Here’s my more official recap of the week’s events in the Globe when it comes to the story of FD Element, the company hired to build the mayor’s website, also funding a political blog that attacks Vision critics.
I should note that the anonymous former contractor who went on Global did not specifically say that the money for the blog was coming from the mayor’s office, going through FD and to blogger Jonathan Ross. He says FD paid Jonathan to blog and paid to set up his blog. He says Mayor Gregor Robertson’s chief of staff Mike Magee was directing operations on the blog. The inference is that that’s where the money is coming from but it’s only an inference.
As my story notes, in Magee’s first interview since coming back from China yesterday, the chief of staff says he’s willing to open up the books so people can see anything they want about FD Element billing and work for the city.
84 responses so far ↓
1 david hadaway // Sep 18, 2010 at 11:41 am
@Chris Keam
“nothing disarms a bully quite as effectively as a sustained effort to exhibit compassion”
You obviously didn’t go to my school! That would have been the quickest route to a world class wedgy.
It’s true that as a medium the internet, rather like driving, allows us to switch off normal social restraints. Having acted in haste we can then repent at leisure. I’ve been feeling a bit guilty about an unfair observation regarding Frances made elsewhere. Sorry.
This isn’t an argument for not getting angry about big issues, however. There’s something wrong with anyone who doesn’t feel that way when, for example, they see the disaster of the DTES and reflect on the incompetents and vampires who create and feed off it.
However I for one am going to make a big effort not to assume that everyone who disagrees with my prejudices is a scoundrel and a fraud.
2 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Tom:
I’m sorry that you feel that way. So often in these discussions, there are accusations that we (and/or our politicians) don’t listen, or don’t have evidence to back up our assertions. Having heard what you said, and offered a differing opinion by referencing a successful program that deals with the very issues you’re talking about, I’m sad that you would respond by questioning my manhood. Fighting aggression with aggression has a rather poor record of success in my opinion. I would note that our own armed forces would be the first to suggest it’s their work rebuilding war-torn countries that delivers greater dividends than the unfortunately necessary task of disarming and/or destroying the bullies who would make everyone share in their politics of intimidation and coercion. As Frances noted up-thread, we all share in the aim of making our city as livable as possible, for everyone. That won’t be achieved by name-calling and machismo.
David:
The program works. What happened in your school how ever many years ago isn’t proof that the program won’t work, but it is proof that trying new things can bring positive benefits and long-lasting changes to our society.
Once upon a time bullying the powerless was perfectly OK (think circus freak shows and similar types of entertainment). What changed? In my opinion is wasn’t subjecting the show promoters to the same treatment.
The open hand will always eventually overpower the closed fist. Nowhere is this more true than in politics.
3 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2010 at 2:56 pm
oops. “it wasn’t subjecting….
4 Bill // Sep 18, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Chris,
You are a bit contradictory – you say that meeting aggression with aggression does not have a good record yet acknowledge that in at least some cases the bullies must be disarmed or destroyed. And you say that the open hand will always eventually overpower the closed fist. That is just not true and a very dangerous idea when applied to international situations.
5 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2010 at 5:14 pm
There’s no contradiction. Sometimes immediate survival must take precedence, but charity and goodwill towards your enemies is the only way to achieve a lasting victory. Same with bullies.
6 spartikus // Sep 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Not every human interaction is analogous to standing up to Hitler over the Sudetenland.
7 landlord // Sep 18, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Not that anyone did stand up to Hitler over the Sudentenland.
And Chris means charity and goodwill towards a defeated enemy, which means they’re not your enemy any more, they’re now your property. Of course you take good care of it.
8 spartikus // Sep 18, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Yes, landlord, no one stood up to Hitler over the Sudentenland in real life…and if only they had everything would have been all better, or some such….which is sort of the point of invoking “standing up to Hitler over the Sudentenland” tough-guy theory of human relations.
9 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2010 at 7:34 pm
“And Chris means charity and goodwill towards a defeated enemy”
Please don’t presume to speak for me landlord, or twist my words to mean exactly what I’m not saying.
One only has to look as far as this blog to see that the people who manage to debate with some modicum of manners and respect for other viewpoints gain far more from the process than those who use the soapbox to call people names and boost their egos.
10 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 18, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Since this thread is going sideways, let me throw my thoughts in…
Roots of Empathy—great idea for NA and Europe.
Now, how do we deal with these guys and this type of thinking? And remember, some of that thinking is now being absorbed by our own “home grown’ boys…
Someone needs to tell them to play nice…how would you ‘disarm’ them? Especially since we are so broad-minded as to never denigrate or questions others “cultural differences?”. I guess the women and children need to sort it out for themselves…
There’s this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do
And this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do&feature=related
Oh, here’s a ‘teachable’ moment…though I think there may be copyright infringement (never mind defamation!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWIFhKYiMqU&feature=fvw
11 Bill // Sep 19, 2010 at 11:26 am
And not every human interaction is analagous to disagreeing about bicycle lanes in downtown Vancouver. Chris raised the issue of nation building and how an open hand will always prevail over a closed fist. It is this kind of thinking that makes the world a more dangerous place where an open hand may be perceived as a sign of weakness.
12 spartikus // Sep 19, 2010 at 3:20 pm
That’s your opinion, Bill. But by all means, if you want to live your life with a Manichean scorched Earth, take no prisoners worldview, go for it.
13 Bill // Sep 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm
That’s not what I said, Sparticus. I was reacting to Chris’ opinion that an open hand ALWAYS eventually overpowers an open fist. I never said it was inappropriate in all situations.
14 spartikus // Sep 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Now, how do we deal with these guys and this type of thinking?
How do we deal with charts like these? Or pictures like these from Abu Ghraib?
Personally I think one starts with oneself. Live your values, and live them consistently. If you truly believe in their truth, others will be persuaded. It’s my opinion that it’s – for lack of a better word – the “West’s” inconsistency in following the values it espouses that causes resentment and resistance. That and the meddling.
Yesterday Middle Eastern terrorism spoke the language of Marxism. Today it’s Islam. Tomorrow it will be something else. The heart of the conflict is political, not ideological or religious.
some of that thinking is now being absorbed by our own “home grown’ boys…
Statistically “home-grown” terrorism is extremely insignificant, and those high-profile cases there has been have their roots in the resentment the perpetrators feel over the hypocrisy of our government’s actions, actions that don’t match our beautiful words. And let’s face, these home-grown guys were rank amateurs.
15 spartikus // Sep 19, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I was reacting to Chris’ opinion that an open hand ALWAYS eventually overpowers an open fist.
Chris also said other things. Like Sometimes immediate survival must take precedence.
Anyway, this is becoming an extremely strained metaphor in this context.
16 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 19, 2010 at 11:34 pm
@Frances–I find it more than passingly curious that you lament the deterioration of the civic discourse, when:
a) Since the beginning of your blog you have allowed more underhanded comments to be approved about me than anyone else talked about on your blog. A majority of the time, I don’t even see them since I don;t come here that often anymore. But that’s a fact. Then, you bitch about how nasty my replies are. Really?
b) Where has the discourse lowered? I print docus that are authentic, conduct interviews, do thorough research, and this is “not definitive” to you. What a lark!
Bottom line: If it were the NPA in power and it was revealed that citycaucus.com had been paid around the same time as overpayments were being made to a favorite NPA PR contractor, you’d be all over this. And don;t say no, it’s a fact and you know it.
How can you sit there and deny that the bills that FD Element paid for civicscene.ca are not definitive proof of a connection?
If it were Sam sitting in his office, you’d get out the old connect the dots playbook alright.
But not here. Having admitted you’re not prepared to do the heavy-lifting anymore, and the fact that Vision Vancouver are absolutely your political bailiwick, the answer is as sad as it is obvious.
Your column in the Mop and Pail about this entire matter was a contemptible joke.
17 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 20, 2010 at 2:39 pm
spartikus,
One of the great differences between something horrific that happened at Abu Ghraib and the rhetoric that comes out of that cleric’s mouth on Saudi national tv— we can prosecute the morons (ours) at Abu Ghraib.
We cannot prosecute the morons (theirs) as they present this as an essential part of how they choose to control their population. That is hands off! Isn’t it?
Additionally, we have the spectacle of Hamas conducting an education program that is the antithesis of the one Chris Keam talks about. Yet to hamas, it is every bit as legit, teaching their kids their values.
Yes, we can demo our values. But when others, who do not subscribe to our values or way of life train their own to believe the polar opposite, how does back-biting our own actions disarm this kind of thinking?
By the way, that video on “How To Beat Your Wife’ was sent to me by an ex-pat, working in Saudi, who saw it when it was originally aired. He said that was the game changer for him. That understanding “cultural differences” did not extend to those who violate human rights—especially those found in UN Charter on same, to which Canada, the US and every Middle East country is supposed to subsrcibe.
I believe that while politics is at the root of everything, we still have a very dangerous and politically ambitious religious group in the region that is resistent to the rule of INTERNATIONAL law as well as dedicated to precepts that hardly pass the sniff test of the 13th century, never mind the 21st. While I applaud the secularists in Egypt (many of them women) arguing in the region, they are up against a formidible power. Add to that the added heft of technology (the better to spread—or stop—the word), one absolute nutbar in the region, wealth in the hands of the few, education that inculcates hate (as per my video) and a mindset that denigrates all others (kind of like the US, eh?) , you have a structure that is a hard nut to crack.
Of course, all dynasties have their rise, decline and fall. But in an accerated, nuclear world, is there time to talk sense? Surely a program of diplomacy tied to ability for pre-emptive action is the reality.
18 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm
BTW, in an intro that captures copyright, opinion, source protection and possible defamation in one sweet para, here is the inimitable Chris Hitchen’s (Hitch 22):
“I can claim copyright only in myself, and occasionally in those who are either dead or have written about the same events, or who have a decent expectation of anonymity, or who are such appalling public shits that they have forfeited their right to bitch”.
Love it.
Amen to all that, brothers and sisters.
19 spartikus // Sep 20, 2010 at 4:20 pm
we can prosecute the morons (ours) at Abu Ghraib.
Have we now? I mean the ones truly responsible? A few privates and corporals have been put away, and only because those photos found the light of day. But the ones who wrote the orders still walk free. And probably always will.
We cannot prosecute the morons (theirs)
Yes, concepts of sovereignty and the rule of law can be inconvenient, can’t they. Saudi Arabia is an independent nation. They have their legal system, one that allows for behaviours most Canadians would balk at. I think you’re mistaking empathy for some sort of carte blanche acceptance of any behaviour. I would not accept the beating of a woman or a child or man as acceptable. And guess what, I’m allowed to say so.
Where we get in trouble, in my opinion, is preaching our values and then turning around and, say, supplying the government of Saudi Arabia with billions and billions of dollars worth of arms that allows said regime, the regime that permits TV shows featuring a cleric giving advice on how to beat your wife humanely, to stay in power.
It kind of makes it look like we just pay lip-service to our values. Crazy some might think that, I know.
as they present this as an essential part of how they choose to control their population.
Is that so? I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I wouldn’t take a particular TV show as representative of the width and breadth of Palestinian society any more than I would find the Minutemen, the militia movement, Rev. Terry Jones, Christine O’Donnell or the platform of the Montana Republican Party (which seeks to make homosexuality illegal) as representative of the United States. Yes, Hamas won an election. Some might say only because outside parties so undermined the domestic opposition of Hamas that they were the last option standing. Yes, you’ve found Mickey Mouse preaching violence (I note that particular program was pulled). In return I can cite any number of crude caricatures of and advocacy of violence against Muslims in our popular culture. And before them, the Ruskies. And before them the Germans and Japanese…and on and on….
Don’t get me wrong, cultural values are different. But then, it’s their society’s dialogue. Just like “what do we do about teenage boys who rape teenage girls and post the photos on Facebook” is our debate. Though I’m sure there’s some in the Middle East who would like to use that as a indication of our moral failing. It wouldn’t be fair, in fact it would be downright exploitative. But so is vice versa.
Yes, we can demo our values. But when others, who do not subscribe to our values or way of life train their own to believe the polar opposite, how does back-biting our own actions disarm this kind of thinking?
Yeah, how are those resolute Predator drone strikes working out? We’ve been bombing them for many years and they just don’t seem to be coming round.
I believe that while politics is at the root of everything, we still have a very dangerous and politically ambitious religious group in the region
I’m assuming the group you are talking about here is al Qaida. As existential threats go, they’re overrated. Our might makes right approach of the last decade has…failed.
20 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 20, 2010 at 5:33 pm
No, actually, I am talking about politics at the ‘official’ political level in all Middle Eastern countries, not about Al Quada. Of course, most countries in the Middle East don’t have democratically elected governements, so I can see how you could get it all so mixed up. LOL!
It is a very dynamic game over there and there is lots going on. Officially, many countries condemn Isreal—but they are far more worried about implications of Iran’s nuclear capability and itsconnections into Hamas. Of course, the Saudis both support and condemn Al Quaeda, so again, we see, that ‘brother to brother’ feuds in the ME really need the proverbial score card.
Really, spartikus, the TV show which you poo poo is on state run tv. No chance of CBC running same, I suspect. It nicely supplements the scholastic tracts they hand out to kids in Hamas territory which question the existence of the Holocaust and says scurilous things against Jews as a religion. Now, is that just good ol’ “opinion” as practiced in this here blogosphere. Not!
I know the West has lots to answer for. But in this day and age, surely you are not letting those who, with the help of the state, systematically preach the flouting of fundamental human rights—and encourage others to practice it—with the terrible behaviour of those boys in that field?
Because, in your need to show that there is no difference between Islamic state-sanctioned societal human rights violations and the depraved actions from a bunch of asses from a basically secular country this last weekend–an activity, in other words, that is not only NOT state santioned, but decried by moral people everywhere—well, that is a very long bow to draw.
And a pretty sick one, at that.
21 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 20, 2010 at 5:37 pm
PS sparticus.
Instead of your particular and peculiar brand of moral relativism (it’s there country, therefore let them deal with it) might i suggest you look for an organization online that accepts a donation that aids the women and children (and dogs, too) who are trying to speak out against the draconian religious laws—that again, because it is apparently from the mouth of Allah, enshrine every individual man’s RIGHT to mete out that kind of corporal punishment?
22 spartikus // Sep 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Uh…you really, really like to build strawmen, don’t you. Sigh…alright.
Really, spartikus, the TV show which you poo poo is on state run tv.
Incorrect. According to the source of your Youtube clip it was broadcast on LBC TV. That’s the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. It’s privately owned. And in fact the source of your clip, MEMRI, has gotten in trouble in the past over the inaccuracy of it’s translations of Arabic material (citation below to avoid comment moderation).
But I’m fully prepared to grant the subtitling on the Saudi cleric’s interview was an accurate. And if not, that there are Saudi clerics who feel so.
Lebanon’s legal code is based on the Napoleonic Code, not the Sharia. The cleric’s views are contrary to Lebanese law.
But too late. He appeared on Lebanese TV – therefore Lebanon as a society endorses his views. Just like we endorse Anne Coulter. Oy.
Because, in your need to show that there is no difference between Islamic state-sanctioned societal human rights violations and the depraved actions from a bunch of asses from a basically secular country this last weekend–an activity, in other words, that is not only NOT state santioned, but decried by moral people everywhere—well, that is a very long bow to draw.
Wow. This is such dishonest characterization of what I said that it’s makes it the opposite. I even explicitly said Though I’m sure there’s some in the Middle East who would like to use that as a indication of our moral failing. It wouldn’t be fair, in fact it would be downright exploitative. Canada, I hope, is going to have a national dialogue about “those asses” and their “weekend activity”. As well we should. But this was a conversation that was about, until you started shifting goalposts, what are we supposed to do about “them”. And yeah, you’ve lost me. I have no idea what you’re saying we should do. You seem to want to appear moral and resolute but you have specified any sort of action.
Ok, Saudi Arabia has a legal code that allows for stoning and so forth, and a society that in many Western eyes does not treat women as fully human. What is Canada supposed to do about it? Declare war? Institute an economic boycott? Be specific here. Does Fourth Horseman take care not to fill his tank with gasoline from repressive states?
Because as you well know the reality is different. I mean just look at the lead story on the Globe and Mail website. CSIS Director McFadden is in Saudi Arabia as we speak building ties with the Saudi intelligence service….
Information exchanges between CSIS and repressive states have caused the spy agency’s practices to be closely reviewed by a litany of Canadian judges of late.
The recurring concern is whether CSIS, in its never-ending quest for information about terrorists, could be encouraging the torture of any prisoners held overseas. The spy agency upholds that it conforms to Canadian values whenever it swaps intelligence.
Huzzah for Canada!
23 spartikus // Sep 20, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Memories of MEMRI
Also this: You seem to want to appear moral and resolute but you have specified any sort of action.
Should be…
You seem to want to appear moral and resolute but you haven’t specified any sort of action.
That is all.
24 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 21, 2010 at 12:03 am
Sparty,
Straw men? I thought that was your specialty!? I must say, I have never seen a poster so singularily misunderstood by so many, as you purport to be!
As luck would have it, tonight I went to see Harvard law prof, famous legalist and Middle Eastern expert Alan Dershowitz speak. Let’s just say, sparticus, that any man that has access and talks with both the president of Palestine and the PM of Israel, probably has a pretty good take on what is happening in that region. We armchair qb’s should all be taking notes. He told some remarkable stories about conversations with statesman that were more intimate and “real” than anything you and I are privvy to, sadly. I was especially smitten by his remarks on a canny Palestinian president who admits to playing all the cards differently, in order to move the chess pieces around. Brilliant and exasperating!
And one thing that Dershowitz did mention that I knew you would just love: MEMRI. If it were possible, he was more vociferous in his condemnation of the videos that appear there than I am.
So let’s put this into perspective: respected legalist, scholar, fact-checker, vast reputation that he would not lightly throw away. If he were to over-reach or bs, he would be outed on the world stage in a nano second. His comments on MEMRI, therefore, stand for me. Stop being an apologist for repressive theologians. It’s quite awful.
You mention our governemnt working with the Saudis–who work with the Americans, Al Quaeda, etc. (Iran, however, not so crazy about). Hypocracy? Of course. I agree. In fact, I believe that until we can make alternative sources of energy work, that we should support the efforts in our own tar sands.
Moral and resolute? Sigh, I hope so. Am I going to claim to be able to come up with how to handle the ills in the region?
I can only come up with two:
* NGO support in the form of funding to groups within repressive countries to support the basic fundamental human rights outlined by the UN
* Continued diplomatic efforts, government to governement.
As an aside, after a very engaging talk about circumstances (peace talks, nuclear arms, oil)and options to get to peace in the Middle East (all parties have varying lengths of ‘red lines’ that can be crossed—and they are constantly in play against each other), Prof Dershowitz said, when asked how he would counsel Israel and on what decisions need to be made, simply said “Isreal has to figure that out for herself”.
That was hardly a cop-out, just ackknowledgement that the players and options in the region are many. But having said all that he has hopes for the current talks as most parties in the region see the rise of Iran as more of a problem right now. Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.
Also by his account, Ramallah in the West Bank is seeing an economic boon, fuelled in part by Israeli investment and the support of the middle class Arab business class. Gazans may, in the end, see that kind of economic prosperity as an attractive alternative to what is happening now.
Of course, there are some who as recently as yesterday still declare that the very concept of an Isreali state is not acceptable. I truly wish they would knock that crap off, as it undermines their cause.
Ah well, Fidel finally saw the light, so I guess there is hope…
Dershowitz was also asked
25 spartikus // Sep 21, 2010 at 7:57 am
Very interesting, but you’ve been caught in a falsehood: how do you explain the claim you made that the Saudi cleric appeared on state-sanctioned TV, a claim that has now been demonstrated as false?
I’m familiar with the work of Alan Dershowitz. Especially such articles as Want to torture? Get a warrant, where this respected (to some on the Right) legal scholar not only advocates torture, but torture of the suspect on mere suspicion.
26 spartikus // Sep 21, 2010 at 7:58 am
More morally dubious Dershowitzisms
27 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 21, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Because this program did appear on Saudi TV, my friend. My expat friend living there told me about it long ago. If it originated in Lebanaon, who would know. A video could be re-run onvarious state tv shows. Each would brand it with their logo.
I you are in doubt about the legitimacy of the words/translation, there are many videos on the subject on MEMRI, including one where the female panel members are quite enraged as they engage with male leaders on the subject. Body language does help, I guess…
Re: Dershowitz. Anyone who calls him anything other than a liberal does not know his politics or conveniently, depending on the subject matter, chooses to equate him with the right. However, he is not a far left liberal, which might be a punishable offence to you (see below).
And how odd, sparticus, that you would paint him as pro torture.. Because, here, lo and behold, a passage from that very screed:
‘In a courageous and controversial decision, the president of the Israeli Supreme Court wrote a majority opinion banning the use of this tactic against suspected terrorists’
Of course , you negelect to mention that what Dershowitz is doing is not ADVOCATING for torture but, as he puts it, since torture is generally performed “below the line” in secret in many countries, he is offering a controversial, academic proposal designed to stimulate debate about this difficult issue.
28 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 21, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Re: dubious Dershowiticms.
Unfortunately, the link you provide is a short take form a reviewer, so obviously it was difficult. If you have the article in full, I would love to see it.
Let me get this straight: do you think that war zones DO NOT differ from peace time areas? Do you not agree that the Taliban use civilians and/or civilian shields to carry out their war games? Or terrorize the civilian population by way of threats? Or as Hamas did, kidnap its own civilians (murdering some) in order to root out purported spies or PA sympathizers?
29 spartikus // Sep 21, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Because this program did appear on Saudi TV, my friend. My expat friend living there told me about it long ago. If it originated in Lebanaon, who would know. A video could be re-run onvarious state tv shows. Each would brand it with their logo.
Here’s a much simpler explanation: your friend watched LBC on satellite, which is how most people in the Middle East watch TV. From your description, I’m assuming your expat friend can speak Arabic and is thus sophisticated enough to recognize the host’s Lebanese accents. Plus the show’s credits. But all post facto rationalization of something that is beside the point: Your original claim was this program was state-sanctioned. It’s not. It’s a Lebanese talk show from a private station.
If you want to claim Saudi State Television repackaged it, removing all identifying branding, by all means. Prove it. Your own citation doesn’t. “LBC” is clearly visible on screen.
Re: Dershowitz – I guess you don’t know him as well as you think. Today he endorses Republicans. Nevertheless I said, specifically, he was respected by some on the Right. There’s very few Democrats and progressives that view him positively, no matter what he styles himself.
he is offering a controversial, academic proposal designed to stimulate debate about this difficult issue.
Yes. And that controversial, academic proposal is bringing torture out into the open. He even calls it the “torture warrant”. His words, not mine.
30 spartikus // Sep 21, 2010 at 2:09 pm
If you have the article in full, I would love to see it.
Here it is.
Let me get this straight: do you think that war zones DO NOT differ from peace time areas?
Red herring. International law is clear on the targeting of civilians and Dershowitz wants that standard changed. Ironically, such a proposal would legalize many of the tactics of Hamas et al.
31 spartikus // Sep 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I invite The Fourth Horseman to carry on this off-topic conversation here.
32 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 21, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Thanks for the link to the story and to the off-topic site.
Dershowitz indeed says Pres. Obama, who he still supports, is pro arab and pro Isreal—he does not have a problem with that–and neither should any of us. This is what the process is supposed to be about. Win/win, not win/lose.
He also says, and i say, that settlements have not helped bring peace (bad political move) nor did ill thought out tactical manoevers on the flotilla.
Now, supporting a Republican over a Democrat in another race. Does this make Dershowitz a neo-con? I doubt it. What it does show is that Dershowitz supports the candidate who he agrees with as it pertains to his own views on Israel and the group mentioned in the article.
I am not sure where you have the info on Dems. When you say “progressives” he might say “far-left”. He self identied as a liberal. In the US, that is rather a brave thing to do these days.
Re: video. We are into semantics as to which country produced the video–as opposed to the message of the video and many more like it. . It may well be that it is Lebanese in origin, mea culpa, but was seen in Saudi, by yes, my Arabic speaking friend, who maintains that the translation is true.
Yes. And that controversial, academic proposal is bringing torture out into the open. He even calls it the “torture warrant”. His words, not mine.
Come on, sparticus, you can’t be that intellectually dishonest , can you? Dershowitz says that torture has been used in every country in the world (of course, in various ways and to various degrees). As a legalist he poses the question “if you had to get a warrant to do this, would this rid a nation of doing it illegally”. Additionally, I note this thesis seems to be put forward after 9/11, in that he asks the question “if someone knew there was going to be a terrorist act that caused a loss of life” what mechanisms is the state allowed to use, in order to prevent that action, and loss of life, from taking place?”
I leave it to you to tell me how you would handle the Bondian “ticking time bomb”.
33 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 21, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Re: offline conversation.
Duelling drawn butter, at 50 paces…
34 Tom // Sep 21, 2010 at 7:24 pm
And back to Vision Vancouver.
If someone is willing to come forward, and while keeping a straight face, tell everyone that:
…hugging and extending a hand to Geoff Meggs is going to get him to change his ways…
….or hugging Penny Ballum will get her to be just a little nicer…
…or hugging Mike Magee will get him to ease up a little bit….
…or (hold your nose) hugging and extending a hand to Jonathon Ross is going to get him to change…
Well then all I can say is that you’re f–king delusional…and a HACK in your own right.
These bullies need to be beaten back under their respective rocks from which they came.
And there we are back to who started this bloody mess in our city in the first place.