Sir Bandelot

Oh I see. You've never heard of the G8 then, I presume

Nobody gets it, because we thought it was just another one of your typos. With you it's always hard to tell. (Generally known as the Earl of Erratum...)

Tsk tsk. Argus doesn't like facts, or links. Especialy from multiple sources like the one I quoted for him today. They get in the way of his ad-hominem attacks. Oh wait a sec, no they dont

Canada Alone on Abortion Issue The Canadian government broke from other G8 countries, in particular the United States and Britain, by confirming earlier this week that Canada’s contribution to the plan will not include funding for abortions. Reproductive and Maternal Health in Africa Africa is the epicentre of the problem because, in general, women there begin having pregnancies too early and then too frequently. In a mostly male-dominated society African females have little or no control over their own fertility. The frequency of pregnancy causes many to take desperate measures; 5.5 million women undergo unsafe abortions every year in Africa. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100506/national/abortion_editorial A top British medical journal is chiding the Harper government for refusing to put abortion funding on Canada's G8 agenda. "Seventy thousand women die from unsafe abortions worldwide every year." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042903668.html during a political controversy in Canada on the issue, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at a news conference in Quebec. "I've worked in this area for many years," she said. "And if we're talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion." The Toronto Star described this as a "grenade in the lap of her shell-shocked Canadian hosts." Increased development assistance to improve global health has been one of the bipartisan achievements of the past decade. Millions are taking AIDS drugs, sleeping under anti-malarial bed nets and getting treatment for tropical diseases because ideology has not been allowed to sabotage goodwill. But the political alliance on this issue has always been fragile. Traditionally, liberal advocates of global health spending have worked in uneasy alliance with conservatives -- mainly non-libertarian social conservatives -- who hold a moral view of America's role in the world. This is the Bono-Bush coalition that passed and then reauthorized the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) -- an initiative that intentionally avoided the issue of abortion to prevent infighting among its wildly diverse supporters. It is in fact an issue of great historical contention. But don't get maaaad at me...

I've always thought that the CPC were like a bunch of sheep in wolfs clothing, or something But especially at their refusal to fund abortions for African wimmen, that based on some kind of piously hidden religions ideology. It re-enforced my views about them. That's why if they ever got a majority, it's time to go to church

I agree but I am not convinced that war, bombing them and inevitably killing innocent people is a means toward solving that problem.

"What makes money..."

But what about the cvilians. Some of them, I don't know how many but some actually prefer islamic law and theocratic rule to democracy. For them, that's what they truly believe in their god and their culture. And if we were to remove the rules of war that makes us become like savages too. We would kill more of the innocent civilians, than would have died if we never went there in the first place! How is that right!

"Zakir Naik". Never heard of him. But I have now, that he's been banned.

I think what the government does concerning the plight of wounded soldiers is completely disgusting. I don't support the war but I can't fathom the idea of not giving full support, medically, psychologically and financially to any soldier who has gone over there to fight in the name of this country. TO say that we should remember more than on remembrance day is useless. We the people cannot do very much, as individuals but we pay our taxes and expect the government to do what's right with the money. And in this case, what's right is looking after our troops. Anything less, is shameful.

There is no other weapon I can think of, where the dust and debris remains a hazard to anyone, for many thousands of years. And anyone who disagrees that it's a hazard, must claim to know more than the US military's own training literature...

"free market forces"...

Those who are defending the actions of security forces on the weekend are trying to make this into an all or nothing argument. Such as, concern that police might not be able to do their job effectively in the future, if there might be a law suit. But that is not the argument I want to make. My criticism is not that the police were too harsh, but that they allowed the extremist protestors to get away with violence and damage, and instead turned on the legitimate protestors and arrested THEM. I question that decision. I also believe that most Canadians would have wanted those black block groups to be arrested IMMEDIATELY, and would have been tolerant of the law abiding groups that came their with good intentions. And I am also angry that such a large amount of money was invested in securing this event, yet despite that, the actions of security forces was not satisfactory. They let the Black Block guys carry on. I don't agree with any whining that "the police have a tough job". Yes they always have a tough job. In this case they should have had the resources ($$) and the plan to deal with it effectively.

Hello, welcome to today.

I've lost a lot of respect with the Dziekanski trial, and the most recent judges report. To say that a police officers' word is factual evidence only makes a mockery of the legal system. But there are some good cops. Like the young guy in the movie "Training Day"

McCrystals dismissal demonstrates the fickle nature of a weak minded administration. If they were strong and confident, they wouldn't feel threatened by a few disparaging remarks. Only a weak leader feeling vulnerable demands complete yes men to nod their heads at every utterance made by the president. In fact, if they were not weak minded such disparaging remarks wouldn't be necessary in the first place. What we see from this administration is all about theatre. And that is also a sad metaphor for how this war will end. It is already a done deal now, except for the final exit dance, an attempt at face saving and patriotic rhetoric that they will somehow prevail. This despite the inevitable and now totally unnecessary loss of life. In the end I believe that very little of value will have been accomplished, as far as objectives go. The Taliban will be a part of the next Afghanistan government, as they already are even right now, through their supporters. Karzai wants reconciliation, forgiveness, negotiation. He has already taken steps toward that. Sharia will continue. There might be some limited progress in things like allowing girls to go to school, but if that's the better part of what is accomplished, it surely could have been done by other, less expensive means. (And by expense I mean, money AND loss of life).

So are you saying that they purposely allowed the violent protestors to do their thing on the first day, then used that as an excuse to crack down on all the peaceful protests the second day?

We are all expected, in our jobs to find ways to do things effectively with the lowest cost possible. There's no reason to give the government carte blanche. Because tbe fact is, unchecked they will take it all, as they've done before. Even the visiting leaders of other countries were astonished and criticized the cost of security for this meeting in Canada. Conservative, my eye

Oh, well that sounds like we need a democratic government. But I agree, that's the problem and we also need a meaningful and peaceful mechanism for protest and reform. To say that peaceful protest is tolerated in a democracy, yet ends up completely ignored is simply not good enough.

I wouldn't be surprised that all this was shown on Iranian television as well.

I know what you mean, but there are some who see that playing by the rules leads them nowhere. One only ends up in a fenced in "protest zone", off camera and completely ignored, seen as an irrelevant pointless waste of time as like whats being done during the olympics. If people want change by such means, they will grow old and die first. The incorporations need only to wait them out.

Yes it's quite difficult to decide where that balance is. I confess my argument is biased by my personal dislike of technology and the idea that it brings perfection. I enjoy human imperfection, and the innate capability for humans to overcome it, all on their own. Also that dealing with the concept of injustice, and bravely moving on is character forming. I view the inability of people to effectively deal with error as part of the disease of modern society. But maybe that's going a long way off from a mere soccer match... I don't know what resolution you're talking about, but I appreciate your views and politeness in this debate!

Yes, but they are also simply a reaction to a much bigger problem.

No the fans are the crybabys. The players know that's the game and they can move on. In the sport I play we have to deal with contentious ref decisions sometimes. There may be times of strong disagreement with what the ref saw. As long as I know the ref is not unfairly biased but doing his best I can live with it. I know in the grand scheme of things, bad calls average out. Clean goals are always obvious. For a screwy goal there's a slight chance it might not get accepted, if the ref thinks they saw something illegal etc. That's the human element.

Having the occasional bad call in a game is normal and players have to accept that. That's part of what we call sportsmen-like conduct. Right or wrong, agree or no, the ref has final authority. Not reduced to some simpering crybaby like we saw the umpire in a recent MLB game. I heard the suck-holes even whined about it in congress...