Comments:

1. Sue W on May 4th, 2011 at 1:11:

   The reaction of the police is quite typical. Lie, deny, then act surprised.

   It seems to me that the cost and violence of these vanity “events” would be better avoided. Can’t these guys meet by video conference?

Comments:

1. John Z on May 3rd, 2011 at 14:32:

   My daughter (age 13) was up late Sunday night/Monday morning and is the one who told me about it. She also had some immediate deep thoughts about how she had mixed feelings about it — The removal of a powerful terrorist leader vs the quote she referenced “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” – Mahatma Gandhi.

2. Sue W on May 3rd, 2011 at 14:32:

   Probably the reason for that “Obama” typo on Fox.

3. Simon on May 3rd, 2011 at 17:33:

   Well, at least they are looking

4. Desiato on May 3rd, 2011 at 23:02:

   The only thing we know is that this is the Nth most popular search that starts with that prefix string. Without knowing the distribution of percentages asking each question, it could be a very small number of kids wondering who Bin Laden is. After all, how many do you think care how old he is or how tall he is?

5. Desiato on May 3rd, 2011 at 23:03:

   (Not with that prefix string, I was visualizing google’s search term completion–meant “on that topic”.)

Comments:

1. Sue W on May 3rd, 2011 at 14:25:

   And it’s gonna happen in Canada too…the conservatives just won a majority government, and can have no more excuses for not doing the Americans’ bidding. Reason being the last thing that drives legislation around here.

2. Rob on May 3rd, 2011 at 21:31:

   It should be clear that the US did not “order” NZ to do anything. They offered money to help with enforcement. NZ was/is still free to say “no thankyou” to the money and do their own thing.

   I’m surprised you think a conservative Canadian government might be willing to do the bidding of a liberal American government, Sue.

3. TS Phillips on May 3rd, 2011 at 23:35:

   The American government is liberal only in comparison to its more conservative competition. It is not remotely liberal compared to the civilized industrial nations in Europe and the southern Hemisphere.

   One reason the USA has the oldest government in the world (places like the UK were still under true monarchies in 1776) is because we have a one-party system with two parts, both basically owned by Big Business – one side is slightly right of center and the other more so right of center and they pretend they are extremes of each other. No one else gets close to power without playing along.

4. Rob on May 4th, 2011 at 0:35:

   I was comparing them to Canada, TS. What’s left of center in America is left of center in Canada, too.

   Are there some uncivilized industrial nations in Europe and the southern Hemisphere or are you saying the United States isn’t civilized?

5. Irene on May 4th, 2011 at 1:00:

   Rob, your comment – “It should be clear that the US did not “order” NZ to do anything.” is way off the mark. The various tactics that the adherents of ACTA have been using around the world is unconscionable. In the case of NZ, OK it was not “order”, but coercion is damned close. The old carrot and stick routine has been working wonders for this group. When those tactics don’t work, then the word nefarious gives the best description of what follows. In France alone, the only reason that a 3 strikes law exists, comes from the fact that their current boss was elected with a good deal of his funding coming straight from Hollywood.

6. Sue W on May 4th, 2011 at 1:03:

   What TS said.

   Canada has become so dependent on the U.S. economy it hasn’t had an independent foreign policy since the ’70′s. A lot of domestic policy is closely aligned with the U.S. (Non-action on climate change and the environment are just the two most obvious). As Pierre Trudeau said:
   “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

   Oh, and we just love clubbing seals.

7. Rob on May 4th, 2011 at 3:42:

   We’re neighbors, Sue. Whatever one does affects the other. It’s not all beneficial for both countries but it mostly is.

   From the piece:

   “For example, an April 2005 cable reveals the U.S. willingness to pay over NZ$500,000 (US$386,000) to fund a recording industry enforcement initiative.”

   This is not coercion. This is not ordering. In fact, it’s not even much of an offer. The US is looking out for their interests and are willing to help with the costs. What on Earth is wrong with that? Maybe the pirates ought to do the same. Oh, wait, they don’t want to pay for ANYTHING. That’s too bad. Silliness aside, $386,000 is certainly not “an offer they can’t refuse”. If NZ cannot say NO to that, the US is the least of their problems. I know everyone is worried about Navy Seals storming their house looking for illegal MP3s but people really need to get a grip here.

   These companies invest in actors, musicians, artists of every kind, technology, equipment, marketing, etc. I don’t think they’re being unreasonable to want a return on their investment and I don’t think they’re being unreasonable trying to protect their property.

   The French passed their three strikes law on their own. Give them some credit, Irene.

8. Irene on May 4th, 2011 at 4:56:

   “The French passed their three strikes law on their own. Give them some credit, Irene”

   What can I say about a comment like this? Obviously many things, but let’s just leave it at this – More research needed on your part, Rob. Much more.

   Re. the coercion, it has nothing to do with penny-ante amounts like those mentioned. It has everything to do with all the behind-the-scenes dealing – the threats, the promises and the money (not the meazly NZ$500,000.)

   Anf if – “These companies invest in actors, musicians, artists of every kind, technology, equipment, marketing, etc. I don’t think they’re being unreasonable to want a return on their investment and I don’t think they’re being unreasonable trying to protect their property.” this was the case, why on earth did the weasel-worded politicians have to SNEAK in this legislation, hidden in an emergency bill to deal with Christchurch’s problems?

   BTW: No need to cite straight from the failed business model’s handbook – we get it.

9. Rob on May 4th, 2011 at 12:04:

   “it has nothing to do with penny-ante amounts like those mentioned. It has everything to do with all the behind-the-scenes dealing – the threats, the promises and the money (not the meazly NZ$500,000.)”

   Sorry, I grew out of these kinds of conspiracy theories a long time ago. Carry on without me, please. Watch out for the boogeyman, though.

10. Irene on May 4th, 2011 at 23:34:

    Using glib childish throw-away lines is no substitute for research, Rob. But you have it your way.

11. Sue W on May 5th, 2011 at 3:20:

    Well Rob, I’d say that the kind of neighbours that many Canadians see in the U.S. are like having a biker gang take over in the next street. I’d say we’re cordial (you guys really know how to party). We don’t like the guns or politics that get smuggled up here, but you guys do apparently like our dope. And you genuinely have better winter weather.

    An Alabaman trucker once asked me why Canada didn’t just join the US. He was really puzzled. I said that we didn’t do it for his sake. 24 million more voting age Democrats…

    $500K is nothing in lawn enforcement – gets you about 3 to 4 full-time experienced cops, no cars, no techs, no backup, offices etc. So you’ll need the NZ govt. to add in perhaps 10x more to do anything effective.

    This is a distraction, of little benefit and probably of great annoyance to their taxpayers.

12. Rob on May 5th, 2011 at 5:16:

    FWIW, Sue, I’m from Way Down Yonder in New Orleans so we’re really not very close neighbors. I agree about the $500K. That’s NZ dollars, btw. Not sure how much that is in Canadian dollars. Even citing that amount in an article as having anything to do with anything is what my English teachers always called padding.

Comments:

1. Sue W on May 3rd, 2011 at 14:22:

   Aww, so cute…club it!

2. Michal Oleyar, Jr. on May 3rd, 2011 at 20:29:

   Especially cause I’m a retired Navy veteran (c. WWII) I’m mighty proud of the Navy Seals and their recent accomplishment (May 1, 2011). With best wishes may this superb fighting force always maintain their extraordinary capabilities.

   Mike O., Ensign, USNR (ret)

   P.S. Regret to say that when my wife, son and I visited Coronado in ’06 thatweI did not take this opportunity to at least stop off at the entrance to the Seals training facility to pay our respects.

3. John Sinteur on May 4th, 2011 at 5:24:

   [Quote]:
   

   The development of SEAL Team 6 was in direct response to the 1980 attempt to rescue the American hostages held in Iran. The mission was a terrific failure that fell apart at many points and illustrated the need for a dedicated counter-terrorist team capable of operating with the utmost secrecy.

   The Team was labeled 6 at the time to confuse Soviet intelligence about the number of SEAL teams in operation at the time. There were only two others.

Comments:

1. Mykolas on May 3rd, 2011 at 18:57:

   Actually, not far from the truth.

Comments:

1. John Sinteur on May 3rd, 2011 at 8:25:

   this is probably going to be the most Photoshopped picture of this week. here‘s a start…