en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/349614 Comments by Boadicea http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/14/congressional-insider-trading-how-and-why-politico-protects-the-status-quo/#IDComment222318757 I wonder if Occupy Wall Street watched the 60 Minutes report. Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:04:30 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/14/congressional-insider-trading-how-and-why-politico-protects-the-status-quo/#IDComment222318757 http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/14/congressional-insider-trading-how-and-why-politico-protects-the-status-quo/#IDComment222315139 Why wasn't the media reporting on Congressional insider trading long ago? This wasn't exactly a secret. Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:53:52 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/14/congressional-insider-trading-how-and-why-politico-protects-the-status-quo/#IDComment222315139 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2011/04/30/the-civil-war-according-to-hollywood/#IDComment147929500 Thank you. You've made my point. There is apparently no scholarship to substantiate some of the author's claims. We already know that slavery and states' rights were both issues -- there is nothing new about this. The argument has always been over which was more important to which group. The premise of Gifford's article is that Hollywood oversimplifies the Civil War. But what conflict has Hollywood not oversimplified? It produces what it thinks audiences want. And until audiences demand "nuance", gray areas, subtlety, historical truth, that will continue to be the case. Mr. Gifford knows this, of course. He's really trying to sell us some proprietary information. He remembers certain family conversations during which it was said that slavery was "a non-issue" -- and that Sherman, Grant and Lincoln thought so too. So he offers that as substantive proof that people at the top, i.e. many more people than his family members, thought "slavery was a non-issue" too. Good anecdote -- bad conclusion, lousy history. The fact that Confederate soldiers in a Hollywood movie look well-fed instead of starving, in contradiction to an eyewitness account, is simply disingenuous. The fact that loony Andy Rooney disavows that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy, in contradiction to an eyewitness account, is not exactly an indictment. I'm also a little curious about another claim. If the author had great-uncles who fought in the Civil War, they would have had to be born in 1851 at the very latest. That's 160 years ago. I think at the very least he ought to explain how this is possible. Sun, 1 May 2011 19:32:34 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2011/04/30/the-civil-war-according-to-hollywood/#IDComment147929500 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2011/04/30/the-civil-war-according-to-hollywood/#IDComment147751624 If I wanted to write a feature screenplay using this article's perspective on the Civil War -- who would I contact for more information? Are there any books or articles which would confirm any of this article's statements? Are there historians or history professors who can? Sun, 1 May 2011 02:29:43 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2011/04/30/the-civil-war-according-to-hollywood/#IDComment147751624 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107274063 Thanks Miss Marple. Unfortunately, I can't access the video, as it is apparently only viewable in Canada. Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:33:53 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107274063 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107273170 The police decided on their own not to publicize the previous attacks because they "feared causing alarm"? Were the police not motivated because the victims were single women? Why doesn't the public demand to know why they adopted this policy and who signed off on it? Shouldn't the mayors of Tweed and Belleville be asked if they knew about this and condoned it? And the media, why aren't they asking any questions? All those reporters live blogging during the hearing ... surely they would have noticed that some very strange events occurred that left a lot of unanswered questions ... a "failure to connect the dots". I find it very strange that this man broke into so many homes, was in them for quite a while, and was never caught. Did he have an accomplice waiting outside ready to call him on a cell phone if anyone showed up? If I were a professional burglar I would want to know what his secret is. I also find it strange that he took as many as 40 pieces of underwear from some of the occupants -- who never noticed anything missing. Canadians must own a lot of underwear! Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:24:44 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107273170 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107271390 Thanks for your response. It is revealing that you describe what the police did as "destroying the floors" -- as opposed to accidentally causing damage in the course of gathering evidence: removing evidence from its hiding place, putting it in boxes and carrying the boxes outside. Why do you assume the damage was wllfully or negligently -- and not accidentally -- inflicted? Why has the extent of the damage not been made public, so that we could know that it was more than just the usual scuff marks, scratches, etc. etc. -- and thus worth $3000.? Maybe you have some inside information that the rest of us don't know? The search of the Williams home took place in the same time period that Williams was being questioned, during the course of which he confessed and told the police exactly where to find the evidence in his Ottawa home. Are you suggesting that because he hadn't yet actually pleaded guilty that "innocent until proven guilty" applies in this instance and that therefore the police legally owe his wife $3000., which they would not have owed her had this happened after a guilty plea? Here's an analogy. I'm sure you've seen car chases on TV. Let's say the cops damage a fleeing bank robbery suspect's car in the course of chasing him down. They find the money in the car and arrest him. Then his wife shows up and demands reimbursement for the damages inflicted by the police on the couple's only car. The police agree to pay her. Don't you think there might be public outrage if word got out about that .. (both in Canada and the U.S.)? But the real question that this $3000. taxpayer-owed floor damage raises is this. Do the Ottawa police not carry liability and property damage insurance? Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:06:03 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107271390 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107102989 I'm writing from the U.S., and I'm absolutely flabbergasted by what I've read about this case, beyond the murders themselves. For example: 1. Russell Williams' wife demanded $3000. for damage to the floor of their Ottawa house which occured during the removal of evidence involved in 2 1st degree murders. Why did the police AGREE to this demand? Is there a precedent for this? Is there something in Canadian law that makes police liable for damages incurred during the gathering of evidence in a criminal case? 2. Mary Elizabeth Harriman was a co-owner and co-occupant of a house in which evidence from 2 1st degree murders and 2 sexual assaults was found. Was she ever questioned by the police? If not, why not? 3. After Williams' 1st sexual assault did the Tweed and/or Belleville police ever warn residents of that part of rural Ontario that a sexual predator was operating in the area and advise them to take precautionary measures such as locking doors, getting alarm systems, guard dogs, etc. Were flyers ever posted? Notices in local papers? Signs in shopping centers? Did they do anything like this after the 2nd sexual assault? After the murder of Marie-France Comeau? I think the police have some explaining to do. Mon, 1 Nov 2010 02:16:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/where-it-all-began/#IDComment107102989 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/27/the-colonels-wife/#IDComment104883338 I wonder if all those who think Mrs. Williams deserves to keep the assets -- just because she knew nothing about her husband's depravity -- would feel the same way if the murder victims had not been single childless women. What if they had been (married or single) women with children? Men with children? Single men or women caring for elderly parents? I.e. breadwinners with the same limited means as those he killed and terrorized. What if his crime had been an economic one such as fraud or embezzlement? In none of those scenarios would anyone think her concern about her financial future should supersede the right of the living victims of her husband's crimes to have a financial future. But those 2 poor women left only siblings, parents, boyfriends, and friends. Were their lives less valuable? Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:07:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/27/the-colonels-wife/#IDComment104883338 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/06/whos-the-smartest/#IDComment97503364 Denmark, Sweden, and Finland may be smartest European countries, but they're also the most boring. Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:15:35 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/06/whos-the-smartest/#IDComment97503364 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/14/sex-drugs-and-euthanasia-amsterdam-1992/#IDComment62157791 The Dutch legalizing (or legal protection) of nearly all forms of sex and most drugs, with brothels that employ housewives and secretaries, coffee houses that sell hash, and TV shows where sex is debated like a serious subject, all of this accompanied by government regulation and involvement in these aspects of life ... rather than being titillating, it all sounds rather boring and tired. I can imagine that some tourists would get sick of this pretty quickly and rush headlong over to Germany and France where what is forbidden and illegal can be much more exciting. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:23:46 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/14/sex-drugs-and-euthanasia-amsterdam-1992/#IDComment62157791 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/10/portrait-of-an-accused-predator/#IDComment56538662 As an American following this story, I was struck by how different the reporting is - especially after reading Christie Blatchford in the Globe and Mail -- suggesting that there are important differences in criminal procedure between the two countries. You would absolutely never read down here that someone just went and confessed to crimes like this soon after being hauled in for questioning. You would read that they were notified of their right to remain silent. Since there are people who want to confess -- you would then also read that they waived that right. Usually they ask for a criminal defense lawyer anyway, because the lawyer can advise them on what exactly to confess to, or there is a plea bargain involved. But none of the Canadian commenters seems to think that there is anything strange about his confessing to the OPP, without a lawyer, and with the only evidence being the tire tracks. American readers would find this very strange and wonder if one has the right to remain silent in Canada. And isn't it strange to be this long in custody for these kinds of crimes without a lawyer? Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:09:27 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/10/portrait-of-an-accused-predator/#IDComment56538662 http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/#IDComment55810675 She's claiming that the Mufti was the "architect" of the Holocaust because some papers were found in an apartment whose former occupant she claims the Germans are trying to hide!! The Holocaust, the Final Solution, is perhaps the most written about, most studied, most documented event of the 20th century. Everyone knows the Nazis thought about this for years, planned it and implemented it as part of their entire political and racial agenda. The Arabs were allies of convenience for the Nazis, nothing more. It is embarrassing to see this swallowed whole on a site where people (rightfully) complain that history isn't being taught properly any more because liberals are the teachers. Mon, 8 Feb 2010 03:29:54 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/#IDComment55810675 http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/#IDComment55798355 It is a complete and unfounded exaggeration to claim that the Mufti was an architect of the Holocaust. The Mufti was a Hitler supporter and an anti-Zionist, hated Jews and probably had Jewish blood on his hands back where he came from. That does not make him an architect of the Holocaust. If it did, I can assure you there were many other contenders ahead of him in line. And if he were, we'd know about it already, because we know many things about the Holocaust, who thought about it and who pushed for it, the Wannsee Conference, etc. etc. So I suggest you wait until a real historian writes in and signs off on it. Me, I'm not holding my breath. Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:19:55 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/#IDComment55798355 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jarone/2010/02/07/foreign-films-are-cool/#IDComment55794850 Great piece and excellent suggestions, from you and the commentors. I'd like to put in a word for some of my favorites: Jules Dassin's "Rififi" (1955), one of the great heist films of all time, shot on a shoestring budget in a gloomy post-war Paris, starring Jean Servais. "The Conformist" (1970), Bernardo Bertolucci's masterpiece about an ordinary man who becomes a fascist, perhaps Trintignant's greatest performance. "Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion" (1970), Elio Petri's masterpiece about a homicide detective who leaves clues to his own crime, starring the great but underrated actor Gian Maria Volonté. Sun, 7 Feb 2010 23:32:06 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jarone/2010/02/07/foreign-films-are-cool/#IDComment55794850 http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/#IDComment55792014 This is an unfounded exaggeration of the Grand Mufti's influence on the Nazis. Please read one of the many history books on the Nazi period written by historians. That the Grand Mufti was a Nazi sympathizer and was drumming up Arab support for Hitler is already well known. That he was also a useful propaganda tool for the Nazis is an established fact. That he egged on the Nazis to kill Jews is also known. But that he was any kind of architect of the Final Solution is complete speculation. There is massive documentation about the origins of it -- when it was first thought of (back in the early 30s) and when it was openly talked about. As for Wisliceny, a loser even by Nazi standards, his job involved cultivating the Grand Mufti and other anti-Zionist entities. Anything he "testified" to at the Nuremberg Trials should be regarded as an attempt to save his own skin. Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:58:00 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/#IDComment55792014 http://bigjournalism.com/ghewson/2010/01/15/marthas-greatest-hits-iii-the-things-the-democrats-would-like-you-to-forget-about-candidate-coakley/#IDComment52251521 How could you possibly write about Martha Coakley without mentioning her involvement in the Amirault case? Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:28:49 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/ghewson/2010/01/15/marthas-greatest-hits-iii-the-things-the-democrats-would-like-you-to-forget-about-candidate-coakley/#IDComment52251521 http://bigjournalism.com/boobama/2010/01/06/arf-arf-the-diary-of-a-conservative-dog-in-the-white-house/#IDComment51028582 "Very funny...... Maybe BO should chew up the Healthcare bill when it hits the desk in the Oval office. Then POTUS could claim the "dog ate his homework"." Hilarious .... .And Bo could learn to work POTUS' computer too and cause mischief even BEFORE it becomes paper to sign .... I mean chew. Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:57:58 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/boobama/2010/01/06/arf-arf-the-diary-of-a-conservative-dog-in-the-white-house/#IDComment51028582 http://bigjournalism.com/boobama/2010/01/06/arf-arf-the-diary-of-a-conservative-dog-in-the-white-house/#IDComment50931867 I have just one quibble with this funny column. I think Bo should do more doggy stuff throughout, such as bite Axelrod, maybe pee on Rahm instead of just growling at him, knock something in the Oval Office over, stuff like that. Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:47:54 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/boobama/2010/01/06/arf-arf-the-diary-of-a-conservative-dog-in-the-white-house/#IDComment50931867 http://biggovernment.com/rstone/2009/12/25/new-spitzer-hypocrisy-in-aig-case/#IDComment49051009 Stone is right. It was outrageous that the escort service person went to jail and Spitzer was not even prosecuted. Clearly this was not an "equal opportunity" crime. Prostitution should be legal and the punishment public humiliation -- for a man like Spitzer -- after being caught. Sat, 26 Dec 2009 00:00:35 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/rstone/2009/12/25/new-spitzer-hypocrisy-in-aig-case/#IDComment49051009