Morgan

1. Social liberalism leads to the decline of family and religion, which in turn, allows for greed, self-gratification, egotism, slippery slope mentality to flourish. The stereotypical image of a liberal as intellectual, anti-capitalist tree hugger, walking around in Birkenstock sandals, wire-rimmed glasses is bogus. Liberals love money inspite of impuning capitalism/corporate greed and trying to pass themselves off as Mother Teresa clones. For example, the stock market and energy debacles were developed under Clinton's watch. Robert Rubin, his Treasury Secretary, is known as the "main architect" of Clinton's economic policy. Under Rubin the SEC did nothing as a regulatory agency, increased globalization was promoted, taxpayer $ was wasted by propping up the IMF and Third World countries, which were already indebted to investment banks like Goldman Sachs which was the bank Rubin was at before coming to work for the Clinton Admin. to name a few things that had negative consequences on North American economy. Btw, Robert Rubin is a heavywieight with CitiCorp, which was the biggest creditor of Enron. BBC and others reported that apparently 1month before the Enron scandal broke, Rubin called the US Treasury Dept. to pressure bond rating agencies like Moody's not to downgrade the value of Enron stocks. The Bush Admin. refused. Fy, Ken Lay routinely played golf with Clinton, slept over at the White House, and was an advisor on Clinton's energy policy. Then there's other examples of social liberal greed and hypocrisy closer to home. Let's see...there's Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Line and foreign tax havens. And there's Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. which had world wide influence in a variety of industries like TotalFinaElf, oil company, and Bertelsmann AG, European publishing giant, Investors Group, mutual funds dealer and major market player, GreatWestLife, largest Canadian insurance company. Ironically enough, as much as Bush haters associate the Carlyle Group with board member, George Bush Sr., they never mention that the Carlyle Group was founded in 1987 by a Democrat, David Rubenstein, a policy assistant in Jimmy Carter's administration. Also, that Arthur Levitt who headed the SEC under Clinton is a senior advisor with Carlyle. Oh, btw, Paul Desmarais is a member of the Carlyle Group. Ooops... Then there's that famous socialist, our own Canadian PM, who is touted as the bleeding hearts' point man who wants equality for all, the humble bumbler from Shawinigan, one of 19 poor children of a poor French Canadian family. Hee, hee...I think Mark Steyn's column says it all about this capitalist in sheep's clothing and about the duplicity of liberalism: How come Chretien became a multi-millionaire while devoting his life to "public service?" As for McKay trying to boost his carrer with a bald faced lie...he and Dan Orchard make good partners in the art of lying. Orchard pretended he was a conservative, when everyone knows he's an NDP'er at heart. McKay pretended he was a political leader, but we know now he was just a cagey politician. The 'lies" of Orchard and McKay were off-setting is the way I see it. Besides how much more damage could McKay do to the image of the PC's than what Joe Who has done over the years? Puhlease...

Kyoto Accord, she is dead in the water. Russia formally announces today it will give Kyoto the thumbs down. Pity. Now Mugabe won't be able to get his chunk of re-distributed wealth from the West as a result of Kyoto. Rats! No additional "anti-pollution" money to buy fancy new weapons to kill more white farmers and dissidents. Russia Won't Ratify Kyoto Protocol, Dec.02/03, FOX News "UN backers"...don't you love it? Fancy phrase to mean thugs, criminals, despots, NGO's and other UN luminati.

This an interesting abortion case that has come up in the UK. A female minister, who herself believes in early term abortion according to an interview I just heard, has lodged a complaint involving a late term abortion case, which a pregnant woman had done because her unborn baby was diagnosed with cleft palate, a defect that can be remedied after birth. Late term abortion, done because of cleft palate condition, is challenged in the UK by female minister To quote Drudge, this case is "developing"...

If you think CNN is "on board" to have more pro-America sway on public opinion, you are naive. Pay attention. CNN is "on board" to demonize Bush and America. CNN is part of the triumvirate of hate-America media...BBC and CBC are the other 2 socialist driven propoganda machines. If Canadians like yourself don't like Americanization, tell your MP to fight for Canada to withdraw from NAFTA. Of course that might mean taking a significant hit on your salary, [no worries], because America is a MAJOR contributor of $ to Canada's treasury, like to the tune of 40% or more. But no doubt Canada could try to become more Cuba-ized or Palestinian-ized, leaders in world peace or so I've heard, especially if Canadians give the go-ahead to Maurice Strong...err, I mean Paul Martin and the LPOC. As to your admonition re: America ignoring "world advice"...hee, hee...like from Camaroon and Syria and Mexico? Pity that America has ignored these international diplomatic heavyweights. Indeed, the world would be a different place if there were no America.

Sir Riff said: Yep, I realize Bush is a pale version of true leadership at the front lines of the battle on terrorism, the can-do type of leader who can nose out land mines, while riding in a chintzy Ilitis jeep, dressed in desert appropriate camouflage greens : Chretien visits war torn and dusty Canadian Armed Forces base in Kabul in October . Chretien intervened on behalf of Al Qaeda leader of Afghan terrorist operation, CBS News, Oct.28/03. Photos of Chretien at the front lines, when he's not working behind the scenes to help Al Qaeda terrorists get out of jail: Chretien's quick visit to Camp Julien to play Foosball.

1. Michael Hardner, Policies should matter in politics. The best qualified candidates should matter, too. And if impressions mattered, then Harper would win hands down because he's clearly the smartest and most articulate candidate, and far more impressive than the Three Stooges, Martin, Layton, and McKay. But people will vote out of self interest, so Martin will win next year because he has a significant voting block in minority groups, special interest groups, and unions though the NDP might be the spoiler. That's the Alliance's best hope, IMHO, that the NDP splits the socialist vote with the Liberals. I think Canada is going down the road of other socialist countries, per what Alexander Tyler predicted in his 1770 book, entitled, Cycle of Democracy: 2. Sir Riff, Comparisons of politicians/political parties are very valid in this discussion. Your criticism of Spencer and the Alliance has been spun along the lines that intolerance, backwardness, hypocracy are the hallmarks of the aforementioned and only them. My point in comparing Spencer to Kilgour and Svend has been to demonstrate that the Left's favoured parties are no better, indeed, in the case of Svend, even worse, for its members making bigoted/racist/insulting remarks. Your visceral outrage at Spencer and the Alliance are out of proportion to the "crime." Kilgour's stupidity and high handedness and Martin's limp-wristed response as well as Svend's outrageous racism/anti-Semitism/anti-gay pro Saddam cheerleading with negligible penalities meted out by the NDP shows me just how biased and unreasonable your comments are. Would that gays and do-gooder Lefties practice what they preach to others about tolerance, enlightenment, and rights and freedoms. It's clear to me who the morons are in this picture, ironically a label you so glibbly pin on conservatives.

Dear Michael Hardner, Your comments don't make alot of sense to me. You claim Spencer is dull-witted and as a member of the Alliance caucus, it shows Alliance has slim pickings intelligence wise? But Liberals are too slick? Guess you haven't read about David Kilgour's gaffes as reported in the Edmonton Journal when he linked same sex marriage to incest and polygamy and when he admitted he was too chicken to vote against same sex marriage like the majority of his constituents wanted him to do, because afterall he was a big important cabinet minister and all and he didn't want to suffer Pappa John's wrath so he abstained from voting like a smooth, mental giant MP should do. Does Kilgour's comments compute with slick and intelligent in your brain? Kilgour is a cabinet minister for gosh sakes, talk about slim pickings in the LPOC. But heck, you probably favour the ongoing genius and statesmanlike conduct so often shown by NDP'ers like Svend, who called Israelis "murderers and torturers" after a trip to the ME to press the flesh of Arafat. Not to forget other evidence of raw smarts like when Svend, gay advocate extraordinaire, for years functioned as Saddam's best PR man in Canada: National Post Oct. 06/03"Impressions" like yours work better in a creative writing class, then in serious political debate.

Here's Colby Nash's article in the National Post today re: Spencer's gay comments, which I'm citing because Nash states in a more eloquent fashion similar viewpoints that Slavik 44 and I expressed earlier on this discussion thread: Colby Nash's forgiving view of Spencer's gay comments

Black Dog, 1. What do you mean: The article you sited just goes over the same old, same old Democrat Party whining and wild accusations. The National Guard magazine which you obviously did not read and which seems somewhat more "official" than the "Straight Dope" website you dug up from cyber netherlands explains how Bush's "gaps" of service were no different than others serving a SIX YEAR stint in the Guard. Bush had served his required number of days and asked for an expedited discharge from the Texas- based National Guard squadron so he could attend the Harvard MBA program in Massachusetts. If he's in Massachusetts and he has put in his required number of days of service, what's wrong with his asking for early discharge when his new address is over 1800 miles away from his college? You think it's so easy to get back and forth to Texas from Harvard while carrying an MBA program? 2. Quit blaming the right for criticizing Clinton for no reason. If Billy Jeff would keep his mutt face out of the camera like other former Presidents who have chosen to retire with dignity, Clinton would not present such a fat ugly target for comparison to the incumbent President. Clinton says "look at me, look at me" and critics just oblige his egotistical request. Even the Democrats want Clinton to fade into the woodwork. 3. Photo ops? Doesn't it cross your mind that what Bush did for the troops yesterday,while greatly appreciated by the GI's, was quite unsafe? Bush could have taken advantage of the traditional photo ops that Thanksgiving Day affords to an incumbent President. .

Sir Riff, 1. I didn't say Spencer's opinions were "unique." For heavens sake, Spencer got elected by a constituency in Saskatchewan. In fact, that's the reason why I said Harper could take the Family portfolio from Spencer, but Harper could not banish Spencer from the Alliance Party. The man was duly elected as an Alliance MP. What I said was that Spencer's personal opinions, opinions [likely shared by many in his constituency] did not reflect Alliance policy and for that reason, Spencer needed to be disciplined. While I don't agree with everything Spencer said nor do I agree with the way he presented his arguments, I don't see his comments as "hate" speech. Spencer's opinions were based on his perspective as a senior citizen and as a former Baptist minister and as such his conclusions were thought out and not wild rants. Whereas I believe the same cannot be said about either Svend or Parrish. Both MP's have behaved despicably on a number of occasions/issues and neither the NDP or the LPOC leadership have done much to discipline them. Even you pointedly choose to ignore criticising them for the examples I posted of their egregious actions. 2. Spencer's view is not an example of bigotry. I didn't read Spencer condemning gays for immoral behaviour. He criticized gay activists for consciously promoting a deadly sex behaviour to the public as a benign sexual preference. Actually, IMHO, the motives of gay activists are more suspect than Spencer's. The activists were the ones who did not care about homosexual individuals' health, but rather were looking out for their own self-serving political image. eg. keeping bath houses open inspite of the obvious health risks; tolerating the insidious practice of "bug chasers' and "bug givers" in the gay sub-culture 25% of new HIV infected gays may have sought out the virus, Rolling Stone Magazine article. Spencer sincerely believes that homosexuality is a high risk life style, and rightly so, and that politicians have been co-opted by gay activists to help make a deadly life style seem attractive which has enabled the spread of AIDS. What's the bigotry in that observation? When was the last time you heard a politician say that the homosexual life style is a high risk behaviour and that gays' life spans are considerably shortened due to AIDS? But politicians regularly speak out about the evils of guns, tobacco, and alcohol. In fact, the Liberals use alcohol as their bad guy, arguing that pot seems less malevolent by comparison. 3. Sorry, you're flat out wrong to diss accomplishments of "white guys" like Spencer. It's because of white guys like Spencer that the USA and Canada were built into the great democratic nations they are, whose freedoms you and others take for granted. If you think "gays don't anybody," you are nuts. Gays hurt each other. Duh...why do you think gays die from AIDS? Maybe you think they pick up the virus from toilet seats? Get a clue before you start calling Spencer and white men like him "pathetic." 4. Re: article posted by Sir_Springer about Kilgour's interview...there you go, another example of an MP feeling discomfort with the gay "hot button" issue. But I think Kilgour's situation addresses another problem that goes beyond balancing the perceived "rights" of a minority versus the public good....and that is how the Canadian political system forces an MP to be more obliging to the concerns of his political party leadership than to the views of his constituents. I agree, Sir_Springer, it will be interesting to see how Paul Martin deals with Kilgour's public admission and if the media will give this story as much play as the Spencer/Alliance party saga.

Ottawa Citizen article quoted in Neal's post.Well, Mr. Short an arbitration lawyer from Toronto sure calms my "false hysteria", I don't know about the rest of you. How nice Mr. Short gamely assures us that no one is forcing the Canadian government to accept a Muslim "legal" decision about stoning an adulterer.[read LPOC who are known for laying down like carpets in the face of controversy involving their Muslim voting bloc]. I agree with you, Neal, this is an absolute outrage. Sir Riff, maybe you won't be such a supporter of Muslim law having recognition in Canada once Muslim law kicks in regarding homosexuality as it applies to curriculum, same sex marriage, job hiring practices in small business etc. We'll see how reasonable you think sharia law is when it hits close to home and challenges one of your pet hobby horses.

Michael Hardner said: What reason do you have for reaching that conclusion? Because a 61 year old man spoke his mind on a subject that has split the country in two from the get go? What did Spencer say that was so hateful? He said that the gay movement has consciously sought to gain political clout. How the word "conspiracy" got in the conversation, we don't know...was it Peter O'Neil leading on a 61 year old guy or was it a term that Spencer had used in a private email that the Sun surreptitiously accessed?? He said that gays' life style choice pretty much ensures them a shortened life and that as a society we should not be promoting this lifestyle choice in our schools to young impressionable people. He said that in retrospect he believes Trudeau's de-criminalizing homosexuality in 1969 helped homosexuality as a life style choice gain public acceptance and that hypothetically if a bill were presented to turn back what Trudeau did he would vote for it because it would give homosexuals the opportunity to shake off this deadly life style choice. Spencer said nothing that was hateful. He spoke from the heart and considering he is 61 years old and has seen the horror of AIDS take hold of modern society as of the 70's on, I think he has every right to make an observation that this may not have happened if society had not allowed homosexuality so easy to pursue. People may not like or agree with what Spencer said, but I see no hatred in this politician's words. Spencer's perspective is not one of a bigoted politician but of a politician, a former Baptist minister by gosh, who has obviously thought long and hard about whether politicians have contributed to the modern plague called AIDS that is currently sweeping the world and is specifically cutting the lives of males when they are in their prime. IMHO Chretien is the more dispicable politician. He openly says he cannot abide by the homosexuality choice of sex preference, but then he makes that very same life style more "respectable" by forcing through legislation on hate laws and legalizing gay marriage which serves to muzzle criticism of a high risk sexual life style and which will cause young children to be introduced into a situation where one or both parents are leading risk filled lives and may leave them orphans. It's patently clear that Chretien did this to get votes, not because he approves of homosexuality. Yet gays think Chretien is on their side and Spencer is hateful. What a sad joke. Harper immediately asked Spencer to relinquish his Family Critic portfolio because Spencer's highly personal sentiments were ill-advised in light of the proposed merger and could be misconstrued as being hurtful to gays, which they were. Harper did the right thing. Perhaps you want Harper to cruciufy old Spencer in a public square in Regina? Would that make a you happier? Harper's action made it clear that MP's like Spencer would suffer consequences if they spoke out of turn and reflected poorly on party policy. Spencer choose to yak about his personal opinions on homosexuality in a 1 hour interview and against the advice of party members. Sir_Springer says: Um...what's your point? Yes, it's true that Harper did not embrace the gay life style and recommend it to every Canadian to pursue. Harper did not kiss Svend's rump and swear allegiance to Egale's goals. Get it through your head. Tolerance does not mean embrace or love; tolerance means tolerance, that's all and nothing more. Gays don't love religious people but they tolerate "fundies."Gays don't love heterosexuals but they tolerate "breeders." Harper did what a political leader is supposed to do. He disciplined Spencer for mis-representing personal opinions to the press as party policy. But Spencer was elected as an Alliance member fair and square and Harper could not throw him out of the party for sentiments that may indeed be reflective of the electorate he represents. You want to be Thought Police for the people of Regina? Is that your goal, you and Lost and Hardner ? You don't like what other people think so you'd prefer to make a pariah of their duely elected representative. Go blow that ridiculous notion out your ears. B. Let's look at outrageous comments of MP's representing parties I suspect you three think are more "fit" to govern and let's see how the party leaders dealt with their disgraceful comments: 1. Svend, Mr. uber tolerant orator of the NDP. Svend is far more "open-minded" and way, way less hateful than Spencer when he talks about Jews. Um...did Svend get bounced out of his party? What a spanking Svend got from McDonough...she took the Middle East egion from his International Foreign Affairs portfolio. Ouch, that really hurt, Flora, too cruel. Lost, you fussed about the "tyranny of the majority"... I guess Svend disproves your theory with his distasteful irresponsible anti-Semitic diatribe... his political party and sexual preference membership are both in minority positions but that doesn't seem to temper Svend's dispicable yapping to the press... Mr. Tolerant Svend Robinson calls Israelis torturers and murderers. And then there was Svend's anti-American hate-filled rant as a response to the suggestion that Sept.11 be named America Day. The disgrace of Svend Robinson, National Post Oct.06/03 Carolyn Parrish's bigotry against a whole nation of people is "special" too. On Feb. 26, 2002, Ms. Duncehead, after leaving a Liberal caucus meeting, said that she held out little hope for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation because the American government was hell-bent on war[according to Ms. Parrish's teeny tiny brain] and then she said: "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards." To add insult to injury, Chretien did not discipline Ms. Parrish but instead blamed the media for making a big story out of something that should be forgiven because of the situation. Chretien said sometimes MPs need to "vent" after caucus meetings and what they say shouldn't be held against them because they are frustrated. (TORONTO SUN, March 1, 2003) Say what????That's leadership for you. That's tolerance for you. The Liberals get the prize for both. Even Liberal Senator Leo Kolber wrote at length in his new book "Leo-a life" that he was "profoundly disturbed" by the wave of anti-Americanism that was being promoted by Liberal MP's focusing on Ms. Parrish in particular as well as David Collenette and Don Boudria. Kolber spoke up in the Senate about this type of anti-American hate mongering, which he felt was as unacceptable as anti-Semitism, anti-Arabic sentiment or the dissemination of hatred against 'any identifiable group'. Kolber showed more leadership than Chretien. And narry a word of criticism or outrage come from the keyboards of Hardner, Lost, or Springer re: Svend and Parrish and their political parties.

Sir Riff said: I agree with Slavik44 that Spencer is entitled to his own opinions, which are no more objectionable than Svend's. Spencer's age and religious background should give him some leeway, just as Svend's youth and personal membership in the homosexual community allowed him some leeway for his brash, abrasive comments. Keep in mind that Spencer and people of his generation grew up until they were about 30 years old, believing that homosexuality was a crime. Decriminalizing homosexuality is a fairly recent phenomenon from the viewpoint of someone who is 61 years old. Besides, the Left should be rushing to Spencer's defence, since they are the ones touting high minded watchwords like inclusion, diversity [opinion as well as a color and gender, I would think] and always looking out for the underdog...Spencer did the interview inspite of advisors telling him it was political suicide. Discrimination in any form is not right, whether it be against age or colour or gender or ethnicity or life style choice like homosexuality. That's why Spencer does not have the opportunity to vote on re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Bush is the first president to visit the front lines since Nixon went to Vietnam in 1969, according to Fox News via NealeNews. Fox News story about Bush's visit to Baghdad Also, even CNN reported[ begrudgingly, no doubt] on the happy reactions of the GI's to Bush's visit: CNN reports on Bush's visit

I suspect the readers of the article will recognize that Spencer has been "set up" and will regard the interview as reflecting the views of an older man who was once a member of the clergy, rather than reflecting Alliance party policy. Btw, Spencer subsequently apologized for his comments, according to the Toronto Star. IMHO the Sun comes off poorly for the questionable method it used to put Larry Spencer on the spot. The gay issue is such a red herring anyways with regards to voting for the best political party to head the nation. Who cares what Spencer's feelings are about how the gay movement may or may not have have gained political clout? Or whether Spencer would vote for criminalizing homosexuality again. It's a moot point. But look how Spencer's comments have been distorted: "Jail Homosexuals Canadian Politician Says" article headline in 365Gay.com Newscenter As to whether this controversy will cause problems for the proposed merger. Maybe yes. But the Red Tories were iffy anyways from the start, so maybe this will give them the final reason to follow their gut feelings and join the LPOC or NDP, which would be a better party match up . But bottomline, I think most voters will vote according to issues that have impact on their daily lives (economy, crime, education) rather than in response to Spencer's ill-advised comments.

1. Regarding your insinuation that Bush is a coward because he didn't serve in Vietnam that he had no moral right to send soldiers to Iraq...that comment reveals your anti-Bush bias as well as your ignorance of fact. Fyi, the majority of Congress today have not served in any war, not just Bush, and by a sound majority of 296-133, they voted to authorize Bush to declare war on Iraq. Btw, I believe there are only 4 sitting Congressmen who have served in war. So are these 4 people the only ones who have a right to vote on whether the US should declare war? Does serving in a war define courage and those who don't are cowards? By implying this qualifier to the definition of courage, Chretien is a coward too. Let's see who else...there's Paul Martin and for sure,the majority of Quebecers with regards to WWII...I don't think I need to go on with a longer list of Left wing icons to make my point. 2. As for Bush going AWOL... get your facts straight for a change. National Guard service is defined by the total number of days served in the course of 6 years. Bush EARNED his honourable discharge because he put in the required number of days. The Democrats were so sure that Bush fibbed about his Nat'l Guard honorable discharge, that the J.F.K.Jr. Guardsman magazine reviewed all the information and to the Democrats' dismay, the review confirmed that Bush earned his honorable discharge as 1st lieutenant. So sad for the Democrats. Nat'l Guard Magazine: Bush served the required # of days to earn honorable discharge as 1st lieutenant 3. As for plaintive wails about "all" the Iraqis dying now, strangely enough the Left never seemed to worry about the 300,000+ deaths that Uncle Saddam caused over the years. As long as Eason Jordan and his CNN news bureau pumped out happy images of Saddam's birthday party and Iraq having a 100% turn out at election time, all was hunkey dorey. Pass the beer and chips. Eason Jordan confesses to CNN lying about Saddam's atrocities in the past

I thought I answered your question. Entitlements cost more than what the benefits of importing low cost labour offer. eg. Having a Chinese garment worker stay in China and sew clothes and then import the cheap garments to Canada makes money for the garment industry and saves money for the consumer. But having that same Chinese factory worker immigrate to Winnipeg to work in a clothing factory in Canada is not a cost effective - taxpayers end up paying way more in entitlements than what that cheap labourer offers the economy.

Michael, Low wage job earners living in Canada still get the benefit of costly social assistence programs like medicare, denticare, unemployment insurance, old age pension, low cost housing, public education, etc. The costs to the public purse make the importation of low wage earners a very bad economic deal for Canadians. Low wage immigrant earners also cause a ghetto-izing of large cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and with poverty come associated higher crime rates and a host of other social problems. Exported low wage industrial jobs= out of sight, out of mind and not on the public purse... If you want to read an extensive research paper on immigration issues (51 pages in total), see:Immigration reform needed by Martin Collacott

This article was published this summer by a demographer who is a self-described left winger. Daniel Stoffman has come to believe that current immigration levels are too high, too family reunification oriented, have negative effects for immigrants themselves. An informative perspective from an unusual source. Stoffman looks at how current immigration levels hurt immigrants and us

Black Dog, Here are my responses to your posts. I'm trying to restrain myself from shouting: 1. Re: you suggest that because Jessica was cute, blonde, and young this proves that she would not be a poster child for feminists in the military and left wing media...huh??? Perhaps you would be more convinced if the media and military feminists had focused on a middle aged, chunky, hairy armed/legged dy*e instead, to promote an image of can-do women in the military??? Hint: think Gloria Steinman, Naomi Wolff, and other "babe" feminists and get your chauvinist mind off Friedman. IMHO Jessica Lynch was the perfect example of a girl next door who Hillary and Bill wanted in the military, so as to screw it up like what was done to fire and police departments US wide. On the otherhand, Bush and Rumsfield have the exact opposite views of women having combat roles.They were both down-to-earth enough to realize that putting women in the front lines of combat actually placed male soldiers in greater danger. A 98 pound female soldier colleague could not be counted on to fight enemy combatants as well, and because of worrying about females' vulnerability to rape, male soldiers might take unnecessary risks to protect females from being captured and violated. It's Clintonestra feminists in the military who wanted to break all "barriers" for women in the military. Booby traps in the Military. Symbiotic relationship between the media and women in the military. Jessica Lynch, modern myth.PBS on Women Warriors. 2. With regard to Mohammed the lawyer who helped in the rescue of Jessica Lynch. I stand by my claim that he was in a better position to tell the truth having been re-located to the D.C. area than the Iraqi doctors who still had to contend with fears of being visited by Al Feyadeen brutes. Mohammed's interview about Jessica Lynch rescue Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the Iraqi attorney, took considerable risk in tipping off the US troops about Jessica Lynch and his reward [and rightfully so IMHO] was to be granted asylum in the USA. Why not? I guess the only Iraqis the Left embraces are ones who shoot down US helicopters or those who live in fear of being attacked by Saddam's boys. 3. Anal rape of Jessica Lynch has been confirmed by medical records and her family lawyer, Stepphen Goodwin, confirms it too. Goodwin could be dis-barred for consciously making false statements to the press re: Lynch's medical records. When Lynch was rescued, she weighed 70 pounds. No wonder that Lynch looked like a "child" to Mohammed. Jessica Lynch's lawyer confirms rape, which was confirmed by medical records in her new book. Contrary to the insinuations of the May 15 article in the Guardian, Jessica had a horrific experience as a POW and will likely suffer physical and psychological pain for the rest of her life. I certainly wouldn't consider Jessica Lynch a hero, but she's welcome to any money she gets for her troubles s POW and I'd suggest there's not one weanie reporter at the Guardian who would trade places with her. "The records do not tell whether her captors assaulted her almost lifeless, broken body after she was lifted from the wreckage, or if they assaulted her and then broke her bones into splinters until she was almost dead." Source: Jessica Lynch 's biography. 4. Re: the media whores who ran with the Jessica Lynch story from "anonymous sources" in the military and then later spun their own errors in reporting into blame for the Bush Admin. for the hype. Puhleaaze. Here's the original WP story that broke the Jessica Lynch rescue. a) Contrary to left wing net rumours, the Post's embellished details of Jessica Lynch's brave fighting DID NOT come from CENTCOM briefers but from "anonymous" officials reporting initial intelligence reports that at the time they noted were likely to change. With regards to stories about so-called Iraqi resistance, pay attention, a military officer right from the start said there was no shooting in the hospital and once Special Forces got inside they discovered the hospital had been pretty much abandoned: She was fighting to the death, Washington Post, April 3, 2003 Also, if the BBC reporter [John Kampfner, May 18] had bothered to double check his stupid claim that Special Forces fired blanks, he would have discovered that the military would never use blanks when entering a hostile position, but because the Special Forces were entering a civilian location [hospital] controlled by the enemy, they wanted to ensure no resistance of the enemy as well as no deaths of civilians by the use of "flash-bang" grenades...that's what the BBC lame brains mistook for "blanks." The following are other instances of media tomfoolery de-bunked. As I said before the Jessica Lynch story was probably 50% correct[the Special Forces rescue part] and the rest was feminist fantasy[Jessica as Rambo combatant]. Unfortunately, the left wing media does not have the professionalism, by and large, to admit to their folly. a. Reuters miss-used a reporter's name in the byline but made up facts in the body of the article b. MediaResearchCenter: how Couric misrepresented Lynch story c. CNN's Paula Zahn fails in promoting anti-military views on Lynch story d.ABC and BBC shown to be biased re: Lynch story

Righturnonred said: You bet! And if there was any doubt, just check the headlines in the Washington Post! If you're a terrorist, there's no place to run, no place to hide... Bank Data for Saudi Embassy Subpoenaed

Dear Modern Centrist, Not to belabour a trivial point, BUT you said this to Allaiance Fanatic at 10:48 AM today: When I posted at 12:15 AM [ie after your post], so that you would not accuse me of believing in left wing conspiracies per your comment to AF when he criticized Stats Can, I said: So indeed you introduced the "conspiracy" word into the discussion thread first. I don't believe in conspiracies myself but evidently, conspiracies are on your mind.

Look, Moderate Centrist, you were the first person to use the word "conspiracy" in this thread, not me, so don't speak derisively about my use of the word in a defensive manner. If you want police to enforce the law, but you don't want to address the problem of how the "soft" judicial/legal process undermines what police can do, it's difficult to debate with you. How's about if I ask you directly to comment on: a) the effects of "conditional sentencing" the effects of the revised Young Offenders Act that calls for restorative justice not punitive justice c) what you think of the September'03 Supreme Court's ruling on the classification of dangerous offenders. Now judges are required to look at more "options" than just the dangerous offender label before sentencing someone with a history of violent and sexual crimes will affect law enforcement. These are examples of what I perceive to be"soft" justice, and since we have no statistics on recidivism rates, how can we properly evaluate if "soft" justice serves society well? There are as many offenders in the community under conditional sentencing as there in prisons, and politicians like that because costs of monitoring criminals in the community are about 25% of what it would cost to have the offender jailed. But is it good for society?

Moderate Centrist said: First of all, you are naive if you think you are somehow insulated or removed from the effects of organized crime. Here's a report on the RCMP website to remind you of " how no one in Canada can say they're not affected somehow:" Organized crime gets us where we live As well, your bias against law enforcement but support for the legal judicial branch is misguided IMHO. Why would you believe that increased police presence/powers would "interfere" with the public good when it's police officers who are physically the last and most potent barrier between criminals and the ordinary citizen? That's interference, but good interference which I, for one, wouldn't want to live without. So more "interference" betters the odds that I will not be a victim of crime. IMHO, it's police officers who deter crime, sometimes sacrificing their lives in the process, not "laws" or criminal attorneys or judges. Were there no police, simply having laws on the books would not prevent crime. That's why criminals engage in what's known as "unlawful" activities...it's not their nature to automatically respect/observe the laws on the books. As for your dismissal of newspapers stories as not giving an accurate picture of crime because they're isolated events, whereas the opposite is true with Stats Can...guess you haven't read the classic book entitled "Statistics Lie." Stats Can is run by government bureaucrats, need I say more? I don't think there is a left wing"conspiracy" per say, but on the otherhand, I don't think Stats Can will necessarily put itself out to pursue statistical studies that might prove to be embaressing to the PMO. For example, recidivism rates...those statistics would be helpful for the taxpayer to know as an evaluation tool of our judicial/correctional system... is the current "rehabilitative" approach to criminals working or not? But Stats Can decided it did not have the "resources" to pursue that rather important issue. Why no ones knows what the recidivism rate is, Ottawa Citizen, March 23/02 Statistics can also promote a false picture just by omission of facts. Though you distrust comments made by police officers because they are "too close" to the subject of crime, I'd suggest that you should apply the same skepticism to bureaucrats who might have a hidden agenda. Here's an example where the Justice Dept. used statistics to promote a "false picture" because they wanted to sell the public on a touchy feely idea. Looking at the revised Young Offenders Act.

There are no "genetics experts here" unless I missed reading citations of scientific articles written by people on this forum, including yourself. In cyber space we can all represent ourselves as Nobel Prize winners in biology and who is to know the difference? Furthermore, the vested personal interests of the intersex organization I quoted are no different than that of the gay groups on the net and on this forum who are now promoting that the Vilain study is earthshatterring because it shows homosexuality is hard-wired. I made my point earlier, but I'll briefly re-state it. The findings of Vilain's study do not show that homosexuality is hardwired prior to birth. The press release from UCLA, which was not peer reviewed, suggested that Vilain's study did this and that's what Reuters ran with, even incorporating the title of UCLA's press release to its own. I used the comments of a "third party," the intersex organization, because I thought we were supposed to provide a link to opinions we post whenever possible. I think their comments made sense...there was more hype about gay hardwiredness than what the actual findings were in Vilain's research. End of story. How difficult is that for you to understand? Whether the intersex group is based in Australia or Oregon is a moot point. As to whether they are less credible than Reuters, my answer to you is no, they're not. Reuters is a privately owned company that's in the business of making money by selling news. The Reuters reporters go to journalism school which affords them no greater "credibility" than the lay people who comprise the FTMA organization. As we learned from Jayson Blair and from Jordan Easton, news agencies have no professional accountability for what they CHOOSE to print or to omit. IMHO, the transgender organization's criticism of the baseless gay related hooplah surrounding Vilain's research is as valid or more so than what is spun by the Reuters reporters who only want to sell a product - the news. Vilain's research actually may have an impact on transgender issues. Furthermore Reuters' "journalists" come with a degree in airy fairy political correctness. A baboon could get through journalism school. It takes no special genius to be a journalist and you have to look no further than the CBC for evidence of that. Similarily, the UCLA press release is written by PR folks in the university trying to drum up more grants for Dr. Vilain for future research studies. How does that make them any more believable than the FTMA organization?The fact of the matter is Dr. Vilain will get more money if the press release is spun as relating to gays rather than to babies born with ambiguous genitalia which Vilain's original research was focused on, incidently, because the latter does not have a large vocal lobby group pressing government for research grants. You obviously don't like what the transgender organization says because it detracts from the gay activists' hopes that Vilain's research proves that sexual preference is hardwired and beyond individual control. But I don't think the transgender organization's comments are invalid just because they are politically incorrect.