Blogger Tristero quotes author Scott Turow on why John Kerry will make a good president:
Scott Turow’s remarks on John Kerry and why he is the right person to be President:
(John Kerry) is running against a man who was not fit for duty in 1968 and is not fit for duty today, a man who lacked the qualifications for the office when he was elected and has demonstrated it. We have been through a skein of national disasters, for which he accepts no blame, because he literally doesn’t understand enough about the job to realize how a better President would have responded. John Kerry has been in public life for 35 years. He was a prosecutor when GWB was running an oil company into the ground. And he was already a seasoned United States Senator when GWB decided it was time to give up abusing substances. JK has a sharper grasp of foreign policy, and more experience with it, than any candidate for President in the last 50 years, with the possible exception of GHWB (see today’s NYT). His dedication to the cause of our military and veterans is long established. And his commitment to economic and social justice for all Americans cannot be doubted. A man can’t be the committed liberal Bush sometimes maintains Kerry is, and also the unprincipled waffler. Life and public service are complicated, as GWB doesn’t understand. JK does. He has a sense of nuance, and the experience and values to improve the life of the country.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Whiskey Bar: What's In a Name?
Whiskey Bar: What's In a Name?
Billmon summarizes the issues very well. When Jon Stewart interviewed Stephen Hayes on The Daily Show last night, Hayes approached it as the usual book puffery interview, chuckling along with Stewart's jokes, and defending his book as just another piece of journalism. Then Stewart got serious on him, told him that preemptive war, if it was to be justified as a US doctrine, simply had to achieve a higher standard of truth than the mighta-coulda-shoulda chain of circumstantial rumours and mythical stories of which the assertions of an Iraq connection to 9/11 presently consist. It was a terrific interview.
Billmon summarizes the issues very well. When Jon Stewart interviewed Stephen Hayes on The Daily Show last night, Hayes approached it as the usual book puffery interview, chuckling along with Stewart's jokes, and defending his book as just another piece of journalism. Then Stewart got serious on him, told him that preemptive war, if it was to be justified as a US doctrine, simply had to achieve a higher standard of truth than the mighta-coulda-shoulda chain of circumstantial rumours and mythical stories of which the assertions of an Iraq connection to 9/11 presently consist. It was a terrific interview.
"White House Disavows Interrogation Memo" but does it anyway?
This is an odd story -- the Associated Press story is titled White House Disavows Interrogation Memo but then the story lead sentence states "President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday." So what, exactly, did the White House disavow? Just the memo? But the torture itself is still OK?
Maybe the AP headline writers were scared of more Dick Cheney nitpicking criticism after he raked the New York Times headline writers over the coals on the weekend..
UPDATE -- so, when I clicked back to the story, the headline had changed. It now reads, accurately, "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws". Quick work, AP.
Maybe the AP headline writers were scared of more Dick Cheney nitpicking criticism after he raked the New York Times headline writers over the coals on the weekend..
UPDATE -- so, when I clicked back to the story, the headline had changed. It now reads, accurately, "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws". Quick work, AP.
Monday, June 21, 2004
A disappointing report
Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform
Apparently the FSIN isn't happy with the Commission's final report. Now, I don't know what the FSIN will say -- they're having a press conference tomorrow -- but in skimming through the report, I think there are two main flaws. From the FSIN perspective, the report doesn't acknowedge First Nations governments and their role in the justice system. From my own perspective, the report only reluctantly acknowledges that the problems have been caused primarily by racism.
For example, here is the section of the FSIN brief to the Commission which lays out simply and eloquently the present situation for most Aboriginal peope:
The everyday life of a First Nations person involves accepting the fact that he\she will eventually have contact with police. Those individuals on the street such as addicted people and youth have a greater chance of negative police contact because they are lower on the socio-economic scale and thus more vulnerable. This reality impedes First Nations people from attaining their goals in life. Put simply, it is a crime to be First Nation. Many First Nations people, particularly those who are socially marginalized, have had to deal with clashes with police. Although there have been inquests and analyses of the deaths of two men on the outskirts of Saskatoon in 2000, many First Nations people believe the truth has not come to light. It is difficult to be confident in a system that does not use transparent and accountable procedures through its own policies and practices. It has been cited in many documents, that police hide behind the “Blue Wall”, primarily in investigating alleged misconduct of each other. This practice severely hinders the chance of uncovering any wrongdoing by officers, which cumulatively erodes any existing confidence in the current accountability mechanisms. The fact that the police force is so untouchable leads to a multitude of problems for the overall structure and daily operating rocedures designed to ensure safety within First Nations communities.
In response, the Committee report comes across as patronizing, denying responsibility. For example, there is this:
The justice conditions faced by First Nations and Metis people in Saskatchewan today are both a crisis and a tragedy. Yet, no amount of intervention, however well intentioned, will return First Nations and Metis people to the well-being they once enjoyed. What external forces cannot bring about, however, First Nations and Metis people can achieve for themselves. Developing First Nations and Metis leadership is essential in bringing about the major improvements that are required.
And the reports's recommendations are namby-pamby. No targets, no performance measures, no management expectations, just blather like this one: Recommendation 6.32: This Commission recommends that the options of alternative measures, bail, probation and conditional sentences be employed instead of the use of remand and incarceration wherever possible.
After a lengthy discussion of police violence against Aboriginal people, the Commission can come up with only two recommendations:
Recommendation 5.9
5.9.1 This Commission recommends the increased use of video recording equipment by RCMP and municipal police services.
5.9.2 This Commission recommends that an Aboriginal liaison worker or volunteer individual be available for First Nations and Metis people upon their arrival at a police station or detachment office.
Note that rather than being the responsibility of police management, the prevention of racist violence in police stations is somehow the responsibility of Aboriginal people, volunteers even, who will have to hang around police stations 24/7 - yeah, who wouldn't want to do that?
Then, at the end of this section, which should be the strongest section of their report, the Commission appears to say that "vision", rather than good management and good policy, will be enough to turn the tide:
Many individuals, organizations and government leaders have said that this Commission was created in response to the actions of police officers in Saskatoon. The Commission acknowledges this fact. The Commission also acknowledges that in order to transform the justice system a new vision must be put into place in Saskatchewan, not singling out police, but including them. The focus of this vision must be on justice as a means of providing healing, compensation and understanding, instead of the traditional goals based on punishment and retribution. In this way, a focus on returning justice to the community will benefit all citizens of Saskatchewan, including First Nations and Metis people.
Sorry, folks, but the police have to be singled out -- they've been the problem and there is no way around that.
Apparently the FSIN isn't happy with the Commission's final report. Now, I don't know what the FSIN will say -- they're having a press conference tomorrow -- but in skimming through the report, I think there are two main flaws. From the FSIN perspective, the report doesn't acknowedge First Nations governments and their role in the justice system. From my own perspective, the report only reluctantly acknowledges that the problems have been caused primarily by racism.
For example, here is the section of the FSIN brief to the Commission which lays out simply and eloquently the present situation for most Aboriginal peope:
The everyday life of a First Nations person involves accepting the fact that he\she will eventually have contact with police. Those individuals on the street such as addicted people and youth have a greater chance of negative police contact because they are lower on the socio-economic scale and thus more vulnerable. This reality impedes First Nations people from attaining their goals in life. Put simply, it is a crime to be First Nation. Many First Nations people, particularly those who are socially marginalized, have had to deal with clashes with police. Although there have been inquests and analyses of the deaths of two men on the outskirts of Saskatoon in 2000, many First Nations people believe the truth has not come to light. It is difficult to be confident in a system that does not use transparent and accountable procedures through its own policies and practices. It has been cited in many documents, that police hide behind the “Blue Wall”, primarily in investigating alleged misconduct of each other. This practice severely hinders the chance of uncovering any wrongdoing by officers, which cumulatively erodes any existing confidence in the current accountability mechanisms. The fact that the police force is so untouchable leads to a multitude of problems for the overall structure and daily operating rocedures designed to ensure safety within First Nations communities.
In response, the Committee report comes across as patronizing, denying responsibility. For example, there is this:
The justice conditions faced by First Nations and Metis people in Saskatchewan today are both a crisis and a tragedy. Yet, no amount of intervention, however well intentioned, will return First Nations and Metis people to the well-being they once enjoyed. What external forces cannot bring about, however, First Nations and Metis people can achieve for themselves. Developing First Nations and Metis leadership is essential in bringing about the major improvements that are required.
And the reports's recommendations are namby-pamby. No targets, no performance measures, no management expectations, just blather like this one: Recommendation 6.32: This Commission recommends that the options of alternative measures, bail, probation and conditional sentences be employed instead of the use of remand and incarceration wherever possible.
After a lengthy discussion of police violence against Aboriginal people, the Commission can come up with only two recommendations:
Recommendation 5.9
5.9.1 This Commission recommends the increased use of video recording equipment by RCMP and municipal police services.
5.9.2 This Commission recommends that an Aboriginal liaison worker or volunteer individual be available for First Nations and Metis people upon their arrival at a police station or detachment office.
Note that rather than being the responsibility of police management, the prevention of racist violence in police stations is somehow the responsibility of Aboriginal people, volunteers even, who will have to hang around police stations 24/7 - yeah, who wouldn't want to do that?
Then, at the end of this section, which should be the strongest section of their report, the Commission appears to say that "vision", rather than good management and good policy, will be enough to turn the tide:
Many individuals, organizations and government leaders have said that this Commission was created in response to the actions of police officers in Saskatoon. The Commission acknowledges this fact. The Commission also acknowledges that in order to transform the justice system a new vision must be put into place in Saskatchewan, not singling out police, but including them. The focus of this vision must be on justice as a means of providing healing, compensation and understanding, instead of the traditional goals based on punishment and retribution. In this way, a focus on returning justice to the community will benefit all citizens of Saskatchewan, including First Nations and Metis people.
Sorry, folks, but the police have to be singled out -- they've been the problem and there is no way around that.
Is anyone surprised?
U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantanamo Detainees
This is not surprising in the least. In future histories of the 21st century, Gitmo will be considered to exemplify the depths to which the US could sink, even more than Abu Gharib, because this was created as a deliberate US policy. How can Bush keep praising Rumsfeld for his so-called leadership when this mess is what his Pentagon created.
In particular, note the descriptions of how the US army handled Gitmo for the first year -- what a bunch of Keystone Kops. Then, deciding to "blame the victim" for their own failures, they started systematic torture. Now, they're too embarassed and ashamed to just send everyone home.
Its shameful.
This is not surprising in the least. In future histories of the 21st century, Gitmo will be considered to exemplify the depths to which the US could sink, even more than Abu Gharib, because this was created as a deliberate US policy. How can Bush keep praising Rumsfeld for his so-called leadership when this mess is what his Pentagon created.
In particular, note the descriptions of how the US army handled Gitmo for the first year -- what a bunch of Keystone Kops. Then, deciding to "blame the victim" for their own failures, they started systematic torture. Now, they're too embarassed and ashamed to just send everyone home.
Its shameful.
Will there be another shot heard round the world?
PLAN B
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
This is a major, major story -- Hersch tracks the confusing web of alliance and betrayal between Israel, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, Iraq, and Iran with the United States caught in the middle. The rickety structure of Middle East allegiances is really nothing more than a scatter of pick-up-sticks, piled high and dry, waiting for the spark.
And it reminded me how the First World War began -- which, by the way, started 90 years ago this summer. Lord help us!
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
This is a major, major story -- Hersch tracks the confusing web of alliance and betrayal between Israel, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, Iraq, and Iran with the United States caught in the middle. The rickety structure of Middle East allegiances is really nothing more than a scatter of pick-up-sticks, piled high and dry, waiting for the spark.
And it reminded me how the First World War began -- which, by the way, started 90 years ago this summer. Lord help us!
Saturday, June 19, 2004
That loud crashing sound . . .
. . . you just heard is the Conservative campaign tripping on its own hubris Winnipeg Sun: NEWS - 'Porn' barb leaves bad taste
So on Wednesday, mesmerized by polls saying that he had "won" the debate, Harper muses about what he will do when he is king (and I doubt the world will sing.)
People started to think, who does this guy think he is? Then on Thursday, people started to find out.
The Conservative premier that Ontario loves to hate, Ralph Klein, announces he is going to trash the Canada Health Act the day after the election -- and Harper didn't seem to care, confirming his remarks during the debate that he wasn't concerned about whether health care was delivered privately or not -- which is, of course, the very core of Medicare, and shows his contempt for its basic principles.
Then the Liberals start running their most effective attack ads, likening Harper's spending plans to Mulroney and to Mike Harris, who likely come second and third as the men Ontario loves to hate. This not only echoed Martin's show-me-the-money attack during the debate, it also capitalizes on Martin's own greatest strength, his success in reducing the deficit.
Then Friday, the two "bizarre and ugly" press releases, one against Martin and the other against the NDP, saying they favour child ponography, a ridiculous slander straight out of the old Reform playbook and an offensive attempt to find a cheap political advantage in the Holly Jones tragedy.
Stay tuned
So on Wednesday, mesmerized by polls saying that he had "won" the debate, Harper muses about what he will do when he is king (and I doubt the world will sing.)
People started to think, who does this guy think he is? Then on Thursday, people started to find out.
The Conservative premier that Ontario loves to hate, Ralph Klein, announces he is going to trash the Canada Health Act the day after the election -- and Harper didn't seem to care, confirming his remarks during the debate that he wasn't concerned about whether health care was delivered privately or not -- which is, of course, the very core of Medicare, and shows his contempt for its basic principles.
Then the Liberals start running their most effective attack ads, likening Harper's spending plans to Mulroney and to Mike Harris, who likely come second and third as the men Ontario loves to hate. This not only echoed Martin's show-me-the-money attack during the debate, it also capitalizes on Martin's own greatest strength, his success in reducing the deficit.
Then Friday, the two "bizarre and ugly" press releases, one against Martin and the other against the NDP, saying they favour child ponography, a ridiculous slander straight out of the old Reform playbook and an offensive attempt to find a cheap political advantage in the Holly Jones tragedy.
Stay tuned
Penguin Papers nails it
Penguin Paper's take on the Putin story -- Penguin Papers: Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam
I knew there was something wrong with this story when I read it, but I hadn't reasoned it out. Penguin does, and nails all of the stupidities in it:
Let me get this straight, after 9/11 when even the FRENCH declared that "we are all Americans" the Russians had info on a Saddam attack on the US and they still opposed an Iraq invasion? Surely if it was known that an attack was imminent on the US, then the UN wouldn't have to be involved because this would have then become a NATO issue (attack on one, is an attack on all… even it is only planned) . . . And leading up to the war, the US cited sources from the UK, Africa, Prague, Chalabi, some UK PhD student's thesis off of the web, and yet they somehow forgot to mention that, oh yeah, the Russians have given us concrete proof of an up-coming Saddam attack . . . If there was an attack plan, then all the other reasons for the war would have been moot. They were going to attack us, so we attacked them. Who cares about WMD and so on, this would have been self-defense. And the day after the 9/11 commission comes out saying there is no proof that ties Saddam to bin Laden, the Russians come out with this little nugget of information. Besides, what was Saddam going to attack with? Imaginary WMD? His oh-so-powerful Republican Guard who went more AWOL that Bush during the Vietnam era. Maybe they were going to get the Iraq Information minister to hurl insults at American targets and interests? This story just boggles my mind. How fantastically stupid do they reckon we are? So Putin, what it Bush giving you for this little PR boost? A nice share of Iraq oil perhaps?
Great stuff, Penguin.
I knew there was something wrong with this story when I read it, but I hadn't reasoned it out. Penguin does, and nails all of the stupidities in it:
Let me get this straight, after 9/11 when even the FRENCH declared that "we are all Americans" the Russians had info on a Saddam attack on the US and they still opposed an Iraq invasion? Surely if it was known that an attack was imminent on the US, then the UN wouldn't have to be involved because this would have then become a NATO issue (attack on one, is an attack on all… even it is only planned) . . . And leading up to the war, the US cited sources from the UK, Africa, Prague, Chalabi, some UK PhD student's thesis off of the web, and yet they somehow forgot to mention that, oh yeah, the Russians have given us concrete proof of an up-coming Saddam attack . . . If there was an attack plan, then all the other reasons for the war would have been moot. They were going to attack us, so we attacked them. Who cares about WMD and so on, this would have been self-defense. And the day after the 9/11 commission comes out saying there is no proof that ties Saddam to bin Laden, the Russians come out with this little nugget of information. Besides, what was Saddam going to attack with? Imaginary WMD? His oh-so-powerful Republican Guard who went more AWOL that Bush during the Vietnam era. Maybe they were going to get the Iraq Information minister to hurl insults at American targets and interests? This story just boggles my mind. How fantastically stupid do they reckon we are? So Putin, what it Bush giving you for this little PR boost? A nice share of Iraq oil perhaps?
Great stuff, Penguin.
Happy father's day, Mary
When I first read this headline -- Websites accuse U.S. vice-president's lesbian daughter of hypocrisy -- I thought it wasn't fair for gay activists to expect a daughter to publicly oppose her father's beliefs. However, reading the story, it notes that Mary Cheney is a director in the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign organization. So I think that does make her fair game.
She is gay, yet she is working to help reelect the administration which wants to make her a second-class citizen. Either she is profoundly conficted about her own sexual orientation, which I don't think is the case, or she is profoundly cynical that the gay-banning amemdment is just a meaninless political gesture pandering to the religious right, an attitude which certainly disrespects the US constitution. Either way, I wonder what she and her dad will talk about this father's day.
She is gay, yet she is working to help reelect the administration which wants to make her a second-class citizen. Either she is profoundly conficted about her own sexual orientation, which I don't think is the case, or she is profoundly cynical that the gay-banning amemdment is just a meaninless political gesture pandering to the religious right, an attitude which certainly disrespects the US constitution. Either way, I wonder what she and her dad will talk about this father's day.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Local election news, at last!
Two local election stories in today's Star-Phoenix -- Tories commit to south downtown and Pankiw has worst attendance record
I got a chuckle out of them both, for different reasons.
First, the local conservative candidates may be "committed" to the south downtown, but that will mean diddly-squat in Ottawa if Harper cancels the program and they both know it, I think. Skelton says "I'd take (the request) to the leader, say, 'Look, we need this. Our city depends on it,' " while Yelich says "If it was something the city was definitely counting on, I'd definitely try to make sure they got their funding. It would be only fair . . . How can you make a promise? What I will promise is to do what I can, if this is in fact money that they are depending upon getting. Of course, I would work very, very hard." Well, I doubt that Atchinson can take that to the bank. As Goodale is quoted as saying "If the program's not available, the money's not available. "
Second, the Pankiw story about his abysmal attendance record in the commons. I'll bet it didn't help his attendance record when he was kicked out of the Conservative caucus either. I heard one of his radio ads today that said "polls show" he has 43 per cent of the vote in his riding. Well, that's about the percentage of the vote he got in the 2000 election so I suppose technically he could say that is true.
But as my brother notes, who lives in that riding, he has not seen ANY Pankiw signs in front of anyone's home, though they are sprinkled in the ditches. So hopefully that means something.
I got a chuckle out of them both, for different reasons.
First, the local conservative candidates may be "committed" to the south downtown, but that will mean diddly-squat in Ottawa if Harper cancels the program and they both know it, I think. Skelton says "I'd take (the request) to the leader, say, 'Look, we need this. Our city depends on it,' " while Yelich says "If it was something the city was definitely counting on, I'd definitely try to make sure they got their funding. It would be only fair . . . How can you make a promise? What I will promise is to do what I can, if this is in fact money that they are depending upon getting. Of course, I would work very, very hard." Well, I doubt that Atchinson can take that to the bank. As Goodale is quoted as saying "If the program's not available, the money's not available. "
Second, the Pankiw story about his abysmal attendance record in the commons. I'll bet it didn't help his attendance record when he was kicked out of the Conservative caucus either. I heard one of his radio ads today that said "polls show" he has 43 per cent of the vote in his riding. Well, that's about the percentage of the vote he got in the 2000 election so I suppose technically he could say that is true.
But as my brother notes, who lives in that riding, he has not seen ANY Pankiw signs in front of anyone's home, though they are sprinkled in the ditches. So hopefully that means something.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Shorter Thomas Friedman
Maids vs. Occupiers "America doesn't have to worry that the Middle East now hates everything it stands for. Islam will surely buy into the American vision of becoming a consumer society as soon as they realize how much money their children can make."
Thanks to Penguin for the link.
Thanks to Busy Busy Busy for the "shorter" concept.
Thanks to Penguin for the link.
Thanks to Busy Busy Busy for the "shorter" concept.
Too many broomsticks
Rumsfeld admits secret detention of suspect in Iraq Either Bush fires this man, or he is, in effect, saying that making people "disappear" is OK with him.
How many other people have been disappeared this way? Didn't America used to condemn governments who acted like this?
But it does bring to mind the image of Mickey Mouse as the magician's apprentice -- America watching in despair as Rumsfeld and the Pentagon shatter more and more broomsticks in Iraq, each one springing to life again to march against the American occupation, resulting in more and more bombings and attacks, drowning competely the neocon dream of a pro-US democracy.
And meanwhile the broomsticks are multiplying at home too, with Bush and Cheney clinging vainly to the one shred of justification they have left for this mess, the belief they instilled in 60 per cent of Americans that Saddam had something to do with 9.11. As the New York Times says:
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide . . . the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11 . . . the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. . . . There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.
Sometimes there are just too many broomsticks broken.
How many other people have been disappeared this way? Didn't America used to condemn governments who acted like this?
But it does bring to mind the image of Mickey Mouse as the magician's apprentice -- America watching in despair as Rumsfeld and the Pentagon shatter more and more broomsticks in Iraq, each one springing to life again to march against the American occupation, resulting in more and more bombings and attacks, drowning competely the neocon dream of a pro-US democracy.
And meanwhile the broomsticks are multiplying at home too, with Bush and Cheney clinging vainly to the one shred of justification they have left for this mess, the belief they instilled in 60 per cent of Americans that Saddam had something to do with 9.11. As the New York Times says:
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide . . . the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11 . . . the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. . . . There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.
Sometimes there are just too many broomsticks broken.
Sask beer babble
Well, I was interviewed by a Leader-Post reporter today, and I learned something.
I was complaining to him about how difficult it is to get any sense of how the election campaign is going in Saskatchewan -- due to the almost-complete lack of stories in our newspapers about any of our local candidates or any of our ridings - no polls, no discussions, nada. Maybe there is more on the radio, but I cannot listen during the day.
Anyway, the reporter referred me to the "babble" section with election discussions on the Rabble site where there are some interesting analysis and seat projection discussions going on -- for the first time, I got a sense of where people think this election might be going. Also, check out the Saskatchewan/Alberta/Manitoba discussion (follow the link at the bottom of the general discussion page.)
One of the most active Saskatchewan discussions concerned a recent increase in the price of beer! Now, there's an issue we can all get behind, big time. Forget health care and the elected Senate -- let's talk about something that really matters!
I was complaining to him about how difficult it is to get any sense of how the election campaign is going in Saskatchewan -- due to the almost-complete lack of stories in our newspapers about any of our local candidates or any of our ridings - no polls, no discussions, nada. Maybe there is more on the radio, but I cannot listen during the day.
Anyway, the reporter referred me to the "babble" section with election discussions on the Rabble site where there are some interesting analysis and seat projection discussions going on -- for the first time, I got a sense of where people think this election might be going. Also, check out the Saskatchewan/Alberta/Manitoba discussion (follow the link at the bottom of the general discussion page.)
One of the most active Saskatchewan discussions concerned a recent increase in the price of beer! Now, there's an issue we can all get behind, big time. Forget health care and the elected Senate -- let's talk about something that really matters!
Incomprehensible, but irrelevant
Here's an odd little story -- How are the papers covering the campaign? -- it seems to combine incomprehensibility with irrelevance. It seems to be about some kind of measure of newspaper coverage just after the debates, measured on some sort of scale. But it isn't very clear what any of this means.
Can anyone explain it?
Can anyone explain it?
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Women's petition against Harper
See it at Women's petition denouncing Harper and sign it by emailing jillianskeet@telus.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)