Tilt!

Via BigCityLib... oops!

The candidate chosen in 2005 to run for the Conservatives in Chuck Cadman's Vancouver-area riding said he was never approached about stepping aside to allow the terminally-ill MP to run for the party.

Where I come from that would get you a Not Satisfactory for attention to detail.

Cathie takes a snapshot of Tom Flanagan's Canadian wing of the American Enterprise Institute. That's right! The American blogs have now labeled the Harper government AEI North making them just another arm of the Republican smear machine.

How much has George W. Bush's excellent adventure in Iraq cost? Remember, it was supposed to cost either $1.7 billion, $50 billion, $60 billion or $200 billion depending on which minute of the day you were listening. (The last figure elicited a response from Rumsfeld: "Baloney!"). Apparently, Rumsfeld's assessment, taken alone, may have been accurate. Try $3 trillion... and counting.

Darth Vader Meddling Again . . . .

From the Globe and Mail:

Khadr lawyers allege Cheney linked to video release

OMAR EL AKKAD - Globe and Mail Update - March 3, 2008

OTTAWA — Omar Khadr's defense lawyers will try to find out whether U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's office secretly leaked a video of the detained Canadian to an American media outlet – an allegation that, if proven, would be a clear violation of court orders and further proof that the process by which Mr. Khadr is being tried is a political, not legal one, his military lawyer says.

_______________


In an interview with The Globe and Mail Monday night, Lieutenant Commander Bill Kuebler said he is trying to find out how a highly secret video showing Mr. Khadr in Afghanistan was leaked to the U.S. news program 60 Minutes. The video appears to show Mr. Khadr building a bomb.

The news program aired the footage last November.

_______________


At the meeting, Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler asked the Colonel where he thought the leak may have come from. In response, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said, Col. Davis offered the opinion that the Vice-President's office may have been involved.

Col. Davis resigned as chief prosecutor in October of last year, saying political pressure was interfering with his job.

If the allegation that the Vice President's office was involved in the leak is proven to be true, it would be a violation of the protective orders imposed on evidence in the case, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said.

But he added that it would also show the length that the government is prepared to go to prejudice the public against the detained Canadian.

dickhead cheney just can't keep his nose out of anything, can he? It appears he is angling for a new title in bushco: "Leaker in Chief" sounds appropriate. Valerie Plame, WMD's, and now this.

Perhaps a qualified plumber should be retained to stem the leaks . . . .


(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Evangelist leader bites McVety

The Christian evangelist community appears to be taking a dim view of Charles McVety's activities: (Emphasis mine)

John Stackhouse, religion professor at Regent College in Vancouver, is more direct: "My first reaction [upon hearing about the government's tax credit move] is if it came from Charles McVety, it's probably a bad idea. He is usually going public in a way that I wish he wouldn't."

Prof. Stackhouse said he shares many of Mr. McVety's commitments to fundamentalist Christianity. He listed a number of topics - hate speech, corporate advertising, pornography - that he doesn't believe should get government funds. However, in a free and pluralistic society, he said, the decision of what art is should be left to recognized artistic communities, not government staffers, even if that means offending one person or many people.

"The only alternative is either ideologically correct art, which is just propaganda," he said, "or banality."

By pushing for this kind of change, Prof. Stackhouse said, Mr. McVety gives credence to the theory that conservative Christians, if given absolute control, will turn Canada into a purely conservative Christian nation.

"Charles McVety is the nightmare that the Liberals want us to worry about," he said.

Especially when he's roaming the halls of the Centre Block.

Granny get your gun

This silly little story on CNN the other night can be spun this way- America is gun crazy - and that-This brave pistol-packing old woman was defending her property, as is her right. I don't know that I would call it a "gun incident" if I were writing it up or claim the journalist was "almost shot" but many of the comments are hilarious and a perfect crystalization of what is wrong with a certain subgroup of Americans.

Joe Adams

March 2nd, 2008 6:40 pm ET
Foreigners need to bone up on Texas law before they go wandering across the terrain. They need to remember that bullets don't care who you are. Bravo, lady!!!
If he got shot, she'd be on solid legal ground for the hole in his body.

David

March 2nd, 2008 6:43 pm ET
This story seems a bit biased. I see nothing wrong or unusual in a home owner being legally armed on her own property, it would be stupid to do anything less in this situation. I say good for her. A strange man person standing in my front yard would receive a similar welcome.

Ben

March 2nd, 2008 6:46 pm ET
Sounds like someone needed to pay better attention to their surroundings. That being said, I doubt the old lady would of really done anything unless the reporter seemed threatening somehow. That being said, the old lady certainly had the right to
point that gun at him for being on his property.

Mike
in Indy

March 2nd, 2008 7:17 pm ET
She had every right to protect her property and herself he could have been a nut job. She is elderly living in the country and if it were my mother I would want her to be able to do the same.
This probably happens all to often living close to the President's ranch. I'm sure all these people are just sick of the populous showing up and sneaking on their property either to protest or to photograph the President. I for one am sick of the prying eyes of the media in everyone's lives. Bravo to this young lady! If Denmark and other Europeans don't like it than stay in Europe.

son of liberty

March 2nd, 2008 7:17 pm ET
Idiot Europeans and other socialists/communists (xiaoli, chinese?). This sums up everything that's wrong with YOUR countries. Trust your government fools, in America power is in the hands of the people.

Life, Liberty and Property.

Dr.Richard Gaines(Cicero)

March 2nd, 2008 7:18 pm
Good for the lady. Media people do not own our world;especially foreign media people. Watch the hell where you wander,Old Boy !!!

Terry

March 2nd, 2008 7:19 pm ET
He should have been more aware of his surroundings. When in foreign countries I pay extra special attention to my surroundings.
She was well within her rights, and as long as we keep the likes of Hillary or Obama out of the White House citizens can count on being having the right to defend their property


Samuel Mullen-Perron

March 2nd, 2008 9:55 pm ET
You know, She did not know who he was or what he was doing there. As far as she knew, he may have been there to hurt her or burglarize her home. the way I see it she did what any normal red blooded American would do. I am from Oregon and they do the same thing there as in Texas. Oregon Legislature though is trying to get rid of the rights of Gun Owners. Alot of that is because of the Homosexuals who want their rights to do what they want and they figure that their lives are endanger because of the Gun owners. Good, let them think that. As for this incident, Great! I am pleased that people are taking a stand for their rights for a change and not backing down from a Facist Government who wiretaps our phone calls, monitor our emails, you name it! Maybe the Secret Service and that idiot that they are protecting will take note now and realize just who runs this country.

David

March 2nd, 2008 9:55 pm ET
Maybe she thought it was an immigrant crossing the border…..to avoid things like this in the future we should re-deploy our army in Iraq and put them on the border with orders to kill anthing that crosses the border….problem solved YAY!

And those are not the most extreme examples of the mind set I'm talking about. Admittedly about half the commenters expressed embarrassment on behalf of the United States or dislike for gun-toting Texicans or suggested the reporter was lucky it hadn't been Dick Cheney who came out packing heat. One simply said that Cheney's mom needs to relax.
Seriously though, while I agree that old people everywhere have the irrefutable right to tell young whippersnappers to get the hell off their lawns, bringing a piece along to show you're serious is not done in the civilized world. The cowboy noise about how this "pore ole woman lives out in th' cuntry an needs to protect herself" is such bullshit. She lives down the street from the president. If the guy on the cell phone in her front yard had been Secret Service, she'd be pushing up daisies now. It's not like she shouldn't have had some idea he was a reporter, there were a crowd of the them across the street.

As PJ O'Rourke once said (about Somalia and Ethiopia if I recall correctly) they might be past helping, the only solution might be to fence the place off, pat people down when they leave and drop ammunition inside for the rest until they finally kill each other off.

crossposted from the New, Improved Woodshed, now with extra bloggy goodness at the same low, low price!

How is that surge going anyway?

Lowrey's now famous National Review cover tells a great story. Pictures worth... well, never mind. It did arouse the imagination of the shattered of mind.

The truth is something altogether different. The US has found themselves in a delicate position, because no matter what the Bush administration is telling you, there was no "win". There was a buy-off and it's created a powder keg that is just about ready to blow.

Nir Rosen traveled to Iraq and found that the US solution to the "insurgency" was not to crush the insurgents, but to recruit them. And now they are literally payrolling both sides of a civil war.

Now, in the midst of the surge, the Bush administration has done an about-face. Having lost the civil war, many Sunnis were suddenly desperate to switch sides — and Gen. David Petraeus was eager to oblige. The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias prefer a simpler and more dramatic name: They call themselves Sahwa, or "the Awakening."

At least 80,000 men across Iraq are now employed by the Americans as ISVs. Nearly all are Sunnis, with the exception of a few thousand Shiites. Operating as a contractor, Osama runs 300 of these new militiamen, former resistance fighters whom the U.S. now counts as allies because they are cashing our checks. The Americans pay Osama once a month; he in turn provides his men with uniforms and pays them ten dollars a day to man checkpoints in the Dora district — a paltry sum even by Iraqi standards. A former contractor for KBR, Osama is now running an armed network on behalf of the United States government. "We use our own guns," he tells me, expressing regret that his units have not been able to obtain the heavy-caliber machine guns brandished by other Sunni militias.

In the event you think these new "Awakening" groups are anything but mercenaries, think again. Even US forces know that these forces are loyal to one thing - the pay.

The American forces responsible for overseeing "volunteer" militias like Osama's have no illusions about their loyalty. "The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector — more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power. With the ISVs in place, the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war. "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," as U.S. strategists like to say. David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus, calls it "balancing competing armed interest groups."

Who are these "volunteers"?

Only months ago, members of the Awakening were planting IEDs and ambushing U.S. soldiers. They were snipers and assassins, singing songs in honor of Fallujah and fighting what they viewed as a war of national liberation against the foreign occupiers. These are men the Americans described as terrorists, Saddam loyalists, dead-enders, evildoers, Baathists, insurgents. There is little doubt what will happen when the massive influx of American money stops: Unless the new Iraqi state continues to operate as a vast bribing machine, the insurgent Sunnis who have joined the new militias will likely revert to fighting the ruling Shiites, who still refuse to share power.

And how is all that working anyway?

With American forces now arming both sides in the civil war, the violence in Iraq has once again started to escalate. In January, some 100 members of the new Sunni militias — whom the Americans have now taken to calling "the Sons of Iraq" — were assassinated in Baghdad and other urban areas. In one attack, a teenage bomber blew himself up at a meeting of Awakening leaders in Anbar Province, killing several members of the group. Most of the attacks came from Al Qaeda and other Sunni factions, some of whom are fighting for positions of power in the new militias.

The same militias created by General Petraeus.

Here, street politics trump any illusory laws passed in the safety of the Green Zone. As the Awakening gains power, Al Qaeda lies dormant throughout Baghdad, the Mahdi Army and other Shiite forces prepare for the next battle, and political assassinations and suicide bombings are an almost daily occurrence. The violence, Arkan says, is getting worse again.

So, the US military now arms and pays both sides of the Iraqi civil war and claims to be in control. That's nice, except that the "Awakening" is the same body of people George Bush was calling "The Terraists". And their plans haven't changed.

The problem with all of this of course, is that the purpose of the "surge" was to put down the insurgency - not modify its operational structure. By choosing the latter course of action all the US has done is fuel an even worse situation. Worse though is that the US military role in Iraq is to support the central government. That role has been lost. John Robb describes it as a trashed doctrine.

This situation puts the US military in a difficult position, one that goes deeper than being caught on the horns of dilemma (as in: caught between supporting "former" insurgents or government forces). The improvised theory that led the US military to fund the insurgency (the "Awakening") has transformed the US Counter-Insurgency doctrine (COIN) -- a document was so carefully prepared and announced with such fanfare -- into a mere pile of paper. Why? Because we have abandoned the doctrine's binding assumption: that everything we do in counter-insurgency should increase the legitimacy of the host government. Essentially, the abandonment of our doctrine means that the US military is now completely adrift in Iraq without a counter-insurgency roadmap.

There is no real bright side to this picture, but I suppose you could now say that the US counter-insurgency in Iraq is now operating on the same plane as the Bush administration. Clueless.

Cross-Border Crap . . . .

Oh, isn't this just great?

Our fearless Canadian leader is making waves South of the 49th and not in a good way.

From Chris Bowers at Open Left today:

The Canadian embassy in Washington has issued a statement indicating its regret at the fact that information has come out that would imply that Mr.--Senator Obama has been saying different things in public than in private.

So, the Canadian conservative prime minister is calling Barack Obama two-faced on NAFTA at the exact same moment that John McCain is indicating that Canada might pull out its troops on Afghanistan if we make too much a stink about NAFTA? That strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In fact, it strikes me as a directly coordinated attack by McCain and Harper to neutralize McCain on trade during the general election. It wouldn't be the first time Harper and Republican leaders have coordinated, given that Harper uses Republican pollsters and the conservative movements in both countries are deeply intertwined. Further, in addition to making Obama look like a two-face panderer who will anger key international allies, this attack serves a triple purpose of weakening Obama by extending the Democratic primary, which might (I emphasize might) further weaken Obama in the general election. Other conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, are already pushing supporters to vote for Clinton for exactly this same reason.


I generally agree with Josh Marshall on this one: the whole thing stinks of cross-border conservative coordination on the presidential campaign. The plus side is that not only is what Harper doing probably unpopular in Canada, but that in the general election Obama can probably appear with opposition leaders like Layton or Stephanie Dion to reinforce his position on the issue. That way, not only does Obama's position gain credibility, but his victory might even bring down the Canadian conservative government.

The Right Honourable PM appears to be pandering to the future repug nominee. This before St. McCain has even faced the dem nominee in November's general election. Guess he's trying to win Best in Show for following orders.

It's time for stevie and his crowd to leave the building . . . .

(Photo credit, Alison @ Creekside)

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

A wide variety of "No comments".

by Alison

from the scandal we wish everyone would quit calling "Cadscam" :

On Wednesday Harper's office released a statement : "The then-leader of the Opposition [Harper] looked into the matter with party officials and could find no confirmation."

You will recall that former Con MP John Reynolds, who was also Harper's campaign manager, facilitated the meeting at which Finlay and Flanagan are alleged to have offered the $1M bribe to the late Chuck Cadman.

Asked about the incident, former Conservative MP John Reynolds told Canwest News Service he did not wish to comment.
"I'm not involved in politics anymore,"said Mr. Reynolds. "I have no comment at all."

Later Reynolds remarked to CBC : "the story seems fishy." and "Sounds to me like some kind of fiction story."

OK then, anyone else?

"Ryan Sparrow, a Conservative party spokesman, refused to comment on the allegations."

"Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he's never heard anything about any buyout. "I've never even spoken with Chuck Cadman," he said."

"Jay Hill, now the Conservative government whip and Opposition whip at the time of the vote in question, told NaPo he had never heard of the events," which he also characterized later as a case of "unfortunate miscommunication" and "a so-called make-believe fairy-tale scandal."

Con MP and Treasury Board chairman Vic Toews : "He [Cadman] cared about legislation not money. We've heard this story for years. It's bullshit."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was deputy Con leader at the time of the alleged offer : "I don't know anything about how this has come about. Certainly it was something that I was not involved with,'' said MacKay, "I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

Ok, so it didn't happen but if it did, it isn't true. Got it.

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

With respect and condolences to the family and friends of Trooper Michael Yuki Hayakaze, Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians). Killed due to enemy action.

Perseverance

Dona Cadman speaks of speaking with Harper

Dona Cadman issued a statement today which even further twists the Cadman controversy:

Dona Cadman said Monday she believed Stephen Harper when he told her he didn't know about a million-dollar life insurance policy she alleges the Conservatives offered her late husband, Independent MP Chuck Cadman.

"I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million-dollar insurance policy offer that upset Chuck so much," she said in a news release issued Monday.

"He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer," she said, recalling a conversation from more than two years ago. "I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes, he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck."

Let's see now... this whole thing bubbled to the surface last Wednesday afternoon. Thursday: nothing. Friday: nothing. Through the weekend: nothing. Monday: Harper serves notice of a libel suit on Dion.

Interestingly though, Dona Cadman felt strongly enough about the "offer" made by two Conservative party operators that she felt she had to confront Harper.

And I probably don't have to explain, given the lengthy gap between Dona Cadman's original statement and now, what this looks like.

No. I didn't think so.

Update: Via Scott, CTV Ottawa bureau chief, Robert Fife, sees the same gap I do and then makes this point:

Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told Newsnet that Harper never volunteered information about that exchange when the story broke last week.

Taking action on C-10

The following letter was sent by one of our readers to members of the Canadian Senate and select members of parliament regarding the film censorship provisions in Bill C-10, amending the Income Tax Act. Good read; good job.

March 2, 2008


Senator Sharon Carstairs, Senator Maria Chaput, Senator Janis Johnson, Senator Mira Spivak, Senator Terry Stratton, Senator Rod Zimmer and Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette

The Senate of Canada

Parliament Buildings

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6


Dear Senators Carstairs, Chaput, Johnson, Spivak, Stratton, Zimmer and Hervieux-Payette,

I was shocked to discover the Conservative Government's plan to bring powers of censorship into the Canadian Tax Act through Bill C-10. The proposed amendment is an attack on freedom of speech in Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees it, something that was an unthinkable action throughout my tenure with the Department of Canadian Heritage. My first position with the Department was with CAVCO when it was undergoing the transition from a Capital Cost Allowance to a Refundable Tax Credit as an industry-based mechanism for supporting the development of a strong domestic film and television industry in Canada. I was privy to the stakeholder consultations that led to the drafting and passing of the legislation and guidelines for the program. Never once was content merit a factor in what is an economic stimulus. It is a market driven program that financially assists producers who are employing Canadian talent and skilled labour.

Not only is it shocking to hear that the proposed change was even a tenable consideration, but it is appalling that most of the film and television industry first heard of this late this week when Bill C-10 was before the Senate (having passed second reading). NDP Heritage Critic Bill Siksay was the only MP to admit that he hadn’t read the 600 page omnibus Bill to amend the Income Tax Act and that this clause was completely missed by the House of Commons. To bury this critical change in a house keeping bill lacks transparency and makes a sham of our Parliamentary system. I also noted that not a single public notice was posted by CAVCO nor were stakeholder consultations undertaken respecting this proposed change to the guidelines.

From Gayle MacDonald’s Globe and Mail article, Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions, (Thursday, February 28, 2008):

Mark Musselman, vice-president of business affairs at Toronto's Serendipity Point Films and Maximum Film Distribution, said Wednesday that the implications are huge, “both from the perspective of freedom of speech and for the Pandora's box of uncertainty this will open up from a business perspective.”

If certification is denied, the producer would be on the hook to repay organizations such as Telefilm, which invests only in Canadian-certified productions, Mr. Musselman added. “This review panel totally fetters the discretion of Telefilm. What will it do, send the panel scripts it is worried might be too racy or offensive?”

He called a review procedure that determines eligibility for Canadian content certification after the completion of a film or TV show production “unworkable in terms of the cold, hard reality of financing these types of things,” adding that “it's entirely possible the whole financing structure could crumble.”

I had the opportunity to consult with Mr. Musselman when I worked at CAVCO and he is absolutely right in his assessment of the implications of such a change to the tax credit guidelines. The industry is now built on using the tax credit as a trigger to secure production financing from other sources.

The proposed change portends a very serious crisis for the business of producing film and television in Canada. It will make all other support instruments, including provincial tax credits, impotent in the face of this arbitrary content review for what is essentially a critical production financing instrument. Since its introduction in December 1995, the tax credit has been successful in stimulating a billion dollar film and television production industry. To hamper its administration and effectiveness by introducing a qualitative panel review makes little business sense. It puts ideology before fiscal stewardship.

Finally, I concur with the following statement by executive producer Karen Lee Hall ((Heroic Film Company) from her letter posted on the Facebook group, Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and TV! No to Bill C-10!:

Invoking murky, vague, undefined, subjective, moral judgment, a.k.a censorship, as the deciding factor for tax credit accreditation is very, very very bad for business. The Harper government needs to create any profoundly impacting legislation in consultation with the film, television and new media industries it's threatening to decimate.

I would underscore that the intent of this proposed amendment, with its provision to examine artistic content to ensure that it is not “contrary to public policy”, is censorship. Why else would representatives of the Department of Justice be tasked to participate in the review process?

These days it seems like the Senate is now the House of first sober look at these US-style omnibus pieces of legislation. I hope you can take this opportunity to rectify the negligence of the House of Commons and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Best regards,

[real name deleted]


cc: Pat Martin, MP Winnipeg Centre

Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice

Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance

Mauril Bélanger, LPC Heritage Critic

Dominic LeBlanc, LPC Justice Critic

John McCallum, LPC Finance Critic

Bill Siksay, NDP Heritage Critic

Joe Comartin, NDP Justice Critic

Thomas Mulcair, NDP Finance Critic

Maka Kotto, BQ Heritage Critic

Carole Freeman, BQ Justice Critic

Réal Ménard, BQ Justice Critic

Paul Crête, BQ Finance Critic

Tell me the Harperites aren't Republicans again...

From ABC News:

On Wednesday, the Canadian Television network reported that two unnamed Canadian sources said a "senior member" of Obama's campaign team had called Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador in Washington, in the last month to warn him that Obama would be ratcheting up rhetoric against the North American Free Trade Agreement, but that he should "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA," adding, "It's just campaign rhetoric. … It's not serious."

Both the Canadian Embassy and the Obama campaign have repeatedly denied the CTV report.

However, a source close to the Canadian prime minister's office tells ABC News that the original communication was between Austan Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic adviser and an economics professor at the University of Chicago, and Georges Rioux, Canada's consul general in Chicago, about Obama's rhetoric against NAFTA.

According to the source, Wilson exaggerated the communication between the Obama campaign and the Canadian official during discussions this week with Ian Brodie, the prime minister's chief of staff, who leaked the story to CTV.

And now... from Susan Delacourt:

A "source close to the Prime Minister's Office" has told ABC News who leaked some misinformation to CTV News this week about conversations between the Canadian government and Barack Obama's campaign. The alleged leaker? None other than Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[...]

But let's also pause and look again at that ABC News item for a second. Someone close to the PMO is outing Ian Brodie as an anonymous leaker. Hope that "source's" job is secure.

And now, let's also look at what this "source close to the Prime Minister's Office" is saying about how all the misinforming happened.

Apparently, Brodie was the victim of some "exaggeration" by Canada's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Wilson. Ah yes, that notorious exaggerator, Michael Wilson, former finance minister in Brian Mulroney's government, one of the straightest, most understated cabinet members in those times. Does this sound a bit familiar? Didn't "sources" in the PMO try to blame the military for misinformation around the issue of Afghan detainees a few weeks ago? Blame that later had to be retracted? And isn't it interesting how "sources" close to this government are quick to turn on old Mulroney Conservatives when the going gets tough?

It would probably be very interesting to hear conversations going on this afternoon inside the PMO and between Ottawa and Washington. Unless we're reading the ABC News item incorrectly, someone "close to the Prime Minister's Office" has managed to smear the PMO chief of staff and Canada's ambassador to the U.S in one fell swoop.

So, our guys are playing games across the border. How fucking quaint. How fucking Rovian of them.

Further, it shows how Harper and his knee-capping political coalition of wannabe baby elephants doesn't give a red-rat's-ass about the direction of Canadian public opinion. Or are they going to try to tell you they missed this:

Both Democratic nominees remain far and away the preferred option among Canadian respondents to become the next American president when compared to Republicans - a trend that holds true even among Conservative party supporters.

Of course... maybe it's just all of us "out of step" with the movement. Kady explains:

I'm not sure which aspect of this story will thrill Canadian voters more: that the Stephen Harper's chief of staff is allegedly playing electoral silly buggers south of the border, or that he's apparently doing so to help the Republicans. Then again, this is the smartest prime minister in the history of ever, so I'm probably just missing the strategic brilliance.

Exactly.

Harper claims libel

Isn't this amazing!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a libel lawsuit against Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada over the Chuck Cadman affair.

The Liberals have asked for a criminal investigation amid allegations that the Conservatives, under then Opposition Leader Harper, offered a financial incentive to Cadman, an Independent MP before his death in 2005, to sway his vote in a crucial Commons showdown that year.

Cadman's widow, Dona, now a Conservative candidate running in Surrey North in B.C., says the incentive was a $1-million life-insurance policy, and she considered it a bribe.

Cadman sided with the Liberals in the vote, and kept then Prime Minister Paul Martin in office for a few more months.

None of the allegations, which are contained in a soon-to-be-released book, has been proven.

So, to get this straight, Harper and his party of smear have just engaged out-of-date laws as a means of shutting down the debate. The politics got too hot for Harper so his only defense is to make himself the victim. (Notice of libel from Harper's lawyers. PDF)

What you can expect now is that when questioned about the Cadman affair, Harper's only answer will be that the case is "before the courts" and he can't comment on it.

Strange how the Conservatives forget the use of Parliamentary Privilege when they can't use it. Say Alan Riddell as many times as you can without puking.

To quote Ken Chapman back in May of 2007, this is the Conservatives employing tactics "somewhere between Monty Python and the Sopranos".

Update: Pretty Shaved Ape weighs in. Bruce is fed up. Nottawa exposes a disturbing Harper habit. Steve V sees a cornered animal. Scott points out the weakness in Harper's claim. Zorpheous invokes Batman. Robert sees a Conservative pattern.

This Beaver BITES! (or “From a first wave feminist to the second and third wave feminists.”)

I am an ardent and daily reader of second and third wave feminist blogs such as Feministe, Feministing, and Pandagon. These blogs are written by women who are 30 or sub-30 years old. I love these blogs. They give me hope. But I will make the most subversive statement ever; as a feminist, I’m not altogether with them.

I’m different. I’m a fifty year old feminist. I can honestly say that I encountered and embraced feminism at the tender age of 11…that would be 1968 to the rest of you. For many of you, that was before you were even born.

I have found myself on the outskirts of feminism these days. It has nothing to do with my attitudes or my motivations. It is mostly because of my age. I am probably in the category of “first wave” feminism. And I am considered a dinosaur.

I heartily embrace what the next generations have. But sometimes I wonder if I have been tossed to the side. Do you really recognize what went before you? The next generation after me seems to take it for granted (thank God!) that there are choices that can be made. But those choices didn’t come without a price…for both men and women.

I’m so damn grateful that women no longer feel the need to get married and have kids in order to be a part of acceptable society. I revel in the fact that so many young women automatically assume that career choices for them are damn near unlimited. But I would like to remind them, it wasn’t always that way…and it wasn’t all that long ago that it wasn’t that way.

A mere generation ago, it was a battle every inch of the way to say that a woman didn’t want kids and didn’t want to get married. I was pilloried every step of the way. I was accused of being “lesbian”, “cold”, “unfeminine” and…what was supposed to be the ultimate insult…"too ugly for any man to want me”.

I have fought the anti-abortionists. I have fought for equal pay. I have fought for the right to make decisions about my life and dreams. I have fought and fought hard.

So why do I get the feeling that I am not only being dismissed by society in general, but dismissed by my own feminist sisters?

I think I have a different perspective on things. I can no longer get worked up over sexist comments, sexist portrayals of women in the media, etc. Hell, I can’t even get worked up over pornography! I simply don’t have the energy anymore to take on those things anymore. I don’t give a damn if some idiotic middle-aged male lawyer ignores me during an appointment whereby all the legal documents are in my name and not in my husband’s name. I have learned how to ignore being called “my dear” by some stupid 28 year-old man. I’ve even managed to make my way past the condescending male AND female attitude of “you deserve a token display of respect because you’re old enough to by my mother”. They still don’t occupy the status of “what really counts”. My eyes keep turning to what I lovingly refer to as “the big shit”. I have a hard time holding back the tears and the rage when I read that Afghani women are committing suicide in record numbers…African girls are still being subjected to cruel and dangerous clitorectomies…girls are still being horribly under-educated throughout the world..and little girls in my own protected world are being told that their bodies are their only value.

I see red over the fact that I am still afraid to walk the streets of my small town after dark. I want to haul out the Uzi sub-machine guns when I’m told that some prehistoric Member of Parliament wants to introduce a bill that will take me back 30 years and tell me that all my efforts were for nothing.

I vacillate between rage and despair. When I want to throw in the towel and call it quits, it is the same time I want to scream at the top of my lungs. In just the past few weeks I have watched my most hated governing party try to pass legislation (film tax credit controversy) that deeply offends my sense of tolerance and..to my complete horror, the introduction of a bill that wants to slowly, and subversely tell me that my body is simply a vessel for male sperm. I’m fifty years old. I, through voluntary medical intervention, have made myself incapable of motherhood. What does this world leave me? If I am not a baby-making machine, if I am too old to be a trophy woman for some insecure man, if I am not intelligent and capable enough to be respected in my work field, what am I?

I am angry. I will not be ignored. I will not shut up. I have spent 35 years begging, fighting, and demanding the basics in my life. And I will be damned if I will get too tired and worn out to do it anymore. I wish that 35 years had been enough. But, clearly, it isn’t. If I have to scream at the top of my lungs until I’m ninety, I will do it. But I will never get over the bitter disappointment that 2/3 of my life has been spent in near futility.

Send me your petitions. Give me the addresses of the Members of Parliament. Let me know when the protest walks are scheduled. I’m sick and tired of it. But I’ll be damned if I’m calling it quits now.

But please, great Spaghetti Monster, let me rest. Soon.

Conservative Christian dominionists vs. faith

After Charles McVety blew his cover and started taking credit for the amendments to Bill C-10 the suggestion that the Conservatives were allowing Christian dominionists to write policy and were, in effect, forcing a particular religious belief on the country brought a wide range of people to action.

It is probably no surprize to readers that McVety represents a very small constituency and is viewed with great suspicion, not just by secularists, but by those who choose religious faith as a personal conviction.

One of the first blogs to call its readership to protest the offending elements of Bill C-10 was Bene Diction Blogs On. I don't find that astonishing in any way, but it does bring forth something worth underlining. In most religious faiths the overwhelming majority of adherents believe solidly in a person's right to worship, (or not), as they see fit.

As do I.

It would be easy to simply point at the activities of McVety and accuse Christians in general of being on a crusade to dominate government. Or that devout Christians as an identifiable homogeneous group are all social conservatives. That would be wrong. The real Christians I've met comprise a wide spread of political views. None of those I'm willing to listen to have any desire whatsoever to alter secular government.

The McVety's of this world, including Stockwell Day, form a sub-group of a sub-group. They are also non-denominational. Far from promoting the teachings of their prophets and saviours, this very small group is out to acquire power and dominate others. They want to define morality and then rigidly enforce it. PZ Myers, discussing the activities of McVety, makes the point.

We've been living with "conservative values" here in the US for a long time now, and they rarely seem to have anything to do with a social good, or with people actually setting exemplary moral standards for themselves. It's always about narrowing experiences, constraining others to a single permissible range of behaviors, and punishing others outside your domain of accepted social norms.

You know, it is possible to be a liberal, progressive sort of person who doesn't do any of the "bad" things that conservatives detest — who doesn't drink to excess, use addictive drugs, or gamble, who is faithful to a single spouse and doesn't spend time on pornography or prostitution. That people don't do those things is not the distinguishing characteristic of conservative vs. liberal at all. The real difference is that conservatives take sanctimonious pleasure in requiring everyone else to be just like their ideal, and seem to be less interested in measuring up to their own standards themselves than in demanding that others do so; liberals are people who put first priority on abiding by their own standards, and a second priority on allowing others to live their lives as they see fit.

I recommend reading that whole post and then looking around. (You'll learn amazing things about cephalopods, among other things.)

The thing that is most noticeable about what McVety and Day et al represent, and PZ makes the distinction, that the dominionists aren't promoting anything that has to do with Christian values. They are promoting authoritarian "conservative values". In short, they are in charge (because they presume to have special knowledge and abilities), their followers validate their assumed leadership and the masses are expected to conform (because they do not possess special knowledge and abilities). Those who resist are extricated, ostracized and, if the dominionists had their way, jailed.

As for any extremist group they are using a foundation which was formed for another purpose to expand their personal power. For most of this group, the religion they so adamantly demand is foremost in their lives is actually a convenient shelter for their own self-promotion and material gain. Proselytizing done in the name of their various factions expands their power-base.

Using Christianity as an example, the central figure in that faith would be turning over tables and tossing money around the marketplace if he saw what was being done in his name. I don't know how Jesus of Nazareth would view the wealthy, well-dressed televangelists, but I strongly suspect there would be, at the very least, harsh words.

While I subscribe to no religious belief there was a period of my youth where I was, in a fringe sort of way, exposed to the teachings of the Christian religion. It was truly just the basics but what I came away with was the feeling that above all else, Christianity was founded on the basis that it offered something and if you liked it, you were welcome. If you chose not to join in, that was fine too. No harm; no foul.

Regrettably, the first people smeared by the actions of McVety are those who congregate in faith and do not represent the dominionist, literal-Bible-interpreting ideal. That would be the solid majority.

Big Part of Harper's Mission Accomplished

"Harper really didn't have the option of the cataclysmic approach because you can't do that without a majority,'' he said in an interview.

"So he's made the incremental approach work -- all the time having the insecurity of a minority government.

"It's really quite a performance, I think . . . Over a period of a few years they've got all this in place and they never appeared -- at any one point -- they never appeared to be making a radical shift.

"But the cumulative impact of all these together is creating a new profile.''

From CP by way of CTV.

"Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, "they're also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.''

Didn't take all that long did it?

Now they just have to screw up the delivery of the remaining programs sufficiently for the rest of the unthinking herd to lose their faith in the efficacy and utility of government and the job is done.

Need a drinking cup in a hurry?

This is an interesting idea. Although, you have to be carrying a piece of paper.

Doughy E. Pantload, Super Genius


A "long-time reader" fluffs the Pantload in such a way that I can only assume the letter is a joke that, typically, Jonah didn't catch. They're laughing Jonah, but their not laughing with you.

Instead, you've written a brilliant, hyper-intellectual yet accessible book correcting a historical fraud (sadly, sans women's prison movie humor) AND you've sold a ton! You, Jonah Goldberg, are a Super Genius.

Yes, a "Super Genius." If only he had his own copy of the Acme catalogue, he'd really show that pesky roadrunner those pesky liberals who was boss.


Really, it must be difficult for him having to shave his palms every morning before sitting down to the keyboard in his Capt. America underoos going to work.

Now they're pulling straws from the manure pile

Coincidence?

This is looking like a new and unbelievably low talking point being flung around by the Conservatives as they try to defend themselves in the Cadman bribery scandal.

Dona Cadman's campaign manager, Bill Zemianski, had this to say in reference to Chuck Cadman's state of mind just before he died and during the attempt to allegedly buy his vote: (Video)

Mr. Cadman was under a lot of medication. He was dying and very often very irrational. But there often was a lot of stress.

Via Kady we learn that at about the same time CTV's Mike Duffy was interviewing Jodi Cadman and this happened: (Video)

DUFFY: "You don't think there's any possibility that your dad, with pain medication and whatever, somehow might have been a little fuzzy-minded at the time he told you the story?"

JODI CADMAN: "I think that's a valid question, um, I have to say no because he told my mother the same thing. We were not all in the same room, these happened on different occasions. He even spoke to my husband about it afterwards. I wasn't in the room at all, so there's three different occasions, three different people, the same story told."

The idea was quickly debunked by Simon Fraser University political science professor , Paddy Smith, as being terribly late in the game and not congruous with Chuck Cadman's apparent state of mind in the days leading up to the confidence vote.

That same talking point is starting to appear in the comments section of "Canada's Best Blogger". (No. I'm not linking to it.)

By the way, when you go to the link to Kady, read the bottom of that post.

The score? We're not sure yet.

Dear Josh,

Good question.

So for all you Canadians who've been entertained over the years by our scandalous politics, please give us the low-down. What's the score?

Basically, there isn't one yet. Your post covers most of what is important to the issue and your analysis of "an admission wrapped in a denial" is pretty much what we see at the moment.

I agree. We owe you for years of scandal which has amused, entertained, terrified and shocked. Truly, it's been a spectator sport for us, although the occasional puck comes off the ice and hits one of us in the mouth. Those of us without a beer mug to our lips to break the impact end up loosing a tooth or two.

I'll start by saying that it has been an interesting week here. Sandra Buckler, our prime minister's communications director... ok, spin doctor, is probably overwhelmed at this point. I'll get back to that in a moment, but suffice to say that in the normal course of a week she's only ever had to deal with one bubbling issue at a time. This week three little nasties are swirling around the drain and she seems to have misplaced her plunger. JJ has put together an excellent summary which should frame that point.

For a close look at the Cadman scandal, Kady O'Malley has a good take on it. Start here and then go here, here and here. To wrap where we are at the time of writing is in Kady's post here.

As you can see, there is evidence piling up, including audio tapes of interviews with Stephen Harper, when he was leader of the opposition in Parliament, which implicate Harper in a bribery scheme to buy Chuck Cadman's vote when he sat as an independent member of parliament and was the one deciding vote that could cause the Liberal government of the day to either survive or fail. The rush to get his vote was predicated on one very ugly fact: Chuck Cadman was terminally ill and had only weeks to live.

The Conservative Party talking point, issued by Sandra Buckler, is to question the tape. You might refer to that as pure desperation. Nobody believes that line of thought, including the Conservatives themselves. This is where you see how Buckler has become overwhelmed and caught on the toilet with her knickers around her knees. She has ducked all direct questions regarding the incident and has tried to impeach the messenger. When asked about the "life insurance policy" and Harper's involvement and knowledge she produces... nothing. Yes, there are strawmen flying apart all over the place and Sandra is grasping at the bits of them that fly by.

There is some depth, Josh, which you would not know about. The fact that Chuck Cadman was near death weighed heavily on him and it was a part of his motivation for keeping the Liberal government alive. If he voted to bring the government down, Parliament would be prorogued and an election writ drawn up. That means that his status as an MP ends and, given the nature of his health, there was very little likelihood that he would have survived long enough to resume a seat in parliament. As long as he was a sitting MP, he remained entitled to a death benefit equal to approximately two years salary. That would be measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars; not the $1 million allegedly offered. Cadman made it clear in a couple of interviews that his personal financial situation was his primary motivation for not bringing down the Liberal government. I hate to speculate on the mindset of a man now dead, (and, I might add, a scrupulously honest man), but it seems that he felt the world, and the Conservatives, could wait for him to die. It wasn't going to be a long wait.

But in order for a minority government to fall, Parliament must vote "no confidence" in the government. That means either a direct motion from the floor or a bill which carries the weight of confidence with it.

That was what Harper had before him and there was no guarantee that another one would come along any time soon. So, it's worth reading The Gazetteer's input on this. Powerlust.

There is a twist. In fact, it's a big twist.

Dona Cadman, Chuck's widow, is the candidate for the Conservative Party in Surrey North. But Dona Cadman has been clear that everything being said about the attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman is true. That puts her at odds with the denials now coming from the Prime Minister's Office. Given the fact that she is actually a Conservative Party member and candidate, but is willing to verify the allegations of bribery is the power behind the scandal.

So the Conservatives have a problem. If they deny the allegations completely they're calling one of their own a liar. To most Canadians, Dona Cadman is the beacon of truth in this issue.

I know what you're thinking. Why don't the Conservatives write off Dona Cadman, and her family, and just ratchet up the denials? That is, after all, what Karl Rove would do.

Simply put, there's too much evidence to support Dona Cadman's story to make her out as anything but truthful. That's why Buckler started to question the taped interview. She can't call the Cadman family liars if there is corroboration in the form of tapes and... heh, the interviews by two prominent journalists with Chuck Cadman prior to his death.

Nevertheless, some of Harper's supporters have started to demand that the Cadmans be "placed under a microscope". That is quickly dispatched as being completely unnecessary. Dona Cadman did not make the initial allegation. That was done in a book by Tom Zytaruk. Dona simply agreed that what Zytaruk wrote was correct.

I could add that this scandal may appear mild by American standards set by the current Republican party. That's actually another point.

The Conservative Party of Canada is a rather different beast than Canadians have had in the past. They have patterned themselves after the US GOP and, something new, they started importing Republican political strategists to advise them.

Harper even had brought in Republican advisers, such as political consultant Frank Luntz, to give pointers on how the Conservative Party could become as dominant in Canada as the GOP was in the United States.

Yes. I know. A chill just went down your spine at the sight of that name. He's just one of them. The parade of Republicans through Conservative strategy sessions has been fairly constant.

Thus, where Canadians have always focused on substance in politics, these guys brought in the politics of fear and sleaze. That's not to say that the other side didn't engage in the same thing. It was the level of it which struck many of us. To be honest Josh, it was the kind of discourse of which we were aware but from which we thought we were immune. It was the kind of stuff we thought only happened in that place inside the "Beltway".

Harper rose to power in government on something of a backlash. No matter what anyone says, his plurality and minority government came as a result of a Liberal financial scandal that occurred in the government of Jean Chretien. His party was elected on a punishment vote. Notwithstanding, he only received 36% of the popular vote. Most of those who voted (and the turn out was abysmally low) cast their ballots for something else.

What Harper offered was clean, transparent and accountable government. He was good at displaying disgust at the antics of the Liberals who had clearly engaged in corrupt schemes of their own. What makes this whole bribery scandal so disturbing, even to some of his supporters, is that at the same time he was tearing apart the Liberals for their behaviour, he appears to have sanctioned the same kind of behaviour by operators in his own party. In short, he was and is a hypocrite.

To sum up, Josh, the RCMP are now investigating complaints and the Parliamentary Ethics Committee has been requested by all three opposition parties to probe the Cadman bribery scandal.

Harper's Conservatives have yet to answer direct questions regarding financial offers made to Chuck Cadman. They have not explained how a terminally ill man could be covered with a $1 million "life insurance policy". Most of us believe that is an analogous term the Conservatives used. No licensed underwriter would issue such a policy. It's like calling your Rottweiler "Homeowner's Insurance".

And that's where we are, Josh. Glad we could offer a diversion from things in your neck of woods, but remember, if Jon Stewart was commenting on this he would give us all a look and then say, "You call that a scandal?!!"

Yup.

Are the Rats Starting to Flee

"Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he has no knowledge of an alleged financial offer to the late Independent MP in exchange for his support just before a crucial vote in Ottawa."

Who will be next?

Flaherty? Nicholson? Prentice?

The list will surely comprise the candidates to replace Inmate Harper.