Black Dog

Given that the concept of race is entirely a social construct, then referring to race as a cause of crime is problematic. There's been plenty written on race and crime. The subject is not taboo. However, this study isn't adding anything of value to the debate. It fails to take any social factors into account. Instead, we are led to conclusion that blacks and Hispanics are inherently more violent based on their skin colour. Which, based on "American Renassiance" (and teh comments on the blog above) is the desired result.

Still can't face up to your own dishonesty, eh Shady? Well, depends on the question, doesn't it?

Right-wingers don't even read the articles they post. What's more, the original resolution itself did not call for an immediate withdrawl. link The G.O.P deleted the lengthy preamble and changed the text to read, simply: Link.

They don't like the alternatives. It's the old "better the devil you know..." routine. Everyone pissed on their hankies. Even the Hun. I think it had more to do with not wanting one' insides seared by poison gas than some noble sense of sacrifice. And this is a bad thing?

Yeah because, as anyone knows, they way to find out who the good, responsible driver are is to just ask any of them. Where do you have to go that's so damn important that a few minutes or seconds will make such a big difference? Unless your an ambulance driver or other emergency first responder, you're not that important.

AG: Guarantee is the wrong word, I suppose. I would say that a civilian trial would have a higher probability of impartiality than a military commission that would, in all likeliehood, have a vested interest in obtaining convictions. After all, how could they justify holding these people if they aren't guilty of anything.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Eureka could be referencing this story (incidentaly, from the wikipedia article on military tribunals). A POW could be tried by a military tribunal. To me, the question isn't one of whether or not trial by a military comission is proper, only if it is just. The way military tribunals are set up, there's no guarantee of impartiality, rules for admissible evidence are more lax than in civilian trials and secret evidence can be used to convict. Thes effects give the proceedings the air of kangaroo courts. If these guys are not soldiers, but criminals, why not hold a proper criminal trial?

The religious anghle never struck me as anything more than window dressing. I suspect the vast majority of the rioters don't know the Koran from Cocal Cola.

The Queen is not significant to the day to day operation of this country. She's a figurehead, that's all. That means I think Canada should ditch the Queen. I don't think getting rid of Lizzy is a big priority for most Canadians. Guts have nothing to do with it. You haven't proven anything beyond pointing out the (largely ceremonial) role she plays (a role which I am well aware of). What's more, the simple fact of Canda's status as a contitutional monarchy (as opposed to a republic) is nor proof of the monarch's usefulness. I don't think it would solve many of Canda's problems. Base don the widespread indifference and apathy towards the monarch, I'd say most Candains agree. Like I said, there's more important thing sto worry about. However, should the question come up, I'd be in favour of forminga republic.

If someone were to mount a legitmate bid to dump the Queen as head of state, I would endorse that. Other than that, I really have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Don't confuse what is with what should be.

Leafless, the Queen is ceremonial, a relic of our past as a colony. I happen to believe such relics are incompatable with true democracy, thus I don't give two hoots about the Queen, nor do I consider her anything more than a waste of money.

I'm a Canadian with no vested partisan interest in the political dimension of the antiwar movement (I don't like the Democrats): what's my "base partisan motivation"?

If Con-rad goes, can we scratch Babs too?

Black, Hollinger Execs Indicted for Fraud Oh my Lord!

But what does she do? Besides, weren't you the guy who was comparing our form of parlimentary democracy to totalitarianism?

What's your point? That one should be completely uncritical and accepting of any horrific thing that's done in the name of "freedom"? Just cuz? Is there anything you wouldn't endorse if the packaging was right?

The numerous reports I've seen seem to have all popped up within a short period of time and, for the most part, have been of the "he-said-I-said" nature. I';m not convinced, given that all these folks seemd to have thei rmemories jogged at exactly the same time. Woodward's "revalation" is equally suspicious, given his past (partisan) statements on the investigation.

I'll see your fictional Marine and raise you a real one. Wellm, for starters I have no inclination to put my ass on the line to defend the interests of the people who run the show. Fuck 'em and their con's game. Even if I were to accept for a half-second that these folks were genuinely defending my freedom, I would hope that they would conduct themselves in accordance with the values they claim to be defending.

If you read a few of the articles on the subject (even ones going back to the time of the attack on Fallujah), you'll see American commanders using the term "shake and bake" to describe using WP to flush out insurgents, who would then be targeted by HE munitions. The article was reproduced from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, you tool. Don't you have some phony interviews to disseminate somewhere else?

No the military tribunal is the body that will try him. He's already been charged as a "unprivileged belligerent". DoD News release

For me, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was never an issue. But then, I was three years old when they went in. Honestly, can we move beyond the bullshit about "yabbut, where were you when (insert atrocity here)"? As strawmen go, it's pretty tired. Actually, your formulation is even lamer: now, people are to be held accountable for the action (or inaction) of other individuals on the basis of sharing similar political leanings. I'll have to remember that for next time Montgomery Burns posts some of his crap. Then I can blame it on you. Also: no one is complaining about the use of WP on "terrorists": rather, it's the indiscriminate use on a city with 50-60,000 civilians that's objectionable. Get a grip.

These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Also discovered this: "the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III." (wikipedia)

The only difference between the Korean and Vietnam wars is that in the former, Canadians fought as Canadians, in the latter as Americans. Again, veterans should be honoured by the country they fight for, not their country of origin.