Can't bring liquids on planes.
you don't know Steven Harper. Around here, we call him "Shrub" (baby Bush).
We supported the war on terror. We went to Afganistan. a decade ago, we went to Iraq and Kuwait.
The consensous of the Canadian popuilation is in disagreement with the current war in Iraq. That doesn't mean everyone obviously.
So we have yet another, temporary minority government that happens to be much further right than what Canadians have traditionally supported.
Harper crosses the line from "allie" to "wannabe"
It's what ya get when you give stupid people the right to vote!He does some good things... I think. I think everyone now hates him even more, cause he went to Nunavut not the AIDS conference.
yeah, that was kind of an indication of his opinion on the HIV conference in general. After all, when the head of state can't even make an apearance to greet other heads of state, it's embarrasing for the whole contry.I'm sure in his mind AIDS=fags=Satan.I'll admit though, I think the only thing he's done right is increase millitary spending. The forces are suffering under a very limmited budget. But obviously, he didn't need to be standing on the deck of a friggit instead of being at the HIV/AIDS conference to show his support of the Navy.
I follow concervatives of the anglophone world quite closely. Infact I recently read the Canadian Tory website. Its way more outwardly right-wing that the British one, so Harper has my thumbs up.But still, you havnt refuted what I said, about him actualy believeing in what hes doing, rather than doing it just to please Bush. Clearly one cant see into mens souls, but if we way up pros and cons from harpers perspective, he wouldnt side with American unless he genuinely believed it was beneficial. Its not like the USA would abolish NAFTA or anything to force Canada to do anything, no the Canadian government has been a willing partner because they believe its right. Do you really think its a good idea to encourage polticans to do whatever the USA isnt doing just to show that they arent "wannabes" or "slaves". If you dont like what their doing, blame them for their beliefs, not for some kind of vassalage to the USA that doesnt exist anywhere near as much as many fear (or many would like).As for the Canadian populace. Clearly enough of them either support the war or dont care enough about it, to start switching votes to the tories. Much the same way about 65% of the UK apparantly oppose the war, but they just dont care enough to stop them putting NewLabour in for a third term. Hopefully next election the Tories can get a majority.
In reply to: I'll admit though, I think the only thing he's done right is increase millitary spending. The forces are suffering under a very limmited budget. Ah man you wouldnt believe Tony Blair. He sends us to all these wars and then CUTS the defence budget It beggers belief!
In reply to: I'll admit though, I think the only thing he's done right is increase millitary spending. The forces are suffering under a very limmited budget. But obviously, he didn't need to be standing on the deck of a friggit instead of being at the HIV/AIDS conference to show his support of the Navy. You can say that again! He put keeps putting about 1 mil onto Air Force. Navy, but not Infantry! The Queen's Own Rifles have to use some equipment that is so out of date!He is messing up major! Gary Goodyear is an official idiot! Not only he is losing votes, he is losing popularity as well! He gave a speech 2 days ago about drafting!Linda Valention isn't doing too good either! She actually proposed to use the War Measures Act! If the things in Afghanistan get worse!I don't think NATO is doing anything. And when is Stephen Harper going to send in "Fresh Men" to replace the ones now? How many dead do we have Mr U? How many! More Dead
In reply to: Nah it'll make me feel safe. Big difference. I agree.. anyone who argues with this is soo stupid.. honestly.. theyre taking SAFETY precautions.. notice the word SAFETY... I wonder how the people who are against this would feel if one of their family members were on a plane and the plane blew up because they werent handling it the way they are.
I leave for two weeks and all hell breaks loose. Nice. Somebody just shoot them please! Find them and shoot them so we can get on with our lives. I have people already reminiscing over 9/11. I'm still confused about this terrorism thing. I can't keep up.
My cousin is leaving from england on sunday.
How, A.W! How!
You should run for political office. You sound just like my congresswoman.> it's time for them to stop letting them do it to usNow if only we could move from the "what" to the "how", we'd be all set.
In reply to: I agree.. anyone who argues with this is soo stupid oh, Stephie, you're not calling this old man stupid are you?You just need to travel more... and read my post about business travellers.Seriously, this is as big an overreaction as the nail-clipper moratorium. Maybe they should strip and cavity search every single passenger, you know, for SAFETY.But really, that is exactly what will happen after the first badguy gets caught in a plan to smuggle a bomb in his ass!Are you willing to endure a cavity search every single time you board a plane? Don't say it's crazy, this is a real slippery slope. It wasn't very long ago that a pocket knife was one of the things I'd drop in the tray before going throught the metal detector. After all, a gentleman always has a pocket knife AND they pose no threat to an airplane.2 weeks ago, who could have predicted that toothpaste would be prohibited?
A solution is bein proposed by leading figures in the UK, though it scarees alot of people.This guy on TV I saw who is a leading world figure in airport security said thats what is needed is customer profiling, where security assess the people comming through security and identify which are the most likely to cause a problem and only give the full checks on those in that high-risk group. This will speed up the process of getting onto planes dramatically. But before you start to make accusations of racism he went on to make some very good points. First of all it of course true that in the current climate it will be young asian men who are penalised the most from this, they will be the ones much more likely to be stopped and searched thoroghly. That sounds all dreadful but thats the world we live in and its just common sense to search the group people from the group that are setting bombs off, while not bothering to search a family of 6 with buckets and spades on their way to Spain. If you see an asian family with buckets and spades on there way to Spain you woudlnt searxch them, as its very clear they are on there way on holiday. You would primarily search lone, young asian, or a couple or small group of young asian men. Might sound racialist to you but its about identifying risk factor. This fellow also pointed to an example on air New Zealand where men are forbidden to sit next to children of whom they are not a parent/guardian. This can be very inconveniant and result in the man in question to sit away from the people he is travelling with. However its a safety meassue, somewhat discriminatory but if air NZ feel thats neccesary to protect against paedophiels then so be it. Its also important to notice that though this kind of policy does effect primarily young asian men in teh current climate, it could apply to anyone in any group later on as the times change, for example say in NorthernIreland gets violent again you would see this applied to people with Irish accents. So its not truely geared at being harmful to any single group, but to identifying risk factor. It will be inconveniant for yooung asian men to get searched thoroghly, but because they are the only ones being searched they aswell as everyone else will get on the plane much faster. And a bit of inconveniance is worth safety, especially if this inconveniance is practised with common sense. Note also that this kind of thing has been used for years in mnay places, but directed at young men of all races who because of some way that they dress obviously look like drug dealers rolls-eyes, inconveniant yes, somewhat discriminatory yes, but ultimately not harmful.It was pointed out to this fellow that one of the recent terrorists was a white who had converted to Islam and the fellow said that security staff in many places in the world are traind to look out for suspicious people, and through excersing extreme prejudice have a considerable level of success, so again I stress its not ethnic profiling but assessing each individual customer comming through security at an airport. So for example a lone young white man witha pallid layer of sweat and minimal luggage will raise more suspicion than a whole family of Asians Sikhs with buckets and spades, laughing and joking and arguing about forgetting to bring the babies nappies. With properly trained security staff this is doable, according to the fellow on TV.Done correctly. this would be better than banning toothpaste, though I dont atall begrude the harsh meassures that have meeted out in the mean time to help security.
Maybe you need to got back and read what I wroteBecause what your saying has nothing to do with what I wrote
See? I could always bring up the whole "if men weren't in power there'd be no war and violence" just to piss you guys off and have 25 page long posts telling me how ignorant that is lol but I won't and just say. GEORGE BUSH!..... I'm done.
Colleen,This is what you wrote:"Canada dosen't need to send more men and women out to fight a war that has nothing to do with us"Obviously you feel that Canada isn't affected by what's going on in the world. So just watch the war and complain about it. "We are fighting for a country that dosen't even like us"Not really sure how you can make this judgement; exactly how many people from the "country that doesn't even like us" do you know?"Why should we send more men and women out to die"Whether you send Canadians to war to die, or not, if Canadians stick their heads in the stand with the "it's them, not us" mentality, they will die on their own soil from the effects of this war, it's only a matter of time.Maybe YOU need to "go" back and read what you AND I wrote.
great posts StrapingYoungLad.
yeah, i hate terrorists. i wanna kick em in the nuts.
Putting aside any racial concerns and implications thereof to profiling...Admittedly I'm no security expert but the proposition of profiling that your "guy on TV" put forth would be in actual practice rather ineffective, I would think. When profiling, a set of markers are constructed and then those makers are watched for. Someone wishing to pass security simply needs to know what those markers are and avoid them. If security is looking for young males then use old. If security is looking at people with small amounts of baggage bring lots of baggage etc., etc., etc. It seems to me, profiling is kinda paradoxical the more refined it is the more accurate and easier it is for the screener to implement but conversely it becomes easier for the "watched" to get around. While I don't completely discount profiling, it seems that it would be too easy to get around, to be on the starting line of defence anyway.Several years ago (10 or more), I believe I heard it on NPR and maybe 60 Minutes, state police and highway patrol departments in the southern states started using profiling to catch mules of drug traffickers. I don't remember them all, but some of the markers law enforcement officials were watching for were single occupant rented four door cars driving at or just below the speed limit and only on certain highways. While I know no statistics of just how effective the program was, I do remember one mule, turned snitch, laughing that while law enforcement caught his buddy in the rented Lincoln with a couple of kilos of coke, he sped by them in moving van with a ton of coke. Plus, as soon as the traffickers figured out what law enforcement was looking for they changed their appearance. The long and short of it was, as I remember, the program was effective only in the very short run but then would fail dramatically and need to be reassessed and resulted with constantly changing, overlapping and multiple profiles being issued to law enforcement. Thus, loosing any arguable effectiveness it had as a precision tool for law enforcement. When talking about dirty bombs and chemical attacks I don't think any method should be considered where dramatic failure has been a demonstrated outcome of previous implementations.Don't get me wrong, I think some bit of profiling has limited merit but its profound short comings must be recognized and addressed. My conjecture is that principal among these is the very human proclivity to look for the concrete rather than the abstract, especially when the fatigue and boredom of routine sets in. That is to say, if screeners and law enforcement are told to be on the lookout for certain markers, many of them by the end of their shift are more apt to be looking for the described markers rather than suspicious activities in general. I don't think that's so much the fault of the individual but just the prejudice (not meant in racial sense) of the human mind and how it works.While I'm not advocating complete amendment of profiling I think it should not be anywhere near the emphasis of a security system, which is what I read your "guy on TV" to be purposing.
What is the totality of Israeli airport security and how much of that is made up of profiling? I certainly don't know. If they have found a way of avoiding the inherent pitfalls and are using it in a manner that actually works, great. What I question is the method. If your looking for a wasp in line of tens-of-thousands of bugs, one right after the other, when you see the hornet will you still recognize it as dangerous? My guess would be that your going to be too busy looking for back and yellow to recognize the danger in the rust color of the hornet. It's a simple analogy but demonstrates the point, I think. Given that the circumstance were very different, the only evidence I have any knowledge of, which I sited in my previous post, reached a similar conclusion. I make no claim that this is the final word on the subject if there is evidence to the contrary I'm ready to hear it or in this case read it?It just seems illogical to me to make profiling such a integral bureaucratized part of your security apparatus. It seems that if your busy checking every possible person who fits a vague profile your taking away much needed resources from checking everyone else, who are no less capable and in some case just as inclined to commit horrible acts, sometimes for the same reasons as those you are actively profiling.
