Gabriel

So... you agree that perhaps we're not addressing airport security particularly efficiently in this situation given what I mentioned above? What I was trying to suggest with my earlier post is that perhaps we're jumping the gun with all these airport policy changes and technology additions when the real problem exposed by the Umar Abdulmutallab story was the lack of coordination and appropriate response to young man who should never have been able to so easily board a plane without serious scrutiny. This may come across as politically incorrect to some of our lovely left-wing folks in here, but if you're young, male, named "Umar Abdulmutallab", travelling without luggage, and leaving from Nigeria (perhaps even using a Nigerian passport), you need to be scrutinized carefully. This isn't even taking into consideration the facts about his father's communications with relevant authorities.

I read a message response to today's CBC article covering this story that I partially agreed with. Would you folks agree that perhaps we're spending money irresponsibly towards securing our airports? Do we really need all these new procedures and technologies? Let's not forget that this whole body-scanner fiasco is primarily a response to the Umar Abdulmutallab's nearly successful attempt at the Christmas-day bombing of an airplane. Let's also not forget that he was a suspicious individual - a young black man with an Arabic/Muslim name, travelling alone, without luggage, from an obscure country like Nigeria. Even worse, his own father apparently tried to advise the CIA authorities in Nigeria (according to Wikipedia) of his concerns regarding his sons growing extremist political/ideological views. We don't need hi-tech equipment to keep guys like him off the plane, we just need an effective security bureaucracy that coordinates information between relevant parties effectively and responsibly. That's my amateur view, anyways.

The posts of Oleg's that I don't ignore, I often find them difficult to comprehend. The prose is so bizarre, and at first glance, at least, it often seems nonsensical - almost as if it's gibberish. It's just so bizarre.

I'm right-handed but I shoot left with a hockey stick. I'm an example of this weird disconnect.

I mean no disrespect, Oleg, but I've read quite a few of your posts and I'm sure I'm not alone in finding you the most bizarre poster on this website. You go off on so many strange tangents, it's unreal but strangely fascinating.

You don't find it discouraging to see political parties pander to fringe groups that have bad ideas and bad desires? I know "bad" is subjective, but let's just pretend that you and I agree on what constitutes "bad". Here's an anecdotal example, Obama jumping on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon: He's pandering to those union groups. Who let's just assume for a moment that you and I also agree that these groups often try to advance interests that are simply bad policy. It bothers me seeing that kind of pandering as much as it bothers me to see Republicans cozy up to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (RIP) or other folks who often advance bad ideas. I know it's reality, but it's not a reality I need to like.

Are you serious? That's got to be a bad joke. August1991, I saw some video from Palin's recent address. I get the vibe that's she's does some recent cramming with respect to specific Republican/conservative talking points, minor historical factoids, some ideological stuff, etc. I don't get the impression that she's creating a message, on her own, relevant to contemporary problems and issues in America, from a through knowledge of all sorts of relevant things such as philosophy, history, ideology, and basic common sense. I think if Palin were to do an interview today with a fair interviewer, it's be another debacle like the infamous Katie Couric fiasco. Although I like some of her talking points, she just doesn't seem genuine or knowledgeable. As far as I can tell, Palin's a train wreck for the GOP regardless of how many talking heads and pundits on the media portray her as some source of electrification/galvanization of the "the base". It's always sad to see either American parties pulled into their fringe "bases".

Here we go again!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

How the diagnosis will impact him will depend on the details of the illness. Many men who get this scary diagnosis are not significantly impacted and can get treatments to cure them. Hopefully he's go a very treatable case of prostate cancer. Considering that he has decided not to step down, I'd assume that the prognosis is relatively good, all things considered - well, as good as being diagnosed with prostate cancer can be. He's not an old guy and he looks healthy! I can't stand Jack's politics but I hope he'll be alright. I'm sure other folks in here have been affected by this cancer in one way or another, it's a pretty common illness among middle aged men in Canada.

I think there's quite a bit more information than just that. What disappoints me is that some people seem to think that the same standards can be expected in a warzone with respect to investigation of a crime. Investigating crimes in a warzone isn't like investigating a crime in a civilian peacetime area. We can't expect a video tape to be provided from the local 7/11 parking lot in the case of Omar Khadr's crimes in an Afghan warzone. As far as reasonable persons are concerned, he's guilty of much more than what he's being accused of. He needs to be brought to justice. eyeball - I saw a comment of yours which seemed to sarcastically describe Omar Khadr as a child monster. Is it that surprising to you that a young person can indeed be a monster? It's always hard for us to accept but it's reality. There have been many disturbing crimes committed by many children over many years. I don't think Khadr's crimes have nearly as much to do with intrinsic flaws as much as with a flawed upbringing, but he still needs to be held accountable for his. It will be interesting to see if he makes any statements of regret or denunciations of extremist violent ideology. I'm guessing he won't do it, and will deny everything and act as a victim of an aggressive legal system. It may not be politically palatable, but some kids are fundamentally broken people without a reasonable possibility of being rehabilitated. Anyone ever read Dr. Robert Hare's (Canadian academic!) books on psychopathy? They're easily digestible and accessible to laypersons. He talks about how psychopathy often manifests itself in very early years. I know this is a significant derailing as I don't think Khadr is a psychopath, but it's one of many illustrations that support the reality that there is great predictive power in analyzing a child's conduct towards what type of person they will become.

Hey there Peter F, I was looking forward to your reply. Let me be very clear by saying that I am not criticizing AI for calling on Hamas to comply with certain standards regarding the treatment of Gilad Shalit. Of course in a humane environment Gilad Shalit would have some form of contact with his family and access to reasonable things. I do not criticize AI for calling on Hamas to allow Gilad Shalit to be visited by the ICRC. What I'm calling into question are the discrepancies between how these stories are treated by AI. AI doesn't call on Hamas to provide Gilad Shalit with due process, as they called on the USA to do so with Omar Khadr - of course Omar Khadr has for many years had a legal team representing him. I'm sure you and I agree that with few exceptions, Omar Khadr is having access to due process. Some mistakes have been made, for example him not having a lawyer present when being interviewed by CSIS folks regarding potentially incriminating information as well as the long delay in getting him to trial. But certainly Shalit's deprivation of due process is a hundred times worse than Khadr's... but you wouldn't get that impression by reading AI's articles about him. My point is clear, that AI has clear and specific criticisms of the USA and of Canada with respect to Omar Khadr that it doesn't make towards Hamas regarding its treatment (and kidnapping) of Gilad Shalit on largely similar grounds. AI seemingly justifies Khadr's abduction by attaching him the label of "POW". One thing I didn't mention earlier was that AI largely ignored the circumstances surrounding Shalit's abduction. Hamas engaged in a operation with the SPECIFIC INTENT of seizing a hostage. Hamas' sole purpose during this partially successful operation near a southern border crossing between Israel and Gaza was to kidnap soldiers or citizens. Hamas doesn't deny this, either, as Shalit's capture is advertised by Hamas as a propaganda victory. AI doesn't acknowledge this, and if anything obfuscates this by describing Shalit as a POW - implying that he was captured during some sort of legitimate conflict. Do you see my point, now? I'm not trying to smear AI, I'm just saying some politicization is apparent over their which impacts how the organization goes about conducting its business. From what I've seen, HRW seems much more objective. Although I haven't seen too much to be confident, yet.

I don't understand what you're saying. What does Canada's proximity to the USA have to do with our per capita healthcare costs? As far as absolute totals go, of course Canada spends less on medical R+D. As far as per capita expenditures in Canada and the USA on medical R+D are concerned, perhaps they're not so different? I still don't see how this is relevant, though. R+D costs borne by companies, which are mostly American, are still paid for by Canadian consumers. In other words, when products and services are purchased in Canada originating from America, we're paying our share for that R+D as the R+D costs are incorporated into the prices we pay. Companies obviously factor in their R+D costs in order to remain profitable. So as far as I can see, those R+D costs are proportionally borne by Canada. I still cannot see how increased spending in the USA with respect to medical R+D (total dollars or per capita) factors into the USA's twofold increase in per capita healthcare spending. You're gonna have to clarify further. Perhaps. I'm not sure. I'm not under the impression that we don't have comparable infrastructure to deal with potential widespread health problems such as what the CDC provides. I wouldn't be surprised if America was making a larger contribution on a per capita in this regard, though. We do freeload on some American institutions, no secret there. I understand, but at first you mentioned increased doctor salaries - I was waiting for you to bring up the much higher malpractice insurance rates that American doctors pay as opposed to their Canadian counterparts. Listening to the GOP, and I believe them on this, this is a big deal. Hopefully the USA will simply impose reasonable limits on what sorts of penalties can be levied on doctors found to be negligent. I imagine this is an important part of why healthcare costs are so much higher in the USA. I'm surprised that when asked about why American per capita healthcare costs are higher than those in Canada, you didn't make one mention of insurance companies. In other words, don't you think the method through which access to healthcare is facilitated to so many Americans (through insurance companies/HMOs) is one the biggest factors contributing to America's sky-high per capita healthcare costs?

How much greater is that capacity, though? We need things to measure. I remember reading that the family physician to patient ratio was better in the USA, but not significantly. I guess for some other important things like MRI wait times we can do country averages. Based on the anecdotes I've seen, I'm unconvinced that the greater capacity in certain healthcare areas are significant. In other words, I'm not sure those things you've mentioned justify to twofold price increase. I'm not sure how medical R+D fits into this, either. Are you suggesting that medical R+D costs are part of the reason that the USA spends so much per capita on healthcare? Surely you don't think R+D costs spend by industry expenditures are factored into the per capita expenditure equation. I sure hope they're not, anyways. When I see data regarding healthcare expenses per capita, I'm assuming this only measures end-user expenses. Actually, it'd be interesting to look at what costs are collected into this data. With respect to the CDC (and other health monitoring organizations), certainly Canada and many other countries benefit from its research and findings. I don't imagine that Canada isn't on par with respect to its contributions to this collective research and work, though. I'm sure Canada's expenditures per capita towards such research is comparable to that in the USA, i.e. Health Canada. Doctors still get paid well in Canada, but even the higher salaries for American doctors can't explain much of the nearly twofold increase in healthcare costs per capita in the USA. In short, I'm still unconvinced that the higher costs of healthcare in the USA are justifiable by marginal improvements to things such as caring capacity and wait times.

Did somebody abuse it with offensive or irrelevant content in the past?

I got lost on page 16 of this thread. Here's a question for you folks - is there any context that needs to be added to reality than Canada spends about half of what the USA spends on healthcare on a per capita basis? I'm sure we'd all agree that the quality of healthcare is largely the same (of course with some exceptions where America has services/products unavailable in Canada for rarer problems). I doubt our American fellow forum members would have reservations about coming to a hospital in Canada should they be up here and need medical services for whatever reason. This fact supports the argument that we're doing a better job in Canada with respect to keeping healthcare costs lower. In other words, as things stand now, healthcare costs are much less of a burden on Canadians at both the micro and macro levels, while only marginally impacting the quality of care. What am I missing here?

I just looked into Stormfront, I didn't know who or what that was until now. I assumed it was another online community with discussion forums. Doesn't seem like the kinda place I'd wanna spend my electronic time in

When I click on the <insert image> button and input the URL of the image, it doesn't post in the thread correctly. Am I doing something wrong or is something malfunctioning? Here's an example: Another example:

Why don't you try to be honest for once and criticize AI's position on this issue? Do you support freeing Omar Khadr? If not, then you're disagreeing with AI's position <gasp!>, at least based on this rally image. I'm not asking you to condemn AI, I'm not condemning AI, myself. At least I can acknowledge it is politicized to some degree, however. Assuming AI's bias is the same as your own, it's unsurprising that you are either unwilling or unable to see this ideological leaning for what it is.

Colvin wasn't even called a name, though. That's just a lie from some critics that's you're parroting in here. You've been called on it endless times, now. Suggesting that Colvin's been duped doesn't qualify as character assassination or thuggery. It appears that the highest degree of partisanship is coming from your posts with your obsession in trying to advance some sort o fantasy that MacKay and the Conservatives are "thugs". That may or may not be true, but if you're trying to argue that opinion perhaps you better start another thread, as this thread isn't about the broader subject of how political parties conduct themselves, or which political parties deserve a shiny sticker for good behaviour. With respect to your links, I'm now convinced that you don't read articles in their entirety and simply read the headlines. The headline from the first article you linked - "Colvin being punished by government: lawyer". Alright, so Colvin's lawyer is complaining that future payments for his services from the government fund to protect civil servants are uncertain. It should be noted that this uncertain status of payment was only accurate at the time of the article, as the government has since given Colvin the green light to receive more funds for the legal services he's utilizing. At the time of the article, Colvin had already spent $21000 allotted to him from the government fund. He certainly has an expensive legal team, given the fact that this story broke when, in November? I'm not certain at what point Colvin availed himself of legal services, but he's definitely burning through a lot of cash. That's easy to do when it isn't your own money, of course. So let's recap major points from the article - Colvin's legal team accuses the government of trying to keep Colvin out of future hearings by not yet approving him for further funds for legal services. The money has since been given to Colvin and apparently he'll be permitted to testify at the commission(s), apparently resuming on March 22. So, that point's invalid. Here's the link to a more recent article indicating that "Colvin fees to be paid". He's permitted to consume up to $50000 on legal fees. Other points from the article - opposition critics accusing the government of obfuscating justice. Is this really surprising? Do opposition accusations now hold some sort of special status as absolute truth? They're only slightly more dishonest than you, Born Free. It's suddenly occurred to me that I have wasted way too much time and effort talking to you. I am not finding this exchange to be interesting. I would comment on the second article, but you probably haven't read that one, either. At the very least, I can expect you to mischaracterize the facts of the story. I just don't enjoy talking to someone like you. The fact remains - this government has not engaged in character assassination with Richard Colvin, no matter how hard you try to misquote statements or deflect from the core themes of this thread.

Here is a not-so-subtle message from AI regarding what they believe should be done for Omar Kadr: Here's a link, for some reason I can't insert the image.

Are you suggesting that now, as a 23-year-old, he regrets his actions and desires to lead a purposeful life in Canada as a contributing citizen?

I agree. There's no denying that Khadr's story is a tragic one, and he is definitely a victim in many ways. That fact doesn't absolve him of being accountable for his actions, though. I also highly doubt he's salvageable. I'm not sure the Jihad can be removed from his persona. He is what he is.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying either - that you're overstating the SCOC's agreement with you regarding your opinion that Khadr was tortured (you do believe Khadr's treatment was abusive/torturous, right?). The decision may suggest that Khadr was mistreated with respect to sleep deprivation, but it isn't clear on that issue. In other words, I don't see the SCOC's decision as alleging that Khadr was tortured.

Well said. I concede, though, out of sympathy for the Palestinians, that it must be difficult for them to engage in activities that will bring about meaningful reform in their territories - especially Gaze. They are run by Hamas, hardly an organization that subscribes to values you and I believe in - the rule of law, tolerance of difference, and compliance with important international laws and conventions. I have doubts about to what degree the Palestinians actually believe in these values, but certainly there must be some that do. For those that do, I imagine they face harsh potential consequences if they speak out. We've all read the stories of Hamas engaging in political murders and torture. It's like a Wild West out there to some degree. Basically it sucks.

All valid points. Obviously this subject has the potential to become much broader in scope, so I'm trying to keep it somewhat narrow. There is no doubt that the recent Israel military operations in Gaza are connected to much broader issues regarding the I/P conflict. One narrow beef I have with the one minute of that video that I watched was how body count means anything? Is it 'unfair' that only 13 Israelis died? A comparison of the body count between the two opposing sides isn't evidence of anything wrong happening. Is Israel only permitted to engage in defencive operations up to a point, and then wait for more of its citizens to be killed before being legally permitted to continue? Of course not. You engage in military activities until the threat is reasonably minimized. I'm gonna stop talking about this before I get too pissed of. The OP, naomiglover, seriously isn't worth our time.