News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Recent posts

#21
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by viper37 - Today at 06:02:22 PM
Conservatives are out of ideas.  Apparently, they'll all be dressed in red this week-end.
#22
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Barrister - Today at 05:44:24 PM
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fly-the-flag-former-prime-ministers-1.7456407

Quote5 former prime ministers say fly the flag on Saturday to stand up to Trump
This weekend marks 60 years since red maple leaf was first raised on Parliament Hill

John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Feb 11, 2025 1:56 PM MST | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

All of the country's living former prime ministers are asking Canadians to fly the red maple leaf this weekend in a huge display of national pride as the country stares down U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to its economy and sovereignty.

Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper have jointly written an open letter, telling Canadians to "show the flag as never before" as the country contends with "threats and insults from Donald Trump."

So look - I feel like I can say this as someone who has his own 16' flagpole in his own front yard and proudly flies the Canadian flag almost all the time.  I sometimes swap out a few other flags on special occasions (including the Stars and Stripes on July 4, or a skull-and-crossbones around Halloween) but 95% of the time it's a Canadian flag.

But really - how are Canadian flags going to "stand up to Trump"?  It's not like Trump himself is going to come strolling up my street and see my flag.

I'm a little more open to "buy Canadian" efforts and am trying to do so, but it's hard because of how integrated our economies are.


(Actually this reminds me - I need to put up the Ukrainian flag on Feb 22 to mark the three year anniversary of the invasion)


(and yes - I'll probably skip the Stars and Stripes this July 4)


(and I keep meaning to get a Red Ensign flag to mix in once in a while.)


(yes I like flags)
#23
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Barrister - Today at 05:37:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on Today at 05:30:11 PMThough, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.

That's pretty much a matter of definition though isn't it?

There's no shortage of left-wing authoritarians and dictators around the world and throughout history, from Chavez, Castro, Mugabe, Mao, Stalin and the like.  They may often share a number of characteristics with ring-wing dictators and authoritarians (so-called "horseshoe theory".)

But because they're from the left they would get called socialists or communists, and never fascists.

I've long ago given up on the "but the Nazis were really left-wingers - their name was even National Socialists".  It carries too much of an element of "no true Scotsmen"-type analysis, and ignores the historical fact that Mussolini and Hitler were broadly creatures of the political right (even though Mussolini's early days were as a socialist).

But don't make the mistake of thinking that makes the political left nothing but virtuous and pure.
#24
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Jacob - Today at 05:30:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 03:27:26 PMI hate any hint of fascism creeping into our country. Yes, that is certainly true. 

I'd certainly take a Liberal government over Fascism.

I'd also take a Conservative government over Fascism, if it was the Liberals who were careening into the arms of Fascists.

Though, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.
#25
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by viper37 - Today at 05:29:50 PM
AP is barred from the White House until they conform with Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5139328-white-house-ap-gulf-mexico/

Fox News will not protest.
#26
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by garbon - Today at 05:26:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on Today at 04:29:35 PMThat's completely ridiculous.

Look, if you want to argue these people are a "without cause" termination and should receive notice (or payment in lieu of notice) I'm not horribly offended by that notion.  But to say they must remain on the payroll indefinitely?  Bullshit.
Be interested in Garbon's take on this too - hopefully it's less ridiculous than it sounds.

I think it sounds like the Met was playing fast and loose with Operation Assure/Onyx. Rowley was trying to clean up the force however he could without the government giving him proper powers to do so. I think he's whining now to try to jar them into action.

It feels to me like they did a messy job of trying to line him up for departure. I started reading part of the judgment and it looks like there were numerous mistakes/errors in the process - including in the facts relied on for removing his vetting.  Repeatedly the allegations that were made against him were not substantiated and/or dropped by CPS and he was actually even promoted during the period in question.

Now where there is smoke, there is probably fire, but feels like the Met botched it and the government has botched it by not yet updating the regulations on what the Met can do.

Relevant bit from BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o
QuoteIn her ruling, Mrs Justice Lang said the Met's powers did not "extend to the dismissal of a police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance".

Her judgement, external stated that dismissal should be provided for in regulations from the Home Secretary, which they are currently not.

Mrs Justice Lang added: "This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed."

She ruled that part of the problem was that the previous Conservative government had not decided on potentially more effective rules before the election was called.

The new Labour government announced last October it would introduce rules to dismiss officers who could not hold vetting – and the formal consultation on its proposals is closing this week.

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said it was "acting rapidly" to ensure police forces could "dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance".
#27
Off the Record / Re: The Old Geezer's Thread.
Last post by Savonarola - Today at 05:23:45 PM
My grandfather owned an automotive supply company that specialized in electronics.  As he grew older he complained about all the electrical equipment that now go into cars, so that they're impossible for a layman to repair.

Savonarola:  Well, grandpa, who's fault is that?

I was reminded of that the last time I was in Detroit.  At Greenfield Village around Christmastime they have an old fashioned Christmas where the village is decorated as it would have been the various eras the buildings came from (18th Century to the Second World War.)  It's always a crowded event, and most of the crowd this year was celebrating an old fashioned Christmas with the old fashioned Christmas tradition of staring at their phones like zombies.  I was going to complain, but I realized I had designed at least some of the cellular towers they were connected to. 

 :(
#28
Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis, Democrats?
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 05:18:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on Today at 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 05:14:48 PMRight, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland".  You claimed it had never happened.  RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.

Great.

So maybe you can take it easy on the "you have gone full MAGA or have a bad memory" stuff.

I had thought it was obvious I was speaking about "before Garland", but glad we could clear up that confusion.

Your dalliance with fascism in your posts today does not put me at ease.
#29
Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis, Democrats?
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 05:18:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on Today at 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on Today at 03:16:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 03:03:56 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on Today at 02:58:49 PM
Quote from: frunk on February 10, 2025, 06:28:58 PMThat means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

When Kagan was confirmed RBG was almost 80, and a twice cancer-survivor.

That's true, but I don't think that you can blame her for taking the chance that she could survive into a new administration and provide at least the chance of a non-rightwing justice succeeding her, rather than retiring and giving the Republicans years to poison the well of any nominee to replace her.

I agree that, in hindsight, her decision turned out poorly.  That wasn't at all clear to me at the time, though.

Also, I know a number of judges who are cancer survivors.  That doesn't mean they are in an immediate danger medically. It has, thankfully, become fairly routine to survive cancer.
#30
Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis, Democrats?
Last post by Barrister - Today at 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 05:14:48 PMRight, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland".  You claimed it had never happened.  RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.

Great.

So maybe you can take it easy on the "you have gone full MAGA or have a bad memory" stuff.

I had thought it was obvious I was speaking about "before Garland", but glad we could clear up that confusion.