Independent review of the Royal Canadian Mint's records shows accounting glitch is unlikely – so how did $19-million of the precious metal disappear?Somebody stole it.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Blog, blog against the dying of the light"
Independent review of the Royal Canadian Mint's records shows accounting glitch is unlikely – so how did $19-million of the precious metal disappear?Somebody stole it.
shine a nasty bright light on something they really don't want you to know - same mission; different description.
Ms. Mueller said the Crown rejects the view that it is legally required to protect Canadians under the Charter of Rights when they face charges outside of the country.God keep our land glorious and free.
“There is clearly no duty to protect citizens under international law,” Ms. Mueller told the court.
magine Iranian Islamic tv covering, say, a classic culture-war US election like Nixon in 1972. You’d see Persians in expensive turbans blanket-covering every demonstration, every love-in (well, maybe not those so much), every draft-card burning…and then the US government announces that Nixon just stomped McGovern in the biggest landslide ever. Who’d believe it? That is, unless you knew that for every loud camera-hog hippie you saw on tv there were about a hundred fat nobodies wishing Kent State was a daily event.
Until those Ahmedinajad silent-majority hicks start tweeting, we’ll never have a clue what they think. And like Nixon’s people, or Forrest’s dragoons, they’re not really the Twitter type.
Conservative politicians and their wingnut welfare queens are just a bunch of heartless, rich jackasses, basically, always have been. But people are no longer quite so sanguine that they're going to get the chance to be rich, spoiled jackasses too so these lines don't read quite as hilarious or as "common sense" as they used to. A public servant telling some 62 year old retail clerk that she needs to stop bellyaching and find a job with a big employer so she can get health care is so "let them eat cake" that I can hardly believe he said it. And some overpaid creep calling senior citizens who are living on a thousand dollars a month "spoiled" is just asking for the guillotine, which in America is a metaphor for a tax rate of 90% on any fatuous wingnut gasbag who has the nerve to say something like this after what they've done to this country.You know, what amazes me is this: the Republicans are searching high and low for an issue that will make them popular again with the American people. Its staring them in the face -- in the 2010 midterms, one party is going to be able to call themselves "the party that fixed American health care" and its not going to be the Republicans.
It continues to be difficult to be a pro-lifer in BC this week, thanks to Canada's Supreme Court . . .-- because not being allowed to harass women somehow makes life more difficult for the harassers!
The lawyers for the four officers involved in the Tasering were quick to say their clients deny the claim in the e-mail, saying it damages the reputation of the officers.Ian Mulgrew at the Vancouver Sun says:
These would be the same officers who laughably and unsuccessfully tried to get the B.C. Supreme Court to prevent Mr. Braidwood from issuing a finding of misconduct against them because they felt, as federal employees, they were beyond the reach of a provincial government to hold them accountable.
To drag Supt. Rideout, Chief Supt. Bent and his deputy McIntyre before the commission in September to explain the e-mail, and presumably the four officers again to contradict their boss's words, only adds to the circus this saga has become.
If only Canadians had an opportunity to drag the whole sorry lot of them before a tribunal to hold them accountable for the irreparable damage being caused to an iconic national institution.
If Roberts had cried over Dziekanski mother's pain, I would be moved -- but a veteran lawyer wet-eyed over another screw-up in this case? I think they were crocodile tears.Gary Mason at the Globe and Mail says:
Commissioner William Elliott's carefully parsed press release was equally unbelievable: "This was simply an oversight. Unfortunately in an exercise of this magnitude, such an oversight can occur."Bollocks. No one but a moron overlooks the import of an e-mail like this.
The officers deny the explosive content is true and Roberts says Bent was wrong in what he said. But their protestations ring hollow after almost 18 months of bluster and denial. So does Elliott's threadbare these-things-happen excuse.
The situation is as bad as the most virulent critics of the Mounties feared. This is no longer about four officers who made mistakes in judgment: It's about an organization that thinks it is above the law.
Lawyers representing the four officers said Friday that Chief Supt. Bent got it wrong. The officers insist no such conversation occurred.And a commenter to the CBC story compares what the RCMP are experiencing now to what the Canadian military experienced during the Somalia inquiry:
And we're supposed to believe them . . .
Supt. Rideout is also saying Chief Supt. Bent got it wrong.
And we're supposed to believe him. . . .
Chief Supt. Bent is now saying he doesn't remember the conversation with Supt. Rideout. I guess not. And I guess we're supposed to just accept that. Pretend it never happened. Something that Chief Supt. Bent made up, I guess. What a disgrace.. . .
I can only hope that Dziekanski represents the nadir of the fortunes of the RCMP. There seems to be little room to slide lower.
Along those lines, Andrew Sullivan -- who has been criticizing neoconservative dogma and the Post's allegiance to it for the role it played in Froomkin's firing -- is predictably being smeared as an "anti-semite" by the usual manipulators of that term. Andrew rightly notes that "these vile smears are designed to police the discourse some more," but it's so striking how nobody cares anymore about these smears because they've been so overused and are so transparently dumb (Andrew himself dismisses them as "tedious," and that's all they are).However, I think Greenwald has misinterpeted the basis of the "anti-Semitic" charge -- regardless of their personal religion, it is the core belief of neocons that Israel's continued existence can be ensured only by the belligerent warmongering and anti-Muslim bluster that typifies neoconservativism. Therefore, ipso facto, they believe that anyone who opposes this approach is endangering Israel.
Everyone knows what neocons are. Everyone knows that "neocons" are not tantamount to "Jews." Most Jews reject neoconservative ideology. Some of the leading and most scathing critics of neoconservatism are Jews. Many leading neocons -- Dick Cheney -- are not Jewish. Depicting criticisms of "neocons" as "anti-Semitism" is every bit as manipulative as applying that term to those who criticize Israel. Neoconservatism is a radical, deceitful and destructive ideology and nobody is going to be deterred from aggressively pointing that out because Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary and The Washington Post Editorial Page casually toss around the word "anti-Semite" in order to intimidate people out of that criticism. Those people and that tactic are far too discredited for that to work with anyone. It doesn't inspire fear -- only pity and contempt. That The Post is a leading house organ for neoconservative opinion is an important fact and screeching "anti-Semitism" at anyone who points it out will achieve nothing.
What the hell is wrong with these people, Mr. Speaker?