Mrs. Mills does bra-less

Mrs. Mills, as always, deals with a rather delicate situation. Well, maybe not so delicate.

I am attending a black-tie affair and have chosen my dress for the occasion. I have quite an ample bosom, which I would normally have trussed up in an appropriately supportive garment, but the dress is cut in such a way that a normal bra would be exposed for all to see. Is it acceptable to go bra-less, bearing in mind the amount of potential jiggling around and nipple definition?

Far from leaving the poor woman in a dilemma, Mrs. Mills roots through the drawer and comes up with the answer. And pay close attention to her measurements.

Going bra-less is all down to how confident you feel, as you will discover that your cleavage has an ineluctable power to draw the gaze of men. The eyes of all the women will go in the opposite direction, rolling upwards with exasperation and not a little envy. To avoid a Janet Jackson-style “wardrobe malfunction”, you should use what is known in fashion circles as “tit tape”, although packing tape might be more useful in your case, if you really have a handful to keep in check. (One handful = 4 tbsp or 6in, depending on what you are measuring). You would also be wise to refrain from pogoing or turning cartwheels, at least in the early part of the evening.

Catch the rest of Mrs. Mills at the Times Online.

In search of "Unanimous Support"

In view of this post by Alison, the Rev. reminded us of one he launched into blogtopia (yes, yes, a term coined by Skippy) almost 18 months ago.



The Rev. did provide more for the sermonette. Here's another from God's Favorite Band.




I'm sure there are a few who will miss the message.

Nobody Is "Winning" Anything

Afghanistan. New York Times Magazine. Elizabeth Rubin.

"One full-moon night I was sitting outside a sandbag-reinforced hut with Kearney when a young sergeant stepped out hauling the garbage. He looked around at the illuminated mountains, the dust, the rocks, the garbage bin. The monkeys were screeching. “I hate this country!” he shouted. Then he smiled and walked back into the hut. “He’s on medication,” Kearney said quietly to me.

Then another soldier walked by and shouted, “Hey, I’m with you, sir!” and Kearney said to me, “Prozac. Serious P.T.S.D. from last tour.” Another one popped out of the HQ cursing and muttering. “Medicated,” Kearney said. “Last tour, if you didn’t give him information, he’d burn down your house. He killed so many people. He’s checked out.”"

Good thing Canadians are superior beings to Americans or we'd be reading articles like this about our own men and women.

We're not superior you say?

Pity.

How it is and how it should be

A few posts ago over at The Woodshed (also posted here last week), commenter RossK aka the Gazeteer asked how good journalists stop the swiftboating of candidates.
It isn't just a matter of the work of a single journalist, in fact what passes for journalistic ethics can sometime perpetuate inaccurate information in the name of providing balance, reporting such stories as groups lying about John Kerry's war record or making spurious accusations about Obama's property dealings as a sort of "he said/she said" story in which no conclusion is drawn as the truth of the allegations or the credibility of the source.
This sort of reporting is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit. Only a buffoon or a Nazi propagandist would report a story dealing with say, Holocaust denial, by saying "Well, David Irving says the Holocaust never happened, but almost every other historian in the world says it did, so who knows what really happened?" and yet this is the way the original swiftboat accusations were reported. Even after the claims of the paid political group were thoroughly debunked they kept being repeated in the media. Proper reporting examines the souces and what they say instead of just parroting the content of the press release.

Thus, we present these examples:

The way it is done

Alcatraz O'Houlihan (perky young female CNN anchor of indeterminate ethnicity): Disturbing accusations are surfacing about Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama today. Wulf Blitzkrieg has more. Wulf?
Wulf Blitzkrieg (steely-eyed, jut-jawed CNN reporter) Alcatraz, I'm here in Chicago speaking with Jon Galt, whose community group will soon be airing some public service announcements on television across the country that make some disturbing accusations about Barrack Obama. Jon, I understand that your Chicago-based group of concerned citizens claims that Obama once sold crack to children, is that right
"Jon Galt" (a well-groom, middle-aged white man in a nice brown suit) That's absolutely right Wulf. As you know "Barry" Hussien Obama brags in his book a that he smoked pot as a teenager. But if you thought that was disturbing, I'm here to tell you that he used to sell crack to schoolkids while disguised as a nun.
Wulf: That is indeed a disturbing accusation, that Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as nun. Did you witness this yourself?
"Galt":Not exactly Wulf, but a member of our group - Chicagoans Organized Can Knowingly Sink Unethical Candidates with Knowledge Everytime, Regardless - heard it from a friend who knows the guy who cuts Obama's dogs' hair, so obviously the fact that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dress as a nun is indisputable. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his criminiality.
Wulf: Well, that looks like pretty solid evidence to me, Mr. Galt, thank the good Lord for public watchdog groups like yours. There you have it Alcatraz, this group of citizens want people to know that Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun. It's pretty disturbing stuff.
Alcatraz: It certainly is Wulf. Has Obama's campaign responded to the news that he used to sell crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun?
Wulf: Well, they said it was beneath comment, so obviously they are running scared about this relevation that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun. In a related story, Bill O'Donahue of the Catholic Defensiveness League told CNN that if some pervert like Obama were to dress up as a nun to do something as evil as selling crack to schoolkid, it would be pretty bad and should disqualify them from being president.
Alcatraz: Well Wulf I'm sure we can count on you to keep us posted on these and other disturbing allegations about Obama's blasphemous cross-dressing and drug dealing. And now, back to our top story -- Seamus Sanchez, what is the latest in the Paris Hilton crisis? Does it look like her Chihuahua will survive?

The way it should be done

Greg Palast (Champion investigative reporter and new anchor of CNN after the company is bought by Al Gore and George Soros and set up as an independent non-profit foundation run by its staff-elected editorial board): Well, thanks for that story on the latest fundementalist church sex scandal, Anderson. Now, finally, before we go to sports, we have a sort of an odd story from Rev. Paperboy about a group of political activists making accusations about Presidental candidate Barack Obama.
Rev.Paperboy (Svelte, steely-eyed bon vivant, rancouteur and champion of truth, justice and good jazz): Well Greg, I'm here with a man who goes by the name "Jon Galt" who claims to have some disturbing information about Barak Obama. What is it your group is claiming Mr. "Galt"?
"Jon Galt" (a well-groomed, middle-aged white man in a nice brown suit): Well, sir, our group has it on good authority that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dressed as a nun.
Rev. (beginning smile broadly) Oh, really? That's a pretty serious allegation Mr. "Galt". Can you back it up?
"Galt":Absolutely! A member of our group - Chicagoans Organized Can Knowingly Sink Unethical Candidates with Knowledge Everytime, Regardless - heard it from a friend who knows the guy who cuts Obama's dogs' hair, so obviously the fact that Hussien Obama sold crack to schoolkids while dress as a nun is...
Rev.: Total bullshit.
"Galt": I beg your pardon?
Rev.: C'mon, Mr. "Galt", this is obviously a trumped up charge put together by a bunch of partisan political character assassins organized by the Republican party, isn't it?
"Galt": But he sold crack! to schoolkids! I don't even know any republicans! He dressed up like a nun!
Rev.: Gimme a break, this isn't even your real hair. (yanks toupee off of "Galt's head) Your name isn't Jon Galt, you're Jeff Gannon aka Jim Guckert, the prostitute and right-wing shill that infiltrated the White House press corps a few years ago aren't you?
Gannon: Well, yes, that's true. But I'm outraged by this left-wing bias in the mainstream media! We are a group of concerned citizens with no ties to any political party that...
Rev.: Zip it, Rent Boy. Your "Chicagoans Organized Can Knowingly Sink Unethical Candidates with Knowledge Everytime, Regardless" is a tax-exempt 527 group set up by another group funded by the Republican party. Its memebership rolls consist entirely of the interns at the Heritage Institute and the board of directors includes Karl Rove and James Baker's personal assistants and Grover Nordquist's 102-year-old mother.
Gannon: That's outrageous! We are not! You can't prove that, we burned all the rec...
Rev.: (produces sheaf of singed papers) Nice try, Jimmy-Jeff. This is your membership roll, minutes of your board of directors' meetings and collection of cheque stubs from Ann Coulter, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife and a group called "Republican Activists To Fight Undesirable Candidates with Knavery" -- we got them from your janitor. You really should have been nicer to Juan, before asking him to destroy evidence.
Gannon: But, but, but...aw crap! Okay, its a fair cop.
Rev.: And there you have it, Greg: Yet another inept attempt by the Republicans to smear the Democratic candidate. Back to you.
Palast: Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick Rev., how dumb do these prick think the American people are? It makes me sick some days. Now, on a brighter note, in our top story the World Court in the Hague has confirmed that they will waive their prohibition on the death sentence for the war crimes trial of Donald Rumsfeld...

We didn't expect this. I have no speech prepared!

Heavens to BoBo! We hardly expected this. Some people out there in Blogtopia (a term which was coined by Skippy) have extensive blogrolls. So, it was an honour (note the spelling there Skippy) to have been selected from his blogroll for this award.

Skippy was discovered by moue magazine and passed on the award to these fine blogs:

zaius nation

zen comix

whiskey fire

vidiot speak

vagabond scolar

mike, the mad biologist

the galloping beaver

echidne of the snakes

drinking liberally in new milford

the culture ghost

correntewire

cookies in heaven

cannablog

blue girl, red state

blue gal

badtux, the snarky penguin

They're all great reading. And now that we are almost at the point of being within six degrees of separation from The Daily show with Jon Stewart, I am happy to move this award along.

In no particular order:

The Woodshed

Creekside

Moving to Vancouver

Nailing Jello To The Wall

Canadian Cynic

Cap'n Dyke, Pirate Queen

Birth Pangs.

April Reign

Politics'n'Poetry

Poons

Great reading. It's as simple as that. The hard part was keeping down to 10. I would have done the whole blogroll if I could have. (In fact... that's a good idea)

Oh yeah. If those nominated feel so inclined, pass this award on to 10 of those on your blogrolls. We all know we'd like to award our entire blogroll, but if it was easy, we'd all be working for Conrad Black.

"Skew"-ered. Are you prepared for the big one Mrs. Cleaver?

It would seem that only 4 percent of us have the kind of safety kit that Public Safety Canada thinks we should have. That would be the same PSC over which story-teller Stockwell Day hovers.

Apparently the reason for our negligence has been identified. So, PSC is going to target the one group who hasn't responded.

The "Is Your Family Prepared" campaign, launched in the fall of 2006, is being tweaked this year in an attempt to convince more people to have a fully stocked emergency kit in their homes, according to a new request for proposals issued by Public Safety Canada.

"Only four per cent of Canadians have all the kit contents that PSC asks for as a basic kit," reads the request.

"The plurality of (opinion poll) respondents still think that they only need to be prepared for 24 hours."

The government is looking for outside help to run the upcoming phase of the campaign, which will include $2.1 million in ads over 12 months. It will target "parents, with a skew toward women" in the middle income and age brackets, with the message that "if you don't prepare yourself or your family for an emergency, you are placing at risk the lives or well-being of your family," the documents say. (Emphasis mine)

A skew towards women? That's an outward and blatant blame-game.

Women, make sure you get the meaning of this. You belong at home. When disaster strikes, you are expected to have everything ready because if you don't you have failed the system; you have failed Stockie; and you have failed your family.

If disaster strikes when you're out shopping or (gawd forbid) at your little job, you will be expected to rush home and deploy the supplies. It is your domain. You are responsible for house, home and children.

Men, you will finish your beer. Put all thoughts of home out of your head. You will not worry about the children. (Hell, you don't care about them anyway, right?). Rescue. You will do rescue, and fight fires, and manly stuff. They'll be wanting the sandbags and chainsaw in the back of your pick-up. When you do get home, your woman will have things under control. You just pull out the unregistered 30.06 and get ready to hold off the marauding hordes of young single folk who never got the word.

Thanks... I think... to a very pissed-off Cheryl for the tip.

Where were they six weeks ago?

Lord Kitchener's Own, Accidental Deliberations and Impolitical have excellent coverage of two Globe and Mail articles, here and here. First is more evidence of a conspiracy between the Harper government and AECL to find a way to rid themselves of a nuclear regulator who placed safety above political or commercial considerations.

AECL's private-sector partners, including SNC-Lavalin, GE Canada and Hitachi Canada, hired some of the best-connected lobbyists in Ottawa to carry that message forward; other industry members complained directly to the Prime Minister's Office, sources said.

"We've tried to communicate however we could to whomever we could, to make this point," said Patrick Lamarre, president of SNC-Lavalin's nuclear division.

Michael Burns, the B.C.-based wind power executive who Mr. Lunn appointed as chairman of AECL, began to lobby the minister, whom he said he spoke with once a week during his chairmanship, about addressing the problems with Ms. Keen and her commission.

"I told [Mr. Lunn] then the dysfunctional relationship was going to cause serious trouble for commercial operations at the company. I told him we were going to have a train wreck. And I gave him a plan to fix it," Mr. Burns said.

The goal, he said, was to induce the government to legislate an overhaul at the CNSC, including Ms. Keen's position.

That's just the start, however, and if you haven't read the whole piece in the G&M, you're missing critical information, including the fact that had Harper not gone ballistic in Parliament and overrode the regulator that an agreement between then CNSC chair Linda Keen and AECL would have seen the Chalk River reactor restarted within a few days anyway. Did you hear that out of Harper or Lunn? No.

Secondly, the next article focuses on Gary Lunn and the apparent mush that has misplaced his memory.

Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn was sent information about the impasse between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Canada's nuclear regulator at least two days before the afternoon he says he learned about the problem, a source alleges.

Mr. Lunn has testified before a parliamentary committee that his staff first alerted him on Dec. 3 to the fact that the nuclear reactor that produces more than half of the world's medical isotopes had been shut down indefinitely due to an ongoing, month-old dispute between the Crown-owned AECL and its regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

However, a highly placed source close to Atomic Energy told The Globe and Mail that an e-mail was sent to Mr. Lunn before the Dec. 1 weekend underscoring the need for him to turn his attention to the mounting problem.

"I sent an e-mail on Nov. 29 or 30 ... which said this is serious, we need to get on this," the source said.

That article too, requires a full read because either Gary Lunn is a liar or he is completely and utterly incompetent.

The coverage is captivating. And I can't add to the comment on them beyond what the blogs mentioned above have already done. I do, however, have a point - a different point.

It is February 23rd. Back in early December 2007 we were smelling a set up. There was far too much wrong with the way the story broke and with the direction it took. There were others who were piecing together information which suggested a manufactured crisis.

Well before that however, someone caught a whiff in the wind that something was rumbling around Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation responsible to Gary Lunn.

All of those suspicions arose from two things:

1. Harper, despite attempts by his spin machine and the media to portray him otherwise, is still the same Reform Party anti-regulation narcissist who wrote the Alberta Firewall letter, who despises the federal structure of Canada and who plays to a base which more aptly fits in the right-wing of the US Republican Party; and,

2. Various media and non-media reports, when taken together, dispelled the myth of a global isotope shortage; the basic premise for Harper launching a highly publicized outrage.

While the G&M's articles shed a great deal of light on the real motivation for Harper's charade and exposes Lunn as something of a hapless dim bulb, it seems to be a month late at the least. Understandably, news outlets need to exercise extreme care before they run with a story, but without too much effort a great deal of information was found which told more of a story than the media seemed willing, (or is it able?), to produce.

In short, with the exception of a few, there seems to be a resistance on the part of reporters and editors to engage in tough questions based on skepticism. Perhaps it is the result of damaging media convergence or perhaps it is fear that too many tough questions will put a reporter out in the cold, but if bloggers are able to gather together enough information to be able to point at government malfeasance shouldn't news organs, who purport to represent a questioning public, be able to do it?

As much as the permanently established and professional journalists provide the feedstock for bloggers, that can change. If you need proof, it's right here.

"So stick another ribbon on your H-o-C..."

WTF?

General Rick Hillier : " 'the least our soldiers could expect' in Afghanistan is that after the pending vote on extending the mission to 2011 is completed, all MPs in Parliament give unanimous support to a motion backing Canadian troops."

Or Tinkerbell will die.
You don't want Tinkerbell to die, do you?
Well then.

"Support Our Right-Wing Agenda" ribbon pillaged from Cräbgrass.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Taking the Safety out of CNSC

Yeah, I know. A lot of people didn't believe the Chalk River fiasco was a "manufactured" crisis. But now that Canada's nuclear regulator has changed tracks, it becomes obvious.

Canada's nuclear safety regulator is reinstating a fast-track process for approving reactor projects, signalling a new willingness to support the industry, sources say.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has indicated to industry officials that it plans to get back into the business of prelicensing new reactor designs, removing a major roadblock for the sector, sources familiar with the talks said.

The regulator has also made a specific commitment to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to review the company's proposed ACR-1000 reactor, an industry official said.

[...]

"This is good news for everybody," a nuclear industry executive said. "It will be a welcome change."

[...]

In the fall of 2006, Ms. Keen cancelled a 2003 memorandum of understanding with AECL that provided for a preliminary review of the company's ACR-1000 design and modifications to existing Candu 6 reactors. The agreement had provided a process for identifying potential licensing issues and for giving AECL reassurance that the reactors could be licensed. The CNSC had not signed similar accords with other companies.

The cancellation came as a blow to AECL, because it meant the company no longer had a clear advantage over its rivals. It also heightened tensions between Ms. Keen and Mr. Lunn. While he was publicly saying it was imperative that AECL win the contract to build new reactors in Ontario, she was saying the regulator will remain technology-neutral.

Ms. Keen's successor, Michael Binder, has wasted little time indicating that things will be different under his leadership, the sources said.

"He seems to be more willing to work with the industry," said an industry executive.

Just send in a stamped, self-addressed envelope and your approval is in the mail. The "regulator" will be more than happy to help.

H/T POGGE

Waterboarding as Forced Conversion

So I think I've figured out why waterboarding is the USA's torture of choice.

It mirrors christian baptism.

As far as we know they don't pull out fingernails or drive bamboo slivers beneath them. They don't hang people from hooks embedded between their shoulderblades and beat them with canes. They don't lock them into Iron Maidens and tighten the screws.

They baptise them.

Makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Killed, wounded and living in fear

I know what you think you're going to read. Put that aside. This is not about some grubby hole 10,000 miles from where you sit. This could be next door. It might even be where you live.

Compare the raw numbers. In the same seven-year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women – nearly twice as many – were shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. In Canada, compared to the 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers killed, more than 500 women – nearly five times as many – met the same fate.

Those are the deaths. Then there are the wounded. In the same period, about 24,000 U.S. military were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, while about 80 Canadians were wounded in Afghanistan.

In the United States, it's conservatively estimated that in addition to the 1,200 to 1,300 women killed each year by intimate partners, another 5.3 million, age 18 and older, are victims of non-lethal domestic abuse.

Based on those numbers, the violence costs the country more than $5.8 billion annually – nearly $4.1 billion in direct medical and mental health care, and $1.8 billion in lost productivity and lost earnings due to homicide.

These numbers are believed to underestimate the problem for several reasons, and additional efforts are needed to determine more accurately the full cost of intimate-partner victimization of women in the United States.

In Canada, the federal government estimates the annual cost of violence against women at $1.1 billion in direct medical costs alone. That figure rises to more than $4 billion a year when social services, lost productivity, lost earnings, and police, court, and prison costs are factored in.

Wars usually produce large numbers of refugees: witness the United Nations camps scattered around the world. And the War on Women has its own refugee camps, in the form of the 2,500 or so shelters for battered women and their children across North America.

In the United States, more than 300,000 women and children seek safety in shelters each year. In Canada, the number is between 90,000 and 100,000.

That is an excerpt from the book The War on Women: Elly Armour, Jane Hurshman, and Criminal Violence in Canadian Homes, by Brian Vallée.

Antonia has more. A lot more. Go read.

When the facts catch up with the headlines

At around the beginning of the month there was much rending of garments led by various media outlets who ran with headlines designed to... enrage you.

There is nothing they won’t do if they think it will work in creating carnage and the political fallout that comes from that.

Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq


... shows that al Qaeda has no political programme here that is acceptable to a civilised society and that this is the most brutal and the most bankrupt of movements

Condoleeza Rice, US Secretary of State

That was brought on by news reports like this one and this one describing the horrendous attacks on February 1st on the pet market and bird market in Baghdad. At issue was the assertion that the insurgents in Baghdad had employed two women with Down's Syndrome as suicide bombers. Headlines across the news media rang out the same story. They even had a US Army major general to support the story.

Senior American military officials produced photographs Saturday they said showed the bodies of two female suicide bombers who a day earlier attacked two popular pet markets, causing Baghdad's deadliest blasts in months. The photographs showed the lifeless faces of two dark-haired women with oblique eye fissures, a wide gap between the eyes and a flat nose bridge -- characteristics consistent with Down syndrome. "There are some indications that these two women were mentally handicapped," said Army Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad. "From what I see, it appears that the suicide bombers were not willing martyrs. They were used by Al Qaeda [in Iraq] for these horrific attacks." Hammond showed the classified photographs to a few reporters, including one for The Times, but he declined to release the images "out of respect for the deceased." "These two women were likely used because they didn't know what was happening and they were less likely to be searched," Hammond said.

Except that it wasn't true.

The reason the severed heads of the two women were so badly deformed had more to do with the blast than it did with any birth defect. And now, the US military has had to admit it.

The women were identified and case files indicate they had been treated for depression and schizophrenia.

“We know that we got their complete records, their case files, and we know they had in-patient treatment as recently as the last month or two,” Admiral Smith said. He said they had been treated for “typical kinds of psychiatric problems — depression, schizophrenia.”

Nor could the US military establish a link back to al Qaeda.

BAGnewsNotes has more.

Why Does Stephen Harper Hate Canadian Science So Much?

There has already been a good deal of comment on this article from the prestigious journal Nature. It underscores the fact that Canada, under the Harper regime, has moved off the world stage and is bound for the sewer.

Luckily we have science geeks and laboratory denizens who understand what is actually happening. The Gazeteer is one of them and has provided his post to us:

Why Does Stephen Harper Hate Canadian Science So Much?
TheLadderOfScience
KnowsATopAndABottomVille

In case you were wondering, there is a very tall ladder in science.

What the heckfire am I talking about?

I'm talking about the ladder of science journals - those 'magazines' that publish peer reviewed research.

Now, you hear a lot about how important the 'peer' review is to the advancement of science.

And it is, because peer review is the process by which other scientists vet a fellow science-geek's work before it gets published in such a journal.

However, like anything else, there is sloppy peer review and there is truly rigourous peer review.

And the journal with one of the most rigourous peer review processes of them all is the journal Nature.

As such, Nature consistently prints papers that are of such a high quality that they are the ones that are most often cited by other science geeks when they write follow-up papers.

And it is this follow-up 'impact factor' , which is kind of like the scientific equivalent of the Nielsen ratings, that is one of the critical measures that helps put Nature at the top of the science journal ladder.

And the top of that ladder just whacked Stephen Harper up the side of the head in an editorial published in today's issue.

One of the issues that Nature has taken Mr. Harper to task over, which is the thing that is getting all the pro-media play today, is his disregard for climate change science:

"Since prime minister Stephen Harper came to power, his government has been sceptical of the science on climate change and has backed away from Canada's Kyoto commitment. In January, it muzzled Environment Canada's scientists, ordering them to route all media enquires through Ottawa to control the agency's media message. Last week, the prime minister and members of the cabinet failed to attend a ceremony to honour the Canadian scientists who contributed to the international climate-change report that won a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."

And I agree that is a very bad thing, indeed.

But the thing that makes rank and file science geeks even more worried is the following passage from Nature's editorial:

"There are deeper and more chronic problems for Canadian science. On the surface, funding for university-based research seems strong. The annual budgets for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council tripled and doubled, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. The government has also supported new science projects through government-created corporations such as Genome Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and has recruited and retained promising young scientists through the Canada Research Chairs programme.

But Genome Canada funds only half of the cost of a research project — scientists must seek the remaining cash from elsewhere. Last year, the CIHR was able to fund only 16% of the applications it received, and cut the budgets of successful applicants by a quarter, on average."

Why is this passage so worrying?

Well, because the first paragraph of good news and good programs all happened before Mr. Harper came to power. As for the second paragraph, well this has happened since, and, essentially, it illustrates Mr. Harper's Reservoir Dogs approach to trashing independent scientific enquiry in Canada. Specifically, the CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) funds the true R&D of biomedical research in this country through a very rigorous peer review process of it's own. When Paul Martin left office the funding rates for this vital science engine, which does not easily lend itself to hype heap-assisted photo-ops, were approaching a very healthy 30%. Now, at Mr. Harper's 16%, the true innovation spigot has pretty much been shut off - especially when you consider that even the 16% that were successful also had their budgets cut considerably.

So, while I, myself a proud Canadian science geek, am quite happy to see that the top of the ladder just whacked our current prime minister on the head, I am also very concerned that if he remains in power much longer Mr. Harper will continue to do his best to throw Canadian Science off the ladder completely.

OK?

________
As a public service (in case anybody can't get deep into Nature) we are publishing the entire editorial, in full, below:

_______

Nature 451, 866 (21 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/451866a; Published online 20 February 2008

Science in retreat

Canada has been scientifically healthy. Not so its government.

Comparisons of nations' scientific outputs over the years have shown that Canada's researchers have plenty to be proud of, consistently maintaining their country's position among the world's top ten (see, for example, Nature 430, 311–316; 2004). Alas, their government's track record is dismal by comparison.

When the Canadian government announced earlier this year that it was closing the office of the national science adviser, few in the country's science community were surprised. Science has long faced an uphill battle for recognition in Canada, but the slope became steeper when the Conservative government was elected in 2006.

The decision in 2004 by the then prime minister Paul Martin to appoint a scientist for independent, non-partisan advice on science and technology was a good one — in principle. Arthur Carty, the chemist who secured the position, duly relinquished his post as president of the National Research Council Canada, which he had revitalized.

But his new office was destined to fail. The budget was abysmal and the mandate was vague at best. After winning power from the Liberals, the Conservatives moved Carty's office away from the prime minister's offices to Industry Canada. In 2007, the government formed the 18-member Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC). Told that the government would no longer need a science adviser, Carty offered his resignation. From March, the STIC will provide policy advice and report on Canada's science and technology performance. It can be expected to be markedly less independent: although it is stocked with first-class scientists and entrepreneurs, several government administrators also hold seats.

Concerns can only be enhanced by the government's manifest disregard for science. Since prime minister Stephen Harper came to power, his government has been sceptical of the science on climate change and has backed away from Canada's Kyoto commitment. In January, it muzzled Environment Canada's scientists, ordering them to route all media enquires through Ottawa to control the agency's media message. Last week, the prime minister and members of the cabinet failed to attend a ceremony to honour the Canadian scientists who contributed to the international climate-change report that won a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Harper sees himself as the leader of a 'global energy powerhouse' and is committing Canada to a fossil-fuel economy. More than 40 companies have a stake in mining and upgrading the bitumen from the oil sands in Alberta and churning out 1.2 million barrels a day. This activity generates three times as much greenhouse gas as conventional oil drilling. Emissions from Canada's oil and gas industry have risen by 42% since 1990.

There are deeper and more chronic problems for Canadian science. On the surface, funding for university-based research seems strong. The annual budgets for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council tripled and doubled, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. The government has also supported new science projects through government-created corporations such as Genome Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and has recruited and retained promising young scientists through the Canada Research Chairs programme.

But Genome Canada funds only half of the cost of a research project — scientists must seek the remaining cash from elsewhere. Last year, the CIHR was able to fund only 16% of the applications it received, and cut the budgets of successful applicants by a quarter, on average. And earlier this month, the country's top scientists and university officials warned that they were short of funds to operate multimillion-dollar big-science projects such as the Canadian Light Source synchrotron.

What's to be done? Canada has made good investments in its science infrastructure and its future research leaders. The present government might be dissolved after a vote of confidence next month, which could in itself lead to a change for the better. But in any circumstances, Canada's leading scientists can be public advocates, pointing to the examples of other countries in urging the government of the day to boost their country into a position of leadership rather than reluctant follower.

.

The debate will drag on until it's over, General. It's not up to you.

Why is Rick Hillier commenting publicly on the parliamentary agenda?

Canada's top soldier urged Parliament to come to a quick decision on the country's role in Afghanistan, warning that lengthy debate may put soldiers increasingly at risk as the Taliban take advantage of the uncertainty. "We are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability, and the longer we go without that clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link," Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said Friday.

It's all very well and good to advise the political leaders of this country of that fact, in the confines of an office; it is another thing to be making public statements suggesting Parliament do anything at all. One is his job; the other is a step over the line.

Rick Hillier, Canadian citizen, has the right to an opinion like everyone else, however, he is a sworn servant of the Crown and when he speaks he does so from a privileged platform. As principle military advisor to the government, he is fully aware that when he stands and speaks, in full uniform, he attracts attention. For the Chief of Defence Staff to stand in public and make demands on Parliament is to suggest that the democracy he serves does not measure up to his personal standard.

Not everyone shares Hillier's opinion.

Some Canadians are not happy at all with the motion before Parliament and wish to see Canada's role in Afghanistan ended as soon as possible. They view, with some substantial support, the Afghanistan mission as a fiasco brought about by an inattentive and incompetent US presidential administration which has done more to exacerbate the problem in Afghanistan than they have to solve it. In short, they think it's a Bush administration problem in which our presence is aiding and abetting the ability of that administration to pursue other misguided and illegal adventures.

Others believe there should be no debate at all; that the government has the legal right to proceed without consulting Parliament and commit forces as they see fit. They might even have a valid conventional argument, even if it does demonstrate a turpitude which most would find unacceptable.

Still others believe that the question should be exhaustively debated. That Parliament examine this mission as closely as possible and consider the consequences of any decision taken. They do not want a quick decision; they want a considered decision.

Hillier's statement belies the fact that, until he has a new set of orders from the Canadian government, his subordinate general at Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command has a mission in Afghanistan that will expire in 2009. It is the government, not Parliament which has the authority to continue the mission. It is the government which has caused the delay in coming to a decision. It was an extended parliamentary break, ordered by the government and done purely for political reasons, which delayed addressing the question. It was the government which chose to engage in a political charade which produced a pre-ordained report.

Hillier, in choosing to suggest that Parliament is culpable in placing a haze over the Afghanistan mission, neatly avoided one particular issue. Even if Parliament carries the current government motion placed before it and the debate ends, there is still no decision.

Harper has stated that Canada will withdraw unless it receives a 1000 troop reinforcement from NATO and additional equipment is forthcoming. If the debate was settled tomorrow those caveats remain. Further, and Hillier knows this, those reinforcements need to come from a single country and have the same length of commitment as Canada in order to be effective. A cobbled together force from several countries will cause a gathering of national command elements which would reduce the actual number of available combat troops. The "1000" identified in the Manley report comes with no qualification: 1000 rifles is, as Hillier is aware, completely different from 1000 troops.

If any country does commit, the duration of that commitment is critical. Anything short of December 2011 means that Canada will be faced with the same problem sometime in the future.

Aside from the plethora of other reasons to question whether success in Afghanistan is even possible, Hillier, in pointing at Parliament, also failed to point out another weakness: NATO itself. ISAF is comprised of a fragmented array of forces with a range of instructions issued by their national governments. The nature of regional assignments by nation inside Afghanistan is the greatest military weakness, but it also reflects how much emphasis those nations put on the Afghanistan situation. Since their commitment seems to suggest they will maintain a presence down to the last Canadian soldier means it is up to us to critically examine the mission.

While Hillier makes noises about Parliament he conveniently did not mention that there are indications that the Canadian Forces are making new plans. Several separate intimations suggest that the CF is planning for an increase in Operational Mentor Liaison Teams (OMLT). About 150 Canadian Forces members are currently training the Afghan 1st Brigade, 205 Corps consisting of three small infantry battalions (kandaks). There are strong indications that Ottawa intends to increase this to two or possibly three OMLTs. So far, no one has said whether this is a change in focus or an increase in the number of people who will deploy in the future.

So, General Hillier can blame Parliament all he wants. Whether he likes it or not, that body answers to the Canadian public and we have the right to expect that questions before it will be debated properly and completely. As for the delays he seems to feel he has to whine about, he should more clearly define his target. The delays exist because the Harper government has been fumbling about trying to find itself. The delays exist because the Canadian public sees little more than a cloak of darkness cast over a costly mission and demands to know what the hell is going on.

That means the nature of the mission will be debated and defined by the elected representatives of the population and they should take whatever amount of time necessary to arrive at a reasonable compromise. General Hillier needs to be reminded that he serves the democracy; not the other way around.

More at POGGE, liberal catnip and Impolitical

Final round. The Canadian F-word Blog Awards

This is it. The final round of voting is today and tomorrow. You get one vote per IP address.

This is a chance to get a look at the best of the best and expand that list of bookmarks. So, head on over and go through the categories. (Right sidebar when you get there). A vote for any blog in any category is support for everyone.

We're nominated in The Support Bro category. I'd sit and point at ourselves and suggest you should vote for us, but I honestly can't do that. Of the three other competitors in our category, I personally would give my support to any one of them without hesitation.

In the other categories, all the blogs are top-notch. For that reason, endorsing any one of them is simply impossible. I did however, promise that I would endorse one blog in one category.

I'll do that, but to understand why is also important.

I'm not sure if Creekside found us or if we found Creekside. However it worked, Alison is a co-blogger here at TGB because she responded to my begging. She's one helluva political blogger. (As are all the others).

She's got a sharp wit. (Mind you, so do all the others).

She's a diligent researcher. (And, so are all the others).

She's passionate about her position on topics political. (Yes, and so are all the others).

She got me to travel 170 km, using nothing but public transportation and the soles of my shoes to a gathering of bloggers: Bloggerpalooza! (No one has ever done that before).

There. That's as far as I'll go with that and ask that you cast a vote for the blog you think is best in each category.

This is also your last opportunity to make a contribution to WISE. Prole explains it all and, by the way, there is one very interesting little prize-draw being offered to donors.

And lastly, because the troops at A Creative Revolution are administering these awards, they took an ethical approach - they disqualified themselves from the start. They deserve an award just for organizing it, getting it out there and then doing the work. Well done!

Now go vote!

Awesome

Nobody can do this like Jon Swift.

He blinked!

Harper blinked first.

It seems Harper's confidence motion was, again, a lot of bluster. He doesn't want to fight an election on Afghanistan after all.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has unveiled a new motion with a hard end date of 2011 for Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, a move aimed at bridging the gap between the Conservatives and Liberals.

Harper said the motion will incorporate "large elements" of last week's Liberal amendment of the Conservative party's original motion.

"We've examined the details of [the Liberals'] position very carefully," said Harper. "We are pleased that there is some fundamental common ground."

The motion says all Canadian troops will be out of the volatile Kandahar region by December 2011, six months later than called for by Stéphane Dion's Liberals.

Of course, none of this happens in a vacuum. There is something else going on which might add to this whole picture. I'll try to get it posted later on.

Rold Gold Virgin

Via Shakesville yet another piece of warped food has become a religious symbol worthy of more than its price per ounce.

Pretzel owner Michael Fleming told KVAL that he found the pretzel in a bag of Rold Gold three years ago. "People seemed generally moved by these images," says Fleming. "And they really seem to believe that the Virgin Mary is before them."

Fleming has been hanging onto the pretzel for three years, presumably to get as much quality time with it as possible before he.... released it to the world.

He's getting some help getting it out there - on eBay. Assisted by Eugene Oregon rock station KFLY disc jockey Tanner Haney.

DJ Tanner Haney could not be reached for comment. He told KVAL TV in Eugene "we're kind of capitalizing on the stupidity of eBay and that people will buy anything." He hosts the Donkey Show from 2 to 6 p.m.

Really?

Do you see it? Click on a meatball for more.

Convergence

First, go read this at Unrepentant Old Hippie.

Now go read this at CathiefromCanada.

Would you like a spare with that used Leopard?

Updated below.

The purchase of used Leopard 2 main battle tanks from the Netherlands and the 20 loaners from Germany just took on the look of the Upholder/Victoria class submarines. From the Vancouver Sun:

Just months after the Defence Department claimed it had enough spare parts for its Leopard tanks, military officials are buying surplus armored vehicles to strip down for components so Canadian tanks can keep operating in Afghanistan.

This is worth a look back. In April 2007, when this was suddenly sprung on the Canadian public, the total cost of purchase and refurbishment, including 20 operational loaners from the German Bundeswehr was announced as $650 million.

The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations.

Then in May things took something of a leap.

Canada's purchase and long-term support of 100 slightly used Leopard 2A6 battle tanks will be $1.3 billion — roughly double the Conservative government's initial public estimate last month.

As he detailed a laundry list of military hardware the Conservative government plans to buy over the next few years, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor surprised the Commons by announcing there will be a 20-year, $650-million service contract attached to the tank deal.

“The capital acquisition is $650 million and the support for 20 years is about $650 million; about the same range,” he said in reply to an opposition question during debate over Defence Department estimates.

And now, we're buying 15 more surplus Leopard 2 MBTs to cannibalize for spare parts.

In regards to the new purchase of 15 surplus tanks for spare parts, MacKay's office issued an e-mail which reiterated that the Leopard 2s are an invaluable asset to Canadian commanders.

"The procurement of surplus German vehicles will provide the Canadian Forces with valuable platforms for training, testing and, where applicable, spare parts," the e-mail stated. "This acquisition fills the short-term needs of the military and demonstrates the judicious use of public resources by this government."

Privately, military officials said the 15 tanks won't be used for training or testing and that they are all destined to be stripped down for parts.

So, let's see now, former Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor started off by telling us the cost was $650 million, quietly tried to sneak the fact by everyone that the cost was actually double that amount and now, we have 15 more surplus tracks being delivered which were unannounced and nobody seems to be talking about cost. Current Defence Minister Peter MacKay hasn't been heard from on this.

Germany waived the lease fees on the 20 loaned tanks so the capital acquisition originally announced was worth about $6.5 million per tank for the Dutch tanks. The 15 surplus tanks appear to be coming from Germany. Even at 1/2 the price, that means an additional cost of $48 to $50 million has just been tacked on to the original purchase.

Then there is this promise which was intended to soften the blow:

This acquisition represents a significant opportunity for Canadian industry. Once negotiations are complete, the Dutch Leopard 2 tanks will be transported to Canada where they will receive the necessary upgrades to final Canadian Forces standards.

Apparently, that too has changed.

But some Canadian industry officials worry the project has now gone off the rails.

They say work to refurbish the used tanks, that was supposed to be awarded to Canadian firms, is now going to European companies and there are questions whether domestic industry will reap that many benefits from this major purchase.

That may be due to the logistics involved and the cost of moving them. To deliver the Dutch tanks to Canada for refurbish and upgrade and then transport some of them back to Afghanistan (if they are completed in time for use in that theatre) would be hugely expensive.

While we're on this subject, this statement needs a look.

The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer.

These tanks are able to operate in intense heat as their electric turret systems and more powerful engines generate significantly less heat when operating than the hydraulic systems of Canada’s 30-year-old Leopard 1 fleet. They will also be fitted with climate control systems once in theatre.

Anybody could be excused for believing that the loaned German tanks were going to be fitted with air-conditioning to make them more habitable for the crews in the intense heat of the summer. That, however, did not happen. Because the German tanks are on loan there were limits put on modifications. The fully electric turret is cooler than the older Leopards since it no longer needs a hot hydraulic pump to operate but "climate control" is not a good description of what is actually in place. Crews wear a cooling vest.

All in all, this has been a full court press of Conservative dishonesty and obfuscation.

Something has been bugging me about this: It strikes me that the "fee-free" German loan of 20 operational main battle tanks is more than a little generous. In fact it seems to be more than one could expect without some sort of deal having been stuck. What possible arrangement was made with the German government to get 20 combat-ready up-to-mod tanks?

1) We'll lend you 20 good tracks if you purchase 15 more of our surplus rigs;

2) We'll lend you what you need in theatre if we get the contract to refurbish the Dutch tanks you're buying;

3) Here's 20 tanks. We don't want to hear one word from you about moving German troops into southern Afghanistan;

4) Something else.

I know it's pure speculation so if anyone has anything which might make more sense or actually has anything concrete drop it into comments.