Wilber

Nocrap You have my sympathy and respect for taking on a difficult chore with grace. Whatever you chose, I don't think you have anything to feel guilty about. A simple question about a difficult problem. In my opinion the answer is yes. Particularly in this case because it isn't speculation. Your daughter has demonstrated she can't be a parent. Good Luck

I'm not suggesting they did but either way it doesn't matter. Honoring someone who so controversial at this time could give the impression that they are. Frankly, I am amazed the RMC brass would need someone to point this out to them. It's just a bad idea at this time. It they want to honour the man for his military accomplishments, at least wait until Bush and his regime have moved on to their next jobs and the situation in Iraq is more clear. Leave this kind of stuff with the politicians where it belongs. I'm not sure how you get O'Connor drawing attention to the fact that his administration supports GW out of this but it's plain that he doesn't believe RMC should taint itself with US politics. You don't seem to have any such reservations. It is also plain that you support anyone who doesn't support GW. Fair enough but don't preach about political agendas. If this draws more attention to Zinni and his views, why would you consider it to be a bad thing as you seem to agree with him? Or was this supposed to be some sort of stealth degree? Members of the Canadian public may support whoever if they wish. Our military may not. The West was attacked by a group based in and actively supported by the regime governing Afghanistan at the time of the attacks. The same group and the same regime our troops are now fighting. It is not wrong or inexcusable to go after the same people who attacked you or your allies. Aside from whatever humanitarian good we can do there, my biggest concern about Afghanistan is that it could breed another 9/11. Yes we are taking sides. We are taking our side.

Well, according to you, the initial groups of rich white men hiring Sherpas to take them up the mountain had to put up with young Sherpas learning on the job, hunh? TSK TSK TSK! I never said anything of the sort. I was not aware that any Sherpas had claimed to have climbed it on their own. If you are, I'd be interested in hearing about them. I've no doubt they could if they wanted to but trying to make a living in a country 15,000 Ft ASL probably occupies most of their time. Unlike us they probably don't have the leisure time and have people who rely on them not to get killed doing stupid things like climbing mountains for fun. Some people don't have the same priorities as others. Doesn't make them inferior.

They say it was George Mallory and Andrew Irvine, in 1924. I say there were thousands of Nepalese kids who did it, just for a lark, long before that. Might have been but Hillary and Norga are the first we know of who did it for sure. I didn't think Sherpas climbed for a lark. They have more sense.

Sure it does, it stops the government from manpulating times that they are doing good in office and calling a snap election to only be re elected again. With this reform it will stop that BS and if a party is doing bad on the fourth year an election is called no matter what and they cannot do anything about it. It is a lo better than our current system of the PM chosing when the election is or every 5 years. I agree with you. Harper now should now say. "I will not call an election until the fall of 2009. However I can't stop the opposition from passing a non-confidence motion and forcing an election". That way he puts it in the Oppos hands. By presenting a bill calling for fixed election dates, isn't that just what he is doing. He would have to go against his own legislation to do otherwise. Isn't he saying we are going to govern and if the opposition wants to throw all impending legislation in the dumpster, put the country's business on hold for several months and spend millions of tax dollars on an election, so be it?

I'd say Tenzing Norga is a pretty well known Sherpa. Let's face it, how many people could name even 1% of the people who have climbed Everest, Sherpa or otherwise. Most people just remember who was first.

Nocrap Mr O'Connor and Mr. Harper are politicians. It is their job to be political. The US or any other election is a political event. Did O'Connor make a political decision? You bet. Thats his job. Now any political fallout concerning this incident will land on the politicians, where it belongs. The military itself can never allow itself to indulge in politics. At no time do you ever see active military personnel in the US, Canada or any other established democracy involved in on going political issues or elections. The politicians make political decisions, the military make military decisions. It's a simple concept and we are all better off when they don't interfere in each others field of expertise General Zinni's military qualifications are not the issue. His political stand concerning on going military matters is. There may be many in the present US military who agree with at least some of his opinions but they cannot and do not speak out. The RMC cannot allow itself to be sucked into that controversy. No matter how much your political bias would like the RMC to politicize itself by taking a whack at GWB and by association your own government, it is a no win situation for them and our country. In a democracy the military can never be allowed to be part of the political process. Not only does that endanger democracy but will inevitably poison the relationship between the military and government, not to mention the people it is supposed to serve. Bad for the country, bad for the military. If a civil university wanted to give him a degree that would be a different issue. I would be horrified if our military took a political stand on an issue, even if I agreed with their opinion whole heartedly. It is a cardinal rule in every democracy that the military never involves itself in politics, regardless of their personal opinions. Look at any country where the military takes an active part in the political process. Most, if not all are either military dictatorships or have some other form of totalitarian government.

We are discussing it. I am discussing it. I am giving my opinion of people who tell those from other countries how they should sing their national anthem. You have a problem with that?

No one has said it isn't your right to say what you wish. Just don't be surprised when someone else finds some of your opinions offensive and says so. That's their right. Whether someone disagrees with my opinion is one thing, whether they challenge my right to say it as youd id is another. I am suprised when someone does not find what I have to say offensive. I try to please. I didn't challenge your right to say it, I challenged the idea that you think you have some kind of right to butt into another country's business. If your idea of trying to please is to tell the citizens of another country what language they should use to sing their national anthem, you are guaranteed to offend someone. Leave the fact you are a Canadian out of it, you do not speak for me.

Nocrap Because you see this issue in a completely political way, you obviously believe it is OK to politicize the military. This goes completely against what has been the traditional roll of the military in a democracy. The military never indulges in politics, period. Lasting democracies have always known that politicizing the military is a form of Russian Roulette. Eventually it will destroy you. We are not turning our backs on Americans because we don't allow our military college to get involved in political bun fights. I'm glad we have a Defense Minister who seems to understand that. It would seem that General Zinni also understands it as he did not take a public stand on political issues until after he left the military. As a private citizen he has every right to do so. The RMC does not and should know better than to put itself in a position where it could be accused of playing politics, even if that was not the intention. What if General Zinni had got up and made an acceptance speech that was highly partisan and political? Unlikely maybe, but who knows. The RMC brass would look like idiots. It is the job of our military to defend Canada and Canada's interests, not campaign against George W. Bush or any other politician. I suspect that very few Americans "hate" Bush. A majority may dislike him, many of them intensely but not hate. "Hate" is a word used to describe emotions that can result in such things as genocide. Don't belittle its meaning by wasting it on a mere politician.

We have a case of trench warfare between the media and the government. Truth and objectivity will be the victim. The media will concentrate on making Harper look bad because they are pissed off at him and he will just get even more defensive as a result. As with most of these situations, its origins will get fuzzier and fuzzier as time goes by. Pity.

Harper is saying he won't call an election until the fall of 2009. If there is to be an election earlier than that it will be up to Parliament. How could the opposition not vote for it unless they believe that political opportunism is more important than the peoples business. I am really happy with the fixed dates in BC. It means we don't have to go through an election before the government has run its term unless all the parties have decided it will be so and all the parties have to take responsibility for the fact, not just the governing party. Considering his strength in the polls, I am pleasantly surprised that he would commit himself to such a thing.

GWB's second term resulted from the quality of his opposition. The Democrats are in the same boat as the Liberals, disorganized and trying to figure out what they really stand for.

I know several Canadians and their families who have green cards and have the option of living on either side of the border. They chose Washington State because the tax structure and all around cost of living made it worthwhile in spite of the cost of health care. I don't know how much this will change as they continue to age but none of them are under 35. It's hard to make blanket statements about the economic benefits of living in either country. You have to compare individual Provinces to individual States, what company benefits you may have, whether you are paid in USD or CAD and the exchange rate to make a valid comparison. It will always be subject to change.

Yes you do. That is why I said "before taxes". First you have to learn the difference between oil and gasoline. Ontario refineries buy their oil on the world market, just like everyone else. Alberta gets no part of Ontario's gasoline taxes and historically not much more than 5% of Federal gasoline taxes have been returned to the Provinces. I agree, it will be bad news for Ontario. I won't be good for the rest of the country either, any more than the West running out of oil and gas would be good for the country. Last I heard, immigration was a Federal jurisdiction, except in Quebec of course. As far as I know all Provinces have minimum wage laws. I don't see the political advantage of importing workers who can't vote to take high paid jobs from people who can. On the other hand cars might be a lot cheaper if they did the same in Ontario's auto plants. But then, who would be making enough to buy them. Not Alberta oil patch workers making a buck an hour.

If that different outcome was the status quo, it's a good thing you didn't. The outcome did reflect the majority, a minority government. Most majority governments don't get elected with more than 50% of the popular vote.

Are you sure it wasn't your driving ? And do you realize that you're driving OUR cars ? ( Not really, but I'm using roughly the same logic that people use for natural resourced to manufactured goods produced in Ontario. I have never heard anybody here refer to the auto plants as 'our factories', but the time is coming when this will happen. ) It might of been the driving but I don't know how you offend someone going in the opposite direction on a straight road. Why do I pay more for a car (before taxes) built in Ontario than someone in Seattle? At least you pay the same as someone in Seattle for Alberta's oil. You want a special price for another Province's products, be prepared to reciprocate.

I'm glad Albertans are huffing and puffing because they are sticking up for all provinces whether they know it or not. As for the rest, that's between Albertans and their government, not the rest of Canada.

Ok then. I find the jingoistic angle on a lot of these stories frustrating, and often these things are manipulated by certain parties for their own purposes, ie. politicians. Take Mr. Tobin's detainment of European fishing vessels off of Newfoundland a few years back. That won him votes in.... Toronto ? Strange. I can see why Albertans are testy on this issue. While I have lived in BC most of my life, I spent over 5 years in Edmonton during the seventies. The place was booming because of the Arab oil embargo and the tar sands project was getting going. I moved to Toronto for a short time before moving back to BC. I can remember my Alberta plates getting me the finger occasionally while driving in Ontario. I was back in BC when the NEP got going strong, making Canadian oil for the domestic market substantially lower than the world price. Americans were flocking across the border to buy gas in BC. Of course the oil companies left Alberta because they could make more, exploring and drilling elsewhere and the bottom fell out the Alberta economy. I know people who just walked away from their homes and mortgages. Those who remember aren't about to let Ottawa do it to them again.

So the oil never belongs to the company that extracts and processes it ? I think it does, which is why it's confusing that somebody who lives in Alberta considers it their oil. It might be their tax money, but that's a different thing isn't it ? The oil belongs to the Province as long as it is in the ground. The trees on BC Crown land belong to the Province until they are logged. Of course they belong to the company at some point, just like they belong to you when you buy a liter of gas or a 2X4. What is so confusing?

Let's join the EEC.

I'm confused. Whose oil is it then ? I thought it was 'your' oil ? Natural resources belong to the Provinces whether it is oil, trees or minerals. The companies that extract and process those resources pay for the privilege as well as royalties on the commodity itself. In some cases they may not pay enough but that is another debate. What is so confusing? If Ottawa wants to tax Alberta's oil energy should they not do the same with hydro electric energy exported by Quebec? Perhaps they should and give the money to Newfoundland to compensate for what Quebec makes from reselling energy produced in Labrador. Fat chance.

No one has said it isn't your right to say what you wish. Just don't be surprised when someone else finds some of your opinions offensive and says so. That's their right.

I'm sure there were, are Liberals who were, are committed to Kyoto but it sure wasn't, isn't their leadership. It was, is all show and politics for them. At least our present government doesn't try to perpetuate the lie that we can actually meet our Kyoto commitments.

When it comes to a good rant, Rex is hard to top.