She spent the night in one for observations. Looks like it was just a scare, but I'm still going to pray she gets well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Conservatives hate kids
HT to Cameron Holmstrom:
How else to explain their threat to kill C-253, the proposal to make Registered Education Savings Plans tax deductible, by fillibustering it in the Senate? Their claim is that the plan would put the government into deficit. Imagine that: The Conservatives actually oppose a tax cut and one that makes perfect sense.
Of course, the Con Artists would not have had this problem if they stopped corporate welfare to energy companies, delayed the GST cuts until it was more fiscally prudent to do so, or enacted revenue neutral income tax reductions.
We're talking $900 million per year. Here's an idea: How about hiring just a few more investigators to go after renovation companies and automobile garages that operate in the black market -- oh, sorry, underground economy. The cheaters cheat Canada out of $10 billion in revenue every year, and that's just at the federal level.
Of course, those fraud artists probably contribute to ... wait, what am I saying???? That's never been proven. Besides, a donation generates a tax receipt and the whole point is to EVADE taxes, not just reduce them.
Need any more proof Harper doesn't have his priorities straight?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
How else to explain their threat to kill C-253, the proposal to make Registered Education Savings Plans tax deductible, by fillibustering it in the Senate? Their claim is that the plan would put the government into deficit. Imagine that: The Conservatives actually oppose a tax cut and one that makes perfect sense.
Of course, the Con Artists would not have had this problem if they stopped corporate welfare to energy companies, delayed the GST cuts until it was more fiscally prudent to do so, or enacted revenue neutral income tax reductions.
We're talking $900 million per year. Here's an idea: How about hiring just a few more investigators to go after renovation companies and automobile garages that operate in the black market -- oh, sorry, underground economy. The cheaters cheat Canada out of $10 billion in revenue every year, and that's just at the federal level.
Of course, those fraud artists probably contribute to ... wait, what am I saying???? That's never been proven. Besides, a donation generates a tax receipt and the whole point is to EVADE taxes, not just reduce them.
Need any more proof Harper doesn't have his priorities straight?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Power out
It's unfortunate that some ill advised comments from Barack Obama's lead foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, has forced her to quit the campaign; at least openly. We haven't seen the last of her, though -- if the end of the cycle results in an Obama Administration I see Power as the National Security Advisor.
The fact remains, however, that even with Power aside for now Obama still has more credibility and honour when it comes to foreign policy than Hillary Clinton's delusions of "foreign policy experience" which are grossly exaggerated compared to the reality.
Mr. Clinton -- that's MISTER -- had almost zero foreign policy experience when he beat out the elder George Bush in 1992. What nerve does Mrs. Clinton have claiming she had twenty years more in that department than her husband when HE was elected? There must be some double counting going on here. What treaty did she negotiate, or what foreign Congressional junket did she travel on, back in 1973? Serving on the Watergate committee alongside actor Fred Thompson (both of whom were Congress' legal counsels to the impeachment investigation) and the work they did in taking down a tyrant (Nixon, who in many ways was still better than Bush Lite) does NOT count.
Sooner or later, and I hope it will be sooner, Obama will start fighting back; and fighting back hard. I for one am getting sick and tired about Clinton talking about her credentials when it comes to national security when she's offering at best short term measures to deal with economic security which is inherently tied to national security. If people aren't safe in their homes and in their jobs, and if the executive does not have a realistic plan to fight crime substantially, how can they expect their President to protect the country from abroad enemies? You need taxes to pay for foreign aid and tours of duty after all -- you can't keep borrowing money from China which is a bigger enemy to America than Russia has been or will ever be.
Clinton thinks she has the RIGHT to be President because she's entitled to it. She still has to close the deal in a few more battlegrounds and it is by no means over. In my opinion, she is very lacking in something Americans want from a President; humility.
Obama is a humble man and therefore a better choice. But he needs to close the deal, and now. This necessarily means going on the attack which is something he's been reticent to do until now but one fights fire with fire. He has to expect pushback from Clinton, of course, but it's time.
First piece of advice to Obama: Target the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania and appeal to their concerns, which has more roots in the "Social Gospel" than one might presume at first glance. Peeling a few points away from Clinton in that category will pay dividends in the final result in that state's primary next month.
UPDATE (8:06 PM EST, 0106 GMT Saturday): HT to Josh Marshall, tomorrow's Chicago Tribune has a story that parses Clinton's "foreign policy" credentials. Not a pretty picture, but I'm not sure how much it will blunt the Power kerfuffle.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The fact remains, however, that even with Power aside for now Obama still has more credibility and honour when it comes to foreign policy than Hillary Clinton's delusions of "foreign policy experience" which are grossly exaggerated compared to the reality.
Mr. Clinton -- that's MISTER -- had almost zero foreign policy experience when he beat out the elder George Bush in 1992. What nerve does Mrs. Clinton have claiming she had twenty years more in that department than her husband when HE was elected? There must be some double counting going on here. What treaty did she negotiate, or what foreign Congressional junket did she travel on, back in 1973? Serving on the Watergate committee alongside actor Fred Thompson (both of whom were Congress' legal counsels to the impeachment investigation) and the work they did in taking down a tyrant (Nixon, who in many ways was still better than Bush Lite) does NOT count.
Sooner or later, and I hope it will be sooner, Obama will start fighting back; and fighting back hard. I for one am getting sick and tired about Clinton talking about her credentials when it comes to national security when she's offering at best short term measures to deal with economic security which is inherently tied to national security. If people aren't safe in their homes and in their jobs, and if the executive does not have a realistic plan to fight crime substantially, how can they expect their President to protect the country from abroad enemies? You need taxes to pay for foreign aid and tours of duty after all -- you can't keep borrowing money from China which is a bigger enemy to America than Russia has been or will ever be.
Clinton thinks she has the RIGHT to be President because she's entitled to it. She still has to close the deal in a few more battlegrounds and it is by no means over. In my opinion, she is very lacking in something Americans want from a President; humility.
Obama is a humble man and therefore a better choice. But he needs to close the deal, and now. This necessarily means going on the attack which is something he's been reticent to do until now but one fights fire with fire. He has to expect pushback from Clinton, of course, but it's time.
First piece of advice to Obama: Target the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania and appeal to their concerns, which has more roots in the "Social Gospel" than one might presume at first glance. Peeling a few points away from Clinton in that category will pay dividends in the final result in that state's primary next month.
UPDATE (8:06 PM EST, 0106 GMT Saturday): HT to Josh Marshall, tomorrow's Chicago Tribune has a story that parses Clinton's "foreign policy" credentials. Not a pretty picture, but I'm not sure how much it will blunt the Power kerfuffle.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Arbour steps down
As widely expected, former Supreme Court of Canada Associate Justice Louise Arbour has stepped down as the UN's Human Rights Commissioner. It's not too surprising when one considers her frustration with the US Government and its continued support of torturing terrorism suspects, destroying what credibility it has on the issue. As long as America continues to interfere on this important UN agency, no person worth his or her salt should take the job. Which means that some maniac from Syria or North Korea will probably be next in line.
Americans should really pay attention to this one. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton came out with the whopper that she has national security "experience" and John McCain does as well; as for Barack Obama, said Clinton, he'll have to explain himself.
Mrs. Clinton has absolutely no credibility or moral authority on national security or torture, and the two issues are inherently linked. She openly supported torture until just before the primaries in New Hampshire (how convenient!); while McCain who was stuck at the Hanoi Hilton for five years and was a victim of torture is now one of its most enthusiastic supporters.
Obama has opposed using the enemies' means from day one. He has the most crediblity and moral authority, and therefore has the upper hand when it comes to national security.
Don't be surprised if the UN job remains vacant for a year or so and when the next President finally comes into power and it was Clinton, she nominated Karl Rove who is even worse on the issue.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Americans should really pay attention to this one. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton came out with the whopper that she has national security "experience" and John McCain does as well; as for Barack Obama, said Clinton, he'll have to explain himself.
Mrs. Clinton has absolutely no credibility or moral authority on national security or torture, and the two issues are inherently linked. She openly supported torture until just before the primaries in New Hampshire (how convenient!); while McCain who was stuck at the Hanoi Hilton for five years and was a victim of torture is now one of its most enthusiastic supporters.
Obama has opposed using the enemies' means from day one. He has the most crediblity and moral authority, and therefore has the upper hand when it comes to national security.
Don't be surprised if the UN job remains vacant for a year or so and when the next President finally comes into power and it was Clinton, she nominated Karl Rove who is even worse on the issue.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
8 year old passes law school test
An eight year old kid in Brazil who has skipped two grades has done the almost unthinkable: He passed the law school entrance test; and almost managed to get enrolled until he showed up at school with his father. He was told he needed a high school diploma. It seems that there is no standard test in that country, unlike the common law schools in Canada and the United States which use the LSAT; and he just happened to pick a school which has a rather easy one.
I think he should have been allowed to stay. It's not like a lot of adults who've been at the bar for thirty or forty years are any good. That applies to all countries.
Good thing I have a lawyer who's smart on his feet. No, I'm not going to give his name.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I think he should have been allowed to stay. It's not like a lot of adults who've been at the bar for thirty or forty years are any good. That applies to all countries.
Good thing I have a lawyer who's smart on his feet. No, I'm not going to give his name.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Massacre at Jerusalem seminary
This is too depressing to even contemplate. Eight people were killed at a yeshiva before police killed the gunman. The assassin was a resident of East Jerusalem and therefore had free roaming rights in the rest of the city.
Not too surprisingly, Hamas praised the attack although it stopped short of claiming responsibility.
I don't know what it will take to get cooler heads to prevail in an already radioactive region. But dancing in the streets in Gaza City and celebrating a multiple murder is not the way to move forward.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Not too surprisingly, Hamas praised the attack although it stopped short of claiming responsibility.
I don't know what it will take to get cooler heads to prevail in an already radioactive region. But dancing in the streets in Gaza City and celebrating a multiple murder is not the way to move forward.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
A break for parents -- if the Senate will let them
A private members' bill passed third reading last night in the House. It would mark a major change in tax policy and would be to the benefit of parents trying to save money for their children's post secondary education.
Registered Education Savings Plans, or RESPs, allow parents to set aside money for this purpose (up to $5000 per year); with growth in the plans tax free and normally taxable (with a 20% penalty) only if the recipient child hasn't started attending an approved institution by the age of 25. Their major drawback is that the contributions in them are not tax deductible. While the previous Liberal Government did sweeten the deal a few years ago by adding a 20% bonus to contributions, up to a maximum of $500 per year (on a presumed $2500 contribution), the non-tax deductability of the plans still put off a lot of parents.
Bill C-253, proposed by Dan McTeague, would make such RESP contributions deductible up to $5000 per year (that's $5000 in 2006 dollars, with an index adjustment each year the same as tax brackets), and the deduction would be retroactive to 2005 when the limit was only $4000. One presumes that like the RRSP, this deduction would only amount to a tax deferral and that the payouts (contributions plus growth) would be taxable on withdrawal. However, these payouts would be taxed in the name of the child and since he or she would almost certainly be in a lower tax bracket than the parent when the contribution was made, it would be a net revenue gain in favour of the family.
This is progressive legislation at its finest, and because of that the Senate should definitely give this bill quick consideration and passage. Several examples of other progressive legislation we have on the books are due to private members' bills from both Houses, not government bills. This is the kind of pro-family bill that promotes national development and would also help in slowing the brain drain on a long term basis. McTeague has succeeded in having several private members' bills passed over the last decade or so (including one about evading further police pursuit, and another promoting organ donation), and this bill continues in that line of reasoned thought; not like the perennial competing bills to make Chemaimus BC and Welland ON the "mural capital of Canada" or the repeated attempts by some to reinstate the death penalty here.
It's a good thing we don't have a "Ten Minute Rule" here, like they do in the United Kingdom, and that backbench bills at least have a chance to be heard in Canada even if for only one hour. Private members bills in the UK have a rats chance of being passed -- although some do, such as (oddly enough) the abolition of the death penalty there in 1965. Under a ten minute rule here, smart guys like McTeague wouldn't even have time to clear their throats.
UPDATE (8:59 AM EST, 1359 GMT): Yeah, I know, McTeague voted for C-484. You can't win them all; or be correct about absolutely everything. If he wants to vote his conscience, though, I will not take that away from him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Registered Education Savings Plans, or RESPs, allow parents to set aside money for this purpose (up to $5000 per year); with growth in the plans tax free and normally taxable (with a 20% penalty) only if the recipient child hasn't started attending an approved institution by the age of 25. Their major drawback is that the contributions in them are not tax deductible. While the previous Liberal Government did sweeten the deal a few years ago by adding a 20% bonus to contributions, up to a maximum of $500 per year (on a presumed $2500 contribution), the non-tax deductability of the plans still put off a lot of parents.
Bill C-253, proposed by Dan McTeague, would make such RESP contributions deductible up to $5000 per year (that's $5000 in 2006 dollars, with an index adjustment each year the same as tax brackets), and the deduction would be retroactive to 2005 when the limit was only $4000. One presumes that like the RRSP, this deduction would only amount to a tax deferral and that the payouts (contributions plus growth) would be taxable on withdrawal. However, these payouts would be taxed in the name of the child and since he or she would almost certainly be in a lower tax bracket than the parent when the contribution was made, it would be a net revenue gain in favour of the family.
This is progressive legislation at its finest, and because of that the Senate should definitely give this bill quick consideration and passage. Several examples of other progressive legislation we have on the books are due to private members' bills from both Houses, not government bills. This is the kind of pro-family bill that promotes national development and would also help in slowing the brain drain on a long term basis. McTeague has succeeded in having several private members' bills passed over the last decade or so (including one about evading further police pursuit, and another promoting organ donation), and this bill continues in that line of reasoned thought; not like the perennial competing bills to make Chemaimus BC and Welland ON the "mural capital of Canada" or the repeated attempts by some to reinstate the death penalty here.
It's a good thing we don't have a "Ten Minute Rule" here, like they do in the United Kingdom, and that backbench bills at least have a chance to be heard in Canada even if for only one hour. Private members bills in the UK have a rats chance of being passed -- although some do, such as (oddly enough) the abolition of the death penalty there in 1965. Under a ten minute rule here, smart guys like McTeague wouldn't even have time to clear their throats.
UPDATE (8:59 AM EST, 1359 GMT): Yeah, I know, McTeague voted for C-484. You can't win them all; or be correct about absolutely everything. If he wants to vote his conscience, though, I will not take that away from him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
BREAKING: Bill C-484 passes second reading
The vote was 147-133, and has now been forwarded to the House Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.
What will happen in committee is the wildcard. The best thing that could happen is that the bill somehow dies in the committee; short of that, it will have to be signficantly amended to deal with the concerns a lot of people have. The battle on this one has only just begun. Pregnant mothers must of course have protection from attack; but I've read the bill several times and each time there are more and more questions. It's time the Con artists were straight up on this one.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What will happen in committee is the wildcard. The best thing that could happen is that the bill somehow dies in the committee; short of that, it will have to be signficantly amended to deal with the concerns a lot of people have. The battle on this one has only just begun. Pregnant mothers must of course have protection from attack; but I've read the bill several times and each time there are more and more questions. It's time the Con artists were straight up on this one.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Paisley walks away; Clinton fights on
Ian Paisley, the still unreconstructed Protestant warrior of the long running "Troubles" in Northern Ireland announced yesterday he will step down as the region's First Minister in May.
All I can is, he was a tough cookie and depending on one's point of view a hero or almost impossible to respect; but he was principled, I'll give him that.
Last night, Hillary Clinton won in Ohio and Rhode Island as well as the Texas primary. Barack Obama won Vermont and is currently in the lead in the Texas caucuses. Overall, though, it appears Obama still leads in terms of popular votes as well as delegates.
This will mean at least another two months of infighting. Some think this will be damaging to the Democrats. Actually, I think a toughened warrior whoever it is will be in a much better position to take on John McCain, who locked up the GOP nom last night and can now sip on piña coladas until the convention in August. I still think Obama will come out the winner eventually -- it's a generational thing and Gen X will want to say, when it's all said and done, it's their turn to shine.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
All I can is, he was a tough cookie and depending on one's point of view a hero or almost impossible to respect; but he was principled, I'll give him that.
Last night, Hillary Clinton won in Ohio and Rhode Island as well as the Texas primary. Barack Obama won Vermont and is currently in the lead in the Texas caucuses. Overall, though, it appears Obama still leads in terms of popular votes as well as delegates.
This will mean at least another two months of infighting. Some think this will be damaging to the Democrats. Actually, I think a toughened warrior whoever it is will be in a much better position to take on John McCain, who locked up the GOP nom last night and can now sip on piña coladas until the convention in August. I still think Obama will come out the winner eventually -- it's a generational thing and Gen X will want to say, when it's all said and done, it's their turn to shine.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
When will it end?
Last week marked the second anniversary of the standoff in Caledonia. There still doesn't seem to be any end in sight to the crisis; although affairs between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities have certainly quieted down -- it's more of a stalemate and relatively quiet at this point but there are obviously some outstanding issues.
The big one is that new housing and commerical starts have ground to a halt. Many businesses are refusing to pay "development fees" to the Haudenasonee, viewing it as a form of extortion, until the issue of who actually owns the land is settled. While the feds have offered to put the outstanding land claims of the Six Nations -- more than two dozen -- to settlement, there's no sign that it's being put on the fast track. An offer has been made regarding the expropriation of the Welland Canal diversion channel, but there's no indication of whether the Haudenasonee or the elected band council will take it.
This is indicative of a much bigger problem -- there are literally hundreds of such claims on the shelf at Indian Affairs in Ottawa. In fact, at the current rate they are being processed, it will take 1200 years to resolve all the issues. Many claims overlap to the point that more than 100% of the land mass of Canada is claimed to still have outstanding aboriginal title.
Six Nations is certainly better off than many other reserves, no part thanks to the dozens of smoke shops that cater to off-reserve people who want to buy contraband tobacco at cut rate prices. It's a sad fact that this must be, but there is a market for it and I suppose anything that helps natives to be more self sufficient isn't a bad thing; as long as it's a transition to having a truly self-sustaining economy.
Another sticking point is that the reserve seems to be a favourite dumping ground for stolen cars off reserve (mostly stolen by white people who will just drive to the reserve, drop off the car in one of the many wood lots, then rendezvous with a get-away team waiting), since the OPP is reticent to enter the reserve without the permission or the co-ordination of the reserve police. Both groups are trying to stop the dumping and the chop shops but acknowledge it's an uphill battle. The fact there's been a huge jump during the land dispute is not, in my opinion, a coincidence.
So what's to be done?
I think first should come first. Since Six Nations is the largest band, it should be the template for land dispute resolution in Central Canada. Package all the land claims together and put them to time-certain negotiation; and failing that, submitted to binding arbitration. Whether this involves exchanges of land or a substantial and satisfactory land settlement is to be decided; but both sides can't wait another five or ten years. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals need a solution, now.
Once the land question is settled, then the Six Nations should find a meaningful way to become self reliant for the long term. Scandals such as Six Nations Mills are still fresh in the minds of a lot of people. A steady stream of income from successful businesses will benefit both groups in the long run.
That is the ideal. Right now, there's still too much residual resentment to even consider step one, and that's just not a good thing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The big one is that new housing and commerical starts have ground to a halt. Many businesses are refusing to pay "development fees" to the Haudenasonee, viewing it as a form of extortion, until the issue of who actually owns the land is settled. While the feds have offered to put the outstanding land claims of the Six Nations -- more than two dozen -- to settlement, there's no sign that it's being put on the fast track. An offer has been made regarding the expropriation of the Welland Canal diversion channel, but there's no indication of whether the Haudenasonee or the elected band council will take it.
This is indicative of a much bigger problem -- there are literally hundreds of such claims on the shelf at Indian Affairs in Ottawa. In fact, at the current rate they are being processed, it will take 1200 years to resolve all the issues. Many claims overlap to the point that more than 100% of the land mass of Canada is claimed to still have outstanding aboriginal title.
Six Nations is certainly better off than many other reserves, no part thanks to the dozens of smoke shops that cater to off-reserve people who want to buy contraband tobacco at cut rate prices. It's a sad fact that this must be, but there is a market for it and I suppose anything that helps natives to be more self sufficient isn't a bad thing; as long as it's a transition to having a truly self-sustaining economy.
Another sticking point is that the reserve seems to be a favourite dumping ground for stolen cars off reserve (mostly stolen by white people who will just drive to the reserve, drop off the car in one of the many wood lots, then rendezvous with a get-away team waiting), since the OPP is reticent to enter the reserve without the permission or the co-ordination of the reserve police. Both groups are trying to stop the dumping and the chop shops but acknowledge it's an uphill battle. The fact there's been a huge jump during the land dispute is not, in my opinion, a coincidence.
So what's to be done?
I think first should come first. Since Six Nations is the largest band, it should be the template for land dispute resolution in Central Canada. Package all the land claims together and put them to time-certain negotiation; and failing that, submitted to binding arbitration. Whether this involves exchanges of land or a substantial and satisfactory land settlement is to be decided; but both sides can't wait another five or ten years. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals need a solution, now.
Once the land question is settled, then the Six Nations should find a meaningful way to become self reliant for the long term. Scandals such as Six Nations Mills are still fresh in the minds of a lot of people. A steady stream of income from successful businesses will benefit both groups in the long run.
That is the ideal. Right now, there's still too much residual resentment to even consider step one, and that's just not a good thing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Libel threat
So much for cooler heads. Stephen Harper is now threatening to sue the Liberals for $1 million alleging libel over the Cadman affair; unless Stéphane Dion apologizes.
Fat chance an apology will happen. This is a serious matter requiring an investigation by both the Mounties and the House Ethics Committee. There is also an inherent contradiction between what Dona Cadman is saying about what Harper told her about the offer (his claim to her that he didn't know about any offer) and what he said on tape to Tom Zytaruk (that he told the handlers they could make an offer to Cadman but they were wasting their time).
This is intimidation, plain and simple. Mulroney never sued the "Rat Packers" for going after him day after day on specific allegations of corruption while he was PM. Chrétien never sued the Reform Party's lead team for their going after him day after day while he was PM.
I have to wonder if Harper has finally lost his grip; or if is he perhaps taking some inspiration from Vladimir Putin and his suppression of nearly any and all opposition in Russia. Normally, a head of state is the defendant in a lawsuit, not the plaintiff. I also find it peculiar that Harper isn't going after the publisher of the book, the author or the Cadman family. Just the Liberals.
I fear we may have entered the dictatorship of the dominionists. To be against Harper is to be against God. And this is still a minority government. Any court worth its due will quash this lawsuit on the merits -- that there are none, pending a proper police investigation.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Fat chance an apology will happen. This is a serious matter requiring an investigation by both the Mounties and the House Ethics Committee. There is also an inherent contradiction between what Dona Cadman is saying about what Harper told her about the offer (his claim to her that he didn't know about any offer) and what he said on tape to Tom Zytaruk (that he told the handlers they could make an offer to Cadman but they were wasting their time).
This is intimidation, plain and simple. Mulroney never sued the "Rat Packers" for going after him day after day on specific allegations of corruption while he was PM. Chrétien never sued the Reform Party's lead team for their going after him day after day while he was PM.
I have to wonder if Harper has finally lost his grip; or if is he perhaps taking some inspiration from Vladimir Putin and his suppression of nearly any and all opposition in Russia. Normally, a head of state is the defendant in a lawsuit, not the plaintiff. I also find it peculiar that Harper isn't going after the publisher of the book, the author or the Cadman family. Just the Liberals.
I fear we may have entered the dictatorship of the dominionists. To be against Harper is to be against God. And this is still a minority government. Any court worth its due will quash this lawsuit on the merits -- that there are none, pending a proper police investigation.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Morning thoughts (2008-03-02)
A few thoughts this morning; which I will try to compress in a single post.
However we each may feel about the mission in Afghanistan, we must remember there are real human beings military and civilian doing a thankless task on behalf of us Canadians. Yesterday, another soldier died -- Michael Yuki Hayakaze, 25. That brings the total killed in action since 9/11 to 80 -- 79 servicepersons, plus one diplomat. As the debate in Parliament continues about extending the mission to 2011, which it will now almost certainly be, I hope some cooler heads prevail; and that at the very least we can offer our support to the families that continue to grieve as well as those left behind and praying they won't have to hear the knock at the door.
Also, Jeff Healey died yesterday from cancer. He was 41. A brilliant musician and singer, gone well before his prime. Not much more I can say about that.
On a personal level, this weekend marked a turning point in some respects for me. I'm not going to say too much at this time but I do feel better about things than I have in a while. Unfortunately, some members of my extended family who shall remain nameless only see -- and want to see -- doom and gloom for me. I just wish they'd wake up and stop crying every time they're on the phone with me saying I'm going to die and soon.
How do they know, really? Sometimes I wish they'd just let me be -- but I guess it's like most families; they'll never let you alone and will always see the negatives about you, never the positives and will do everything to hold you back.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
However we each may feel about the mission in Afghanistan, we must remember there are real human beings military and civilian doing a thankless task on behalf of us Canadians. Yesterday, another soldier died -- Michael Yuki Hayakaze, 25. That brings the total killed in action since 9/11 to 80 -- 79 servicepersons, plus one diplomat. As the debate in Parliament continues about extending the mission to 2011, which it will now almost certainly be, I hope some cooler heads prevail; and that at the very least we can offer our support to the families that continue to grieve as well as those left behind and praying they won't have to hear the knock at the door.
Also, Jeff Healey died yesterday from cancer. He was 41. A brilliant musician and singer, gone well before his prime. Not much more I can say about that.
On a personal level, this weekend marked a turning point in some respects for me. I'm not going to say too much at this time but I do feel better about things than I have in a while. Unfortunately, some members of my extended family who shall remain nameless only see -- and want to see -- doom and gloom for me. I just wish they'd wake up and stop crying every time they're on the phone with me saying I'm going to die and soon.
How do they know, really? Sometimes I wish they'd just let me be -- but I guess it's like most families; they'll never let you alone and will always see the negatives about you, never the positives and will do everything to hold you back.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Jagger once threatened by Hells Angels?
David Crosby has often joked that if you remember the 1960s, you're lying. Either you weren't born yet, or if you were alive during the time you were too stoned during the decade to remember what happened.
To mark the upcoming 100th birthday of the FBI, the BBC is going into the agency's most controversial case files; and one nugger they've come up from 1969 is a story the protagonist would probably rather forget. That year, the Hells Angels attempted a hit on Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones in the aftermath of the band's infamous free concert at Altamonte Speedway -- the one where Meredith Hunter was killed by one of the Angels who had been hired by the band for "security."
The story, to be broadcast on Monday, suggests that Jagger was so furious at the biker gang for -- well, dropping the bomb -- that the gang was insulted and so they vowed to kill Jagger in revenge, by running a blitzkrieg on his Long Island property via boat to bypass security. The bikers in the hit squad were thwarted by a storm that threw all the would be assassins overboard.
No comment yet from Jagger. But stories like that make the current exploits of the FBI seem rather blasé by comparison.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
To mark the upcoming 100th birthday of the FBI, the BBC is going into the agency's most controversial case files; and one nugger they've come up from 1969 is a story the protagonist would probably rather forget. That year, the Hells Angels attempted a hit on Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones in the aftermath of the band's infamous free concert at Altamonte Speedway -- the one where Meredith Hunter was killed by one of the Angels who had been hired by the band for "security."
The story, to be broadcast on Monday, suggests that Jagger was so furious at the biker gang for -- well, dropping the bomb -- that the gang was insulted and so they vowed to kill Jagger in revenge, by running a blitzkrieg on his Long Island property via boat to bypass security. The bikers in the hit squad were thwarted by a storm that threw all the would be assassins overboard.
No comment yet from Jagger. But stories like that make the current exploits of the FBI seem rather blasé by comparison.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
What more will it take?
If there was ever a time to bring down the Conservative government, it is now. First, we learn that the Cons are trying to push through a bill in the Senate that would give the feds the right to censor "objectionable" films if they are "overtly" sexual, violent or hateful. This one has gotten the attention of the Hollywood Reporter, one of the two major trade publications in LA, over whether it might affect location shoots in Canada. The problem is that often the tax credits are applied for well after principal photography is completed and a movie is into post-production.
Many of us may remember the sex farce Bubbles Galore back in 1996 and which was later broadcast on Showcase. It was a truly awful film, although also very hilarious. The controversy was over why an arms-length agency of the government would authorize funding for such a movie which barely skirted the line of soft-core pornography which Canadian rules forbid funding for.
Why wouldn't they fund such a movie? Many of the films "approved" by Telefilm Canada (99% in fact) have been a hundred times worse and only a hundredth as popular. It was probably one of the few films that actually made money for the feds.
The other, of course, is the affair that is becoming known as "Cadmangate." We now have three sources -- Chuck Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law all insisting the story about his being offered a million dollar bribe is authentic.
Harper, by his own words, said he let the two goons who made the offer go ahead and try although Harper himself said that they were wasting their time. If this was a leader who was crowing for weeks during the spring of 2005 about the perceived lack of ethics of the Liberals (as they were then constituted) and that things would be very different if he was running things, why in God's name would he have let them make the offer in the first place?
Doesn't Harper understand that one can't have two rules -- one for himself and one for everyone else? The concept of due process implies among other things, similar cases will result in similar sanctions. A bribe is a bribe whether it's money promised now or in the future. Making the offer is itself a crime, and agreeing to an attempt to make it would also be such; in the same way that hiring a hit man to commit a murder is the same in the law as doing the dirty deed oneself.
It's up to the Mounties, of course, to determine whether a crime was committed. This isn't just a failure of the sniff test, it's a backup of the RV sewer disposal unit at a trailer park or truck stop.
The Liberals in Ottawa have no more excuses. It's time to force an election, and let the people decide if Harper's test drive has gone on long enough. Drop the hammer, now -- and let the buffalo chips fall where they may.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Many of us may remember the sex farce Bubbles Galore back in 1996 and which was later broadcast on Showcase. It was a truly awful film, although also very hilarious. The controversy was over why an arms-length agency of the government would authorize funding for such a movie which barely skirted the line of soft-core pornography which Canadian rules forbid funding for.
Why wouldn't they fund such a movie? Many of the films "approved" by Telefilm Canada (99% in fact) have been a hundred times worse and only a hundredth as popular. It was probably one of the few films that actually made money for the feds.
The other, of course, is the affair that is becoming known as "Cadmangate." We now have three sources -- Chuck Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law all insisting the story about his being offered a million dollar bribe is authentic.
Harper, by his own words, said he let the two goons who made the offer go ahead and try although Harper himself said that they were wasting their time. If this was a leader who was crowing for weeks during the spring of 2005 about the perceived lack of ethics of the Liberals (as they were then constituted) and that things would be very different if he was running things, why in God's name would he have let them make the offer in the first place?
Doesn't Harper understand that one can't have two rules -- one for himself and one for everyone else? The concept of due process implies among other things, similar cases will result in similar sanctions. A bribe is a bribe whether it's money promised now or in the future. Making the offer is itself a crime, and agreeing to an attempt to make it would also be such; in the same way that hiring a hit man to commit a murder is the same in the law as doing the dirty deed oneself.
It's up to the Mounties, of course, to determine whether a crime was committed. This isn't just a failure of the sniff test, it's a backup of the RV sewer disposal unit at a trailer park or truck stop.
The Liberals in Ottawa have no more excuses. It's time to force an election, and let the people decide if Harper's test drive has gone on long enough. Drop the hammer, now -- and let the buffalo chips fall where they may.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
RIP Netscape
Support for the once dominant web browser ended today. It was actually a very good interface but we all know about you know who.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)