The Skinny On Fashion Week

It's fashion week in Madrid next week. As fashion extravaganzas go, Madrid is a relatively small one. At least, so I'm told. The only fashion event I've ever attended involved Basset Hounds and various Scottish tartans. The models, when they could be made to strut their stuff on the catwalk, provided something of a spectacle when the full-cut McLaren tried to hump the winter-weight Hunting McIntyre. But, I digress.

Past fashion weeks in Madrid have caused doctors and womens' rights groups to protest at the ridiculously low weight of some of the models. That promted the local Madrid event organizers to take action. They are banning skinny models from the catwalk.

There is a problem. It's called Body Mass Index and if it's too low health problems are quite likely to ensue.

The organisers of Madrid Fashion Week have announced that they are banning skinny women to develop a more healthy image for the event this month. If any very skinny models do turn up, they will be classed as unhealthy and in need of medical help.

Spain's top model, Esther Canadas, has a reported BMI of only 14. The UN World Health Organization puts 18.5 as the minimum BMI of a healthy woman. Anything below that and the woman is at risk for some serious health problems. Many nutritionists, however, suggest a healthy BMI in women is between 19.1 and 24.9, an upward difference of 1.3 lbs per square meter of body size from the UN/WHO scale.

Madrid city council, which sponsors the fashion week, has ordered that every model on show must have a body mass index (BMI) of at least 18. Models who are 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall must weigh a minimum of 123 lbs. (56 kg).

Using the UN/WHO formula, a woman 5ft 4in tall would have to weigh 105 lbs. to meet the 18 BMI minimum.

What will Madrid regional council do with models who do not meet the minimum BMI?

Almost a third of the women lined up appear to have been barred. The council promised that a nutritional expert would be on hand to check every model taking part in the shows, and that any woman found to have a BMI of below 16 would receive medical treatment.

What kind of medical treatment? A bag of cookies?

While Madrid may be a small fashion event, Milan, Italy is a major one, and the Spanish initiative is reaching the ears of Milan's city leaders.

Milan's mayor, Letizia Moratti, told a newspaper this week that she may bring the Spanish ban on underweight models to Italian shows.

But, despite the good intentions of the regional governments, it's difficult to believe they've levelled their sights on the proper targets.

Fashion designers are clearly upset with the Madrid decision but as Lisa Armstrong, Times fashion editor asked:

“Why do casting agents persist in using 15 and 16-year-olds to sell clothes to women in their thirties and upwards?”

Casting agents... and fashion designers.

The Madrid decision may make it difficult for the casting agents and designers, but it puts the women and girls who display the clothing between a rock and a hard place. If they don't meet Madrid's BMI requirement; they don't work. If they don't meet the demands of the agents and designers looking for ultra-thin models; they don't work.

To add to the unfairness of it all is the fact that male fashion models are expected to present themselves with a highly fit body and a BMI which stands at the top of or beyond the "healthy" scale. Some male models carry 20 lbs. more muscle than the average male body type. It can be expected that at least a few of them achieve that using dangerous anabolic steroids. There are no doping tests on the catwalk - for male or female models.

Twiggy led the charge of the under-nourished look in the 1960s at the age of sixteen, being promoted by her manager/boyfriend, hair designer Justin de Villeneuve. She went on, after breaking with de Villeneuve, to develop a successful film and television career. And, once she was out of her teens, her BMI appears to have increased.

The waif-like appearance demanded of today's female fashion models has always baffled me. For the longest time I would wonder why a woman would do that to herself. When it finally sunk in, I was a little embarrassed. While the willowy body is sold as healthy and alluring, it is actually sending quite a different message:

Vulnerable, pubescent, helpless and in need of a protector.

The picture female models are expected to present is that of a woman, wearing expensive clothes with a body which can be snapped like a twig; submissive, by virtue of her lack of physical strength. The perfect trophy for a powerful man.

If the hosts of major fashion events want female models to bring their BMIs into a more healthy range they will have to address the problem differently. Putting models out of work in an attempt to admonish fashion designers and casting agents is an act of meaness which further victimizes the victim.

It's not a job. It's an adventure.

It's no secret that the Canadian Forces are stepping up recruiting. Regardless of current events, even the previous government had authorized an increased personnel ceiling after several years of maintaining what can only be described as a markedly understaffed military and navy.

With the authorization of a personnel increase, of course, there are new recruiting advertisements.

The focus of the campaign will be two, fast-paced videos that show members of the Forces engaged in combat or helping with disaster relief. One of the 90-second ads, which will be shown in theatres and on TV, feature soldiers with assault rifles drawn, kicking in doors and rescuing a distraught hostage.

Another rapid-fire montage shows a navy ship cutting through heavy swells, a helicopter roaring through a desolate valley and paratroopers plunging from aircraft.

Complemented by a sparse but haunting soundtrack, the stark black-and-white images are set against dramatic backdrops: bombed-out villages, burning forests, heaving seas.

A superimposed message flashes on the screen: "Fight Fear. Fight Distress. Fight Chaos. Fight with the Canadian Forces."

That's nice.

Actually, a ship only cuts through heavy swells from the view of the outsider. When one is "in" the ship it turns into a bone-jarring, slamming motion. Even when properly secured for sea, things have a tendency to come loose and fly all over the place.

Paratroopers "plunging" is an interesting term. I'm sure most jumpers would prefer a different term, but I suppose given some of the recent video clips available on the CF recruiting site I suppose egressing the aircraft can be viewed as "plunging". For a very short time.

The fighting part is interesting. Fighting chaos in the Canadian Forces could be described as a daily task, even in peacetime, in barracks.

The ads will be aired first in Atlantic Canada, the economically challenged region where the military already draws a disproportionate number of its recruits. If the ads receive a good response, they will be rolled out across the country.

Really?!

Atlantic Canada is the place Steve Harper described as being cloaked in a culture of defeat. Not that anything he ever said is believable, but if one looks around the Canadian Forces, as Lewandowski points out, the Maritimes and Newfoundland have long provided a disproportionately large number of recruits when compared to the rest of Canada. While it's certainly easier recruiting in a region where the economy often forces young people to look at the military as a career path, it's not fair to the rest of the country. Why not run these ads in Calgary? One would think that running hard-hitting recruiting ads in Conservative electoral strongholds would yield exceptional results. Instead of cheering the troops along, Harper/Bush supporters could stand should to shoulder with them.

Craig Pittman, a 26-year-old from Sydney, N.S., had already taken his service oath by the time he sat down to watch the ads, but he was still impressed.

"The first one was dark, but I found it very hyping," he said. "It hit me like, 'Wow! I think that would be kind of cool.' "

Really cool! There are a few parts, however, you were not shown.

Some of the things with which a young ordinary seaman becomes intimate are buckets, scrubbers and deck cloth. That ship "cutting through heavy swells" has to be kept clean. And, new riflemen should really get the recruiter to explain the hows and whys of a fire trench. There will, of course be those days when you just know a mule can't carry the weight that your platoon WO insists is your share of the load.

The goal is clear: show young men that the Forces can provide an exciting career option by appealing to their sense of adventure.

Young men? Hopefully this is a reporting error and not something out of the mouth of a recruiter. The CF is a completely equal opportunity outfit. Young women with a sense of adventure have as much access to all this good stuff as any young man. In fact, it's not just for the young.

There is a highly erronious belief out there, particularly among the microchip militia, that the recruiting age cut-off is somewhere in the 40 year-old range. That's in the USA. Canada has a different deal.

There is nothing to prevent anyone over the age of 16 from applying for service. In fact, the new compulsory retirement age in the CF is 60. Given that the shortest engagement is for 3 years that means that if you have not reached your 57th birthday, there may be a place for you. Just go here to find out.

I'm not sure about the amounts of adventure these new ads are supposedly highlighting, but a career in the service can be personally rewarding, a distinct challenge, financially adequate and at times, a lot of fun. And, oh yes, sometimes it can be deadly.

Sometimes dogs are just such... dogs

This is just plain funny, and, after sliding around all day and having that last pee, it's time for bed.

The Plan... and the results.

That there was no Phase IV planning for the occupation of Iraq by Rumsfeld's crowd in the Pentagon is blatantly obvious. However, the fact that most officers involved in the planning for Iraq considered Phase IV occupation planning essential, and tried to do it but were threatened with career action by Rumsfeld himself has been somewhat hidden... until this came to light: (Thanks to Canadian Cynic)

Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

And, the General elaborates.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq. (Emphasis mine)

Heavy stuff, and coming from a seasoned combat veteran like Rumsfeld... well, you just don't argue.

As if timed to demonstrate what can go wrong when you don't have a plan, this appears: (Thanks to reader Cat for the link)

Iraq's biggest province has suffered a total breakdown in law and order in which al-Qaida has emerged as the dominant political force, according to descriptions of a classified US military intelligence review reported today.

The report, by the US marine corps colonel Peter Devlin, focuses on the vast, arid region of Anbar in the west, which contains the insurgent-held towns of Fallujah, Ramadi and Haditha.

The Washington Post quoted military officers who had seen the report as saying the area was "beyond repair".

"We haven't been defeated militarily, but we have been defeated politically - and that's where wars are won and lost," was one army officer's summary of the review quoted by the newspaper.

And, the best Rumsfeld can come up with is sniping at the media for not reporting the good stories and wildly erronious analogies about the lead up to World War II. (He forgets to mention that not only did the US appease Hitler in 1939, they stayed out of the fighting entirely and continued to trade with Nazi Germany while Britain was being bombed.)

Funny thing about planning. In most militaries it's actually taught at a very junior level. In the US Army, for example, it is taught on the Basic Non-Commissioned Officer Course. And, I'll just bet you that in every NCO academy in the USA, as for almost every other NCO academy in every English speaking military, there is a sign pasted up somewhere in that institution which says: PPPPPP.

Take any order of words you like from that popular poster but it's obvious, Rumsfeld must have missed that day.

Sending main battle tanks is an escalation.

This has long been a rumour spinning around the bazaars.

A warning order was issued earlier this week to the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in Edmonton to prepare for the deployment. Twenty tanks are being readied for the operation and about 300 personnel will be heading to Afghanistan.

Which means the government is increasing the contribution to NATO's Afghanistan mission.

It also says the mission is nothing like what was originally intended. NATO had given itself a time frame of six months to stabilize those regions where Taliban activity continued. That clock has run out and the Taliban do not appear to have been contained.

The idea of sending Leopard main battle tanks to something that was advertised as a bolstered peace enforcement mission signals that Afghanistan is anything but stable.

It also raises the question of how the leadership of the CF is functioning. The Leopard C2 main battle tank was supposed to pass into history in favour of the Stryker wheeled mobile gun system (MGS) and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV). Supposedly the main battle tank had no value in the type of high-mobility warfare the Canadian Forces saw as its future. The Leopard was a cold war vehicle, unsuited to dealing with guerilla forces according to the army's leaders.

According to Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the army's Leopards had served their purpose and, despite recently undergoing a $145-million upgrade, were now of limited use. The vehicle of the future was instead the MGS, which the general, an armoured officer, dubbed state-of-the art and a "war-winner."

"A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada's army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations," Lt.-Gen. Hillier said. "We are losing a millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years," he added, referring to the Leopard.

And, there were a lot of people who strongly disagreed with that assessment, to the detriment of their careers if they happened to be in the service when they said it.

The Leo is back and being deployed overseas for a third time in its history as a Canadian weapons platform. Now a full General, Hillier seems to have changed his mind. And the "millstone" which he declared impossible to deploy and out of fit with the vision for the army is desperately needed to provide protection for a mission which NATO didn't expect.

The army, reversing its desire for a light, high-tech, mobile (and unproven) system asked the government to cancel the MGS and MMEV acquisition. Let's keep the main battle tank.

It gives one pause. Hillier now has a view in direct conflict with his very adamant position of three years ago. He was determined to get rid of the tanks; now he's determined to keep them and use them - even though, by his reckoning, they're quite useless. And, the project to build the MMEV, a high-tech anti-tank and anti-aircraft battlefield defence system has been suspended.

NATO countries were criticized by the US for not providing enough armour for their troops when NATO took over the leadership of the Afghanistan mission. That has been misinterpreted in many quarters but essentially what Rumsfeld's minkies were talking about was delivery of infantry in armoured vehicles. NATO commanders can be excused for that failing since what they got, in terms of Afghanistan's development and stability, was not what was advertized.

When the alliance initially took over the mission, NATO commanders said they would create a new strategy for dealing with the Taliban by establishing bases rather than chasing militants. The alliance also said it would seek to win the hearts and minds of the locals by creating secure zones for development and reconstruction to improve standards of living.

But for now, those goals exist largely on paper, and NATO commanders expressed surprise to learn that before their arrival, no development had begun in the region, despite statements from the US administration that it was satisfied so far with Afghanistan's development. (emphasis mine)

The fault rests with NATO commanders for believing anything the Bush administration offered on the state of Afghanistan. And, now, NATO is doing what the US was doing - chasing militants.

If there is anything about the deployment of the Leopards which is disturbing it is the dishonesty surrounding the release of information. Rumours have been swirling since late May. As little as three weeks ago DND was denying that the tanks were going to Afghanistan.

Now, suddenly the whole thing is true. The information was let out after 4 pm Ottawa time on a Friday. Ask any reporter why a government waits until then to release bad news. Not that it matters. When confronted with the question three weeks ago, DND lied about it.

Claiming "security" won't withstand a good washing. The arrival of MBTs on the battlefield of Afghanistan would have been no secret from the Taliban, and given the time it will take to get them there, even if the USAF airlifts them, the Taliban will have time to look up the soft spots on a Canadian Leopard tank.

The only possible reason for keeping the deployment of a heavy armoured force to Afghanistan a secret is that Harper's people know very well it would sit heavily with the Canadian public.

Of course, the whole thing is being minimized with the assurance that the Leopards will be used only as escorts for Canadian supply convoys.

The Leopards will be used for escort duty for Canadian convoys, which have continually come under attack by the Taliban, government sources said. In addition, some soldiers have suggested the presence of tanks would make insurgents think twice about attacking Canadian convoys.

No question, Canadian convoys are in need of greater protection and, perhaps an insurgent force might think twice about attacking a convoy escorted by a squadron of Leopards. Or, they might not.

In any case, given the fact that we have yet to encounter the truth over the Afghanistan mission and recently the deployment of tanks, there is no reason whatsoever to believe the "government sources" quoted. They've lied continually and they're lying now.

The Leopards are being sent to Afghanistan for direct fire missions.

It's all well and good for a "government source" to detail how a resource will be used, but once those tanks are there they become an asset of the force commander to use however he sees fit. Unless Harper or O'Connor intend to control the armoured corps in Afghanistan from their desks in Ottawa, once deployed they can be used in any capacity. Any field commander would find the availability of a high pressure gun against an enemy entrenched in a village hard to resist.

It would be impossible to believe this move hasn't been in the works for some time. NATO doesn't operate in a vacuum. The request for this force was issued a long time ago. And with that, future projects were put on hold or cancelled. The CF, in a deficit budget position now, cannot afford to engage in an escalated conflict and pay for the systems they actually wanted.

And, while there are elements out there making a mess in their underwear as they cheer this move on, it should be remembered that this is not the mission Canada signed on to. You can call it anything you like: mission creep or escalation.

Whatever it is, it's time the government came clean on Afghanistan and clearly define the mission.

Another addition to the blogroll

I've been reading along at The Next Agenda for a bit and asked Dave to include it in the GB blogroll, which I see he has now done. I came across the joint as a result of a series of very good Canadian history posts at DailyKos by someone with the tag of aphra behn. Those posts are also archived at The Next Agenda.

Spaced out Sundays

C 6888, also known as the Crescent Nebula, is a cosmic bubble about 25 light-years across, blown by winds from its central, bright, massive star. Near the center of this intriguing widefield view of interstellar gas clouds and rich star fields of the constellation Cygnus, NGC 6888 is about 5,000 light-years away. The three color composite image was created by stacking exposures through narrow band filters that transmit the light from atoms in the clouds. Hydrogen is shown as green, sulfur as red, and oxygen as blue. NGC 6888's central star is classified as a Wolf-Rayet star (WR 136) and is shedding its outer envelope in a strong stellar wind, ejecting the equivalent of our Sun's mass every 10,000 years. Burning fuel at a prodigious rate and near the end of its stellar life, this star should ultimately go out with a bang in a spectacular supernova explosion.

Mrs. Mills and her wonderful words of wisdom

Oh Mrs. Mills, where would we be without you?

Dear Mrs. Mills

After her birthday last year, my stepmother returned her present, saying she had no use for it and nowhere to store it. I am planning to send only a card this year — unless you have a better suggestion?

JH, Ramsgate

She sounds like a strong-minded woman, and attempts to rile her by giving her something large and tasteless will be similarly rebuffed (though I’d still be tempted to give her one of those plug-in internal water features one sees in downmarket gambling machine emporia). So, yes, you’ll probably have to stick to just giving her a card, only make sure it’s one with her age on it, or, better still, make her two years older.

P.S. It should also work with mothers-in-law.

Rushton shifts from race to sex

Women are smarter than men. Oops! Got that wrong. Men are smarter than women. At least, according to J. Phillipe Rushton, an individual whom a former premier of Ontario said he wanted fired from his post.

Rushton's latest piece of work, instead of amplifying his previous papers detailing how blacks simply aren't as intelligent as whites, now tackles the difference between sexes in terms of intelligence. He doesn't say whether a black male is more intelligent than a white female, but that would be a whole other study, wouldn't it.

Alison has the details on company this turkey keeps. Go there. It's worth reading - twice.

Another election threat?

While I would be hard pressed to find anything on which to agree with Steve Harper, I do share a basic view that the Canadian Senate needs to be reformed.

His appearance before a Senate committee was surely intended as political showmanship, although Harper does have a valid case. The current method of selecting senators, modeled after the British House of Lords, is arcane and patently undemocratic. That the term of a senator is age-limited (75 years of age) as opposed to time-limited is, at the very least, questionable.

What we're not getting is the full picture.

Harper's current proposal is to limit the term of senators to eight years. That's just the start, according to Harper, who says he will introduce legislation to have the Senate elected.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning Canada's appointed senators that they'll pay a political price with Canadians if they stand in the way of his plans for an elected Senate.

Those plans, the subject of an historic appearance by a prime minister at a Senate committee hearing yesterday, could see voters casting ballots for senators by the next federal election, Harper said.

[...]

It was evident Harper had a message of some kind to deliver to the Senate. He requested the appearance — the first by a prime minister before a Senate committee. The Senate is examining a bill, introduced by the government, to limit the terms of senators to eight years. Harper called this the first stage of his Senate reform plans. The second stage will come this fall when he introduces a bill in the Commons to have national elections of senators to fill those eight-year terms as vacancies come up. As of Nov. 1, there will be nine vacancies and Harper says he won't fill any of them until the reform process is under way.

Except for the fact that, despite prior assurances to the contrary, Harper filled a Senate seat by appointing Michael Fortier within days of being sworn in, without an election.

What is not clear at this point is how Harper plans on framing legislation which will have senators elected. The obvious method would be to use the amending formula in Part V, section 38 of The Constitutional Act, 1982.

Just how unlikely that will be however, is made evident by Harper's combativeness when appearing before the Senate committee reviewing current legislation.

With the weakest minority government in Canadian history, Harper cannot afford to gamble by prying open the Constitution and expect resolutions from both the Commons and the Senate and then approval of 7 of 10 provinces. Nor is he likely to put the question to referendum.

What is likely is a much more dishonest approach: Legislation will allow provinces to hold elections of senators and the Prime Minister would be legally bound to recommend those elected individuals to the Governor-General for appointment to the Senate. Senate appointments would meet the letter of constutional law even though the actual process is changed.

The problem is, it's Senate reform via the back door and it will do little to change the effectiveness of the body itself. Whether better or worse, the Australian Senate has much more power and has the advantage of being elected through proportional representation.

That isn't going to happen. Given Harper's propensity to complain that the existing Senate is stacked against him, a senate elected through proportional representation, from which increased power would flow, would probably be far worse.

The problem goes well beyond Harper. Any changes made to the structure and formation of either house of parliament changes the way Canadians will be governed. That kind of decision is too important to leave soley in the hands of politicians of any stripe. Determination and alteration of the style and substance of government is the responsibility and right of the population through direct democracy.

Any change to the Senate should be put to the voters in a clear, direct question.

And, now we get the threat of an election from Harper if he doesn't get his way. Just three weeks ago he issued an election threat if his $480 million gift to the Bush White House softwood lumber deal doesn't receive approval in Parliament.

What Harper is really trying to do is find an issue on which to call an election and blame somebody else for it; to avoid punishment at the polls for calling an election he so desperately wants but which most Canadians would rather not endure. Create the crisis - shift the blame - provide the solution.

How about those hospital wait times, Steve?

And another... to the blogroll

Rez Dog writes Unsolicited Opinion from Arizona. I could give you all the reasons I like it, but why not just check it out for yourself.

More to the blogroll

Three more to add to the blogroll. (Yes, three.)

In no particular order:

Abandoned Stuff by SaskBoy. Truly, there is some abandoned stuff accompanied by a good sense of humour.

Cowboys for Social Responsibility. Quick off the mark and straight to the point.

Harper-valley by Scout. Humour (humor), irreverence and fun, most of it at Steve Harper's expense.

OK, so there was an order. Alphabetical.

It's Amicicide and it's NOT friendly

Calling it friendly fire is so out of character with what actually occurs that it has been given a name - amicicide - murder of a friend or friends.

Amicicide happens in combat. It is a particularly amplified problem when the shooter cannot see the target. Air attacks on friendly troops, however, are particularly devastating since air ordnance is usually more destructive, concentrated and delivered with such speed the friendly troops have no means of finding adequate cover. That situation is exacerbated by the fact that troops on the ground, unless they are fully aware of the attack profile of aircraft, believe the air asset to be friendly and do not expect an attack. It comes as a total surprize and, where an enemy might have an opportunity to evade the effects of air-delivered ordnance, friendly troops do not.

This latest attack on Canadian troops by a US aircraft is the third since 2002 and the second which has resulted in a fatality. It establishes a pattern: reckless disregard for the consequences of error on the part of either the pilot or his controller.

One thing seems to be clear: the Canadian unit that was attacked was not in action and had not called in close air support. The troops were in desert camouflage and bivouaced next to a light armoured vehicle. They did not look like Taliban and the Taliban has no light armoured vehicles.


I will give the pilot of a ground support aircraft some due. Identifying targets isn't easy. It isn't supposed to be. It is warfare and everyone engaged in it should be clear with the fact that putting ordnance on the proper target is difficult, vital and requires every ounce of concentration the shooter can muster with complete confidence. Laissez-faire has no place on the battlefield whether it's a rifleman or the pilot of a multi-million dollar aircraft.

I'm certain somebody made a mistake. I'm just as certain there will be fingers pointed in five different directions looking to assign blame. The truth is however, the responsibility for the shot taken rests with the person whose finger was on the firing key. The final decision whether to close the firing key is made by the pilot with all due consideration to all the factors surrounding his/her particular sortie. That includes, if at all possible, visually identifying the target.

That quite clearly did not happen. Further, US air seems to dispense with any lessons learned from previous errors.

I will now be harangued by those who make claims that we have to "suck it up" or words to that effect.

Some will tell me that we so desperately need US close air support that we will just have to pay the price in troops killed by allied air.

So, how many Canadian troops killed is the price of US air support? Give me a fucking number. Because once you do it's a simple matter to hustle up some pseudo-CADPAT uniforms and send some untrained civvies to Afghanistan as cannon fodder. Wasting trained troops is unacceptable.


Some will whine that if Canada had better equipment we wouldn't need US air.

Now, you suck it up. We contributed to a mission in a particular category of troops and equipment - mechanized infantry. The agreement is that others would provide close air support and that agreement did not include subjecting our clearly identifiable mechanized infantry to allied air attack.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Take a flying fuck! I can goddamned well demand that allied air fly missions with all the competence and responsibility as they would expect from me. Canada did not beg to become involved in this fight. We were begged by the Bush administration to be there. And when US air commits manslaughter, Shrub shrugs his shoulders.

Since the hypothetical seems to get tossed about let's look at this:

If it were Canadian close air support bombing and strafing US troops, THREE TIMES, do you think for a minute that there wouldn't be blanket condemnation of Canadian competency by the US Department of Defense? Do you think they wouldn't be screaming?

There seems to be a lack of appreciation for the consequence of error. The acceptance of an error here and there is entirely misplaced. The US claims to be able to fight and deliver ordnance with absolute precision. Yet they don't always do it and suddenly we hear "fog of war".
Really?

Consider that the captain of a ship passes thousands of unseen underwater hazards and rocks every day and is expected to miss every single one of them. Even in the fog and even during action.

I'm calling US air in Afghanistan incompetent. And I'm screaming about it.

Westminster meltdown. Tony Blair dresses as a piece of toast

A casualty of Bush's war.....

Tony Blair today faced an implosion of his authority after seven government members resigned in protest at his refusal to publicly name a departure date.

After today's Sun claimed Mr Blair would resign as Labour leader next May and step down as PM in July, a junior minister and six parliamentary private secretaries quit in rapid succession on a day of high Westminster drama.

Although all seven resignations were from junior posts, the fact that each MP had been a loyal Blairite led the Conservative leader, David Cameron, to claim the government was "divided and in meltdown".

[...]

The chancellor, Gordon Brown, was spotted leaving the rear of Downing Street earlier today after what was reported to be an angry and uresolved conversation with the prime minister.

Unlike in previous crises, there was a conspicuous lack of cabinet ministers taking to the airwaves to defend the prime minister.

[...]

In his resignation letter to the prime minister, Mr Watson wrote: "It is with the greatest sadness that I have to say that I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country."

The PM hit back at the junior minister, calling him "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for having signed the letter.

In a statement, he said: "I had been intending to dismiss him, but wanted to extend to him the courtesy of speaking to him first. Had he come to me privately and expressed his view about the leadership, that would have been one thing.

"But to sign a round robin letter which was then leaked to the press was disloyal, discourteous and wrong. It would therefore have been impossible for him to remain in government."

It looks like Watson figured that out on his own.

After his performance of jumping on the Bush bandwagon over Iraq and allegedly selling peerages for "loans" to the Labour Party, it's difficult to feel sorry for the prep-school puppy.

In fact, it's impossible.

Yo, Blair! Try to keep your desk tidy and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

H/T Cat

Updating the Blogroll

I've been meaning to do this for some time. That's the problem. Time.

OK, enough with the excuses. I'll be adding to the blogroll over the next week. It'll be a "one at a time" thing and in no particular order. Hopefully readers will take the "time" to pay a visit to each blog.

First out of the blocks is Panglossian Notes. It's just plain good analysis and commentary on pertinent issues.

Pakistan gives Osama a free pass

"We rely on our allies." How many times have we heard that in the past four years?

Do we now?!

Read this.

The central government and tribal elders signed a peace agreement on Tuesday that will allow militants to operate freely in one of Pakistan’s most restive border areas in return for a pledge to halt attacks and infiltration into Afghanistan.

The deal is widely viewed as a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army, which has taken a heavy battering at the hands of the mountain tribesmen and militants, who are allied with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But the government may have in effect ceded the militants a sanctuary in the area, called North Waziristan.

In one of the most obvious capitulations since it began its campaign to rout foreign fighters from the area, the government said foreigners would be allowed to stay if they respected the law and the peace agreement. Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda are believed to be among the foreigners who have taken refuge in the area.

In other words, if Osama and his band of followers are lodged in North Waziristan they have nothing to fear from Pakistan. They get a pass... as long as they live within the bounds of the "agreement".

An agreement that isn't worth the paper it was printed on.

Pakistani soldiers immediately began to leave checkpoints in the region, handing them over to the local tribesmen.

The government also agreed to release all detainees and the militants pledged not to attack government forces or property or set up a parallel administration. Both parties agreed to return weapons and other equipment seized during the fighting.

The agreement appeared similar to an earlier one signed in South Waziristan, which essentially allowed the militants to remain armed and at large in return for not attacking the Pakistani military.

Is your head spinning yet?

Go back a few days and look at this then.

Pakistan is expected to push Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor for help with obtaining Canadian nuclear power technology today, as he visits Islamabad for talks about the rising Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan, a Canadian newspaper reported on Friday.

O’Connor flew into Islamabad last night and enjoyed a late dinner at the upscale Serena Hotel with Secretary of Defence Lieutenant General (r) Tariq Waseem Ghazi, the Globe and Mail said.

The first evening of the three-day visit was spent talking about Afghanistan and regional security, according to a source, but the Canadian delegation is likely to hear demands for nuclear assistance during today’s scheduled meetings with defence and intelligence officials, the newspaper said.

Analysts say nuclear technology could be a key bargaining chip in Canada’s increasingly urgent diplomatic efforts to win Islamabad’s support for the war against the Taliban.

The Inter-Services Intelligence agency has deep historical links with the Taliban movement, and some experts accuse the ISI of quietly fomenting the insurgency.

So, NATO is expected to waste lives, time and substantial resources sorting out a significant problem that Pakistan is complicit in promoting. While the Pakistan army withdraws. And, Pakistan presses Canada for a nuclear technology transfer in return for providing additional pressure and security in the Waziristan region.

Well done!

Oh yes... and we're to believe Osama and his crew haven't been in Waziristan, with the knowledge of the Pakistan government, since the attack on Tora Bora, when the Pakistanis failed to close the Khyber Pass.

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

With respect and condolences to the families and friends of Pte. William Jonathan James Cushley, 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment; Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, 1st Battalion The Royal Canadian Regiment; Warrant Officer Frank Robert Mellish, 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment; Warrant Officer Richard Francis Nolan, 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment; Sgt. Shane Stachnik, 2 Combat Engineer Regiment.

Pro Patria

Ubique
Quo fas et gloria ducunt

Wash, rinse, repeat

Defence minister Gordon O'Connor is at least being truthful about the situation in Afghanistan. It's not good.

There was one part of his statement to the press which should have caused ears to perk up among those who watched the TV wars of the 1960s and 1970s.

I've [also] asked military officials to develop a plan designed to help the Afghan government assume more responsibilities for their country's security.
"I would like to see increased contribution of military equipment by the government of Canada to the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National Army.

How many times have we heard the same thing from Rumsfeld and Bush about Iraq? This is their plan from November 2005.

The goal is to train enough Iraqi forces to carry the fight against the terrorists.

If you'd like to know how that's working out, take a look here.

Why do these people insist on repeating past mistakes? If they want a well-trained national armed forces they had better be prepared to provide direct leadership and control of those armed forces for the next 20 years.

Need an example of how not to do it?

Repeat after me - VIETNAMIZATION.

Defending an idiot

The Doughy Pantload™ burst forth in the LA Times yesterday with an impassioned plea to cut The Shrub some slack.

Really. Because Bush is, well, almost only human.

LORD KNOWS I have my problems with President Bush. He taps the federal coffers like a monkey smacking the bar for another cocaine pellet in an addiction study.

Wow... he nailed it. Just the kind of thing a country wants as President, Commander-In-Chief and so-called leader of the free world.

TBogg noticed.

Usually conservative commentators try to avoid using 'Bush', 'monkey' and 'cocaine' in the same sentence.

Jonah moved on to provide this:

And then there's Hurricane Katrina. Yes, the federal government could have responded better. And of course there were real tragedies involved in that disaster. But you know what? Bad stuff happens during disasters, which is why we don't call them tickle-parties.

Well done, Jonah! You're doing a heckuva job sorting through the death and destruction, the aftermath and the fact that the federal government is just now coming to realize they probably really, really screwed-up.

The hypocrisy is astounding because the media did such an abysmal job covering the reality of New Orleans (contrary to their reports, there were no bands of rapists, no disproportionate deaths of poor blacks, nothing close to 10,000 dead, etc.).

This is Goldberg making up things. This is a real media report.

Long before Katrina, New Orleans was a dysfunctional city in a state with famously corrupt and incompetent leadership, many of whose residents think that it is the job of the federal government to make everyone whole.

And, what was being done to correct that before Katrina?

Then, of course, there's the war on terror. Democrats love to note that Bush hasn't caught Osama bin Laden yet, as if this is the most vital metric for success.

Yes, there is that War On Terror™ thing. How's that working for you? Just Democrats note that Osama hasn't been caught. Actually, this is germane. I know, I know... look at the shiney thing over there!

Contrary to all expert predictions, there hasn't been a successful attack on the homeland since 9/11.

True. However, there's still time. As for expert predictions, most of those "experts" were, in fact, US government officials. I guess it depends whose homeland you're talking about. I would say, "Ask an Iraqi," but at this stage of the game calling the US attack on Iraq "successful" would be a real stretch.

That's why Bush's Democratic critics flit about like bilious butterflies, exploiting each superficial or transient problem just long enough to score some points in the polls and then moving on. Bush's Medicare plan was an egregious corporate giveaway, they cried, until seniors overwhelmingly reported that they like it.

Hmmm. Goldberg forgot to cite a reference to the overwhelming acceptance of Bush's Medicare plan. Here! Let me do it for him.

Look, things could obviously be a lot better.

Glad you noticed.

But they could be a lot worse too. John Kerry could be president.

Or it could be the person who won in 2000 - Al Gore.

It's time to cut the guy some slack.

Any more slack and he'll fall down the mountainside.

My god, what an idiot. Goldberg or Bush - take your pick.

A book challenge huh?

I'm going to take this on but I don't want to preclude any other members of GB taking it on too. So I'm not going to do the tagging until we've communicated a bit - I mean if 3 of us respond that's 15 tags and that seems excessive.

Interesting exercise by the way. Thanks.

Update, update, update!

After due consideration and numerous (okay - one) emails between Dave and myself it has been determined that we shall tag the following 5.

CathiefromCanada

The Rev at The Woodshed.

Alison at Creekside

Ross at The Gazeteer

and Jeff at A BCer in Toronto

Spreading the fun guys!

A book that changed my life?

When I was a teenager I used to walk to school down the alleys. One morning when I was 13 or 14 just a couple of houses away from us down the alley I saw a small book lying on the ground.

I remember it as about 3” wide and 4” long and maybe ¼ of an inch thick - shirt pocket small. It was bound in soft worn brown leather. The pages had gold edges and were vellum, like my father’s oldest bibles. Some pages were beautifully illuminated. The book was entitled “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam” (one of the Fitzgerald translations I learned much later). I had no idea what it was so I opened it and started reading while I walked. By the time I got to school that morning the 7th quatrain that begins “Come fill the cup and in the fire of spring…” had burned itself permanently into my memory. I must have read the whole thing 50 times over the next couple of weeks.

Subsequent readings over the years have burned other quatrains in there too. Like the 27^th and 28^th: “Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door where in I went.
With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow, And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow; And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd-- I came like Water, and like Wind I go.”

I gave it to the first girl I asked to marry me. I’ve almost never been without a copy since although never again one so lovely.

A book I’ve read more than once:

“The Rituals of Dinner: The Origins, Evolution, Eccentricities and the Meaning of Table Manners” by Margaret Visser. I can pick this book up, open it anywhere and be fascinated all over again. This isn’t a book about what cutlery to use – it’s more a book about why we use cutlery and why other cultures don’t. She starts the book by writing about the manners and rituals surrounding cannibalism and goes on from there. Hard to find now but well worth the time.

A book I would take with me if I were stuck on a desert island:

The Collected Works of William Shakespeare. Hands down, no question, not even any close competitors.

A book that made me laugh:

I very rarely laugh while reading. I may smile occasionally but more often than not I’ll just say to myself, 'that’s funny', like those annoying old comedy writers in “My Favorite Year”. So given the rarity of the event I can’t recall one book.

A book that made me cry:

I don’t think I’ve ever cried while reading. I’ll stop and put the book down and reflect on something but not actually cry. There was a biography written of my paternal grandfather that came closest. But they would have been tears of humiliation and rage at the hubris of christian missionaries.

A book that I wish had been written:

“The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy” by J. Edgar Hoover, E. Howard Hunt and Carlos Marcello. Imagine how different the world might be.

A book I wish had never been written:

Any religious text used as rationale to proselytize.

I'm currently reading:

There are two. “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell. There isn’t very much new data in it but it’s organized in such a way as to shift the context enough to make it interesting. And “A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599” by James Shapiro. A look at his most productive year and a fascinating examination of the cultural and political context influencing his work during that time.

A book I've been meaning to read:

“America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy” by Frances Fukuyama. Just because I want to know if these pricks actually think coherently. I’m funny that way.

What turned me onto fiction?

Real life.