That’s the day I’ll worry about whether or not Afghan soldiers tortured Afghan detainees. (H/T Maz2)
And where exactly does Michael Ignatieff stand on torture?
In fact where is Michael Ignatieff in this “first parliamentary clash of its kind in 90 years”???
* * * *
Related
Peter Worthington has an excellent column in today’s Sun and I’ll give NNW a well deserved H/T for it – Afghan prisoners not Canada’s issue. The whole thing is well worth the read but I’ll highlight some of the more salient points:
…There is no suggestion that Canadian troops in Afghanistan have behaved badly towards captured Taliban insurgents who were trying to kill them.
The issue is whether these prisoners were mistreated after they were turned over to Afghan authorities, and whether Canadian authorities knew they would be abused.
That an inquiry looms is in great part the fault of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and possibly Defence Minister Peter MacKay, and even a batch of senior officers.
When reports by diplomat Richard Colvin surfaced that the Afghans might be abusing or torturing — or even releasing — prisoners, instead of denying knowledge, or maligning the messenger, or equivocating, the PM (and others) might have defused criticism by simply pointing out Canada’s main priority is how Canadian soldiers treat prisoners, not how Afghanis treat one another.
We are not in Afghanistan as colonizers, nor as conquerors. We have neither the interest nor the intention of staying there. We are there to help the existing government. We are not there to run the country, or to dictate how the country should be run.
Yes, we hope to have some influence on how democracy works, and to lead by example on how people should be treated — or not treated. But we Canadians are temporary “guests” in Afghanistan, and are not there to dramatically alter the culture….
( . . . )
…If the PM and others had taken this route, and given this sort of explanation instead of deny, deny, deny, it’s difficult seeing any responsible Canadian getting upset.
We’ve lost 140 Canadians to Taliban violence, and maybe 600 who’ve been wounded, some with life-altering injuries.
In fact, it might even have been acceptable if the PM, when asked about the fate of prisoners turned over to Afghan mercies, had used the occasion to paraphrase Rhett Butler in the classic movie Gone With the Wind: “Frankly, folks, we don’t give a damn.”
Nor do Canadians give a damn.
Well I might disagree with that last statement. Opposition parties and liberal media that are trying to pin a pseudo-scandal on this Government might care. But Canadians who are worrying about their jobs? Not very likely.
Update:
Ignatieff’s Dishonourable Intentions – The Iceman:
…Iggy takes off, his own MPs force would could be interpreted as a motion of non confidence in our minority Parliament, and we are to believe that this is a coincidence? Either Iggy didn’t want his fingerprints on the candlestick, or he has no control over his caucus…
Right, Canadians don’t give a damn about the Taliban but the Liberals have a deep concern for how they are treated in captivity. Why? Are there enough Taliban sympathizers in Canada to garner them a few votes? That’s a Liberal thing, suck up to any group or issue to get votes, even if it sells their souls. This Taliban thing is the latter, they’re smearing our troops and our country.
We are at war and they’re demanding all documents be made public, how ridiculous and dangerous is that? When people go to bat for the enemy in any way with their soldiers fighting in the field is that not treasonous? Flying the human rights banner, taking the word of someone who spent only a very short time outside the wire, just doesn’t fit in this case.
What about their culture? Are the muslisn’ just not following culture norms by treating their prisoners under the guidance of islam? Why the objection from the multicultural liberals?
Oh yeah, Canadians are crying their eyes out so concerned about the barbaric animals belonging to the taliban club being treated like animals by their brethrn captures.
Of course we should care how detainees we hand over to the Afghans are treated,
frankly,
there just isn’t much any ‘visiting’ country can do about it.
Latest memo leaked showed how the Afghan govt told ‘visiting’ countries they did not like all these visits to check up on prisoners,
it INFRINGED ON THEIR SOVEREIGNY,
and threatened to shut them out.
In response, the visiting countries reduced visits to once a month, and all country visits at the same time.
Canada is ‘just visiting’ Afghanistan.
Read Chris Selley’s post in Full Comment at NatPost..’Elliot Ness at the mic’ re Iggy!
BTW,if that video clip had been an interview with the furthest back-bench Cons MP,or anyone that worked for the Cons party..it would be all over every lame-stream media outlet,it would be headline news in every paper for months! This is the leader of the opposition,a man who fancies himself the next PM..WHERE is the media coverage???
THIS IS GETTING TO BE SICKER THAN SICK… [Portion deleted by blog admin] WE SURE HAVE SOME STUPID PEOPLE IN PARLIAMENT WHO ONLY CARE FOR THEMSELVES JUST YO WIN.
WE DO NEED AN ELECTION BECAUSE THIS WHOLE MESS IS GETTING TO BE OUT OF CONTROL. CANADIANS HOW CAN YOU TAKE THIS
ABUSE CAUSED BY OPPOSITION?
Sounds like Canada is close to wearing out it’s “just visiting ” welcome in Afghanistan
As a proud Canadian I understood are military was invited to help the Afghan people
fh
I understood are should be our military
fh
Voodoo Liberalism + United Nations.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
…-
“While Haitian female quake victims are raped, “patrolling” UN Blue Hats do nothing, keep driving
The earthquake that devastated Haiti brought unimaginable horrors for its people, but Haitian women are suffering beyond what anyone could have foreseen. Reports from Port-Au-Prince tell of rapes of victims ranging down to two year old babies.
The camps where quake refugees are forced to live have turned into dark alleys of living hell that pulse with danger for women who have always been second class citizens in the male dominated dirt poor Haiti. Rape the worst nightmare of every woman has become their daily reality.
Sex for Food
The United Nations administered camps have no street lights, no security so women are forced to hide for their safety especially at night. They must carefully select where to take care of their “personal business” or risk presenting an opportunity for a sexual predator.
A Haitian Human Rights worker reports that 47,000 people live in a converted sports stadium designed for far fewer persons and certainly not for full time inhabitance.
He said former prison inmates, including hardened felons who ran to freedom during the quake, are hiding in the crowds. They make their way through the huddled masses of innocent people picking and choosing their next victim like tiger sharks. Many of the women and female children have no male family or friends left to protect them.
He reports the United Nations has done little or no patrolling in the camps. When food arrives, organized bands of criminals take control of it and “sell” it for sex from the young and healthy girls they spot in line. Those who refuse the trades are often summarily gang raped in the sight and hearing of all bystanders as a warning not to resist. “Patrolling” UN Blue Hats look but never “see.” They never get out of cars. They merely drive by.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2474564/posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
“Part II: General Protection of Prisoners of War
This part of the convention covers the status of prisoners of war.
Article 12 states that prisoners of war are the responsibility of the state not the persons who capture them and that they may not be transferred to a state that is not party to the Convention.”
[My highlighting. I assume in this instance "the state" refers to Afghanistan, that is, the place where the conflict is taking place. So, IMO, our forces and therefore our government should not be held responsible for what happens to the detainees after they are handed over to Afghan authorities.
And Afghanistan is a party to the convention, so our government has been acting in accordance with this Article.]
“Articles 13 to 16 state that prisoners of war must be treated humanely without any adverse discrimination and that their medical needs must be met.”
There have been reports that this has always been the case. So once again, our troops and our government bear no responsibility in the maltreatment of detainees, if any has taken place.
I think the op-ed written by Dan Donovan, which Ed referenced in another thread
http://www.ottawalife.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230:publishers-message-january-february-2010&catid=32 says a lot about the opposition’s motivation.
As I commented a few days ago at Chucker’s …
The detainees issue brought up by the opposition
• denigrates our CFs’ admirable work, perhaps even lowering their morale
• helps and encourages the enemy, seeing the kind of discord they can create
• it encourages people I consider lower than kitty litter, people whose only purpose in life seems to be a Ph’D'd shit-disturber
• and most of all, it discredits the admirable work Canada has done in the past and continues to do internationally, at great cost in lives and treasure.
And for what? So that gnat-like MPs like Ujjal Dosanjh and Jack Harris can feel relevant?
“And where exactly does Michael Ignatieff stand on torture?”
It’s hard to tell from that obviously and very clumsily edited tape. This is the kind of video editing one might expect from the Liberals or NDP. If Ignatieff DID “hang” himself with his statements,show the whole thing and let us decide what he meant for ourselves.
And,I AM NO FAN of Ignatieff,I believe he’s the worst in a long string of Liberal Leaders the last forty years, and wish to hell he’d go back to the Hallowed Halls and stay out of Canadian politics.
He’s only an occasional visitor here,anyway.
I’m sorry to be so long-winded … and for repeating what I said a few days ago at Chucker’s, with minor revisions.
I haven’t read Ignatieff’s work, apart from excerpts quoted in the media and some of his articles, but I happen to agree with what he argued regarding torture: if it will help to avoid a greater evil, like the explosion of a nuclear bomb, then like him, I’m for water-boarding the SOBs who have that kind of information.
I thus find myself in an uneasy position when my fellow conservatives bring up the topic of Ignatieff being “pro-torture” and deriding him for it. I imagine Ignatieff himself must feel the same kind of unease when he has to launch the kind of accusations he and his opposition pals have been launching. It shows inconsistency on his part and posturing for political gain.
IF — and that’s a big IF — the Taliban have been “tortured” for the same reason, i.e. to find out where the IEDs intended to kill our CFs have been planted, then I also support some form of “torture” to extract that kind of information. I suppose admitting that makes me a horrible person. So be it. I am talking for myself. I am not a spokesperson for the Conservative Party or the Conservative government.
But this whole question of Canada, or the current government, or the Conservatives being “complicit” or guilty of “war crimes” is an effing sham designed only for one purpose: to smear the Conservatives.
ChuckerCanuck asked this question a few days ago: “So why did Afghan prisoner abuse become an issue only in 2006?”
As far as I’m concerned, it became an issue because the Conservatives came to power.
We hear that the fact torture was going on was common knowledge. If that is the case …
• Why didn’t the media — like the Globe & Mail — send reporters to investigate detainee conditions in Afghanistan in 2001, 2002, 2003 …?
• Why didn’t the then-Liberal government put in place a sound detainee transfer agreement?
• Why did that government agree to the apparently faulty agreement signed late in December 2005, perhaps hastily arranged to avoid questions arising during the election?
• Why didn’t such renowned human rights “champions” as Amir Attaran raise the issue in 2001, 2002, 2003 … when Eileen Olexiuk raised it with the previous Liberal government?
I mean, if he indeed was able to obtain access to some unredacted documents, as claimed in a CBC report http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html, when did he get those unredacted documents?
Who leaked them? Are people who handle those documents allowed to leak them to the media?
Here is a good take on the Liberals and the MSM how they have distorted this issue and others for that matter.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21144
Gabby and all – if this was truly about torture and about unbiased looks at it then I might side with you, BUT, I don’t think for one minute that this is what it is.
It’s an opportunity to make the Harper haters hate him even more and wear the “torturer” moniker as if to suggest that because it happened under his watch it’s because he’s ok with or condones it.
It’s neither balanced nor unbiased.
Because the LPOC has been really quick to ramp up every faux scandal and manipulate it makes this request seem just another kick at Harper, nothing more nothing less(as you answered to Chucker’s question).
To be very honest and even more shocking to your position on some torture…I don’t care because it’s warfare.
We already know that if taken prisoner the enemy have been coached to scream accuse their captors of torture. It’s one thing in war to trust no one, but trusting the LPOC on this and assume their motive initially had anything to do with getting to the truth doesn’t wash with me.
That the LPOC years in power may be included in a review has the LPOC changing their tune slightly because this could all blow up in their face.
I have to wonder why no one has spoken to the cost of another public inquiry on this. Given that we’re just recovering economically, can we afford one now?
Re maz2′s post on the useless U.N., that was my experience after my family and I were in a magnitude 7.4 earthquake in the Caribbean back in the ’90s.
The U.N. reps “patrolled” the area like the cock of the walk and did damn-all, despite the blatant corruption in the delivery of emergency relief services.
Their headquarters was a gated mansion surrounded by manicured lawns and flower gardens in the best neighbourhood in the capital city. They could have cared less about the corruption and the suffering of the people at the epicentre of the quake.
I suspect that their biggest concern was what to wear to the cocktail party that night once they’d patrolled the earthquake devastation and were then flown back to the unaffected capital city.
I haven’t trusted anything the U.N. has done or said since.
I can’t remember a time in the history of Canada where our official opposition spent 24/7 shilling for the enemy over one hearsay complaint of alleged torture. It’s sickening watching the Libs smear our troops and at the same time hissing and spitting at anyone who dares opinine they are smearing our troops. I’ve always know the Liberal Party was anti-Military because I witness them stripped our forces down naked when hubby served but their behavior these days goes beyond the pale.
Gabby here’s another question, why are the libs so sure they have a smoking gun in the detainee documents? Did someone put something in that file on purpose in hopes of causing the Cons embarrassment? Something stinks, I hope all documents are being checked for varification, I’m getting some ugly vibes from the Liberals it’s like they know what they want to expose?
Rose at 11:55 am: “I hope all documents are being checked for varification …”
Which is precisely why it’s a good idea to have an independent opinion on which documents should be made available to the public at large.
Former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci has now been demoted by the opposition to the status of a mere hireling of the government: “the government has hired a lawyer” the opposition sneers. They keep insisting on a public inquiry, I suppose hoping what happened with the Gomery Commission would be duplicated, with the government in place at the time going down to defeat.
IMO, not all documents should be made available to the media and the public at large, especially if those documents might help our enemies. That is why Justice Iacobucci’s review of all the documents to determine which ones can be released is a very wise move on the part of the government — and will probably cost less than a full-blown public inquiry.
dmorris
the tape on Joanne’s Blog is not edited you can see the interview with Charlie Rose on line
at the original program in archives
fh
Where is Liberal Iffy?
Iffy is AWOL with TORedStar’s skunky beer.
Does Iffy know that beer is only rented?
…-
“Harper flush with beer after Obama Olympic hockey bet
Toronto Star”
…-
“Harper’s hockey
wager beer
headed to
Hockey Hall
of Fame
in Toronto”
http://www.newswatchcanada.ca/
…-
“U.K. will copy Own the Podium, after country’s media savaged it”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2698525
Good on the PM for putting his wager win in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Let the media talking heads and scribes salivate and drool.
Deputy Attorney General John H Sims appointed
December 2004 has announced he is stepping down April 01 2010 brew ha ha in media re documents on detainees
fh
Power Play is really bad today, be warned!!
Ms. Taber forgets that other people have made fools of themselves in airports.
Good Lord Ruth..I really wish I had read your warning prior to watching the projectile vomitus coming out of Tom Clark tonite! If that wasn’t a Lib.campaign,I don’t know what was..every Cons that appears on PP,should just sit there and keep repeating John McCallum,John McCallum for every question.Clark is becoming more offensive with every show,and ctv needs to lose viewers over him.
I’ve decided to give up Tom Clark for Lent.
Good idea Joanne, but Lent will soon be over, and Tom is getting worse.
Tonight was downright awful and I did write to CTV about it.
I suggested that Jane T. get a job somewhere behind the camera, and I told them it was no wonder the networks were losing money.
No one can stand watching her performance very long.
Good idea Joanne, but Lent will soon be over, and Tom is getting worse.
Then I will give him up forever. I will only watch when Tonda MacCharles is subbing.
Clark is a piece of work, a Liberal piece of work, couldn’t be more obvious, he’s one of their main shills. It’s off my list, no point watching such blatant bias. It’s simply a Liberal love fest. If CTV can’t see that, they’re willfully blind.
I was especially disgusted with Tom Clark”s treatment of Candace Hoeppner tonight. He and Craig Oliver and Jane Taber are working for the Liberal Party and CTV and sponsors obviously approve!!! Evan Soloman’s panel on CBC feel that Blackburn has been unfairly targeted and is not known to ever raise his voice.Go figure!!!
Anyway on a brighter note I went out to stand outside Brandon University Gym to see Our Prime Minister Stephen Harper! he waved as he walked 10 feet to his car. There was a small respectful crowd and he missed his chance to make an impression and shake our hands. Disappointed!! Mostly students and a few ordinary citizens who were appreciative of the Prime Ministers visit. The RCMP were friendly as we waited to see him. Most of us just wanted to see a Canadian Prime Minister once in our life. Only 3 prime Ministers have ever visited Brandon, Manitoba.
Fay, that’s exciting and I know you’re disappointed but it really is amazing you got that close to him considering that he is the Prime Minister and there are so many people who actually hate him.
Re: Tom Clark – I resent that the Liberal Party gets free advertising through CTV.
Is it some kind of weird ritual of penance that keeps you humble lot glued to CTV…..period?
This “take one for the team” mantra is not my expectation of any one here.
Save yourselves the frustration,tune out and tell your friends and family to tune out.
Each time you tune in and hate what you see/hear you’re still logging in as a patron CTV and Power Play audience.
You folks are better than CTV and Power Play.
(ok – go ahead and let me have it about how insensitive I am to exposing the lies and negativity because you’d be right. I choose to follow the example of our PM who is where he is now because he’s working the high road).
Do you need an intervention?
Actually we should go after CTV program management, email them and ask them to review Clark’s PP shows with an open mind and report back to us. Let them try telling us he isn’t shilling for the Liberals and favouring them as guests on his show, then we’ll know they’re in on it too. We can also go after sponsors. Let’s do it!
I think this whole week was the worst for Tom Clark. He just kept going back to all the tabloid gossip. Then to end the week, he had to have Giggles on to top it all off. What a sad display!!
All this about Tom Clark and how he wrecked that hour that used to be occupied by Mike Duffy ties in quite nicely with Sandy’s post – Duffy correct: critical thinking lacking in journalism schools.
Ruth says:
March 19, 2010 at 5:53 pm
“Power Play is really bad today, be warned!!
Ms. Taber forgets that other people have made fools of themselves in airports.”
Taber is a fine one to talk about making a fool of oneself.
Yesterday, in the House of Commons, the opposition were going after Blackburn. You should have heard them!! What a disgraceful performance on their part.
They have nothing better to talk about. As a taxpayer, I’m disgusted with the waste of money having such a pathetic opposition that fails to deal with significant issues that are important to Canadians!!
Hi Fay in Brandon! Being a fellow Manitoban (SE area) when I heard PMSH was going to be in Brandon,I really wanted to go see him..that darn thing known as a job interfered tho.You mentioned that 3 other PM’s visited the Wheat City,and I know one of them was Dief the Chief,cuz my Dad was one that got to see him! Dad was a quiet,very hard-working man,with 5 kids to support,but he took the time off work to see his ‘hero’..I remember Dad saying he would have crawled over broken glass to get to see the man he just idolized.My Dad absolutely hated Pearson,and his feelings toward Trudeau were even stronger!
re:ctv..we really need to BOYCOTT!Write ctv,even your local outlets to complain..we are going to hurt them.Contact their advertisers as well.I found this column in Wpg Free Press bus.section yesterday:
TV broadcasters suffer big losses
‘Canada’s biggest private television broadcasters made major cuts last yr as they grappled with the recession,but the industry still booked a big financial loss.
The CRTC says private-sector conventional TV stations-which include the likes of Global and CTV-reported losses before interest and taxes of $116.4 million in 2009.
That was after a massive 93% drop in profits to $8 mil during 2008.
The CRTC said national ad revenues fell by 10.3% to $1.32 billion,in the year ended Aug.31,2009,while local ad revenues were also down more than 10%.
Broadcasters also slashed their workforces to contend with losses,with CTV closing 2 of it’s affiliate stations,and Global making cuts to it’s staff as it struggles to restructure its operations.
Soooo,DON”T watch,call your local ctv outlet to complain..be loud and be heard!I have Fox on this am,and boy I feel much better.BTW,I wonder if ctv is trying to get even with PMSH and the Cons Gov’t for not giving them a big bunch of stimulus money to help them out..weren’t they whining about needing money to ‘save local TV?’ Just a thot.
Now, please, don’t anybody get offended, but … I just cannot understand people who keep telling other people here to shut off the TV and not watch “unfriendly” programs.
How do they expect us all to stay informed about issues? How do they expect us to know what our adversaries are up to and what we’re against? Don’t they think we have a role, albeit a small one, in countering the propaganda that’s out there? Isn’t that what we need to do, each and every one of us, to exercise our own critical thinking skills, and be able to determine what’s fact and what’s fiction in the discussion of political affairs during those programs?
It’s not enough to go on about how wonderful our PM is, how successful he has been to date. We have to inform ourselves, have the facts at hand, and be able to rebut the arguments put forward by the adversaries of the government. Whenever we feel the urge, we can email someone like Tom Clark and tell him how wrong he was in saying whatever he said, something like “you’re wrong in stating such & such because of this fact and this other fact.” It’s not enough to just tell him how biased he is and that you’re no longer going to watch.
How can we counter what the adversaries of the government are saying if we don’t know WHAT they’re saying? I’m sorry, it’s totally beyond my understanding.
As I said at the beginning, I don’t mean to offend anyone, but being nagged is not one of my favourite things.
Joanne, I wish I had written this before writing my previous comment. I know my previous comment will probably start another argument among conservatives here, which is NOT my intent, so if you decide not to publish my previous comment, I’m OK with that.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. As there aren’t any personal attacks it’s all good.
The answer is simple Gabby. Either you contribute to the continuing of CTV or you don’t. In my opinion every additional viewer helps them continue. They will not change just because you’ve banged off a few choice letters. It helps your nerves and is a release in the short term but in the long term they continue BECAUSE it pushes buttons. That’s why people tune in – for the tabloid crap.
I just give Canadians a whole lot more credit, and don’t feel that they need to be hand-held and led to the truth. Some do through yes.
That your concerned about starting an argument among conservatives here needn’t have clarification or qualification.
I respect your choice for tuning in to CTV and encouraging your perspective,but in doing so ask that you respect mine for doing so too.
It makes no sense to me why intelligent people go back to what pisses them off most instead of tuning in to those media types who don’t offend you.
Nothing will make them change short of a major ground-swell turning off of the program, and perhaps something much larger like a Boycott. However in order to sell a boycott folks have to be true to themselves first and lead by example.
By the way see Sandy’s coverage of Duffy’s speech in which he takes a shot at the shoddy education journalism students receive these days.
I have no objective but to turn those here who are constantly critical of what they see and hear on CTV to simply make the choice to turn off. By tuning in here to BLY I wanted to make it clear that I place no expectation on anyone to “take one for the team” at all. Beyond the bias is a Prime Minister and government that are doing too good of a job for me to dwell on the negative for too long. Sure it’s fun sometimes but that’s all it is to me. A diversion from where I believe the attention these days should focus which is in the accomplishments of our PM. I happened to read on an earlier thread here that Harper passed a major milestone the other day by reaching 1500 in government. Yet there was little to no comment about that. Hmmm.
Gabby – that you think that you’re going to start an argument paints a rather dim view of discussion here. I see it as being able to have differing opinions under one big tent, as Joanne offers.
Richco, let me try to explain how I feel about this. We all are on the same side but some of us choose to support the Conservative party in different ways. Gabby chooses to keep a close eye on MSM and call BS where she sees it. I respect that.
You choose to ignore the idiots on CTV and I respect that too. But what we really need to try to avoid is telling each other what we ‘should’ and ‘should not’ do.
Live and let live.
You may not “… feel that they need to be hand-held and led to the truth” but you certainly think those who comment negatively on the media here are in need of an “intervention” and need to be shielded from such negativity.
Look, I know you mean well. You want to accentuate the positive? Go ahead. As far as I’m concerned, you’re welcome to do so by pointing us to “good news stories” with appropriate links if possible.
But it is up to each and every commenter to decide what they wish to applaud and/or vent about. I assume we are all adults here. I don’t think we need to be lectured on what to view or what to avoid AND be told we’re in need of an “intervention”, to boot.
As for my painting “a rather dim view of discussion here” that is not at all the case. Accept my word on it or not. But given my previous encounters on this same topic with you Richco, and with C.C. and Sol, I thought it best to warn Joanne, since I am a guest here. It is HER blog, and she uses moderation whenever she deems it necessary. My warning was an afterthought, and my thinking was she might perhaps want to avoid a predictable minor squabble. As you can see, the squabble was indeed predictable, minor though it may be.
But it is up to each and every commenter to decide what they wish to applaud and/or vent about. I assume we are all adults here. I don’t think we need to be lectured on what to view or what to avoid AND be told we’re in need of an “intervention”, to boot.
Exactly.
Haven’t heard from tj for quite some time. The last I heard he was headed for an operation??
I really get a kick out of his posts. Hopefully, he’s a-ok. Has anyone heard from him?
Joanne, I believe the combined methods of Gabby and Richco are the best medicine in dealing with the opposition and the national media, etc..
It appears to me that everyone here has a unique way of confronting the issues out there. I think that makes for a powerful team, one that considers the views of others in a mature way. Disagree if you will, but be respectful and fair.
Joanne, not stated often enough, your daily posts are exceptional. I blame you for keeping me away from the mountain of work in front of me.
I figure, when I get to heaven (hopefully), I’ll be able to do all the things I never got to do on earth. LOL
Joanne, I believe the combined methods of Gabby and Richco are the best medicine in dealing with the opposition and the national media, etc..
And you Sir, should be a Diplomat. A very sweet diplomat.
And you Gabby shouldn’t play judge and jury with me. I have fully disclosed to Joanne and why I made the changes I did. I own neither you or anyone else here an explanation.
That you felt the need to “warn” Joanne was firstly unnecessary and childish at best.
Joanne as moderator and referee needs to listen to all feedback that comes to her privately…including mine.
My points are my own as yours are yours.
On the off chance that we’re not preaching to the converted here, do your best to stem the flow of negative liberal media bias. I deal with it too on a local level that I understand intimately how thick the bias runs. I also get enough feedback myself to suggest that people are cluing in to the bias..that’s why some media is in trouble – because folks are tuning them out.
Thanks Ed. I agree with Joanne. Sir Diplomat it is.
P.S. – in an effort to be more respectful and fair, I change my “childish” descriptor in the previous post. The fact that you identified both CC, Sol and Richco as the same person is very close to outing a fellow blogger. That you have no idea what my reasoning hopefully stayed that way. I’m hoping beyond hope that Joanne didn’t disclose my personal information to you.
I’d like to know that publicly please Joanne. I’m sure I didn’t owe Gabby an explanation. After all I don’t know Gabby at all, if that’s his/her real name or any thing else that requires “warning”.
Gabby is very perceptive Richco. She doesn’t need me to interpret things for her.
Richco, I invite you to re-read exactly what I wrote at 3:14 pm: “But given my previous encounters on this same topic with you Richco, and with C.C. and Sol, I thought it best to warn Joanne, since I am a guest here. …”
Nowhere did I say in that sentence of mine you were all one and the same person.
Now compare what I wrote with what you just wrote:
“The fact that you identified both CC, Sol and Richco as the same person is very close to outing a fellow blogger.”
If anyone outed a blogger, it was you yourself, not me.
I never even mentioned your name in my 10:18 am comment.
Furthermore, the “warning” I was giving Joanne was a heads up, so that she could decide to either publish or delete my 10:18 am comment.
So, my “warning” had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your name or identity. What my warning did have to do with, was exactly what has happened now, what I was concerned might happen: a squabble which appears to be escalating unnecessarily. I thought Joanne might want to avoid the hassle and delete my comment altogether. That is why I warned her in my 11:37 am comment.
I stand by my original points:
We are adults, and if we want to complain about the media, pointing out how poorly they’ve covered a certain event, we should be able to do so without being scolded.
Likewise, if we want to applaud how well the PM or the government is doing, we should also be able to do that. I’m sure no one will be scolded for doing that.
As I said in my original post, my comment was not meant to offend. I see how wrong I was, thinking that my 10:18 am comment would be viewed as just a general comment rather than what you think it was, a personal attack — which it wasn’t.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
…So, my “warning” had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your name or identity. What my warning did have to do with, was exactly what has happened now, what I was concerned might happen: a squabble which appears to be escalating unnecessarily…
The only problem with ‘squabbles’ from my POV is that it takes more than the usual time for me to moderate and attempt to diffuse.
However, I am in favour of healthy debate and I think we may have achieved a consensus here that as Ed very diplomatically pointed out we can all contribute in different ways and it can still be effective.
My, my, the day we can’t have a differing view on something, disagree without being disagreeable can only be called a sad day, a sad development in this type of forum.
It’s got to be a pretty time consuming effort to run a blog, so much to concern yourself with, even HRC complaints. Guess you get to be a a Jack/Jill of all trades including a bit of refereeing!
Yeah, healthy debate allows for differing opinions, different approaches to issues, I think we have that here.
It’s got to be a pretty time consuming effort to run a blog, so much to concern yourself with, even HRC complaints.
Thank you Liz J for acknowledging that. I think folks here are passionate which is a good thing but we do need to respect each other’s opinion. That’s the tricky part.
Against my better judgement, and while I see how I misinterpreted what you were suggesting to Joanne publicly re: the firestorm your post might have(and did) create let me ask you this Gabby.
Why is it that an observation that I make that when I take all of the posts into consideration and revisit the issue of how it HELPS the very negative news-spinners to simply carry on their their bias and negativity, when folks here have identified it also as a waste of time that coming from me it’s viewed by you as “scolding”?
I do think it strange to linger on something that makes one frustrated day in and day out.
Could one not come to the conclusion by reading the blog offerings here that there might be more of a pleasure taken in piling-on of the negative than the building up of the positive?
Preaching to the converted and the regulars here is one thing, but for folks looking in might be surprised by the amount of time and energy given to the opposition and their tabloid journalists when we have one heck of an opportunity to pump up the winner and help get that majority we all know we can get if only we had an election right now?
Righting the inconsistencies in a factual and objective way isn’t really what we want either is it?
We want our guy to get a fair shake and be credited more often for doing a good job. Often that’s not what happens here and sometimes we are just as bad as those tabloids for the name-calling and bias.
My choice is to look for opportunities and ideas to help me do just that in my capacity and in my community.
That’s why for me I far prefer it when the discussion(on any Tory blog) champions what we can most affect at the moment….our support for the PM, his achievements and perhaps fill the void left by those creepy biased, tabloid types. From his support base he deserves that and much more.
I had a great day thanks! With no Question Period on my agenda today it’s looking brighter this Sunday, despite the cold and odd snow flurry.
Richo,not to butt into your exchange with Gabby, BUT, do we not have to talk about the negative stuff the media are putting out to deal with it as well? We here are all aware of the positives of this Harper Conservative government and support it,we are not going to sway any jealous Liberals or their coalition partners, however, we have to go after the lies and innuendo spewed by the Liberal shills on our political programs and in the printed media on a daily basis. They’ve reduced themselves to tabloid journalism, CTV and CBC political programs are nothing but gaggles of giggling twits jumping on stuff hot off the wires without the complete story, that’s pure gossip.
I think we need the whole package, we can’t just wear the rose colored glasses when we’re dealing with the opposition which sadly includes the mainstream media.
I agree with you Liz. We have to call them up on the blatant lies.
Liz – it’s not as if the discussion was between the two of us. I’m not that naive. There is no premium on input here.
I hear what you’re saying but at the same time see that the MSM you’re trying to change in small battles is losing the biggest war of them all. To who? The new media and yes, bloggers.
BUT, what the old MSM types do well that some bloggers and their participants have yet to learn to do is present new and original content that the old guard does every day. So far here we can seem to only react to what the MSM dishes out.
As I said. It’s one thing to call them on the lies with proof and back-up which many here do in spades but to mimic the pile-on just isn’t necessary in a new media world where folks are tuning in for something different perhaps than what the old guard of media are offering. That audience seems to be increasing…not so for the same old MSM.
I’m not suggesting for one minute that just because we’re supporting the PM more is akin to wearing rose-colored glasses. I’m as aware as anyone here about the machinations of bias, in some ways more than I can talk about here. It’s everywhere.
Perhaps that’s why our country now is favouring the message of confidence and hope that the PM is working hard at to the doom, gloom and negativity of the alternative?
When all is said and done, in someways bloggers like Joanne are pioneers because they have, or soon will have if they’re effective a huge contingent of on-lookers and participants who may be looking for that one common thread of idea that will make them choose Harper over the other guy in the next election.
I see bloggers as offering up a service of sorts. They’re accountable for everything on their blogs with none of the perks or pressures of the newsroom AND they have the best seat in the house with respect to free labour and great researchers.
It was mentioned to me the other day that Conservatives have more blogs than do the Liberals but few seem unable or unwilling to drive the news their way by making it. Making us less dependent on a Fox-like organization to save us from the glut of Liberal bias.
All I can do is try. The choice is up to those who spend time here with more regularity than I do.
Positive does not equal stupid.
…BUT, what the old MSM types do well that some bloggers and their participants have yet to learn to do is present new and original content that the old guard does every day. So far here we can seem to only react to what the MSM dishes out…
MSM often regard bloggers as leeches for that reason. I honestly don’t think bloggers will ever entirely replace MSM. One of the reasons I am driven to put out this blog is to hold the media accountable. I can’t do that if I don’t sample their output and weigh the bias and the truth factor.
I also have neither the time nor the resources (nor the interest) to go out finding my own stories except on that rare occasion when I am able to attend a political event of some interest.
Ultimately I am blogging because I want to get what I perceive to be the truth out there.
No, Richo, Joanne hasn’t put a premium on input here on her blog. We are free to post all the good news and sing the praises of PM Harper and we do, it’s here for all who visit this site to read about. BUT, we also are able to call the opposition and their minions on anything they spout that isn’t fair or factual.
As for “positive does not equal stupid”, where did that come from?
I just watched the clip from question period with Candice Hoepner and two old white NDP guys Bob Rae and Dewar.I think she did a great job defending the cause to promote Child and Maternal Health care to save lives around the world. The two old white guys look very foolish pushing abortion on women in desperate countries. How can anyone defend what Bob Rae is proposing? Craig Oliver , the old dirt bag tried to portray Candace as a prolife, gunslinging backbencher hick from the west. No wonder women don’t want to go into politics. I am sure the MSM will begin to target Candice Hoepner to bring her down a notch or two on Bob Rae’s orders.(oops I mean power corps orders)
Speaking of abortion, it looks like the U.S. health care bill will pass but some key Democrats had held out until they were assured that there would be no federal funds for abortion. I wonder what Bob Rae would say about that?
You know i have been prochoice all my life but am very frightened by Liberals like Rae and Iggy who want to push abortion on women against their will. To me that is not prochoice!!!! All Canadians should be very afraid of what the oppositions are pushing.