Black Dog

Libby indicted! Here's hoping Fitzmas comes twice (at least!) this year.

Here's the rub: the U.S. prescence isn't a guarantor of security (as the daily acts of violence show). So, since they aren't making the place any safer, the security argument falls flat. In fact, it could even be argued thet the Iraqi government will be unable to reach any state of readiness as long as it has the U.S. to depend on (not to mention the fact that the Iarqi security apparatus is hopelessly compromised by insurgent infiltrators). Any government that depends on a foreign power for its survival will always lack legitimacy. Nonsense. The Shiite militias and the peshmerga would make short work of the Sunni insurgency if given free reign to do so. of course that would be a civil war and would probably lead to the Sunni's being virtually wiped out. Given that, the withdrawl of U.S. trops and the threat of ethnic annihalation might be the motivation the Sunnis need to stand down and talk. Which then brings us back to the problem: the insurgents are the only faction interested in a unified Iraq. Frankly, the only thing keeping the U.S in Iraq is sheer stubborness.

You kiss your mama with that mouth?. Thanks for the admission that this is a war of conquest. But let's not forget that 2,000 is only U.S. military deaths. That doesn't include other coalition deaths, Iraqi military casualties, foreign bystanders (ie. journalists), Iraqi security forces, "contaractors", and, of course, Iraqi civilians (which could be between 26,000 and 100,000). So we're not talking mass death. But then we're not talking total war either, but a small scale guerrilla/civil conflict, th ebiggest losers of which have been Iraqis themselves. Excellent point. And a predictable response.

This may seem like a stupid question, but: are kirpans sharp?

The bloom nay be off the reality rose. Reality shows hit hard times For myself, I'm into shows like "Lost" (which reminds me in many ways of an old movie serial), "the Office", the shamefully underrated "DaVinci's Inquest" (now "Davinci's City Hall") and "Arrested Development" (the sharpest show on television, bar none). I find reality TV to be far less believable than any of these shows, filled as they are with unsympathetic stock characters. Really August? "Girly-men"?

Obviously I'm not expecting them to dunk in Armani. But when you're off-court and are appearing in public in your role as professional representing your organization, I think the dress should reflect that. Leave the sweats and bling for the off days and off season. I think this coment demonstrates how basketball players are probably the least mature of all pro athletes. Allan Iverson makes $14,625,000 a season, yet he can make a comment like that with a straight face? I guess that kind of sense of entitelment comes naturally for someone who has been treated like royalty for most of his adolescent and adult life by virtue of his ability to put a ball through a hoop. But I have to wonder if these guys are aware of the PR connotations of such remarks. I don't think they'll get much public support for their "plight". In the words of Jay Z: "y'all ni**as actin' way too tough/Throw on a suit get it tapered up". (Nevermind the fact that the hip-hp look these guys favour probably costs just as much, if not more, than a decent, well-tailored suit.) You mean: rich kids dressing like poor kids dressing like rich kids?

Heh. Well, it's an American article. My beef? "Conservatism" isn't a word with a uniform meaning. Pat Robertson is a conservative, but so is Pat Buchanan. Though I think the fundamental point (that institutions are instruments by which the dominant hierarchy perpetuates its power) is sound. I just don't think focussing on the ill-defined bugaboo of "conservatism" makes for a convincing argument.

Well, given the 33 per cent drop in Tory support in the last election from 2001, they must figure a little vote-buying can't hurt. And, given the stageringly low voter turnout (particularily in the last election) I'd hardly call the 20 per cent of the total population who voted Tory a "huge majority".

Miers bows out of US court fight I'm not sure how to take this. On the one hand, Miers' nomination was but another example of Bush-league cronyism at work, whereby unqualified incompetents get a shot at important posts based on their personal proximity to the president. On the other, I'm disturbed by the fact that the extreme right wing has basically demanded that the next SCOTUS justice be a militant, right-wing activist. (Gee, I guess not all nominees deserve a straight up or down vote after all, do they Mr. First?) Quack quack quack.

I'll stick with blaming the country that chose to start this war and the Cheney-Rumsfeld neocons in particular. Nonsense. What power does the poodle have? Sure they would have. They didn't need anybody else for anything but the veneer of multilateralism. As for why Blair went along, I don't doubt there was some political bribery thrown his way. I also wonder if there wasn't a bit of nostalgia on the Brits' part for the good old days of giving the recalcitrant Arabs a good walloping.

Before everyone gets all worked up.... Given that foreign fighter make up between just 4 and 10 per cent of the insurgency, and that foreign nationals from non-Arab or North African states make up 5 per cent of that number, we're not looking at a particularily serious issue here.

Gee: does this mean the "flypaper" strategy is working?

It's impossible to talk of the N.E.P without talking about the drop in world oil prices. The latetr mad ethe imapct of the former all the greater, but to assign the decleine of Alberta's fortunes soley to the NEP is a bit myopic.

Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Yet Iran is the threat to peace that must be dealt with via military action? The mutual sabre rattling is counter-productive.

Opinions on the NBA's Dress Code Are Far From Uniform The NBA's audience (especially ticket-buyers) is predominately white. the dress code, IMO, is designed to tone down the gangsta/hip-hop image so as not to scare whitey away. Where has the league made such a stetement? As far as I know, convicts where uniform orange jumpsuits, not Sean John and bling. The mode of dress sported by most players is a reflection of African American youth culture. Which is no surprise, given that most players are African American youths. Maybe if the league stopped bringing in high school-aged ballers, they could start toning down the hip-hop image. Bottom line, though: these players are suppossed to be professionals, I see nothing wrong with requiring them to dress like profeessionals when they are "on the job".

You DO realize that there are lots of stressed out people from whom one can custom order, don't you? I kind of knew that this wouldn't be you .... I was just joking with you. Besides, ever since I discovered the Goodwill stores, where one can score a brand new Joseph Abboud for US$1.29 on a good day, .... I no longer have any NEED for people like you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shut up, Yodeler.

I don't think we'll be seeing a U.S. invasion of Iran. Maybe a air campaign, but I don't see them venturing out on another ground war when their forces are already tied down by the Sunni insurgency. What's more, Iraq's large Shiite population probably wouldn't take kindly to the Americans bombing their spiritual brethren, so keeping them sweet is essential. But then, given the degree to which Israel's concerns influence U.S. foreign policy, one never knows.

from...http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E...3CE0E9957EA.htm Wacky. And trouble. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldn't put too much stock in the veracity of such statements. The repressive Iranian government is simply doing what repressive goovernments do: scapegoating others for their own problems and distract people from the real problems at home. Think of it as Iran's take on the interminable "war on terror" speeches down south.

Civil law will remain a monogamous institution. Respecting a religion's right to determine its own definition of marriage does not mean any laws would have to be repealed. What this policy means is that religions who oppose gay marriage will not be required to perform them.

He's a troll, fleabag. It's what he does. He's not here to debate. He's not here to discuss issues in an intelligent manner. He lives to flame. Which is why you need to make the "ignore" button your friend.

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

Frankly I think your characterization of both the NDP and its target audience smacks of a strawman. is the NDP an urban-oriented party? Well, yeah: between 67 and 78 per cent of Canada's population lives in urban areas. Doe sthe NDP target yuppies? Not exclusively: if you look at the platform again, there's pensions and prescription drugs, affordable housing, aboriginal issues and a host of others addressed to people who aren't your VW driving, new-media working yuppies. As for the last statement, I can only give that a big: ? I don't think it has absolutely nothing to do with it, of course. But I think the characterization of the NDP as being closed to any different ideas is false. Actually, it's an issue that matters most to two groups: some gays and the religious right, who made the biggest fuss. Last I checked, they didn't vote NDP anyway. Nope. That's a question of determining policy, not policy set by the party. Pfft. Bev Dejarlais signed a document stating she would support equal rights for all Canadians, which included SSM, when she ran as a candidate. Jack Layton signed those documents with the understanding that Bev would abstain during the SSM vote, not vote actively against it. She had a choice, she chose to spit in her parties' face, when she could have sat out the issue and emerged with her conscience (and her position) intact.

Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, cast some light on the inner workings of the Bush administration with a number of recent statements, including a speech to the New America Foundation and this commentary in the LA Times. Fascinating stuff here.

With the countdown towards 2,000 U.S. dead on, the Bush administration is trying to head off more criticism by, once again, trying to explain what they're doing there. Iraq, I guess, is suppossed to be like Afghanistan in the 1980's: a focal point of terrorist activity and radical ideaology. And certainly nothing bad came of that...

Maybe we should look at the social issues that lead to violent crime, instead of making the same mistakes our neighbours have.