I am not entirely surprised -- but there could be enough grounds for an appeal. The twosome of Drabinsky and Gottlieb now face up to fourteen years in prison. With their otherwise strong reputations, it will probably be at Club Fed and not in supermax with Paul Bernardo so it's really no sentence at all.
It's also not unreasonable to demand some kind of compensation for the stockholders who were taken for a ride and forced to sell in the end for pennies of what they were entitled to.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Judgment in Toronto, Broadway style
In a short while, we will find out the fate of two former giants of the Canadian entertainment business and it's ... another sign I'm way too old for my thirty-six years: I remember when Live Entertainment, or Livent, was the toast of Toronto and Broadway. Beginning as a division of Cineplex ™, the guys who ran that division, Garth Drabinsky and partner Myron Gottlieb, bought out the division and restored the abandoned Pantages Theatre (later renamed the Canon ™) for the Toronto production of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera. I had a chance to see the show in Toronto (on a student discount while I was going to McMaster) and later my late mom and I went to the revival of Showboat (which was as close to perfection as it could get -- and we got a laugh out when we discovered one of the stars also had a recurring character on Married With Children! (Among other shows the company produced were Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Ragtime and Fosse).
What few knew at the time was that Livent was a troubled company almost from the start. In going over the top for its audiences, it went over the top in its finances, even after it went public. When it started losing money, mega-agent Michael Ovitz (who had just been unceremoniously fired from Walt Disney ™ with a record severance package in the nine figures -- that's NINE) was brought in to clean up the mess; and the next thing people knew Drabinsky and Gottlieb were escorted out of the company they founded.
Long story short: The Mounties and the SEC looked further into the company and have alleged the twosome falsified the true nature of the company. Among the allegations: They personally took $4.6 million in corporate funds for their personal use, and that overall the company's value was overstated by about half a billion dollars. The company was eventually sold for $98 million (peanuts) to the behemoth now known as Live Nation ™, and Drabinsky and Gottlieb are wanted in the States for failing to answer to a warrant. Here in Canada they are on trial for each of nineteen counts of fraud over $5000.
What will be the outcome? Given the Toronto Crown's recent track record, it really could go either way. The two guys made Toronto the entertainment hotspot it is today -- but did they break the rules? My sense, even if they are acquitted, there are some ethical questions that may never be answered in full. If they ever produce another show again, people may ask twice about purchasing a ticket for an event sponsored by them. Heck -- I'd rather go to Stratford anyway, what with free parking courtesy the local chamber of commerce, and the drive there is always relaxing.
Update later.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What few knew at the time was that Livent was a troubled company almost from the start. In going over the top for its audiences, it went over the top in its finances, even after it went public. When it started losing money, mega-agent Michael Ovitz (who had just been unceremoniously fired from Walt Disney ™ with a record severance package in the nine figures -- that's NINE) was brought in to clean up the mess; and the next thing people knew Drabinsky and Gottlieb were escorted out of the company they founded.
Long story short: The Mounties and the SEC looked further into the company and have alleged the twosome falsified the true nature of the company. Among the allegations: They personally took $4.6 million in corporate funds for their personal use, and that overall the company's value was overstated by about half a billion dollars. The company was eventually sold for $98 million (peanuts) to the behemoth now known as Live Nation ™, and Drabinsky and Gottlieb are wanted in the States for failing to answer to a warrant. Here in Canada they are on trial for each of nineteen counts of fraud over $5000.
What will be the outcome? Given the Toronto Crown's recent track record, it really could go either way. The two guys made Toronto the entertainment hotspot it is today -- but did they break the rules? My sense, even if they are acquitted, there are some ethical questions that may never be answered in full. If they ever produce another show again, people may ask twice about purchasing a ticket for an event sponsored by them. Heck -- I'd rather go to Stratford anyway, what with free parking courtesy the local chamber of commerce, and the drive there is always relaxing.
Update later.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Canada's chance to invade Turks and Caicos? Uh, no
There have long been proposals -- quite serious ones, it seems -- that the Turks and Caicos Islands (which is home base for a lot of "shell" corporations) should secede from Great Britain and join Canada, specifically Nova Scotia. Those dreamers, nearly all of them Canadians, have new ammunition today with word that the TCI's PM has resigned over allegations (denied) of selling government lands for personal gain.
I just post this to point out the story is out there. But really, folks -- does anyone really want TCI to be a part of Canada? Especially those living there? They don't want to give up their currency -- the US dollar. And as long as there are outposts like the TCI, Britain can still claim to say that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" -- or what's left of it.
Besides, we all see what happens when we whites move into a black majority area and try to impose their "civilization". Blueprint: Africa, and most Caribbean states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I just post this to point out the story is out there. But really, folks -- does anyone really want TCI to be a part of Canada? Especially those living there? They don't want to give up their currency -- the US dollar. And as long as there are outposts like the TCI, Britain can still claim to say that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" -- or what's left of it.
Besides, we all see what happens when we whites move into a black majority area and try to impose their "civilization". Blueprint: Africa, and most Caribbean states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Canadian oil for Canadians
I wonder if Justin Trudeau, in his comfy office on The Hill, must be stewing in his own juices this morning after learning as we all have that Petro Canada (Big Daddy's creation that led directly to the creation of the western rights movement) has agreed to a "friendly" takeover by Suncor Energy. As I understand it, the US and Canadian operations of Sunoco are separate, but the fact that another Canadian created company has been divested to the wilds of American oil speculators who own most of the stock of Suncor is not a good story.
There are some legal technicalities, among them since there is only so much one entity can own in Petrocan it needs the approval of Parliament. The twosome can always get around it by having a reverse takeover where Petrocan takes over Suncor then immediately changes its name to Suncor.
Canadian oil is Canadian and should be owned and sold by Canadians. Not Americans, not Saudis, not anyone else. We may need American expertise to dig some of it up (actually, Americans are using our slant drilling knowledge to dig up theirs!), but ownership should essentially remain ours. This is a major loss of our sovereignty.
What's next? Canada joins OPEC? It's no secret that there is an invitation to do so -- but Canada does not want to be seen screwing the Americans or the EU. But the way things are going, I won't be surprised if it does happen. It would certainly make Edmonton happy to fuck the rest of Canada all over again, just by turning off the taps.
Oh yeah, it also means my points card is now totally worthless, since with the other one you only get points if you fill up with extra premium (which cost 20 t0 25 cents more per litre than regular) and which 99% of the cars on the road don't even need. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There are some legal technicalities, among them since there is only so much one entity can own in Petrocan it needs the approval of Parliament. The twosome can always get around it by having a reverse takeover where Petrocan takes over Suncor then immediately changes its name to Suncor.
Canadian oil is Canadian and should be owned and sold by Canadians. Not Americans, not Saudis, not anyone else. We may need American expertise to dig some of it up (actually, Americans are using our slant drilling knowledge to dig up theirs!), but ownership should essentially remain ours. This is a major loss of our sovereignty.
What's next? Canada joins OPEC? It's no secret that there is an invitation to do so -- but Canada does not want to be seen screwing the Americans or the EU. But the way things are going, I won't be surprised if it does happen. It would certainly make Edmonton happy to fuck the rest of Canada all over again, just by turning off the taps.
Oh yeah, it also means my points card is now totally worthless, since with the other one you only get points if you fill up with extra premium (which cost 20 t0 25 cents more per litre than regular) and which 99% of the cars on the road don't even need. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Kenney: Right, and wrong on immigration
You'd think I'd find everything about the current immigration minister disagreeable with my values. However, Jason Kenney did say something that I do agree with, at least in principle: Potential new immigrants to Canada, especially in the regular class, should possess a working knowledge of English or French -- or both if planning to migrate to an area where bilingualism is essential, such as Ottawa or Montréal. While this is the law, it's often not enforced by immigration intake workers especially if there is a labour supply shortage in Canada.
However, I am disturbed by the implication of some of what the minister said about immigrants who are here (particularly in the refugee and family classes) who still don't have a demonstrable knowledge of either official language, or know just enough to pass the citizenship test. This is certainly not a uniquely Canadian problem, it has gone on for years. Adding fuel to the fire in a recession, however (i.e. implying such Canadians, and they are in the hundreds of thousands, should be deported), is not the way of going about it.
We should, however, as a society attempt to integrate newcomers with ESL or FSL programs, with training programs that reflect the actual language used in society (including slang) as well as intensive immersion programs where for a number of weeks one attempts to speak and read the new language only, including old and new media sources. That's what happens with some programs Anglophones and Anglophiles take when they go to language "boot camps" in places like Trois Pistoles, Québec -- where exposure to English is completely non existent, and you're constantly monitored, losing marks if you slip into English even accidentally. The idea is by the time you're done you're functionally bilingual.
I am sensitive to this issue as both my parents are immigrants -- my father as a political refugee. But both Mom and Dad made it a point to take ESL classes almost as soon as they got here, and while my father's delivery is still less than perfect it's enough to carry on a conversation. I do have to admit I am disturbed that there are some communities large enough that one can spend his or her entire life here not speaking a single word of English or French, if one just stays in the ghetto markets and goes to private schools in his or her "own" language only. The lack of pride in being Canadian even if in name only is a problem, that we need to address.
The way it is right now, migrants tend to gravitate to their own communities allowing them to continue to speak their home languages while integrating into Canada. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it goes against my idea of multiculturalism where we share in each others' diversity and share in our common future as Canadians; not pigeon hole ourselves each in our own corners, advertise only to our segmented communities, and so forth. The integration process would go faster is if they went in headlong first -- particularly on language. Of course they should have contacts with people among their group but not at the expense of using local, not home, languages. A mosaic is made up of many pieces, they cannot be isolated into their individual parts.
It also doesn't help, however, when classes and immigrant settlement programs are among the first to get sacrificed first on the altar of budget cuts -- so in effect, those who complain about the problem are the ones making it even worse. And of course, those who want to learn English or French can't often take those classes without affordable day care for their children, something else the Conservatives oppose (see where this is going)? Forcing them to learn the same way their kids are -- by watching stupid educational shows for pre-schoolers on the CBC or educational television.
In many EU states, you can't apply for naturalization (a non-native born gaining citizenship of his or her adopted country) unless you can prove you speak the national language well enough to function in the workplace. There are some exceptions to this: Germany, which does have a language requirement for most, does grant citizenship as a matter of course to some of the victims of Nazi atrocities (who were stripped of their statehood by Hitler) and their children and grandchildren.
Trudeau's vision of nation-wide bilingualism is a farce, except as a practical matter in the areas I mentioned above. Still is it really too much to ask for a little bit of English or French from newcomers, regardless of the class they are applying in? No, I don't, and asking applicants to take the TOEFL or the TCF is not an undue burden.
But I also don't appreciate people making the suggestion in threatening or menacing words, be they by connotation or denotation, that lack of knowledge should automatically be a disqualifying factor. Instead, we need to say, okay, we'll let you in on a work permit but you have such and such amount of time to learn English and / or French and pass the tests that prove it; if you can, then you'll get full immigrant status retroactive to the time of entry. The vast majority of applicants would take the offer, and there's no question they'd pass not one but both tests. The more immigrants that know three, four or more languages, the more competitive we then become as we sell our wares and services overseas.
With that, I'm off to church ... and one of my prayers this morning is that only saner and less bigoted thoughts will fill the halls of the Centre Block.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
However, I am disturbed by the implication of some of what the minister said about immigrants who are here (particularly in the refugee and family classes) who still don't have a demonstrable knowledge of either official language, or know just enough to pass the citizenship test. This is certainly not a uniquely Canadian problem, it has gone on for years. Adding fuel to the fire in a recession, however (i.e. implying such Canadians, and they are in the hundreds of thousands, should be deported), is not the way of going about it.
We should, however, as a society attempt to integrate newcomers with ESL or FSL programs, with training programs that reflect the actual language used in society (including slang) as well as intensive immersion programs where for a number of weeks one attempts to speak and read the new language only, including old and new media sources. That's what happens with some programs Anglophones and Anglophiles take when they go to language "boot camps" in places like Trois Pistoles, Québec -- where exposure to English is completely non existent, and you're constantly monitored, losing marks if you slip into English even accidentally. The idea is by the time you're done you're functionally bilingual.
I am sensitive to this issue as both my parents are immigrants -- my father as a political refugee. But both Mom and Dad made it a point to take ESL classes almost as soon as they got here, and while my father's delivery is still less than perfect it's enough to carry on a conversation. I do have to admit I am disturbed that there are some communities large enough that one can spend his or her entire life here not speaking a single word of English or French, if one just stays in the ghetto markets and goes to private schools in his or her "own" language only. The lack of pride in being Canadian even if in name only is a problem, that we need to address.
The way it is right now, migrants tend to gravitate to their own communities allowing them to continue to speak their home languages while integrating into Canada. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it goes against my idea of multiculturalism where we share in each others' diversity and share in our common future as Canadians; not pigeon hole ourselves each in our own corners, advertise only to our segmented communities, and so forth. The integration process would go faster is if they went in headlong first -- particularly on language. Of course they should have contacts with people among their group but not at the expense of using local, not home, languages. A mosaic is made up of many pieces, they cannot be isolated into their individual parts.
It also doesn't help, however, when classes and immigrant settlement programs are among the first to get sacrificed first on the altar of budget cuts -- so in effect, those who complain about the problem are the ones making it even worse. And of course, those who want to learn English or French can't often take those classes without affordable day care for their children, something else the Conservatives oppose (see where this is going)? Forcing them to learn the same way their kids are -- by watching stupid educational shows for pre-schoolers on the CBC or educational television.
In many EU states, you can't apply for naturalization (a non-native born gaining citizenship of his or her adopted country) unless you can prove you speak the national language well enough to function in the workplace. There are some exceptions to this: Germany, which does have a language requirement for most, does grant citizenship as a matter of course to some of the victims of Nazi atrocities (who were stripped of their statehood by Hitler) and their children and grandchildren.
Trudeau's vision of nation-wide bilingualism is a farce, except as a practical matter in the areas I mentioned above. Still is it really too much to ask for a little bit of English or French from newcomers, regardless of the class they are applying in? No, I don't, and asking applicants to take the TOEFL or the TCF is not an undue burden.
But I also don't appreciate people making the suggestion in threatening or menacing words, be they by connotation or denotation, that lack of knowledge should automatically be a disqualifying factor. Instead, we need to say, okay, we'll let you in on a work permit but you have such and such amount of time to learn English and / or French and pass the tests that prove it; if you can, then you'll get full immigrant status retroactive to the time of entry. The vast majority of applicants would take the offer, and there's no question they'd pass not one but both tests. The more immigrants that know three, four or more languages, the more competitive we then become as we sell our wares and services overseas.
With that, I'm off to church ... and one of my prayers this morning is that only saner and less bigoted thoughts will fill the halls of the Centre Block.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The multiple double standards in the banning of George Galloway
George Galloway's banning from Canada by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney simply because the former was trying to carry £1 million of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip, an area presently ruled by the democratically elected party (and listed terrorist group) Hamas, has really worked up a lather with most of my fellow ProgBloggers who have written about it: Maxwell Devin, Cliff Hesby, David Climenhaga, Bernadette Wagner, and Scott Tribe, just to name a few. Of course, the Conservatives don't have a monopoly on banning entry to those who rub them the wrong way, the Liberals did the same to Louis Farrakhan some years ago. But I disagreed with that decision (despite Farrakhan's well known anti-Semitic views) and I have to disagree with this one.
My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:
He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.
For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.
To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.
Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.
Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.
It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.
The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.
Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.
There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)
And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)
Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.
And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.
But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.
But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:
He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.
For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.
To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.
Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.
Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.
It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.
The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.
Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.
There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)
And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)
Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.
And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.
But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.
But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
We never should have closed down our German bases
Last night, we learned that four more soldiers have been killed in the line of duty for Canada: Master Corporal Scott Vernelli and Corporal Tyler Crooks of November Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment; and Troopers Yack Bouthillier and Corey Joseph Hayes of the Royal Canadian Dragoons. Eight others were wounded and reported in "stable" condition.
That brings the total death toll to 117 -- 116 soliders and one diplomat -- killed in the line of duty since 9/11. Two Canadian aid workers have also been killed.
Obviously, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it is truly infuriating that most of NATO is still not pulling its weight in Afghanistan. Only five countries have full time combat operations there right now: Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. Other countries put so many conditions for the rules of engagement for their fighting men and women that it makes joint operations that would be more effective, impossible to execute. As NATO marks 60 years next month, the success or failure of the operation could well depend on whether more countries will be persuaded to jump in.
However, there is one aspect of the situation -- the wounded -- that still bothers me.
While we have a modern field hospital at the base in Kandahar City that is fully capable of handling critical injuries -- for our troops, our allies alongside, and even our enemies who we capture as POWs -- it is, at its "base" a critical care facility (in and out, so to speak). To handle the more serious injuries that will take a longer recovery period, we have to transfer our WIAs to an American air base facility in Ramstein, Germany. Their physicians, nurses and other specialists are just about the best there is and there is no question our soldiers are in good hands there. And it also helps that there are Canadians posted there on a full time basis (as well as troops from 10 other NATO members), to help keep the wounded company.
But the fact is we had our own base in Germany for decades -- the base at Baden-Soellingen, in addition to facilities in Lahr and Zweibrüken. These were not only staging areas for conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, they also had the facilities you'd expect back home including top-notch medical personnel. Zweibrüken was closed after the three branches (army, air force and navy) unifed their command in the late 1960s, but the other two remained open -- until Mulroney ordered them closed in the early 1990s under the guise of budget constraints. Canada wasn't the only one, other countries pulled out of Germany too with the end of communism in most of Europe.
But many world leaders totally missed the shifting paradigm. It was no longer East versus West as in Eastern vs Western Europe. As the Cold War ended and Europe was becoming more united (with customs-free borders beginning in 1995) the Eastern boundary had now shifted, to the Middle East, South Asia and the Asia Pacific -- and small but well armed and financed groups who were prepared to fight unconventional war against us.
They also missed the opportunity to have battle ready people able to move in in several hours notice, not having to organize a deployment months in the making (as is the case now), fly them half way around the world, and then having to ship the wounded half-way back to a foreign country's facilities. It's insane -- we had our own army hospitals in Germany, good ones, and we shut them down and have the Americans bill us (and we know how expensive their health care is!)?
Too: Having a continued presence would have strengthened Canada's hand in dealing with the EU. We're finally into free trade talks with them now, but this could have been done a decade or more ago -- when we pulled out it was like we were snubbing the people we helped liberate in World War II so they had no reason to reason, particularly during the cod and turbot "wars." Why do you think America can be as tough as it is with the EU, and vice versa? It's because of the physical American presence in Europe.
The other thing is all those "support our troops" stickers you see on bumpers. I'd like to ask them if support means supporting PMS and his policies, or does it mean really supporting our troops -- giving them the best and most up to date fighting equipment possible, not Bay of Pigs relics? Does it mean subletting long term care of wounded soldiers, airmen and sailors to the Americans, or having them in our own army hospitals? Does it mean just giving soldiers their LTD when they get back -- or also emotional, financial and every other support they're going to need, for a lifetime? "Support our troops" in the context presently being used is a sinister one and it is costing our troops dearly. You don't fight terrorists equipped with Kalashnikovs and Berettas when all you have are the equivalent of starters' pistols which is basically what we're doing right now.
I support our troops. Supporting them means they get it in every way, and that includes treatment of the injured by Canadians, from start to finish. Again, I admire the work that the men and women at Ramstein do and I think we should thank them for their friendship and service; but we really need to have Canadians treating Canadians. Flying them home all the way would be impractical, so a mid-way point would have been nice. Closing Baden and Lahr was about the stupidest thing we could have done. And we can't have them back either -- they were sold and redeveloped commercially.
Not too surprising, given conservatives -- progressive and regressive conservatives -- have a penchant for selling top class land at fire sale prices.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That brings the total death toll to 117 -- 116 soliders and one diplomat -- killed in the line of duty since 9/11. Two Canadian aid workers have also been killed.
Obviously, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it is truly infuriating that most of NATO is still not pulling its weight in Afghanistan. Only five countries have full time combat operations there right now: Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. Other countries put so many conditions for the rules of engagement for their fighting men and women that it makes joint operations that would be more effective, impossible to execute. As NATO marks 60 years next month, the success or failure of the operation could well depend on whether more countries will be persuaded to jump in.
However, there is one aspect of the situation -- the wounded -- that still bothers me.
While we have a modern field hospital at the base in Kandahar City that is fully capable of handling critical injuries -- for our troops, our allies alongside, and even our enemies who we capture as POWs -- it is, at its "base" a critical care facility (in and out, so to speak). To handle the more serious injuries that will take a longer recovery period, we have to transfer our WIAs to an American air base facility in Ramstein, Germany. Their physicians, nurses and other specialists are just about the best there is and there is no question our soldiers are in good hands there. And it also helps that there are Canadians posted there on a full time basis (as well as troops from 10 other NATO members), to help keep the wounded company.
But the fact is we had our own base in Germany for decades -- the base at Baden-Soellingen, in addition to facilities in Lahr and Zweibrüken. These were not only staging areas for conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, they also had the facilities you'd expect back home including top-notch medical personnel. Zweibrüken was closed after the three branches (army, air force and navy) unifed their command in the late 1960s, but the other two remained open -- until Mulroney ordered them closed in the early 1990s under the guise of budget constraints. Canada wasn't the only one, other countries pulled out of Germany too with the end of communism in most of Europe.
But many world leaders totally missed the shifting paradigm. It was no longer East versus West as in Eastern vs Western Europe. As the Cold War ended and Europe was becoming more united (with customs-free borders beginning in 1995) the Eastern boundary had now shifted, to the Middle East, South Asia and the Asia Pacific -- and small but well armed and financed groups who were prepared to fight unconventional war against us.
They also missed the opportunity to have battle ready people able to move in in several hours notice, not having to organize a deployment months in the making (as is the case now), fly them half way around the world, and then having to ship the wounded half-way back to a foreign country's facilities. It's insane -- we had our own army hospitals in Germany, good ones, and we shut them down and have the Americans bill us (and we know how expensive their health care is!)?
Too: Having a continued presence would have strengthened Canada's hand in dealing with the EU. We're finally into free trade talks with them now, but this could have been done a decade or more ago -- when we pulled out it was like we were snubbing the people we helped liberate in World War II so they had no reason to reason, particularly during the cod and turbot "wars." Why do you think America can be as tough as it is with the EU, and vice versa? It's because of the physical American presence in Europe.
The other thing is all those "support our troops" stickers you see on bumpers. I'd like to ask them if support means supporting PMS and his policies, or does it mean really supporting our troops -- giving them the best and most up to date fighting equipment possible, not Bay of Pigs relics? Does it mean subletting long term care of wounded soldiers, airmen and sailors to the Americans, or having them in our own army hospitals? Does it mean just giving soldiers their LTD when they get back -- or also emotional, financial and every other support they're going to need, for a lifetime? "Support our troops" in the context presently being used is a sinister one and it is costing our troops dearly. You don't fight terrorists equipped with Kalashnikovs and Berettas when all you have are the equivalent of starters' pistols which is basically what we're doing right now.
I support our troops. Supporting them means they get it in every way, and that includes treatment of the injured by Canadians, from start to finish. Again, I admire the work that the men and women at Ramstein do and I think we should thank them for their friendship and service; but we really need to have Canadians treating Canadians. Flying them home all the way would be impractical, so a mid-way point would have been nice. Closing Baden and Lahr was about the stupidest thing we could have done. And we can't have them back either -- they were sold and redeveloped commercially.
Not too surprising, given conservatives -- progressive and regressive conservatives -- have a penchant for selling top class land at fire sale prices.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Friday night music vault: Softly
This one goes way back to 1969, and the old Johnny Cash show. Softly is one of Gordon Lightfoot's somewhat lesser known songs, but certainly one of the most beautiful ones, the performance a few months before he released his monster hit song If You Could Read My Mind.
Where are the songwriters like this now? I mean, really? Is Taylor Hicks and Justin Timberlake the best the Machine can give us?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Where are the songwriters like this now? I mean, really? Is Taylor Hicks and Justin Timberlake the best the Machine can give us?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Charest: Sitting pretty, running deficits
Could this be a sign of things to come for the rest of the country? The Charest government introduced their 2009 budget for Québec and it is not pretty. For one thing it is "suspending" the province's balanced budget law, which in any province is really a worthless piece of paper to begin with, and announcing deficits for the next four years. As well, it will increase user fees and start indexing them to inflation (except for daycare); and starting in 2011 the provincial sales tax is going up to 8.5%, which of course is going to hit lower income people the most.
There is some targeted stimulus, which is a good thing, but there is nothing in there to explain what the heck happened at the Caisse de dépôt. There's also something a bit confusing in the budget papers, and that's that revenues from natural resources is going to be negative $80 million or so. Someone help me out on that one: The province is a paradise for fish and game, and they're going to lose that much money on permits -- what, they're giving them away for free or something?
Rumour is that the finance minister in the province, Monique Jérôme-Forget, may quit her post because she's gotten fed up with fighting with Slim Jim ™ over transfer payments and equalization. On the other hand, the province also has the kind of flexibility to arrange its finances in a way that other provinces could only dream of and it (relying for resources for much of its economy) saw the warning signs long before the rest of the country, so Charest just can't say it's the global economy's fault. Of course, he has a majority for four years so the Richard Simmons wannabe can just sit pretty until things get better -- if they do.
****
Ontario will have its budget coming any day now, and one claim is that the province will consider harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, as does Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador. We were already lied to about the health tax. Without a huge cut in the sales tax rate, or a big increase in the personal income tax exemption, or a cut in income taxes I say nyet.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There is some targeted stimulus, which is a good thing, but there is nothing in there to explain what the heck happened at the Caisse de dépôt. There's also something a bit confusing in the budget papers, and that's that revenues from natural resources is going to be negative $80 million or so. Someone help me out on that one: The province is a paradise for fish and game, and they're going to lose that much money on permits -- what, they're giving them away for free or something?
Rumour is that the finance minister in the province, Monique Jérôme-Forget, may quit her post because she's gotten fed up with fighting with Slim Jim ™ over transfer payments and equalization. On the other hand, the province also has the kind of flexibility to arrange its finances in a way that other provinces could only dream of and it (relying for resources for much of its economy) saw the warning signs long before the rest of the country, so Charest just can't say it's the global economy's fault. Of course, he has a majority for four years so the Richard Simmons wannabe can just sit pretty until things get better -- if they do.
****
Ontario will have its budget coming any day now, and one claim is that the province will consider harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, as does Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador. We were already lied to about the health tax. Without a huge cut in the sales tax rate, or a big increase in the personal income tax exemption, or a cut in income taxes I say nyet.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Out of nothing at all!
If some Third World countries like -- name any of a number of them -- tried to print money like this, their money would be devalued instantly by several factors and their economy in tatters.
But today the US Fed said that it would create $1 trillion in new securities to try to unlock credit markets -- in other words, they're effectively printing that much in new money. This had the effect of having the dollar drop about 3% against major currencies. Only three percent, I emphasize. How do they get away with it? Because they can.
I may be just ranting here, but isn't making something out of nothing equal to making nothing?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But today the US Fed said that it would create $1 trillion in new securities to try to unlock credit markets -- in other words, they're effectively printing that much in new money. This had the effect of having the dollar drop about 3% against major currencies. Only three percent, I emphasize. How do they get away with it? Because they can.
I may be just ranting here, but isn't making something out of nothing equal to making nothing?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
End of an era in Seattle
It's another "end of an era" within the Fourth Estate, as the Seattle Post Intelligencer -- unable to find a buyer after Hearst put it up for sale -- will publish its last print edition today, and going forward will be a web only newspaper. It's sad, in a way -- it got ahead of a lot of "national" papers and television outlets in investigating stories from crime to politics to entertainment, not just for the Pacific Northwest but across America.
That leaves the Seattle Times as the city's only major paper, which insists it's saddened to see its longtime rival bite the dust -- and one can only anticipate a generation gap with Gen X and younger gravitating to online content while older people will still prefer a paper product in their hands. Different content, different editorial spins -- we're going to pull apart more than we already are I'm afraid. Denver and Seattle are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine as long time two paper towns become one paper -- and there's already a terrible lack of progressive voices in print already.
A few years back, Honolulu came dangerously close to losing its second paper -- and Canadians remember the furore when one paper each in Winnipeg and Ottawa (operated by rival companies) closed, leaving each with an English language monopoly for years until the Toronto Sun started printing local editions (not much of a "choice" if you ask me, for cities with populations educated well above the national average).
It will also be interesting to see how PI can turn a profit on the Web when advertising revenues are scarce right now and people will still want a "free" newspaper.
Could it possible that the Toronto National Post might take this step next? The Aspers are just buying time for it, by getting yet another extension to refinance the debt of CanWest. I think they'd rather sacrifice radio and television properties before their most prized possession, but in this market there are no sacred cows.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That leaves the Seattle Times as the city's only major paper, which insists it's saddened to see its longtime rival bite the dust -- and one can only anticipate a generation gap with Gen X and younger gravitating to online content while older people will still prefer a paper product in their hands. Different content, different editorial spins -- we're going to pull apart more than we already are I'm afraid. Denver and Seattle are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine as long time two paper towns become one paper -- and there's already a terrible lack of progressive voices in print already.
A few years back, Honolulu came dangerously close to losing its second paper -- and Canadians remember the furore when one paper each in Winnipeg and Ottawa (operated by rival companies) closed, leaving each with an English language monopoly for years until the Toronto Sun started printing local editions (not much of a "choice" if you ask me, for cities with populations educated well above the national average).
It will also be interesting to see how PI can turn a profit on the Web when advertising revenues are scarce right now and people will still want a "free" newspaper.
Could it possible that the Toronto National Post might take this step next? The Aspers are just buying time for it, by getting yet another extension to refinance the debt of CanWest. I think they'd rather sacrifice radio and television properties before their most prized possession, but in this market there are no sacred cows.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Bank official: Deficit to be bigger than forecast. BFS
Slim Jim ™ Flaherty has predicted that the federal budget deficits for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are going to be $33.7 billion and $29.8 billion, respectively. An economic analyst at Toronto Dominion says the numbers for Canada are actually going to be far worse: $39.2 billion and $42.3 billion -- in other words, the fiscal situation will worsen, not improve, over the next two years. While Canada's economy is much larger than it was during the Mulroney years and therefore better able to handle a shock of that size, that's not the point.
It can look bad when one predicts a worst case scenario that's too rosy, as the Liberals did for years, but it does lead also to make a zero based budget that is based on prudent and independent forecasts, so that when the numbers do come in better than expected the excess revenues can go down to pay market debt, thus lowering interest payments and in turn reducing taxes.
But at least that way, you put the cart and the horse in their proper order. If the horse faces the cart -- that is, you make up your own rosy predictions that are not based on realities on the ground, and you also ignore the advice of those who know the realities on the ground, namely the Big Six Banks and the Caisse Dejarsdins credit union -- you're going to run yourself into the ground sooner or later. That's true for private businesses who eventually face bankruptcy, but it's also true for the government who then has to borrow money on the "full faith and credit" of the citizens at large.
This has become a pattern of right wing governments everywhere: Claiming fiscal prudence, they are financial disasters. Claiming surpluses are "excess revenues" they cut taxes so much they can't afford to pay for the daily expenses. And it's going to get even worse in the next couple of years even if the economy begins to turn around.
Consider the GST cut -- the money flowing from the value added tax before Team Harper started their slash and burn on the revenue side, essentially made sure Old Age Security and its supplements for low income people was self-financing. With the first wave of the baby boom starting to collect OAS in 2011, the money required to pay the entitlements will shoot up, big time, and there will not be the money to pay for it. The CPP and RRQ are self-financing, for now -- but there's a chance they might have to be bailed out like Social Security in the States, at which point we're going to have to make some choices. Meanwhile, those who actually have private pensions get a tax break -- now being able to shelter triple what they could before from income taxes.
Seniors should get a tax break for all the hard work they did, but there should also be an expectation that their less fortunate brothers and sisters who live only on OAS get an equal offer in the supplement. Since the tax savings amounts to $450, that means those on supplement (whose incomes are usually so low they often don't pay taxes to begin with) should get an increase in that every year. What do they get, however? Indexed to inflation and there hasn't been an increase since October, and because of dropping prices won't be until July at the earliest. And with the cut in GST revenues, already down because of an ill-timed cut before lower sales figures, there sure isn't room to offer an extra $37.50 per month to the poorest especially when they need it now!
With lower revenues across the board, and with a general consensus on social welfare policies we're going to have to make some choices? Do we need a military? Can we get by without agricultural subsidies? Are we going to have to charge co-payments each time we see a physician or specialist (as most of our competitors do, even the more socialistic ones)? This is something we need to think about.
Surpluses, or at least keeping deficits below the growth rate in the economy, gives one policy options. Running deficits above that water mark ensure we start sinking again. After more than a decade in progress, Canada is making the same mistakes as the rest of the industrial world, and it does not bode well for us as a nation to do that. Appropriate stimulus is needed, but throwing money into a toilet is not.
This is not conservatism we're experiencing. It's radicalism, and it's reckless. And while revenues have gone down, they've increased spending by twenty five percent. This is insanity.
I am also not the least bit surprised we're in the mess we're in. Right-wing governments tend to screw things up like that. Then to make it worse and slap it in our collective faces, they say they run deficits not just because they don't matter, but it's "what Jesus would do."
Give me a break.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It can look bad when one predicts a worst case scenario that's too rosy, as the Liberals did for years, but it does lead also to make a zero based budget that is based on prudent and independent forecasts, so that when the numbers do come in better than expected the excess revenues can go down to pay market debt, thus lowering interest payments and in turn reducing taxes.
But at least that way, you put the cart and the horse in their proper order. If the horse faces the cart -- that is, you make up your own rosy predictions that are not based on realities on the ground, and you also ignore the advice of those who know the realities on the ground, namely the Big Six Banks and the Caisse Dejarsdins credit union -- you're going to run yourself into the ground sooner or later. That's true for private businesses who eventually face bankruptcy, but it's also true for the government who then has to borrow money on the "full faith and credit" of the citizens at large.
This has become a pattern of right wing governments everywhere: Claiming fiscal prudence, they are financial disasters. Claiming surpluses are "excess revenues" they cut taxes so much they can't afford to pay for the daily expenses. And it's going to get even worse in the next couple of years even if the economy begins to turn around.
Consider the GST cut -- the money flowing from the value added tax before Team Harper started their slash and burn on the revenue side, essentially made sure Old Age Security and its supplements for low income people was self-financing. With the first wave of the baby boom starting to collect OAS in 2011, the money required to pay the entitlements will shoot up, big time, and there will not be the money to pay for it. The CPP and RRQ are self-financing, for now -- but there's a chance they might have to be bailed out like Social Security in the States, at which point we're going to have to make some choices. Meanwhile, those who actually have private pensions get a tax break -- now being able to shelter triple what they could before from income taxes.
Seniors should get a tax break for all the hard work they did, but there should also be an expectation that their less fortunate brothers and sisters who live only on OAS get an equal offer in the supplement. Since the tax savings amounts to $450, that means those on supplement (whose incomes are usually so low they often don't pay taxes to begin with) should get an increase in that every year. What do they get, however? Indexed to inflation and there hasn't been an increase since October, and because of dropping prices won't be until July at the earliest. And with the cut in GST revenues, already down because of an ill-timed cut before lower sales figures, there sure isn't room to offer an extra $37.50 per month to the poorest especially when they need it now!
With lower revenues across the board, and with a general consensus on social welfare policies we're going to have to make some choices? Do we need a military? Can we get by without agricultural subsidies? Are we going to have to charge co-payments each time we see a physician or specialist (as most of our competitors do, even the more socialistic ones)? This is something we need to think about.
Surpluses, or at least keeping deficits below the growth rate in the economy, gives one policy options. Running deficits above that water mark ensure we start sinking again. After more than a decade in progress, Canada is making the same mistakes as the rest of the industrial world, and it does not bode well for us as a nation to do that. Appropriate stimulus is needed, but throwing money into a toilet is not.
This is not conservatism we're experiencing. It's radicalism, and it's reckless. And while revenues have gone down, they've increased spending by twenty five percent. This is insanity.
I am also not the least bit surprised we're in the mess we're in. Right-wing governments tend to screw things up like that. Then to make it worse and slap it in our collective faces, they say they run deficits not just because they don't matter, but it's "what Jesus would do."
Give me a break.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Good pay, huge risks, terrible loss of life
Obviously, these have not been a very happy few days for Canadians. I think of course of the helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland the other day that killed 17 of 18 on board whilst the passengers were being ferried to their shifts on board the rigs in the White Rose and Hibernia fields.
The riches of oil and natural gas off the East Coast have brought some long-sought and so well deserved prosperity, but with the business comes inherent risks. Many of us who live in this part of North America, where I write from, don't appreciate just how difficult it can be to be away from home for up to three weeks at a time (with an equal amount of time off back onshore) while working very intense shifts, on 12 hour rotations all week long.
Being in close quarters for such long periods of time, and with co-ed work crews (a good thing) can be trying at the best of times, but it's even harder to imagine the most dangerous part of the job is actually getting there or coming back home. You just can't hop in your car or take a train. This is something that people on the US Gulf Coast as well as those who live along the North Sea in Europe (another abundant supply of oil and natural gas) can appreciate also
There really are no words, other than to offer my condolences ... and a hope that all bodies can be recovered so that the families can properly bury their loved ones. And to the sole survivor, you have my prayers too -- hang in there.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The riches of oil and natural gas off the East Coast have brought some long-sought and so well deserved prosperity, but with the business comes inherent risks. Many of us who live in this part of North America, where I write from, don't appreciate just how difficult it can be to be away from home for up to three weeks at a time (with an equal amount of time off back onshore) while working very intense shifts, on 12 hour rotations all week long.
Being in close quarters for such long periods of time, and with co-ed work crews (a good thing) can be trying at the best of times, but it's even harder to imagine the most dangerous part of the job is actually getting there or coming back home. You just can't hop in your car or take a train. This is something that people on the US Gulf Coast as well as those who live along the North Sea in Europe (another abundant supply of oil and natural gas) can appreciate also
There really are no words, other than to offer my condolences ... and a hope that all bodies can be recovered so that the families can properly bury their loved ones. And to the sole survivor, you have my prayers too -- hang in there.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Putting my dad away; another IM upgrade
Today wasn't an easy day for me ... I had to place my father into long-term care. It's been a long time coming and it is definitely one of the toughest things I've ever had to do, but it is the right thing and I hope he's able to get the care that I haven't been able to give him -- I'm come close to pulling out my hair several times. That's all I'm prepared to say about it for now but I'm sure you will all be praying for him.
****
Just a little annoyance last night when I got a message "suggesting" I upgrade to the "next" version of MSN Messenger. In my case, it actually took me up several versions from v8 to v14. Thing was when the browser toolbar loaded up after I opened up IE, it was the AMERICAN one, with links to msnbc.com. I had to click on the side to switch to Canadian settings so I can get the Canadian headlines (and this took several attempts) when I click on the newspaper button. And it didn't even reset until this afternoon even though I made the selection last night.
Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the upgrade tool have just transferred my settings from the old messenger to the new one? This is a real pain no matter what security features come with the "new." And based on one's IP address, Macrohard should know by now what country you're in so it doesn't even have to ask.
Life goes on.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
****
Just a little annoyance last night when I got a message "suggesting" I upgrade to the "next" version of MSN Messenger. In my case, it actually took me up several versions from v8 to v14. Thing was when the browser toolbar loaded up after I opened up IE, it was the AMERICAN one, with links to msnbc.com. I had to click on the side to switch to Canadian settings so I can get the Canadian headlines (and this took several attempts) when I click on the newspaper button. And it didn't even reset until this afternoon even though I made the selection last night.
Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the upgrade tool have just transferred my settings from the old messenger to the new one? This is a real pain no matter what security features come with the "new." And based on one's IP address, Macrohard should know by now what country you're in so it doesn't even have to ask.
Life goes on.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Khawaja: 10½ years
It's taken more than seven and a half years since the 9/11 attacks but finally someone has been sentenced in Canada for conspiracy to commit terrorism. Mohammed Momin Khawaja was convicted of helping to finance a training camp in Pakistan. However even the sentence handed down, ten and a half years, is far less than the double life plus fifty-six years prosecutors were asking for, which indicates that to an extent the judge thought the government was full of shit in a large part of their case -- which included their claim that Khawaja had prior knowledge of attempts to build fertilizer bombs in London.
My only two comments: We need to crack down on those who would do the worst harm, and stop each man or woman who would do so before he or she gets the chance. Second, it was wrong to single out Khawaja by denying him double credit for time served which would have meant only a few months more in prison -- that is something that is a grounds for appeal.
No, I don't like the idea of Khawaja walking on the streets. But what's fair is fair, and the fact he's been convicted is enough. He'll have that on his rap sheet for the rest of his life which probably makes him effectively unemployable -- almost no one will want a convicted terrorist on their payroll. However, anyone else would get credit for time served, and so should he.
But the next time there's a roundup, the government should make sure it gets all its facts straight -- otherwise, it's keystone kops all over again, while the terrorists get a chance to actually pull off another mass attack. And next time, sad to say, they will be successful -- it's just a question of when.
Last I checked, the Toronto 18 was down to 11 and the evidence against even some of the remaining is flimsy at best. And I don't think Canadians will really be satisfied, until OBL is captured by Canadians and made to stand trial for the twenty-four Canadians murdered on 9/11.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
My only two comments: We need to crack down on those who would do the worst harm, and stop each man or woman who would do so before he or she gets the chance. Second, it was wrong to single out Khawaja by denying him double credit for time served which would have meant only a few months more in prison -- that is something that is a grounds for appeal.
No, I don't like the idea of Khawaja walking on the streets. But what's fair is fair, and the fact he's been convicted is enough. He'll have that on his rap sheet for the rest of his life which probably makes him effectively unemployable -- almost no one will want a convicted terrorist on their payroll. However, anyone else would get credit for time served, and so should he.
But the next time there's a roundup, the government should make sure it gets all its facts straight -- otherwise, it's keystone kops all over again, while the terrorists get a chance to actually pull off another mass attack. And next time, sad to say, they will be successful -- it's just a question of when.
Last I checked, the Toronto 18 was down to 11 and the evidence against even some of the remaining is flimsy at best. And I don't think Canadians will really be satisfied, until OBL is captured by Canadians and made to stand trial for the twenty-four Canadians murdered on 9/11.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)