|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: SPP and Sovereignty. |
|
|
I'm not Canadian, but thought some of you who are might find this of interest.
Quote: |
SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert
Quote:
Sovereignty rhetoric contradicted by turnover of controls on military and immigration
Michael Byers says SPP is part of a larger process that threatens Canadian sovereignty and autonomy.OTTAWA, August 20, 2007: The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to hand sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.
I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who have been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country; unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.
David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific ..He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.'
...Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti-terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.
And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'
I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.
So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP... The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command...
...Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..
The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.
Some steps have been taken in that direction...
When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi-National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this... it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.
But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?
Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan?...
The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leona's Large Legacy
Peter Slatin, Forbes/Slatin Real Estate Report 08.21.07, 4:24 PM ET
When somebody of note passes on to the next world (or simply dies) those of us who remain behind reach deep to measure our own life against that of the departed, to find meaning in the life gone by or simply to think of something nice to say.
The death of Leona Helmsley is no different. Interestingly, the people we spoke to seemed especially-- perhaps overly--intent on choosing the last option.
That people say nice things about her makes a certain perverse sense. Few characters provoked more of a bitter laugh from New York real estate people as well as the public at large than the Queen of Mean (we prefer to think of her as the Queen of Green), best known for being wild about her Harry (and his billions), vicious to her hotel employees and evasive of her taxes, for which she was sent to prison (leading to her famous quote: "Only the little people pay taxes").
With her infamously abrasive personality and gargantuan ambition, Leona Helmsley wielded enormous sway over the city that loved to hate her. Those attributes and the feelings they engendered were inextricable from her vast wealth and extreme visibility, embodied in hotels like the Park Lane on Central Park South or the Helmsley Palace on Madison Avenue.
But it was that personality, with its Medusa overtones, that overshadowed all else, including her significant accomplishments as a hotel-chain builder and manager of portfolio assets. The legacy of such a hard-charging persona similarly overshadows many women of power and wealth. Think Martha Stewart of prison and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (nyse: MSO - news - people )fame, another tough lady targeted and jailed by federal prosecutors.
It's not that these ladies didn't abuse their hard-won privileges. They clearly did. But it seemed that their celebrity and flinty independence drew the darts of American justice like a magnet.
Martha Stewart is still extant. But there is another recently departed New York woman with whom Leona Helmsley, according to her publicist of more than 30 years, Howard Rubenstein, had shared something very special. That something was a fierce philanthropic bent. The someone was Brooke Astor. (One wag described Leona to me as "the un-Mrs. Astor," manners and message-wise.)
Special Offer: Is a recession on its way? Let Jim Stack show you how to profit from a slump by placing your portfolio in bear market defensive mode. Click here to learn all of InvesTech's cautious investing techniques and current recommendations.
Mrs. Astor and Mrs. Helmsley both married into money, and they expanded on their husbands' accomplishments. Mrs. Astor's triumphant efforts, her much admired devotion to causes of culture and poverty, were applauded because of her tenacity and the grace, effervescence and charm that she approached them with. Mrs. Helmsley's philanthropy was accomplished in spite of the perceived absence of those qualities (other than tenacity), which also meant that her acts were accompanied with much less fanfare and genuine appreciation. Were they any less heartfelt? Hard to say, but since their deliverer was widely viewed as heartless, her acts of generosity were consistently tainted with a career of mean combativeness and presumptive entitlement that preceded them.
Leona married Harry Helmsley in 1972, and helped him manage his huge collection of office and residential properties in New York, Florida and across the country; together, they built the hotel group that she became most associated with. Not long after Harry died in January 1997, Leona launched a sales onslaught to dispose of much of an estimated $4 billion in assets. She hired Eastdil to manage the sell-off, which brought properties such as 140 Broadway, 230 Park Ave. and the Starrett-Lehigh Building to market just as the commercial property market was coming into its own ahead of the dot-com boom. Within short order, she had sold some $2 billion in properties for cash. Still partly in her possession when she died: the Empire State Building, the Fisk Building, the Helmsley and Park Lane hotels. Executives at W&M Properties, the family enterprise that was a key business partner in some of these properties as a result of an association with Harry Helmsley that predated Leona's arrival on the scene, declined to comment on her passing.
Not everyone was silent. "She was an outspoken leader of the real estate industry," said Lawrence Fiedler, an investor who taught real estate finance at New York University for nearly three decades.
Special Offer: When a bear market comes to call, make money in put options. Although it can be nerve-racking, you can profit handsomely from price declines if you own puts. Which stocks and ETFs are most likely to slip most? Click here for recommended trades in Option Strategist.
Stephen Spinola, president of the powerful Real Estate Board of New York, said that Leona's main contribution was that she "broke into an Old Boys' Club. For a woman coming into real estate, and being in charge, that was not an easy process. She opened the door a bit for women."
How she did that remains a sticking point in recalling this powerful personality. Howard Rubenstein addressed that difficult issue head on: "She always said, 'If I were a man, they would say I was a big, tough, strong leader.' " he recalled. "I'm hoping that people will remember the good things she did rather than the harshness." Ticking off her charitable efforts, he said that she had donated tens of millions to hospitals, Katrina victims and the 9/11 families. "And she built an enormously important hotel chain," he said. "She knew what she wanted and fought to get it."
Her company, Helmsley Enterprises, will remain in the hands of four people, Rubenstein said. These include her longtime adviser and companion, John Cody, as well as Harold Merriam, Abe Wolf and Sandy Frankel.
And how will she be remembered by the rest of us? That, says Steve Spinola, "depends on whether you were an admirer or friend or observer or enemy." In the end, she may not have cared, as long as she got her point across. After all, he says, "she gave everybody a chance to have strong feelings about her."
Special Offer: Readers of the Buyback Letter have seen their Sears holdings rise 70% since the retailer last repurchased its own stock. What other companies are seeking fat profits by snatching up their undervalued shares? Click here for The Buyback Letter.
Personal Postscript: While lunching with friends at Leona's Park Lane Hotel just before Christmas 2003, I was surprised to hear a frenzied yip-yapping sound. "That's Leona's dog," said one of my companions. "And Leona's sitting over there."
Leona's tiny, snarling fuzzball was raging at my large black Labrador guide dog, Image, who for once behaved himself and sat placidly ignoring the creature. A red-jacketed waiter raced over, scooped up the dog and carried it away.
After lunch, I asked my friends to guide me over to Mrs. Helmsley; I had spent much time reporting on the sale of her empire and her numerous entanglements with her partners. It was time we met.
She was sitting with one of her attorneys. After we were introduced, I expressed regret that, because of my dog's presence, she had not been able to dine with her dog. In a flash, she revealed the fierce no-holds-barred competitor who saw the world however she wanted it to be. "Well, your big brute attacked my little Trouble," she barked, referring to her dog by name.
Her companion demurred, noting that Image was a seeing-eye dog that was trained not to react to other dogs and hadn't moved. (Of course, on this one occasion, he actually followed his training.)
Changing the subject, I told her that I had written a great deal about her in the New York Post and Barron's. "I hope you wrote good things about me," she said. "I did my best," I replied. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leona was a babe.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pligg:
Quote: |
Not everyone was silent. "She was an outspoken leader of the real estate industry," said Lawrence Fiedler, an investor who taught real estate finance at New York University for nearly three decades. |
I can't say she was a babe, even in her prime, (as Mosley fancies) but she did know how to play the man's game. And she was part of a dying breed of capitalists who lefties like to call cutthroat but I say were a beacon of prosperity. If only she had joined forces with Tammy Faye Baker, her entrepeneurial star would have risen even higher in the America evening sky
America and, indeed, Canada--could use more businesswomen like her. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|