“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure
about the former.” — Albert Einstein
One hopes that one of these days the Canadian media are going to smarten up and start headlining these stories with Carolyn Parrish Furiously Seeking Attention.
(Sure, I just did the same. However, I figure that she’s likely to hang around in the news for a few days, so it’s worthwhile to provide a Parrish bashing comments thread to corral the inevitable discussion.)
As Peter Loewen says, “Parrish is a symptom, not the problem.”
There are many symptoms. The estimable Michelle Malkin has just revealed another one on her website: http://www.michellemalkin.com
As she puts it, “Death row inmate Scott Peterson, convicted of murdering his wife and unborn son, has sent a message to his groupies at the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty. You’ll love this part of the website:
COMING SOON: Family photos; holidays
Sick.”
See for yourself through Ms. Malkin’s site or directly at
http://www.ccadp.org/scottpeterson.htm
They even suggest you “send Scott messages of support” and kindly provide his mailing address at San Quentin.
As Canadians, their efforts might have been better directed against Iran regarding the death of Zahra Kazemi, but the U.S. makes such a convenient target, doesn’t it?
How short are memories in this country?
Fairly. While Parrish could use some lessons in diplomacy, that doesn’t automatically make her wrong about everything. “”The first time Canadian soldiers come back in body bags, you just wait for the outcry,” said Ms. Parrish” — and I don’t much doubt it. The four Canadian soldiers killed a few years back by US military error? That wasn’t a minor event that didn’t affect anybody’s opinion.
When are our saviour Libs going to allow Sharia law into this country so that all women can be properly put in thier places??
Given the dribbles of minor misogyny in this thread, I don’t know that we need it. And we need not worry about it going away; Iraq’s new leaders are quite happy to keep it around as official policy.
There is no latent anti-Americanism in Canadians really. It is simply a case of the uninformed bashing the neighbour they do not actually know.
It seems a fair number of people here have lived in the States for a period, myself included, and how Canadians could avoid hearing about the US, I don’t know… I don’t dislike Americans personally, but remain uneasy over Bush’s isolationist foreign policy; Canadians are, nowadays, still pretty polite when it comes to anti-Americanism — it’s definitely not a trait exclusive to the Great White North.
Speaking of, having an interest in matters northern, the Hans Island issue is of significant military interest as well. Historically, Canada has done a decent job vis-a-vis diplomacy with other countries in the north whether they’re putting flags down or not (see esp. Sverdrup Islands) (and I am excluding ‘First Nations’ for our record of ‘diplomacy’ here) — with the notable exception of the US, which doesn’t recognise Canadian sovereignity in the circumpolar regions. The US has more than a few holes in its pretensions to being our friend and partner in issues of defence.
Remember Bush breaking with tradition and not officially meeting our PM first? Or his major address just after 11 September, in which he thanked all manner of countries; South Korea, etc, while forgetting Canada? (Raise your hand if it puzzles you as to why David Frum lives in exile, or if you’ve forgotten his public nastiness here after his mother died…)
Lest I infer bias, American citizens did a bang-up job of thanking the little towns that took in all the passengers on the detoured flights, and then some.
(Also note that Parrish later apologised for and amended the “bastards” comment, saying it was directed at the administration, not Americans in general.)
At some point Canadians probably will have to decide, for reasons of economic self interest if nothing else, whether to allow those who carry the latent “anti-Americanism” that has long been part of the Canadian identity to its extreme to speak for the country in discourse with the bastards to the South.
I think people involved in lumber and cattle industries have already largely decided the extent of their patience and politeness when it comes to economic interests cross-border. Among others.
Terrorism has demanded that the free world put aside all the old psychodrama and grow up.
I’d argue that it’s revived ‘old psychodrama.’ A lot of current news articles read as though somebody grabbed an old one, and just changed “Cold War” to “War on Terror,” and “Communism” to “Terrorism.”
Sending people off to kill and be killed in Afghanistan (or Iraq, or…) isn’t likely to discourage people from wanting to blow themselves up on public transportation. The London response of “No, not bothered; will continue with normal life” might well do the job, though. It’s no use risking Canadian lives in any function that might embitter yet more pseudo-religious lunatics when the enemy is living quietly in Leeds or similar.
Give it a few years, and things will die down. Anyone arguing that Parrish is such a vulgar loudmouth that she should be ignored, etc, etc, should be able to see at least a tangenital connexion between that view of Parrish, and the London ‘we’re not scared.’ Both can make unpopular loud noises for a finite period of time before realising they’re wasting their lives.
Her policy of *Liberano avoidance* would make it easier for Al-Qaida boom – boys. She would
make it more likely that poppings would happen here.
Quite the contrary. For one, she’s not avoiding things: if I have truck with her, it’s primarily for paying too much mind, loudly and publicly, to, er, the quandary of dealing with “boom – boys.” Canada’s enviable record of peace has a lot to do with being quiet (or simply ignored even if not quiet). There’s a lot to be said for not making, let alone going looking for, enemies.
The “fifth on the list!” business also deserves little attention. If the jihadists’ wont is to frighten and intimidate, why indulge them?
As President Bush said shortly after September 11, 2001, the war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is not a war the U.S. sought. In accepting this sombre challenge, however, the United States has shown clarity in setting its goals and patience and resolve in achieving them.
Oh, dear. There wasn’t a threat of WMDs, as discovered by too many egg-faced politicians world-wide to list; the US set goals under error, has had trouble admitting to same, and shown clarity in changing its purported goals when convenient. Saddam did not blow up the WTC. Installing democracy is a nice idea, but if that’s a necessary military commitment for all democratic countries, there are a lot more places than Iraq and Afghanistan in need of help.
For all the claims that Reagan ended the Cold War, there are many more that point to his exacerbating it. Which wasn’t a helping hand to people behind the ‘Iron Curtain,’ given communism’s rather natural death. Untenable political regimes do die out on their own; it was not that long ago at all that Afghanistan was relatively modern/westernised, and people were paying attention to the problem of the Taliban well before Bush noticed it. Troubled/troublesome regimes are often correctly frightened by the internet and other global media; some aspects of ‘globalisation’ make it awfully hard to hide, and substantially easier for internally-driven change. Problems stemming from half-wit interpretations of the Koran and similar will eventually go the way of communism; in the meantime, we might consider opening the borders to (yes, yes; carefully screened) refugees.
Parrish is a rabid pro-hamas anti-Israeli activist.
Pick up a copy of Joe Sacco’s “Palestine,” and, well, let’s pick up more refugees…
I understand her riding contains a huge number of recent immigrants. By extrapolation, one may surmise that recent immigtants share her feelings. If this is so we should all be very afraid for our future as a nation. It would appear that the people coming here today are not made of the same stuff as the people who built this nation.
This is so low it shouldn’t be dignified with a response, but perhaps one part of it has a bit of truth: statistically, immigrants to Canada make more money than Canadians born in Canada — not, for many ethnicities, anywhere near the case in 1867.
DrainedBrain, You misread my comment. Check and correct and then we’ll debate.
In the mean time, accept that the majority of Canadians do not hate Americans.
Parrish is doing real damage to the Liberal Party. She is tolerated because Martin is holding on to power with white knuckles. She will fade before long.
Greg [outsideDallas], more good points from a sage. Parrish’s U.S. bashing at this juncture does make her a traitor to free – world security.
Tony, no room for debate here. Your comments and humour are good reading.
This graffiti on the back of Safeway store.
*God is Coming* [and he’s bringing doughnuts].
73s TG
TonyGuitar….is that like BillyViolin??..no insult intended…just trying to make sense of all these posts.Have we lost all rationality here? Ms Parrish is,and will remain,a piece of crap in the real world.Lets throw the PC language out and speak the truth,she is a traitor,a commie slut,and I defy any Liberal asshole to come and refute that.But guess what,Liberal asshole,you can’t and won’t.Piece of crud!
As to previous post..am I pissed off?You bet.We are allowing this country to be destroyed,and nobody stands up for it.My tongue-in-cheek comment about Sharia Law was only picked up by one commenter.Pathetic!
Random Bytowner: The US does recognize Canadian land sovereignty in the North. What they do not recognize is our soveignty over the sea passages. Many other countries take the same view.
It is not really an issue now with the ice pack, but if the ice does indeed recede and the passages become practically navigable, the issue will likely go to diplomatic negotiation and/or international judicial arbitration. Which we well might lose–the various sea passages in the Indonesian archipelago would be a relevant precedent and are considered international waters.
It is difficult to see countries with major merchant shipping interests–Japan, Greece, Germany, China, Norway, US, Hong Kong, UK, South Korea, Taiwan–having much interest in supporting Canada’s claim of internal waters.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark Collins: I heard the Rutherford show with Parrish on it yesterday. Once again, I heard her say, “I was our representative for NATO for 7 years.”
If the woman wasn’t a representative to NATO, why does she keep telling the country she was? Or if she was, why are you telling me she was not?
The sad fact is, she does speak for a lot of Canadians.
Peter Loewen said:
“We may have been a strong military nation once. We no longer are. And Parrish is a symptom, not the problem.”
I see. This is your contention. Okay. Parrish is a symptom, not the problem.
But can you enlighten us as to what you believe to be the problem? This inquiring mind wishes to know.
http://canadafreepress.com/2005/media072805.htm
http://www.newsbeat1.com/
It is reassuring to know that Canadian bloggers are performing the same function as their American counterparts. On July 26, The Globe and Mail ran an article by Jane Taber about the latest idiotic rant of MP Carolyn Parrish. Taber described as Parrish as having been “kicked out of [the Liberal] caucus for her anti-American statements.”
Of course the Liberal Party and their cheerleaders at The Globe would love Canadians to believe that Parrish was booted from the party because of her anti-Americanism. The only problem with Taber�s description of Parrish�s exit from the party is that it simply wasn�t true.
On the same day that the Taber piece appeared, Kate, of Small Dead Animals (www.smalldeadanimals.com) pointed out that the real reason why Parrish and the Liberals parted ways. Parrish was only dumped from the caucus after she said that she wouldn�t shed a tear if Paul Martin lost the next election and then proceeded to say that Martin�s advisors could all go to hell.
Small Dead Animals, which referred to Taber�s article for what it was; “revisionist history”, also provided a link to an article in a November 2004 edition of The Hill Times that reported correctly on the reason for the outspoken MP�s departure from the Liberal Party.
The mainstream media in the United States are now conscious of the fact that their biases and mistakes will come to light via the Internet. It�s nice to know that the same is happening in Canada.
Keep up the good work, Kate.
I think I can top the Einstein quote about stupidity:
“There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”
Frank Zappa
Yes, we all know ( including the MSM) that Parrish has made herself the nation’s number one international buffoon in a bid for attention…..but she also plays to the home audience to secure her seat. If Parrish’s brand of uncivil buffoonery and blindly stupid rage is what plays well in her riding, the buggers should have their franchise removed so they stop abusing the ballot….failing that, maybe we should think of burning Canada’s now infamous ghetto of Mississauga.
Kyla: Parrish was not the Canadian representative to NATO. The government’s representative is to the North Atlantic Council (under the Chairmanship of the Secretary General) and is an ambassador.
http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb070101.htm
From Parrish’s web site:
‘Two eventful years were spent as the Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. The chairmanship made Carolyn the Head of the Canadian Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. As a the [sic] parliamentary arm to NATO, the Assembly provides policy advice and studies issues of military, economic, civil, scientific and political relevance to NATO countries.
As head of the Canadian delegation, Carolyn was a member of the steering committee for the Assembly and often served as the moderator for the annual sessions. She was elected the first female Vice-Chair of the International Executive…
In March of 2003, Carolyn decided to resign her post as Head of the Canadian delegation. Despite the positive experiences at NATO, her concern that the organization was becoming an extension of its dominant partners who were involved in a pre-emptive strike on Iraq meant that she could no longer participate.’
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a talking shop with no authority of any sort. But at least she is one Liberal who made a principled resignation (unless she knew the government was going to get her removed as Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and her resignation was a pre-emptive strike).
Note though that she was chair for only two years, not seven.
It is sad that she speaks for many Canadians, no doubt as ignorant as she.
Mark
Ottawa
The problem, Stephen, is that anti-Americanism sells. And it’s not that surprising why – there is just a lot about that country which is very distasteful (and this is coming from someone who just lived there for a year, in two different regions, and generally liked the experience). Indeed, there is much not to like about Canada as well, but it’s just not so damned obvious. Parrish is, in the end, just playing easy politics.
Indeed, Peter, there are distasteful aspects to any country. Sometimes residents don’t notice factors that outsiders would. I hope you don’t infer I’m implying a certain “distasteful” Canadian smugness to your statement.
Let’s just say that, if the Pharisee of the Bible had been a Canadian, his prayer would have been “I thank Thee that I am not as Americans are…”
Can Canada ever get over its yin-yang superior-inferior obsession with “The States?” Is there a 12-step program for countries?
“We may have been a strong military nation once. We no longer are. And Parrish is a symptom, not the problem.”
This doesn’t seem like an outlandish statement to me. If Canadians viewed Afghanistan as something important, there would not be any outcry about soldier deaths. I obviously can’t comment directly but the major wars of the 20th century were battles that Canada was committed to. We were willing to accept defeats along with the victories because it was important to Canada. Canada of the 21st century has become a country that, both politically and militarily (even economically), largely doesn’t concern itself with issues particularly outside of North America. Our last major peacekeeping operations were Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Honestly, I don’t think a lot of Canadians are convinced that the war on terrorism involves Canada.
Why does anti-Americanism sell? It allows Canadians to convince ourselves that the war on terrorism is someone elses fight. It isn’t so much personal as a rationalization to explain our own lack of involvement in the world.
Mark: Thanks for the clarification. Was she even in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for 7 years?
I’m having a hard time believing anything she says these days.
Her direct quote was, “I was our representative to NATO for 7 years.”
She made it seem like there was only one representative in any capacity from Canada and she was it. You can see wherein my confusion came.
Re 4 dead Canadians–bombed by Americans–my understanding is that all friendlies had a piece of electronic equipment that would signal a secret code to inform other ‘friendlies’ as to who they were. As usual, our soldiers did not have this equipment. This was kept very quiet by the MSM. That is why I am against our military going to Afghanistan–they will be ill equipped for their mission–I see that Haliburton will be supplying our soldiers with food etc.–“too dangerous for our own suppliers” outside Kandahar. I believe that our ‘suppliers’ are as ill equipped as our military–and do not have airlift capabilities to supply anything other than American beef while our own farmers crash and burn
We at least have to appear like we believe in the war on terror, even if we don’t walk the walk. The muslim cleric in NY that was sentenced yesterday to 75 years (or something like that) was found guilty of funneling money to terrorists including Hamas, which Canada continues to praise for its charitable works. Can’t help but wonder whether this latest mission, coinciding as it did with the reopening of the borders, wasn’t a sop that will appease the US and Lib types who feel that for the sake of appearances at least, we ought to at least look as though we care about what happened in the UK and Egypt, even if, in our smugness, we feel it’ll never happen to us ’cause we didn’t go to Iraq (neither did Egypt, but since when did that matter to a terrorist?).
Something to make your blood pressure rise:
darcykisses@hotmail.com Printed: July 29, 2005 9:16:33 AM
Wake up, folks � it�s war!
Mark Steyn
A couple of items from Tuesday�s papers. On the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian pilot programme for the Met�s new shoot-to-kill policy, the Daily Telegraph reports:
�A Home Office spokesman last night admitted that it had not yet identified his immigration status: �We are looking into the case and will provide more information as soon as we are able to do so.���
Meanwhile, the Times includes this background information on one of the thwarted bombers of the 21 July attacks � Yassin Hassan Omar, a Somali �asylum-seeker�:
�Omar, who was last seen vaulting a barrier at Warren Street station, has been the registered occupant of the flat since 1999. Ibrahim, who was last seen in Hackney Road, East London, after his failed attempt to blow up a No. 26 bus, shared it with him for the past two years. Omar received �88 a week in housing benefit to pay for the council property and also received income support, immigration officials say.�
So here�s how things stand:
1) Four days after Mr de Menezes became the most famous foreigner in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty�s Government is unable to give a definitive answer on his immigration status.
2) Four years after 9/11, British taxpayers are subsidising the jihad � in Mr Omar�s Bounds Green council flat and in many other places.
There�s a pleasant thought the next time you�re on a bus when some Islamakazi self-detonates: it�s on your tax bill; P-A-Y-E � pay as you explode.
Number One comes at a time when the relevant department, the Home Office, not content with being unable to run its existing records system for foreigners, is determined to inflict an expensive and cumbersome bureaucracy on every non-foreigner in the land. Indeed, the Home Secretary has now upgraded it into a fundamental human right: �Just let us put in place our hierarchy of rights,� Charles Clarke told MEPs just before the second attacks. �The right to live. The right to go to work on the Underground. The right to have an ID card.� Human rights-wise, that last one is right up there with the right to be subject to confiscatory taxation.
And Number Two isn�t some stunning shocking development, either. In The Spectator of 29 December 2001, I noted the likes of Zac Moussaoui, the French citizen who became an Islamist radical while living on welfare in London, and wrote:
�If you�re looking for �root causes� for terrorism, European-sized welfare programmes are a good place to start. Maybe if they had to go out to work, they�d join the Daily Mirror and become the next John Pilger. Or maybe they�d open a drive-thru Halal Burger chain and make a fortune. Instead, Tony Blair pays Islamic fundamentalists in London to stay at home, fester and plot.�
I wasn�t the first to notice the links between Euro-Canadian welfare and terrorism. Mickey Kaus, an iconoclastic California liberal, was way ahead. But, after three-and-a-half years, one would be entitled to assume that a government whose fortunes are as heavily invested in the terrorist threat as this one�s might have spotted it, too � especially given the ever greater numbers of British jihadi uncovered from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Israel and America.
That�s why I regretfully have to disagree with the editor of this great publication in his prescription of the current situation which appeared in these pages a week or two back under the headline �Just don�t call it war�. As you�ll have gathered, the boss objects to the language of �war, whether cultural or military…. Last week�s bombs were placed not by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals.�
Sorry, but that�s the way to lose. A narrowly focused �criminal� approach means entrusting the whole business to the state bureaucracy. The obvious problem with that is that it�s mostly reactive: blow somewhere up, we�ll seal it off, and detectives will investigate it as a crime scene. You could make the approach less reactive by a sustained effort to improve scrutiny of immigration, entitlement to welfare and other matters within the purview of government. But consider those two snippets from the Tuesday papers and then figure out the likelihood of that happening. A �criminal� approach gives terrorists all the rights of criminals, and between British and European �human rights� that�s quite a bundle. If it�s a war, you can take wartime measures � including withdrawal from the UN Convention on Refugees, repeal of the European Human Rights Act, and a clawback of sovereignty from the EU. But if you fight this thing as a law-enforcement matter, Islamist welfare queens will use all the above to their full extent and continue openly promoting the murder of the Prime Minister, British troops, etc. with impunity.
Softly-softly won�t catchee monkey. Slo-mo conflicts are the hardest to win, in part because in advanced societies the public finds it hard to stay focused. Granted, there are exceptions to that rule: the government, battling the commies in Malaya, went the Boris Johnson route and declined to call it a war; and the eventual victory in the Malayan �Emergency� might tend to support his thesis. It was said that London was reluctant to use the term �war� for reasons of home and business insurance, but it�s also a broader kind of insurance: it lowers the stakes, it softens the people up for a non-victory � as in the Irish �Troubles�. Sometimes, as in Malaya, you happen to win one of these �emergencies� or �troubles�, and that�s a bonus. But the point is, by designating something as other than a war, you tend to make it peripheral, and therefore loseable.
That�s not an option here. Madrid and London � along with other events such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh � are, in essence, the opening shots of a European civil war. You can laugh at that if you wish, but the Islamists� most often-stated goal is not infidel withdrawal from Iraq but the re-establishment of a Muslim caliphate living under Sharia that extends to Europe; and there�s a lot to be said for taking these chaps at their word and then seeing whether their behaviour is consistent.
Furthermore, there�s a lot more of the world that lives under Sharia than there was, say, 30 years ago: Pakistan adopted it in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984…. Fifty years ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it�s in the grip of Islamic law. So, as a political project, radical Islam has made some headway, and continues to do so almost every day of the week: since the beginning of the year, for example, some 10 per cent of southern Thailand�s Buddhist population have abandoned their homes � a far bigger disruption than the tsunami, yet all but unreported in the Western press. And whatever one�s opinion of the various local conflicts around the world � Muslims vs Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs Jews in the Holy Land, Muslims vs Russians in Chechnya, Muslims vs Christians in Africa � the fact is that the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you�re not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn�t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?
If the jihad has its war aims, maybe we should start thinking about ours. What would victory look like? As fascism and communism were in their day, Islamism is now the ideology of choice for the world�s grievance-mongers. That means we have to destroy the ideology, or at least its potency � not Islam per se, but at the very minimum the malign strain of Wahabism, which thanks to Saudi oil money has been transformed from a fetish of isolated desert derelicts into the most influential radicalising force in contemporary Islam, from Indonesia to Leeds. Europeans who aren�t prepared to roll back Wahabism had better be prepared to live with it, or under it.
Mustering the popular will for that sort of struggle isn�t easy. But the longer you leave it the harder it becomes. Whether or not one accepts the Johnson line that Iraq is irrelevant to the war on terror, it requires a perverse genius on the part of Tony Blair to have found the political courage to fight an unpopular war on a distant shore but not the political courage to wage it closer to home where it would have commanded far more support.
On a couple of very fleeting visits to London and Belfast in recent weeks, I had the vague feeling that Britain is on the brink of a tragedy it doesn�t quite comprehend. America�s post-9/11 muscular nationalism was easily mocked by Europeans, but its absence in London is palpable: try to imagine Mayor Giuliani uttering half the stuff Ken Livingstone said in the last fortnight (�The bombings would never have happened if the West had simply left the Arab nations alone in the wake of the first world war�). Even if he�s right, the message it communicates is weakness: bomb us, and we apologise � or at the very least go to comically absurd lengths to distinguish terrorism against London from terrorism against Israel. Tony Blair, in his recitation in the House of Commons of nations afflicted by terrorism, couldn�t even bring himself to mention the Zionist Entity. Boris Johnson, in his call to non-arms, began with an elaborate riff on the difference between Brits and Jews in these matters:
�If we were Israelis, we would by now be doing a standard thing to that white semi-detached pebbledash house at 51 Colwyn Road, Beeston. Having given due warning, we would dispatch an American-built ground-assault helicopter and blow the place to bits. Then we would send in bulldozers to scrape over the remains….�
The distinction between coarse blundering Israelis and subtle sophisticated Britons depends where you�re standing. If you happen to be the late Jean Charles de Menezes, for example, you might wish fate had selected you instead to be the Palestinian suicide bomber interrupted en route to Tel Aviv that same Friday. The Euro-reviled IDF managed to disarm the Fatah terrorist of his explosives belt, packed with nails, without harming a hair on his pretty little suicide-bomber head. If the demented anti-Zionism of the British and Continental media these last four years ever had a point, it doesn�t now, when you�re in the early stages of the Israelification of Europe � and, in one of fate�s better jests, in this scenario you�re the Jews.
Any one of these issues would require enormous political will � stop funding the intifada, reclaim lost sovereignty from Europe, imprison and/or expel treasonous imams, end the education system�s psychologically unhealthy and ahistorical disparagement of the Britannic inheritance in your schools. But, without a big ambitious war-sized project, what�s left � aside from shooting the occasional Brazilian?
On the Thursday of the second attacks, I happened to pass through London, which isn�t the easiest town to pass through these days. I am a Canadian subject of Her Majesty and, when I showed up at the �Fast Track� lane at Heathrow, the immigration officer plonked down in my passport a big stamp saying �RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS PROHIBITED�. �Tosser,� I sneered. Well, OK, I murmured it, very sotto voce, as I had no desire to miss my appointment because the zealots of HM Customs suddenly fancied an intimate cavity search. But honestly, what a pathetic example of pointless gesture politics: if you�re a fancypants North American business traveller in town for less than 24 hours and splashing a ton of hard currency around the West End, the Home Office goes through a big hoop-de-doo about saying you�ve no entitlement to welfare. But if you�re a Somali and you want to live in public housing at public expense for six years while you fine-tune your plot to blow up Warren Street Tube station, pas de probl�me!
And, of course, in the event that I were overcome by a yen to join Yassin Hassan Omar on the public teat, an automatic stamp in the passport of every Canadian, American and Australian landing at Heathrow isn�t going to do anything to prevent it. For all the Home Office knows, I may already be living in a council flat in Bounds Green. This silly passport stamp was introduced after 9/11, in the wake of concerns about �asylum-seekers�, and it�s a classic example of what you get when you opt for a narrowly drawn law-enforcement approach entrusted to a complacent bureaucracy: rather than do anything about immigrant welfare fraud, they�ll simply order up a new rubber stamp that gives the vague air of doing something about it.
How come Tony Blair can bestride the world like a colossus, liberating Iraq, ridding Africa of poverty, and yet know so little about the one tiny corner of the planet for which he bears formal responsibility? Well, there are several possible reasons, but the effect is pretty much the same: daily, weekly, remorselessly, the situation will deteriorate. If it�s a war, you can win it. Anything less is unlikely to end in victory.
Click here to return to the article
Quite the contrary. For one, she’s not avoiding things: if I have truck with her, it’s primarily for paying too much mind, loudly and publicly, to, er, the quandary of dealing with “boom – boys.” Canada’s enviable record of peace has a lot to do with being quiet (or simply ignored even if not quiet). There’s a lot to be said for not making, let alone going looking for, enemies.
I disagree with almost everything you said ,however…
Get your head out of your ass you scared pathetic chickenshit.
By Allahs grace let the next terrorist strike happen on the very point of your muddled cowardly head.
Your post is probably the most moonbatty awkward piece of garbage I’ve ever read .
Why don’t you just send your house keys over to the Jihaddis right now.
Thirtythree Canadians were killed on Sept. 11 you numbskull.Here’s a news flash for you,… they’ve already noticed your feet sticking out from under your racing car bed in your parents basement.
Is there any question any more of the lefty moonbats willingness to fall on their sword.
Your black belaclava you hide behind like a child behind your mothers dress is a burka in the new globalized world you so despise.
I hate grubby liberal cowards masquarading as intellects!
Random Bytowner made another error:
” uneasy over Bush’s isolationist foreign policy”
Random: You do not understand the definition of “isolationist”!
Isolationist describes American foreign policy in the early years of WWII. It was then, as in Canada today, non-interventionist and non-confrontational towards genuine grave threats originating internationally. This isolationism permanently ended when America was attacked in Pearl Harbor. There was no choice: they HAD to defeat Japan and finally get engaged in destroying the Axis, who were also a real, incipient threat to America herself.
9/11: Same story. Unprovoked attack (yes, it WAS unprovoked; I dare you to conclusively prove otherwise) also. Massive loss, wholly unnecessary, w/o a war or anything happening, of innocent civilian life in a deliberate, illegal premeditated mass murder for no valid aim. Therefore, the US engagements in Afghanistan and, yes, Iraq, which had proven herself to be malevolent, perhaps not instantly, but without a doubt, after a not-too-long period of time following any discontinuation of sanctions. No doubt the guy in his pretty white panties, Saddam, would have done whatever it took to attack America, perhaps by proxy via terrorists. Hence the intervention in Iraq is justifiable. Even a majority of Canadians now realize this, as evidenced in a recent poll stating 59% of us believe it was the right move.
Therefore, America under Bush is NOT isolationist. It practices international engagement. Yes, indeed. You could argue bluefaced that that’s false as so many nations are not onside with the Iraq invasion and liberation, but that’s not Mr. Bush’s fault; it is the fault of those nations who think that Chamberlainian appeasment of the minions of the devil will guarantee them protection from terrorists. Boy, have they been proven soooo wrong! They’re suffering attacks and more will because terrorists attack those who are not like them, Islamic fundamentalist fascists.
So, what do you have to say for yourself, Random?
And WHERE’S YOUR APOLOGY TO KATE for dumping your load all over her merely because YOU made an error in judgement and didn’t bother to examine the link to the bastard Mikey Mooreon’s piss-poor tipping? If you fail to acknowledge your failing and apologize, you will have no credibility nor respect around these parts, lefty-wefty.
Another stupid error by Random Bytowner:
“Also note that Parrish later apologised for and amended the “bastards” comment, saying it was directed at the administration, not Americans in general.)”
Oh, I see, Random, you’re oh, sooooooo willing to give that piece of weasel dung the benefit of the doubt, but not George Bush and Stephen Harper? Yes, I mention Stephen because you leftist moonies are soooooo predictable!
The thinking person realizes that Parrish is really an Anti-American bigot. She only “apologized”, and in a piss-poor, non-credible way, because even the left found her to be over-the-top hateful and thus shocking.
Random Bytowner: “There wasn’t a threat of WMDs”
The deposition of Saddam was morally and legally justified without the WMD threat. Remember the culmination of the EU/UN opposition when France said it would never vote for war no matter what. That showed that the nature of the opposition was anti-American. The over-reliance on the WMD argument came about when that opposition refused to let common sense rule.
This entire intellectual dishonesty is supportable only because of the preponderance of leftist thinking in western politics and media.
In hindsight you will all look evil or stupid.
Richfisher, of whom were you speaking? Iron Lady? The Lady’s no lefty, I can assure you. Perhaps you were referring to Random Bytowner? That’d make sense.
Sorry, my bad Terminator.
Spelling and punctuation are embarrassments for me.
I forgot to credit the first paragraph of my post to Runsdown Bystanders.
Agreed, Iron Lady is right and right.
GreenMamba, You make your point about the tired WMD argument so well.
I have several times outlined why not finding WMD was a moot point.
Finding a stash of gas warfare suits in a hospital amounts to the same thing in my book. Why? Because Kurd villages had been gassed and more Kurds were in for a gassing had forces not shown up.
Also, Saddam was guilty of invading Kuwait and performing genocide there, or maybe that was just a dream after I overdid the beer, deviled eggs and pretzels.
How anyone can still refer to the lack of WMD at this stage boggles the logic of what is now crystal clear. 73s TG
Who is the Conservative candidate running against Ms. Parrish? For that matter who will be the Liberal and NDP candidate running in that riding – against an Independent?
In point of fact, Parrish admitted in a letter still available at her website that her comments were directed at Americans:
“April 2003
Dear constituents,
I’d like to take the time to offer an explanation and an apology for some inappropriate remarks I recently made about Americans. By now the story is well known and doesn’t bear repeating. It has grown to mythical proportions and has caused concerned on the part of many.
My comment was flip, not calculated or pre-meditated. Of course, I regret it immensely. America is a valued neighbour, going through very difficult times.
I am opposed to this war and I support Canada’s decision not to be involved. As your M.P., I will continue to speak out on these and other matters of national interest – in a forceful but thoughtful manner. I will continue to oppose this action, but promise to avoid any further un-parliamentary remarks.
In closing, I’d like to thank all the thoughtful people who have taken the time to express their views to me on this issue. I appreciate the great honour and privilege that it is to serve as your Member of Parliament.
Yours most sincerely,
Carolyn Parrish
In politics, there are numerous opportunities, on a daily basis, to make mistakes. There are very few opportunities to correct them.”
Somebody in her office wrote up that nice form letter to reply to the complainers while she was on tv laughing about it and playing for the hardcore anti-American crowd.
Virtually all politicians say to whoever’s listening at the moment what they think will sell – it’s the blogosphere that’s making it a little less comfortable for those of the two-faced persuasion.
Radio reports C. Parrish “not welcome” in Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ caucus.
Oh, my. The fury of a witch scorned. Take cover.
Cruella will take revenge on AdScam Martin.
“Come along and be my party doll”
With Chuck Cadman gone, Carolyn scorned, Kilgour disgruntled, O’Brien disgusted, who’s going to prop up PMPM? And thank you to all of you who recognize I’d rather be dead than red.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Richfisher.
BTW, I’m a GOOD terminator, you know, like in T2 and T3. I only terminate insurgent moonbats who somehow slip through the cracks around the edges of the firewall and try to blow up our good right-thinking citizens here in these parts with all the mysterious small dead animals all over the place. Wonder who popped the poor little critters. Wasn’t me. Must be another terminator. Maybe it’s that serious-looking chick underneath the picture of the dead gopher. I know she popped the poor lil’ guy- she proudly said so… 🙂
Random: You do not understand the definition of “isolationist”!
From _The Christian Science Monitor_:
Isolationists�
* Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
* Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
* Believe the US should not act as a global cop
* Support trade practices that protect American workers
* Oppose liberal immigration
* Oppose American imperialism
* Desire to preserve what they see as America’s national identity and character
I don’t have access to the books I’d like to just right now, and a web search came up with so much nonsense that I’m starting to think the term should be at least temporarily retired on the grounds that there’s not much of a consensus on what it means in 2005 — leaving me with no choice but to agree to disagree here. Still, apart from the “global cop” bit, it works for what I was trying to get at.
The same source lists
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
as a tenet of liberalism, by the by.
And WHERE’S YOUR APOLOGY…
I beg pardon for not having clarified that a weblog using cheap shots should not repeatedly expose itself to same. Damn that ‘MSM’ for using editors/spell-checkers, and not using anonymous waitress’ tip tales as socio-political commentary! Why, thank heavens there’s a place where just an ordinary Canadian can yell back and…
Anyone else wishing to take a cheap shot at me: could you make it worthwhile? I have not laid claim to being a ‘professional writer,’ left-winger, Liberal/NDP/Parrish booster, male, or any other of the more peculiar things that’ve been thrown my way. It’s been figured out that Parrish does her opponents a favour by shooting her own foot; the desire to not see the same nature of self-inflicted injury does not magically confer dissent.
Oh, who am I kidding? You’re obviously too shrewdy-wewdy for me. I am a young man pursuing my PhD in Women’s Studies while being a stringer for the _Globe & Mail_. I have been a committed vegan for over three months now and think people who wear leather should be shot and made into shoes themselves. Jack Layton offered me a riding for the next election, but I told him I’d be too busy working on Ms Parrish’s campaign. I boycott American-made products, as does the rest of my urban commune, a diverse group of six other atheists. I donate to PETA, the Green Party, and the Imams’ Legal Defence Fund of Canada. Although straight (I think), I went out and married a male friend the first day it was legal just because I could (and because heterosexual marriage is a patriarchal plot worse than Sharia anything!). The only good things about the United States are the Burning Man festival and how it lets us get rid of people who only want to make money. And…
Iron Lady said:
“With Chuck Cadman gone, Carolyn scorned, Kilgour disgruntled, O’Brien disgusted, who’s going to prop up PMPM? And thank you to all of you who recognize I’d rather be dead than red.”
Milady, might I suggest the Honourable Stephen Harper for PM? I knew you’d like the idea. Problem is we first have to terminate those bloody fecking moonie Libranos! Grab yer shootin’ irons and join me pronto! Heeyah!
Oh, my bad, Iron Lady. You asked who would prop up PMPM now? Whomever he can buy off. Right? Sure as hell ain’t gonna be the terminator. Against my programming. Must terminate Liberal Party.
The “Honourable” Stephen Harper – that’s debatable, given Gurmant Grewal’s latest announcements, where he seems to point the finger at Harper (and I bet he has the tapes to prove it).
Random:
Well, I haven’t actually made myself familiar with the Christian Science Monitor. I agree the word “isolationist” shouldn’t be bandied about with impunity by anyone, except when applying to member states of the Axis of Evil, which are indubitably isolated, I’m sure you’ll agree.
WRT the global cop thing, it’s America’s moral, ethical duty to bring the violent tyrants to justice when they threaten the world. If the US doesn’t do it, no one else will. Never forget Chamberlainism and its dangers. Nip the problem in the bud before it kills you. Thus is history’s lesson.
“The same source lists
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
as a tenet of liberalism, by the by.”
That’s the source’s own opinion. I disagree with it. It’s neither left nor right. Both leftist- and conservative- states have been failing to intervene in humanitarian crises. Though, I do recall that the left opposed NATO’s strikes against the Serbs who were committing genocide against the Kosovar Muslims (Svend Robinson lent moral support in person to the Serbian butchers!). Whatever has become of “Never Again”? Why doesn’t the left call for the ousting of assholes like Robert Mugabe? Of course, if Dubya went in and liberated Zimbabwe, the leftist masses would be effigizing him and burning the American flag. The MSM would cheer them on.
“I beg pardon for not having clarified that a weblog using cheap shots should not repeatedly expose itself to same. Damn that ‘MSM’ for using editors/spell-checkers, and not using anonymous waitress’ tip tales as socio-political commentary! Why, thank heavens there’s a place where just an ordinary Canadian can yell back and…”
–Hey, you also insulted this ordinary Canadian who yells back at the TV during Question Period when the nonanswers are flatulated forth from Librano lips! Anyhow, what you said above, that’s not the need for the apology. The reason for an apology was you crapped all over a good, innocent person due to your failure to ensure that the badly-written passage was hers, which it wasn’t. That’s the faux pas you made. Well? Understand now? Conservatives apologize when they see they made a mistake. What about lefties?
BTW, are you going onto moonbat sites like Judy Rebick’s “The Rabble” and saying the same stuff about being a shitty website and being unable to offer proof to back anything up? Direct me to all your anti-left comments on the moonies’ sites, please.
BTW, Random, a compliment: You’re actually one of the most reasonable lefties I’ve encountered on SDA so far. But don’t let it go to your head. Leftism is still a disease of which you must now proceed to cure yourself. I and many others here would be happy to help you.
Noel M. claims, in part:
“Gurmant Grewal’s latest announcements, where he seems to point the finger at Harper (and I bet he has the tapes to prove it).”
Wrong-o, Noel, old boy! You misunderstood Mr. Grewal! He was saying simply that Mr. Harper told him to stop taping when he learned Gurmant had the opportunity to tape PMPM.
As for before that, Grewal clarified against MSM obfuscations that he himself had been taping against Harper’s wishes.
Here’s the appropriate URL, albeit in MSM form, so you’ll have to filter the fact from the verbal flatulence of an overpaid lefty writer:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122636174071_27/?hub=Canada
Noel, don’t prejudge, please. Grewal was trying to do the right thing, dammit, for his country, and catch the crooked Libranos in the criminal act of attempting to bribe a public official.
Therefore, there is no debate. Mr. Harper is the most honorable leader in Ottawa. He’s the cleanest there is. He only cares about the future betterment of Canada for Canadians. I direct you to study William Johnson’s “Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada”. Enlighten yourself, please, and then get back to me.
BTW, Noel, do you think PMPM is honorable or not? This is no trick question. Just answer truthfully.
AdScam Martin meets the imams; no females present as there are no imamees in Mohammedanism.
Martin and the imams worked on calling in their IOU’s; worth 80% of the Islamic vote= 657,890 votes for the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$; 127& 1/2 for Jack Mohlayton; 13 spoileded for the Red-Green; all the votes 2,345 for the SHarper party were spoiled.
P.S. Hindy dared not show hisself; guess his wife was sent instead.
P.P.S. The imams have a plan for Canadar; read about it: Beware the “Plan”.
>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Martin did not give details of the discussion, but did say that there is a mutual desire to improve the relationship between government and Canadian Islamic leaders. In that context, he was reportedly urged to address allegations that security officials have intimidated members of the Muslim community.
The meeting at an airport hotel in Toronto brought Mr. Martin face to face with some Canadian Muslim leaders, although others were notable by their absence. In particular, the hard-line Toronto cleric Aly Hindy was not present. Also absent were Muslim community leaders whose influence is not rooted in religion.
Mr. Saloojee, executive director of the Canadian Council of American-Islamic Relations, said that the imams came to the meeting with a plan: to educate Canadians that Muslims consider life sacred, to improve dialogue with security forces, to encourage Muslim civic participation and government consultation with Muslims on issues that affect the community.
“The imams don’t have a magic wand,” Mr. Saloojee said. “They can’t just wave that wand and make terrorism go away.”
Mr. Saloojee said the imams also brought up the issue of Iraq, praising the “moral course” charted by the government in staying out of the war there…
Glob & Pail…
http://www.rapp.org/url/?TEMM8LNK
See Worn Kay is out on the prowl. Beware.
Take Notice. The Jihadist heads turn and aim their gaze directly at Canadians.
*Ominous online notice warns about new troops* and the headline: Taliban get *heads-up* about Canadian message.
In the National Post today July 29/05. at Canada.com
Print off a copy. [It is just 2 pages long], before it gets filed behind registration process.
This message was translated by SITE Institute, formed in 2002, to monitor and report on Islamic Terrorist information.
The message exaggerates the number to 250 when actually only 110 men left Edmonton.
Next week 100 more leave so I guess the number is not too far off.
Most troop numbers I have seen up to now have usually been in the thousands. What the heck is this 100 by 100 count supposed to do ?
I could see it if they each had an F18, night vision and rockets, but knowing Libscammers, I suspect they have not much more than FNs and Jeeps.
This is war, not a forest fire mop-up.
Ugly word *war*, but pretending otherwise is always painfully expensive.
Mark Steyn is absolutely correct and we better shift into *Serious* now to cut our losses.
73s TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca
PS.. I just noticed. They mention good ways to hit oil refineries.
Mentioned many times in my comments. I can’t spell, but my ESP is working just fine. 73s TG
Grewal is running again and says his constituents know spin from the truth. They might. Not a loth of meth labs in his neck of the woods.
Here’s something to take your mind off the old hosebag (I’m a broad – I can say that and MEAN it).
http://www.oracleofottawa.org/PimpMyImage.swf
It’s how folks want to makeover our PM in waiting’s wardrobe.. (I’m talking about Sexy Stephen, of course. What a hottie.)
That was funny, Iron Lady.
Is there one with Rona Ambrose? Whooooah, I’d love that one!
BTW, how do you like my new identity? I did terminate “Don” after all, didn’t I? Sure had fun at it!
Thought you sounded familiar. Yes, you did get rid of Don/Scott Reid/Warren Kinsella – or, who knows – Carolyn Parrish! Just like her to get in drag and blog. I’m starting to think CP and Screechin’ Annie were separated at birth.
Just a little slightly-related humour …
http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml
Late to the show, but couldn’t resist adding my two cents here –
Random Bytowner, please know that as an American who has spent a quarter of my adult life teaching American History at the collegiate level, your definition of Isolationism is completely off-base regarding how that term is used and understood below the 49th Parallel.
It is most often applied to American sentiments and foreign policy formulations in the period between 1920 and 1941, when government and people alike were reluctant to get involved in European political squabbles, in part because of lingering disillusionment over the First World War.
President Bush’s foreign policy is anything but reluctant to engage in affairs outside America’s borders, as surely even you would admit. It may well be that in employing the term “isolationist,” you meant “unilateralist,” which would be an erroneous description of the nature of the current efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but would at least be in keeping with the point you were trying to make.
Isolationist currents in American foreign policy are periodic occurrences, reinforced and bolstered in the past by the buffer of the Atlantic and Pacific or our own internal political preoccupations. Other, opposing strains of thought in this matter are sometimes labelled Wilsonian Idealism and Hamiltonian Realism.
Parenthetically, David Frum is not exactly in exile – try looking on National Review’s online edition and you’ll find that he hasn’t yet been banished or sentenced to one of the numerous gulags that everyone seems to think are all over the place down here.
While I disagree with the details of a number of your conjectures, Bytowner, I respect your shtick.
Hey, everyone, you know how when someone is trapped in a burning building and a bunch of people grab a blanket and stretch it out and the endangered person jumps into the blanket thus saving their life?
Government is like that blanket in the following sense.
Unless the people holding the blanket are pulling in different directions, the whole plan falls apart. You can’t just stand around under the endangered person’s flight path hugging and singing Kumbaya, because then one or more of you is going to be smacked topside the head by a non-trivial amount of gram meters per second, resulting in the endangered person plus others (possibly you) being hurt, rather than the endangered person being helped.
That is less than optimal.
It is human nature to want to help the endangered (except in self defense, of course). But the problem is, we can’t blanket the world with blankets, because: (1) there would be no room left for people to stretch them out any more, (2) the energy required to stretch them out would overwhelm our resources, (3) you would quickly find a proliferation of people who are pretending to hold up their corner of the blanket but who in reality are simply jumping into it just for fun, thus actually further endangering the endangered person and you, and (4) the insidious greed of the Department of Blanket Licensing would destroy the whole exercise.
So, me, I’m just pulling on my corner of the blanket design problem. Well, someone’s got to pull on that particular corner, and we may as well have an optimistic skeptic take that job. Or as my friends sometimes call me, a Sagacious Iconoclast 😉
If anyone thinks they have a simple solution to a big problem, they’re probably wrong, otherwise it wouldn’t be a big problem any more. Humans are more complicated critters than that.
I was recently at a local rural fair, and I saw a city guy holding court, in front of the farmers and their wives and their children, on the latin names of the various vegetables on display, and where they came from, and blah blah blah. One could almost sense the unseen hand of his mother, smoothing his hair and telling him what a clever boy he was. His self-considered wisdom seemed to please him greatly, and his station in life, relative to the farmers, was secure in his mind. At one point, a rather burly fellow made as if to relay-throw to him a really hefty bag of potatoes that he had been carrying from his truck, and everyone laughed — a friendly point had been made about the difference between words, and deeds. The fellow, of course, kept talking.
Most people’s sense of right and wrong comes from an instinct, but is based on reality. When something important is at stake, that sense of right and wrong is acted upon. It is evident that for many in this country, simple right and wrong has been replaced by equivocation, and by mulling for amusement, in a self-congratulatory way, the fine details of the petty politics of the day.
Bytowner makes his mark here with not so subtle asides that he finds the pickings easy here, and that conservatives are ready for instruction and patient correction. Yet for all the time he has spent here fine-tasting various moral/political considerations, it is not apparent what it is that he himself is growing. “I have not laid claim to being a…left winger, Liberal, NDP/Parrish booster, or any other of the more peculiar things that have been thrown my way.”
Yeah, we noticed, Bytowner. You haven’t laid claim to anything, except to having superior judgements and thought processes compared to others who post here. I mean, after reading your posts, and your stereotyping of Conservatives, I don’t have the first clue about where you stand on LPC malfeasance, for example. Your opinions seem only to exists as responses to others who have posted here.
Maybe you should tell us what you think. How do you feel about Murphy and Dosanjh’s behaviour on tape? Is it okay with you that they offered government perks in exchange for a vote? And just for the record, how do you feel about the RCMP’s treatment of Gurmant Grewal, or Beaudoin of the BDC, for example, after they blew the proverbial whistle against the Liberals?
Does the RCMP’s behaviour in the last few years bother you?
How do you feel about the Liberal’s funding their last winning campaign with taxpayer money illegally funelled back to themselves? Here, catch…
I agree with RS. The funny thing is, although in general I consider myself be more half Jeffersonian and half Jacksonian, I think the administration’s current half Wilsonian and half Hamiltonian experiment is probably a good idea at this time. Perhaps I’m just appreciating the wisdom of Franklin’s empiricism.
In a pike position.