Vancouver 2010 Anyone?

This video just released by VANOC the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics organization.

Gives you a great pictorial of our future home.

Book your hotel rooms now . . . .

Too Little, Too Late . . . .

STILL no news on the immigration front, so we continue to post political ramblings. Believe me, I would much rather be posting something like: "Word from CIC", or "Interview Waived". Alas, it is not to be - today, anyway.

These excerpts from an AlterNet article today are sobering:

It's Way Too Late for Non-Binding Resolutions on Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2007.

Also this week, we learned that General George Casey, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, had requested half the number of troops Bush ultimately requested (Casey originally opposed any increase in troops). At the same time, we learn that the "surge" was a bait-and-switch; a new report by the Congressional Budget Office found that Bush's request for just over 20,000 combat troops would require a deployment of as many as 28,000 additional personnel, including support and logistics troops and contractors. According to the Washington Post, "That could mean the plan would involve up to 48,000 troops and contractors, at a cost of between $9 billion and $13 billion for the first four months and up to $27 billion for the first year." The report contradicts testimony given Congress just last week by the army Chief of Staff.

So when Bush asks America to give his plan to send 21,000 troops to fortify Baghdad and help train Iraqi security forces "a chance," what he's really saying is, 'regardless of what Congress, the American people and the Iraq Study Group want to see happen, I will send 50,000 under-equipped troops into the meat-grinder so that they can more effectively arm and train Shiite militias.' This, while the administration steadfastly refuses to engage in a parallel diplomatic push with Iraq's neighbors -- one that might give the plan some small chance of success -- choosing instead to rattle its saber towards Iran.

Senator Chris Dodd responded to all this by saying: "This is the United States Senate. This is not some city council somewhere…It seems to me sending something down that engages the president, that forces the administration to pay attention is something we ought to be considering."

Russ Feingold added, "A political victory is not more important than ending this war," and he's right. With an attack against Iran seeming ever more probable, this is the time to lay down hard constraints, to cut funding for Bush's escalation, demand he seek Congressional authorization to spread his conflict beyond Iraq and move towards ending the occupation. Anything less at this point is too little, too late.

Personally, I've got to agree with the very last sentence. Our elected "leaders" need to actually "lead" us out of this mess . . . .

Banker Woes . . . .

This blurb on the Vancouver Sun editorial page today would be humorous if it hadn't had reminded me of mr. wolfowitz' role in initiating the war in Iraq. As "rummy's" right-hand man, he was one of the prime proponents of invading Iraq and it's devastating consequences.

Banker doesn't give a darn about putting his best foot forward

Vancouver Sun Published: Wednesday, January 31, 2007

As president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz is handsomely remunerated, to the tune of a $ 300,000 US tax- free salary, along with a mortgage allowance and golf club membership.

So it’s no surprise that Wolfowitz cuts an impressive figure, with a sartorial style that includes fancy shoes and designer suits. You might even been tempted to say that he looks smashing from head to toe — but it’s probably best if you don’t say that.

In fact, it’s best you don’t mention Wolfowitz’s toes at all since they’ve received enough, um, exposure. You see, the World Bank prez found himself in Edirne, Turkey, on Monday, and did what many dignitaries do: He visited the Ottoman- era Selimiye mosque. Further, he did what anyone does when visiting a mosque: He removed his shoes.

So far so good. But as Wolfowitz was leaving, those ubiquitous paparazzi were waiting for him, and they managed to catch him with his pants down -- or at least with his shoes off. And wouldn't you know it, it seems Wolfowitz was a little behind with his laundry that day, since he had not one, but two large holes in the toes of his socks.

Now there are several possible explanations for Wolfowitz’s footloose and fancy- free attitude. Although it seems unlikely, perhaps the president of the World Bank has fallen on hard times, hard enough to prevent him buying a decent pair of socks. Or perhaps he’s making a statement here, one that says the president of World Bank is willing operate on an, um, shoestring budget to ensure that his money — and yours — is not wasted.

But we think there’s a simpler explanation: Perhaps Wolfowitz just doesn’t give a hoot, since he obviously doesn’t give a darn.

World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has a
bad sock day as he leaves Ottoman-era Selimiye
mosque in Turkey on Monday.

Photograph by : Nadir Alp, Associated Press

Perhaps the holes in his theories on international relations should be of more import than those in his socks . . . .

bush and shrub Party Over? We Can Only Hope . . . .

Thought you would enjoy this excerpt from an excellent article by Sarah Anderson of AlterNet. It details the straining of relations between the US and Canada due to the Maher Arar rendition case . . . .

Despite his ideological affinity for President Bush, Prime Minister Harper has not been oblivious to the fact the U.S. government is about as popular among Canadians today as it was when the Americans invaded in the War of 1812. In October, he was moved to ring up Bush and ask him to "come clean" about the Arar affair. He even went so far as to ask that Bush acknowledge "the deficiencies and inappropriate conduct that occurred in this case." That, of course, was as likely as the President admitting to shirking his Vietnam War National Guard duties.

Check out the full article for Sarah's take on the bush/shrub alliance . . . .

US Ambassador Gets Testy . . . .

This editorial from today's Halifax Daily News is great!

Just who does Mr. Wilkins think he is, anyway?


THE DAILY NEWS - Halifax, NS

Last updated at 7:27 AM on 26/01/07

Temper, temper, Mr. Ambassador


United States Ambassador David Wilkins can be charming — as he was when he expressed his country’s gratitude to Canada for the assistance we provided during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. He can be firm — as he was when he continually reminded Canadians that a new American law requiring passports to get into the country was not going to be rescinded simply because it wasn’t to our liking.

And he can be infuriating — as he was yesterday, when he chided Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day for pushing the Americans to remove Maher Arar from its no-fly list.

In 2002, Arar — a Canadian citizen originally from Syria — was detained in the United States while changing planes to return to Canada. Based on faulty information from Canada, the Americans believed Arar had ties to al-Qaida, and deported him not to Canada, but to Syria.

After more than a year of torture in Syria, Arar returned to Canada. An inquiry cleared him of involvement with terrorism, and he is no longer considered a security risk here. But the Americans still think he’s a threat.

Day has been vocal in his criticism of that stance. Yesterday, it was Wilkins’s turn to get vocal.

“It’s a little presumptuous of (Day) to say who the United States can and cannot allow into our country,” the ambassador huffed. “Canadian officials would rightly never tolerate any American official dictating to them who they may or may not allow into their country.

Was it not “presumptuous” for the Americans to pack Arar off to Syria, instead of simply sending him back to Canada?

Suppose Canadian authorities seized an American citizen at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. Suppose said citizen was not sent back to the United States, but spirited away to another country, one with a dubious human-rights record. Suppose said citizen suffered torture in that country.

This would, rightly, never be tolerated by the Americans.

So why should it be tolerated by us?

Well said, Daily News . . . .

"Deep Integration" - Coming To Your Home? ? ? ?

There are varied opinions in "blogland" regarding "Deep Integration" and the potential effects of same, both positive and negative.

l-girl of "We Move to Canada" blog and Barbara Yaffe one of my favourite columnists from The Vancouver Sun both seem to minimize the negative results of such a process and I hope they're right.

One can't ignore information such as this article from yesterday's The Tyee out of BC, however. Thanks to "drf" for pointing this out. (BTW, does anyone have opinions on the author, Murray Dobbin? His articles are usually quite thought provoking.)

It does give one pause, and I for one, am not looking forward to US policies, laws and culture assimilating into Canada. The reason we are moving to Canada is precisely because of the differences between the two countries and our hope is that it remains so . . . .

When Pigs Fly . . . .

Compliments of CNN.com today:

Cheney: Talk of blunders in Iraq is 'hogwash'

POSTED: 4:32 p.m. EST, January 24, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday dismissed as "hogwash" the suggestion that blunders may have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq and led members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to question President Bush's plan to send more troops to Baghdad.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, carried out a day after President Bush delivered his State of the Union address, the vice president was told that some Republicans in Congress "are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."

To that Cheney responded: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee defied President Bush on Wednesday and approved a resolution declaring that sending more troops to Iraq is "not in the national interest."

"We better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder," said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, one of the harshest Republican critics of the plan.

Cheney said the administration is committed to moving ahead with its plan to send more troops to secure Baghdad, even if Congress passes a resolution in opposition.

"It won't stop us," he said. "And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

Cheney added, "The notion that somehow the effort hasn't been worth it or that we shouldn't go ahead and complete the task is just dead wrong."

Cheney said the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein was the right move.

"The world is much safer today because of it," the vice president said. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed, his sons are dead, his government is gone. And the world is better off for it."

Cheney added that had Hussein been allowed to remain at the helm of Iraq, "he would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran."

"There's problems, ongoing problems. But we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off," Cheney said.

Asked to describe the biggest mistake made by U.S. war planners, Cheney said: "I think we underestimated the extent to which 30 years of Saddam's rule had really hammered the population, especially the Shia population, into submissiveness. It's very hard for them to stand up and take responsibility, in part because anybody who's done that in the past have had their heads chopped off."

Asked about the pregnancy of his daughter Mary, who is in a relationship with a female partner, Cheney expressed irritation with his questioner.

"I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf," he said. "And, obviously, I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question."

Yeah, Wolf, don't get out of line - Dick might take you quail hunting . . . .

Why Is This Not A Surprise?

This news today regarding Maher Arar does not surprise you, does it?? And, here's more . . . .

Al's Justice Department needs a lot of oversight from Pat Leahy & Co . . . .

That'll Do It, george . . . .

We can only hope . . . .

How Appropriate . . . .

Man with squirt gun warned outside Harper event

Updated Fri. Jan. 19 2007 7:18 PM ET

Canadian Press

METCHOSIN, B.C. -- A young man waving a penis-shaped squirt gun was warned Friday not to enter a building where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was about to speak.

A plainclothes member of Harper's security detail was overheard telling the youth it would not be advisable for him to enter the building with the squirt gun.

The red-faced youth walked away from the building followed by several friends.

Harper was at Pearson College, located about 25 kilometres west of Victoria, to announce his government's $1.5 billion renewable energy initiative.

It is not known if the young male was a student at Pearson College.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

No comment . . . .

Time to 'Fess Up, Al . . . .

Gonzales Testifies on Eavesdropping Changes (Compliments of the Washington Post)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 -- Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez was lectured on Capitol Hill today by senators who were only partly mollified by the Bush administration’s concession to allow judicial oversight of its electronic-eavesdropping program.




Let's hope this is only the first of many times Al is called upon to explain his actions to limit personal freedoms.

Real congressional oversight is going to be something this administration will - hopefully - have to get used to . . . .


UPDATE HERE to reveal the Canadian connection to this story. "You go, Pat Leahy!!"

The Bully Puts the Pressure On . . . .

According to an article on CBC News this morning, the US wants Canada to increase it's oil sands production in Alberta by five times. So, what's good for oil company profits in the US is horrible to the environment in Canada and elsewhere around the globe. No surprise here, eh? I'm sure mr. harper's "special relationship" with bushco had nothing to do with this . . . . .


U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

Last Updated: Thursday, January 18, 2007 | 6:31 AM ET

CBC News

The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada.

You can read the whole article here.

This should give Stephane Dion and Jack Layton something to ask mr. harper about.

Not a Typical Vancouver Winter . . . .

This winter's abnormal weather patterns have created a very different picture of Vancouver:




Apparently, the frigid temperatures are to remain most of this week.

Kind of makes us glad we're still here in Florida right now . . . . Let's hope we can continue to say that during the summer's dreaded "Three H's" . . . . (Heat, Humidity & Hurricanes)

"Queerie" For You . . . .

Here's a question for you current and future Canadian Permanent Residents:

Are the CIC people in charge of assessing the applications for PR status located in US visa offices - Seattle, Detroit, New York, etc. - citizens of the US or Canada?

I'm assuming they are Canadian citizens assigned to these offices, but does anyone have evidence of this?

Would it make a difference in their attitudes towards US citizens attempting to leave the US?

Any thoughts??

Border Patrol . . . .

This news from CNN.com yesterday should do wonders to improve US/Canadian relations:


U.S. to begin drone patrols on Canadian border
POSTED: 12:42 p.m. EST, January 12, 2007

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) -- Unmanned surveillance aircraft will start patrolling the Canadian border by this fall, a Department of Homeland Security official said.

The propeller-driven drones, called Predators, will begin patrolling U.S. airspace along the border with Canada by September and will fly day and night, said Scott Baker, chief patrol agent of Customs and Border Protection, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

You can read the whole story here.

Wonder if all the folks like us that are attempting to cross the 49th Parallel had anything to do with this?? :)

"Condescending" Rice Gets Her Comeuppance . . . .

Looks like Condi had some splainin' to do . . . . It's about time!!

Rice, a Uniter of the Divided

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 12, 2007; A01

Within minutes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's arrival on Capitol Hill yesterday, it became apparent that the Bush administration had, after four divisive years, finally succeeded in uniting Congress on the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately for Rice, the lawmakers were unified in opposition to President Bush's new policy.

"I have to say, Madam Secretary," a seething Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) told Rice, "that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

"Madam Secretary," added Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, a moderate Democrat, "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. . . . I have not been told the truth over and over again."

"You're going to have to do a much better job," lectured Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican. "I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream, and at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen."

It was a bipartisan scolding of the sort rarely seen in the Bush presidency, and Rice endured it, for the most part, with quiet indignation. She stared expressionlessly at her tormentors or looked down at the table, occasionally noting their complaints on a memo pad with her No. 2 pencil: "Crisis in the region . . . Iraqis killing Iraqis . . . Withdrawal." The oversized yellow leather chair at the witness table made Rice look small, and for much of the hearing she sat hunched, her hands clasped tightly in her lap. Only once did she betray her agitation by pounding her clasped hands to her thigh, out of the senators' view.

Rice tried not to be baited. A ferocious Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), noting that the childless Rice is not at risk of losing her own offspring in Iraq, displayed a 2005 quote from the secretary saying she had "no doubt" about a troop reduction in Iraq. "You had absolutely no doubt about how great it was going," Boxer said.

"Senator, let's not overstate the case," Rice soothed. "I don't think I said it was going great."

But ultimately, Rice could not avoid quarrels. Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, angrily condemned the "escalation" of the war. "To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is . . . morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong."

"I don't see it, and the president doesn't see it, as an escalation," Rice replied.

Hagel looked stunned. "Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation?"

"Escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in," Rice ventured.

"Would you call it a decrease?" Hagel pressed.

"I would call it, Senator, an augmentation."

Rice rejected lawmakers' pleas to consider talks with Iran and Syria ("That's not diplomacy; that's extortion") and refused to promise that Bush would seek permission from Congress before attacking either country.

The senators reacted with a palpable fury. "I send letters out to the families and tell them about how brave their sons were and that the work they're doing there and the deaths were as important as what we had in the Second World War," Voinovich told Rice. "But I have to rewrite the letter today."

Rice had little with which to answer him. "I think that we don't have an option to fail in Iraq," she replied.

Voinovich glared from the dais.

The Foreign Relations panel is a murderers' row of political egos, with seven members who have contemplated 2008 presidential runs. But the frustration with Rice's answers had the salutary effect of breaking down party divisions. Democrat Chris Dodd (Conn.), who had just announced his presidential candidacy on "Imus in the Morning," gave a hug to Republican Hagel. Democrat Nelson praised Republican Norm Coleman (Minn.). Republican Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) concurred with Democrat Boxer. And Democrat Russ Feingold (Wis.) had only the warmest words for Hagel.

Some lawmakers wanted withdrawal from Iraq, others favored a bigger U.S. commitment, but most everybody saw Bush's plan as inadequate. "I hope you'll convey to the president," Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) urged Rice, "that you heard 21 members, with one or two notable exceptions, expressing outright hostility, disagreement and/or overwhelming concern with the president's proposal."

Indeed, the lone lawmaker showing some sympathy was Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who muddied his defense with an extended metaphor about gambling. He said Bush's speech Wednesday night made clear "this one is for all the marbles," and he advised Iraqis to heed "Kenny Rogers' old song, 'You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.' It's time for them to deliver on the hand that they've dealt."

But Barack Obama, for one, wasn't playing at Isakson's table. "This administration took a gamble," the Illinois Democrat said. "It appears that it has failed, and essentially the administration repeatedly has said we're doubling down."

There were demonstrators in the room: a woman from a left-wing group who applauded when Dodd labeled the Iraq policy "a fool's paradise," and a man who was led off by police shouting, "Lies! It's all lies!" But such heckling was redundant at a hearing in which more than a dozen senators vied for time to berate the witness. "Quite possibly the greatest foreign policy mistake in the history of our nation," Feingold proclaimed.

Less shrill but more powerful were the words of Bush's loyal supporters, who wore queasy looks as they challenged the new Iraq policy. Coleman rested his forehead on his hand, then asked Rice: "Why wouldn't it be wiser to hold the Iraqis to certain benchmarks?" John Sununu (R-N.H.) complained of a "refusal to share information." David Vitter (R-La.) judged: "Too little, maybe too late."

Even Murkowski, a junior senator who rarely breaks with the administration, joined in the denunciations. "You've clearly heard the skepticism that has been expressed this morning -- so many of my colleagues, and for good reason, skepticism about a lot of things," she said. The Alaskan spoke of her "great concern" that the United States is now in "a situation that I had hoped we would not be in."

Murkowski pleaded with Rice for assurances "that this is going to yield us a better result, a different result than what we have seen in the past."

Rice could offer none. "Senator," she said, "there aren't any guarantees."

Maybe mr. bush has finally delivered on his promise of being a "uniter, not a divider" after all . . . . Too bad he had to do it like this.

The "decider's" Decision? ? ? ?

A commentator on NPR yesterday stated the bush administration doesn't do much "in-house" policy making. (Good thing, considering who's "in-house"!)

He also said the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute formulates many of bush's programs.

With that in mind, won't it be interesting to compare the decider's Iraq plan next week with what this outfit says should be done?

Here's their plan.

Let's see how close shrub follows his privatized idea factory's plan . . . .

Happy New Year and Congrats . . . . .

A blog "drf" follows regularly, and I am about to "dig" into is Loud Murmurs . . . These folks just got their PR status last week, and are already living in our future home of Vancouver.

Congratulations, and here's hoping the rest of us awaiting word will be in the same situation soon.

Let's put out those positive vibes to the universe that 2007 will be the year lots more of us join the group who have already "crossed over" . . . . .

In the meantime, here's the first sunset of 2007 from "the dock on the bay" here in Florida.



Happy New Year, Ya'll . . . . .

Nothing New to Report . . . .

Unfortunately there is no new news on the immigration front, nor am I particularly enraged about any stupid moves by bush or "shrub" these days so . . . . . . . . . . . . . .














How 'bout some photos of sunrises and sunsets over "our" bay here in Florida??











The period of the year between early November and early March is the best for both sunrises and sunsets in this part of the
Gulf Coast.














Hope you enjoyed sharing them with us!

Why Rummy Really Lost His Job . . . .

Just a little humour for your day . . . .

Cheers!

Spring Election: Is It a Good or Bad Thing? . . . .

We are seeing quite a few articles on this topic the past couple of days.

Is a spring election a good or bad thing in your opinion?

Buoyant Grit poll numbers could banish spring election threat

Darrell Bricker

For CanWest News Service

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Is the Dion bounce for real? The answer is "yes." At least out of the gate. Why? Because just as Stephane Dion was the ideal compromise candidate for delegates at the Liberal leadership convention, this first week as Liberal leader, he's the ideal compromise candidate for the pockets of voters in Ontario, Quebec, B.C. and Atlantic Canada that will decide the next election.

This week's Ipsos-Reid poll for CanWest News and Global National illustrates this point. Dion's victory has re-constituted a centre/left coalition that comprises the traditional Liberal core, plus disaffected New Democrats. This is the coalition that Jean Chretien rode to three majority victories in 1993, 1997 and 2000 -- and the demise of this coalition pushed a struggling Paul Martin into a minority government in 2004.

The immediate desire of the traditional Liberal coalition to embrace Dion puts proof to the point that Stephen Harper and the Tories weren't so much elected back in January, as the Liberals were defeated. Without a strong anti-Liberal issue like the sponsorship scandal at work, one wonders how successful the Tories will be in an election against a cleansed and re-energized Liberal party.

The major issue that Harper needs to confront in the run-up to the next election is that his party and leadership divide the electorate. Against a candidate who unites the Liberal coalition, this is a bad place to be.

How divided are Canadians on Harper? The percentage that has a positive impression of both Dion and Harper is roughly equal, but the group that has a negative impression of Harper is 17 points larger than the group that has a negative impression of Dion. Voters that have the most negative impression of Harper are urban dwellers, university grads and women. In fact, half of Canada's female voters say they have a negative impression of Harper. That's quite a head start to give to an opponent.

Importantly for Dion, Jack Layton's leadership is also divisive. While Layton does much better with voters than his party, he still has personal negatives that are 10 points higher than Dion's.

The big question about Dion has been about his ability to win seats in Quebec. This poll's results are somewhat ambiguous on this point. While Dion's leadership has pushed the Grits back to at least Chretien levels (30 per cent), this growth has come at the expense of neither the Tories nor the Bloc. It's mostly been at the expense of the NDP and the Greens. One has to wonder how real the Liberal gains in Quebec are given that these two groups are among the least likely to cast a ballot in a federal election.

So, where does this leave Canadian politics, and what does it mean for election timing? First, it means that the Liberals under Dion are definitely back in the hunt, and that Paul Martin did the right thing when he resigned after the last election. Second, it means that, unless Dion and the Liberals see a major dip in support, a spring election is off. Why? Because, given their current prospects, the NDP and Bloc are unlikely to agree to bring the government down. And, the Tories will not want to trigger an election until their numbers improve -- and that's going to take some time.

Darrell Bricker is president and COO of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs.

© CanWest News Service 2006

We can see "Pros" and "Cons" both for having a spring election, and not having a spring election. Please give your views as we are definitely "newbies" at the Canadian politics thing . . . .

Stephane is Sounding Good So Far . . . .

If Stephane Dion keeps this up, he is sounding better and better . . . .

From today's CanWest News Service:

Mr. Dion has stressed that a large political divide exists between his party and the Conservatives, whom he portrays as pursuing a right- wing ideology similar to the Bush administration in the U. S.

“ The fact that they never saw a tax cut they don’t want to make — this is a very Republican approach … We need to believe in government and I feel that they do not believe in the government,” said Mr. Dion.

He denied that he is preaching “ anti- Americanism,” saying the U. S. is an ally of Canada, but “ not a model.”

That last statement is great. It appears Stephane could be a very good result of the Liberal leadership convention free for all . . . .

As Expected, But Sweet Nonetheless . . . .

MPs defeat motion to reopen same-sex marriage debate

Motion tabled by Tories falls 175-123

Last Updated: Thursday, December 7, 2006 | 4:53 PM ET

CBC News

A motion to reopen the same-sex marriage debate was easily defeated in Parliament on Thursday, as expected.

MPs voted 175-123 against the controversial motion tabled by the ruling Conservatives.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks with the media in the House of Commons in Ottawa Thursday after the government failed to pass a motion to reopen same-sex marriage legislation.
(Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)

The motion had asked the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

The Liberal and Conservative parties allowed their members to vote freely, and there were some surprises.

Twelve Tories broke from party lines and voted against the motion. They included cabinet ministers Peter MacKay, David Emerson, John Baird, Jim Prentice, Lawrence Cannon and Josée Verner.

Most Liberals also gave the motion the thumbs down. Among them were Joe Comuzzi, who gave up his cabinet post in 2005 so he could vote against a same-sex marriage bill proposed by the Liberal government.

All Bloc Québécois and NDP members present voted against Thursday's motion, as directed to by their party leaders.

The vote should put an end to parliamentary wrangling about same-sex marriage, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper had said a free vote — promised during January's general election campaign — would settle the matter.

A 'hollow' motion, Liberals criticize

Same-sex marriage became legal in Canada last year, when the Liberal government passed Bill C-38 in response to a series of court rulings that said gays had the right to marry.

The bill passed 158-133.

Maybe the US will one day follow suit . . . .

"Welcome Home" by Sara Robinson . . . .

Sara Robinson's post on Orcinus today is an excellent description of crossing the Canada/US border at the Hwy. 99/I-5 Peace Arch crossing in British Columbia.

Her details of the ATS program are, quite frankly, rather chilling.

The post is entitled "Welcome Home" and is well worth a read . . . .

Gay Friendly Vancouver . . . .

Just one more reason to look forward to our move north from today's Vancouver Sun:

Officials celebrate No. 1 gaytravel nod

BY KENT SPENCER - STAFF REPORTER

Vancouver is taking pride in its selection as the No. 1 gay travel destination in Canada.

“We couldn’t be more pleased,” said Candice Gibson, marketing manager at Tourism Vancouver. “Vancouver openly welcomes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender travellers.”

The survey was conducted by Community Marketing Inc. with 7,500 gay and lesbian participants. Vancouver topped Montreal and Toronto.

Vancouver’s Gay Pride Week draws thousands of visitors each year, and sensitivity training is available for hospitality staff.

Tourism Vancouver has actively marketed the city to gay travellers for a decade.

The campaign includes advertising in gay-specific travel magazines as well as attendance at key industry trade shows.

The marketing program included a “win your wedding” sweepstakes for same-sex couples. B.C.’s same-sex marriage laws attract hundreds of couples each year to exchange vows.

“Vancouver has been doing it right when it comes to being truly gayfriendly. It’s working,” said Thomas Roth, president of Community Marketing Inc.

We're really looking forward to our gay-friendly future home . . . . .

Welcome to New Family Members . . . .

We just had contact with another same-sex couple in the process - actually near the end of the process - of leaving the US for Canada. In fact they will be neighbours of ours, as they are moving to Victoria, BC.

Check out their Our Journey Toward Canadian Immigration blog to catch up and give them your own greetings . . . .

Welcome to the club, ladies!

It looks like our little "family" continues to grow . . . . 'Ya gotta love it, eh?

When Can the US Expect an Article Like This?

Perusing the Montreal Gazette today "drf" found an article on Stephane Dion and his actions after the Liberal Leadership convention. Here is an excerpt:

And Dion is moving fast to mend bridges. Moments after his news conference, he trotted up the hill to his campaign headquarters at the Place d’Armes Hotel, where he had invited the seven other candidates and their spouses – gay candidate Scott Brison attended with his boyfriend – for lunch.

Wouldn't it be nice if the US would print an article similar and not have the screaming right-wing zealots throwing stones at the media who reported it? Personally, I think it's going to be quite some time before that happens . . . . .

Vancouver Pics . . . .

My three week stay in our future home comes to an
end early tomorrow morning so I thought sharing some pictures with you would be appropriate . . . .

Through a lot of rain, mudslides into the water reservoirs forcing a "boil water" situation, snow falling on a normally snow-free city and then turning frigid with ice-covered streets and sidewalks, I pretty much fully experienced a Vancouver winter. Yeah, I know it's not winter 'til December 22nd, but try and tell these folks that . . . . .











































Hope you enjoyed the snowpics . . . .


Next post from warm (75 degrees F) and sunny Florida . . . .

Funny thing, it's still hard to leave Vancouver even with the current weather . . . . Think that legitimizes our decision to move here permanently.

News from Two Moms . . . .

Great news from our friends Two Moms to Canada today!!

They've been very frustrated with the lack of news from CIC and today they got some . . . .

Saw It II . . . .

One more tidbit about the Dixie Chicks "Shut Up and Sing" and then I'll shut up.

From the local Vancouver paper, The Georgia Straight "Movie Notes" section this week:

Vancouver loves chicks flick (Craig Takeuchi)

Audiences at Fifth Avenue Cinemas have always liked their women strong. So says Festival Cinemas president Leonard Schein, whose theatre also reported the highest North American gross for Shut Up & Sing: The Dixie Chicks, a documentary about the Texan trio after their lead singer’s anti-Bush remarks. Playing four times a day on one screen to 4,000 people per week, Fifth Avenue raked in $45,000 in 10 days. In a phone interview, Schein pointed out that “we outgrossed Toronto, Montreal, or San Francisco, or places in the States that are also quite liberal and democratic, and we’re a much smaller population than any of those cities. So it is actually quite significant that a city the size of Vancouver has more people seeing that film than any theatre in New York or L.A.”

So not only am I glad to be an Aspiring Canadian, I'm especially glad to be an Aspiring Vancouverite who contributed to the numbers at this theatre . . . .

Quebec a Nation?

From the November 23rd edition of the Vancouver Sun:

Harper: Quebec is a ‘nation’

Resolution aimed at shoring up support in the province for his Conservatives ahead of federal election that could be held as early as next year
BY ALLAN WOODS and JULIET O’NEILL
CanWest News Service With files from Norma Greenaway
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper received a standing ovation from all three federalist parties in the House of Commons Wednesday after he introduced a landmark resolution that will see the province of Quebec recognized as a “nation within a united Canada.”
Harper outlined the motion in a passionate speech to MPs following question period, leaving the Bloc Quebecois outraged because it planned to ask the Commons Thursday to recognize the predominately French-speaking province as a “nation” with no conditions attached.
The prime minister’s intervention in the decades-old dispute has effectively let the Liberal party off the hook for its own divisive plan to address a similar resolution at its policy and leadership convention next week in Montreal.
But it also allowed Harper’s Conservatives — some of whom were inclined to vote with the Bloc motion — to cast themselves as the defenders of Canadian unity.
“The real question is straightforward: Do Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes,” Harper said to applause from the Liberal and NDP MPs. “Do Quebecers form a nation independent of Canada? The answer is no, and it will always be no.”

It would be interesting to get your thoughts on this move . . . . Are we generally in favor of the motion? Is it merely a political move? Will it's passage - as looks likely - make any difference? What are the long-term ramifications?

I must admit not having a strong opinion about this matter, so any enlightenment would be appreciated . . . .

Accountability . . . .

This article from the November 22nd edition of the Vancouver Sun is an excellent analysis of the those who should be held accountable for their actions in Iraq. Wonder if they will be??


Bush, Blair & Co. should be held to account for Iraq death toll
Stephen Hume (shume@islandnet.com) - Vancouver Sun


As the American adventure in Iraq rolls through Week 192, the daily roll call for the slain ratchets up from 39 per day in October to 65 per day in November.
Fatalities among U.S. troops now average just over two per day, not much by comparison to the wars of attrition that characterized the last century’s mass carnage, but surely ulcerous for a cocksure superpower that was out to unilaterally refashion the world order in the 21st.
And having set the bloody juggernaut in motion, nobody knows how to stop it, regardless of the fact that nobody knows where it’s going or whom it will run over next. Which explains why so many war enthusiasts now appear to be scurrying down the hawsers at various ships of state.
Then-prime minister Jean Chretien’s decision to resist the jingoistic pressures of the day looks increasing ly prescient.
Iraq is a disaster, British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared to say in an interview on Al Jazeera’s new British channel, although he was backpedalling furiously after the headlines erupted the next morning. Still, he admitted the place is such a mess that United Kingdom citizens should expect to be involved there for generations.
Generations — a sobering admission from the man who oozed such assurance when he stood shoulderto-shoulder with U.S. President George W. Bush during the heady “bring it on” days of whipping up public enthusiasm for an invasion.
It was supposed to be a cakewalk. Instead, military victory for the U.S. is no longer possible in Iraq, Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying in an Associated Press report from London. If anyone should know whereof he speaks it’s Kissinger, who learned his painful lessons from Vietnam.
Kissinger agrees that for the Americans and the British to simply pull their troops out overnight would result in an even greater geo-political catastrophe, destabilizing the entire region upon which the West depends for its strategic oil supplies.
The guy who invented shuttle diplomacy actually has a not-so-novel proposal — the U.S. has to start talking with Iraq’s neighbours if order is to emerge from chaos. That would include Iran, Bush’s most recent bogeyman; Syria, whose Baathists spawned Saddam Hussein in the first place, and Turkey.
Of course, that conversation might prove difficult with Bush reported in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz as telling French President Jacques Chirac that he’d “understand” if Israel launched a pre-emptive military strike against Iran’s nuclear energy program, even though Agence France Presse says in another report that investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has obtained a Central Intelligence Agency assessment which finds no conclusive evidence of any secret Iranian nuclear weapons program beyond what’s been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Frankly, it’s time the people of the U.S. and Britain started seeking some accountability from Bush, Blair and the senior bureaucrats who helped concoct the fictions that have now resulted in 50,000 deaths — give or take a few thousand — of non-combatants, many of them women and children. That estimate is the conservative one, by the way. Some researchers think the dead could number two or three times that total.
It’s important to remember that each one of those victims is a person like your wife, husband, son or daughter, grandfather or grandmother.
If, as it increasingly appears, the blood of all these innocents was shed in a misguided ideologically-driven experiment by a gang of incompetent policy wonks, there should be demands for accountability — if not in courts of law, then in the court of public opinion.
They are the ones who engineered consent for and then launched a war based on false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed in 45 minutes against London and that there were links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
If justice prevailed, the architects who precipitated this carnage in Iraq would be required to account for their misjudgments.
Simply allowing them to say “Oops we made a mistake, let’s move on” while the corpses continue to pile up should satisfy no one and should earn the censure of anybody who cares about simple justice for his or her fellow human beings.

A Study in Contrasts . . . .

Compliments of CNN:

Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007

POSTED: 2208 GMT (0608 HKT), November 20, 2006

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, arguing that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.

"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy," said Obama, a freshman Democrat from Illinois touted as a possible national candidate in 2008.

"It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won."

Sen. McCain: Send more troops to Iraq

POSTED: 0142 GMT (0942 HKT), November 19, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Without additional troops to ensure victory in Iraq, the U.S. could be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Republican Sen. John McCain said Sunday.

McCain, a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks -- in the region and possibly on American soil.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain, R-Arizona. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel."

Looks like the repugs still just don't get it . . . . .

Timeline Update - 7/17/07

Okay, here's our Timeline to date: 7/17/07:

• 7/25/05 Initial Meeting with immigration attorney
• 7/25/05 - 8/25/05 Assembling Draft Application Data (Tax returns, business records, verification of common law relationship, education records, addresses, birth certificates, letters of reference, etc.)
• 8/15/05 FBI fingerprint cards overnighted to FBI for clearance
  
• 8/25/05 Working meeting with immigration attorney
• 9/26/06 Finally finished gathering supporting documents
• 9/28/05 Application with documents sent off to Buffalo consulate
• 10/17/05 One partner's FBI fingerprints cleared and accepted
  
• 10/25/05 Other partner's FBI fingerprints re-sent for clearance (Initial set illegible)
• 11/7/05 AOR issued by Buffalo consulate (Yay!)
• 2//2/06 Other partner's FBI fingerprints re-sent again (2nd set also illegible)
• 3/13/06 Other partner's FBI fingerprints finally cleared and accepted (Yay!)
• 11/15/06 Buffalo Consulate transferred our file to the New York City office
• 5/22/07 New York City office issues initial assessment, medicals requested
• 7/17/07 Medicals completed and received in Ottawa
  

Further updates as they are received . . . . Hopefully SOON!!

This Would Be Just Too Perfect . . . .

Thanks to the folks at Crooks and Liars blog, here is a bit of good news regarding the right-wing media pundits . . . .

It sure will be refreshing if we finally have some oversight in Congress on issues that affect all of us. "Go, Pat Leahy!!"

"Fair and Balanced" - Yeah, right . . . .

Countdown: Fox News Caught Creating False News 11-15-06


Fox News slanting their reports is pretty obvious to most intelligent people and now there's proof . . . . Let's hope mr. murdoch and company continue their downward ratings slide.

Saw It . . .

OK, OK, I've blogged about them before but today I got to see the Dixie Chick's documentary "Shut Up and Sing" here in Vancouver.

All I can say is see it, and see it on the big screen if you can. It is excellent! One of the best parts about the film was how Canadian audiences stood by the Chicks through all of the controversy. Makes me proud to be an Aspiring Canadian . . . .

It's Only a Number, Right?

Craig Oliver, host of CTV's Question Period, had Monte Solberg the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as one of his guests on yesterday's program.

The main topic of discussion was dual citizenship and it's effect on Canada. This topic came to the fore during the Israel/Lebanon confrontation and resulting evacuation of numerous dual citizens earlier this year. Basically, Minister Solberg stated it was something the government was "going to look at and solicit views of" during the next year.

What I found most informative, however, was this:

In response to questions about undocumented workers in the Toronto area he stated that there are "over 800,000 legal immigration applicants" at the present time and those people deserve to be processed expeditiously.

Makes you wonder where you are in that number, doesn't it?

Elton tells pope: "Don't Shoot Me, I'm the Piano Player"

You Go, Boy . . . .

Ban organized religion, says Elton John

Last Updated: Sunday, November 12, 2006 | 10:31 AM ET

CBC Arts

Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and should be eliminated, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," the musician, who is openly gay, said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."

Elton John is critical of organized religion.
(Evan Agostini/Getty Images)

John made the comments in an interview with Jake Shears, the openly gay frontman for the U.S. dance-rock group Scissor Sisters. Conducted in August from John's home in the south of France, the interview appears in a gay-themed issue of Music Monthly.

"There are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion," John said.

"From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Amen, Elton . . . .

Disappointing News . . . .

Damn! The one guy that actually has convictions and is right on the issues bows out of the '08 US presidential race. Dems will have a tough time getting anyone with a better track record on standing up for our rights . . . .

Feingold Won't Seek Democratic Nomination in 2008

By Judy Sarasohn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 12, 2006; 10:48 AM

Sen. Russell Feingold, an antiwar Democrat from Wisconsin and a longshot contender for president in 2008, announced that he will not seek the Democratic nomination for president.

"I'm sure a campaign for president would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget committees," Feingold said in a letter posted on his Senate campaign Web site today.

He said he could not "muster the same enthusiasm for a race for president while . . . trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me."

As he campaigned in 17 states for other Democrats, Feigngold said, people "responded well" to his opposition to the Iraq war, support for a timeline to redeploy U.S. troops and focus on terrorists who attacked New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001; opposition to administration wiretapping, support for guaranteed health care and other issues.

"[W]hile I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, 'Run Russ Run', or 'Russ in '08', I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin Swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations," Feingold said. "This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured."

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who ran the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean, wrote in The Washington Post's Outlook section last week that Feingold was a Democrat to watch for the presidential nomination.

"Perhaps the most authentic candidate, the senator from Wisconsin has a deep connection to the grass roots and is a favorite of the party's progressive wing. If President Bush stays stubborn on Iraq and the rest of the field plays it safe, Feingold could get very hot," Trippi wrote.

Feingold, 53, is also noted for his support for campaign finance reform. He first ran for the Senate in 1992 and won re-election in 1998 and 2004.

He had been publicly considering a run for the Democratic nomination for president since early last year. Former Virginia governor Mark Warner, who also had been weighing a bid for the Democratic nomination, said last month that he would not run.

In an interview yesterday with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feingold noted that he would have faced long odds of winning the nomination. He told the newspaper: "It would have required the craziest combination of things in the history of American politics to make it work."

With Russ' departure from presidential contention, the US public has missed a great opportunity.

Reconsider the Move?? Naahhh . . . .

Thoughts after the US election results:

Any reconsideration about the move to Canada?? Not on your life . . . Our friend Daniel over at Would Be Canadians had an excellent post on this subject. We could not possibly have said it better. Be sure and read the article referred to by the link. It, too, is quite well done.

Good job, Daniel!