kimmy

Read the links and tell me if you still think he is a prisoner of war. My Webpage Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. I suppose he could be considered a POW under categories 1 or 3 here, depending on whether one considers Al Qaeda to be "regular armed forces." I expect that legal arguments would concentrate on whether that is the case. On the other hand I doubt he'd be considered a mercenary, on account of condition C here. At any rate: to those of you who oppose this prosecution, I ask what you'd prefer to see happen. Just send him home so that he can attend highschool in Toronto with other kids his age? -k

I had been under the impression that the mini-budget would avoid money items so as to not become a confidence vote. But I guess with opposition days coming up and no NDP deal on the table, there's no reason to do that anyway. Once upon a time a promise to eliminate the GST would have been greeted with cheers, maybe even swept a party into office. But I think that Canadians have been educated greatly over the past decade or so, and that such a promise will now be viewed with healthy skepticism that will have Canadians asking: "if they cancel the GST, how will they make up for the lost revenue?" Whether cancelling the GST is a successful campaign ploy will depend on how credible the Liberals' answer to that question is. In my opinion, promising to eliminate the GST sounds like desperation. I also think that it would be a signal that they want to fight on the Conservatives on their turf (tax cuts) and step back from the NDP's turf (social spending). I don't think Canadians are gullible enough to believe that a government can do both. I suspect that if Paul Wells is correct about big tax cuts from the Liberals, the NDP will have a lot of ammunition in this election, and that could backfire on the Liberals in Southern Ontario and Lower Mainland. -k

I don't see a problem. It sounds like simple supply/demand to me... the gas companies will lower prices if the demand goes down. People are usually aware that they have to buy gas before they decide to purchase a car, right? Gas mileages are stamped right on the invoice sheet, yes? 2.2L engine, STD Transmission, power doorlocks, and then at the bottom in big bold letters, 7.8L/100km. I just can't bring myself to have a whole lot of sympathy for people who are complaining about the price of gas right now. -k

People should stop buying gas. That will persuade the gas companies to lower the price. -k

My settings are correct, but the messages have the wrong time on them. This causes me to become discombobulated, as though I were travelling an hour into the future. Can you fix it, Greg? -k

Perhaps spending a few years living in other parts of Canada would give you some perspective. You seem to be under the illusion that the rest of Canada is free of the things that annoy you about Calgary. You think materialism is limited to Calgary? You really do need to spend some time in other parts of the country. If you think door-to-door proselytes are something Alberta invented, I've got news for you: they're everywhere. And if you want Christian wackos, I have never seen anything to rival the Fire of God folks in Ottawa. When I lived there, they congregated in front of the Rideau Centre Mall on Saturday afternoons with drums, placards, banners, and chanting. Wild-eyed street-preachers would rant at everybody who passed by. "Don't you leave, miss, you need to hear this." It was a little harrowing. I've honestly never seen anything like it. Do you think pickup trucks are any worse than SUVs for pollution? I don't think all those Ontario folk need to be told about smog; they've got plenty of first-hand experience. And the kicker. The notion that while we're stuck with all these dumb-ass cowboy wannabes and low-brow tradesmen, people elsewhere are more enlightened and ejumacated. But they're not. I promise: for every cowboy wannabe you find in Calgary, you will find an urban thug wannabe in Ottawa or Vancouver. Dumb-ass punks who have modelled themselves after some fictional tough-guy lifestyle they've emulated from American music videos. The thing is, dumb and cheap aren't just Albertan. They're coast-to-coast. You can't get away from dumb and cheap by moving to another province. -k

As always, the spectre of vote-splitting between Liberal and NDP candidates will be a prominent theme in Liberal campaign rhetoric. They'll do their best to scare NDP voters into voting Liberal as a means of fending off the Conservatives. But Jack Layton's personal popularity, and the NDP's somewhat successful term in office might reduce that effect this time around. It might be harder to convince NDP supporters to vote Liberal this time than it has been in previous elections. We shall see. -k

Omar Khadr was captured in July 2002. The Taliban had ceased to be Afghanistan's government in any sense by that time. Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument. Where did Argus bring race into this? I'm with Argus. I don't consider the Khadr family to be Canadians either. Their willingness to bear arms in support of the thuggish and reprehensible Taliban is proof enough of what sort of people they are. I frankly could not care less if little Omar is hung, shot, gassed, or imprisoned for as long as John Walker Lindh. As far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they wish with him, just as long as he doesn't return to Canada. -k

Of course Chretien was unhappy with the Gomery inquiry; as he demonstrated in his speech Tuesday he's very disappointed that he received so little backpatting for "saving de country." Chretien felt that the inquiry should focus on the "saving de country" aspect of the program rather than the mismanagement. -k

Your earlier comments: (emphasis added for ...emphasis.) As I said earlier... The report exhonerates Paul Martin from wrong doing, and supports his claim that he had no knowledge of the corruption. (although, it does not refute the view that he could have found out if he'd chosen to.) But it was extremely damning of the Quebec wing of the party and of prominent people close to Jean Chretien. Trying to explain it away as "just a few bad apples" and "not a systemic problem" flies in the face of what the report says. Nah. Not really. Handing the report over to the RCMP was a symbolic gesture, as the RCMP was already involved. The bans on Chretien's friends are fine with me; anything that annoys Chretien is fine with me quite honestly. And the repayment of $1.14 million is a nice gesture, although everybody but the Liberals feels they've dramatically underestimated the sum of money that they owe. -k

This is extremely interesting. In light of Martin's newfound enthusiasm for openness and transparency, perhaps there should be some public discussion of this. edit: some information... Auditor General on "foundations". edit 2: more... Office of the Auditor General: Auditor General vs government on accountability of foundations -k

Scott's objective has always been to drag any discussion that criticizes his idols off-topic with flaming and trolling. Refering to the Conservatives as C.R.A.P., or the Fascists, as Scott has done in recent days, are against board policy under the same policy that bans "Fiberals" and "Libranos", so I assume Scott will be taking a vacation from the board shortly. I admire Greg's restraint; if it were my board I'd have banned Scott already. His continual efforts to provoke confrontation, and lack of any redeeming qualities, make him not worth the effort. Really, he's just CAGERATTLER/THELIBERAL with better spelling and grammar. -k

There's no relation at all between the two. DaVinci's Inquest was about a coroner in Vancouver, whose last name, I gather, is DaVinci. I personally think Corner Gas is the best Canadian show on the tube. I think it's interesting that the best Canadian entertainment programming is coming from CTV and not CBC. -k

Got any evidence for your speculation, apart from a desire for it to be true? It's a matter of public record that there was speculation about monkey-business in the sponsorship while Martin was still finance minister. You can certainly find evidence of the BQ asking questions a long time ago, and you can look back to find speculation in the Quebec media. It's well known that Martin had a large bloc of support within the party including Quebec members. It's certainly plausible that information about the program was kept from Paul Martin himself. But how believable is it that information about the program was kept from all of Chretien's supporters? And Martin was certainly aware of BQ members asking questions in the house, and of Quebec media speculation. If he'd had any interest in knowing, he could have. -k

I think it is quite hilarious that Liberal supporters here are trying to spin this as some sort of vindication for the party. Martin being exhonerated is literally the only good news for the Liberals in any of this. Let's have a look back over the past couple of years at some of the Liberal spin that has been completely discredited. "A few bad apples." A few bad apples that just happen to include Prime Minister Chretien's chief of staff at the time, two consecutive executive directors of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, the former Public Works minister, and some of Jean Chretien's closest friends and collaborators. As I have argued before, when the "rogue elements" in the party just happen to include the leader and his inner circle, they're not "rogue elements". "not a systemic problem." Two consecutive directors of the Quebec wing of the party have been fingered. That points to system, rather than rogue individuals. Gomery found that the sponsorship program was intended from conception to avoid transparency. That points to system rather than rogue individuals. "There was no political direction." Gomery says there was political direction. "These ad-men and crooks are not credible." Gomery disagreed. The Liberals have banned for life a number of its members based on that testimony, so the Liberals must agree too. -k

First off, this was a week ago, so this is a little late. And secondly, it's not to be taken seriously. This article captures the spirit of the event: Globe'n'Mail: when political theatre goes vaudeville Nothing to worry about. Just people having a little fun. They'll give you lots of real material to complain about soon enough; no need to go off on their comedy stylings. -k

Blah blah blah, the insurgencies have been ruthless bastards. Well no shit, they for the most part are trying to avoid the installation of a puppet regime. Targeting collaborators has always been a well accepted premise of any guerrilla war. See, this highlights the difference between your position and our government's official position. In your view, they're collaborators. In our government's view, they're employees of a government we recognize and support. If Canadian citizens went abroad and started killing government officials in Sweden or Australia, we'd capture them the moment they returned to Canada, and we'd send them right back to Sweden or Australia to stand trial. Is Iraq different from Sweden or Australia? No, not in the official position of our government. It really is that cut and dried. You recognize this, yet you're still trying to convince me that peace will break out in Iraq if the Americans just go home? An American departure wouldn't appease the insurgency, it would embolden the insurgency. Actually there’s virtually no credible analyst at this point that will say otherwise,(...) But if you want the assessments of a few key men that agree that the US should pull out you can look up the works of the following men some you might know; Greg Thielmann, William Clark, Bruce Hoffman, or any of the DOZENS of former high ranking CIA members who have quit over the issues of Iraq. I did a brief survey of the names you mention. William Clark ascribes cynical motives to the invasion; he's a business analyst so I'm not sure what expertise he has on security issues anyway. Thielmann argued that the information that "justified" the invasion was faulty. Bruce Hoffman argued that the invasion was strategically a mistake. None of that supports the claim I challenged you to support-- that analysts believe the US can or should vacate before the new government is capable of maintaining security in the country. There is no doubt that many people question the decision to invade Iraq in the first place (I'm among them, btw.) And I don't doubt that many people in the CIA have quit their jobs over various Iraq issues. None of this supports the view that the US should just go home. The US should go home, eventually, once the new government is capable of maintaining law and order. Pulling out before then would be grossly irresponsible and could result in catastrophic loss of life. I do not believe that our government's support for the new Iraqi administration, or the UN's support for it, is contingent upon an immediate withdrawal. There must be a time-line, and the Iraq government's ability to maintain law and order is a necessary precondition for a US withdrawal. -k

But they're professional basket ball players, not professionals in the sense of lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. Heck, garbage men are professionals too, but you don't see many of them dressing in business casual on the job. Conversely, you don't see garbage-men on TV very often. Professional athletes are representatives of their teams and they are public figures whether on the field of play or off of it. They are in an industry that depends on maintaining a good relationship with the public for its ongoing survival. There will be need for garbage-men week after week, whether you and I like them or hate them or are indifferent. But nobody needs professional athletes, and if people decide they don't care for professional sports anymore, the professional athletes could all be working as garbage-men too. -k

That's somewhat ironic, considering your activities on this forum amount to little more than self-righteous pontifications about people whose convictions differ from your own. ("The provincialists, children! The provincialists!") I can respect, or at least tolerate, those who act on their convictions, but not when their actions include savagery. I hope you don't wish to suggest that people who don't support the insurrection are Nazis. That would be absurd blowhard bloviation even by your own formidable standards. If you wish to draw a parallel between my support for the Iraq government and Nazi Germany's support of Franco, I think you're mistaken. If you wish to draw a parallel between foreigners supporting the insurrection and foreigners supporting the Spanish republican forces, I think you've missed a key point: the Spanish republican forces were the legitimate arm of a duly elected government; the Iraq insurgency is not. Actually, I think the more accurate parallel is between the Iraq insurgents and Franco's forces. Like Franco's army, the Iraq insurgents are trying to undermine a duly elected government. Like Franco's army, the Iraq insurgency is a coalition of exhiled military figures and ideological zealots (though, in this case Islamists rather than fascists.) Do you suppose that the Iraq insurgency has attracted the likes of Orwell and Hemingway? I don't. I suspect there are few in the insurgency who have even read a book (other than the Quran) let alone written any. It's a collection of closed, uncivilized minds, the opposite of what people thought was worth fighting for in the Spanish republic. You could argue that, but that's not the position our government has taken. This is simply not true. The insurgency has targeted American soldiers, but it has also ruthlessly attacked Iraqis who have joined the government, Iraqis who have joined the security forces, and believed kidnapped and killed a journalist working for the national broadcast network. You seek to convince me that the insurgents merely wish the US to go home, but that is only part of the goal. They also seek to undermine The only thing delaying a US withdrawal is the insurgency. I am skeptical of this claim, and I would like to see some credible cites to support it. I don't believe there are many credible analysts who would argue that the US can leave until the Iraq government is capable of maintaining security for its citizens, and clearly the ongoing activities of the insurgents make a convincing argument that the Iraq government is not yet able to provide security for its people. -k

While I'm sure there's no end of people saying that this is about whitey keeping the black man down, or fear of black culture taking over suburbia (about 10 years late for that, isn't it?) or trying to appease the "red states," let's also keep in mind that the NBA has an actual crime problem. There have been numerous cases of spousal abuse and drug arrests, sexual harrassment complaints, fights, Ron Artest wading into the stands to beat the crap out of some fans, the Kobe Bryant rape trial, and a murder case... One team, the Portland Trailblazers, is so well known for off-court trouble that they're known as the Portland Jailblazers. A book was written on the subject: Out of Bounds: the NBA's Culture of Rape, Violence, and Crime. Now... do the players actually encourage this sort of reputation? It was widely speculated that Kobe Bryant's rape trial would actually help sell his merchandise. Before, he had a reputation as bland and straight-laced... the rape trial, it was believed, would give him the "street cred" that would increase his appeal to the fans. The NBA players are "heroes" not just because of what they can do on the basketball court, but how they live when they're off of it. They live in a world where they have unlimited money, can use women like Kleenex, and can break the law with almost no fear of consequence. All of this sounds awfully exciting to the young males who buy their shirts and shoes and stuff-- it's the same appeal that makes gangsta rappers popular. I don't know if this will curb the off-court antics of the athletes, but if kids are going to emulate the off-court antics of the players, at least they'll look like grown-ups while they're doing it. -k

Is your world view so narrowly focused that you can not go for more than a few messages without attempting to steer conversation back to this subject? "The provincialists, children! The provincialists!" If you wish to try to create a parallel between the exercise of free speech in Canada and the abductions and bombings in Iraq, I suppose that is your choice. I doubt many would find it compelling, however. What would I do with these miscreants? Since we do have the right to express political views in this country, even if they be misguided, I would say that they will be tried in the court of public opinion. If found lacking, I'm sure they'll receive senate seats and ambassadorships, as is the custom. -k

You're right that it's irrelevant whether we support the US position in Iraq. It's irrelevant whether the US are really our "friends". What is relevant is that we do support the new Iraq government. The assistance we've provided in Iraq is not strictly humanitarian aid. We've provided assistance in training law enforcement officials and government officials. We've provided assistance in rebuilding the country's infrastructure. We've provided assistance in conducting the very elections that resulted in the new government. You write that we should treat this in a neutral manner, as a conflict between two armies in which we have no favorite. But that's simply not the case. We're not neutral-- we recognize and support the Iraq government but we do not recognize the insurgents. The insurgents are not an army in any formal sense, they're not a legitimate or authorized arm of any constituency that we recognize. So the analogy you wish to create is flawed. -k

For the sake of argument... the website argues that the kirpan is not a weapon. However, nobody would argue that nail-clippers or sewing scissors are weapons either... but they still confiscate these before you board an airplane. Whether or not the kirpan is intended for use as a weapon, it could certainly be employed as such. -k

Why's there even a question of what would be done? Our government formally supports the new Iraq government, does it not? We've sent them $300+ million to support their reconstruction? Elections Canada provided assistance in the Iraqi elections, yes? This is a government that we not only recognize but are actively assisting, democratically elected in a process that we helped impliment, in a country that we've invested a significant sum of money to help rebuild. If Canadians were running around Italy or France committing acts of mayhem in an effort to destabilize those countries, we wouldn't give those Canadians safe haven when they returned home. We'd arrest them the moment we caught them, and we'd send them back there to stand trial. And that's exactly what should be done with any Canadians who we find have participated in the Iraq insurrection, as well. -k

What's that supposed to mean? "Fact based media"? You're an educated guy, IMT. I'm sure you've come across plenty of editorials and documentaries and articles that were "fact based" that you found disagreeable or questionable or of dubious merit. And you're aware that "Trudeau II" is not a documentary but a drama, right? I mean, it's "based on a true story," but the exact amount of merit that phrase has varies-- it can be said of "Mozart" and "Gandhi", but was also said of "The Mothman Prophecy," "The Last House on the Left," and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." In creating a drama based on actual events, the writers and directors edit and emphasize and create subtext. They are not merely recording events, they are interpretting them. It is a subjective exercise. I don't think one need be in the "far right" to recognize this. I wasn't even aware it was on. Yup, that's the CBC we know and love. Quit changing channels all the time. You ended up watching Monty Python's Life Of Brian. Well, I exaggerate, but only just barely. When young PET returns from his world tour, he tells his friend that while in Israel he'd been imprisoned in the same tower Jesus had once been held in. "You and Jesus, huh?" his friend says. "Me and Jesus," PET affirms. And you, the at home viewer, find yourself rolling your eyes and thinking oh man, I *hope* they're just being witty and poking fun at the man's later-day legendary ego. But they carry on with the analogy throughout Part 1. Pierre and his little band of apostles travel the Holy Land (or at least Quebec) spreading the Good News (his version, at least) and dealing with the Pharisees (or at least, the agents of the Duplessis government) while facing persecution from the Romans (or the Roman Catholic Church...) I had the feeling that the film-makers were deliberately trying to create this Christ-like paradigm. I watched part 1 because I'd heard we were going to get something fresh and original. Instead, it seemed like just more of the same legend-building stuff we've always come to expect of any discussion of Trudeau. None of it particularly had much resonance to it, little of it "rang true" to me. It felt like more mythology. Perhaps Part 2 is better; I haven't watched it yet, though I have it on tape. -k