Molly Ivins Dead at 62

The woman credited with first calling George W. Bush "Shrub" is dead.

Molly Ivans succumbed today to her third bout with breast cancer. She was a syndicated columnist who appeared in some 400 papers across the US. Her favourite targets were Texas politicians whether in the state or in Washington.

Ivins was a liberal and proud of it. Ivins' best-selling books included those she co-authored with Lou Dubose about Bush. One was titled "Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush" and another was "BUSHWHACKED: Life in George W. Bush's America."

Ivins' jolting satire was directed at people in positions of power.

"The trouble with blaming powerless people is that although it's not nearly as scary as blaming the powerful, it does miss the point," she wrote in a 1997 column. "Poor people do not shut down factories ... Poor people didn't decide to use 'contract employees' because they cost less and don't get any benefits."

In an Austin speech last year, former President Clinton described Ivins as someone who was "good when she praised me and who was painfully good when she criticized me."

Don't Know, Don't Care

There have been plenty of weird things happen in Iraq since the American conquest but this has to be somewhere near the top: Iraq's missing billions.

There is an $8.8-billion hole and no one can get to the bottom of it. It was part of about $22-billion of Iraqi oil revenues and left over cash that fell into the hands of the US Coalition Provisional Authority. No one can say what happened to it, who got it or for what?

David Oliver should know. Oliver was the CPA's first head of finance and in this position he resisted bringing in outside auditors. The money was Oliver's responsibility. As for the missing billions, Oliver seemed not to care much when he spoke with BBC:

"I have no idea, I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it is important," he said.

Yes, but the fact is that billions of dollars have disappeared without trace.

"Of their money. Billions of dollars of their money disappeared, yes I understand, I'm saying what difference does it make?"

When you put it that way, I guess it doesn't make any difference. Huh?

Arrachage - The End of a Glorious Past

Arrachage is a term the French use to describe ripping out grape vines and it's a word receiving a lot of use today in Bordeaux.

Foreign competition and a decline in national consumption has created an economic body blow to many French vintners. Prices for low-end, vin ordinaire, have slipped to as low as a single euro in some supermarkets. A barrel of wine can now fetch as little as 700 euros, roughly half as much as the price five or six years ago.

Arrachage was once considered a crime tantamount to treason but, with international competition and tumbling prices, some vineyards are going broke. The situation hasn't been helped by a declining demand at home. In the 1960's the French consumed 126 litres of wine per capita. Today that's fallen to 60 litres.

The decline has hit the lowest-end vineyards. Wine growers who produce for the higher-scale brands are faring much better. The prosperous Médoc and St. Emillion appellations have not been affected by the collapse of the market. Their well-known brands continue to sell well at high prices.

Spectacular Victory or Massacre?

You've probably heard about the victory of Iraqi security forces with American backup firepower over a messianic, Shiite cult. the "Soldiers of Heaven", that was about to unleash mayhem on fellow Shiites celebrating their holiest day in Najaf. Early reports mentioned 300-400 insurgents dead with about 100 captured.

The British newspaper, The Independent, reports that the Arab media and Iraq web sites are presenting a much different picture of what happened, claiming it was an outright massacre.


"There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

"A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

"The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief.

"Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons.

"Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

"American helicopters then arrived and dropped leaflets saying: "To the terrorists, surrender before we bomb the area." The tribesmen went on firing and a US helicopter was hit and crashed killing two crewmen. The tribesmen say they do not know if they hit it or if it was brought down by friendly fire. The US aircraft launched an intense aerial bombardment in which 120 tribesmen and local residents were killed by 4am on Monday.

"The messianic group led by Ahmad al-Hassani, which was already at odds with the Iraqi authorities in Najaf, was drawn into the fighting because it was based in Zarga and its presence provided a convenient excuse for what was in effect a massacre. The Hawatim and Khaza'il tribes are opposed to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party, who both control Najaf and make up the core of the Baghdad government.

"This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman. But it would explain the disparity between the government casualties - less than 25 by one account - and the great number of their opponents killed and wounded. The Iraqi authorities have sealed the site and are not letting reporters talk to the wounded."

Another Bumper Crop

Five kilos of pure heroin for $90 US. That's the going price today in Helmand province in Southern Afghanistan where opium traffickers are expecting another record year.

Asia Times Online reporter Sayed Saleem Shahzad interviewed a British narcotics officer at the British forces' base in Helmand:

"'Undoubtedly, Afghanistan will produce its best bumper poppy crop ever this year, but there is no shortcut to control this monster,' said the official, who asked not to be named.

"'Five kilograms of heroin is sold for US$90 in Helmand province, and the district of Sangeen is the main hub of narcotic-processing labs,' the British official said. He estimated that there are no fewer than 150 such laboratories in the area. About 10 tonnes of opium produces approximately a tonne of heroin.

"'The finished produce of the Sangeen laboratories is sold on the British market for anywhere between $120 and $160 per gram,' the official said.

"'The international buyers sit at the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan [Gardi Jungle near Pakistan's Balochistan province] and send local buyers to Lashkar Gah. A full-blown mafia operation runs this business, which includes the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army and the local administration. Their connivance goes all the way to assisting the local buyers to get the consignment of heroin to the Gramsir district.'

"'From Gramsir, the Taliban's area starts and a new cartel then transports the consignment up to the Pak-Afghan border. From there they use many deserted coastal points in Balochistan to ship the consignments to the UAE, Europe and other international destinations. Nevertheless, from the Gramsir district nothing can pass through without the consent and connivance of the Taliban ... it is impossible,' the official said.

"The Afghan Eradication Force led by US and British forces simply does not have any idea how to tackle this unlikely joint venture between the Taliban and Afghan security forces and the local administration.

"And critically, in Sangeen district, where most of the processing labs are located, the Taliban and the ISAF have agreed to a ceasefire, in effect allowing the Taliban to go about their business - whether military or otherwise - unimpeded."

Taking the Long View

Global warming is a long-term problem. There's nothing we can do today that will reverse it. We can't forestall what is coming in the next couple of decades. We're in for more rains, more droughts, more severe storms. We're in for the loss of species and environments and side effects such as mass migrations. We're going to have to live with that as best we can.

The Kyoto accord is routinely attacked as not being an answer to global warming. That's right, it isn't. What Kyoto is really all about is getting us to think and take baby steps in the right direction. It's about getting us ready to accept the big steps that will have to follow.

Kyoto isn't about curing anything. It's about getting us to acknowledge, to accept that we have created a serious problem that we're going to have to deal with. It's about getting us to recognize that, while we can't undo much of the damage we've already set in motion, we can make what's coming much, much worse if we don't accept some real sacrifices.

What we have to decide is whether our civilization is going to be able to survive global warming.

We don't have to solve global warming. Nature will do that. How? By rendering much of the planet uninhabitable by the ultimate GHG emitters - us. By culling the herd on a global scale.

As James Lovelock points out in his book The Revenge of Gaia, global warming will not wipe out man but will, instead, reduce us to a population of several hundreds of thousands of "breeding pairs" living on in the Arctic. That's Option B, the one we actually may be able to avoid. Option A is, of course, reaching a way of living that allows our civilizations to continue by moderating the impact of global warming so that we can adapt to it.

Option A is challenging, inconvenient and comes with plenty of hardship. Option A is something we can choose for ourselves. Option B, however, is merely what is in store for us if we don't choose Option A.

NO - Kyoto will not solve global warming

YES - Kyoto does point us in the direction we need to go

NO - We cannot prevent global warming, the effects will be with us for a thousand years

YES - We have a chance to keep global warming at least somewhat manageable for generations to follow

YES - There will be very real economic impacts in reducing GHG emissions

YES - These impacts need not be crippling to our economy, if we act responsibly and quickly

NO - We cannot go on the way we have been if we want our civilization to continue

This is a challenge that could take centuries to achieve. Because its scope extends to countless generations to come, the principle of preserving our environment for posterity has to become a core, social value. Posterity has to become an essential social virtue again. It has to be a clear part of our activities, it must be returned to the equation of our decision-making.

It hasn't been the long view that has landed us in this mess but the short view. It's been the "here and now" and the "me and mine" mentality that has brought us to this point. We have to break that mental block if we're going to take control of global warming.

Payback is a - well, you know.

The Tory ads attacking Stephane Dion have been labelled weak and amateurish. They're also stupid.

As the Toronto Star points out, using criticisms levelled by rivals in a leadership campaign, might leave Harpie in line for some nasty payback.

On Stephen:

Tony Clement, now Harper's health minister, had this to say about the boss in February 2004, when the two were rivals for the leadership of the newly merged Conservative party.

"Stephen ... you've been on the record as a wall-builder. I want to be on the record as a bridge-builder," Clement said during a leadership debate broadcast on CBC Newsworld.

Clement expressed this fear about a party led by Harper: "We cannot be an extreme party. We cannot be a party that is speaking to one part of the country."

Calgary MP Diane Ablonczy remains excluded from Harper's cabinet, though most observers expected Harper to lean on her for experience and female representation. Could it be that Harper remembers snippets like this from the 2001-2002 leadership for the old Canadian Alliance?

"I believe where he would take us is back to the NDP of the right," Ablonczy said in a February 2002 leadership debate.

To Harper directly, Ablonczy chided him on his personality: "You are not going to be able to work constructively with people with that kind of attitude," she said at that same debate.

Stockwell Day was also at that debate, fighting to keep his job as Alliance leader against the Harper challenge. He lost, but he's now public safety minister. Back in 2002, he had some worries about Harper's attitude, too – specifically, his reputation for walking away when things got tough in the old Reform party.

He told Harper at that debate that many MPs "still wonder why you quit and left the caucus in the lurch and left (former Reform party leader) Preston Manning very vulnerable and left the separatists to be the Official Opposition."

There's plenty more out there. If nothing else, it shows just how cheesy, how contemptible the Tories are willing to become.

Isn't One "Energy Superpower" Plenty?

Something made me cringe when I first learned that Stephen Harper had declared Canada a future "energy superpower." I guess it was the superpower thing and everything in connotes.

What is a superpower? It's been defined as, "one of a very small number of nations that dominate the world and compete with each other for economic or political control of blocs of less powerful nations." Just what other superpowers does Harper want to compete with and, better yet, which lesser nations does he seek to control?

Maybe Stevie was just playing braggadocio, but maybe not. It's a term he's fond of using, even today. So maybe it's useful to see what an "energy superpower" might look like, given that we already have one model, Russia.

In the latest New Yorker, Michael Specter writes about the strange fate that seems to befall Vladimir Putin's critics. In the course of the article, Specter provides a window into Russia's new superpower weapon - not tanks but energy.

Today's Russia has come a long way under Putin. At a press conference in Germany he spelled it out: "When I became President, our foreign-currency and gold reserves stood at twelve billion dollars, and now they have increased by eighty billion over the first half of this year alone, and currrently come to a total of around two hundred and seventy billion. We have paid off our debts in full. We have now become a grain exporting country."

Putin has parlayed this newfound wealth to achieve a consolidation of powers at home and to impose the velvet fist of Russia's influence abroad.

Within Russia the people have traded their freedom for prosperity. Alexei Volin served three years as Putin's deputy chief of staff and says the Russian people are happy - and indifferent. "Several months ago, I talked to one important Kremlin person and I asked him why is our TV news so awful and dull. And his answer was 'Why are you watching TV? People like you shold go read the Internet if you want information. TV is not for you. It's for the people.'"

Aleksei Venediktov runs Moscow radio station Echo. He told Specter that, increasingly, freeedom of the press doesn't matter much and is disappearing, "Here we have this question of freedom or wealth. People chose wealth. They do not understand that freedom is a necessary condition for preserving that weealth and the security they have come to value. To be engaged in honest reporting about delicate subjects like corruption or to travel to Chechnya is too dangerous. People don't want it, they don't ask for it, and they really don't understand that they need it."

Putin has effectively seized control of Russia's mass-media, particularly television and radio. The broadcasters have been put in the hands of reliable companies such as Gazprom. Anna Kachkaeva, who broadcasts a weekly interview show on Radio Liberty, told Specter that reporters have learned to watch what they say,"It's a magic process now. There is no censorship - it's much more advanced. I would call it a system of contacts and agreements between the Kremlin and the heads of television networks. ...the problem, for TV and even in the printed press, is that self-censorship is worse than any other kind. Journalists know - they can feel - what is allowed and what is not."

With a population anaesthetized by the whiff of prosperity and a media cowed and willing to do his bidding, Putin has consolidated his powers within the energy superpower and used it's strength to impose his will abroad.

On New Year's Day, 2006, Russia abruptly cut gas exports to the Ukraine in response to objections about a sharp increase in prices. More recently, Belarus got the same treatment when Russia doubled its gas price and levied heavy export duties. Specter concludes, "Putin clearly sees today's ideological battles in economic, rather than military terms."

Fyodor Lukyanovk, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, summed it up, "The entire world is obsessed with energy security and resources. You need it. We have it. It is up to us to decide how to deal with that. India and China are seeking new sources of energy to secure their very rapid growth. The U.S. is lost in its war in Iraq, the European Union has no idea what it is anymore. And then there is Russia: stable, wealthy, controlled very solidly. No opposition. There is really a feeling of superiority, a sense that Russia is now an indispensable nation, as Mrs. Albright said just a few years ago about the United States."

So, that's a glimpse at what becoming an energy superpower can mean. It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to Stephen Harper.

Harper is no Validmir Putin, perhaps though not by choice. Harper has shown himself fickle, willing to throw his vaunted principles to the winds of political opportunism. Even if Canada were somehow to become an energy superpower on his watch, he wouldn't know what to do with that power. Given that our market for our surplus oil and gas is the United States, there'll be no muscle flexing like what the Ukraine or Belarus received.

No, Mr. Harper, sorry but you can't be an energy superpower. We don't have anyone to bully.

Is the PQ Collapsing Under Boisclair?

Jean Charest must love, not romantically of course, Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair. The latest opinion polls show the PQ has fallen dramatically from a 20-point lead over the provincial Liberals to now trail the Libs by a few points.

Boisclair is being blamed for his party's misfortunes. Boisclair is openly gay. He has owned up to past cocaine use. That much the PQ might have weathered had their leader not chosen to go out of his way to alienate core supporters.

In a gaffe that upset Roman Catholics, Boisclair suggested the crucifix has no place in Quebec's National Assembly. He's taken swipes at unions, a major part of the PQ base. And then he took part in a spoof of Brokeback Mountain that featured George Bush and Stephen Harper in the leading rolls.

The knives are coming out from old-school PQ'ers such as Bernard Landry who may just be waiting for an opportunity to replace the fumbling upstart. Meanwhile, if the PQ numbers keep falling, the Charest Liberals might just have a chance of retaining power.

It's All About Benchmarks

What are "benchmarks" anyway? In Washington parlance they're chores with timetables, sort of like telling your kids they'll get up at 8 and have their beds made by 8:15, that sort of thing. You put the deadlines on because you figure they'll dodge the chores without them. And, yes, the whole thing is sort of like speaking to recalcitrant children.

George Bush is taking a lot of heat for his thoroughly botched war and occupation of Iraq. He was able to lie his way in but he's getting nowhere trying to lie his way out. He needs action, accomplishments, something, anything that will let him claim "mission accomplished" without gradeschoolers laughing at him.

The Frat Boy has flown in the face of all the advice of the Iraq Study Group and his own generals and has defied the will of his congress and his people and opted for a "surge" to pacify Baghdad with the suggestion that this will lead to an end to sectarian violence (civil war) throughout the country. To make the American people believe he's serious this time, Shrub has announced that he's given Iraq's recalcitrant child leader, prime minister Maliki, a series of "benchmarks" to meet, or else something may or may not happen.

But what are these benchmarks? What is the accompanying timetable? Well, the Democrats control congress now and that lets them demand that the administration cough up some answers. They asked and the White House delivered.

Secretary of State Condi Rice sent a letter to Senator Carl Levin giving particulars of an "agreement" reached early last fall, long before Bush came up with the "surge" idea. It turns out most of the specified times for achieving these benchmarks has long come and gone. You can find the list here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/riceletter/?resultpage=3

It turns out that the Maliki government has already missed most of the benchmark deadlines:

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while assuring senators Tuesday that the Bush administration expects Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make political reforms, provided a list showing deadlines already missed.

"Iraq has passed target dates to make laws establishing provincial elections, regulating distribution of the country's oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership, according to the list Rice provided.

"The Iraq government had also agreed to approve a law governing political amnesty and the charged question of sectarian militias by Dec. 31 and to finish a review of the constitution, seen as unfair to minority Sunnis, by Wednesday.

"Although the Iraqi parliament and Cabinet have done intermittent work on some elements of the list, including the symbolic oil law, it appeared that none of the targets have been fully met. The list spans September 2006 through March 2007.

"Last week al-Maliki called on lawmakers to pass several items on the list, including the oil and de-Baathification laws."

The benchmark list has received an angry response from the senate:

"Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and McCain, the panel's ranking member, said Rice's letter lacked details and ignored a goal previously suggested by U.S. officials: that the Iraqis should be able to assume control of their provinces by November 2007.

"'What Secretary Rice's letter makes abundantly clear is that the administration does not intend to attach meaningful consequences for the Iraqis' continuing to fail to meet their commitments,' the senators wrote. "What has been said before is still true: 'America supplying more troops while Iraqi leaders simply supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq.'"

The Democratic Party's control of congress has placed the Bush administration where it least wants to be, in a position of accountability. It's not a comfortable place for one of the most secretive and dishonest presidents in American history.

Say What, Steve?

It's no wonder Stephen Harper wants to go after Stephane Dion with attack ads. Stevie needs all the distraction the Reform Conservative's money can buy.

Steve wants us to believe that he's all about the environment. Sounds a tad strange for a guy who only recently talked about "so-called greenhouse gases" but, hey, he might have just needed a bit more information, right?

Well maybe there's a lot more to Stevie's desperation than meets the eye. Maybe Stevie has a few skeleton's in his global warming closet. Canadian Press reports about a 2002 Harper letter on Kyoto that's now making the circuit among Liberals and, we hope, may soon be coming to a TV screen near you:

"A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.

"Stephen Harper derided the global treaty and questioned the science of climate change in a 2002 fundraising letter sent to members of his now-defunct Canadian Alliance party. With polls showing the environment is a top priority with voters and Harper keen to bolster his environmental credentials, the letter could prove embarrassing.

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations," says the letter, signed by Harper.

"Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia . . .

"Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD."

He also blasted the treaty for targeting carbon dioxide - which he said is "essential to life" - and played down the science of climate change as "tentative and contradictory."

Harper went on to promise a "battle of Kyoto" in hope of defeating the Chretien Liberals' efforts to implement the treaty legislation in the House of Commons.

"But we can't do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat (the) Charlottetown (constitutional accord)," he wrote.

What does this tell you? How 'bout that Steve is a Weasel (capital "W") and a pathetic opportunist whose heartfelt views he's ready to toss aside like confetti to win votes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Creep.

When it comes right down to it, Stephen Harper has the integrity of a toilet brush.

Is Iran Already at War with America?

For more than a year there have been credible accounts of American special forces operating within Iran, scouting Iran's nuclear facilities and engaging Iranian dissidents.

Now, according to Time, the Iranians may be playing the same game against the Americans in Iraq. Former CIA agent Robert Baer asks, "Are the Iranians out for revenge?" and speculates they are indeed:

"The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons' favorite quietist Shi'a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq's Shi'a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.

"And that's not the worst of it. American forces still hold five members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Arrested by American forces in Erbil on Jan. 11, the Administration has accused the five IRGC members of helping the Iraqi opposition kill Americans."

Baer reports that, within Iraq, there is plenty of speculation that the commando-style raid in Karbala on January 20th in which five American soldiers were kidnapped and later found executed may have been the work of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC. The theory goes that the Iranians killed the five Americans in retaliation for the arrest by the Americans of five IRGC members in Erbil days earlier.

"...we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn't underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage."Let me put it this way,"he said."In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar."He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi'a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.

"Mindful of the spreading chaos in Iraq, President Bush has promised not to take the war into Iran. But it won't matter to the IRGC. There is nothing the IRGC likes better than to fight a proxy war in another country."

But What About the Free Crayons?

There's an uproar at Southern Methodist University in suburban Dallas and it has George Bush's name all over it.

The university has been selected as the site of a multi-million dollar complex that will house the George W. Bush Presidential Library, museum and thinktank. It seems a lot of people on campus think the idea stinks.

"'Given the record of this administration in deeply dividing our country, and bringing down the ire of the international community on the United States, it seems a poor decision to give a permanent place on campus for what could become a bully pulpit for the Bush administration to defend its neo-conservative policies,' says William McElvaney, an ordained Methodist minister and retired professor, who has been among the most vocal protesters.

"The protest, which has spread from campus to a section of the Methodist clergy, has led to a national debate on one of the stranger traditions of the American presidency - that former denizens of the White House play a leading role in determining their own place in history."

Rogue Pilots Kill Brits

Hard as this may be to believe, it may be true. From The Guardian:

"An English coroner's court has received evidence that "rogue" American pilots attacked a British convoy in southern Iraq in 2003.

"Staff Corporal Ashley Bell said there had been a flash as the first attack started. He had immediately radioed forward air control with the "Stop, stop, stop" instruction but had been told the planes were being flown by "rogue US pilots".

"'[The controller] could not contact the US pilots because they had switched frequencies and were talking to each other.'

"Soldiers in the five-vehicle convoy released smoke canisters to identify them to friendly pilots. The smoke was visible as one of the planes returned at low level and attacked a second time.

"Despite requests by the coroner and the British government, the pilots of the US planes that shot Corporal Hull have never been publicly named and will not attend the inquest."

A Genuine Cancer Breakthrough?

It's dichloroacetate and it's been used for years to treat metabolic disorders.

New Scientist magazine reports that a team from the University of Alberta has found that DCA has an astounding effect on many cancers, including lung, breast and brain cancers. Best of all, there's no patent on it so it can be produced cheaply.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

DCA is said to defeat cancer cells by switching off their immortality but doesn't affect healthy cells and has been proven to be "relatively" safe.

The explanation of just how DCA works is a bit complex so I've included a link to the New Scientist article.

Ripping the Lid Off Years of Secrecy

The Democrats held their first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress and what they heard wasn't very flattering to the Bush regime.

The hearing was to examine the role of the White House in shaping the US government's position on global warming and its efforts to control the government's scientists. The evidence they got plainly showed that the fix was in.

It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.

Who Did They Think Was Buying?

It took a wire service investigation to wake them up but the Pentagon has finally halted all sales of parts from its surplus fleet of F-14s.

The US Department of Defense moved after the Associated Press revealed how buyers for Iran, China and other countries were exploiting gaps in security to acquire sensitive military equipment.

Legislation has now been introduced in the senate to ban all sales of F-14 parts. The US Navy recently retired its F-14s. The only other nation that has them is, why, Iran. Let's see, if there's only one country operating this aircraft, who might be wanting the spares? Could it be - Iran?

What Does He Know That We Don't Know?

While we are fighting for our honour, we still open the door for talks and negotiations with our enemy who is after our annihilation and is shedding our blood.

That was Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai acknowledging that he's still making peace overtures to the Taliban. What's he up to?

NATO and US forces are in Afghanistan battling the Taliban, even promising to defeat the Taliban, and yet Karzai is extending the offer of political accommodation to this same Taliban.

If Karzai is making these overtures now, why would the Taliban not assume there's something better to be had, especially if they can stage a real show of strength this summer? By all indications this will be a very challenging spring and summer as a coalition of insurgents led by the Taliban try to topple the Kabul government.

What does Karzai know that we don't?

Setting the Middle East Ablaze - Arabs Blame Bush

When George Bush needlessly conquered Iraq he unleashed the dark genie of Iran unto the Middle East. According to the Washington Post, America's Arab allies are quick to blame America:

"'The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East,' said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. 'There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region.'

"Iranian officials -- emboldened but uneasy over nuclear-armed neighbors in Israel and Pakistan and a U.S. military presence in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan -- have warned that they would respond to an American attack on Iran's facilities.

"'Iran's supporters are widespread -- they're in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan, they're everywhere. And you know, the American soldiers in the Middle East are hostages of Iran, in the situation where a war is imposed on it. They're literally in the hands of the Iranians,' said Najaf Ali Mirzai, a former Iranian diplomat in Beirut who heads the Civilization Center for Iranian-Arab Studies. 'The Iranians can target them wherever, and Patriot missiles aren't going to defend them and neither is anything else.'

"'Iran would suffer,' he added, 'but America would suffer more.'

"As that struggle deepens, many in the Arab world find themselves on the sidelines. They are increasingly anxious over worsening tension between Sunni and Shiite Muslims across the Middle East, even as some accuse the United States of stoking that tension as a way to counter predominantly Shiite Iran. Fear of Iranian dominance is coupled, sometimes in the same conversation, with suspicion of U.S. intentions in confronting Iran.

"Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default, first with the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to Iran's east, which ousted the Taliban rulers against whom it almost went to war in the 1990s, and then to its west, with the American ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, against whom it fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.

"Across the region, Iran has begun to exert influence on fronts as diverse as its allies: the formerly exiled Shiite parties in Iraq and their militias; Hezbollah, a Lebanese group formed with Iranian patronage after Israel's 1982 invasion; and the cash-strapped Sunni Muslim movement of Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

"In Iraq, U.S. officials say Iran is providing Shiite militias with sophisticated projectiles capable of penetrating U.S. armored vehicles and backing those forces in a gathering civil war against Sunni Arabs. One commander of the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia that U.S. military officials now identify as the greatest security threat in Iraq, said that however much he might dislike Iran, he was eagerly anticipating the delivery of 50 rocket-propelled grenades to Basra.

"But no less influential are the ties that Iran has deepened with the three main Shiite groups in Iraq, some of whose leaders spent years in exile in Iran and are now nominally allied with the United States, and the burgeoning economic relationship between the two countries.

"'It's very bleak and it's very dangerous,' said Dakhil, the Saudi writer. 'We have a sectarian civil war in Iraq now and this is drawing sectarian lines through the region. This is the most important, the most dangerous ramification of the American war in Iraq.'

Global Warming - The RCMP Vision

The Vancouver Sun has obtained an internal RCMP report outlining possible consequences to Canada from global warming.

The report predicts a variety of significant, policing challenges in the future from public disorders following natural disasters to population migration as people are forced by drought, floods or rising water to look for better places to live.

"William Rees, a prominent ecologist at the University of B.C., said while it is impossible to make precise predictions about climate change, the fears raised in the RCMP report are a 'credible scenario.'

"For example, said Rees, many climatologists predict global sea levels will rise by about one metre by the end of this century.

'''Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we are talking about a one-metre sea level rise. Then you're talking about certainly tens - possibly hundreds - of millions of climate refugees globally,' he said. 'Most of the world's major seaports would be endangered. Much of Bangladesh would be inundated.'

"Rees said current illegal migration along the U.S.-Mexico border will be 'like a picnic compared to what might be ahead.'''

This isn't just alarmist babble. The Pentagon, not known as a bunch of tree-huggers, conducted its own study in 2004 which led to similar, but more dramatic predictions:

"Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

Britain's Ministry of Defence conducted its own assessment of the possible impacts of global warming:

"The MOD recently explained its thinking on "Climate Change and Security" to an influential group of individuals from the US Centre for Naval Analysis. By raising the profile of the implications of climate change we are one step closer to doing something about it.

"In highlighting the importance of climate change, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman, said:

"'It’s vital that we understand how climate change could influence future instability and be prepared for the consequences. It is important that the Armed Forces do what they can to minimise the impact of their activities on the climate, not least by getting their minds round sustainable development.'

"Here in the UK, we have linked human security with the effects of climate change. Hunger, thirst, disease, ecological breakdown: all can be portrayed as "security issues". Very simply, this is known as "Resource Conflicts". It is a fashionable term, but not a new one.

"When land is scarce, people fight over available land, creating mass-migration as conflicts escalate. Throughout the ongoing Darfur conflict in Sudan, ethnic fighting has caused mass displacement of people with some 100,000 people fleeing across the border.

"With nowhere to go in this kind of situation, many end up in refugee camps. Worryingly, refugee camps provide a fertile recruitment ground for militants. But how does this impact specifically on the UK's Defence agenda?



http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/ClimateChangeAndDefenceWhatsTheDeal.htm

Going Green - A Real Leap of Faith

It'll take more than a few attack ads, more than improving automobile fuel consumption. Going green will mean redefining our society from government, all the way through the private sector, to us as individuals. Redefining society will have to be both voluntary and regulated.

What's wrong with our existing society? Plenty. For more than half a century it has evolved into a complex and sophisticated social, economic and even political structure in which all has hinged on the abundant supply of cheap oil and other fossil fuels. There is no way to get around that reality.

We are going to remain dependent on fossil fuels. There are some things we can't do without them. However there are a lot of things we can do with alternate power sources and even more things we're simply going to have to abandon or severely curtail. This process of transformation will have economic, social and political dimensions and a lot of us aren't going to like some, maybe even most of them.

I have never had a home without a television but I have known some who chose to get rid of the tube. Those who did told me their lives changed and mainly for the better. They had a real but temporary period of adjustment. Then they found welcome alternatives to TV grazing. I don't have any reason to believe giving up TV would be worse for me than it has been for them. I just don't want to do it.

There are a lot of things associated with going green that I'm not going to welcome, some that I may have to be compelled to accept. That's why this will have to be both voluntary and regulated.

Take what many of us have come to regard as a staple, meat. Livestock production requires a lot of energy and consumes a lot of grain. Livestock also produce more greenhouse gas than our motor vehicles. The energy and feed used in producing livestock will inevitably become much more expensive and we're going to have to find some way of capturing or otherwise dealing with all that methane - yet another big expense. That means we'll have to eat a lot less meat and pay a lot more for what we do eat.

As Lewis Lapham points out, there was a societal shift that occured around the time Richard Nixon came to power. Wealth became equated with virtue. By perceiving wealth as virtuous we gave society's seal of approval to the manifestations of that virtue, consumption. We began demanding bigger homes, fancier cars, holidays abroad, exotic produce from distant lands and so much more - all made possible by abundant, cheap fuel.

You see two cars on the road. One is a shiny, new Lexus SUV, the other a 20-year old VW Rabbit. Which one are you going to notice? Be honest. Chances are you won't even give the VW a glance.

When you see the Lexus you see success, somebody who is somebody, somebody who's made it. A 20-year old economy car? If you notice the driver at all, you'll probably imagine him as someone who hasn't made it, down on his luck, probably a nobody. Wealth is virtue.

What if the guy with the Rabbit bought it 20-years ago because he wanted to drive an economy car, he chose that VW over a big, luxury car? What if he's driving a 20-year old car because he's diligently kept it in good repair so that he could get 20-years service out of it? Now who is virtuous? Of course if you found out he was also wealthy, you might write him off as an eccentric miser.

In a "wealth is virtue" world we expect the virtuous to consume. That is a societal value system we're going to have to give up. That doesn't mean that we have to get all Calvinist or anything. We'll just have to find other virtues to respect and other ways to appreciate, even enjoy them. Living in a 1200 sq. ft. house doesn't have to be less enjoyable, certainly not less respectable than reigning over a 5000 sq. ft. mansion. You don't have to be poor to live in a small house or drive a small car or holiday at home. You just have to be virtuous.

Our leaders are going to have to confront a huge, even daunting question. How can you ask the individual to go green unless you demand the same commitments from industry, especially Big Oil and Coal? The answer is obvious and its just as obvious to Stephen Harper as it is to David Suzuki. The difference is that one is ready to accept the answer, the other isn't.

Stephen Harper has shown no interest in shaking his own "wealth is virtue" fantasy, Canada's key to "superpower" prestige, the Tar Sands. He'll be telling you the dog ate his homework before he forces Athabasca's Big Oil to go green. Oh he'll throw out some diversions, attack ads being one of them, while mouthing all the right assurances and making hollow promises, but he has far too much of his vision of Canada invested in those Tar Sands to impose the sort of measures that, by our contemporary industrial standards, are radical.

This is one leap of faith Stephen Harper doesn't want to take.

The Scent of Fear

It speaks volumes that the Reform Conservatives are ready to spend upwards of a million dollars of their own cash to slam Stephane Dion. They've singled out the Liberal leader with nary a word for Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe. Dion, in their eyes, stands alone.

The Harpies are obviously bent on using paid ads to neutralize Dion on the environmental front. Why should they have to pay if (a) they're the government and (b) they've got a legitimate point to make?

Put it down to fear. They're afraid that Stephane Dion will take control of the foremost issue of concern to the Canadian public. Why should they be afraid? Ah, there's the question. Are they afraid because Dion is some sort of alchemist who controls knowledge they don't have? Not likely because he doesn't. Are they afraid because the opposition leader may expose their feint on "so called greenhouse gases" for what it is? Bingo.

I heard an ad today in which some "hip" young people were supposedly awed by Stephen Harper's initiative for renewable energy - ethanol. Of course the voices were those of actors and that much was obvious. What was less obvious is Harper's resolute intention not to let any of this environmental crap get in the way of the "almighty dollar" value of the Tar Sands. That's his Achilles' Heel and that's why he's so intent on attacking Dion.

Sorry Steve, you're still trying to protect the Klan while claiming you're all about civil rights. I guess, given your agenda, attacking someone else is an awful lot better than doing something yourself. You've seen your idol, George Bush, use this bait and switch routine for years. Creep.

You had better watch out, Steve. We're not nearly as gullible as the Nascar crowd down south. In fact we can already smell the scent of fear.

Life Imitating Art

On the weekend I watched the 1939 classic "Gunga Din" starring Carey Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr., a weird comic drama about British troops battling a diabolical cult of murderous Thugees in India.

About the same time Gunga Din was being aired, Iraqi security forces, backed by US tanks and helicopters, were battling a murderous cult of their own, a messianic Shia sect calling itself "Soldiers of Heaven." It seems the cult's 40-year old leader styled himself as the "Mahdi", an Islamic prophet who is destined to rise again and judge good from evil.

The apocalyptic insurgents were hit just as they were preparing to ambush fellow Shiites about to celebrate the holiest day in the Shia Muslim calendar.

It is reported that 300 Soldiers of Heaven have been dispatched to their new home and 100 arrested. Just plain weird.

A Sign of the Times

It could make you a bit squeamish but you can produce safe drinking water from sewage and for residents of Australia's Queensland state that may soon be what comes out of their taps.

Australia has been suffering an extended drought and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie told the Times of London there are no other options:

"Falling dam levels had left him with a 'no choice decision' , Mr Beattie said, and the state had to go ahead with plans for recycled water, rather than wait until a planned public referendum on the matter which had been scheduled for March.

"'I think in the end, because of the drought, all of Australia is going to end up drinking recycled purified water,' he said.

"'These are ugly decisions, but you either drink water or you die.There’s no choice. It’s liquid gold, it’s a matter of life and death,' he told local radio.

"Referring to residents in Singapore, Washington and Southern California who he said drank recycled water, he added: 'It’s not like we are part of a freak show - the rest of the world is doing this.'

"The waste is typically recycled using a combination of reverse osmosis and disinfection with ultraviolet radiation. Through the reverse osmosis process, water is forced through very fine membranes that filter out salts and other matter but let water molecules pass through."

Recycling is just one of many emerging technologies intended to relieve water shortages. Another is the waterless toilet. It works, just don't ask how.

Now that should make you grateful to be Canadian and give you something to think about the next time someone gets the bright idea to export our freshwater.

Hunting The Hunters

An intriguing hunt is on in the Antarctic's Southern Ocean. Actually there are two hunts underway on that ocean. It's where Japanese ships are hunting whales and where the Sea Sheperd's "Farley Mowat" is on the hunt for the Japanese whalers.

The government of New Zealand has released video taken from a RNZAF Hercules of the whalers in action, harpooning and butchering whales but won't say where the ships are at.

Sea Shepherd leader, Paul Watson, believes the US Naval Intellingence is helping the Japanese elude Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd ships. That's led Watson to post a $25,000 bounty for the co-ordinates of the whaling fleet.

Watson has threatened to ram and sink the Japanese vessels if he can only find them.

The Worst Record in the World

One thing about being acclaimed the "oldest person in the world" is knowing that you won't be for very long. There have been a lot of "oldest person," "oldest man," "oldest woman" lately as the titles keep changing hands in the only way these titles can change hands.

However 114-year old Emma Tillman scored a record that may have some real staying power. She's the shortest reigning world's oldest known living person. Emma, a child of former slaves and herself Katherine Hepburn's former nurse, held her title for only four days before she "passed on" the honour to 114-year-old Yone Minagawa of Fukuoka, Japan.

A Telegraph reporter who tried to reach Ms. Minagawa was told by a nurse that she'd already gone to sleep.

A Window into America's Pretext for War

Tyler Drumheller is speaking out - a little. The former Chief of the CIA's European Division spoke with Spiegel Online about the events leading up to the conquest of Iraq.

SPIEGEL: The renditions program saw the kidnapping of suspected Islamist extremists to third countries. Were you involved in the program?

Drumheller: I would be lying if I said no. I have very complicated feelings about the whole issue. I do see the purpose of renditions, if they are carried out properly. Guys sitting around talking about carrying out attacks as they smoke their pipes in the comfort of a European capital tend to get put off the idea if they learn that a like-minded individual has been plucked out of safety and sent elsewhere to pay for his crimes.

SPIEGEL: We disagree. At the very least, you need to be certain that the targets of those renditions aren't innocent people.

Drumheller: It was Vice President Dick Cheney who talked about the "dark side" we have to turn on. When he spoke those words, he was articulating a policy that amounted to "go out and get them." His remarks were evidence of the underlying approach of the administration, which was basically to turn the military and the agency loose and let them pay for the consequences of any unfortunate -- or illegal -- occurences.

Drumheller: Every responsible chief in the CIA knows that the more covert the action, the greater the need for a clear policy and a defined target. I once had to brief Condoleezza Rice on a rendition operation, and her chief concern was not whether it was the right thing to do, but what the president would think about it. I would have expected a big meeting, a debate about whether to proceed with the plan, a couple of hours of consideration of the pros and cons. We should have been talking about the value of the target, whether the threat he presented warranted such a potentially controversial intervention. This is no way to run a covert policy. If the White House wants to take extraordinary measures to win, it can't just let things go through without any discussion about their value and morality.

SPIEGEL: Perhaps the White House wanted to gloss over its own responsibility.

Drumheller: Let me give you a general thought: From the perspective of the White House, it was smart to blur the lines about what was acceptable and what was not in the war on terrorism. It meant that whenever someone was overzealous in some dark interrogation cell, President (George W.) Bush and his entourage could blame someone else. The rendition teams are drawn from paramilitary officers who are brave and colorful. They are the men who went into Baghdad before the bombs and into Afghanistan before the army. If they didn't do paramilitary actions for a living, they would probably be robbing banks. Perhaps the Bush Administration deliberately created a gray area on renditions.

SPIEGEL: But it was your agency that was coming up with all the wrong information concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. To what degree is the intelligence community responsible for the disaster?

Drumheller: The agency is not blameless and no president on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA. But never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war.

SPIEGEL: There are more than a few critics in Washington who claim that the Germans, because of Curveball, bear a large part of the repsonsibility for the intelligence mess.

Drumheller: There was no effort by the Germans to influence anybody from the beginning. Very senior officials in the BND expressed their doubts, that there may be problems with this guy. They were very professional. I know that there are people at the CIA who think the Germans could have set stronger caveats. But nobody says: "Here's a great intel report, but we don't believe it." There were also questions inside the CIA's analytical section, but as it went forward, this information was seized without caveats. The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting.

SPIEGEL: The German government was convinced that "Curveball" would not be used in the now famous presentation that then US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council.

Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."

SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell's presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.

Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this."

SPIEGEL: In your book, you mention a very high-ranking source who told the CIA before the war that Iraq had no large active WMD program. It has been reported that the source was Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri.

Drumheller: I'm not allowed to say who that was. In the beginning, the administration was very excited that we had a high-level penetration, and the president was informed. I don't think anybody else had a source in Saddam's cabinet. He told us that Iraq had no biological weapons, just the research. Everything else had been destroyed after the first Gulf War. But after a while we didn't get any questions back. Finally the administration came and said that they were really not interested in what he had to say. They were interested in getting him to defect. In the end we did get permission to get back to the source, and that came from Tenet. I think without checking with the White House, he just said: "Okay. Go ahead and see what you can do."

SPIEGEL: Should you have pressed harder?

Drumheller: We made mistakes. And it may suit the White House to have people believe in a black and white version of reality -- that it could have avoided the Iraq war if the CIA had only given it a true picture of Saddam's armaments. But the truth is that the White House believed what it wanted to believe. I have done very little in my life except go to school and work for the CIA. Intellectually I think I did everything I could. Emotionally you always think you should have something more.

Calling the Kettle Black

"We will not allow hegemony of a hostile regime to have power over this area."

That warning came from US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalizad this weekend. His remarks were directed at Tehran and prompted by Iran's rapidly growing, and probably inevitable, influence in Iraq.

The US is trying to chaperone Iraq, keeping its courtship by Iran under strict control lest it lead to hanky-panky. Howevere Shiite-controlled Iraq is showing signs that it rather likes Shiite-Iran's attentions.

George Bush has issued an order to US troops authorizing them to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq who may be doing things hostile to the American forces. Does this mean it's open season on Iranians who have the bad luck to get swept up by GI's? Hard to say.

One thing is clear. If Washington was hoping to intimidate Iran, it's not working. Tehran has since announced initiatives to train Iraqi military forces and to undertake reconstruction projects that have fared poorly under the occupation. The Baghdad government seems to be welcoming the offers from one of America's designated "Axis of Evil" charter members.

"The increasingly common arrangement for sick or wounded Iraqis to receive treatment in Iran is just one strand in a burgeoning relationship between these two Persian Gulf countries. Thousands of Iranian pilgrims visit the Shiite holy cities in southern Iraq each year. Iran exports electricity and refined oil products to Iraq, and Iraqi vendors sell Iranian-made cars, air coolers, plastics and the black flags, decorated with colorful script, that Shiites are flying this week to celebrate the religious holiday of Ashura.

"Each day, Iran provides 1,000 tons of cooking gas, about 20 percent of the Iraqi demand, and 2 million liters of kerosene. Iran exports electricity through Iraq's Diyala province and plans to quadruple the amount with new projects, Iraqi officials say.

"Iran has also extended a $1 billion line of credit to Iraq to help fund reconstruction and rebuilding. When Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and his delegation of ministers visited Iran in November, he asked for more help and said Iraq 'would like to expand our relations in every field with the Islamic Republic of Iran.'

"'The economic power between the two countries, it's enormous,' said Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Iraq. 'We can help them in technical issues and engineering. We have a lot of experience in building roads and airports.'

"Iran has driven a wedge between Iraq and the United States. Last month, when U.S. troops seized two Iranian officials inside the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI, the Iraqi government intervened and the United States freed them. After U.S. troops seized five more Iranian officials from the liaison office in Irbil, the Iraqi government again appealed for their release -- so far unsuccessfully -- saying the men worked in an approved office providing consular services.

"Some analysts say the violence and instability in Iraq attract more Iranian involvement, not less, as Iran positions itself to be on the winning side of a sectarian war.

"'The whole Gulf system is turned upside down, and everybody is trying to figure out how they situate themselves in it,' said Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, referring to traditional relationships in the Persian Gulf region. Iranian support is 'part of the program of strengthening the Shia community to resist and expand its influence, and become a successful combatant in a civil war.'"

Who Could've Known?

I just thumbed through Gwynne Dyer's 2005 book, "With Every Mistake." It's a compendium of his newspaper columns going back to the attacks of 11 September, 2001 that launched us all on the Global War Without End on Terror. If you haven't read it yet, it's still a very worthwhile read.

In fact, a lot of Dyer's predictions from those early days have turned out to be eerily prescient. He made the case for what he thought out to be done and what would happen if it wasn't. We didn't and, sure enough, it happened.

The Taliban collapsed in November, 2001, when American airpower tipped the balance in the stalemated civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. It was pushing on an open door. Both sides were exhausted, resorting to static, trench warfare. America wasn't prepared for what happened.

On 14 November, 2001, Dyer wrote a piece entitled "Time to Stop" -

"Four out of five: Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, Kabul and Jalalabad. All but one of Afghanistan's major cities have been lost by the Taliban and captured by the Northern Alliance in less than a week, and the last, Kandahar, is likely to fall at any time. Neither Washington nor anyone else expected so sudden a collapse. So the burning question at the Pentagon, in the National Security Council, in all the decision-making centres of the United States and other members of its anti-terrorist coalition, is what to do next. The answer is to stop."

"Stop the bombing, above all. It has achieved a lot by breaking up the Taliban's fixed defences and demoralizing its troops, but it can do little more for you now that they are pulling back into the hills and reverting to guerilla warfare.

"...what is the point in just bombing the rural areas of southern Afghanistan? You will kill lots of innocent civilians and drive he rest back into the embrace of the Taliban without accomplishing a single useful thing. Surely the objective now must be to create a competent and broadly based Afghan government as fast as possible, and let it do the work of tracking down the Taliban diehards and 'foreign guests' who linger in the hills.

"As for the US and other Western troops, they should stay just long enough to stabilize the situation and persuade the Northern Alliance that it must share power with other groups. Then they should be replaced with a robust, UN-backed force made up entirely of Muslim troops that stays until the new government is securely on its feet.

"Do all this and you might walk away from Afghanistan with a success on your hands. But remember that you have been very, very lucky, and don't get overconfident. Above all, don't let anybody talk you into attacking Iraq."

Imagine where we would be today if the White House had followed this advice instead of the lunacy pitched by the neo-cons and so warmly welcomed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of that pack? Imagine.

A Long Overdue Question is Asked

It's taken more than five years to come up but, finally, John Hopkins professor David Bell writing in the LA Times has asked it, "Was 9/11 really that bad?"

"IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

"Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

"...although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

"Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

"Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

"So why has there been such an overreaction? Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation.

"Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence."

He Said What?

Politicians are supposed to be political, trying to win votes instead of losing them. One way you do that is by not insulting half of your population. I guess Japan's health minister didn't get that memo.

Hakuo Yanagisawa wants Japan's women to pick up the pace from the record low rate of 1.26 children per woman in 2005 to a more robust rate of 2.1 children per women needed to keep Japan's population stable. Fair enough but you just don't have to put it quite this way:

"The number of women aged between 15 and 50 is fixed. Because the number of birth-giving machines and devices is fixed, all we can do is ask them to do their best per head ... although it may not be so appropriate to call them machines."

You see his instincts were sort of right, but still you don't call women who can vote "birth-giving machines." Fertility ovens? No. Natal nests? I don't think so. How bout "conception co-ordinators"? Yeah, that's got a nice touch.

Let Me Guess - They Stand Up, We Stand Down - Right?

Of course it's right. As soon as Afghanistan's forces stand up, Canadian forces will stand down. Gee, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

A document recently obtained by CBC and "authored" by General Rick Hillier says Canada's military job in Afghanistan will be successful when:

- new Afghan security forces "are established" and "fully controlled" by the Afghan government.

- those forces are trained and can conduct their own "counter-insurgency operations."

- the forces can defend against foreign fighters and "effectively control borders."

- and when "terrorist groups are denied sanctuary within Afghanistan."

The Corp even puts forward a military analyst from - wait for it - the University of Calgary, to vouch for Hillier that the "mission" is doable, given enough time. According to Rob Huebert of the university's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies:

"The Taliban-al-Qaeda threat has not been entirely neutralized, and the big problem we have right now is the Pakistani border provides refuge," Huebert said. "Once that border gets sealed, then you can start dealing with the problem more effectively."

"Once that border gets sealed." And in what century will that be achieved? Sealing the border will essentially divide the two key mountain tribes, the Pashtuns and Baluchs, whose regions lie in both countries.

See the green (Pashtun) and the pink (Baluch) above and that black line that runs through those regions? That line is the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and, as you can see, the tribal region extends through almost the entire border region between these countries. Note that there are actually more Pashtun living in what Britain drew up as Pakistan than in Afghanistan, same for the Baluchs. These people don't recognize this border and, even if they did, sealing a border that long through such immensely rugged terrain isn't likely to happen, not now, not in a hundred years.

Huebert is right that the Taliban-al-Qaeda threat hasn't been "entirely neutralized". Neither has the Taliban-Afghani threat been neutralized because it's estimated that 80% of the Taliban force isn't actually Talibs at all but disaffected Afghanis. So, once we defeat the Afghan people we can leave, is that it?

Maybe we should turn our guns on the Taliban's main recruiting service, the corrupt Afghan police who are widely credited with driving local Afghans to take up arms with the Taliban. Of course to do that we'd also have to blast away at the government and then that would get the warlords in the north thoroughly up in arms against us.

Hmm, there must be an answer, right?

To Hell with Justice, I'm Stephen Harper

Prominent politicians ought to avoid passing judgment on cases before the courts but it seems Stephen Harper thinks that's for pussies. When it comes to the Pickton trial, he's plenty ready to weigh in:

"In terms of the events that are on trial in the Pickton trial, I think all Canadians experience just unbelievable horror and outrage at the acts that have been committed. And I don't think there's a person in this country (who) cannot react with extreme revulsion to the events that are on trial there."

Memo to Steve: the events aren't on trial, Pickton is.

Talk Is Cheap

Stephen Harper and his government claim to have gotten the message on global warming. They're even willing to do something about it - so long as it doesn't impact on the economy.

Anyone who has studied the problem knows that you can't make any inroads against global warming without impacting the economy, especially at the outset. Change costs money, it's as simple as that.

The Stern Report released a few months back calculates the cost of tackling global warming to run at 1% of GDP, if we act now. The longer we delay, the more it'll cost down the road. 1% of GDP is hardly crushing. It's a lot less than the West spent year after year for decades to wage the Cold War.

So, yes, doing anything effective about global warming will impact the economy. Putting carbon caps on the major GHG emitters will compel them to spend to put in place new, cleaner technologies. Who knows, it might even have an economic impact on the Tar Sands and that could throw a wet towel on Harper's grandiose dream of transforming Canada into an "energy superpower."

Speaking of the Tar Sands, Cameron Smith writing in today's Toronto Star, says that supremely dirty venture is on the verge of ramping up:

"There is much talk of improving efficiencies, reducing emissions and being able to store CO{-2} underground. But plans are afoot to double production from 1.5 million barrels a day to 3 million barrels by 2015. In addition, U.S. President George W. Bush would like Canada to increase production by five times, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not demurring. So, during the period when we should be capping emissions, how can Canadians expect them to go anywhere but up?"

Harper has again taken his lead from George Bush - say what people want to hear and then go back to business as usual. By failing to take any decisive action - the type necessary to begin to deal with global warming, measures that must of necessity have an economic impact - he is handing Stephane Dion a handy cudgel.

It may even be in the Liberals' interests to give Harper more time before triggering an election to force his hand on the environmental issue. If, as he has indicated, Harper is going to focus on transportation and individual sacrifice while giving the big, industrial emitters a pass, that should work against him at the polls. It could even be Harper's tipping point.

Royal Backfire

French Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal stirred up a lot of controversy over her recent remarks supporting Quebec sovereignty.

Now that gaffe has returned to haunt her - in the form of a hoax telephone call from a man she thought was Quebec premier Jean Charest. The caller was actually Gérald Dahan, an imitator known for his phone hoaxes of public figures.

Posing as Charest, Dahan chided Royal, "it's as if we said, "Well, Corsica, it should be independent."'

To which Royal replied that not all French people "would be against that". But she was quick to add: "Don't repeat that. It will create another incident ... in France."

Dahan has released only this one part of the tape but more is expected to be made public soon.

The Best Business in Baghdad

The idea behind the Bush "surge" in Baghdad is to bring American troops into direct co-operation with their Iraqi counterparts to put down sectarian violence that is plaguing the Iraqi capital.

This latest adventure is opposed in congress, mainly by the Democrats. The Republicans have voiced their dissatisfaction by have largely failed to follow that up with support for Democratic initiatives. It is widely reported, however, that the Republicans won't stay neutral for long and may stage their own revolt if the surge shows no real success by the end of the summer.

The greatest challenge facing the American commanders will be in taming the Shiite militias. The central government of al-Maliki is Shia dominated and has already indicated it wants the US to deal with the Sunni insurgents, in effect doing the Shia's work for them.

Success or failure of the surge will be heavily influenced, if not completely dependent, upon the degree of co-operation the Americans get from the Iraqi forces. A report in The Guardian reveals a picture of conditions on the ground in Baghdad that are anything but helpful. The article is an interview with Fadhel, a 26-year old commander in al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Fadhel described how his men tracked and seized three Sunni men suspected of attacking Shiites: "I followed the group for weeks and then one of them crossed the bridge to Karrada [a Shia district]. We first informed a nearby Iraqi army checkpoint that we were arresting terrorists then we attacked them and put them in the boots of the cars. We only have six to seven minutes when we grab someone - we have to act quickly, if he resists we shoot him."

"In this case, he said, the men were taken to Sadr City, the Shia slum to the north-east of Baghdad, where they were interrogated by a "committee" which ordered their execution. "We ask the families of the terrorists for ransom money," said Fadhel. "And after they pay the ransom we kill them anyway."

"Kidnapping in Baghdad these days is as much about economics as retribution or sectarian hatred. Another Shia man close to the Mahdi Army told me: "They kidnap 10 Sunnis, they get ransom on five, and kill them all, in each big kidnap operation they make at least $50 000, it's the best business in Baghdad."

Fadhel described the intimate collaboration between the Shia militia and the Iraqi Army, "...especially the commandos of the Iraqi interior ministry. He says the Mahdi Army often uses these official forces in conducting its own operations against Sunni "terrorists".

"'We have specific units that we work with where members of the Mahdi Army are in command. We conduct operations together. We can't ask any army unit to come with us, we just ask the units that are under the control of our men.'

"'The police are all under our control, we ask them to help or inform them that shooting will take place in a street and it involves the Mahdi Army, and that's it.'

"In one operation Fadhel took part in last summer, Iraqi interior ministry commandos attacked a Sunni area in Dora called "Arab Jubour". The raid involved 28 pickup trucks, he told me. Of them 16 were ministry of interior, the rest Mahdi Army.

"The new Bush plan to secure Baghdad gives a major role to the Iraqi army and police units in securing Baghdad. Few in the city expect that these predominantly Shia forces will seriously challenge their fellow Shia.

"As the discussions for the new security plan were continuing, an Iraqi Shia official who belongs to another party told me: 'We know that Moqtada [al-Sadr] and his men are responsible for all this mess but what can we do? We can't attack them, we can only talk to them. Its like having a mentally ill relative - you can't just throw him in the street.'"

Smoke and Mirrors

This was almost predictable. The US government wants scientists to develop technologies - essentially smoke and mirrors - to ward off global warming. That's right, smoke and mirrors.

The Guardian has obtained a copy of the US response to the final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it reveals that Washington intends to dig in its heels. The US has demanded that, "...a draft of the report be changed to emphasize the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes."

"Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

"The US submission is based on the views of dozens of government officials and is accompanied by a letter signed by Harlan Watson, senior climate negotiator at the US state department. It complains the IPCC draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting". It takes issue with a statement that "one weakness of the [Kyoto] protocol, however, is its non-ratification by some significant greenhouse gas emitters" and asks: "Is this the only weakness worth mentioning? Are there others?"

"It also insists the wording on the ineffectiveness of voluntary agreements be altered to include "a number of them have had significant impacts" and complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change." It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world."

The good news is that the Bush administration is becoming increasingly isolated on its global warming stance. With California leading the way, action is being taken, albeit lacking in consistency and co-ordination, at state and even municipal levels and this does appear to be an issue on which the Bushies are vulnerable to the new, Democratic congress. We can only live in hope and we'll need a lot more than smoke and mirrors, another Bush parlour game.

He's the Same Old Bush

The US president has pretty much used up the month of January depicting himself as a Democrat-friendly moderate, a changed man. His actions show something else entirely.

Two New York Times editorials, one entitled "The Bait and Switch White House", poke holes in George Bush's claims.

"In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush stuck to his ill-conceived plans for Iraq, but at least admitted the situation was dire. He said he wanted to work with Congress and announced a bipartisan council on national security.

"That lasted a day. By Wednesday evening, Vice President Dick Cheney was on CNN contradicting most of what Mr. Bush had said. We were left asking, once again, Who exactly is running this White House?

"While Mr. Bush has been a bit more forthright lately about how badly things have gone in Iraq, Mr. Cheney spoke of “enormous successes” there and refused to pay even curled-lip service to consulting Congress. Whatever votes Congress takes on Iraq, Mr. Cheney said, “it won’t stop us.”

"All of that was distressing enough. But in Friday’s Times, Adam Liptak gave an account of the way the administration — after grandly announcing that it was finally going to obey the law on wiretapping — is trying to quash lawsuits over Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping operations by imposing outrageous secrecy and control over the courts.

"Justice Department lawyers are withholding evidence from plaintiffs and even restricting the access of judges to documents in cases involving Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the warrantless interception of e-mail and phone calls. In one suit, Justice Department lawyers tried to seize computers from the plaintiffs’ lawyers to remove a document central to their case against the government.

"In response to these and other serious concerns, the Justice Department offered only the most twisted excuses, which a federal judge rightly compared to “Alice in Wonderland.”

"When government lawyers tried to take back a document that has circulated around the world, the judge asked a Justice Department lawyer, “Who is it secret from?” The answer: “Anyone who has not seen it.”

I doubt the Frat Boy president can change, especially when he's torn between his disingenuous rhetoric and his subversive vice-president who is plainly charting his own course for this administration. Bush and Cheney are wasting no time in challenging the will and resolve of the Democratic congress. If the Democratic Party majorities in the House and Senate don't push back, it will herald two more years of autocratic rule, incompetence, deceit and undemocratic secrecy for George Bush.

If Only

Imagine how things might be so different today if Bush/Cheney had popped their heads up above their ideology to take a look at the real world.

The greatest, single cause of their failure in Afghanistan and Iraq has been their indifference to the prosecution of these conflicts. If only they'd cared.

If they had cared, Bush would have flooded Afghanistan with the soldiers and resources needed to oust the Taliban and al-Qaeda and stabilize that country to ensure it became a place where the extremists could not return.

If they had cared, they wouldn't have even bothered with Iraq until Afghanistan was the real deal, the "mission accomplished." Don't you think it curious that Bush had no celebratory photo op to commemorate the total victory in Afghanistan?

If they had cared, they would have paid some heed to their advisors - civilian, military, governmental - who gave them every warning about what could go wrong in Iraq and the fundamental flaws in their approach.

If they had cared, they would have tried to figure out what was going wrong from the moment everything started going sideways instead of dummying up for four years, claiming victory was in sight.

If they had cared, they would have realized you can't promise the people a quick and tidy victory and then fail to deliver.

If they had cared, they would have understood the very narrow limits of American public opinion and treated their window of opportunity as a matter of precious minutes, even seconds.

They didn't care.

If they had cared:

- They would have tried to make sense of the Middle East
- They would have worked out how to minimize the loss of American and civilian lives
- They would have formulated a strategy that wasn't driven by election interests in 2004 and 2006
- They would have acknowledged that you can't cut taxes and wage an enormously expensive war without shortchanging generations to come.

They didn't care, and they still don't:

- They've had the problems studied at length by various groups and they've consistently ignored the advice given
- They've ignored the realities on the ground in the Middle East
- They've chosen to play out their term in a "stay the course" mode that they try to dress up as something different
- To indulge their whims and fanatical ideologies they've ensured that the world they leave behind them will be a much more dangerous and unstable place
- They have tacitly accepted defeat but only so long as the next administration has the honour of bearing the dishonour.

These people are treasonous.

Smoking - It's All In Your Head

Wanna kick the habit? Brain damage just might do the trick.

The New York Times reports that researchers studying stroke victims have found that brain damage near the ear can can "instantly and permanently break a smoking habit."

The entire business is now linked to a part of the brain called the "insula."

“In a sense it’s not surprising that the insula is an important part of this circuit maintaining addiction because we realized some years ago that it was going to be a critical platform for emotions,” Dr. Damasio said in a telephone interview. “It is on this platform that we first anticipate pain and pleasure, not just smoking but eating chocolate, drinking a glass of wine, all of it."

"This explains why cravings are so physical and so hard to shake, he said: they have taken hold in the visceral reaches of the body well before they are even conscious.

“The question is, Can you learn to deactivate the insula?” said Dr. Volkow said. “Now, everybody’s going to be looking at the insula.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25cnd-brain.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=4e508e8daffaae23&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Not Ready for Prime Time

The idea behind the Baghdad "surge" is for American troops to back up Iraqi forces in cleaning out neighbourhoods infested with Sunni and Shiite militias. It sounds good in theory but the theory assumes the Iraqi army forces are up to the job. Two reporters from the Herald Tribune accompanied a US force in Baghdad today and learned that things aren't what they are assumed to be:

"In a miniature version of the troop increase that the United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own.

"When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns. As the morning wore on and the troops came under fire from all directions, another apparent flaw in this strategy became clear as empty apartments became lairs for gunmen who flitted from window to window and killed at least one American soldier, with a shot to the head.

"Whether the gunfire was coming from Sunni or Shiite insurgents or militia fighters or some of the Iraqi soldiers who had disappeared into the Gotham-like cityscape, no one could say.

The commander of the operation, Lt. Col. Avanulas Smiley of the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Second Infantry Division, said, "This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges and risks. It can be organized chaos."

"Many of the Iraqi units that showed up late never seemed to take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, breaking dishes and rifling through personal CD collections in the apartments. Eventually the Americans realized that the Iraqis were searching no more than half of the apartments; at one point the Iraqis completely disappeared, leaving the American unit working with them flabbergasted."

The mission resulted in one American killed and two Iraqi wounded but the targets, the militiamen and insurgents, simply melted away.

The Cavalry - Just In Time

Or let's hope it'll be just in time. Word that the Afghan mission is in for some badly needed reinforcements - at least one more NATO brigade and more US forces as well.

The NATO brigade is to be made up of troops mainly from the various nations already active in Afghanistan. The Americans are (wisely) extending the tour of their mountain brigade by another four months and possibly sending fresh troops in also.

It's not clear whether the NATO reinforcement troops will be combat-ready and whether their committment will be subject to any of the caveats that have kept some, such as the Germans, from being deployed into the south where the fighting is most intense.

Let's hope the extra troops are enough to bolster NATO forces to meet the anticipated Taliban spring offensive. The trouble is that it's all guesswork as to what is coming. Will it be the Taliban and al-Qaeda or will they, too, show up with reinforcements. There have been rumours that the Taliban have been joined by the northern warlords, various drug lords, mujahadeen and disaffected nationalists, temporarily operating together under an agreement to set aside their differences until the Westerners are driven out and Karzai toppled. That is definitely a worst-case scenario but no one knows what's coming or, if they do, they're not speaking openly about it.

Looking Into the Crystal Ball

Imagine it's 1957 and you're suddenly presented with clear proof of where the world would be in half a century.

Let's say, for example, that we all realized that the Cold War would consume massive wealth and resources to end in the fall of communism. Would both sides agree that they could use their treasure more wisely for the actual benefit of their people?

What if our environmental decline was mapped out fifty years in advance? Would we have started looking for better, safer alternatives in time to avoid at least the worst of the problems that face us today?

The truth is that a lot of what is coming down the pike can be accurately predicted but it is our human condition not to respond until we must, perhaps not even until it's too late.

What strategies is Canada now mapping out to leave us ideally positioned for the world of 2057? You and I both know the answer. We're doing nothing or next to nothing.

If the world in 2050 is going to be markedly different than the world we've known for centuries, shouldn't we at least be discussing what lies ahead and our options for coping with it?

A couple of things we'll probably have to deal with are securing and distributing our freshwater resources. Some areas, particularly southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, may fall into protracted drought while B.C. receives heavy rainfall. Wouldn't it make sense to see if and how that surplus water could be used in places that may need it most?

We also need to consider growth. The areas expected to be hardest hit by global warming are the regions that are already the hottest on the planet. It won't take much change to render a lot of the earth's surface uninhabitable. That will leave the occupants two choices - migrate to more temperate areas or die. What do you think they'll choose? The Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence have already studied this and they came to the same conclusion.

It would be wonderful if we could just make room for all the newcomers but we can't. We may, however, be compelled to accept a lot more than we want or are prepared to assimilate.

We have enough experience with immigration to be able to identify the opportunities and problems this will present. Surely the time to work on these questions is now, not when we are beset by migrants.

Should we give priority to Americans? How do we retain control of our own country? How do we safeguard our resources for our needs and benefit?

This whole exercise is very time-consuming. We need time to formulate the questions we need to address. We need time to come up with reliable scenarios that are essential for planning. We need time to debate and discuss our options and make choices. We need time to put our choices, our policies into effect before we wind up playing catch-up.

What we have at the moment is a government that claims it is minty green, almost overnight, and will do everything except anything that might impact on the economy. That timid approach consigns us to window dressing solutions. It does not welcome questions and debates and making choices. It actually seeks to forestall those things.

We may have a chance right now to take steps that will pay huge benefits in the future. One thing that is apparent, the longer we loiter with our heads in the sand claiming to be green, the fewer options we'll have when we're forced to make decisions.

Everyone Finds Their Reasons

Anti-Americanism is sweeping the globe. According to the controversial right-winger, Dinesh D'Souza writing in the Christian Science Monitor, it's because the US offers so many things to condemn, there's something for everyone.

"Anti-Americanism comes in different varieties. The European kind emphasizes the "evils" of "red" America: a shoot-first, ask-questions-later cowboy in the White House, and Bible- toting fundamentalists walking around the corridors of power.

"The Muslim variety is very different. Many Muslims point to the "horrors" of "blue" America: homosexual marriage, family breakdown, and a popular culture that is trivial, materialistic, vulgar, and, in many cases, morally repulsive.

"This latter view is dangerously – and justifiably – common in many traditional cultures across the globe. Because it feeds their perception that American values are inimical to their way of life, this attitude can blossom into the kind of anti- American pathology that partly fueled the 9/11 attacks. Any serious effort to shore up American's security must include steps to edify American culture.

"The most powerful of all the American offenses recited in the lands of Islam, argues preeminent Middle East expert Bernard Lewis, "is the "degeneracy and debauchery of the American way of life."

"A major reason why some Muslims focus their anger on the United States is because it is American culture – not Swedish culture or French culture – that is finding its way into every nook and cranny of Islamic society.

"There is a cultural blowback against America that is coming from all the traditional cultures of Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Asia. This resistance is summed up in a slogan used by Singapore's former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew: "Modernization without Westernization." What this means is that traditional cultures want prosperity and technology, but they don't want the values of American culture."

"Even the term "Great Satan," so commonly used to denounce America in the Muslim world, is better understood when we recall that in the traditional understanding, shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Satan is not a conqueror; he is a tempter. In one of its best-known verses, the Koran describes Satan as "the insidious tempter who whispers into the hearts of men."

Dinesh may have identified a genuine problem that needs to be addressed, but how? He wants a culture war at home and, by his implication, a war on liberalism. Dinesh, naturally, equates liberalism with depravity. He also urges the US to do more to show the world the "other America" that they don't see, the conservative and religious America.

Of course Dinesh doesn't want to consider just how much good old, religious conservatism the US has been showing the Middle East in recent years. Does this guy think liberals caused the quagmire in Iraq? Does he think the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and Islamism globally is being fueled by rap music or American military and political interventions in the Middle East?

The Islamists believe there is a crusade now underway driven by Christian fundamentalists who wish to subjugate the Muslim world. Sadly, that doesn't fit into Dinesh's equation, his view of the root of all of America's troubles. Dinesh is another radical flogging another book, a phenomenon that has led to a bizarre game of one-upsmanship. His tome is dedicated to the proposition that liberalism caused the attacks of 9/11. Idiot.

A refreshing, alternate viewpoint comes from Henryk Broder writing in Spiegel who warns that adjusting our cultures so as to not affend the Muslim world is rank capituation:

"Those who react to kidnappings and beheadings, to massacres of people of other faiths, and to eruptions of collective hysteria with a call for "cultural dialogue" don't deserve any better.

"'The West should desist from engaging in all provocations that produce feelings of debasement and humiliation,' says psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. 'We should show greater respect for the cultural identity of Muslim countries. ... For Muslims, it is important to be recognized and respected as equals.' In Richter's view, what the Muslims need is "a partnership of equals."

"But Richter neglects to describe what this partnership might look like. Does achieving such equality mean that we should set up separate sections for women on buses, as is the custom in Saudi Arabia? Should the marrying age for girls be reduced to 12, as is the case in Iran? And should death by stoning be our punishment for adultery, as Shariah law demands? What else could the West do to show its respect for the cultural identity of Islamic countries? Would it be sufficient to allow Horst-Eberhard Richter to decide whether, for example, a wet T-shirt contest in a German city rises to a level of criminal provocation that could cause the Muslim faithful in Hyderabad to feel debased and humiliated?

"Should devout Jews be entitled to demand that non-Jews give up pork? And should they have the power to impose sanctions if their demands are not met? Can a Hindu in India run amok because the Dutch do not view cows as sacred beings? Those who believe Muslims have the right to be outraged by the Danes failing to abide by an Islamic prohibition -- especially when it's not even clear that such a prohibition even exists -- must answer such questions clearly in the affirmative. Even illiterates must then be allowed to ransack bookstores; in a world in which anyone is entitled to feel offended and humiliated, anyone can also choose which provocations he is unwilling to accept."

MacKay Wants NATO to Guard Border

Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay wants our NATO allies to send help to guard Afghanistan's border with Pakistan.

Even if he gets a few thousand extra hands, they probably won't arrive in time to make any difference to the insurgent's spring offensive. In any event, NATO forces in Afghanistan are too few to tackle the Herculean job of guarding the border with Pakistan.

The rugged border region is all but impossible to control. The Soviets tried it when they had a force of more than 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Infiltrators had to dodge infrequent air strikes and other minor irritants but the border remained open for business.

The only nation with enough troops to make a serious effort at this is Pakistan and they're not about to go beyond some fencing and minefields.

MacKay's instincts are good, he sees the real problem, but his chances of coming up with an effective response are almost nil.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

It's poppy eradication time again in Afghanistan, the time right after Afghan winter when Kabul, the UN, Washington and NATO toss around ideas for wiping out Afghan poppy fields.

There's no question that getting rid of poppies and the opium produced from them is a good thing - if you're not going to buy the stuff to answer the demand for legitimate, opiate medicines. If we don't buy it, our addicts will buy it on our streets.

US Drug Czar, John Walters, thought he had a deal with president Karzai to permit spraying. Kabul now says no. The Afghan goverment wants the West to provide tractors so it can simply plough the poppy fields under. Nobody's quite sure what to do or even what will be done.

Despite all the babble, what never seems to cross their lips is how to put an alternative economy in place to allow the locals to support their families without growing poppies. Why is that not the first priority? It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

The alternative economy idea doesn't work because it cannot be a first priority. Before you can even hope to establish an alternative economy, you have to give the farmers genuine security - from the Taliban, from the drug lords, even from the police and their own government. That's the first objective, the alternative economy is second, getting rid of the poppies is third.

Campaigning against the poppies as we have done is an admission of failure in the first two objectives, the prerequisites. We can't give them security so we can't create an alternative economy so we'll complete the vise we've left them in by trying to wipe out their livelihood.

The drug czars of the US and UN have repeatedly shown that they couldn't care less about the repercussions of eradicating Afghan's poppy fields. They consider the consequences to be someone else's problems.

When There's Just Not Enough Time for Waterboarding

Hey, if you haven't got time to waste making a guy feel like he's drowning, why not make him feel like he's on fire? Ah, the modern age.

The US military has unveiled its "heat gun" the latest, non-lethal weapon it has developed for "crowd control." The weapon fires a beam of radiation that terrifies those it hits by making them feel they're about to burst into flames. Pretty neat, huh?

"There should be no collateral damage to this," said Senior Airman Adam Navin, 22, of Green Bay, Wis., who has served several tours in Iraq. That was the same view taken when the US military exposed hundreds of its own soldiers to early nuclear weapons tests. Hmm, how did that turn out, by the way? Oh, that's right, a lot of them died of cancers. Ooops!

I expect there are a number of practical problems to the use of this system in the field for crowd control but I can think of one application where it would be just dandy - interrogation. It'll sure save on the water bill.

We're Presumptuous?

The US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, has called Stockwell Day "a little presumptuous" for seeking to have Maher Arar removed from America's no-fly list' "It's a little presumptuous for him [Day] to say who the United States can and cannot allow into our country."

Odd that it's not presumptuous for the United States to tell Canada who we should or should not allow into Canada nor, apparently, is it presumptuous for the US to seize Canadian citizens and send them abroad to be tortured.

Now the ambassador explained that his country has its own reasons for continuing to see Arar as some sort of danger but, whatever those concerns may be, they're not prepared to share them with us, their partner in Washington's Global War Without End on Terror. I'm sorry but, if Maher Arar is some sort of villain, America had damned well better start coming clean with us about it.

If, however, this is all about spite because Arar is suing the US because the little ninny can't even take a year of torture like a man, well then, that's another matter entirely.

Thrown To The Wolves

He bombed. By all accounts, George Bush's State of the Union Address last night was a dud. Usually a president can expect a bump in support after these things but Bush got no bump after his Iraq initiative speech a couple of weeks back and, by all accounts, he didn't seem to move anyone with his speech last night either.

Bush needed to win support last night - from his own, congressional Republicans. Many of them will be reading the winds of public opinion to decide whether to remain neutral or to join other Repubs in a revolt against the White House. The signs aren't good for George Bush.

The Democrats today begin the long-overdue investigations into the Iraq war. They'll have what George Bush can no longer command, a receptive audience from the American people. There are a lot of questions that the executive, sheltered by a Republican congress, was able to dodge. That cover is now gone and, with his support in tatters, this president is more vulnerable than at any time over the past five years.

Arrogance and naivete. In a president they make a lethal cocktail of bad judgment. George Bush didn't understand that, while you can deceive your people into a war, once you've launched that war you have to deliver the promised results. You have to win because you simply can't lie your way back out again.

What makes Bush's failure so remarkable is that the bar was set so low. In reality, he didn't have to uncover WMDs or show that Iraq was capable of attacking the US or even that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda. The American people would have tolerated all of those inconvenient realities - if Bush had won his war as he'd promised.

The American people showed themselves willing to accept an "end justifies the means" war so long as the US won it fairly quickly. After all, isn't their country the world's only superpower? Who can stand up to that? Some nation that's been hobbled by a decade of sanctions? Never.

Everything else was window dressing. All George Bush had to do was to conquer Iraq but that he couldn't achieve. He didn't defeat the Iraqi military in the field - they vanished to return as an insurgency. He didn't achieve a surrender of the Hussein government - they too evaporated. Even without a defeat or a surrender it might have been enough if he'd been able to secure the occupied country but he didn't take nearly enough troops for that. He never intended to be in that position.

Bush has served up a fiasco that carries with it a national humiliation. For that he won't be forgiven.

Now the Frat Boy has to await his fate as a hostile congress pokes and prods and deconstructs his actions and decisions, one by one. The most secretive presidency in living history will now be dragged out into the light for public scrutiny and that is what George Bush must fear most. George Bush has been thrown to the wolves.

Can America Reclaim its Integrity?

It's all about reverse polling, planting seeds of doubt, smear jobs. It's becoming a defining part of American society.

Remember John McCain and the whispering campaign claiming that he had an illegitimate, black baby in his past? You can't forget John Kerry and the Swift Boat brigade.

A low and vile element has crept into American politics that works to confuse voters and play on their worst instincts, an element that is robbing America of its integrity.

Who can forget the Kim Campbell campaign in which the Tories ran an ad mocking Jean Chretien's face? I clearly recall people in my neighbourhood going out and tearing PC campaign signs from their front lawns. There was a torrent of outrage that swept across party lines. It was an affirmation that our integrity would stand above partisan politics and that we would punish those who dared to do these things.

Now this same ugliness is surfacing again in the United States in a campaign to smear Barak Obama. The con job tries to spread the word that Obama is from a radical Muslim family and was educated in a fundamentalist madrassa or Islamist school. It's false but that doesn't matter to a society that has grown indifferent, perhaps even tolerant about these things. The vision is of a closet, radical Muslim with a name one letter off that of America's arch-enemy, taking hold of the White House and subverting the United States to the will of Allah.

Why do people resort to these smear jobs? Because they work. They work well enough to let a completely unqualified Frat Boy with an unaccomplished and chequered background to squeak into the White House to wreak havoc on his nation.

When will this end? Not until the American people repudiate these tactics and punish the perpetrators at the ballot box.

We should all keep an eye on this because there are some in this country who want to take us down this same path. There are those who watch carefully what works in the states, who even consult practitioners of these dark arts, and who would not hesitate to take our integrity from us.

Drawing the Line

Imagine, Bill Clinton back in the White House. Hillary sitting behind the Commander in Chief's desk in the same oval room where her husband had certain dalliances back in the 90's.

Walking the halls and coming upon a portrait of a former president who is still revered today as something akin to a rock star. Knowing that whenever you speak, a lot of people will be judging your words by what that other president might have said.

Realizing that you're presiding over a nation in troubled economic straits while everyone remembers how good everything seemed when that other president ran the economy.

Will Hillary Clinton be measured by the America she inherits or by the other Clinton who ran the place up to end of the millenium?

Bill exuded a serene confidence, he put people at ease. Hillary doesn't have that gift. She comes across as cold and ambitious, the sort who lets no one get in her way. Bill was blessed by the gift of extemporaneous speech. He could speak, convincingly, at length, without notes and he did it in a way that reached people. Hillary hasn't shown that same spontaneity.

Bill was also incredibly lucky. During his administration America experienced the "Dot Com" boom. Of course it was aberrent, an empty bubble, but it was a blessing for the presidency. Notional wealth was being created on an astonishing scale. With that, a tsunami of tax revenues flooded the treasury. Americans felt prosperous and the government was awash in sufficient revenue that it was able to balance the budget. Sure it was an illusion but it had concerete benefits for Bill Clinton.

America was respected globally. Bill Clinton made friends and allies easily. Around the world he was liked, even admired, and that spilled over into a fondness for America and its people.

All that has changed, for the worse. Bush has squandered America's goodwill. It is now widely seen as a pariah, a rogue state. George Bush has stupidly revealed how fragile America's military might can be. Nasty little states are flaunting their nasty little ways, confident that America is so tied down in Iraq that its options against them are limited.

At home, George Bush has created an American oligarchy where the divide between the rich few and the poor or marginal working class is wider than ever, where social mobility has been strangled, where the wealthy make their fortunes offshore while their working class countrymen work harder for less reward, if they're lucky, or search for jobs if they're not.

He has transformed the United States into a fiscally weak state that has accrued massive debts, that runs enormous deficits and that even funds its foreign wars on foreign loans. George Bush has "defunded" the American government, crippling its strength for years, if not decades, to come and mortgaging the future of its working class by borrowing to fund its excesses. George Bush has waged and perhaps even won America's first class war.

Should she become president, Hillary Clinton will face a towering wall of challenges that Bill never had to confront. Lucky as his administration was, the next one will be just the opposite. The Frat Boy who now occupies the White House is like the deadbeat tenant who can't make the rent and steals away into the night leaving behind a filthy and damaged apartment and a landlord with no money.

The next president is going to have to make some tough and potentially unpopular decisions. He or she will have to call upon the American people to make the sacrifices that George Bush was too gutless to ask of them in order to fund his war of whim. The next president is going to have to behave like a grown up - and that, too, will come as a shock to the American people. If it is Hillary, her government will bear no resemblance to Bill's and there are bound to be people who will be angry about that.

As president, Hillary Clinton will have to redefine Bill or exile him to pursue "good works" far from Washington. The problem isn't her and it really isn't him either. It's the American people and the expectations that having Bill there might heap onto Hillary's shoulders. Such a presidency may be the one to draw a clear line between president and presidential spouse, a line that was increasingly blurred by the likes of Nancy Reagan and - why Hillary herself.

The Alamo, Baghdad

It's what the Bush "surge" is all about, a cluster of fortified houses that will become one of about 22-outposts that US forces are planning to establish throughout trouble spots in Baghdad.

The New York Times reports that the outpost has already drawn fire from insurgents:

The "...outpost here, a cluster of fortified houses officially designated a joint security station and unofficially called the Alamo by some of the soldiers, is a test case for President Bush’s new Baghdad security plan. The strategy envisions at least 20 more facilities like it in other troubled neighborhoods, all jointly staffed by Iraqi and American forces.

"Even after the stations are set up, American commanders say, it will be many months, at best, before they can even hope to prevent bombings like the one that killed at least 88 people in a central Baghdad market area on Monday.

"In the week since the Americans arrived, however, the troops have seen the truth of what their commanders warned in announcing the plan: it leaves Americans more exposed than ever, stationary targets for warring militias.

“'I’m a juicy target they are just trying to figure out,' said Capt. Erik Peterson, 29, the commander at the outpost.

"During the week, the soldiers also received their first glimpse of the green Iraqi forces who will share the mission and eventually, they hoped, take it over. The soldiers talked about them with a mixture of bemusement, disdain and mistrust.

“'You could talk about partnership, but you would be lying,' said one soldier who asked that his name not be used, for fear of punishment by his superiors."

The compound was barely in operation before it was attacked with small arms and rocket grenade fire. The first patrol from the fortress into the local neighbourhood drew three sniper attacks. The US troops were fortunate to come through unscathed. They know that their every move is being watched. Neighbours have warned that the Mahdi Army and al-Qaeda have spies watching the compound to see who is giving information to the Americans.

The local, Sunni population leaves no doubt who it wants the Americans to deal with, even painting the message on nearby walls:

“Hey Americans, we want you to destroy the J.A.M.” It was a reference to the largest Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army. In smaller letters, someone had written an equally clear message: “Bush is appalling and dreadful.”

Once the US troops had the Alamo up and running their Iraqi military counterparts showed up. Not surprisingly it was a Shiite contingent and it was gunning for Sunni targets.

"Maj. Chasib Kattab, a boisterous Shiite who commands the Iraqi unit of two companies, about 200 men, started to provide information. But, in a likely hint of things to come, all his tips involved Sunni fighters. He had nothing to say about the Shiite militias."

The fortress campaign seems destined to either become a mediocre success or a complete disaster. It presents the militias, insurgents and terrorists with very enticing, high-value targets. If, or perhaps when, they can identify the vulnerabilities in the structures and the operations of the troops inside, there will be attempts to destroy at least some of these compounds. With the American people already solidly against this war, wiping out one of these fortresses would present a huge psychological victory for the bad guys - whether Sunni, Shiite, al-Qaeda, Iraqi, Iranian, you name it.

Freedom House 2007 Survey - Much Work to be Done

Freedom House has released its 2007 survey. The study shows that, overall, freedom around the world has largely stagnated over the past decade and, in some regions, is in decline:

"Regionally, major findings include a setback for freedom in a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, a more modest decline in Africa, and a solidification of authoritarian rule in the majority of countries of the former Soviet Union. Three countries experienced positive status changes: Guyana moved from Partly Free to Free, and Haiti and Nepal moved from Not Free to Partly Free. Two countries experienced negative status changes: both Thailand and Congo (Brazzaville) moved from Partly Free to Not Free.

"...the trends reflected the growing pushback against democracy driven by authoritarian regimes, including Russia, Venezuela, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe, threatening to further erode the gains made in the last thirty years. The pushback is targeted at organizations, movements, and media that advocate for the expansion of democratic freedoms.

"...the number of countries judged by Freedom in the World as Free in 2006 stood at 90, representing 47 percent of the global population. Fifty-eight countries qualified as Partly Free, with 30 percent of the world’s population. The survey finds that 45 countries are Not Free, representing 23 percent of the world’s inhabitants. About one-half of those living in Not Free conditions inhabit one country: China.

"Several of the countries that showed declines during the year were already ranked among the world’s most repressive states: Burma, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Eritrea and Iran. Yet declines were also noted in a number of countries rated Free or Partly Free, but whose democratic institutions remain unformed or fragile, as well as in societies that had previously demonstrated a strong measure of democratic stability: South Africa, Kenya, Taiwan, Philippines, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Hungary."

Sea Shepherd versus Japanese Whalers - the Battle Turns Ugly

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is resolutely determined to disrupt whaling around the world. Under the direction of Paul Watson, the group's ships are said to have sunk at least 10-whalers.

Sea Shepherd recently acquired a surplus US Coast Guard vessel, now renamed the MV Robert Hunter which, together with the society's other ship, the Farley Mowat, has now been sent to the Antarctic to intercept a Japanese whaling mission heading there.

Japan is certainly fighting back and with some success. It seems that the Japanese were able to induce Ottawa to "deflag" the Farley Mowat which means it no longer sails as a Canadian-registered vessel. That coup has allowed the Japanese to claim that the Mowat is a pirate ship:

"Japan Whaling Association President Keiichi Nakajima said, "Sea Shepherd is officially running a pirate vessel."

"International law says any non-flagged vessel can be boarded for inspection, and in case of any violation or piracy, has to be detained with its crew arrested. If Paul Watson continues with his violent campaign using this vessel, then he'll be risking everything," said Mr Nakajima, who called on the Government of Japan to ensure everything possible was done to secure the safety of Japanese researchers and crew by boarding the Farley Mowat on the high seas and seizing the ship and arresting the crew as pirates.

"Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd's founder and president, dismissed Nakajima's threats saying that the crew of the Farley Mowat is quite prepared to defend the ship against Japanese violence. As for risking everything he said, "We are quite prepared to risk our lives and this ship for the whales."

Selfish or Altruistic - It's All In The Brain

Posterior superior temporal sulcus. That's the name for the part of the human brain that determines whether you'll be selfish or altruistic - willing to help out others with no expectation of reward.

A Duke University Medical Center study published in Nature Neuroscience assessed 45 volunteers. The test subjects were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work, and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.

The researchers are now exploring ways to study the development of this brain region in early life and believe such information may help determine how altruistic tendencies are established. In particular they want to know if early childhood influences could affect development in the altruism centre.

The Infidels' Dwindling Shelf Life

Whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq, one factor that's rarely talked about is our forces' very limited shelf life.

Let's face it - we are aliens in these places. We don't share their language, their culture, their religion, their ethnicity, their poverty and health problems, their vision and aspirations.

We're mainly white, we're relatively affluent and we have the biggest and best guns. That's bound to rankle after a while. It's the sort of thing that can inject an element of fervor into latent nationalistic sentiment.

When you're this different, you don't get to play around indefinitely. You really can outstay your welcome. People get tired of looking at you, tired of strangers telling them what to do, tired of the fighting, tired of the mistakes.

No, when you get stuck into these situations, time is a limited asset and you have none to squander. In these two countries we have been profligate in our waste of time.

Now, Asia Times reports on a growing, grassroots resistance developing in southern Iraq:

"Attacks against occupation forces appear to stem more from a growing nationalism. 'This is not about vengeance,' a former Iraqi Army officer from Kut, 200 kilometers south of Baghdad, said in the capital. 'People have lost hope in the US-led occupation's promises, and they are thinking of saving the country from Iranian influence, which has been supported, or at least allowed, by the multinational forces.'

"While members of the Mehdi Army certainly carry out attacks against occupation forces in southern Iraq, other home-grown resistance seems to have taken root, fed also by earlier memories.

"'People here have always hated the US and British occupation of Iraq, and remembered their grandfathers who fought the British troops with the simplest weapons,' said Jassim al-Assadi, a school principal from Kut. Assadi was referring to the Shi'ite resistance that eventually played a key role in expelling British forces from Iraq during the 1920s and 1930s.

"Armed resistance against the occupation in the south was slow to begin with because religious clerics instructed their followers to give the occupation time to fulfill promises made by the US and British administrations, Assadi said. 'But now they do not believe any cleric's promises anymore. They have started fighting, and that is that.'"

The Afghans likewise have a rich and proud history of resisting and throwing out the infidels. If the locals do lose faith in us and their president, Hamid Karzai, they can be expected to swell the ranks of the insurgency.

War on Terror Trumps War on Drugs

It's no secret that America's military services are stretched thin, some almost to the breaking point, due mainly to the quagmire that is Iraq. Some soldiers are now being sent back for their third, even their fourth tours of duty.

A lesser known victim of the Global War Without End on Terror has been America's War on Drugs. Once the lead service in defending America's borders against drug smugglers, the military has sharply reduced its role on drug interdiction.

According to a report in the LA Times, the cuts have been substantial and have left significant gaps in America's interdiction efforts:

"Internal records show that in the last four years the Pentagon has reduced by more than 62% its surveillance flight-hours over Caribbean and Pacific Ocean routes that are used to smuggle cocaine, marijuana and, increasingly, Colombian-produced heroin. At the same time, the Navy is deploying one-third fewer patrol boats in search of smugglers.

"The Defense Department also plans to withdraw as many as 10 Black Hawk helicopters that have been used by a multi-agency task force to move quickly to make drug seizures and arrests in the Caribbean, a major hub for drugs heading to the United States.

"And the military has deactivated many of the high-tech surveillance "aerostats," or radar balloons, that once guarded the entire southern border, saying it lacks the funds to restore and maintain them."

A Dubious "First" for Canada

It's the PFL and it's taken New York by storm. PFL stands for Pillow Fight League, an idea hatched in Toronto.

It's a big enough sensation to make the major US papers. Here is how the Washington Post sees it:

"Will people pay to watch Canadian women clobber each other with pillows?

"The answer: Duh. Demand for the $20 tickets was so high that a second night at Galapagos was added and quickly sold out. But anyone who comes for a giggly face-off between two chicks in undies -- the age-old slumber party fantasy -- is in for an unhappy shock. "Real women. Real fights" is the league's motto, and this is no joke. When the fight starts, nearly anything goes -- leg drops, arm bars, chokeholds and punching -- as long as a pillow is the point of contact. Just don't gouge, scratch or pull hair, and no fair hiding bricks or any foreign objects in the pillowcase.

"You win by pinning an opponent's shoulders, as in a standard wrestling match, or pummeling her so hard she quits, or if the referee stops the action. If there's no winner at the end of the one-round, five-minute fight, three judges choose a victor, based on style, stamina and aggressiveness."

"Nothing is fake or scripted, though in the tradition of professional wrestling, each fighter takes a nom de guerre and a persona. Lady Die enters the ring dressed in elegant equestrian gear, though she undercuts the aura of English hauteur by flipping the bird with both hands as she struts to her corner. Eiffel Power is dressed in a shirt with those horizontal stripes that will forever connote Frenchness. Lynn Somnia enters screaming, ostensibly driven insane from a lack of sleep and wearing a white hospital gown."

"Fight like a girl!" howls the ref -- the phrase that launches every bout -- and it begins.

"Forget technique. None of the fighters seems to have any, aside from the basic windup and swing and the occasional leg sweep to dump an opponent on the mat. The action is frantic and grueling. The fighters seem exhausted after a minute. Wild swings outnumber square hits. Much of the action happens on the ground, where the fighters pitch and roll, occasionally using their pillows to try to choke each other, which doesn't really work. There's nothing sexy about it, and with a 20-ish, mostly male crowd calling out such bons mots as "Hit her low!" the event often has the atmosphere of a "Jerry Springer" melee."

The Post reports that the Pillow Fight League was the brainchild of Stacey P. Case who just stumbled onto the idea while driving through Austria in 2004 with his band, Tijuana Bibles.

The American People More Anti-Bush Than Ever

On Iraq and just about every other issue, the American people would rather have
American policy set by congressional Democrats than president George Bush. That's the message of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"Iraq dominates the national agenda, with 48 percent of Americans calling the war the single most important issue they want Bush and the Congress to deal with this year. No other issue rises out of single digits. The poll also found that the public trusts congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent."

The poll results come just one day before Bush gives his State of the Union Address, his last,best shot at winning support for his "surge" initiative.

"The Post-ABC poll shows that 65 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq; it was 61 percent immediately after the president unveiled the plan on Jan. 10 in a nationally televised address."

"More broadly, Bush will be speaking on Tuesday night to a nation that is deeply pessimistic, with just 26 percent of Americans saying the country is heading in the right direction and 71 percent saying the country is seriously off track. That is the worst these ratings have been in more than a decade."

"Just 42 percent say he can be trusted in a crisis, with 56 percent saying he cannot -- the first time a majority has given him a negative rating on a crucial element of presidential leadership. Only 45 percent call him a strong leader, which is also the lowest mark of his presidency. His previous low, 47 percent, came two months after Katrina ravaged New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."

Iran Moves Up the List

USS John C. Stennis

Foreign papers suggest that the United States, possibly in conjunction with Israel, may be preparing to strike Iran.

A second US aircraft carrier, the Stennis, is expected to arrive on station in the Persian Gulf by the end of the month to join the USS Eisenhower that arrived in December. Spiegel Online noted this ominous fact:

"A buildup of US aircraft carriers in the Gulf has happened five times in the last 15 years: at the beginning of the 1991 Gulf war; leading up to the "Operation Desert Strike" in 1996; prior to "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998; in the spring of 2003; and today. In only one of these cases was a buildup on this scale not followed by a military strike: in early May 1998, when the Iraqi regime temporarily accepted the conditions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.within days."

Today it was reported that Iran has refused entry to 38 IAEA inspectors, apparently in response to sanctions recently imposed on the country by the Security Council.

Meanwhile The Independent reports on the rise of war rhetoric in Israel. The paper reports on hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, who warned, "No one will come defend the Jews if they do not defend themselves. This is the lesson of history."

Netanyahu told reporters that he doubted the "genocidal regime" of prime minister Ahmadinejad was "deterrable."

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad is digging in his heels in rejecting the UN resolution: "The resolution was born dead and even if they issue 10 more it will not affect Iran's economy and policies."

Speaking About Numbers

The numbers tell it all - if you're wondering what we're doing in Afghanistan.

The NATO mission to Afghanistan is woefully "under-resourced" to use a term given by a military commander over there.

Just take Bosnia for one example, and there are plenty of others. In Bosnia, foreign aid ran at roughly $640 US per capita. In Afghanistan, the figure is $57 US.

In Afghanistan we have roughly one-third of the troop force we deployed in Bosnia. Much of the force we do have on the ground is subject to deployment restrictions. Afghanistan is physically larger than Bosnia and we're in active combat with a determined enemy made up of both insurgents (the Taliban) and terrorists with a global reach (al-Qaeda) who are now drawing support from the country to the east (Pakistan) and, more recently, the country to the west (Iran).

Run that through your calculator and you'll have your answer.

Pickton Trial Begins Today

There you have it. That's all you're going to find about Robert Pickton on this site.

Too Many Enemies to Keep Them Straight?

Bush keeps linking Saddam to al-Qaeda so it's not surprising that Canada's defence minister, Gord O'Connor, links the Taliban to the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 September, 2001.

"When the Taliban or Al Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attacked the twin towers and in those twin towers, 25 Canadians were killed," O'Connor said to applause from a crowd in Edmonton.

Now, just to clarify things, neither O'Connor nor anyone else has any evidence that the Taliban were in on the 9/11 attacks. Among the nearly two-dozen terrorists involved, there wasn't a single Afghan. They were mainly Saudis, all of them Arabs. The Taliban didn't come out of Afghanistan to attack anything Gord, sorry.

What the Taliban did, or rather failed to do, was to oust al-Qaeda from Afghanistan after they had given so much help in ousting the Soviet Union. Not to make excuses, but at the time of the WTC attacks, the Taliban were locked in a civil war with the Northern Alliance and not looking to make any new enemies.

Things are different today, of course. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have bonded now that they are prepared to fight a common enemy - Karzai and us. No one's suggesting they're not fair game because they certainly are. They're our enemy at the moment.

Is this a distinction without a difference? Not at all. You see, the Taliban aren't going away anytime soon. Hamid Karzai knows that. The president of Afghanistan is constantly trying to reach an accommodation with the Taliban because Mr. Karzai understands they have to be brought into the process if there is to be lasting peace in Afghanistan.

Maybe our focus shouldn't be on blaming the Taliban for 9/11 but on trying to find ways to drive a wedge between them and al-Qaeda. Their objectives and interests are in many ways different and it would be useful to realize that. It is al-Qaeda that quests for a return of the Caliphate, a greater Islamic empire.

Sure we have to fight the Taliban but let's not forget that the prime target must be al-Qaeda.

Green as Hell - Just Leave the Tar Sands Alone

Stephen Harper has made it clear - his newfound environmentalism has limits and he draws that line at Fort Mc Murray.

He wants Canada to become a "clean energy superpower" but not at the expense of the Tar Sands cash cow or offshore oil development. In an interview in the Vancouver Province, Harper said that environmental fixes must not compromise economic growth.

That seems to mean that Harper believes that solving Global Warming begins at home. In shamelessly reviving the Liberal home energy savings subsidies without acknowledging it, we may be seeing the true face of Reform Conservative environmentalism.

It is the Tar Sands that render Alberta the worst, by far, emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada, about a third worse than the tally of the second worst emitter, much larger Ontario. If Harper isn't ready to fight GHG emitters at the source, the rest of his initiatives are largely pandering, window dressing.

Sorry Steve, it's going to take more than putting double-pane windows in some houses. This is going to take genuine sacrifice at every level of our society and that will compromise certain aspects of economic growth. You can't have it both ways and it is the roll of government to lead when problems such as this loom, not skirt the issue.

We need carbon caps as a beginning Steve. It's time to get real.

Addicted to Fish?

The Japanese love tuna. In fact they may love it straight into extinction.

A meeting begins today in Kobe, Japan of the world's five biggest tuna fisheries and the opening message is that the supply of tuna is now on the brink of commercial extinction.

The Japanese love Atlantic bluefin tuna, especially for sushi, and the nation's voracious appetite for the fish is now being made worse by other nations, particularly China, where demand has skyrocketed.

The message at the tuna fisheries management conference is that there is an urgent need to restrict quotas if the stocks are going to survive. Even if quotas are imposed, enforcement remains a huge problem. There's a lot of money to be made in bluefin tuna, enough that there is a large, illegal fishery. Bluefins are giants of the sea that can grow to 1,100 pounds. The Japanese admit to overfishing but blame it on poor communication with their fishing fleet, not poaching. Yeah, sure.

A Clarion Call on the World Water Crisis

It's the great, rarely mentioned threat facing the Third World - the exhaustion of freshwater resources and the crippling of the world's food supply that it is already causing.

No, this isn't about Global Warming specifically but they are inter-related.

I've written a few posts on this problem. Here's a quick summary of what's happening. Four-fifths of our usable freshwater is underground, in aquifers. As the earth's population burgeoned over the past century, we tapped those underground stocks to get the massive amounts of water necessary for irrigation. We went along contentedly breeding people by the billions and sucking out more water to grow stuff necessary to feed them. We didn't pay much attention to what we were doing underground, to see that we were draining these aquifers much faster than they could ever be replenished. We acted like global morons and we've created a hell of a mess.

Now Global Warming is making the problem worse. It is shifting rainfall patterns and making them erratic. Some places are enduring droughts. Others are getting increased precipitation. Sometimes the freshwater is brought via powerful storms creating floods which are massive amounts of freshwater in a form that is utterly useless to our needs.

The good news is that the planet still has as much water as ever. It doesn't get destroyed, it merely gets transformed. It can go from rivers into oceans. It can go into the ground. It can go into the air as water vapour or it can freeze into ice. The problem is we need enough of that water in an accessible state and in the right places for our purposes. More rainfall in northern Canada doesn't help sub-Saharan Africa one bit.

As I mentioned just a couple of days ago, there's another snag. Some of the aquifers we've become dependent upon are "fossil" aquifers - ancient reservoirs of water that don't get replenished in the regular, water cycle. When you tap these dry, they're going to remain dry, for all practical purposes, forever. When that ancient water is exhausted, these lands go back to their natural state - either barren grasslands or desert. Either way, they're out of agricultural production.

Which brings us to today's warning from Jeffrey Sachs of the UN Millenium Project. "In 2050 we will have 9 billion people and average income will be four times what it is today. India and China have been able to feed their populations because they use water in an unsustainable way. That is no longer possible," he said.

The US academic said that the mechanisms of shrinking water resources are not well understood. "We need to do for water what we did for climate change. How do we recharge aquifers? What about ground water use? There's no policy anywhere in place at the moment."

How to recharge aquifers? That, indeed, is a huge problem. Some of them, the fossil type, can't be recharged. The others conceivably can be recharged but from what? If they're running dry, agriculture will become dependent on surface water - rain water. Unfortunately Sachs' remarks are bereft of possible answers.

One More Year?

This sounds like a fantasy hatched in the Oval Office. The commanding NATO general in Afghanistan, British General David Richards, figures the Taliban can be defeated in just one more year. That's right folks, we can destroy the Taliban if we get more money and more troops for a surge of our own.

Richards said, "I am concerned that Nato nations will assume the same level of risk in 2007, believing they can get away with it. They might, but it's a dangerous assumption to believe the same ingredients will exist this year as they did last. And anyway a stabilised situation is not a good enough aim. We should and can win in Afghanistan but we need to put more military effort into the country ... We must apply ourselves more energetically for one more year in order to win."

He also listed a few other pre-conditions to victory:

-The west must stop trying to impose western solutions on an Islamic society at a very early stage of development.

- Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, must step up the country's efforts to root out corruption.

- Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan governments had to improve. "Currently they are passing in the night and the climate is not good," he said.

- Civilian agencies, including Britain's international development department, had to speed up reconstruction efforts.

It's the old one about "the Devil being in the details." So, if we put a real thumping on the Taliban for another year and speed up reconstruction and Afghanistan and Pakistan get into an anti-Taliban alliance and Karzai purges his government and security services of rampang corruption and we give up our silly notions of bringing Western democracy to Afghanistan - we could win.

It's a pretty tall order that General Richards prescribes and there seem to be some major hurdles facing his collateral conditions. But yes, if we can batter the Taliban senseless and get Pakistan onside and rid the government and police of corruption and scrap the idea of secular democracy and women's rights, we just might win - something.

Richards said the battle for the hearts and minds of villagers remains undecided and added that Afghans, "need to have faith in the prowess of the side they back". He added: "They just will not take the risk of backing the wrong side."

FutureWar

He enlists for life. He will follow any order. He'll pick up a roadside bomb and tear it apart. Killing doesn't bother him at all. If he's wounded, he's really easy to patch up and if he's killed nobody cares very much. He is completely immune to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and he'll never expect a pension or veterans' benefits. He is warfare without conflict.

"He" is actually "it", the latest variant of combat robot currently under devlopment in the United States. The military is hoping that "It" will be the solution to its ultimate nemesis - the people back home and their angry refusal to accept friendly casualties.

Just over 3,000 American military personnel have died in Iraq. Back in grandpa's army, that was just a bad day at war and the folks at home were pretty much resigned to it. That was then, this is now and the current generation with their Ipods and Blackberries want bloodless wars. If they don't get what they want they will elect leaders who will do their bidding and there goes your war right out the window.

Harper's magazine this month has a feature article on the robot army of the near future now under development in the US. A host of new companies are springing up in competition with the old stalwarts, names like Raytheon and Boeing, and there are billions and billions up for grabs.

Robot weapons aren't new. Primitive models have been around since the First World War. Their numbers have been limited mainly because their capability was limited. They were invariably remote control, often via cables, and had no capacity to sense much less think. Those days are gone.

The new generation of robotic weapons will be able to locate, sense and identify targets and to attack, sometimes autonomously, with precision guided munitions. If that sounds like something out of "The Terminator" well it is, sort of.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned ground vehicles - their arrival was inevitable, their attraction irresistable. There is, however, a dark dimension to this. Are we ready for warfare by software? Will killing matter anymore if it goes unseen, unmentioned? What is the value of the lives of our enemies, real or just perceived, or the innocent civilians for whom war will be anything but bloodless? When the casualties of war become mere entries in a database, will we lose our revulsion at killing? Will we become indifferent to waging wars?

How far has this gotten in development? Well the manufacturers are already staging conventions to show off their wares to the military types. That's pretty far down the pike.

Is Hillary What the World Needs Now?

Hillary Clinton is on a roll and she's following the example of the Iron Lady herself. That's right, Clinton wants to emulate the image of Margaret Thatcher - strong, decisive, with a clear vision of world affairs.

Clinton may turn out to be the most conservative candidate in the next election - of either party.

In an interview with the Times of London, Hillary's campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, said there are similarities:

"'Their policies are totally different but they are both perceived as very tough,' said McAuliffe. 'She’s strong on foreign policy. No matter what people say, you still have to check that box on national security. People have got to know you are going to keep them safe.'

Their policies are totally different? We won't know that until Clinton reads the polls and finds out which policies will best serve her ambitions. As for tough, that she is - no question.

"'She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz that goes with all this — she’s got it all,' said Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chairman, in an interview with The Sunday Times. 'She has got a great case to make about why she should be president of the United States.'

Name recognition, money and glitz - yeah, that pretty much covers all the bases to qualify for president.

The problem is that Americans, while they may be willing to elect a Democrat, even a woman, to the White House, still won't accept a "liberal." That means the eventual winner will have to stand as a conservative.

David Gergen presented a telling example of this when he appeared on Charlie Rose's show a couple of months back. Gergen, who is now at the Kennedy School at Harvard, served four presidents, beginning with Richard Nixon. He noted that a Nixon, who took some initiatives to aid the poor and minorities, could not even hope to get elected today because he would be viewed as too liberal. Nixon, a liberal? Yes, that's how far to the right the political centre has shifted in the US.

Hillary may lead the push for universal medicare but that path has already been paved by Massacheusetts and California so she would have a much easier time of it than she encountered when her husband was president.

Still, Hillary will have to focus on "guy issues" lest she be seen as soft or a leftie. She will, in effect, be running against George W. Bush. On major questions such as global warming, the environment and the Third World, Clinton won't lead, she'll follow the polls and American self-interest.

Unfortunately the world doesn't have the time for a president who is focused on going back to refight the wars that George Bush screwed up. What's needed isn't a "better" but backward vision but a fresh, forward vision that clearly sees the issues that will need to be addressed in the coming generation. I don't think Hillary Clinton is up to that job, she's not what the world needs now.

Well, Kiss Whistler Goodbye

Good news for some, bad news for others. It's bad news for European ski resorts, good news for Canadian ski resorts like Whistler. Good news for wealthy European skiers, bad news for ordinary Canadians.

Europe's alpine ski resorts are in danger of running out of snow. That's the conclusion of a report by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Global warming will put an end to all but the highest of European ski resorts.

On the other hand, North America's top resorts in the western mountains are doing just fine - for snow, that is. That's already caused ads for places like Whistler to appear in newspapers in Europe. The message? Want to ski? Head to Canada and don't forget to bring your wallet. Locals who once skied places like Whistler are going to find packed slopes and higher prices brought by increased demand.

"Shardul Agrawala, author of 'Climate Change in the European Alps', said the report shows the impact of global warming is already very real. 'There tends to be a view that climate change is decades away and that it will affect faraway places. But if you look at the Alps, whose recent warming has advanced at three times the average world rate, you can tell it is happening already.'"

Fiddling Figures

BP, British Petroleum, is about to take another hit to its reputation.

The US Chemical Safety Board's report into a March, 2005 refinery explosion at BP's Texas City refinery that claimed 15 lives, accuses BP of complacency and disregard for inherent danger.

CSB chairman, Carolyn Merritt, told The Observer that, "...the impact of cost-sutting on safety would be central in the CSB report," and maintains there is a causal connection between relaxed maintenance and the explosion.

BP's response demonstrates PR spin at its finest. A BP spokesman said the company invested heavily in maintenance. BP's spending on its five US refineries increased on average by 10 per cent a year from 2000 to 2005. Wow, 10 per cent a year for five consecutive years. That's a pretty big increase in the maintenance budget. Isn't it?

Well, maybe it wasn't that great. "...CSB officials point to a history of cost-cutting at Texas City: from 1992 to 1998 maintenance spending fell by 41 per cent. When the figures are extended to the eight years between 1992 and 2000 the fall was 84 per cent. They add that reports commissioned by BP said clearly that funding was inadequate, but attempts to increase spending were not effective."

Kind of puts a different spin on it when you hear both sides, doesn't it?

Crime Capital of the World? The Vatican

Of course, it's all a matter of how you work the numbers but, on a per capita basis, the Vatican is inarguably the crime capital of the world.

Before you go blaming the Pope and his gang, in the main they're not the lawbreakers but, according to Spiegel, the numbers speak for themselves:

"The Vatican's attorney general Nicola Picardi released the astounding statistic at the start of 2007: The tiny nation's justice department in 2006 had to contend with 341 civil and 486 criminal cases. In a population of 492, that measures out to 1.5 cases per person -- twenty times the corresponding rate in Italy.

"By this measurement at least, crime is soaring in the Vatican in spite of a security force that would put a police state to shame. The seat of the Catholic Church has one Swiss guard for every four citizens, not to mention museum guards and police assigned to the Vatican by Italy.

"Picardi did say that most criminal cases were matters of pickpocketing or purse-snatching."

European Aftermath

A hillside forest swept clean of trees

From the North Sea to Bulgaria, hurricane force winds inflicted massive devastation across Europe last week, claiming 47 lives. Here are some images of the mega-storm's aftermath:

from Der Spiegel

Why Let the Youngsters Have All the Misery?

It's Splitsville for Grandma and Grandpa.

A story in the National Post reveals that divorce isn't just for kids anymore:

"This is the new face of divorce: She is a woman in her eighties, married for a half-century, a devoted, seemingly contented wife who one day decides she has had enough.

"There is no secret affair, no mystery lover, no harbouring of a lifetime of abuse or ill-treatment that precipitates the divorce. Rather, the octogenarian divorcee abandons the marriage because she 'could not go on living the same old life, in the same old rut, with the same old boring person.'

"'One woman had been married for 53 years, had never worked outside her marriage, had no idea of how she would survive financially and had just survived an organ transplant," says Deirdre Bair, the author of "Calling It Quits: Late-Life Divorce and Starting Over."

"She told me, 'I don't know how many years I have left; I just know I don't want to live them with him.' "

But Grandma, if you go who's going to get the dentures?

The Taliban Board of Education?

The Associated Press reports that the Taliban have decided to establish a school system in those regions of Afghanistan now under their control.

The schools, which supposedly will open for business in March, are to open in the provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Uruzgan, Helmand, Nimroz and Farah and will teach Sharia or Islamic education using textbooks formerly used when the Taliban were in power.

A Taliban spokesman claims the initiative is being undertaken with the approval of local, tribal elders and will, eventually, offer classes to girls also.

Education has become a hotpoint issue in the insurgency. Since the Taliban were ousted there has been a fivefold increase in school enrollments in Afghanistan. The insurgents have responded by 200 arson attacks on schools in the last year alone and the murder of 20-teachers.

Meanwhile, the Taliban flared up again yesterday in southern Afghanistan which has enjoyed weeks of relative peace. In one incident, Canadians manning a highway checkpoint engaged in a 3-hour firefight against Taliban attackers. The insurgents were finally driven off by heavy artillery, tanks and air support.

Muqtada Returns to the Fold

The dance continues. Iraqi legislators loyal to radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr are ending their boycott and returning to their seats in government. There are 30-lawmakers loyal to Sadr who also has six ministers in the Maliki governments 38-member cabinet.

Observers suspect the move is intended to shore up prime minister al-Maliki while returning Sadr's block to influence in advance of the American "surge" in Baghdad.

It has also been reported that Sadr, fearing an American raid, has moved his family to a place of refuge.

American Soldiers Killed in Insurgent Commando Raid

It wasn't the typical roadside bomb or even a sniper ambush. The attack that killed five US soldiers yesterday showed a degree of co-ordination, planning and timing rarely seen in the past.

The soldiers were killed while meeting with local Iraqi officials at a provincial headquarters to make security arrangments for an upcoming Shiite festival.

The attackers were disguised in military uniforms and used the type of vehicles ordinarily associated with diplomats to sail through security checkpoints unchallenged.

At the headquarters building, they used percussion or "stun" bombs to secure entry into the building. Following the assault the convoy drove to Babil province were police confirm they disappeared.

This incident has the hallmarks of a commando raid by highly-professional forces, not the clumsy sort of ambush associated with rag-tag militiamen. The raiders appear to have escaped to safety unscathed.

If Congress Really Wants an End to This War

Here's what Congress could do to stop the war, find a way to tax the American people for the existing and ongoing war debt. Progressive taxation - the rich pay most. Work out how much this war is actually costing, including incidental and indirect costs, and apply it to the tax rolls.

After all, why should the country not make some sacrifice to pay for their president's adventure. Why should the White House be allowed to pass these costs, together with accrued interest, onto a generation to come? With the troubles coming down the pike, the next generation is going to have their hands full without having to pay off George Bush's war debt.

Bush would obviously veto it but that wouldn't prevent the Congress issuing tax notices to let each taxpayer know how much he or she is dumping onto those who will follow.

What would happen? I think you could well have a taxpayer (read voter) revolt, one that would cause even Republicans to send an ultimatum to the White House. If that didn't work it would be time to topple a tyrant. There exist ample grounds for impeachment and what better time could there be to send the frat boy and his bald pal into retirement?

Israeli Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter was lambasted as an anti-Semite for urging Israel not to permit a state of apartheid to creep into its dealings with the Palestinians. Carter didn't actually accuse Israel of that but no matter, using the word "apartheid" in any conjunction with "Israel" is inherently anti-semitic, or so the line goes.

That's why I was surprised to read this article in the Israeli paper, Haaretz, about an incident in which an Israeli settler abused a Palestinian family:

"Amid cabinet members' expressions of shock in response to a female settler seen abusing a Hebron family came this comment by Ephraim Sneh: "The laws of the state are not being implemented in the city with due haste, particularly regarding Israeli citizens." The deputy defense minister's words were meant as criticism of how the security forces impose law and order in Hebron, but they contained the idea that the problem lies not in the "laws of the state," but only in their "implementation."

"To which laws and which state was the deputy minister referring? After all, Hebron has not been annexed to Israel, and ostensibly is subject to military rule. But in the 40th year of the occupation, a deputy minister can disregard such legal nuances and refer to Hebron as if it were annexed territory - just like any Israeli community, Israeli vehicle or Jew in the territories can be referred to as Israel's.

"The annexation for Jews alone has created a dual system under which rule of law is determined based on an individual's or a community's national identity. The "local" population is subject to only the original law, as amended in thousands of military injunctions. The right to choose is reserved for Jews. When it's convenient, they are Israeli citizens in every way. When it's less convenient, like when it comes to matters of higher education and especially infrastructure planning, they are subject to the local law. The latter lags behind the Israeli law, and therefore allows for manipulations.

"The confrontation between the female settler and the Palestinian woman from Hebron was a clash between two parallel worlds: The Jewish woman possesses all the rights of a citizen of a free country, who is entitled to the protection of its security forces. On the other side is a woman from an occupied people, who is also entitled to protection. However, the army of the occupation forgot long ago that under international law, its role is to protect the "protected population." The army has become the settlers' militia and views the local people as hostile elements.

"It's easy to condemn the vulgarity of the settler from Hebron, and it's easy to dismiss the Jewish enclave there as a gang of violent thugs. But they are only weeds that sprout from the rotten ground of the cruel regime that prevails beyond the Green Line. It's a regime based on ethnic discrimination and separation, double standards and an absence of the rule of law.

"Just which law does the deputy minister wish to see applied with "all due haste"? That of the settler woman or of the Palestinian woman? In a place where laws differ and discriminate based on national and personal identities, no law prevails. What do we expect of soldiers and police officers? Not to be influenced by orders that instruct them to act in a discriminatory and selective fashion?

"The outrage over the woman's crude tirade is just a distraction from the reality that prevails beyond the Green Line, where life is ostensibly normal. It won't be long before it's the liberals who are seeking to have the Green Line erased from the maps, once it has been permanently transformed from a symbol of the aspiration for peace to a line delineating the realms of apartheid."

Jimmy Carter an anti-semite or one whose crime is to speak truth to power?

Waterboarding

If the Americans are still torturing terrorism suspects, and George Bush assures us they're not so we have ample reason to worry, we're not hearing a lot about it. This seem to have changed since the good old days of Abu Ghraib. For starters, it seems that very little leaks out any more.

In Germany there is a complaint before the courts against former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld over torture during his time at the Pentagon. Included in the materials is this account of waterboarding taken from the 1958 memoir of French journalist Henri Alleg. Any doubts about waterboarding as full-bore torture are put to rest by Alleg's account:

"Together they picked up the plank to which I was attached and carried me into the kitchen. They rested the top of the plank, where my head was, against the sink. Lo - fixed a rubber tube to the metal tap, which shone just above my face. He wrapped my head in a rag and held my nose. He tried to jam a pice of wood between my lips in such a way that I could not close my mouth or spit out the tube. When everything was ready, he said to me, 'When you want to talk, all you have to do is move your fingers.' And he turned on the tap.

"The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save myself from suffociation. In spite of myself, the fingers of my two hands shook uncontrollably. 'That's it! He's going to talk,' said a voice.

"The water stopped running and they took away the rag. Iwas able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw up the water I had swallowed. Befuddled by the air I was breathing, I hardly felt the blows. "Well then?' I remained silent. 'He's playing games with us! Put his head under again!'

"This time I clenched my fists, forcing the nails into my palm. I had decided I was not going to move my fingers again. It was better to die of asphyxiation right away. I feared to undergo again that terrible moment when I felt myself losing consciousness, while at the same time fighting with all my might not to die. I did not move my hands, but three times I again knew this insupportable agony.

"In extremis, they let me get my breath back while I threw up the water. The last time, I lost consciousness."

And those bastards wanted to debate that this is torture? Here was Cheney's take on waterboarding last October:

"WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called waterboarding, which creates a sensation of drowning.

"Cheney indicated the Bush administration doesn't regard waterboarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said.

"Cheney's comments, in a White House interview Tuesday with a conservative radio talk-show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

Shown in the photograph is a Cambodian waterboard. The Cambodians knew they couldn't expect to get any reliable information from its victims. They used it to extract confessions.

You're Not Going to Believe This, There's Safety in Being Fat

We all know obesity is a serious health risk - hypertension, heart attacks, diabetes - you name it. That made it all the more startling to read in the Sydney Morning Herald that, according to a UCLA study, being fat increases your chances of surviving a heart attack:

The report, which appears in the American Heart Journal, indicates that this "obesity paradox," which was previously described in patients with chronic heart failure, may also apply to patients with rapidly worsening or "decompensated" heart failure.

"This study suggests that overweight and obese patients may have a greater metabolic reserve to call upon during an acute heart failure episode which may lessen in-hospital (death) risk," said lead investigator Dr Gregg Fonarow.

"Patients were grouped by body mass index (BMI), a measure of weight relative to height.

"The team found that in-hospital deaths fell as BMI rose, even after accounting for factors including age, gender, blood pressure, and heart rate.

"For example, the overall in-hospital death rate was five per cent in those with the lowest BMI versus 2.2 per cent in those with the highest.

"For every five unit increase in BMI, the death risk fell by 10 per cent.

"The team calls for further study to investigate underlying factors.

"'These findings raise the possibility that nutritional/metabolic support may have therapeutic benefit in specific patients hospitalised with heart failure,' Fonarow said."

Of course what the report doesn't mention is that, if you have a high BMI, you're a lot more likely to have a heart attack in the first place. So don't go running out for an order of fries.

Sure, But Can They Shoot a Puck?

An interesting piece from Stewart Bell in today's National Post. Bell reports that Canada has a real presence in the new government of Somalia - 18 MPs. They left their homes in Ottawa and Toronto to return to their homeland and help it emerge from anarchy. One of them, Ahmed Afra, told Bell so many are in the Somalia Parliament because of their time in Canada:

"That's why you find so many Somali-Canadians in Parliament, because of the degrees and expertise, the knowledge they got in Canada."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=8cbcdfd5-bc9d-447d-b325-7f46c3f92878

Conservatism Is Dead - Andrew Coyne

Wow, I was floored to read National Post columnist Andrew Coyne declare that the grand Harper experiment with conservatism is over, fini

"After a year of Conservative rule, it is now clear, conservatism isn't just dying--it's dead. And it's the Conservatives who killed it."

"The more the party has chased the middle, however, the faster it has seemed to recede; with each abandonment of its principles, the opposition and the media, those arbiters of the status quo, simply yawn and move the goalposts a little further down the field. So that even so humiliating a climb down as the past week's reinstatement of the very Liberal environmental programs the Tories abolished in their first weeks in office wins them no points whatever."

Read the whole piece here:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e61304d2-df34-4b15-b7ef-f4aaf924215d

We Beat Islam, Hands Down - Conrad Says So.

Conrad Black weighs in on the total superiority of Christianity over Islam. From the National Post. Read the rest, if you can.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e710294d-29cd-49ea-b92a-2a4044a6ed50&k=15189

"Our religious practice is a good deal more spontaneous, intellectually distinguished, and conducive to productive activity and general civility than all but the most unrepresentatively thoughtful versions of Islam. No Islamic leader has a fraction of the moral or intellectual credibility or mere market share of the Pope. Rome and all the West, secular and ecumenical, have seen off more serious challenges than this."

Hey, is that why he was so determined to become "Lord" Black?

Why We Lose to Insurgencies

The Right Man For The Job

I love it when I find an "expert" espousing positions that I've written here in the past. I had one of these joyous moments when I came across an article in this month's Harper's magazine by Edward N. Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. It came with the catchy title, "Dead End, Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice." Who could pass that up?

Luttwak devotes the first several pages of the article to our Western misconception of the nature and mechanisms of insurgencies but I won't bore you with that. What I found most helpful were his concluding remarks under the subtitle "The Easy and Reliable Way of Defeating All Insurgencies Everywhere."

Defeating all insurgencies everywhere, everytime? Why then did the Brits lose the American revolution? Why did the French flee Indochina and Algeria? Why are the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan proving so hard to crack?

The short answer is that we are not prepared to do what is necessary to win. Our laws and culture, our very societies simply cannot abide the essence of victory. We are, at the end of the day, unwilling to turn barbaric enough to win.

Here are a few of Luttwak's observations:

"Pefectly ordinary regular armed forces, with no counterinsurgency doctrine or training whatever, have in the past regularly defeated insurgents, by using a number of well-proven methods. It is enough to consider these methods to see why the armed forces of the United States or any other democratic country cannot possibly use them."

Luttwak proceeds to draw upon two examples of successful counterinsurgency warfare - the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

"...whenever insurgents are believed to be present in any village, small town, or district - a very common occurrence in Iraq (and Afghanistan) at present, - the local notables can be compelled to surrender them to the authorities, under the threat of escalating punishments, all the way to mass executions. That is how the Ottoman Empire could control entire provinces with a few feared janissaries and a squadron or two of cavalry. ...A massacre once in a while remained an effective warning for decades."

Luttwak notes the Romans also used inducements such as public baths and free circus shows to "de-bellicize" unruly populations. Those who still refused were killed or, if captured, sold into slavery. Towns under seige could either surrender and be accepted as peaceful subjects or the town and all within would be utterly destroyed.

"...In the first two and most successful centuries of imperial Rome, some 300,000 soldiers in all, only half of them highly trained legionary troops, were enough to secure a vast empire that stretched well beyond the Mediterranean basin, today the territory of some thirty European, Middle Eastern and North African states. ...they relied on deterrence, which was periodically reinforced by exemplary punishments. Most inhabitants of the empire never rebelled after their initial conquest."

The author points out that, despite the myths of heroic resistance, the Germans were actually very successful in using terrible reprisals to occupy lands with very few troops. The key, argues Luttwak, is to develop a willingness to out-terrorize the insurgents, the very thing Western democracies are not prepared to tolerate.

"All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principled and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents, the necessary and sufficient condition of a tranquil occupation."

There it is - we're just too damned nice for our own good.

Putting the Spotlight on Stephen Harper's Lies

Kudos to Les Whittington of the Toronto Star for this piece bringing a little accountability to the wave of Tory deceit that has been spewed so freely by the Harpies. Here's Whittington's take on how reality fits with Tory claims.

"...even allowing for the fact that hyperbole and sweeping generalities are the common fare of public life, the federal Tories have often let their rhetoric overtake reality:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said his budget last May lowered taxes for Canadians.

The reality: The budget raised the lowest income-tax rate by half a percentage point to 15.5 per cent as of July 1, 2006.

On Canada's military activities: In an interview with CBC-TV, Harper said Canada is on the front lines in Afghanistan – a role he said was in marked contrast to the traditional Canadian approach. "For a lot of the last 30 or 40 years, we were the ones hanging back," Harper told CBC.

The reality: More than 125 Canadian soldiers have died on peacekeeping operations around the world since 1956.

In changing how equalization payments to have-not provinces are calculated, Harper said his party, if elected, "would ensure that non-renewable natural resource revenue is removed from the equalization formula to encourage economic growth."

The reality: The provinces are convinced that Flaherty's new formula for calculating payments to poorer provinces will include half of each province's natural resource revenue – an expectation that is sparking stiff resistance in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

On the Liberals' gun control record: "What this last government did is that, instead of worrying about insane people or criminals, they simply went after farmers," Harper said during question period in the House of Commons.

The reality: The Liberals' firearms licensing and registry program – with its background checks and requirements for training and safe storage – applied to all would-be gun owners, not just farmers.

After Liberal MP and former leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff said that an Israeli air strike in Qana during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict was a war crime, Harper responded: "This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually all of the candidates for the Liberal leadership."

The reality: Liberal leadership candidates denounced the remark as an inaccurate and unstatesmanlike "insult" that risked dividing Canadians for partisan political motives.
"Canada's back," Harper said on Sept. 20 in New York.

The reality: But Harper used a string of statistics and figures to illustrate that the return to fiscal health and economic growth in Canada began under the Liberals.

During the last election campaign, the Tories said if elected they would "stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them."

The reality: In a surprise decision on Oct. 31, the Conservative government moved to do away with income trusts, a decision that saw more than $20 billion in value lopped off the stock market.

On climate change, Harper slammed the Liberals in a year-end interview with the Star, saying "literally nothing was done for 13 years at all on the environment, literally nothing."

The reality: While the Liberals did not halt the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, they used their final months in power to introduce "Project Green," an eight-year program at an estimated $10-billion cost designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 270 megatonnes between 2008 and 2012.

On child care, Harper said that during 13 years of Liberal government, not a single child-care space was created.

The reality: The Liberals' $5-billion, five-year plan to create a national child-care program along with the provinces led to the opening of more than 5,000 new spaces in Ontario alone, with 20,000 more on the drawing board. But plans for more spaces in Ontario were slashed after the federal Conservatives announced they were cancelling the previous government's funding for the provinces as of this year."

Is This Some Sort of Weird Reality Show?

Gee, Her Eyes Are Red

Jungle Girl, the Ultimate Survivor.

When the story broke last week, her "father" described her as "bare-bones skinny" and positively feral, scurrying around like a money, plucking grains of rice off the floor and glaring at perople with her "red like tigers' eyes."

When Jungle Girl, Rochom P'ngieng, emerged in front of the cameras yesterday she looked about as emaciated and wild as a nanny.

The putative father, Sal Lou, is clamming up. He's already refused DNA testing to confirm his paternity of Rochom, if that is her name. Meanwhile the story is just getting better.

It's now reported that Jungle Girl was seen running around naked with Jungle Boy who was wearing a similar costume. Her fella, it seems, fled into the bush when Rochom was taken. No word on where Cheeta was while all this was going on.

Hillary's In - How Nice

Hillary Clinton, to no one's surprise, has surprised everyone by announcing that she's going to run for president. And, of course, she's going to make Iraq the central theme of her campaign but, then again, who isn't?

Hilly, as I call her when we speak off the record, was as enthusiastic as a Rotarian in her support for the Iraq war, long past the point at which that was appropriate but enough of that now.

This promises to be a bruising campaign - if you happen to be an American infantryman. They're going to get kicked from one end of Baghdad to the other over the next two years and their fate and their mission is now in the calloused hands of political fortune as read by pollsters.

The New York Times:

"Mrs. Clinton said that candidates in the 2008 race should be thoughtful and responsible when talking about war, rather than trying to score easy political points with red-meat rhetoric.

“'I am cursed with the responsibility gene.' she said. 'I am. I admit to that. You’ve got to be very careful in how you proceed with any combat situation in which American lives are at stake.'

"On Iraq, she has never repudiated her vote in 2002 authorizing military action. But last month she said that she “certainly wouldn’t have voted” to go to war if she had the same information in 2002 that she does now.

No red-meat rhetoric, for sure. Pork tenderloin sophistry with a mild, dijon/fennel sauce is the limit. As for Hilly's genetic affliction, maybe they can find a cure for that in stem cell research.

Senator Clinton also had some harsh words for Iraqi PM al-Maliki:

"Mrs. Clinton was sharply critical of Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, saying she believed he had given her “lip service” during a meeting on Saturday about his government’s commitment to cooperating with the American mission there."

Lip service? Don't use language like that, Hilly, it reminds us of Bill.

By the way folks, Clinton isn't exactly Canada-friendly.

Me Too, Me Too

It's the hottest thing in the Middle East - nuclear technology. Israel started it, Saddam tried to get it, Iran is well on its way. Now Jordan has said it wants nuclear "energy" too.

In an interview in Haaretz, Jordan's King Abdullah, shown here in some serious threads, says his country has a hankering to develop peaceful nuclear technology, just like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and every other jumpy Sunni Arab state worried about Iran getting its own peaceful technology first.

Whether King Ab is serious or simply doing his bit to ratchet up the pressure on the US to stop Iran isn't clear.

And He Was Expecting ...What?

Peter MacKay seems to be traipsing along in the wake of his American Idol, Condoleeza Rice. She went to the Middle East so he packed his toothbrush and hopped a flight there too. It looks like our foreign affairs minister decided to exercise some of Canada's new found muscle on the international scene, a dollop of the enormous vat of global political capital earned for us by his highly principled boss, Stephen Harper.

So the air must have been rife with the aroma of power diplomacy when MacKay met with Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas to share a bit of Tory enlightenment with the vulgar Arab, right? Well, not exactly.

Abbas did meet with MacKay. They were supposed to have a chat this weekend but Abbas decided he'd rather be in Damascus to meet with Syrian president Haddas instead. He didn't snub Canada though. He managed to squeeze MacKay in - and out - yesterday, somewhere between the falafel and the delicious dates.

What actually happened? Did we manage to iron the creases out of the crumpled Roadmap? Here are a few insights from The Globe:

"In an interview before the meeting, Rafik Husseini, Mr. Abbas's chief of staff, said that because of the 10-month-old boycott, the Palestinian side knew little about the year-old Canadian government.

"Canada is not a big player in general and because, of course, of what has happened with the [economic] siege and with the no-talk policy towards Hamas, we cannot tell the difference between the old and the new government,' he said.

"Mr. Husseini's impression was that Canada has become less friendly to the Palestinians under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He didn't attend the Amman talks, but said that had he been in the room, he would have confronted Mr. MacKay over Canada's pro-Israel swing under Mr. Harper, and the fact Canada's policies in the region are now almost indistinguishable from those of the United States.

"Following the 45-minute meeting at Mr. Abbas's Amman residence, Mr. MacKay said he had come to the region largely to listen "and to look for ways we can make a positive contribution." It was strikingly similar to the justification U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave for her trip to the region last week, a visit that was widely ridiculed as having created little other than some photo opportunities."

No word yet on whether Peter's truncated schedule is going to let him catch up with Condi but wouldn't that be cute? Ah Peter, make the trip worthwhile - bring home some of that terrific hummus.

The Telegraph

I Guess It Depends on How You Define "Slow"

Never hesitant about resorting to weasel words, US president George Bush today admitted his first four year adventure in Iraq was a "slow failure" and then proceeded to lambaste those urging quick withdrawal as endorsing "expedited failure." I'm sorry folks, but four years isn't slow failure, it's persistent failure, chronic failure even abject failure and the guy responsible for acheiving that track record may not be the best person to pass judgment on anyone else's alternatives. Then again, you have to give it to the guy, he's got the cojones of a street hustler.

Blue Chips Turn Green

What to Alcoa, BP, DuPont and the Caterpillar corporation have in common with the Natural Resources Defence Council and Environmental Defense? They all have grasped the reality of global warming and they all want their United States government to get serious about it.

This coalition of the willing and determined are calling on president George Bush for "...swift federal action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and speeding the adoption of climate-friendly technology".

From The Independent:

"The age of global warming denial, meanwhile, also appears to be drawing to a close. Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, has cut its funding to groups who argue global warming is a hoax, and is now working to develop strategies it can accept for emissions reduction.

"That's a huge change from just a few months ago, when Exxon Mobil's chief executive, Lee Raymond, arguably the world's most prominent global warming sceptic, was still at the helm, and the Senate Energy Committee was headed by the Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, who made it his business to dismiss scientific opinion on climate change as a conspiracy.

"The biggest hold-out against radical policy change is probably the Bush White House. Aides to the President have indicated his State of the Union speech will include some provisions on energy, notably championing the use of ethanol-based fuels. The administration remains opposed, however, to any mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions."

Now, for all the enlightened flat-earthers who get their environmental insights from NewsMax and FOX, the science has won out, live with it. Stop eating that stuff Charlie, it's horse shit.

Hurricane Katrina - the Saga Continues

Former FEMA director Michael Brown has dropped yet another bomb on the Bush administration and its mishandling of the hurricane Katrina disaster.

Brown claims he recommended that all 90,000 square miles along the Gulf Coast affected by the hurricane be federalized, making the federal government in charge of all agencies responding to the disaster.

Instead, he maintains, the White House seized upon an opportunity to use the disaster for partisan ends against Louisiana's Democratic governor, "Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking 'We had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor and we have a chance to rub her nose in it.'"

There's no love lost between the White House and Brown who was scapegoated in a botched attempt to divert attention from his president's negligent indifference to the disaster. In the wake of the hurricane and while Brown was being heaped with blame, Bush said no one at the White House had any idea this sort of disaster might occur. Subsequently, video was released of a conference call prior to the arrival of the hurricane in which Bush was present and being warned of the impending cataclysm.

The White House now claims that Brown is making up this partisan business. Yeah, okay. Those who've seen the Bush video will know that, at the moment, the score stands at Brown 1, Bush no score.

Whatever Happened To.... al Qaeda?

In the Global War Without End on Terror, George Bush's one recognized success is the apparent demise of al Qaeda. Much is made of the fact that the United States hasn't suffered another terrorist attack since the atrocities of 9/11. Last April, Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte described it as a "somewhat weakened organization" that was pretty much reduced to "serving as an inspiration for some of these terroristically inclined groups elsewhere."

Maybe not. In the latest edition of The New Republic, terrorism expert Peter Bergen says al-Qaeda is back, bigger and badder than ever and it is only a matter of time before it attacks the US again:

"In the months and years immediately following the Taliban's ouster, Al Qaeda lost its main sanctuary and struggled to regroup in the largely lawless zone along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Key leaders were captured or killed. Years passed during which the group mounted few major attacks.

"But, today, from Algeria to Afghanistan, from Britain to Baghdad, the organization once believed to be on the verge of impotence is again ascendant. Attacks by jihadists have reached epidemic levels in the past three years, with terrorists carrying out dramatic operations in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, as well as multiple suicide attacks across the Middle East and Asia--not only in Iraq, but also in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. Meanwhile, jihadists have made inroads in the horn of Africa; the Taliban's efforts to turn Afghanistan back into a failed state appear to be succeeding; and Al Qaeda's Iraqi branch recently declared sovereignty over the country's vast Anbar province.

"The story of Al Qaeda's renaissance begins with its eviction from Afghanistan in late 2001. Unfortunately, the group didn't disintegrate--it merely moved across the border to the tribal regions of western Pakistan, where today it operates a network of training camps. A former American intelligence official stationed in Pakistan told me that there are currently more than 2,000 foreign fighters in the region.

"...on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Taliban has staged a comeback while virtually merging with Al Qaeda. The Taliban were a provincial bunch when they held power in Afghanistan, but, in the past couple of years, they have increasingly identified as part of the global jihadist movement, their rhetoric full of references to Iraq and Palestine in a manner that mirrors bin Laden's public statements.

Bergen predicts that al-Qaeda will be around for years to come but he gives four reasons why the group's days are numbered:

"First, it has killed a lot of Muslims. This is doubly problematic for Al Qaeda, as the Koran forbids killing both civilians and fellow Muslims.

"Second, while bin Laden enjoys personal popularity in much of the Muslim world, this popularity does not translate into mass support for Al Qaeda--the kind of mass support that, say, Hezbollah enjoys in Lebanon. This is not surprising, since there are no Al Qaeda social welfare services, schools, hospitals, or clinics.

"Third, Al Qaeda's leaders have constantly expanded their list of enemies, to the point where it now includes all Middle Eastern regimes; Muslims who don't share their views; most Western countries; Jews and Christians; the governments of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia; most news organizations; the United Nations; and international NGOs. It's very hard to think of a category of person, institution, or government that Al Qaeda does not oppose. Making a world of enemies is never a winning strategy.

"Finally, we know what bin Laden is against; but what is he really for? If you asked him, he would say the restoration of the caliphate. For bin Laden, that doesn't mean the return of something like the Ottoman Empire, but rather the installation of Taliban-style theocracies stretching from Indonesia to Morocco. A silent majority of Muslims don't want that."

Even though al-Qaeda's long-term prospects are poor, Bergen says the Western presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is fueling the terrorists, garnering al-Qaeda support and giving it a powerful recruiting tool. He foresees two types of attacks al-Qaeda most wants to inflict on the West - bringing down an airliner and detonation of a radiological "dirty" bomb, probably in a European city. The first might devastate global aviation and tourism, the latter could easily undermine global investor confidence.

George Bush had a real chance to destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001. Instead he gave al-Qaeda what it hoped for most, he invaded Iraq. We're not going to get rid of al-Qaeda now. That job has to be taken up by the Arab states themselves.

A German Answer to North Korea's Famine

The answser is bunnies - very, very big bunnies. Karl Szmolinsky breeds the world's biggest wabbits. They weigh in at around 10.5 kgs. or about 23 lbs.

Szmolinsky says each rabbit yields about 7 kgs. of meat, something that most North Koreans don't see these days.

He was initially approached by the North Korean embassy and asked whether he would sell a few of his megabunnies and help set up a breeding programme in the communist state. He has sent 12 of his rabbits to Korea so far which he says is enough to breed 60-more within a year.

Eating Crow - Big Time

He's hoping you won't notice or, if you do, that you'll forget by the time we have another election. Stephen Harper and Global Warming, who'd a thunk it? Stephen the Green and it all seemed to happen virtually overnight.

Stevie now gets it, right? He's gone from global warming denier to global warming advocate in about the time it takes him to change his underwear.

He gets it so much that he's bringing back many of the Liberal initiatives he so recently scorned. A big announcement is expected today that will do just that, of course without admitting it. How about something close to a billion dollars for wind power programmes or Liberal initiatives to encourage energy-saving home upgrades?

Whatever you do, just don't call them Liberal. You gotta forget all that. These are Tory initiatives, always were - right? There'll be a lot of tweaking to make it appear distinct from the Liberal programmes, solar and tidal power technology as though these areas would never have been thought of by Stephane Dion.

Hey, when was the last time you heard Stevie puff himself up and bellow "energy superpower"? He seems to have dummied up on that one lately.

By the way, has anyone noticed that CanWest still can't bring itself to use the term "global warming" substituting the Republican alternative "climate change" instead? Hey Asper, don't sugar coat it. It is global warming, accept it, Stevie has.

The Star Scores a Scoop

The Toronto Star claims to have gotten the inside track on a UN study to be released on February 2 that will pose a body blow to the global warming doubters.

"A major new United Nations report shows global scientists are more convinced than ever that human activity is causing climate change, the Toronto Star has learned.

"The rate of warming between now and 2030 is likely to be twice that of the previous century, it says.

"And it concludes that most of the global warming since the middle of the last century has been caused by man-made greenhouse gases.

"The report, to be released in Paris Feb. 2, should all but end any debate on climate change and compel governments and industries to take urgent measures to deal with it, scientists say.

"One crucial prediction has been made a bit less worrying: Although sea level is rising – for now, mainly because the oceans are warming to a depth of at least 3,000 metres, and expanding – the estimates for how much it will go up have been lowered.

"Regional forecasts of climate change effects are better than in the previous report, and they predict the greatest warming at northern latitudes and high altitudes, and the least over the North Atlantic and the southern oceans.

"The north faces the biggest increase in precipitation."

Mission Creep - That's Good News

According to The Star, the Canadian Forces are going to reinforce our contingent in Afghanistan. Unfortunately we won't be getting more infantry even though the existing force is far too small for the job we've taken on. The good news is that the existing troops will be getting additional support although military spokesmen in Ottawa won't say just what or when that support will arrive.

Best guesses? A flight of CF-18 Hornet fighters for dedicated ground attack in support of Canadian troops. Heavy artillery, M777 howitzers, that were recently purchased from Britain. For surveillance and command, the CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft configured for use in Afghanistan.

One blogger recently posted photographs of two trains carrying a great quantity of Canadian military vehicles into the United States. It is logical to assume we're relying on the American military to get this equipment to our troops in Afghanistan. We simply don't have the means to get them in the field in time.

Read Between the Lines

Henry Kissinger is back. The guy who presided over America's final failure in Vietnam has some advice on Iraq for Washington - continue the occupation.

In an editorial in the International Herald Tribune, Kissinger lays out America's ongoing role in Iraq and how it must not withdraw.

Reading between the lines you quickly come up with one glaring omission in Kissinger's logic, the notion that Iraq has become a sovereign state. In fact he presents his arguments from the sole perspective of America's interests, not Iraq's. What Henry Kissinger depicts is an indefinite occupation of Iraq in which the Baghdad government functions more like a bureaucracy to carry out the occupier's instructions.

Kissinger wants to use the Iraq occupation as a means to leverage a regional re-alignment extending all the way to the Palestinian question:

"Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:

"The creation of a contact group, assembling neighboring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.

"Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order.

"Both categories of consultations should lead to an international conference including all countries that will have to play a stabilizing role in the eventual outcome, specifically the permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as such countries as Indonesia, India and Pakistan.

"A balance of risks and opportunities needs to be created so that Iran is obliged to choose between a significant but not dominant role or riding the crest of Shia fundamentalism. In the latter case, it must pay a serious, not a rhetorical, price for choosing the militant option.

"In all this, the United States cannot indefinitely bear alone the burden for both the military outcome and the political structure."

"American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a favor to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend.

Kissinger proclaims that "withdrawal is not an option" and that the occupation must continue:

"An abrupt American departure will greatly complicate efforts to help stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Gulf will be tempted into pre-emptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict within Iraq to genocidal dimensions."

Kissinger's approach has all the blinders of a typically academic solution. It conveniently omits from the equation several practical considerations. America is a democracy and the American voters want their soldiers out of Iraq. In less than two years those same America voters will be electing a new president and a gaggle of congressmen, a lot of them Republicans. Unless the American government can produce a miracle and resuscitate the support of the American people, the American war is going to come to a premature end by 2008, if not sooner.
That's what you call democracy, warts and all.

Why Blame Only China?

So China used a ballistic missile to take out one of its own weather satellites and the world rose up in anger.

Why are we so upset about China? I don't particularly like that country and I certainly don't like its repressive system of government but it is a sovereign state, an emerging industrial power and a steadily expanding global actor.

What has China done that the US didn't do over a decade ago with nary a whimper? Nothing. It took out one of its old satellites. Strictly "old hat" to the US Air Force.

Why have we sat silent while the United States continuously provoked China? Just how did we think China would respond?

Provocation? Yeah, there's been plenty of that. What do you think accounts for Washington's recently acquired fondness for India and its fledgling military alliances with that country? If you guessed China, bingo!

Take a look at America's new naval partner, India, and its rapidly expanding, blue water navy. The Indian navy has quite openly defined its "area of influence" to extend eastward all the way to the Sakhalin Islands. That blankets every inch of China's coastline. For what earthly reason does India, a country in grave need of infrastructure development at home, need to project naval power into the Philippine Sea, the East China Sea, the Sea of Japan and the westernmost Pacific Ocean all the way up to the coastal waters of Russia? Bingo again.

China, like the European Union and India, understands the importance of space. Like India, China is working hard on developing a manned space programme, long the exclusive preserve of the US and Russia. It is also making rapid advances in commercial space applications.

Just as China is getting into the space game, Bush declares American hegemony over space. Bush's space doctrine provides that America will decide which nations may have a presence in space and reserves the right to prevent nations acquiring a space presence that Washington considers hostile to its interests. Bush further declares that the US will not be bound by any treaties restricting the deployment of actual weapons in space. In parallel to this, America is developing an anti-missile system to defeat an attack on the US. Roll these factors into the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attack and you have an incredibly threatening posture that is if you're China.

How many protests did you hear coming from world capitals about any of those maneuvres? The Chinese and Russians were miffed but that was about it. We certainly bit our tongues and have now crept, hat in hand, to offer Washington our co-operation in its anti-missile programme.

Why should we be conerned about what Washington is doing in space? Have you heard of HMS Dreadnought? It was Britain's super-battleship before WWI whose very existence drove other nations to come up with similar warships of their own. London fueled a naval arms race that reached from Britain to Germany, the United States and as far away as Japan. It was an arms race that survived the defeat of Germany and continued on into the Second World War. It brought us names like Hood and Nelson, Arizona, Bismark and Yamato. These things take on a certain life of their own.

What was China's intent in taking down its own satellite? It probably had several goals. China wanted to make clear that it intends to have free access to space regardless of the Bush doctrine. China wanted the world to sit up and take notice of its new technological prowess. Above all I believe that China wants a space treaty with the US, a genuine agreement that would ensure the demilitarization of space. China needs that. Then again we all do.

The Alarms Are Going Off - Can You Hear Them?

There is a lot of news these days about global disasters but that's mainly because there are a lot of global crises that are looming.

The most common subject, of course, is global warming. Then there's the depletion of non-renewable resources which is an enormous problem for a world built on ready and secure access to cheap gas. One that we don't hear about nearly as often but which threatens to undermine societies around the world is groundwater exhaustion.

We can't live without water, we all know that. We also can't grow our food without water. Eating and drinking is dependent on the supply of water. In fact, our market economy is dependent on access to nearly limitless supplies of cheap water. In many parts of the world man relies on irrigation to produce water for livestock and for crops.

Roughly four-fifths of the world's freshwater is underground in what are called aquifers. There are two types of acquifers: replenishable and fossil. The key difference is in what happens when man exhausts them. In fossil aquifers, when they're tapped they're gone - for all practical purposes they're gone forever. In replenishable aquifers you can pump them out to your heart's content until they're drained but, after that, you can still get water from them but only at the rate of recharge which is usually pretty minimal and vulnerable to weather conditions such as drought.

Most of us know virtually nothing about the state of the world's aquifers and because of that we're not showing much interest in what's coming in the near future.

Today India and China are recognized not only as the world's most populous countries but also as emerging economic superpowers. Don't bet on it. In both countries the aquifers that support their agriculture are becoming severely distressed.

The effects are already being felt in major cuts in food production. Saudi Arabia's wheat production peaked at just over 4-million tons in 1992. By 2004 it had fallen to 1.6-million tons, a 60% decline.

China's wheat harvest peaked in 1997 at 123-million tons. By 2004 it had dropped to 90-million tons because of a lack of water for irrigation in China's semi-arid north, its wheat belt.

India is far worse off than China. Water shortages are a scourge of life in most Indian cities but it is in the agricultural lands that the real danger to the country lies. There are an estimated 21-million drilled wells in India and, in some states, they are causing groundwater tables to drop by 6 metres per year. In some states half of all electricity is now used to pump water.

In the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, 95% of small farmers' wells have dried up causing productive farmland to fall by half.

Northern Mexico is facing a critical water shortage as are parts of the United States. In the southern Great Plains the amount of irrigated farmland has fallen by 24% since 1980 and parts of the "corn belt", particularly in Kansas are now running out of groundwater as the fossil, High Plains aquifer is exhausted. This problem will be made worse by the American reliance on corn for ethanol production.

So, what is being done about this looming crisis? Would you be surprised if I said nothing, zip, nada? At the end of the day this may prove to be nature's way of culling the herd. Sad as that may be, we must appreciate that this could bring an enormous degree of instability to an already and increasingly dangerous world.

Canada, being a temperate, northern country with a huge landmass and relatively small population is blessed, there's no other word for it. That said, we need to begin giving serious thought to Canada's freshwater supplies and we need to develop a real appreciation of how very essential they are to the future of this country and our need to preserve them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Canada eventually may have to protect our water resources.

Hey Guys, Here's A Tip

If you want a woman to think you're handsome, find a good-looking woman to fawn over you. Her attention may be enough to make the one you're after find you much more attractive. From The Telegraph:

"The research, published in a prestigious scientific journal, gives objective credence to a common practice among American men of asking a female friend to be their “lady wingman”, or even hiring a beautiful woman to flirt with them in a bar, party or club to make them appear more attractive to others.

“'What our findings suggest is that these services probably work to some extent,' commented Dr Ben Jones of the University of Aberdeen, one of the team that puts this practice on a scientific basis today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

"First 28 female participants were shown eight pairs of faces and had to indicate which one in each pair they thought was more attractive. After this, participants viewed a short slideshow where they saw women looking at one of the faces in each pair with either a smiling expression (signalling a positive attitude to the looked-at man) or a neutral expression (signalling a more negative, bored, attitude to the looked-at man).

"After the slideshow, participants repeated the initial face preference test and the team found that just 30 seconds of interest from another woman was enough to make a man seem more desirable.

Now, if I can just find a woman - any woman - to smile at me...

The Coalition of the Indifferent?

Tony Blair got a letter today, one that he won't be able to ignore.

It was signed by 100 British and Iraqi doctors, pleading for aid to stop the needless deaths of hundreds of Iraqi children for want of basic, and often cheap, medical supplies in Iraqi hospitals.


From The Independent:

"The doctors are backed by a group of international lawyers who contend that the conditions in Iraqi hospitals are a breach of Geneva conventions that require Britain and the US, as occupying powers, to protect human life.

"'Sick or injured children who could otherwise be treated by simple means are left to die in hundreds because they do not have access to basic medicines or other resources,' the doctors say. 'Children who have lost hands, feet and limbs are left without prostheses. Children with grave psychological distress are left untreated,' they add.

"They say babies are being ventilated with a plastic tube in their noses and dying for want of an oxygen mask, while other babies are dying because of the lack of a phial of vitamin K or sterile needles, all costing about 95p. Hospitals have little hope of stopping fatal infections spreading from baby to baby because of the lack of surgical gloves, which cost about 3.5p a pair.

"Cases the doctors highlight include a child who died because the doctor only had a sterile needle for an adult and could not find a needle small enough to fit the vein, and another child who died because the doctors had no oxygen mask that fitted.

"The doctors say the UK, as one of the occupying powers under UN resolution 1483, has to comply with the Geneva and Hague conventions that require the UK and the US to 'maintain order and to look after the medical needs of the population'. But, the doctors say: 'This they failed to do and the knock-on effect of this failure is affecting Iraqi children's hospitals with increasing ferocity.'

"They call on the UK to account properly for the $33bn (£16.7bn) in the development fund for Iraq which should have supplied the means for hospitals to treat children properly. They say more than half of the money - $14bn - is believed to have vanished through corruption, theft and payments to mercenaries."

Nearing four years after the invasion it is incredible to believe that the US and Britain, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on this war of choice, have allowed Iraq's hospitals to deteriorate to this point. Incredible.

It Beats Emulating Bush

Britain's prime minister in waiting, Gordon Brown, says he wants to rule like Ghandi. From The Independent:

"Seeming to spell out a moral vision of his expected premiership, Mr Brown said he hoped Gandhi would inspire "the way I will deal with the challenges the country and the world face, including the security challenge. That means having the strength of belief... to do what is right for the long-term even when there are easier short-term gains on offer."

"Mr Brown was speaking after strewing rose petals and laying a wreath at Rajghat, the spot where Gandhi was cremated on the banks of the river Yamuna in Delhi. The Chancellor was wearing what looked like the flimsy white slippers given out for free at expensive hotels to comply with the Hindu requirement to remove his shoes.

"The Indian independence leader lived among the poor. By contrast, for all the fine words, Mr Brown's visit has so far largely stuck to the usual script, moving from the headquarters of one major company in Bangalore to another, and posing for pictures on the manicured lawns that are a world away from most of India.

"The only glimpses of India's poor have been the slums where the people have watched indifferently as his motorcade swept by."

Is The FLQ Making a Comeback?

According to Canadian Press, the RCMP has received a threatening letter from a group claiming to be a new cell of the FLQ.

The letter claims a combination of car bombs, letter bombs and remote controlled devices will be used to cause mayhem, mainly in English-speaking, West Montreal, from February 15 to March 15.

"It mentions crowded shopping malls, bridges, rail lines, airport facilities, water supplies, municipal buildings and service stations.

"'We will especially target traffic on main highways,' it warns.

"The letter, which is signed: "FLQ, Camille-Laurin Cell," is the second of its kind. The first one was received on Nov. 15, 2006.

The RCMP is taking the threats seriously but noted that there has been nothing to date suggesting the group, if there is one, is capable of conducting the threatened attacks.

The Quebec Liberation Front triggered a crisis in Canada in 1970 with the kidnapping of James Cross and the murder of Quebec labour minister Pierre LaPorte. That ultimately led Pierre Trudeau to invoke martial law under the War Measures Act.

CanWest and Harper - Birds of a Feather

As a former journalist I'm very concerned about the independence and diversity of the news media. Put simply, the more voices that we hear and the broader the range of opinion, the better informed we are as a people. An informed electorate is necessary for the functioning of a healthy democracy. Voters who are ill-informed or, worse, misinformed are vulnerable to political manipulation.

We have no shortage of proof of this in the experience of the United States since 11 September, 2001. A shaken, even traumatized people turned to what they perceived to be the voices of strength and resolve - the far-right media epitomized by FoxNews and ultra-conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.

A powerful symbiosis evolved between the corporate media and their political benefactors, the Bush Republicans. Media ownership concentration was the reward for media collaboration and it paid off handsomely for the Bush administration. Even today, Condoleeza Rice is overheard virtually gushing over "my boys at Fox" and, when he wants to spew his spin unmolested, it is to Fox that Dick Cheney inevitably turns.

In a healthy democracy, the national media have a tempered, adversarial role to government. The media serves the public as its watchdog over government. That breaks down, and democracy suffers accordingly, when the media transforms into the lapdog of government, doing tricks in return for treats.

A media outlet that can deliver, say 1,200 radio stations, to the political purposes of a particular party is a treasured ally and one that will receive reciprocal attentions - one scratching the other's back. One of these rewards is a relaxation of the government's role in curbing excessive concentration of media ownership. When that happens the circle of mutual benefit is perfected and, in its perfection, perpetuated. As for the public, well they are merely targets for predation and manipulation.

In my day (when ships were made of oak and men were made of iron) our governments sought to restrain both concentration of media ownership and cross-ownership of media outlets. Both were considered impediments to the free flow of ideas and information. This was largely effected through control of licensing of television and radio stations.

It was a complicated business but, in its simplest terms, was aimed at ensuring that, in a market that had, say 20 radio stations, no chain or group held more than one AM and one FM licence. Likewise, licensing restrictions would be used to prevent a newspaper chain from taking a dominant position in a market's broadcast media. Where concentration became a problem through cross-ownership, the chain might be forced to divest itself of a radio or television licence, just to keep the mix healthy.

How things change. Now we have an emerging media giant, CanWest. From its base in Winnipeg, Leonard Asper reigns over a national media conglomerate comprising the CanWest broadcast network and the former Southin newspaper chain acquired from Conrad Black.

There is very little editorial independence at the Asper newspapers. Indeed Asper himself writes the editorials from his offices in Winnipeg and he likewise controls the news content that is forwarded to his papers for publication. That means Mr. Asper also gets to determine what is to be excluded from all of his newspapers. That's fair enough if there are plenty of competing news outlets to ensure your access to the stories Mr. Asper doesn't want run or the views he's not prepared to publish or broadcast. It's anything but fair when he holds a dominant position over certain markets or even regions, such as his media domination in British Columbia.

Leonard Asper is committed to promoting the interests and views of Israel. Oddly enough, so are the Harper Tories. This gives rise to a powerful mutuality of interests that creates yet another level of influence in CanWest's editorial outlook. Okay if there are plenty of alternate voices to be heard. Dangerous when there aren't.

For good and bad, news reports help shape our views. Studies have shown that FoxNews viewers remained far more ignorant than the general population over the Iraq war, the non-existant link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and the non-existance of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Those so powerfully misled, in turn, were much more ready to support the Bush administration. You didn't have to be powerfully ignorant to support George Bush but it sure helped.

It was from this background that I stumbled upon an interesting article by Richard Fricker today at consortiumnews.com, an American reporter's take on the Harper government and our right-wing media:

"I first took note of the right-wing U.S. strategies that Harper was importing to Canada while visiting my wife’s relatives in Ontario last summer.

"As an American journalist, I had always been struck by how ardently Canada’s political discourse focused on substance – the budget, health care, schools, roads – without the cheap theatrics and angry divisions common in the United States.

"But suddenly I noticed that the tone of Canada had changed. There was a nastier edge to the commentary. There were not so subtle appeals to racism and xenophobia, references to Muslim neighborhoods in Quebec as “Quebecistan” and to Lebanese-Canadians as “Hezbocrats,” a play on the Muslim group Hezbollah.

"It was as if a virus that had long infected the people south of the border had overnight jumped containment and spread northward establishing itself in a new host population. But – as I began to study this new phenomenon – it became clear that this infection did not just accidentally break quarantine.

"Rather, it was willfully injected into the Canadian body politic by conservative strategists and right-wing media moguls who had studied the modern American model and were seeking to replicate it.

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

"Canada had its version of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News in the Asper brothers and their CanWest Global Communications Corp., which owns the National Post, the Montreal Gazette and nine other Canadian newspapers, 25 television outlets and two radio stations.

"It was the Montreal Gazette and the National Post that trumpeted the phrase “Quebecistan” after demonstrators in Ottawa and Montreal protested Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon in summer 2006.

"CanWest’s National Post even offered up a Canadian version of Ann Coulter in columnist Barbara Kay.

"In one of Kay’s columns, she noted that 50,000 Lebanese-Canadians lived in Montreal and added, “We can expect those numbers to swell as Hezbollah-supporting residents of southern Lebanon cash in on their Canadian citizenship and flee to safety.”

"Kay denounced Quebec as “the most anti-Israel of the provinces and therefore the most vulnerable to tolerance for Islamist terrorist sympathizers.”

“'The word would go out to the Islamophere that Quebec was the Londonistan,' Kay wrote. 'It won’t if our political class takes its cues from principled Stephen Harper rather than shameless Quebec politicians who led the pro-terrorist rally.'

"As this Americanized version of Canadian conservatism took shape, Harper was cribbing, too, from another rising U.S. politician, George W. Bush. Harper said his goal was to tap into a political base “similar to what George Bush tapped.”

"Amid a surge of anti-minority sentiments, Harper merged his operations at the Canadian Conservative Alliance with those of Peter MacKay, the last leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. In 2003, they officially formed the Conservative Party of Canada.

"Their timing was perfect. As with the congressional Democrats in the United States a decade earlier, the Canadian Liberal Party found itself beset with corruption allegations and suffering from growing public resentment about high taxes.

"In contrast to these tainted Liberals was the fresh-faced Harper at the head of a shiny new movement with powerful backing from right-wing interest groups, neoconservative media outlets and stirred-up social conservatives.

"Though Conrad Black’s media empire had collapsed in a financial scandal, some of his properties, such as the National Post, were snapped up by CanWest Global, which shared Black’s staunchly pro-Israeli stance on Middle East affairs.

"Harper also brought into play evangelical Protestants, through his membership in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which opposed gay rights, was staunchly anti-abortion and targeted North Africa’s Muslims for conversion to Christianity.

"In 2004, Harper engineered a political breakthrough for the Conservatives in Ontario, boosting their standing in the House of Commons by 25 seats.

"This new conservative coalition flexed its muscles again in January 2006, denying the Liberals control of Parliament by claiming 124 seats (out of 308) and putting Harper in position to piece together a coalition government, which he did.

"Harper was sworn in as Canada’s prime minister on Feb. 6, 2006, consolidating right-wing political power across the North American continent. President Bush finally had a likeminded Canadian leader who also shared Washington’s neoconservative doctrine for confronting the Islamic world.

"The tone of Canadian political discourse followed this shift in the government, especially with CanWest media outlets ready to trumpet news that puts the Islamic world in the worst possible light.

"For instance, on May 19, 2006, the National Post published a front-page article by expatriate Iranian journalist Amir Taheri, claiming that Iran was enacting legislation that would require color-coded “badges” for Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.

“'Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red' and Zoroastrians would wear blue, Taheri reported in the article distributed by Benador Associates, a public relations firm representing neoconservative writers, such as Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle.

"With its obvious Holocaust allusion, Taheri’s story flashed around the world, picked up by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh and the powerful U.S.-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Harper and Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard, who was visiting Canada, joined in denouncing Iran for the purported badge legislation.

"However, Taheri’s article turned out to be untrue. The Iranian legislation contained nothing about making religious minorities wear colored badges. After the facts were challenged, the National Post retracted the story and later published an apology.

Power Outage

"Despite the lingering embarrassment over the bogus “colored badge” story, CanWest’s neoconservative attitudes resurfaced in July 2006 when war broke out between Israel and Lebanon.

"As Israeli bombers inflicted heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers, Lebanese-Canadians staged protests demanding that Israel cease its attacks.

"CanWest’s newspapers responded by injecting buzz words like “Quebecistan” and “Hezbocrats” into Canada’s public debate.

"While this kind of divisive rhetoric is common in the United States and is even encouraged as a way to energize the political base, it marked an escalation of political stridency for Canada.

"Some of the fury subsided after a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel in late summer. But the larger question remained whether Harper would succeed in transforming Canada into a more belligerent and bellicose nation, much as Bush had done in the United States.

"For generations, Canada has prided itself on its well-liked image around the world. It is a nation renowned for sending peacekeepers abroad not occupying armies.

"There was also the possibility that having seen the consequences of right-wing governance in the United States, Canadians would recoil at the thought of losing their pleasant country with its national health insurance and fairly comfortable lifestyle, in favor of the more cut-throat economic system south of the border.

"Some analysts suspected, too, that the Bush connection would ultimately hurt Harper. With Canadian troops dying in Afghanistan and violence rising in the Middle East, Harper’s coziness with Bush had the risk of becoming a liability as it was for Tony Blair.

"Now, with the Republican congressional defeat in the United States, Harper’s political movement also has lost the glow of inevitability, one of the chief organizing principles for the planned right-wing dominance across North America.

"Instead, Canada appears to be turning against right-wing extremism, much as Americans did, in favor of more pragmatic politics.

"In seeking his party’s leadership, the 51-year-old Dion chided Harper for being too cozy with Bush, especially on policies in the Middle East.

“'I don’t want Afghanistan to become an Iraq,' Dion told the CBC. 'And, if we do what Harper is doing, to be the macho, to say ‘it’s me and we will do it’, copying the language and style of the President of the United States. We have a Prime Minister who thinks that the United States is not only an ally for us but a model, and not only for foreign affairs, but also domestically.'”

"Dion has made clear that he intends to hammer away at the similarities between Harper and Bush. In an interview with MacLean’s magazine, Dion said Harper had reprised so many of Bush’s speeches that the U.S. President “may request royalties.”

"Harper’s use of U.S. political consultants and his alliance with American evangelical groups also have rubbed many Canadians the wrong way.

"Much as Bush’s picture next to Republican candidates became a staple of Democratic campaign ads in 2006, Canada’s Liberals appear certain to pair up Bush and Harper during the looming campaign for control of Parliament.

"As Republicans were hurt by the impression they were Bush’s rubber stamps, Harper may have to overcome his earlier decision to mimic the strategy and tactics of the American Right.

"If the Nov. 7 election results in the United States and opinion polls in Canada mean anything, it may be that Bush’s tough-guy swagger has lost much of its appeal in the United States and may be in even greater disrepute in Canada.

“The conservative wave across Canada has crested,” declared Liberal Party spokesman Tait Simpson.

Fickers article serves as a welcome reminder of where the Harper fundamentalists have taken our nation and what is at stake if that's not undone. When Stephane Dion forms a government we will need to revisit the debate over concentration of ownership and cross-ownership.

We must do this because the existing state of affairs is impacting negatively on Canadian democracy. Canada, like other nations, is going to be facing some unprecedented challenges in the decades to come. If we're going to meet those challenges, we're going to need an informed populace that has been able to get all the competing points of view.

All His Eggs in One Basket?

You need votes to win an election but you also need those votes in the right places.

Therein lies Stephen Harper's dilemma. His numbers aren't at all bad - only one per cent shy of the Liberals - but too many of those numbers come from one place, Alberta.

If Steve wants to be the Prime Minister of Alberta, he's a shoo-in, but he wants to govern Canada and he wants to govern with a majority government. It's great to have won the hearts and minds of the Wile Rose province but not as great as getting a real breakthrough in Ontario or Quebec where is support appears to be stalled.

This inbalance works to the direct advantage of Harper's key rival, Stephane Dion, whose Libs lead the Tories by 7 points outside Alberta.

There Goes the Neighbourhood

The space race is back on, that is the race to militarize space.

Last year the US announced an aggressive new space policy, one that saw Washington reject any efforts to restrict the deployment of offensive weapons in space while also putting the world on notice that the US reserved the right to deny space access to any nation it considered threatening to American interests. Not quite "it's all ours" but close enough.

Having put a space-size chip on its shoulder, it wasn't long before another nation responded - China.

Washington has criticized China for conducting an anti-satellite weapon test in which China used a rocket to destroy one of its old, weather satellites.

"The United States believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," was the official response. Spirit of co-operation? Okay, sure, just so long as you ignore the current US space policy.

Oh, as for co-operation, the US has had its own ASAT weapons under development and testing for more than a decade. It seems these things are only a problem if someone else gets them.

Meanwhile India is looking to join the space race. India is about to launch its first recoverable satellite. The idea is to test India's ability to cope with re-entry heat and retrieval at sea.

Keeping Kahn Under Wraps

It's no wonder Stephen Harper is keeping Wajid Kahn's Middle East report under wraps: it supports the Arab initiative for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders.

The Arab initiative, launched by the Saudis, is widely considered the last, best hope for peace between Israel and the Arab world. Israel would go back to its pre-67 borders and the Arab states would acknowledge the fact of the Israeli state and its right to exist as well as establishing normal trade relations. That would mean an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

That, however, doesn't jibe with Stevie's views on the Middle East. While Opposition Leader, Harper told the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy that it was unrealistic to ask Israel to withdraw behind its pre-67 borders.

Why Not Follow Britain & America on This One?

Around the world the arrival of Spring means many things. In Afghanistan it means open season for the Taliban insurgency.

The Americans and the British have no doubt that this Spring will bring a renewed Taliban offensive that is expected to be more violent than in the past. That's why both countries are talking about sending reinforcements to meet the growing Taliban challenge.

Makes sense, doesn't it? If the bad guys increase their force, if their threat to your own soldiers increases, you increase the size of your own force to meet the gr