Thursday, April 27, 2006

Who Should be Ashamed?

The Hon. Andrew Telegdi has just surpassed Hon. Karen Redman on my "Local M.P. Embarrassment Meter". (What makes them honourable anyway?)

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): "Mr. Speaker, the decision to send our troops to a combat zone is made in this building. Ultimately it is Parliament that is responsible. It is a disgrace that the flag at the top of this building is not at half-mast as a show of respect for our soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms.

When we lower the flag, not only do we honour the latest casualties, we remember all our war dead. Lowering the flag is an expression of the appreciation of a grateful nation to those who are serving and those who have served. Remembrance should not be restricted to one day a year.

Further, the new policy to banish the media from the repatriation ceremony of the bodies of our fallen soldiers is a disgrace. I suggest that the new government policies on the flag and repatriation be reversed.

The firefighters, at their convention being held in Ottawa today, had a minute of silence in memory of our fallen soldiers. This sign of respect is being repeated by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I suggest that we in this chamber do the same by having a moment of silence in remembrance, gratitude and respect."

-Hansard, April 26, 14:20

Now, let's contrast this with an excerpt from the Letter of the Day in today's National Post:

'Canadians have not earned the right to share our grief'

"As a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I'm disturbed by the media frenzy and the artificial public outcry over the government's decision to restrict the media from CFB Trenton for the arrival of Canadian war dead. I fully support this decision, and I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians. For the past dozen years, when the Liberals were decimating the Canadian military, there was no public outcry. There was no media frenzy. You did not care. Canadians have -- due to their self-centred, insatiable demand for social programs -- wilfully neglected the men and the women of the Canadian Forces and allowed the federal government, under the Liberals, to gut the Canadian military. And now the media and other pundits wish to share in the grief of the military families for their fallen ones?

...The Canadian media -- and Canadians -- have not earned the right to share our grief. Shame on the Canadian media, and shame on Canadians."

Ian Parker, Carleton Place, Ont.


I am begging the constituents of Kitchener-Waterloo: Please, please please cut this letter out of your Post today. Stick it on your fridge and reread it when the next election rolls around. If you still think the Liberals did such a great job, then tell that to Ian Parker and every other soldier risking his or her life today.


Mary said...

Keep their feet to the fire Joanne.
The liberals cannot see their own flaws or their bias, so keep on pointing up their split personalities.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Mary.

Here is an email I received from someone who would prefer to remain anonymous, but allowed me to reproduce the message:

"As usual, the Liberals (like Telegdi) have no shame or conscience. They are blatantly political animals who sniff at the heals of the good and just, for any opportunity to try to score cheap points that they think will make them look compassionate or in touch with average Canadians and the interests of the country, when in fact they are dastardly cretins who would sell their own mothers out if they thought it would get them what they want (which is the attainment and preservation of their own political power)."

Well said, mon ami.

Swearengen said...

Typical Liberal hogwash. They made the rules, they get booted out, they diss the rules.

Cheap attempt to score political points. Most Canadians are smart enough to see through that.

The fools who can't or won't vote for them

davidson said...

joanne, you may be interested in noting that military spending has decreased in all Natio natoina except the US since the end of the cold war. furthermore, Brian Mulroney's conservative govt began the trend in the late 80's. Total number of troops fell by 7,000 under the lat tory govt. You may not like this fact, however, it's a fact. Blind partisanship is self-deceiving.

Riley Hennessey said...

Ouch Joanne what a scathing post! hah

Let's not drag our social programs into this mess though. I'm quite fond of them actually but I agree the military was gutted during the 1990's. It was not in favor of social programs though but a misguided view that the world would be more peaceful after the end of the cold war.

It was bad policy decisions that lead to the demise of the Canadian military, and an utter lack of respect for our men and women in uniform. I love the hippies who cry out for the media to cover repatriation, but just last week they were calling the military "babykillers". Its same same dumb@ss crowd here in Halifax who thinks canadian soldiers in Haiti are out there gunning down civilians in the street. They make me sick to my stomach.

Warren Kinsella noted that this is just a media attempt to derail the conservatives for cutting back their access to babysitting patrol on the third floor of parliament. It's just so hard for MSN to find real stories they like it much better to sit and be fed.

Shame on the media for spinning this.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Davidson, if that's the way you feel, why don't you write a letter to the Post and refute Ian Parker's statements? Are you afraid to criticize a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces?

Put your pen where your mouth is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yeah, Riley. I think you have a good grasp on the situation (for a Grit). ;)

Zac said...

Just a few points here Riley...

"I agree the military was gutted during the 1990's. It was not in favor of social programs though but a misguided view that the world would be more peaceful after the end of the cold war."

I'd check your facts on this one there buddy, because I can't remember any Liberal ever uttering such a comment.
"It was bad policy decisions that lead to the demise of the Canadian military, and an utter lack of respect for our men and women in uniform."

It was bad policy for Mulroney to exacerbate the problem with Canada's debtto the point where severe cuts were needed to every level of government services, including the military. Those who berate the Libs for cutting funding should check thier facts and place some blame on thier demi-god, Mulroney.

Its good to see that your getting top marks in your class in "revisionist history" though.
"I love the hippies who cry out for the media to cover repatriation, but just last week they were calling the military "babykillers"

Here you have a point. Lefties in Canada love to hate that trained ape who leads the super power to the south. As such, they mold thier image of Harper in the light of Dubya, which isn't a fair comparison. But they do it anyways, and all of a sudden a Liberal mission to Afghanistan, which was acceptable last year, turns into a war mongering excersise with Harper singing from Bush's song book. I don't understand it, but that's there perogative. To call soldiers in Afghanistan "baby killers" is wrong. But if Harper committs troops to Iraq....
"Shame on the media for spinning this."

Now, now....shame on Harper for making our army serve his political ends.

Tango Juliette said...

Tango Juliette said...

The bozo liberals (a.k.a. "the Shakespearean tragi-comic neo-commies") are an embarassment to Canadian democracy.

They changed the protocol at the time of the deaths of the four Canadians, who fell victim to American "friendly fire."(BTW: What an unfortunate euphemism.)

The flag lowering initiated by the Liberals was a patently partisan and cynical move on the part of the Liberal gov't. of the day.

Obviously a move of pure treachery, it gave the strutting popinjays a venue to shed their crocodile tears. This gambit was truly intended more to embarrass the "hated" USA, and to deflect any perception of Liberal decimation of the military, and its materiel requirements, than anything else.

All of this was done under the flimsy guise of "Liberals support our military," by pretending to present unique and exceptional recognition for the friends, families and unfortunate victims of the perverse tragedies of war.

As for the Liberals'alleged support for the military of Canada?

To wit:

1.) $500,000,000 (that's five hundred million TAX dollars!) in penalties for a Cretin-cancelled helicopter order originally placed by Mulroney.

2.) A former Prime Ditherer who thinks that June 6 commemorates Canada’s participation in the invasion of Hitler's Fortress Europe, when our troops took part in the landings on the beaches of "Norway."

3.) One former Liberal Minister of Defence hasn't got a clue about the difference between "Vimy" and "Vichy."

4.) Another former Minister of Defence simply used his position, and expense account (our tax $$'s, folks) for his little boink-fests, 'cause on his own, he wasn't all that bluddy much of a babe magnet. If you get my drift. And THEN he got promoted to the Senate. hooo-HAH!!

5.) Another Liberal Minister of the Clown, saw no difference between "Dieppe" and "Denmark."

6.) And submarines? Let's not even launch into that storm-tossed sea.

These dolts are 8 to 10 years older than I, with better socio-economic backgrounds. If they didn't learn anything living and attending school through that hellish era, 1939 - 1945, then they shouldn't even have been allowed to stand for office.

And to think, they thought that Stockwell Day had some geography facts wrong? They and the MSM had a field day at Stock's expense.

In comparison, their errors were blindingly blatant flashes of pure ignorance and stupidity compared Stock being unsure aboutwhich way some Southern Ontario River flows.

Yeah. Sure. Uh-huh! They truly do respect our military, and our traditions. NOT!! Thursday's Globe editorial cartoon really "nailed their landing." Sit up and fly right.

I'm from Telegdi's riding, and the label "Bozo", which I employed earlier, didn't simply come to me in a dream, kiddies. The man is not worth speaking to, writing to, nor spitting on should his head suddenly burst into flames.

To read the Flag rules, as set by Parliament, please direct your attention to the following and check out (OOOps! -- my inclusion of the Govt. of Canada html was declined -- you'll have to find it on your own.)

"Any mans' death diminishes me in part for I am involved in mankind." ~ Blake?

"Every Mother on earth, astride a gaping grave gives birth." ~ Sorry, can't recall the author here.

Sign me "A Disappointed Vet."
QOR 2Btn. /RCCSigs.

Jack said...

Just so that everyone is aware - past governments started gutting the military during the Pearson years. It began with integration - Paul Hellyer's brainwave - and has continued unabated since then. I know because I was there (1963 - 1977) and watched it happen. I left in disgust as have thousands of others in the years since.

Harper and his government are the first good news our men and women in uniform have had in almost half a century. I sincerely hope the trend continues.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow! Thank you for your thoughts, Tango Juliette! At first I thought it was Rachel Marsden trolling my blog!

Swearengen said...

Hey TJ

Excellent post! It always amazes me how well people on the right can support and back up their views.

Seems the only way those on the left can do it is by name calling, whinning, and distortions of reality.

Zac said...

"The bozo liberals (a.k.a. "the Shakespearean tragi-comic neo-commies") are an embarassment to Canadian democracy."

This comment seems wierd considering the post below by swearenegan blamed those on the left for debating by using only name calling.

Zac said...

Ok Tango,

"The flag lowering initiated by the Liberals was a patently partisan and cynical move on the part of the Liberal gov't. of the day.

This comment seems odd when it is considered that Jason Kenney put forth a motion to lower the flag after the HMCS Chicoutimi fire which Harper and O'Connor both supported. But the Libs were doing it for partisan reasons? And the CPC wasn't, right Tango
"And to think, they thought that Stockwell Day had some geography facts wrong? They and the MSM had a field day at Stock's expense."

Kinda hard not to...the guy was kind of a joke.
"These dolts are 8 to 10 years older than I, with better socio-economic backgrounds. If they didn't learn anything living and attending school through that hellish era, 1939 - 1945, then they shouldn't even have been allowed to stand for office."

I really dont know what to make of this...
"The man is not worth speaking to, writing to, nor spitting on should his head suddenly burst into flames."

Are you off your medication? Or are you just drunk?

Who, honestly, says such an thing? You have problems my friend.
"To read the Flag rules, as set by Parliament"

The official flag rules, as set out by Heritage Canada is as follows:

…the flag on the Peace Tower of the Parliament Building at Ottawa is flown at half-mast:
on the death of a Lieutenant Governor;
on the death of a Canadian Privy Councillor, a Senator, or a Member of the House of Commons;
on the death of a person whom it is desired to honour.

It is good to see that Harper doesn't think that soldiers fall into the last category.

Either way, why do we lower the flag for MP's and Senators, but not soldiers.

By this logic, if Michael Fortier, Harper's unelected senator who was given the Public Works portfolio, should pass away tomorrow, the flag would be lowered for his proud 4 months of service to our nation, but a soldier who gave his life for our nation gets nothing. Makes plenty of sense.

Swearenger said...


Yes and would your Liberal pal Al Gagliano will be thus honored too?

Zac said...

Nope but soldiers would.

Swearengen said...

Soldiers are honored. Nov.11th

Interesting how you seem to put words in Harpers mouth "It is good to see that Harper doesn't think that soldiers fall into the last category."

Interesting, you can read minds too.

Zac said...

Does thier sacrifice not warrant both?

Swearengen said...

The issue as I see it is that if the flags are put at half-mast everytime bodies are shipped back, eventually complacency will set in.

This is already evident on Nov. 11th. The poppies you see on peoples lapels are in the minority.

Do schools still ring the bell for moments of silence, do companies?

If we can't take 1 minute and spend a buck or two on a poppy one time a year, what makes you think that we'll even bother to notice whether a flag is half mast or not.

This is political hogwash until the budget.

Zac said...

So since some people do not properly honour our vets and war dead, in your view, we should probably stop trying?

I think every time that someone sees a lowered flag they stop to think about who passed on. Lowering the flag will only help keep these soldiers memory alive.

Swearengen said...

I never said we ought to stop trying to remember. If anything we ought to make a greater effort, on Nov.11th.

Were you as vocal (when I say you I include fellow Liberals) as vocal during Kosovo and the Shawinigan strangler was doing the same thing. Say wasn't he choke slamming someone protesting poverty?

Alberta Girl said...

Zac - please enlighten us as to HOW this is serving PM Stephen Harper's political agenda?

Dave said...

I also served Canada for 25+ years. I remember when I joined it was painful to shorn our long hair and trade in our tye-dye bell bottoms for a rifle. We knew we would be spit on and dirided publicly,(and yes that happened alot in the 70's) never the less we understood that we were not Americans and Vietnam was not our burden. This was lost on most Canadians, and they percieved all in uniform worldwide as "baby killers". Thus began the era of policy by media. Anyone remember Pierre Trudeaus' attempt to disband the military? Now society in it's political correctness, has learned to understand that it is not the soldier,sailor or airman that advocates war. The people that put their lives on the line (and on hold in many cases)to stand on the wall for all of you. They do it for noble reasons. The person who prays for peace the most, is the soldier, as it is the soldier who risks the most for his political masters' folly. To fly the flag every time a person is killed in the line of duty is not a good Idea. Do you research on which countries do this and get back to me. It is looking like a political witch hunt to me. Rememberance day is for remembering those got killed. (notice I don't candy coat it by calling them the "fallen") When you sign on the dotted line there is no portion of the contract that mentions half mast flags or situations dealing with "falling". The job description is to break things and hurt people. We are not handing out teenie Canadian flag pins and teddie bears in the rugged landscape that is Afghanistan.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow, thanks Dave. You're right. We shouldn't be using the euphemism "fallen". Let's tell it like it is. This isn't a video game where you get ten lives.

Derik Foulem said...

For a government that was elected on transparency and accountability, Stephen Harper seems to be showing little of both. I can agree that using fallen soldiers in political power games is just plain wrong but censorship of that magnitude is on the same level.

This is as bad as the sponsorship scandal. The government should be worried about doing what the population wants not making decisions based on controlling what the population thinks. That’s dictatorship.

I would hope that as proud Canadians in our society that we can decide to send our troops in a place like Afghanistan and accept the consequences of casualties without having our government hide us from that brutal fact. Hiding it is just plain cowardly.

This is just once more case of censorship by this government (see ministers not allowed to talk to the media) or lack of transparency (see sneaking cuts to thirty environment programs during Easter weekend). Although those are brilliant communication tactics in order to gain momentum for a majority government, its plain and simple manipulation of the electorate.

Zac said...

Wow, I go and play a quick round of golf and everybody's on me...amazing.

"Zac - please enlighten us as to HOW this is serving PM Stephen Harper's political agenda? "

I thought that this was pretty self explanitory but I guess not.

It serves his agenda because, like it or not, the war is now his. The Liberals began it, yes, but the public sees it as Harper's now. Good or bad, he bears the consequences. Seeing coffins return brings the point of these deaths home to people. You can see it, you can see the sombre repatriation ceremony and people begin to question the war.

The same thing with the flag. If people pass a lowered flag, they stop and think to themselves who passed away.

Both of these two things are political as major casulaty losses make Harper look bad. Personally I don't think so, but others do. I think that his handling of the war has been top-noth thus far but him trying to divert to public's attention draws from the respect owed to our fallen soldiers.

Zac said...

You tell 'em Derek!

Gabby in QC said...

Zac wrote:
"This comment seems odd when it is considered that Jason Kenney put forth a motion to lower the flag after the HMCS Chicoutimi fire which Harper and O'Connor both supported."

Hmm, FYI it was actually James Moore.

Also, à propos of no other commenter, naturalized Canadians (such as myself and Mr. Telegdi) should be grateful for the acceptance they receive in this great country.

These same naturalized Canadians, however, should refrain from trying to "reshape" Canada. She has her own well-established traditions and, regarless of how long ago Mr. Telegdi came to Canada, he has no right to try to change those honoured traditions. Flags at half-mast & wearing the poppy on Nov. 11 are CANADIAN traditions. Please respect them.

Derik Foulem said...

I agree with Zac, Harper knows that to get elected to a majority next time around he has to keep a tight lid on everything his government does.

Now maybe he's just worried about the strong right wing current of the party torpedoing a more centrist approach for the concervatives which I can live with.

I sincerly hope that he's not hidding an agenda of right wing policy that he's saving in case he does eventually win a majority.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thank you, Gabby for your comments. I wish Mr. Telegdi had your insight and sense of propriety.

Dear, dear Derik... *Sigh*
Are we back to the "scary Stephen Harper" ploy now? Is that the best you can do? I had such hopes for you.

Derik Foulem said...

I'm not yet at the "scary Harper ploy”, as I have said Harper's doing what he has to do to win a majority. If he let most elements of his party speak freely he'd be back in the opposition seats (see June 28th 2004 elections).

A big part of the reason he one the 2006 election was because of a masterful communication strategy with a tightly controlled message. He's keeping with that strategy in his approach to governing.

What's going to be interesting to see his how he'll deal with a majority should he win one after the next elections. Will he let the very conservative right wing current of the party come out or will he use the victory to make the case that a more centrist approach to governing from the conservative party is the way to go? Time will tell.

Zac said...

"Flags at half-mast & wearing the poppy on Nov. 11 are CANADIAN traditions. Please respect them."

By this logic Gaby you could say that slavery was an American tradition, so we should leave well enough alone. Or that we should respect Germany's proud tradition of ritually killing Jews?

I know that I am taking it to the extreme here, but you get my drift. Just because something is a tradition doesnt mean that we should follow it forever. These soldiers deserve our utmost respect for thier sacrifice, delivering anything else is an insult.
"Also, à propos of no other commenter, naturalized Canadians (such as myself and Mr. Telegdi) should be grateful for the acceptance they receive in this great country."

Just because someone wasn't born here, doesnt mean that you don't have a say in our customs. Everyone, is Canadian, whether you were born here on not, and thus everyone has an equal voice in this country. Anyone who tells you differently is a bigot.

Derik Foulem said...


Zac said...

Personally Derick, I think he's in for another minority government next time.

I think we are going to return to the old Dief/Pearson a-minority-for-you-a-minority-for-me years.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, everyone is entitled to express their opinion in Canada (unless of course we are talking about publishing certain cartoons that seem to be taboo).

At the end of the day, though, somebody has to take a stand. That's why we elect a government. If we all just sat around arguing, nothing would get done and we would have chaos.

Derik Foulem said...

Cartoon? I'm sure you don't want to dig that issue up again?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm just saying that there are some areas where our "Freedom of Speech" is somewhat restricted if we value our safety.

This relates to what Zac said about everyone in Canada having an equal voice. There are some issues we can't talk about.

Riley Hennessey said...

haha joanne I am reading these posts and laughing. Looks like Zac and Derik are a couple peas in a pod over here. Zac, people are all over you cause you pick apart our posts line by line like some kind of childish zealot. Grow up.

I suggest you read the 1994 defence white paper, dissect it, then get back to me k? Oh while you're at it, then do some research on how the gov't implemented the white papers reccomendations and how effective they were.

Remember folks, deep in the bowls of the government, Harper and his evil druids are out to conspire against the Canadian people. Censuring and fighting wars and all this evil evil stuff. Oooooo Im frightened just typing this. He even talks to Bush on the phone! AiYEEEE scary!

The thought that suddenly people are not going to hear about deaths cause the parliament flag isn't lowered, or we don't get to see the coffin come off the plane. It's really gettin to me. Come on people can we just drop the conspiracy theories?

Zac said...


Riley, your blowing my argument out of proportion. By saying things like: "Remember folks, deep in the bowls of the government, Harper and his evil druids are out to conspire against the Canadian people. Censuring and fighting wars and all this evil evil stuff. Oooooo Im frightened just typing this. He even talks to Bush on the phone! AiYEEEE scary!" makes you sound stupid.

Did I say that I'm scared of Harper? Did I even say that once?

I have news for you there Riley, I'm one of the few Liberals who isn't fearfull of Harper or his "hidden agenda". And by the way, I've actually met the guy. Because of my parents involvment with the CPC, I've been at Tory dinners that rank and file members like yourself pay $500 a plate for, so don't say stupid things like I'm scared of him and what he's going to do to Canada.

And Riley, why come onto blogs if your going to simply call everyone who disagree's with your views a child? Your the one whose scared of others opinions. You cower in the face of opposition to your opinions. If you don't like what I'm saying prove me wrong, don't resorte to name calling, it makes you look calous and weak.

But Riley, I'm going to do something that you won't do. I'll act like an adult and address your argument - a courtesy you seemingly refused to provide to me.
"The thought that suddenly people are not going to hear about deaths cause the parliament flag isn't lowered, or we don't get to see the coffin come off the plane."

I have never asserted this. Every media outlet has reporters in Afghanistan. The public will hear about the deaths of soldiers. I am saying that viewing the repatriation ceremony brings home the point and puts a face on war that simple reporting could never do. Harper is attempting to divert this activity because he believes that showing this ceremony will have damaging effects on his chances for re-election. I personally dont think that it will hurt his chances, but others dont see it the same way. To counter opposition to the war efforts he has chosen not to have the public view it simply because it brings home the human toll of the war more than anything else the MSM could do.
" Come on people can we just drop the conspiracy theories? "

No one is saying that there is any conspiracy here. Harper, in my view, has a vested interest in these images not being flashed across a TV screen, so he is trying to block them. Thats not a conspiracy theory, it's simply an assertion.

If I'm wrong, prove to me that I'm wrong instead of calling me a "child" and telling me to "grow up". Your supposed to be the adult here, start acting like it. If you want to be civil you have two options: refute my argument or agree with it.

Gabby in QC said...

Zac wrote:
"Just because someone wasn't born here, doesnt mean that you don't have a say in our customs."

Indeed, I do have a say in Canadian customs. I can either adopt them or blend them into my own traditions (there's that word again). For your & my edification, here are some definitions of "tradition."
1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.
2. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.
3, A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present.
4. A body of unwritten religious precepts.
5. A time-honoured practice or set of such practices.

I don't think Nazism qualifies as a "tradition."

BTW ...
From Wikipedia:
"Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is, in Internet culture, an adage originated in 1990 by Mike Godwin that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made the thread in which the comment was posted is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
"Everyone, is Canadian, whether you were born here on not, and thus everyone has an equal voice in this country."

However, it doesn't mean one should start imposing their traditions on their adopted country or change them with the wind. I have expressed my voice by my vote & my government has decided to maintain this country's time-honoured tradition re: when to half-mast & when to wear the poppy.
"Anyone who tells you differently is a bigot."
No bigot has tried to tell me anything. I came to the conclusion all by myself that I didn't leave my country so that I could fashion my adopted country to my taste, or turn it into the country I left behind.

Would you dictate how your hosts should do things in their own home when you're invited over for dinner?

No, it's OK, you don't have to answer that.

Gerry said...


The letter in the National Post is a view point that I hadn't considered, and it really hits home - I'm ashamed as all Canadians should be to have allow this to happen to our military.

Andrew Telegdni's political career peaked the first day he got elected, and it's been all downhill since then - I have no time for anything he has to say...

The Toronto Sun although a blue collar paper, for the most part has well thought out editorials. It's a tough topic and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

As for Stephen Harper, he continues to make me very proud that he's now our Prime Minister. He faces every challenge with well thought out logic and dignity.

God Bless Canada.

Zac said...


"I do have a say in Canadian customs. I can either adopt them or blend them into my own"

That is entirely your choice. Its up to you. As a Canadian, this country is moldable in your image.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"

As I acknowledged, the nazi example was an extreme one. I did not intend for it to have an impact on our discussion necessarily but I wanted to draw a comparison to where our discussion was headed based on your assertions of tradition.
"However, it doesn't mean one should start imposing their traditions on their adopted country or change them with the wind."

No it doesn't Gabby, but dont let anyone tell you that because not lowering the flag was a tradition there is any reason to follow that line or thinking. I believe that we should lower the flag for every soldier because thier sacrifice warrants such an action on our part. They deserve our utmost respect, why not provide it? Why should we provide them with only one day? Why not when they die should we lower the flag so every Canadian should mourn with thier families. If they die carrying the flag for a cause that we, as Canadians, believe in, should we not do them the honour of lowering the same flag that they so bravely carried with them into battle?

It's the least that we could do....well, I guess, Harper is doing the least that we could do, but you get my point.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow, I turned in early last night, and had no idea all this was going on! I guess this is a hugely controversial subject.

Paul Russell of the Post said that Stephen Harper was a "Letters Editor's best friend" with the flag and media decisions this week, and all the ensuing contributions they generated. I guess that would be the case for bloggers too. ;)

Zac, I don't see Riley's (very humerous) post as an insult. I think you over-reacted there. However, let's keep it civil, and try to refrain from personal attacks. BTW, why is Riley supposed to be any more the "adult" here than you? Are you over 17? If not, you express yourself quite well for a youngster.

You said, "And by the way, I've actually met the guy. Because of my parents involvment with the CPC, I've been at Tory dinners that rank and file members like yourself pay $500 a plate for..."

So, where did they go wrong, Zac? Are you in a rebellion phase?

Riley Hennessey said...

Dear Zac,

I was unaware you were a celebrity and knew Mr. Harper. My mistake, please if you are at another fancy dinner party which I could never dream of attending because I am but a poor boy, please can you get his autograph for me?

I'm just glad there are people like you to set the record straight!

I look forward to this post being dissected line by line with more clever analysis from you.

Respectfully stupid,

Joanne (True Blue) said...

*LOL* You don't need to be a celeb to get his autograph, Riley! I did it at an election rally in January. You only have to be pushy.

He was in a huge crowd of people, and I was desperate to get his attention, so I yelled, "Prime Minister Harper!", and he turned around and smiled at me. Then I shoved a gold Sharpie and a photo into his hands and he signed it. The RCMP didn't look too impressed, but they let it go.

I guess I was successful because not too many people had called him PM yet!

Somebody told me later that it was "tacky" to ask a politician for their autograph. Well, "Tacky Joanne" looks at that photo everyday and smiles.

Swearengen said...

Zac said,

"Because of my parents involvment with the CPC, I've been at Tory dinners that rank and file members like yourself pay $500 a plate for"

Arrogance personified! Proves that you really are a spoiled snot nosed punk.

Freeloaders who live off mummy and daddy are in no position to insult others about their finances.

Typical elite pretender.

Derik Foulem said...

"And Riley, why come onto blogs if your going to simply call everyone who disagree's with your views a child? Your the one whose scared of others opinions. You cower in the face of opposition to your opinions. If you don't like what I'm saying prove me wrong, don't resorte to name calling, it makes you look calous and weak."

Sorry to say Riley but I can fish alot of example from your blog of this kind of behavior

Riley Hennessey said...


I love your comments what are you talking about? you're just the smarterst person ever to read my blog and I get jealous. The truth is I'm not confident in my opinions and get scared when people disagree.. Eeek! Help me o' wise one!

Joanna, your story is SOOO funny! Querky events like that are why I love Canadian politics. I bet Harper LOVED when you called Prime Minister haha keep that picture safe and I bet in 50 uears it will tell quite a story.

Riley Hennessey said...

Oh and Joanne, funny story to accompany yours. One of the first times I ever got involved in politics was a gig singing the national anthem at rallies for Frank Mckenna.. i was pretty young at the time. Anyway after the first gig, I got a letter signed by him thanking me and saying that he hopes it would not be my last foray into politics.

Needless to say I have that letter framed on the wall of my room. haha now THATS tacky eh?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Riley, thanks for sharing your story. It's not tacky in my books. I would do the same. Too bad we can't sample some of your singing. Maybe an audio file on your site?

Swearengen - The rules of this site are to refrain from both profanity and personal attacks. Your comments about Zac verge on the latter. Please try to use logic and facts to support your position. It's my blog, and although I appreciate your input, I may have to start zapping your comments. Thanks.

Swearengen said...

Spoken like a true diplomat.

No swearing.

I'll let you decide if I cross the line.

I just don't appreciate when someone plays the "I got the money" card. It's insulting.

Zac said...

I'm a spoiled snot nosed punk?

I was simply refuting some insults that flew my way. I was relating the story of the CPC dinners to show that I'm not scared of this guy in any ways. I've met him, I know what he's about but we diverge ideologically, so I campaign against him. So leave it at that.

But I wont be mad at the fact that you called me a spoiled snot nosed punk, it seems that your simply an intellectual lightweight who can't express yourself without using derogatory terms. Go back to the chat rooms if you simply want to hurl insults at others.

Zac said...

I didn't play the "i got the money card" I was simply saying that I know what Harper is all about and he doesn't scare me because I've met the guy and was using the story as an example.

Zac said...

Oh and for the record, I wasn't saying that "I have the resources to pay $500 a plate and you don't", I was simply saying that I was there because my parents organized it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Swearengen - I'm glad we had this little chat. ;)

Zac, I got what you were trying to say about Harper. As a tiny suggestion though, Zac, how about making your posts a little more concise? Brevity can pack a punch if you pick your words carefully. To be perfectly honest, I get discouraged by long posts, and tend not to read them. (Don't tell anyone!!!)

O.K. guys, now I want you both to kiss and make up. No, no!!! What am I saying?? I mean come out of the corner and shake hands!!

Swearengen said...


Your comment came across as condescending and therefore I said what I said.

Save your "lightweight" and chat room comments for someone else.

You say you're not afraid of Harper. Is this supposed to make people respect you? This this how you try to prove something?


Swearengen said...

And refrain from telling where I ought to go. Inspite of what liberals may believe, this isn't a dictatorship.

Zac said...

Joanne, while I usually keep my posts short, you have to understand what its like being the minority screaming at the majority. I have 10 people telling me that I'm wrong, so I'm debating 10 people at once. Hard to refute so many arguments in one line. But I will in the future keep that in mind.

swearenagan, my point was not to prove that I'm some kind of big shot or something. It was supposed to refute Riley's assertion that I am one of these Libs, who trembles in fear of Harper and his hidden aganda. By saying that I have met the guy, I'm trying to state that I know what he's about, I've heard him speak, I'm not scared of his hidden agenda or anything like that. I oppose most of his policy ideas so I joined the other side. But I'm not scared of his "dark side" or his "hidden agenda" because I know that it doesn't exist.

TangoJuliette said...


Well dear hearts, didn’t think that I’d be looking to while away my days interacting on someone’s blog, but here I am. ‘Spose I should correct apprehensions and possible misapprehensions generated by a few comments made on Thursday.

One concern I do have, is that I don’t like being labelled, one way or another. I am not right wing, nor am I left wing.

Thought I’d leave the left side of the spectrum to more totalitarian-oriented folks like the old German National Socialist crowd, and their evil twins the Communists, Leninists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Che-ists, Fidelistas, Pol Potists and all that other bunch of zealots easily responsible for more than one hundred million deaths of men, women and children, world wide. That’s not conjecture on my part. Any number of prominent international historians will provide corroborative numbers.

It has been extremely informative to read the subsequent give and take, following my posting on Thursday. The posing, posturing, preening and primping, the postulations of pure patriotism, proper governance, of inclusion, of genius and of fiscal wizardry, disingenuously alluded to as the sole and exclusive domain of the Liberals Party of Canada. Some similar representations have begun appearing which offer up similar claims for the Canada’s Conservatives.

Unfortunately this has all become a politicized football in the guise of “our side is more supportive of our military than your side!” All this because of questions and conflicting ideas and ideologies on how most properly and most accurately to show nationally-accepted levels of respect for the repatriated service personnel who died in an increasingly hostile theatre of operations.

The Parliament of Canada has a long-standing protocol for all occasions, including rules and regulations regarding flags, be they royal, national, provincial, territorial, regional, municipal, foreign and other. Rules, as well as national and international conventions properly govern all aspects of these currently troubling questions. These opposing positions have been super-heated to the tragic point of national division. As well, they have been driven to the tragic point of providing comfort to the enemy, emboldening the foe, and creating extremely hostile and life-threatening environments for Canada’s military personnel on foreign soil.

All political parties, we bloggers, us letter writers, and media, well-intentioned though we all might be or aspire to being, are doing our troops no kindness. All our rhetoric is puffery glossing over our collective treachery. The attendant media reportage, which often seems to be not much more than the fanning of flames, contributes to, and increases our collective culpability. We all seem to be standing in a circle watching a few of the big kids on the school-yard sparring with each other, us egging the politicians on with shouts of “Come on, let’s you guys fight.”

The true fighters, those individuals tasked with peace-keeping/peace-enforcing, the ones who are truly, constantly in harm’s way, facing possible injury, dismemberment or death at the least expected moment, are the one’s we should, MUST, be backing.

Our backing for these brave youngsters, must be nation-wide, cohesive, undivided, non-partizan, constant and unrelenting, until that moment when the last of our surviving personnel and once again on home soil, in the warm embrace of nation, family, friends and neighbours.

I’ve been accused of a wide variety of transgressions in my first, one and only blog site posting to date.

One or two complaints may have some validity, in actual fact, but perhaps, by way of some explanation rather than an attempt at a feeble and flaky defence, which is not my intent; my initial resorting to some degree of name-calling is in response to much perceived provocation.

Being chided and corrected for what one wag seems to consider my intemperate remarks, while simultaneously levelling name-calling, calumny and harsh, vicious against me, and/or against those assumed to be right-wing, pretty much seems to naturally fall into that unpleasant swamp of New Think/New Speak dichotomy which I attribute to elitist delusional-compartmentalization thinking.

If you knew my MP like I know my MP, you might better understand some of my pronouncements. Please bear in mind that I also greatly admire some of the initiatives he’s show, and some of the costly stands he’s taken. But, personally…?

The part self-admittedly not understood by my critic had to do with my contention that perhaps certain of our recent politicians might have been disqualified from running from public office, because of their abysmal ignorance of germane events of WWII, a period when they were certainly old enough to be of school age, even of high school years and possibly heading for conscription.

Wm. Lyon Mackenzie King longest sitting Prime Minister was in charge during the Second World War. Among other idiosyncrasies, during his various reigns King managed to elevate something like sixty-plus unelected citizens to Cabinet posts, some without even the semblance of accountability because they were neither MPs nor Senators. Most eventually did run for office and won their seats. A few even went on to become Prime Ministers.

Facing conscription in Canada in the early forties, where King, as Prime Minister, ran his War Cabinet with the able assistance of his cute wee doggie, his late mother, and some hookers on Spark Street and Chicago’s Loop. Yeah, I’d really trust my kids’ lives in a military combat zone with that sort of National leadership. All of a sudden, this Afstan thing is now Harper’s?!? Sort of like AdScam and The Gun Registry? Well if that’s the case, then I’d suppose that the eight super balanced budgets thanks to Bry’s GST which Jean NEVER eliminated, should be credited to Harper as well, ‘cause going retroactive ain’t worth squat if we don’t do retroactive right across the board, eh?

My critics also slag “…demi-god…” Brian Mulroney, as the creator of the deficit inherited by Chrétien, therefore the real culprit responsible for military cut-backs. Since try at spin, folks, but the decimation was happening under Pearson, ably aided and abetted by some “Conservative (Hellyer) who walked the floor for a promotion.”
Now that fact may seem beside the point. Still, two things come to mind. The first is that we might want to check out whom and what preceded Brian. Then ask the Question: What sort of spending and deficit boondoggle did P.Elliot Trudeau leave behind for Brian? Pierre—the “cool Lib God-ish dude” who drove around Montreal’s University campuses with a swastika on his sleeve, ‘cause WWII “was England’s War” and Quebec was exempted from the draft. Though I am not 100% certain that it was an exemption for all Quebec citizens. Might have been for just one ethnic group or another. You might want to rush off and check out my facts on this point.

Oh! Yeah! Speaking of Pierre—which humungous, brand new multi-billion dollar Canadian airport is NOT named after P.E.T. Though I truly believe that it should be named after Pierre. Note: Nor is it named after any other Canadian Liberal Prime Minster. One quick clue: This airport logo was, wait for it, a cartoon-ish White Elephant! Now, how kewel, and just how appropriate could that be for some shut down failure called Mirabel?

Ah yes. The Flag. Rules allow, under certain clearly determined conditions, and given certain clearly defined procedures and circumstances, for the Hill flag to be lowered. Kenny’s motion re: HMCS Chicoutimi met the criteria. No doubt, the friendly fire victims’ situation would have met the same criteria.

The indisputable fact still remains, Chrétien unilaterally determined that he had final jurisdiction, broke with tradition, despotically overturned legislation, and ensured that a band of Lib Cabinet Minister were on hand for the repatriation.

It all has the very obvious aura of the Liberals having felt extremely exposed and vulnerable for their callous disregard for the military, through their cancellation of Mulroney’s sleazy, last-minute order of much-needed helicopters. PM Ti-Jean’s cancellation carried with it a $500,000,000 (that’s five hundred million of our TAX dollar people.)

By way of deflection and diffusion, the Liberals then set about tapping into a quirky Canadian version of a strange pathology—rabid, rabid, raging anti-Americanism. They torqued that political, partisan nerve-end pretty damned good. I suspect that, because we don’t know our own history, we’re easily swayed, and we’re easily manipulated into positions where we’re bound to repeat that which we know nothing of.

BTW: which governments actually eliminated the history requirements in Canada’s Schools? Hmmnmn…I wonder? ‘Nother clue. How about putting your money on Red? The Guys who wrap themselves in the Canadian Flag?

And, yes, you dear-hearted contributor. I continue to take my meds. ALL of them. Strokes. Heart attacks, nerve damage thanks to Agent Orange. And no, I’m not an alcoholic. The combo of booze and meds would prove real deadly, real fast. Sorta like walking into a combat zone with a Liberal covering my back.

I’ll take a wild guess here, and go out on a limb. My guess is that Zac is not a Liberal, nor a Liberal supporter. He makes fun of the old and of the infirmed, and of the vets. He mocks the drinking habits of some, clearly implying some sort of substance abuse or of alcoholism, clearly ignorant of alcoholism as a disease, and patently ignorant of the critical toll it takes on countless individuals, families and on our society as a whole. Zac “reads” and sounds like what most on the left often accuses the right of being. Bigoted. Nasty. Petty. Angry. Arrogant and harshly judgemental. Sort of like that big, white, bald angry guy forever ranting in parliament as if he were the leader of the opposition. A tougher harsher and nastier version of what Harper used to be like. BillyG—Chill! You gonna bust that blood vessel throbbing madly in your temple, pal.

And is it true? Toronto Liberal Jimmy Karrygiannis, used to actually stuff pay telephones with chewing gum to keep the opponents of his Lib Party leadership candidate from being able to phone in their recruiting numbers? The stuff of legends, folks? But isn’t this sort of large-scale vandalism of public phones some sort of infraction of some sort of laws? Anti-CRTC? Play nice kiddies. Even though you are politicians.

And Zac: just a personal question and a note or two here. Have you ever served in the military? Cadets? Cubs? Civil Service? Public Service? Volunteer? Visit Veterans in Hospitals? Visit veterans” graves? Adopt a grave or two that might need weeding? Just askin’.

Coupla survival points learned in ‘60 from my old hand-to-hand instructor who was seventeen when his unit hit the beach in Normandy (not Norway Paul. Pay attention. Please! Didn’t we just go through the 60th anniversary of D-Day? Did you never read the book nor see the movie Paul? The Longest Day??)

Never lead with your chin! Never to draw to an inside straight! Never make fun of the Nursing Sisters! Avoid any battle of wits—you’ll probably find yourself disappointed for being totally unarmed compared to the other dude. Never take your bayonet to a flame-throwing fight. Avoid rancid K-rations. Please try to remember:
I am neither left nor right. Unfortunately, I'll likely have to end up paraphrasing some schlock beer commercial here. I am neither right nor left. I AM A CANADIAN.
With a Canadian soul. With a Canadian heart. With a Canadian mind. With a global conscience. With an eternal, universal,environmental Compass.


p.s.: Text out of context is pretext.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So much for my plea for short posts!

Zac said...

Ok Joanne, I see what you mean now..I'm sorry for my long posts.

While I don't know what to do with the rest of what your saying I will defend my earlier comments. When you joked about not spitting on someone elses head if they were on fire, it struck me as a joke yes, but a sick attempt at humour.

Now obviously were from different generations and different mind sets and all that, but I don't find that funny. I joked that you might be drunk, because the only time I've heard jokes like that is when I'm surrounded by drunks.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I cannot for the life of me decipher what is going on here. If anyone feels offended, or feels I should delete a post, please let me know. Otherwise I'll let you guys all go at it.

Zac said...

I'm not sure either...

Zac said...

I'm certainly not offended though

TangoJuliette said...

Joan: of the true blue variety.

Thanks for your indulging an oldster. I just read your note on "brevity" right after I erroneously "sent," rather than "previewed," my offerings. Some learning curves seem dicier than others I guess.


Swearengen said...

Delete? Why? Aren't we all big boys and girls?

TangoJuliette said...

Zac, Joan et al:

I've got no gripes. It's all good.

Love what you're doing - do what you love.


Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hey Tango - No problem. Glad to have you on board! The ground rules are no personal attacks; no swearing if you can manage to avoid it; and if you are able to keep things short & sweet, the chances of your post being read and responded to increase tenfold.

Mary said...

Sorry for this long post Joanne!
As a Canadian it always amazes me to see the disrespect & hatred that the Democrats show for President Bush. Scripture says a nation divided against itself cannot stand. It seems to me that the terrorists who are united against America are laughing gleefully as they divide and conquer!
The Americans need another “Remember the Maine”, or “Remember Pearl Harbor”, to remind them of 9/11, 2001. Maybe this up-coming film about flight 93 which crashed into a hillside inside Pennsylvania, on 9/11, 2001, is what is needed to remind Americans that they must come together as one people as they did on Dec.7, 1941 to recognize & unite against a common enemy. Right now it is as if Americans are trying to gloss over and forget what happened that day. I see “Demoncrats”- demonizing their President and making it so hard for the country to focus on the real danger out there. All the while the terrorists are gaining ground and making threats to take us (North) “Americans” down along with Israel.
I saw a film clip awhile ago about a Scottish coast and when the tide went out miles & miles of dry land appeared and people and even cars ventured out onto the miles & miles of what appeared to be solid land . But when the coast’s fog horn sounded you had better heed it and get to the safety of land, even though the land still appeared solid and dry enough to walk on. They explained that unknown to the tourists the water was coming in underneath and making the underneath soil unstable even though it looked & felt solid and dry on the surface. Many people lost their lives and cars all of a sudden when they got sucked underneath as the tide was running underneath for some time before it collapsed underneath them. Sin is like that, it runs underneath for some time before it collapses a life, a nation, a world, because who can stand united when nation murmurs, works against itself, and disrespects it’s elected leaders, it will implode, and collapse with the negative tides running underneath.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, that's o.k. about the long post, Mary. Everyone is having a turn today. Here's mine:

Your comment rings true with me though. I was thinking about that in relation to all this bickering going on about the flag and the media. The Taliban can easily watch all this, and become encouraged to carry out even more attacks on our soldiers. Here is a clip from a letter in the Record today:

"The emotional images that we are exposed to and the controversy that has ignited such debate are undoubtedly being watched by people like the Taliban. If they see that their efforts are swaying public opinion and our resolve to rebuild Afghanistan, then their resolve will strengthen and the frequency and intensity of attacks will no doubt increase."

There is a time for debate, and there is a time to stand together in solidarity. I think now is the time for the latter.

Mary said...

Well said Joanne! Indeed the Tailban are watching to see if we cave at the least ground swell!

Zac said...

Even though, both countries face challenges, it doesn't mean that our leaders should not face criticism.

No matter what image it presents to our "enemy", democracy is about division: ideological, class, political etc.

Criticizing someone doesnt weaken our resolve, it merely presents alternatives.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac - Not unless the enemy perceives a weakness in division.

Mac said...

The problem is the method of criticism, Zac. For some reason, folks can't seem to put forward logical, rational criticism and offer decent alternatives. Instead, they fall back on calling names.

The "Trained Ape" President has a Bach of Science from Yale and an MBA from Yale yet lefties spent all their time calling him an idiot. I don't particularly like Bush but I can articulate my disagreements with him in terms of his policy choices.

Likewise in Canadian politics. I didn't like the past several Liberal PMs but if I complained about them, it wasn't meaningless personal attacks; I pointed out my concerns in concrete terms. I have concerns about PM Harper but they have nothing to do with his personal appearance or whether or not he shakes hands with his son under the glare of media cameras.

Zac said...

Mac, B.A in History from Yale....MBA from Harvard.

Joanne, am I to think that the Taliban are holed up in a cave somewhere watching CBC and preying on our division over the flag fiasco. I find that hard to believe.

If Martin were at the helm and he did something wrong in regards to the war in Afghanistan would any of you guys keep perfectly silent in case the Taliban might get CTV on satelite?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You know, Zac? I gotta think that somehow the Taliban would have access to Western media and intelligence.

That being said, I would support whatever Prime Minister was in power if I thought he was ethical, and acting with integrity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

(Of course his ethics would have to align with mine). ;)

Mac said...

My bad, Zac. I was reading & typing at the same time and talking on the phone when about three things happened at once so I slapped my post together and hit "GO" so to speak.

I see you managed to evade my point which was that personal attacks serve no useful purpose and present no alternative yet some folks engage in them constantly.

Zac said...

Yes, of course, and I can only calculate that "some folks" would mean me right Mac?...don't worry I'm joking.

Well yes, I criticize our PM constantly, but I dont think that it harms our mission in any way. I mean, next week I'll be harping about the GST, and the week after, oh...lets say Harper's crime policy, but I don't think it diminishes our troops in the least.

But Joanne, that is to say that you have never criticized Martin, or perhaps Chretien in the sunset of his term as PM, right? Because they engaged us in Afghanistan and presenting a common front is important, so we would never want to say anything bad about the guy in charge, right?

But I did see your post where you said that as long as the person's ethics aligning with yours you wouldn't say anyting. I know that it was light hearted and I will take it as so. I only hope that you can see my point though, as I would not hesitate for a second to criticize Harper screwed if he screwed up, as you didn't when Martin and Chretien did. Its all about persepective.

Mary said...

When Zac said:
“Am I to think that the Taliban are holed up in a cave somewhere watching CBC and preying on our division over the flag fiasco. I find that hard to believe.”
My immediate thought was that they are delivering video tapes to middle-eastern television studios regularly so they are not unfamiliar with TV equipment and how to get the media’s attention. So they do have access and to think otherwise is being willfully blind.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mary, what you said there is right on.

Zac, this whole thing has got me thinking, and you'll see that in today's post, I did reassess my thoughts on a Harper directive.

That comment about ethics having to align with mine was tongue-in-cheek for sure. I think we need to respect and support the office of Prime Minister, and stand united against terror. However, that doesn't preclude Freedom of Speech and thought. There are effective ways to present your views in a constructive manner without personal, vicious attacks.

I am not a party lemming. I don't blindly accept whatever a leader does or says. Sometimes I have trouble understanding what the PM is doing, but I am always respectful. Sometimes I give him the benefit of the doubt, and other times I challenge him. I would probably never make a good politician, because I say what I think.

TangoJuliette said...

A few final thots regarding the divisiveness surrounding the FLAG political football:

While the concept may be strange for many civilians to comprehend, for it seems to be difficult for some in the military to come to grips with it, there exist some peculiar and unique historically-entrenched traditions, rituals, superstitions as well as totemic and talismanic issues regarding a Nation’s (tribe’s) Flag.

This submission is not contending with issues of right nor of wrong—just the historic.

In combat, defeat is invariably signalled with the striking (lowering) of the Colours(the Flag.) Symbolically, the flag atop the one building that houses all the representatives of all the peoples, should be the last, absolutely the very last flag, to be lowered, when armed personnel are on foreign soil, in combat situations. The sole exception(s) would be Remembrance Day and any other day, or special time, when it was unanimously agreed to in parliament, as a temporary measure.

Technically, every other flag throughout the nation could be half-staffed, with no difficulty, as long as all existing protocols were adhered to.

It is the State’s perogative, in times of conflict, to seal off military bases. Bases can be declared off-limits to any and all civilians who are not in possession of appropriate documentation. With the permission of the families of the deceased, such media as the respective family deems appropriate, may participate in the cortege from the camp gates, all the way to the hometown of the deceased. Access to places of worship, funeral parlours(while being sensitive to other bereaved families on site) memorial services, wakes etc. etc., might also be accessible to the media, or media pool representatives. Families permitting.

Any tradition rooted in outdated historic antiquity is negotiable. If needed—change the offending customs. But let us all, citizens, political leaders and members of the fourth estate, strive to maintain some semblance of Rule of Law. As well, we all, collectively have every responsibility to maintain as high as possible, our demonstration of unified support for our uniformed sons and daughters placed in harm’s way by our politicians, our elected representatives.

Been there, know what it’s like! To face the bad guys when the folks at home are as fractious as hell, fighting their own private political/ideological wars.

You really think you’re tough? You want to scrap? —sign up, get out to the front lines, put YOUR cherubic smile in some bad guy’s crosshairs and try to imagine what comfort that squabbling home-front provides to the enemy across the foreign no-man’s land you may just be losing YOUR ass upon later tonight. Fly the Flag—bring the kids home. Luv, hugs and kissies, TangoJuliette

Zac said...

Mary, regardless if they have the equipment or not, I don't think that us having a discussion about how to properly honour our war dead is in any way strengthening thier side in any way.

It is not as if we are debating military strategy publicly, or in some way divulging clues as to our military capabilities.

Your argument is just an excuse for people to lay off the PM.

TangoJuliette said...

Zac: our division DOES divulge our military strategy. It clearly discloses that we ARE divided, that the front-liners do not have unanimous support at home. OUR stupid squabbles put THEIR lives at risk. Like I said earlier -- imagine YOUR life on the line, and all the melons back home are sqquabbling. You think the enemy don't know what the hell's going on here?

Gottat get fled. I'm signing off till Sunday a.m. I'm off.

l,h&k !

Zac said...

Tango, while I can see your point how division at home can cause troops to loose moral, my point here is that we aren't having a national debate about our role in Afghanistan. If soldiers saw that, they may think that the nation is divided in thier opinion of the troops role.

What I am trying to say is that we are debating how to properly honour them, not thier role in the war.

How can this cause them to loose moral. It shows that we respect them so much that we are taking so much time out of our lives debating on which method respects them most.

If anything is lowering the moral of our troops it is the Cons decision to not lower the flag if they die.

TangoJuliette said...

Dear Zac:
You’ve claimed to see a point I made, where, in actual fact, I really did not make the point you claim you think you see. Further, there is a distinct difference between ”moral” and “morale.” In any event “division at home can (only) cause front line troops to lose morale if we supply them with sinking sea king helicopters and flaming submarines, cause then it truly shows them that we don’t really give a tinkers damn about them.

Frankly—there really isn’t much here for debate. You seem convinced that the true problem is that the conservative party is not making nice by lowering once specific flag, and keeping the media off one specific air base when dead troops come home. It further seems that you are irreversibly convinced that this is in some way the by-product of a conservative Prime Minister toadying up to an American president, republican, to boot, for some unsavouray, nefarious, right wing hidden agenda.

So, grow yourself a pair, and you and your pals just come out and declare yourself as rabidly anti-conservative, and pathalogically anti-american. Don’t even try to pretend that you give a single flying fuddle duddle about the troops. It’s all a smoke screen anyway. The liberals are cheesed because they got caught with their grubby mitts in the cookie jars of the nation. They’re cheesed because they had allowed themselves to get stupidly divided thanks to sailor Paul.

They’re cheesed that they were so stupid to have themselves and their MSM pals grossly, and suicidally underestimate Harper the Conservatives and the canadian public’s tolerance for fear-mongering B.S. Campaigning. They’re cheesed that their softwood deal is now Harper’s success story. They’re cheesed that they too, like the emperor in the kiddie stories of yesteryear, have been exposed as frauds, and aren’t wearing anything but their own sordid and paltry shortcomings.

I worked hard to bring them to power in 93. They lied to the country. They robbed the country. They screwed the military. It’s taken almost thirteen years to turn them out on their cheating butts. Next election, I’ll be working to decimate them. An it’s not personal. I’ve know a number of the libs for a long time. Karen Redman and her family came into my restaurant for years, when she had her own business. Great person. But still one liberal too many in the commons today.

I knew many of them since before many of them became politicians. I went to University and went through some serious student race riots with a women who Trudeau turned into a Liberal Senator. Two years ago, she crossed the Senate floor to sit as a conservative. Ask Ann Cool why she did that.

Get your act straight, Zac. Learn, know and live the difference between politicized party spirit, politicized B.S. and true patriotism. Don’t compare apples to oranges. Son’t be a sunshine patriot.

I’m out… l,h&k TangoJuliette

typos, e&o excepted

Zac said...

"It further seems that you are irreversibly convinced that this is in some way the by-product of a conservative Prime Minister toadying up to an American president, republican, to boot, for some unsavouray, nefarious, right wing hidden agenda."

I have never once said or implied this. Don't put words in my mouth.
"So, grow yourself a pair, and you and your pals just come out and declare yourself as rabidly anti-conservative, and pathalogically anti-american."

Once again, I never said that I was anti-american. Get your facts straight if your choose to criticize me.

Tango, I'm glad to see that you've taken my argument six times around the dance floor, thats wonderful to see. If your so hell bent on destroying the Libs, perhaps you should go work in Harper's office. He could use a good spin man like yourself.

Let me make one thing very clear. Opposing the PM, is not opposing the military and it certainly is not opposing Canada.

You may like to call me a "sunshine patriot" (whatever the hell that is) and refer to me as anti-american (even though I have never made a comment that can even be considered anything close to being anti-american) but you've never in any way actually addressed anything that I have to say.

If you want to discuss what is going on here, don't bring in side arguments that have no bearing on anything.

Plus, I'm sick of being called blindly partisan when everyone else here tow's the party line.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow, lots of interesting discussion between Tango and Zac! Tango, I would love to hear more of your stories. Your comments about Karen Redman are right on. Nice person, but too many Liberal M.P.'s around here.

Zac, when you said to Mary, "Your argument is just an excuse for people to lay off the PM." I know Mary, and she is not operating out of blind partisanship. She has a genuine concern that Muslim extremists like the Taliban are out to take over Western society whatever it takes.

Showing dissent can harden their resolve, and put our soldiers in harm's way. That is the danger. This petty squabbling about flags and media really should stop. I know I keep changing my mind on this. I'm just as guilty as anyone.

Zac said...

Joanne, while I am sure that Mary is non-partisan in nature I can't believe that she would think something like, "Muslim extremists like the Taliban are out to take over Western society whatever it takes."

This is the most outragous idea that I have ever heard in my entire life. In fact, I find it laughable. I'm sure that Mary is smart enough to not actually think that. I don't think that any of you could actually believe something like that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, I should let Mary speak for herself. Forgive me. However, why do you find that such an outrageous statement? What part of it do you find so funny or implausable?

Zac said...

Joanne, I find that so funny because its such an irrational fear.

A comparable idea would follow like this:

"I heard on the news that a hunter got attacked by a bear up north. You know its only a matter of time before bears return to city. Then they will attack all of us humans and install a bear government. So to prevent such further bear attacks and stave off a horrid bear government we should all build bomb shelters and spend most of our time in there. You never know what those bears are capable of. Those are scary bears!"

Obviously I'm playing around a bit, but you catch my drift. To let the threat of terrorism dictate your life or to fear the big, bad terrorist or to think that there is some sort of conspiracy to take over the world is borderline paranoia. Thus I find it funny...thus I laugh.

I find it hard to believe that a rational, intelligent person could believe something like this.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac - You're treading on thin ice here. Mary is my "tell-it-like-it-is" mother. (Now you can see where I get it from).

As I said before, we'll let her speak for herself. However, I don't think that is an irrational fear. Do you remember 9/11, or was that before your time?

TangoJuliette said...

Joanne, true blue. Old timers don’t work well on “short.” Sorry. Again.

I find all the infantile and puerile blathering from the left tad novels. First, a crusading liberal supporter hitches onto a Tory-oriented blog. Says his thing about what the tories are talking about. Gets into some level of interaction with a few of the correspondents. Eventually whines and complains when other tory-oriented bloggers take him to task over some of his feeble verbal offerings. Priceless.

Now Zac seem a little exercised about some of the things I’ve concluded and implied. I must declare that I am more than just a little bit satisfied that the self-declared liberal doesn’t read well, or merely chooses to exercise “selective reading and comprehension,” just as I thought (s)he would.

Zac, for openers, I have responded to just about everything you tossed my way. You, on the other hand have not show me a similar courtesy. Instead, you tossed cheap slurs at someone you don’t even know.

Regarding your claim that you are not partizan? That you don’t toe (not tow) the party line? Prove it to me.

In one of your statements, (Thursday 20062704/1111h) you very clearly parroted the standard leftist shibboleth that:

”all of a sudden a Liberal mission to Afghanistan, which was acceptable last year, turns into a war mongering excersise with Harper singing from Bush's song book.”

O.K. Here’s my challenge. Explain that whole sentence. What do you mean by that? What do you mean and what are you trying to imply, about Harper, about Bush and about the relationship between these two heads of neighbouring sovreing nations? What do you mean and imply when you contend that what ever the liberals started and committed to is now Harper’s responsibility?

If Harper wantede to turn the repatriation of the dead troops into a political football, he would more than likely have all the media at Trenton, all the time, with the flag-draped coffins being off-loaded in front of huge replicas of “Team Paul Martin liberals” signs, posters and banners, with Paul Martin’s face prominently displayed, right along Bill Graham’s angry face, as the Minister of Defence. With a sound track of that classy liberal campaign ad revised to say something like: “ Soldiers. Canadian Soldiers. In our Streets. In Canada. In Hearses, in flag-draped coffins, thanks to the liberals. We didn’t make this up. We’re not allowed to.”

Tell me please, what you really think about any of this. Convince me that you are not a rabid, partizan liberal, merely parroting what the big boys are saying.

Wearing Poppies in Parliament. The Canadian Legion gave the Liberals permission to wear the poppies, only for the moment of silence. The liberal ultimate show of respect to the veterans? A snub—for they continued to wear the poppies as a prop, throughout question period. Contrary to their agreement with the Canadian Legion, and contrary to the Rules of The House. Explain that to me if you’re not towing/toeing or toying the old party line.

You’ve even attempted to compare this fiasco to US enslavement of the Blacks and to anti-Jewish genocide ( which you downplayed by calling it “…Germany’s proud tradition of ritually killing Jews…”). I’ve every certainty that on these last two positions, even the wildest leftist would not be feeding these sorts of bizarre connections to any aspiring agent provocatuer.

I’d also invite you to think about learning the difference between ritualistic and genocidal activity. Find out how the more than 200 year old label “sunshine patriot” applies to folks like you. Find out about Orwell, 1984, Newspeak, and some history in general. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Don’t spend. all your coin in the bombshelter or at morty’s. Or would that be phil’s?

Your calling my thoughts “spin” is really rich. Just a divergence of opinion , really!!. Don’t worry, I won’t have to work too hard to see the final demise of the liberal party of Canada as we know it. The party and it’s adherents are more than capable of completing the implosion job they embarked one hundred years ago. Why do you really think that those who had been expected to lead the party through the next generation of rule, are all hidng in the wings, and the putative leader(s) seem to be Michael “Some Torture is good for the soul” Iggy Ignatieff, and Bob “Rae Day” Rae. Oh, Yeah. And Kenny the Goalie. A most remarkable man, unfortunately for himn and our nation right now, the wrong man in the wrong place at the

Now, assail Harper for secrecy on other fronts—and I’m there with you! We already have seen, and fully know what governmental secrecy leads to: Adscam, Sponsorgate, Shawinigate, Dingwallgate, Hedy Frygate, Radwanskigate etc. etc.



Zac said...

Ok Tango, by this, "”all of a sudden a Liberal mission to Afghanistan, which was acceptable last year, turns into a war mongering excersise with Harper singing from Bush's song book.”

I was responding to criticisms of many on the left. Some Liberals who supported the war when it was Martin at the helm, now have a problem with the mission simply because the guy at the top has changed. I think that is stupid. If the war was acceptable before, its acceptable now. Some people are being stupid about this, that was my point.

When I used the reference of Germany I was being sarcastic. Obviously the two are not comparible. I'm jewish myself, I would not make fun of something like that. I was responding to someone who said that this is our tradition and we should leave it like that. I was, sarcasticlly, responding, saying that other nations have traditions that needed to be broken. My entire point there was that keeping a tradition simply because it is tradition, is flawed logic.

I was refering the your "spin" because instead of actually responding to my arguments you turn everything around and talk about Liberal waste and mismanagement. If you want to discuss those issues, fine..but the topic at hand is our soldiers.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac and Tango, it's very entertaining and informative to watch you guys duke it out here. However, if you like, Tango, you can also click on Zac's name, and that will take you to his website, which isn't too bad for a Liberal. I'm sure he will welcome your comments as well. Maybe you can teach Zac and his buddies a few things about the war days.

TangoJuliette said...

Sorry Zac. You lose. You have failed. You didn’t make the grade. I answered all your questions, HMCS Chicoutimi, the whole deal.

When you waddle like a duck, and quack like a duck, and moult like a duck, and smell like a duck and sound like a duck—chances are pretty good that you just might be a duck.

In this case, replace the word “duck” with “anti-american, anti-harper, anti-conservative, anti-free-thinking, anti-all-non LPC, anti-connect the dots for the big picture, anti-straight-forward-straight-talking, anti-obfuscation-free interaction, anti-honesty."

Tradition is tradition is tradition. Not much logic involved in that evolutionary process. Ergo, not much chance to lapse into faulty logic. Like, you can’t be accused of having a slow sports car if the only ride you own or have access to is a rusty, tricycle.

No. Sorry. The flawed logic happens to be all yours. Even if you were the late Sammy Davis Jr., Black, as well as a convert to Judaism, the feeble-minded act of likening genocide and slavery to some legislated, Canadian military tradition, which you and your ilk seem to disapprove of, is pretty weak discourse, on many counts. Your attempts at verbal interaction remind me of a lot of people who see themselves as extremely clever because they can spend endless amounts of time needlessly picking fly-shit out of pepper. Kinda like taking text out of context, for the purpose of pretext.

From here on in, as far as I’m concerned, you are exactly what you claim not to be. You are a shrill, childish interruption, full of partizan parrotings, toeing the old grit party line, bustin’ your butt to try to contribute further to the ongoing attempts to embarrass and destabilize the government in power, while at the same time, inadvertently and naively providing comfort to the foe. Stalin had a term for people like this. “Well-meaning and well-intentioned useful idiots.” About the only time you’ll ever catch me agreeing with that horrific killer is right now.

While I may oppose some or many of your thought, you’re certainly entitled to hold them, keep them and propagate them. Your flawed reasoning processes, and your relentless butchery of the English language, make it virtually impossible to clearly understand exactly what you stand for and just where you stand. When challenged by almost anyone whose writings I’ve read on this blog, you invariably resort to equivocation, redirection, and “…but I was only joking…” Not mature. Not adult. Not the way to have dialogue bears any productive fruit.

Nope. You are what you are and you ain’t ever going to be much other.

So-o-o –please note: you’re no longer worth my time and the electricity it takes to kick start my computer. I suspect that many of the others on this site may well be heading to the same conclusions.

good-bye and thanks for the fishes!

Ciao! L.h&k., ~ TangoJuliette.

TangoJuliette said...

Joanne(true blue):

Thanks for the direction. But I think that I've laid down my last few lines for Zac.(See my previous posting.) There shall be no further epistles emanating from this site, directed to Zac.

~ TangoJuliette

Zac said...

Well Tango, I'm sorry that you thinkg that I'm anti-american. I'm not, I've never said anything anti-american and know no other way to tell you.

I'm also sorry that you can't understand sarcasim. Some people can't, thats too bad.

Its too bad that you've decided to give up.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

No, no please! Don't stop now! One more comment and then this post will hit 100!

Zac said...

Here ya go

Zac said...

...and another for good measure

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yay! Thanks, Zac! A personal milestone.

Tango - Zac isn't that bad you know; he's just misguided. He'll come around one day.

Zac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zac said...

Thanks for the, er, kind words Joanne, but I'm afraid that my good friend Tango doesn't like me much.

It's ok though, I'll just go back to my uber-left wing blogs and talk about how much we hate Americans and then use PhotoShop to place devil horns on a picture of George Bush. It's a great way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

TangoJuliette said...


you got to me one last time. You're right of course: I do not understand sarcasim. Nor Smallgarion, nor most languages spoken on the face of the earth, for that matter, even though I can get by, more or less in six different tongues.

Now, Saracsm? That I understand.

As for my "giving up" as you so delicately phrased it? You're right again. I really would love to interact with you and keep duking it out with you in a duel of wits, but I promised my Mother, on her deathbed, that I would never fight an unarmed person. So decency dictates that I must withdraw.

So there ya go champ. The Left is right, but the Right just happens to be righter.

Like I kept trying to get across to you, don't take your pea-shooter to a gun-fight. Now, see if you can honestly figure out which head is armed with which weapon. Personally, I just can't seem to wrap my brain around that one. Oh, no. I was I wasn't. That's not really what I meant...uh...uh.. ditherdither, dither.

When you accuse me of giving up you really sound like that armless, legless knight in that one Monty Python movie. "C'mon back here and fight you coward. I'll chew on your ankles." Thanks. but I've already had my ankles gummed this week-end.

It's to larff!!

lh&k ~TangoJuliette

Zac said...

If only I could be as smart as you Tango...

TangoJuliette said...

Well Steeltown Zac--if you were, you'd probably be right, and you'd probably be right more often than not. Or--maybe not. It is, after all, YOUR life. YOUR decisions. YOUR choices.

I'd venture a prediction here: I could easily imagine that in the next forty-eight years or so that it might take you to get to my present stage in life, you should undoubtedly end up a whole hell of a lot smarter than I could imagine or ever hope for, for myself.

Hope your generation does a better job of things than mine, and the others before mine, did. For your sake. For the earth's sake. For the sake of my grandchildren, and for their grandchildren.

I understand that our native citizens used to, and in many cases still do, look at major decisions with an eye on what possible impact their decisions could have on the next SEVEN generations. We could undoubtedly learn something of value from them, on this account.

lh&k ~TangoJuliette

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Tango, those are wise comments about considering the impact of your decisions for the next several generations. I think so many people are just focussing on themselves right now.

I also think Zac is more than just another annoying Liberal troll. He seems to be genuinely searching for answers in his own muddled way; and in fact aren't we all?

TangoJuliette said...

Mr. Prime Minister:

The past twenty-four hours have proven unsettling for me. One reason hs to do with emerging rumours regarding the nature of the Accountability Bill and how it will appararently be the death-knell for any future openness on the part of the Federal Government. But this specific issue shall have to wait a day or two before I address it.

What amazes me is the clearly slanted, and biased writing, editorializing and expounding, in print and over the airwaves, of these three journalists, Lawrence Martin, Frank Etherington and Geoffrey Stevens.

I support your choosing to overturn the dictatorial and partizan moves by the former Liberal Governments of Chretien and Martin.

Mechanisms exist wherein the Peace Tower Flag may be lowered for "Special circumstances." Long and drawn out procedures and protocols, but they do exist, nonetheless. The Liberals did not follow these procedures when they first set out to turn a quadruple repatriation of Canada's "friendly-fire"victims into some sort of anti-U.S. showcase ceremony. This has now been exacerbated by the fact that the Liberals, as well as much of the media, now label your stance as one of "refusal" to properly honour the dead, rather than what it truly is: a case of "reverting", "returning" to a long-honoured, time-tested international tradition, of properly honouring our dead Armed Forces Personnel.

The contention of these three specific journalists, in the past twenty-four hours is that you are trying to hide something from the media and the citizens of Canada. As if this were, in fact, your war--or as some of them are now starting to intimate--that this may well be on the way to becoming "Harper's Irag."

may I strongly sugest that your government give them what they tell us that a vast majority of Canadians want and demand.

Try these concepts on for size.

1.) Every flag in the nation should be half-masted, as a sign of national mourning and solidarity with the troops. EVERY flag, that is, except for the one atop the Peace Tower. That would be our Nation's Battle Flag--to be lowered only in case surrender if we are defeated or over-run, and/or only on Remembrance Day, in eternal memory.

2.) The Repatriation Ceremony on the Tarmac, should be conducted against a vast back-drop of signs, flags and banners all proclaiming that the entire exercise is a product of Canada's Team Paul Martin Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Logo, which looks very much like the National Flag, should be prominent. So should large blow-up photos of Paul Martin with signs of Norway? Normandy? beside them. Include also large shots of Billy Graham, Former Minister of National Defence. His signage could be something like Denmark? Dieppe? or is he the one who fumbled the ball with Vichy? Vimy?

And just to drive home the fact that you are NOT marching to the beat of an American drummer, maybe a reworking of that classic Liberal election Non-ad.

3.) "Paul Martin and Bill Graham never told you about this. But they are putting Canadian soldiers in our cities and towns and villages. Canadian soldiers. In our streets. In Canada. Soldiers. Who were armed. Canadian soldiers in our streets. In flag-draped coffins, in blackened hearses, in vast funereal corteges. In our streets. I can understand why they never told us about this. They knew that there would be "useful idiots" trying to pin the rap on Harper and his "super, scary, secretive, sly'n'sneaky, America-following Conservatives."

Paul and Bill. Bill and Paul. Putting our soldiers, our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, in uniform, in our streets. Here. right here. In Canada. Because the Liberals, those great "sunshine patriots" would rather change flag protocols and cancel helicopter contracts that cost us five hundred million dollars in penalties, instead of outfitting our military properly before sending them into harm's way. We're not making this up. We're not Liberals. We're not allowed to make this up.Any reporter who is authorized to attend a Tarmac Repatriation Ceremony, should also be required to start in-country, in Afghanistan, at the front-lines, at the scene of the crime, at the military morgues and records,in the aircraft, accompany the dead, all the way home, to the tarmac, to the hometown funeral parlour, to the cemetery, to the bereaved parents, shell-shocked teen-age widow, shattered siblings, younger, older.

Mr. Prime Minister, YOU should NOT be taking blame for what the press is calling a cover-up. You're just covering up for the Liberals, here. Let them wear their stupidity. You should most probably be getting kudos for softwood lumber, and hopefully, a solid budget.

More than likely you ought to be having your knuckles rapped, for what seems reputedly to be some sort of retreating from the promises of open disclosure which swept you into office. But we'll work all this out.

Then we'll set to work ensuring that all Troops who died in Bosnia, under the Liberal watch, will also be accorded similar shows of respect and honour. And the dead, from South East Asia, Cyprus, Gaza, The Suez, Belgian Congo/Zaire. Remarkably, almost all under Liberal Governments. And no recognition. Until now. And THAT"S not being made up neither.

Best wishes in the struggle against partizan home-front divisiveness, all of which contributes to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Those who protract this argument should put themselves on the front lines, imagine themselves caught in the cross-hairs of some"bad-guy" concealed across that foreign no-man's land, and imagine the lift the foe gets learning of our divisivness at home, just before our trooper gets nailed by some fanatic secure in the knowledge that his opponent doesn't have 100% support from home.

That's giving the baddies one hell of a critical edge.


Disabled. Retired.
Ex-2BN/Q.O.R.of C.
Ex-R.C.C. Signals.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow, Tango. Well said. You should have your own blog!

I agree with you 100% regarding those three columnists you mentioned. In fact one of them made me so angry I was thinking about writing a letter to the editor. I can't believe the Record published that garbage! Frank Etherington's piece was a slap on the face to every soldier in Afghanistan. Absolutely disgusting.

TangoJuliette said...

1.) To Red Star on The Don: Star. Wednesday, May 03, 2006. Opinion Feature.

Page A17. David Pecaut.

Head: "A mixed bag for Toronto."

Sub-head: "New Deal for Cities not rolled back but not advanced much either."

I'll take your sub-head as the Toronto way of saying: CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT'S NEW BUDGET IMPROVES LIBERALS' CITY DEALS.

Now there, that wasn't so hard to say, after all, was it?


2.) To the K=W Record:

Regarding Frank Etherington's column, May 1, 2006. I have written to him directly. His article left me in total disagreement with his interpretations, and I was astounded to fine such bias in the pages of the Record. Therefore, please believe me when I write to inform you of my utter and absolute amazement to read the OpEd page Wednesday, 3 May, 2006.

"Freedom of the press is missing in Cuba."

WOW!!! What an eye-opener. Especially when one does the comparisons between there and here. I personally feel that Mr. Etherington is fighting the wrong battle in the wrong theatre of operations. Or is Fidel's socialist Cuba merely a nice and inexpensive "workers' paradise" for some of Canada's reluctant-capitalists to inexpensively soak up some great, but cheap rum, and catch the rays of revitalizing sunshine, while escaping the depths of Canada's cold and dreay winters. Canadian Fat Cats cavorting on Castro's Penal Colony.

WOW!!! And all along the Canadians are naively thinking that they're really helping, in some special way, to alleviate the tragic plight of the peoples of enslaved Cuba.

Frank might want to investigate press censorship in Ukraine, when the Communists still held totalitarian controls. Learn about Gongadze being censored. Now that's censorship.

TangoJuliette said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TangoJuliette said...

Some Suggested name changes:

"Quackie" Bennett - "The fetus you don't abort today will mug you 18 years from now."

Opposition Backbencher "Bonecruncher" Ruby Dahlia. "Pull my finger."

Hedy "Fibber" Fry. "I see crosses...burning crosses... NOT!! Just kidding folks."

Jane "Giggles"; "Smirks & Chuckles"; "Gidget" Taber.
"...Gidget does Ottawa..."

lh&k TangoJuliette

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Funny Tango, but let's keep it in good taste, O.K.? Double post too. I deleted one. Thanks!

TangoJuliette said...

i thot i was keeping within the bounds. The MD sounds like a Quack, the Bonecruncher of a Chiroparctor thinks she's a Doctor and sounds like a quack and the third doctor is a racist liar.

just an old vet, callin'g 'em like i see 'em.

feel free to delete anything you might think to be offensive or inapprorpriate for your blog. i could understand that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

No, it's o.k. Tango. I just had trouble following your logic.

Now that I see what you're getting at, it makes sense.