Iraq. The Real Story

Award winning photojournalist Sean Smith, has put together a photo and film essay after being embedded with the US 101st Airborne Division in Iraq.

Whenever Rumsfeld, Cheney or even their sock-puppet in the White House utter words to the effect that the Iraqis are preparing to take control of their own security, they should be made to watch this video from The Guardian.

Rice Revenge

How predictable was this?

"The US state department official who said that the US had shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq has apologised for his comments. Alberto Fernandez, who made the remarks during an interview with Arabic TV station al-Jazeera, said that he had "seriously misspoke".

Gee, ya think?

So much for that career.

New Zealand vicar rescues women from panty shortage

You have to hand it to the Kiwis: They don't take things like a shortage of bras, panties and other "close to the body" items sitting down.

Inglewood, New Zealand has a problem. The only store in the community of 3000 which carried womens' underwear decided not to do that anymore.

Call in the local Anglican minister to provide a rescue!

A New Zealand clergyman has been dubbed the "knicker-vicar" for coming to the aid of women in his town who found themselves with a brief problem.

Concern was raised when the only clothing shop in the small North Island town of Inglewood stopped selling women's underwear.

So the Reverend Gary Husband proposed starting a regular "knickers-run" to the nearby city of New Plymouth.

"We get all the essentials here - apart from the ladies' essentials," he said.

The first run is planned before Christmas and, if successful, could be become a regular monthly event, he added.

He said he came up with the idea after the problem was brought to his attention by women in his congregation.

"Someone came up with the point that it was a bit difficult that ladies' essentials were not able to be bought in Inglewood," he told National Radio.

"So we're going to have what's been called a knickers run."

Volunteers will take anyone without transport the 20km (12 miles) from Inglewood to New Plymouth.

Of course, the whole initiative is eccumenical.

Rev Husband said the scheme was open to all, regardless of faith.

"This is for the community... the response has been positive, we've had one (other) denomination get in touch with us, so it's spreading."

Well done the Padre!

Another measure the Vicar might want to try is mail-order. Deliveries on Wednesdays... right after choir practice.

Media swipe at the Blogging Tories

Updated
This article made an appearance in newspapers across the country this morning.

Pro-Tory blogs support MacKay, dismiss Stronach

Personally, I don't have much time for any politician who uses the floor of the House of Commons to perpetuate a lovers' or ex-lovers' spat. The pair of them need to have their heads stuffed in a toilet and flushed until the cotton-candy runs out of their ears.

But, it was towards the end of the Canadian Press article which got my attention.

The websites listed at www.bloggingtories.ca have no official ties to the Conservative government.

But in recent weeks, the sites have run the same media talking points as those issued by senior officials in government.

That's innuendo which surfaced during the last federal election campaign. Founder of the Blogging Tories, Stephen Taylor, quickly put to rest any suggestion of impropriety and defended the actions of his members. For what it's worth, the accusations against Taylor appeared to be little more than sour grapes on the part of a couple of disaffected former Progressive Conservatives.

This latest bit from a major media organ is rather surprizing. While CP doesn't come right out and say it, there is a suggestion that some members of the Blogging Tories are in possession of Conservative government talking-points.

I have a tendency not to believe that.

Almost any political blog could be accused of that kind of thing. The truth is, Conservative party supporters, particularly Harper fanatics, would be well aware of CPoC dogma and it would be a simple thing to espouse them. Some are actually going to hit on the same points made by the PMO's spin machine. For the most part, however, it seems that the media talking-points CP is so concerned with are simply repeated after first being heard. There is also the fact that media talking-points surface with some regularity on the CPoC website, one of the only places you'll find a picture of Stephen Harper with a smile on his face.

There is also the fact that most media talking-points issued by the Conservatives are pretty simple and garnish-free.

CP's suggestion seems a bit of a stretch... and it probably gave the Blogging Tories more credit than they deserve.

Update: In comments there was more than one suggestion that I was being naive with regards the BTs. (One subtle, the other came right out and said it.) In all honesty, I don't really care. Maybe it's true. My point was to highlight the fact that a major media outlet was hinting at an accusation and then went so far as not to prove it. For anyone to take this posting as a defence of the Blogging Tories beyond that point would be a mistake.

However, I'll provide links, which came from comments, in the interest of offering more background. Certainly, during the last federal election campaign, the BTs ties with the Harper Conservatives became a point of contention, particularly where party fundraising was involved. Here and here are some well-detailed events which indicate a direct connection and there was certainly some fallout.

Holy Global Warming!

Here's a thing that closely resembles a monkey wrench.

86 members of the leadership of the Evangelical Christian Right in the US have become signatories to a document entitled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action".

It's a remarkable document in many ways not least of which is their unqualified acceptance of the scientific basis of human contributions to global warming.

Mostly though it spells even more trouble for the corporate sponsored global warming denial community.

And of course for the political right in North America.

Including Stephen Harper and his dog Rona Ambrose.

Halloween Haunted Studio Tour

If you're a fan of Halloween - or your kids are - or a film buff and you live in the Greater Vancouver area look at this and consider buying a ticket and going. Or buy a ticket even if you can't go just to support the Children's Hospital.

Another Weekend Rant

When I see a morning headline saying NATO soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan I know that by mid-afternoon I will learn that they were Canadians.

As a defensive alliance formed after the end of WW2 in response to the emergence of the Soviet threat NATO served a demonstrably useful purpose. As an offensively oriented alliance deployed for war in a part of the planet thousands of miles away from even the nearest arm of the North Atlantic it's a complete bust and a danger to the troops of this member nation to boot. NATO - at least in southern Afghanistan has effectively become an Alliance of One.
A British soldier stationed in Basra recently interviewed by The Guardian said that in his opinion the British troops had become just another tribe. "We are in a tribal society in Basra and we [the British army] are in effect one of these tribes," said Lt Col Simon Brown, commander of the 2nd Battalion. "As long as we are here the others will attack us because we are the most influential tribe. We cramp their style."

Given the history of the place that has the ring of accuracy to it.

I'm angry at NATO, our recalcitrant NATO allies, our Neo Government, our myopic and historically challenged Armed Forces command structure, the US for abandoning the fight against who those actually attacked them in order to exact an empty revenge on Hussein.

I'm angry that young men and women who enlisted in the armed forces to defend Canada are being sent into a meat grinder tens of thousands of miles away to fight and die in a country that has no real possibility of threatening the integrity of Canada just so Stephen Goddamn Harper can get some jumped up award from a right wing US institute named after the second worst president in American history.

Canadian men and women are being killed and wounded at an accelerated rate in Afghanistan because the Harper government decided that changing the mission from NATO and UN sanctioned reconstruction to one primarily battle oriented in order to act as a proxy force for Bush foreign policy was a domestic decision with which it could live.

That Canadian citizens serving in the armed forces might not live with or through the result didn’t once enter their calculations.

Which Canadian soldier has to be the last to die for a pointless mission ordered by this pudgy vainglorious ideologue with bellicose delusions of military grandeur?

Five things feminism has done for me

Woman in Comfy Shoes tagged all of us at Galloping Beaver for this meme. I confess that my first reaction was…what? Only five???? The list is endless. To give a little background, I’m a 49 year old woman, which means that I have traversed the entire spectrum of pre and post feminism. As a child, I lived in the “Leave it to Beaver” style of life with a mother who had no choices other than motherhood and wifehood. By the time I hit my adolescence, Women’s Liberation had hit full force and I was more than a little influenced by it…in fact, I embraced it with gleeful jubilation, readily seeing the benefits to myself. I spent my adult years painfully acknowledging that Women’s Lib had merely cracked opened a door that many were anxious to slam shut. And now that I’m approaching 50 years old, a stage of my life that I expected, after 40 years, would have fully incorporated and accepted feminism, I watch North America desperately scramble to turn the clock back. I am filled with rage, disappointment, despair, and at times, a heart so heavy I wonder if I will ever again feel that sense of freedom that the 13 year-old me exulted in when society told me that I, as a girl, was no longer lesser than boys. So, on with the list, an intensely personal list.

1. Because of feminism, I don’t have children. Don’t misinterpret this to mean that feminism prevented me from having kids. It’s quite the opposite. It allowed me to: a) acknowledge that I really, really don’t want kids and b) gave me the courage to stick to my convictions and not cave in every time a man said that he wouldn’t consider a long term relationship unless it carried with it the “possibility” of having kids. Note how the men assumed that they had control over the decision? They wanted to be able to say “kids” or “no kids” and they assumed that I would follow whatever decision they chose. Feminism allowed me the guts to say SCREW IT to them and tell them I’m NOT having children, regardless of what they wanted. It’s a decision I’ve never regretted. To this day, I know that I made the right choice for myself, even though it went (and still goes) against everything society says about women and motherhood.

2. Feminism killed the “bride gene” in me. (although, I don’t recall it ever existing in me). Due to my decision to be childless, I felt little need or desire to get married, or to even find myself a man. It just wasn’t that important to me. I developed a network of friends that became my family and support system, and men were something that were nice…under the right circumstances…but not necessary. (I guess that made me every fundie’s nightmare!). As a result, I never felt tempted to settle for second best. I was 44 years old when I married Dave – he was the only man I ever met that never asked or expected me to compromise my principles, lifestyle, or choices for him. Without feminism, I would not have held out long enough to have eventually found the man that I joyfully look forward to spending the rest of my life with.

3. In yet another fundie nightmare, feminism gave me an “attitude”. There’s not much about me that is not “in your face”. And believe me, I took the crap that goes along with that. I guess what feminism really did, in this department, was give me the confidence to have an attitude…to be able to tell people who thought I was too aggressive or not “feminine” enough to go shove it. Once again, I felt no need to justify or explain myself. I guess what it really did was give me the ability to be who I am without having to put on a false face. I could take rejection without being devastated by it.

4. In terms of my job, the accounting field, feminism insisted that I settle for nothing less than the best. I love what I do for a living, and I fully expect to earn a damn decent wage at it. And I do. I work hard for my money, I sacrifice an enormous amount of time and home life during the busy seasons, and I want to be compensated fully for it – not at “women’s” wages, but at acceptable, normal wages. I still remember one male employee at an accounting firm I worked at who, when he got married, demanded a raise simply because he now had a wife to support. We won’t talk about the fact that his wife had a full time job. He just automatically expected extra money for simply being a husband. Well, guess what, I expect the same money as him, regardless of my or his marital status. Pay me what I’m worth, not what you think my gender is worth. (that’s why I went into business for myself – if I work well and work hard, I get paid accordingly).

5. Feminism means I don't have to sleep with my husband everytime I want new drapes. Last, but most certainly not least, believe it or not, feminism gave me the ability to love a man to the best of my ability. Without feminism, my fear of being taken advantage of, my fear of losing myself as someone’s wife, my fear of disappearing from the face of the earth as Cheryl, would have overwhelmed me and put up brick walls that no man could have overcome. Being able to negotiate with Dave what our relationship would be, being able to lean on him during the tough times and knowing I won’t be taken to task for it, being able express myself freely (even when he’s not that thrilled over it..LOL), has given me the courage to not hold back. I can give 100% of my affection, support and loyalty, knowing that I am not in a position of weakness as a result. If nothing else, feminism allowed me to be vulnerable, but with the knowledge that I can survive the worst the world has to offer. Vulnerable is not so scary anymore.

Our non-strategy is killing people. Shit or get off the pot.

Sometimes it looks like too much to absorb. The mess that both Afghanistan and Iraq have become seem overwhelming at times.

And, there is no strategy.

Now, it's like mammoths in a tar pit trying to extricate themselves.

Today, in Iraq, the US had to send their forces back into Balad, a town which they had turned over to the Iraqi security forces just over a month ago. One can only imagine what Balad looked and smelled like after what is now a civil war erupted in the streets and ethnic cleansing left over 100 bodies laying in the streets for days.

Afghanistan is just as bad and unless some drastic measures are taken, it can only get worse. The failure of the US-led coalition which toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan five years ago to consolidate and secure is directly responsible for the conditions in that country today. The headlong rush into Iraq, ignoring the potential for Afghanistan to erupt, was more than a simple distraction; it was the abandonment of the source of a legitimate problem for the pursuit of an ideological agenda in a country which was being contained.

And, the problem simply re-emerged, like a festering boil that will not go away because the proper treatment is not applied.

Bush and Blair are directly at fault. Now, British commanders returning with their troops from the field are not holding back. Brigadier Ed Butler provided a scathing assessment of the situation in Afghanistan.

The battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan could have advanced much faster had it been tackled with the urgency required when the mission started more than four years ago, he said.

"We could have carried on in 2002 in the same way we have gone about business now," he said. "Have the interim four years made a difference? I think realistically they have."

That is general-speak for "It wasn't over in 2002 and you (Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld et al) should have damn-well kept your focus on the real problem. Now we have a helluva mess to clean up and its going to take a lot longer than you think."

In fact, Butler predicts it will now take 20 years to secure Afghanistan. That's a fair assessment from a commander who's been on the ground at the head of a force which took a severe beating.

Then we have Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor making statements like this:

To avoid wearing out his troops, Canada’s defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan, if possible.

Gordon O’Connor told the Commons defence committee Wednesday that with a little luck and good planning, the army won’t have to ask soldiers to return again and again to battle Taliban insurgents.

“There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February ’09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again,” he said.

Too late, asshole. I know people who are already there for a second tour and will likely end up returning for a third. And, O'Connor is putting a lot of stock in a recruiting initiative.

I would like to know how many more new battalions O'Connor estimates he can extract from the Canadian economy. If the plan is to maintain the current Canadian strength in Afghanistan for even 10 years he'll need 40,000 new recruits for the Afghanistan campaign alone. That's more than the special force recruited for Korea in the 1950s.

Of course, O'Connor is also on a mission from Washington, pleading with NATO countries to send more troops and have the national caveats lifted from those who are there. Most of those countries have been instransigent, believing involvement in Afghanistan was what was described to them - a stabilization and reconstruction mission.

"I've started the process of talking to ministers of defense to see ... if we can get these other countries to remove their caveats and to provide more troops," O'Connor told Parliament's defense committee.

"The basis of NATO is that we're all in the operation together and we all have to help each other. ... we would like more support from those who are deployed in the west and the north," he said.

Except that they're not buying it. The French and Germans have refused to move troops south. They know what happened. The US and British failed to complete their mission, no matter what line they tried to feed NATO, and they're not about to step in to clean up a mess created, for the most part, by the Bush and Blair administrations' rush to play the game of conquest in another country not even remotely connected with the Afghanistan situation.

Then there are the countries who are just flat-out refusing to commit anything more to any part of the operation. Norway simply said, "No". They could probably have said more, but "NO" carries a lot of weight, and why pour salt into that wound.

The long and short of it is that the situation in Afghanistan is a direct result of the unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

The destruction of both countries, the civilian casualty rate and the failure to provide a secure stable environment from which to rebuild their shattered nations is the fault of that smirking little prick occupying an oblong room in a building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC. It's the fault of the people who put him there and it's the fault of western leaders who followed him.

As Billmon says:

We did this. We caused it. We're not just callous bystanders to genocide, as in Rwanda, but the active ingredient that made it possible. We turned Iraq into a happy hunting ground for Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army. If Iraq is now a failed state, it's because of our failures.

And, if you think Afghanistan isn't related to the unbelievable and desperate situation in Iraq, I challenge you to show me why.

Now, there is a real problem. To abandon Iraq now would cast it into a civil bloodbath that would mirror the worst genocides of the past three decades. Not to mention that all that oil would likely become trapped and out of reach. And that, after all, was why the US invaded Iraq in the first place. (Unless you believe Cheney isn't really running the Bush administration).

It's all the true definition of a quagmire. We're all stuck with no way out and it is the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan who are paying the price.

There is a solution and the generals and defence ministers know what it is. The problem is, they know they cannot sell it to their citizens.

Put the appropriate numbers of troops on the ground and bring the whole mess to an end. Divisions in place of battalions. Ten times the number of troops then are presently there. The conundrum is, the US can't do it without a draft and Britain, Canada and the Netherlands can't do it at all.

It's either that or, get out completely, identify the new targets as they emerge and be prepared to have to fight them in the future. At least that's a strategy and it's a lot more than what exists in the halls of power now.

The Family Values Crowd Get Poked In The Eye

The family values crowd in the United States are probably quivering over this report.

It is by no means dead, but for the first time, a new survey has shown that traditional marriage has ceased to be the preferred living arrangement in the majority of US households.

The shift, reported by the US Census Bureau in its 2005 American Community Survey, could herald a sea change in every facet of American life -- from family law to national politics and its current emphasis on family values.

The findings, which were released in August but largely escaped public attention until now because of the large volume of data, indicated that marriage did not figure in nearly 55.8 million American family households, or 50.2 percent. (Emphasis mine)

There are elements in the US treating this as some of the worst news they could possibly have been handed. Despite all the "family values" emphasis coming out of the religious right and their government surrogates, more and more people are opting for common-law couples relationships or a continued single life.

The truth is, formalizing a couples relationship with marriage vows has become unattractive to many people. To many it carries with it the underlying theme that what may be an equal partnership will turn into a "traditional" marriage. A good number of people, particularly women, view that as a regressive step.

Many western industrialized countries have experienced a decline in the number of formalized marriages. This has been translated, particularly by the literalist bible interpreting Christian community, as some form of moral decay and a disintegration of the traditional family.

That hasn't been proven and it's likely very untrue.

People entering a couples relationship whether it involves co-habitation or otherwise are usually just as committed to each other as those who choose the marriage route. In fact, such relationships usually require a greater level of negotiation and compromise to survive. There is no imperative compelling survival of the relationship on artificial religious grounds or some divine grace ratified by a priest, pastor or other human.

In our own case, we were quite happy living together in unmarried bliss. We were no less a committed couple than the legally married people next door. In fact, we were probably much happier, not because we weren't married, but because we had negotiated our positions in the relationship. Equality ruled and we were quite happy with that arrangement.

We probably would have continued a loving common-law relationship indefinitely until an obscure government rule relating to a particular survivor benefit became clouded over the issue of the definition of "spouse". Both being practical when it came to that sort of thing, we decided to make it easy on each other and formalize what we already had. There was a condition: nothing about the relationship was to change - at all.

And, it didn't.

What happened was that we went on in our happy pursuit of life. No government witholding an earned financial gain because of a definition and no subservience to some religious sacrament which had no meaning in our lives. And, definitely no descent into the 20th Century assumption of roles based on the teachings of any number of "family values" promoters who view this as a documentary and training aid on successful marriages.

If the US statistics bear any fruit worth examining it is that the family values crowd is so far off base with the reality of the 21st Century that they aren't even in the game anymore. Unable to keep their beliefs to themselves they insist that without traditional marriage, without traditional family life (including the subjugation of women) and without religious oversight, the entire country will collapse.

That may happen anyway but, it won't be because couples didn't follow the advice of the likes of Big Daddy Dobson.

I wasn't such a fool after all

Finally, vindication for taking a Home Economics course over three decades ago... and some acceptance for showing up with oily hands from the automotive class.

Feminism made me the cook I am.

Thou Shalt Not Mess With A Chimp

I know, I know, this blog normally doesn't deviate too far from the political, but after putting a few thing together I realized there was something wrong.

I have a lot of friends in odd places. The Fleet Diving Unit is one of them.

Odd that I couldn't find many divers there. These people are the world's finest explosive ordnance disposal experts - bar none.

I wondered where they were, because they weren't in unit and from what I could gather they haven't been around for a long time.

Curious.

So, while I try to sort out why I could have shot a cannon through FDU and not hit a soul I thought maybe I should point out something esle.

This.

Chimps are stronger than humans.

Sometimes the obvious seems so obscure.

Just sayin'... y'know.

The New York Times opens a can of old, dead worms: The arming of the Great Lakes

The American Paper of Record has picked up on a story that's been around for some time now.

For the first time, Coast Guard officials want to mount machine guns routinely on their cutters and small boats here and around all five of the Great Lakes as part of a program addressing the threats of terrorism after Sept. 11.

Uh... yeah. So the New York Times is just now becoming aware that the US Coast Guard is establishing live-fire exercise areas in the Great Lakes. That was covered back here - from Canadian public sources.

And, there are some interesting things in the New York Times article. (All emphasis mine)

Many here in Grand Haven, a town whose history is so lovingly intertwined with the Coast Guard that it holds an annual festival celebrating the service branch, say they think of Coast Guard members mainly as the rugged sailors who race off to search for and save troubled boaters. But even here, in a town that calls itself “Coast Guard City U.S.A.,” some say the thought of members firing machine guns anywhere near these waters strikes them as dangerous to ordinary boaters, potentially damaging to the Great Lakes’ ecosystem and, frankly, a somewhat surprising place to be bracing for terrorists.

“You know exactly what’s going to happen with this,” said Bob Foster, 58, who said he spends every chance he gets on the waters here. “Some boater is going to inadvertently drive through the live fire zone and get blown out of the water.”

So... the local boaters, tour operators and captains think this could get a little dangerous. In all honesty, there is some truth to that belief. Any live firing has the potential to go wrong. That isn't normally the case, but I understand niggling fear. And, these are the Great Lakes users on the US side.

Carole Loftis, the owner of Snug Harbor, a popular restaurant with windows on the water, said that although she certainly carried concerns, like most Americans, about terrorism, drunken boating seemed a more frequent threat around here. “This seems a little like overkill,” Ms. Loftis said of the shooting plans.

Sounds like a lovely place. Clearly terrorism hasn't had the sobering effect on boaters that it's had on some people. Don't they know it's a war?

“When I heard, I thought it was something from The Onion newspaper or an Internet hoax,” said Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario, which sits beside Lake Huron, where 6 of the 34 live fire zones are planned. “This whole thing was done way below the radar.”

It was done pretty quietly, but if I can point out this article, not from the Onion and not from errant blogger but, from the CBC. Dated 15 March, 2006, this was the headline:

U.S. puts machine-guns on Great Lakes coast guard vessels

Kind of gives the mothercorp a whole new aura, doesn't it? There's more from the NYT:

Herb Bergson, the mayor of Duluth, got a telephone call in September from a resident who said she was listening to her marine scanner, heard talk of shooting on Lake Superior and wanted the mayor to explain what was going on.

“I didn’t know what to tell her,” Mr. Bergson said. “I was caught just flat-footed. No one told me, and they should have.”

Really?

Didn't anybody read this out of the US Federal Register dated August 1, 2006?

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish safety zones throughout the Great Lakes. These zones are intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Great Lakes during live fire gun exercises that will be conducted by Coast Guard cutters and small boats. These safety zones are necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with the firing of weapons.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 31, 2006.

We did.

It doesn't matter whether you object or not because this also appeared in the Federal Register of that day:

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of these safety zones will be periodic in nature and will likely not exceed two or three one-day events per year. Moreover, these safety zones will only be enforced during time the safety zone is actually in use. Furthermore, these safety zones are located in places known not to be heavily used by the boating public. Hence, this determination is based on the minimal amount of time that vessels will be restricted from the proposed zones and that the zones are located in areas which vessels can easily transit around. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these zones.

Repeat after me: Done deal.

The US Coast Guard has suddenly decided to hold public hearings.... and the New York Times decided to look at something other than their collective navels.

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

With respect and condolences to the families and friends of Sergeant Darcy Scott Tedford, 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment; Private Blake Neil Williamson, 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment.

Pro Patria

Thoughts for a Weekend

I try to maintain perspective, I really do.

I try to remain confident that our current government is just as committed to the well being of Canada and Canadians as most if not all of our previous governments. I try to believe that even if I disagree with them they nevertheless, by their lights, have the best interests of the country at heart.

Then I remember how remorselessly the Conservatives have been aping the strategy, tactics and language of the US Republican Party.

I recall how welcoming they've been to the radical christian right organizations that the Republicans courted so effectively and it now turns out, as many suspected, so hypocritically.

I recollect the Republicans leading pollster and election strategy advisor, Frank Luntz, coming to Ottawa to give them a workshop on how to leverage and maintain their power.

And then I look south at the trainwreck the Republicans have wrought. My perspective vanishes and I despair for the future of my country. I do not mean that figuratively.

When a nation of nearly 300 million, with an economy 10 times the size of ours becomes so dysfunctional in a little over 10 years of Republican domination, how short a time will the Conservatives need to re-create a similar result here.

Look at the wedges they've managed to deploy in mere months. “Defence of Religion”, which needs no defending; slashing or eliminating women’s programs and banning those few remaining from lobbying; attacking the Wheat Board and banning it from defending itself. There are probably more that I haven’t thought of and I am certain that there are more to come. Political wedges, following the advice of Frank Luntz, is very nearly the sum and substance of their playbook.

Soon we’ll have another wedge issue introduced in Parliament when they introduce the motion to re-open the same sex marriage debate. Even though it’s clearly understood by all that their only recourse for turning back that clock would be to use the notwithstanding clause. Thus becoming the first government in the western world to manipulate its constitution to eliminate the previously established rights of citizens.

Whose rights would be next?

I’ve even begun to question how safe a legal concept habeas corpus would remain under Canada’s Neo Government as they continue down the road of mimicking today’s Republicans. Among many Conservative supporters there is a deep contempt for the courts, the legal system and the established law of the land. Occasionally a quieter, more subtle yet similar contempt is heard from members of the Conservative government. I wonder if the right to face and question your accuser, perhaps especially if your accuser is a Conservative, is a target of that contempt.

This incarnation of conservative political philosophy is unprecedented in Canada. Just as the current version of the Republican Party in the US is unlike any before it, a fact to which many traditional American Republicans are now awakening. Canadians are lulled by the application in the media of the old, trusted identification of them as Tory. Edward Greenspon of the Globe and Mail defended the Globes use of the word in relation to today’s Conservative Party by telling me in an email of June 3, 2005 that “This may not be the party of Sir John A Macdonald at the moment, but it is the only party with any strands of John A. Macdonald’s political DNA and may yet persevere to be the party of John A. Macdonald in the future.” I can’t help but wonder how much rope he, and by extension the rest of our national media, is willing to give them. I cringe to think how much of today’s Canada will be dangling at the end of that rope by then.


Today, after not even a year of Conservative government, I look around me and I already see a significant reduction in things to admire about my country. If these Conservatives are given a majority by the time their first mandate is over we will look, sound and feel very different. We will be much like the bitterly and irreconcilably divided USA of today I strongly suspect. The early evidence of that is already irrefutable.

We are edging closer and closer toward becoming a country of which I would be ashamed to be a citizen.

How Dare He Contradict The Prime Minister

According to the BBC,

"The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

What do you reckon this makes any difference?

Me, I think the arrogant sods are so far in it that all they can do is drown now. Any attempt to extricate themselves will just look like an admission of error and that's not on.

Of course, complicating things is the report in The New York Sun of all places that the commission headed by James Baker to look into US options vis a vis the Iraqi quagmire is not going to be recommending anything Georgie is going to like.

"A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term."

Good news for the Bush and Blair dog and pony show all round today.

The Hydra starts to emerge

I'm going to call this a measured response:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says there is no indication North Korea has developed nuclear weapons capable of reaching Canada.
Harper said North Korea’s assertion that it successfully tested a nuclear weapon on Monday is obviously concerning.

“But with all that said, we don’t have any evidence today that North Korea’s capacities threaten Canada,” Harper said following an announcement in Vancouver on Wednesday.

Maybe it's the Pacific air, because he threw a temper tantrum when we didn't follow the US into Iraq. He went on to tell reporters that this doesn't mean Canada will be entering into talks with the US over ballistic missile defence - even though Bush suggested he's going to us this opportunity to increase "co-operation" with allies.

So.... what will little Stevie do if the clown running the US lets Cheney talk him into invading Iran? Where will Harper stand? With Bush, or with Canadians?

Olbermann Tonight

A man named David Kuo has written a book called "Tempting Fate".

Mr. Kuo used to be the second in command in Bush's Office of Faith Based Initiatives and who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003.

In his book Mr. Kuo lays bare the Bush administration's manipulation of the christian right. He reveals that behind their backs christian leaders were called "the nuts", "ridiculous", "out of control", and just plain "goofy".

He says that the office (and taxpayer funds) was used to stage events aimed at mobilizing religious voters .

And much more.

Olbermann has a pre-release copy of the book. The vid is here.

On top of Old Foley and all the soiled towels that are yet to pile up on that story the news isn't getting better for Bush and the Republicans.

The question is whether the christian right gives a shit that they've been played.
The probability is that they feel they've been playing the Republicans and are feeling quite satsified with themselves. Feeling self-satisfied is after all what they are most masterful at. They'll probably just brush all this off in that delightfully sanctimonious way they have about them.

But then I don't think they have the ethicality of aluminum siding salesmen, the honesty of crack whores or the morality of beltway pimps.

And now of course we have our very own versions of both the republican party and the delusional christian right.

I wonder who the people are in Harper's office who refer to them as "the nuts".

I also wonder how many of Harper's harpies will be on the phone to the Canadian wingnut factions of the US organizations trying to re-assure them Harper's Conservatives are sincere, not like those republicans at all. Canada really will be a christian plutocracy come hell or high water. Or both.

When the US has the flu, the West is constipated and the world sneezes

From Watching America, this is what happens when Europe (in this case, Portugal) gets its information about the US from a book written by Bill O'Reilly. Lord help us.

The his latest book, Bill O'Reilly, the cable TV commentator with the largest audience in America, focuses on the current fight between secularists and traditionalists in the United States.

The feirce conflict is more cultural than partisan, since both parties (the Democrats more, the Republicans less) are divided within. The struggle has penetrated the press and has been taken up by the courts. And ultimately, this is an important battle for all of us, since no one in this world can escape what happens in the United States: when the U.S. has the flu, at the very least the West is constipated and the world sneezes.

What distinguishes secularists from the progressives are essentially two things: the role of God in life and intransigence when it comes to values.

Most secularists are atheists or agnostics, whereas the traditionalists are believers: usually Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc. There are a number of practical implications to this, one of which is the most recent controversy. In the fall of 2005, the ACLU along with various foundations led a campaign to substitute the words Happy Holidays for the word Christmas in publicity campaigns for Sears, K-Mart, Walmart, etc. They also sought changes in the way the customers were greeted in the stores and to prohibit Nativity scenes and Christmas trees in public places; etc.

The fight ended in total victory for the traditionalists. In December 2005, the American Congress introduced bill number 579 that "defends the symbols and traditions of Christmas and supports their public use."

The second front of the battle is in regard to values: Intolerance from the traditionalist side and relativism from the secular camp.

This comes down to a few areas. Abortion: no versus yes, (with and without limitations); terrorism: combat or dialogue; fiscal organization: limited (to not discourage individual responsibility) versus progressive (to redistribute income); criminal sentences: severity versus leniency with medical treatment. For some, the party guilty of a crime is responsible for all the consequences; for others, society too carries some responsibility.

A good recent example is the proliferation of Jessica's Law amongst a number of states. The law forces judges to sentence anyone found guilty of a sex crime with a minor to a minimum of fifteen years in prison. On the other side are supporters of treatment for perpetrators. One such person is Judge Cashman of Vermont. In 2006 he sentenced a child rapist who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over the course of four years, to a 10-year term with all but 60 days suspended, so that the rapist could get treatment outside of prison.

The American people see themselves more as more traditional (2/3) than secular (1/3), according to a Pew Research poll. In Europe? The country most similar to the U.S. is Great Britain, which explains the reason that the two understand each other so well in political terms, especially foreign policy

As for the majority of Europe, the differences reinforce the idea of American exceptionalism first recognized by Alexandre de Tocqueville in the 19th century. That is, there is an acute difference in values and mindset between the U.S. and Europe, and from there all else follows.

Bush: No capital, no authority, and a nuclear North Korea

Some people may find Robert Parry a little over the top at times but no one can suggest he isn't one of the most diligent investigative reporters of the past 25 years. While working for Associated Press, with his partner Brian Barger, he uncovered the activities of one Oliver North and was the first to make the connection between the Nicaraguan Contras and Latin American cocaine traffickers. Both stories blew the lid off what was to become the Iran-Contra Affair.

Parry has written a detailed account and timeline specifying the events which led to North Korea exploding a nuclear weapon on 9 Oct. He pulls no punches.

Months before 9/11 and the "global war on terror" - and two years before the Iraq War - George W. Bush tested out his tough-talkin' diplomacy on communist North Korea. Bush combined harsh rhetoric and intimidating tactics to demonstrate to Pyongyang that there was a swaggering new sheriff in town.

In his first weeks in office, Bush cast aside the Clinton administration's delicate negotiations that had hemmed in North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The new President then brushed aside worries of Secretary of State Colin Powell and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung about dangerous consequences from a confrontation.

At a March 2001 summit, Bush rejected Kim Dae Jung's détente strategy for dealing with North Korea, a humiliation for both Kim, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Powell, who wanted to continue pursuing the negotiation track. Instead, Bush cut off nuclear talks with North Korea and stepped up spending on a "Star Wars" missile shield.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush got tougher still, vowing to "rid the world of evil" and listing North Korea as part of the "axis of evil."

More substantively, Bush sent to Congress a "nuclear posture review," which laid out future U.S. strategy for deploying nuclear weapons. Leaked in 2002, the so-called NPR put North Korea on a list of potential targets for U.S. nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration also discussed lowering the threshold for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons by making low-yield tactical nukes available for some battlefield situations.

By putting North Korea on the nuclear target list, Bush reversed President Clinton's commitment against targeting non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons. Clinton's idea was that a U.S. promise not to nuke non-nuclear states would reduce their incentives for joining the nuclear club.

[...]

The North Koreans were telegraphing how they would respond to Bush's nuclear saber-rattling. They would create a nuclear threat of their own.

But Bush was in no mood to seek accommodation with North Korea. During one lectern-pounding tirade before congressional Republicans in May 2002, Bush denounced North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il as a "pygmy" and "a spoiled child at a dinner table," Newsweek magazine reported.

Parry goes on to describe the reaction of the North Koreans to Bush's invasion of Iraq. Rather than cower and respond to US demands, they viewed an eventual US attack as fait d'accompli. They had nothing to lose by developing a nuclear weapon.

As if Parry's analysis isn't stinging enough, The Times, Alice Miles provides her reaction to the US president's response to the North Korean nuclear test. She echoes the thoughts of most people in the world - The president of the United States of America has nothing important to say.

There he was gravely intoning on one or other news channel that this "constitutes a threat to international peace and security", and "Oh sod off" I heard myself muttering, with no desire to hear any more. It was as much ennui as irritatiodidn't didn't believe he would have anything useful to say and found it faintly annoying that he spoke as though the world would care.

One reaction from a completely insignificant voice in the political process. Yet it reveals, I think, a sad truth: the 43rd President of the United States of America has squandered the political authority of a great country. Never mind whether world leaders still feel the need to check in with the US; ordinary people no longer expect from Washington international leadership of any use. So spent is the authority of the United States that even a foreign affairs ingenue such as myself recognises that there is little constructive it can do any more. So it doesn't really matter what the President thinks. (Emphasis mine)

Two years ago, after winning a second term as the most powerful national leader in the world, George W. Bush said:

I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.

Nice try.

Capital? More like an allowance, with which he ran down to the candy store and squandered on a fistful sugar-laden junk.

George W. Bush: politically bankrupt, and a disgrace to a once great nation.