Political Science 101 . . .

Yup, that pretty much sums 'er up.

Canadian Company contributing to US anti-progressive campaign

Take a look at this from ThinkProgress.(Emphasis mine)

The United States Chamber of Commerce is running an unprecedented $75 million campaign to unseat progressives from Congress, in defense of a big-oil agenda. As a ThinkProgress investigation has learned Chamber’s donors — who send their checks to the same account from which the political campaign is run — include multinational oil corporations, and even oil companies owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain. The oil-fueled Chamber has hammered candidates who voted to limit our dependence on oil, falsely claiming they supported a “job-killing energy tax”

Which puts a Canadian company amongst those actively funding a US political campaign intentionally attempting to unseat Democrats.
Interesting. SNC Lavalin is contributing to a U.S. election on a scale they are prevented from doing in Canada.

And, if you think the above isn't linked to this, well then go read Dowd and keep your eyes open for this part:

The 5-to-4 Citizens United decision last January gave corporations, foreign contributors, unions, Big Energy, Big Oil and superrich conservatives a green light to surreptitiously funnel in as much money as they want, whenever they want to elect or unelect candidates. As if that weren’t enough to breed corruption, Thomas was the only justice — in a rare case of detaching his hip from Antonin Scalia’s — to write a separate opinion calling for an end to donor disclosures.

Which should lead you to look up at the ceiling and ask, "What other Canadian corporations are contributing to US political campaigns?"
Yeah. I'd be looking for a massive scar on the earth's surface. And I wouldn't look further than northern Alberta.

Just in case you forgot...

Mackay tries to slide one two through

Finally!! The long overdue Harper defence document suddenly pops up on the DND website. Surprizingly, it sort of crept up there after more than a month of Harperite Muskox calls announcing all kinds of things with no money to match.

Then, late last night, just before Parliament recesses, it makes an appearance.

Peter MacKay says he was merely providing more details on the government's defence strategy when his department quietly posted the price tag on its website late Thursday night.

The minister of defence, who was at an international conference in Halifax today, says the plan amounts to $490 billion in spending over 20 years.

The funding includes $20 billion for new aircraft, tanks and ships, in addition to $15 billion in transport planes, trucks and helicopters that had been purchased earlier.

The Canada First Defence Strategy was first introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax last month amid claims that the funding was unclear and incorrect.

Let's see... either MacKay is playing loose with the truth or my sources are. I've been told this was ready to be announced some time ago but that any public announcement was a political decision and the CF was ordered not to post it.

My sources have no reason to lie. MacKay has a poor record with the truth. Not only that, when I first saw this announcement the date on the website was 18 June 2008. It's since changed to 20 June. But all that is irrelevant; we finally have the Defence Policy document that Harper promised to deliver within 6 months of taking office.

Depending on your point of view, $490 billion is either horrendously large or it isn't enough.
Further, the Canada First Defence Strategy reads as much like a political campaign instrument as it does a guide for the future employment, equipping and managing of Canada's armed services.

The 22-page document is sprinkled with all kinds of little rhetorical tidbits which do less to rationally explain the strategy and a lot to demonstrate Conservative penis envy.

From page 2 (Harper's message):

... Canada can return to the international stage as a credible and influential country, ready to do its part.

Typical of Harper, he ignores Canada's influence on the international stage as a trusted honest broker. To him the "international stage" is a military force - period. This blinkered view has reduced our influence as a nation since the only "part" he's willing to do is support Bush administration military fiascoes.

Page 4:

The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to reach for global excellence and to be better positioned to compete for defence contracts at home and abroad...

How does this reconcile with General Dynamics withdrawing its bid from the Frigate Life Extension Project because of lack of funding and the likelihood that GD is probably going to sue the Canadian government? Great start.

This strengthened military will translate into enhanced security for Canadians at home as well as a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage.

There's that "world stage" line again. Damn the Harperites put a lot of stock in that.

Something very strange appears on page 5. After describing natural disasters which occurred in Canada over the past decade in which the Canadian Forces provided an immediate response, the natural inclination of the Harperites floats up.

As Hurricane Katrina has shown in the United States, such disasters will continue to occur, often with devastating consequences, and the citizens affected will expect immediate responses.

Hurricane Katrina?! What would possess any Canadian government to use that as an example. Why refer to it at all? Unless that line was written by an American - an American unfamiliar with the effects of Hurricane Juan on Halifax.

Page 6: (Emphasis mine)

Canada Command was created in 2006 to provide a single operational authority for such domestic operations and will work closely with federal departments such as Public Safety Canada in responding to a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

In short, that last emphasis was written for the pants-pissers. The said terrorist attack will be over before anyone responds.

On page 8 this line emerges: (Emphasis mine)

... the two nations’ armed forces [Canadian and US] will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.

Abroad? The Canadian Forces have always maintained a doctrine of being interoperable with NATO. This, however, will provide a convenient point at which a Canadian frigate can remain a part of an American naval strike group even if it's attacking, oh, say, Iran.

Page 9:

Providing international leadership is vital if Canada is to continue to be a credible player on the world stage.

Not to mention sending kids home in metal coffins. Funny how that "world stage" doesn't seem to include anything but expeditionary wars.

This will require the Canadian Forces to have the necessary capabilities to make a meaningful contribution across the full spectrum of international operations, from humanitarian assistance to stabilization operations to combat.

Agreed! All of that is completely accurate and rational. So why then, in the rest of that subject is nothing but combat mentioned? The only example provided is that of Afghanistan. Where are the peace enforcement and peacekeeping probabilities addressed?

They're not.

Perhaps most telling of all though is the numbers provided on page 12. New Major Fleet Replacements roll out at $20 billion for 17 new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, 15 new destroyers and frigates for the navy, 10 - 12 new maritime patrol aircraft, 65 next-generation fighter aircraft for the air force, and a mix of new combat vehicles and systems for the army.

Really?! Are they planning on having them built out of Lego blocks? New ships alone will exceed that entire figure. And the fine print tells an interesting story. The actual number is up to $45 billion higher than what is being shown. That makes the $490 billion bottom line closer to $535 billion. The attempt to state that "new" equipment would have a life beyond the 20-year capital equipment plan says nothing. Yes, if you buy it at the end of the program it will last, (hopefully), beyond the period of the program; and so will the extended costs.

There is another little item which, as a result of another development, becomes even more curious. From page 20:

... the Canada First Defence Strategy represents a significant investment in the country’s industry, knowledge and technology sectors that will yield sizeable dividends for every region of the country. This clear, long-term plan will give these sectors the opportunity to better position themselves to compete for defence contracts in Canada and in the global marketplace.

If that's the case, perhaps Peter MacKay can explain this.

Members of the U.S. Congress have been told the Canadian government plans to spend $114 million on new howitzers to contribute to the war on terror while parliamentarians at home have been kept in the dark over the deal.

[...]

Neither the Defence Department nor Public Works released details on the howitzer deal, but Congress was told Wednesday about the pending sale.

Under American government accountability rules, the U.S. Defense Security Co-operation Agency must tell Congress of upcoming sales of weaponry. That information is also made public.

The estimated cost is $114 million, according to the security co-operation agency.

[...]

U.S. firms in Mississippi and in Michigan will provide the equipment.

There are no offset agreements in place for the sale, which means that the U.S. companies aren't required to provide industrial benefits to Canadian firms.

Oh yes... it's confirmed. Explain MacKay.

And it still looks like an American had a hand in writing Harper's new defence strategy.

Worry not Than Shwe. Harper won't kick your ass.

He can't.

A. He doesn't have the global gonads;
B. He doesn't have the available military force.

So you can keep doing this shit until the cows come home and rest assured that Canada won't do diddly-squat to stop you.

Cyclone survivors are being forced out of emergency camps and back to their flattened villages by Burma's military government, Amnesty International said Thursday.

The human rights organization said that since May 19, there have been 30 confirmed reports of people being forcibly removed from places of refuge in Rangoon and the northern part of the Irrawaddy Delta, one of the areas worst hit by the May 3 storm. Many are being relocated to their homes further south, which were destroyed and are yet to be rebuilt, Amnesty researcher Benjamin Zawacki told the CBC.

"This is in violation of their human right to health, to food, and perhaps indeed to the right to life. This is premature, it's arbitrary, and neither are the people prepared to move from an aid and assistance standpoint, nor are their original villages in any condition to receive them."

In a report released Thursday, Amnesty also cited several instances where the military government is offering aid to cyclone victims on the condition they provide physical labour in return.

Survivors have been forced to construct a landing pad for helicopters and construct and take down emergency relief camps, as well as clear debris and help reconstruct rural infrastructure such as roads, Zawacki said.

And just in case you think this is based on an isolated report...

In its report, Amnesty also cited 40 accounts of Burmese soldiers or local officials diverting, confiscating or misusing aid intended for cyclone victims.

Although the junta has granted greater access to the Irrawaddy Delta, "recent incidents of corruption and diversion of aid suggest a potentially serious threat to effective distribution of aid," the report said.

Most of the cases cited involved authorities confiscating aid from private donors or arresting them for refusing to hand the aid over.

Now, before I go too much further, I can agree with Harper's plans to bolster the Canadian Forces (not that it was his idea). His predecessor laid out all the ground work. In fact, Paul Martin was adamant that any commitment to Afghanistan would leave the Canadian Forces in a position to take on another contingency operation.

Are we there yet?

The truth is, Afghanistan has sucked the Canadian Forces into an abyss. We can't do anything else.

So when it comes to the Responsibility To Protect, we're out of the game. As LuLu has pointed out, it's one of those yucky UN things... and Bush's Chihuahua doesn't do the UN.

So, rest easy Than Shwe. You may be a murderous, corrupt, evil little prick. It doesn't matter. Kill your own people. Run a corrupt government. Steal international aid for your own uses. Live in unearned opulence. You are exactly the thing Steve Harper wrote about when he complained that Canada had not supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq.

Back then anyone could have been excused for believing that Harper meant what he said about dealing with threatening dictatorial regimes.

That was then. This is now. First we had Darfur; now we have Burma.

Big man Steve hasn't got the resources or the guts to stop you.... unless George Bush wakes up. Orders are, after all, orders.

So, go ahead. Be as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein.

Steve's busy. Elsewhere. And his mouth is full.

Thanks to Cat via email

Obama's Canadian Enemies

By now most people are aware that someone, somehow in the Harper government interfered with the Barack Obama campaign in the US. Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, is directly implicated for his so-called off-hand remark. That Brodie still has a job in the Prime Minister's Office is an indication of how Bush-like the Harper regime has actually become. Wrong-doing by Harper loyalists is treated the same as it is in the Bush administration. Nothing happens.

The truth is, Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada are not the Tories of Canada's historical past. Jeet Heer has done the heavy lifting on this one and has a must read article in the Guardian.

One contextual fact might help explain the whole matter: the increasing integration between Canadian and American conservatives, who tend to be as thick as thieves. Brodie's own career is part of this story of the Canadian right becoming increasingly tied to its American counterpart. Brodie did his PhD in political science at the University of Calgary under Ted Morton, an American-born former academic and activist and known as the dean of the "Calgary school", an intellectual movement that has remade Canadian conservatism along American-lines. Traditionally, Canadian conservatives have followed the model of old-fashioned British Tories, emphasising social cohesion and accommodation to the welfare state. Morton, who has served as an advisor to many conservative politicians, has consistently worked to make the Canadian right imitate their successful brothers to the south in marrying populism on social issues (including opposition to gay rights and abortion) with free-market economic policies. This is a major development. Historically, Canadian conservatives have been the most anti-American of our major political parties. Brian Mulroney changed that with the Free Trade Agreement of 1988, but it's worth bearing in mind that even under Mulroney the Conservative party had very little formal ties with the American right. Mulroney's political roots were in the machine politics of Quebec, always friendly toward American big business but culturally and socially distinct from American conservatism. One telling detail: Mulroney once said that the American politician he most admired was Mario Cuomo, an equally earthy street-fighting Catholic pol.

It's not just the politicians that have caused this change. There are the inside operators who regularly cross the border and work both the Canadian and US conservative movement.

... the emergence of a cohort of intellectual entrepreneurs, journalists and thinktank types who happily shuttled back and forth from Washington and New York to Toronto and Ottawa. David Frum is perhaps the most famous figure of this crowd, happy to write for the National Post and the National Review, work one day to merge the two right-wing parties of Canada and then go on to pen speeches for George Bush.

More. Oh yes there's more.

Daniel Casse, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Ken Whyte, Rachel Marsden, Peter Brimelow and Mark Steyn.

A bit of curiosity with this crowd is the "residences" they maintain. Some are clearly permanent US residents. Whyte is most definitely resident in Canada. But some of them claim to maintain two residences - one in Canada and one in the US. Given that this lot regularly bashes the idea of single-payer health care in the US, one has to wonder if those maintaining Canadian residences carry Canadian provincial health-care cards.

There is one other name which floats to the surface.

Back when he was still a media baron, Conrad Black was the great patron of this group. Like a czar willing to send the Cossacks wherever needed, whether Mongolia or the Ukraine, Black was happy to move his minions around the globe, not just to Toronto and Washington (where Black owned The Hill, a small but influential congressional newspaper) but also London and Jerusalem. The net result was the creation of a global right-wing intellectual movement that is very well coordinated. In fighting Bill Clinton, for example, Black's papers abroad would sometime print scurrilous reports that were too wild and un-sourced for the American press. Thanks to the internet and talk radio, these reports would echo back in the United States and eventually become part of the mainstream discourse.

Drudge, Limbaugh, O'Reilly...

Heer poses an interesting idea in his conclusion. The most important aspect though is that Harper's integration with the US movement conservatives is virtually complete and it would be a mistake to suggest they are related to past Canadian conservative parties by anything but a slender thread. In fact, they are, as Heer suggests, a part of a much larger international conservative movement headquartered in this US toilet.

We didn't like the Comintern and the Cominform. Why would we accept a conservative form of it?

Hat tip Cat

Exactly what are we in Aghanistan for?

Notwithstanding that sometime in the near future I have something of a horror story to tell you about the attrition rate of troops returning to Canada , the question of Canada's strategic purpose for being in Afghanistan arises once again.

If we are having to explain to the governor of the province in which Canadian troops are providing a primary combat force that prisoners turned over to his custody are not to be beaten senseless with an electrical cable and rubber hoses, somewhere a lesson has been missed.

Now we have the story of a young Afghani journalism student facing a death sentence - for downloading and distributing information from the internet.

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.

The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

Mr Kambaksh, 23, distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter. But a complaint was made against him and he was arrested, tried by religious judges without – say his friends and family – being allowed legal representation and sentenced to death.

And if you are taken to believe that this is the unsanctioned act of an independent religious court you would be wrong.

The Independent is launching a campaign today to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. The UN, human rights groups, journalists' organisations and Western diplomats have urged Mr Karzai's government to intervene and free him. But the Afghan Senate passed a motion yesterday confirming the death sentence.

The MP who proposed the ruling condemning Mr Kambaksh was Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of Mr Karzai. The Senate also attacked the international community for putting pressure on the Afghan government and urged Mr Karzai not to be influenced by outside un-Islamic views.

The case of Mr Kambaksh, who also worked a s reporter for the Jahan-i-Naw (New World) newspaper, is seen in Afghanistan as yet another chapter in the escalation in the confrontation between Afghanistan and the West.

It comes in the wake of Mr Karzai accusing the British of actually worsening the situation in Helmand province by their actions and his subsequent blocking of the appointment of Lord Ashdown as the UN envoy and expelling a British and an Irish diplomat.

This is the new crowd, same as the old crowd. If the non-Taliban is behaving the same as the Taliban did, what is it exactly we're supposed to accomplish?

Canada has a position of leverage here. Very simply Karzai needs to be told a few facts of life. If Karzai, as he has so often repeated, insists that Canadian troops remain in Kandahar then he needs to accept that the cost of our presence is acquiescence to demands for a much more just and civil system of government and law. Killing people for what they read doesn't pass muster.

If Karzai can't accept that then the solution is simple. We leave and Afghanistan can defend itself.
The Independent has put together a petition.

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh's imminent execution is an affront to civilised values. It is not, however, a foregone conclusion. If enough international pressure is brought to bear on President Karzai's government, his sentence may yet be overturned. Add your weight to the campaign by urging the Foreign Office to demand that his life be spared. Sign our e-petition at www.independent.co.uk/petition

There is no reason for Canadian troops to be dying for a country which is unable to embrace basic human rights and the most simple principles of civilization.

Hat tip Sam in comments and Cat via email.

And another one direct from the Bush playbook

As Steve V says, this is just unbelievable.

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

Whatever an "approved line" is.

Environment Canada scientists, many of them world leaders in their fields, have long been encouraged to discuss their work on everything from migratory birds to melting Arctic ice with the media and public. Several of them were co-authors of the United Nations report on climate change that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

"It's insulting," says one senior staff member, who asked not to be named. She says researchers can no longer even discuss or confirm science facts without approval from the "highest level."

Until now, Environment Canada has been one of most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.

Well, yes. Open and accessible government is on helluva problem, dontcha know. Why, if someone doesn't bring an end to it, it'll make everyone think the government of Canada is transparent and accountable.

The scientists need not worry. The fat little men in blue ties will be around directly... selling memberships in "the party".

The nazification of the civil service has begun.

A crappy day in the Arabian Sea.

The Indian Naval Submarine Sindhughosh collided with the merchant ship MV Leeds Castle in the Arabian Sea off Pakistan yesterday.

The 2500-ton INS Sindhughosh, with a crew of 53, sustained only superficial damage to its conning tower, Indian navy spokesman Nirad Sinha said.

But according to naval official,s who asked not to be named, the vessel was seriously damaged.

The navy declined to comment on the extent of damage to the Cayman-registered merchant vessel or reveal its current whereabouts.

"The ship MV Leeds Castle was in restricted waters and in that area the depth is not much and hence the mishap," the spokesman said.

The submarine has been towed to a naval dockyard at the western Indian city of Mumbai.

The naval officials said the submarine was submerged and had its radars off and periscope down when it slammed into the ship off India's Diu island, 400 nautical miles from Mumbai. Diu lies 70 nautical miles from Pakistani waters.

The fact that Sindhughosh was towed back to port would indicate that damage is far more extensive than "superficial". There is a lot of speculation about what actually happened and why, none of it apparently coming from very well informed sources.

There is something which caught my attention however. This piece, issued right after the collision, contains a little nugget. While it discusses the various ramifications of the collision within the context of its effect on the Indian Navy (and the fact that the submarine and crew were extremely lucky that the prang happened while at periscope depth), Canada's name suddenly leaps out.

The second ramification is the absence of a Deep Sea Rescue Vehicle (DSRV). The Canadian contract for a DSRV is under investigation of corruption. Indian Navy has not purchased another one. It is a wake up call. The status of India-U.S. agreement for Submarine rescue is not yet clear.

That's the first I've heard about that... and I love a good hunt.

Update: Jay in comments has already started to do some digging into the Canadian connection. His comment is worth reading since there may be nothing at all to the suggestion that there is corruption surrounding a Canadian-made Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle for the Indian Navy.

We'll keep looking.

Canada's Digital Copyright Legislation on hold

It worked.

YOU did it. Damn, I'm proud of you people!

Prole has good news. Michael Geist reports that Industry Minister Jim Prentice will not be introducing legislation on digital copyright tomorrow.

The word this afternoon is that Industry Minister Jim Prentice will not introduce the Canadian DMCA tomorrow. The thousands of letters and phone calls over the past week have urged the government to adopt balanced copyright reforms that meets everyone's needs and does not unduly harm education, consumer rights, privacy, and free speech. The delay provides an exceptional opportunity for Minister Prentice to consult more broadly and to factor those concerns into the forthcoming bill in the interests of all Canadians.

The report has been picked up by the CBC.

A controversial bill that seeks to reform Canadian copyright laws, expected to be introduced early this week, may be quashed after a groundswell of opposition erupted over the past week.

The government last week filed a notice indicating the bill would be introduced this week, leading industry experts to expect it to happen on Tuesday. But a spokesperson for Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who was to introduce the bill, said it would not happen on Tuesday and could not say if it would happen this week.

You did that. Pretty Shaved Ape, Saskboy, James Bow and a ton of others I know I've missed, who were in the front rank of that charge, take a bow. You've earned it. You all just proved that there is something to using the internet as a root for action.

To Industry Minister Jim Prentice: I thank you for taking note. If it is indeed your intention to give any copyright bill you were intending to introduce a better hearing and consultation with Canadian users of digital media, I would commend you for responding to the flood concern sent your way.

Now. Everyone snap out of it.

Catelli has something important to say and it is more than just a little important. We've had Sony rootkits and recently we've had Western Digital attempting to limit the deployment of files using their hardware. In short, regardless of what laws are written, big media IS the same 800 pound gorilla producing the hardware and software we use.

We ain't gonna win this fight. To a certain extent, we already lost it. Us long-time audiovideo-ophiles remember being screwed over by DRM technology way back in the 80s. Backing up VHS movies was way more important back then as VHS tapes fail quite frequently. Its why I never bought any movies on VHS. I knew they would eventually fail and the money invested would be lost. If I couldn't back them up, I didn't want them.

[...]

I submit, to win the DRM/DMCA war, we have to change the terms of the battle. As I posted here, I no longer purchase music, I also don't download it either. I used to. I would download music as a means to evaluate an album, and if I liked it enough, I would go out an buy it. Once the download crackdown started, I abandoned the music scene entirely. I am only one individual, but that explains why my family no longer buys music. Same thing with Macrovision preventing duplicating of VHS tapes. I couldn't back them up, so I didn't buy them. This is my warning to the media corporations. Make it illegal for me to back-up my DVDs, and I will stop purchasing them too. That's how we win this war. If Big Media insists we have no rights to fair use of their product, I insist they have no right to my money. If we all collectively do this, it will make a resounding thud on boardroom tables when the bottom line drops even further.

Read more and leave a comment because Catelli has the solution laid out.

Now, don't let up. I don't see any form of victory here. I see people in action. Stakeholders who could state their concerns and put them on the right table.

Keep them there. This isn't won until someone comes forth and provides a full and transparent consultative process.

And Mr. Prentice, any of us would be more than happy to participate in that process. As long as there is one.

Oh yes. You Blogging Tories need not thank us. You're still stupid useless cocksuckers.

Industry Minister Jim Prentice will screw you if you don't stop him

Do you feel like being sued by some behemoth of a corporation? No? Well, if Industry Minister Jim Prentice gets his way, that's exactly what will happen. Doing what you now take for granted with different forms of media information and entertainment will result in Big Media going after average Canadians in exactly the way they've done it in the US over copyright infractions, and virtually everything will be a copyright infraction.

From Michael Geist: (emphasis mine)

If the introduction of a Canadian DMCA were not bad enough, sources now indicate that Industry Minister Jim Prentice plans to delay addressing the copyright concerns of individual Canadians for years. Rather than including consumer concerns such as flexible fair dealing, time shifting, format shifting, parody, and the future of the private copying levy within the forthcoming bill, Prentice will instead strike a Copyright Review Panel to consider future copyright reforms. Modeled after the Telecom Policy Review Panel, the CRP will presumably take a year or two to consult Canadians on various copyright issues. In all likelihood, the government will then take another year or two to consider the recommendations, another year to propose potential reforms, another year or two to consult on those proposals, and another year or two to finally introduce legislation. Given that Canada has historically only passed major copyright reform once every ten years, Prentice will be in his early 60s and likely collecting his Member of Parliament pension by the time Canadians see copyright reform that addresses fair use. While a consultation is a good idea, the government should be consulting on all copyright matters rather than caving now to U.S. demands while leaving Canadians consumers, educators, and other stakeholders out in the cold. The Industry Minister claimed last month to "put consumers first", yet his copyright plan represents a stunning abdication of his responsibility to represent the Canadian public interest. As the protests mount over his Canadian DMCA and his attempt to sidetrack consumer copyright concerns, Prentice should acknowledge the public outrage, hold off introducing the Canadian DMCA, and look for plan B. That would optimally mean conducting a broad public consultation (or striking a CRP with a full copyright review mandate) before introducing legislation. Alternatively, a revised bill could be introduced in February or March that better reflects the copyright balance by addressing consumer concerns now rather than in ten years time.

In other words, Prentice plans to consult after imposing the most punishing copyright legislation in the world on Canadians. While some would call it "Made in USA" legislation, it is more accurately "Made in the corporate boardroom".

The only people who stand to benefit from a Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act are the mega-corporations who wrote it.

Oh yes, and the politicians who are only too happy to take campaign contributions from the big media companies.

As Pretty Shaved Ape says,

Modeled on the American DMCA, our neighbours have endured more than 20,000 anti-consumer lawsuits at the hands of Mr. Prentice's chosen constituents, big media. You need to remind Jim Prentice that he works for Canadians. We pay his legitimate wages as a member and minister, that trumps whatever monies he might be collecting or promised for future considerations.

Where to do that? Here's a start. Contact Jim Prentice at:

Ottawa office - (613) 992-4275
Calgary office - (403) 216-7777
Minister office - (613) 995-9001
Email address is: Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca

Once you send an email, print it out and mail it (no stamp needed!) to:

Jim Prentice
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Be polite, but firm and to the point. Remind Mr. Prentice that he works for us; not big media. Remind him that the two ministers who preceded him and tried to put forward this kind of legislation lost their jobs. Remind him that, even if he does get this legislation through parliament, it will become an election issue unless he changes both the intent and the process.

Then contact your member of parliament and state your objections.

Do it now, because if you don't you are going to watch this government take away your right to fair use, to copying your own material, to backing up that which you already own, to using digital media in education and you will still be paying a levy to big media for every piece of recording media you buy.

Just do it.

Interesting example: Saskboy, who I have to say, has been paying extremely close attention to both Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) provides a timely example of what one could expect. Western Digital has created a 1 terabyte hard drive that won't allow you to access your content over a network if you install the "required" software. As he points out, if Prentice pushes through his DMCA, Western Digital's crippling software will be a mandatory installation and you'll be breaking the law if you work around it.

Catelli asks the all important question about this massive network storage device. Why would anybody buy it?

Precisely. If I can't put my largest files, graphic, audio and video on the thing and access them through my network, why would I need such a huge storage capacity?

You Can't Play In My Sandbox . . . .

Today's On Point radio program with Tom Ashbrook on NPR featured a story concerning global sovereignty. The current activity between Canada and Russia in the Arctic was the main topic. No doubt the US will soon enter the fray with the dwindling natural resources south of the as yet untapped area. (For some unknown reason the audio links on the site are inoperable. I'll update when available)

Global Resources Wars

By host Tom Ashbrook:

This hour On Point: flags and ice and the new resource scramble at the North Pole and around the world.

It was a quirky story in the US news media, and a national triumph in Moscow.

Last Thursday, in the frigid wake of a nuclear powered ice-breaker, Russia sent two mini-submarines 13,000 feet beneath the Arctic ice cap, and planted a titanium-encased Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole.

"The Arctic," declared expedition leader Artur Chilingarov, "is ours." And with it, Moscow hopes, a huge share of the massive oil and gas reserves under the melting pole.




The US and Canada laughed, but not for long.

Fred Weir, Moscow Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor

Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of "Blood and Oil"

Michael Byers, Professor of International Law at the University of British Columbia

Eric Posner, Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School

One of the panel discussion participants, Michael Byers, is a professor of international law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He cautions to not become hysterical at this point over the activity in the area. Hope he's right.

Ashbrook interviews a US Coast Guard lieutenant currently on the largest cutter in the fleet that is mapping the area for who-knows-what purposes?

The listener call-in comments are particularly interesting. Typical of the "us-or-them" US mentality is one caller who advocates setting up alliances with Russia as opposed to Canada in the battle to control resources. It would be interesting to get stevie harper and peter mackay's take on that type of attitude.

Now this headline from the CBC today:

Planned army base, port in North heat up Arctic quest

I wonder how all this figures in to the Deep Integration/SPP discussion?

How this plays out over the next few years should be quite a show. Get your popcorn and grab a seat . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Harper's corruption fighting government supports Wolfowitz

The fur ball surrounding Paul Wolfowitz and his personal involvement in getting his pelvic affiliate, Shaha Ali Riza, a whopping pay raise and a transfer out of the World Bank to the US State Department was reviewed by a special committee of the World Bank. They submitted their findings to Wolfowitz on Sunday, finding he did indeed do wrong and called for his resignation.

The president of the World Bank is traditionally appointed by the United States. That long standing arrangement is being put to the test by the European block at the World Bank.

European officials had previously indicated that they wanted to end the tradition of the United States picking the World Bank leader. But now the officials are hoping to enlist American help in persuading Mr. Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily, rather than be rebuked or ousted.

The goal, they said, is to avert a public rupture of the bank board over a vote, possibly later this week, to sanction Mr. Wolfowitz. Even if the vote is a reprimand, they said, it could effectively make it impossible for him to stay on.

The Europeans worked to arrange a quick exit for Mr. Wolfowitz as a special bank committee concluded that he was guilty of breaking rules barring conflicts of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion and a bank employee, in 2005.

Basically, what the Europeans are saying is, Wolfowitz goes voluntarily or we will vote to have him removed. And the Europeans have enough weight to pull it off.

The United States has 16.4 percent of the voting share at the 24-member World Bank board that chooses the president. Europeans have twice that share if they stick together, which many bank officials say they have signaled they are willing to do to remove Mr. Wolfowitz.

There is hesitation among the Europeans at creating too much of a rift with the United States on the issue and while many would like to avoid confrontation with the United States, the European Parliament voted last month to have Wolfowitz removed.

The World Bank assumed some responsibility for not making the ethics of Wolfowitz's decision clear to him. However, the corruption is undeniable and Wolfowitz bears the majority of the responsibility according to the report.

So, one would expect that any government which provides a representative to the World Bank would be voting to remove Wolfowitz should he refuse to resign voluntarily. Of course, the US would vote to retain him since the Bush administration has been standing by him throughout this scandal and appointed him amidst a furor of protest from dozens of countries. That can be dismissed as a patently corrupt regime supporting one its corrupt operators.

You have to go down to the last paragraph of the New York Times article to get the full effect. Besides the United States supporting the retention of Wolfowitz, there are two other countries who would vote in favour of keeping Wolfowitz in his chair.

Bank officials say that, as of now, only the United States, Japan and Canada would vote in favor of Mr. Wolfowitz. They represent less than 30 percent of the voting shares.

WHAT?!!!

So, the board of the World Bank issues a finding directly to Wolfowitz which boils down to explaining that he's a corrupt sonofabitch and Canada, instead of accepting the majority view of the board of that world body, intends to support the corrupt appointee of a corrupt regime.

And, just in case you were wondering, the marching orders for the Canadian member of the board on the World Bank come from the minister of finance, Jim Flaherty and the Prime Minister's Office.

These guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

The Canadian Senate lays out a few truths on Afghanistan

Steve at Far and Wide has an excellent post laying out the Senate Defence committee's latest report on Afghanistan. The report is blunt and paints a relatively grim picture. It also suggests that unless other NATO countries start stepping up to the plate, Canada should re-assess its mission entirely.

I'm not going to repeat Steve's post but I will add a few items.

Senate reports have a tendency to gather a lot of dust. Since there is really nothing binding about them they serve only as advice and it's easy for a government to ignore them. I suspect that will be the case for this report, particularly since Harper has a habit of uttering Bush-style platitudes about the Afghanistan campaign which are out of place and lack traction among a majority of Canadians.

That brought me to the last part of the CBC's coverage of the report.

When asked whether the government has painted too "rosy" a view of the mission, Kenny replied that the report reflected what the committee saw during two visits to Afghanistan.

"I'm telling you that's how we see it. If the government isn't laying it out like this, then they should," he said. "It's going to be an uphill fight for a long time."

Got that Harper?

No. I don't suppose you do.