Anti-War Central

Highlight of yesterday’s keyword searches leading people to this website was the phrase “anti war rallies in michigan when the next one is”. Not only is that a lyrical search phrase, as near as I can tell this website is the last place on earth such information would be available.

In other search news, a Google search for keywords tim hortons nutrition now shows this story from July of 2001 as the second hit after Tim Horton’s itself. Go figure.

And while on the topic of links in: fully 25% of the referrals to this website are now from NetNewsWire, a Mac news reading program that slurps in the XML version of this site.

And finally, for those of you missing the daily update on the Leo Broderick front, CBC comes to the rescue: here’s their Leo Broderick Watch page (okay, it’s not really that, technically, but the effect is the same).


Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 30, 2003 - 15:19 Permalink

Wanna know where fact-challenged, hysterical RESIDENT Island protesters go to find a reason or justification for something they would like to protest? Or find something to protest about when things are a little slow in their efforts to somehow hide their feelings of insignificance in life by somehow having an impact with a megaphone?…

Homer Bombeck's picture
Homer Bombeck on January 30, 2003 - 16:23 Permalink

Sad, isn’t it.

Waylon's picture
Waylon on January 30, 2003 - 17:55 Permalink

The Leo Watch CBC searchpage stuff is like what TIME mag. cover story did for that Aaron Koleszar character…just feeds the fanatic. They thrive on attention. (Blame it on their mothers) But, it isn’t easy for the CBC to ignore a neighbourhood barking dog. Life in a small town…

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 30, 2003 - 22:41 Permalink

(I’m really interested in your answer to this)

Hey W, W, & HB, imagine for a moment you’re an image consultant, and that you generally agree with the central concepts behing peace / environment / social justice (I don’t know where you stand on those things but just assume it’s similar to the folks you refer to above).

What things would you tell Leo or Aaron to do — and you can’t include a stiffle order of any kind — in order to make the message more receiveable?

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 30, 2003 - 23:06 Permalink

Pick one (1)!

Waylon's picture
Waylon on January 30, 2003 - 23:07 Permalink

Travel more!

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 30, 2003 - 23:08 Permalink

I think stifle has only one “L”.

Waylon's picture
Waylon on January 30, 2003 - 23:10 Permalink

…and I disagree with most of their concepts.(or lack thereof)

Ken's picture
Ken on January 30, 2003 - 23:45 Permalink

Leo B is stiffing the peace movement. I want peace but now I’m afraid I’ll be seen as one of those flaky peace activists — by that I mean the long haired hippies I saw on tonights Compass. I’m not afraid to call them that — because they are peaceful and won’t hurt me, right?
It’s just they fit and act the stereotype so well for the premieres press purposes.
Will peaceful PEI be safer without warplanes fueling here? Allah only knows; but what about that nuclear fallout that will blow up from the colonies? We all live in the same world, Leo, you’re welcome to join us anytime.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 31, 2003 - 02:59 Permalink

Isn’t it possible to see the hippies as just one extreme end of a range of opinion; couldn’t we just say something like, “I want to live in a place that proves its civility and peacefulness by accepting even ‘these guys’ ”? What’s the harm in that?

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 31, 2003 - 03:33 Permalink

Observation: Leo Broderick debated Ken Desroches on Compass. Clearly Desroches could not look him in the eye, and it was he who began to raise his voice. I’d call it, Leo 1, Ken ziltch.

Ken's picture
Ken on January 31, 2003 - 07:09 Permalink

I noticed that too, his eyes, but modesty is no shame and Ken is not as used to playing to the camera as Leo or even you Kevin — BTW I enjoy your hosting of Point of View, well done.
Ken is not the face of Enron scale capitalism; rather a guy trying to bring industry to an outport on the economically challenged Northeast coast we call PEI.
And about Shannon, Ireland what happened there? A guy got arrested for painting peace grafitti on a US Hercules, because it’s part of that big protestant war machine or something. The thing is he got a lot of press out of it.
At least they can protest directly to the US Air force, a much better photo op than standing outside our provincial legislature. I guess there’s no US Embassy here.
Anyway, fueling planes is not an endorsement of American foreign policy is it? As if our opinion mattered or anyone cared about it beyond the increasingly self-marginalizing cast of the Compass news conference regulars.
“What are they protesting now, dear…”

Exactly what do we lose in the bargain? Our innocence?

Here’s a story about Canadian success in an airport in Scotland much like Slemon Park, Shannon, or Gander.…

I love ranting!

Ritchie Simpson's picture
Ritchie Simpson on January 31, 2003 - 11:01 Permalink

I have to agree with Ken, Kev, DesRoche’s modesty or bad posture or whatever doesn’t signify weakness of position. Leo’s running on at the mouth, constant interruption, and haranging about Shannon Airport served him as badly. Call it a draw. I know I’d have a hard time containing myself next to a demogogue like Leo B. Incidently Broderick showed his true colours in his opening sentance; when asked “What’s wrong with this decision?” His reply was “Everything, first of all its a business decision….” Leo comes into this arguement like he does with every other one, fixed on the notion that his moral stance is the only one that counts; you are with him or against him. People like Leo scare me because they are niave about moral stances; they think they are brick walls when they are really just lines in the sand.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 31, 2003 - 12:23 Permalink

DesRoche did look uncomfortable in Leo’s presence. But so did someone who rarely looks uncomfortable…Pat Binns! Christ, I get uncomfortable just looking and listening to Leo on tv.

The real challenge to anyone who disagrees with Leo is to not react to his words. The secret is to just focus on the facts while he rants, and give him enough rope to hang himself. I’d call it another CBC coup, granting credibility to that ragtag group and hyping the whole issue into a newsworthy item in January. Leo converted nobody, and never will. Ken needs to focus on his message, not reacting to the hysterics.

Like it or not, the US has played and will continue to play a major role in keeping our country safe for people to express their opinion (informed or not, credible or not). Yet, the most radical in our society express their supressed feelings of inadaquecy by criticizing them.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 31, 2003 - 12:39 Permalink

Wow, so.. looking into the mouth of the “peace dove” reveals a full set of teeth huh?

I really don’t think Ken Desroches is intimidated by Leo — but we can agree to disagree on that.

I think if you had another look at the tape you might notice something; I think Ken did most of the talking too. You wouldn’t expect that huh? If he was intimidated, would it make sense that he also takes up most of the time? (I didn’t have a stopwatch, but it felt like that).

Richie: Business decision. I won’t speak *for* Leo, but I would say this, it should not be a business decsion FIRST and then whatever second. In your business career you wouldn’t have had too many decisions that would fall on that line between what’s morally appropriate and what’s the right thing to do for your employees (that is unless I misunderstand the office supply business — which is entirely possible)

In my business I get quite a few opportunities since I’m constantly dealing with the privacy “rights” of clients. I put “rights” in quotation marks because there is no privacy right on the Internet — I can do anything I want with your private information and it is perfectly legal for me to scan all your communication for my own purposes. That’s the state of law in Canada. And, just in case it needs saying: No I don’t ever abuse that trust.

But, I would think that managing Slemon Park Corporation would present a person with many more questions of basic morality and I think a compelling case can be made that having US military in PEI during a time of war for which there is far from universal support is one of those times.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 31, 2003 - 13:12 Permalink

Remiss: Ken, thanks for your support re POV. I appeciate any specific comments you may have, show suggestions, etc… If you want to make personal suggestions (which are welcome as well) I’d appreciate private email since my comfort level is slightly more aparent than real; being so new at that sort of thing (4 shows now).

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 31, 2003 - 13:27 Permalink

Read “uncomfortable”, not “intimidated”

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 31, 2003 - 14:04 Permalink

I hope that Leo does not speak out on the war on drugs.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 31, 2003 - 14:20 Permalink

war on drugs” gives an opportunity to state something obvious (or it should be obvious at least), Any war, not matter what the reason, place or time, is open and conclusive proof that whatever was there before has completely failed.

In case of drugs, the “war” proves that domestic social policy is an abject failure the same way going into Iraq with bombs proves that GWB (and his dad) have foreign policy which is consistent with most of their predecessors (save for Carter); they have failed abysmally.

Especially since the collapse of the other superpower, we should have seen peace break out over the whole world as soon as US hegemony took over, huh?

If any major part of the “domino effect” foreign policy was true then we should have expected peace breaking out like wild fire, in unlikely places, as soon as Gorbie started talking Glasnost and Peristroika.

This is not one truth pitted against another — this is my way, or your way, but not both and never about belnding.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 31, 2003 - 15:38 Permalink

Interesting…agreed that war is the result of some sort of failure.

The failure before WWII was that the French(in typical French fashion) failed to act when the Germans reclaimed the Rhineland and, taking courage from the lack of response, began to rebuild their war machine,annexed Austria, Poland, Finland and continued the strategy placing of Europe under their heel.

I do not believe that any war after the collapse of the Cold War automatically comes as a direct result of American foreign policy failure, or implies American guilt. (Apologies if I have misinterpreted-need another Tim’s to kick in analytical skills) Blaming US administration for world problems have become a world habit. But, who is first to respond to disaster relief world-wide?

I do believe that action here will serve to send a message to other rogue regimes and dictators who kill their own people that there is a day of reckoning. 13 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions and sanctions have failed to force Saddam to comply and disarm, and the time has come to back up the Council words with actions, or the UN becomes a paper tiger.

Ken's picture
Ken on January 31, 2003 - 17:54 Permalink

G. Walker Bush, a college rogue, signed papers for 152 executions while governor of Texas; some of the condemned were Canadian and probably quite guilty of murder.
The US refuses to join the ‘World Court’, which scuttles the whole idea of a world court in the first place.
Democracy for us, vigilante-merchant to the world.

Ritchie Simpson's picture
Ritchie Simpson on January 31, 2003 - 18:28 Permalink

Kev I think you miss my point (or Leo’s)I took LB’s comment to mean that any business decision must, by definition, be totally lacking in moral nuance and therefore wrong. As you and I both know that is false, moreover Leo and his posse by eating Kraft Dinner, driving General Motors cars, wearing Levi’s jeans. buying Esso gas and helping sell Time magazine are just as tacitly supporting the American Military Industrial Complex

Kevin's picture
Kevin on January 31, 2003 - 19:26 Permalink

Bang on Richie!

And, I didn’t miss his point (or your’s for that matter) I was trying to restructure the bitterness out of it to make it more palatable for the peace-anorexic. I can only assume that he ~might~ have meant it that way.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 31, 2003 - 19:32 Permalink

Ken, I do not believe in capital punishment, either. But, as Governor, he is bound to uphold the law that is on the books. In Texas, murder is punishable by death. Executive offices are separate from Judicial offices, which carry out the laws as defined the Legislative branch, according to my understanding.

Globalization is on the minds of many protestors. Seems they would agree that the World Court is not a good idea. Being held to a higher standard, the US would always be in the spotlight, and the World Court would be in direct conflict with the US constitution.

Ritchie Simpson's picture
Ritchie Simpson on February 1, 2003 - 20:23 Permalink

Bitter?? I’m not bitter, I’m cranky maybe and very tired of being lectured to about the superiority of morals over prudence by those who fail to recognize their cultural imperatives but I’m not bitter KoB

Kevin's picture
Kevin on February 3, 2003 - 14:26 Permalink

Sorry, should have been mor clear — I was not refering your point. I was talking about their’s… I was trying to restructure *their* position without the bitterness which seem to fuel it in an effort to do as I have suggested to them (repeatedly) — that being, “Make the protests look and sound like business or social mixers. In that context people will react to the message instead of the medium which clearly is not a welcome vehicle for their point of view.

Sorry about the confusion… I think though, if you glance back you’ll see that’s what I had said; just not so explicitly (it was an at attempt a conciseness but not a good one I guess since the meaning (twice) got reversed)