A couple of things that are sticking out for me today:
The argument sounds compelling — but where would it lead us? Would Cheney and Justice Scalia – and whatever Canadian allies they have – think it was OK, for instance, to torture a child in order to make her parents reveal where a ticking time bomb was hidden?
Dick Cheney is confident they did the right thing and would do it again. He's not willing to entertain opposition to that perspective. As one of history's actors, it's the job of others to understand that he is right and they aren't bright.
What has the cost of the War On Terror been to the US Economy? What ROI have they received from their investment?
It's not about money, it's not about safety or whatnot, because if it was they'd be using methods that were more effective and as a result, landing on practices that had better outcomes. But they aren't.
Putin and the Bear:
Putin said he’s firmly in control of the country and is not in any way worried about a coup from within his ranks.
He's firmly in control of the country and gosh, people love him. When things go wrong, it's not his fault - it's someone else's fault. The story is whatever he wants it to be, right? He's the boss and people are happy with letting him be the boss.
You Don't Know What You Don't Know
As you know, this is a serious allegation, and a conviction carries a penalty of $25,000 and prison term of two years less a day,” Bisson said in a statement. “Ontarians deserve to know if this allegation is true, and if so, who ordered Mr. Lougheed and Ms. Sorbara to offer Mr. Olivier a ‘job or appointment’ in exchange for his withdrawal from the Liberal nomination race.”
I'm a former Queen's Park staffer. I've been involved in the appointment process. And I had no idea there was a law against this - I'm still not 100% clear what the law actually states, but then I'm not compelled to spend the time looking it up, either.
Political staff aren't trained on this stuff, nor, would I imagine, are Party staff. Are Members? If so, by who? Do they get a test to make sure the knowledge registered? I'm sure Party lawyers have knowledge of such matters, but what of it?
Cronyism is an established part of politics and has been in perpetuity. Does offering a leadership opponent a Cabinet post if they drop out fit into this legal framework? How about offering internships or jobs to the kids of big funders?
Big picture - who isn't guilty of playing politics in politics?
And don't get all indignant about this. Most voters don't know and don't care about how nomination process work, or laws get passed, or the actual rules of accountability in Parliament.
Ignorance is bliss, right? We pay experts so that we don't have to worry about the minutiae. Or at least, we pay people we're confident are experts to take care of the details for us.
If they're confident, then they're likely to have a firm hand on the rudder, be in control. Not waver or waffle in their positions.
I'm sensing something akin to a cycle here, but I'm sure it's all in my sociology-committing head. Otherwise, the folk like Cheney and Putin would have recognized and responded to it accordingly - right?