The great uniter

In Harper's own words:

I believe we are more united than at any point, than we have been, in four decades

Canadian Prime Minister
Stephen Harper
translated from French
Ottawa
27 June 2007

How he alone is capable of producing that result:

... not all the money went to this ungrateful NDP government in this province

Canadian Prime Minister
Stephen Harper
Kenaston, Saskatchewan
5 July 2007

A small truth about Afghanistan

The next time I hear a colonel, or a general, or even Steve Harper telling us about the "progress" being made in Afghanistan, I'm going to see what other countries are saying before I even come close to believing.

The international community has failed to deliver on its promise to rehabilitate the Afghan army which is still far from able to secure the country, Germany's foreign minister has said.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier told foreign reporters that a commitment made during an international conference in London last year to equip and train 85,000 Afghan soldiers remained unfulfilled.

"Today, we are at a training level of 30,000 men, meaning more than 50,000 short of the objective," he said.

It would have been better if he'd said, "We're achieving our goals."

But he didn't. Funny how we never hear that from Harper and crew.

To the credit of forces on the ground, the police training system is going "better".

As a means to measure security however, the ability to get workers into the Kajaki Dam to get another turbine functioning is a critical benchmark. I wonder how that's going?

(4 July 2007) F-15Es provided a show of force to get insurgents to give up their position near Kajaki Dam. The show of force was reported as successful.

Success can mean many different things. Complete success would mean unfettered access.

Do they have that?

Ask Harper.

At the going down of the Sun, and in the morning...

With respect and condolences to the family and friends of Captain Jefferson Francis, 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.

Ubique

Quo Fas et Gloria Ducun

Mythbusting. The Canadian Armed Forces are not a substitute for jail.

You have to wonder how violent this sexual assault was? What was established is that the offender, a member of the Canadian Forces, did not have the consent of his victim and did try to hide the incident. For that he gets 15 months community service, 18 months probation and a $1,500 fine.

A soldier based at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier outside Quebec City was sentenced Friday to 15 months of community service for sexually assaulting a young woman.

April Reign quite properly questions the leniency of the sentence in this case. I will take on the other point.

Provincial court Judge Carol Saint-Cyr rejected the defence's request for an unconditional discharge, which would have allowed Pte. Pier-Olivier Boulet, 22, to serve a tour in Afghanistan.

Oh yeah! That old chestnut! If jail can be avoided my client will dee-dee on down to the recruiting office and join the army right now. Or, in this case, My client is due to be shipped overseas to a combat zone. He's needed by his country and six months in action will clear up this whole thing and return a better citizen. What say you m'lord?

Not. Fucking. Likely.

Thankfully the judge wasn't buying any of it. When is the myth of "military service or jail" going to die? It is neither a valid defence nor a means of mitigating a sentence. The armed forces is not an alternative to prison/jail/punishment for convicted criminals. In Canada it never really has been, but certainly in the last 40 years most recruiters would turn away anybody with a criminal record, particularly where the offence involved any form of assault. Short assessment: Individuals with that kind of character flaw do not make good soldiers/sailors/airmen.

Then this:

The Department of National Defence will have the final word on whether Boulet is allowed to stay in the Canadian Forces.

Canadian Forces human resources officer Michel Arsenault had told Canadian Press that Boulet was a good soldier in his two years of service, but has a 95 per cent chance of losing his job in the military if he emerged from the trial with a criminal record.

Hold it.

Boulet was convicted in February. There has been plenty of time to appeal the verdict. Whether there was the possibility of a discharge or not, the conviction alone is enough in the Canadian Forces to release an individual under Queen's Regulations and Orders 15.01 item 5(F).

The chance of Boulet having his membership in the Canadian Forces unceremoniously terminated should be closer to 100 percent. In fact, it should have happened already.

At the going down of the Sun, and in the morning...

With respect and condolences to the family and friends of Corporal Jordan Anderson, 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry.

We've always been here Steve. Where have you been?

Scott picked up on this Halifax Daily News editorial from yesterday, repeated in the Star, which questions the angle offered by Harper that somehow Canada is back on the world stage as a major player.

Stephen Harper conveyed a robust and somewhat self-congratulatory message to the country during his Canada Day address on Sunday.

"The news is spreading throughout the world: Canada's back," the Prime Minister said on Parliament Hill. "Canada's back as a vital player on the global stage."

Really? When did we ever go away?

It's not as though the missions in Afghanistan and Haiti began during the watch of Harper's Conservative government. The Conservatives inherited those deployments from the Liberals.

In short, Harper is taking credit for something he didn't do. He is also suggesting that Canada has not been present, or had lost its credibility, in international affairs.

That, of course, is an outright falsehood. What he describes as being a "vital player on the global stage" is, in fact, a sucking up to the worst US presidential administration in history.

Harper's view of being present on the global stage is myopic. He limits the scope of global effectiveness to having troops deployed, (and being killed), and acting as a water-carrier for US foreign policy, the likes of which the majority of that country's own population disagrees with.

Canada, the international player, had developed a strong reputation as an honest broker on the global stage with no interventionist agenda and no imperialist tendencies. Harper's rhetoric diminishes that standing and ignores the occasions in which Canada played a major role in critical diplomatic events.

Pulling one of those events out at random, the change of sovereignty of Hong Kong was almost derailed over the issue of a Court of Final Appeal in that former British colony. Had it not been for the direct actions of the Canadian High Commissioner at the time, Garrett Lambert, the entire process of returning Hong Kong to the Chinese, something both Britain and China wanted, was destined to go sideways. At issue was the establishment of protection and 50 years worth of insulation of Hong Kongese from the politically influenced Supreme Court of China. Lambert saved the day, although he never sought credit for his actions and, until recently, no one has ever asked about it.

Lambert was a senior diplomat, who turned down a posting as ambassador to Australia in 1994 in favour of the more junior post of high commissioner to Hong Kong. He knew it would be the centre of world attention until July 1, 1997 when China took over and that's where he wanted to be.

To understand how Lambert was able to salvage an independent high court for Hong Kong, one has to recall the immense influence Canada wielded at the time in the former British colony.

This is the world stage from which Harper suggests Canada was absent.

In fact, Harper may have it exactly backward. Given that he believes and promotes the concept that global recognition comes only when Canada has a presence on foreign soil with troops staring down rifle sights, and to support any number of unpopular Bush administration foreign policy flops, Canada may actually have a long row to hoe to regain a position of respect among world players. Harper has hitched his wagon exclusively to the globally maligned Bush star.

We will have to work hard to crawl out from under that pile.

With friends like these...

Another friendly fire death confirmed in Afghanistan. It's bad enough when Canadian soldiers are killed by the Taliban, but roughly ten percent of our losses to date have been to the United States military. I know that accidents happen, and that friendly fire deaths have occured in every war, but to lose a tenth of our dead to the people who asked us to go and help them out is unacceptable.

"Coalition of the billing"

Just when you thought the situation in Iraq couldn't produce any more surprizes, along comes a set of newly released figures that shows private contractors in Iraq actually outnumber US uniformed troops.

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns. More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times. Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq. The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq — a mission criticized as being undermanned.

This is the result of the privatization of military functions which were normally carried out by uniformed elements of the armed forces. It's happened in a number of militaries as a cost-cutting measure and, while it works on paper, in peacetime, it places a burden on the military operation.

"These numbers are big," said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written on military contracting. "They illustrate better than anything that we went in without enough troops. This is not the coalition of the willing. It's the coalition of the billing."

You can bet that there are more than a few Bush corporate cronies getting rich off this. But there are actually more civilian contractors on the ground in Iraq than the survey captured. The "private security contractors" escaped scrutiny.

Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.

The mercenaries. Blackwater, Olive, Aegis and Erinys all operate in areas that would have, in the past, been the exclusive function of uniformed combat troops. It is estimated they number in the tens of thousands.

Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts. "We don't have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That's dangerous for our country," said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene."

Further, the State Department is also hiring guns. None of these contractors fall within the military command structure and the mercenaries have been granted virtual immunity for any action they carry out which would be subject to inquiry in a military organization.

Logistics being everything in a war, one of the functions of a uniformed service corps is to keep supplies and essential food, ammunition and spare parts moving to the front. Unless it's been contracted out.

At one point in 2004, for example, U.S. forces were put on food rations when drivers balked at taking supplies into a combat zone.

Because they're not soldiers. One would have to ask how much the head office reckoned to save by not carrying out the mission they were contracted for.

It gets worse, particularly from a military theater commander's point of view.

Adding an element of potential confusion, no single agency keeps track of the number or location of contractors.

Potential confusion?! That's a whole new way to run a theater of operations. Rather than maintain a comprehensive accounting of the location and strength of every theater resource, you just ignore the largest portion.... because you don't really know who or where they are.

Of course, that's in respect of the private contractors providing services in support of the armed forces. The mercenaries are totally out of control.

The number of private security contractors in Iraq remains unclear, despite Central Command's latest census. The Times identified 21 security companies in the Central Command database, deploying 10,800 men. However, the Defense Department's Motsek, who monitors contractors, said the Pentagon estimated the total was 6,000. Both figures are far below the private security industry's own estimate of about 30,000 private security contractors working for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, media outlets and businesses.

So, the CENTCOM database says 10,800, the Pentagon estimates 6,000 and the industry itself estimates 30,000.

The reason for such largely skewed figures is the fact that the Pentagon doesn't employ all the hired guns presently in Iraq. The Pentagon's figure probably doesn't include those mercenaries employed by the State Department, USAID and other government departments. It certainly doesn't account for the armed troops hired by outfits like Kellogg, Brown and Root. The hired guns employed by non-government organizations probably don't show on CENTCOM's figures.

A future post will look further into the mercenary armies in Iraq, particularly Blackwater.

One of the figures rarely exposed is the casualty rate among private contractors in Iraq. When the US military releases casualty figures it includes uniformed troops only. They don't count Iraqis, remember, and they don't include the dead and wounded private contractors.

The death toll for private contractors in the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has topped 1,000, a stark reminder of the risks run by civilians working with the military in roles previously held by soldiers.

A further 13,000 contractors have been wounded in the two separate wars led by the United States against enemies who share fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and the hit-and-run tactics that drain conventional armies.

[...]

The department said it had recorded 990 deaths - 917 in Iraq and 73 in Afghanistan - by the end of March. Since then, according to incident logs tallied by Reuters in Baghdad and Kabul, at least 16 contractors have died in Iraq and two in Afghanistan.

Those killed in Iraq between March 31 and today included four contractors from the Philippines killed in a rocket strike on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone compound, a frequent target of attacks.

The death toll for civilian contractors in Iraq, when compared to US military deaths stands at one-to-four.

And there is a strong indication that any draw-down of US troops in the next year will see a corresponding increase of "private military contractors".

That will make the 1960s mercenary wars of the Belgian Congo look like a playground game.

Update: RezDog in comments pointed me at this article in the NY Times.

Contractors who have worked in Iraq are returning home with the same kinds of combat-related mental health problems that afflict United States military personnel, according to contractors, industry officials and mental health experts.

But, they say, the private workers are largely left on their own to find care, and their problems often go ignored or are inadequately treated.

A vast second army, one of contractors — up to 126,000 Americans, Iraqis and other foreigners — is working for the United States government in Iraq. Many work side-by-side with soldiers and are exposed to the same dangers, but they mostly must fend for themselves in navigating the civilian health care system when they come back to the United States.

Given that the military system is doing less than a stellar job caring for uniformed returning troops, this does not bode well for someone unable to access proper care.

At the going down of the Sun, and in the morning...

With respect and condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Cole Bartsch, 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry; Master Corporal Colin Bason, The Royal Westminster Regiment; Captain Matthew Johnathan Dawe, 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry; Private Lane Watkins, 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry.

Pro Rege et Patria

Scott Taylor is Always Worth Reading

"If the Canadian government does terminate the deployment in 2009 as Harper has indicated, our top commanders will be given a new set of orders. If the objective becomes the safe and efficient repatriation of our troops and equipment with a minimum of disruption to our NATO allies, then I have no doubt whatsoever our army will achieve that goal in a professional, capable manner.

If at that junction a journalist asks a Canadian soldier whether he agrees with the withdrawal, he will dutifully reply, "Yes, I believe in my mission."

Soldiers follow orders and serve their country. It is imperative that we as Canadians ensure that self-sacrificing spirit is not employed in vain."

We and our allies fought WW2 for 6 years. In early '08 we will have been engaged, with NATO, in Afghanistan for an equal number of years.

In WW2 we were fighting 3 fully militarized nation states.

In Afghanistan we're fighting...well, no one seems to be able to say with any consistency.

NATO has become little more than a front for the execution of US foreign policy. NATO is there because the US wants NATO there.

NATO strategies and tactics are determined and directed by the US. Each of the NATO nations participating are doing so as a proxy for the US. Most of them know it and are growing increasingly uncomfortable with it.

Yet we stay.

We are culpable in the deaths of our own citizens who serve in Canada's military as well as the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of Afghanis. All in the service of US foreign policy.

We, you and I, have their blood on our hands.

Blog Against Theocracy II

Everyone expects, these days anyway, for a blog to provide links to something else as a way to support an argument. And that works when all we're doing is to make comment on an event. Something happens, we link to a report, we state an opinion, 50 percent think it's wonderful and insightful; 50 percent think it's right out to lunch.

OK, the split is often not quite that even, but it comes out in the wash.

There will be no links. There will be no quotes. There will be no dragging up someone's blog or website or ideas. Not this time.

Some people have suggested that Blog Against Theocracy is a gathering of atheists bashing religion. And, in fairness to some of those complainants, that may actually happen. I will make every effort to avoid that and, if I fail, understand that I am as human as those who would become critical of my failure to embrace a particular religion.

As a matter of disclosure, I believe in no particular god. In fact, I believe in no god at all. That's not to say that I wasn't indoctrinated at an early age to accept at least one of the world's religious entities. I remember standing in Roman garb as something of a pageboy doing rites around a Roman symbol of execution. But I chose a different path.

I came to believe in democracy.

Strange word that - democracy. There are many different forms of it and many different views. I choose to mix three distinctly different forms: Direct democracy; representative democracy and liberal democracy. In short, the people have a direct say in government, they choose those who will act on their behalf and the minority will be protected from the majority.

Those three forms of democracy, exercised properly allow the voice of the people to be heard, put an executive and legislative body in place and impose limits preventing the individual from being removed of rights.

Religion has a totally different set of tenets. The individual is expected to meet the dogmatic requirements of any particular religion that person has, for whatever reason, agreed to be a member. It goes even further when that religion, for whatever reason, has evolved into segments that, while worshiping the same god, has different rites, different canons of acceptable behaviour and different benchmarks to define religious adherence. Religion, in any form, tends to be stagnant. It is based on ancient beliefs, ancient rituals and a faithful, semi-compliant following.

Clearly, the two, democracy and religion, simply don't mix. Each has its place exclusive of the other.

Free exercise of religion is not an invitation to weave a religious thread through the workings of government. No more than governments which guarantee the free exercise of religion have the right to impose on church doctrine, providing such doctrine does not violate the rule of law.

Simply put, there is nothing preventing religious believers from participating in government. There is something seriously wrong when the religion becomes the participant.

Countries which declare a state religion immediately face the problem of the non-adherent. In countries where the religion is the basis for the canon of laws, behaviour is more controlled, lifestyles are stringently dictated and liberty is curtailed. Minorities, in whatever form, are cast as outsiders. Even in the more tolerant states, the existence of a state religion serves to marginalize any group which does not practice the religious observances dictated or promoted by the state.

In short, the hallmark of governments which impose religion as law is intolerance.

Europe has spent the last four centuries crawling out of the stocks of theocratic government. The 20th Century saw no less than 35 governments disestablish their state religions in favour of completely segregated secular governments. The primary reason for this move was to eliminate the appearance of religious intolerance and allow, not diminish, the free exercise of religion and enhance the rights of individuals.

If people find comfort in their religion I would be the last person to deny them the right to worship. I would however, oppose any suggestion that the religious beliefs of those people be imposed on any individual or group that is not invested in that religion.

Dominionists of all faiths and religions fail acknowledge or choose to ignore the one basic form of democracy which exists to allow them to function - protection of individual liberties. Condemnation of minority groups, not because they are having any ill effect on the state, but because the dominionists find them offensive, is all too prevalent.

Which begs the question: If dominionists are so convinced that non-religious minorities, which cause no harm except to violate the contradictory dictums of ancient texts written for an age long since overtaken by time, what would they do if they occupied the seat of power and someone actually offered them harm?

I suspect we all know the answer to that one.

Happy Birthday America!

Often we get wrapped up in sentiments which cloud our vision. Sometime one just needs to shake that off. We're pretty critical of the Bush administration in the United States. That shouldn't be interpreted as anything other than it is: criticism of Bush and his cronies.

Today is a day for Americans. I lived in the U.S. for a while. Regardless of what anyone else thinks of it, I still have a love for San Diego, even after they got rid of the Fleet Landing.

I have some great friends in the States. Among them is a guy named Casey, who still owes me 20 bucks after a run ashore in Hong Kong. More recently however, we've made other friends and they represent the America I know.

They are Skippy who gave us Blogtopia; Cap'n Dyke who runs a tight ship; Jill who's Brilliant at Breakfast; Not Your Mama from the Nevada desert; Jon Swift shining a light on the "conservative" view; Blue Gal who just plain rocks; Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis; the crew at LGM; Mike the Mad Biologist and PZ Myers the octopus loving scientist; Tengrain at MPS; Mimus Pauly and the flock at Mocking Bird's Medley; Moderate Man who knows the sound of a speeding bullet; Mary Scott O'Connor who gave us a place in the blogosphere from day one; Cernig who digs through the trough for the good stuff; Dave at the incomparable Orcinus; Pam at the coffee house; Amanda and crew at Pandagon; the amazing gang at Shakesville; the incredible TBogg; the overly manly and original Jesus' General; The Agonist; Orc from down Oregon way; Rez Dog who can cut through it all; Jurassic Pork from a place called Pottersville; our own Moving To Vancouver; Marisacat taking on the orange machine; John, Mike and crew at Crooks and Liars; the incisive Driftglass; the crew at The Group News Blog; and, although he's no longer with us, Steve, who provided inspiration.

And that list is just a sample.

They, and thousands of others, represent the America I know. They are the ones who will always fight to keep what the 56 created. They deserve today.

Happy Independence Day!

"Shut up and stop trying to censor me"

Shut up and stop trying to censor me
Censorship and free speech seems to be a slippery concept for some people. Bill O'Rielly's schtick is yelling at guests he disagrees with to shut up and having their microphones cut off, but when Media Matters reruns his racist hateful facist crapola and criticizes him for it, he accuses them of trying to censor him, calls them the worst people in the world, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm all for letting anyone say anything they want, but if the nazis want to march, they better be ready to be met by a massive countermarch. If Wingnuts want to talk trash on the radio they better be ready to be universally mocked.

I also believe that media outlets using the public airwaves have a responsibililty to present opposing views and give equal time in a fair way.

CC over at Canadian Cynic has been going around and around with a two of a group of total jackasses his policy of removing people from his blogroll if they also blogroll the aforementioned jackasses. Which I think is reasonable -- If someone on my blogroll started blogrolling Stormfront or Free Republic (no way in hell am I linking to either one here, if you need to look at them, go find'em yourself) I'd drop them like a bad habit.

You have the right to post whatever you want on your blog, but I have the right to criticize you for it on my blog and even to come and criticize you for it on your blog comments. But once I've made my point in the comments, if I continue to be a boring pain in the ass, it is no longer valid criticism -- its trolling and i deserve whatever I get, whether it is countertrolls on my blog, being banned from your comments, being told to shut up and get lost etc etc.

I wouldn't deny racist fuckwits like Right Girl and Kathie Shaidle the right to say whatever hateful idiotic dumbass thing they want on their blogs, but they need to expect that they will be made turned into social pariahs, universally mocked and despised for it. Free speech has consequences, you are responsible for what you say, so if you say something stupid, expect an earful for it.

That is not censorship. Censorship is when the government comes along and makes you shut down your blog, or bans you from having a computer/printing press/radio station, or makes it illegal to mention certain things or talk to certain people. Media organizations self-censor every day. That's why you won't see the headline "President fucks up again" in the New York Times.

In Japan, as in Canada, there is no official government censorship. The government often doesn't release embarrassing information, even when requested, but more influential on media self-censorship is the chilling effect of the violent right wing extremists. Their intimidation, combined with a lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the media and a do-nothing attitude on the part of a sometimes sympathetic police force mean you will never see a Japanese newspaper write negative things about the imperial family, conservative politicians or the right-wing extremists. People have gotten killed for it and the mainstream media here is unwilling to take the chance. So there is no examination of the "Nanjing Massacre Incident" or the sexual enslavement of tens of thousands of women by the Japanese Military the possibly forcible recruitment of some women to serve as comfort women, most of whom volunteered

In North America the chill comes from fear of losing business. I have some personal experience with this: I was once fired from a small newspaper for publishing stories about a local politician and businessman who was also a major advertiser. (I sued the publisher, we settled and no, I won't elaborate.) This was not censorship, this was just cowardice on the part of the publisher.

Big companies that own media outlets don't like to see stories critical of them or their favorite politicians. Izzy Asper centralized editorial control of their papers at one point. Conrad Black simply cut half the editorial staff at his papers (thus scaring the hell out of the other half and making them afraid to offend the boss) as a 'money-saving measure' .It doesn't have to be heavy handed. Often it is simply a publisher or editor worrying about pissing the owner.

At one place I worked, the owner was well-known to be a tory, the local MP was a tory and a buffoon, but we shied away from reporting on his buffoonery because we knew it would lead us to grief with our boss, not for any specific act, but we knew how unpleasant she could make things for us.

Big media outlets know that if they self-censor too much, they cease to be interesting. If they slant the news too much, they lose credibility. Fox News has had a good run, but unless they start pandering to the left when the political pendulum swings the other way, or actually try to become a neutral news organization, they will be out of business. Democrats refusing to be interviewed and businesses refusing to advertise will hasten that process. Wingnuttery still abounds there, but as the conservative movement totters toward smoking ruin, their days are number. You can already see some of their pundits trying to distance themselves from Bush.

Bloggers refusing to link to, blogroll or read idiots will hasten the departure of the idiots from blogtopia or at least marginalize them and grind away the veneer of respectability some of them have acquired. Eventually that means if they want to have a conservative blogger on TV it won't be Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix (nicknamed by Pretty Shaved Ape at Canadian Cynic) or the Bush worshipping dingbats from Powerline.

So let us rejoice in the chaotic nature of the blogosphere and speak our minds while remembering that in doing so we have a responsibility not to make stuff up, spread lies or generally behave like assholes. And we have a duty to fight irresponsible hate-mongering stupidity wherever it is on the political spectrum.

It's suppertime and phone is ringing. Guess who?

Back in 2004 David Emerson, then a Liberal cabinet minister, introduced legislation establishing a Do-Not-Call list intended to ward of those irritating telemarketers. Canadians rejoiced in the possibility of a more peaceful evening meal, free of people selling everything from time-share condominiums to political party memberships.

Until it never happened.

Now, apparently, the CRTC is prepared to move on the 2 1/2 year-old legislation.

The telecommunications regulator has taken the first steps toward establishing a long-awaited do-not-call list for phone-weary Canadians fed up with those pesky, unsolicited calls from telemarketers. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced Tuesday it will call for proposals later this month for bids from private, independent operators - two-and-a-half years after the legislation was tabled.

Once a provider is up and running, Canadians who prefer not to receive unsolicited calls will be able to add their numbers to the database free of charge. Telemarketers face significant penalties for failing to follow the dictates of the list.

Then-Liberal industry minister David Emerson - now the Tory trade minister - first tabled the legislation in December 2004. A report on the CRTC's public consultation was filed last July.

So, why has it taken so long? Do you really have to ask?

"This unconscionable delay is part of a larger trend of Ottawa failing to set reasonable ground rules to protect Canadians from unwanted marketing," Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote recently.

The Liberals aren't off the hook on this one. While the Conservatives have done almost nothing on this file, the Liberals allowed it to wallow around in obscurity. The CRTC felt they didn't have the proper guidelines nor the enforcement authority to deal with the problem.

They still don't. Because if you think putting your name and number on any future Do-Not-Call list will make the persistent pests in the telemarketing world go away, think again. Geist in the Star:

Lobbying pressures substantially altered the bill, however, as Members of Parliament introduced new exceptions for charities, political parties, polling companies, newspapers and businesses with existing business relationships. The rationale for these exceptions ranged from saving Canadian charities to freedom of the press.

Existing business relationships.

Geist says that means travelers who spend one night in a hotel can be called by the hotel chain for the next 18 months.

That is a mild example. Any time you do business, if you leave a name and/or telephone number, you have granted tacit permission to be contacted by a telemarketer.

There is a way to deal with these disturbing calls. Here's a classic example:

The Ultimate Revenge On A Telemarketer

Even if the Do-Not-Call registry ever gets off the ground, it probably won't provide much relief.

"The exceptions unquestionably undermine the effectiveness of the do-not-call registry," Geist said, adding some have dubbed what remains as "the do-not-hesitate-to-call" registry.

Blunt works. No discussions, no long harangues, no quarter.

It wasn't about mercy

George W Bush is not a merciful man. In fact, all his past behaviour has suggested the complete opposite. He lacks the necessary conscience to actually perform an act of mercy, behave in any way charitable or empathize with anybody outside his own tight circle of well-to-do brats. Even then, if he feels the slightest bit threatened, or is advised that he is feeling threatened, (Yes. There is a distinct difference there.), he is more than willing to throw a "friend" under the bus.

While intellectually lazy, Bush is dissociated from events even when he has a direct hand in them. He eliminates his complicity in anything and everything which might cast him in a role from which he would have to take anything close to personal responsibility.

When Canadian troops were killed by a free-lance bombing mission conducted by US forces in April 2002, Bush provided no statement at all until directly questioned by a reporter. His response was little more than a shoulder-shrug. Shit happens; no big deal; fog of war. Mercy requires empathy and Bush is simply not equipped to muster that kind of inner-strength.

What is amazing, however, is how the Bush cargo-culture is describing the commutation of Scooter Libby's 30 month jail term as an act of mercy.

It is no act of mercy. Bush knows the meaning of the word only when it is something he might be compelled to beg for himself.

No. This is a blatant and predictable act of ass-covering.

Marc MacDonald details the history of George W Bush's merciful behaviour. It is and remains an empty page.

Chet puts out another brief history on "how things work" which explains how mercy simply does not enter the equation.

Both are well worth reading.

And those attempting to paint Bush as anything close to "merciful" share in advancing one of the worst criminal enterprises to ever run a developed country.

Sometimes Circumstances Change . . . .

Looks like he has opted to not abide by his own guidelines back when he assumed the office in 2001.

The times they are a changin' . . . .


(Cross-Posted at "Moving to Vancouver")

In the spirit of Steve Gilliard

Some of the former guest bloggers at the late Steve Gilliard's News Blog have gotten together and started the Group News Blog in memory of Steve. From their sidebar:

Blogging because if we didn't, Steve» would totally kick our asses. RIP, Brother. And eff the effing Yankees.

Fight on people. Fight on!

Now drag his ass into as many hearings as you can...

And after each piece of testimony ask, "You've been convicted for lying before, Mr. Libby. Are you lying again now?"

The Decider has decided that Scooter Libby was just too much of a good Republican white-boy to be allowed to go to jail. Forget the jury; forget the conservative judge; forget the law; forget the position of trust that has been violated. IOKIYAR. From the LA Times:

President Bush today wiped away the prison sentence of convicted former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, saying it was an "excessive" punishment for a "first-time offender with years of exceptional public service." On the day that Libby's last bid to stay out of prison was rejected by an appeals court, Bush said he decided to act - not to pardon Libby of the crime, but to commute his 30-month sentence. Bush's action spares frees Libby from prison, but it does not erase his conviction. It "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby," Bush said, which will likely mean a loss of his license to practice law. Libby also must still serve two years' probation and pay a $250,000 fine.

So the question now is, what nasty little bit of crap was Libby promising to spill about the Bush administration? Take careful note: This is not a reduction in the prison sentence. This is a prison sentence which has been completely eliminated.

Talk Left has a great analysis of this event including the statement from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Cookie Jill has more.

The criminal enterprise just keeps on getting better, doesn't it?

#$%$$&'%%$# memes

okay, I'll play along, having inflicted memes on others, possibly this crew, in the past. Since the eight rules have already been posted I'll progress straight to the personal expose:
1. I shave my head every summer --and I'm due for a haircut very soon.
2. I have lived in Japan for ten years (TEN YEARS!) and still speak a minimum of Japanese due to my own laziness
3. I can cook and have done so professionally.
4. I love to sail and canoe, but have done neither for ten years
5. Despite my love for the internets, I dislike cats, being allergic to them and oppose them as pets.
They can look after themselves and should, unlike dogs who have a burning need to look after us.
6. I can sing, and play guitar and harmonica, and have done so professionally with an absolutly justifiable minmum of success. My brief professional career as a performer is the source of my nickname.
7. The rather showy scars on my wrist come from slamming and putting my arm through a screened door as a child, not some monsterous personal demons, I don't really have a lot demons, having had a pretty happy childhood, aside from the aforementioned door slamming, which stemmed from my own stubborness over which shoes my mother wanted me to wear.

8. While recognizing his many faults, I think Pierre Trudeau was the greatest prime minister our country has ever had, and a whole classification of zoological strata above the current crop of petty politicos.

Happy Birthday Canada

One hundred and forty years ago today the British North America Act of 1867 came into effect, superseding the Act of Union of 1840. With the colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada (Ontario and Quebec), the Dominion of Canada was formed.

The term "Confederation" was and is used, although Canada then and today is not actually a confederation. It is a federal state.

It remained a British dominion and lacked legislative independence. That would not come until December 11th, 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. With that Act, Canada's position in the British Empire changed. It was, for all intents and purposes an independent country and could, if the parliament of Canada approved, withdraw from any arrangement with the Crown and the British Commonwealth, however, there was still a legislative hook which remained with Britain.

At the time in 1931 when several British Empire parliaments were debating the merits of assuming more powers of independence, Canada was having difficulty determining a constitutional amending formula among the provinces. Despite the independence provided by the Statute of Westminster, the guarantor of the division of powers between provinces and the federal state remained in Britain. Constitutional amendments remained in the hands of Westminster; not Ottawa.

That changed in 1982 when the British North America Act was patriated to Canada and renamed the Constitution Act of 1867. At that time, Canada's status as a fully independent nation was formalized.

It's a slow process, apparently. And if anyone thinks it was peaceful I would recommend getting back to the history books.

Happy Birthday, Canada!