Sir Bandelot

My last post in this thread was over a month ago. You would think that by now things would have stabilized, and that minimal aid would at least have been provided. But I was dismayed to read this report as I perused the CBC new site- Haiti aid efforts criticized March 7, 2010 The Associated Press Haitian leaders — frustrated that billions are bypassing them in favour of UN agencies and American and other non-governmental organizations — are whipping up sentiment against foreign aid groups they say have gone out of control. In the past few days, someone scrawled graffiti declaring "Down with NGO thieves" along the cracked walls that line the road between Port-au-Prince's international airport, the temporary government headquarters, and a UN base. Leaders including Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive are not happy with the way the aid money is being delivered. "The NGOs don't tell us … where the money's coming from or how they're spending it," he told The Associated Press. "Too many people are raising money without any controls, and don't explain what they're doing with it." A half a million homeless have received tarps and tents, but far more are still waiting under soggy bed sheets in camps that reek of human waste.

Serenity, thou art but fleeting...

Actually bush_cheney is not lying whatsoever. He speaks about reality. Only difference is that, in his mind he has come to terms with it. Bloodyminded, you just got "B_C'd". Hope you didn't get any on ya.

Thats how things went bad in Germany post 1933. Goebbels et al was a propaganda genius, a pioneer in the field, even. It doesn't matter that due process REQUIRES someone to represent a defendant, in order for legal cases to proceed. Lawyers defend murderers too, and by this reasoning they must be sympathetic to murderers, if not in actual league with them. But that's the state of the union

Yes and another fine Dancer thread graces this forum. Birds of a feather, please enjoy...

Any nice looking tank is still a tank. Free Willy

Sheesh, thats all we need. ANOTHER version of O Canada. There's been so many, most people don't even know the right words anymore.

All it means to me is, Obama has fooled the liberal left by giving them hope for change, when clearly there is no substantial difference in his policies. Secret renditions, Guantanamo, patriot act, wars of aggression, even pre-emptive stikes all will continue. Money given to the wealthy to pay off their debts, the growing gap between rich and porr, that will continue. Health care reform? Only if there's a good buck to be made, by the right people. etc The Southpark episode "About Last Night" has an interesting twist on the story of the Obama win- "Obama and McCain were actually jewel thieves and staged the entire election so that one of them could gain access to the Oval Office. This was to access a tunnel that would lead to the Smithsonian Museum, where they would steal the Hope Diamond. They were able to accomplish the mission with the help of Michelle Obama, a computer hacker who had also faked her marriage with Obama to fool the press, and Sarah Palin, who is not only British but actually more intelligent than the episode's original portrayal of her would suggest (she says to a bewildered press corps that she'll come back and beat Obama in 2009). Once the plan was complete, a private jet that contained dummies of the criminals was blown up near the hospital in South Park. This gave Ike, who was working with McCain and Obama and had faked his earlier injury, a chance to alter hospital records to declare everyone involved legally dead. The next day, as the gang is about to leave the country, Obama decides that he does not want to go with them. Instead, he and Michelle decide to stay behind to "give this President thing a try." At the end of the episode, the McCain supporters emerge from their "ark" to find that society has not collapsed overnight. They admit that they may have overreacted to the election results and decide to give President Obama a chance. As for Randy, he wakes up on his couch hungover and is surprised to learn that not only has he been fired, his TV was stolen (by Cartman). He then declares that it is all Obama's fault and that he should have voted for McCain."

"Change you can believe in.", you deluded fools

I stand corrected. There were two re-enactment votes on this, in 2005 and 2006: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll414.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll020.xml

I'm not entirely sure, but I recall that on previous renewals of such acts there was good unanimity for passing it, regardles of party affiliation. There were only very few dissenters. What they say on camera for the public to hear is not necessarily what they do when the time comes to vote. Thats politics.

My experience in the loss of loved ones is, you get together with your friends and family, you grieve, and then you wait. It takes a long time, years even, and you will never forget it. But eventually life moves you along.

it's worth pointing out that the stated intent is actually an investigation into whether the airport security staff are competent. Neville is alleging that allowing Guergis to fly may have violated regulations and placed passengers at risk, so the real claim here is that the airport security staff failed to do their job. Well well well. Seems that "Sir ID" is not that far off base after all. Because there's the facts, as in the policies and guidelines from Transport Canada, and then there's the opinions of the partisans. See, when you have the facts, you don't need to argue. Just wait for the truth to come out.

I was thinking the same thing jbg, glad you said it. Someone is asking for help here. Let's stop the pissing match.

If there's one thing that upsets Americans, it's to know they are NUMBER TWO. Judging by the looks on many US athletes faces when they were awarded silver or bronze, they'd rather not be in the top three at all, than get second or third prize. There's the perception, if its not gold it's worthless, and that's a shame. But in the case of this final game, it could easily have went either way. My view is that Canada outplayed the US in both matches, in terms of the number of good scoring chances. Canada beat the US team in the first match, but the difference was they couldn't beat Ryan Miller. Canadian goaltender Luongo changed the balance of the game in Canadas favour. Anyway hats off to all those who can persist until the very end in the face of extreme adversity.

Comparing the problems of a waitress or some other such service when dealing with irate customers, to the responsibilities and risks implied for airline staff when dealing with a beligerent passenger? Oh the banality...

Don't withdraw into yourself by feeling sorry for yourself. Think about how other people involved in your situation also might feel, try and be supportive of them. If for example a loved one has cancer, and this is devestating for you remember that they are the ones who need support the most. If it's you, remember that your family is anxious and afraid, so you've got to be strong for them.

I'd say it would be the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass. Clearly this person lost control of herself. As the Transport Canada guidelines state, unruly behavior including shouting profanities, insulting airlines staff, and demonstrating belligerent behavior is reason to block the individual from boarding the plane. Because, theres a good likelihood that she will also be a problem for the staff while in flight, if for example she doesn't get served her drink fast enough, or the foods not to her liking, or whatever. These people who run the plane have a real important job to do, and anyone who might interfere with their ability to to that job is a threat to the safety of the plane and other passengers. It's that simple, and clearly written on the ministry web site which I provided the links to. But you folks carry on deluding yourself that its alright, that had it been anyone else they would have been treated the same way she did. Fact is, most people wouldn't have even gotten into the pre-boarding area once they started throwing their shoes around.

All those countries banking systems are interconnected. They are all appendages attached to the US economic engine. Globalization only exacerbates this problem. Even healthy economies lead by responsible countries lost money, such as in Canada. Hence there is more of a move now to disconnect economies, to provide a buffer against such possibility in the future. Unabated greed eventually devours even itself.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/managementservices/referencecentre/acs/700/700-010.htm Please read section 4.1, refusal to transport. This section discusses what is considered to be unruly behavior. See paragraph 3. Unruly behaviour during pre-boarding inspection is considered a threat to the safety of the flight. If a person cannot follow orders given by the inspection team they are considered a threat to the flight. This includes very specifically "aggressive, loud, obnoxious behaviour during check-in or in the departure area". The general idea behind all this is, such persons may become a risk to the flight crew once they are on board. It may not be that the acts themselves are dangerous, but that they are disruptive and could impair the function of the crew in an emergency situation, or interfere with important tasks such as explaining emergency procedures. I don't know how more clearly I can explain it to you.

What, has the smiling face of optimism developed a tick? Thats progress

I fail to understand why you need to being Israel into every discussion. Did someone else mention Israel here? I am not interested in discussing about Israel. I beleive many people and countries tried to do some good. But it has failed. If there are real systemic problems with how these emergencies are handled, we should understand what went wrong. So that when some place like New York or New Jersey gets buried in a pile of rubble, we might have a chance to dig out people like jbg, and save them. And hence make the world a better place...

That is not a policy. The policy is in the first link. If you read the link you will see, that is the report from the working group. The observations made in the report were used to develop the policy. Thats how it goes. Policies are often given in broad general terms, because they cannot describe every possible scenario. But when a policy is "zero tolerance", it leaves very little room for interpretation. Thats the idea behind zero tolerance. Ther eis no reason to let someone on a plane when they are shouting and throwing objects in the pre-boarding stage. The airline is not obliged to jeapordize the flight or other passengers for the sake of convenience of one person who is misbehaving. Clearly this was a breach of policy and the only reason it was done is, they knew she was an MP.

I am not bitter. The people of Haiti are bitter. Quit ignoring the fact that the money was misappropriated now, when it is needed most. One million people are still waiting for food and water. Does that not concern you at all? When I give my money to charity, I want to know its going to be effective, and help the ones who need it most. THe EVIDENCE shows that did not happen. The fact that you chose to ignore it, and the media is keeping it low key, is deplorable in the eyes of those who truly care.

No. The situation is unambiguous. There is the report from the working group, and there is the policy. A zero tolerance policy, is unambiguous. Nothing to agree or disagree on here. She was allowed to board the plane, and it was a breach of policy. There should be an investigation.