July 30, 2005
Liberal Party to Carolyn Parrish: DENIED!
Carolyn Parrish will not be re-joining the Liberal Party caucus.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
06:42 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Typical Liberal behaviour. They turn away from their own love-child, and leave responsibility for her in the hands of all Canadians.
Posted by: EBD at July 30, 2005 08:14 PM (f+m6w)
2
Finally the PM and the natural governing party have shown some balls. Please leave her to the tender mercies of the Canadian public (not just the voters in her riding). This "quote; irredeemably stupid women" is a shameless embarassment to the entire country and it is nice to see that our weak leader may have finally seen this.
Posted by: Gerry in Montreal at July 30, 2005 10:52 PM (bVbjH)
3
I'm rather impressed by Graham and Martin lately speaking against Parrish's anti-military outburst. I think my estimate of the Liberals was too low. I still hope the Cons will get a chance to show what they can do, but it comforts me to know that the Libs aren't that bad.
Posted by: Robbie at July 31, 2005 12:36 AM (0l2j2)
4
He's not even entertaining the thought of welcoming Carolyn Parrish back to the caucus,? Marc Roy said UNLESS, of course, uuummmmm, aaaaah,errrrrr---we need her in a confidence vote.
As for Robbie saying the libs aren't that bed---get a grip. They are worse.
Horny Toad
Posted by: at July 31, 2005 01:22 AM (FRiIE)
5
Funny how she thought that Hillier needed to be muzzled and referring to him as a "beast." She's one to talk, if any beasts need to be muzzled, it's certainly Ms. Parrish.
Posted by: Shameer Ravji at July 31, 2005 02:16 AM (SegAQ)
6
She's a "popular MP"? Really?
Posted by: Jay at July 31, 2005 02:40 AM (PuNh2)
7
Not only is she popular, she's a good kisser.
Posted by: EBD at July 31, 2005 05:07 AM (lytea)
8
EBD:
Ewww. I think I just threw up a little.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 31, 2005 11:00 AM (pPVQ0)
9
Hey, people, next election, whether she runs as a Liberal or an independent, she's going to sweep back into power. Better practice your teeth-gnashing. Well, come to think of it, that's what you're already doing, I guess. 
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 31, 2005 11:49 AM (Lf2qC)
10
Yup, this squealing sow is sure to get re-elected next election because the Lieberals could run a rotting corpse in that riding and the free-loading "New Canadians" who make up a significant percentage of the population would vote it in.
Why not? They don't give a rodent's rectum about what's good for Canada. They are concerned only in (in no particular order): free health care for everyone in their very extended families; quick citizenship and lack of thorough back-ground checks on terrorist uncle Ali, hate-monger dad Mohhamad and their several wives; welfare for one and all, immediately they set foot in Kanada; and (worst of all), free legal aid to keep them here, avoid deportation and cost the poor taxpayer millions.
Liberals control the news media, all the government bureaucracies and all the major Canadian businesses and institutions. They can commit outright theft and laugh about it, as they have the bases covered. As long as they keep importing naive voters who will back them (to remain here witout problems), the Libs can expect to maintain power for another generation.
After that, the whole rotten mess that Canada has become will come crashing down. Its was a great country, but it has been bled dry by greedy socialist liberals who have lined their pockets at the expense of those who worked hard to make this a great country.
Posted by: Hank at July 31, 2005 11:27 PM (NUY2e)
11
Angry: I think you greatly overstate Carolyn's need for inclusion in the Liberal party.
1) She gets more publicity as an independant blowhard than she would ever get as a muzzled back-bencher.
2) What use for research staff does she have? She's done all the research she needs as a Canadian politician: she's proven that knee-jerk anti-Americanism works wonders at the ballot box.
3) Time in question period? Again, she gets far more publicity bloviating to reporters than she would ever get asking her one question a week as a Liberal back-bencher.
4) Running against a Liberal in the next election presents her with zero risk. The Liberal brand is damaged goods; the Parrish brand, however, sells big in the reactionary Bush-bashing heartland. Only a huge Conservative momentum play could derail her re-election.
Posted by: NCF TO at August 01, 2005 12:22 AM (L+U7y)
12
I'd take PArrish over Grewals (both of 'em) any day.
Isn't it okay that 1 MP out of 308 does not fawn over the US? Is it not enough for the US that 307 MP's like them? Is that last one going to affect our relationship with the US? Of course not. Grow up.
Posted by: sdc@asd.com at August 01, 2005 04:08 AM (wW4PK)
13
sdc, if your ratios were accurate, you would have a point.
But - alas - they are not.
Posted by: Candace at August 01, 2005 04:34 AM (R7nd+)
14
She needs to get back into the liberal caucus to stand a chance of being re-elected.
Her riding, Mississauga-Erindale voted 28000 for the liberals, 16000 for the conservatives. If the conservatives pick up even 2000 votes then she's in big trouble. The liberals will put a liberal up against her, they will split the vote quite evenly. Lots of people in her riding hate her, even liberals. Also, the NDP will chip into her totals too. So, the electoral math says that if she's running as a liberal she stands a better chance of getting re-elected.
Posted by: Paul Morrison at August 01, 2005 11:08 AM (OhM5r)
15
As an American, I wouldn't expect ANY of the MPs up there to fawn over the US. But I also think it's reasonable to expect them not to go out of their way to express hate rants toward us.
It's called "diplomacy".
Posted by: Jay at August 01, 2005 03:51 PM (PuNh2)
16
Just take the fat bitch on a Sea King ride over a mine-field. One way or the other, she would no longer be given ink or air-time.
Posted by: View from the West at August 02, 2005 08:12 AM (nThEG)
17
Carolyn Parrish needs some cruel and unusual punishment.
Here are two ideas.
1. Make her watch ALL the back tapes of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes"
OR
2.
Ignore her!
Posted by: walking eagle at August 02, 2005 06:03 PM (QK3tc)
Traditional Chinese medicine to be regulated in Ontario
The CBC is reporting that the Ontario government is going to bring traditional Chinese medicine under regulation, to promote quality care from TCM.
Am I the only one who thinks this is, at best, a silly idea, and at worst, a dangerous one? Probably.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:13 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1695 words, total size 11 kb.
1
In Europe they wanted to heavily regulate vitamins and supplements but were forced to back off. Seems the system only wants the big drug manufacturers in this business anymore.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 30, 2005 02:38 PM (vZmPs)
2
It might even be simpler...regulation=fees. Expand government to meet this "new" need. Could you imagine the department heads and thier responsibilities? "Director of Meridian and Potency Evaluation" ROFL
Posted by: greenlantern at July 30, 2005 02:52 PM (RaxRo)
3
Same basic fallacy here as in your Afrocentrism post--that no other system of thought will stand against wiser, truer and whiter Western thinking.
Let me remind you once more of acupuncture. People wrote all sorts of snide things about that, too, mostly in disbelief, and the theory behind it? Woo-woo. It turned out to be "true" when someone discovered beta endorphins in 1975. Then we started seeing articles like these: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6201772&dopt=Abstract:
(Why do I get the distinct feeling that I've been trolled, btw?)
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 30, 2005 03:33 PM (Lf2qC)
4
But here's the thing: there are practical aspects of TCM that under other circumstances, should be regulated. For example: herbal and nutritional therapy, restorative physical exercises, meditation, acupuncture, and remedial massage. (This is from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a research institute funded by NIH in the U.S.)
Acupuncture, for example: "promising results have emerged, efficacy of acupuncture in adult post-operative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting and in postoperative dental pain. There are other situations such as addiction, stroke rehabilitation, headache, menstrual cramps, tennis elbow, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, osteoarthritis, low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and asthma for which acupuncture may be useful as an adjunct treatment or an acceptable alternative or be included in a comprehensive management program." This is from the CCAM consensus statement.
As for the actual regulation, the model is likely going to be the one used in B.C.
Given that Ontario's Chinese population (especially Toronto) is pretty big, and expected to grow, older immigrants especially are likely to use TCM as a treatment. Hence the need for regulation. Hardly a waste of taxpayer's money.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 30, 2005 03:43 PM (lM/1I)
5
Incidentally, we'll have to translate this one for you:
"Here is some of the theory behind TCM:
"One could say that Chinese medicine was born out of the theory of Yin and Yang. As well as describing that which exists in nature, Yin and Yang perfectly describes all the parts and functions of the body.
"All parts and functions? Perfectly? Gray's anatomy is in its 39th edition, runs over 1600 pages, and weighs 10 pounds. And that's just anatomy! But Chinese medicine replaces it with two words, "yin" and "yang""
(Well, no, it doesn't, or there would be no Chinese medical textbooks. ) Anyway, to the translation:
"Western medicine replaces the complex theory of yin and yang with just one word: homeostasis."
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 30, 2005 03:54 PM (Lf2qC)
6
I've heard of the notion of the local anaesthetic affect of accupuncture with beta endorphins. That accupuncture might have stumbled into something real does not surprise me -- aspirin was first found in willow bark, which was chewed as an herbal remedy for pain relief.
But we don't chew bark anymore. We isolated the active ingredient and developed a precise dosed application.
Accupuncture might have an effect, but that needs to be understood in terms of conventional biology and the use formalized. That's cool. But some guy balancing my Qi by poking my meridians?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 30, 2005 06:13 PM (c/YLv)
7
"Acupuncture might have an effect, but that needs to be understood in terms of conventional biology and the use formalized. That's cool. But some guy balancing my Qi by poking my meridians?"
Different symbolic system. Effective medicine. Why do you need to have acupuncture explained in your own terms? It works quite well without.
But I've shot my bolt on this. Keep mocking systems of thought that were around when your ancestors were wearing skins. To imagine that the Chinese (or the Africans) have been speaking nothing but useless mumbo-jumbo for thousands of years is the ultimate in benighted ethnocentrism. You're basically saying that they've been a bunch of deluded fools who were finally rescued by white wisdom. Because you don't understand them doesn't mean that there's no understanding to be had.
Once again, with Chinese medicine, however they underpin it in terms of a belief system, does it work or not? They've used acupuncture for thousands of years; it was sneered at as a conjuring trick by your antecedents until Western medicine caught up--a scant three decades ago!
I would submit that you're way out of your depth here--unless you have detailed knowledge that Chinese medicine isn't effective other than providing a placebo effect. Do you have such knowledge? If so, please share it with us, instead of mocking systems and ideas that are not in accord with your own simply because they are not in accord with your own. That's the ultimate in both arrogance and ignorance.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 30, 2005 07:45 PM (Lf2qC)
8
While it's probably not worth the effort, I can see some regulation - like "if you want to sell dried ground frog, that's okay - but stay away from the dried ground poisonous frog". Try any more than that sort of approach and you'll just drive it underground anyway.
If they want to think snake skin tea will make them healthier, that's their problem.
Posted by: Jay at July 31, 2005 02:49 AM (PuNh2)
9
Dr. Dawg,
I'm in over my head here, and would normally insert a quotation in such a case, but I feel brave today. :-)
If somebody marketed a traditional Chinese or African medicine with the claim that it could cure cancer, and your cancer patient asked you if they should use this remedy or rely on Western methods, what would your advice be?
D
Posted by: Darrell at August 01, 2005 11:15 AM (mB0OF)
10
Try both!
There's an interesting point here. The Madagascar periwinkle (flower, not shellfish) and the Pacific yew, have each yielded subtances that have proven effective in fighting certain kinds of cancer. One shouldn't simply dismiss "cancer cures" based upon other systems of thought. In the two cases cited, folk medicine had first identified them.
(One should not discount the placebo effect either, although I am not arguing that folk-derived remedies depend upon that--the reverse, in fact. )
There's an interesting point here. The Madagascar periwinkle (flower, not shellfish) and the Pacific yew, have each yielded subtances that have proven effective in fighting certain kinds of cancer. One shouldn't simply dismiss "cancer cures" based upon other systems of thought. In the two cases cited, folk medicine had first identified them.
(One should not discount the placebo effect either, although I am not arguing that folk-derived remedies depend upon that--the reverse, in fact. )Posted by: Dr.Dawg at August 01, 2005 12:56 PM (Lf2qC)
11
Dr. Dawg,
Still with the falacy that because one technique is (mildly!) effective it validates the whole thing.
Bottom line, the intellectual model underpinning Chinese traditional medicine is untestable bollocks.
Sure accupuncture works. Some of the herbs work. Green tea has antioxidants. That's all great, but the traditional understanding of WHY they work is a non-starter.
Bottom line, if you've got apendicitis and you go to a TCM guy for accupuncture and etc., you're gonna die.
Listen, just because Taxol has been isolated from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree does not mean traditional West Coast Indian medicine men had a cure for cancer. They didn't. If they had, we'd be doing it their way.
If I need beta-endorphins pronto, there's probably a better way to get them than sticking a needle in my liver meridian. Chinese medicine has not found a better way in 1000 years. Western medicine is on the case, I give it 20 years max before you can get a prescription for it.
That's the differential in power between TCM and Allopathy. Like an ox cart in a drag race with a Mustang GT.
Posted by: The Phantom at August 01, 2005 06:33 PM (nAMT1)
12
Phantom,
What a delightful surprise! You haven't given up!
"Bottom line, the intellectual model underpinning Chinese traditional medicine is untestable bollocks."
On the contrary, it's been tested for thousands of years. And acupuncture is a case in point.
What do you think they do in China for appendicitis, anyway? The value of an acupuncturist in such a case would be akin to that of an anesthesiologist here.
"Listen, just because Taxol has been isolated from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree does not mean traditional West Coast Indian medicine men had a cure for cancer. They didn't. If they had, we'd be doing it their way."
They did, and we are.
"If I need beta-endorphins pronto, there's probably a better way to get them than sticking a needle in my liver meridian. Chinese medicine has not found a better way in 1000 years. Western medicine is on the case, I give it 20 years max before you can get a prescription for it."
For "it?" Beta-endorphins are region-specific. There are many of them. In any case, why enrich a pharaceutical company when all you have to do is insert a needle or apply a mild electrical stimulus?
"That's the differential in power between TCM and Allopathy. Like an ox cart in a drag race with a Mustang GT."
Uh-huh. So why didn't allopathy discover the healing properties of the Pacific Yew? Nice that it can hitch a ride, though. As it's been doing with acupuncture for...what? Thirty whole years or so?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at August 02, 2005 02:57 PM (ypUNY)
13
The sun rises in the East and Sets in the West. Why would I give up?
By the way, Allopathy DID discover Taxol in the Pacific Yew.
To wit: www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/fall2002/taxol.html
"It was Aug. 21, 1962. [Arthur S.] Barclay, a 32-year-old Harvard-trained botanist working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was winding up a four-month field mission, his first since returning to the states from a seed-gathering trip to South Africa. He'd been sent out West by his bosses in Maryland to collect samples of trees, shrubs, weeds, seeds—anything in the plant kingdom—for a government program aimed at finding natural chemicals that might be of some use as medicines."
"Barclay's quest on that August day 40 years ago this summer was a bag of samples pulled from a Pacific yew tree..."
Not only did they discover the molecule, they had to go find another source for it because the Pacific Yew is an endangered species.
What do you think, all new drugs are stolen by evil bad drug company guys from the holistic herbocopia? American tax dollars paid for that one. Say "Thanks America!"
Oh, and say "Thanks Bristol-Meyers!" because from the 1960's until about 1994 they spent BIG money on it and made not a shekel. But it works and you can buy it in industrial quantities. Science, baby. www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/taxol/taxol1.htm
The problem with your argument is you are conflating technique, technology if you like, with the TCM "cosmology". Techniques work no matter what the mental model of ther practitioner IF they have "real" effects in the "Real" world. (There's that pesky real world thing again, keeps jumping up everywhere.)
TCM does not have a central theory that powerfully maps reality. For one thing, you can't measure anything. If my liver meridian is out of whack, can I find out how much? Like in inches/pounds/electron volts? No. Are there Chi units? No. Can I even test for Chi? No. If you can't measure it, its bollocks.
And its not science. TCM theory is in fact inherently untestable. Can't be tested. Impossible to disprove. Its an ex-parrot.
Can the propeller heads of the West measure the effect of accupuncture? Hell yes! That's because it actually DOES something. They can even tell you what molecule is produced and why it makes you feel better.
Pretty soon you'll be able to buy that stuff by the quart, with a delivery system and everything. Alter brain chemistry at will, that's going to be really something.
Incidently I'm very familliar with the use of accupuncture for abdominal surgery. I looked into it because some space case told me about it 20 years ago, said it was "all natural". The patient usually lives, but it hurts a LOT. I'll prefer to enrich a pharmaceutical company if they give me safe anesthetic and some nice pain killers afterward. Pain sucks!
The Chinese agree, they have proper surgeons like we do. They thank White boy Norman Bethune for that.
Posted by: The Phantom at August 02, 2005 07:43 PM (nAMT1)
14
"If you can't measure it, it's bollocks."
May I use this sometime? I love it!
What put the white guys onto the Pacific Yew as a medicinal plant? Why, that folk medicine you dismiss so readily. And a taxol molecule had to be "discovered" to make it a "real" medicine? Ever seen a molecule? No, you haven't. You've seen models of them, though. So they must "exist." Unlike the Indian mumbo-jumbo that led you to the damn tree in the first place. Good grief.
"TCM does not have a central theory that powerfully maps reality. For one thing, you can't measure anything. If my liver meridian is out of whack, can I find out how much? Like in inches/pounds/electron volts? No. Are there Chi units? No. Can I even test for Chi?"
For "chi," substitute "life-force." Easy to test if it is present. For "balancing chi," substitute "homeostasis." With more sophisticated techniques than simply taking a pulse, you can test for such mechanisms too.
Are you saying there was no Chinese surgery before Bethune showed up? Tibetans were doing craniotomy 1,200 years ago. Think all medicine but that of the white guy is incantation and burning leaves? Good grief again.
What put the white guys onto the Pacific Yew as a medicinal plant? Why, that folk medicine you dismiss so readily. And a taxol molecule had to be "discovered" to make it a "real" medicine? Ever seen a molecule? No, you haven't. You've seen models of them, though. So they must "exist." Unlike the Indian mumbo-jumbo that led you to the damn tree in the first place. Good grief.
"TCM does not have a central theory that powerfully maps reality. For one thing, you can't measure anything. If my liver meridian is out of whack, can I find out how much? Like in inches/pounds/electron volts? No. Are there Chi units? No. Can I even test for Chi?"
For "chi," substitute "life-force." Easy to test if it is present. For "balancing chi," substitute "homeostasis." With more sophisticated techniques than simply taking a pulse, you can test for such mechanisms too.
Are you saying there was no Chinese surgery before Bethune showed up? Tibetans were doing craniotomy 1,200 years ago. Think all medicine but that of the white guy is incantation and burning leaves? Good grief again.Posted by: Dr.Dawg at August 02, 2005 08:21 PM (ypUNY)
15
TCM is already regulated in Canada under recent amendments to the Canada Health Act, which address safety and efficacy of a range of "natural health products". Most provincial legislation, including that under consideration in Ontario, is intended to implement federal legislation and regs within the context of the provincial health care systems.
Posted by: balbulican at August 03, 2005 07:28 AM (pNbix)
16
History lesson:
In 1962 the entire holistic herbal health craze hadn't been invented yet. The US government sent teams out to sample EVERYTHING in the hope of finding bioactive substances. The reason they did this is obviously because of the discovery of Penicilin. Penicilin was discoverd by accident in a lab, if memory serves. Later, after the drug was in use somebody figured out bread mold was used as a folk remedy in Europe. So they immediately tested every kind of plant, slime, spore and scuz to see if it had medicinal properties.
I don't even know if Pacific Yew was used in Indian folk medicine. Since it takes all the bark of more than two trees to brew up one dose of Taxol, I very much doubt it.
And that, Doctor Canine sir, is where the interest in Chinese medicine came from in the first place.
Yes, the Egyptians had trepanning. Yes, there was surgery in China before Bethune. No, Western Science did not invent absolutely everything in the world. But now surgery doesn't kill more than half the patients from shock, blood loss and infection. Thank you Norman Bethune and Louis Pasteur.
The old geezer who lives next door to me had a double bypass last winter. He walks two miles every day now. This is a guy who was in the Afrika Corps and had two ships shot out from under him in the Mediteranian. He's 85. You can't do that surgery on a guy that old with accupuncture. That surgery gets done on guys that old every single day, most of them live at least another five years . That's power.
Now, as to your other insistence. Can I borrow a cup of "life force"? How about a quarter pound? Couple inches? Twelve horsepower?
The actual quote goes, "If you can't measure it, its not science." Robert A. Heinlein, "Have Spacesuit Will Travel". I changed it a bit for dramatic effect.
I'm a physical therapist. And a martial arts student from 'way back in the day. So I probably know as much about chi as anybody you're likely to meet.
There's a qualitative difference between a live body and a dead one, any med student or PT who's done gross anatomy dissection will tell you about it. The difference is shocking, first time I saw a dead human I nearly puked from the lack of life force, chi, whatever. You can't miss it, its as obvious as a smack in the face with a ten day old flounder. Still gives me the creeps ten years later.
I use a sense of chi in my work automatically. I can tell if somebody is sick by their walk, by their stance, movement. I can run my hand down their body without touching them and poke my finger right on the sore spot every time.
This is not impressive. Any -competent- doctor or PT or massage therapist can do this. The whole Chinese method is based on it. Its normal for people who pay attention to this kind of thing to be able to do that.
BUT, we don't know what it IS. Personally I think its body heat in the patient and proprioceptive training in the observer, but there's no -measurable evidence- to help me along here. There's people doing some interesting things with infra-red cameras, computerized gait analysis and etc. that hold some promise. We shall see.
And when we finally figure it out, which I'm certain we will, you'll be able to have a doctor with the proper diagnostic equipment sort out a whole new range of annoying illnesses in a ten minute visit, instead of paying me exorbitant ammounts to feel and guess my way to a semi-satisfactory solution.
I can't cure cancer or fix a severed spinal cord. Chinese methods can't either and will never ever be able to. Allopathic methods and Western science will be able to do it, and I may even live to see it done.
The difference between the TCM model and the Allopathic model is power. Power to get things done. Something measurable in lives saved and new cures per decade.
Posted by: The Phantom at August 03, 2005 09:51 AM (nAMT1)
17
"I don't even know if Pacific Yew was used in Indian folk medicine."
'Growing human cancer cells in the laboratory is a tricky business, but the technique has led to new prospects for further investigation. In 1990, a wonder drug materialized, not from some exotic tropical island, but from here in the United States. The substance was taxol, derived from the Pacific yew.
'Why test the bark of a tree for phytochemicals? Bark extracts have a long history with Native Americans, and alkaloids from yew bark were known prior to the identification of taxol. Once refined, it proved stunningly successful against ovarian cancer.'
Source: http://tinyurl.com/8ck5l
My partner's Mom knew a fair bit of herbal lore. Her people (Maori) didn't invent it, they discovered it, and to make such discoveries, as I have been trying to argue all along, requires powers of reason, analysis and careful obervation over long periods of time.
Personally. I don't care if the person putting my liver back into shape talks about meridians or molecules. Does the treatment work? You don't seem to want to come to grips with that question, because it might allow for the possibility that other belief-systems can include their share of empirical goings-on.
In this connection, I do not believe that a bona fide shamanic healer would ignore the obvious value of laser surgery or other techniques discovered in other ways. One does not cancel out the other. I have never argued against the indisputable worth of allopathic discoveries, only against the narrow and exclusive approach that allopathy seems to carry with it.
One doesn't have to mystify Chi, by the way. There's nothing mystical about it within the epistemology of a TCM practitioner, after all. If I can't measure life-force, that doesn't mean I'm not alive. (But I'm sorry I used the term; it sounds too Bergsonian by half. What I meant was that what life "is" is not a very interesting question. In that sense, I would appear to be more positivist than you are
)
)Posted by: Dr.Dawg at August 03, 2005 11:45 AM (ypUNY)
July 29, 2005
In Canada courts can't change laws?
An Edmonton man, Rene Hamilton, was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada on charges of counseling others to commit a crime, in particular to build and detonate a bomb. He had purchased 200 files on the Internet and was reselling them through a spam email. Bomb-making was covered in some of those files.
He did not read all the files, including the bomb-making ones:
"The trial judge appears to have accepted Mr. Hamilton's evidence that he did not read the files relating to bombs and to burglaries and found as a fact that he had no intention to induce the recipients of his 'teaser' (e-mail) to either ... build bombs or commit burglaries," Justice Morris Fish wrote in the court's the 6-3 majority decision.
But here's the kicker:
[T]he court said it would leave any attempt to tighten up restrictions on Internet sales to Parliament."Even if they were minded to do so, the courts cannot contain the inherent dangers of cyberspace crime by expanding or transforming offenses, such as counseling, that were conceived to meet a different and unrelated need," Fish wrote.
"Any attempt to do so may well do more harm than good, inadvertently catching morally innocent conduct and unduly limiting harmless access to information."
I find this fascinating. When the courts decided that laws defining marriage as a heterosexual union were wrong, they did not leave it up to Parliament. They just struck down the laws immediately. They could have struck the law down, then suspended the judgment for a fixed period of time, giving Parliament time to address the issue democratically. But no, can't wait on hearing from the people on something important like that.
But for selling bomb-making instructions on the Internet? That can wait until the fall, assuming the government even decides to deal with it. The Supreme Court is not going to push it as an issue by making a ruling on the law. As far as they are concerned, this is not an issue important enough to make that kind of trouble over.
Oh, and the three dissenters? They wanted to acquit Hamilton on all charges. The majority held that he could still face charges on credit card fraud since one the files he was selling, and that he clearly read, was on how to generate a valid credit card number.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:31 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Not another apples and oranges argument!
The law is deficient in many respects in regard to cyberspace. That's generally accepted. Extending the law into those areas isn't as simple as merely "reading in" a Charter right. Such legislation requires careful, precise, detailed drafting--the work of Parliament, not judges.
As the judges pointed out: "Any attempt [on their part] to do so may well do more harm than good, inadvertently catching morally innocent conduct and unduly limiting harmless access to information." Quite so. There's too much going on in cyberspace, too many ramifications, to apply existing law.
This one's a stretch, Angry. But I think you knew that.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 02:56 PM (Lf2qC)
2
I'm stretching sure. But when I stretch, nothing happens. When the SCoC stretches, all hell breaks loose.
It annoys me that they defer to Parliament in one situation, but decide in another that they can decide unilaterally. Like I said, they could have ruled on the definition of marriage being unconstitutional and stayed their ruling for a fixed period of time. That would have given Parliament time to sort this out. The same goes for all the provincial courts.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 29, 2005 03:16 PM (AvjIr)
3
The distinction between this as SSM is in creating a criminal law versus interpreting another law.
In Frey v. Fedoruk, the Supreme Court ruled that if judges created criminal law, it would introduce uncertainty into the law andwould eliminate the ability to determine if an action would be against the law before undertaking the action.
According to Prof. Randal Graham in his book, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, "Only where the accusedÂ’s conduct is expressly caught by the relevant provision can the accused be convicted of an offense. The fact that the behavior of the accused is similarÂ…to expressly prohibited conduct will not suffice."
As much as it bothers me that this guy would weasel out of the charges, the court has a good reason for refusing to create criminal offences where there were none before.
Posted by: Mike at July 29, 2005 03:56 PM (og0rB)
4
Yeah but don't we have the supreme court telling us that we have to have gay marriage even though the charter does not refer to sexual orientation at all????
Liar Liar pants on fire!!
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 29, 2005 04:46 PM (7tLLA)
5
I take it there are no spam laws in Canada either?
Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2005 04:55 PM (PuNh2)
6
What in the world are you talking about?
The SCC did not strike down or change any laws with regard to SSM.
They gave a non-binding opinion on a reference questionfrom Parliament.
Furthermore, on the question of whether the current definition of marriage as a man and a woman is unconstitutional, the SCC refused to answer in the opinion and sent the question back to Parliament - exactly the position the Conservative Party wanted.
Finally, why in this case would you not applaud the absence of "judicial activism" rather than complaining about imaginary activism with regard to SSM?
Do you want the courts to make laws or not?
Posted by: sacamano at July 29, 2005 05:20 PM (9DKlW)
7
Perhaps I'm wrong but I think you are missing the point.
I may simply be showing my advanced years here, but I learned many years ago, when I was young and stupid, that ignorance of the law is NO excuse.
The fact that this man read the file on how to generate a valid credit card number and COULD (remember that this is not definite) still face charges of credit card fraud speaks volumes.
Credit card fraud is a crime and reading this file should have given this poor victim pause to read ALL of the remaining files.
This case makes me feel fuzzy all over now that people are allowed to avoid the consequences of their actions courtesy of the Supreme Court.
Thanks for nothing.
Cheers
Gerry
Posted by: gerry in montreal at July 29, 2005 07:59 PM (g0NUd)
8
Angry are you advocating that it be illegal to possess knowledge. Just because you know how to do something shouldn`t be illegal unless you act on that knowledge. If that were the case everyone would be a criminal. Maybe we thought police ?
Posted by: pat at July 29, 2005 08:15 PM (bZrsw)
9
Wow Angry, it looks like your posting has really stirred up a hornet's nest with left wing law students like Dr. Dawg, and sacamano. (Umm like there ARE any right wing law students).
Anyhow I notice Dr. Dawg responds only peripherally to the arguements made on this or other forums. Instead he usually begins with a snotty remark about the nature of the posting itself, as if that somehow removed any legitimacy of the point being made.
Twits like Dawg are not interested in hearing otheres comments. They are interested in forcing people to think in a manner that they approve of.
Posted by: John at July 29, 2005 08:58 PM (Fo7fq)
10
I'm just advocating some consistency.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 29, 2005 09:35 PM (20fwh)
11
John said "Umm like there ARE any right wing law students"
I'm a right wing law student, and I know of many others. I merely pointed out that allowing the Court to create criminal offences undermines the belief that the legal system should be predictable. It would seem to be unreasonable that you could do something not prohibited by the criminal code, yet be convicted by the court because they decide it SHOULD be illegal and thus create an offence under which to convict you.
Small "c" conservatives want to see the Court defer to Parliament. That's what they wanted on the SSM issue. That's what they wanted with Sharpe and his kiddie porn. While conservatives would support the recent health care ruling, I suspect many also feel such a decision should have been made by MPs.
Actions involving the internet should not be forced into the present provisions of the criminal code. If they want to prosecute actions such as Hamilton's, MAKE THEM ILLEGAL.
As an aside, why should knowing how to, or telling someone how to, make a bomb be illegal? It seems to me that clearly taking the step of building the bomb should be prohibited. But knowledge without action harms no one.
Posted by: Mike at July 29, 2005 11:46 PM (og0rB)
12
"I'm just advocating some consistency."
Well then, tell us how the Charter is to be applied in this case to _force_ the Judge to write law.
Section 15, the section which applied to SSM, doesn't apply here. Section 1 doesn't apply here either...
What section of the Charter says "In seeing that a law could be written, you must?"
SSM was required because the Charter called for it under Section 15: "Every individual is equal under and before the law..."
However, the Charter does say...
"9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"
Neither applies to SSM, but seem to interfere with a judge's ability to says 'Presto! New law, and now you're guilty for selling information over the internet!"
Posted by: Mark [Section 15] at July 30, 2005 01:52 AM (ZOtEh)
13
July 30, 2005
RICHARD POSNER has some thoughts on technology, markets, and the news media. This bit is likely to get the most attention around the blogosphere:
The latest, and perhaps gravest, challenge to the journalistic establishment is the blog. Journalists accuse bloggers of having lowered standards. But their real concern is less high-minded - it is the threat that bloggers, who are mostly amateurs, pose to professional journalists and their principal employers, the conventional news media. A serious newspaper, like The Times, is a large, hierarchical commercial enterprise that interposes layers of review, revision and correction between the reporter and the published report and that to finance its large staff depends on advertising revenues and hence on the good will of advertisers and (because advertising revenues depend to a great extent on circulation) readers. These dependences constrain a newspaper in a variety of ways. But in addition, with its reputation heavily invested in accuracy, so that every serious error is a potential scandal, a newspaper not only has to delay publication of many stories to permit adequate checking but also has to institute rules for avoiding error - like requiring more than a single source for a story or limiting its reporters' reliance on anonymous sources - that cost it many scoops.
I think that Posner understates individual bloggers' reputational concerns. However, he's right about this part:
The charge by mainstream journalists that blogging lacks checks and balances is obtuse. The blogosphere has more checks and balances than the conventional media; only they are different. The model is Friedrich Hayek's classic analysis of how the economic market pools enormous quantities of information efficiently despite its decentralized character, its lack of a master coordinator or regulator, and the very limited knowledge possessed by each of its participants.
In effect, the blogosphere is a collective enterprise - not 12 million separate enterprises, but one enterprise with 12 million reporters, feature writers and editorialists, yet with almost no costs. It's as if The Associated Press or Reuters had millions of reporters, many of them experts, all working with no salary for free newspapers that carried no advertising.
Indeed.
instapundit.com
Posted by: maz2 at July 30, 2005 01:25 PM (DBNys)
Poland vs Belarus -- Lessons in history
Poland's history has always revolved around freedom. But unlike some nations, Poland is showing herself to be an avid student of history and is working hard to avoid repeating mistakes.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:03 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1464 words, total size 10 kb.
1
Keep in mind that Poland, with all due respect, is viewed suspiciously and even hatefully by Slavs and Eastern Europeans. Poland has been a corridor of invasion, resulting in the loss of millions of Belorussian, Caucasian, Russian, and Ukranian lives. Poland is often seen as a state would not defend itself historically and therefore has to be dominated before it becomes the tool of a hostile power.
This argument in modern times is ludicrous, but the suspicion comes from past historical events, and Slavs hold grudges for a long time. I wouldn't be lying to you if I told you many of my older Russian aquaintances who were alive in the 50's still hold some blame in their hearts for the misery their families had to endure. To them, indeed to many, Poland must be dominated to ensure it's status as a buffer zone to prevent military invasion.
Old traditions die hard.
As for Catholicism in Poland, it was not completely suppressed out of consideration for nationalist elements which are useful to Communist countries in their development and in preventing defections and dissent. The Catholic church was allowed to survive in Poland by Gomulka just like Stalin allowed the patriarch of the Orthodox church to remain in Russia to create nationalism during the Second World War to prevent a revolt. If it survived, it was because it was allowed to do so. Don't fool yourself into thinking that if it was otherwise, the Polish authorities wouldn't of quietly executed every single confirmed religious believer in the country. The poles had already proved themselves adept at purging undesireable elements.
I will agree with you on Lukashenko. He is a cancer, not only for Europe, but for Russia. His hardline dictatorial rule has nothing to offer the CIS anyways. A controlled, influenced, and pro-Moscow revolution would be adequate. Bot because I think the current government of the Russian Federation should have it's power increased, but some concessions must be made to Moscow, isolating the Russians will only increase their ire for the West, preventing any future cooperation.
Keeping everything above into consideration, Belarus is not a threat to Europe, unless Russia is a threat. Belarus, while deciding to have it's own distinct internal policy, is well aware that it has to model any foreign policy around Moscow's desires. It would be suicide for Lukashenko to act with the Kremlin's blessing. Moscow is to Belarus as Washington is to Isreal. I don't believe he is foolish enough to abandon his only ally. Especially when his economy is a smoldering wreckage after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.
It is an entirely plausible argument that Russia, acting through the Belorussian security apparatus, is trying to debstabilize or dominate Poland in order to ensure it's hold on what it deems is it's "Sphere of Influence".
Posted by: Martin B. at July 29, 2005 11:25 AM (ft48a)
2
being born there and lived half a life I do not agree with Martin.
Posted by: george at July 29, 2005 12:37 PM (Df8au)
3
I've heard similar from Russians. Of course, Poles hate Russians for invading from the other direction. And as for being a corridor -- hey, that doesn't sound all that pleasant at all!
"If it survived, it was because it was allowed to do so. Don't fool yourself into thinking that if it was otherwise, the Polish authorities wouldn't of quietly executed every single confirmed religious believer in the country. The poles had already proved themselves adept at purging undesireable elements."
But if it was left to survive, it certainly was not cowed, nor did it curtail its political activities at the unspoken threat of executions. Sounds more like the authorities made a mistake, but then they could not predict the election of JPII, and the effect that had.
As a tool for the Communists, the RC Church turned out to be too dangerous for them to handle.
"I will agree with you on Lukashenko."
Of course you will. I have great powers of persuasion. These are not the droids you are looking for.
"Belarus is not a threat to Europe"
We've heard that before. You're probably right, but a mistake in 1933 ultimately sent 6 million to death camps.
"It is an entirely plausible argument that Russia, acting through the Belorussian security apparatus, is trying to debstabilize or dominate Poland in order to ensure it's hold on what it deems is its 'Sphere of Influence'."
Good point. Then Polish actions could be seen in part democratic idealism and in part a coldy calculated countermove in the best realpolitik tradition.
I hadn't thought of that. Hmmmmm.....
Blinded by pride, I guess.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 29, 2005 12:40 PM (AvjIr)
4
George: Where Poland Russia or Belorussia? I've spent considerable time in Russia in the past, having lived there as well, and this is what I gleaned from my aquaintances in political and non-political environments.
For many, including myself, who have an emotional loyalty to Russia and it's former bloc, The Polish Question is not one of decency or respect for soverreignety, but that of survival and pride. Historical past events are hard to forget given the consequences. An adequately conquered and fortified Poland would of probably stalled the Germans in the way that the Caucasus and the annexed part of Eastern Finland did, preventing the razing of most of Ukraine and Western Russia. This might seem like a cold and heartless point of view, but in statistical terms of the numbers of human lives lost, the sacrifice of the Poles would of been justified for the preservation of others. Poland was doomed to fall into one camp or the other. And it certainly didn't stop Russia from overunning the Germans in the end. I know this comment will probably piss off alot of people, and I take full responsibility and won't retort if you feel it is necessary to raise hell about it. It's my personal opinion and I accept that.
Angry:
The notion that Belarus could even develop into anything remotely close to 1933 Germany is frivolous. It does not have the industrial capacity nor the resources of the Weimar Republic. And any action that would be deemed as "crossing the line" by Moscow would probably result in a swift change of leadership backed by the Kremlin.
You are right in what you say about the Catholic Church in Poland, it did develop into a situation which could no ,longer be controlled. But it's very existence was originally allowed by the Polish Communists. If they would of had any inclination of what was to come (doubtful, since they were fully in control at that time) any Catholic elements would of quickly been purged.
As for Russia being the driving hand behind Belarus, well, I wouldn't put it past them. Russians are by nature quite calculating and coldly manipulative. And they are nostalgic for their former superpower status. Russia will bide it's time and act through sattellites until it feels it has enough influence to retake what was lost. This is not because of former communist elements or even imperialist ones, but because it is Russian nature to dominate those weaker than itself in order to sustain it's ambitions. Russia has proven in the past to be capable of any action in order to ensure it's own personal safety at the expense of others while it quickly increases it's personal power. Brest-Litvosk, Molotov-Ribbentrop, and the current "friendship" with the American bloc are good examples. This characteristic is what has allowed Russia to survive the breakup of it's empire twice and still rise back from the ruins to return to an influential great power.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 29, 2005 01:36 PM (ft48a)
5
that should of been "return to being an influential..etc etc"
Posted by: Martin B. at July 29, 2005 01:36 PM (ft48a)
6
"The notion that Belarus could even develop into anything remotely close to 1933 Germany is frivolous."
Maybe. Srebrenica should never have happened either. Can Belarus threaten its neighbours? Not now. But if Belarus merges with Russia, and Belarus ultra-nationalists ride a wave of popularity to the Kremlin, who knows where that leads to next.
"But it's very existence was originally allowed by the Polish Communists."
I think you give too much credit to the Communists. They'd like to think they allowed it. Let them.
Your analysis of Russia I think nails it. Which suggests this fight is not between Poland and Belarus, but really between Poland and Russia.
But Russia as a great influential power? Powerful meddler, for now at least.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 29, 2005 02:05 PM (OeJic)
7
Consider the difference between Yeltsin's Russia and Putin's Russia. From weakened state who payed lip-service to Europe and the U.S. to powerful bastion of independence and assertion that has willingly done as it wishes so long as doing so served it's interests. Russia right now seems to be quite transitional. Similar periods occured after Kerensky's revolution and the Provisional Government. I'm not saying Russia is going to immediately return to imperialism, current geopolitical consequences would be too great, but it has made a quiet bid for time before. Putin has semi-openly set the stage for Russia's transition to a nationalist power.
When I mean great power, I mean Great Power in the historical sense of the word, the most powerful and influential nations who tend for form blocs around them, Russia being one, the American-British, Franco-Germans, and Chinese being the other three right now.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 29, 2005 02:27 PM (ft48a)
8
Martin
For me good Russian is dead one.
Posted by: george at July 29, 2005 03:23 PM (Df8au)
9
Biggest.
Tongue biting exercise.
Ever.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 29, 2005 03:49 PM (ft48a)
10
Belarus will fall in due time... internally as they always do.
I think your background on Poland is a bit simplistic though... being in the past a big part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and have a lot of Germanic people within it's borders.
That in itself maybe the reason that it was the first to throw off the yolk of Russian Communism.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 29, 2005 05:18 PM (7tLLA)
11
Think, people.
You are debating nation-state issues in the age of global terrorism. Lukashenko doesn't need 50 divisions to wreak havoc against Europe and the West. How much technology does Belarus posess? How many terrorists could be covered as dipolomats? How much wealth can he acquire by vectoring drug money? Belarus had close connections to Saddam's Iraq. Does anyone suppose all of those people are dead, or retired? I do not. In an assymetric world, a ruthless dictator living inside the European/technological bubble is a big deal. The sooner he goes, the better.
Posted by: michigan observer at July 30, 2005 11:54 AM (oaNZ8)
12
As someone who has lived in Belarus for the last 3 out of 5 years, I must respectfully disagree that the current Belarus-Poland dust-up has any Russian ties or implications.
Lukashenko's concerns are not about Russian, or even Belarussian territorial integrity, they are only about himself. Just look at his actions regarding reunification with Russia. He signed a treaty with Russia back in the 1990's which envisioned a Russia-Belarus union. At the time Lukashenko signed it, he envisioned it would lead to the rebirth of the Soviet Union with him as its leader. Now that he understands there is little being offered for him after a re-unification, he now continually finds excuses for delay.
Lukashenko believes that Belarus is an equal to Russia and that he is equal to Putin. This is obviously ludicrous on any level to think that the union would be a merger of equals. Putin tolerates Lukashenko for several reason. One is because to do otherwise would incur the displeasure of the old-guard forces remaining in the Kremlin and throughout Russia which admire Lukashenko's retention of the old communist ways. But Putin will only be pushed so far, as evidenced by the gas shutoff to Belarus that happened a few years ago.
Also note that the newly appointed Russian ambassador to Belarus said in an interview given last month that Lukashenko needed to stop thinking of himself and start thinking about his country which infuriated Lukashenko and has caused a delay in his officially taking over the post as Ambassador.
Lukashenko has shown in the past that he is very thin skinned and does not tolerate opposition. Given the Presidential election next year and the events in Georgia and Ukraine, can there be any surprise by his actions?
Posted by: Jim at July 30, 2005 12:31 PM (+I8oa)
13
Sadly all this sounds like a return to the nationalist thinking of the pre WWII period. Maybe this is where we are heading. People talking about 'nations' as if they are discussing baseball teams, leaders as if they are baseball management styles....The 'gods' rolling their balls at bowling pins in Rip vanWinkle are those in this sort of mentality and the ordinary people trying to forge ordinary lives who are the same everywhere, albeit getting duped by the local version of this same mentality everywhere, are their eternal victims.
Posted by: edward mills at July 31, 2005 12:37 AM (c4Z9/)
14
Angry, I agree that Poland has always supported individual rights over collective rights. You forgot the constitution of 1493, I believe it was, where the Kingship was made elective, and responsible to the people. Poland will always support freedom because it always has.
In the EU momentarily, the French and German socialist model will undergo deep revisions because of English and Polish pressure, supported by one of Italy,and/or Spain depending on who wins the last election in their countries.
This will change the attitude of the EU as a whole to anti-democratic juntas such as Belarus presents. It may even happen faster than that if Angela Merkel wins the election in Germany. or Nicholas Szarkosy the next Presidential election in France. One only is required for fast action.
Posted by: Mark at July 31, 2005 01:12 AM (Uagor)
15
edward, your comment doesn't make all that much sense.
Are you saying that there are no differences between the regimes of Poland and Belarus?
Posted by: Knemon at July 31, 2005 06:27 AM (QaHR7)
16
Ordinary people everywhere are much the same, altho they are duped in different ways by different ruling regimes, and of these some are a lot worse than others. But lets not get into this nationalist characterization of ordinary people, when it is the regimes we are concerned with.
And if we are to muster our concern over undemocratic regimes, let democrats focus close to home where their energy is most well spent, to wit:
Canada's 'democratic deficit issue. We do not elect our PM, his party does that and the democratic deficit in party rules (where the PM can nix constituency picks etc) is the worst of all. Further this nationally unelected (like the US Pres is) PM appoints EVERYTHING incl courts, review boards etc etc, everything that masquerades as a 'system of checks and balances' is appointed by the same unelected PM. And the party that chooses the PM is elected usually by 25 % of the electorate, and a minority of thise who do bother to vote in this rigged system where the election is over by the time the Ontario votes have been counted.
Further, Canada is one of the last apartheid states where people are in isolated governancy structure by race, and put on reserves where socialist forms of property relations stymie only one people in Canada on the basis of race....
Given all this, and this is just a short version of the democratic deficit (Senate, state media pushing virtual one party state paradigm daily...) the focus should be on how Canada compares democratically to other similar self-righteous regimes, whether they be Belarus or Poland or Denmark or the US...
Our corrupt ruling virtual one party regime governing most of our history replete with apartheid and a continuing history of selective persecutions of population sectors deemed politically incorrect at the time to this one party ruling manipulative regime, does not allow us to criticize other similar regimes dealing with perhaps more extreme problems, until we address our own (in a phrase so 'decently' understated) 'democratic deficit'.
Posted by: edward mills at July 31, 2005 11:06 PM (c4Z9/)
17
Edward, the US president is not directly elected by the general population either; they vote instead for a slate of Electors in each state. Those are the Electoral College votes we hear so much about, and it is those people who directly elect the President.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 31, 2005 11:31 PM (pPVQ0)
18
Thanks, Ed. Yes, and this electoral college system which causes legitimacy doubts in the past is also an undemocratic throwback and was used by Putin to remark that before the US gets all self-righteous criticizing Russian democracy (where he can veto governors, like our PM picks our senators and can veto who gets to run as a lib candidate, local riding democracy be damned), the US should reform and modernize its democracy and social system where indeed it can be seen as a model for others to follow.
The statistics and contents of the US and Canadian prison system and justice system generally where you have human rights only if you can afford a legal battle, are issues which mock all the rhetoric about democracy and freedom. Ask any father under the divorce regime if he enjoys freedom, equality, or democratic rights. Ask anyone with average income or poor whether they have a chance in any dealing with our courts.
The general rule, re 'democratic deficit' is that the more recent democracies tend to be more democratic, albeit all being imperfect in being the best system. So Britain and its former colony Canada are marked by some of the least democratic aspects (appointed senate, judiciary, first past the post majority governments elected by minority of voters, shenanegans at intra-party and constituency politics are par for the course (that's how Dosanjh got to be premier)...There's no reason for this in todays modern world where better more democratic ways of doing things are so available. Those who prevent reform of the democratic deficit should not talk about other undemocratic countries; they should make the democratic deficit at home their prime political objective first, and THEN, once Canada and the US have cleaned up its prison system and the proportion of the population incarcerated compared to European nations, and once the vast numbers falsely arrested have been dealt with and addressed asa gigantic abuse of citizens here, and once Canada is no longer a socialist apartheid state for only one captive race in canada, and once men are equal to women in our courts such as they are by PM appointment, THEN Canada can move on from its own base as a real democracy to begin criticizing other undemocratic countries.
Preston Manning began a call to reform, to modernize, to bring up to modern European standards, Canadian democracy and he was mocked and ridiculed as a regressive by the CBC mercilessly for ten years as a result.
Why get self-righteous about the Belarus one party state controlling the state media when the same is thriving scot-free in our own back yard? To stoke its divide and rule one party state status for over a century, this state has to always pick on somebody: Lets review a partial list: 1st WW era, 8000 Ukrainian Canadians imprisoned and expropriated, then the natives were locked into residential schools , then the Japanese, the Doukhobors, and in my generation, the big politically incorrect category to be vilified and disempowered by the state were all men by virtue of gender.
While all this still goes on, Canada should clean its own turf, democratize the political and judicial system responsible for this shameful record, begin to elect its PM under a democratic system, end the party whip controlled cowing of MPs, abolish the upper house, or elect the upper house, reform the process for selecting the judiciary into a multi-party parliamentary process, ...the list of necessary reforms to make Canada into a democratic country is so long, it defies a quick summary.
Once these issues are addressed in Canada, let's begin to reform the world. But until then, let's never wax self-righteously about other countries, whether they be the US or Belarus. let's clean up our own sorry-ass back yard first.
Posted by: edward mills at August 01, 2005 06:58 PM (c4Z9/)
19
Martin B.,
your comments about Russia are correct.
I must disagree on a couple of points about Poland tho (full disclosure: I'm a Pole).
regarding the catholic church in Poland in the 1950 you obviously have to study a bit more. The comparison to the nearly fully controlled Russian orthodox church - estimated 60-70% of secret police collaborators (including the current patriarch) to the Polish church with 10-20% of collaborators, with failed attempts of creation of a communist obediant church (the 'Patriot Priests') is ridiculous. Read a bit about cardinal Wyszynski and his emprisonement.
To suggest that Belarus is an instrument for Moscow to reconquer Poland is ridiculous. Belarus hasn't got the strenght, and Polish don't want (for now, it may well change in the future...) to reintegrate the Russian sphere of influence.
Russia has got other, more efficient, means to influence Poland's external and internal policies:
- the postcommunist controlled government and parlament,
- the postcommunist president,
- scores of former servants of the communist state: military officers, police officers, secret police officers and agents / collaborators, communist party prominent members...
- quasi total dependence concerning oil and gas imports (about 90%)
-a copy of the communist secret police agents / collaborators file / list is in the Russian FSB/SVR archives...
Posted by: xavras at August 01, 2005 07:33 PM (Y1IiK)
20
Re: "Poland has been a corridor of invasion, resulting in the loss of millions of Belorussian, Caucasian, Russian, and Ukranian lives. Poland is often seen as a state would not defend itself historically and therefore has to be dominated before it becomes the tool of a hostile power.''
It is usually assumed that in September 1939 no single army in the world could match the Nazi Germany's one. The Soviet Russian Red Army was defeated by Wehrmacht two years later. Poland would probably be able to defeat Nazi Germany only in cooperation with the French and Czech Armies together with The British Air force and Navy. Unfortunately the history went the other way. Red Army eventually defeated the NAzi Germany in the eastern front with the substantial help from the other Allies, including Poland. The 'corridor' parallel is thus completely inappropiate here, since in 1939 Poland fought with the two armies: the Nazi Germany's and the Soviet Russian, which attacked Poland just two weeks after the Germans. The victorious invaders stopped at Bug river roughly and lived in peace for two more years, extensively cooperating with each other. Thanks to that cooperation and Russian oil Hitler has had a chance to fight in the West.
Noone can tell what would happen in 1939 if the Red Army would not have invaded Poland from the east , however it is most probable that Hitler's army wouldn't attack Poland at all if he hadn't a pact with Stalin (Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) to jointly invade their neighbour.
Posted by: Dam_a at August 19, 2005 07:38 AM (+JRfP)
21
Poles are very active in the campaign to unseat the charlie chaplin of Belarus - as they did in Ukraine. But is this a completly a good thing?
As the recent history of Poland shows, revolutions from within are the ones that work. When change comes from the outside the political foundations for what comes after dictatorships are not in place. (witness Ukraine where things are already getting messy within the 'Orange Revolutionaries' - there have been fistycuffs in parliament between various factions).
So I would be careful in meddling in other countries' business.
In Poland the Lukashenko issue is also being used by the political right, and far-right (such as the League of Polish Families, Law and Justice etc), to underline their anti-communist and anti-Russian credentials in the run up to the general and presidential elections this fall. Going on and on about Belarus plays well with the christian-nationalist electorate.
And we have to admit that Lukashenko does have political supprt in Belarus. It is no good calling him "Europe's last dictator' because this is a gross simplification. Lukashenko has managed to (usually) pay public workers on time and keep unemployment down. In 'free' Poland unemploymewnt is nearly 20% and youth unemployment is nearly 40%.
So lets bash Lukashenko, but lets also remember that the issue is not as simple as much of the media - and the US government and the EU - like to present it as.
Posted by: beatroot at September 08, 2005 11:00 AM (uHa0j)
Environmentalists on Mars?
What if there are Martians, for real?
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:51 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Mad Cow disease doesn't use DNA or RNA. Its a prion. Martian prions?
Posted by: The Phantom at July 29, 2005 11:56 AM (nAMT1)
2
Maybe.
But did prions come first? Or did they come into being by virtue of a cell's protein-making machinery getting something horribly wrong? We don't know (or maybe we do -- I'm not up-to-speed on the latest). If the latter is true, then you need RNA-DNA life first, and prions get formed later.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 29, 2005 12:02 PM (AvjIr)
3
Didn't you see/read War of the Worlds? We shouldn't be upset that our microbes may kill the Martians! Look what they've been planning for millions of years!
Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 29, 2005 02:28 PM (U2GJM)
4
If Martians exist then I would expect that they live underground.
Maybe they are tired of shooting down our myriad satellites and probes by now?
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 29, 2005 05:34 PM (7tLLA)
5
Martian soil may contain all sorts of microbes. The evidence suggests that the soil is saturated with briny water - indeed, the magnesium sulfate salts which make up a large fraction of Martian soil are about half water, by weight. There is also strong evidence that there is a frozen sea at the equator, and there is one crater near the north pole that has a glacier containing the equivalent of 8 cubic kilometers of water ice.
Given the high moisture content of the soil, it is highly likely that if life ever developed on Mars there would still be remnants of it around today.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 29, 2005 06:30 PM (pPVQ0)
6
One of my favorites is the book Sphere by Micheal Chreiton, there is a spot in there where they discuss what alien life is like, and one guy says "what if when they go to talk to us, they emit a high frequency sound that shatters all the bones in our bodies and turns us into a big pile of goo"
Posted by: DazzlinDino at July 30, 2005 12:12 AM (WFplk)
7
To the best of my recollection nobody knows where prions came from first. Presently they get produced by infected cells in the brain and spinal cords of mad cows, but that's a chicken/egg problem.
Probably a bizzare mutation, which means DNA comes first. But you never know, some alien may have dumped a pop bottle out the hatch while snatching cows for mutilation. ~
Posted by: The Phantom at July 30, 2005 09:01 PM (nAMT1)
8
"what if when they go to talk to us, they emit a high frequency sound that shatters all the bones in our bodies and turns us into a big pile of goo"
What, Crichton's never heard of a heavy metal concert before?? The answer is "Afterwards, you go home and use the word "dude" a lot for the rest of your life."
Duuuuuuude.
;-}
Posted by: E.M.H. at August 01, 2005 04:03 PM (xHyDY)
July 28, 2005
Police misconduct in the Jama Jama case
A case of police misconduct puts the larger problem of the self-image of the police in the spotlight.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:21 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Angry:
Sorry this is off topic: just wondering when did you graduate from SMC?
Posted by: Doug at July 28, 2005 09:15 PM (+r/Id)
2
Angry, please! This is just so wrong on so many levels!
Cops organised like the military? Come ON. Think "unionized steel worker". Think "city paving crew".
Cop Priority One, get home alive. Priority Two, milk the City for all the pay, benefits and time off you can grab with both hands. Priority 22, protect the ungrateful dirtbag public unless that interferes with prioritys 1-21.
If those jerks in the courtroom got written up by the watch commander he'd be finding stuff floating in his coffee for a year.
Why do you think the cop punched that guy in the first place? The cop knows that if something bad happens his superiors are going to hang him out to dry and cover their own butts with his skin. He's on his last nerve, he's got no backup, and here's this skinny guy up in his face liping off. Smack!
I am soooo polite to cops these days, oh baby.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 10:35 PM (nAMT1)
3
Priority 21: Don't stand when you can sit. Don't sit when you can lie down.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 10:37 PM (nAMT1)
4
SMC: 1985
Cops: I guess you see the problem too.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 10:37 PM (20fwh)
5
These dirtbags would not "Lip Off" to an officer back in the old country. They know how fast a bullet would reach them.
Over here, they push the envelope looking to get a smack down, then they find a liberal shyster and send the lawsuit money back home to help pay the jihad.
Posted by: dorionhawk at July 28, 2005 11:25 PM (DwU+u)
6
This is not a case agaist a police officer assaluting a civilian. But a racist white man trying use his position and power to assault a black man. Let me ask you something if this was a black ploice officer and he was caught on tape. I doubt this racist people will treat this the same way. When white people come to our countries our officers treat them with respet and hindness and this is a fact they get treated better than citizens but when we go to thier countrys they discriminate us with most possible extent.
Posted by: dave at September 23, 2005 09:00 PM (1IG7K)
7
You know this guy dorinhawk he is a racist mother fucker. I bet his mom slept with a a dirtbag nigga like me. Thats why he is angry. Let me tell you something white boy this aint your country. You better beleive it. Till today i did not support those muslim people in there war agaist your white race but now i do. It is good that you get ucked by your ass. We fucking your woman and our brothers fucking your world. Soon or later you gona go back to your cave white abe
Posted by: black soulya at September 23, 2005 09:09 PM (1IG7K)
8
You what is the problem with our black people we have lack of knowledge. We dont know who our people are and we like to divide among our sleves. we dont know our history. we choose not to learn history. we need to unite our race. Black people are the sigle most divided race in the planet. our race lives in many continents but forget who we are. Look at the austalian aborignals and those south indian people. I did a research and found out that these dark skin indian people came from africa. But they like to hate us cause they consider them selsves brown. Look at the north african they dont even like saying there african. we are all black we must find out our race and educate them that they are really black and we are bonded. we are one race. our north american brother need to understand they need to unite first put our diffrence a side and explore the tru power of our people. remember the great sumerian empire that existed in 10000 bc was a black empire. We were civilized when some of these races were still in thier caves.
Posted by: at September 24, 2005 05:54 PM (1IG7K)
Afrocentric Science?
In my pieces on Afrocentrism, I raised the concern of whether the racist extreme end of this field of study would come to Canadian schools if an Afrocentric curriculum was adopted. Some might think me alarmist -- surely there would be safeguards in place.
Perhaps.
But giving Afrocentrist Professor Molefi Asante the benefit of the doubt, and noting that he is the prime consultant on the "Africentric Learning Institute" to be built with taxpayer money in Nova Scotia, can we be certain that whatever other nonsense they teach black students, Afrocentrist teachers will be able to teach science right?
Actually, I'm certain they won't be able to.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:08 PM
| Comments (55)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1754 words, total size 11 kb.
1
Can you post something about Israel? I have a question about Israel that I would like to ask conservatives but unfortunately, I don't know many of them and I don't want to comment off topic. 
I guess that doesn't make sense anyways, because this comment itself is off topic, so I guess I should say something out it.
I think the flaw behind Afrocentrism is that it advocates cultural differences to be aknowledged in schools, allowing for racial barriers and prejudices to be openly recognized, whereas a school with none of these elements would consider the students to be all equal and derserving of equal treatment, not allowing for any to receive preferential status. If parents want their children to learn about a specific ideology or culture, they can send them to "special" schools. Special in this case being non-secular or culturally oriented. That's why they have catholic schools where faith-based teachings are the norm. Unproven ideologies and theories have no place within secular public schools. African science is, from what I've seen that you've posted, nothing more than a biased version of generally accepted theories. Culture does absolutely nothing but provide a segregational dividing line for naive kids.
I guess that doesn't make sense anyways, because this comment itself is off topic, so I guess I should say something out it.
I think the flaw behind Afrocentrism is that it advocates cultural differences to be aknowledged in schools, allowing for racial barriers and prejudices to be openly recognized, whereas a school with none of these elements would consider the students to be all equal and derserving of equal treatment, not allowing for any to receive preferential status. If parents want their children to learn about a specific ideology or culture, they can send them to "special" schools. Special in this case being non-secular or culturally oriented. That's why they have catholic schools where faith-based teachings are the norm. Unproven ideologies and theories have no place within secular public schools. African science is, from what I've seen that you've posted, nothing more than a biased version of generally accepted theories. Culture does absolutely nothing but provide a segregational dividing line for naive kids.Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 01:37 PM (ft48a)
2
"Can you post something about Israel? I have a question about Israel that I would like to ask conservatives but unfortunately, I don't know many of them and I don't want to comment off topic.
"
What am I? A trained seal?
I tend to post in blocks on one or two topics, usually because as I research a topic, I collect a lot of data that needs to be organized across several themed essays.
I've pretty much milked Afrocentrism, so I might go on to Israel next. Saw a great documentary last night on the Yom Kippur War, so that might get me started.
As for Catholic schools, the ones that are run correctly follow the "render unto Caesar" rule in the class. Science, history, geography -- all taught the same way as in public school (well, with better discipline, some argue). The only difference is the Catholic environment (crucifixes and murals), the presence of priests and nuns as teachers, prayers in the morning, and of course, extra classes in religious instruction.
Oh yeah, the football team does a prayer before the game, praying that no one gets injured (no one prays to win -- that's unseemly).
"
What am I? A trained seal?
I tend to post in blocks on one or two topics, usually because as I research a topic, I collect a lot of data that needs to be organized across several themed essays.
I've pretty much milked Afrocentrism, so I might go on to Israel next. Saw a great documentary last night on the Yom Kippur War, so that might get me started.
As for Catholic schools, the ones that are run correctly follow the "render unto Caesar" rule in the class. Science, history, geography -- all taught the same way as in public school (well, with better discipline, some argue). The only difference is the Catholic environment (crucifixes and murals), the presence of priests and nuns as teachers, prayers in the morning, and of course, extra classes in religious instruction.
Oh yeah, the football team does a prayer before the game, praying that no one gets injured (no one prays to win -- that's unseemly).Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 01:45 PM (PTRPR)
3
I was under the assumption that there was also a religion class of some sort where the bible and other spiritual teachings specific to Catholicism were discussed. If I am mistaken, I apologise for my ignorance.
I won't disagree with the discipline though. Some relatives of mine (much to the detriment of my anti-bourgeois sensibilities) sent their kids to a very expensive ultra-elitist private school of almost ivy league caliber, and their children are still spoiled rotten little brats. On the other hand, some friends Catholic School and they are quite well behaved and are exemplary students. This might be random coincidence though. I cvan't give a full opinion since 1) I have no kids (yet) and 2) I've never attended catholic school myself.
I spent considerable time in the U.S. in the late nineties and saw how things work in a Christian School where a small mass is held every morning by some kind of Protestant priest (I cannot remember the sect or denomination, there are so many of them) and religious teachings are implemented throughout the curriculum. Are Catholic schools in any way similar?
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 02:04 PM (ft48a)
4
"extra classes in religious instruction"
You're right about those. But they are separate classes from history and geography and math and science.
Where I went, St. Michael's College School in Toronto, they had a daily lunchtime mass. Attendance was voluntary.
There were mandatory masses for special occasions, like the start of the school year.
As for the discipline, the anecdotal evidence supports it. But then you get the leftie trolls who start asking you how many times you were molested by a priest in order to start a fight.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 02:09 PM (PTRPR)
5
Great, thanks for the info.
As for the leftie trolls, you can simply ask them how many times they slept with their teacher and had a "loving relationship" with her when they were 14 years old and attending public school.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 03:03 PM (ft48a)
6
Jewish science is best, followed by Hungarian mathematics.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 04:01 PM (bCDNv)
7
I hardly know where to start with this. It's a vast topic, and I don't have time to go into it in the depth that it deserves, but for starters:
1) Your objection is really to postmodernism, and the rejection of the comfortable Eurocentric notion of objectivity. The quotes with respect to starting from the perspective of consciouness have their European parallels--phenomenology, for example. Or the pragmatism of Richard Rorty.
2) There is more than one way to build a world-view.
3) Science is a tool, not an end in itself. The "mosquito" example is a case in point. Lovelock notes that the ancient Romans had no precise knowledge of what caused malaria, but they did notice that people living around swamps tended to contract it. So they drained the swamps, without waiting for someone to discover a plasmodium. There's something to be said for that approach when we encounter problems such as global warming.
4) You obfuscate when you mention Scroedinger. You are well aware that one can measure velocity or position of a sub-atomic particle, but not both simultaneously. You know about the collapse of wave-functions, the neither-dead-nor-alive cat, and the observer's effect upon what is being observed. You may also be aware of the work of people like Capra and David Bohn--not that I buy their stuff, entirely, but they are moving beyond the classic paradigm in which you are ensnared and which you are consequently fiercely defending.
5) To argue that Western science is "acultural" is utter nonsense. Again, I hardly know where to start. Which observations get recorded, out of the myriad to which one is exposed? What topics are selected for investigation? What measurement techniques are used? What prejudices does one bring to the investigation? What paradigm-breaking discoveries have ever made it through the conservative, indeed pedestrian process of peer review?
You seem to be suggesting that African science decries empirical adequacy. But nothing you have quoted says any such thing.
6) The disquisition you quote on cause and effect is right on the money, although hardly new. You are just re-stating it in what you take to be a rebuttal--Dennett, Hoftader and others on recursion--but not as all-encompassingly as perhaps you should. You might look into chaos theory as well as a little deeper into quantum theory if you are trying to defend a mechanistic cause-and-effect model for the "natural world" (put in quotation marks because it presupposes some kind of ding an sich that I thought Kant had exploded aeons ago).
7) Herbals from other cultures are the product of centuries of empirical observation. But there is more to herbal medicine than the merely chemical. States of mind, shamanic intervention, all of the things rejected by a culture that thinks it alone has a lock on "reality," are part of traditional medicine. And they work.
I'm alarmed at your obsession with this, Angry. It is grossly ethnocentric and disrespectful of cultural differences. There is nothing in what has been quoted above that would lead me to believe that such underlying presuppositions couldn't produce good science. That you take white guys and their world-view to be the measure of all things is sadly revealing.
I'm alarmed at your obsession with this, Angry. It is grossly ethnocentric and disrespectful of cultural differences. There is nothing in what has been quoted above that would lead me to believe that such underlying presuppositions couldn't produce good science. That you take white guys and their world-view to be the measure of all things is sadly revealing.Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 28, 2005 04:08 PM (kzWbX)
8
Lot's of good points, Dr. Dawg, but I remain unconvinced. And my alarm is rooted in the fact that these students, should such a curriculum be adopted, will be ill prepared for life upon graduation. No foundation in science, a skewed view of history, taught to be suspicious and angry towards the white man. Sounds alarming to me.
They'll blame us (them vs us -- I hate what these people are doing) for not getting good jobs, even though their education has crippled them. Sounds very alarming to me.
[As for the quantum stuff, sure there's a lot we're not sure about, especially about what it all means. But to take that vacuum and rush to use it as justification for psychic powers or gestalt mind melds or a "different way of thinking" is just so unjustified.]
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 04:25 PM (20fwh)
9
Dr.Dawg: Nuclear fission and fusion, and the related weapons, are "acultural" and terribly objective. They could make a very great number of people very postmodern indeed.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 04:41 PM (bCDNv)
10
Western science has great limitations. It is of value to teach and explore other valid systems of merit. I would expect their is a number of other systems out there besides an afrocentric model.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 28, 2005 04:45 PM (Lr/Rr)
11
Let's play the word substitution game.
Substitute the words "Creation Science" for "Afrocentric Science".
Would Dr. Dawg and Angry now argue the opposite sides of this debate?
Would Creation Science receive government funding and endorsement in public schools?
Which cultures get respected in the science, history, language classrooms of public schools? Western secular?African traditional? Shamanistic tribal cultures from the jungles of Brazil? Christian tribal cultures from the jungles of India?
Is this really a debate about which worldview is correct or who gets to influence and control public education? I think it's the latter.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 28, 2005 05:02 PM (F47cQ)
12
Creation science, afrocentric science, whatever.
Neither are science. Not by the standards of science. Teach them in religious studies class and label them properly. Throw in Atlantis, Prestor John, and Spring-Heel Jack and you've got it all covered.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 05:18 PM (c/YLv)
13
Regarding taxpayer funding of this experiment in Afrocentric education:
In all fairness, if Catholics can receive public monies to run their schools, then why not other religions/cultures?
Switching gears. I'm not ashamed to admit that this quantum physics stuff is way over my head. You fellows are brainiacs - I'm pretty good at detecting BS, but I smell nothing but country harvest potpourri here.
Anyway, I got the boot from my grade 9 chemistry class when I was called upon by the teacher to name an element from that table of elements thingee. I said "wood". But it was a blessing in disguise, because Society Challenge and Change class was far less mentally taxing.
Posted by: Liebermann at July 28, 2005 06:22 PM (7yaoZ)
14
The difference between a Catholic school and an Afrocentric school is that no one is making an argument that Catholic kids are somehow fundamentally different than other kids, have been victimized by history and thus require special treatment, and that unless they are taught in a special way unlike children of other races, their brains don't work.
A Catholic schools says all kids of all races are welcome, even of different religions, but teaching is done by the traditions of Catholic schooling (centuries old) that seem to work for those who are willing to work hard. The curriculum is identical. No special brains, no victimization.
Wood? WOOD? ROTFLMAO!!
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 06:42 PM (20fwh)
15
I nearly blew beer on the keyboard when I read the response to the "element" question!
But seriously, Angry:
"Creation science, afrocentric science, whatever.
"Neither are science. Not by the standards of science. Teach them in religious studies class and label them properly. Throw in Atlantis, Prestor John, and Spring-Heel Jack and you've got it all covered."
This is just ludicrous. Why not try answering some of the questions I posed earlier? You think science is "objective"? That there's a "reality" out there that is fixed and that your version of science will somehow map? You're decades out of date with that--even many perfectly respectable Western scientists don't buy that malarkey any more.
Whether the myth is "objective reality" or whether you take what sounds like a phenomenological approach ("Afrocentric"), good science can come out of it. Refusing to concede that science can be done any way but the Western way, and talked about in any way other than the white man's way, is plain silly as well as offensive. And pushing the stale notion that science is value-free--that's just too much for one evening. Ludicrous.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 28, 2005 07:12 PM (kzWbX)
16
Dr.Dawg: I repeat: Nuclear fission and fusion, and the related weapons, are "acultural" and terribly objective. They could make a very great number of people very postmodern indeed.
Western science achieved this result, not an "Afrocentric" phenomenological approach. That is true; whether or not it is good is another thing that the Afrocentrists might consider. But that be not science.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 07:30 PM (5wdbR)
17
Angry....
Hey, I had a recognized medical disorder which impeded learning: Apathy.
But back to the issue at hand.
I fully realize that this Afrocentric school is yet another social engineering experiment concocted by charlatans and backed by a hopelessly misguided, disaster-prone bureacratic elite. It's doomed to fail from the beginning. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.
As an aside, it's funny how things come full circle. Back in the '60s, racial segregation was vehemently opposed. Forty years later, and segregation is now a positive thing. "Four legs good. Two legs BETTER!"
Anyway, I'm certain that the education children receive in Catholic schools is just as good (or poor) as that offered in public schools.
What I was trying to say was that if Catholic schools are funded by tax dollars, then we can't fault other religious or ethnic groups for seeking the same.
Posted by: Liebermann at July 28, 2005 07:37 PM (7yaoZ)
18
"Dr.Dawg: I repeat: Nuclear fission and fusion, and the related weapons, are "acultural" and terribly objective. They could make a very great number of people very postmodern indeed."
OK, OK, Mark. I guess you're trying to say that they kill people dead, regardless of race, creed, colour or culture.
But, with respect, this is a trivial point. A better one is: how did scientists come to take on such projects as opposed to other ones? What determines what research is useful and what is not? Where do scientists put their energies, and why?
And: What prejudices do they bring with them that might predetermine results? This may not apply to the actual research involved in building a bomb, but it certainly applies to the "science" of racial and gender differences. I recall a study many years ago that indicated that white male scientists predominated in investigative areas where it was "shown" that other races and genders performed less well cognitively, while women scientists and minority scientists, publishing in peer-reviewed journals too, found the opposite.
There is a hell of a lot of interpretation in science. And a lot of bias gets inserted from the get-go--just look at the work of Jensen, Shockley, Eysenck, Rushton, Ankney and their terrible godfather, Cyril Burt.
There have been attempts to rehabilitate Burt recently, and this article might interest you and others here:
http://tinyurl.com/ cn67z
In any case, the underlying idea that white guys are objective and everybody else is just making stuff up on the order of folktales...well, I might as well out with it. It's racist. And sexist, too. And plain dumb, as anyone familiar with Thomas Kuhn will attest. Science works by gosh and by golly, even in Western labs.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 28, 2005 08:04 PM (kzWbX)
19
"What am I? A trained seal?"
Dance, monkey! Dance! *chuckle*
"Jewish science is best, followed by Hungarian mathematics".
There is no difference between Jewish science and say, American or Japanese science. They all follow the scientific method. Same goes for math: math is math wherever you are.
Of course, Austrian economics has a lot going for it...
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 28, 2005 08:33 PM (pPVQ0)
20
Good grief, it's like talking to a brick wall.
"There is no difference between Jewish science and say, American or Japanese science. They all follow the scientific method. "
They share a common epistemology. And math is not science. Don't play dumb with me. There are no dummies left in this thread.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 28, 2005 09:03 PM (kzWbX)
21
Dawg, I was looking over your example, number three in your initial post, and you kind of actually prove Angry's point.
The ancient Romans didn't know the exact vector for malaria (the mosquito in question) that we now know, but they did observe, as you state, that people living near swamps (where, I'm sure most of us should know, mosquitos breed and can be found in abundance) contracted malaria more commonly. So they drained the swamps.
All well and good, except consider: the Romans didn't know the vector for malaria that we now have identified, as I said, but they did identify a vector nonetheless: the swamps. And once they had identified a vector, they took a corrective action: drain the swamp.
Okay, so they probably didn't call it a vector, or some approximal Latin equivalent, but the point remains. They saw an effect (malaria), deduced a possible cause (the swamps), and using their observations they took an action to respond to the problem.
The beauty of the "Western" scientific method is not that it's Western, or that white people came up with it, or that men came up with it, but that it's more often than not a "common sense" approach. That's not to say that there is not a place for Afocentric scientific theory, but as with any other theory that blends metaphysics and actual physical sciences, it belongs more correctly in the realm of theological studies, and should not reflect, or be inspired by, a perceived need or inadequacy on the part of any potential student.
Posted by: Kenneth at July 28, 2005 10:18 PM (scyoZ)
22
Aaaack! ALL science is built upon metaphysical foundations. You can't escape it.
"All well and good, except consider: the Romans didn't know the vector for malaria that we now have identified, as I said, but they did identify a vector nonetheless: the swamps. And once they had identified a vector, they took a corrective action: drain the swamp."
And they theorized something about noxious influences. Metaphor, all metaphor. What makes you think that "Anthropocentric" scientists couldn't use common sense and tests of empirical adequacy, whatever symbolic framework they choose to cast these in?
"That's not to say that there is not a place for Afocentric scientific theory, but as with any other theory that blends metaphysics and actual physical sciences, it belongs more correctly in the realm of theological studies"
Well, I guess these people should just know their place, is that it? Good grief.
To repeat: ALL science blends metaphysics with observation. It's the condition humaine. There is nothing in the passages quoted by Angry to suggest that observation and empirical adequacy are ignored. How would Africans have compiled their herbals otherwise?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 28, 2005 10:27 PM (kzWbX)
23
Ed Minchau: A joke. Based on fact
Dr. Dawg: Nuclear fission and fusion, and the related weapons, are "acultural" and terribly objective.
You reply: "But, with respect, this is a trivial point."
No. Science is reality observed, then explained by theory, then tested demonstrated by that which works.
Bang.
The ""science" of racial and gender differences." That was not science. Burt sucked. Proved by the facts. I read the book.
There is still science and it is not based on culture but on explanatory power and then proof by real world results.
Bang.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 10:34 PM (5wdbR)
24
Dr. Dawg: I see no movement in India for "Hindu science" or "Indian science". After all, they invented algebra which is not culturally dependent and which, contrary to what you said about mathematics, is scientific.
The Indians have nuclear weapons--"Western science"--and seem quite content with that science and the method that produced those weapons. They also seem to be quite accepting of "computer science" and its real world results.
I await nuclear and thermonuclear weapons based on African science; and computer logic, and subsequent technology, of a similar origin; not to speak of African mathematics.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 10:48 PM (5wdbR)
25
Dr. Dawg: How about an African artificial knee? I'm waiting. Or the longed-for African MRI? Might save health care in Ontario. How soon?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 10:51 PM (5wdbR)
26
Dr. Dawg, you just pushed one of my buttons.
Either there's an objective reality or there isn't. There may be more than one way to build a world view, but there's only one world in view.
Science is one tool of thought invented by the European people to divine the nature of the world. Evidence in so far, the world is looking pretty objective.
Example, pi is always 3.14...etc. and the more digits you use the rounder your circle turns out.
Call me ethnocentric, but I like to go with results not intentions.
Example, African witchcraft does not cure AIDS. Ever. Doesn't even slow it down, not one single time. But, Eurocentric Science of the White Man has created a rather nice little coctail of drugs that will keep an HIV positive African witchdoctor alive pretty much indefinately whether he believes in it or not.
Post Modern philosophy with its idiotic constructions like Afrocentric Science (come ON now) is without a doubt the biggest obstacle to science education in existence right now.
If you want to discover whether the world is objective or not, drop a rock on your foot. No matter how you contextualize, theorize, contest and contort your mind, that rock is going to fall DOWN not up, and it is going to hurt.
Bottom line, relativism is a scam for people who can't hack calculus but still want to play at "science".
"What paradigm-breaking discoveries have ever made it through the conservative, indeed pedestrian process of peer review?"
Relativity. Unlike relativism, you can -measure- Relativity. Comes out just like Albert said, too.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 11:11 PM (nAMT1)
27
Mark: just a quibble, but algebra was not invented by a Hindu. It was a Moslem (Al-Gebr) who invented algebra. Moslems also gave us the concept "zero" and invented algorithms (Al-Kharizm).
Of course, these things were absorbed into mathematics because they work, not because of their source. Pi would still be pi even without the work of Rajmanujan, the minimum size of a neutron star would still be 1.4 solar masses if someone other than Chandrasekhar had figured it out.
In short, it doesn't matter what the origin of a scientific or mathematical theory is, as long as it withstands the scrutiny of the scientific method. The "afrocentric" view appears to seek to deny students the contribution of the vast majority of the world to science, in favour of a part of the world that looks like it has turned its back on science.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 29, 2005 12:22 AM (pPVQ0)
28
Dr. Dawg
After you get your head out of your arse please tell us all how the lack of medical treatments, or the lack of social justice in Africa is not because of "Afrocentric" approaches to the world.
Posted by: Larry Reed at July 29, 2005 12:34 AM (wXvE2)
29
Dawg:
****************************************
Aaaack! ALL science is built upon metaphysical
foundations. You can't escape it.
****************************************
True, to a point, but when the discussion in science switches to the explicitiy "spiritual" then this has exceeded the mandate and limit of the metaphysic of the scientist. Science, as a concept, is limited in scope to the empirically observable and/or mathematically calculable. Being that the spiritual dimension is not empirically observable, nor mathematically calculable, any "scientific" approach that infuses spirituality into itself should be relegated to a theological discussion.
****************************************
And they theorized something about noxious influences. Metaphor, all metaphor. What makes
you think that "Anthropocentric" scientists couldn't
use common sense and tests of empirical
adequacy, whatever symbolic framework they
choose to cast these in?
****************************************
It's not metaphor -- it's a conclusion based on observed (i.e. empirical) evidence. Swamp causes malaria (or seems to). Drain swamp. Malaria goes away. That's the beauty of empiricism -- you don't need a formal definition of it for it to work. If repeated swamp drainings led to repeated reductions in malaria outbreaks, then a perfectly reasonable and objective conclusion to draw is that the draining of swamps reduces cases of malaria, a school of thought that evidently was put into practical use by the Romans. You don't have to cushion it in the formal term "empirical", but that's what it ultimately is...observed pattern, proposed solution, repeated trials with similar outcomes. It's science, baby!
****************************************
Well, I guess these people should just know their
place, is that it? Good grief.
****************************************
You know, you could try NOT putting words in my mouth for once...it might garner you more respect.
I don't mean to put the uppity folk in their place, not at all. There's nothing wrong with theological discourse and research -- in fact, it is a field I pursue with great passion.
****************************************
To repeat: ALL science blends metaphysics with
observation. It's the condition humaine. There is
nothing in the passages quoted by Angry to
suggest that observation and empirical adequacy
are ignored. How would Africans have compiled
their herbals otherwise?
****************************************
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, but I think you might be missing Angry's point. It's one thing to recast science from a different perspective, with an eye to accomodating the practices of different cultures. That's all well and good.
It is quite another thing to flat-out argue that these practices can replace or supersede the established and effective practices of modern science. And to infuse spirituality into science is not the mandate, nor within the scope of the metaphysic, of scientists. That is precisely why my mother, a Catholic, can work in a primarily Hindu research firm and not find any conflict with the work practices of her co-workers...their metaphysic is concerned with finding an objective, empirically verifiable truth. It is not concerned with whether there is one God or many, or any other spiritually motivated viewpoint.
Posted by: Kenneth at July 29, 2005 01:41 AM (scyoZ)
30
Ed Minchau: With significant Indian influence. See:
Al-Khwarizmi
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~carl/ma330/project2/al-khwa21.html
Indian contributions
Between 1000 B.C. and 1000 A.D. various treatises on mathematics were authored by Indian mathematicians in which were set forth for the first time, the concept of zero, the techniques of algebra and algorithm, square root and cube root. Vedic mathematics, as it is referred to today, is a separate field of study and courses are offered even in non-Indian universities.
It was from this translation of an Indian text on mathematics that the Arab mathematicians perfected the decimal system and gave the world its current system of enumeration which we call the Hindu-Arabic numerals. The concept of zero seems to have been a contribution of ancient Indian thought. Every ancient Indian language has multiple words to refer to the concept of 'void' or 'nothing' - 'Shunya' in Sanskrit. In Brahma-Phuta-Siddhanta of Brahmagupta (7th century), zero is lucidly explained and was used in Arabic books around 770 AD. From these it was carried to Europe in the 8th century. However, the concept of zero is referred to as Shunya in the early Sanskrit texts of the 4th century BC and clearly explained in Pingala's Sutra of the 2nd century. Aryabhata in 499 AD worked the value of Pi to the fourth decimal place as 3.1416.
http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/History-of-mathematics.wikipedia#Indian_contributions
And we don't speak of "Hindu mathematics" as being a separate discipline, with different principles, from modern mathematics.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 09:08 AM (FLyI2)
31
Note: "Indian Contributions" is second source.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 09:09 AM (FLyI2)
32
So many comments, so little time.
Larry:
The grown-ups here are trying to have a conversation.
Mark:
"Science is one tool of thought invented by the European people to divine the nature of the world. Evidence in so far, the world is looking pretty objective."
Science is a tool, you are correct. But the notion of "the world" looking "objective" -- well, this isn't really the place to go into this in depth, but let me note that both of those words are metaphors used to describe a particular set of lived experiences. That doesn't mean that other symbolic/metaphorical systems can't produce good science. As noted, herbal medicine can't be developed by chanting. (Nevertheless, chanting might have an effect on the body during a healing process, but that's a different issue.)
Phantom:
"Example, pi is always 3.14...etc. and the more digits you use the rounder your circle turns out."
I tried to make this point before, Mathematics is used in science, but it's not science. 2+2=4, not through empirical validation and a set of observations achieving a high probability of such, but because 2=2=4: mathematics is a different breed of cat. Confusing the two isn't helpful, especially given that no one has made claims about Afrocentric mathematics.
"Example, African witchcraft does not cure AIDS. Ever. Doesn't even slow it down, not one single time. But, Eurocentric Science of the White Man has created a rather nice little coctail of drugs that will keep an HIV positive African witchdoctor alive pretty much indefinately whether he believes in it or not."
Interesting point. We both know that AIDS is at present incurable. Yet there are other diseases that are not. We also know that there are currents of thought even in the world of Western allopathic medicine that argue for a holistic approach--treating body and mind.
Mark: "Dr. Dawg: How about an African artificial knee? I'm waiting. Or the longed-for African MRI? Might save health care in Ontario. How soon?"
I'd prescribe a concentrated reading of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel."
Phantom:
"Either there's an objective reality or there isn't. There may be more than one way to build a world view, but there's only one world in view."
That notion is creaky and yellowed around the edges. In fact, Kant raised fatal objections to "knowing" the thing in itself (Ding an sich), and more recently Richard Rorty has put paid to the idea that we can produce, in language, some kind of isomorphic map of "reality." We can't. The word is meaningless and useless. There is no "one world,"; at least, even if there were one--an article of faith if ever there was one--we have no way of "knowing" it.
Phantom: (in answer to my question,"What paradigm-breaking discoveries have ever made it through the conservative, indeed pedestrian process of peer review?")
"Relativity. Unlike relativism, you can -measure- Relativity. Comes out just like Albert said, too."
It took work and a paradigm shift that was already happening culturally. The man didn't even get the Nobel Prize for his general theory--he got it for work on the photo-electric cell, IIRC. Relativity is a theory now borne out by observations to a high degree of probability (empirical adequacy). But nothing in Afrocentric science, which looks to me like a species of phenomenology, appears to discount tests of emprical adequacy. But I'm repeating myself.
Kenneth:
"[W]hen the discussion in science switches to the explicitiy "spiritual" then this has exceeded the mandate and limit of the metaphysic of the scientist."
That's simply the metaphysical foundation for the pursuit of knowledge. The word "spiritual" is a metaphor, like "objective reality" to define the unknowable. If, as I said ealier, someone argued that you could do science simply by meditating or chanting, I might agree with you, although there are areas of human psychology and so on in which such methods are actually useful exploratory techniques. But physics, for example, requires testing and observation, a good grasp of higher mathematics, etc. If someone can point to a single utterance of the Afrocentric folks that physics can be done otherwise, please let know. (I did note before, however, with respect to physics, that there are physicists whose language, after delving into the mysteries of what they observe, sounds mystical enough--David Bohn's notion of an "implicate order," for example, or the work of Fritjof Capra. Language, as I said, is a set of metaphors. )
"It is quite another thing to flat-out argue that these practices can replace or supersede the established and effective practices of modern science. And to infuse spirituality into science is not the mandate, nor within the scope of the metaphysic, of scientists."
There is more than one way of looking at the world. The very fact that phenomenology is regarded as a legitimate approach in Western circles should tell you that something was considered to be lacking in the notion of some "objective reality" exclusive of consciousness. The word "spirituality" is, once again, a metaphor for what it is to be human, placing consiousness at the centre.
Classic Western science imagines itself to be "true" and "objective," with consciousness not even an issue. Pure hubris. The Afrocentric stuff quoted here is just plain common sense: exploring that mystery some call "the world," or "reality," requires that consciousness be acknowledged as key, not dismissed out-of-hand as "subjective." And science is not value-free, but heavily culture-laden, despite protestations to the contrary--I've given examples, and there are many more.
"It's not metaphor -- it's a conclusion based on observed (i.e. empirical) evidence. Swamp causes malaria (or seems to). Drain swamp. Malaria goes away. That's the beauty of empiricism -- you don't need a formal definition of it for it to work."
The metaphor, of course, was the notion of "noxious humours," or whatever it was. That bespeaks a model of the world quite distinct from the current model. But, on that basis, they were able to do good science. My point is made, I think.
Thanks for the work-out, people.
Larry:
The grown-ups here are trying to have a conversation.
Mark:
"Science is one tool of thought invented by the European people to divine the nature of the world. Evidence in so far, the world is looking pretty objective."
Science is a tool, you are correct. But the notion of "the world" looking "objective" -- well, this isn't really the place to go into this in depth, but let me note that both of those words are metaphors used to describe a particular set of lived experiences. That doesn't mean that other symbolic/metaphorical systems can't produce good science. As noted, herbal medicine can't be developed by chanting. (Nevertheless, chanting might have an effect on the body during a healing process, but that's a different issue.)
Phantom:
"Example, pi is always 3.14...etc. and the more digits you use the rounder your circle turns out."
I tried to make this point before, Mathematics is used in science, but it's not science. 2+2=4, not through empirical validation and a set of observations achieving a high probability of such, but because 2=2=4: mathematics is a different breed of cat. Confusing the two isn't helpful, especially given that no one has made claims about Afrocentric mathematics.
"Example, African witchcraft does not cure AIDS. Ever. Doesn't even slow it down, not one single time. But, Eurocentric Science of the White Man has created a rather nice little coctail of drugs that will keep an HIV positive African witchdoctor alive pretty much indefinately whether he believes in it or not."
Interesting point. We both know that AIDS is at present incurable. Yet there are other diseases that are not. We also know that there are currents of thought even in the world of Western allopathic medicine that argue for a holistic approach--treating body and mind.
Mark: "Dr. Dawg: How about an African artificial knee? I'm waiting. Or the longed-for African MRI? Might save health care in Ontario. How soon?"
I'd prescribe a concentrated reading of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel."
Phantom:
"Either there's an objective reality or there isn't. There may be more than one way to build a world view, but there's only one world in view."
That notion is creaky and yellowed around the edges. In fact, Kant raised fatal objections to "knowing" the thing in itself (Ding an sich), and more recently Richard Rorty has put paid to the idea that we can produce, in language, some kind of isomorphic map of "reality." We can't. The word is meaningless and useless. There is no "one world,"; at least, even if there were one--an article of faith if ever there was one--we have no way of "knowing" it.
Phantom: (in answer to my question,"What paradigm-breaking discoveries have ever made it through the conservative, indeed pedestrian process of peer review?")
"Relativity. Unlike relativism, you can -measure- Relativity. Comes out just like Albert said, too."
It took work and a paradigm shift that was already happening culturally. The man didn't even get the Nobel Prize for his general theory--he got it for work on the photo-electric cell, IIRC. Relativity is a theory now borne out by observations to a high degree of probability (empirical adequacy). But nothing in Afrocentric science, which looks to me like a species of phenomenology, appears to discount tests of emprical adequacy. But I'm repeating myself.
Kenneth:
"[W]hen the discussion in science switches to the explicitiy "spiritual" then this has exceeded the mandate and limit of the metaphysic of the scientist."
That's simply the metaphysical foundation for the pursuit of knowledge. The word "spiritual" is a metaphor, like "objective reality" to define the unknowable. If, as I said ealier, someone argued that you could do science simply by meditating or chanting, I might agree with you, although there are areas of human psychology and so on in which such methods are actually useful exploratory techniques. But physics, for example, requires testing and observation, a good grasp of higher mathematics, etc. If someone can point to a single utterance of the Afrocentric folks that physics can be done otherwise, please let know. (I did note before, however, with respect to physics, that there are physicists whose language, after delving into the mysteries of what they observe, sounds mystical enough--David Bohn's notion of an "implicate order," for example, or the work of Fritjof Capra. Language, as I said, is a set of metaphors. )
"It is quite another thing to flat-out argue that these practices can replace or supersede the established and effective practices of modern science. And to infuse spirituality into science is not the mandate, nor within the scope of the metaphysic, of scientists."
There is more than one way of looking at the world. The very fact that phenomenology is regarded as a legitimate approach in Western circles should tell you that something was considered to be lacking in the notion of some "objective reality" exclusive of consciousness. The word "spirituality" is, once again, a metaphor for what it is to be human, placing consiousness at the centre.
Classic Western science imagines itself to be "true" and "objective," with consciousness not even an issue. Pure hubris. The Afrocentric stuff quoted here is just plain common sense: exploring that mystery some call "the world," or "reality," requires that consciousness be acknowledged as key, not dismissed out-of-hand as "subjective." And science is not value-free, but heavily culture-laden, despite protestations to the contrary--I've given examples, and there are many more.
"It's not metaphor -- it's a conclusion based on observed (i.e. empirical) evidence. Swamp causes malaria (or seems to). Drain swamp. Malaria goes away. That's the beauty of empiricism -- you don't need a formal definition of it for it to work."
The metaphor, of course, was the notion of "noxious humours," or whatever it was. That bespeaks a model of the world quite distinct from the current model. But, on that basis, they were able to do good science. My point is made, I think.
Thanks for the work-out, people.Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 09:15 AM (kzWbX)
33
Dr. Dawg,
You are defending the indefensible sir. The point of the whole thread here is that a student educated in the Afrocentric Science mentioned could not possibly come up with the arguments you have marshalled. They wouldn't have heard of them.
I'm fully on board with Angry here (obviously). Afrocentric Science (or Afrocentric Anything) is a crock made up by a bunch of intellectual scam artists to keep their tenure in a politically charged academic environment. Saying so isn't racist or even faintly intolerant, more like observing the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
Indeed I'll happily extend my condemnation to Foucault and the rest of the multi-culti Post Modern pantheon of idiots.
Case in point, the much loved wholistic medicine.
"Interesting point. We both know that AIDS is at present incurable. Yet there are other diseases that are not. We also know that there are currents of thought even in the world of Western allopathic medicine that argue for a holistic approach--treating body and mind."
This is where you shoot yourself in the foot. AIDS is not ever going to be cured by the airy fairy Afrocentric methodology Angry describes, nor any of the alternative medicine crowd.
If a cure for AIDS is going to be developed, it will be done by an Allopathic researcher educated in the Western scientific tradition just like all the other cures for diseases that have been developed since Louis Pasteur. Furthermore that researcher will be motivated by all that unfashionable Western Capitalist Christian moral/intellectual hegemony stuff.
And that's the ultimate basis of my distaste for all this "rubber universe" claptrap that infests the social sciences these days. The famous refutation for all these arguments is the guy who waves his hands in the air and observes his fingers moving. (Can't remember who said that, no doubt you do.)
If I want to still be around and healthy at 105 years old to wave my hands in refutation of some new Foucaultian jibberish, its Western culture that's going to develop the tools and drugs and techniques and social order and moral environment which is keeping my wrinkled butt alive and cranking.
I'd prefer it if the grifters pushing Afrocentric Basketweaving don't screw it up for me by keeping too many kids ignorant, thanks all the same.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 29, 2005 11:47 AM (nAMT1)
34
To get back to the original point:
How does introducing a very different, if not competitive, theory of science, history, et al, enable these people to work and live in a society that subscribes to fundamentally different theories?
Whether or not these theories are correct is a moot point.
As an example, would we be correct in indoctrinating some identifiable group of children that math is evil, and only used by evil people? How does that enrich society? Or prepare these children for a succesful life in society?
M-brane's blow my mind. (String theory)
Steve
Posted by: Steve at July 29, 2005 11:58 AM (LHGRK)
35
Phantom: "Case in point, the much loved wholistic [sic] medicine."
Dawg: "Interesting point. We both know that AIDS is at present incurable. Yet there are other diseases that are not. We also know that there are currents of thought even in the world of Western allopathic medicine that argue for a holistic approach--treating body and mind."
Phantom: "This is where you shoot yourself in the foot. AIDS is not ever going to be cured by the airy fairy Afrocentric methodology Angry describes, nor any of the alternative medicine crowd."
So much for the accumulation of herbals that are now finding application in allopathic medicine. So much for the by-now-well-known effects of the holistic approach, if not to cure, at least to improve longevity and quality of life. (We used to hear the same crap about acupuncture, until it was finally fitted into the Western episteme [beta-endorphins], effectively using faith, if I may put it that way, to test reason.) Don't be so all-fired sure, btw, that some plant or other might not turn out to cure AIDS--thanks to a herbal somewhere compiled on the basis of a different scientific model and procedure.
So we must give up the notion of Afrocentric anything and allow Eurocentric everything to win by default. Is that it? The European episteme is the standard by which we measure all others? It's the natural order of the universe? Says who? I'll say again--what hubris.
For the last time--nothing in "Afrocentrism" precludes good science. You just haven't been listening.
Finally, I admit to being an admirer of Foucault, but not as a scientist. I like Shakespeare, too, but not as a painter.
Steve:
I don't understand your point. The "Afrocentric" quotes provided here about Eurocentrism are mild in comparison with what is being said in response.
In any case, I don't see these approaches necessarily as competitive--just different, based upon the same inherent need to know. I can't buy the classical Western scientific approach as the be-all and end-all: but these days, thank goodness, neither does all of the scientific community.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 12:17 PM (Lf2qC)
36
Dr.Dawg: Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" at least three years ago. Great book. Please explain the relevance.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 01:31 PM (FLyI2)
37
I guess I could have been clearer.
We, as a society, need to agree on some fundamentals: using the same money, allowing ourselves to be policed, using the same language, agreeing to some sort of unwritten 'social contract' between us (what is good and bad behaviour),etc.
Science is one of these fundamentals.
For what it's worth, I don't care if the rock you let go and hit you on your' foot fell because of:
i) Gravity (which is not affected by what you feel about it), or
ii)the Rock Spirit deciding to smite you.
It is what it is, and any other perspective should, in the end, come to the same conclusion.
I find this feel-good solution to a black social problem is really racism in disguise. In essence, telling them that they are different and need 'special' help.
Sometimes a swift kick in the arse, and allowing people to be responsible (good/bad) for themselves is all most people need to wake up and stop blaming their problems on external factors.
Steve
Posted by: Steve at July 29, 2005 01:40 PM (ZgOrd)
38
Mark:
"Dr.Dawg: Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" at least three years ago. Great book. Please explain the relevance."
It goes a long way to explaining why whole peoples on this earth don't have advanced technology, for starters: why white people have the "cargo." Even though some of those societies, if not all of them, had perfectly good science--Mayan astronomy, you name it. We have no way of telling whether Africans had or did not have sophisticated mental models, but there's no reason to suppose they didn't.
But the mental map of "reality" in the ancient worlds was quite different. Have a look at Santillana's "Hamlet's Mill." You can think of planets as gods or gods as planents, but you can still do astronomy.
Steve:
"For what it's worth, I don't care if the rock you let go and hit you on your' foot fell because of:
i) Gravity (which is not affected by what you feel about it), or
ii)the Rock Spirit deciding to smite you."
Good. Now we're getting somewhere. No Afrocentric scientist would deny that it hurts. Perhaps he or she might place it in a different context (for example, rock-avoidance rather than an analysis of the pain a rock can cause). Perhaps he or she might, conversely, start with the phenomenology of pain as life-experience, I don't know.
As I said earlier, science is culture-laden, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. One commentator correctly described it as a tool, but we know that tools have a wide variety of uses, and more than one tool can be used to effect the same goal. "Objective" science just doesn't get used objectively. But I've been through this before.
I'm not Afrocentric, myself--how could I be? But I saw nothing in what was being said that would warrant dismissing that standpoint as unproductive.
Indeed, reading what was being said by Afrocentrists in Angry's post here, I saw nothing that I haven't seen before in other forms: the critique of rationalism by the existentialists, the loss of "authenticity" a la Heidegger (the geographer's mark vs. the poet's "springhead in the dale") and so on. The Afrocentrists find something lacking in classical Western approaches. Well, so do I. Add that entirely reasonable observation to a history of racism and colonialism, and you'll get the kind of language to which people here are objecting, but which is an honest account of the world from such a perspective.
Time for a little "de-centering" here, folks. Your way is not the only way, and sometimes it's not even the best way.
Let me close with one example of what I've been talking about: the water-temples of Bali. It took Steve Lansing and others to show why the introduction of the "Green Revolution" in Bali was actually producing less rice and super-pests. Meanwhile, the priests of the water-temples were administering a highly-complex system of irrigation, land tillage and sharing of water-resources throughout an entire water system, complete with accurate predictors of weather patterns, rainfall and the like.
Of course, they talked about the Water Goddess, and there were rituals all up and down the system: but it was good science. Just different. And far better than the "Green Revolution" for Balinese agriculture.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 02:05 PM (Lf2qC)
39
Mark: Missed a piece in my response.
I was speaking to your point about MRIs and artificial knees. Just in case that wasn't clear.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 02:07 PM (Lf2qC)
40
"It took Steve Lansing and others to show why the introduction of the 'Green Revolution' in Bali was actually producing less rice and super-pests."
Without knowing the details, which I don't, I suspect this is an situation in which the people who changed things were guilty of not making good observations first. If they had, they would have noted the efficiencies you talk about (again, I'm taking what you say at face value).
Don't blame science when a business takes a scientific product or process and applies it badly, motivated either by philanthropy or the pursuit of profit. If science had been applied properly to the problem, that would not have happened.
"We have no way of telling whether Africans had or did not have sophisticated mental models, but there's no reason to suppose they didn't."
No reason to suppose they did, either. And to base a curriculum on what they might have had, or might not have had, and then claiming other people stole what they might or might not had first...that is the heart of the issues, isn't it?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 29, 2005 02:11 PM (OeJic)
41
Lansing's stuff is easily available. My point was that no one bothered to talk to the water-priests, because that was just religion, right? Only it turned out there was a powerful science underlying it. Sounds like the too-eager critiques of "Afrocentrism" seen right here.
As for what the Africans had or didn't have, tradition is invented and reinvented all the time anyway, and always gets its ever-changing meaning from the present. Sometimes it's done self-consciously (Kwanzaa, Highland tartans) and sometimes a whsiper or a gist is the spark needed to create a living past (the Maori "Greet Fleet" and "Io" myths). I see nothing wrong with reaching for myths and wonders to inspire young people and assist them in gaining a sense of identity and purpose.
"Afrocentric learning" is pictured in your posts and the ensuing threads as, excuse the racist phrase, "mumbo-jumbo." I've been trying to argue the opposite, with indifferent success, but I have a difficult audience here.
To deny that a legacy of racism and colonialism has its effects, today, on Black youth is being wilfully blind. And trying to wish it all away when you do see it, by a call for assimilation into a Western model that isn't even current, is, with all due respect, fatuous.
To deny that a legacy of racism and colonialism has its effects, today, on Black youth is being wilfully blind. And trying to wish it all away when you do see it, by a call for assimilation into a Western model that isn't even current, is, with all due respect, fatuous. Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 02:29 PM (Lf2qC)
42
Sorry, having a bad typing day. That's "whisper" and "Great Fleet." Consider allowing self-editing here, Angry, for those of us who came to keyboards late.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 02:39 PM (Lf2qC)
43
Dr. Dawg: "why white people have the "cargo." Also the yellow and the swarthy middle-eastern and sub-continental types. All three benefitted from the geographical and ecological advantages Diamond describes. And the Europeans were last to the party of civilization.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 03:42 PM (FLyI2)
44
Dr. Dawg: I also don't see a clamour for "Indian science" in India or "Chinese science" in China. Yet the societies in those places are quite distinct from the West's, with very different cultural and religious histories and presents. Why is there not such a clamour?
Science, writ large, is what works and the explanation of why it works. Correct explanations are not cultural but objective (though explanations can in fact be less than correct or incorrect).
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 03:57 PM (FLyI2)
45
"Why is there not such a clamour?" That is a huge question. But the Vedantic tradition in India, for example, not to mention Buddhism, have their own model of the world, their own epistemology and ontology. An Indian physicist might adopt the Western epistemology, but a psychologist may well not.
"Correct explanations are not cultural but objective."
Ouch. Have you been listening?
What do you mean by "correct?" Science builds models, it doesn't establish truth. There are many ways of explaining the same observed phenomenon, many models and many symbolic systems in which you can situate an observation or set of observations. And that's without even raising the spectre of interpretation of the findings, or the interpretation of the interpretations.
I'm not obfuscating. I know that Western science, as a procedure, produces much. I don't dismiss any of that. All I'm trying to get people here to understand is that it's not all there is when it comes to being in this world; and that there are alternative symbologies that
are perfectly good science (eg, those Bali water-temples). Afrocentric learning doesn't dismiss the products of science either, to my knowledge, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It does, however, analyze its existential shortcomings. At least, that's how I read it.
What do you mean by "correct?" Science builds models, it doesn't establish truth. There are many ways of explaining the same observed phenomenon, many models and many symbolic systems in which you can situate an observation or set of observations. And that's without even raising the spectre of interpretation of the findings, or the interpretation of the interpretations.
I'm not obfuscating. I know that Western science, as a procedure, produces much. I don't dismiss any of that. All I'm trying to get people here to understand is that it's not all there is when it comes to being in this world; and that there are alternative symbologies that
are perfectly good science (eg, those Bali water-temples). Afrocentric learning doesn't dismiss the products of science either, to my knowledge, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It does, however, analyze its existential shortcomings. At least, that's how I read it.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 04:22 PM (Lf2qC)
46
Dr. Dawg: "All I'm trying to get people here to understand is that it's not all there is when it comes to being in this world; and that there are alternative symbologies that are perfectly good science..."
I could not agree more that "it's not all there is when it comes to being in this world.."
"there are alternative symbologies that are perfectly good science..." Nonesense. There is no alternative to the explanations of modern physics that will produce a nuclear, or themonuclear, weapon that goes "bang".
Science is based on the premise (so far not contradicted in the real, "objective" world) that there are universal physical principles that can be discovered by observation and then rationally explained (or vice-versa if one is a genius like Einstein). But those principles are culturally independent, indeed independent of what world one lives on, and whatever type of concious entity one may be.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 05:32 PM (FLyI2)
47
"here are alternative symbologies that are perfectly good science..." Nonsense. There is no alternative to the explanations of modern physics that will produce a nuclear, or themonuclear, weapon that goes "bang"."
Not so. You are, in any case, narrowing the field of discussion to simply one instance, which is more about engineering than science--a bomb, made based upon an imperfect model of the atom. But they still made the bomb, without quarks, string theory, weak and strong electromagnetic forces and so on. By the same token, acupuncture evolved without a Western version of how the body works.
Take a look at those "explanations," and they get further and further removed from the matter-of-fact explanations that you appear to favour. "Spin," "charm," "strangeness" and so on are just linguistic symbols for constructs.
In the realm of psychology, I would argue that Buddhist psychology (see Thich Nhat Hanh, for example) probably maps to, and is effective in dealing with, problems of the human mind. A different epistemology, but it has an internal rigour.
"But those principles are culturally independent, indeed independent of what world one lives on, and whatever type of concious entity one may be."
This, with respect, is naive. "Principles" are symbolic constructs. It's merely a statement of faith to imagine that they map "truth," or exist "outside" consciousness. Nor, btw, is physics all there is to science. To claim otherwise is reductionist.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 29, 2005 06:42 PM (Lf2qC)
48
Dr. Dawg; The fission bomb was not just engineering, though that was remarkable (the plutonium bomb explosive implosion lens). The bomb came directly from advances in pure physics. Not completely perfect physics (charm yet to be discovered) but good enough for government work--and "bang".
If a "linguistic symbols for constructs..." do not work they are not science. Might be philosophy, more likely sociology.
"In the realm of psychology..." Indeed often not science. How could it be unless the pure metrics can be ascertained (joke).
Bang.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 29, 2005 08:51 PM (0fe7r)
49
I'm gonna take my snurgle-fluz and mix it with some ergledoop, and do a mexican hat dance.
Light it, and run.
In the end, it is still the same.
Can we not agree to objectify demonstrable scientific truths, whatever we call them?
Now if we want to talk about spirituality... I still can't levitate.
Steve
Posted by: Steve at July 29, 2005 09:29 PM (/gKz0)
50
Sorry Dawg, can't let it go.
"All I'm trying to get people here to understand is that it's not all there is when it comes to being in this world; and that there are alternative symbologies that
are perfectly good science (eg, those Bali water-temples)."
The Bali water temples (about which I know absoultely nothing I should mention) are not science. They are technology! Yes indeed. The people who built that system up did it by trial and error over generations, and it took some "white guy" to come in and -understand- what they did. I bet it took the guy no more than a year to do his research on a system that's a hundred generations old minimum. That's the intelectual power I'm talking about.
The Green Revolution at issue here has made India a rice and wheat exporter over the last 20 years. It didn't work right until they turfed out the Ghandis and their corrupt socialism. I'll bet that Georgia USA produces more rice than Bali, in gross, in tons per acre or in tons per man hour. If the Georgia rice farmers see something useful in the Bali information, you can bet they'll grab it and use it hard and fast. I'm not so sure the reverse is true. Science and the Western social setup to use it is what accounts for that difference.
People in "primitive" cultures are not idiots for God sake, they can tell if something works or not just as well as we can. What they don't have is the tools of logic, mathematics and scientific experiment that Western technologists bring to bear on problems like growing rice.
Or Medicine. Glucosamine was a great example of something that came up through the "alternative" medicine food chain and made it to standard practice. Somebody did the research and saw that it worked, nobody could prove that it -didn't- work, and so it is now accepted as a treatment for cartilage problems like osteoarthritis. Now drug companies make high grade glucosamine in pure form, and I take it for my wonky knee. Before I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.
Megadoses of Vitamin C didn't survive the testing. Its bollocks. Doesn't work, has unpleasant side effects. Oh well.
So yes indeed, drug companies are busy scouring all the herbs and crazy vegetation they can find for useful molecules. Their ability to make minute observations and create intellectual models for experiment is what will finally drag the cure for AIDS out of the soup of untested superstition, spiritualism, hucksterism and Afrocentric Balderdash.
There may be some old witchdoctor guy in deepest darkest Bongobongoland smoking the cure for AIDS right now. He doesn't know it though, and that's because he doesn't have a Ph.D. in molecular biology and a lab ful of grad student/indetured servants to fiddle with his gangaweed. All the alternate symbologies in the world aren't going to make it otherwise.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 30, 2005 10:09 PM (nAMT1)
51
The Phantom: Bang.
Meanwhile I am frustrated (perhaps with reason in Canada) that my efforts to draw attention to this specific lie by the Prime Minister have had, on blogs, the impact of a water-filled balloon hurled, viciously, onto a swimming pool:
'Martin lied! Martin lied! Martin lied!
As far as I can see there is not one story in the major Canadian media today on the sending of surplus aroured vehicles and Canadian troops to Senegal, for the benefit of African Union troops who will eventually use the vehicles in Darfur.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1706
Yet in the middle of May the issue of Canadian military aid for Darfur was all over the media.
CTV News May 14:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115906977933_111316177/?hub=Canada
'Canadian military personnel and equipment are headed to the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan, as part of a $170-milllion military and humanitarian assistance package announced today...
As part of his government's two-year, $170-million pledge, the prime minister said Canada will provide airlift capabilities, humanitarian aid and diplomatic support.
Up to 100 military personnel will also be dispatched to train local forces, he said...'
Yet now Canada is sending no personnel or airlift capacity to Darfur. And the vehicles (and training on them) are going via Senegal--hardly what was promised by the PM in May.
I would think in most other countries these glaring discrepancies would be the subject of considerable media comment. I would also think that at the very least the announcement of the Senegal operation itself would be widely reported.
What's up? Why are Canadian troops not going to Darfur? I guess the Sudanese goverment refused its permission. Then on what basis, other than trying to get the vote of David Kilgour, M.P, did Martin make the pledge in the first place?
Why do the media in Canada only pay attention to an issue when it is politcally hot, and rarely deal with the substance of things? I have some suggested answers. What are yours?'
This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of governmental honesty.
Discuss.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 30, 2005 11:08 PM (AxK7g)
52
Some words from Winston Churchill.
"Some of my cousins who had the great advantage of University education used to tease me with arguments to prove that nothing has any existence except what we think of it. ... These amusing mental acrobatics are all right to play with.They are perfectly harmless and perfectly useless.
"... I always rested on the following argument... We look up to the sky and see the sun. Our eyes are dazzled and our senses record the fact. So here is this great sun standing apparently on no better foundation than our physical senses. But happily there is a method, apart altogether from our physical senses, of testing the reality of the sun.
"It is by mathematics. By means of prolonged processes of mathematics, entirely separate from the senses, astronomers are able to calculate when an eclipse will occur. They predict by pure reason that a black spot will pass across the sun on a certain day. You go and look, and your sense of sight immediately tells you that their calculations are vindicated.
"So here you have the evidence of the senses reinforced by the entirely separate evidence of a vast independent process of mathematical reasoning. We have taken what is called in military map-making 'a cross bearing.'
"... When my metaphysical friends tell me that the data on which the astronomers made their calculations, were necessarily obtained originally through the evidence of the senses, I say, 'no.' They might, in theory at any rate, be obtained by automatic calculating-machines set in motion by the light falling upon them without admixture of the human senses at any stage.
"When it is persisted that we should have to be told about the calculations and use our ears for that purpose, I reply that the mathematical process has a reality and virtue in itself, and that once discovered it constitutes a new and independent factor.
"I am also at this point accustomed to reaffirm with emphasis my conviction that the sun is real, and also that it is hot--in fact hot as Hell, and that if the metaphysicians doubt it they should go there and see."
Winston S. Churchill, My Early Life, Fontana, London, 1972, pp 123-124
Posted by: Darrell at July 31, 2005 02:19 AM (x3oIJ)
53
Churchill also said something about uneducated people needing to read lots of quotation books, and so I have.
"Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world. Science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence."
-- Louis Pasteur
René Dubos, Pasteur and Modern Science, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1960, p. 145
Posted by: Darrell at July 31, 2005 02:31 AM (x3oIJ)
54
"There is no national science just as there is no national multiplication table; what is national is no longer science."
-- Anton Chekov
Posted by: Darrell at July 31, 2005 02:41 AM (x3oIJ)
55
Phantom:
"People in "primitive" cultures are not idiots for God sake, they can tell if something works or not just as well as we can. What they don't have is the tools of logic, mathematics and scientific experiment that Western technologists bring to bear on problems like growing rice."
Nonsense. Balderdash. Just dip into Lansing's stuff for a decisive refutation. Without logic and years of minute observations, the water-temple priests could not have operated such an effective system. It is unbelievably complex. It's also enshrined in a belief system of gods and goddesses. So what? All language is symbolic, by definition. Did the system work, or not? Did the system outperform the Green Revolution approach in Bali? Yes, it did. (Are there other problems with the Green Revolution? Yes, there are, but that's a separate discussion.)
Lansing needed a large research team and a whack of computer modelling to figure out what was going on. Armed with this, he was able to play back the system to modernizing leaders and bureaucrats in Bali who "thought Western." In effect, he translated the water-temple system into "Western" and decisively made his point.
"Megadoses of Vitamin C didn't survive the testing. Its bollocks. Doesn't work, has unpleasant side effects. Oh well."
It wasn't "alternative medicine," either--no tradition of such. Just a wingy idea from Linus Pauling.
As for Darrell's quote-factory, a couple of points:
1) The Mayan astronomers were quite aware, in their way, of the mathematics required to predict eclipses. (I was afraid someone here might accuse me of solipsism or idealism, btw: I plead not guilty to both.)
2) Of course when you define "science" within the Western epistemological framework, it makes no sense at all to then talk about German science or French science. None whatever. But I wasn't arguing for such. I was arguing for the possibility that completely different symbolic systems, combined with what we might call empirical adequacy, can produce results. I gave numerous examples that belie the idea that we have to talk and act within the Western framework to get anything done.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 31, 2005 09:46 AM (Lf2qC)
Paul Martin's women -- Stronach and Parrish
First, there was Belinda Stronach. To cross the floor, she demanded a cabinet post (we assume). Upon completing the deal, Prime Minister Paul Martin was subject to laughter from the Ottawa press corps during the press conference when he asserted that her reward of a cabinet post was entirely based on merit.
Is Paul Martin about to be humiliated again?
[Carolyn] Parrish, who was booted out of the Liberal caucus last year after she criticized the government of U.S. President George W. Bush as "bastards" and "idiots," also said she is interested in returning to the Liberal fold, but only if she receives a personal invitation from the prime minister that has no strings attached.
Most leaders would make it clear to a rogue like Parrish exactly where she stands in the pecking order.
But here we have a very loud woman like Parrish who is a darling of a media deperate for stories during the summer when domestic stories are few and far between, and a Prime Minister who is not a strong leader at the best of times, and is still wounded from a bruising spring session of parliament. I'd say there's a fair chance that we're going to be presented with another scene of the Prime Minister being laughed at by reporters.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:37 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Lest we forget, it was not "the government of U.S. President George W. Bush" that she called bastards. It was Americans...generally. Oh, and she also said that she hates them.
Posted by: Johnny Pockets at July 28, 2005 10:46 AM (QShAG)
2
She wasn't fired for insulting Americans! She was fired for insulting PMPM!
Yes, she insulted Americans, and got fired, but there's no causal relationship between the two events!
Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 28, 2005 10:54 AM (U2GJM)
3
That woman needs to be shut down. What she said about Americans is disgraceful. People cannot be held responsible for those they elect when they are being constantly being bombarded with propaganda. I'm sure she would raise hell if an American politician said he hates Canadians because they elected Paul Martin.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 10:54 AM (ft48a)
4
Funny.
When Stephen Harper says that he will not censor any of his MP's and let the voters decide what to do, it is seen as "Leadership".
But if Paul Martin allow this MP to speak her mind and let the voters decide, it isn't seen the same way.
Why is that?
Posted by: Bob at July 28, 2005 11:05 AM (9DKlW)
5
I disagree with the Harper tactic as well. Mps should be representative of their Party. If they cannot agree and tow the party line, they should reconsider their affiliation. Why run as a party mouthpiece if you disagree with policy?
I think in a democratic context, you are absolutely right Bob.But I don't think a few rogues and dissenters should be representative of party policy. It's a difficult situtation because if you want to convey the image that you are truly democratic, then you have no other choice but to allow MPs to vote their minds and say what they want. But that situation leaves an open door for severe embarassment. And then you are viewed as a hypocrite when you try to censor those more vocal dissenters.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 11:17 AM (ft48a)
6
"But if Paul Martin allow this MP to speak her mind and let the voters decide, it isn't seen the same way."
Bob, I think there's a difference between allowing your members to speak their mind, and allowing your members to speak their mind whilst having a severe deficiency with their own internal censoring system.
Parrish has clearly marked herself as a kook who spouts off without knowing what she's spouting about. 100 years of peacekeeping duty is our heritage? As reviewed on several blogs, it's just not the case. "Damn Americans...I hate those bastards" is not openly speaking opinion, but mindless gushing of rhetoric.
I think Paul did the right thing by chucking her out of caucus. Of course, I think he did it far too late, getting upset that she mindlessly gushed on him after months of putting up with her other mindless gushing.
I support party leaders, be they Lib or Con or Other, allowing their party members to speak their mind. However, I would also expect that they raise the bar of discourse, and require that any such mind-speaking be conducted with decorum and -- God forbid -- even some forethought.
Posted by: Johnny Pockets at July 28, 2005 11:52 AM (QShAG)
7
I have to disagree with you Martin. A Political Party is simply a collection of people with similar - but not identical - views. It is absurd to think that any Party can perfectly represent the views of any single individual, nevermind a whole collection of individuals. Otherwise, why not just have automated votes - it would save us a lot in salaries. It also seems crazy to think that "a few rogues and dissenters" are ever "representative of party policy."
As such, individual Party members should be free to disagree with any aspect of the Party. At some point, individuals may find that the overall consensus viewpoint is simply too divergent from their own, and so will have to leave, find another party, etc. Likewise, at some point, the Party may find that the overall viewpoint of Individual MP's is simply too divergent from their own and so will ask them to leave. The key here is "overall" viewpoint, because because it seems crazy to make any single issue a litmus test for whether you can belong to a Party, or whether you can't speak.
It is precisely the lack of MP accountability in representing their voters that is the problem with political representation at the moment. Why in the world would you want to encourage less accountability between individual MP's and voters, by making MP's tow a generic Party Line?
Posted by: Bob at July 28, 2005 11:54 AM (9DKlW)
8
Remember: Parrish is an Independant.
Posted by: Pete at July 28, 2005 12:05 PM (RTdQG)
9
I find it sickening that this rat has become some sort of Media darling.
It is a sad guage of our society that we are so devoid of actual Canadian Identity that the only way we can define ourselves is as "not the US". And then outspoken yet uninformed politicians are applauded for reinforcing this ideal.
Whoever voted for this peice of work should be proud of how she represents Canadians.
Freedom of speech isnt a license to spout stupidity. Where are the "hate" police now?
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 28, 2005 12:19 PM (Namz1)
10
I'm sick of the hypocritical anti-Americanism in this country. Imagine what the Liberals and their ilk would say if anyone--not to mention a member of their caucus--said "I hate Muslims" or "I hate Aboriginals" or "I hate Palestinians" or any other recognizable group (including homosexuals). I can hear the peals of "Hate crime" already. And as for this nonsense about her being allowed to "speak her mind," of course she can do that--as a private citizen. But if she says something to embarass/hurt her own party (in this instance being mean to His Excellence the King of Canada/Prime Minister, then she gets canned.
Posted by: C. Gracchus at July 28, 2005 12:26 PM (2IO7t)
11
Gracchus
Why do you equate Parrish's remarks to "hypocrital anti-Americanism in this country?" Parrish has made some unsavoury comments which include some that are obviously anti-American, she also insulted PMPM; for this and for her history of unproductive comments she was kicked out of caucus. So, insulting Americans is the same as making disparaging comments about Aboriginals or homosexuals? That is simply not worth responding to. I think Parrish should be let into the LPC just as Cheryl Gallant remained a member of the CPC when she made that egregious comparison between abortion and terrorism. Perhaps its time to concern yourself with the plank in your own eye.
Posted by: Paul D at July 28, 2005 02:01 PM (pgbux)
12
Paul D:
I'm afraid I can't follow your argument: "So, insulting Americans is the same a making disparaging comments about Aboriginals or Homosexuals? That is simply not worth responding to."
I am not sure of the distinction between "insulting" and "making disparaging comments about" - but you seem to see a bright-line difference between them. Could you expand on this, please? Rather than play word games about whether Parrish disparaged or merely insulted Americans, play her comments word for word, aside from substitution of target group: "Damned Muslims... I hate those bastards" or, "Damned homsexuals... I hate those bastards."
Can you seriously doubt the reaction, both from the group involved and the Canadian punditocracy? In some minds, it may be more acceptable to make such comments about people who are not Canadian - perhaps our vaunted inclusiveness and tolerance is geographically bounded - but I don't think that "Damned Haitians..." would get much further than the other two examples.
You are being disingenuous when you assert that Parrish was kicked out of caucus for "...this and for her history of unproductive comments..." since her history of unproductive comments was unchanged. The only thing that did change was her public (and unfavourable) comment about PMPM and his team, and that is what got her expelled from caucus.
Cheers,
Dean
Posted by: Deaner at July 28, 2005 02:34 PM (NlY1X)
13
"So, insulting Americans is the same a making disparaging comments about Aboriginals or Homosexuals? That is simply not worth responding to."
Well said, Dean, although no riposte was needed to that incredibly self-revealing "liberal" comment.
Posted by: Drained Brain at July 28, 2005 02:58 PM (VtmCE)
14
Parrish is not a Liberal. Get your facts straight.
Martin should have sent Parrish on a Harperesque stress leave. It worked for that class act Grewal.
Posted by: Baghdad Bob at July 28, 2005 03:08 PM (BX3iS)
15
Martin loves Parrish because she can say what he wants to say but dares not to. I think he actually admires her and he probably thinks she is a hot chick that he would bed except his wife would divorce him and take $100 Million away so he can't entertain such fantasies too long...
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 28, 2005 05:02 PM (Lr/Rr)
16
The problem we have today is the party system. What we need is more independents i.e. swing votes that would represent the people who elected them instead of being in situations where 37% of the 60% that vote gets the party a seat or forced by party leaders to vote a certain way. Maybe we should have 2 votes one for a member whose job it is to represent the people and another for the party we wish to vote for.
Posted by: at July 28, 2005 06:17 PM (cjeNc)
17
In a Parliamnet of 308 MP's isn't it okay that one MP looks critically at the US. Is it really necessary that every single MP fawn over the US.
PArrish does not reflect the views of the other 307 MP's. Every one knows that.
Posted by: hi at July 29, 2005 10:22 AM (wW4PK)
18
Hi, uh hi,
"looks critically?"
Let's cut to the chase. All the logical arguments about "what if she said "Damn Muslims," or "Damn French" don't cut it with you. In fact, it probably infuriates you because "liberals" know how tolerant they are, and anybody who suggests they're not is probably committing "hate speech."
You secretly admire and share her opinion of those "American bastards" and you probably think it's unfair that her sotto voce comment has been used against her, don't you?
Fair enough. Why not just say so? For that matter, why wouldn't Parrish say so to the American bastards herself when she had the opportunity?
Parrish is so proud of her moment of fame with the bastards that she's posted on her website a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer in which she "weasels" for the American audience everything she said. Contrast her remarks in that interview with her "Coalition of The Idiots" shirts that she's still flogging on the same site.
There's nothing new about a politician who's a hypocrite. In Canada, unfortunately, the yin-yang superior-inferior obsession with the US, and the concomitant "search for identity" has been a vacuum filled over the past 30 years by Trudeaupia.
I abhorred the vacuum less.
Posted by: Drained Brain at July 29, 2005 10:57 AM (VtmCE)
19
You're right Brian, she says what Martin wants to, so it's his free ride to watch the public non-reaction to her comments. Her strange constituents will apparently keep returning her as their representative anyway.
Posted by: greenlantern at July 30, 2005 11:56 AM (RaxRo)
Carolyn Parrish undermining military discipline?
It's one thing to criticize government policy, but it's another to be undermining the top commanding officer of the armed forces who has the full confidence of the government.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:12 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Kabul Carolyn's comments are stupid and ill-informed, but they do not fall under the Criminal Code definition of sedition, since they were directed to the Minister of National Defence and not to Gen. Hillier.
If she had written to Gen. Hillier asking him to disobey orders from the government, that would be sedition.
Posted by: Loyalist at July 28, 2005 10:29 AM (nQwT5)
2
She's apparently going to be making an appearance on Dave Rutherford's show today. I don't know what time it'll be. Rutherford runs from 9:00 a.m. MDT to 1:00 p.m. MDT. I'll listen to the show's opening in about half an hour and update, in case anyone is interested. If so, you can listen online at
QR77 Radio in Calgary.
Posted by: Johnny Pockets at July 28, 2005 10:36 AM (QShAG)
3
Dagnabbit! How do I make links that are actually clickable in comments?
Anyway, you can listen at www.qr77.com.
Posted by: Johnny Pockets at July 28, 2005 10:37 AM (QShAG)
4
Crappers! Looks like she has found a legal loophole, but let's be honest - would she suffer any real punishment, in this Canadian justice system, anyway?
Posted by: WonderWoman at July 28, 2005 10:38 AM (hOAGp)
5
Like I said, this is a stretch.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 10:40 AM (phwde)
6
And Johnny..for the listeners to the north..go here...http://630ched.com/..should be on in 12 minutes.
Posted by: Justthinkin at July 28, 2005 10:46 AM (Iqhxu)
7
WonderWoman...you must be thinking of the wrong country.Justice system?Oh,wait.You are right.Don't they know that the poor little darlings(criminals)need love and understanding?
Posted by: justthinkin at July 28, 2005 10:51 AM (Iqhxu)
8
Parrish needs to understand that in the long tradition of military leaders, Generals, Marshals, and the such tend to use harsh and innapropriate vocabulary to reflect their opnion. This is most likely due to giving violent and inspiring speeches to spur on their troops. I can imagine how it would be difficult for a military leader suddnly to have to give a politically correct statement to the media. I don't think Gen. Hillier said anything wrong, I think he said precisely what he would of told an assemply of soldiers ready to head off to the front. Perhaps elected politicans could learn a few things in trying to convey inspiration and raising morale instead of being constant vocabulary censors.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 10:58 AM (ft48a)
9
At the start of the show, they didn't indicate when Carolyn Pariah will be on. They did say "later", so I'm guessing 11:00 or later, MDT.
Posted by: Johnny Pockets at July 28, 2005 11:18 AM (QShAG)
10
Seems Rutherford is on hiatus...Brian Brackridge is filling in.Ms Parrish is supposed to be on after the 11:00 AM news break
Posted by: Justthinkin at July 28, 2005 11:24 AM (Iqhxu)
11
Opppppsss..my nasty..that should be Rob Breakenridge..ouch...put down that wet noodle.
Posted by: Justthinkin at July 28, 2005 11:26 AM (Iqhxu)
12
This from the Ottawa Citizen story, July 28, "MP Parrish furious over Afghanistan mission":
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5a72eaa1-42fa-4a18-8e35-2164d864e940
'Meanwhile, the opinionated MP spoke harshly about Canada's new role in Afghanistan.
"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction..."'
Ms Parrish doesn't seem to realize that the Canadian Forces' initial deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 was in a combat, not peacekeeping, role. How short are memories in this country?
By the way, the air forces of the testosterone-charged Dutch and Belgians have fighters flying combat missions in Afghanistan right now--and the air force of the Yankee-wary French will be joining them--under NATO command. ("Nearly Ready: Communications Deemed Critical to Future NATO Response Forces", Aviation Week, July 1
.
By the way, General Eisenhower titled his first book of memoirs "Crusade in Europe." Will Parrish demand that this dead man (clearly a "beast" with an excess of testosterone) be "muzzled" by removing his obviously anti-Muslim diatribe from our public libraries? Parrish will certainly not know that the book is about defeating the Germans in WW II.
Mark
Ottawa
.
By the way, General Eisenhower titled his first book of memoirs "Crusade in Europe." Will Parrish demand that this dead man (clearly a "beast" with an excess of testosterone) be "muzzled" by removing his obviously anti-Muslim diatribe from our public libraries? Parrish will certainly not know that the book is about defeating the Germans in WW II.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 11:58 AM (bCDNv)
13
This from the Ottawa Citizen story, July 28, "MP Parrish furious over Afghanistan mission":
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5a72eaa1-42fa-4a18-8e35-2164d864e940
'Meanwhile, the opinionated MP spoke harshly about Canada's new role in Afghanistan.
"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction..."'
Ms Parrish doesn't seem to realize that the Canadian Forces' initial deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 was in a combat, not peacekeeping, role. How short are memories in this country?
By the way, the air forces of the testosterone-charged Dutch and Belgians have fighters flying combat missions in Afghanistan right now--and the air force of the Yankee-wary French will be joining them--under NATO command. ("Nearly Ready: Communications Deemed Critical to Future NATO Response Forces", Aviation Week, July 1
.
By the way, General Eisenhower titled his first book of memoirs "Crusade in Europe." Will Parrish demand that this dead man (clearly a "beast" with an excess of testosterone) be "muzzled" by removing his obviously anti-Muslim diatribe from our public libraries? Parrish will certainly not know that the book is about defeating the Germans and Italians in WW II.
Mark
Ottawa
.
By the way, General Eisenhower titled his first book of memoirs "Crusade in Europe." Will Parrish demand that this dead man (clearly a "beast" with an excess of testosterone) be "muzzled" by removing his obviously anti-Muslim diatribe from our public libraries? Parrish will certainly not know that the book is about defeating the Germans and Italians in WW II.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 11:58 AM (bCDNv)
14
A retort to the foor footed voters of Carolineville.
Posted by: Floyd Low at July 28, 2005 02:59 PM (aPkwd)
15
Friends, Romans, four footed voters in Carolineville - I should have said click the link
Anon!
Posted by: Floyd Low at July 28, 2005 03:01 PM (aPkwd)
16
Carrying on in the long established tradition of military language, let me say this to those who think that a stupid woman like Carolyn Parrish could undermine our military discipline: GET OFF THE FUCKING POT!
Do you really think our troops are so poorly trained that something like this will even gain their attention? If it weren't for reporters, too lazy to find a REAL story, this bullshit wouldn't even make print. As it is, our troops wouldn't even use the news papers that carried this story to wipe their asses with.
I'm ex-military and Boy, am I pissed!
Angry, I'm surprised at you!
Posted by: old squid at July 28, 2005 06:33 PM (QK3tc)
17
Old squid, old boy, old chum, relax.
Of course the troops won't fall for it. That's not the point. The point is that she sounds like she's trying to undermine the chain of command. The fact that she no chance whatsoever is irrelevant. The statute doesn't require that the attempt succeed. It doesn't even require that the attempt be credible.
It only matters that you tried.
And with that, you can charge her.
Now do you see what I'm getting at?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 28, 2005 06:46 PM (20fwh)
18
Angry,
Yeah, I see what you're getting at.
The REAL point, though, is this.
Nothing will happen to Carolyn Parrish. NO charges, no kick in the ass.... maybe a tsk-tsk from her fellow Liberals 'cause she damm sure still is a bloody Liberal. Talk show hosts are falling all over themselves to get her on their shows, for Christ's sake. She couldn't BUY this kind of publicity--- and the media is giving it to her for FREE! And so are the bloggers.
I honour my CDS and fellow Newfoundlander too much to speak for him, but I will hazzard a guess as to what his thoughts about her are:
F**K HER!
Posted by: old squid at July 28, 2005 07:05 PM (QK3tc)
19
I have always held the opinion that when in a debate, if you fall into the sewer of calling people names (whoever they might be) you have gven up and lost the arguemrnt.
I find it very difficult to avoid this with Ms/Mrs/Mr Parrish. She strikes me as a wannabe dictator. "I WILL TELL YOU YOUR HISTORY!!"
This women scares me simply because there are so many igmorant Canadians who will accept her version of history as fact. Look at the comments in this post. (I think that only 8 guys were killed in the friendly fi4re incident in Afghanistan is only 1 example.)
This women should be sent to Afghanistan with the troups for the duration. I would hope she would learn something.
Posted by: gerry in montreal at July 28, 2005 09:27 PM (s+sOc)
20
Those of you from outside Ontario will be interested to know that Auntie Carolyn's riding in Mississauga is heavily Muslim. Like, really heavily. You can get good Halal curry on every street corner heavily.
So while it looks like she's a demented idiot, she's actually just doing what it takes for a mean looking old white broad to hold that seat. She can go back to Mississauga and show all the folks that she's solidly with them and shares their dementia 100%.
That just makes her more dangerous in my book.
Also to be considered is that Aunty Carolyn is just saying out loud what Liberals say to each other behind closed doors. They are really pissed at Hillier, I'm thinking he's not going to be Field Marshall long if he keeps cutting throgh the crapola lke that.
The real job of the Canadian Forces is to be out in front of the cameras, Plucky Canadians Doing Important Things that coincidentally make the Liberal majority look good. Meals On Wheels International.
Still, I bet Carolyn doesn't know that the longest shot ever made in combat was a couple years ago by a Canadian soldier. PPCLI sniper capped a Taliban (insurgent? freedom fighter? terrorist? fanatic a-hole? I'm so confused...) across a gorge at about 2500 yards. In Afghanistan!
Fifty caliber rifle, the Taliban guy didn't get a chance to take anybody else with him so he missed out on his 72 virgins I guess.
I understand the PPCLI guy got in heck for that later. Not very politically correct eh?
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 10:13 PM (nAMT1)
21
I don't think Hillier should be field martial long.
He should be Prime Minister. That would be enough to restore my faith in my neighbors to the north.
Posted by: A. J. Nolte at July 30, 2005 06:50 PM (RPeWu)
22
Hey, "testosterone-charged" and "dangerous" people are *exactly* the kind of individuals I want to see fighting "terrorist scumbags." Let's face it, the terrorists are playing for keeps. Marquis of Queensberry rules don't apply in the slums of Kandahar or Kabul. People like Parrish don't like men like General Hillier, because they upset their overly sensitive and unrealistic world view.
Parrish would have done well to study basic military doctrine before spouting her asinine prognostications. The most basic maxim of any military force (and the easiest to learn) is it is designed to close with and destroy the enemy. Not parley with them, not seek 'engagement', with them, that empty phrase so loved by limp-dicked 'soft-power' advocates, not negotiate with them.
How far do you think Canadian soldiers would have gotten in places like Monte Cassino, the Scheldt Estuary and Juno Beach if they hadn't been "testosterone-charged" and "dangerous"?
In a radio phone-in show I recently had the pleasure to listen to had General Lewis Mackenzie fielding calls from listeners. In the preamble to the phone-in portion of the show, Mackenzie likened Parrish to a "flatulating cow" - which is too kind if you ask me.
She'd change her tune in a hurry if someone handed her a rifle, a combat helmet and webbing and orders to go assault a Taliban stronghold, without the aid of her security detail.
Posted by: Steve at August 01, 2005 06:14 PM (03NHK)
23
The Phantom:
You've explained the Parrish mentality. Look at her riding, her constituents. As for the Taliban guy, it doesn't matter, he's in Jennah (heaven) with his virgins and the wife of his choice because he did die in combat.
I like Mackenzie's flatulating cow simile, but that is about all I care to acknowledge about MacKenzie. Didn't he have his blue beret revoked for not protecting Bosnians under his service with the UN?
Posted by: habamusrodentum at August 01, 2005 09:38 PM (xUK4c)
Bloggers in the Media
The National Post is running a piece I've written on the question of Afrocentrism in Canadian schools. It appears in the print edition for July 28, 2005, on page A19, the "Issues & Ideas" spread.
It also appears in the electronic version of the paper (subscription required).
For readers visiting here for the first time, especially those coming via the National Post, welcome. I've provided more information on this topic after the column.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
07:25 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Awesome stuff, Steve.
Congrats on the NP placement.
Posted by: mark at July 28, 2005 08:11 AM (PN+yN)
2
Yeah I hope you get more traffic than I did from my two pieces that appeared in the post.
Posted by: The Meatriarchy at July 28, 2005 08:25 AM (6I4dX)
3
Excellent column. In the U.S. the most successful schools for black children have been the most traditional, structured, and anti-progressive style of schools. I suggest readers check out the No Excuses movement at www.noexcuses.org. Schools pioneeered by educators such as Marva Collins are successfully educating black children and they are NOT afro-centric as you describe in your article. In fact, they are extremely structured, using programs such as explicit phonics, and expecting high standards that are measured by regular testing.
Posted by: Doretta at July 28, 2005 09:54 AM (D46EQ)
4
Congrats Angry, the National Post is a fine publication, you should be very proud!
Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 28, 2005 10:19 AM (U2GJM)
5
SWEET!
Posted by: Richard at July 28, 2005 11:04 AM (XS3Ab)
6
I'm a blogger also published in the NP a few months ago on the issue of racial profiling. I'm interested in trading notes about the process of being published in the interest of getting better at it. Email me if you want. (By the way, I subscribe to the Post and read your stuff daily and immediately thought, when I read your NP piece, that it was you.) Sorry about the pseudonym, but I've been being careful lately.
Posted by: daproofisdaproof at July 28, 2005 08:22 PM (9Zt8t)
7
Congrats!
Posted by: Candace at July 28, 2005 08:54 PM (R7nd+)
Canada vs Denmark -- A carefully delivered insult?
More on the Hans Island affair from the National Post:
The Danish government has offered to reopen formal negotiations with Canada in an effort to resolve the decades-old tug of war over a tiny Arctic island.[A visit to the island by Defence Minister Bill Graham] prompted the Danish government to call in the Canadian ambassador. The outraged Danes sent a protest letter to Ottawa and a senior official in Copenhagen called Graham's visit "an occupation."
The Canadian government appeared to shrug off the Danish offer of negotiations. A Foreign Affairs official said Ottawa would examine any formal request but was in no hurry to reopen talks.
Ouch! "Yeah, we'd really like to talk about it, but I'm washing my hair tonight. Just come by and slip the note under the door and I promise to read it later tonight. Or tomorrow. Definitely soon."
Is this a diplomatic insult? If it is, Canada better be ready to back it up. Insults are serious business:
Some diplomatic practices do not change. The diplomatic insult has existed since the origins of diplomacy. In the Bible there is an account of the king of the Ammonites shaving off half of the beards of the envoys sent by King David. The diplomatic insult today can be a carefully crafted instrument of statecraft used as a way of communicating extreme displeasure when all other efforts at communication have failed. France in particular is a consummate user of the diplomatic insult. Napoleon "insulted the British ambassador in 1803, the Austrian in 1808 and the Russian in 1811 - a sign that war with each power was imminent."
Leave it to the French, though, to take being rude to all new levels:
The French signalled their displeasure with a number of American policies, including their differences over the UN secretary-generalship and the command of the NATO southern command, through just such a gesture. At United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s last NATO dinner the secretary-general of NATO (Javier Solana) proposed a toast to Christopher, whereupon the French foreign minister Herve de Charette abruptly left the room. To make the gesture clear, the French ambassador to NATO (Gerard Errara) took Charette’s place and ostentatiously turned his back on the room while the toast was conducted.
Tag-teaming the smackdown. Brilliant!
Maybe this is why Carolyn Parrish is being brought back into caucus -- the government needs a Minister of Cheesing People Off and decided they needed an expert. I feel sorry for the Danes. THe certainly don't deserve to be in Parrish's crosshairs.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
06:50 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The Danes consider one politician to be an occupation? They must be getting their training from the french.
Posted by: Jay at July 28, 2005 07:15 AM (PuNh2)
2
This reminds me of a passage from Chesterton - he was talking about the Spanish-American War, but it applies even more to Canada. "It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First it is a small power, and fights small powers. then it is a great power and fights great powers. Then it is a great power and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself." He goes on to highlight "the ironic contrast between the very careless choice of a strong line and the very careful choice of a weak enemy," and calls this "the Caracallan triumph, the triumph over nobody."
Posted by: Wanda at July 28, 2005 08:26 AM (FlAqu)
3
But I thought Canada believed in negotiated (preferably multilateral UN) solutions to international disputes, not unilateral military action.
Except when such action appeals to mindless RoC nationalism. And no-one gets hurt.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 09:33 AM (bCDNv)
4
In all fairness to the Danes, we did dump Alfonso Gagliano on their doorstep as ambassador. No self-respecting nation could let such a provocation go unanswered.
Posted by: Loyalist at July 28, 2005 10:33 AM (nQwT5)
5
We've got to stop bickering with Denmark.
We should start a joint submarine detection project based at Hans, sending a stong and united message to the American submarine presence.
This stupid fighting over a tiny island does nothing to maintain our sovereignty, especially from the Maericans who already disrespect our claim to the Northwest Passage.
Posted by: James M at July 28, 2005 12:54 PM (UWk0H)
6
Seems to me Denmark has the valid claim in Hans Island, not Canada.
Is it just pure and simple national greed that causes Canada to 'flex their muscles'?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at July 28, 2005 01:51 PM (A4UEy)
7
Johan i Kanada: As I wrote above "such action appeals to mindless RoC nationalism". So long as no-one gets hurt. And landing one helicopter on Hans is pretty pathetic muscle-flexing.
Agree about the merits of the claims, from the little I know.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 02:52 PM (bCDNv)
8
The war is escalating - it's advertising now:
. . .
TORONTO (AP) - Canada and Denmark have taken their diplomatic tussle over a lump of Arctic rocks to the Internet with competing Google ads claiming sovereignty over Hans Island.
Some Canadians have called for a boycott of Danish pastries the way Americans disdained french fries when Paris declined to join the coalition forces in Iraq.
. . .
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050729/D8BKQQM86.html?PG=home&SEC=news
Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2005 04:42 AM (PuNh2)
9
Minister of Cheesing People Off? We'll it is certainly a skill and finding someone who has lived/worked in France would be a great way to recruit.
Posted by: Insider at July 31, 2005 11:57 PM (1/NbQ)
10
Let's just populate the island with beavers and Tim Hortons and get it over with!
Posted by: Goldfish don't bounce at August 03, 2005 11:29 PM (Mkrt8)
July 27, 2005
Do I stoop down to make a cheap French joke?
Hell yeah!
AP and UPI reported that the French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide." The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate." The increased alert was precipitated by the recent fire which destroyed the French white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.
[Thanks to TF]
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:40 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
1
About a year ago I started planning a month long holiday to France. One of the reasons I picked France was "Freedom Fries" and stuff like this.
We leave in a week.
Posted by: KevinG at July 27, 2005 01:25 PM (9aF/1)
2
The only thing that surrenders faster then the French is PMPM trying to get votes from anybody!
Posted by: Justthinkin at July 27, 2005 01:31 PM (Iqhxu)
3
You should like this site as well: The Complete Military History of France.
France has never fought a war it didn't lose.
Posted by: Bill Strong at July 27, 2005 01:32 PM (F47cQ)
4
First, the french didn't lose World War 1. And since the Napoleonic Wars were a series of seperate conflicts, you can't really attribute it to being on big major loss.
At least the French had the courage to fight in wars while you Canadians for the most part sit back and enjoy little or no casualties in your "peacekeeping". You've never been invaded, never been threatened by a major power, and although your involvment in the World Wars was notable, you've abandoned that tradition. Your judgement on the French is pathetic. Given the fact that you would probably lose an artic-stage war with Dennmark, I doubt your place is to critize a nation that has a very long history of conflict. If it wouldn't be for your Southern Colonial Master, you would probably still be a British protectorate, or perhaps a rather large Soviet Republic.
So go ahead and amuse yourself at the expense of the French. Given your historical and international influence, I would be ashamed. The French might have lost many wars, but their small country half the size of Ontario still is at the forefront of the international media in terms of international policy, whereas Canada is relegated to a mid-section article in the New York Times about the architecture of a new museum in downtown Ottawa.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 01:51 PM (ft48a)
5
Some of the posters here prove the point of this joke:
Ah France, such a waste... sixty million jokes and no sense of humor.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 02:12 PM (rphJg)
6
Ah, poor Martin B. Somebody must have hit a humility nerve.
By the way Martin, you obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of Canada'a history of warfare. Never invaded? Canada -- when it was known as British North America -- WAS invaded in 1812 by the USA. Canada successfully fought back pushing the border down to present day Washington D.C. before both parties called it a draw.
I'll agree that presently, our forces are not exactly notable... unfortunately they're about on par with the French (except we don't test nukes in Polynesia).
Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2005 02:46 PM (qbVWn)
7
Any country that has the balls to sink Greenpeace's 'Rainbow Warrior' can't be all bad.
Posted by: at July 27, 2005 03:08 PM (Rh/aP)
8
"Any country that has the balls to sink Greenpeace's 'Rainbow Warrior' can't be all bad."
Sorry, but I can't agree. That was a cowardly and criminal act.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 03:10 PM (PTRPR)
9
Surecure: Have you not heard of La Legion Etrangere? They have their hand in almost every foreign conflict.
As for my criticism, I wasn't criticizing Canada, and no "humility nerves" have been touched. I just think that as Canadians, it is deplorable for us to laught at the French for loosing a few wars when our military is in such a deplorable state. Then again, I'm sure our 12 Sea Kings would of made all the difference against the German Panzers. Who knows, maybe it would of taken Germany to force a capitulation out of us a bit longer than it took for them to force it out of the french. Then again, Paris is much closer to Berlin than Ottawa is.
As for the American invasion, I was speaking of Canada, not the British Empire. It was not Canada then, but rather a colony administered by the British and defended by the British. Some Canadians might disagree with the French politically, but I doubt it is their place to criticize the military history of a country that has endured and survived through over a thousand years of war, conflict, and revolution.
I do agree with Angry on the Greenpeace bit. It was a cowardly and criminal act. No question there.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 03:27 PM (ft48a)
10
about on par with the french?
The french can deploy 300 000 troops. Of those, 100 000 are gendarmes, so they are staying home. So, that leaves approximately 200 000 fighting men, or roughly 195 000 more than Canada.
That number also includes the FFL (Legion D'etranger), whom no one has ever accused of being cowardly. They number approximately 8000 of the toughest SOB's in the whole world. That's 3000 more men under arms than the entire Canadian forces can field. I have friends who have worked for 30 years in two african countries. They've been personally rescued by the FFL four times, and the last one came as a mob was beating its way into their compound to rape the wife and probably kill the husband.
Their army also has tanks (which pretty soon we won't have), 406 of the latest leClerc design, and another 635 AMX-30's which are obsolescent, but on par with our leopards (now being removed from service). Their army also operates 80 brand new attack helicopters (Canada has ZERO).
Their navy is far superior to Canada's with 4 nuclear SSBN's and 8 nuclear SSNs, and a conventional aircraft carrier (The Charles De Gaulle), and two obsolete carriers which are being removed from service (Foch and the Clemenceau). They also have a helicopter carrier, 31 frigates and dozens of smaller vessels.
Their Airforce has 577 combat aircraft, which makes them the third highest total in Europe, ahead of the UK, Germany and the United States. In fact, if you add Germany's total and the US's total, the french would only be behind by about 20 aircraft. Their aircraft include the Mirage 2000, a great multirole aircraft used by dozens of nations, an aircraft far beyond our CF-18's. They also are in the midst of deploying their latest homegrown aircraft, the Rafale, which blends the latest stealth technology with conventional designs, and is a full two generations beyond Canada's CF18's.
We can all puff our chests out and make fun of the french, but seriously, our military would get mowed down by them in about 5 minutes. Outclassed in equipment and personnel.
Posted by: Paul Morrison at July 27, 2005 03:30 PM (xlxm6)
11
I might of taken this a bit too personally. I realise the post was meant as humor. It was pretty funny anyways, I apologise for being a bastard about it.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 03:30 PM (ft48a)
12
Martin, no need for apologies. You spoke your mind as you see things. Your partly right, our federal government has ripped the funding out of forces pretty good lately. And I see that a reply has been posted regarding Canada's war history. What is notable is that is that while France may have never won a war, who really has? Some things about Canada that you may not know:
1) We have never lost a war.
2) We have the largest population of French people that have never surrendered.
3) We've fought battles that nobody but Canadians ( and Newfoundland and Labradorians- pre 1945 ) could win.
Despite all the cutbacks, and antiquated hardware, our guys are still out there doing what they are trained to do ,with nothing but good intentions.
They have my highest regards.
Posted by: Paul M at July 27, 2005 05:54 PM (gCSIe)
13
"The largest population of French people that have never surrendered?" I guess you mean *living* French people.
If memory serves, the British captured New France once, gave it back, like a cat playing with a mouse, then took it back again in the Seven Years War. It is the ultimate game of "Whose your daddy?"
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 06:45 PM (rphJg)
14
Daniel Pipes says something about the French that you might want to consider:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764
"Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough and the French one as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, even more so than America, while Britain is the most hapless.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments - Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American - have protested London's refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. In frustration, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak publicly denounced Britain for "protecting killers." One American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state.
Counterterrorism specialists disdain the British. Roger Cressey calls London "easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe." Steven Simon dismisses the British capital as "the Star Wars bar scene" of Islamic radicals. More brutally, an intelligence official said of last week's attacks: "The terrorists have come home. It is payback time for Â… an irresponsible policy."
While London hosts terrorists, Paris hosts a top-secret counterterrorism center, code-named Alliance Base, the existence of which was recently reported by the Washington Post. At Alliance Base, six major Western governments have since 2002 shared intelligence and run counterterrorism operations - the latter makes the operation unique.
More broadly, President Chirac instructed French intelligence agencies just days after September 11, 2001, to share terrorism data with their American counterparts "as if they were your own service." The cooperation is working: A former acting CIA director, John E. McLaughlin, called the bilateral intelligence tie "one of the best in the world." The British may have a "special relationship" with Washington on Iraq, but the French have one with it in the war on terror.
France accords terrorist suspects fewer rights than any other Western state, permitting interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstances. Were he a terrorism suspect, the author of Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe, Evan Kohlmann, says he "would least like to be held under" the French system."
Posted by: Hogtown Blues at July 27, 2005 08:01 PM (aItj7)
15
PS Your joke did make me laugh. It was a good one.
Posted by: Hogtown Blues at July 27, 2005 08:36 PM (aItj7)
16
All that one needed was a rimshot, good post angry, funny stuff.....lol
Posted by: DazzlinDino at July 28, 2005 12:43 AM (WFplk)
17
A guy throws two drums and a cymbal off of a cliff...
...ba dum, ching!
Posted by: Kenneth at July 28, 2005 12:52 AM (scyoZ)
18
Martin, Thank you for sticking up for France.
My American Husband, the great great great Grandson of Jonathan Lafayette (yes..named after *that* Layfayette) Bush, says
"VIVE LE FRANCE!"
Some American's aren't ingrates, and have a sense history which the barking mad laptop bombadiers completely miss.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/12/lafayettewea.html
Stop shaming yourselves by proving that you are nothing but trained seals proud to march along to any superficial jingoistic nonsense that George Bush sputters, and shout out insults on command like pavolovian dogs?
Posted by: MWW at July 28, 2005 12:57 AM (9Tv9C)
19
French jokes?
Please learn more about this great country.
Then write or shut your mouth.
Posted by: george at July 28, 2005 02:15 AM (PO/gD)
20
I could forgive most of it except for DeGaulle and "Vive le Quebec liberte". Plus, French Indochina, equatorial Africa and sub Saharan colonies all turned into hell holes. I would have to say that Haiti tops them all.
Posted by: rebarbarian at July 28, 2005 07:15 AM (fvqQ5)
21
Jahn left a comment to my own site where he explained that the French are now in the process of building more tanks to replace their aged fleet.
These new tanks are to match the intent of the French military stratagy; they have 2 forward gears and 7 reverse.
Posted by: TF Stern at July 28, 2005 09:02 AM (dz3wA)
22
Paul Morrison: Actually the "Charles de Gaulle" is a CVN, i.e. nuclear-powered. It visited Halifax from June 8-13 this year. There were no reports of anti-nuclear types protesting.
The Yankee-wary French are deploying six Mirage 2000s to Tajikistan for combat operations in Afghanistan, under NATO command ( ("Nearly Ready: Communications Deemed Critical to Future NATO Response Forces", Aviation Week, July 1
.
Perhaps someone should tell Carolyn Parrish.
Mark
Ottawa
.
Perhaps someone should tell Carolyn Parrish.
Mark
OttawaPosted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 09:43 AM (bCDNv)
23
When I called the Charles De Gaulle a 'conventional' aircraft carrier, what I mean was not that it had a conventional powertrain v. a nuclear one, but rather that it was a conventional carrier in the sense that it has catapults and arrestor cables, and that it flies real fixed wing aircraft. This puts it a different category from British carriers of the invincible class (which have neither), that operates helicopters and jump jets and similar hybrids. The Indian Navy, Spanish, Brazillians, Italians and Russians all operate similar helicopter/jump jet carriers, although the Russians have built two conventionally designed ones as well.
I apologize for any confusion.
Posted by: Paul Morrison at July 28, 2005 11:10 AM (OhM5r)
24
Paul Morrison: Quite. And the Liberals oppose to the death Canada's getting the other type of carrier--what the Conservatives called a "hybrid carrier". As you point out, the sort operated by the war-mongering, imperialist, military-mad Spanish, Brazilians and Italians.
I still want to know where the anti-nuke protesters were in Halifax when the CDG was there.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 12:08 PM (bCDNv)
25
Actually, the conservatives weren't advocating the purchase of a proper helicopter even. They were advocating a 'hybrid carrier', basically a modified cargo ship, with defenses, that could operate 2-5 helicopters, and carry all the neccessary acoutrements for an overseas deployment.
Our current situation being that deploying overseas requires us to hire some freight company to ship it on their container ships or load it onto Ukrainian transport aircraft. purchasing two such vessels would allow Canadian troops to deploy within days to a nation like Haiti in response to any form of conflict or natural disaster, compared to weeks or months.
Posted by: Paul Morrison at July 28, 2005 02:54 PM (OhM5r)
26
Paul Morrison: I'm not that confident the Conservatives really knew what they were talking about.
The Canadian Navy dreams of the US Navy 25,000-tonne San Antonio-class LPD (Landing Platform Dock). Keep dreaming.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lpd.html
From a National Post, January 11, 2005, article by Lewis MacKenzie:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=373630&sid=bbd2408230b8d74ea2561b6ef5ba0a68
'During last June's federal election campaign, a large group of retired senior and general level officers from all three services (navy, army and air force) sent the Prime Minister SEAHORSE -- a comprehensive proposal that would give the services a joint expeditionary capability for the first time since the 1950s.
The plan recommended the lease of two San Antonio class assault ships from the United States. These ships can carry 800 troops with their equipment, supplies and vehicles, and include command communications and a medical facility. It was recommended that the army reconfigure one of its brigades of four to five thousand personnel to take on a rapid reaction role. Two battle groups would be trained and equipped to deploy on board the two assault ships. The air force would operate from the ships' decks with helicopters capable of lifting soldiers, supplies and casualties.'
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 04:21 PM (bCDNv)
27
Of course the Liberals will insist that any ships be built in Canada which means the project will take too long and cost too much to get decent value for money. And the Navy will suffer as a result.
It will be interesting to see the Conservative position on building the ships in Canada. I suspect they will favour this, which will demonstrate that they too are in the end not that serious about the military but also just want to chase votes.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 28, 2005 04:25 PM (bCDNv)
28
Amazing how soon Kanadians forget. It has been less than two years since it has been disclosed that Charac and his ilk accepted Bilions form Hussein to stay out of Liberating Iraq at the expense of the starving Iraqi's who were set up to starve purposely for photo ops to get rid of the sanctions. With all that stolen money floating around France, "KevinG should have no trouble getting free "freedom fries" with all that money most everything should be free in traitorous France. There are a few million dead Canadian military from ww1 and ww 2 and Korea, and yes Viet Nam, and Iraq that would take issue with the remarks made by MARTINB, that the actions of Canadians in ww 1 and ww 2 "were notable". What a complete ignorant and deplorable statement to make when it was the Canadians that fought the forefront in both wars, without the Canadians the war could have gone the other way. And the reason Herr Martin did not attend the D Day celebations was because there were no French there. They were all hiding out on Kiska Island after the Japs had left. McKenzie King had a hell of a time implementing the draft, and was only successful when he agreed that the Quebers would not "have" to go overseas, and though the few of them that did were excellent fighters they were very few in numers, it was the Angloe Canadians that fought for Canada. And it seems well forgotten that a 32 year old British General, James Wolf, that left the comfort of his beloved England to come over here and fight the French, and after only 9 months in this country he was killed in action while beating the French on the Plains of Abraham. Anyone know who James Wolf is??? I bet more Canadians know who Claud Ruel is, the cold blooded murderor of a Britich officer that he lured into his camp under the pretense of "peace," and without warning or trial slaughtered him in cold blood. Statues all over Quebec of Ruel, is there one of General James Wolf, the brave and decicated man that fought to his death so that we could have Canada? The French elite in Canada shrink at the sound of his name(which is never) and praise the murderor Ruel, thank God he was eventually hung.
The left wing media have positively refused to give the history of the Canadian military and it's accomplishments, they don't want "patriotism" to break out in Kanada, we might object against this fascist Librano traitoroous totalarian Govt. Traitorous you say? Yes when they instituted a Dictatorship both with the phoney Consititutions of 1867 with eliminating an elected Senate, and no whistlblower legislation, which guaranteed a veritable dictator as Prime Minister,and again in 1930 when the Libs change the powers of the GG's office and gave it to the PMd's office, thereby allowing the PM to be a veritable Dictator of both the Crown and the Political power of the country. Herr Martin has more power than any other world leader in the world, unprecedented in any of the democratic states in the world, and they are well on their way of winnng the rerun of the Plains of Abraham with the control that the Ottawa French Elite have on the country. They have the Crown , The GG gets to wear the phonie medals, while the Fuehrer Martin does all the paper works and provides all of the answers. Why did not the GG ask Martin to submit his own none confidence motion the next day when he lost the first one? Do we thing he would ask the GG to ask him to fire himself? the GG can't do it on her own, she has no power, only to hire her staff and dougle her budget.(slam) which would surely have happened in losing the vote, and now instead of the citizens being in election mode, which would be happening if we had a REAL GG, we are now playing games as to who will be the successor of the scam played with the GG's office. Herr Martin has been the GG all along. Unbelievable that we Kanadians allow it to happen, seems that Kanadians would rather live under a dictatorhship that is not even a 'benevelent" dictatorship, otherwise Herr Marttin would come to the aid of the dying in the health care line ups, and would pay the Aids and Hep C victims their allotted due. Martin and Chretien both were in on the scam that brought Clintons dirty blood into Kanada, that he took from the prisoners in his jails as Governor of Arkansas, to make a buck, killing how many around the world, not to mention the 3,000 reported in Kanada, and including the carriers that are doomed. No the french are monsters in my opinion, blood thirsty cowardly monsters and how anyone can support a monster?? must be on the take the only logical answer I can come up with. Remember it is "money and power before country" in Bananada land.
Stephen Parksville BC. ww 2 vet.
Posted by: stephenmichaud at July 28, 2005 08:01 PM (bxOjK)
Canada and Denmark and the Pig War
What do the Danes think of all this? And could we really go to war over something as silly as an icy rock?
Actually, it's happened before.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Interesting bit of trivia: the fellow in charge of the 9th Infantry was George Pickett, who later in life got the blame for "Pickett's Charge" at the Battle of Gettysburg.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 27, 2005 10:28 AM (U8FJD)
2
Two very interesting articles:
CP 27/7: "Internal report says Arctic exercise revealed flaws in military operations"
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=0dcbbe6d-2a9a-4044-b0b7-4246c4085c05
Washington Times 12/6: "Northwest Passage redux"
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050612-123835-3711r.htm
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 27, 2005 11:48 AM (HtPqg)
3
With all due respect: The arbitrator who decided the question was NOT Kaiser Wilhelm (who was not Kaiser when the matter began) but Franz Joseph, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor. And a further peice of trivia. And a further piece of trivia: The US Army engineer who laid out the fortifications at the American Camp was a Lieutenant Roberts. Point Roberts, the tiny peninsula that projects downwards from British Columbia and, as a result, is actually a tiny detached little bit of the US, is named for him. But he actually has a much bigger claim to fame. He had a passion for Parliamentary Procedure: So much so that he devoted many years of his spare time to assembling and writing it down in a form that could be referenced and used to assist in the running of all sorts of deliberative meetings, ultimately publishing his work in a small book which we now know as Robert's Rules of Order.
Posted by: Hal at July 27, 2005 01:04 PM (aBcj7)
4
The source I quoted and Wikipedia both said Kaiser Wilhelm. One could be sourcing the other.
Another source:
In 1871, under the treaty of Washington, the matter was referred to Emperor Wilhelm 1 of Germany for arbitration. He awarded the verdict to the United States.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 01:13 PM (phwde)
5
One difference from the pig war - whoever controls the island also controls the ocean bed within a 300 mile radius, a little over 70,000 square miles.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 27, 2005 02:35 PM (xX0fS)
6
actually, seeing as though the treaties still have not been honoured. The island in question belongs to the Innu.
"Our home on native land...."
Posted by: John David at July 27, 2005 08:44 PM (8DRYM)
7
If John D was refering to the treaty promise the Native people be allowed to continue to maintain their traditional ways of life this is an ironic point.
The Innu have had their traditional ways interefered with as dimond mines, oil and gas exploration and climate chaos have changed the migration patterns of carribou and other species upon which the Innu rely.
This pile of rock which has awakened white nationalist sensitivites is only valuable, in the sense that climate chaos has melted away passages for further capitalist activity.
Our home on native land indeed!
Posted by: Peter at July 27, 2005 08:49 PM (8DRYM)
8
And now it appears battle has been joined...
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?articleID=1989743&pageID=canada_archive
Check it quick -- the article is recent, but there's a five-day lifespan for archive items.
Posted by: Kenneth at July 27, 2005 09:41 PM (scyoZ)
9
Good article, I like the last paragraph. indead the british would have more than likely sided with the confederates, greatly changing the way the world would be today.....
Posted by: DazzlinDino at July 28, 2005 12:47 AM (WFplk)
10
Good lord, the British were squarely on the Southern side all through the war. They didn't intervene because they were in no position to do so. Every combat-worthy unit of the British Army - that is, the entire fighting army - was stationed in the American provinces for the duration of the Civil War, and it was considered barely sufficient to deter an American invasion, and plainly insufficient to repel one if it were undertaken seriously. An attempt at intervention would have resulted only in the loss of the American provinces.
The British did everything they could to help the South, but they did not dare enter the war or provoke the North to war. Had they done so, the course of the war might have been different, but the outcome would not, and British North America would have been lost.
Posted by: ebt at July 28, 2005 01:04 PM (Zps2P)
11
I agree ebt. For an interesting explanation of what might of happened had the British intervened and declared war on the North, read What Might Have Been by Andrew Roberts (essays by other authors).
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 01:41 PM (ft48a)
July 26, 2005
"The return of the Vikings is only the beginning."
I posted recently about the dispute between Canada and Denmark about Hans Island. I purposely made it light in tone, a lark, a minor tiff between two mature nations that don't resort to violence.
Guess what?
I was yanking you. This is serious, and now I'll tell you why.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
05:08 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1413 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Too True.
Shame on our government for what they have done to our army. Shame on them for talking away our ability to defend ourselves (guns). Shame on them for laundering money that could be used to pay honest hardworking members of our Canadian forces.
There is one problem that i cannot work out. It is obvious to me that our Government does not hold the balance of power in this country. If that is the case then Canada is a power vacuum and has been for many years. The real problem is this. Power vacuums do not persist, something has filled in that vacuum of power. Is it the American Army? Mebbe. Is it a criminal organization? Possibly. Is it some monitary elite that plans to carve up this country for personal gain? I wouldn't dismiss it.
In any case our sovreignty is being granted us by a third party, who we do not know and cannot control. When will it be suddenly revoked and the curtain pulled back? We won't know 'til after.
*shakes head*
Posted by: Brad in Barrhead at July 26, 2005 06:35 PM (0AQqd)
2
Any nation that cannot stand up to a bunch of malcontents that make up only 2 percent of its population (guess who I'm talking about?) has already given away its sovereignty.
We have only 2 options left;
1. Toughen up and build up
or,
2. Hope and pray we are acquired by a benevolent power.
Posted by: accidentwaitingtohappen at July 26, 2005 07:37 PM (4kHtZ)
3
I'll run up there and protect that frozen rock wit' me pitchfork iffin ya kin git me up dere!!!
We'll show dem Yanks how we Kanadians kin pertect da Nord and show everyurn else how tough we is havin a gay minister of defense!!
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 26, 2005 07:39 PM (c0CEk)
4
Angry: Whatever the underlying issues, this silliness has convinced me that RoC (because I feel certain Quebec could, to use the Americanism, care less) has truly descended to a state of nationalist idiocy worthy of the Balkans at their (almost) worst.
Half the front page of the Globe and Mail is taken up with a story about the National Defence Minister's heroic stop on the island. Papers publish tables comparing the military strength of Canada vs Denmark (Denmark! Who's next? Slovenia? Luxemburg? Andorra? Liechtenstein? San Marino? Monaco?)
Tables that give figures for Canada's Leopard I tank strength--how might these ever be used against Hans Island or Denmark?
If ever there was a country with which such an issue could be rationally discussed diplomatically it must be Denmark. So what does the Government of Canada do? Fly in Mr Graham in a mortifying piece of grandstanding.
Does anyone expect a Danish minister to make a retaliatory descent? I suspect the very concept of such a sovereignty visit would be absurd to the Danes. Gut-busting in fact. Pythonesque. Pushing up ice.
Had something similar been done by the US our so sophisticated media would have bayed with derision. And rightly so.
There are serious Arctic issues. Helicopter diplomacy is not the way to deal with them. Unless you are a Liberal government pandering, through an utterly ineffectual real-world gesture, to the worst in the RoC psyche.
And our media do not see the pitiful nature of this?
I weep for my country.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 08:11 PM (dXzLf)
5
If Canada is a power vacuum, if the government cannot exercise sovereignty within our borders, then why do we pay taxes to the government?
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 26, 2005 08:47 PM (pPVQ0)
6
I dunno.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 08:51 PM (20fwh)
7
Ed Minchau: So they can tell us what a wonderful country we live in and how good the health care system is.
And then on CBC's "The National" tonight there is a major segment on supposed sightings of foreign submarines in Canadian Arctic waters. An "expert" is trotted out to state than any such intrusions are "acts of war".
Only four countries have any likely submarine capability or national interest to be operating in those areas: Russia, UK, US, or France. If any one of these countries is committing "acts of war" against Canada, what to do?
What a sensational, and at the same time trivial, way of dealing with the issue.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 10:26 PM (dXzLf)
8
And in the middle of all this, the new guy in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces is accused of being high on his own testosterone for saying that the purpose of a military is to...wait for it...kill people. Kill people if and when these ugly situations arise and the "monopoly of violence" (nice term, Angry...I like it!) is inexorably challenged.
And here I was preparing to bring my next load of laundry over to CFB Namao for pressing and folding, too.
Question: is the term "Canadian Armed Forces" a technically accurate term to use anymore?
Posted by: Kenneth at July 26, 2005 10:54 PM (scyoZ)
9
It is not enough to say that we have allowed our military to detiorate. If we are to assert military control over the vast north we need a military larger than ever with more capability than ever before. We are talking a military of 250,000 troops. It will significantly affect Canadians to spend 30 or 40% of our tax base on the military. Even then we are not going to war with the US or Russia. We will have to settle disputes by international courts.
Posted by: al at July 26, 2005 11:41 PM (wW4PK)
10
"We are talking a military of 250,000 troops."
Small militaries can pack a big punch with force multipliers. Things like mobility and rigorous surveillance can keep potential interlopers away.
Another force multipler is an alliance or treaty. Let's say we show the US we're serious about the North. Robust military (not huge), technological capacity to project power in the North, surveillance, mobility. Throw in a vigorous diplomatic push to resolve these territorial annoyances without being weak.
The US is impressed. We work out a compromise on the North-West Passage. Now the US sees us a real partner, instead of a nuisance to be tolerated. Part of the Passage deal includes the US helping us out in Northern territorial management. Now the Ruskies know that to take on Canada is to take on the US -- force multiplication big time.
Small and medium countries need to be clever. Canada can do that.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 11:56 PM (20fwh)
11
Canada showing the US it's serious about the North could be a difficult undertaking. After BMD, which was a complete no-brainer, how is the US supposed to believe Canada is serious about anything that involves defense?
I think anything proposed by Canada in reference to defense would be seen by the US as "this is what we want you to do, let us know when it's done".
And the Ruskies already know taking on Canada means taking on the US. With or without treaties between the US and Canada, the Russians know that. Canadians can vote, spend and legislate themselves to hell if they want, that's their business - but we won't allow the Russians to be in charge of hell when they get there.
Posted by: Jay at July 27, 2005 01:12 AM (PuNh2)
12
Remember that critical US interests are at stake in the Far North. Canadian incompetence won't be tolerated for long.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 04:06 AM (20fwh)
13
Angry...excellent post...my question is,why have we allowed ourselves to become so dependant on the Americans?To Jay...how can we defend ourselves when our government takes away our guns?And we allowed it to happen.We are a no-nothing,do-nothing piece of shit country as far as the rest of the world is concerned,and we have nobody to blame but ourselves.At one time,we stood up and defended ourselves and our allies.We had the third largest army in the world,and it was all volunteer.We launched the greatest naval force ever seen fron Halifax.We had the best of the best fighter jets in the world until Diefenbacher killed them.And now?The shrimp fleet in Digby could sink our whole so-called Navy and not even blink an eye.Sad and sorry.But this is what the Liberals and Canadians want,otherwise,you would not keep voting them in!
Posted by: Justthinkin at July 27, 2005 05:57 AM (Iqhxu)
14
Angry: So you're saying at some point the US will say "Canada, this area needs defending and we don't really care anymore what you have to say about it. It's still yours, but we're protecting it"?
Okay, I guess I answered my own question - that comment would make sense.
Justthinkin: blame the voters. I have my doubts about how much of a democracy you are now, but in the earlier days - those guys were voted in so there's nobody to blame but Canadians.
Posted by: Jay at July 27, 2005 07:11 AM (PuNh2)
15
I take your point about defence of sovereignty. But this is the wrong place to get huffy. Hans Island, that it--it's obviouslu OK to get huffy here.
The island is smack-dabe in the middel of the channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. If the shelf, and not the piece of rock, is an underlying issue, why not partition the island along the channel line to let both Canada and Greenland keep their channel waters and all rights pertaining thereto?
I'm not learned in this, but what gave us ownership to Hans Island in the first place? In any case, the place to take a stand is not here, but in the Arctic, especially now when things seem to be warming up (although we mustn't speak of left-wing ideas like global warming, now, must we?).
The island is smack-dabe in the middel of the channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. If the shelf, and not the piece of rock, is an underlying issue, why not partition the island along the channel line to let both Canada and Greenland keep their channel waters and all rights pertaining thereto?
I'm not learned in this, but what gave us ownership to Hans Island in the first place? In any case, the place to take a stand is not here, but in the Arctic, especially now when things seem to be warming up (although we mustn't speak of left-wing ideas like global warming, now, must we?).Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 27, 2005 08:06 AM (kzWbX)
16
Moscow would make a very nice capital for the Canadian Oblast you know.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 08:32 AM (ft48a)
17
Mark:
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2005/05/tipping-point.html
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2005/05/tipping-point-part-ii.html
Posted by: Alan at July 27, 2005 08:54 AM (pNHD2)
18
"I'm not learned in this, but what gave us ownership to Hans Island in the first place?"
Truth be told, I'm not sure. Historical ownership helps, but at the end of the day, it belongs to whomever wants it badly enough.
"In any case, the place to take a stand is not here, but in the Arctic, especially now when things seem to be warming up"
But as the writer of the essay said, caving on this undercuts our ability to rally support in other similar situations. Similarly, a robust and successful claim to Hans Island strengthens our hand.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 09:11 AM (PTRPR)
19
Couple things. First, the sorry state of the Canadian military is Liberal Party policy, not an accident. During the height of the cold war the Liberals started in cutting the military, and since Chretien got in they have cut it to death. What we have now is about one decent regiment, not an army. That's policy. They don't WANT an army. I'll leave it to the rest of you guys and gals to contemplate the wisdom of that.
Second, defending the North is a job for a mobile force not some massive fortified Maginot line. Al says we need to spend 30% to 40% of our tax base on the military and to have 250,000 men on tap. That's not the case. Currently we have about 5,000 to 8,000 combat soldiers out of a total count of ~60,000 National Defence employees. Most of whom can't shoot straight or run a mile, much less enter combat.
What we need is about 30,000 permanent combat soldiers and a LARGE volunteer militia that can go places and do things at need. We need airlift and sealift, we need Arctic fighting vehicles and ships, long range missiles and bombers (because Canada is big!) and we need to be able to cooperate with the American's systems. None of these things are impossibly expensive, none are beyond the capability of Canadian industry to design and build right here. Creating jobs, incidentally.
What's missing is a regime that values national security, and the public awareness of just how far our butts are swinging out in the breeze. Until people are confronted by the fact that we -need- a military we are not going to have one.
Hopefully the realization will come before the actual need, eh?
Posted by: The Phantom at July 27, 2005 09:32 AM (nAMT1)
20
I should clarify its the 55,000 desk pilots who can't shoot or run, the 5,000 Reg Forces combat guys are serious business.
Too bad we can't seem to get them the right colour uniforms when they need them. Only a Liberal would send a guy to Afghanistan in "Shoot-Me!" green.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 27, 2005 09:39 AM (nAMT1)
21
Angry - In the end this is going to be about fishing and resources (diamonds and Oil). On the fishing front - Spain is still fishing inside the 200 mile limit on the east coast and there's nothing we can do. Small diplomatic incidents occur about once every 5 years. France fishes inside the zone thanks to ownership of St. Peirre, Miquelon. Our Coast Guard barely controls the east coast fishing, and I'm pretty sure we have similar problems with other countries fishing on the West coast. What we need in this country is a proper satellite surveillance system and some decent (Arctic and otherwise) frigates that can patrol these water year round. A few aircraft that can get there relatively quickly wouldn't be a bad thing either. Right now most of the aircraft that can consistently and safely get in and out of arctic regions in the winter are privately owned.
I'm always wondering when Canadian are going to realize what has happened to our military over the last 30 years. What kind of incident is going to make them stand up and say enough.
Posted by: sheila at July 27, 2005 09:49 AM (uQTmP)
22
The Liberals don't want a strong army because army leaders are conservative and vote Conservative. Further to that, if a prime minister has to violate parliamentary tradition in order to cling to power, he doesn't want to be looking over his shoulder at a general whose willing to use his monopoly of violence to make his prime minister obey the rules of democracy.
Posted by: grammar guy at July 27, 2005 10:09 AM (QmLwQ)
23
I think that you guys are missing a huge point. The US is at war. I know Canadians don't believe it, no matter how many Canukistanis died in 911, but we do. If you cant defend your norther territories, we will have to. And I don't mean that ironically or sarcastically. I still don't think that you Canadians get it regarding the threat to the US these Islamiscists pose. If you Canadians can figure out where to sign a peace treaty with them, I would be happy to hear it, until then, it is imperitive for any democratic govt to defend itself against attack. Failure to do so results in that govt's replacement. Nice promises from your kleptocrat of the month will mean nothing, given the decline of your country's will to defend anything to do with Western Civilization.
Your best move would be to give in on our claim that it is international waters. You will lose the least face, seem reasonable, and there is nothing you can do about it anyways. Stop selling us subsidized maple syrup, lobsters, and softwood? Fine, bring it on. Plenty of Americans would stand up and cheer. Make it harder for our freight to cross the border? We will probably be forced to do that to you if you can't guarantee your own sovereignty.
Glaciers have been retreating for 300 years. It will be an open passage soon, cutting 8,000 miles off the trip between the Far East and Europe. Ships have already used it. I wonder who in Canada they called for permission? The US will patrol it, as we have inherited the job of keeping the sea lanes open from the British Empire.
Incidentally, if you care to look at some of my old posts on this site, you will see that I have raise this point, here and elsewhere many times. You can no more defend your artic than the Russians can defend Siberia from China.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 10:39 AM (oPLPa)
24
Wait a minute, I just realized how you could make it all better. Put little Canadian flags on the TV screens and in magazines and newspapers. Then, anybody tempted to violate your sovereignty will be so impressed by your national unity that they will be forced to reconsider!
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 10:42 AM (oPLPa)
25
"I think that you guys are missing a huge point. The US is at war. I know Canadians don't believe it, no matter how many Canukistanis died in 911, but we do. If you cant defend your norther territories, we will have to."
I get it. Moptop gets it. A few others get it. But most people in Canada are just chuckling, confident in their moral superiority.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 10:47 AM (PTRPR)
26
Angry: With respect to the US and the North, in the late 40s and early 50s the US made it clear to Canada diplomatically that if were unwilling/unable to defend our northern airspace against Russian jet bombers that were expected to become operational in the mid/late 50s, the US would do it for us.
This situation was the impetus behind large-scale production of the CF-100 all-weather air defence fighter in the 1950s, and ultimately the NORAD Treaty of 1958.
Then Canada decided to bring something substantial to the table to convince the US that we could be trusted to defend our territory. I see no prospect of any comparable effort today.
All the Liberal huffing and puffing about the North (faithfully and hysterically reported in the Globe) is essentially an empty "nationalist" gesture aimed at winning votes. Without actually doing much practically.
Also if any significant part of whatever extra resources the Liberals may eventually dole out the military goes to the North, the Liberals will be able to claim they have strengthened the military and defended Canadian sovereignty--without actually adding much to the Forces' ability conduct serious military operations. Which would suit the Liberals just fine.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 27, 2005 10:50 AM (HtPqg)
27
Canada can't even defend it's own airspace. By not joining in on BMD, Canada is surrendering control of it's airspace and defence to Washington. The seacosts of Canada are being patrolled by USCG cutters and icebreakers. It's about time that Canada starts watching it's airports or we should just let TSA screen passengers.
Might want to rename Department of Homeland Security to the Department of North American Security.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2005 11:33 AM (KA7sq)
28
It really is time for Canada to create a modern, mobile, and versatile force. And not just for peacekeeping but for defesive purposes. Or we could go for the Kruschev method and keep on cutting our military while building up a nuclear arsenal, thus providing a very notable deterrent. Now I know how many Canadians are against nuclear technology. But it kept most of the hostile West from taking any action against the CPSU while I was in Moscow during the 80's. It is probably the most effective deterrent there is. And it would certainly make the Danish think twice about taking over an insignificant island.
View this position as you will, I don't doubt I'll get the standard "radical neo-marxist communist war-monger" comment. But Canada really needs to end security dependence on foreign powers. I think your Vassal status is shameful. A condition which would be appropriate for, say, Scotland or East Germany, but not for the second largest country in the world. Peacekeeping is useless if you can't defend yourself. A few assasins in Kandahar will do you no good if the Americans ever decide that Alberta would make a good fifty second state.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 11:34 AM (ft48a)
29
Canada is not a sovereign nation. It hasn't been for some time. 80% of our trade is with the U.S. and we have no military left to defend ourselves. In fact, given multiculturalism, pluralism and all the other isms, it's hard to think of Canada as anything other than land that 30 million people with nothing in common occupy. It has no identity, it lost that when the liberal revisionists started rewriting our once proud history and creating a culture that more than half the country can't identify with. The liberal voters don't take pride in Canada, they take pride in liberalism. The conservatives take pride in what was once Canada. The quebecers, well what can I say. Perhaps the only hope is for the Americans to slowly squeeze the liberal puss out of the country. I can only wish.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 27, 2005 11:41 AM (MkblT)
30
I am no conservative, and I am no pro-western spokesman, but I think that Canada as a capitalist society has the lowest level of nationalism I've ever seen. I think that's the greatest failing of this nation. Most people are somewhat satisfied with the status-quo but they always talk about living elsewhere, like Dallas or Paris. If most Canadians were asked their city of choice in which to live, I don't doubt that many would name a foreign city. And it's not that Canada is without it's charms, I find it to be very appealing. It's that there isn't very much to be truly proud of. There is nothing *unique*. Everything is an assimilated mass made of small parts of other cultures. And I'm in complete agreement with that, but it hasn't evolved past that to form a national identity. Your national animal is the boorish but "efficient" beaver, your international policy is based on fortifying your domestic agenda and having no regard for bolstering your image abroad, and your history doesn't resound with innovation or ingenuity. Noithing in particular comes to mind when you think of World History and Canada's place in it. Nothing that would make it stand out. Involvment in wars? Great, except that was the case for most of Europe as well. I love Canada, I enjoy living here very much and I don't plan on leaving any time soon. I think you have a great, if sometimes flawed, society. But I do think that the way things are going, Canada will forever be a bastion of mediocrity. Your idea of Greatness is status-quo.
For all the talk against progressives and liberals and the such going on, I don't find Canada is doing much progress anyways. Canadians have abandoned nationalism and pride of the mother/fatherland for friendly relationships with everyone and politically correct rhetoric.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 12:00 PM (ft48a)
31
"Canada can't even defend its own airspace"
"Canada is not a sovereign nation. It hasn't been for some time."
I propose changing the name of the unit of measure for current from "Amp" to "Taxre". Then, the unit of measure for power would change; electrical power is current times voltage, so Joules would change from "Amp-Volt" to...
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 27, 2005 02:18 PM (pPVQ0)
32
Friendly relations with everyone except the US that is.
And Martin B, were you really in Moscow in the '80s? Now I really can't tell if you are being ironic. Every person born under communism I ever met has been strongly anti communist, with one exception, a Russian jew who complained about having to pay rent in the US, even though he was highly skilled, and is now working for a company famous for making millionaires out of its employees.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 02:21 PM (rphJg)
33
Yes, I was in Moscow. And you must not know a large number of ethnic Russians currently living in Russia. Please go to Russia and ask around if things were better before or now. Anyone with less than a six figure income will probably nullify your argument. As for Moscow itself, a deep schism exists between the common "working" class and the new elite. For the city with the most billionaires, it sure has much lower living standards now than before. And since I assume that most of your sources for anti-communism don't currently live in Russia, I must believe that they are probably against communism because they can afford to move elsewhere, and are not forced to endure worst conditions than under perestroika. It's really funny how the western world perceives former communist countries these days, they see the Gucci billboard at Kievskaya station and they think "Prosperity!". Keep in mind that less than 10 percent of the Moscovites could afford a Gucci product without simltaneously going bankrupt until the next paycheck. I wouldn't take what the Russian media advertises at face-value. Unless you are a fan of Government run media corporations. So please continue to speak for your multimillionaire former communist citizen friends. I'm sure they speak for the masses. And I'm sure they especially speak for the common Russian who once had food on his table and could attend university for free but now has to work two jobs and live in a shared apartment so that someday his son can live within the vicinity of his elementary school instead of a 25 kilometer bus ride away.
As a final note, you should know that in the Russian Duma, the Communist Party is the main opposition. I wouldn't say that almost everyone who has lived under communism is an anti-communist given that a number of them do vote communist. It would be like saying the people who vote conservative in Canada are negligible. Simply because they are not in the supreme majority does not mean they are not there. Something to keep in mind the next time you post a comment filled with selective reasoning while quoting a few select individuals and questionning my word.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 03:05 PM (ft48a)
34
Two very interesting articles:
CP 27/7: "Internal report says Arctic exercise revealed flaws in military operations"
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=0dcbbe6d-2a9a-4044-b0b7-4246c4085c05
Washington Times 12/6: "Northwest Passage redux"
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050612-123835-3711r.htm
The real issue is the maritime passage question, not who owns the land itself (Hans aside). Canadian land is not claimed and could only be threatened in any event by 1) the US and 2) Russia.
Against the US we are powerless. The US will protect us, in any foreseeable future, from the Russians. So we do not need any major army presence.
What we do need is effective surveillance, aerial (UAVs?) and satellite. That really is not terribly expensive.
But in the long run, if the maritime passage issue truly becomes relevant as a result of the ice pack receding, nothing naval we can realistically do will settle it in our favour. The issue will be settled by negotiation and/or international judicial arbitration. Which we well might lose--the various sea passage in the Indonesian archepelogo would be a relevant precedent and are considered international waters.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 27, 2005 05:02 PM (HtPqg)
35
Martin B., my immediate relatives were near Warsaw during the 1970's and 1980's and there was no cakewalk in Eastern Europe. My current relatives in Poland do not make six-figures, but they also have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in going back to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
So you wish you were back in your days in the nomenklatura being a good little aparachik?
Otrzymuja zycie!
anon (only slightly pissed)
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2005 05:30 PM (KA7sq)
36
Actually Martin, all of my friends who left communist countries were, what did we used to call them? oh yeah, defectors. In other words, they escaped. Cuba, Viet Nam, Poland, and the Russian Jew, I think he was able to emigrate. Only the Russian is a millionaire, I am guessing, and only he expressed resentment to me at the US, ironically enough. The polish woman spoke of spreading lard on her bread as a child and considering it a treat.
You show me the capitalist country that has to build walls and deploy minders to keep its population in. I don't think that any but the extreme left in Canada would agree with you that Canada would have been better off swallowed by the Soviet Union.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 07:01 PM (rphJg)
37
This is a great post angry. I agree with you, Canada is a know nothing, do nothing country filled with mega babies all crying for something from the 'government'. What is going to happen to the babies when the 'government' runs out of money because the generators of money have moved out? This, much more than Denmark or anyone else on the globe, is a much more (de) pressing problem. People in this country 'hate' President Bush because he is a man of action and a man of principle - in the past grown people and children admired such people even when they did not agree with them. Canadians are 'afraid' of Stephen Harper!! How childish, how silly, how illuminating. If the 'babies' get hungry they will attack; they will beat people and stab them and shoot them - for their hoarded food and goods. That is a fact. No one helped Cuba or Russia or Romania in the event of anarchy. No one will help us. We must grow up, shut up, and make all men learn the trade of a soldier - like they do in Switzerland - or we will fitter away everything that our ancestors fought for in wars and as pioneers. I am not afraid, I am revolted.
Posted by: Jema54 at July 27, 2005 08:30 PM (/be2/)
38
'No one helped Cuba or Russia or Romania in the event of anarchy. No one will help us.'
This isn't going to happen. Canada has an "older brother" that wouldn't let it happen. Although some Canadians will not like the cure.
Canada is like a drunk, it needs to go to AA meetings and follow the program. If it doesn't it will only continue down the path to ruin.
Hey, I like Canada, but I'm real worried for it's continued existance.
anon
Posted by: anon at July 28, 2005 08:12 AM (KA7sq)
39
anon, I'm not going to argue with you, first of all because I think the Sovietization of Poland was a crime and a waste for a society that had already endured much. And I am not Bolshevik or an aparcthik in thrall to the party congress. But I do think for Russia itself (And I speak not of other eastern european countries) times were better in the past. Much better. I am sorry for your relatives that they had to endure swine like Gomulka and Jaruzelski. I certainly did not mean any insult to you or them. But I stand by my position of in comparison, having been in Moscow back then and visiting it now, things have worsened considerably.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 09:47 AM (ft48a)
40
Some of the comments on the state of Canada are very interesting. Particularly Martin B. who seems to prefer even more state control than we presently have.
The reason we don't have an army right now IS state control. The current Official Doctrine of Canada is the "Nice Guy" doctrine. We send our soldiers around the world doing nice things for all the poor unfortunates. This is much less expensive than the American insistence on actually protecting their national security and their citizens abroad, and we get better press.
At home the Nice Guy doctrine means the "rich" pay for our own poor unfortunates, and we all feel better.
Not a bad principle as long as the people who pay feel that they are getting results. It also doesn't hurt if the poor unfortunates have some pride and try hard to "get ahead in life", meet their social responsibilities, and generally behave like they give a rip.
Well, that all changed under Trudeau who decided all money rightfully belonged to the government and set about making it so. To do this he introduced all the panoply of Multiculturalism, Post Modern Relativism and anti-Christian Humanism and made it part of the Nice Guy Doctrine.
Bottom line, nothing but feel-good socialism, Relativism and Humanism has been taught in public school for 30 years.
Fast forward to now, Canada helps anybody who isn't Christian, White or male, and nobody is expected to "fit in" or "get ahead". Those are bourgeois concepts imposed by the White Male Capitalist Hegemony Military Industrial Complex! Die American Capitalist pigdogs!!! D'oh sorry, Strangelove reflex.
So what we are faced with is cities with a large underclass of unassimilated welfare recipients who have no allegiance to Canada and for whom getting ahead is something they heard about on Leave It To Beaver once. The general populace of large cities has no notion of nationalism or public service, and no clue about what happens to countries that don't have armies. Most people in Canada have never even seen a soldier with a gun in his hands in their life. We don't even have parades anymore!
Furthermore any talk of diverting some of the ruinous taxation to defense is met with derision from the people who are taxed! Who's going to feed the poor? Who's going to clean up the garbage? Who's going to babysit my brats while I work two jobs to pay the mortgage on my half million dollar falling down row house on Roncesvales? HMMM?!
Flawless victory of propaganda, basically. People in the high density population cores think they are going to die if Harper gets in, or if anything disrupts the Liberal Plan. People outside those areas don't matter a damn, because they don't have enough seats in Parliament. Sweet, eh?
Reality doesn't have a chance against that kind of conditioning. The only reason I'm not brainwashed too is I moved to the USA back in 1993 and stopped drinking the Liberal bong water cold turkey.
Now I'm back home after ten years absence, I can see the man behind the curtain. Makes me wonder how long this rusted hulk of a scam can keep wheezing forward before the wheels come off for good.
Probably quite a while, people who are used to state control don't usually take on responsibility for their own lives much less their society unless things are extremely bad. They just look for another strongman. Kind of like sheep going back to where the barn used to be.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 10:20 AM (nAMT1)
41
I hardly think the Liberal Party is a bastion of state control in comparison to other countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. I probably have less respect for the Liberal Party than I have for the conservatives. To quote Edward Crankshaw, the man behind the publishing and editing of Kruschev's memoirs, "Nothing is more abhorrent to communists than other types of leftists. Communists hate democratic socialists even more than they hate conservatives". There is truth to that. So-called leftist parties of the West are simply granola socialists who feel they can redeem themselves of their elitism and corporate control by making a very well placed public statement or action to keep the hordes in line. At least conservatives truly speak their minds and advocate themselves as warriors of capitalism. Liberals simply wallow in their own propaganda and hypocrisy. Anathema to Marxists and Leninists, who think that their views and ideology need to be thrown out in the open to incite a worker's revolution, not hidden behind bourgeois policy Kerensky-style. Back to the original argument, I think Canada's only hope of developping an adequate military is under a conservative government that exercise a large amount of state control. Rightists without the libertarian element. I think this type of government would be willing to tax it's citizens to allow for greater military buildup. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part. A far more likely woutcome would be the destruction of expensive social programs.
I don't speak for canadian people, but I would be curious to know if Canadians were willing to sacrifice their social safety net in favor of a stronger international presence and military prestige. My guess is for the majority, no. The status-quo and stability are much more appealing, no matter the future consequences.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 10:50 AM (ft48a)
42
Sorry, Martin, but the problem with Canada is that there are too many idiots willing to call themselves "Canadian" and work up an emotional sweat over "their country". Thank God most of us are sane and recognise that "Canada" has nothing to do with us and is not in our interests.
I see no need for a Canadian military at all. Canada is an American protectorate. We need to be co-operating with and participating in the American defence system, since it is the system that defends us. Make it easier for Canadians to join the American forces, and for American forces to operate on Canadian territory.
Posted by: ebt at July 28, 2005 01:14 PM (Zps2P)
43
If it is the opinion of Canadians that being a vassal state is ideal, then you are right ebt. But if Canadians ever want to pursue a status where they are not entralled to a Great Power, then a greatly increased military as well as a less intergrational foreign policy is in their best interests.
But by all means, if most people are satisfied with being the modern international equivalent of sovietized Poland, then the status-quo should remain.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 01:23 PM (ft48a)
44
The Liberals are actually quite clever, I think. As Martin B. says, there are much heavier handed states in Eastern Europe. The Liberals are state control lite. Up to a certain point (income level) Canadians can cruise along under the radar and do what they like, within the somewhat elastic confines of political correctness and etc.
Try to do something -large- however, like start a newspaper, make automobiles or open a new steel mill, and you need friends. You have to get a "special deal" from the feds and/or the province, otherwise you can't compete with even the French. The taxes, regulations and labour paperwork are simply ruinous.
State control lite. Its invisible, but its there. Example, try to sell some new thingamajigger to the Armed Forces. Let's say its a new life jacket. Best in the world, made in Canada, best price, twice as good as what they have now, the works. If you don't know the right guys in Ottawa to play golf with, you're beat.
This is so much more clever than Stalinism. People don't know they have no freedom and no protection, and they happily pay tax rates of 65% and up.
The status quo is held in place by naked force and intimidation. We just can't see it working very often, that's all.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 09:47 PM (nAMT1)
45
I think the smartest thing for that life jacket maker would be to move to the states and either start his own company or sell it to some major corporation. Ok, I guess that's what usually does happen.
Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2005 04:45 AM (PuNh2)
46
Somebody in high places is reading Angry:
"Graham told CTV's Question Period the government especially recognizes the need to assert control over the Northwest Passage, which could become a viable shipping lane if global warming trends continue."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1122846609541&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
It appears that Canada has opted for some kind of cheap 'virtual sovereignty' Virtual in this case, as always, means "Not really".
Posted by: moptop at August 02, 2005 02:46 PM (rphJg)
47
Martin B,
Earlier, you advised me to speak to ethnic Russians before talking about how ex-communists feel about communism. Well, I am advising you to speak to Poles who lived through Soviet occupation before comparing life in Canada to live in Soviet dominated Poland.
Canada knows two things about the US. We can't allow Canada to come to harm by an outside invader. And we won't invade or undermine Canada ourselves. We just don't want you. Sorry. Compare that to Poland and the Russians.
Posted by: moptop at August 02, 2005 02:51 PM (rphJg)
48
This may become a tiny point in history only if these two moderate nations continue to behave as petulent spoiled brats.
Otherwise, this will never amount to anything at all. Such long-windedness about a diversion that is embarrasingly pointless.
I heard that we were going to fly up a shipping container with a negotiating table and a candle and a few chairs so both parties can negotiate future plans.
Those plans are for the design and building of an exclusive gambling casino and brothel where pot will be perfectly within the law.
Monty, where are you?
Monty python is that you? Get inside here before it turns blue and falls off. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 04, 2005 11:19 PM (rmMzv)
49
Professional navigational channel engineers agree unanimously the Hans Island is a world shipping and navigation hazard.
For safety reasons, Hans Island must be blasted away to a significant depth and the whole operation will be more expensive than the blasting of Ripple Rock was just up from Campbell River B.C.
Canada now admits their claim to Hans Island was an error and apologizes to the Danes.
After all Hans Isl. is closer to Greenland, Mr. Graham said.
Bill Graham said something like, *We are sorry for any misunderstanding. Hans Island is yours and we hope you enjoy it.*
Denmark then insisted, * No, the error is ours. We now admit you placed a Canadian Flag on Hans Island and that action makes Hans Island yours.
Both sides had firmly locked in heels on the issue until someone suggested giving the Island to Barbados.
The decision to deed Hans Island to Barbados was fully agreed to by both countries.
Both parties agreed that since Paul Martin's Canadian/ Barbados Steam Ship Lines will be the prime users of the straight, they could logically expect Barbados to fund the removal of Hans Island. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 05, 2005 07:43 PM (rmMzv)
Bishop Henry writes. Where's the hate?
Bishop Henry was excoriated for defending the traditional model of marriage and criticizing the forces that undermine it:
Last weekend, Henry continued his toxic and prejudiced preaching through a letter that said, "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."
Now he writes an editorial, and frankly, I don't see the "toxic" element. But I do see the naïvete.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:37 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Angry, The good Bishop has been in hot water before.. with Paul Martin, Revenue Canada, the Human Rights Commission, Gay Activists.. but he's still standing up for his faith. Were he a Muslim warning our Deputy PM to back off, would he be subject to the same treatment?
Just asking.
Posted by: walking eagle at July 26, 2005 02:47 PM (QK3tc)
2
No walking eagle.
As a matter of fact in the Liberal Parallell universe, crticism of all non-christian dissent is labelled as "racism" and "bigotry". Christians are also held to incredubly high standards, in which they can never win an argument.
For example, let's test out this logic by lefties.
Christians of today should bear responsiblity for the Crusades and all the atrocities done in their name over 300 years ago.
However, Muslims of today must not be held to similar standards for the atrocities done in their name last week.
Posted by: The Arabian Knight at July 26, 2005 04:38 PM (Om90z)
3
Know what is really funny about all of this...
we got experts telling us that millions of years of biological engineering doesn't matter any longer...
meanwhile we can't figure out what is causing global warming or even if it is happening at all.
Don't prognosticate an expertise that one cannot obviously hope to have.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 26, 2005 04:50 PM (c0CEk)
4
The Arabian Knight
What are you talking about? Christians are forced to bear responsibility for the Crusades? What kind of alternate universe of selfpity do you come from. If this current obsession with SSM persists the CPC will die a silent death - please for all of us CPC haters continue your work.
Posted by: at July 26, 2005 04:56 PM (pgbux)
5
The Arabian Knight
What are you talking about? Christians are forced to bear responsibility for the Crusades? What kind of alternate universe of selfpity do you come from. If this current obsession with SSM persists the CPC will die a silent death - please for all of us CPC haters continue your work.
Posted by: Pedro at July 26, 2005 04:57 PM (pgbux)
6
Pedro:
Believe it or not that's always the point (Christians had the crusades!) brought up by any lefty I debate when I bring up the need for Muslims (I'm Muslim BTW) to start thinking about serious reforms within our religion and rid oursleves of the poisinous psychology that Bin Laden and the fundamentalists feed upon.
Posted by: The Arabian Knight at July 26, 2005 05:12 PM (Om90z)
7
Pedro,
Be careful for what you wish. The CPC 'knows' that SSM will mean certain defeat of the Liberal/NDP.
The socons are rustling........many of them are gathering, meeting, plotting and planning their revenge.
In Quebec, the only hope for the Liberals will be the West Island. No Liberals in Quebec=No Liberal Government! There is NO hope for the Liberals in Quebec. None!
Fifty per cent of "eligible" Canadian voters have not been voting since 1993. Watch out Pedro! The socons are awake.
Thank God for Bishop Henry. For all the talk in Canada about SSM, it is a Catholic Bishop who speaks truth.
Restore Democracy: Repeal C-38!
Posted by: anselm at July 26, 2005 06:29 PM (5y2Yt)
8
Pedro says : "If this current obsession with SSM persists the CPC will die a silent death - please for all us CPC haters out there continue your work".
Well, thanks Pedro, ol' buddy, but we really don't actually need your permission to continue, though it's apppericiated.
As for you being a CPC hater, hey friend, that's what makes our continuing efforts so rewarding. It pisses you off.
In regards to the CPC's possible silent death over this issue, I hope you don't mind if I'm not too concerned over that. I really don't think it will happen. However, you know if it were to happen then the party was probably too weak to begin with, good riddance.
Posted by: John at July 26, 2005 07:06 PM (Fo7fq)
9
Shouldn't Pedro's comments be edited to remove the toxic words 'CPC hater'?
Posted by: Grook at July 27, 2005 08:06 AM (f1BnB)
10
Three cheers for the brave bishop!
Let's keep our ears to the ground for the bishop getting a phone call from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Posted by: grammar guy at July 27, 2005 11:57 AM (QmLwQ)
11
Well done Angry. You are entirely right, in democracy the voters should have the say on what is right or wrong or adequate, not a self-titled moral authority.
It took me two days to get over the SSM issue. I can't believe some people are still disturbed and angry about it. This is democracy, this is what you asked for. What blows my mind is the same people up in arms over the democratic vote that passed C-38 are the same people who continually cream at communists for being totalitarian despots. Make up your damn mind. And I don;t see how repealing a law would restore democracy. I think your idea of democracy, anselm, is the elimination of any laws that come into conflict with your own opinions. That isn't democracy, unless of course you yourself become Supreme Leader and decide it is.
DPRK-style hypocrisy for everyone!
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 12:09 PM (ft48a)
12
I love parades!
They're so happy and flamboyant! I attended university for 4 years, hoping to get a degree as a parade co-ordinator. But it just wasn't meant to be.
But what to do when a dream dies? Why, you dream a NEW dream! I switched over to Medieval Folk Clapping and never looked back.
Shame on you, you narrow-minded, uneducated bigots!!!
Posted by: Diehard Liberal at July 27, 2005 01:13 PM (HJx06)
13
Hi Diehard,
"Shame on you, you narrow-minded, uneducated bigots!!!"
Ah, there's the hate.
I have always and consistently argued against same-sex marriage with regards to what it does to children and to the function of parenting, and never on religious grounds. Apparently a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is making the same non-religious argument.
Care to answer it?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 01:18 PM (phwde)
14
"Care to answer it?"
Yes, Mr. Angry-in-TO....I always welcome the opportunity to debate.
Take a walk down the street on any given day, and you will see a broad spectrum of humanity. You will see people of different races, different cultures and religions, different socio-economic status, different sexual orientation. But despite all of these superficial differences, these people all have one very important thing in common: they are all human beings, and they are all beautiful on the inside.
We must learn to come together as a society and embrace diversity! If you allow yourselves to succumb to your fears, then you will become fearful.
The root of your anger is the fear that you will be seduced by an attractive member of the same sex, and before you know it, you will be sipping white wine spritzers and listening to Barbara Streissand cds and arguing with your partner over his frivolous purchase of fuschia Ralph Lauren drapes. This is what you fear!
But you know something? Most of our fears never come to pass. They are nothing more than the negative projections of an idle mind.
So what is the remedy?
Find an individual of alternate sexuality. Introduce yourself, and invite this person out for coffee. Sit down and chat about your differences. I guarantee that not only will you become enlightened, you will have a wonderful time! People, it's just that simple!
Don't allow fear to control your lives. Embrace love and acceptance!
Posted by: Diehard Liberal at July 27, 2005 01:42 PM (HJx06)
15
"This is democracy. This is what you asked for."
That's funny. That's really really funny.
In the last election, the only party that publicly supported SSM was the NDP. The Bloc and the Conservatives favoured free votes in the Commons on the issue. The Liberals were deeply divided over SSM, and abstained from their responsibility to govern, instead sending the issue to the Supreme Court.
So, the fourth party in the House of Commons, and nine unelected, unaccountable judges decided the issue for us... and that's democracy?
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 27, 2005 01:51 PM (pPVQ0)
16
No, a group of elected individuals who formed that majority of parliament voted on the issue. The majority decided, the bill was passed. Regardless of political affilitation, these individuals voted according to their beliefs or conscience, and the results ar unquestionable. What's hypocritical about your argument is that if the roles were reversed, and this was an issue you were for, you would be denouncing it's detractors as undemocratic. And the fourth party did not decide, even it had one dissenter. Instead it was a vote in which people voted their minds. And I'm not defending democracy, but I am saying this is exactly what you askerd for. And to quote Jefferson: "Democracy is the rule of the mob, where 51% of the people trample over the rights of the other 49%". Or something to that effect.
How apt that you choose to critize the democratic process only when it suits you, while at the same time criticizing regimes such as North Korea and the former Iraqui government as dictatorships. Those governments were and are perpetrating precisely what you claim to be against yet are advocating, minority rule over the majority.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 01:57 PM (ft48a)
17
"I'd like to teach the world to sing,
in perfect harmony..."
Thank God I'm not a diabetic.
Bishop Henry - voice of reason, courage and conviction. Apologies to the far-left for using such profanity.
Steve
Posted by: Steve at July 27, 2005 03:08 PM (YzfKB)
18
Diehard Liberal,
Bishop Henry speaks for his church. If you don't like the club, nobody's asking you to join. You can't enter a Royal Canadian Legion bare-assed naked.You can't, as a gay person get married in a RC church. Rules are rules. Live with it.
Posted by: old squid at July 27, 2005 03:22 PM (QK3tc)
19
Old Squid...
You listen here, mister man! My club is Canada, and includes everyone!
And if you can't handle that, then maybe you should relocate to some place where the citizens appreciate your way of thinking. Go to some ultra rightwing country like Mexico!
Posted by: Diehard Liberal at July 27, 2005 03:42 PM (HJx06)
20
Where's the hate? It's in the idea that homosexuality can be lumped in with adultery and prostitution, and that homosexuals are a danger to children. These are not facts, they are vicious lies.
Posted by: A Hermit at July 27, 2005 04:33 PM (0/9/3)
21
A. Hermit,
They are not vicious lies, they are facts. Our good Bishop spoke truthfully, unlike the rabble crowd that wants to silence the truth.
MartinB said, "Regardless of political affilitation, these individuals voted according to their beliefs or conscience, and the results ar[e] unquestionable." Wrong! There was NO free vote. Bill C-38 was, is and will remain a fraud.
Restore democracy: Repeal C-38!
Posted by: anselm at July 27, 2005 04:46 PM (5y2Yt)
22
Hermit-
I see homosexual behavior as harmful to children in 2 distinct ways:
1 - Homosexuals are composed of a higher percentage of pedophiles than the average population. Thus, homosexuals are far more likely to abuse children then heterosexuals on average.
2 - The homosexual lifestule is rife with the transmission of AIDS. Thus, the current push to normalize homosexuality as "safe" and "unconsequential" is harmful to children. Proper debate as to the 'homosexual norm' should be recognized.
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 27, 2005 05:17 PM (Namz1)
23
"1 - Homosexuals are composed of a higher percentage of pedophiles than the average population. Thus, homosexuals are far more likely to abuse children then heterosexuals on average."
This is, simply put, a lie propagated by the likes of Paul Cameron, who was drummed out of the AMerican Psychiatric Association twenty years ago for ethics violations (ie he was caught making sh*t up and pretending it was "research"). It ranks up there with the anti-semitic "blood libel"; an attempt to demonize innocent people.
"2 - The homosexual lifestule is rife with the transmission of AIDS."
The problem here isn't homosexuality, it's promiscuity and a lack of education. Most AIDS cases worldwide are transmitted heterosexually.
And even if this one were true it would seem to me that promoting stable, monogamous relationships (like mariiages!) between homosexual couples would be the best way to solve the problem...
Posted by: A Hermit at July 27, 2005 05:44 PM (0/9/3)
24
Hermit -
That's hogwash and you know it.
#1 Fact: Homosexual men make up 3-5% of the total population. Yet, convicted pedophiles are over 30% admittedly homosexual, or were convicted of homosexual acts with children. You do the math.
# 2 Fact: Of all identifiable groups in North America, only homosexual men have seen an INCREASE in AIDS transmission over the past few years. It's quite evident that education is not the issue anymore, as every other group but the gays have figured out how to stop AIDS.
Your global quote largely misconstrues the problem as the large majority of AIDS transmissions worldwide are focused in rural Africa, where education and protection are the real problems.
Back home, we need to focus on REAL homosexual education. Something along the lines of this: If you are going to adopt a homosexual lifestyle be aware that:
a) It is highly likely your parter is promiscuous
b) It is highly likely your parter will resist using proper protection and may coerce you to avoid it as well
c) It is highly likely you will contract AIDS
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 27, 2005 06:21 PM (Namz1)
25
I'd like to know where you're getting your "facts' Joe. They're simply not correct. How about citing some sources for us? What exactly is the basis for your claims?
Also, what you're arguing is that we deny rights to individuals based on the perception of a group. That is a decidedly un-democratic, anti-individual freedom kind of argument. Should my uncle, for example, be treated like a child molestor just because he's gay? I know the man, he used to babysit us when we were kids, I would trust him with my own children without a second thought, he's one of the most decent, honourable people I've ever known. But you would brand him as a promiscuous peadophile and deny him equal status under the law. Why?
Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2005 12:15 PM (0/9/3)
26
A Hermit, try looking up the statistics yourself. Im sure you can find them without much difficulty.
Perhaps you would like to browse the NAMBLA (North American Man and Boy Love Association) website. This is a group regularly included in most Gay Pride parades.... something to be proud of for sure!
Homosexuals account for nearly HALF of the AIDS cases in the USA today, yet only 2-5% of the population. Why do you think that is? Dont believe me, look it up.
I never argued against any denial of rights. Dont confound the argument by putting words in my mouth. I merely propone the release of the truths about the AVERAGE homosexual experience, which is never the case. I'm sure your uncle is not a child molester, but that doesnt mean a higher percentage of his lovers might be. It's your choice to expose your children to such a lifestyle, not mine.
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 28, 2005 01:54 PM (Namz1)
27
"try looking up the statistics yourself"
Well I have, Joe, that's how I know you're wrong....
I'm just curious to know where you're getting your misinformation from.
And there you go making assumptions about an individual (my uncle) without actually knowing anything about him. A fine example of stereotyping. Not only are your facts wrong, but to make judgements about any individual based on your perceptions of the "average" of some group or other is just bigotry, plain and simple.
Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2005 02:43 PM (0/9/3)
28
Hmmm, now I'm a bigot for assuming facts to be true. Thats funny.
33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex
Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE
Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992
In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.
Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”
The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)
In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)
In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)
Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)
The homosexual magazine Guide published a pro-pedophile editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to pedophiles as “prophets” of sexual freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the children’s sake.”
And did you not find time to visit NAMBLA yet? Maybe your uncle had time to parade with pride along side them and can fill you in on their goals? Did you know that the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition also supported eliminating the existing age-of-consent laws? Why is that?
The only one doing stereotyping is you, Hermit; Stereotyping the average canadian as stupid and unable to grasp the truth. And making a generalization upon a population based upon observed results of a significant sample size is not bigotry, its called statistics. Try reading a poll, and understand the math behind it.
Cheers!
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 28, 2005 03:26 PM (Namz1)
29
No Joe, you're a bigot if you make judgements about an individual based on your stereotypical perceptions of a group of people. It's no different than racial stereotyping. That's exactly what you are doing when you post crap about the "high percentage" of my uncle's "lovers". You're erroneously assuming an awful lot about the man in spite of the fact that you actually know nothing about him.
And, as I suspected, all of your information is the same old out of context, misrepresented and flat out fabricated stuff promoted by the long discredited "Dr." Paul Cameron, or from Judith Riesman, whose PhD is in communications, not medicine or psychology. She may be a great propagandist, but her medical opinions really don't carry any weight.
You can read about Cameron here:
http://tinyurl.com/28x8g
His work is soundly refuted here:
http://tinyurl.com/lxar
Don't forget to check the bibliography; so you can follow up the real facts:
http://tinyurl.com/4j5jr
You are relying on the work a man drummed out of the APA for falsifiying data and misrepresenting the work of other researchers. He is, in short, a proven liar.
Just out of curiousity, do you have a link to your source? When I google quotes from your post the site that comes up quite often is stormfront.org; a white supremacist website. I'm hoping you have some other source, but it would help to know what it is, just so there's no misunderstanding.
Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2005 04:52 PM (0/9/3)
30
Hermit-
My information comes from various sources and are linked as appropriate, its no single source.
You have shown that Cameron is discredited by a small but powerful majority of Gay members of the APA, who also recently removed Pedophilia from their lists of "mental sickness". Of course Gays would be mad at him telling the truth, its not pretty. Do you also agree that Pedophilia is not a sickness but merely a "preference", like the APA?
All of the accusations presented are clearly refuted by Cameron himself. It seems both sides of this argument are highly politicized, but that plain fact that his research has been published in several peer reviewed journals is significant.
You have failed to provide any contrary evidence against the various other sources? Are they also "made up"?
And yet, still no comment on NAMBLA? For the third time, is that something gays should be "proud" of? Are you proud of such a movement?
The plain fact is, the chances of your uncle contracting AIDS is much higher than mine. Slice it any way you wish, its just a plain fact.
Hope your children understand that!!
Cheers.
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 28, 2005 05:34 PM (Namz1)
31
"My information comes from various sources and are linked as appropriate, its no single source."
Sorry Joe, I can't find a single link in your comment...and when I check the citations on google I get links to white supremacists. Do you have a less distasteful source for your cut and paste?
"You have shown that Cameron is discredited by a small but powerful majority of Gay members of the APA...."
No Joe, he was kicked out of the largest psychiatric professional association in North America for violating ethical principles by lying about other people's work. He's simply not reliable.
"You have failed to provide any contrary evidence against the various other sources?"
Joe, read my comment again; I directed you to quite a large body of research, and unlike you I actually provided links so you can read more than a few cut and paste excerpts.
"And yet, still no comment on NAMBLA?"
As soon as you comment on Stormfront.org...their relevance to the subject is about the same.
"The plain fact is, the chances of your uncle contracting AIDS is much higher than mine."
Why? Are you somehow immune? Or are you making unfounded assumptions about his sexual habits?
Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2005 06:00 PM (0/9/3)
32
1. Doesn't BIOLOGY go a long way toward affirming the biological bond between parents and their children? The RC Church, since their little run-in with Galileo, has been quite accepting of modern science. Why do we need a piece of paper to affirm this biological bond - especially when it does no such thing?
2. I don't doubt A. Hermit's points about Mr. Joe's "research." The commentary and analysis attached (or copied and pasted) to the "facts" cited show a rather poor understanding of basic math. Not only that, the assumptions behind it are so prejudiced and unfounded, it's rather silly.
Remembering that I reject the veracity of the numbers cited, believing them to be skewed, based on false assumptions and/or plain made up, let me just point out a further problem with the logic employed by Mr. Joe. Using this logic, the following proposition could not be denied:
Though making up less than half the population, males commit the very large majority of crimes and the extremely large majority of crimes. Specific to one of Mr Joe's prime concerns (and one of society's prime concerns), males commit the gigantic-colossal-huge majority of sexual assaults against children. Wouldn't it make sense to either lock up all males or ban all males from any contact with children? When you throw in the fact that most of this activity is committed by males against members of their own family, isn't that an argument for banning fathers and uncles from any unsupervised contact with children they are related to?
It is the same logic. Maybe it's casting a slightly larger net, but we're bound to stop a lot more atrocious behaviour that victimizes our children. That's worth it, isn't it?
Or maybe we should just judge everyone based on actual character and behaviour?
Crazy - I know.
Posted by: John Q. at July 29, 2005 12:16 PM (RXZ43)
33
Sorry - it was supposed to read "the extremely large majority of VIOLENT crimes"
Posted by: John Q. at July 29, 2005 12:18 PM (RXZ43)
34
Simple facts, hard science, no "religious" bias.
Whenever people anywhere move away from heterosexual monogamy (no matter how they do this) the end result is increased physical disease, social disruption, and psychological stress.
Look for information from any national health service or institution and the wide spectrum of research always affirms this simple fact.
So here's an interesting idea. Perhaps all of the worlds major religions, and virtually all of the minor ones as well, have historically affirmed heterosexual monogamy simply because they recognized biological facts and simply incorporated this pre-existing understanding into their own codes of conduct as "revelation" to give them a certain strength.
One does not have to be particularly religious or even have any faith at all to see that unrestrained sexual expression can have profound negative affects on a culture and whether there is a higher power(s) or not there is still a value to a social interest in these behaviors.
The sheer economic burden of dealing with the illnesses caused by unrestrained sexuality, for example, is a social issue that does not need a "religious" understanding to be substantial. And it is entirely within a society's right to consider such things as it makes decisions about what values it wishes to affirm.
Posted by: John at July 29, 2005 05:47 PM (JkxIH)
35
I must say something because I read all of the above comments. Joe does cite common sense and real facts.
A Hermit, you cannot deny the facts that Joe and Bishop Henery have so clearly defined. Everyone knows tha truth yet people like you and John Q. insist on saying facts are not facts because special intrest groups say so - where is your compassion?
I have seen the devistating effects that molestation has on childern; worse I have seen the devistating effects, shame, and hate that abused boys grown into men are left with as a result of rape by a member of the same sex. Childern and animals are innocent and to prey upon their innocence is the worst crime there is - it distroys their souls. Cruelity of this kind is not addressed or understood by people who have never been 'used' by adults they (had) trusted or were forced to be with because of their parents who 'trusted' someone not trustworthy and left their children open to threats of reprisal if they 'said anything'. Childern live in a very small world and they believe that powerful adults can carry out the treats they post eg. "if you say anything I will kill your Mom and Dad and then you will stay here ALL the time!! " Little people learning to read do not know much about the law!!
Families are formed by one man and one woman to PROTECT childern while they are young and vunerable, to give them a balance for polor opposites that do attract. This is an ideal, of course, but it is the FOUNDATION for healthy adults. It is the BEST model ever tested, why are people like you trying to fix-up something that is not broken? What is in it for you? I do not understand the motive.
In Sparta all childern were raised by their mother until age six when they went to military barracks, they lived with men till age 30 when they could marry. Most men lived in Military barracks 9/10 of their adult lives. Women lived on the farms and in towns. The society had no real accomplishments except fearless soldiers ( a fearless man is a man who has nothing to live for - verses a brave man who wants to live but is willing to fight for those he loves) and a code of laws. Spartan women owned property because they were willing to allow their men to die, most of the men did not know their wives well enough to love them so they turned to boys for a feeling of love. Is this what you are advocating A Hermit?
BTW posting scources is admirable only if they are not biased scources. Opinions can be formed by the human mind and do not require scources for back-up. It is one of the great things about being human - we were given the power to think for ourselves.
Posted by: Jema54 at July 29, 2005 09:56 PM (iLwvj)
San Diego is taking a stand on Gay Pride "activities"
In Canada, the whole city council would have been hauled in front of a Human Rights Tribunal -- how dare they not endorse a gay parade involving pedophiles?
A resolution endorsing Gay Pride Week in San Diego was abruptly pulled from the City Council docket Monday afternoon.The defense and criticism of the festival and parade are nothing new. The resolution was similar to those in past years that declared a San Diego Gay Pride Week. Even some of the criticism and those voicing it were familiar.
"They have gay pornography booths," said Christian activist James Hartline. "They have a whole tent devoted to S&M leather sex and all the other things that go along with that. They have pornography stores walking down the parade."
"You know, [Hartline] highlights the extreme things he's most concerned about," said Atkins. "I don't hear him pointing out the fact that we have numerous churches who participate and march in the parade."
Protesters led by Hartline also complained that two volunteer parade staff members were convicted pedophiles. Parade organizers said the two would be setting up fences away from any contact with children, and police were consulted about them. But critics said the event should not have public officials and law enforcement participating.
"And what is being celebrated? Homosexuality -- which was correctly diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness until 1973," said festival critic Stephanie Hooper.
"This is about being inclusive," said Aktins. "It's about tolerance and inclusivity, diversity in our city, and that's what Pride is all about."
I'm not sure I buy Stephanie Hooper's argument, but these parade organizers need to seriously get their heads around the fact that despite what they might think, most people are not interested in having a parade that celebrates the fringe of sexual activities, and when it comes to pedophiles, are they there to help celebrate how diverse you are? Are the parade organizers that hard up on volunteers, or did that decision fall under the "tolerance and inclusivity" category?
Get a clue! Maybe homosexuals truly don't understand what it means to have children. I can't believe that could be the case, but then what were these people thinking? If you want the mainstream to start accepting you, you need to start thinking, at least a little bit, like the mainstream.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:53 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.
1
What a lame argument. Stephanie Hooper, who must be some instinctive heterosexual "expert" about gays, apparently thinks that her personal prejudices should always trump the rights of other citizens to celebrate their lives.
As for Gay Pride, the parade and activities are less about the celebration of sexuality and more about the celebration of identity and love, two factors that "conservatives" refuse to believe can possibly exist among gay Americans.
The obsession about two pedophiles putting up fences at the celebration seems more than a little contrived - after all, San Diego hasn't closed down all the catholic churches which housed and covered up pedophile priests, nor did the council pass a resolution preventing these same people from performing weddings and funerals for the morally superior heterosexual public.
In pulling recognition of the contributions of San Diego's gay community from the council business, it should become public policy for the city council to no longer recognize any event by any group in the city.
By the way - does James Hartline have special "christian" credentials that make him the judge of what is "pornographic" and what isn't? Seems to me his whole point is that gays in San Diego should remain in the closet and shamed. Since it's doubtful most gays aren't members of his particular religious cult, it's rather hard to see why his opinion means anything. Has Hartline been attending the celebrations in the past?
By the way, gays have children - and I haven't seen any reports yet of their children being shipped off to reparative therapy camps or of a three-year-old being beaten to death because they were afraid the chiild wasn't developing the proper sexual orientation. Instead, it seems like the gays adopt or foster parent children tossed away by hetero parents, who, for one reason or another, are either unfit or disinterested in parenting. How many of these children have Hartline or Hooper adopted?
Posted by: kbm8795 at July 26, 2005 01:55 PM (QjxUx)
2
Where did this idea come from that gays can ever be mainstream or that they want to be or even should be??
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 26, 2005 05:05 PM (c0CEk)
3
"The obsession about two pedophiles putting up fences at the celebration seems more than a little contrived - after all, San Diego hasn't closed down all the catholic churches which housed and covered up pedophile priests."
Perhaps that is because the scandal in the Catholic Church does not involve pedophiles. It overwhelmingly involves homosexual priests engaging in predatory sexual activity with adolescent boys. That is aborrent and completely unacceptable but is not pedophilia, which by definition, involves sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.
It is exceedingly disingenous to see homosexuals hurl this canard at the Church so frequently and without any sense of irony or shame.
Posted by: John the Mad at July 26, 2005 10:46 PM (4kBfC)
4
Homosexuality -- which was correctly diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness until 1973," said festival critic Stephanie Hooper.
|I wholeheartly agree with this.
Horny Toad
We straight,ewere great and we can pro-create
Posted by: Horny Toad at July 27, 2005 12:29 AM (FRiIE)
5
Gay Pride?
Are they proud of having the highest mortality rate due to AIDS of any identifiable group outside of Africa?
No one should be proud of a culture intent on killing its own members.
Next is Suicide Cult Pride Week?
Posted by: Average_Joe at July 27, 2005 03:57 PM (Namz1)
Surprise choice for the next Governor-General
From the National Post:
Prime Minister Paul Martin will soon unveil his new Governor-General -- and it won't be anyone currently touted for the job, the CBC reported last night. The report from Ottawa said Adrienne Clarkson won't be replaced by any of the names under speculation, including former astronaut Marc Garneau, former prime minister Joe Clark, former Reform party leader Preston Manning, wheelchair athlete Rick Hansen, native leaders Georges Erasmus and Phil Fontaine or Ontario Lieutenant-Governor James Bartleman. The story did not say, however, who will take over as Governor-General when Mme. Clarkson's term ends in September.
Watching my phone...my fingers crossed...come on...come on...cushiest job in the world...let it be me...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:24 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, if they're looking for someone with the same well-developed sense of regal entitlement as the incumbent, how about Streisand? It might serve her purposes, too, she could show how distraught she is at Bush's continuing existence by her exodus.
Posted by: idd at July 26, 2005 12:42 PM (dUczW)
2
The Lieberals have tested every other limit of decency this last parliament, why not appoint Stronach?
Posted by: Jeff at July 26, 2005 01:53 PM (1k2og)
3
ummm... they mentioned everyone in that article but Bob Rae... hmmm...
Posted by: Les Mackenzie at July 26, 2005 01:57 PM (8Q9tp)
4
Come on kids! This is rudimentary stuff!
Two words.
Gurmant. Grewal.
Posted by: Alan at July 26, 2005 02:17 PM (pNHD2)
5
It might be Svend Robinson, except for the confusion whenever the band plays "God Save the Queen".
Posted by: Loyalist at July 26, 2005 02:37 PM (nQwT5)
6
My choice? Maher Arar.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 26, 2005 02:43 PM (kzWbX)
7
I would like to see PMPM appoint himself as GG. More direct control, so to speak.
Is there a law against combining the PM and GG responsibilities?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at July 26, 2005 03:18 PM (A4UEy)
8
It won't make any difference who becomes GG. He/She/They/It will still be awaste of taxpayers dollars. When Chief Justice Beverly Mac signed Bill C38 into law, she proved we don't need a Govenor General.At least Bev is a representative of the CANADIAN courts, not some foreign monarch. So, get rid of the position and save some more money that can then be given to the adversising firms in Quebec and Toronto.
Posted by: walking eagle at July 26, 2005 04:16 PM (QK3tc)
9
How about Chretien?
You know we Kanadians can always sink lower..
Jus betcha we kan... you jus watch us...
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 26, 2005 04:41 PM (c0CEk)
10
If it's not Lowell Green of CFRA, Ottawa--who has often asked for the job--I demand a commission of inquiry.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 05:27 PM (zZJkX)
11
Belinda Stronach as Governor General !
Bob Rae as Liberal Leader !
Whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at July 26, 2005 06:37 PM (KRMi3)
12
Don Cherry for PM! WooHoo!!!
Posted by: Doug Mackey at July 27, 2005 09:10 AM (12HWD)
13
Seriously , Herr Martin has been GG since he took office, Chretien was GG before that, Mulronie was GG before that etc etc etc. In 1926 and 1930 the Govt of the day (Libs) in a special meeting proclained that the GG is NOT an agent of a REPRESENTATIVE of Britain, and that the powers of the GG were transferred to the PM's office, This whole GG "affair" has been a cruel joke since 1930, the PM IS the GG. It was a culmination to acquire complete control of country by grabbing the Crown. They had already taken control of the Politics of Canada in 1867 when the leftie founding so-called "founding fathers" wrote the Constitution that did not include an elected senate or Whistlblower legislation that allowd the PM to become a veritable Dictator, now in 1930 the Gov't got full control of the country by transferring all the GG's powers over to the PM's office. The GG cannot disolve Govt without Herr Martins permission, she can't do ANYTHING WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION. Herr Martin has more power than any other leader in the world, icluding all the tin pots the pol pots and the "pots and pans". The only power that the GG has is to double her own budget, and hire her own staff, other than that the GG has no, ziltch ,nada power. The PM is a veritable dictator, which has been hidden from the public all these years as the greatest best kept secret from the tax payers, other than the secret of Herr Martin being Dictator. The GG has to ask permission from the PM in eveything that the GG asked for, and Herr Martin wil not agree to anything that he does not agree with, So forget the sham of a GG's office. All it serves is for the dictator PM to appoint the GG, a close friend, to become Queen/King for up to seven years if so desired, and live like Bill Gates, travelling with their friends, and blowing money like it was monopoly money. What we should be discussing is how are we going to take back the GG's chair from the Dictator, however we have to expose this cruel trick of a sham and let the Dictator know that we know that it is a huge scam, and why does he continue on playing the scam game? We will have to try to embarrass him, though that will be tough to do, cause he has no shame, Dictators never do.
Stephen. Parksville BC ww 2 vet.
Posted by: stephenmichaud at July 27, 2005 03:50 PM (bxOjK)
14
My previous post may answer the question as to why the GG did not insist that the Dictator Martin call his own none confidence motion the next day after he lost the first none confidence motion in the house. This Gov't is an illegal Gov't because Herr Martin did not call a non confidance vote. Herr Martin would have had to ask the GG to ask him for a none confidance vote, thereby in effect "fireing" himself, as he truly would have lost the vote, and would have to call an eletion. Canadians were waiting with baited breath for the call, waiting for the GG to step in and do the right thing, howver, the GG has not the power to do that, and it is debatable with the close association the GG has with the Dictator whether she would have done it anyway. Is she going to bite the hand that fed her all those goodies, and trips, and glamour. The GG wears the phoney medals, while the Dictator signs all the papers. It should be asked of the Dictator, why he does not wear the medals, the fact that he does all the official duties of the GG behind closed doors, and give competition to the other Medal wearing dictators that proudly prance around with them on. The Queen cannot step in so we are shackled to the Dictator Martin he is the guy that appointed everybody, that is anybody in Kanada, what to do? Vote him out and put in the Conservativs who have on their platform to take away most of the power of the Dictator, the only natonal leader that was willing to give up most of the power of the Dictators office was Preston Manning, but the Media made sure that he never got power. The Whistlblower legislation, or the absence there of is the key to allow the Dictator to keep his power, and the Appointed senate, and the appointed Supreme Court Justices adds to his power, that all has to be changed like yesterday, we have to put this Dictator in his place, and expose him for what he is. Not even a Benevelent Dictator, a Benevelent Dictator would not allow people to die in the health care line ups, and allow convicted murerors to get a free-get-out-of -jail-card to kill again, and I could go on. Up until 1952 the GG's were failed English Lords, then the Librano$ decided to play the scam game and pretend to institute a Canadian GG, (Vincent Massey) but he was just part of the game, he knew he had no power, but I presume the fan fare, and the glamour, and his pictures in the paper,as well as the bucks that he accumulated while in offive were enough to keep his mouth shut, and ditto for the encueing GG's all playing the game on behalf the the Dictator. How can we respect scoundrels that play the Dictators game? The old boys club is alive and well in beuatiful downtown Fascitland Ottawa. If this keeps up the west will have no alternative but to fire Ottawa and start our own honest and democratic country. If the tax payer was getting anything out of this fiasco of a Dictatorship, one might see some sense in it, but the life style of Canadians in deteriating to the point where we all work for the Dictator, the Canadians are not saving any money why? Herr Martin and his henchman have to go, and the sooner the better. They wouldn't be there now if we had a REAL GG.
Stephen Parkville BC ww 2 vet.
Posted by: Stephenmicaud at July 27, 2005 04:25 PM (bxOjK)
15
Actually, I have my money on you Angry, wait by the phone and let us know when you get called up to "the big show"......
Posted by: DazzlinDino at July 28, 2005 12:51 AM (WFplk)
16
walking eagle wrote: "It won't make any difference who becomes GG. He/She/They/It will still be a waste of taxpayers dollars."
The Governor General, in the Constitution Act, 1867 and in the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada, is always referred to in the male gender alone by the use of words such as "he", "his", "him", and "himself".
Posted by: David Wozney at July 28, 2005 11:34 AM (kVoQF)
Movie tag
Wonkitties got me on this one. It's movie tag! My favourite movies at different times of my life, hmmmmm.
Teenager: Star Wars
First non-Disney movie I had ever seen in a theatre, believe it or not.
University years: Goodfellas
You think that's a funny choice? You think I'm funny? You think I'm here to amuse you?
Recent years: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Looking forward to watching this with the kids when they're older, and then reading the books. Oddly, I have yet to see the extended version of The Return of the King. Need more hits in the tip jar before I can run out and buy it.
All time favourite: ffolkes
Huh? Best movie Roger Moore ever made, and best action thriller ever put on film. Cerebral and intense, plausible and timeless. Does what the Die Hard movies never could -- make you think it could actually happen, and despair that we might not have a real hero like ffolkes to save us. Great cast of Brits and Yanks. Best thing about it: the action starts in the final 15 minutes, and it is great! The plan goes to hell in 30 seconds (in a laugh-out-loud moment, believe it or not), and ffolkes and his commandos have to wing it. Makes you glad these guys are smart as well as deadly.
OK, Phantom, Either-Or, and Dr. Dawg are up.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:20 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
1
See me a little later.
Posted by: bob at July 26, 2005 11:24 AM (jF1NE)
2
You want my movies?
You got my movies.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 26, 2005 11:52 AM (U8FJD)
3
My favourite move of all time? Cult classic Eraserhead, by none other than a young David Lynch. A devastating, black satire about the literal wasteland of capitalism.
Teenager: The Lavender Hill Mob. I watched it several times in my youth, and never stopped enjoying it--British comedy at its best, and I mean good comedy, not the Carry-On-Benny-Hill nonsense.
Young man: The Seventh Seal, bar none. But it's potted existentialism simply doesn't stand up these days.
More recently, when my thoughts have turned to horror and death: The Sixth Sense, one of the finest-turned horror films ever made--although The Ring had me shivering spasmodically throughout--if that's a good rec!
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 26, 2005 02:52 PM (kzWbX)
4
Er...that's "its." I get mad at others for this, so I may as well fess up here.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 26, 2005 02:53 PM (kzWbX)
5
Sorry, new at this. How do I "tag" others? I would like to tag two or three on my side of the fence: The Amazing Wonderdog, Scott Tribe and Miss Vicky (of Miss Vicky's Offhand Remarks).
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 26, 2005 03:10 PM (kzWbX)
6
Easy, Dr. Dawg. e-mail them with a post pointing them to the blog entry (or comments page) where your choices are, and invite them to play along.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 26, 2005 03:33 PM (U8FJD)
7
Thanks, Phantom. Done.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 26, 2005 03:46 PM (kzWbX)
8
Sigh. And me in the middle of... well, I'm not sure what I'm in the middle of today.
see my Offhand Remarks for my response.....
Posted by: at July 27, 2005 12:07 AM (/EaqL)
Catholic Carnival XXXX is up
Check out this diverse collection of Catholic thought.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
Carolyn Parrish might be coming back -- and she's as ignorant as ever
It's hard to imagine anyone in Canadian politics more ignorant and offensive than Carolyn Parrish...except Carolyn Parrish. Just when you think she's hit the peak, she surprises you by opening her mouth and shocking you even more. Here again she fails to miss an opportunity to offend, this time anyone who had served in the Canadian military, ever.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:08 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1897 words, total size 12 kb.
1
Maybe she measures things in "dog years", being a bitch.
Posted by: bear at July 26, 2005 08:40 AM (qn6c6)
2
Well said!
I have to wonder whether Ms. Parrish actually agrees with what she says, or whether she's so starved for attention, with such a low self esteem, that she feels the she needs to resort to outlandish statements, just so people will talk about her.
She reminds me of a little child, the show off, who has to say something absurd or do something outlandish just so people will pay attention. It's actually a little pathetic.
I feel sorry for her constituents - they are not being properly represented in Ottawa.
I'm not a fan of the current Liberal government, but even I would feel sorry for them if they felt they needed her back in caucus.
And I feel sorry for Ms. Parrish. Sorry that she feels this is the only way she can get the attention she appears to need.
Posted by: Not the PHB at July 26, 2005 08:42 AM (t8LmT)
3
My 'well said' is for Angry, not bear. Sorry bear, I think it's unnecessary to go where you're going.
Posted by: Not the PHB at July 26, 2005 08:44 AM (t8LmT)
4
Not to mention the Gulf War (1991), the Kosovo/Serbia aerial bombardment campaign (1999), and anti-Taliban/al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan (2002)--in all of which the Canadian military took part.
Luckily for Ms Parrish she only went back 100 years. Otherwise one would have to note the Boer War (1899-1902) to which Canada also sent fighting troops--something 99% of Canadians, no doubt including her, do not know.
Perhaps Ms Parrish's grasp of history has been adversely affected by an excess of estrogen. Although at her age, 59, that would be remarkable.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 08:48 AM (zZJkX)
5
Let's not orget the battle of the windmill when Canadian insurgents fought against the familly
compact.
Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at July 26, 2005 09:13 AM (MMW9F)
6
The Globe & Mail is incorrect in its lead sentence. Whether this is incredibly sloppy or an attempted rewrite of nine-month-old history is a topic worthy of its own discussion.
Martin and the Liberal Party accepted/condoned Parrish's anti-American statements for some considerable time (one of the reasons my brain is drained, but that's another story). She was only "kicked out" when she made anti-Martin statements:
www.thehilltimes.ca
"from: The Hill Times, November 22nd, 2004
NEWS STORY
By F. Abbas Rana
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister last week turfed Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga-Erindale, Ont.) from the Liberal caucus. Her expulsion became almost imminent after she blasted the Prime Minister and his advisers in an interview with The Canadian Press. Ms. Parrish said that she "wouldn't shed a tear" for Mr. Martin if he failed to win the next election and that his advisers "can all go to hell." Before that, on CBC TV's comedy show This Hour Has 22 Minutes, she stomped on a Bush doll and pricked his brain with a pen."
Posted by: Drained Brain at July 26, 2005 09:38 AM (VtmCE)
7
I hope you sent this to her campaign office, and whatever local newspapers serve her community of moron voters. I have never had time for the likes of this idiot and can only hope that her constituents kick her out as soon as possible.
The real tradgedy here is that many Canadian are also just as ignorant of our military's successes in both world wars. Infact most of France knows more about our military victories than most Canadians in my generation. We've been fed the "peacekeeping" line for 30 years. And they ARE surprised the soldiers are trained to kill.
Posted by: sheila at July 26, 2005 09:59 AM (uQTmP)
8
"My 'well said' is for Angry, not bear."
She brings out the worst in all of us.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 10:01 AM (phwde)
9
'Meanwhile, the Prime Minister last week turfed Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga-Erindale, Ont.) from the Liberal caucus. Her expulsion became almost imminent after she blasted the Prime Minister and his advisers in an interview with The Canadian Press. Ms. Parrish said that she "wouldn't shed a tear" for Mr. Martin if he failed to win the next election and that his advisers "can all go to hell." '
Quite right, but I didn't bring it up because I didn't want to dilute the issue here. But you are right that this myth that she was kicked out for stomping on Bush continues to go around. We need to kill it.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 10:02 AM (phwde)
10
I know several people in her riding. The scuttlebutt is that there's almost no way in Hell she'll ever get re-elected. That's likely why she'll continue to make ignorant statements; she knows her political career is done anyways.
Posted by: Paul Morrison at July 26, 2005 10:23 AM (MgMEZ)
11
Concluding paragraph of a letter just sent to Martin, Graham and Guarnieri:
'If you permit this truly ignorant embarrassment to the Parliament of Canada back into your caucus you will demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the tens of thousands of Canadians who died in the service of our great, democratic country--and for the Canadian Forces of today who will soon be facing combat again in Afghanistan.'
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 10:27 AM (zZJkX)
12
Ms Parrish graduated in 1969 from the University of Toronto, St. Michael's College and became a high school teacher (thanks for info link to Kate McMillan). So much for the value of that degree--as long ago as 1969. One wonders if today's graduates know which countries were on which side in WW I, WW II and Korea (or the Boer War).
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 11:09 AM (zZJkX)
13
How true, Sheila. Yes, the crime here is that most Canadians think the same way. It's just too distasteful to think that troops must know how to kill. Even in the system itself, training has been watered down by time and money constraints to the point where recruits at the end of it are asking "is that it???". I just left the pointy end of it for that reason, and fear the consequences of thinking like Sheila Copps.
Posted by: greenlantern at July 26, 2005 11:21 AM (RaxRo)
14
The Globe story was written by "Deep Throat" Jane Taber, who would never do anything to embarrass her anonymous Liberal sources. The Liberals would prefer the forgetful masses to remember Ms Parrish as anti-American rather than anti-Martin. Which is rather illuminating as to where they see the votes as being.
That should explain the economy of truth concerning why Ms Parrish was dropped from the party caucus.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 11:23 AM (zZJkX)
15
Indeed, Mark.
Of course, she's not selling any anti-Martin shirts on her website:
http://www.carolynparrish.parl.gc.ca/news/T-shirts.html
Posted by: Drained Brain at July 26, 2005 11:44 AM (VtmCE)
16
The Woman's gone mad. Just goes to show you the level of "respect" the left gives the brave men and women in uniform both past and present.
Posted by: The Arabian Knight at July 26, 2005 12:01 PM (Om90z)
17
Re Paul's post. They re-elected her just last year, when there was ample evidence of what kind of buffoon she is. So I'm afraid I don't have much faith in the "she won't get re-elected" theory.
Posted by: idd at July 26, 2005 12:33 PM (dUczW)
18
Angry - you said you were going to insult Ms Parrish, and then called her ignorant. I do not believe that "ignorant" is an insult - it is an observable, and correctible condition, although the effort required depends on the degree of ingnorance encountered. Based on Ms Parrish's record to date, we can see that she has a great deal of work to do to cure her ignorance, even if she is inclined to do so, which I doubt.
It may have been insulting to refer to Ms Parrish as stupid, since that is generally not a curable condition - but it, too, is an observable fact. Unfortunately, Ms Parrish is both stupid and ignorant, to the discredit of us all.
Dean
Posted by: Deaner at July 26, 2005 12:51 PM (NlY1X)
19
I called her "irredeemably ignorant" -- that's the insult. I don't think there is anything she could say or do that would make me change my mind about her. She's that far gone as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 12:54 PM (phwde)
20
Angry - ahh... distinction noted. You are correct: "irredeemably ignorant" is an insult. Unfortunately, it is probably a fair description of Ms Parrish's condition.
Not exactly "the best and the brightest" leading us here in the GWN, is it?
Dean
Posted by: Deaner at July 26, 2005 01:37 PM (NlY1X)
21
Drained Brain: Ms Parrish is a one-woman coalition of idiots.
From Ms Parrish's web site:
"Carolyn was elected Chair of the all-party Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association where she was instrumental in having Canada's Ottawa Convention ratified, banning anti-personnel landmines. After serving a two-year term as Vice Chair of the International NATO Executive, Carolyn resigned from the association, concerned that it was is becoming an extension of its dominant partners - the U.S. and Britain."
http://www.carolynparrish.parl.gc.ca/
Thank God: a Liberal who made a principled resignation.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 05:05 PM (zZJkX)
22
What is the great fear in calling this mouthy sack of cellulite what she is, a combination of Sharon Carstairs/Sheila Copps/Libby Davies. A bitch on wheels.
Not one frigging word spoken out of that cow's mouth that is not intended to incite hatred between regions of this country.
Nothing a good heart attack wouldn't cure.
Posted by: View from the West at July 26, 2005 07:28 PM (nThEG)
23
Moo. Gasp.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 10:28 PM (dXzLf)
24
Croak.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 10:29 PM (dXzLf)
25
I'm sorry if my comment offended anyone. As an American living in Canada, I've never forgiven her for her "damn Americans" comment.
Posted by: bear at July 27, 2005 01:26 AM (qn6c6)
26
My Letter to Carolyne - pass it on!
A cool link based in Canada www.donlowconcrete.com/Engineers
A cool link based in Canada www.donlowconcrete.com/EngineersPosted by: Floyd Low at July 28, 2005 03:27 PM (aPkwd)
27
My Letter to Carolyne - pass it on!
A cool link based in Canada www.donlowconcrete.com/Engineers
CLICK THE LINK TO READ THE LETTER
A cool link based in Canada www.donlowconcrete.com/Engineers
CLICK THE LINK TO READ THE LETTERPosted by: Floyd Low at July 28, 2005 03:27 PM (Ol+Ma)
28
C. Parrish, many of the Liberal regime, too many other Canadians; they have all drunk the Kool-Aid; swallowed it; they are committing suicide. Parrish, herself, is a casualty.
Bulldoze them off the road; road-kill they are. They have lost touch with reality! Onward with the fight against Islamist murderers.
>>>>>>>>>
"ShrinkWrapped said...
From its dim past Euripides once warned, "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad."
We can only lose this war if we surrender; we will surrender if we do not see anything of value to defend in our culture. We lose when fools fight to keep Military recruiters from our high school and college campuses. We lose when the forces of political correctness and multiculturism fog the minds of so many who can not recognize the enemy when he stabs them in the back.
PC & Multi-cult are forms of quasi-psychotic thinking that distort our ability to recognize and assess reality.
As an emample: AFter 7/7, the New York police instituted a program of random searches of subway passengers. There are now 20 complaints (as per NPR this morning) of ethnic profiling against the police, primarily from Hispanics who claim they were mistaken for Muslims. The good news is that Al Sharpton has anounced he will not sue the city...yet.
Cultures that lose touch with reality inevitably crumble."
http://www.rapp.org/url/?TEI7YDGB
Belmont Club
Posted by: maz2 at July 28, 2005 06:28 PM (ezurI)
<< Page 1 of 6 >>
393kb generated in CPU 0.0651, elapsed 0.1457 seconds.
112 queries taking 0.0963 seconds, 641 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
112 queries taking 0.0963 seconds, 641 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
