What is Ignatieff's stance on Galloway?

What is Mr Ignatieff's stance on Galloway?

Mr Ignatieff is an unelected (by rank and file Liberals) leader.

He supported the Iraq war (initially).

We have had no debate on his positions and views of Canada as leader of the Liberal party post-Dion.

As a Liberal, I deserve to know where Mr Ignatieff stands on issues important to Liberals. Issues like freedom of speech, justice and peace.

Mr Galloway is clearly no security threat to Canada. In fact, he is in the USA right now speaking.

Will he be allowed to do so in Canada? Will Mr Ignatieff do the right thing and work to overturn this ban? Or at least speak out against it, as the NDP has done?

Sensitivity Training For Pearson Staff

The Toronto Star is reporting that Canada Border Services Agency is putting officials through sensitivity training so they can appropriately deal with Arab and Muslim travelers.

This is of course welcome news. As a manager we personally negotiate or deal with people of other cultures all the time - and thus we take cultural sensitivity training. For example, in North America when people negotiate, the terms are usually very clear and everyone is eager to get a deal and time is a constraint. We don't mix business with pleasure. However when you negotiate with the Mexicans or Indians, they like to take their own sweet time. This is NOT a delaying tactic - they have a culture of getting to "know" the person they are dealing with and cultivating relations. Time is fluid and "there is always tomorrow" and a deal may not be very specific in the details.

Once you KNOW this, then you know this is something you can always use to your advantage. Sensitivity training never hurt anyone. Thus I find the attitude of the union representative in the article very selfish, self serving and borderline racist (no pun intended).

I do think that once they become a Canadian and they live among us, that they should pick up our ways and not have us picking up their ways.

Let alone the fact that some Arabs and Muslims may be travellers and not Canadian, so they DON'T have to "act Canadian" (whatever that means). Sensitivity training actually helps border agents do a better job.

For one, they don't waste their time on nothing cases. To quote the example in the article, many Muslim women come from cultures where they don't look an authority figure in the eye as a sign of respect. So while she is respecting you, you think she has something to hide and pull her over for scrutiny. So of course she is going to feel discriminated again, while you merely did your duty by acting on a valid suspicion (which you SHOULD do). She will them complain and an inquiry will be filed against you and you will go through the whole rigamarole at the end of which you will be found not guilty and she will be unhappy and you will be unhappy at going through the ordeal. So in the end, having that piece of cultural insight would have been good and advantageous for all concerned.

Second, WHY in God's name would you object to being paid by work for NOT doing work? We used to love those courses our offices sent us on, as that meant taking a paid break while relaxing in a course and eating free food. Me thinks the border guards doth protest too much.

[the Toronto Star]

Obama Oh Gone-a!

Today is the day the Obama campaign starts to head downhill. What a way to torpedo oneself! And I had such high hopes for him too.

From the Boston Herald,

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted - an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The BBC has a slightly nuanced report:

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Clearly whatever he meant, this policy is supposed to show that Obama is firm on terror, a tough guy and has balls.

It also shows how incredibly naive he is, a charge Clinton had levelled against him the other day when he said he would meet the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions.

I won't even get into the contradiction of how Obama has accused Clinton and Bush of invading a sovereign country (Iraq) illegally and is now prepared to do the same. I won't even get into the fact that Pakistan is officially an ally of the U.S. and is doing what they can to fight radicals holed up in the north of the country. What I will get into is how this shows what I had feared true all along - despite his charisma, Obama is a very weak candidate and unsuitable for the position of the President of the United States.

First, even if this is just blustering and a bluff to rally around foolish voters who think military might is the answer to all problems - it's wrong to do so. Clinton so far has a lead over Obama because people believe the senator has the experience and maturity to fulfill the duties of a President.

Second, if Obama really believes this is how to solve the Pakistan conundrum, then he is even more foolish than I give him credit for. When your country is bogged down in an unpopular and energy sapping war in one country, while trying to do the impossible task of nation building in another, with your army stretched to breaking point, it's not the time to open yet another front and another war with yet another country.

Third, they can rest assured Pakistan is a different kettle of fish. It has nuclear weapons and from all previous statements of their leaders, will not be shy of using them if left no choice.

Fourth, if they attack Pakistan, the conflict will spread, very easily, far beyond the shores of Pakistan. A whole other set of countries will then turn against the US, if not so already.

Fifth, am I wrong or does Obama's position keep changing with the polls? One day he is a man of peace, the next day he is a man of war, one day he wants to meet everyone for a group hug, the next day he is shunting a key ally, one day he is calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite" the next day he is proposing an act even Bush didn't do.

Providing covert help for Pakistani forces (who are friendly to the US aim of eradicating radicals) is one thing, invoking war on a nuclear powered country is another. Obama has rightfully shown himself to be naive, irresponsible and immature.

Neo-Con Logic: How To Stop A War

Will their be a war this summer?

I think it is 85% a sure thing and their is nothing less than a massive strike on Iran that can stop the war from happening. - Yoni

Yes, that's right. To stop a war that hasn't started yet, we must strike first which will definitely not start a war.

Right. Got ya.

How's that "will be greeted with flowers as liberators" plan coming along?