Pix of Edinburgh and Environs

I thought it was finally time I posted some of my pix from the trip to Scotland last year. So over the next while I'll be putting some up here. Some of the ones that worked out well and some of the oddities.

This is Adam Smith's gravestone in Grey Friar's churchyard.



Just in case anyone ever needs to prove that he's really dead.

The cemetery at Greyfriar's is really quite beautiful.



Of course its very old and parts of are constantly in need of propping back up again.


There's some lovely old stonecarving around too. Much of it masonic which should come as no surprise.


No visit to Greyfriar's is complete without a nod of the head to Greyfriar's Bobby, the Skye terrier, who stayed by his master's grave for 14 years.


Just outside the churchyard is his statue.


With the ever present pizza joint adjacent.

Haggis pizza anyone?

psssst . . . Do Something!

Robert Greenwald's latest stars condescending rice.

An Academy Award nomination is sure to follow.





Love this guy's work - very powerful.

Go sign the petition . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

General Hillier chooses to fade away

He was the right man for the job.

Does that grate you? Good.

That doesn't mean he did everything properly or achieved things without mistakes. I'll chalk that up to him being human.

It may come as a complete surprize to many but Hillier was chosen for a specific purpose. Afghanistan was not in the equation. He was chosen to re-establish the Canadian Armed Forces as a Canadian institution. He was chosen to provide the rough language and unvarnished details about what was necessary to ensure Canada possessed an immediately ready force capable of responding in an emergency and able to buy the time to build an effective expeditionary force.

Harper did not select him. Harper inherited him. No matter what Harper thought of him in 2006, Hillier, although he was able to articulate the Afghanistan mission better than anyone in the Conservative government ever could, never actually promoted the idea of a Canadian involvement in that conflict beyond 2011.

Hillier, quite outside his terms of reference, did insist that the only way to support the mission which had now taken on his trademark, was to give it the extension he desired, and did state that it would take at least ten years, (maybe more), to train the Afghan National Army. At no time did he say that the Canadian Forces should be the ones to do it.

He was stating a fact, as he saw it, without demanding a specific commitment. He was quite probably right.

What I don't believe from today's announcement is that he was under no pressure to leave.

Hillier said he was under no pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to retire.

Yeah, well, we've all heard that one a thousand times before.

I have roundly criticized Hillier in many previous posts for his comments and public statments. I stand by every criticism. If it had been any other general or admiral I would have criticized those same statements.

That doesn't however, mean I believe he was a poor choice for the appointment he held.

Paul Martin, the last prime minister, endorsed his appointment with a view to strengthening the armed forces, revitalizing the personnel structure, re-equipping the infrastructure and consolidating the resources.

He did that. Harper received the benefits of a an appointment made by his Liberal predecessor.

Hillier's eloquence at the announcement of his departure is entertaining, but hides some of the reality. There was pressure.

Harper's words after Hillier announced his retirement.

He is a great Canadian and we are very proud to have worked with him.

That's it?

What about the fact that he's saved your government's ass on a couple of occasions? It's not a glowing testimony. In fact, Harper could have said, Here's your gold watch. Bye. Same thing. Given the limb Hillier occasionally climbed out for the Harperites, there should have been something a little more glowing for Hillier.

But then, Hillier did cost Harper a cabinet minister, didn't he? (Jeez, didn't anyone see that one coming.)

So, while Hillier reported that there was nothing from the prime minister forcing his decision, be reminded that Harper didn't beg him to stay. (Not that Harper would ever do such a thing, but a saviour is a saviour and it might be good to get as much as one can from such a person.)

While I will take Hillier at his word that he was under no pressure from the Prime Minister, (he never mentioned the MND), he would have started to experience pressure.

Walk the halls of any armed forces establishment that does not have a direct role in the Afghanistan conflict. That, by the way, would be the majority of the armed forces. There is a slew of people unhappy with the fact that the entire focus of the Canadian Forces is on Afhanistan. The overall role of those elements, the sovereignty of Canada has been usurped by a mission which is basically a military extension of the Department of Foreign Affairs in an action which involves less than five percent of the regular armed forces as a full-time focused operation.
There is pressure. There is pressure coming from below. As much as Hillier focused on the Afghanistan mission his role was to generate the resources necessary for the whole armed forces. No one is saying he did not do that, but that single mission, under a subordinate commander you probably cannot identify, became synonymous with his name. That's a bad place to be.

The generals and admirals, particularly those who would hope to replace him, would be applying pressure. Notwithstanding that traditionally the CDS was appointed for a three year period, those who might consider themselves eligible for promotion into the position of CDS would expect that some of their priorities might get some attention. And be clear on this, Afghanistan cost any element not directly involved in the ground conflict very dearly. And understand that if this country required the armed forces to respond to any contingency operation, domestic or expeditionary, it would be hard pressed to respond effectively.

But there was another pressure. It became obvious when, as the initial rumours of Hillier's retirement surfaced, he responded to them with a facade of humour. "I was on my second rum and coke when I heard about it."

On a beach in Costa Rica The Dominican Republic.

While a force of 2500 Canadian troops were in a hot combat theatre.

That struck me as odd, until I realized that he had already reached a career decision. He had taken on the mantle of the Afghanistan mission, quite as a result of his own actions, when it should have been the difficult problem of a subordinate commander. Whether that was the way his political leaders wanted it or whether he had voluntarily accepted it, it was now his.

So, while Hillier leaves feeling he has accomplished his goals, I might toss in that there is still no Defence Review from this government. National Defence policy is still the one written by the previous government. Given the helter-skelter purchases made by this government, it becomes clear that they have no idea what they really want.

After two years, I'd retire too.

So, I will offer General Hillier what I would offer any retiring service member.

Firstly, you had a stellar career and achieved what most people do not. End it knowing that and if all you ever do from now on is grow tomatoes, you did what you set out to do.

Secondly, you achieved that level with the help of others. They cleared the way. You took the path. You owe them nothing but a beer. If you've already paid up, they expect another one.

When you've finished signing documents at the Release Centre, go home, crack a beer open and ignore the rest of the day. In the morning, sleep in. When you read the papers, try to find out what happened in Paraguay. Then, when you dress, wear plaid.

Take the day off. You've earned it. Tomorrow you'll be worried about what you're going to do next. Smart people don't do that. Book a cruise. (Make sure I'm not the Captain.)

If you need more information, email. More people blow retirement than they do combat.

Bennie Boo-Boo . . . .

Per McClatchy:

Here's another reason why popes don't get married
Lisa Zagaroli | McClatchy Newspapers - April 15, 2008 11:04:31 AM

WASHINGTON — Fallibility even lies with the pope, or his press office anyway.

The daily Vatican press release issued Tuesday noted that Pope Benedict XVI had departed from Rome en route to the United States.

“U.S. President George W. Bush and his wife Nancy will welcome the pope as he descends from his aircraft,” it said.

Oops. The president is married to a woman named Laura.

Perhaps they were thinking of the Reagans?

Way to go with the social graces, Grace . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Legal schmegal -- he's the deciderer

Being a bit behind in my podcast listening, I just heard about this story from last year on the March 28 episode of This American Life (episode 353), which dealt with the lawyerly style of the Bush administration - and when I say "lawyerly" I mean it in the sense of the Ambrose Bierce definition of a lawyer as "one skilled in circumventing the law."

Apparently, the libertarian bible-college law school dimwits in the Justice Department have decided that a century of precedents and the actual language of the Constitution and an international treaty aren't going to stop them from doing whatever they want, especially when it comes to anyone trying to challenge the will of the White House. More on case here.

The short version of events is as follows:

The International Boundary Commission was established nearly 100 years ago by a treaty between Canada and the United States as an international independent body to resolve border disputes between the two countries and to establish exactly where the border is. The U.S. Constitution says that treaties ratified by the Senate are the supreme law of the land. The IBC notified a couple in Washington State that the concrete wall they put up along the back of their yard encroached on the ten-foot border buffer where no construction is allowed and that the IBC could tear down the wall and send them the bill if they didn't remove it forthwith. The couple sued the IBC which, not having much of a budget, approached the U.S. Justice Department for advice. Justice told them they could not help them as they were an international body, not part of the U.S. government.


Then things get interesting. The Pacific Legal Foundation takes up the couple's case and suddenly the Justice Department is all over it. They insist that the IBC hand the whole thing over to them, that the IBC is not an independent international body, but an arm of the U.S. government. When the U.S. commissioner refuses to play ball, he is fired, despite the fact that International Treaty Commissioners like Supreme Court Justices, International Trade Commissioners or the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, can be appointed by the President to fill vacancies, but cannot be fired. The idea is to take politics out of the position to the extent possible. By putting such appointees beyond the reach of those that appointed them, they are thought to be immune to political pressure and further patronage and therefore able to act with greater impartiality to do the job they were appointed to do.

How did it work out? Well apparently some judges also think the president can do whatever he wants (see also this story). Canada has said nothing about the dispute, at least nothing public.


"So what?" you ask. "What's the big deal?"


Well, the big deal is that this is a classic example of the White House's power grab. In the past, it has taken the form of things like signing statements, unilateral reinterpretation of treaties (like the quaint Geneva Conventions) and withdrawal from treaties (like the ABM treaty) by presidential whim.


Remember when and where Dick Cheney comes from. He still doesn't think Nixon did anything wrong and was just sandbagged by a couple of smart-ass liberal journalists. He is all about centralizing power in the executive branch. And once that power becomes centralized, it isn't going to be decentralized anytime soon. Conservatives and Republicans and assorted Bush fans may think this is a wonderful thing that their president can do whatever he wants, but how would the same people feel about President Hilary Clinton or President Ted Kennedy or President Chelsea Clinton have the sort of monarchical powers that Dubya is claiming. What if President Obama suddenly declares by executive prerogative that he is replacing the members of the electoral commission or by his order black helicopters full of UN troops will be landing across the country to confiscate all privately owned handguns -- how do you like the doctrine of Unitary Executive now?

cross posted from the Woodshed

That law degree is... quaint.

Via Liliana Segura and LuLu, it seems Alberto Gonzales, the former US Attorney General who never met a law he couldn't just ignore, is still unemployed after having slithered out of the Bush bunker a half a year ago.

Maybe this is a sign of things to come. Even John Ashcroft, that great defender of liberty...

Following his tenure as attorney general in post-9/11 America -- a time that brought us the Patriot Act and saw career lawyers at the DoJ replaced by cronies and conservative Christians -- he founded his own consulting firm, and was swiftly hired as "distinguished professor of law and government" by Regent University, the pretend- (but politically influential) law school founded by Pat Robertson.

What do you think of Bush's legacy now, Gonzo?

Give us another smirk and (one more time!), I can't recall.

Since, apparently, that Harvard law degree is just a piece of paper, you might have to consider a new career path. Start practicing: Would you like fries with that?

Operation Enduring Freedom From Inconvenient Facts

It was back in October when we first heard about the possibility of US Marines relocating from Iraq to Afghanistan :

"The US Marine Corps has insisted that its forces be removed from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan instead to take the lead in combat there.
According to senior military and Pentagon officials, the suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defence Secretary Robert M Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders, theNew York Times reported.
This would leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while the Marines would play an important role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command."

Then came the Manley panel report and the whole drama of Harper's conditions for staying on in Afghanistan - where oh where would the 1000 extra troops and air power evah come from? - and now the US Marines are indeed relocating to Afghanistan as planned and Operation Enduring Freedom is in da house!

CBC : Afghanistan joint command

"There were sighs of relief in government circles earlier this month when the United States agreed to provide at least an additional 1,000 marines to the Canada-led mission in Kandahar.
Finding an extra 1,000 combat soldiers to help the 2,500-strong Canadian military mission in troubled southern Afghanistan was a key Canadian condition — along with more air power — for keeping our troops there until the end of 2011."

Way to keep up, CBC. I do believe we've already bitched that one.

But in what CBC refers to as the "new, more side-by-side relationship between American and Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan", a few questions arise about our differing policies.
Quite apart from how the command structure is supposed to work, there's the American propensity for wiping out marijuana and poppy crops, ie Afghani livelihood; their greater reliance on air strikes, ie bombing Afghan civilians; and the little matter of their torturing detainees/POWs, ie Bagram., the US internment facility where Afghan detainees known to be innocent of any crimes have been beaten to death.

Uh-oh - detainees. Already a big optics headache for Harper in Canada, news that detainees might fall under US - Canadian joint jurisdiction is bound to play badly for the Cons.
But wait!

CTV : Ottawa hopes to block probe into Afghan detainees :

"The government is seeking to block an independent investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission into Canada's handling of Afghan detainees, according to court documents filed in Federal Court.
Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association filed a complaint with the commission last year, after allegations surfaced that detainees had been tortured by local Afghan authorities.
Government lawyers filed an application Friday to halt the investigation, saying the commission does not have jurisdiction to probe the complaints."

Something they really might have mentioned at any time since the commission began its investigation.
And as Pogge points out, if the commission doesn't have jurisdiction, then why has the government of Canada been complying, however reluctantly, with its demands for documentation up till now?

Possibly because now we're under deadline to get aligned with Operation Enduring Freedom From Inconvenient Facts before the 'joint partnership' begins in July.

A Semblance of Spring

Let the record show that Saturday, April 12, 2008 was the first spring like day of the year. A high of 19 or 20 here on the north shore of Indian Arm. The backyard garden has had the sleep removed from it eyes.



Local village of Deep Cove.

Sadly it is not to last. Today we return to cooler,damper temperatures and as the week progresses we return to the 5 and 6 degrees below seasonal norms we've had of late.

But at least we can remember.

Omar Khadr

G&M : "The U.S. soldier Omar Khadr is alleged to have killed may have died as a result of friendly fire, Mr. Khadr's lawyers argued at Guantanamo Bay yesterday.

Mr. Khadr's U.S. military defence lawyer, Lieutenant-Commander Bill Kuebler, revealed in court that several accounts of the 2002 gun battle show that U.S. soldiers were throwing grenades when they stormed the Afghan compound containing Mr. Khadr.

Mr. Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade at U.S. troops, mortally wounding a medic. The Canadian was 15 at the time."

That's Khadr in the picture at his time of capture.

"It was also revealed that an official with the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs met Thursday with lawyers in the Khadr case in Guantanamo Bay, and showed them a copy of a report compiled by the Americans in the months after the 2002 Afghan battle."

"The report was originally deemed classified, but was then declassified when it was handed over to the Canadians.
Military prosecutors at Guantanamo Bay, after reviewing the report, said it may still contain classified information, so Cdr. Kuebler would not comment on its details. However, he said it includes exculpatory information because it contains a description of events that is inconsistent with — and, at times, contradictory to — other reports.
The Canadian copy of the report is especially important because the Americans have since been unable to locate the original copy, meaning the Canadian copy of the report may be the only one still available."

There's a dim hope this may prove a breakthrough for Khadr.

In February a leaked copy of witness testimony revealed that Khadr had not been the only survivor in the compound, as previously claimed, and that nobody had seen him throw the grenade.

In March, Kuebler insisted that "Lt. Col. W.", the Army Commander for Eastern Afghanistan at the time of the attack, had initially written in his report the day after the firefight that "the person who threw a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer also died in the firefight", meaning of course that the grenade had not been thrown by Khadr. The report was rewritten several months later to say that the grenade thrower had been "engaged", rather than "killed", changing the wording that would have possibly exonerated Khadr.

In 2005, Guantanamo's then chief prosecutor told presiding officers that any evidence suggesting a suspect was innocent would be given a secret security classification, so that defence teams would not learn of its existence.

Although the G&M story doesn't specifically say so, I sincerely hope this visiting DFAIT official brought the Canadian copy of the original US report because Canada has behaved shamefully up till now, refusing to request the extradition of a child soldier despite third party testimony of his having been tortured.
Not that Canada hasn't been involved . Khadr was visited six times in Guantanamo by Canadian officials who showed him pictures of people they wished identified, including Maher Arar, before turning his testimony over to US officials. Khadr's US military lawyer eventually requested that they be refused further access to Khadr for his own benefit.

Currently Cdr. Kuebler is waiting on whether the Canadian Supreme Court will ask the government to hand over all documents relating to Khadr's case.

"Cdr. Kuebler said Mr. Khadr's conviction is effectively a done deal if a trial commences under the current conditions. "I don't believe anyone can get an acquittal in Guantanamo Bay," he said."

"Canada had reason to know that Omar was being, if not tortured, at least seriously mistreated by the U.S. government and yet it did nothing and has done nothing," said Kuebler.
"I think it's shameful that Canada has displayed indifference for the plight of a Canadian citizen for no other reason than his father and family are unpopular."

On Tuesday, standing next to Condoleezza Rice in Washington, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said : "Mr. Khadr faces serious charges and it will be premature to comment about the legal process right now and appeal process because they’re still ongoing. And what we will do is we’ll do -- and I received also assurances that Mr. Khadr has been treated humanely. So we’ll see the legal procedure, and after that we’ll react."

Cross-posted at Creekside

SPP and Server in the Sky

CP : U.S. security chief says fingerprints not private

"The U.S. homeland security czar says Canadians shouldn't fear plans to expand international sharing of biometric information such as fingerprints.
Michael Chertoff says a person's fingerprints are like footprints.
"They're not particularly private," Chertoff said in an interview Wednesday during a brief visit to Ottawa."Your fingerprint's hardly personal data, because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world."

Well that's just crap, isn't it? Having a glass of wine in a public restaurant is not at all like having your fingerprints fed into a database like Server in the Sky.
You remember Server in the Sky, don't you? It's the FBI's proposed shared database of biometric information - our fingerprints, palm prints, and iris scan data - to be exchanged among the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
The International Information Consortium, as the five founding nations including Canada call themselves, will meet behind closed doors in May in San Francisco to plan their strategy.

CP : "An internal RCMP briefing note on the Server in the Sky project recommends the national police force continue to support the initiative."

As noted back here, perhaps one of Server in the Sky's most alarming aspects is that Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, heard of it for the first time in January by reading about it in a UK newspaper.
No Canadian officials had informed her of the project.

Integrate This! discusses the new biometric BC Enhanced Driver's License developed in conjunction with Washington state. Jennifer Stoddart describes it as creating a de facto national ID card in both countries.
IT :

"The EDLs require biometric and other personal information on Canadians and Americans to be stored in a common database that is accessible by security agencies in both countries.
Because Canada’s Public Safety department is insisting on all provinces developing a similar EDL to B.C.’s, and all of them will be compatible with the REAL ID program in the U.S., the Harper government is essentially working on a de facto North American ID card behind closed doors through the SPP."

Stockwell Day met with Chertoff on Wednesday to discuss SPP initiatives in advance of the SPP Leaders' Summit in New Orleans on April 21.

Cross-posted at Creekside

China opts to block tourists from Tibet

Chinese authorities jittery about protests during the Mount Everest leg of the Olympic torch relay have abruptly reversed a decision to reopen Tibet to foreign tourists.

Foreigners have not received permits to visit the Himalayan region since deadly anti-government riots broke out in the capital, Lhasa. Tourism authorities announced last week that foreign tour groups would be allowed in on May 1, the start of a three-day national holiday.

Tour operators said Thursday, however, that the Tibetan Tourism Bureau told them this week to stop arranging trips for foreigners. They said the bureau cited the need for safe passage for the torch relay to the summit of Everest, as well as continuing safety concerns in Lhasa.

But, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

H/T Cat

Look at the calendar and ask, "Why is this just a dream?"

From Antigone Magazine.

David Frum crawls out of the hole...

Six more weeks of Republican bullshit follows.

Yes, Barbara's little boy just can't hold back. His latest lament? Young people, especially non-white young people don't seem to understand that voting Republican is good for them, even if it's really only good for "not them".

Maybe that's because the prime constituency of today's Republican party is a bunch of fat, balding, older white males of dubiously acquired wealth who believe they are entitled to bang the younger members of their staff on the office desk.

Young people react to the success or failure of the first politicians they know. The twentysomethings of the 1980s, for example, associated the Democratic Party with the malaise of Jimmy Carter — and the GOP with the triumphs of Ronald Reagan. Today's Republican Party is associated with a wave of disappointments and embarrassments: Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, congressional corruption scandals, the mortgage crisis.

Disappointments and embarrassments?! Who the fuck is this clown trying to have on?

Those weren't disappointments and embarrassments. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! Those were deliberate misappropriations of the truth, mammoth failures of government, premeditated intent to defraud taxpayers and a nod to the button-down hucksters and thieves operating a blatant Ponzi-scheme out in the open. You could call them demonstrations of incompetence, collusion, self-enrichment by the wealthy, cronyism, unchecked greed, ad infinitum, but disappointments and embarrassments? It was a wave alright. And it was filled with great honkin' pieces of nasty deadheads just below the surface. By the way, who wrote the "Axis of Evil" line?

The Republican Party has become increasingly identified with conservative Christianity.

No shit? Frum might want to talk to Karl Rove about that. Perhaps it's because the loudest and most repugnant of the Christian conservative movement identifies strongly with the Republican party.

Younger Americans are becoming more secular and more permissive.

He could have said, "more realistic and more tolerant of the entire social fabric" but, in an attempt to demonstrate a social ill, he couldn't resist in banging them over the head with the fact that they don't identify with the Christian conservative movement. It also demonstrates that Frum suffers from a cognitive disconnect. This... sudden rise of secularism and permissiveness would be shocking if it had just suddenly happened. Frum is conveniently avoiding the fact that this has being happening for a lot longer than he's willing to admit.

Republicans took a beating on the Social Security issue in 2005. But the issue is not going away. And Barack Obama's solution — taxing more income for Social Security — is neither workable nor popular. Personal accounts offer hope for personal wealth to a generation that is increasingly anxious about its economic future. With a relatively small subsidy — $300 per year for workers earning less than $40,000 — a revived Republican personal account plan could guarantee that every American worker would retire a millionaire, even if they never earn more in their lives than minimum wage.

Can you say, Voodoo Economics? Try. Because that's what Frum is offering here. By the way, being a millionaire doesn't mean much if your retirement dollar is only worth 12 percent of the dollars you stored away in the Bank of Bush. Sadly, No! slices and dices it for you.

President Bush's attempts to woo Hispanics via lax immigration policies disastrously backfired, alienating white Republicans without achieving gains among Hispanics.

No... there's still about 20 percent of the population who think Bush is magnificent. Some of them aren't fat, balding older white males.

But we can talk to young blacks and Hispanics as young people, who share economic interests with an entire generation of overtaxed young workers, regardless of race.

Except that you'd be lying to them and they already have that figured out.

Present a sunnier face on social issues. We need to make clear that we defend the family not to impose our values on others, but in order to give the next generation of America's children a fair chance in life.

By imposing their values on others. More Leave It To Beaver!!! No more wardrobe malfunctions. Just boxes and boxes of crunchy wholesome goodness. Led by... the Christian conservative movement. Of course, rather than living with the imposed so-called values of the Republican party everyone could just follow the example they provide.

Children who grow up without their fathers are more likely to go to jail, drop out of school and create fatherless families of their own.

Leap, Frum, leap!! David takes out his junior sociology kit and does what he said he wouldn't do - impose conservative values on others. Never mind that a lot of those familial relationships were abusive - towards women and children - and the children growing up without their fathers under the same roof are safer.

A majority of America's poor children would be lifted out of poverty if their mothers married their fathers.

Need I point out the direction Frum took here? Blame, blame, blame. It's the mothers' fault. OK, let's put this another way. If the mothers were able to effect an education and income which would provide financial security without having to submit themselves to a relationship with an undesirable "father", children would be lifted out of poverty. Of course that would require a lot more effort on the part of government to assure equality. You know, something like an equal rights amendment to the US Constitution. Then you couldn't impose conservative values on everyone.

On abortion, too, it is important that Americans understand that the end of Roe v. Wade does not mean a national abortion ban. Ending Roe means that individual states recover the power to make their own decisions on abortion. We as Republicans need to make it very clear: If California and New York vote to retain abortion rights after Roe, national Republicans won't interfere.

Hidden agenda. The goal of the Republican party is to end the federal force of an entrenched decision. This would leave states, (run by fat, balding, older white males), free to subjugate women in any way they saw fit. Unless they get their secretary pregnant and then they'll ship her off to an "abortion-state" to have the problem dealt with.

Re-emphasize the environment. The voting data suggest that young voters might care less about the environment in reality than they think or say they do. Nevertheless, environmental concern is the price of admission to any kind of discussion with the young.

Even. If. You. Don't. Mean. It. I know!! Let's harness the emanations of this gas-bag. That should provide power enough for a small city.

Above all, results matter. Republicans must avoid the temptation to forget Iraq and the war on terror. As the Iraq situation improves in the months ahead, as the USA continues to enjoy greater security from terrorism, we need to argue the case that it was our policies that delivered these results.

Having described Iraq as a disappointment and embarrassment Frum now flips onto his head to tell us how much of a success it is. Nevermind that the population of "terrorists" has been expanded by the actions of the Republicans, the world is anything but secure, thanks to Bush/Cheney and those motherhood aspects of life which were considered to be the secure domain of Americans are now lodged in China, India and Europe.

Note to Frum: You're not writing for a moron anymore.

SPP : What's good for General Motors ...

Condi Rice, Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa and Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier gave a statement Tuesday following their mini-SPP meeting to discuss the upcoming North American Leaders’ Summit in New Orleans, but only Le Maximator managed to say nothing badly in both official languages.

From the US Dept. of State website : Maxime Bernier :

"So we discussed what is important for our countries. And as you know, we want to ensure that North America is a secure and economically dynamic region.
This is important for us, but this is also important for our citizens."

Why, thank you for noticing, Maxi.

Condi did clear up any worries we might have had that the North American Competitiveness Council has the loudest and only non-gov voice at the SPP talks though :

"This SPP ... is work that bridges all of the important issues: security, trade, prosperity. It also has permitted the leaders to engage the public – the private sector and civil society through the North American Competitiveness Council."

Yup - General Motors, Lockheed Martin, Wal-Mart, General Electric, Chevron, Ford, Canfor, Home Depot, Bell, CN, and PowerCorp - they got your back!

Cross-posted at Creekside

condescending Strikes Again . . . .

Per Reuters:

Top Bush aides approved interrogation tactics: report
Wed Apr 9, 2008 8:20pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's most senior advisers approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" of top al Qaeda suspects by the Central Intelligence Agency, ABC News reported on Wednesday, citing sources it did not name.

ABC reported that the so-called "principals" discussed interrogation details in dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House.

Then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by a select group of senior officials or their deputies, ABC said.

"Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding," ABC reported.

In addition to Rice, the principals at the time included Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft, the report said.

_______________


ABC cited a top official as saying that Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

And condescending is lobbying to be st. mccain's VP candidate.

She's gonna need one hell of a makeover to make that one fly . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Great. Just Great . . . .

From Reuters today:

Florida lawmakers pass take-your-guns-to-work law
Wed Apr 9, 2008 - By Michael Peltier

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

_______________


The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security. (Emphasis mine - Ed.)

Yeah.

Let's be sure to exempt those businesses involved in homeland security.

That would just be wrong.

56 more days 'til we load the U-Haul and get the hell out of here.

But who's counting ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Oh, Joy. Waiting With Bated Breath . . . .

Get out the popcorn.

Reserve your seats.

Per Reuters today, Bennie's heading our way.

Pope aims to heal sex abuse wounds on U.S. trip
Wed Apr 9, 2008 9:27am EDT

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict will seek to heal wounds from a sexual abuse scandal that shook the Catholic Church in the United States, during his first trip there as pontiff next week, the Vatican's number two said.

"The pope will talk about it -- talk about it in a specific way," Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, told Fox News in an interview to be broadcast on Wednesday.

"The pope, along with the Church's priests, will naturally seek the path toward healing and toward reconciliation."

The sexual abuse scandal started in Boston in 2002, when Catholic leaders were discovered to have moved priests who abused minors to new parishes instead of defrocking or reporting them to police.

The scandal later spread to almost every U.S. Catholic diocese.

Last July the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $660 million to 500 victims of sexual abuse dating back as far as the 1940s.

The German-born pope, who visits Washington, New York and will address the United Nations during the April 15-20 trip, will raise the sexual abuse of minors in an address at St. Patrick's Cathedral on April 17, Bertone said.

Whoopee.

Hope his fashion sense has improved . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

The high-minded thing to do

As JJ adeptly points out the failure of the Harperites to impose their own standards in terms of consequences for actions, there is another issue at play.

Harper insists that Regina Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski's recorded remarks of 16 years ago are something Lukiwski regrets and that with his "unqualified apology", the opposition and we the voters should:

"I believe when such an apology and remorse is sought from an individual member, the generous and high-minded thing to do is to accept that apology."

Who sought an apology? The demand has been to remove this individual from his position of public responsibility. Being forced to apologize is not, as JJ points out, sufficient consequences. Further, however, it leaves a gay-bashing bigot in a position of power.

There are 25 parliamentary secretaries in Harper's government. That is fewer people than are employed in the Combat Department of a single Canadian frigate. The average McDonalds franchise employs more people.

Yet, out of a population of over 33 million people, Harper believes that Lukiwski is the person best qualified hold one of those unique twenty-five positions in the country. Out of 127 Conservative MPs on the government benches, Harper can't find one person who could perform the role competently and better represent all Canadians; not just the ones who meet his prejudiced social expectations.

As Bruce points out, the behaviour of Lukiwiski was out of favour among a majority of Canadians when he was recorded in 1991.

By insisting that an apology is sufficient Harper is telling Canadians that he accepts Lukiwiski's behaviour. There is nothing high-minded in that.

Apology not accepted. Nor is Harper's support for this man.

The high-minded thing to would be to ensure that this country is served by the best people possible: those who work for all Canadians. That means ditching the bigots as they surface. Harper's first loyalty should be to the people of this country; not a minority constituency.

Harper's support of Lukiwiski only serves to demonstrate that Harper shares the same views.

And what are the odds that a question has gone out from Sandra Buckler's office to all Conservative MPs asking if any other of them were so dumb in the past as to make intolerant comments into the lens of a charge-couple device?

No permanent bases in Iraq....

Just temporary ones that last forever. (Emphasis mine)

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

And in true Bush fashion the whole ratification process, which requires the approval of the US Senate, is being circumvented.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic Congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.

And having been caught out in the open, the rats start scurrying, looking for a corner.

Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."

Consult. Immediately. Nice try.

This thing looks like it is intended to cover two items in one document. Generally a status of forces agreement follows a mutually agreed upon defence treaty - the former relying on the latter to possess force. But "consult immediately"? And then what?

Oh... I know, the president bypasses Congress and uses the powers provided as Commander in Chief of the armed forces to "defend" US interests. While it doesn't come out and say the US would defend Iraq, the wording doesn't present a case where the US needs a specific invitation.

This would hobble any future president attempting to withdraw from Iraq, if the Iraqis agreed to it and, given the current state of affairs, that isn't likely.

There is however, an interesting line in the document.

Significantly - given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter's close relations with the Iraqi administration's Shia parties - the draft agreement specifies that the "US does not seek to use Iraq territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states".

Right. That's what carrier strike forces and battle groups are for. However, if Iraq is being threatened, in the view of either party, that changes things, doesn't it.

So, when those contractors are tying iron and pouring concrete in Iraq they don't have to worry about meeting a "permanent" standard. Just an "enduring" one.

H/T Cat

The five rings of Beijing

Reporters Without Borders for press freedom has created their own 2008 Beijing Olympics logo.


Yeah. What Cathie says.

(And please tell Frank we'll let him know when it's safe to come out from under his bed.)