June 15 - Even though I don't often post about Iraq, it is never far from my mind. It is painful to read that bombs kill 28 but it reminds us of what kind of people are held at Gitmo: monsters who deliberately target and murder civilians. Such acts are clearly outside the rules of engagement and that is why the Geneva Convention, which sought to protect civilians, takes a harsh view of "illegal combatants."

It is beyond my comprehension that so much sympathy is wasted on those of their ilk rather than on their victims, who are guilty of nothing more than going to work or shopping (much as were the victims of Sept. 11.)

At some point the high road taken by left wingers came to an abrupt end and the road forked. Their ideals were confronted by their anti-anything-American, and they found themselves confronted by the same philosophical, moral and ethical dilemma that has challenged us all since Sept. 11.

The failure of the left is that they thus far refuse to recongize that there is a challenge which requires they think through their ideology and adapt. Rather, they remain frozen at the fork, seemingly unable but perhaps incapable of departing from their traditional anti-Americanism to offer ideas and solutions in this new war with an enemy which, they shouldn't need reminding, implacably opposes all our beliefs in tolerance and human rights.

One curious item in the report from Iraq is on the arrest of Jassim Hazan Hamadi al-Bazi, also known as Abu Ahmed:

In announcing the arrest of al-Bazi, the government said he built and sold remote-controlled bombs used in roadside attacks from an electronic repair shop in Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad.

He sold the bombs for about $18,000 each "and was involved in building suicide vehicle" bombs and land mines that were used in Balad and Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, the statement said.

Paradoxically, his rights will be protected only because the Iraqi government he is trying to destroy adheres to the sanctity of those rights, whereas the government he wishes to impose does not. Had he been caught under the reign of the Islamofascists or the Ba'athists, he would have endured torture and a painful death.

And the left would have been silent.

04:49 - Dr. Sanity charts La Belle Indifference of the mainstream press and, were I not inherently tech-challenged, I would try to devise a similar one for the Canadian media and the current political crisis.

Tables may defy me, but I can make a list!

Item #1 - PM Martin said he was mad as hell over Adscam, but Opposition Leader Stephen Harper is faulted for appearing angry.

Those who adhere to a double-standard cannot be considered impartial or objective.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

June 15 - Sorry for the lapse in posting. As many of you know, I work in retail. Christmas and Father's Day are real challenges and remind me how very much I adore male shoppers.

Men* are terrific shoppers. They come, they see, they buy.

Oh, there's the occasional dithering over ties, but generally they are in Hunting Mode: moving silently and unobtrusively through the terrain seeking their prey and, upon bagging it, exiting the bush.

Christmas and Mother's Day finds men - and their progeny - in perfumes and household wares. They acquire items like Calvin Klein's CK Summer One 2005 and toaster-ovens - already boxed - and depart. It takes 30 minutes tops.

When the more adventurous traverse women's wear, they too are in Hunting Mode: move a few steps, pause and observe. Repeat until they see something they really like, ask for help, and tell the associate that the intended recipient is "about your size." (Although there are those who are better prepared because they checked the woman's closet and noted what size is on the majority of her clothes; that seems to be a learned trait, though.)

Christmas and Father's Day heralds the arrival of female shoppers - and their progeny - in droves to Men's Wear. I predict the vast majority of Toronto fathers will receive a dress shirt and a tie for Father's Day.

Women do not merely feel the fabric, check the size, and make their purchases. Nooo, they behave as though they are in Women's Wear, and must touch, feel and examine every single item in sight - not because they are considering a purchase, but because it is their imperative. They are neither silent nor unobtrusive.

Needless to say, I bless them all because with every purchase they ensure my continued employment, but anyone who believes women are inherently neater and tidier than men has never worked in retail.

*Some male shoppers - the teenage variety - aren't strictly speaking shoppers: they are there to check out female shoppers of the teenage variety. They too are in Hunting Mode but their tactics are different.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

June 12 - Does one really have to be a rocket scientist to see the blindingly obvious? I can well believe that Tory support plummets because the poll (surprise, surpise) focused attention on a secondary issue.

Decima also asked the respondents to its poll, which is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20, to indicate whose version of events they believed in the Grewal affair. Specifically, they were asked who they believed initiated the discussions about Mr. Grewal crossing the floor.

About 25 per cent sided with the Liberals, who said the Conservative MP initiated the conversation, compared with 23 per cent siding with Mr. Grewal, who said he was called by the Liberals.

Who made the first overture is not the point; what is alarming is that discussions were held with someone who is supposedly under investigation for misconduct in an immigration matter, and the final discussion on the tapes were held in Grewal's office, which means that Tim Murphy was pursuing the discussions and was free to leave at any point.

Although we often refer to Canada as a one-party state, one thing we overlook is that, in a one-party state, the only way to "get ahead" is to be a member of that party.

Perhaps that's why Benoit Corbeil's allegations that lawyers routinely traded "volunteering" for Liberal party candidates in return for bench appointments were less shocking than they should have been because we secretly suspected that this was indeed the case and that the appointments were due less to competency than to political connections.

The ethical crisis in Canada lies not so much with the political parties and their elites as with the Canadian (or Ontarian) electorate which has chosen to accept the corruption and patronage appointments as "business as usual" and thus admitted, in effect, that this is the best Canada can ever be.

There is a direct correlations between a country's ideals and how strenuously they attempt to achieve those ideals. When, in the name of sophistication, the citizens of a country fail to strive for honesty and ethics in government, they thereby bequeath to their children mediocrity. That is not a legacy they of which can be proud.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:50 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Debbie,how are you holding up? Fine I hope.

Posted by: Dex at June 12, 2005 10:00 PM (kO17P)

2 Ref the 25% for the liberals vs 23%, keep in mind the last US election when that guy from Newsweek(?) said they were responsible for 15% of Kerry's votes. IOW, had the media not been biased, Kerry would have been slaughtered instead of just beaten. Canada doesn't exactly have an unbiased media - Liberals are good, always good, remember?

Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2005 10:18 PM (PuNh2)

3 Correction: 15 points, not 15 percent. (I'm so stupid! - whimper!)

Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2005 10:19 PM (PuNh2)

4 It would be nice if Canadians stopped popping off about the sins of the rest of the world for a time in light of the political squalor that has enveloped their government. And I think we can lay the "Canadians are decent" thing to rest for a good long while. The country appears to be governed like a banana republic.

Posted by: Banjo at June 12, 2005 10:28 PM (EXsjY)

5 Ah, but nobody accepts a bribe more graciously and politely than a Canadian!

Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2005 11:25 PM (PuNh2)

6 Someone Blogged about having a nightmare where Martin is caught handing over suitcases of money and renting boytoys and the Liberals still poll about six points higher then the CPC in Ontario.,....I'm sure you read it sometime.It's just that I don't remember who wrote it right now

Posted by: big al at June 13, 2005 12:50 AM (Ol/Hq)

7 electorate which has chosen to accept the corruption and patronage appointments as "business as usual" and thus admitted, in effect, that this is the best Canada can ever be. I submit that this electorate has admitted that the Canada of four decades ago (before corruption became business as usual) is the best it could ever be.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at June 13, 2005 10:49 AM (pPVQ0)

8 The facts are simple, Grewal or someone in Harper's office altered the tapes to make the Liberals look bad and the Conservatives look good. For a party always screaming about ethics, it's no surprise Canadians were disappointed when they found out the Tories don't have any either.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 11:36 AM (qE9S5)

9 Speaking about an "ethical crisis" debbie, you might want to shine your beacon of outrage on your OWN country. A place where hundreds of men have been incarcerated (Guantanamo)for years without trial and without benefit of international jurispridence. Your governemnt has sought to create an end run around guarantees of fundamental rights enshrined in your Constitution and universally accepted agreements such as the Geneva Conventions. You can't on the one hand preach democracy and on the other imprison people without charge. Now THAT'S what I call an "ethical crisis"...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 11:46 AM (qE9S5)

10 "... its poll, which is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20..." It's tangential, but I find it interestingly honest that the pollster admits the margin of error is not ALWAYS correct. In a statistically significant and truly random sample, you will still always have about a five percent chance of a "rogue poll" that is beyond the margin of error in its failure to reflect the population. That's why aggregated polling trends are more accurate than individual polls.

Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 12:31 PM (CYpG7)

11 Flanstein says: "The facts are simple, Grewal or someone in Harper's office altered the tapes to make the Liberals look bad and the Conservatives look good." Sorry to trouble you with such trivial requests, Flanstein, but what proof do you have to support your assertion that someone in Harper's office altered the Grewal tapes? Also, on the subject of Gitmo, the fundamental rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution apply to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals, especially not enemy combatants. Also, the Geneva Convention applies to those who themselves adhere to the Geneva Convention, namely those who wear their country's uniform in battle. It does not apply to bloodthirsty terrorists who observe no rules whatsoever and who hack the heads off those they capture.

Posted by: MSD at June 13, 2005 01:18 PM (tHqp5)

12 Ok, for the next person who decided to quote this decima poll as a holy grail, here we go.... http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/050510E.pdf This is from May 7 released from Ipsos-Ried http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2659 And look there, they have the Liberals in a dead heat. And on and on it goes....These polls are nothing more than manipulations as they have always been.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2005 01:30 PM (yVXTt)

13 MSD, "Sorry to trouble you with such trivial requests, Flanstein, but what proof do you have to support your assertion that someone in Harper's office altered the Grewal tapes?" I never said that, I said: "Grewal or someone in Harper's office altered the tapes. The tapes have been altered - who do you think did it? "Also, the Geneva Convention applies to those who themselves adhere to the Geneva Convention, namely those who wear their country's uniform in battle." Weasel words. When civilized men start acting like uncivilized men - as is the case with the disgrace known as Gitmo - only bad things can befall them. The reason our culture is superior to islam is the rules we have put into place to govern ourselves. If these people are guilty, then charge them and make them face the rule of law. Right now the Americans are acting like the barbarians they seek to defeat.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 01:56 PM (qE9S5)

14 Your point about ethics residing as much with Canadian people as with Govt. is correct. 1938 is when Germans, (an intelligent group), were slow to protest unfair and wrong excesses by Hitler. Soon Hitler had a * youth corps*, walking the streets in brown uniforms with black armbands and a sidearm. Black = death, not very subtle. They began to lodge bullets in the heads of those who had *wrong* thoughts. Uh - uh, too late for action now. Not likely here, admitted. However, the lesson is do not dither. Do not *wait and hope*. Do press for action. Cleanup should have started when Martin gave in to NDP blackmail trade to cheat the Non-confidence vote. Add to that the seat given to Ms. Stronach as a bribe for her vote. Four hours of vote barter on tape. This leads to the need for holding demonstrations in front of the Gov. General's mansion, calling for her to do the right thing. Better hurry, She has the place up for sale. She's smart. One step ahead..eh?3s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 13, 2005 01:57 PM (rmMzv)

15 Well, Flanstein, I think we need to assume until we have proof otherwise that Grewal altered the tapes himself or had them altered himself. There's no proof at present that I know of that this was done with the approval of Mr. Harper or his office, or executed by that office itself. As far as Gitmo is concerned, your own words betray an inability to tell the difference between a law enforcement operation and a military operation (that's a war). As much as you and people like you might like to frame the war against Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement operation, that isn't how it's being fought, and for good reason. Open your history books and read up on any conflict that has pitted civilization against barbarism. Enemy prisoners of war are not the same as citizens arrested for breaking the law. They have never been, nor will ever be, treated the same way. I challenge you to cite another conflict where POWs were treated with more civility than those being held at Gitmo. On second thought, forget the history. Just compare the treatment of Gitmo prisoners with American soldiers and civilians who have fallen into the hands of the enemy. Then tell me which side is the civilized one and which one isn't. Oh, and which side you'd rather be captured by.

Posted by: MSD at June 13, 2005 02:29 PM (tHqp5)

16 MSD, Somebody in the conservative party altered those tapes. If you feel better pointing the finger at conservative Grewal, as opposed to conservative Harper, then that's up to you. As to Gitmo, those prisioners incarcerated there are not POW's - if they were - they would be under the auspices of the Geneva Convention. As the US has refused to comply with international law, the men have been denied their legal rights under the Geneva Convention. As long as the prisoners never touch US soil - and US courts do not consider the Cuban base to be part of the US - they are also denied the rights guaranteed to criminals under the US constitution, such as a presumption of innocence and a trial by jury. Nations can't make the rules up as they go along. Why do you think they are being held outside of American territory? Why doesn't the American government want to hold islamic POWs under the same rules they held nazi POWs? If these are bad guys (and I have no doubt they are) then set up a POW camp INSIDE the US and under the accord of international law. Gitmo is a disgrace to those of us who support the war against the international Jihad. Gitmo makes the US look bad in the eyes of the world. Finally, Gitmo is a great propaganda tool for the islamic thugs that want to bring sharia to your neighborhood and mine. It needs to be closed.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 04:36 PM (qE9S5)

17 ick...trolls

Posted by: Candace at June 13, 2005 05:30 PM (R7nd+)

18 "...the fundamental rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution apply to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals..." Sorry to have side with Flanstein on this one point, but that's just simply incorrect. Where the US Constitution means citizens, it says "citizens;" elsewhere it says "persons." And most of the time its fundamental rights provisions simply act as a blanket check on governmental action, not "according" or "granting" rights to specific groups. However... "As to Gitmo, those prisioners incarcerated there are not POW's - if they were - they would be under the auspices of the Geneva Convention." They're not treated as POW's because they don't meet the Geneva Convention's own definition of those to whom it applies. Do they wear uniforms, or insignia visible at a distance? Do they carry their weapons OPENLY? Are they acting on behalf of a party to the Convention (given that only three countries ever recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan)? Answer, no. International law has always allowed spies, saboteurs and pirates to be summarily executed by anyone, not accorded the dignities of a lawful combatant. The US chooses not to do so.

Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 06:30 PM (ZKuUj)

19 Yes but, but, ..Trolls are interesting too, when they are not slingin' processed hay at each other. eh? 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 13, 2005 06:33 PM (rmMzv)

20 Not to mention that as soon as one side ignores Geneva, the other side has no obligation to abide by it (that's according to the GC). I think as far as the Constitution referring to "persons" rather than "citizens" that may have been a matter of protecting visitors of whatever sort. It certainly doesn't apply to murderers captured in a foreign country. Or if you think the US Constitution applies everywhere, maybe the US should invade Canada to restore the Canadian people's US Constitutional rights?

Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 06:38 PM (PuNh2)

21 Jay has answered Dave J.'s first objection correctly. The U.S. Constitution does not accord rights to non-citizen terrorists captured outside the U.S. Period. We're not talking about Canadian tourists here. Ah, Feinstein, you moonbats are all the same: you're first rate at advertising your self-righteous indignation when it comes to America's transgressions, real or imagined. Yet you're utterly incapable of engaging with the substance of an argument. You ignore any fact that doesn't fit within your obsessively-compulsive anti-American world view. Regarding the Grewal tapes, it makes a big difference if Grewal altered the tapes himself versus whether they were altered with the knowledge of the leader of the Conservative Party or the "party" as a whole. So until we know who specifically did what, it's best to stop tarring the party and its leadership with the brush of speculation. We know Grewal's ethics are questionable, and we certainly know Paul Martin's ethics are non-existent. Also, you certainly need a history lesson when it comes to prisoners-of-war. As Dave J. has explained again, the prisoners at Gitmo don't fall under the Geneva Convention because they don't meet its criteria and don't abide by it themselves. Also, Nazi POWs captured in Europe weren't transported to US soil for imprisonment. That would have been folly; as it would be folly to bring the terrorists at Gitmo to the U.S. today. The Nazi leadership were tried and executed at Nuremburg; other figures were tried on the home soil of the countries where they committed their war crimes. As far as "Islamic thugs that want to bring sharia to your neighborhood", when Bush does close Gitmo how about releasing them all into your neighborhood?

Posted by: MSD at June 13, 2005 08:47 PM (tHqp5)

22 "That is not a legacy they of which can be proud." But, it's so comfy!

Posted by: keith at June 13, 2005 09:08 PM (HRjgG)

23 Please forgive minor off topic news question. News: Today June 13,2005 6:00pm CBC Radio1 Vancouver. Guite states boxes of Govt. files secretly stored in his basement are his personal private property. His lawyer pleads *Fishing expedition* 7:00pm CBC Radio1 news (story vanished-poof!) Please, anyone else know of this? Honest, this is not lame humour. Heard at 6pm. Is this my first hallucination? 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 13, 2005 10:43 PM (rmMzv)

24 "It certainly doesn't apply to murderers captured in a foreign country." I never said it did. You were the one making the blanket statement that it ONLY applies to US citizens. But the US Constitution controls the US government (and indirectly through the 14th Amendment, the states) wherever it acts. Now, in some cases the actual extent of restraint imposed that may be zero, but that's not because it doesn't apply, but rather because applying doesn't afford any protection. I hope that's somewhat clear. What's a different matter is the question of what legal remedy someone outside the US has against the US government for supposedly unlawful acts. I would suggest that that's typically none, because the statute creating the federal trial courts defines the territorial jurisdiction of each district and none of them extends outside US territory. Maybe you could try the US Court of Claims, but I don't know if the Federal Tort Claims Act gives it extraterritorial jurisdiction either, and I tend to doubt it.

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 01:39 AM (ZKuUj)

25 Found it; http:// www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n061 Gomery also ordered former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano to produce a list of documents held by National Archives concearning correspondence, including 40 boxes in the basement of his Montreal home. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 14, 2005 03:59 AM (rmMzv)

26 MSD et al, How amusing that you refer to folks that disagree with you as moonbats, while at the same time justifying to your inner fascist the endless incarceration, without trial, of POWs. History will prove that gitmo was wrong - fortunately, it's just a matter of time before civilized people do the right thing. Sadly, you wouldn't know civilized if it bit you on your white-wing derrier...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 08:10 AM (qE9S5)

27 I wouldn't call them POWs, they're really a new category. But "endless incarceration" is what a POW normally faces. A pilot gets shot down over Germany in 1942, becomes a POW - is he tried and given a sentence? No. He's locked up for what may be 5, 10, 20 years or life. He doesn't know. He's there at least until the war is over, possibly longer depending on what side wins.

Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2005 08:37 AM (PuNh2)

28 Dave J, I concede your point about the US Constitution. As a blanket statement taken out of context, what I said was indeed wrong. However, I was speaking within the context of terrorists captured abroad, like those held at Gitmo, and failed to make that qualification clearly. Thanks for being so diligent. I am always grateful to be proven wrong by someone who is capable of dealing with the specifics of an argument.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 08:53 AM (tHqp5)

29 Jay, Normally, the POW knows he is going to be let out when the war ends. Since this is not a war like any other, when is the war against terrorism going to end? Do these men spend the rest of their lives living in cages without due process? Are they ALL guilty?

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 09:24 AM (qE9S5)

30 Nealenews: Mounties discover "Al Qaeda" cache

Posted by: maz2 at June 14, 2005 10:54 AM (TISxe)

31 "Are they ALL guilty?" Wait a second. I thought a second ago you were saying they should be treated as POW's. POW's aren't "guilty" of a crime as the basis for their (yes, indefinite) detention. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 01:14 PM (ZKuUj)

32 The left wants them to have the rights of a POW without their qualifying. The Geneva Convention should apply, even tho none of them complied with it. Give them that and they'll be demanding they get all the rights provided by the Constitution. Including the "right" to vote for Kerry or Hillary in the next election. Tho I suppose it's possible they could then demand one of the detainees actually get elected.

Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2005 02:46 PM (PuNh2)

33 "Wait a second. I thought a second ago you were saying they should be treated as POW's. POW's aren't "guilty" of a crime as the basis for their (yes, indefinite) detention. You can't have it both ways." If your not going to treat them like POWs, then treat them like criminals. Either way, they are entitled to the benefits of some sort of jurisprudence. Locking them away in a foreign country (because you are afraid of your own Constitution)and telling the world that they fall under no national or international law is wrong and immoral. Most right-thinking people around the world agree with me. Most fascists do not...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 02:59 PM (qE9S5)

34 The most worrisome thing about gitmo is the justification behind allowing it. The supporters say the prisoners aren't POWs and shouldn't be protected by the GC, or the constitution doesn't apply because of such and such. As right as they may be, the bothersome thing is that they've actively searched for ways to circumvent the GC and the Constitution and whatever other protection civilized man has codified. So overzealous are they in defending gitmo by finding loopholes that they lose sight of the purpose of said documents. How did these documents become the enemy? Why are the gitmo defenders not holding the US up to a higher standard? Are more precisely, why don't they want to?

Posted by: Sean at June 14, 2005 04:12 PM (QbG17)

35 You don't give up do you, Flanstein? First off, another history lesson. Fascists were just another variety of wacko totalitarian control-freaks who thought they could solve their problems through a massive state-enforced program of social engineering. That puts them firmly in the leftist camp along with communists, socialists and others who just can't seem to leave other people alone. As far as being afraid of the Constitution, in a way you have a point. The Islamists have learned very quickly how to exploit the openness of Western society, including using our legal system to their advantage. And they have played the Western mainstream press like a fiddle, not to mention the America-hating loony left from which they do most of their recruiting. Giving imprisoned terrorists access to domestic legal proceedings not only would have no precedent within a wartime context but would be pure folly. When you think of the millions who were imprisoned, tortured, and killed in the death camps and (real) gulags of 20th century totalitarian Europe, the 500 or so dangerous terrorists held at Gitmo hardly seems like the point on which history will turn.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 04:24 PM (tHqp5)

36 Re-reading my comment, I thought I should clarify that I meant the mainstream media does most of its recruiting from the left, not the terrorists.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 04:27 PM (tHqp5)

37 Sean, Excellent questions. Methinks that on a blog where people think that fascists were synonymous with communists - answers won't be forthcoming. MSD Fascism (in Italian, fascismo)refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 04:41 PM (qE9S5)

38 Flanstein, this really is going to boil down to the talking-past-eachother semantic argument over whether fascists belong on the left or right of the political spectrum, isn't it? Fascism as devised by Mussolini (a former member of the Italian Socialist Party) was, as I've said before, a schismatic heresy WITHIN socialism: it was totalitarian, statist, and revolutionary; socialist but anti-Marxist because it was national rather than international. There's nothing conservative about it at all. What exactly did it ever try to "conserve"? Does "National Socialist German Worker's Party" sound conservative even to you?

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 05:26 PM (ZKuUj)

39 Dave J is right. We can debate the left vs right thing till the cows come home but the reality is fascism is no more conservative or right-wing than communism. Both were and are murderous totalitarian ideologies that are practically indistinguishable in their goals and in their means. Flanstein, you can equate fascism with the "right wing" if it makes you feel better about yourself but the truth is fascism is a logical extension of left-wing thinking, not right-wing thinking.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 05:41 PM (tHqp5)

40 "fascism is a logical extension of left-wing thinking, not right-wing thinking." I guess if you can convince yourself that it's a positive step to lock up human beings in a foreign country in order to circumvent your own laws - then it's no trouble convincing yourself that the above is true as well. Self-hypnosis at ats finest...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 05:59 PM (qE9S5)

41 Would you care to offer an actual argument to refute that statement, then? Or is that beneath you? Fascism, like communism, is ultimately one of the innumerable totalitarian ideological spawn of the French Revolution, while conversely the starting point of conservatism as a conscious and coherent political philosophy was Edmund Burke's rejection of that revolution.

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 08:12 PM (ZKuUj)

42 The first *effective* starting point was Thomas Jefferson. As for circumventing laws - the Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists, the GC doesn't apply to terrorists. Where's the circumventing? Maybe we should establish new laws for Gitmo and do like many other countries would do - put them against the nearest wall and shoot them?

Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2005 10:58 PM (PuNh2)

43 Jay has stated rhetorically what is actually legally permitted when unlawful combatants, saboteurs and spies are captured during war: Execute them. Gitmo is an unhappy solution at best, and the best of all the other unhappy solutions. I don't like it, but I can't think of an alternative. I, and a large number of American bloggers, are open to alternatives, but all we get are criticisms of what is, not ideas as to what should be. (I guess we reflect Congress.) The topic morphed into a real discussion of ethics, which is good, yet once again it's about what we expect from Americans than from, say, Canadians, which is disturbing. Crunch time, Flanstein: are you saying that you expect Americans to behave more ethically than Canadians? Don't you see that drawing what happens into the USA into a discussion about Canada implies that you consider the USA to be the highest standard to which Canada can compare herself? If not, then why not compare Canada to, say, a European nation? The constant references to the state of the USA implies that it is somehow superior, an assertion I reject. Every person in every country has two choices: either to set standards for their country and strive to exceed those standards, or accept mediocrity. Our heritage exhorts us to form a more perfect union; it thereby teaches us that we do not have the most perfect union (and our Christian heritage reminds us that we will never attain perfection.) (Stephen den Beste wrote on that topic at length and I'd give proper credit if I could find the essay. At least I had the pleasure of spending the last few hours in his archives trying - unsuccessfully - to locate it!)

Posted by: Debbye at June 15, 2005 01:15 AM (68qnq)

44 Debbye, I have never said that Americans are, or should be, more ethical than Canadians. They should however be more ethical than the islamic enemy. Why? Because, like Canadians and Europeans, Americans are civilized men and women. You have a Constitution and a body of law. Farther up this thread, Sean (far more eloquently than I) stated the concerns liberals, libertarians and right-minded conservatives have with this place: "The most worrisome thing about gitmo is the justification behind allowing it. The supporters say the prisoners aren't POWs and shouldn't be protected by the GC, or the constitution doesn't apply because of such and such. As right as they may be, the bothersome thing is that they've actively searched for ways to circumvent the GC and the Constitution and whatever other protection civilized man has codified. So overzealous are they in defending gitmo by finding loopholes that they lose sight of the purpose of said documents. How did these documents become the enemy? Why are the gitmo defenders not holding the US up to a higher standard? Are more precisely, why don't they want to?" Anyone who has ever visited my blog (http://flanstein.blogspot.com) knows that I am not a liberal. I have been name-called on this thread because I point out, what I believe, to be a real ethical crisis in your country. Civilized nations do not lock up people (POWs, prisoners, enemy combatants – whatever euphemism you want to use...) on foreign soil to circumvent their own laws. Since the “war on terror” is unlikely to have an end date, these people locked up at gitmo are likely to spend the rest of their lives without benefit of jurisprudence. Although they may all be murdering, terrorist monsters – that is still wrong. Saddam is getting his day in court and so will Osama when he is caught. Gitmo is a PR nightmare, a tool to recruit little jihadis in far-flung Islamic hell-holes and, most importantly, fundamentally WRONG.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 15, 2005 10:28 AM (kEm8U)

45 I don't disagree with Sean's assessment of the "loophole" nature of the Gitmo solution and should have stated so (this was a hard thread to digest in toto early this morning.) When Gitmo was first proposed and clearly presented as a loophole solution I knew it was wrong, yet the stupidities of the Moussaoui case are equally wrong. I just honestly don't know what else to do. The fact that this is all new territory for us and the rest of the world should and must force us to keep exploring better alternatives. There is value short-term in the enemy not knowing who we have, though. That premise of Gitmo was accurate. Still, the detainees are not POWs, plain and simple. The Geneva Convention states very clearly what criteria is used to determine what criteria is used for POW status, and the prisoners at Gitmo don't qualify. (They do qualify for execution, an option the US has not exercised and which I would oppose.) We are back at square one: offer an alternate solution. I'm not being facetious or rhetorical. Many of us don't like Gitmo, but it would be irresponsible to just criticize until we have something to propose and for which we can agitate. The seriousness of the dilemma is that nobody suggests we just let them go because we all know they are a threat. I hate being in this predicament. I hate my country being in this predicament. Canadians face a similar dilemma: here they too lock people up indefinitely and only a judge is allowed to view the evidence against them. And, as in the case of the detainees of Gitmo, deporting them to their countries of origin brings up other issues, such as the lack of respect for human rights in those countries. I understand your last point, but the past few years have taught us that everything is a PR nightmare and a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Even taking out the Taliban in 2001 was deemed to be such. Yet the Arab street didn't explode (unless you count Lebanon!) Bottom line: our very existence is a PR nightmare and our very existence is a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, but I'm not about to apologize for what we are and what values we hold in order to appease a culture that kills homosexuals and denies the rights and potentials of females. That door swings both ways, and in far too many respects, the Arab world too has found itself in a PR nightmare. After all, how many people had heard of "honour killings" five years ago? Back on topic, I don't want fear to become paranoia, and I don't want to see a repeat of Sept. 11. I hope there's a better compromise than Gitmo but I have yet to come up with one. I really hope somebody does. Oh, and I'm holding up fine, Dex! I just need to make it through Father's Day. That wacky world of retail - I need to find a more serene job, like bomb disposal.

Posted by: Debbye at June 15, 2005 12:31 PM (Eyb5W)

46 Debbye, If they're not POWs, then they're prisoners and need to be taken to your country and dealt with judicially. That means trials and evidence (secret or not) incarceration and, if deemed necessary, executions. They need the protection of your constitution, or failing that, international law. You are currently prosecuting all sorts of the same types of criminals in your country - why are these guys any different? Terrorists, jihadists, and financial supporters alike have all been marched in front of a judge, had legal representation and were incarcerated. Keeping them locked up in a foreign country - telling the world they don't come under the protection of the GC - and, oh by the way, since they're not actually on US soil, they are not protected by US law either, is folly. I don't doubt that every one of them is a sack of puss that deserves a bullet in the head, but unless you get them out of gitmo, they will continue to be martyrs to Muslims and soft-headed twits the world over. Civilization is predicated on a judiciary that is separate from the will of the government. If you seek to remove that pillar, then people (like me) start asking questions about the efficacy of said civilization. Writer Brian Aldiss once said; “Civilization is the distance man has placed between himself and his excreta”. Gitmo is a backwards step towards the poo…

Posted by: Flanstein at June 15, 2005 05:14 PM (Vwo8l)

47 As I understand it, Debbye's point is that Gitmo is the best of all possible options available for dealing with captured terrorists, at least for the time being. Flanstein, surely even you can see bringing terrorists to the U.S. to face trial under the domestic legal system is an unworkable option, as the Moussaoui case has demonstrated. You can't fight a war as a law enforcement operation. While I agree with Debbye that holding the terrorists at Gitmo indefinitely can't ultimately be right, the PR issue is beside the point. What the left has failed to grasp is that it is the perception of American weakness and lack of resolve that has engendered the most loathing on the part of the Islamists. We can admit that Gitmo may not be the perfect solution in the long run without advertising our self-doubt to the world and the terrorists. What is needed is strength and unity and a demonstration that terrorism won't be tolerated. The United States, above all, needs to be seen as strong and resolute without stooping to the level of the terrorists, which in spite of all the indignation, Gitmo doesn't even come close to doing.

Posted by: MSD at June 15, 2005 06:34 PM (tHqp5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 9 - The Poundmaker protest continues but they are running out of money and the car they relied on for transportation has broken down.

Darcey has a brief update and adds

I am guessing they would appreciate moral support so be sure to take some time and email your greetings to Tyrone to pass on: tyrone45 at nativeweb.net.

Short version: they are taking peaceful, legal action to redress their grievances. Would that the rest of Canada took note.

Sorry about the light posting - I slept through the day (yay!) and have to hit the road.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

June 8 - Debra Burlingame, the sister of the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, writes The Great Ground Zero Heist for today's Opinion Journal and states what should be obvious:

The so-called lessons of September 11 should not be force-fed by ideologues hoping to use the memorial site as nothing more than a powerful visual aid to promote their agenda. Instead of exhibits and symposiums about Internationalism and Global Policy we should hear the story of the courageous young firefighter whose body, cut in half, was found with his legs entwined around the body of a woman. Recovery personnel concluded that because of their positions, the young firefighter was carrying her.

The people who visit Ground Zero in five years will come because they want to pay their respects at the place where heroes died. They will come because they want to remember what they saw that day, because they want a personal connection, to touch the place that touched them, the place that rallied the nation and changed their lives forever. I would wager that, if given a choice, they would rather walk through that dusty hangar at JFK Airport where 1,000 World Trade Center artifacts are stored than be herded through the International Freedom Center's multi-million-dollar insult. (Emphasis added)

Ground Zero has been stolen, right from under our noses. How do we get it back?

Those who call themselves intellectuals habitually climb onto the corpses of true heroes and cynically exploit them to advance ideas that have little to do with those things that motivate heroes.

It's not elegant phrasing, but it's how I feel. Am I wrong?

There are an impressive series at links at Mudville Gazette on this controversy and, given those who are rallying behind this cause, this is one formidable group of people who will not be deterrred.

Time to reclaim Sept. 11.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

June 8 - Ralph Peters has some concrete proposals about The Smart Way to Aid Africa:

Educate the people: Nothing would be of more use to Africans than a long-term, comprehensive commitment from the United States to help them educate themselves at every level, from primary school through advanced-degree programs.

If you want to reduce disease, educate the people. If you want to break down violent rivalries, provide unbiased education. If you want to build economies, train workers. If you want to foster democracy, promote literacy.

In short, if you want to help Africa stop being a basket case, concentrate ruthlessly on education. Let the Europeans do the feel-good projects. Let celebrities give away granola bars. Stick to the mission of helping people learn.

Some African countries are significantly ahead of others in educational progress, but every one of them could use our help. Governments may be wary — despite their rhetoric, political bosses like to keep the poor ignorant (a rule that applies to our own inner cities as much as it does to Africa). But the people desperately want education.

When I visited Mozambique — one of the world's poorest countries — no one asked me for a handout. They asked about books and scholarships.

Wretchard has two recent posts on Zimbabwe here and here.

The first entry contains a letter from Sister Patricia Walsh of the Dominican Order of the Catholic Church in Zimbabwe and speaks for itself. The second entry is about "Stay Away" which seems to be a 2-day general strike at minimum and the quoted sections hint at possibly more. The bigger danger lies in how Mugabe will react should millions of people flout his authority.

Wretchard muses on the possibility that the U.S. has contingency plans should events in Zimbabwe erupt. I'd guess that the U.S. would prefer the kind of approach used in Liberia, but South Africa's Mbeki would be unlikely to go against Mugabe until the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorated far below what we could in all good conscience countenance.

(Note: the NY Post requires free registration. Sigh.)

Posted by: Debbye at 07:01 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

June 8 - By a vote of 25-22, the House International Relations Committee passed a U.N. Reform Bill, short-titled The United Nations Reform Act of 2005 (.pdf) which ties U.S. funding of the U.N. to reforms in that institution.

From Fox,

Among the reforms demanded are new accountability measures, the establishment of an independent oversight board with broad investigative authority through the Office of Internal Oversight Services and new procedures to protect whistleblowers. The OIOS, under the bill, would have the authority to initiate investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing, establish procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who report allegations of misconduct and establish policies to end single-bid contracts.

"Scandals involving the Oil-for-Food program, peacekeeping operations, the World Meteorological Society, the World Intellectual Property Organization, as well as alleged wrongdoing by high-level staff have illustrated the systemic weaknesses in the U.N.'s current oversight efforts," reads a statement from Hyde's office outlining the bill's main points.

U.S. lawmakers also want new rules for financial disclosure, including forcing senior U.N. officials to declare their financial interests. They also are asking for an ethics office to be created to ensure those officials don't take advantage of their position overseeing certain measures to line their own pockets.

The reform act also insists on more stringent codes of conduct for U.N. peacekeepers and stronger investigation of allegations of rape and abuse on U.N. missions. It mandates that the United Nations adopt a single, enforceable, uniform code of conduct for all personnel serving in peacekeeping missions and that peacekeepers are trained on the requirements of that code. The code also should be translated into the native language of the peacekeeping troops, the bill says.

Additionally, the Hyde bill calls for the creation of a centralized database to track cases of misconduct to make sure those individuals aren't sent on future peacekeeping missions. Alleged misconduct should be independently investigated by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office of Internal Oversight Services, according to the bill.

U.N. officials responded as one might expect:

The United Nations would not comment on specific reforms, but U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the organization itself have been "very clear" on the issue of tying U.S. funds to U.N. reform and that "withholding as a tool for reform is not one we feel works."

Posted by: Debbye at 06:21 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

June 8 - I'm having trouble dealing with this story, Feds Probe Possible California Terror Cell, mostly because I've been to Lodi and it was small.

Guess it's grown, though; according to this, it had an estimated population of 61,027 in 2003.

But still, Lodi? I guess the residents are even more shocked than I am.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

June 8 - I hope Americans and Canadians have been sufficiently intrigued by the links to The Monarchist to continue to read their current outpouring and read their archives.

There are welcoming some new members of that team with familiar names: Madison and Adams, who charges right in with An Atheistic Individualist Defense of Monarchism. (He doesn't say, but I assume the writer is invoking John, not Samuel, Adams.)

The sorest grievance of our Founding Fathers was that they were denied their rights as free Englishmen, and that could not and would not be borne. I think that this Adams incarnation can safely be regarded as one who found a sympathetic hearing from the Crown and Parliament, which brings to bear the "what if" line of historical reasoning which is somewhat applicable in a Canada which was populated by Loyalists but who retained nonetheless a recognition of their duties and rights as Englishmen in this country.

[I mean no disrespect to Quebeckers or Acadians, yet I think it accurate to say that the philosophical connotations of being "free Englishmen" is deeply ingrained in the unfolding of the political histories of the U.S.A. and Canada - at least pre-Trudeau - which is the only basis on which an Adams might still be arguing on behalf of the monarchy. ]

I realize that the teaching of American history has changed a great deal since (ahem) my day, but, if we are to reclaim our heritage, the full recognition of what our traditions and institutions owe to Mother England must be acknowledged and respected, and it wouldn't hurt Canadians to do the same.

Yet at the end of the day, I am an American and thus willing to place my hopes in the works and dreams of men, not the intervention of monarchs however benign and most definitely not in the intervention of someone appointed without Parliamentary review to represent that monarch.

Nonetheless, the site has some of the most thought-provoking essays I've read, and I don't think I'm being overly complimentary when I compare their work to that of Stephen den Beste. I'm only speaking for myself, but some of the essays I've read have resulted in my leaving the computer to pace and reflect on the points they've made.

There are aspects of the Parliamentary system which jar an American consciousness. There are no fixed terms, but that is supposed to provide a different kind of check - yet a check nonetheless - on tyranny:

What the Liberals don't seem to understand is that it is not for the government to determine if it has the confidence of the House, it is the members of the House who make that determination. And a majority of them have just voted for the government to resign on a procedural motion, which obviously constitutes a very serious challenge to the continued legitimacy of their authority to govern this country. The only way for them to get out of this mess now, is to seek clarification from the House at the earliest possible opportunity (as in today), that they still have the democratic and constitutional authority to carry on.

I took a Canadian history class, and (perhaps unfortunately) exposed my far too open American nature when I expressed disbelief on learning that such was not mandatory in the Ontario school system. That may explain part of the reason Canadians did not take to the streets when the Martin Rogue Government failed to "seek clarification from the House" at the earliest opportunity - too few realized that respect for parliamentary safeguards as well as protocol demanded the Liberals call that vote immediately and not at a time of their choosing.

We Americans cannot afford to be smug on this: our own school systems have failed to provide comprehensive civics classes which would give our younger citizens a working framework to understand the traditions and workings of our own government, and we should look to the current crisis in Canada as a red flag moment for our own country.

One example: you will not find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, yet far too many Americans believe it resides there, and some of those misguided citizens are lawyers and journalists who ought to know better.

For Canadian readers, it is not so necessary to agree with views advocated by the essayists of The Monarchist as it is to read and study them. Such writings in my country came to be known as a collection of works called "The Federalist Papers" which informs our consciousness to this day, and as Canada finds herself on the brink of an identity crisis, it might be useful to be open to more than one frame of mind before declaring the debate ended.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:26 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.

June 7 - Long but interesting read in the Washington Post on The Rollback of Democracy In Vladimir Putin's Russia (may require free registration).

Posted by: Debbye at 01:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

June 7 - This is The best Chicago dog story ever!

The [120-pound] pit bull first latched onto the boy's groin, and then bit into his ankle, police said. His 9-year-old sister, who was walking with him, began swatting at the dog with her book bag. The boy yelled for his sister to run away so she wouldn't get hurt. That's when Montiel and her son went for the door to help.

"In our minds, we were going to go out and save the boy," she said. "But our dog had other plans."

As soon as their front door opened, Maya [a 74-pound black Lab] blew by, knocking the Montiels over "like bowling pins," she said. Montiel went down and Michael hit a wall.

Maya bounded down all eight stairs of her front porch in one leap, aimed for the pit bull and bit.

India let go of the boy, and as he fled with his sister, the two dogs began circling each other, Montiel said. Soon, India got the best of the smaller Maya and locked onto her neck.

Maya is recovering, but may need further surgery. Teachers and workers at the school attended by the sixth grade boy who was attacked have taken up a collection.

(Via Mudville Gazette, who have their own dog photos posted.)

Posted by: Debbye at 01:09 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

June 7 - Michael Yon continues the narrative of his travels in Iraq. After leaving Dohuk (his visit was recounted here,) he travels a bit further afield to a Yezdina village inhabited by a people who practice an unusual and ancient religion and his visit with Mr. Qatou Samou Haji Aldanani, the Headman of the village, is to relive the past 25 years of Iraq's history.

Future possbilities and memories of the past merge in Michael Yon's Lost in Translation.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

June 7 - The Daily Telegraph proposes A healthy Constitution which sounds somewhat familiar on first read.

I especially like this part:

VIII Any uncertainty arising from ambiguities in this Treaty shall be resolved in favour of the individual citizen rather than the state, and of national governments rather than European institutions.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

June 5 - Americans may well wonder that a blog titled The Monarchist has produced some of the most stirring and urgent writings on behalf of liberty in Canada that I've ever read.

(In truth, I wonder myself but I am also bemused by my own feelings for and loyalty to a Queen whose ancestor was utterly reviled by my ancestors so have just filed that contradiction away in the belief that insight will come in its own time.)

Walsingham wrote a follow-up to the widely acclaimed Tipping Point (which dispensed with any last beliefs that all Canadians are inherently passive) and in The Tipping Point - Part II, the basic framework of consensual government and how the federal government have broken that bond is reinforced:

Because the truth is this: in democratic government, process not only matters, it is central. It matters more than anything else; more than any specific outcome that it might produce. The “true left” should understand that it is not simply that a corrupted process that worked against the right - and the West, and Quebec - this time around; might well work against them the next time. They should understand that faith in a process that is open, fair and consistent - i.e., in a government that is representative and responsible - is the only thing, other than tyranny and coercion, which can hold a society together for any length of time. Free men will consent to submit their wills to those of others only when they believe that they do so as the outcome of a process in which they have been heard, on a fair and equal footing, along with all others; and - most critically - that that same process will turn their way, if and when they come to command majority support. Nothing will dissolve the bonds and restraints that make a democratic society function – presuming, of course, that the society is composed of men and women who retain the capacity to be affronted by insult and injustice – faster than the discovery, by any semi-defined and quasi-permanent constituency, that the process is rigged against them.

I have to go to work and wonder at my co-workers who are more afraid of Stephen Harper than those in government who have stripped them of their rights as free people.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:15 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

June 5 - Answer: start a blog and call it Waking Up On Planet X!

As Candace explains, I fell asleep in a democracy ...

It is always cause to celebrate when insightful commenters choose to strike out on their own and start blogs, and given the political situation in Canada and the inclination of the media to elide (at best) or applaud (at worst) the brazen acts of this government, the voices of those who oppose the dismantling of democratic safeguards and the destruction of those institutions meant to separate partisan ends from the country's needs are the more urgently needed.

Welcome, Candace!

Posted by: Debbye at 08:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

June 5 - Greyhawk's Dawn Patrol reports against a sobering backdrop:

Insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis over the past 18 months, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.

This item actually appears a quarter through the Patrol, though, because Greyhawk prefaces today's entry with something he wrote last January after the Iraqi elections:

So amidst the triumph, I saw yesterday as a Memorial Day, of a sort, for those many who fell to make it possible. Some might try and use those deaths for their own ends, or to justify their belief that we should never have walked this path. Such people don't believe in heroes. They can't even comprehend this simple fact; no one is more opposed to war than the soldier. He knows the cost and has seen the carnage. But as I wrote at the top of the sidebar long ago: The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior, who prefers to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day he stands fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.

Today we re-build broken things. Grab a hammer or get out of the way. (Italics in original)

Posted by: Debbye at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

June 5 - Fired U.N. Official Seen as Fall Guy. Ya think?

My mind is too full of similarities between Adscam and the OFF scandals to articulate them, and the involvement of Canadians Louise Frechette, Reid Morden and Maurice Strong bodes ill.

Now we can add another set-back to Canada's self-image as a caring society: Canada Free Press has an expose of yet another indication of the Strong family's hypocrisies, this time involving Oxfam, which uses Chinese slave labour to make their anti-povery wristbands.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

June 5 - Hopes may be dashed for a day, but the spirit of liberty endures. Thousands Mark Tiananmen Square Anniversary in Hong Kong proving that the ideals and mettle of those students have achieved a place in history that not even the Chinese bureaucrats can erase.

There is also this fine tribute by Tuning Spork.

8:25 - Through seredipitous means, I happened upon a blog that reprinted Nicholas Kristoff's original reporat on the massacre which appeared in the NY Times on June 4, 1989. Time has not dulled the brutality of using tanks against human bodies.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

June 5 - Marines Find 'Insurgent Lair' Outside Baghdad.

Air conditioning? I guess it is one thing to detonate bombs that will tear the limbs off of children in a marketplace but an entirely different thing altogether to be uncomfortable while planning those attacks.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

June 4 - Thanks to Dave J. for pointing the way to EU Referendum, a site that is discussing the UK referendum on the EU Constitution.

Of course, there are rules ...

The value of blogs for political debate away from the closed circles of the elites is becoming apparent in Europe. Nicholas has a very interesting post about a French blogger, who, in the words of the BBC, made the European elites feel "the sting of these online upstarts, the bloggers" by using the medium to articulate his opposition to the EU Constitution and whose essay was disseminated throughout France. He didn't single-handedly create the "Non" vote, of course, but I suspect that the enthusiastic reception of his writing indicates that in France too, the mainstream media is no longer speaking to or for the people.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.