posted by: Mitch at April 19, 2005 11:18 PM (1DkBS)
25
In fairness, there are still plenty of Canadians who want to reassert themselves as principled members of the Anglosphere, but the Opposition has been fractured since 1993.
But Australia! What good friends they have been. They got stronger after Bali (unlike the Spanish who wimped out completely yet are still under threat, more fools they.)
ANZAC Day is next week and we'll be able to celebrate our friendship and solidarity during the commemorations.
Posted by: Debbye at April 20, 2005 06:46 AM (KwCoG)
26
I have no idea what this website is all about, I happened to stumble across it while looking for something else.
It was nice, however, to see that people in other parts of the the world have noticed what we Australians are doing in our own corner. I've often wondered if the news ever gets out.
I don't know if I'll ever find my way back here but thanks for the kind words anyway.
Posted by: gaj at April 20, 2005 11:14 PM (DCfOe)
27
Joe Green is really a piece of work.
The liberation of Iraq was "illegal"? According to whom? The U.N., which we have established to be hopelessly corrupt?
I have every right and all the credentials to express a detailed opinion on this misbegotten war in Iraq and why Canada rightly refused to get into an "illegal war", as characterized by the Secretary General.
Apparently, yes.
Look, Joe, we don't give a shit about what the U.N. says. Tony Blair does, which is why Colin Powell went back to the Security Council to try to get yet another resolution. (And we know how that turned out.)
Unlike you, I respect the United Nations, and I expect that Canada, unlike America, will honour its international treaty obligations to the UN Charter.
Fuck the U.N. (Sorry, Debbye.) The U.N. is rotten to the core.
There was no way the the Security Council was going to oppose Saddam. There was no way to remove Saddam without sending in troops. Saddam needed to be removed. We did the job. Canada sat around sucking its thumb, which is a shame because in years gone by, Canada was a strong and dependable ally of freedom.
Hopefully once Paul Martin and his gang are kicked out, Canada will be able to reclaim its honour.
Debbye -
In fairness, there are still plenty of Canadians who want to reassert themselves as principled members of the Anglosphere, but the Opposition has been fractured since 1993.
Absolutely. I'd love to see Canada rejoin the AONTDS. And New Zealand too, if they ever get rid of their isolationist nanny-syndrome government.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 21, 2005 11:12 PM (AIaDY)
28
Pixy, do you suppose that New Zealand and Canada share the same problem, i.e., they are geographically located next to kick-ass countries so don't worry about defending themselves?
Posted by: Debbye at April 23, 2005 08:10 AM (1y3js)
29
Debbye, you rule. NZ and Canada are free to go wobbily all they want 'cuse they know they're best pals with -- and protected by -- the real powers that be. They're the middle child. They stomp their feet 'cuz they just
hate that.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 24, 2005 11:45 PM (X37gK)
30
Thanks, T.S. I love the
middle child characterization! Unlike the vagaries of birth order, though, N.Z. and Canada chose their roles and yet it's
our fault that the results haven't been so great.
I'm not giving up on Canada yet. The Adscam scandal may give Canadians a chance to re-assess who they are and what this country is, or they can pretend it's just an anomaly and lose their self-respect.
I guess each nation has periods in which they can either bite the bullet or eat one. Canada is due for one such.
Posted by: Debbye at April 25, 2005 12:20 PM (36r6u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Volcano! (updated)
Apr. 17 - Mount Karthala is definitely cranky, causing
Hundreds to flee as volcano belches smoke from the crater.
"The ground has started trembling and we have seen cracks appearing," a local official on the island of Grande Comore, near the scene of the volcanic activity, said.
Residents near the affected villages described a strange smell wafting from the volcano, followed by a steady drizzle of black rain on the Indian Ocean island.
"Villagers are in total darkness, gritty rain is falling and visibility is zero," a resident, who gave his name as Charif, said.
20:07 More
here, global location of Comoros Islands
here. The lava flow seems to be contained within the crater at present, but the bigger danger is from the poisonous fumes coming out of the volcano.
Posted by: Debbye at
11:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
Earnscliffe-gate
Apr. 17 - The Earnscliffe Strategy Group obtained federal contracts during PM Paul Martin's tenure as Finance Minister. Former Martin aide
Terrie O'Leary has been subpoenaed by the Commons public accounts committee looking into the relationship of the group, federal research contracts and the Finance Department. Her lawyer says its for "political" purposes:
A parliamentary committee examining federal research contracts is trying to "embarrass and humiliate" a former aide to Paul Martin for political purposes, says the woman's lawyer.
Andrew Davis, the counsel for Terrie O'Leary, levelled the accusation in an e-mail to the Commons public accounts committee, which wants to question O'Leary about opinion polling contracts that went to a firm with political ties to Martin.
[...]
O'Leary is one of four witnesses subpoenaed to appear next Monday at hearings that will centre on Earnscliffe Strategy Group and its relations with the Finance Department when Martin was minister there.
The subject has come up in passing at the federal sponsorship inquiry headed by Justice John Gomery, but the judge ruled the deals did not fall within his mandate.
That prompted Bloc Quebecois MP Benoit Sauvageau to propose that the public accounts committee take up the matter - a suggestion quickly adopted by other opposition MPs who command a 7-5 majority on the panel.
Another witness to be called to testify about the relationship of Earncliffe to the Finance Department when Martin was Finance Minister is David Herle, who was also a partner at Earnscliffe when the contracts were awarded and O'Leary's "longtime personal companion."
Herle, who co-chaired last year's Liberal election campaign, was a partner at Earnscliffe when the firm obtained contracts from the Finance Department during Martin's term there.
For much of the same period his longtime personal companion O'Leary was chief of staff to Martin. She has repeatedly said she was careful to avoid any involvement in contracts that went to Earnsclifffe.
The firm employed many political associates of Martin, and was often jokingly referred to at the time as the prime-minister's-office-in-waiting.
Warren Kinsella, a former cabinet aide, and Peter Daniel, a former Finance Department official, are also scheduled to appear. The former sent a letter objecting to the fact that he has not been given any detail as to the areas about which he is to be questioned. Mr. Kinsella supported former PM Chretien during his leadership struggle with Martin.
Two other witnesses will be Auditor-General Sheila Fraser and Public Works whistleblower Allan Cutler, a former Public Works official who was fired after he filed a complain in 1996 about the questionable handling of the Sponsorship Program.
Posted by: Debbye at
09:34 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Is this really a "gate"? Does it really compare to the scandal of a former President lying about his cronies breaking in to the Democratic party headquarters?
Does it really compare to the scandal of a former President covering up his cronies crimes of breaking in to the Democratic party headquarters?
Posted by: Flanstein at April 18, 2005 11:24 AM (p4/Jf)
2
No. One used tax-payer money, the other didn't. That seems to be often overlooked when people compare Adscam (or other spending scandals) over Watergate.
The common factor would be if there is proven to be a cover-up.
Posted by: Debbye at April 18, 2005 05:27 PM (ISnEW)
3
Hi... am enjoying your company. Every Scam, scheme,fraud and other loss of our money has but one focus. Our life quality is being eaten away. Two year wait for knee surgury here in B.C. Totally un-Canadian!
Old age and disability pensions better not be next. There will be hell to pay.
here is an HP news release. HP newsletter just arrived. 11 something pm. April 18-2005.
Another scheme of 146 million but HP makes good, we get a refund. Amazing!
India and Pakistan getting peace minded... more good news. Can ye stand it?
News Release:
May 14, 2004 --
HP Canada today announced it has resolved a dispute with The Government of Canada, stemming from a complex scheme designed to exploit both parties through contracts inherited through HP's merger with Compaq Computer Corp. HP Canada has agreed to reimburse the Government of Canada the sum of CDN $146 million - an amount determined by both parties to be appropriate upon investigation – and has thereby fully and completely honoured its contractual obligations.
HP Canada intends to take appropriate steps, including action in the courts to recover these funds from individuals and companies who were involved in a scheme to misappropriate funds from the Government of Canada and HP Canada. The Government of Canada has agreed to cooperate with HP Canada in this effort.
HP determined that it was important for the company to honour its contractual obligation despite the fact there is no evidence that HP employees derived any improper benefit from the scheme. HP also concluded that it was more appropriate to take aggressive action against those responsible and not engage in protracted litigation with the Government of Canada.
This news release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they ever materialize or prove incorrect, could cause the results of HP and its consolidated subsidiaries to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements and assumptions. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including any projections of earnings, revenues, or other financial items; any statements of the plans, strategies, and objectives of management for future operations; any statements concerning proposed new services or developments; any statements regarding future economic conditions or performance; statements of belief and any statement of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. Risks, uncertainties and assumptions include the possibility that HP may not be successful in taking appropriate steps, including legal action, to recover these funds from the individuals and companies responsible in the scheme referred to above; and other risks that are described from time to time in HPÂ’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended Jan. 31, 2004, and HPÂ’s other Securities and Exchange Commission reports filed after HPÂ’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2003. HP assumes no obligation and does not intend to update these forward-looking statements.
Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 19, 2005 04:41 AM (DJuBh)
4
Good catch, Tony. I think I remember that case --HP proved itself more accountable than the government by taking responsibility even though they had no part in any wrongdoing.
And yes, I can stand more good news such as India and Pakistan finally realizing that they can live in peace!
Posted by: Debbye at April 20, 2005 04:23 AM (KwCoG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Trying to fix the Canadian Forces
Apr. 17 - A report from the Conference of Defence Associations says that replacing the Hercules transport and other equipment is "years off" because
the military lacks efficient procurement practices:
"At present, the department has inadequate numbers and expertise . . . to execute the existing capital acquisition plan," the association said in a report to the Commons defence committee.
"Existing approaches to military acquisitions and a dearth of project expertise lead to the troubling conclusion that transformation of the Canadian Forces . . . would not be possible before the year 2020."
The conclusions come as the all-party committee prepares to release a report on military procurement Monday. The panel is expected to say defence purchasing is weighed down in politics and inefficiency.
In another story, there have been allegations that questionable purchases have been made at Canadian Forces Base Borden near Barrie (
CFB squander) and there are also allegations that since the issue was first raised in an anonymous letter last November, there have been systematic attempts to
stifle the investigation and that "Many believe the NIS was only interested in determining who wrote the anonymous letter."
Similar to the revelations that followed the initial investigation into the Watergate break-in and the attempts to cover up the crime, many stories are now emerging which suggest other instances of wrong-doing. Some will prove out and others will not.
Posted by: Debbye at
09:32 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It, unfortunately, appears as though the Canadian government wants to emulate the New Zealand Government concerning defense policy. "Peacekeeping" only.
Posted by: Richard Cook at April 19, 2005 09:49 AM (Km34P)
2
Hi Richard!
Your past references to New Zealand led me look closer at that country, and you're right -- the comparison is apt.
Canada's contradiction is that they claim to have a long "tradition of peacekeeping" even though they can't deploy peacekeepers for more than a few tours any more.
Posted by: Debbye at April 19, 2005 08:49 PM (KwCoG)
3
Does Canada have a Minister for Disarmament yet? They might not be as far gone as NZ, and there may be time to pull up before the crash.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 22, 2005 09:54 AM (+S1Ft)
4
Canada doesn't have one yet (so far as I know) and they did deploy troops to Afghanistan and Kosovo. But they also have a U.N. University here in Toronto (presumably the curriculum includes double-parking, shredding techniques and Graft 101 and 102.)
It's the same old story: too much money in social programs, graft and corruption, the U.N. is world government, cozying up to France and Chine, etc.
It could be turned around, but Canadians have to demand it, and thus far they have griped a lot but voted Liberal.
Posted by: Debbye at April 23, 2005 08:22 AM (1y3js)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The money trail and recent Adscam testimony
Apr. 17 - Greg Weston reports that a "crack team of top forensic accountants" is
Following the Adscam money trail to determine where the millions stolen from the Sponsorship Fund eventually landed:
... This is no ordinary group of number-crunchers.
Among its members are some of the key investigators who unraveled the massive and complex financial scandal at Enron Corporation, the giant American energy company that collapsed under billions of dollars of hidden debt and fraud. Sometime in the next few weeks, this squad of sleuthing bean-counters from the firm Kroll Lindquist & Avey will present the Gomery inquiry with the results of its Adscam investigation.
If successful, the accountants will answer the most contentious of all sponsorship questions: Who ended up with all the money?
So far, the Gomery commission has heard testimony that an elaborate web of kickbacks and fraudulent invoices siphoned millions of dollars from the federal sponsorship program into the coffers of Liberal Party operatives. What we don't know -- and the forensic super-snoops will likely tell us -- is what happened to all the loot after the Liberal bagmen got it.
There have been numerous debates about fixed terms and pre-set election days up here, but the fallout from Adscam shows the other side of that argument. If an election is called, it ought to be after this report has been made public -- the Liberal Party will be damaged by the corruption exposed directly within its structure or by that of it's paid campaigners - like Corriveau - who may have pocketed the money but whose ethical poverty reflects poorly on the leadership team of the party.
The statute of limitations for some of the illegal acts is very slim:
While Brault and two others are facing criminal fraud charges, time has wiped out any chance of nailing others with violations of election and lobbying laws.
The Gomery inquiry has so far heard from a dozen witnesses who broke election laws -- passing political cash around in brown paper bags does not exactly conform to federal political financing rules.
But an official at Elections Canada indicates there is nothing the government can do to prosecute the Adscammers -- under the old election financing laws in place during the sponsorship program, violators had to be prosecuted within 18 months.
The same applies to the numerous Gomery witnesses who have admitted they broke federal lobbying laws while they were out twisting arms in government for sponsorship cash.
A joke at the best of times, the lobbying laws don't even apply to AdScam -- the statute of limitations is two years.
The federal lawsuit against the 19 Adscam players is open-ended, to allow the government to add more names as they are unearthed at the Gomery inquiry. (Emphasis added)
On the other hand, the statute of limitations is possibly why some of the witnesses have been so forthcoming with their testimony: should the criminal prosecutions result in convictions, the sentencing for some may be lighter. Jean Brault was applauded when he appeared after the publication ban was lifted and I can understand why, especially when I compare Brault's straightforward testimony with Corriveau's haughty demeanor during the latter's appearances before the Gomery Inquiry.
I'm not likely to buy a used car from either man, but Brault came across as someone who tried to take a shortcut to success and ended up paying for it, and his testimony despite his poor health compared to Corriveau's memory-loss-by-medication makes Brault the more sympathetic character.
Mindful of the dictim that one can't excape death or taxes,
... If all else fails, there is always the long arm of the tax man, no doubt already hot on the trail of all that pilfered Adscam money. Where it will end nobody knows except, we hope, the accountants of Kroll Lindquist & Avey.
A couple of links and some background, starting with a profile of Corriveau
here.
Some articles recapping Jean Brault's and Luc Lemay's testimony in anticipation of Corriveau's testimony here (including testimony from Groupaction employee Bernard Michaud that seemed to confirm that Brault was being pressure to donate to the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party) and Lemay's testimony that he never looked at Corriveau's bills but just paid them and that he didn't know that Gault was being pressured to donate to the party (the last contradicts Gault's testimony.)
A recap of Corriveau's testimony this past week: Corriveau denies kickback claims and CTV's coverage on Thursday and Friday.
In another link, on Thursday Corriveau denied ever discussing the Sponsorship Program with Chretien while running the graphic design company Pluri Design, denied that he was close to Alain Renaud, and denied one of the most damning segments of Brault's testimony:
Corriveau said he never referred to the party as "the cause" in any conversations, contrary to Brault's claim that the phrase came up often while Corriveau and top Liberal officials browbeat him for cash.
Corriveau had
also denied that he was was a "really" good friend of Jean Chretien's and that he was an informal consultant to the former prime minister.
On Friday, he denied receiving any kickbacks or playing any role in a scheme to funnel money back to the Liberal Party and suggested the inquiry focus on Alain Renaud. He explained the invoices which were for events in non-existent Olympic stadiums were due to a "significant printing error" -- so it wasn't due to a copy-paste operation but the use of an original invoice (for a 1997 event at Montreal's Olympic Stadium) as a template for later invoices (which went undetected in several Accounts Payable departments? If the invoices contained a significant error due to the template it's not a "printing" error but human error, and that still doesn't explain why nobody noticed it.)
He admitted being paid for lobbying the government for contracts for Lemay's Groupe Polygone even though he wasn't a registered lobbyist, and was caught contradicting testimony by Chretien's neice, Maria Lyne Chretien, when he admitted recommending her for a job at Groupaction upon her request (she had testified that she never solicited a recommendation from him.) Brault testified that of the five he hired (Serge Gosselin, Maria Lynn Chrétien, Gaby Chretien, Alain Renaud and Jacques Corriveau) she is the only one who did legitimate work for Groupaction.
[I've tried to cite numerous sources in part because some of the links have only a short life span and others will be subject to "subscribers only" retrieval.]
11:05: Lorrie Goldstein dispenses with the contention that Martin is the "wire brush" to clean up Canadian politics and brings the point home with the the reminder of the applause and praise in the Liberal caucus following Chretien's golfball testimony at the Gomery Inquiry -- an appearance that, to quote Goldstein, "made it perfectly clear he [Chretien] had nothing but contempt for the proceedings."
More chickens comes home to roost, as Linda Williamson reminds us of the "tainted blood scandal" and John Crosbie points out some bad bookkeeping and questionable business decisions at Canadian Steamship Lines, the company Paul Martin owned and ran before he became Prime Minister and wonders if the Canadian electorate will leave the government in the hands of wolves.
Edmonton Sun columnist Paul Stanway urges voters to "stop hiding behind the excuse of Battered voter syndrome" and outlines the flaws in the Liberal Party's pretensions as the "natural ruling party of Canada."
Salim Mansur asks Remember when honour was important?:
There was once an unspoken rule in public life that when trust is broken and a reputation sullied, the person in question should depart and save others from embarrassment.
We no longer live in such a world or, more properly, we now imagine that to demand honour in public life is romantic fiction.
It has become unreal to expect from public officials what Shakespeare made Mark Antony declare: "If I lose mine honour, I lose myself."
Instead, the unruffled contemporary norm is pass the buck, deny evidence and brazenly defy those whose trust has been broken due to poor judgment, ineptness or malfeasance.
Instead, the unruffled contemporary norm is pass the buck, deny evidence and brazenly defy those whose trust has been broken due to poor judgment, ineptness or malfeasance.
We've seen ample evidence of this in the AdScam debacle in Ottawa. So, too, we recently heard the pithy response of Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations, when asked if he would resign following the release of the second interim report of the Volcker committee on the Oil-for-Food scandal: "Hell, no."
Yes, the column is actually about Kofi Annan - but could easily be about Martin. I think that's the point.
Posted by: Debbye at
06:12 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1422 words, total size 11 kb.
1
For obvious reasons, any statute of limitations on public officials shouldn't start counting until the day they leave office.
Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2005 01:02 PM (PuNh2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 16, 2005
Bribery investigation in Swiss U.N. Building Contract
Apr. 16 - I can't find a source other than the
NY Times at this point:
Swiss Investigates Possibility of Bribery in U.N. Contract:
A Swiss judge is investigating possible bribery charges involving a $50 million contract to renovate the headquarters of a Geneva-based United Nations agency, according to government documents and Swiss and American officials.
Jean-Bernard Schmid, the Geneva-based judge who has led the criminal inquiry, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his investigation was focusing on Michael Wilson, who was a consultant to the company that won the renovation contract at the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Mr. Wilson, a Ghanaian businessman, has been identified by investigators as a business associate of Kojo Annan, the son of Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general. The judge said Kojo Annan was not a target of the investigation.
Investigators said the judge was trying to determine if Mr. Wilson had bribed a senior official at the United Nations agency to win the renovation contract. Edward Kwakwa, the agency's legal counsel, said Khamis Suedi, a top official at the intellectual property agency, acknowledged having received 325,000 Swiss francs, about $270,000, from Mr. Wilson, but said the money was from a private business venture that had no connection to the agency's construction contract. In an interview, Mr. Suedi said he had had nothing to do with the awarding of the contract.
[...]
Mr. Wilson's relationship with Kojo Annan was cited in a recent report issued by the United Nations commission investigating its oil-for-food program in Iraq. According to the commission, Mr. Wilson was a vice president at Cotecna Inspection S.A., a company that worked for the oil-for-food program, and Mr. Wilson helped get Mr. Annan a job at the company.
After both men left Cotecna, they became partners in a consulting business in Africa, according to investigators in the United States and Europe. Kojo Annan's lawyer, Clarissa Amato, declined comment for publication.
The Swiss investigation concerns Mr. Wilson's activities in Geneva. Mr. Kwakwa said Mr. Wilson had been an intern at the intellectual property agency "decades ago" when his father was posted in Geneva as an ambassador from Ghana. Mr. Kwakwa said that more recently Mr. Suedi told officials there that he and Mr. Wilson had been doing work that involved "benevolent, nongovernmental organizations." Mr. Kwakwa said the outside work had been approved by the agency.
Rough night. Need sleep.
more...
Posted by: Debbye at
10:06 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.
1
All the un manages to do is spread corruption to any country it has contact with.
The un is "Patient Zero" and needs to be quarantined (or euthanized).
Posted by: Jay at April 16, 2005 03:08 PM (PuNh2)
2
Jay:
Bribery at the UN - say it ain't so. Who would've thunk. :-)
Posted by: John B at April 18, 2005 11:39 AM (ju7Wp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More mass graves in Iraq
Apr. 16 - From yesterday's
New York Times, more pieces of a nightmare from which we can never awaken and a mistake for which we can only try to atone:
Iraqis Find Graves Thought to Hold Hussein's Victims:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 14 - Investigators have discovered several mass graves in southern Iraq that are believed to contain the bodies of people killed by Saddam Hussein's government, including one estimated to hold 5,000 bodies, Iraqi officials say.
[...]
At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the American invasion two years ago, Iraqi officials say.
[...]
One of the [newly discovered] graves, near Basra, in the south, appears to contain about 5,000 bodies of Iraqi soldiers who joined a failed uprising against Mr. Hussein's government after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Another, near Samawa, is believed to contain the bodies of 2,000 members of the Kurdish clad led by Massoud Barzani.
As many as 8,000 men and boys from the clan disappeared in 1983 after being rounded up in northern Iraq by security forces at the command of Ali Hassan al-Majid, widely known as Chemical Ali. It remains unclear, however, how the victims ended up in the south.
Investigators have also discovered the remains of 58 Kuwaitis spread across several sites, including what appears to be a family of two adults and five children who were crushed by a tank, Mr. Amin said. At least 605 Kuwaitis disappeared at the time of the first gulf war, and before the latest graves were discovered, fewer than 200 had been accounted for, he added.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.
Don't f*** with Great-grandma
Apr. 16 -
Great Granny Guns Would-Be Thief
Posted by: Debbye at
09:49 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Let's see, we're talking about a 64-year old woman who has THREE great-great-grandchildren. That's a spread of five generations over sixty-four years.
So doing a little bit of math tells me that the average age at which each of the four parental generations had its firstborn was sixteen.
That's a lot of teenage parents!!
Posted by: Doug at April 17, 2005 08:53 AM (a7amO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 15, 2005
Website shut down by Calgary police chief
Apr. 15 - I have to rush off to work, but this is troubling:
Website gagged as Calgary police chief wins court order.
Neale News has a link to this page of the website.
We'd better keep an eye on this.
(Links via Neale News.)
Posted by: Debbye at
08:52 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm being OT again:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153552,00.html
Summary: Bush just recently found out about the passport-at-the-border requirement and doesn't seem happy about it.
Well, I only knew because of blogs but Bush has better things to do than blog-hop. Apprently he isn't being briefed as well as he should be on important stuff (maybe somebody thought this wasn't important?)
I still fail to see how the idea would be at all possible unless US guards stopped outgoers who didn't have passports. People who live near the border and regularly cross north to go fishing or whatever suddenly can't get back home because they don't have a passport? Passports are just not an American tradition.
Posted by: Jay at April 16, 2005 12:38 AM (PuNh2)
2
Bush and Congress are on two different courses in the areas of securing the borders vs. keeping the traditional easy access, sort of the "New Reality" vs. "if we change our ways, the terrorists will have won."
Maybe it comes down to what we are willing to give up to be secure and if giving those things up actually makes us more secure. Or, will it make our allies feel less indignant by demanding Americans also produce passports at the border? Canadian response to being deprived of their unchallenged border-crossing was quite hostile (which kind of contradicts the degree to which the media says Canadians hate Americans.)
Posted by: Debbye at April 16, 2005 09:18 AM (8ynco)
3
Canadians don't hate Americans. Canadians hate the Bush Administration because of their lies, abuse of others, and needless wars that were started around the globe.
Secondly, the only thing that Bush has said that I agree with, relates to passports. There is nothing hard or onerous about getting or using a Canadian passport. Criminals should not be allowed to obtain passports or to leave Canada. And American criminals should not be allowed to enter Canada. That obviously includes criminals that are terrorists or any other form of undesirable.
Finally, I think the US border cops in Canada should all leave. They should go back to the American cities where regular flights from Canada arrive and run their customs services the same as any other country.
And they should take their guns with them.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 16, 2005 11:21 PM (5dXW9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Expos Nats begin new season
Neale News
Apr. 15 - I just have to note this moment in history. We have a good friend who is still a diehard Senators fan (he even wrote and published a book about them) and Mark has long bewailed the lack of support for the Expos, who consistently played better than their payroll warranted, so now there a cosmic merging of The Underappreciated and The Arcane as the legacy of the Expos and Senators combine to create the Nationals.
Great article in the Washington Times about the President's intense preparation before throwing the initial pitch including the fact that he warmed up before taking the mound. Guess only women who love baseball lovers would understand, but I just know he constantly peppered Laura with the all-important question: slider or a fastball?
The Times says "It was a fastball. A ball. High and inside to a phantom right-handed batter." Mark said the catcher called it a strike, and I made the error of observing that, sans batter and umpire, it can't be anything because without the latter, It ain't nothing until he calls it.
Mark replied smugly, "The catcher knows" which in itself is a bit of a switch as Mark rarely admits to pitcher error on a wild pitch because it's the catcher's job to catch whatever is thrown. So now a catcher is all-wise and all-knowing? (Of course, Mark was not only a pitcher but a southpaw to boot which are two strikes against his sanity.)
I'm a baseball fan, but I'm not as fanatic as certain people like someone sitting 10 feet away who reads baseball blogs but doesn't read mine ...
Charles Krathammer tries to figure out why he cares about 25 guys he doesn't even know:
It is one thing to root for your son's Little League team. After all, he is your kid, and you paid for his glove -- and uniform, helmet, bat, and, when he turns 9, cup. You have a stake in him, and by extension his team.
But what possible stake do grown men have in the fortunes of 25 perfect strangers, vagabond mercenaries paid obscene sums to play a game for half the year?
The whole thing is completely irrational. For me, this is no mere abstract question. I have been a baseball fan most of my life. I could excuse the early years, the Mantle-Maris era, as mere childish hero worship. But what excuse do I have now? Why should I care about these tobacco-spitting, crotch-adjusting multimillionaires who have never heard of me and would not care if I was dispatched to my maker by an exploding scoreboard?
[...]
Presto. It is 1975 all over again. I begin to care. I want them to win. Why? I have no idea. I begin following day games on the Internet. I've punched not one but two preset Nationals stations onto my car radio. I'm aghast. I'm actually invested in the day-to-day fortunes of 25 lugheads I never heard of until two weeks ago.
The Washington Senators were often observed to be
First in war, first in peace, and last in the American league. If only for the sakes of Tom, Mark, George and Charles, I hope the Nationals have a terrific season and make 'em proud.
Apr. 16 - 08:34: Sorry, forgot link to Krauthammer's column. Fixed now.
Posted by: Debbye at
07:50 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Ah yes, the painful memories of being a Senators fan.
We'll always have Frank Howard to remember and it was fun if you just enjoyed a day at the ballpark and weren't into winning and stuff like that.
The best part of losing the Senators is that, in retrospect, we really can blame Bush for this one.
Posted by: mikem at April 15, 2005 10:12 PM (EzNXf)
2
No more than Bush will blame himself! Baseball is dead-on deep-down personal.
My Dad still hates the Dodgers for all the years they stood between the Giants and the NL pennant (way back in the 60's) and that covers the period he was living and working in L.A.
Posted by: Debbye at April 16, 2005 08:48 AM (8ynco)
3
Aah, baseball blogging. I still haven't watched a game yet this season. My team, the Mets, got off to a bad start but have since picked up the pace. This could be a fun year!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 16, 2005 05:28 PM (lAI6Q)
4
T.S., that reminds me of what they used to say at home openers when the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn: "Wait 'till next year!"
Baseball: the sport that requires each player to contribute in offense and defense -- none of that "special team" crap, each player has to pull their full weight.
Spring! Ain't it grand?
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 05:18 AM (JzGci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
American arrest in U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal
Apr. 15 - David Bay Chalmers Jr. of Bayoil U.S.A. was
charged yesterday in Iraq Oil Sales by Hussein Aides.:
In an indictment, federal authorities in New York said David Bay Chalmers Jr., a Houston oil businessman, and his company, Bayoil U.S.A., made millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to the Iraqi government while trading oil under the $65 billion aid program.
Separate charges were brought against Tongsun Park, a millionaire South Korean businessman, for acting as an unregistered lobbyist for Iraq in behind-the-scenes negotiations in the United States to set up and shape the United Nations program. The criminal complaint said Mr. Park received at least $2 million in secret payments from Mr. Hussein's government for serving as a liaison between Iraqi and United Nations officials.
Mr. Park was at the center of a lobbying scandal in the 1970's, when he was accused of paying bribes to lawmakers in Washington to secure support for loans to South Korea.
[...]
The authorities not only charged that Bayoil made illegal payments to secure Iraqi oil, but also that it conspired to artificially lower the price Iraq received, depriving the Iraqi people of money for sorely needed items. The charges also disclosed new information about an alleged plan to pay senior United Nations officials to influence the course of the program.
Catherine M. Recker, a lawyer for Mr. Chalmers, said the Bayoil defendants and the company would plead not guilty and "vigorously dispute" the criminal charges.
According to federal authorities and the complaint against Mr. Park, he was a partner in the lobbying effort with Samir Vincent, an Iraqi-American businessman who pleaded guilty in January to illegal lobbying for Iraq.
Mr. Vincent, who is cooperating with federal investigators, said Iraqi officials signed agreements in 1996 to pay him and Mr. Park $15 million for their lobbying, the complaint says.
One of their tasks was "to take care of" a high-ranking United Nations official, which Mr. Vincent understood to mean to pay bribes, the complaint says. The authorities did not identify or bring charges against the United Nations official. (Emphasis added)
[...]
David N. Kelley, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, in Manhattan, said the complaint alleges that Mr. Park intended to bribe the official, but does not show that the official received any bribe.
The complaint also charges that Mr. Park met with a second unnamed senior United Nations official, once in a restaurant in Manhattan. After that, Mr. Park said he invested $1 million he had been paid by Iraq in a Canadian company belonging to the son of the second United Nations official, the complaint says.
Mr. Kelley declined to say whether the officials were still actively serving at the world organization. He said, however, that the investigation was "broad and large" and that his office would "wring the towel dry" in pursuing United Nations officials. (Emphasis added.)
The story in the
Washington Post says much the same:
A federal grand jury in Manhattan charged that David B. Chalmers Jr., founder of Houston-based Bayoil USA Inc. and Bayoil Supply & Trading Limited; Ludmil Dionissiev, a Bulgarian citizen who lives in Houston; and John Irving, a British oil trader, funneled millions of dollars in kickbacks through a foreign front company to an Iraqi-controlled bank account in the United Arab Emirates. If convicted, the three men could each be sentenced to as long as 62 years in prison, $1 million in fines, and the seizure of at least $100 million in personal and corporate assets.
The federal complaint against Park charges that he received a total of $2 million in cash from Iraq, including a fee to "take care" of an unnamed U.N. official. It also states that Park invested $1 million in Iraqi money in a Canadian company owned by the son of another unknown, "high-ranking" U.N. official. Park could face as long as five years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000 or twice the value of profits he earned as a result of his alleged activities. (Emphasis added.)
The Telegraph (UK) has a fairly terse article on the arrests.
Thus far I've only found coverage of the arrests in The Globe and Mail which covers the arrest but as of 5:41 a.m. didn't report the allegations of a Canadian connection but does report that U.N. officials may be connected to these arrests:
The reference in the complaint against Mr. Park to two mystery high-ranking UN officials sparked widespread speculation in UN corridors of possible names.
Mr. Kelley, pressed repeatedly by reporters at a news conference to say whether U.N. officials had actually received money tied to Mr. Park, would say only that that issue was not part of the indictment.
Any Canadian who read the
NY Times or
Washington Post today is probably speculating too!
The U.N. is claiming that the Americans and British were perfectly aware of the violations of the sanctions but refused to order their ships in the Persian Gulf to stop oil tankers heading for Turkish and Jordanian ports with illicit Iraqi oil. I have read reports that trucks loaded with illegally purchased oil from Iraq went to Turkey and Jordan (that became common knowledge after Operation Iraqi Freedom and the public learned just how corrupt OFF - or Oil for Palaces - really was) but I don't understand why oil headed for Jordan or Turkey would use rather lengthy sea lanes when they border Iraq and could drive it in.
Maybe Annan was thinking of Syria, a member of the U.N. Security Council, but, again, the oil was not transported by sea but by pipeline, two of which were turned off when U.S. troops got to them. Maybe he just forgot.
11:30 - Glenn Reynolds has lots of links on the arrests.
Apr. 16 - 10:05: FoxNews has no additional information on U.N. Official No. 1 and Official No. 2.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:19 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1004 words, total size 7 kb.
1
And still no arrests from the worst of the worst, the un and france.
Looking forward to the names of the two un officials being released tho - hopefully diplomatic immunity doesn't apply to investigators releasing the truth.
Posted by: Jay at April 15, 2005 04:27 PM (PuNh2)
2
I ask you -- Can it be mere coincidence that "un" is actually a French word? Scary, eh?
Posted by: taylor at April 15, 2005 05:11 PM (QKBqr)
3
Here's a couple of high-ranking Canadians at the UN: Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General of the UN who works directly for Kofi Annan; and Reid Morden, who is now executive director of the Volcker team which is investigating the Oil-for-Food scam.
Both have ties to Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. According to Fox News: "When [Louise] Fréchette served as Canada's ambassador to the United Nations from 1992 to 1995, her boss during most of that time was Canadian Deputy Minister Reid Morden, who is now executive director of the Volcker team."
Then there's Maurice Strong, special advisor to Kofi Annan. He's also well acquainted with Paul Martin from their days at Power Corporation, a Canadian company owned by Paul Desmarais, who just happens to own an interest in Total Fina ELF, an oil company with large holdings in Iraq.
Not that there is anything to say that any of these people are the Canadians mentioned.
Posted by: Bill at April 16, 2005 01:19 AM (EMW3A)
4
Can the U.N. arrest people? That's the whole problem with the U.N. and the whole "international law" fantasy.
Taylor, I'm not sure what you mean. "Un" is a fairly common word form for "one" in Romance languages, and the scandals at the U.N. are far from being limited to the French (or Canadians, for that matter.)
I can't deny that those were the first names that came to my mind, Bill. I'm unclear as to the libel laws in this country, though, so didn't check if any of them had adult sons in order to narrow down the list.
I quickly googled to see if John Irving had a connection to Irving Oil, and to the best of my knowledge he is not related to K.C. Irving (for which I am extremely happy.)
The NY times has a story today about yet another U.N. scandal, this one being in Switzerland and involving bribery and a friend of Kojo Annan. Hard to tell if there's any truth to it yet, but who knows? Posting about it after I try to find sources other than the
Times (or after I get some sleep. I hate working nights.)
Posted by: Debbye at April 16, 2005 09:04 AM (8ynco)
5
Ah yes, Kojo's business associate, Michael Wilson who is now being investigated by Swiss authorities for UN scandals in Switzerland.
I guess after the Mulroney blowout, Michael was looking for a job where he could apply the things he learned from Brian Mulroney.
Or its there another Michael Wilson we do not know about?
Posted by: Joe Green at April 16, 2005 10:28 PM (5dXW9)
6
LOL, Joe, there are probably millions of Michael Wilsons we forgot about!
Another name we forgot is Louise Arbour, High Commissioner of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, but I believe her appointment to the U.N. is too recent to fit what very little we know.
Syria still hasn't been mentioned in the press coverage of Annan's criticism even though he admitted early on he knew about their pipelines from Iraq but that he was powerless to turn them off.
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 05:25 AM (JzGci)
7
Well Debbye it would help if you Americans were not so smug and self rightous about it.
Koffi Annan is the Secretary General of the United Nations, an organization created by the sovereign nation states of the world that entered into a binding treaty to uphold the UN Charter. It has no "power" and its only "peacekeeping" resources are those given to it by contributing nation states.
So don't blame Koffi Annan for your own screwups as Americans. I don't blame him for our screwups as Canadians in Rwanda, where we should have NEVER depended upon the United States for military support and backup in UN efforts to stop the genocide.
General Dellaire and the Canadian Armed Forces SHOULD have gone in with all "guns blazing" to get the job done, and to relieve General Dellaire's credit card that at some points was paying for the bills.
The Rwanda tragedy is a Canadian tragedy. We should have NEVER trusted the United States that was working behind the scenes at the United Nations to undermine General Delaire's efforts to stop the genocide.
American Foreign policy is not about stopping genocides. Its always about "money" and "power".
I'm frankly surprised Debbye that you do not understand that about your own country.
Posted by: Joe Green at April 17, 2005 05:22 PM (5dXW9)
8
Just making stuff up now, Joe?
There are a million conspiracies afoot in Joe Green's mind, all involving the US trying to undermine the 'aggressive' (chuckle) foreign policy of Canadian do-nothings.
Instead of expecting people, even easily convinced Canadians, to buy into your secret squirrel counterintuitive plot lines, why not just accept your Canadian heritage and act indifferent.
Posted by: mikem at April 19, 2005 05:13 AM (EzNXf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 14, 2005
Corriveau testimony Day 1
Apr. 14 - Some quick updates before I go to work.
Corriveau says he can't remember Chretien calls but confirmed about 21 over the years, citing surgery and medication as reasons for some memory problems, and that he only saw Chretien once or twice a year on average. He also denied he was an "unofficial consultant" to Chretien
The story in the Globe reports that Corriveau defended the phone calls logged in the former prime minister's office as being due to his employment of Chretien's son, Michel, at Corriveau's graphic-design firm from 1989 to 1991, which was before Chretien came to power, as pointed out by inquiry counsel Bernard Roy.
Posted by: Debbye at
07:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
"I did not have lunch with that man!"
Apr. 14 - Paul Martin denies ever having lunch with Claude Boulay of Groupe Everest, one of the agencies implicated in Adscam (
Paul Martin: I have never had lunch with Boulay.)
Greg Weston wasn't impressed with Martin's "moral authority" speech yesterday and even less impressed with Martin's refusal to answer Opposition Leader Stephen Harper's direct question yesterday about Boulay.
Posted by: Debbye at
12:30 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
1
now, if we can only find the soiled napkin.
Posted by: keith at April 14, 2005 07:23 PM (HRjgG)
2
Yay! That's the kind of punchline I was looking for, Keith.
Posted by: Debbye at April 14, 2005 08:04 PM (okk+Q)
3
Sounds like Clinton and Lewinsky "I never had sex with that woman"
Oh wait, what was that? Hmm maybe if you define it that way, perhaps, maybe... uh huh
Posted by: Dwayne at April 15, 2005 10:36 AM (aPkwd)
4
It all depends on what the meaning of the word "lunch" is.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 16, 2005 05:32 PM (lAI6Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Luc Lemay, Day 2
Apr. 14 - Yes, it's Update on Adscam time, but I'm not sure I'm up to it. I caught some of Lemay's testimony on CPAC this morning, but I couldn't believe my ears. Did he really assert that he has neither read nor heard anything as to the content of Jean Brault's testimony last week? That is so unbelievable that I'm
certain I must have dozed off there for a bit.
Another curious note: I turned on CPAC a few minutes ago and there is debate going on over a Bloc motion for the Liberals to put their alleged ill-gotten gains into a trust account so as to level the playing field in the event of an election ... thus far, speakers from the Bloc, Conservative Party and NDP have supported the motion.
Back to Lemay's testimony, he seemingly has no understanding of what constitutes 'Influence peddling':
HUSTLING by a pal of Jean Chretien to land a Quebec publishing empire lucrative sponsorships for a hefty commission is blatant "influence peddling," Justice John Gomery charged yesterday. Gomery launched the allegation in heated testimony from Groupe Polygone owner Luc Lemay, who said he helped mask Jacques Corriveau's hefty commissions with fake invoices to avoid the federal lobbyist registry.
"You have never heard of what we call influence peddling, as being a forbidden practice in the government?" Gomery pointedly asked Lemay during his second day of grilling.
"No," Lemay answered.
Corriveau, a Liberal bagman and the former PM's confidant, made $6.7 million in commissions on the $37 million in sponsorships the feds pumped directly into Lemay's conglomerate of companies between 1996 and 2002.
Lemay is also Clueless In Rimouski, billing for an event in the Olympic Stadium there - except that none such exists.
Laughter erupted when inquiry counsel Bernard Roy noted Corriveau billed thousands of dollars for working at the Olympic Stadium in Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres, Rimouski, Chicoutimi and Ste-Foy, a suburb of Quebec City.
"To your knowledge, is there an Olympic stadium in Rimouski?" asked Roy, adding: "These details escaped you because you did not examine the bills."
Lemay replied: "Essentially."
Some of the events said to have taken place in Olympic Stadiums actually
took place at shopping malls and hockey rinks.
Brian Daly also writes on Lemay's testimony here:
The fake bills complete with non-existent stadiums were turned in by Liberal organizer Jacques Corriveau for a series of regional hunting and fishing shows that did in fact take place, promoter Luc Lemay testified at the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.
Many of the bills were duplicates of a legitimate invoice that Corriveau submitted for one of Lemay's hunting and fishing shows at Montreal's Olympic Stadium in 1999.
Lemay said Corriveau did little work or no work on the regional events and simply substituted the names of the smaller communities but left the rest of the document unchanged.
Lemay, who claims to be a businessman, testified that he paid whatever Corriveau requested. If Corriveau claimed he had spent more time than anticipated on a project and billed accordingly, Lemay paid without question.
Corriveau, also a graphic designer, had cut himself in on the lucrative deals at 17.5 per cent but did little more than eyeball mockups for most of the contracts, said Lemay.
"I never verified these bills," he said.
A $2.7 million People's Almanac contract and the Montreal outdoors show were the only two of 19 federally sponsored events for which Corriveau played a major role, said Lemay.
As for the other 17 events worth nearly $28 million, Lemay said he had a "good faith" agreement to pay commissions to Corriveau, but didn't ask for details about Corriveau's work.
Lemay wouldn't corroborate Brault's claims but didn't deny Corriveau's bills were inflated.
[...]
Brault has implicated Corriveau and Lemay in the wide-ranging scheme that allegedly used Brault's Groupaction firm to secretly funnel at least $1.1 million to the party's debt-ridden Quebec wing.
Brault said he paid Corriveau nearly $500,000 under a bogus contract, and alleged Corriveau sent the cash to the Quebec wing.
Brault, who's semi-retired, also testified Corriveau pressed him to make huge financial contributions, while one of Lemay's firms allegedly paid Brault $2.3 million in bogus commissions to offset the party's financial demands.
Lemay has admitted that $1.9 million in bills from Groupaction were "perhaps a bit inflated" but insisted Brault told him the money was to help manage sponsorship contracts.
He said he he had no idea Brault was being pressured for Liberal contributions and said no Liberals ever strongarmed him into sending cash.
The CTV link tells me I haven't gone Nuts Over Adscam
Gomery was incredulous when Lemay claimed he still didn't know about Brault's allegations, which have made international headlines.
"I've never seen media coverage like that of Mr. Brault's testimony," said the judge, adding: "You've read nothing about it?"
Lemay replied: "I don't have the time to read it."
Gomery then said, "Maybe it's time for a break," before ordering a pause in the proceedings.
Jacques Corriveau is to testify today.
Posted by: Debbye at
11:37 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 833 words, total size 6 kb.
1
With this level of corruption, who do these guys think they are? Haliburton employees?
Posted by: Flanstein at April 15, 2005 06:48 AM (d9sBK)
2
Sadly, Flanstein, they are people who purport to be better than .. let's do Cancon and say
Power Corp employees but who have been shown to be much worse because they have, to use a hackneyed expression,
betrayed the public trust. And yes, I believe that those who accept government contracts must be behave better than they might in the private sector (and it also pisses me off MIGHTILY when they misuse taxpayer money in the U.S.A. or even the U.N.)
I too am a Canadian taxpayer, and I too have seen the health care system collapse in Toronto, as well as so many of our once proud public services, so I'm not a mere onlooker here.
My kids need to have a future in this country, yet how do you think they feel about Canada when they see the ruling party mired in corruption this blatant and behaving with overt contempt toward the people they are pledged to serve?
Sorry about the rant, I just finished watching the tail end of Lemay's testimony and I feel sickened.
Posted by: Debbye at April 15, 2005 08:58 AM (o4GrH)
3
I hope everyone does not have such a light hearted attitude toward corruption in Canadian politics as Flanstein so proudly exhibits.
I guess it is asking too much for Canadians to be curious and demanding of ethical behavior from their leaders. It is no surprise that corruption flourishes in Canada. And Canadians wonder why no one respects them.
Posted by: mikem at April 15, 2005 06:02 PM (EzNXf)
4
Mike, one of the reasons Adscam has been so slow to infuriate the Canadian public is because they have been persuaded that the bigger threat is from the U.S.A. which is reportedly on the verge of fascism and busily enriching the coffers of Halliburton.
Diversionary tactics work, and the failure of the Canadian electorate to mind their own house allowed Adscam to continue unchecked for the last 12 years.
But it's no coincidence that Adscam coincided with the collapse of the Conservative Progressive Party. When there is no vigorous opposition, corruption flourishes unchecked.
But we knew that ;-)
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 05:37 AM (JzGci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The "fiscal imblance as dark matter"
Apr. 14 - Andre Coyne absolutely rocks. I am floored that the existence of dark matter is proven because scientists
weighed the universe and found something was missing ... I know there isn't some cosmic scale that they used, but being a Lowly Humnities Major I get close to these kinds of theories and then they slip right past me.
So what does dark matter have to do with the Defining the "fiscal imbalance"?
One of the delights of federal-provincial relations is the ingenuity with which the premiers find new ways to rationalize the same unchanging demand for more money. ..
Remember the 18% ratio? That was the percentage of all provincial health spending that Ottawa was obliged to pony up, some years back, or risk violating one or another of the laws of thermodynamics. The accounting was dubious enough -- the provinces conveniently forgot about federal transfers in the form of tax points, and in any event the money all goes into provincial general revenues, not some sequestered bank account marked “health” -- but no more so than the underlying principle. Which was … what, exactly? Well, 18% was what Ottawa used to kick in “for health,” circa 1995, before the “unilateral” (ie federal) reductions in federal transfers to the provinces imposed in that year’s budget. And why should that be any sort of benchmark? ...
Lately the premiers have discovered a new formula. .. The fiscal imbalance is one of those things like dark matter or quantum uncertainty that defy comprehension by the ordinary layman. Its precise magnitude has been the subject of countless arcane calculations -- the government of Quebec devoted a whole white paper to the subject -- but its basic mathematical expression may be reduced, by a combination of Lagrange polynomial interpolation and dead reckoning, to two lines: 1. Ottawa has money. 2. We want it.
Read. It.
Posted by: Debbye at
11:07 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
1
they didn't weigh it, they measured gravity.
i usually agree with AC except on this issue, on which he is beyond left field and wandering through corn fields in nebraska.
1) ottawa has money 2) we want it.
try 1) ottawa has our money 2) we want it back.
Posted by: keith at April 14, 2005 07:28 PM (HRjgG)
2
"they didn't weight it, they measurered it."
Keith 1, some-science-special, 0
Hello, Humanities Major here? It still is incredible, and the brain cells that were employed to construct the equations to calculate such a thing are clearly designed to make me humble.
On Coyne, Ontario wants money. Ontario wants money because Toronto needs money. Toronto needs money because they have the wackiest spendingest City Council of any city I've ever lived in (and I used to live in San Francisco!)
I think I know where AC is coming from in this. We need to rein in Ontario's/Toronto's spending or the City Council can bite the bullet or, more likely, raise property taxes to double-digit rates and finally the electorate will wake up.
I agree with Andrew: cut taxes! I think that especially as there is a surplus, give a tax refund to the tax payers!
As you said, it's your money, not Ottawa's (in the sense of being your residence) and it should be returned to it's rightful place: your pocket.
Posted by: Debbye at April 15, 2005 09:16 AM (o4GrH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The "Nerf"-ing of kids' lives
Apr. 14 - Sometimes Nick at
Quotulatiousness drives me nuts. He writes very well, but too often contents himself with just quoting other people leaving his readers thirsty for more.
Now I've got him! He's got a post in which he does much of the driving himself here and scores:
The author also waves that wonderful "self esteem" flag, but that's a rant for another time.
Sooner, please. It's time to take parents off the hook for trying to "raise their child's self-esteem" and getting him/her to do their durned homework so they can get the grades that might make that self-esteem an earned achievement.
I think we may be going too far to attempt to protect our kids from the real world by making even their most competitive environments less challenging (the "Nerf"-ing of kids' lives). How much of a shock is the real world going to be to someone who's never been exposed to the good and the bad of real personal conflicts outside the home?
The "Nerf"-ing of kids lives. Perfectly stated.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:22 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh come on . . . a little thirst is good for you!
I'll try to write more, as time allows. Okay?
;-)
Posted by: Nicholas at April 15, 2005 04:02 PM (bfwnL)
2
"As time allows," Nick? You know perfectly well that you're not allowed to have a life beyond blogging! It's in the rules. (Exceptions are only made for drinking with bloggers. That is in an amendment to the rules.)
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 05:42 AM (JzGci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
David Brooks, meet Wretchard
Aprl. 14 - David Brooks has a straight-forward style that I really love. He uses words like "squishier" and phrases like "arcane fudges" that cut across the blather of
nuance - which is basically the art of saying nothing but to say it well - and makes his points squarely and unequivocally.
Today's column is a gem (Loudly, With a Big Stick.) In the course of explaining why John Bolton will make a terrific Ambassador to the U.N., (he's there to represent the U.S.A., remember?) he explains why Americans will never accept some lofty world government and, at the risk of breaking a great many trans-nationalist hearts, exposes the primary reasons why people who love liberty and self-rule would never accept it either.
We'll never accept it, first, because it is undemocratic. It is impossible to set up legitimate global authorities because there is no global democracy, no sense of common peoplehood and trust. So multilateral organizations can never look like legislatures, with open debate, up or down votes and the losers accepting majority decisions.
Instead, they look like meetings of unelected elites, of technocrats who make decisions in secret and who rely upon intentionally impenetrable language, who settle differences through arcane fudges. Americans, like most peoples, will never surrender even a bit of their national democracy for the sake of multilateral technocracy.
Second, we will never accept global governance because it inevitably devolves into corruption. The panoply of U.N. scandals flows from a single source: the lack of democratic accountability. These supranational organizations exist in their own insular, self-indulgent aerie.
We will never accept global governance, third, because we love our Constitution and will never grant any other law supremacy over it. Like most peoples (Europeans are the exception), we will never allow transnational organizations to overrule our own laws, regulations and precedents. We think our Constitution is superior to the sloppy authority granted to, say, the International Criminal Court.
Fourth, we understand that these mushy international organizations liberate the barbaric and handcuff the civilized. Bodies like the U.N. can toss hapless resolutions at the Milosevics, the Saddams or the butchers of Darfur, but they can do nothing to restrain them. Meanwhile, the forces of decency can be paralyzed as they wait for "the international community."
Fifth, we know that when push comes to shove, all the grand talk about international norms is often just a cover for opposing the global elite's bêtes noires of the moment - usually the U.S. or Israel. We will never grant legitimacy to forums that are so often manipulated for partisan ends.
The last paragraph is direct:
Sometimes it takes sharp elbows to assert independence. But this is certain: We will never be so seduced by vapid pieties about global cooperation that we'll join a system that is both unworkable and undemocratic.
"Vapid pieties!" Alas, I know them well. I've encountered most of them living in a member of the Axis of Weasels and Adscam Country.
With a terrific sense of contrast, Wrethard examines the French disenchantment with the EU Constitution taking a Guardian article as his base line and expands it into a post that parallels the Brooks column which, although they pursue different paths, come to similar conclusions about the sense of what it is to be a "nationality."
He calls passage of the EU Constitution a "Faustian bargain"
{French] People are beginning to understand the document before them but the political salesmen are determined to offer any combination of rebates, coupons, special offers and financing to get the final signature on the contract of sale. Stephen Benet's "The Devil and Daniel Webster" speaks of the belated remorse that so often follows Faustian bargains, though like as not there will be no reprieve from the consequences of this deal.
There is no Plan "B" to ratifying the Constituion, so "the field [is] open to the first European leader able to articulate a viable and alternative trajectory for the nations of the old continent."
Although Wretchard explains a great many economic and political reasons why the French might reject the EU Constitution, I believe the answer may be far more basic: they don't want to stop being that indefinable thing that makes them unique which would happen were they to relinquish self-rule.
I think the French (as are the British, Dutch, and most especially the Eastern European countries who are unwilling to trade Soviet dominance for French dominance) are actually expressing a yearning they dare not admit to because it would make them just like us Yanks: love of country, love of those intrinsic matters that define them as unique, and love of being (don't laugh) French.
[Note the final paragraph in the Guardian article! They feel they need to cheat to win, which is most definitely not a sign of confidence.]
Posted by: Debbye at
07:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.
1
These supranational organizations exist in their own insular, self-indulgent aerie.
Beeeeeautiful.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 16, 2005 06:07 PM (lAI6Q)
2
Yep, and it's strikingly similar to the same kind of insulation in which the media exists.
Ralph Peters wrote (I'm paraphrasing) "Life is not eternal, but U.N. mission are."
Posted by: Debbye at April 17, 2005 05:46 AM (JzGci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Neo-Nazi Wolfgang Droege
Apr. 14 -
Neo-Nazi Wolfgang Droege was shot and killed last night in east Toronto.
My only comment is that this guy only got 3 years for trying to overthrow the government of Dominica, but got 13 years for cocaine possession and weapons possession in Alabama. Something is wrong with that! Dominica sounds rather interesting; the website I googled says
Dominica was the last of the Caribbean islands to be colonized by Europeans, due chiefly to the fierce resistance of the native Caribs. France ceded possession to Great Britain in 1763, which made the island a colony in 1805. In 1980, two years after independence, Dominica's fortunes improved when a corrupt and tyrannical administration was replaced by that of Mary Eugenia CHARLES, the first female prime minister in the Caribbean, who remained in office for 15 years. Some 3,000 Carib Indians still living on Dominica are the only pre-Columbian population remaining in the eastern Caribbean.
The
Toronto Sun article has a "man who repented" air about it, but I'm adding the
CTV link from Flea,
who says exactly what I want to say and who had a run-in with the man.
I know the KuKluxKlan has tried to project a new image and that there are always fools who will be taken in by their b.s., but to me they are always the Democratic Rifle Club that was formed shortly after the Civil War and used murderous means to intimidate and deny enfranchised African-Americans their legally constituted civil rights. (Only one google reference. What do they teach in schools these days?)
I've filed this under the "Canada" category because I don't have one for "Sick Bastards Who Finally Died and Went to Hell" and under USA because I don't have one for "I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do affirm my right to get in your face and call you out when you preach that kind of crap."
Posted by: Debbye at
06:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.
142kb generated in CPU 0.1122, elapsed 0.1726 seconds.
77 queries taking 0.1143 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.