i'm getting fired up about the flag issue et al.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

still, are you not opposed to terror?

Sure - that's why I think the Sun should be sold in brown paper bags.

I'm only partly joking. So much in our own culture is calculated to keep us in a constant state of anxiety.

[bradm]

So much in our own culture is calculated to keep us in a constant state of anxiety.

But all of that serves a useful purpose: making sure all the businesses that produce anti-anxiety products remain profitable.

Aloha,

Brad

[guigsy]

nowhere did i say i was not opposed to terror.

yes, we should help when we can.

yes, i want to believe that the 'war on terror' carries the noblest of intentions - but a large part of me does not. to what degree that includes our involvement, i dont know. but i dont like this situation, and i dont trust the oversimplified reasons behind it.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

"The war on terror" is also a horrible mix of what Bertrand Russell called Logical Types - i.e. how can you wage war on an abstract concept or tactical approach to conflict? Of course, they can't call it a war on radical Islam, nor against any particular nation-state, nor anything else you can put a fine point on. What it does mean is that you grant yourself carte-blanche to mess around with other peoples while claiming for your voters at home that you're making the world safe from fear - whatever that means.

Fight tearism. Ironing is dead.

[Birdy]

i wonder who made the decision to lower in 2002.

[SmoothedShredder]

"The war on terror" is also a horrible mix of what Bertrand Russell called Logical Types - i.e. how can you wage war on an abstract concept or tactical approach to conflict?

Did someone say Russell? I was out all day... what did I miss?

[Biggest Fan]

Guigsy (I'm not trying to sound idiotic ) How much of a threat was Hitler to the USA during ... Was not our support of England a show of support against an ideal that if it had Its way would destroy our way of life.

While we cannot compare Bin Laden to Hitler, his fight is as much with the 'West' as it is with the USA (). The USA did not go into Afghanistan because the Taliban sucked, that just made it easier to explain. I do not fear the al qaida hear up on my quite hill in S/E Pennsylvania but I cannot argue against a full scale war against them. Ask the people of Egypt or Turkey and see if they want these people hanging around.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Guest

[d_rawk]

Pennsylvania! Wow, y'know, I intend to get there one of these days to kick around and check out the historical sights. William Penn is one of my heroes. Plus, you guys have got that whole Benjamin Franklin thing going on, too.

I'm not sure that I understand the rest of your post though. Someone (Phorbsie?) once told me that she couldn't understand my posts at all, but as far as cryptic writing goes, dude ... I think you take the prize

[guigsy]

biggest fan, even without going into hitler/bin laden comparisons, its this simple for me: i dont believe your men in charge are really after the person they would have you believe they are. thats all.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Ask the people of Egypt or Turkey and see if they want these people hanging around.

That's complicated; groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (and offshoots like Hamas) are very well established, and valued, in many places because they do a bang-up job taking care of community services where their (West-friendly, business-oriented) governments fail - medicine, education, housing, etc. Then what you get are vicious circles - their governments jail them, make martyrs of them, radicalise them, and turn them into even bigger heroes, which draws more fire on them, and so on. It's usually with little if any irony that presidents like Hosni Mubarak and Anwar Sadat are referred to as "pharaoh", that the slaves are to be freed from (iirc, Sadat's assassin yelled out "Death to the pharaoh!" as he shot him at point-blank range).

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I can't say I know my way around parliamentary debate, but that sounds convincing to me.

But does that mean that they can set all their own protocols, like, say, having all-night ragers on the floor of the Commons, if they get a majority vote on it?

[SmoothedShredder]

I can't wait to hear what the speaker says as his offical response. But into his second term, he may be quite pleased to support the government... I hope the Conservatives hold him to the original policy which guides the actions of those who control the grounds of parliament in situations like these, as well as some of the other services on Parliament hill, like how they mow the lawns, and what will be served for lunch in the West Block. In hind sight... I am also glad that the Conservatives in their roll of opposition, did NOT politicize the deaths of soilders in Afghanistan by arguing in parliament when the AD HOC changes the Liberals seem to of made un Creatien. To me it would suggest that in situations like these... the Conservative may acutally know what they are talking about when they say "respecting the families" and "respecting the military"... if it only means "respecting the laws and rules which bound us and have gotten us to this point". You know... the ones they're over their fighting for in the first place, the ones governments of the past have worked so hard to get written as laws or policy, and had the forsight to actually write them down so that futures governments would be bound to them, unless a change was made through debate in the house of commons... you know that thing Cretien never thought to do when he was running his empire.

This attack isn't so much about the actual flag... it's about the integrity and credibility of the party in power... The opposition in an attempt to tap into anti-conservative sentiment will take anything which falls into the grey area, latch on to it like pit bulls and not let go until either it's prey or it dies. if the conservatives move out of this period with the flag question remaining under the will of the government... the Conservatives will, as far as public opinion is concerned, gain in both area's of integrity and credibility. I know it may not sway too many round these parts... but this is the general casual public opinion which actually lead to a Conservative minority last time around, so you can't deny in general, there already hasn't been a significant switch towards the Conservatives to the election, and since then.

I think too if the speaker reverses the ruling and 'forces' parliament to lower the flag at half mast for every fallen soilder in every future operation, he will significantly alter the confidence in the house... if anyone vhelemently wants to force a position of no confidence in the house... you probably wouldn't like the resultant Conservative majority. Which is why I'm surprised to see the questions from the opposition seem so rabid, and how the calm demenor of the Prime Minister contrasts this... someones gotta start working PR with Graham... he's really off key. Not the battle I like seeing the opposition fighting on (if only for the integrity, and optics of their own integrity and what it means to have a strong voice of opposition in the House), especially when the protol seems so vague to begin with, and the unofficial change happened while the government was controled by what is now the offical opposition. At this point the look on Belinda Stronachs face in question period behind the spitting image of Mr. Graham says it all... "Shut Up already... this isn't help our cause."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't... and I'm not talking about the Conservatives for once. For the record... she did not applaude what her leader said.

ALI G! RESPECT.

[SmoothedShredder]

Why?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

FYI the flags are lowered today for the national Day or Mourning - out of respect of those killed while working.

Ah, I was wondering why the fire station down the road had theirs half-mast this morning; I was thinking in passing they may have been expressing some anti-federalism. Having lost an uncle who was a firefighter, though, I quite get it.

[SmoothedShredder]

Thanks for posting that article... within the link "Reality Check" on that page I found this passage most interesting:

The veterans' view

Woodfield's death, and the fact that government flags were not lowered in mourning, did not go unnoticed by some critics who suggested Ottawa seemed to be picking and choosing between the kinds of military death it would take official notice of.

But the fact is, veterans' groups were not happy when the Liberals first started lowering government flags to half-mast in 2002. Officials with both the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veteran Associations opposed the idea, arguing it was unfair to the memories of those who died in other wars and who were not accorded the same show of respect. Canada's war dead, they said, should all be honoured the same way and on the same date, Nov. 11, when the country pauses to remember.

Their objections, however, were largely overlooked in the huge outpouring of grief and national anger over the fact that the U.S. did not seem, initially at least, to be fully investigating the friendly fire deaths caused by one of their pilots.

Indeed, Prime Minister Chretien, the opposition leaders at the time and the country's top military brass all attended a special memorial service for the four friendly fire victims at CFB Trenton – something that is not usually done either. And this politicized aspect of their deaths and the flag-lowering rankled some even more.

Writing an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Peter Worthington, the feisty former editor of the Toronto Sun and a Korean war vet, suggested there was not only a political but "an almost pathologically antimilitary" subtext to the Liberal government's decision to lower the flag. It was reflective, he wrote, of a government that just didn't understand the true concept of military service.

[Birdy]

hmm.. makes me think the lowering in 2002 was a spite move on the part of the liberals.

i agree with the veterans.

[ollie]

Rick Mercer Blog

[color:purple]Why do you hate Canada?

[Hux]

Decima Poll

"When asked about Harper's decision to limit coverage of dead soldiers returning to Canada, 36% said it made them less likely to vote CPC, 18% liked the decision, and 36% said it had no impact"

Regardless of you how you stand on it, the political stupidity of Harper doing it is every time a Canadian soldier dies in Afghanistan the issue gets rehashed. Nice one rookies.

[SmoothedShredder]

What did the other 10% think? They probably think your statistics, and the interpretation of them are bogus.

[Hux]

Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message biatch.

[SmoothedShredder]

Sorry, can't explain the 10%?

[Hux]

It's verbatim from an article in the Montreal Gazette today, I don't have time to seek out Decima Research's detailed data, but um, most polls usually have a don't know/refuse to answer category - that likely explains it. They OBVIOUSLY wouldn't leave out a critical category, c'mon.

[SmoothedShredder]

got the link?

[Hux]

http://www.decima.com/en/

I have the article in hard copy only, I'm sure it's online - go nuts.

[SmoothedShredder]

You must of got an advanced copy... cause I've found nothing online at the Gazette online or the Pollsters own site. I'm glad they wouldn't actually publish something which only represents 90% of those polled with no account for the other 10%... But you say this was in the printed edition... could you type it out word for word for me?

Regardless... it appears the poll is actually saying that of that 90% data set that 18% liked the decision (i.e) make them more likely to vote Conservative... and 36% had no impact (which probably included a mix of conservatives who would still vote conservative, and non-conservatives who would still vote non-conservative. Since it's probably likely that hard core oppenents would take the strong response to make a point through the polls, I suspect there would be skewed results in the "make me less likely to vote conservative" category, which would be heavily represented by opposition, but I'm willing to listen to reasonalbe disagreements. Lets just say it would be made up of 40% Lib, 40% NDP, and 20% Small C Conservatives (I really don't know which way you want the small C number to go to 'favour' your slant on it... but I can see positives and negatives for each alternative...)

So lets say for arguments sake that 50 percent of those who say the PM's decision would not affect their vote voted conservative and the other 50% didn't and wouldn't. That leaves 18% accounting for Conservatives in the "did not affect"... add that to the likely to vote for and you get 36%...which of course is from a 90% data set... so it actually acounts for 40% in a 100% data set... pretty much seems to me to reflect the actual voting distribution, and this poll doesn't really reflect any changing of momentum in political leanings and I think you were trying to suggest/hoping and praying for... but keep looking through your liberal coloured glasses. Alan Rock would be proud.