From the Globe and Mail:
"the emirate revealed this week it was asking for a six-month reprieve on paying its bills."
I say, "No problem, Dubai. We can work together on this.".
First of all, you can have six months with no payments on your $60 billion debt.
There will be a 5% administrative fee of $3 billion dollars.
Collection agents will be monitoring you for the next six months, calling you at all hours of the night to remind you that you're a dead beat.
Your interest rate will be 28.5% for the next six months, but as long as you pay back all $60 billion on the billing date (please allow three days for electronic transactions) you will only have to pay the administrative fee.
Failure to ensure that we receive all $60 billion by the due date will result in a charge of six months of 28.5% interest on the entire $60 billion (not just the unpaid portion), compounded monthly. The interest rate on any unpaid portion after that date will be 35.7%, compounded daily, in addition to a monthly 5% administrative fee on any unpaid portion.
Like I said: I'm sure we can work this out in a fair manner.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Shorter Hillier: The Dead Didn't Tell Me
From CP and Globe and Mail:
"Hillier told a special Commons committee Wednesday that the reports by Richard Colvin in 2006 wouldn't have been passed to him because they contained only second-hand information"
Second-hand?
I suppose that, if a guy were killed through torture, Hillier would demand that the dead guy come forward and say so himself. These things are second hand by nature. The question is whether or not all of the second hand reports are corroborating.
He also finds it unrealistic that all detainees are tortured in Afghanistan. He says he would disregard any report that made that claim and that Colvin's report made that claim. "How ludicrous a claim is that?"
I guess it is ludicrous unless you listen to those bleeding hearts at Amnesty International.
"Reports of torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest are so widespread in detention centres ... that Amnesty International wants NATO troops in Afghanistan to stop handing prisoners over to authorities there."
Frankly, I can't give a fig over Hillier. I don't care to go after people in the military. They were put in a terrible position and given few options. I'm after the bastards, Liberal and Conservative, who put them there in the first place and have kept them there since. I'm after the ministers who knew - or should have know if they were reading their memos - that torture was taking place. I'm after the people who gave the orders to let our nation continue to be an accessory to that torture.
"Hillier told a special Commons committee Wednesday that the reports by Richard Colvin in 2006 wouldn't have been passed to him because they contained only second-hand information"
Second-hand?
I suppose that, if a guy were killed through torture, Hillier would demand that the dead guy come forward and say so himself. These things are second hand by nature. The question is whether or not all of the second hand reports are corroborating.
He also finds it unrealistic that all detainees are tortured in Afghanistan. He says he would disregard any report that made that claim and that Colvin's report made that claim. "How ludicrous a claim is that?"
I guess it is ludicrous unless you listen to those bleeding hearts at Amnesty International.
"Reports of torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest are so widespread in detention centres ... that Amnesty International wants NATO troops in Afghanistan to stop handing prisoners over to authorities there."
Frankly, I can't give a fig over Hillier. I don't care to go after people in the military. They were put in a terrible position and given few options. I'm after the bastards, Liberal and Conservative, who put them there in the first place and have kept them there since. I'm after the ministers who knew - or should have know if they were reading their memos - that torture was taking place. I'm after the people who gave the orders to let our nation continue to be an accessory to that torture.
Monday, November 23, 2009
They Ought To Push a Law Against Premarital Sex
Seriously. A Congressman in the U.S. was (not quite) excommunicated because he took the position that abortion ought to remain legal.
Church asks Kennedy to forego Communion.
In case you're not a Christian, here's how it works: symbolically eating Jesus gets you in to heaven; not symbolically eating Jesus means you can't go to heaven; if you're Catholic, it's not symbolic, you're really eating Jesus. Communion is where you eat a cracker and pretend really, really hard that it's Jesus.
So the Catholic Church is upset that Kennedy supports abortion rights and wants to keep him from eating Jesus because the Catholic Church thinks abortion is murder and murder is a sin.
There's a problem, though. (Okay, there are lots of problems, but let's focus on just one).
What if all the Congresspeople simply didn't pass any legislation pertaining to abortion? What if no bills were ever even raised? Wouldn't the Church have to excommunicate all of the Catholic legislators for the sin of not even trying?
I'd think so, just in the name of ethical consistency (not the Church's strong suit, I admit).
The Church also believes that premarital sex is a sin. Should not the Church also be cracking down on any Congressperson who isn't actively trying to pass bills to ban premarital sex?
I don't see that happening though. Know why?
Because it would be stupid, that's why, and people don't like being laughed at.
Church asks Kennedy to forego Communion.
In case you're not a Christian, here's how it works: symbolically eating Jesus gets you in to heaven; not symbolically eating Jesus means you can't go to heaven; if you're Catholic, it's not symbolic, you're really eating Jesus. Communion is where you eat a cracker and pretend really, really hard that it's Jesus.
So the Catholic Church is upset that Kennedy supports abortion rights and wants to keep him from eating Jesus because the Catholic Church thinks abortion is murder and murder is a sin.
There's a problem, though. (Okay, there are lots of problems, but let's focus on just one).
What if all the Congresspeople simply didn't pass any legislation pertaining to abortion? What if no bills were ever even raised? Wouldn't the Church have to excommunicate all of the Catholic legislators for the sin of not even trying?
I'd think so, just in the name of ethical consistency (not the Church's strong suit, I admit).
The Church also believes that premarital sex is a sin. Should not the Church also be cracking down on any Congressperson who isn't actively trying to pass bills to ban premarital sex?
I don't see that happening though. Know why?
Because it would be stupid, that's why, and people don't like being laughed at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)