Cheney owns Pakistan's problem

At about this point it's worth looking at an aspect of the situation in Pakistan and how a lot of the problem emanates from the halls of the Bush administration. It would be easy to pull out one of the news or opinion columns from after Musharraf's imposition of emergency powers, but this one goes back to June 2007.

It is also worth keeping in mind that George W. Bush himself is well over his head when it comes to anything akin to foreign policy, planning, geopolitics and the like. In fact, he's over his head when he gets out of bed. It's also worth remembering that Bush has no background in anything resembling foreign relations and that when asked, back before the 2000 US federal election, Bush was unable to answer a question as to the name of the president of Pakistan. He didn't know much then and he doesn't know much now.

It's also worth noting that in every instance where there has been a problem in South Asia, Dick Cheney has been deeply involved. There have also been indications that the US State Department has allowed all the expertise they once had on Pakistan to atrophy. This was the warning provided by Ahmed Rashid, June 17, 2007:

Pakistan is on the brink of disaster, and the Bush administration is continuing to back the man who dragged it there. As President Pervez Musharraf fights off the most serious challenge to his eight-year dictatorship, the United States is supporting him to the hilt. The message to the Pakistani public is clear: To the Bush White House, the war on terrorism tops everything, and that includes democracy.

That warning was issued after the March 9th dismissal by Musharraf of the chief justice of Pakistan's supreme court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry resulted in Pakistanis starting an uprising against the rule of Prevez Musharraf.

Thousands of lawyers nationwide, looking like penguins in their courtroom black suits and white shirts, braved police batons and the heat to lead marches. They were joined by women's groups, journalists and the opposition. For the first time in two decades, Pakistan's civil society has taken to the streets.

And it all goes back to the deal that was made by the United States with Pakistan suggesting they were an ally in the bumper-sticker called the "Global War on Terror".

The roots of the crisis go back to the blind bargain Washington made after 9/11 with the regime that had heretofore been the Taliban's main patron: ignoring Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al-Qaeda and cut the Taliban loose. Today, despite $10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, that bargain is in tatters; the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda's senior leadership has set up another haven inside Pakistan's chaotic border regions.

Then we get to the rub, because in June we knew that the US was completely deficit in working knowledge of the region. The Bush administration had allowed its South Asia knowledge base to wither.

The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan. Retired American officials say that, for the first time in U.S. history, nobody with serious Pakistan experience is working in the South Asia bureau of the State Department, on State's policy planning staff, on the National Security Council staff or even in Vice President Cheney's office. Anne W. Patterson, the new U.S. ambassador to Islamabad, is an expert on Latin American "drugs and thugs"; Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, is a former department spokesman who served three tours in Hong Kong and China but never was posted in South Asia. "They know nothing of Pakistan," a former senior U.S. diplomat said.

And now, the kicker.

Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department.

No one in Foggy Bottom seems willing to question Cheney's decisions. Boucher, for one, has largely limited his remarks on the crisis to expressions of support for Musharraf. Current and retired U.S. diplomats tell me that throughout the previous year, Boucher refused to let the State Department even consider alternative policies if Musharraf were threatened with being ousted, even though 2007 is an election year in Pakistan. Last winter, Boucher reportedly limited the scope of a U.S. government seminar on Pakistan for fear that it might send a signal that U.S. support for Musharraf was declining. Likewise, I'm told, he has refused to meet with leading opposition figures such as former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf has exiled.

[...]

With Cheney in charge and Rice in eclipse, rumblings of alarm can be heard at the Defense Department and the CIA. While neither agency is usually directly concerned with decision-making on Pakistan, both boast officers with far greater expertise than the White House and State Department crew. These officers, many of whom have served in Islamabad or Kabul, understand the double game that Musharraf has played -- helping the United States go after al-Qaeda while letting his intelligence services help the Taliban claw their way back in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and the CIA have been privately expressing concern about the lack of an alternative to blind support for Musharraf. Ironically, both departments have historically supported military rulers in Pakistan. They seem to have learned their lesson.

Once again, the hand of Dick Cheney is found stuck in the middle of a fiasco pie. Instead of promoting scholarship and sound planning at the State Department, Cheney runs the show based on his personal knowledge. He has clearly rejected the expertise of the CIA - again.

Once again, a monumental failure in foreign affairs falls squarely in the laps of Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. This time, however, they are playing footsie from their offices with a nuclear power. An unstable nuclear power.

The US military pays up... finally

After years of denying the incident ever took place, the US Army has agreed to compensate three British military policemen and their interpreter to the cumulative tune of $650,000 US.

The Pentagon has agreed to pay more than £300,000 in compensation to British soldiers who were seriously injured when their vehicle was in a collision with a US tank convoy on an Iraqi road. The landmark decision is the first time that the US military has offered money to British troops injured by US forces after admitting liability.

In the civilian world this would cause no more than a shoulder shrug. However, for a military, particularly in a combat, engaging an ally in a legal suit is virtually unheard of. Things like blue-on-blue engagements and road accidents get written off to the "fog of war". This is a first.

Corporal Jane McLauchlan, Staff Sergeant James Rogerson, Corporal Stephen Smith and their interpreter, Khalid Allahou, have been told they will receive collective compensation of £320,000 from the US authorities after the accident more than four years ago. Initially, the American military denied it had any record of the incident. Later it emerged that the collision had been officially recorded at the time. Lawyers for the British troops have accused the US authorities of attempting to 'dump' their inquiry in a move to block the compensation claim, the first private action involving coalition allies in Iraq.

Michael Doyle, a personal injury lawyer for Houston-based firm Doyle Raizner which took the case against the Pentagon, said the claimants were relieved their ordeal was over. 'They only ever wanted the US to admit fault. After years of denying such an incident even occurred, they have now admitted liability for what happened. As far as we can tell, this is the first and only time the US has paid out to British troops.'

The incident was a collision between a US armoured column and a single British military police Land Rover. A US Army tank transporter hit the Land Rover from behind, twice, before running it off the road. Three of the four in the Land Rover at the time are still suffering from injuries which included skull fractures, brain damage, organ damage, spinal fractures and numerous broken bones. Only one of the four was ever returned to duty.

Personally, I don't think the compensation was at all adequate, however at least something is being done in their favour.

Now, the question remains, does this mean that British and Canadian troops who have been bombed and shot up by US forces have a claim against the US government?

You're not going to like this answer. NO.

US forces, in fact most western countries, claim combat immunity in such cases. Even if a clear "right and wrong" can be established, any incident involving combat action is legally unassailable.

So, while this is a new angle on dealing with compensation of allied forces, the focus is more on the fact that it occurred more as a road accident than as an error resulting from combat.

There is little likelihood that the US military would be inclined to even entertain the idea of addressing compensation for incidents like the US air attack on Canadian troops in April 2002 or again in September 2006, despite the fact that negligence on the part of the US pilots was clearly established.

Michael Doyle, the American personal injury lawyer who took the case of the British military police in an action against the US Army, pointed out that because of the nature of the incident he was able to avoid the claim of combat immunity.

... he had secured the £320,000 payout by using the US Foreign Claims Act, which provides compensation for death or injuries caused by non-combat activities of US military personnel.

That makes this lawyer pretty swept up. That particular act is normally applied when a member of the local population is injured or is seeking a remedy for the actions of US military personnel located in overseas bases. An example would be a tank on the German autobahn hitting a civilian vehicle. It's never been successfully applied to an incident between allied combatant forces "in theatre".

Hat tip to reader Southern Quebec

Weblog Awards voting linky

So, here we are again! You can click on the graphic and it will take you to your voting spot. Remember, it's once every 24 hours, so if you don't get a voting pad it's because the change from Daylight Savings Time has screwed things up. It means you'll have to return later and try again.

You did turn back your clocks, didn't you? (If you are in Saskatchewan you do something different. Turn your clocks back 24 hours and advance the date by one day.)

While they gazed in the mirror and admired their new shoes...

Ready?

I agree with Cernig. Musharraf took the action he took as a means to prevent a power sharing arrangement with Benazir Bhutto. By engineering a situation which brought about martial law and removing the Pakistani Supreme Court from the bench (installing a loyalist in place), Musharraf has effectively shut down any chance for any democracy in Pakistan.

There is every reason to believe, despite the rhetoric falling out of the mouth of Condoleeza Rice, that democracy was less than attractive to the White House. Musharraf, for all his difficulty, remains at the head of a mostly secular administration. Open the door to democracy in Pakistan and the door opens to possible radical Islamic control. One of the worst possible situations they could imagine would be something similar to the January 2006 Hamas victory in democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority. That was bad enough, but to repeat that in Pakistan, replete with nuclear weapons would be viewed as disasterous.

At least one source feels Musharraf acted with the concurrence of the Bush administration.

A former Indian Intelligence Bureau chief said General Musharraf would have taken permission from the United States before imposing emergency in Pakistan.

Speaking to rediff.com, Ajit Doval said the mute reaction of the United States clearly showed the US could have given permission.

That's entirely possible, however that suggests that the Bush administration actually has a handle on what is happening in Pakistan. Given the poor diplomatic performance of the Bush administration on just about any issue, I think they're standing there holding their crotches waiting for a stall to become available. And I'm not the only one.

Stephen P. Cohen of the Brooking Institution is the director of that group's South Asia program and had this to say.

Cohen when informed that the Bush Administration was essentially scrambling to get a fix on the situation in Pakistan, said it was largely due to its not having a coherent policy on Pakistan or a well-developed and permanent team of experts on Pakistan within the Administration.

"It was always a top-down policy and we dealt with Musharraf and assumed that he would deal with Pakistan," he said. "And from day one, the US government mis-estimated his ability to control events in Pakistan," he added, and argued, "Frankly, I haven't seen much in the way of intelligence analysis of Pakistan. We don't have that much expertise in this country because policy was all made on an eyeball to eyeball basis by the President and Musharraf and that's one of the prices you pay when you have highly personalised diplomacy."

The Bush administration, cheering for the return of Benazir Bhutto, demonstrating its elementary-school understanding of foreign affairs, was possessed of the belief that Benazir would be the silver bullet which caused a democratization of Pakistan. It probably never crossed their minds that Bhutto and Musharraf cannot stand each other.

So, either way, we have another fiasco erupting from the mis-estimation of Condoleeza Rice and the lack of depth in the Bush administration.

So unclear and unaware were they that Admiral William Fallon, Commander of U.S. Central Command, in Pakistan to offer troops to assist the Pakistani army in the Afghan border region and to warn against the imposition of martial law, was not even out of the country when Musharraf issued the constitutional order declaring a state of emergency.

Unless Fallon was carrying a different message we haven't heard about yet.

In any case, Musharraf is going to need more than the imposition of martial law to regain control of Pakistan. And if he converts himself to a pure military dictator Pakistan will probably spin right out of control.

Pakistan now under martial law

Umm, Ms. Rice? Over there. Apparently Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf didn't listen to you. He did it anyway.

The Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, declared a state of emergency on Saturday night, suspending the country’s Constitution, blacking out all independent television news reports and filling the streets of the capital with police officers and soldiers.

Not that this is unexpected. Musharraf has been threatened from several quarters as to the legitimacy of his presidency - which he first acquired by doing what he just did now. (Does this mean that he just pulled off a coup d'etat on himself?)

The move appeared to be an effort by General Musharraf to reassert his fading power in the face of growing opposition from the country’s Supreme Court, civilian political parties and hard-line Islamists. Pakistan’s Supreme Court was expected to rule within days on the legality of General Musharraf’s re-election last month as the country’s president, which opposition groups have said was improper.

Keep very much in mind that this is a country which, as unstable as it now appears, has nuclear weapons.

The emergency declaration was in direct defiance of repeated calls this week from senior American officials, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, not to do so. A day earlier, the senior American military commander in the Middle East, Admiral William J. Fallon, told General Musharraf and his top generals in a meeting here that declaring emergency rule would jeopardize the extensive American financial support for the Pakistani military.

Not that Musharraf appears to have much interest in either the Pakistan constitution or that country's supreme judiciary, but this is germane:

Analysts said the emergency-rule decree in effect was the declaring of martial law, because there were no constitutional provisions allowing for such an order. “This is the imposition of real military rule, because there is no Constitution and Pakistan is being run under provisional constitutional order issued by Musharraf as the army chief, not as the president of Pakistan,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, an expert on Pakistani military affairs.

Whatcha gonna do now, George, Dick and Condi? You've been propping this little tin-pot prick up for longer than was healthy.

Visa®. The new health care system.

US Senators Mel Martinez (R-Fl) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) have introduced "compromise" legislation to the State Children's Health Insurance Program since the original bill to expand the program was vetoed by George W. Bush.

The debate in Washington over the State Children Health Insurance program (SCHIP) has reached a fever pitch. Even as the House of Representatives has sustained President Bush's veto, congressional Democrats and their supporters on the outside vow to pass the same bill again and force a repeat performance. This will no doubt be accompanied by the same kind of propaganda we have seen over the last few weeks, including the shameless use of children as political props.

A Republican is complaining about propaganda. That's a little rich. Martinez is formerly Bush's Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Want to discuss how much good HUD did during that period?

A profile of Martinez that ran last year in Orlando magazine derided the importance of HUD, and quoted from a National Journal report card of Cabinet members that gave Martinez an overall C, but an A for carrying out the president’s political agenda.

Anyway, what are Martinez and DeMint proposing?

Rather than expand the government-run SCHIP program to cover middle-income children in homes making more than $80,000 a year (which will include over 70% of America's children), our plan reauthorizes SCHIP to ensure poor children continue to receive health care. The plan goes further to tackle the problem of the uninsured by providing a tax credit to middle class families for their children's health insurance.

Nice move. To get the tax credit you must purchase private health insurance. So who gets that tax credited money? Not the taxpayer. Say, insurance company.

This would allow families to purchase health plans for their kids that they choose, rather than being handed a one-size-fits-all Washington-run plan. Another benefit of this approach is that unlike the Democrat's SCHIP proposal, our plan would not force children off private insurance and onto government plans. By turning patients into shoppers we will inject more choice and competition into the health care market resulting in more competitive prices for health care premiums.

Milton Friedman would be so proud.

All told, the tax credit approach provides health care to 10.5 million children whereas the Democrat SCHIP plan forces 1.2 million kids onto government rolls. Through this innovative approach we offer better coverage to far more.

Bovine Scatology. In the 2006 fiscal year alone 6.9 million children received coverage. The bill to expand that coverage (HR 976) would have provided coverage for 4 million additional children by 2012. That's almost 11 million receiving coverage through a state single-payer system.

But why quibble? A Pennsylvania-based health insurance company has the answer. Give the gift of an ambulance ride, a visit to the doctor or even a stay in the hospital to someone for Christmas.

Highmark Inc. launched a new product today, the Healthcare Visa^® Gift Card. The card provides an easy way for consumers and recipients to cover out-of-pocket expenses related to maintaining personal health and wellness.

This first-of-its kind Healthcare Gift Card can be used for a variety of purchases, including co-pays for doctor visits, prescriptions, vision care, dental care, health club memberships and elective procedures. The use of the card is limited to health and wellness merchants where Visa debit cards are accepted.

Geez, that makes it hard to decide, doesn't it? Do I give a gift card from Home Depot™ so that Uncle Bob can get that fancy new sliding compound miter saw, or should I give a Healthcare Visa® Gift Card to deal with that looming myocardial infarction to which I am sure he will finally succumb? Is there a chance one will give you a tax credit?

I don't fault Highmark or Visa for this new product, but the when a national health care system is little more than a market commodity, sometimes the compound miter saw wins.

And, there's this little line from DeMint:

It's time that we be very honest with ourselves about the debate we are engaged in. We are either going to move down the path of Washington-run health care that has proven disastrous in countless European nations ...

Now, who's propagandizing? DeMint falls a tad short in his editorial by failing to name one European country. But the fact that he and Martinez are scrambling to come up with something, anything, to push back against the demand for increased single-payer health care indicates that at least one country does have a disasterous system - the U.S.

In Canada or Europe the debate over their health care crises focuses on rising costs or deteriorating services. It is never reduced to an "us" and "them" situation. Or if it is, the "them" in the Canadian or European debate means the government.

"Them" in the United States health care wrangle means the Medicaid and Medicare recipients plus the working poor. "Us" is the blue-collar and white-collar worker, already staggering under tax burdens the wealthy are excused from paying.

Unless someone gives you one of those new Visa® Gift Cards.

Weblog Awards voting thingy

As promised, here is a daily link to the 2007 Weblog Awards. To get to the somewhat obscure category where you'll find The Galloping Beaver, click on this link or on the graphic in the upper left corner of the post.

Also promised was a list of the finalists I believe deserve support.

Best Blog: You decide. I don't think the best blog is there. (And no, I don't mean us).

Best Individual Blogger: Lindsay Beyerstein.

Funniest Blog: Toss up between Jon Swift and Sadly, No! I'm going with Jon Swift.

Best Liberal Blog: They're all good. I can't decide.

Best Conservative Blog: If you must. Just remember, Michelle Malkin, Powerline and Ace of Spades are in this category.

Best Political Coverage: RealClearPolitics (I will, one day, provide my reasons for that)

Best Science Blog: Pharyngula, hands down. I don't know how some of the others in that category even qualified as science blogs.

Best Video Blog: Crooks and Liars.

Best Canadian Blog: Scott's DiaTribes or Apply-Liberally. Or you can vote strategically and try to put SDA out of the top spot.

Best of the top 250: Balloon Juice.

Best of the top 251 - 500: TBogg.

Best of the top 501 - 1000: The Poorman Institute or The Smirking Chimp.

Best of the top 1001 - 1750: Newshoggers

Best of the top 2501 - 3500: Driftglass

Best of the top 3501 - 5000: Whether we're the best or not, I'm voting for The Galloping Beaver. (Currently polling 3rd).

Best of the top 5001 - 6750: Simply Left Behind.

That's not an exhaustive list, but it will give you some reading should you suddenly get bored.

Is Canada still "No Nukes!" ? - Part II

Politics 'n Poetry noticed that Canada abstained on a UN vote on depleted uranium two days ago.

UN : "The Assembly, taking into consideration the potential harmful effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment, would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and relevant international organizations on the subject and to submit a report to the Assembly at its next session."

Not a ban on the use of DU, mind you - just a resolution asking for further study.
It passed 122 in favour, with 6 against and 35 abstentions. Canada was one of those abstentions.

WTF? What could we possibly have against studying the 'potential' dangers of DU...

UN : "The representative of the United States said that she would vote “no” on draft resolution “L.18/Rev.1”. That draft called for action by the Secretary-General, based on the harmful environmental and health effects of depleted uranium. The draft ignored scientific information on that subject. That subject had been investigated by the Defence Department, NATO and UNEP, among others, and none of those studies had documented environmental or health effects of those munitions."

So. The US Defense Dept investigated DU, didn't find any health or environmental problems, and so the rest of us should just shut up about it. DU is apparently the new AGW.
In all, there were 13 resolutions on nukes and the US voted against all of them.

Canada also abstained on a resolution to "recognize that the maintenance of nuclear weapons systems at a high level of readiness increased the risk of the use of such weapons, including the unintentional or accidental use" ~ 124 in favour to 3 against with 34 abstentions; and a "Vote on Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace" ~ 120 in favour to 3 against with 45 abstentions

Is Canada still "No nukes!" Six weeks ago, UBC Prof. Michael Byers noted that the message on Canada's Foreign Affairs and Int Trade website calling for "the complete elimination of nuclear weapons...through steadily advocating national, bilateral and multilateral steps" had been amended to say that Canada's nuclear weapons policy is now "consistent with our membership in NATO and NORAD, and in a manner sensitive to the broader international security context."

Uh - oh.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Capital punishment IS a part of the Harper agenda

So, let's get this straight. Harper believes that the death sentence is appropriate in some cases. He said so.

"The reality of this particular case is that were we to intervene, it would very quickly become a question of whether we are prepared to repatriate a double-murderer to Canada. In light of this government's strong initiatives on tackling violent crime, I think that would send the wrong signal to the Canadian population."

Read that again.

So, this isn't about the sovereignty of the state of Montana. This isn't about whether Montana observes the rule of law. This is about the Harper government's desire to send a message to Canadians: capital punishment is justified. Period.

Then, to add to that view, Stockwell Day, inserted this into the argument:

"We have an approach of tackling crime, of tackling violent crime and our messages need to be consistent with that," Mr. Day told reporters.

Again, this isn't about some other jurisdiction. This is, according to Day and Harper, about our jurisdiction.

Harper and Day have just linked their "violent crime" agenda with capital punishment.

That thing you see sliding under long standing Canadian values is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge. The Harper hidden agenda.

Now go read what Chet has to say.

Cheryl throwing in her two bits worth:

I have more than a few problems with Harper’s statement.

a) As a past president of the local chapter of Amnesty International, this is a deep violation of everything I believe in. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only Canadian that feels that way

b) This is nothing more than a backdoor method to institute capital punishment on Canadians – if Canadians won’t let us kill our own, we’ll let others do the killing for us. Brings a whole new meaning to “outsourcing”

c) The part about sending “the wrong signal to the Canadian population” is offensive, demeaning, and paternalistic. Memo to Harper: you are an elected politician, therefore, you don’t send us the signals…we, the people, send YOU the signals and you act upon OUR wishes. And the last time I checked, I couldn’t hear any great Canadian groundswell demanding the re-institution of the death penalty.

This is wrong on so many levels.

The Great Rumsfeld Snowjob

When Iraqi artist, Muayad Muhsin did this oil painting of former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld he may not have realized quite how insightful it would turn out to be.

In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor" and wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.

The memos, often referred to as "snowflakes," shed light on Rumsfeld's brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Spanning from 2002 to shortly after his resignation following the 2006 congressional elections, a sampling of his trademark missives obtained yesterday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.

Snowflakes?

What becomes obvious in the article is that Rumsfeld was not only disdainful of the media; he was also disdainful of the American public.

The contents of Rumsfeld's memos, aside from some of them demonstrating a serious level of uninformed prejudice, come across like some kind of Madison Avenue advertising executive fighting to keep the public buying a product which has no purpose.

Note that the view we get is not that of Rumsfeld telling his flunkies to "explain" the situation, but to "sell" it.

In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a "worldwide insurgency." The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to "end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world." He then advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed.

So, as opposed to managing the most expensive department in the US government, he was more interested in marketing a reason to pursue the PNAC agenda.

In fact, Rumsfeld had his flood of memos named perfectly: Snowflakes. Culminating in one of the most amazing snowjobs in history.

More at The Carpetbagger Report and Crooks & Liars.

And that was just their version of Halloween

Mira Mesa is one of those places in San Diego that got sort of, out of control. Back in the World War II era the US Navy used to use it as an auxiliary landing field known as Hourglass Field. They also used the surrounding area as a bombing range while the US Army used it as a test area. Around the 1950s it became the residential area supporting the Naval Air Station at Miramar, home of the USN Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) until 1996. In the 1960s, due to it's perfect location between two major highways and its proximity to downtown San Diego, Mira Mesa experienced an uncontrolled housing boom and became an example of unplanned urban sprawl along the highway leading into downtown. It was so poorly planned that it was deficient of the municipal and county infrastructure needed to support its thousands of new residents. In 1971 it was responsible for launching the political career of at least one Republican politician when he ran on a campaign of "No more Mira Mesas!"

I've been to Mira Mesa. (You don't need to know why.)

So has TBogg. I think we'd agree that the lack of schools in Mira Mesa back in the 1960/70s might have had something to do with this:

They expected to see the kind of stuff normally associated with a haunted house: skeletons, ghosts, chain saw-wielding zombies, that kind of thing.

Instead, some teenagers said the images inside the building on Carroll Road in Mira Mesa gave them the shock of their lives: a video of aborted fetuses, an image of a bloody Jesus on a cross, a scene in which an actor portrays a suicidal man clutching a shotgun as the devil urges him to kill himself.

“Then they had (the teenagers) pray and wash their sins,” said Ananda Brisco of Scripps Ranch, whose 14-year-old son went into the building with three of his friends expecting to enjoy a typical Halloween scare.

“We were shocked. . . . I had other people's children with me, and I subjected them to this without their parents' permission. We just thought this was going to be a regular haunted house.”

The haunted house – admission was free and a sign outside advertised “Blood Rain” – turned out to be a production of The Potter's House, an international church that has made news over the years for its graphic, religious-themed Halloween events around the country.

The pastor of the church's San Diego branch, Joe Rice, said the production was meant to “present the gospel of Jesus Christ in a venue other than a church service.” The haunted house was intended as a commentary on the evils of abortion, pornography and school violence, Rice said.

He noted that the free tickets – which were handed out at movie theaters, stores and other public places – warned of graphic content, as did signs in front. Nobody younger than 13 was allowed in.

“Some people will say it's false advertising,” Rice said. “I don't think so because to me it is a haunted house. Freddy Krueger isn't going to walk in with an ax. But that's fairy tale. This is more real. This is a real haunted house to me.”

Still, Brisco and others complained that the true nature of the production wasn't made clear in advance.

“I did not expect that,” said Eunice Apon, 17, a senior at Scripps Ranch High School, adding that she probably wouldn't have gone in had she known what was inside.

“There's one point where this guy looking at porn goes to hell, and I don't believe people who look at porn should go to hell.”

One helluva Halloween. On the other hand, just down the road from Rice's Halloween religious gore-fest, the lions at the San Diego Zoo were demonstrating how they deal with pumpkin-headed, bible-thumping, radicals.

And, since the Halloween version of Bishop T.D. Jakes' ministry is, well, a little different, I wouldn't even want to guess what their Fire House involves. (Pass the CO2 extinguisher, thanks.)

The 2007 Weblog Awards

Whooda thunk?!

The Galloping Beaver is a finalist in the 2007 Weblog Awards. In the words of the great folks at Wizbang:

The Weblog Awards are the world's largest blog competition, with over 525,000 votes cast in the 2006 edition for finalists in 45 categories. Nominations for 49 categories ended October 17, 2007 and voting is scheduled to begin November 1, 2007. Final results will be announced November 8, 2007 at the BlogWorld & New Media Expo in Las Vegas.

Honestly, I was away when the nominations took place, so I confess to being in a bit of a fog as to how we got to the finals, however, I know that we did receive a nomination from my favourite "conservative" blogger, Jon Swift. A happy tail-slapping thank you to Jon and to those whose support got us to the finals. And Jon, I'm voting for you... every day.

Our category is in the TTLB category as one of the top ten of blogs ranked 3501 - 5000. I will provide a direct link to that voting block daily. You can vote every 24 hours until 8 November. You can also click on the Weblog Awards Logo in this and subsequent posts to take you to the voting block.

While we're not in the "Best Canadian Blog" category I urge you to go there and cast a vote as well. I'm supporting Scott's Diatribes in that category.

So, VOTE early and often.

(Of course, it's Friday, which makes it a busy day around here, but I'll try and get up my personal picks as soon as possible. To add to the confusion, I'm hoping all TGB scribes will provide their picks too.)

The Battle of Beersheba

Trench warfare was to become the icon of the Great War. Yet, far away from the mud of Belgium and France an army which relied on mobility and maneuver was about to make history.

On October 31st, 1917, ninety years ago, at the edge of the Negev desert in what was then Palestine, two nations emerged and committed themselves to the force of arms in an event which would put a seal on their unique status.

Where Canada makes claim to a right to speak on its own behalf after the Canadian led assault on Vimy Ridge, two other British dominions, fighting in the same war, also claim such a right for actions of their own.

Germany's eastern ally, Turkey, had fortified a line from Gaza to Beersheba. In early 1917 there were two attempts to break the Gaza-Beersheba line to no avail. By the autumn of 1917 British forces in Palestine had been reorganized, reinforced and provided with new leadership.

Leading the Desert Mounted Corps, comprised of the ANZAC Mounted Division (1st and 2nd Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifle Brigade) and the Australian Mounted Division (3rd and 4th Austrlian Light Horse Brigades and the 5th (British) Yeomanry Brigade), was Australian General Henry Chauvel, the first Australian to command an Allied army corps.

Beersheba offered little. Sitting 30 miles inland from the Mediterranean shore, the wells of Beersheba were one of the few supplies of water along the Turkish line stretching south from Gaza. By fortifying Beersheba and increasing the defences closer to Gaza the Turks felt they could prevent Allied activity by denying them access to sufficient water. The British, realizing that Gaza would be too difficult to take, viewed Beersheba as critical to controlling that section of Palestine.

Given the direction of approach, the Turkish fortification of Tel el Saba, a mound which commanded a complete view of the surrounding plain and the Hebron road, would have to be taken first. Further, if Beersheba was not taken in one day, the Allied troops would have to withdraw in search of water.

The Australian Light Horse and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles were not really cavalry. Unlike the British 5th Yeomanry, they did not carry swords and were not expected to fight from horseback. They were actually mounted infantry - foot soldiers. The Australians and New Zealanders were expected to use their mounts to reach a predetermined destination and then advance from there on foot to their objective.

On the morning of 31 October 1917 British artillery began the assault. Using classic infantry tactics the British moved forward from the south and west of Beersheba, brought their artillery forward. At the same time the Turks were observed reinforcing Tel el Saba. Under cover of artillery, the 3rd Regiment Australian Light Horse and the New Zealand Auckland Regiment advanced on Tel el Saba. By 3 in the afternoon, the New Zealanders had fought their way into Tel el Saba, securing the Hebron road.

A great deal of time had been lost and by 4:30 in the afternoon the decision was taken to capture and occupy Beersheba immediately. Brigadier William Grant, commanding the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade, (now with only two regiments), gave the order to advance at a trot in artillery order with 15 feet between the squadrons which made up the regiment.

The original plan had called for the lighthorsemen to advance on horseback, dismount and then make an infantry assault on foot. However, as the sun was waning, Chauvel ordered Grant to take Beersheba forthwith, remaining mounted during the assault.

Within minutes of stepping off, the two regiments of the 4th Brigade Australian Light Horse, lacking swords, drew bayonets and spurred their horses to a gallop. They had committed to a cavalry charge.

The Turkish defenders were caught unawares. Expecting the lighthorsemen to dismount and complete their attack on foot, the Turkish riflemen failed to adjust their sights quickly enough and found themselves firing over the heads of the charging Australians. The lighthorsemen jumped the trenches, dismounted and routed the Turks from behind their lines. The Turks, surprized by the charge and completely disorganized, were only too willing to surrender. As reinforcements charged into the town the Turks panicked and ran. By nightfall the Australians had secured Beersheba. In fact, the charge of the 4th Brigade had gone so fast that Chauvel was unaware of the success for almost an hour after the town had been taken.

The New Zealanders at Tel el Saba and the Australians at Beersheba had changed the course of their countries' futures. And the 4th Brigade Australian Light Horse performed the last organized and successful cavalry charge in the history of warfare.

On 31 October 2007, some of the descendants of that battle gathered in the town once known as Beersheba. They crossed the Negev and made the approach to the town on horseback in uniforms of the Australian Light Horsemen and New Zealand Mounted Rifles. This time there was no charge. They walked their horses into Beersheba. They carried wreaths and wore poppies, their bayonets remaining sheathed. They came to commemorate the dead on both sides of that battle 90 years ago.

And they brought a message. Pursue peace.

Washoe 1965 – 2007 R.I.P.

Remember Washoe, the chimpanzee who was taught sign language? She passed away peacefully this week at the age of 42 (about an average lifespan of a chimp), leaving behind a legacy of milestones and controversies. In 1966, Beatrix and Allen Gardner from the University of Nevada began teaching the 10 month old Washoe American Sign Language. Over the years, Washoe learned about 130 words and even passed on her ASL skills to her adopted son. The experiment raised many questions, not only regarding the ability to cross-communicate with animals, but whether or not the experiment was even successful. Cognitive scientists and researchers such as Steven Pinker and Herbert Terrace believed that Washoe wasn’t engaging in conversation, but rather, reacting to unconscious, non-verbal prompts from her trainers.

The director of the Washoe project, Dr. Roger Fouts said:

Fundamental to removing ignorance and replacing it with understanding is communication. We feel that communication is the one behavior most critical for future survival. Washoe has helped replace some of our ignorance about communication with an understanding of ourselves, as well as other beings.

The Minot-Barksdale nuke flight. There's more.

Remember the "mistaken" flight of six nuclear W80-1 warheads strapped to Advanced Cruise Missiles back in August?

Well, that "mistake" should have been impossible. I know that runs along the same line as "unsinkable", but there is more to this whole situation than meets the eye. And now it looks like the US Air Force may well be covering up something bigger than a mere "mistake".

You will now move on to The Smirking Chimp where he asks some very clear and pertinent questions. One of them he asked got a terrifying reply:

When I mentioned the automated alarm and motion sensors to Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, a public affairs person at the Department of the Air Force, and asked her how the movement of the six nukes could have occurred without those alarms being disabled, she said, "It's an intriguing question, and it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

Go read. I insist.

Long Road Out of Eden

I've gotten to the point where commenting on matters political or social in this poisonous climate seems a waste of words, passion and effort.

So here's a music review.

The Eagles have released, Long Road Out of Eden, their first studio album in 28 years. It's a double CD comprising a total of 20 tracks.

I am transported back in time sitting here listening as I type. Astonishing as it seems their sound is as tight and distinctive as it was 28 years ago. Almost as though no time has passed at all. The arrangements are more complex and layered than perhaps they were back in the day. But the spirit is unchanged.

The title track which kicks off the second of the 2 CDs is a 10 minute Henley rant about the Iraq war, American entitlement and propaganda. In other words a straight line descendant of "Hotel California" but without the satirical overtones. No satire here whatever.

People who've come to think that music is supposed to be single rhythm, repetitious, half-spoken, hyper-aggressive pseudo-songs with a thumping bass line and little or no lyrical invention or merit and almost no variation track to track won't like this album.

Neither will people who think that songs aren't supposed to address current events.

Neither will the people who never understood The Eagles satire the first time around.

Neither will people whose musical sensibilities have been distorted and abused by the talentless bean counters now in charge of the music business.

But the millions of people who buy it will. I certainly do.

Welcome back fellas. Missed ya.

What's wrong with this video?

This video is supposedly that of some American trainers leading prospective Iraqi soldiers in a period of physical training. Whether it's authentic or not, it has an interesting aspect. At the risk of appearing offensive, it's also very funny. See if you can recognize the obvious problem.



Done? Good.

Now think about it. These are supposed to be Iraqis being trained. Iraqis speak Arabic.

One, two, three? That's English.

I would have led them with wahid, itnan, talatha. You know... their own language.

So, who are the fools in the video now?

Harper's Conservatives and the Death Penalty

No more Canadians sentenced to death in other democratic states will be able to call on the Canadian government to intervene.

Next step - the potential of a death sentence will no longer be considered as a deterrent to extradidion.

Hasn't taken them long to get this bandwagon rolling has it?

A couple of majorities and the death penalty reinstatement committee will be drawn up.

It's about time

I suspect I will take a few lashes for what follows. Tough. So is my hide.

Via Steve and Impolitical is a report that Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier has been reined in.

My response to that is: it's about time. In fact, it's a day late and a dollar short.

Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, has been told to tone down his political interventions after he spoke out last week on the direction of the Afghanistan military mission, sources have told The Globe and Mail.

“He got his marching orders,” a senior government official said Wednesday. “He was reminded what his role is. His role is not to be the chief spokesperson for the mission.”

That's right. His role is to lead, manage, represent and speak for the entire body of the Canadian Forces. Hillier's blatant drumming for the Afghanistan mission has been unprecedented. No chief of defence staff in Canadian history has been so public, so often in the media, as Rick Hillier. And that is not his place.

The Chief of Defence Staff does not make defence policy. The CDS is a sworn servant of the Crown charged with the responsibility of executing the government's defence policy with the resources provided. If the CDS disagrees, for any reason, with that policy or feels the resources prevent him/her from executing that policy, the CDS is then obliged to inform the minister and the prime minister - not the public. If the government refuses to adapt to the advice of the CDS then the CDS has an option - accept the situation quietly or resign. If resignation is the chosen course of action, once the uniform is off, the former CDS is free to speak as openly as he/she sees fit.

Back in the era of the Cold War the Canadian Forces were suffering from all forms of malaise. Some were internal; some were a result of government policy. At one point, then Chief of Defence Staff, General J.A. Dextraze, was being pursued by the media over his insistence that the rolling footprint (trucks and things) of the Canadian Army was worn out and needed immediate replacement. At some point a compromise was reached and Dextraze, reluctant to become too public, allowed that there would indeed be new vehicles provided to the field army, just not as many as he had asked for.

A reporter suggested, by way of a question, that Dextraze should be unhappy with the result. Dextraze responded by saying, "I'm a soldier. I told the government what I wanted. They told me what I would be getting. That's it. As a soldier, I salute and carry on."

I can tell you that I was among thousands who hated Dextraze for that answer. We felt that all three services, running at full-tilt to keep old gear operational, needed a boost in equipment. But Dextraze was right.

No one in the Canadian Forces is compelled to serve, including the CDS. If one doesn't like the conditions, whether it is the state of equipment, operational tempo, government policy, etc., one can simply resign. But while serving, government policy comes from the government - not the office of the CDS.

If there is anything wrong with the report that Hillier has been told to control his mouth and his public appearances, it is that it has taken so long.

The Conservatives were happy to let him run free amongst the media bazaars when he was spouting their line. Now that he's provided comment which appears to run counter to their communications strategy, they've decided that he should maintain his proper place - a place he should have been required to occupy all along.

The Conservatives have just been given a lesson in structural leadership. There is a reason not to allow military and naval officers to make political comment and to insist that they remain at arms length from the political arena. They're not the policy makers.

Regrettably, Hillier's last comment to the media, which caught the Harperites off-guard, may have been the single most important statement he's made to date: The truth surrounding the state of readiness of the Afghan National Army.

However, we can't have it both ways. I've been calling for a long time to have Hillier withdraw from his overly visible public stance. He has been getting away with it ostensibly because he is extremely popular with the troops and those who unquestioningly support the Afghanistan mission. That's too bad, because the performance of a senior military officer, even the CDS, is not a popularity contest.

This took too long.

I feel a tremor in The Force

Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson must be searching for enough towels to wipe up the mess. In the right-wing blogosphere, heads are exploding. The Force has shifted.

I've been reading John Cole at Balloon Juice since I found an interest in Blogtopia. (Yes, Skippy coined that term). He provided a sane point of view which held with the Republican party of days long since gone. He never came across as being a part of the Hugh Hewitt or Michelle Malkin crowd. In fact, he quite happily mocked them and their particular ilk.

Yesterday, John Cole announced that he's finally had enough. He explains his move with all the clarity that I've come to expect from his writing.

Something I've been meaning to do anyway, but find myself prompted to immediate action, is to add Balloon Juice to the blogroll.

And before everyone gets all teary-eyed with joy, it would be a mistake to suggest John has made a conversion to the left-wing of the US political spectrum. He's simply changed his registered party affiliation from Republican to Democratic. As he says, it is an elevated middle finger to the GOP. Politically, I don't think John shifted all that far. But the Republican party has and people like John, loads of them, are more than a little uncomfortable with that.