fellowtraveller

No, my claim is accurate. The Bali bombings of October 2002(not the less destructive ones of 2005) were aimed primarily at America, and the main blast came at the same time as a failed attack on the US consulate. The bombers had initially targeted US oil facilites in the area, but gave up because they were too difficult. The Kuta attack was chosen because it was a soft target. It is true that Austarlia was a target, but only secondarily and part of a group of 'friends of America' Anecdotally, I was in Bali in Decemeber 2002 and local people felt the bombings were also directed at them. Explaining why to you would involve more space than we have here, and involves the politics and economy and religion of Bali/Indonesia. It is a sad story in its own right. LOcals felt the bombers were both too dumb to differntiate between different nationalities and did not care much anyway. These are the words of the guy who planned and executed the Bali bombing of 2002: " In a book entitled, Aku Melawan Teroris (“I am fighting for Terrorism”), Imam Samudra, the mastermind of the Bali operation, offers several justifications for choosing Bali as a target. His rationale is heavy in religious arguments and keeps in line with al-Qaeda’s global jihadi agenda. Imam Samudra argues that the main targets of the Bali bombing is the United States and its allies, namely England, France, Australia, Germany, Belgium, China, India, and Orthodox Russia. " Here is the link, for some reason I cannot insert it http://las.reviewhudson.org/files/publications/AcharyaTheBaliBombings.pdf

The Bali bombings killed over 200 young people, about 80% of them Australians. The bombers though they were targeting Americans. That is not an opinion.

I guess you don't get out much.At many airports, you are required to remove your shoes as a security measure. Please try to keep up.

Not every province can be Manitoba, with the kind of governance that has given us an economic titan for all these decades.

Yep, rules at airports are inconvenient. Would you prefer having to remove your shoes, or flying at 600 kilometers per hour into the CN Tower??

did somebody die from playing hockey recently?

Not at all, I go to about 75-100 movies per year at theatres, mostly the three local arthouse venues. I don't have much of a filter, I go to nearly anything but prefer the non-mainstream stuff generally. I am not going to relive or again critique Dancer in the Dark extensively, I choose not to relive that particular horror. If I get asked to name the worst movie I have ever seen, it is at or near the top. It all begins at the beginning, where in the opening five minutes of credits(which are very long indeed)we see von Triers name over and over and over again. He is a man possessed with ego, which would not be so bad if he had anything interesting to say, anything at all. Lars managed to make me loathe Bjork too, a double dip. Another director that is moving onto my won't-waste-two-more-hours-of-my-life list is sadly, David Lynch. He has lost the plot, a plot that von Trier never found.

I thought it was entertaining, not a bad thriller with some reasonable gore and a twist that did not come too soon.

OK, but you need to be more careful with your language. Instead of 'See Avatar' perhaps you could say 'drive long bamboo skewers into your eyeballs rather than watch Avatar'.

wrong. UN or international authority over sovereign nations like Canada exists only to the extent that Candada surrenders that sovereignty voluntarily. And in the case of First Nations, Canada has not surrendered anything of substance to the UN. You can rant , rave and scream all you like, but that is the way it is.

It is not difficult to say, but it is difficult to quantify. We'll just have to suck it up on that one, because security is best served in part behind closed doors. One reason is that secuirty starts with intelligence, and when intelligence info is public it is rendered worthless or worse than worthless. What we see at airports or at Olympic venues is just the pointy end of the stick.

You are also delusional if you believe that Canada has abrogated any of its sovereign rights to the UN or any other international body. The judicial branch does not have jurisdiction, it exists to interpret and enforce legislation formulated by the government, not the other way around. My comments suggest nothing of the sort, I am simply pointing out that you are wrong.

I won't be on this bandwagon until it is seen how they operate at -50.

Only in your dreams, and only in reality to the extent that sovereign states like Canada acknowledge the UN Charter or indeed any UN undertaking as superior to Canadian law. Utter rubbish. The only aboriginal rights outside the juridiction of the Canadian govt are for those aboriginals outside Canada, like in Peru or Australia. Canada has not ceded jurisdiction on any Canadian citizens, including aboriginals.

Is it OK if it reinforces my now automatic response of throwing up a little bit in my mouth whenever I see Sandra Bullock onscreen? Blindside is so blatantly manipulative(emotionally, not politically) that I actually left the theater a little pissed off that I had lost both $12 and two entire hours of my life. If that is intended as advocacy for watching this turkey you are getting really offensive.

No, you have come to that conclusion. 'Most analysts' are actually 'all journalists who are miffed that Harper does not lick their sweaty asscrack as they have come to expect". You are suggesting that the conduct of the current PM is somehow different than PMs that you like. It is not. I have no use for Jeffie, and found nothing friendly about Chretiens dictatorship. I did what? Your opinion on 'most controlling' is your opinion, nothing more and without any factual basis, something you criticize others for constantly. Show me specificially how Harper has changed the constitution to make himself one whit more controlling than any other Prime Minister. Then you can explain how he managed to outcontrol numerous majority PMs while having a minority for the last several years. Paranoid nonsense.

The Cons won by a concerted effort to move to the middle, which took twenty years. A Lib/NDP merger could do the same in less time but there is a big fly in the ointment. The Libs of course will do or say anything to get back in the drivers seat, but in that merger they have lost the right to control the terms or process of merger. The NDP have the final say, and there is a very powerful group within the party that will not abandon the far left prnciples that have forever kept them from national power. I think they would have to actually purge that group to effect a merger with the Libs. Would that resulting weaker merger then be strong enough to defeat Harper? That of course assumes Harper does not defeat hinself in the next few years. A big unknown in all this is the economy. It is quite possible it will get much worse and soon, which will work in the favour of NDP/Libs.

I don't know why the Liberal candidates aren't soliciting money from all those Montreal ad agencies they used to support so generously. The total of $800K is a trifle after all.

I see zero substantive difference, other than the certifiable fact that Chretien did keep control of his caucus and cabinet for about twice as long as Harper has to date. Your argument seems to be that Harper has a different communication strategy than Chretien. I'll remind you that a central part of Chretiens communication policy to Canadians involved shuffling around $200 million in unaccounted money to Montreal ad agencies. I don't see any reason whatsoever for me to admire that or Harper to emulate it.

I expect we'll see the RCMP kicking in the doors at the House of Commons to drag Stephane Dion out in handcuffs. Not. Who do they owe the money to? What security is typically offered for political loans? It is hard to imagine a bank being this patient.

First part: correct. There is not now and never has been any significant separatist movement or sentiment in Alberta or anywhere else in the Wewst. Second apart: incorrect. A few people bitch and whine about Alberta supporting the entire country financially, not just Quebec. But there is no political movement, no popular sentiment, no press of any note and little public or private discussion about the issue. I reckon that is at least in part because the West- for the first time ever perhaps- is actually relevant in Confederation.

Yeah, right and thanks for providing a more current rant and saving me the effort of searching the archives for examples. You think Chretien survived 13 years as PM because he did not have control of his caucus and cabinet? That did not frighten you? That wasn't a mess? I'd be more interested in a rant about reforming our dysfunctional political system than hearing this tired, recycled crap over and over. Next on the agenda: The Secret Agenda

The country was polarized before Preston Manning was weaned. Reform was, intially and partly, a belated response to the regions that were already very well organized indeed: Ontario and Quebec. The results of the last election are not really closely related to that though. Much of what we saw was a fallout from Adscam combined with the Liberal insistence on stepping on their own dick with gusto. Quebec stumbled through the last election, they won't be doing that next time. The suggestion that Western separatism was a prime driver behind Reform is nonsense.

Um, no, I made the joke. Sooner or later the mask will be ripped from Libby and she will be revealed as Mike Duffy in drag.

Incorrect. It was Mannings goal to change the diorection of our democracy, with an aim to reform. He also wanted an option from the PC Party, which was viewed in the West as being indistinguishable from the other party of Central Canada, the Liberals. When Reform was founded, the PCs had a majority, the Liberals were Oppostion and NDP were small change,. There is an element within the NDP that wants union with the Liberals. Longtime MP Pat Martin has recently come out of the closet and gone public on this very topic. It is not popular with the far left of the Party, who apparently see their gains in Quebec as being some sort of foundation for the Party for years to come. It isn't, and Martin is savvy enough to know it. The biggest result in the last election was not the election of many NDP in Quebec. That was second. The most inmportant thing was the election of a majority without any seats from Quebec required to form that majority. Voters in PQ are the most pragmatic in the country, they know that result is the worst possible for them. They also know if they go NDP in big numbers that the likely result next election is the same thing again, which would be intolerable. They won't stick with the NDP in those numbers, and Liberal numbers will likely increase both in Quebec and certainly will across the country. I think Martin sees two possible outcomes: the NDP slides back to national bit player quickly or the NDP merges with Liberal and has a real shot at govt. He may well be right.