Forget the budget or the nonsensical mission to Afghanistan or even climate change. Stephen Harper's government deserves to be toppled for the pure sake of the Canadian people.
Read the accounts, Dana Cadman's claims, Jodi Cadman's claims, the taped voice of Harper himself - these people are morally unfit to control our government.
Stand up Stephane and do what's right - defeat Harper. Oh, and by the way, while you're at it come up with some clear, workable policies that Canadian voters can understand and support.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Detainees Back for more Afghan Hospitality, Bye Harry
Canadian forces in Afghanistan are back to handing detainees over to Afghan authorities for - why, for detention of course.
Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security has assured us that they won't torture or otherwise abuse detainees never, ever, ever again. Really, they mean it. No, really.
From the Globe & Mail:
"The Afghan government has been lobbying Canada to resume its transfers, in part because the cutoff indicated Canada's belief that detainees face torture in the Afghan system — a propaganda victory for the Taliban, Afghan officials argued, and a source of friction with other NATO allies in southern Afghanistan who are also bound by legal conventions that forbid sending detainees into the hands of known torturers."
Interesting, it was the Canadian belief, not the actual torturing itself that was a propaganda victory for the Taliban. Curious place, Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry is winging his way home, plucked out of Afghanistan after that vermin, Matt Drudge, got the enormous journalistic non-scoop and ran the story of Harry's service with his regiment in the combat zone. Brit journalists had known about it for, well forever, but kept the secret to ensure Harry's and his comrades' safety.
Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security has assured us that they won't torture or otherwise abuse detainees never, ever, ever again. Really, they mean it. No, really.
From the Globe & Mail:
"The Afghan government has been lobbying Canada to resume its transfers, in part because the cutoff indicated Canada's belief that detainees face torture in the Afghan system — a propaganda victory for the Taliban, Afghan officials argued, and a source of friction with other NATO allies in southern Afghanistan who are also bound by legal conventions that forbid sending detainees into the hands of known torturers."
Interesting, it was the Canadian belief, not the actual torturing itself that was a propaganda victory for the Taliban. Curious place, Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry is winging his way home, plucked out of Afghanistan after that vermin, Matt Drudge, got the enormous journalistic non-scoop and ran the story of Harry's service with his regiment in the combat zone. Brit journalists had known about it for, well forever, but kept the secret to ensure Harry's and his comrades' safety.
Charles McVety - Another Reason to Dump Harper
Harper must hate it when his creepy underlings come up for air and that includes evangelist Charles McVety of the Canada Family Action Committee.
McVety, who looks like a Tony Soprano Capo, has lurked behind Harper for years and the more you look into the guy, the less there is to like.
Now McVety is claiming that he's behind SHarper's "social conservative" move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other "offensive" content.
Memo to Harper: I don't want you or those "the world is 6,000 years old" freaks, whether within your cabinet or not, deciding what will and won't be sufficiently decent to qualify for tax credits. Take your "social conservative" agenda and ram it right up your Born Again ass.
McVety, who looks like a Tony Soprano Capo, has lurked behind Harper for years and the more you look into the guy, the less there is to like.
Now McVety is claiming that he's behind SHarper's "social conservative" move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other "offensive" content.
Memo to Harper: I don't want you or those "the world is 6,000 years old" freaks, whether within your cabinet or not, deciding what will and won't be sufficiently decent to qualify for tax credits. Take your "social conservative" agenda and ram it right up your Born Again ass.
Have a Good Weekend, Connie
I genuinely hope Conrad Black has a good weekend if only because it may be the last one he spends as a free man for several years.
Lord Crossharbour of Wastewater has been ordered to the GreyBar Hotel no later than Monday.
I don't know what it says about me but I can't find any joy or mirth or satisfaction in his imprisonment. It's like a Greek tragedy. He had so much but always demanded more.
Cadman Day II - It Only Gets Worse
It was one thing for the Harpies to maintain, even without having the guts to come out and say it, that Chuck Cadman's widow, Dona, was wrong about her claim that her husband was offered a million-dollar insurance policy bribe to vote against the Martin government. Now Chuck's daughter has confirmed her mother's account.
From the Toronto Star:
"Independent MP Chuck Cadman confided on his deathbed to his daughter days after the 2005 budget vote that he had been offered an insurance policy for a million dollars by the Conservatives.
Jodi Cadman said this morning she burst into tears when her father revealed that news to her.
"My first reaction was I was hurt, very hurt and I started crying," she said in an interview. "If there was an Achilles heel for him, it was complete selflessness. It would have benefited myself and my mom."
That despicable, greasy, lying pr__k of a prime minister isn't going to talk his way out of this one. The author of the Cadman bio has a tape of Harper making it clear he knew the offer was going to be made and did nothing to stop it. He claims he told them not to bother because Cadman wouldn't accept but he didn't order them not to do it.
You can listen to the tape itself, Harper's own admissions, here:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308224
From the Toronto Star:
"Independent MP Chuck Cadman confided on his deathbed to his daughter days after the 2005 budget vote that he had been offered an insurance policy for a million dollars by the Conservatives.
Jodi Cadman said this morning she burst into tears when her father revealed that news to her.
"My first reaction was I was hurt, very hurt and I started crying," she said in an interview. "If there was an Achilles heel for him, it was complete selflessness. It would have benefited myself and my mom."
That despicable, greasy, lying pr__k of a prime minister isn't going to talk his way out of this one. The author of the Cadman bio has a tape of Harper making it clear he knew the offer was going to be made and did nothing to stop it. He claims he told them not to bother because Cadman wouldn't accept but he didn't order them not to do it.
You can listen to the tape itself, Harper's own admissions, here:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308224
On Transplanting Democracy
A revealing study released by the Brookings Institution yesterday. It was a survey of what happens to democracy when superpowers instal a new head of state. The study went back through the Cold War years and examined "regime change" American-style and the Soviet-variety.
The remarkable finding was that, democratic American or totalitarian Soviet, the result was pretty much the same - a significant loss in democratic freedom for the people after regime change. The numbers were close enough you could almost say they were a match between the US and the USSR.
The paper, entitled "Superpower Interventions and Their Consequences for Democracy," explained why the installation of a new leader to bring democracy to a people actually does just the opposite. To be overly simplistic, it's because the installing superpower doesn't pick the new leader to bring democracy but to put down a group or groups of unwanted types in that country. To fulfil his mandate, the new leader has to crack down and that often entails ignoring laws that interfere with doing just that.
To make it seem as though democracy is the real agenda, the superpower often ensures that safe elections are held. Good for public consumption at home. Sound familiar?
For the first five years, on average, there is a marked decline in political and human rights in the wake of regime change. After that, it seems to depend on how much success the new boy has had in wiping out the bad guys.
And that kiddies explains why Afghanistan and Iraq remain such horrible failures and why their innocent civilians will continue to suffer so.
http://www.brookings.edu/
The remarkable finding was that, democratic American or totalitarian Soviet, the result was pretty much the same - a significant loss in democratic freedom for the people after regime change. The numbers were close enough you could almost say they were a match between the US and the USSR.
The paper, entitled "Superpower Interventions and Their Consequences for Democracy," explained why the installation of a new leader to bring democracy to a people actually does just the opposite. To be overly simplistic, it's because the installing superpower doesn't pick the new leader to bring democracy but to put down a group or groups of unwanted types in that country. To fulfil his mandate, the new leader has to crack down and that often entails ignoring laws that interfere with doing just that.
To make it seem as though democracy is the real agenda, the superpower often ensures that safe elections are held. Good for public consumption at home. Sound familiar?
For the first five years, on average, there is a marked decline in political and human rights in the wake of regime change. After that, it seems to depend on how much success the new boy has had in wiping out the bad guys.
And that kiddies explains why Afghanistan and Iraq remain such horrible failures and why their innocent civilians will continue to suffer so.
http://www.brookings.edu/
Just In Case You Were Wondering - Kambakhsh Still Sits on Death Row
Outrageous blasphemer and, worse, journalism student, Pervez Kambakhsh still languishes in an Afghan prison cell and still has a date with the hangman.
Balk Province Attorney-General Qazi Hafizullah Khaliqyar told The Independent:
"Of course we didn't intend to violate any rights of journalists. The media law clearly prohibits insulting religious values and beliefs. [Journalists] can't violate the values of Islam and they have to keep that in mind," Khaliqyar says. Kambakhsh "has been referred to an Islamic court and would be dealt with according to Shari'a law."
As long as we've got the planes and the bombs over there anyway, how 'bout we send a few Khaliqyar's way where they could really do some good.
Balk Province Attorney-General Qazi Hafizullah Khaliqyar told The Independent:
"Of course we didn't intend to violate any rights of journalists. The media law clearly prohibits insulting religious values and beliefs. [Journalists] can't violate the values of Islam and they have to keep that in mind," Khaliqyar says. Kambakhsh "has been referred to an Islamic court and would be dealt with according to Shari'a law."
As long as we've got the planes and the bombs over there anyway, how 'bout we send a few Khaliqyar's way where they could really do some good.
Is This Progress? Afghan Reality
If you listen to Harper and Hillier and Scheffer, the US and NATO are making real progress in Afghanistan.
If you listen to Afghanis, you get a different story. To see how Afghan women see Afghanistan, stop by every now and then at www.rawa.org. Here are the top headlines for the past week:
- 70 Percent of Afghanistan still lawless
- Husband cuts toes off his wife, pours hot water on her (with photos)
- Afghanistan - women's lives worse than ever
- Bashira, gang-raped in Sar-e-Pul province, calls for justice
- Wanted for empty prison, some convicted Afghan drug barons
- The masscre in Shagay, Bakwa district of Fara Province
- Afghanistan sitting on a gold mine
- Gang-rape of young girls in northern Afghanistan.
A warning: this site has photographs of abused Afghan women that are, to say the least, disturbing.
Six years after we drove out the Taliban, this is what we've allowed the place to become? The people of Afghanistan will never be free or safe until we destroy the warlords' iron grip on that country.
We need to realize that we have delivered the people of Afghanistan into the hands of a gang of butchers that is almost indistinguishable from the bunch we drove out. If we're there to liberate the people of Afghanistan, let's do it - starting in Kabul.
If you listen to Afghanis, you get a different story. To see how Afghan women see Afghanistan, stop by every now and then at www.rawa.org. Here are the top headlines for the past week:
- 70 Percent of Afghanistan still lawless
- Husband cuts toes off his wife, pours hot water on her (with photos)
- Afghanistan - women's lives worse than ever
- Bashira, gang-raped in Sar-e-Pul province, calls for justice
- Wanted for empty prison, some convicted Afghan drug barons
- The masscre in Shagay, Bakwa district of Fara Province
- Afghanistan sitting on a gold mine
- Gang-rape of young girls in northern Afghanistan.
A warning: this site has photographs of abused Afghan women that are, to say the least, disturbing.
Six years after we drove out the Taliban, this is what we've allowed the place to become? The people of Afghanistan will never be free or safe until we destroy the warlords' iron grip on that country.
We need to realize that we have delivered the people of Afghanistan into the hands of a gang of butchers that is almost indistinguishable from the bunch we drove out. If we're there to liberate the people of Afghanistan, let's do it - starting in Kabul.
Boyd Coddington Dead at 63
Boyd Coddington, the maestro of custom car production, has died at 63 of complications from surgery. Coddington suffered from diabetes. His custom hot rods are the stuff of legend, genuine rolling works of art like the 1957 Chevrolet Belair above called CheZoom.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Tories' Lying Line on Cadman
The Vancouver Sun has published excerpts from Question Period today when the allegations of bribery of Chuck Cadman were raised by the opposition:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2a01a5bb-1b7a-4474-86b2-074ef191ef21
The government line is plainly "there were no offers." Nothing to see here, move along. Peters Politics has a post from May, 2005 that includes the following quote from the Guelph Mercury of May 4, 2005:
"The tense atmosphere was underscored when the Conservatives made a public overture Tuesday to Independent MP Chuck Cadman.
The onetime B.C. Conservative is being guaranteed a nomination in the next election if he rejoins his former party now, said Tory election co-chair John Reynolds.
Cadman has not yet responded to the offer. His vote could be decisive in toppling the Liberal-NDP alliance."
I guess John Reynolds, according to Harper's pathetic denials today, was also a bald faced liar. There was at least some sort of offer. The only question now is what was the full deal offered? Does anyone really believe this gang wouldn't up the ante to toss in a million-dollar insurance policy if that would make the difference to toppling the Martin government?
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2a01a5bb-1b7a-4474-86b2-074ef191ef21
The government line is plainly "there were no offers." Nothing to see here, move along. Peters Politics has a post from May, 2005 that includes the following quote from the Guelph Mercury of May 4, 2005:
"The tense atmosphere was underscored when the Conservatives made a public overture Tuesday to Independent MP Chuck Cadman.
The onetime B.C. Conservative is being guaranteed a nomination in the next election if he rejoins his former party now, said Tory election co-chair John Reynolds.
Cadman has not yet responded to the offer. His vote could be decisive in toppling the Liberal-NDP alliance."
I guess John Reynolds, according to Harper's pathetic denials today, was also a bald faced liar. There was at least some sort of offer. The only question now is what was the full deal offered? Does anyone really believe this gang wouldn't up the ante to toss in a million-dollar insurance policy if that would make the difference to toppling the Martin government?
So, let's get this straight. According to Reynolds himself, the Tories were already making offers to Cadman by May 4th. That was two weeks prior to the critical vote of May 19th during which Chuck Cadman showed all the integrity his former colleagues lacked. Two weeks. But we're supposed to believe there were no further offers? Yeah, right.
Then there's Reynold's bizarre account of offering Cadman a guaranteed nomination if he played ball. The guy was two months away from his death. An offer could not have been more pointless. C'mon Reynolds, get real, what did you really offer Chuck Cadman? Reynolds, as you may recall, was instrumental in getting Emerson to defect from the Libs before he was even able to take his seat in parliament. Neat trick. No offer there either. Of course not.
Why would Dona Cadman make this allegation if it was groundless? After all, she's supposedly intending to run as a Conservative candidate. It makes absolutely no sense that she would lie to bring this down on her head for absolutely no good end. There are plenty of people with plenty of reasons to lie about this but that doesn't include Dona Cadman. I believe her - absolutely. You should too.
US Will Cut Emissions - If
The United States has announced it's ready to accept binding emission targets - if China and India accept the same deal.
Sounds good, don't it? But there's a hitch. The United States isn't going to consider per capita emissions standards but only national standards. That means the US, which is barely a quarter of the population of China, reserves to itself the right to produce the same volume of emissions as China. On a per capita basis that would leave Americans able to be four times as dirty as Chinese.
Sounds good, don't it? But there's a hitch. The United States isn't going to consider per capita emissions standards but only national standards. That means the US, which is barely a quarter of the population of China, reserves to itself the right to produce the same volume of emissions as China. On a per capita basis that would leave Americans able to be four times as dirty as Chinese.
NATO's Doom Foretold Yet Again
Every time the United States doesn't get its way with NATO some American leaps to his feet and warns that NATO is just a breath away from breaking up.
The latest boy to cry "wolf" is Lt. Gen. Henry Obering. He warned that European failure to adopt Washington's missile defence system could spell the end of NATO. From The Guardian:
"...Obering, director of the US Missile Defence Agency, painted almost apocalyptic scenarios at a conference at the Royal United Services Institute in London today. He said that Iran could simultaneously block the Straits of Hormuz and provoke terrorist attacks in Europe, and that al-Qaida could acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran would be able to launch ballistic missiles which could hit most capitals of Europe in "the next two or three years", he said.
He described a hypothesis in which in 2015 Iran announces it has long-range missiles with a nuclear capability and Europe does not have a missile defence system. Iran blocks the Straits of Homuz and provokes terrorist attacks in Europe. There are riots in Europe and only Athens and Rome are protected from Iranian missile attack.
"We would start to see fractures in the alliance," he said. In another 2015 scenario, he said al-Qaida would capture ships and nuclear-armed missiles.
If a missile defence system was in place, he argued, "we can defeat the missiles and dissuade Iran", while European leaders would be able to "bide time" before they made crucial decisions."
The latest boy to cry "wolf" is Lt. Gen. Henry Obering. He warned that European failure to adopt Washington's missile defence system could spell the end of NATO. From The Guardian:
"...Obering, director of the US Missile Defence Agency, painted almost apocalyptic scenarios at a conference at the Royal United Services Institute in London today. He said that Iran could simultaneously block the Straits of Hormuz and provoke terrorist attacks in Europe, and that al-Qaida could acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran would be able to launch ballistic missiles which could hit most capitals of Europe in "the next two or three years", he said.
He described a hypothesis in which in 2015 Iran announces it has long-range missiles with a nuclear capability and Europe does not have a missile defence system. Iran blocks the Straits of Homuz and provokes terrorist attacks in Europe. There are riots in Europe and only Athens and Rome are protected from Iranian missile attack.
"We would start to see fractures in the alliance," he said. In another 2015 scenario, he said al-Qaida would capture ships and nuclear-armed missiles.
If a missile defence system was in place, he argued, "we can defeat the missiles and dissuade Iran", while European leaders would be able to "bide time" before they made crucial decisions."
Vic Toews Weighs in on Cadman - "It's Bullshit"
Treasury Board chairman Vic Toews has dismissed claims that MP Chuck Cadman was offered bribes to vote to bring down the Martin government as "bullshit."
Vic "Taser" Toews, the former Justice Minister who saw a fledgling serial killer lurking within every 12-year old young offender and whose fondest dream was to introduce the rack, the waterboard and the guillotine as instruments of criminal rehabilitation, dismissed the widow Cadman's claims as old nonsense.
So, Vic, you're saying that Chuck was a liar and his widow is too. Pretty nice, Vic. You're all class.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=53ee2a9c-266c-4cd7-b30f-231a9f03bd79&k=8779
Vic "Taser" Toews, the former Justice Minister who saw a fledgling serial killer lurking within every 12-year old young offender and whose fondest dream was to introduce the rack, the waterboard and the guillotine as instruments of criminal rehabilitation, dismissed the widow Cadman's claims as old nonsense.
So, Vic, you're saying that Chuck was a liar and his widow is too. Pretty nice, Vic. You're all class.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=53ee2a9c-266c-4cd7-b30f-231a9f03bd79&k=8779
Arms Race Update
I've decided on using this forum of "updates" because whether the subject state is China, India, Russia, the Koreas, Japan, Brazil or the United States, usually two or more of them are involved in any development. After a while it becomes almost impossible to address these stories on a neat, country by country basis. Ultimately this is one huge arms race that's going on in a bunch of different places simultaneously.
A couple of days ago it was the story of India's new, submarine-launched nuclear missile and the even bigger news of India's plans to design, build and deploy its very own nuclear missile subs.
Today it's the visit of US defense secretary Robert Gates to India to seek an elusive alliance aimed at isolating China. To do this the US is dangling the prospect of letting India buy modern US military hardware. The crown jewel in the deal is the long-awaited, Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The F-35 incorporates a lot of state-of-the art technology, next generation stuff, and it's hard to imagine the US going along with that degree of sensitive technology transfer to a country that continues to maintain its strong ties to Russia and is expanding its ties to China.
Western journalists depict India as technology-starved and in pressing need for our stuff to replace their old "Soviet era" hardware. What a crock! The era of the British Raj is over and we have to stop seeing these people as mahouts and rickshaw drivers.
It was only last October that India inked a deal with Russia to develop, "a fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft (FGFA), with a deadly mix of super-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities." (Times of India) China, meanwhile, is already deploying its own, new generation fighter.
China is graduating more than 10-engineers for every one coming out of American universities and they're good, very good. India is opening 27-new universities this year alone, heavily focused on technology and science.
The American gambit smacks of desperation. India knows it's being courted by Washington and it's acting accordingly. Among other things, it's insisting on wholesale technology transfers with new American weapons purchases - something that would have been unthinkable in the past. It's also holding out for its nuclear deal to clear the US Senate.
Trying to play wedge politics in Asia may well backfire on Washington. India and China are both pursuing their economic ascendancy and, in the long run, the best that America can offer will be overshadowed by what they stand to gain from each other. The worst part - for the West - is that they know it.
What is America achieving by this gambit? The biggest effect has to be stoking up anxiety in China, fueling the continuation of this arms race madness.
A couple of days ago it was the story of India's new, submarine-launched nuclear missile and the even bigger news of India's plans to design, build and deploy its very own nuclear missile subs.
Today it's the visit of US defense secretary Robert Gates to India to seek an elusive alliance aimed at isolating China. To do this the US is dangling the prospect of letting India buy modern US military hardware. The crown jewel in the deal is the long-awaited, Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The F-35 incorporates a lot of state-of-the art technology, next generation stuff, and it's hard to imagine the US going along with that degree of sensitive technology transfer to a country that continues to maintain its strong ties to Russia and is expanding its ties to China.
Western journalists depict India as technology-starved and in pressing need for our stuff to replace their old "Soviet era" hardware. What a crock! The era of the British Raj is over and we have to stop seeing these people as mahouts and rickshaw drivers.
It was only last October that India inked a deal with Russia to develop, "a fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft (FGFA), with a deadly mix of super-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities." (Times of India) China, meanwhile, is already deploying its own, new generation fighter.
China is graduating more than 10-engineers for every one coming out of American universities and they're good, very good. India is opening 27-new universities this year alone, heavily focused on technology and science.
The American gambit smacks of desperation. India knows it's being courted by Washington and it's acting accordingly. Among other things, it's insisting on wholesale technology transfers with new American weapons purchases - something that would have been unthinkable in the past. It's also holding out for its nuclear deal to clear the US Senate.
Trying to play wedge politics in Asia may well backfire on Washington. India and China are both pursuing their economic ascendancy and, in the long run, the best that America can offer will be overshadowed by what they stand to gain from each other. The worst part - for the West - is that they know it.
What is America achieving by this gambit? The biggest effect has to be stoking up anxiety in China, fueling the continuation of this arms race madness.
The Happy Face of Afghanistan
According to US Director of National Intelligence, Hamid Karzai controls about 30% of Afghanistan, the Taliban another 10% and the rest is under the control of warlords. These questionable number were what Mitch McConnell produced when he appeared before the Senate armed services committee yesterday.
McConnell, of course, happily carries water for the Bush White House. That's why those numbers, grim as they may sound, are unquestionably inflated. What does McConnell mean by "controlling" territory? A lot of southern Afghanistan isn't "controlled" at all but is in a disputed state of insurgency. He obviously lumps that in to Karzai's 30%. As for the Taliban then controlling, undisputed, 10% of the country, that's a far cry from the estimates of knowledgeable independents such as Sarah Chayes.
He obviously maintains that Karzai "controls" the cities, Kandahar and Kabul for example. That's becoming increasingly unclear. As Chayes notes, the drug barons openly build mansions in Kabul. And then there's the warlords.
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about a showdown in Kabul between the Afghan police and infamous warlord/thug Dostum. A disaffected Dostum aide had split from his master. Dostum and about 50-60 militiamen stormed the aide's house, killed two of his bodyguards and kidnapped the guy. The Afghan police managed to rescue the badly injured aide and then surrounded Dostum's compound, a hundred of them. Dostum went to the rooftop and hurled taunts and insults at them, daring them to attack. The police simply went away. Now is that how Karzai "controls" his capital?
When Dostum is behind bars for murder and kidnapping, when Karzai arrests the drug barons who sport their wealth freely in Kabul, then you can tell me that Karzai controls the city. Reigning as mayor at the suffrance of warlords and criminals isn't controlling anything.
McConnell, of course, happily carries water for the Bush White House. That's why those numbers, grim as they may sound, are unquestionably inflated. What does McConnell mean by "controlling" territory? A lot of southern Afghanistan isn't "controlled" at all but is in a disputed state of insurgency. He obviously lumps that in to Karzai's 30%. As for the Taliban then controlling, undisputed, 10% of the country, that's a far cry from the estimates of knowledgeable independents such as Sarah Chayes.
He obviously maintains that Karzai "controls" the cities, Kandahar and Kabul for example. That's becoming increasingly unclear. As Chayes notes, the drug barons openly build mansions in Kabul. And then there's the warlords.
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about a showdown in Kabul between the Afghan police and infamous warlord/thug Dostum. A disaffected Dostum aide had split from his master. Dostum and about 50-60 militiamen stormed the aide's house, killed two of his bodyguards and kidnapped the guy. The Afghan police managed to rescue the badly injured aide and then surrounded Dostum's compound, a hundred of them. Dostum went to the rooftop and hurled taunts and insults at them, daring them to attack. The police simply went away. Now is that how Karzai "controls" his capital?
When Dostum is behind bars for murder and kidnapping, when Karzai arrests the drug barons who sport their wealth freely in Kabul, then you can tell me that Karzai controls the city. Reigning as mayor at the suffrance of warlords and criminals isn't controlling anything.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Cadman Scandal - Men of Mystery
It was an appallingly craven act - trying to bribe a legislator dying of cancer with a million-dollar life insurance policy to coerce his vote to bring down a government. Chuck Cadman, showing enormous courage and integrity, somehow refused.
Who were the Tory representatives who worked this vile coercion on a dying man, once one of their own? Let's assume they were prominent Alliance Conservatives from Cadman's home province of British Columbia. If that's right, the next question would be which BC Conservatives were established and powerful enough that they could float a million dollar life insurance policy for a terminal cancer victim?
I'm pretty sure I know who it must have been. There weren't many within that pack of rabble with the clout, immorality and deviousness to arrange something like that. But there was at least one, a genuinely greasy fixer, and he stands out like a sore thumb.
Who were the Tory representatives who worked this vile coercion on a dying man, once one of their own? Let's assume they were prominent Alliance Conservatives from Cadman's home province of British Columbia. If that's right, the next question would be which BC Conservatives were established and powerful enough that they could float a million dollar life insurance policy for a terminal cancer victim?
I'm pretty sure I know who it must have been. There weren't many within that pack of rabble with the clout, immorality and deviousness to arrange something like that. But there was at least one, a genuinely greasy fixer, and he stands out like a sore thumb.
Oh, Hillary!
Peter Brookes, The Times of LondonIt could all be over next Tuesday. Slate.com reports that a number of surveys show Obama tied or slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton in Texas a state she needs to win decisively to remain in contention for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Some polls show Clinton still leading in Ohio but just barely.
Robot Wars
A British expert on robotic weaponry warns that they could soon become an affordable weapon of choice for terrorists and insurgents. From Reuters:
Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield said he believed falling costs would soon make robots a realistic option for extremist groups.
Several countries and companies are developing the technology for robot weapons, with the U.S. Department of Defense leading the way. More than 4,000 robots are deployed in Iraq.
"The trouble is that we can't really put the genie back in the bottle. Once the new weapons are out there, they will be fairly easy to copy," Sharkey will tell a one-day conference organised by the Royal United Services Institute on Wednesday.
"How long is it going to be before the terrorists get in on the act? With the current prices of robot construction falling dramatically and the availability of ready-made components for the amateur market, it wouldn't require a lot of skill to make autonomous robot weapons."
Sharkey says a GPS guided drone could be produced for about $500.
Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield said he believed falling costs would soon make robots a realistic option for extremist groups.
Several countries and companies are developing the technology for robot weapons, with the U.S. Department of Defense leading the way. More than 4,000 robots are deployed in Iraq.
"The trouble is that we can't really put the genie back in the bottle. Once the new weapons are out there, they will be fairly easy to copy," Sharkey will tell a one-day conference organised by the Royal United Services Institute on Wednesday.
"How long is it going to be before the terrorists get in on the act? With the current prices of robot construction falling dramatically and the availability of ready-made components for the amateur market, it wouldn't require a lot of skill to make autonomous robot weapons."
Sharkey says a GPS guided drone could be produced for about $500.
Gone to Neo-Con Heaven, William F. Buckley Jr.
William F. Buckley Jr., conservative icon and founder of the uber-right National Review is dead at 82.
Arms Race Update
India this time. The country has successfully test-fired its first, submarine launched, nuclear capable missile, the Brahmos.
Naturally it's got Pakistan all in a tizzy with Pakistan's top sailor claiming this will spark a new arms race between the countries.
The big news that seems to have escaped much attention is that India is planning on building its own submarines to carry the missiles. An Indian capability to deploy submarine launched, nuclear missiles goes far beyond issues of Pakistan, all of which is already vulnerable to Indian land based nukes. It would, in fact, extend India's nuclear reach throughout the intended range of India's navy - from the Middle East to the Sea of Japan.
Naturally it's got Pakistan all in a tizzy with Pakistan's top sailor claiming this will spark a new arms race between the countries.
The big news that seems to have escaped much attention is that India is planning on building its own submarines to carry the missiles. An Indian capability to deploy submarine launched, nuclear missiles goes far beyond issues of Pakistan, all of which is already vulnerable to Indian land based nukes. It would, in fact, extend India's nuclear reach throughout the intended range of India's navy - from the Middle East to the Sea of Japan.
Do the Poor Even Matter Any More?
The reports are beginning to roll in daily - food shortages here, food insecurity there, mass starvation risk somewhere else. A lot of the world is in a lot of trouble but, as my drinking friends would say, "who's counting?"
I think this is another example of what Jared Diamond calls "landscape amnesia." That's the phenomenon where we accept today's circumstances as normal by forgetting what normal really meant in the past. Once you forget, it saps your impetus to remedy the adverse change. There's a lowering of expectations without any recognition that this is a regressive thing that can just keep on taking us further down. We learn to settle and, in that process, we steadily settle in.
So, what about these food shortages then? We in the industrialized world have certainly played a role in the misery that's besetting these troubled nations. We've done it through AGW climate change. We've done it by diverting grain into alternative fuels, driving up world food prices. We've done it by really destructive farm subsidy systems.
What are we going to do for these people? Very little, borderline nothing.
Looked through a window of just a few years, today's extreme weather events can appear normal. Floods and droughts from England to Africa to Asia to the southern USA have become norms but those most seriously impacted by them know there's nothing normal in their suffering.
Flood and drought cycles impact freshwater systems. Too much precipitation when it's not needed, causing loss, disease and suffering. Too little when it is needed, causing crop failure and other problems. That, in turn, increases reliance on groundwater resources which is a dangerous dependency, a short-term answer at best.
Now the International Monetary Fund is mulling over short-term emergency aid to countries hardest hit by fuel and food price increases. In a world where wheat prices have jumped 83% in the past year, short-term aid of any sort is a sop, a bandaid solution. More indebtedness for Africa. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
As we drift back into the arms of Morpheus and lose sight of these people, those who survive our indifference aren't losing sight of us. What is more easy to manipulate than a person caught in life-threatening poverty? We're talking here about the "nothing to lose" crowd. It's a rapidly growing club.
So what? Ask our soldiers in Afghanistan. They know the powerful role poverty plays in Taliban recruiting. The United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs has a report today on the problem:
Abdul Malik, aged 17, joined Taliban insurgents in the south after two Taliban supporters gave him a mobile phone. A short while later his dead body was brought to his family.
"He was killed in a military operation near Musa Qala District [Helmand Province]," Malik's older brother told IRIN in Lashkargah, the provincial capital of Helmand Province.
"In our district many young guys join Taliban ranks for pocket money, a mobile phone or other financial incentives," said Safiullah, a resident of Sangeen District in Helmand.
The report cites a new Senlis Council study:
"Where the government is failing to provide basic services, often the Taliban are filling the gap with more radical alternatives. This means that sought-after trust from the Afghan people is going to the radical militants rather than the elected government," said the report Afghanistan – Decision Point 2008.
"Research undertaken by The Senlis Council since 2005 shows conclusively that aid destined for the south is not reaching the people," the report said."
These problems aren't going away and they can't be bombed away, that only makes them worse. Our policies aren't working - for anyone, anywhere - and we can't begin to develop practical alternatives until we stop our self-serving amnesia and learn again to distinguish normal from abnormal. Let's do that, if only for ourselves.
I think this is another example of what Jared Diamond calls "landscape amnesia." That's the phenomenon where we accept today's circumstances as normal by forgetting what normal really meant in the past. Once you forget, it saps your impetus to remedy the adverse change. There's a lowering of expectations without any recognition that this is a regressive thing that can just keep on taking us further down. We learn to settle and, in that process, we steadily settle in.
So, what about these food shortages then? We in the industrialized world have certainly played a role in the misery that's besetting these troubled nations. We've done it through AGW climate change. We've done it by diverting grain into alternative fuels, driving up world food prices. We've done it by really destructive farm subsidy systems.
What are we going to do for these people? Very little, borderline nothing.
Looked through a window of just a few years, today's extreme weather events can appear normal. Floods and droughts from England to Africa to Asia to the southern USA have become norms but those most seriously impacted by them know there's nothing normal in their suffering.
Flood and drought cycles impact freshwater systems. Too much precipitation when it's not needed, causing loss, disease and suffering. Too little when it is needed, causing crop failure and other problems. That, in turn, increases reliance on groundwater resources which is a dangerous dependency, a short-term answer at best.
Now the International Monetary Fund is mulling over short-term emergency aid to countries hardest hit by fuel and food price increases. In a world where wheat prices have jumped 83% in the past year, short-term aid of any sort is a sop, a bandaid solution. More indebtedness for Africa. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
As we drift back into the arms of Morpheus and lose sight of these people, those who survive our indifference aren't losing sight of us. What is more easy to manipulate than a person caught in life-threatening poverty? We're talking here about the "nothing to lose" crowd. It's a rapidly growing club.
So what? Ask our soldiers in Afghanistan. They know the powerful role poverty plays in Taliban recruiting. The United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs has a report today on the problem:
Abdul Malik, aged 17, joined Taliban insurgents in the south after two Taliban supporters gave him a mobile phone. A short while later his dead body was brought to his family.
"He was killed in a military operation near Musa Qala District [Helmand Province]," Malik's older brother told IRIN in Lashkargah, the provincial capital of Helmand Province.
"In our district many young guys join Taliban ranks for pocket money, a mobile phone or other financial incentives," said Safiullah, a resident of Sangeen District in Helmand.
The report cites a new Senlis Council study:
"Where the government is failing to provide basic services, often the Taliban are filling the gap with more radical alternatives. This means that sought-after trust from the Afghan people is going to the radical militants rather than the elected government," said the report Afghanistan – Decision Point 2008.
"Research undertaken by The Senlis Council since 2005 shows conclusively that aid destined for the south is not reaching the people," the report said."
These problems aren't going away and they can't be bombed away, that only makes them worse. Our policies aren't working - for anyone, anywhere - and we can't begin to develop practical alternatives until we stop our self-serving amnesia and learn again to distinguish normal from abnormal. Let's do that, if only for ourselves.
Euros (Wisely) Question Afghanistan Strategy
We might just get the Afghanistan debate we so badly need after all, it just won't be in Canada and we'll have to wait until April. It'll be at the NATO summit in Bucharest that several key European members will give their take on "the mission" and on the Canadian government's demand for another 1,000 combat troops for Kandahar.
Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star's European bureau writes that the Europeans, at least, are asking hard questions about the fundamentals of the mission:
"No matter whether you ask in French, German, Spanish or Italian, the pat response is to turn aside the question [of coming to Canada's aid in Kandahar] itself. And to ask a series of more difficult questions instead. Such was the case yesterday, when a senior French government source told the Star:
Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star's European bureau writes that the Europeans, at least, are asking hard questions about the fundamentals of the mission:
"No matter whether you ask in French, German, Spanish or Italian, the pat response is to turn aside the question [of coming to Canada's aid in Kandahar] itself. And to ask a series of more difficult questions instead. Such was the case yesterday, when a senior French government source told the Star:
"The question is not `how far,' but simply `how?' – how are we going to rebuild and pacify Afghanistan? How are we going to cope with the present strategy? How are we going to win? And what do we mean by `win'?"
Though they are presented with the freedom of anonymity, the doubtful misgivings of European officials polled by the Star in recent days point to a hidden debate on whether the time has come for NATO to reconcile the international community's ambitious goals in Afghanistan with the drifting, uncertain reality of the mission on the ground.
French military analysts say the prospect of a stronger French commitment to Afghanistan has little appeal within the corridors of power in Paris, where the landlocked central Asian country has never before appeared on the radar of traditional French interest.
"Most people in decision-making circles don't see Afghanistan as an problem unto itself," said Etienne de Durand, a defence specialist with the French Institute for International Affairs.
"They see it as a place you need to go to for the sake of trans-Atlantic solidarity, even if we don't really belong there. I don't agree with that. We should be there and we should have been there earlier. But saying so doesn't make it so.
"And if President Sarkozy decides this is what he is going to do, a very pessimistic French public will want explanations. Especially if we start taking casualties in big numbers."
"Let us say France comes through with a bit more or a bit less than the 1,000 soldiers Canada wants in Kandahar," he said. "It puts us at a huge risk, but it won't necessarily help you guys out in a big way.
"That's because we don't actually have a strategy. We talk about democracy, but a lot of us now believe it is not even possible to create democracy in Afghanistan. Instead, the best we might hope for is a reasonably functioning government with an army that can keep the peace, at least by Afghan standards," de Durand said."
At least we can hope that we have, in Bucharest, the honest, meaningful debate we're not getting from our own MPs in Ottawa.
You Folks in Toronto Are Weird
Even your bank robbers are weird.
Yesterday, a 16-year old punk on bail, tried to rob a CIBC branch in North York. While the robbery was underway, a police officer slipped into the bank and insinuated himself among the massed employees.
When the robber exited the bank with a hostage and headed toward his getaway car, the officer followed behind and jumped the kid.
What I want to know is how did the robber not notice the cop in the midst of the bank employees? According to the Toronto Sun, the plainclothes officer was, "sporting a Mohawk haircut and tattoos on his arms."
Yesterday, a 16-year old punk on bail, tried to rob a CIBC branch in North York. While the robbery was underway, a police officer slipped into the bank and insinuated himself among the massed employees.
When the robber exited the bank with a hostage and headed toward his getaway car, the officer followed behind and jumped the kid.
What I want to know is how did the robber not notice the cop in the midst of the bank employees? According to the Toronto Sun, the plainclothes officer was, "sporting a Mohawk haircut and tattoos on his arms."
Slamming the Cell Door on Robert Pickton
BC Attorney General Wally Oppal says the Crown won't proceed on the remaining twenty murder charges against Robert Pickton if Pickton's appeals of his six, second-degree murder convictions are dismissed.
Oppal has called this one exactly right. The families of the other victims might want to hear Pickton pronounced guilty of their loved ones' killings but that's not reason enough to undertake the herculean effort and expense that further trials would entail. Don't forget, the province also has to fund Pickton's legal aid defence team.
The evidence on the 26-counts varied in quantity and quality. The six counts on which Pickton was convicted weren't picked at random. They were chosen by the Crown as its strongest cases against Pickton. Convictions on the remaining cases, especially convictions for murder, aren't as certain.
For all the grumbling of the law and order types, the system does recognize that "life means life" for the worst offenders. That's why you won't be getting an employment resume from Clifford Olsen anytime soon or, for that matter, ever. Likewise there's not the slightest chance Robert Pickton will ever see another day as a free man.
It's time to slam the cell door on Robert Pickton. Wally Oppal made the right call.
Oppal has called this one exactly right. The families of the other victims might want to hear Pickton pronounced guilty of their loved ones' killings but that's not reason enough to undertake the herculean effort and expense that further trials would entail. Don't forget, the province also has to fund Pickton's legal aid defence team.
The evidence on the 26-counts varied in quantity and quality. The six counts on which Pickton was convicted weren't picked at random. They were chosen by the Crown as its strongest cases against Pickton. Convictions on the remaining cases, especially convictions for murder, aren't as certain.
For all the grumbling of the law and order types, the system does recognize that "life means life" for the worst offenders. That's why you won't be getting an employment resume from Clifford Olsen anytime soon or, for that matter, ever. Likewise there's not the slightest chance Robert Pickton will ever see another day as a free man.
It's time to slam the cell door on Robert Pickton. Wally Oppal made the right call.
The Ethics Committee's Ethical Quandry
Brian Mulroney has sent his stooges to Ottawa to tell the Commons ethics committee that he'd rather not face any more questions into his shady dealings with Karheinz Schreiber. That's entirely understandable from his perspective. He's spun so many tales that he's cornered and, for BMPM, it can only get worse.
The committee could subpoena Mulroney to attend and even have him brought before them forcibly if he resists. Now wouldn't that be a sight. But it seems the committee doesn't have the appetite for subpoenaing a former prime minister, even one of Mulroney's shabby stature.
I think the committee should just put the Mulroney issue on hold - for now. There are several other witnesses who should be called to testify including one Robert Hladun, Schreiber's former lawyer. It was Hladun who basically confirmed author William Kaplan's hunch that it was Schreiber who leaked the RCMP letter that led to the National Spot article that served as the launching pad for Mulroney's lawsuit against the federal government. I'd like to hear that from his own mouth.
Then there's the phone calls - two of them - Hladun supposedly received; one from Mulroney's lawyer, the other from the lawyer and Mulroney himself. Schreiber's narrative has these calls being placed to Hladun to get a letter or an affidavit from Schreiber claiming that no monies had ever changed hands between Schreiber and Mulroney. This was back when CBC's Fifth Estate revealed it had copies of Schreiber's Swiss bank records and - here's the kicker - before Mulroney's "voluntary disclosure" to Revenue Canada.
If Hladun corroborates Schreiber's account of these calls, it's over for Mulroney, he's suborned perjury, and that goes directly to his credibility when he gave a grossly misleading answer about his dealings with Schreiber in his sworn evidence in the lawsuit itself. Cheque please, Mr. Mulroney - and don't forget the interest.
The committee may not have the spine for a showdown with Brian Mulroney but there's no excuse for not getting Hladun's sworn evidence on these points.
The committee could subpoena Mulroney to attend and even have him brought before them forcibly if he resists. Now wouldn't that be a sight. But it seems the committee doesn't have the appetite for subpoenaing a former prime minister, even one of Mulroney's shabby stature.
I think the committee should just put the Mulroney issue on hold - for now. There are several other witnesses who should be called to testify including one Robert Hladun, Schreiber's former lawyer. It was Hladun who basically confirmed author William Kaplan's hunch that it was Schreiber who leaked the RCMP letter that led to the National Spot article that served as the launching pad for Mulroney's lawsuit against the federal government. I'd like to hear that from his own mouth.
Then there's the phone calls - two of them - Hladun supposedly received; one from Mulroney's lawyer, the other from the lawyer and Mulroney himself. Schreiber's narrative has these calls being placed to Hladun to get a letter or an affidavit from Schreiber claiming that no monies had ever changed hands between Schreiber and Mulroney. This was back when CBC's Fifth Estate revealed it had copies of Schreiber's Swiss bank records and - here's the kicker - before Mulroney's "voluntary disclosure" to Revenue Canada.
If Hladun corroborates Schreiber's account of these calls, it's over for Mulroney, he's suborned perjury, and that goes directly to his credibility when he gave a grossly misleading answer about his dealings with Schreiber in his sworn evidence in the lawsuit itself. Cheque please, Mr. Mulroney - and don't forget the interest.
The committee may not have the spine for a showdown with Brian Mulroney but there's no excuse for not getting Hladun's sworn evidence on these points.
Renegotiating NAFTA
Both Democratic candidates have pledged to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, if they reach the White House. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at last night's candidates' debate pledged to renegotiate America's deal with Mexico - and with Canada - to get, as they put it, "fair trade."
What's "fair trade" anyway? Well, according to Obama it means making America's trading partners toe some sort of line on labour and environmental standards. Wait a second, labour standards? What are we supposed to do, scrap our labour standards to scurry into the American abyss? Environmental standards? Well, he's got a point there, we both need to do better on that score.
It's the adjective "fair" that worries me. Americans tend to judge fair by the tilt of the table and they usually like to see it tilting their way. Take a look at the softwood lumber shakedown we've endured these past several years.
I wonder what "fair" means in the context of America's debt crisis? That little problem, an entirely made-in-America brew of wanton spending and profligate borrowing, is coming home to roost and the landing may be hard and bumpy. It's bad enough that world markets, including Canadian, have found themselves duped into holding ginned-up American subprime derivatives. Are we also to become America's free trade whipping boy?
Navigating the coming years with the United States will require a strong Canadian prime minister and not the kind who instinctively drops his pants and bends over the barrel when Washington snaps its fingers - the kind we have now.
What's "fair trade" anyway? Well, according to Obama it means making America's trading partners toe some sort of line on labour and environmental standards. Wait a second, labour standards? What are we supposed to do, scrap our labour standards to scurry into the American abyss? Environmental standards? Well, he's got a point there, we both need to do better on that score.
It's the adjective "fair" that worries me. Americans tend to judge fair by the tilt of the table and they usually like to see it tilting their way. Take a look at the softwood lumber shakedown we've endured these past several years.
I wonder what "fair" means in the context of America's debt crisis? That little problem, an entirely made-in-America brew of wanton spending and profligate borrowing, is coming home to roost and the landing may be hard and bumpy. It's bad enough that world markets, including Canadian, have found themselves duped into holding ginned-up American subprime derivatives. Are we also to become America's free trade whipping boy?
Navigating the coming years with the United States will require a strong Canadian prime minister and not the kind who instinctively drops his pants and bends over the barrel when Washington snaps its fingers - the kind we have now.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Dion Dodges Another Election Opportunity
If he thought he could win, Canadians would be heading to the polls. However Stephane Dion, our Liberal leader, has announced he'll prop up the minority Harper government on the budget and on Afghanistan.
We are assured, however, that the Dion Liberals are totally prepared to fight an election should an issue come along that warrants one, whatever that may be.
We are assured, however, that the Dion Liberals are totally prepared to fight an election should an issue come along that warrants one, whatever that may be.
Why Choose One Thug Over Another?
Memo to Harper, memo to Dion, memo to Hillier - we're stuck in a civil war between two decidedly and thoroughly nasty groups - one called the Taliban, the other we like to call the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan, aka "the warlords." At the moment, and for as long as we do their fighting for them, the warlords are content to let us play soldier in their land. But we may find that there's a price for backing one bunch of thugs simply because they were opposed to another.
Scott Taylor, in an op-ed piece entitled, "Afghans long on memory and short on forgiveness," illustrates NATO's wilful blindness:
Scott Taylor, in an op-ed piece entitled, "Afghans long on memory and short on forgiveness," illustrates NATO's wilful blindness:
The Myth of Lorne Grunter
It's the most read and most e-mailed story in the National Spot, Lorne Grunter's powerful article exposing the myth of global warming. Grunter is no climatologist, he's not much of a journalist for that matter, but someone operating at his low standards can find proof in this cold winter that global warming just isn't happening.
It's a fairly lengthy item but not long enough to include any mention much less an explanation of why we're getting this cold weather. Grunter refers to conditions in the Arctic and theories about the Atlantic ocean but not one mention (naturally) of what's going on in the central Pacific.
It's called La Nina, the ugly step-sister of the other weather making phenomenon, El Nino. Now Grunter, from his encrusted perch high in the paper's birdcage, could have easily found out about this La Nina. It was identified many months ago and resulted in a cold-winter forecast. That's what happens during a La Nina. Of course Grunter could have found this out but he chose not to because that would have slowed down his greasy spin. And that, kids, is why Grunter's paper, the National Spot, lies neatly folded to cover the bottom of his cage.
It's a fairly lengthy item but not long enough to include any mention much less an explanation of why we're getting this cold weather. Grunter refers to conditions in the Arctic and theories about the Atlantic ocean but not one mention (naturally) of what's going on in the central Pacific.
It's called La Nina, the ugly step-sister of the other weather making phenomenon, El Nino. Now Grunter, from his encrusted perch high in the paper's birdcage, could have easily found out about this La Nina. It was identified many months ago and resulted in a cold-winter forecast. That's what happens during a La Nina. Of course Grunter could have found this out but he chose not to because that would have slowed down his greasy spin. And that, kids, is why Grunter's paper, the National Spot, lies neatly folded to cover the bottom of his cage.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Real Canadian Smut
I found this hilarious piece at Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/id/2185001/nav/ais/ It's an article on the Canadian Border Service Agency's latest list of porn titles that may or may not be brought into Canada. The entire, 24-page list is available here: http://www.gomorrahy.com/cbsa-piu-q4-07.pdf
What's remarkable about this is to scan down the titles and, especially, those that are deemed allowable. I mean, "Welcome to the Sickest Video on Earth" makes it in, say what? And who decided to let in "Entrails of a Virgin?"
Shocking, positively shocking!
What's remarkable about this is to scan down the titles and, especially, those that are deemed allowable. I mean, "Welcome to the Sickest Video on Earth" makes it in, say what? And who decided to let in "Entrails of a Virgin?"
Shocking, positively shocking!
Piling On Poor Hillary
What's with the New York Times in this election cycle? First the paper endorses John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy then it "breaks" a pretty lame story about a possible affair involving McCain and a lobbyist eight years ago.
Now it's published an Obama story that smacks of boosterism.
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton but surely fairness ought to have kept today's story on hold until after the Texas and Ohio primaries.
It's a story that ties Barack Obama to Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King - convenient and timely. The story essentially askes whether Obama is risking a bullet in his run for the presidency.
It's not that Barack Obama isn't at real risk of an assassination attempt. I have no doubt that he is and, should he become president, will remain in jeopardy. There are still plenty of racists and ultra right-wingers who would love to see him gone.
What bothers me is that, with everyone furiously piling on Hillary at the moment when she's facing a mortal threat to her campaign, are stories like this one really necessary right now?
By the way, if you don't recognize the picture, there's a grassy knoll in the upper left quarter. Obama's motorcade passed through there last week en route to a rally in Dallas. He said he didn't even notice where he was at the time, worrying instead about a head cold and a runny nose.
Libs & Tories Back Afghanistan Extension
"Our troops should never be used as props in our domestic political landscape"
- Liberal leader, Stephane Dion
Right you are, Stephane. We should only use them as props for the international political landscape and, of course, for dodging unwanted elections.
With that pronouncement, Stephane Dion acknowledged that his opposition and Stephen Harper's government are snugly in the same olive-drab sleeping bag on the Afghanistan mission extension. Needless to say, the remainder of the "debate" on Afghanistan will be a real yawner with the truly relevant questions neither asked nor answered.
Looking Into the Eyes of the Dead
British scientists have discovered a way to accurately judge the age of human corpses by looking into their eyes.
It seems that carbon isotopes were released into the atmosphere by nuclear weapons tests half a century ago. That isotope, C-14, level has been declining ever since. If you were born after 1950, you absorbed a certain amount of that isotope in the first two years of life. So, by measuring the amount of isotope in the lens of an eye, it's possible to determine the year of birth.
The technology is expected to be useful in aiding in the identification of bodies after tsunamis and other disasters.
It seems that carbon isotopes were released into the atmosphere by nuclear weapons tests half a century ago. That isotope, C-14, level has been declining ever since. If you were born after 1950, you absorbed a certain amount of that isotope in the first two years of life. So, by measuring the amount of isotope in the lens of an eye, it's possible to determine the year of birth.
The technology is expected to be useful in aiding in the identification of bodies after tsunamis and other disasters.
Alabama's Iron Curtain
If you watched 60 Minutes last night you saw an expose on the political set up and take down of Alabama Democrat and ex-governor Don Siegelman. It was a story of an atrocious abuse of power by Republicans - federal attorneys, state and federal operatives and politicians and even Karl Rove - to railroad a political threat who may not have even committed a crime yet now sits behind bars.
TPM Muckraker is reporting today that the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast was actually blacked out last night in northern Alabama by the Republican-owned CBS affiliate. When an uproar ensued, the station said it had suffered a technical glitch and rebroadcast the show at 10 p.m.
Dead From the Neck Up
Tory, Liberal or NDP - take your pick. All three have something in common, leaders who don't really connect with the Canadian public.
Layton was to have used the Harper ascendancy to move the New Democrats into something approaching second place. That's why he's attacked both the Harper government and the Libs at every turn. Unfortunately when you break out to move up through the pack there's a price you pay for it. You lose your opportunity to influence policy, to make a difference, because you're seen for what you are, just an opponent.
Finally, when an election does arrive, there's the risk you'll be seen as having run out of steam. Your positions are old and, frankly, boring. It's that "oh, not again" syndrome. The effect on the New Democrats is already being seen in the polls where, recently, public support has been found as low as 12 and 13%.
I won't go on about Dion, if only because I'd like to take a break from that for a day.
SHarper, however, is proving to be the best thing the Tories have done for the Libs or the NDP. Canadians don't trust him, at least not enough to give him a majority government. He's the one at the cocktail party you keep an eye on to make sure he's not pocketing the good silver. He's ultra-secretive and a known control freak. Best of all, there's nothing remotely charming about the guy. He's a stiff. A mere circulatory system away from being a corpse.
We may be headed for an election but it'll be one where all three parties seem dead from the neck up.
Layton was to have used the Harper ascendancy to move the New Democrats into something approaching second place. That's why he's attacked both the Harper government and the Libs at every turn. Unfortunately when you break out to move up through the pack there's a price you pay for it. You lose your opportunity to influence policy, to make a difference, because you're seen for what you are, just an opponent.
Finally, when an election does arrive, there's the risk you'll be seen as having run out of steam. Your positions are old and, frankly, boring. It's that "oh, not again" syndrome. The effect on the New Democrats is already being seen in the polls where, recently, public support has been found as low as 12 and 13%.
I won't go on about Dion, if only because I'd like to take a break from that for a day.
SHarper, however, is proving to be the best thing the Tories have done for the Libs or the NDP. Canadians don't trust him, at least not enough to give him a majority government. He's the one at the cocktail party you keep an eye on to make sure he's not pocketing the good silver. He's ultra-secretive and a known control freak. Best of all, there's nothing remotely charming about the guy. He's a stiff. A mere circulatory system away from being a corpse.
We may be headed for an election but it'll be one where all three parties seem dead from the neck up.
Is Hillary Now Reduced to Sarcasm?
Oh how the mighty have fallen. Like the Bismark at the end, circling haplessly, its rudder jammed, and firing its cannon desperately in all directions, Hillary Clinton seems reduced to mocking her rival, Barack Obama, with a desperate barrage of sarcasm while she circles, waiting for the end.
I'm not counting Hillary out but that's not the impression she herself is giving. The public has already shown they have no appetite for this approach and it does have a sad emptiness to it, as though Ms. Clinton has run out of anything else with which to lure support to her faltering campaign.
Mockery exudes desperation and fear, not the hallmark qualities of a come-from-behind presidential aspirant. Besides, it's far too easy for Obama to swat away like nothing more than a pesky fly. He gets to focus on his message, she's forced to focus on him. That's a losing hand at any table.
I'm not counting Hillary out but that's not the impression she herself is giving. The public has already shown they have no appetite for this approach and it does have a sad emptiness to it, as though Ms. Clinton has run out of anything else with which to lure support to her faltering campaign.
Mockery exudes desperation and fear, not the hallmark qualities of a come-from-behind presidential aspirant. Besides, it's far too easy for Obama to swat away like nothing more than a pesky fly. He gets to focus on his message, she's forced to focus on him. That's a losing hand at any table.
Mama Get the Chequebook, Daddy Bought a War
What's the tab going to be for George w. Bush's eternal "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, writing in The Times of London, figure it'll come to at least $3-trillion. That's three thousand billion dollars or, if you like, three thousand thousand million dollars. Figure that out at roughly $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America, $32,000 for a family of four, and it's all borrowed money so there'll be plenty to be paid in interest before that's ever squared away.
So, you're probably asking yourself, who are Joe Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes? He was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001. She is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
The right-wing nutjobs (like our own SHarper) constantly rave about "socialist plots to transfer wealth." Here's a transfer of wealth on a previously unimagineable scale - except its from the taxpaying working and middle classes to the already enormously wealthy, taxation exempt, investment classes, America's rentiers, the guys who own big hunks of Halliburton or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin.
Remember when Rumsfeld boasted that the Iraq war would cost the US $50-billion, $60-billion tops? Remember when Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser and head of the National Economic Council, suggested that they might reach $200 billion and got ridiculed and sacked for it?
At the moment, the operating costs for the US war in Iraq is running at $12.5-billion per month and the bill for Afghanistan is actually higher - $16-billion per month. But it still seems a long reach from $29-billion a month to $3-trillion. That, according to Stiglitz and Blimes, is in what's not included in the operating expenses.
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, writing in The Times of London, figure it'll come to at least $3-trillion. That's three thousand billion dollars or, if you like, three thousand thousand million dollars. Figure that out at roughly $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America, $32,000 for a family of four, and it's all borrowed money so there'll be plenty to be paid in interest before that's ever squared away.
So, you're probably asking yourself, who are Joe Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes? He was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001. She is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
The right-wing nutjobs (like our own SHarper) constantly rave about "socialist plots to transfer wealth." Here's a transfer of wealth on a previously unimagineable scale - except its from the taxpaying working and middle classes to the already enormously wealthy, taxation exempt, investment classes, America's rentiers, the guys who own big hunks of Halliburton or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin.
Remember when Rumsfeld boasted that the Iraq war would cost the US $50-billion, $60-billion tops? Remember when Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser and head of the National Economic Council, suggested that they might reach $200 billion and got ridiculed and sacked for it?
At the moment, the operating costs for the US war in Iraq is running at $12.5-billion per month and the bill for Afghanistan is actually higher - $16-billion per month. But it still seems a long reach from $29-billion a month to $3-trillion. That, according to Stiglitz and Blimes, is in what's not included in the operating expenses.
To put this in perspective, $3-trillion is way more than the US bill for Korea or even its war in Vietnam. It's more than US costs for WWI. Only WWII, which cost a grand total of $5-trillion USD was more expensive.
"From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending -- and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."
By the time the America people are finally asked to begin paying off this colossal debt, the profits will be long gone, fltered out to Bush's "base" in bloated dividend cheques and squirreled away in offshore tax havens.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/77663/?page=entire
"From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending -- and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."
By the time the America people are finally asked to begin paying off this colossal debt, the profits will be long gone, fltered out to Bush's "base" in bloated dividend cheques and squirreled away in offshore tax havens.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/77663/?page=entire
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Nader's Back
Ralph Nader has returned, throwing his hat into the ring in yet another Quixotic run for the White House.
The now clearly messianic, 73-year old, consumer crusader says he's running because the other contenders are too close to big business, aren't tough enough on ending the Iraq war and aren't bold enough in their healthcare proposals.
Republican candidate Mike Huckabee welcomed Nader's declaration noting the obvious - that he inevitably does far more harm to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
The now clearly messianic, 73-year old, consumer crusader says he's running because the other contenders are too close to big business, aren't tough enough on ending the Iraq war and aren't bold enough in their healthcare proposals.
Republican candidate Mike Huckabee welcomed Nader's declaration noting the obvious - that he inevitably does far more harm to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
Exxon's Stalls Out
It's been twenty years since the Exxon Valdez veered off course and ran onto rocks, spilling 11-million barrels of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound. Now, after dodging its responsibility to those it injured for fully two decades with appeal upon appeal, Exxon has reached the end of the litigation line, the US Supreme Court.
On appeal is the jury award of $5-billion in punitive damages which the company is trying to have the court set aside entirely or at least reduce.
Twenty years. That sounds like a litigation case in India, not a modern, Western nation.
Twenty years that have seen the deaths of nearly twenty per cent of the fishermen, cannery workers, native Alaskans and others who prevailed in the suit. Six thousand of them, in total, haven't lived to see Exxon finally run to ground.
Exxon's best line of defence, ironically, lies in 2oo-year old maritime case law concerning a shipowner's liability where the crew, once at sea, turns privateer. Hmm - Exxon relying on a piracy case, sounds about right, eh?
It remains to be seen now whether Exxon has hit a wall or sailed into a safe harbour - the Supreme Court dominated by rightwing judges of the likes of Roberts and Scalia. A huge corporate defendant couldn't have asked for more.
On appeal is the jury award of $5-billion in punitive damages which the company is trying to have the court set aside entirely or at least reduce.
Twenty years. That sounds like a litigation case in India, not a modern, Western nation.
Twenty years that have seen the deaths of nearly twenty per cent of the fishermen, cannery workers, native Alaskans and others who prevailed in the suit. Six thousand of them, in total, haven't lived to see Exxon finally run to ground.
Exxon's best line of defence, ironically, lies in 2oo-year old maritime case law concerning a shipowner's liability where the crew, once at sea, turns privateer. Hmm - Exxon relying on a piracy case, sounds about right, eh?
It remains to be seen now whether Exxon has hit a wall or sailed into a safe harbour - the Supreme Court dominated by rightwing judges of the likes of Roberts and Scalia. A huge corporate defendant couldn't have asked for more.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Untreated
A new study by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS found that 40% of the 1,436 HIV-related deaths between 1197 and 2005 were victims who had never accessed antiretroviral drug therapy.
A disturbing report in the Vancouver newspaper The Province says the untreated group incorporated a large number of the "poor, homeless, mentally ill or drug-addicted."
Antiretroviral drug therapy is available free in British Columbia and can extend lifespans by decades.
The antiretrovirals have improved in the past 10 years from a "burdensome quantity of therapy" requiring "many doses, many side effects" to a once-a-day dose that can prolong a person's life for decades, said Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the centre.
They also prevent those infected from spreading the disease.
"The treatment is free and effective but in reality is not accessible to those who need it most," he said.
He said the problems of mental illness, homelessness, drug addiction and food security have to be tackled first because those infected may not be pursuing treatment of a long-term illness while they're faced with more immediate concerns.
He also said 25 per cent of the [infected] population across Canada isn't aware they're infected with HIV, so the number who die of HIV without treatment would be greater.
A disturbing report in the Vancouver newspaper The Province says the untreated group incorporated a large number of the "poor, homeless, mentally ill or drug-addicted."
Antiretroviral drug therapy is available free in British Columbia and can extend lifespans by decades.
The antiretrovirals have improved in the past 10 years from a "burdensome quantity of therapy" requiring "many doses, many side effects" to a once-a-day dose that can prolong a person's life for decades, said Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the centre.
They also prevent those infected from spreading the disease.
"The treatment is free and effective but in reality is not accessible to those who need it most," he said.
He said the problems of mental illness, homelessness, drug addiction and food security have to be tackled first because those infected may not be pursuing treatment of a long-term illness while they're faced with more immediate concerns.
He also said 25 per cent of the [infected] population across Canada isn't aware they're infected with HIV, so the number who die of HIV without treatment would be greater.
The Afghanistan Ottawa Won't Tell You About - the Afghanistan We're Being Asked to Fight to Defend
Some of us support the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. Some of us oppose it. On both sides, the great majority of us support our troops. This week our MPs are scheduled to have a "debate" on extending the mission to 2011. Our top general, the Big Cod, has already weighed-in on the debate, shamelessly insinuating that subjecting his (and it very much is "his") mission to political debate could place Canadian soldiers' lives in jeopardy (which, from Hillier's mouth to the Talibans' ears probably ensures it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy - and that jackass impugns our patriotism and support for the troops!).
What is the point of debating this if the arguments are to be framed on deliberately scripted myths and propaganda - half truths and outright lies? For that is exactly what has been dished up to the Canadian public by our political and military leaders. That is what has been fed to you and to me.
From Washington to Brussels to Ottawa the mission to Afghanistan has never been much more than a political football. That's why, six years down the road, it's an utter failure. Pursuing our political objectives is what guaranteed failure from the very outset.
Our political agenda treated the creation of a new Afghan government almost as an afterthought. We staged elections that saw our guy, Hamid Karzai, win as president without bothering to notice that the real reins of power were falling into the hands of warlords, thugs and common criminals.
Were we to defeat the Taliban - pretend for the sake of argument that could be possible - what would we leave behind? All that would remain would be a powerful, criminal enterprise under the control of Islamic fundamentalist warlords, our supposed former allies in the "Northern Alliance." If you take the Taliban out of the equation today that's what you have left, a feudal, Islamist narco-state under the grinding heel of Sharia law. That's what we have created, more by omission than act, in today's Afghanistan.
This week you'll hear a lot of patriotic jingoism from the floor of the House of Commons, most of it deserving to be shovelled rather than printed because it'll be heavily laced with pure, manipulative bullshit.
Sarah Chayes is a former National Public Radio reporter who's been in Afghanistan since the early days after the fall of the Taliban. She handed in her microphone to do development aid work shortly afterward. Today she's widely regarded as one of the most knowledgeable and reliable sources of just what is going on in Afghanistan and - surprise - it's not what you've been hearing from Rick Hiller or Peter MacKay or that practised dissembler, SHarper, or just about anyone else in Ottawa.
Chayes was interviewed on Bill Moyers Now this week. The entire interview can be watched on the PBS.org website. Here are a few excerpts from her remarks that may help you make sense of what you hear this week when our own MPs debate the mission to Afghanistan:
"SARAH CHAYES: You know, you can drive around the streets of Kandahar. You can drive around the streets of Kabul, and you see some massive buildings. Massive buildings. You see the price of property in Kandahar is probably close to the price of property in New York City.
BILL MOYERS: So who's living in those buildings? Who's using those buildings?
SARAH CHAYES: Government officials and drug traffickers. So it's either the opium money, or it's the development money. And we're not following that money trail. The same problem in Iraq. I mean, there's just millions of dollars that are kind of leaking out of the system.
BILL MOYERS: So, has this become an opium economy?
SARAH CHAYES: Definitely, it's an opium economy. And it's totally integrated into the economy. It's a normal aspect of the economy. And you can feel it. For example, in opium harvesting season, we needed one of our herbs. We needed somebody to -- basically wild crafting to harvest herbs up in the hills. We couldn't get anybody because there were you know, buses at the Helmand, is the province right next door to us where most of the opium is growing. And there would be, you know, from the Helmand bus depot, they would just drive people straight out into the fields. Because, and the price of labor was going up. Normally, labor is unskilled labor is $4 a day. It was $20 to $25 a day in opium harvesting season. It totally absorbs all of the available manpower. Now, the cliché that I don't subscribe to is that the Taliban are running the opium business.
SARAH CHAYES: Well, we're paying a billion dollars a year to Pakistan, which is orchestrating the Taliban insurgency. So, it's actually us-taxpayer money that is paying for the insurgents, who are then killing, at the moment, Canadian troops. Now if I were the government of Germany or France, I'd have a hard time putting my troops in that kind of equation. I would demand from Washington, that Washington require a lot different behavior from Pakistan.
BILL MOYERS: But the money's supposed to be to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan.
SARAH CHAYES: Has anybody done very strict accounting on where that money is going? I suspect that if you start looking at some of the receipts, you'll find that there's money missing.
SARAH CHAYES: yeah. I mean, you know, these are districts that are in the hands of the Taliban. There's a district I used to go to frequently. We would gather herbs for our essential oil distilling up there. And now there was a deal between the district chief, the government and the Taliban saying, "so long as you don't kill the police, we'll let you go wherever you want." Now what has started to happen, couple of things have happened. One is people are just so disaffected with the government that we put in power.
BILL MOYERS: Ordinary people.
SARAH CHAYES: Ordinary people.
BILL MOYERS: Disaffected?
SARAH CHAYES: Yeah. Their government is shaking them down. I have people telling me, "We get shaking down by the government in the daytime, and shaken down by the Taliban at night. What are we supposed to do?"
BILL MOYERS: This is the Karzai government.
SARAH CHAYES: That's correct.
BILL MOYERS: This is the government the United States put in power.
SARAH CHAYES: That's correct. It's basically a criminal enterprise. And we haven't really asked it for any accounts in any serious way. And that's where the average person in Kandahar is totally perplexed. They assume that this degree of corruption, which is everywhere. You hear about it in the police department. It's not just the police department, it's in customs. It's in any adminis--You have-- you want to get a driver's license. You have to fork over money.
BILL MOYERS: So what's our bind in southern Afghanistan?
SARAH CHAYES: I think there are two binds. One is our relationship with Pakistan, which is a contradictory one. And the other is our unwillingness to hold Afghan public officials to any standard of decency in government. We keep hearing in the west, about the democratically-elected Afghan government. And, oh, no, we can't get in there and interfere with any of these people, because they're the government of a sovereign country. Well, you could have fooled the Afghans. The Afghans-- the only person who's really elected, who has any power, is president Karzai. But every other government official that Afghans interact with on a daily basis, they didn't elect. And they don't have any recourse. They've got no way of lodging a complaint against this person. Or nobody who can put any leverage on them. And that's the other bind. We're only fooling ourselves when we talk about this democratically-elected Afghan government.
...SARAH CHAYES: Correct. And we made an alliance with these thugs than we then placed into positions of power. So it's sort of like a--it's like a western movie. You know, you've got a posse. You're going go out after the outlaws, so you gather together a posse and it's usually a posse of criminals, right? But in a western movie, you don't then put the posse on the city council. You know.
BILL MOYERS: So who is the sheriff?
SARAH CHAYES: We're the sheriff.
BILL MOYERS: We are?
SARAH CHAYES: In this particular metaphor, we're the sheriff, right? We're going go out after the outlaw, Osama bin Laden. We gather this posse of Afghan criminals to gallop off with us. And then we put them in positions of the governor. We make them into the governor, the mayor, the, you know. And we don't ask them anything about how they're governing. We don't demand-- all we say is, we have to support the Afghan government. We have to support the Afghan government. And so we've fed them money, we've fed them arms, and then we say to the people, "okay, you're supposed to hold your government accountable." they're looking at these thugs with the whole power of the entire world, is what it looks like to them, behind them. And the Afghan people say, "you want us to hold them accountable?" So this, I think, is really the root of the problem.
Sarah Chayes went on to say that some Afghans believe the US supports the Taliban because they know Washington supports Pakistan and, to them, Pakistan is the Taliban.
So, by propping up the Afghan government, we're bailing furiously with one hand while we are busy boring holes in the hull with the other. Now that sounds like something worth continuing, doesn't it?
It is only because we're pursuing our political agendas - civilian and military - that we can demand that this counterproductive and contradictory failure continue. This isn't about Afghanistan and the future of the Afghan people. If it was, we wouldn't be acting the way we have been and the way we intend to continue acting.
What is the point of debating this if the arguments are to be framed on deliberately scripted myths and propaganda - half truths and outright lies? For that is exactly what has been dished up to the Canadian public by our political and military leaders. That is what has been fed to you and to me.
From Washington to Brussels to Ottawa the mission to Afghanistan has never been much more than a political football. That's why, six years down the road, it's an utter failure. Pursuing our political objectives is what guaranteed failure from the very outset.
Our political agenda treated the creation of a new Afghan government almost as an afterthought. We staged elections that saw our guy, Hamid Karzai, win as president without bothering to notice that the real reins of power were falling into the hands of warlords, thugs and common criminals.
Were we to defeat the Taliban - pretend for the sake of argument that could be possible - what would we leave behind? All that would remain would be a powerful, criminal enterprise under the control of Islamic fundamentalist warlords, our supposed former allies in the "Northern Alliance." If you take the Taliban out of the equation today that's what you have left, a feudal, Islamist narco-state under the grinding heel of Sharia law. That's what we have created, more by omission than act, in today's Afghanistan.
This week you'll hear a lot of patriotic jingoism from the floor of the House of Commons, most of it deserving to be shovelled rather than printed because it'll be heavily laced with pure, manipulative bullshit.
Sarah Chayes is a former National Public Radio reporter who's been in Afghanistan since the early days after the fall of the Taliban. She handed in her microphone to do development aid work shortly afterward. Today she's widely regarded as one of the most knowledgeable and reliable sources of just what is going on in Afghanistan and - surprise - it's not what you've been hearing from Rick Hiller or Peter MacKay or that practised dissembler, SHarper, or just about anyone else in Ottawa.
Chayes was interviewed on Bill Moyers Now this week. The entire interview can be watched on the PBS.org website. Here are a few excerpts from her remarks that may help you make sense of what you hear this week when our own MPs debate the mission to Afghanistan:
"SARAH CHAYES: You know, you can drive around the streets of Kandahar. You can drive around the streets of Kabul, and you see some massive buildings. Massive buildings. You see the price of property in Kandahar is probably close to the price of property in New York City.
BILL MOYERS: So who's living in those buildings? Who's using those buildings?
SARAH CHAYES: Government officials and drug traffickers. So it's either the opium money, or it's the development money. And we're not following that money trail. The same problem in Iraq. I mean, there's just millions of dollars that are kind of leaking out of the system.
BILL MOYERS: So, has this become an opium economy?
SARAH CHAYES: Definitely, it's an opium economy. And it's totally integrated into the economy. It's a normal aspect of the economy. And you can feel it. For example, in opium harvesting season, we needed one of our herbs. We needed somebody to -- basically wild crafting to harvest herbs up in the hills. We couldn't get anybody because there were you know, buses at the Helmand, is the province right next door to us where most of the opium is growing. And there would be, you know, from the Helmand bus depot, they would just drive people straight out into the fields. Because, and the price of labor was going up. Normally, labor is unskilled labor is $4 a day. It was $20 to $25 a day in opium harvesting season. It totally absorbs all of the available manpower. Now, the cliché that I don't subscribe to is that the Taliban are running the opium business.
SARAH CHAYES: Well, we're paying a billion dollars a year to Pakistan, which is orchestrating the Taliban insurgency. So, it's actually us-taxpayer money that is paying for the insurgents, who are then killing, at the moment, Canadian troops. Now if I were the government of Germany or France, I'd have a hard time putting my troops in that kind of equation. I would demand from Washington, that Washington require a lot different behavior from Pakistan.
BILL MOYERS: But the money's supposed to be to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan.
SARAH CHAYES: Has anybody done very strict accounting on where that money is going? I suspect that if you start looking at some of the receipts, you'll find that there's money missing.
SARAH CHAYES: yeah. I mean, you know, these are districts that are in the hands of the Taliban. There's a district I used to go to frequently. We would gather herbs for our essential oil distilling up there. And now there was a deal between the district chief, the government and the Taliban saying, "so long as you don't kill the police, we'll let you go wherever you want." Now what has started to happen, couple of things have happened. One is people are just so disaffected with the government that we put in power.
BILL MOYERS: Ordinary people.
SARAH CHAYES: Ordinary people.
BILL MOYERS: Disaffected?
SARAH CHAYES: Yeah. Their government is shaking them down. I have people telling me, "We get shaking down by the government in the daytime, and shaken down by the Taliban at night. What are we supposed to do?"
BILL MOYERS: This is the Karzai government.
SARAH CHAYES: That's correct.
BILL MOYERS: This is the government the United States put in power.
SARAH CHAYES: That's correct. It's basically a criminal enterprise. And we haven't really asked it for any accounts in any serious way. And that's where the average person in Kandahar is totally perplexed. They assume that this degree of corruption, which is everywhere. You hear about it in the police department. It's not just the police department, it's in customs. It's in any adminis--You have-- you want to get a driver's license. You have to fork over money.
BILL MOYERS: So what's our bind in southern Afghanistan?
SARAH CHAYES: I think there are two binds. One is our relationship with Pakistan, which is a contradictory one. And the other is our unwillingness to hold Afghan public officials to any standard of decency in government. We keep hearing in the west, about the democratically-elected Afghan government. And, oh, no, we can't get in there and interfere with any of these people, because they're the government of a sovereign country. Well, you could have fooled the Afghans. The Afghans-- the only person who's really elected, who has any power, is president Karzai. But every other government official that Afghans interact with on a daily basis, they didn't elect. And they don't have any recourse. They've got no way of lodging a complaint against this person. Or nobody who can put any leverage on them. And that's the other bind. We're only fooling ourselves when we talk about this democratically-elected Afghan government.
...SARAH CHAYES: Correct. And we made an alliance with these thugs than we then placed into positions of power. So it's sort of like a--it's like a western movie. You know, you've got a posse. You're going go out after the outlaws, so you gather together a posse and it's usually a posse of criminals, right? But in a western movie, you don't then put the posse on the city council. You know.
BILL MOYERS: So who is the sheriff?
SARAH CHAYES: We're the sheriff.
BILL MOYERS: We are?
SARAH CHAYES: In this particular metaphor, we're the sheriff, right? We're going go out after the outlaw, Osama bin Laden. We gather this posse of Afghan criminals to gallop off with us. And then we put them in positions of the governor. We make them into the governor, the mayor, the, you know. And we don't ask them anything about how they're governing. We don't demand-- all we say is, we have to support the Afghan government. We have to support the Afghan government. And so we've fed them money, we've fed them arms, and then we say to the people, "okay, you're supposed to hold your government accountable." they're looking at these thugs with the whole power of the entire world, is what it looks like to them, behind them. And the Afghan people say, "you want us to hold them accountable?" So this, I think, is really the root of the problem.
Sarah Chayes went on to say that some Afghans believe the US supports the Taliban because they know Washington supports Pakistan and, to them, Pakistan is the Taliban.
So, by propping up the Afghan government, we're bailing furiously with one hand while we are busy boring holes in the hull with the other. Now that sounds like something worth continuing, doesn't it?
It is only because we're pursuing our political agendas - civilian and military - that we can demand that this counterproductive and contradictory failure continue. This isn't about Afghanistan and the future of the Afghan people. If it was, we wouldn't be acting the way we have been and the way we intend to continue acting.
Friday, February 22, 2008
We Didn't Start the Fire
It's almost inspirational. Check this out:
Go "fullscreen" with this one.
Enjoy and have a great weekend
If The Truth Matters...
The mission in Afghanistan may be the worst example in Canadian history of the government and its military manipulating public opinion.
Forget the nonsense you've been getting from Harper and MacKay, forget the obsequience of Dion, forget the crass and shameless manipulations of General Rick Hillier.
If you want the truth, the unvarnished reality of conditions on the ground in Afghanistan, watch the rerun of Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS on Sunday. Moyers has an interview with Sarah Chayes that you should find both illuminating and troubling. It presents a scathing indictment of all the garbage that's being spun to ordinary Canadians from Parliament Hill and National Defence Headquarters.
If you don't know who Sarah Chayes is, Google her name. Then watch the show on Sunday and come to your own conclusions about what has become perhaps the darkest moment in Ottawa in decades.
UPDATE - Many thanks to Ed for the link below to the PBS site where you can watch the Chayes interview or read the transcript. As for Chayes herself, Jonathan Landy of McClatchey Newspapers who covers Iraq and Afganistan praised her to me as one of the most knowledgeable and reliable sources in Afghanistan.
Forget the nonsense you've been getting from Harper and MacKay, forget the obsequience of Dion, forget the crass and shameless manipulations of General Rick Hillier.
If you want the truth, the unvarnished reality of conditions on the ground in Afghanistan, watch the rerun of Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS on Sunday. Moyers has an interview with Sarah Chayes that you should find both illuminating and troubling. It presents a scathing indictment of all the garbage that's being spun to ordinary Canadians from Parliament Hill and National Defence Headquarters.
If you don't know who Sarah Chayes is, Google her name. Then watch the show on Sunday and come to your own conclusions about what has become perhaps the darkest moment in Ottawa in decades.
UPDATE - Many thanks to Ed for the link below to the PBS site where you can watch the Chayes interview or read the transcript. As for Chayes herself, Jonathan Landy of McClatchey Newspapers who covers Iraq and Afganistan praised her to me as one of the most knowledgeable and reliable sources in Afghanistan.
Hillier Delivers Paid Political Message to Pet Shills
Dick Cheney has Faux News, Rick Hillier has the Conference of Defence Associations, a group dependent on half a million dollars a year out of Rick's budget.
Hillier had'em all standing on their hind legs today as he claimed that the "debate" on Afghanistan (didn't know we had one) was putting the lives of Canadian soldiers at risk. He trumped that by claiming the suicide bomb attack on a Canadian convoy earlier this week was intended to influence the non-existant debate. Hillier doesn't seem to understand that the attack was intended to send a message to the Afghans that when Canadian convoys come through the civilians are in danger. It's a classic tactic of guerrilla fighters and, if the Big Cod doesn't know that much, he's far more of a danger to Canadian soldiers than any debate in parliament.
But I don't believe Hillier is that stupid. I think he's just playing politics and, come to think of it, he's a damned sight better as a politician than he is as a general.
Hillier had'em all standing on their hind legs today as he claimed that the "debate" on Afghanistan (didn't know we had one) was putting the lives of Canadian soldiers at risk. He trumped that by claiming the suicide bomb attack on a Canadian convoy earlier this week was intended to influence the non-existant debate. Hillier doesn't seem to understand that the attack was intended to send a message to the Afghans that when Canadian convoys come through the civilians are in danger. It's a classic tactic of guerrilla fighters and, if the Big Cod doesn't know that much, he's far more of a danger to Canadian soldiers than any debate in parliament.
But I don't believe Hillier is that stupid. I think he's just playing politics and, come to think of it, he's a damned sight better as a politician than he is as a general.
Catch A Wave
Surfers know you have to catch a wave before it breaks. Yet American legislators are now tossing around policies to surf out of the subprime mortgage collapse long after the wave has broken.
Banks in the US are howling and, when that happens, Congress responds. Unfortunately the current economic minefield isn't as neat and tidy as the Savings & Loan collapse of the early '90s. This time no one's really sure just how bad the problem is, much less what might work. From the New York Times:
"Not since the Depression has a larger share of Americans owed more on their homes than they are worth. With the collapse of the housing boom, nearly 8.8 million homeowners, or 10.3 percent of the total, are underwater. That is more than double the percentage just a year ago, according to a new estimate of the damage by Moody's Economy.com.
The housing slumps of the mid-1970s and late 1980s were confined to the coasts. The current bust, while leaving some cities relatively unscathed, has cut a far wider path and it comes just when home debt is at its highest level since World War II.
In Washington, it will be difficult to engineer a bailout similar to the one for savings and loan companies in the early 1990s, because Democrats and Republicans alike cringe at the very word bailout and fear a backlash by people who never became overextended.
But with millions of homeowners already underwater and the prospect that millions more may face the same situation, Democrats and Republicans alike are scrambling for ideas to keep people from simply walking away from their homes and to help those struggling to pay their bills.
John M. Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the agency that regulates savings and loan companies [has a] plan, still in rough form, that would create a voluntary system under which mortgage lenders would reduce debt and monthly payments to reflect the diminished sales value of a home.
It would take the remainder of the mortgage as a “negative amortization certificate,” a lien that the investor could recoup if the house were later sold for its original mortgage value or higher."
The collapse in housing prices is having a variety of negative effects. One is mobility. An underwater homeowner is tied to his unsaleable property and that makes it very hard to move to secure better employment.
Then there is the phenomenon of people unwilling to sell at a loss in a steadily declining market. Rather than cut their losses, they hope against hope and hang on while the market declines and their losses soar. I know from my experience in my former bankrutpcy practice how common and powerful that emotional inertia can be.
The worst part, however, may be a matter of timing. This is 2008 and it's turning out to be the biggest election year America has faced in decades. Eventually the presidential nominees from both parties will have to lock horns on this issue and you can bet it'll be their political fortunes, not the plight of imprudent homeowners, that will shape their policies.
Banks in the US are howling and, when that happens, Congress responds. Unfortunately the current economic minefield isn't as neat and tidy as the Savings & Loan collapse of the early '90s. This time no one's really sure just how bad the problem is, much less what might work. From the New York Times:
"Not since the Depression has a larger share of Americans owed more on their homes than they are worth. With the collapse of the housing boom, nearly 8.8 million homeowners, or 10.3 percent of the total, are underwater. That is more than double the percentage just a year ago, according to a new estimate of the damage by Moody's Economy.com.
The housing slumps of the mid-1970s and late 1980s were confined to the coasts. The current bust, while leaving some cities relatively unscathed, has cut a far wider path and it comes just when home debt is at its highest level since World War II.
In Washington, it will be difficult to engineer a bailout similar to the one for savings and loan companies in the early 1990s, because Democrats and Republicans alike cringe at the very word bailout and fear a backlash by people who never became overextended.
But with millions of homeowners already underwater and the prospect that millions more may face the same situation, Democrats and Republicans alike are scrambling for ideas to keep people from simply walking away from their homes and to help those struggling to pay their bills.
John M. Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the agency that regulates savings and loan companies [has a] plan, still in rough form, that would create a voluntary system under which mortgage lenders would reduce debt and monthly payments to reflect the diminished sales value of a home.
It would take the remainder of the mortgage as a “negative amortization certificate,” a lien that the investor could recoup if the house were later sold for its original mortgage value or higher."
The collapse in housing prices is having a variety of negative effects. One is mobility. An underwater homeowner is tied to his unsaleable property and that makes it very hard to move to secure better employment.
Then there is the phenomenon of people unwilling to sell at a loss in a steadily declining market. Rather than cut their losses, they hope against hope and hang on while the market declines and their losses soar. I know from my experience in my former bankrutpcy practice how common and powerful that emotional inertia can be.
The worst part, however, may be a matter of timing. This is 2008 and it's turning out to be the biggest election year America has faced in decades. Eventually the presidential nominees from both parties will have to lock horns on this issue and you can bet it'll be their political fortunes, not the plight of imprudent homeowners, that will shape their policies.
Hillier Does It Again
The headline in the Toronto Star tells it all - "Support Our Soldiers, Hillier Tells MPs."
Hillier says if parliament extends "the mission" to 2011, MPs should pass a motion expressing their support for Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Implicit in that is the message that support for the troops, indeed patriotism itself, is a question of extending Hillier's wobbly, hapless mission. That means that the NDP or BQ, for example, are clearly unpatriotic and hate the troops.
If Hillier was interested in "supporting the troops" he'd be out there howling at the moon to get his piddling force reinforced, big time. Instead he wants a motion that's more about endorsing his slack ass than anything to do with our soldiers.
Hillier says if parliament extends "the mission" to 2011, MPs should pass a motion expressing their support for Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Implicit in that is the message that support for the troops, indeed patriotism itself, is a question of extending Hillier's wobbly, hapless mission. That means that the NDP or BQ, for example, are clearly unpatriotic and hate the troops.
If Hillier was interested in "supporting the troops" he'd be out there howling at the moon to get his piddling force reinforced, big time. Instead he wants a motion that's more about endorsing his slack ass than anything to do with our soldiers.
What a Difference a Day Makes
Last week Russian president Vlad Putin angrily accused the US of using the supposed need to destroy a disabled satellite as a ploy to mask what was really an attempt to test its anti-missile defence system. No, not us, claimed Washington, we'd never do that.
So they fired a Standard missile at the errant satellite and, bingo, a hit. And then, bursting with pride, they couldn't wait to herald a great success for their missile defence system.
"I think the question over whether this capability works has been settled," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, quoted by AFP news agency.
"The question is what kind of threat, how large a threat, how sophisticated a threat [the US faces]."
The US approach was one of "complete transparency", he said.
"We provided a lot of information... before it took place," he said, adding: "We are prepared to share whatever appropriately we can."
Yeah, sure you will, Bob. Meanwhile, Vlad, looks like you were right. That should give you renewed impetus to develop that new generation of Russian missiles and warheads. Great, rachet up the arms race.
So they fired a Standard missile at the errant satellite and, bingo, a hit. And then, bursting with pride, they couldn't wait to herald a great success for their missile defence system.
"I think the question over whether this capability works has been settled," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, quoted by AFP news agency.
"The question is what kind of threat, how large a threat, how sophisticated a threat [the US faces]."
The US approach was one of "complete transparency", he said.
"We provided a lot of information... before it took place," he said, adding: "We are prepared to share whatever appropriately we can."
Yeah, sure you will, Bob. Meanwhile, Vlad, looks like you were right. That should give you renewed impetus to develop that new generation of Russian missiles and warheads. Great, rachet up the arms race.
And Now a Word From Our Leader?
Well I said I would post any response I received to my open letter to Stephane Dion about the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. I did get an unsigned reply, one that I was reluctant, for the sake of the Liberal Party, to post. Yet, here it is. You may note that it doesn't even attempt to address any of the fundamental questions I posed.
"Thank you for taking the time to write to the Liberal Party of Canada. As you know, the Liberal Opposition recently put forward an amendment to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s motion to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. Since that time, the government has modified its own motion to reflect many of our amendments.
We will not abandon the people of Afghanistan, but Canada’s mission has to change. We are pleased that the government has adopted some of the Liberal language in its motion, but we will carefully study the new motion before deciding whether or not to support it.
Regards."
"Thank you for taking the time to write to the Liberal Party of Canada. As you know, the Liberal Opposition recently put forward an amendment to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s motion to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. Since that time, the government has modified its own motion to reflect many of our amendments.
We will not abandon the people of Afghanistan, but Canada’s mission has to change. We are pleased that the government has adopted some of the Liberal language in its motion, but we will carefully study the new motion before deciding whether or not to support it.
Regards."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
An Open Letter to Stephane Dion
Some weeks ago I sent an e-mail to Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae concerning Canada's mission to Afghanistan. It took quite a while but I eventually received an acknowledgement of receipt from Mr. Dion's office and nothing at all from Igantieff or Rae.
That led me to finally send a somewhat confrontational message to the Liberal leader. The contents of it follow:
Dear Mr. Dion:
I am a lifelong and committed Liberal supporter. I am also the son of a horribly wounded, WWII Canadian army veteran. My dad's experiences and those of his family in the aftermath of WWII leave me very sensitive to the notion of politicians exploiting the lives of Canadian servicemen and the welfare of their families for political advantage.
In your policy speech of February, 2007, you asserted that the Liberal Party would reject any extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond February, 2009. It was a reasoned, thoughtful and principled position that you espoused.
Now, for reasons unknown, you propose abandoning you previous position and, instead, supporting the extension of the mission to 2011.
I want to know why? What has changed, save for electoral fortunes, to justify yet another two year extension of the mission?
From my perspective, Mr. Dion, the mission has already failed. It has failed due to lack of commitment from the political side. We left a force that was woefully understrength from the outset to confront an insurgency that steadily, year by year, expanded in numbers and influence. In the result we have retreated, gone on the defensive.
I call upon you to justify your proposed extension. Surely somebody must. Give me one example of a counterinsurgency success in these circumstances. Just one. Show me where a grossly understrength counterinsurgent force has prevailed. Then explain, please, why the Canadian mission to Afghanistan has the remotest chance of success.
If you cannot muster even one relevant example, please explain why you now support extending the mission for another two years. What is to be gained, save perhaps not having to go to the electorate on this issue? What is more important, the survival of your own position as leader of the opposition, or the lives our parliamentarians are willing to squander in their political self interests?
Having received no substantive response, whatsoever, to my previous e-mail to yourself and Messrs. Rae and Igantieff, I will be posting this an an open letter on Liblogs and Progressive Bloggers. I will, of course, promptly post any reply you may offer.
Regards
Perhaps this will finally get a response, a partial discourse of the debate that Canadians deserve but may not have.
I will post any replies as soon as they're received.
That led me to finally send a somewhat confrontational message to the Liberal leader. The contents of it follow:
Dear Mr. Dion:
I am a lifelong and committed Liberal supporter. I am also the son of a horribly wounded, WWII Canadian army veteran. My dad's experiences and those of his family in the aftermath of WWII leave me very sensitive to the notion of politicians exploiting the lives of Canadian servicemen and the welfare of their families for political advantage.
In your policy speech of February, 2007, you asserted that the Liberal Party would reject any extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond February, 2009. It was a reasoned, thoughtful and principled position that you espoused.
Now, for reasons unknown, you propose abandoning you previous position and, instead, supporting the extension of the mission to 2011.
I want to know why? What has changed, save for electoral fortunes, to justify yet another two year extension of the mission?
From my perspective, Mr. Dion, the mission has already failed. It has failed due to lack of commitment from the political side. We left a force that was woefully understrength from the outset to confront an insurgency that steadily, year by year, expanded in numbers and influence. In the result we have retreated, gone on the defensive.
I call upon you to justify your proposed extension. Surely somebody must. Give me one example of a counterinsurgency success in these circumstances. Just one. Show me where a grossly understrength counterinsurgent force has prevailed. Then explain, please, why the Canadian mission to Afghanistan has the remotest chance of success.
If you cannot muster even one relevant example, please explain why you now support extending the mission for another two years. What is to be gained, save perhaps not having to go to the electorate on this issue? What is more important, the survival of your own position as leader of the opposition, or the lives our parliamentarians are willing to squander in their political self interests?
Having received no substantive response, whatsoever, to my previous e-mail to yourself and Messrs. Rae and Igantieff, I will be posting this an an open letter on Liblogs and Progressive Bloggers. I will, of course, promptly post any reply you may offer.
Regards
Perhaps this will finally get a response, a partial discourse of the debate that Canadians deserve but may not have.
I will post any replies as soon as they're received.
Just What NATO Needs - Another Failed-State Dependency
The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance has yet another failed state to defend - this time it's Kosovo. Like Afghanistan, the newly-minted Kosovo doesn't have a viable economy. Like Afghanistan, Kosovo is insanely dependent on foreign aid. Like Afghanistan, Kosovo has a burgeoning criminal element. Like Afghanistan, Kosovo faces an existential threat that requires NATO to secure its borders. Like Afghanistan, Kosovo shows no signs of getting better anytime soon. Like Afghanistan, NATO is going to have one hell of a time walking away.
Kosovo - instant failed state, just add water and stir.
Like Afghanistan, NATO went into Kosovo without the slightest idea how it would ever get out.
Kosovo - instant failed state, just add water and stir.
Like Afghanistan, NATO went into Kosovo without the slightest idea how it would ever get out.
Turning Our Backs on Pandemic
Emerging infections diseases of the SARS/Ebola/HIV type are on the rise and, unfortunately, we in the affluent West are looking in the wrong direction. A team of scientists has studied the development of infections disease from 1940 to 2004 and your suspicions were right, the incidence and spread of these diseases is increasing.
Their study, published in the journal Nature, has identified a disease highway that begins in nature and then spreads through wildlife to livestock to humans. The past decades have witnessed rapid infringement on the environment, forest clearing for example, and a massive increase in livestock populations. In the result, what once was a 2-lane road has been transformed into a disease superhighway.
The researchers have produced a map (above) showing where the next major diseases are most likely to develop. These hotspots are those depicted in red while the least active regions are in green. They contend the West needs to put its disease focus on these tropical hotspots instead of simply worrying too much about what is happening at home.
While we tend to think of diseases such as HIV and SARS, the scientists identified 335 "emerging diseases" during the 64-year span of their study and they're sure there are plenty more to come.
“We are crowding wildlife into ever-smaller areas, and human population is increasing,” said coauthor Marc Levy, a global-change expert at the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), an affiliate of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “The meeting of these two things is a recipe for something crossing over.” The main sources are mammals. Some pathogens may be picked up by hunting or accidental contact; others, such as Malaysia’s Nipah virus, go from wildlife to livestock, then to people. Humans have evolved no resistance to zoonoses, so the diseases can be extraordinarily lethal. The scientists say that the more wild species in an area, the more pathogen varieties they may harbor. Kate E. Jones, an evolutionary biologist at the Zoological Society of London and first author of the study, said the work urgently highlights the need to prevent further intrusion into areas of high biodiversity. “It turns out that conservation may be an important means of preventing new diseases,” she said.
While new diseases are most likely to come from the tropics, the West has played a huge role in the evolution of the most lethal diseases. We have been so undisciplined in our use of antibiotics that we've created new, increasingly drug-resistant strains. At the same time, modern transportation and industrial agriculture have accelerated the spread of emerging diseases.
The report argues that the West needs to take a more prophylactic approach to emerging diseases, pushing the front lines of detection and intervention to the hotspots themselves instead of waiting for these diseases to arrive at our own borders. We also need to explore the role that conservation of remaining tropical forests can play in reducing the rate of disease emergence.
"Making Do" in Afghanistan
When you're the attacker you get to concentrate your forces on the target being attacked. When you're the defender, however, you have to spread your forces around to cover all the vital targets your enemy might attack. The more places you want to defend, the more diluted your force becomes. The fewer soldiers available for the job the fewer targets that get defended and, sometimes, the weaker the defences for those points you do try to protect. I think it was Stalin who said that quantity is a quality of itself.
In Kandahar province, Canada lacks the quality of quantity. A combat group of 1,000 at best on a good day is said to yield a sustainably deployable force of about 500. Kandahar province is over 50,000 sq. kms. in area. When you do the math it's not comforting.
A panel discussion on the CBC two nights ago examined "the mission" in the context of a resurgent Taliban. Finally I heard what won't pass the lips of Hillier or Harper or MacKay - we're shaping "the mission" according to our weakness.
Put another way, it's our limitations, our weakness in numbers, that now increasingly defines "the mission." Our lack of force has come to dominate other factors such as the growth of the insurgency, the needs of the Kabul government or provincial reconstruction. One reflection of this is our retreat from the countryside into much smaller, strategic areas. That leaves the insurgency more uncontested areas in which they can transit, mass, operate and - govern - in between waging a barbarous form of guerrilla warfare in ISAF territory.
It's not just the Taliban that sees our weakness. The ordinary people are keenly aware of it also because, to some extent, it portends their own fate. They have to weigh their options and choices very carefully. They know Westerners come. They know those Westerners go. They know what can await them when we're gone. So, in order to genuinely support us, they need to see real and tangible success in defeating of somehow taming the insurgency. They need to know they can safely bet on our side.
Only days ago 80-Afghans gathered to watch dog fights were killed by a suicide bomber. The very next day three dozen more were felled by another suicide bomber who notionally attacked a Canadian army convoy. I've thought about it and I don't think his real target was the convoy but rather civilians in proximity to the convoy and I think his brutal message got through.
Just about everybody now gets it that we can't defeat the Taliban militarily. We can, however, lose to the Taliban militarily. That's not to say they can actually defeat our soldiers with our tanks and artillery and air power but they don't have to physically destroy us. They win - militarily - by wresting the support of the populace away from the government we're notionally supporting.
America's counter-insurgency guru, General David Petraeus, makes it powerfully clear that there is no substitute for numbers, for the "quality of quantity," in fighting against an insurgency. It's the type of war where you either go big or go home.
So, if we're not in Kandahar to win, explain to me why we're there at all and why we're planning on staying until 2011?
In Kandahar province, Canada lacks the quality of quantity. A combat group of 1,000 at best on a good day is said to yield a sustainably deployable force of about 500. Kandahar province is over 50,000 sq. kms. in area. When you do the math it's not comforting.
A panel discussion on the CBC two nights ago examined "the mission" in the context of a resurgent Taliban. Finally I heard what won't pass the lips of Hillier or Harper or MacKay - we're shaping "the mission" according to our weakness.
Put another way, it's our limitations, our weakness in numbers, that now increasingly defines "the mission." Our lack of force has come to dominate other factors such as the growth of the insurgency, the needs of the Kabul government or provincial reconstruction. One reflection of this is our retreat from the countryside into much smaller, strategic areas. That leaves the insurgency more uncontested areas in which they can transit, mass, operate and - govern - in between waging a barbarous form of guerrilla warfare in ISAF territory.
It's not just the Taliban that sees our weakness. The ordinary people are keenly aware of it also because, to some extent, it portends their own fate. They have to weigh their options and choices very carefully. They know Westerners come. They know those Westerners go. They know what can await them when we're gone. So, in order to genuinely support us, they need to see real and tangible success in defeating of somehow taming the insurgency. They need to know they can safely bet on our side.
Only days ago 80-Afghans gathered to watch dog fights were killed by a suicide bomber. The very next day three dozen more were felled by another suicide bomber who notionally attacked a Canadian army convoy. I've thought about it and I don't think his real target was the convoy but rather civilians in proximity to the convoy and I think his brutal message got through.
Just about everybody now gets it that we can't defeat the Taliban militarily. We can, however, lose to the Taliban militarily. That's not to say they can actually defeat our soldiers with our tanks and artillery and air power but they don't have to physically destroy us. They win - militarily - by wresting the support of the populace away from the government we're notionally supporting.
America's counter-insurgency guru, General David Petraeus, makes it powerfully clear that there is no substitute for numbers, for the "quality of quantity," in fighting against an insurgency. It's the type of war where you either go big or go home.
So, if we're not in Kandahar to win, explain to me why we're there at all and why we're planning on staying until 2011?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Porsche Versus London
Porsche has served notice that it's not going to tolerate the City of London's levy on gas-guzzling cars driving in the city centre. The City recently introduced a 25-pound daily tax for cars driven in the city. The tax applies to cars that produce more than 225 grams of CO2 per kilometre.
Porsche claims that deterring car traffic in London won't cut greenhouse gas emissions and, worse, it will deter businesses from the urban core.
The carmaker says it will send a letter to Lord Mayor Livingstone asking that the tax be repealed and, if he refuses, will take its case to court on an application for judicial review.
Porsche claims that deterring car traffic in London won't cut greenhouse gas emissions and, worse, it will deter businesses from the urban core.
The carmaker says it will send a letter to Lord Mayor Livingstone asking that the tax be repealed and, if he refuses, will take its case to court on an application for judicial review.
There's A Reason They're So Damned Big
The giant Tiger Prawn. You can find these succulent monsters just about anywhere today but you should think twice before you give into temptation and cart home a bagful.
You need to think about the environmental, social and health issues associated with these supposed delicacies. These creatures didn't get that big all on their own. Think fishmeal diets and powerful antibiotics. Think growth hormones.
Most Tiger Prawns sold in North America come from Asia or South America. They're a farmed or, more properly, "pharmed" product. That's because they're raised, actually grown, in shallow ponds.
The object is to get them to grow large, fast. Now, as you might suspect, that means careful control of their diet. That usually means fish pellets. That sort of feeding produces two problems - pellets that don't get eaten and prawn poop. As waste levels build the ponds can become disease-ridden. To avoid losing the crop, antibiotics are commonly used.
When bigger is better, food alone isn't always enough. Some producers spice up the critters' diet with growth hormones. Between the antibiotics and hormones what ends up on your plate could well be a "pharmed" product. That's the health issue but there's more, much more.
Prawn farming has been shown to be environmentally devastating. In many places, mangrove forests are cleared to make way for prawn pools. Coral reefs and seabed grasses depend on the mangroves and so do local fishermen. It's not at all uncommon for fish stocks to collapse in areas of intensive prawn pharming. Fish stocks are further depleted in the production of fish pellets and fish oil to feed the carniverous prawn crop.
Then there's the waste water which is often pumped into canals, rivers and coastal waters polluting them with pesticides, antibiotics and disinfectants. In some places groundwater contamination leaves the locals without safe drinking water.
Isn't this just the price of bringing prosperity to the poverty-stricken? No. A Vietnamese study found that half of the country's prawn farms lost heavily. Of those that made money, 80% were outsiders.
The World Bank once lavished money on prawn farming operations. In Indonesia 70% of these wound up abandoned. Half of Thailand's shrimp ponds lie unused. Once abandoned, the salination of the mud means they can't be reclaimed for rice growing. In some countries, big industrial producers steadily move inland clearing forests to make way for shrimp ponds.
Finally there's the constant problem of the antibiotics. Two products pop up from time to time - nitrofurans and chloramphenicol, a known carcinogen. When either of these is detected by Western inspectors an import ban generally follows. Other products are, however, permissible. The problem seems to be that poor farmers use whatever they can afford to keep their prawns alive until they're big enough to market. In a money-losing business that's sometimes bad news for consumers.
You get what you pay for.
An article in today's Environmental News Network reports on a study conducted by Swedish human geographer Daniel A. Bergquist. He found that the market price of Tiger Prawns is horribly depressed and would have to be five times higher than today's prices to allow proper environmental protection and a fair wage for the industry's workers.
As you may have guessed, I don't eat Tiger Prawns but, then again, I can get my fill of delicious, wild BC sidestripe shrimp or spot prawns less than a mile down the road. That doesn't mean I haven't been tempted when I see a line of those big monsters laid out on a bed of ice in the grocery store. That's where I find the Tiger Prawns but that's also where I find a curious disconnect. Sometimes I ask where they're from and, invariably, no one knows. Are they from Bangladesh or Equador or Vietnam or China? Nobody ever seems to know. That's why I don't even bother asking whether what's laying on that bed of ice has been tested for hormones and antibiotics.
You need to think about the environmental, social and health issues associated with these supposed delicacies. These creatures didn't get that big all on their own. Think fishmeal diets and powerful antibiotics. Think growth hormones.
Most Tiger Prawns sold in North America come from Asia or South America. They're a farmed or, more properly, "pharmed" product. That's because they're raised, actually grown, in shallow ponds.
The object is to get them to grow large, fast. Now, as you might suspect, that means careful control of their diet. That usually means fish pellets. That sort of feeding produces two problems - pellets that don't get eaten and prawn poop. As waste levels build the ponds can become disease-ridden. To avoid losing the crop, antibiotics are commonly used.
When bigger is better, food alone isn't always enough. Some producers spice up the critters' diet with growth hormones. Between the antibiotics and hormones what ends up on your plate could well be a "pharmed" product. That's the health issue but there's more, much more.
Prawn farming has been shown to be environmentally devastating. In many places, mangrove forests are cleared to make way for prawn pools. Coral reefs and seabed grasses depend on the mangroves and so do local fishermen. It's not at all uncommon for fish stocks to collapse in areas of intensive prawn pharming. Fish stocks are further depleted in the production of fish pellets and fish oil to feed the carniverous prawn crop.
Then there's the waste water which is often pumped into canals, rivers and coastal waters polluting them with pesticides, antibiotics and disinfectants. In some places groundwater contamination leaves the locals without safe drinking water.
Isn't this just the price of bringing prosperity to the poverty-stricken? No. A Vietnamese study found that half of the country's prawn farms lost heavily. Of those that made money, 80% were outsiders.
The World Bank once lavished money on prawn farming operations. In Indonesia 70% of these wound up abandoned. Half of Thailand's shrimp ponds lie unused. Once abandoned, the salination of the mud means they can't be reclaimed for rice growing. In some countries, big industrial producers steadily move inland clearing forests to make way for shrimp ponds.
Finally there's the constant problem of the antibiotics. Two products pop up from time to time - nitrofurans and chloramphenicol, a known carcinogen. When either of these is detected by Western inspectors an import ban generally follows. Other products are, however, permissible. The problem seems to be that poor farmers use whatever they can afford to keep their prawns alive until they're big enough to market. In a money-losing business that's sometimes bad news for consumers.
You get what you pay for.
An article in today's Environmental News Network reports on a study conducted by Swedish human geographer Daniel A. Bergquist. He found that the market price of Tiger Prawns is horribly depressed and would have to be five times higher than today's prices to allow proper environmental protection and a fair wage for the industry's workers.
As you may have guessed, I don't eat Tiger Prawns but, then again, I can get my fill of delicious, wild BC sidestripe shrimp or spot prawns less than a mile down the road. That doesn't mean I haven't been tempted when I see a line of those big monsters laid out on a bed of ice in the grocery store. That's where I find the Tiger Prawns but that's also where I find a curious disconnect. Sometimes I ask where they're from and, invariably, no one knows. Are they from Bangladesh or Equador or Vietnam or China? Nobody ever seems to know. That's why I don't even bother asking whether what's laying on that bed of ice has been tested for hormones and antibiotics.
Fidel Deals Himself Out
The 49-year reign of Fidel Castro is over. The Cuban strongman has advised his countrymen that he won't be returning as president or commander-in-chief of his country's armed forces.
Castro has had a remarkable half-century run, a mark not typical of strongman rule. His longevity likely owes a great deal to the memories of the tyrant he ousted, Fulgencio Batista. While some opponents claim Castro turned Cuba into a police state, they choose to overlook the tyranny and corruption of the Batista regime.
Those who praise Castro generally applaud his reforms in public education and health care.
There is no doubt that Castro brought good things to his people and there's no doubt that he also was a ruthless dictator. He is a nuanced character, a blend of good and bad, readily seen differently from differing vantage points.
Fidel is expected to be replaced by his brother, Raul, who, at 76, will probably be replaced himself before long.
Castro has had a remarkable half-century run, a mark not typical of strongman rule. His longevity likely owes a great deal to the memories of the tyrant he ousted, Fulgencio Batista. While some opponents claim Castro turned Cuba into a police state, they choose to overlook the tyranny and corruption of the Batista regime.
Those who praise Castro generally applaud his reforms in public education and health care.
There is no doubt that Castro brought good things to his people and there's no doubt that he also was a ruthless dictator. He is a nuanced character, a blend of good and bad, readily seen differently from differing vantage points.
Fidel is expected to be replaced by his brother, Raul, who, at 76, will probably be replaced himself before long.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Musharraf Down In Flames
Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf has seen his party shot down by angry voters. From the New York Times:
"Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers.
"Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers.
Official results are expected Tuesday, but early returns indicated that the vote would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a Parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him.
The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed him for more than six years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote.
Politicians and party workers from Mr. Musharraf’s party said the vote was a protest against government policies and the rise in terrorism here, in particular against Mr. Musharraf’s heavy-handed way of dealing with militancy and his use of the army against tribesmen in the border areas, and against militants in a siege at the Red Mosque here in the capital last summer that left more than 100 people dead."
The question now appears to be whether Washington has lost its most reliable supporter in Islamabad. At this point it's probably best to keep a close eye on Pakistan's military leadership to see whether they will long tolerate a significant reduction in their control of the country's rule. The Pakistani military is heavily invested in the nation's government, economy and, of course, security. Wrestling them under control will be the first and hardest challenge facing a new civilian administration - if they can oust Musharraf.
No Welcome Mat for Africa Command
It looks as though the US military's Africa Command will be headquartered in Germany for the time being.
The latest US military command, created last October, has been unable to find an African nation, save for Liberia, willing to accommodate it. According to Voice of America, several African countries have "expressed reservations about having AFRICOM on the continent, claiming it could signal an expansion of American influence there."
"... it's the military component of AFRICOM that seems to be the problem for Africans. The Southern African Development Community, or SADC, has said it will not welcome American forces on any of its member country's territory."
Observers say some African nations worry AfriKom may be a Trojan Horse to insinuate American military muscle onto the continent.
The latest US military command, created last October, has been unable to find an African nation, save for Liberia, willing to accommodate it. According to Voice of America, several African countries have "expressed reservations about having AFRICOM on the continent, claiming it could signal an expansion of American influence there."
"... it's the military component of AFRICOM that seems to be the problem for Africans. The Southern African Development Community, or SADC, has said it will not welcome American forces on any of its member country's territory."
Observers say some African nations worry AfriKom may be a Trojan Horse to insinuate American military muscle onto the continent.
Kosovo - Europe's Newest and Poorest State
Kosovo has declared its independence from Serbia. Now it's going to have to figure out what to do with itself and that ain't gonna be easy.
Kosovo begins life as an economic disaster. It's not only the poorest remnant of the former Yugoslavia, it's getting poorer by the day. Here's an insight from Business Week published back in 2004 that remains disturbingly current:
"The massive U.N. presence in Kosovo has created an artificial bubble in Pristina and a few other spots scattered around the province, while the rest of the economy languishes. Foreign investment is practically nil, unemployment runs as high as 70% in some areas, and imports are outpacing exports by 26 to 1. And now the Kosovar economy is starting to slow, from 4.3% growth last year to an expected 4% this year, as the U.N. scales back its presence and as international donors withdraw. Of the $2.9 billion in aid committed, only $2.2 billion has materialized.
It's easy to blame the U.N. for mismanaging the reconstruction. But long before the international community came to town, Kosovo was already mired in poverty. Back in the days when Yugoslavia was still a country, Kosovo consumed 80% of the total federal development aid.
With a per capita income of $1,100 a year, Kosovo is by some estimates the poorest province in Europe.In many ways, Kosovo looks doomed to failure. It is landlocked, with crumbling infrastructure and hopelessly outdated factories. But perhaps Kosovo's biggest problem is demographics. Its population, which is 90% ethnic Albanians, has tripled in the past five decades. In addition to being the fastest-growing population in Europe, it's also the youngest. More than half of its citizens are under 24, and almost one-third are under 15."
Updated information from Wikipedia is hardly more optimistic. While per capita income has increased modestly, Kosovo's trade deficit stands at a staggering 70% of GDP. The country's strongest economic sector seems to be its thriving black market where smuggled cigarettes, gasoline and cement are key commodities. The country has a well-corrupted government and an abundance of criminal gangs.
For Europe's first Muslim country it's not an auspicious start but it's nonetheless "Mission Accomplished."
Kosovo begins life as an economic disaster. It's not only the poorest remnant of the former Yugoslavia, it's getting poorer by the day. Here's an insight from Business Week published back in 2004 that remains disturbingly current:
"The massive U.N. presence in Kosovo has created an artificial bubble in Pristina and a few other spots scattered around the province, while the rest of the economy languishes. Foreign investment is practically nil, unemployment runs as high as 70% in some areas, and imports are outpacing exports by 26 to 1. And now the Kosovar economy is starting to slow, from 4.3% growth last year to an expected 4% this year, as the U.N. scales back its presence and as international donors withdraw. Of the $2.9 billion in aid committed, only $2.2 billion has materialized.
It's easy to blame the U.N. for mismanaging the reconstruction. But long before the international community came to town, Kosovo was already mired in poverty. Back in the days when Yugoslavia was still a country, Kosovo consumed 80% of the total federal development aid.
With a per capita income of $1,100 a year, Kosovo is by some estimates the poorest province in Europe.In many ways, Kosovo looks doomed to failure. It is landlocked, with crumbling infrastructure and hopelessly outdated factories. But perhaps Kosovo's biggest problem is demographics. Its population, which is 90% ethnic Albanians, has tripled in the past five decades. In addition to being the fastest-growing population in Europe, it's also the youngest. More than half of its citizens are under 24, and almost one-third are under 15."
Updated information from Wikipedia is hardly more optimistic. While per capita income has increased modestly, Kosovo's trade deficit stands at a staggering 70% of GDP. The country's strongest economic sector seems to be its thriving black market where smuggled cigarettes, gasoline and cement are key commodities. The country has a well-corrupted government and an abundance of criminal gangs.
For Europe's first Muslim country it's not an auspicious start but it's nonetheless "Mission Accomplished."
The Great Debate
Axworthy, Granatstein weigh-in on Canada's role in world affairs and their remarks are telling.
Axworthy:
Our present international policy is guided by an outdated set of co-ordinates arising from a slavish adherence to the Bush administration's misguided efforts at empire building, military adventurism, continental border security and bilateral trade deals, while avoiding international collaboration on environmental and disarmament initiatives.
Ottawa has been so preoccupied with keeping in sync with these Washington missteps that we have lost sight of the global-sized tectonic changes that are altering power relationships. We have ignored the looming risks of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and abandoned the multilateral diplomacy that gave us a voice and influence on a wide range of significant issues.
Successive governments have allowed themselves to be pushed into making this faraway, disputatious land the centre point of our foreign, defence and development policy, chewing up vast resources ($7.8-billion and counting), endangering our Armed Forces, and constricting our abilities to play a useful role on any number of other global files. And, for what purpose? To support a government that is corrupt, run by warlords harbouring the world's largest heroin trade, and increasingly hostile to a mission that is seen as an occupying force.
Parliamentarians must use the debate on Afghanistan to liberate ourselves from a one-note, obsessive military combat role that is not working; to redefine our actions in the region in realistic ways that fit the security needs of the Afghan people, not the failed strategy of the generals.
Granatstein:
Above all, given our geographic location, we must have close relations with the United States. The U.S. is our best friend, as a now-forgotten politician said 45 years ago, "whether we like it or not." Strong in their anti-Americanism, Canadians took a long time to learn this, and some never have. But unless we can learn to eat grass to survive, we must have access to the American market, the largest, richest in the world. We need Americans' investment, and access to their brainpower and culture. We will need their military support in extremis. And the Yanks aren't going away — Canada is not an island, nor can we hide behind psychological or trade barriers.
Some Canadians foresee the Americans being surpassed in the coming years by others such as China, India, Brazil, or the European Union. If that occurs, and it may, then Canadians must realize that we will inevitably be forced even closer to the U.S. in our own economic and defence interests. The bulk of our trade will almost certainly continue to flow in a north-south direction, and we will only prosper if it does. Who dares to contemplate a future in which Beijing, say, occupies the economic role that the U.S. now plays for us? Could anyone, even the most fervent anti-American, believe that would be better for Canada?
We can be as independent as we want to be, as interdependent as we must be. But too much independence or interdependence can carry a high price, and Canadians must weigh their nation's interests — and their own — in making choices about where we go.
I guess if one thing is apparent in Axworthy's and Granatstein's views, it's that they're both totally predictable. Axworthy wants Canada's foreign policy aligned to meet the real issues threatening the world while Granatstein would have us commited to be America's faithful water boy, subordinating our foreign policy to Washington's.
Ban The Bomb!
Representatives from 100-nations are meeting today in Wellington, New Zealand to discuss the final issues leading to an international treaty to ban the production, sale and use of cluster bombs.
At the same time the New York based Human Rights Watch has released a report estimating the number of cluster bomblets Israel fired into Lebanon in 2006 at 4.6-million. From the UN Humanitarian Affairs Office:
"HRW’s estimate - an increase on the UN figure of about 4 million - is based on information gathered from Israeli soldiers who re-supplied Multiple Launch Rocket System units with cluster bombs during the July-August 2006. The number is more than were used in recent conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq combined, it said.
"Israel fired cluster bombs, either US-supplied or manufactured in Israel, on nearly 1,000 individual strike sites across 1,400sqkm of southern Lebanon, an area slightly larger than the US state of Rhode Island.
"Each cluster bomb can release up to 2,000 bomblets, and about a quarter of the bomblets failed to explode on impact in Lebanon. Since the war, unexploded bomblets have killed at least 30 people and injured some 200 others."
Human Rights Watch also reports that Hezbollah fired some cluster weapons into Israel during the conflict. How many is unclear.
At the same time the New York based Human Rights Watch has released a report estimating the number of cluster bomblets Israel fired into Lebanon in 2006 at 4.6-million. From the UN Humanitarian Affairs Office:
"HRW’s estimate - an increase on the UN figure of about 4 million - is based on information gathered from Israeli soldiers who re-supplied Multiple Launch Rocket System units with cluster bombs during the July-August 2006. The number is more than were used in recent conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq combined, it said.
"Israel fired cluster bombs, either US-supplied or manufactured in Israel, on nearly 1,000 individual strike sites across 1,400sqkm of southern Lebanon, an area slightly larger than the US state of Rhode Island.
"Each cluster bomb can release up to 2,000 bomblets, and about a quarter of the bomblets failed to explode on impact in Lebanon. Since the war, unexploded bomblets have killed at least 30 people and injured some 200 others."
Human Rights Watch also reports that Hezbollah fired some cluster weapons into Israel during the conflict. How many is unclear.
Canadian Agriculture's Achilles' Heel
Within just a few decades, Canadian food production could become dependent on two countries - one Communist, one Muslim.
Modern, industrial agriculture is entirely dependent on phosphorus-based fertilizers and Canada is almost entirely dependent on imported phosphorites. The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan scored rights to 39% of America's phosphate reserves but those reserves are rapidly dwindling.
A 1998 report by UBC prof. Kurt Grimm noted that American phosphate reserves could be exhausted by around 2020 at today's extraction rates. However the rates Grimm was working on in 1998 have been superceded by phosphate demands for fertilizer-intensive corn ethanol production.
"...In simple terms, the world's breadbasket may soon depend upon imported phosphorite ! And where does this phosphorite lie ? About 60% of the global phosphorite reserves lie in a rich belt extending from the Middle East into North Africa, a geological realm termed the South Tethys (note in December 2002: see Grimm et al., 2000 and references by Pufahl et al. on my reference list for more on the South Tethys Phosphorite Giant). The great majority - 52% of the reserve - lies in Morocco, with substantial economic deposits in the former Spanish Sahara. Guerrilla fighters opposed to Morocccan authority in the Spanish Sahara - and backed by Libya and Algeria - clashed with the Moroccans until a 1991 ceasefire agreement. A proviso of the cease fire was a referendum on the sovereignty of the disputed, phosphate-rich territory. To date an agreement concerning voter eligibility has not been reached and the election has yet to occur (Brazier, 1998).
"The Moroccan example brings several points to light: 1) Enormous economic phosphorite reserves exist in Morocco; 2) The demand projections for rock phosphorite and their proximity to markets make these deposits an enormous economic asset; 3) The linkage of non-renewable resources and profit potential of these deposits in this developing region pose the possibility of a one nation cartel and/or future armed struggles over these gigantic reserves.
"Think about it. Today, the supply and demand of oil makes the global economy go-round. When the Middle Eastern petroleum cartel (OPEC) flexed its muscles in the late 1970's, economies stuttered and the world lined up for gas. The emerging scenario is neither alarmist nor nationalistic, but highlights authentic concerns of planetary scale. Diminishing phosphate resources, exponential growth of the human population, and even steeper demand for rock phosphate in many developing nations as a more western-style, high protein diet is adopted sharpens the focus. Herring and Stowaser (1991) considered some of these factors, and concluded that by 2020, rock phosphorite may be the keystone resource of the world economy."
There is a growing awareness that "phosphate shock" is coming soon to the world market. The question is whether we should be squandering North American supplies on corn ethanol in the meantime. Phosphate prices rose from $300 to $400 per ton last year and are soon expected to break $800.
Modern, industrial agriculture is entirely dependent on phosphorus-based fertilizers and Canada is almost entirely dependent on imported phosphorites. The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan scored rights to 39% of America's phosphate reserves but those reserves are rapidly dwindling.
A 1998 report by UBC prof. Kurt Grimm noted that American phosphate reserves could be exhausted by around 2020 at today's extraction rates. However the rates Grimm was working on in 1998 have been superceded by phosphate demands for fertilizer-intensive corn ethanol production.
"...In simple terms, the world's breadbasket may soon depend upon imported phosphorite ! And where does this phosphorite lie ? About 60% of the global phosphorite reserves lie in a rich belt extending from the Middle East into North Africa, a geological realm termed the South Tethys (note in December 2002: see Grimm et al., 2000 and references by Pufahl et al. on my reference list for more on the South Tethys Phosphorite Giant). The great majority - 52% of the reserve - lies in Morocco, with substantial economic deposits in the former Spanish Sahara. Guerrilla fighters opposed to Morocccan authority in the Spanish Sahara - and backed by Libya and Algeria - clashed with the Moroccans until a 1991 ceasefire agreement. A proviso of the cease fire was a referendum on the sovereignty of the disputed, phosphate-rich territory. To date an agreement concerning voter eligibility has not been reached and the election has yet to occur (Brazier, 1998).
"The Moroccan example brings several points to light: 1) Enormous economic phosphorite reserves exist in Morocco; 2) The demand projections for rock phosphorite and their proximity to markets make these deposits an enormous economic asset; 3) The linkage of non-renewable resources and profit potential of these deposits in this developing region pose the possibility of a one nation cartel and/or future armed struggles over these gigantic reserves.
"Think about it. Today, the supply and demand of oil makes the global economy go-round. When the Middle Eastern petroleum cartel (OPEC) flexed its muscles in the late 1970's, economies stuttered and the world lined up for gas. The emerging scenario is neither alarmist nor nationalistic, but highlights authentic concerns of planetary scale. Diminishing phosphate resources, exponential growth of the human population, and even steeper demand for rock phosphate in many developing nations as a more western-style, high protein diet is adopted sharpens the focus. Herring and Stowaser (1991) considered some of these factors, and concluded that by 2020, rock phosphorite may be the keystone resource of the world economy."
There is a growing awareness that "phosphate shock" is coming soon to the world market. The question is whether we should be squandering North American supplies on corn ethanol in the meantime. Phosphate prices rose from $300 to $400 per ton last year and are soon expected to break $800.
Kandahar Governor Criticizes Canadian Forces
Another suicide bombing in Kandahar, the second in as many days. This time 36-dead, all Afghanis, with four Canadian soldiers reportedly wounded.
The governor of Kandahar province, Asadullah Khaled, seems to blame Canadian soldiers for provoking the attack. From the New York Times:
“The enemy of Islam, the enemy of Afghans, are trying to sabotage the peace process,” Mr. Khaled said while visiting the family of a local police commander, Abdul Hakim Jan, who was killed Sunday. “We need to be united and eradicate them at the root,” Mr. Khaled said of the insurgents.
At a news briefing later in the day, Mr. Khaled lashed out at Canadian forces for patrolling in crowded places when there was a known suicide bomb threat in the area.
He said the Afghan security forces had received information that a suicide bombing was planned and had warned the Canadian military, but he complained they did not heed the warnings.
“We told NATO six times not to come in these areas because for the last two days a suicide bomber has been circulating,” Mr. Khaled said at a news briefing in the city of Kandahar. “But they continue patrolling the area. We repeatedly told them not to come out until we arrest the suicide bomber.”
The governor of Kandahar province, Asadullah Khaled, seems to blame Canadian soldiers for provoking the attack. From the New York Times:
“The enemy of Islam, the enemy of Afghans, are trying to sabotage the peace process,” Mr. Khaled said while visiting the family of a local police commander, Abdul Hakim Jan, who was killed Sunday. “We need to be united and eradicate them at the root,” Mr. Khaled said of the insurgents.
At a news briefing later in the day, Mr. Khaled lashed out at Canadian forces for patrolling in crowded places when there was a known suicide bomb threat in the area.
He said the Afghan security forces had received information that a suicide bombing was planned and had warned the Canadian military, but he complained they did not heed the warnings.
“We told NATO six times not to come in these areas because for the last two days a suicide bomber has been circulating,” Mr. Khaled said at a news briefing in the city of Kandahar. “But they continue patrolling the area. We repeatedly told them not to come out until we arrest the suicide bomber.”
First Kosovo, Then Israel and Can Texas Be Far Behind?
Kosovo, or at least its ethnic Albanian majority, has declared its independence from Serbia. The seminal words there are "ethnic Albanian." Kosovo has historically been Serbian through and through. It's cherished by the Serbian people. But, mainly as a result of centuries of wars between the Slavs and the Ottomans, they allowed ethnic Albanians into the area and those folks settled in and bred themselves into a tidy majority. A dust up ensued and "bingo" they've taken the place as their own.
Israel is facing a similar demographic problem. Can't live with the Palestinians but not prepared, at least not yet, to live without them. The window may be closing on the two-state option and that's terrifying to a lot of Israelis. If the situation defaults to a one-state solution, the Palestinians would quickly be the majority, capable of voting their interests - if they were ever given a vote. Israel would have to maintain a South African-style apartheid or lose Israeli control of their homeland. Yikes!
Best of all there's the American southwest. A lot of Americans are becoming alarmed at the demographic explosion of the Latinos. It's believed that Latinos could become an ethnic majority in various southwestern states before too long. What then? What if they use their voting power to "have it their way"? It's not too hard to imagine that "their way" wouldn't be entirely comfortable for America's caucasian majority.
Hasta la vista, Yanquis! You're not the only ones who "Remember the Alamo."
Israel is facing a similar demographic problem. Can't live with the Palestinians but not prepared, at least not yet, to live without them. The window may be closing on the two-state option and that's terrifying to a lot of Israelis. If the situation defaults to a one-state solution, the Palestinians would quickly be the majority, capable of voting their interests - if they were ever given a vote. Israel would have to maintain a South African-style apartheid or lose Israeli control of their homeland. Yikes!
Best of all there's the American southwest. A lot of Americans are becoming alarmed at the demographic explosion of the Latinos. It's believed that Latinos could become an ethnic majority in various southwestern states before too long. What then? What if they use their voting power to "have it their way"? It's not too hard to imagine that "their way" wouldn't be entirely comfortable for America's caucasian majority.
Hasta la vista, Yanquis! You're not the only ones who "Remember the Alamo."
Sunday, February 17, 2008
First The Guns, Then The Paranoia
Nothing like a good old-fashioned arms race to spice up the world's problems.
It's curious how they always seem to follow the same course - first the guns, then the paranoia and then... well, let's leave that for a moment.
Guns. Nobody likes them more than the United States of America. Its economy may be in decline, it may be struggling to breathe under a suffocating blanket of debt, but there's nothing known to man or earth that'll stop it from spending more on its military than every other nation combined. Think about that. Five per cent of the world's population, twenty five per cent of its greenhouse gas emissions, fifty per cent of its military spending. Wowee, zowee!
It's a scary world when the hillbillies have all the guns.
Imagine you live in a big, old house with a big verandah where you like to sit to catch the cool evening breezes in the height of summer. In the big, old house across the street your somewhat strange neighbour also sits out in the evening. But one day you notice something different. Lined up along the porch railing you see the neighbour has leaned a couple of rifles and a shotgun. It's enough that you notice it but you don't react. Then the following night you see that he's added an automatic assault rifle. The next night it's a sniper rifle. About this time you might be getting a little worried about all this firepower and just what the guy has in mind. When you see him actually pointing a cannon at you, just that once, you realize you can't keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Now take that situation to the global stage. You have one country that has served notice that it reserves the right to launch "pre-emptive" war against any nation that it perceives as an emerging rival, militarily or even economically. That's right. If your economy stands to surpass his economy, he claims the right to attack you. If your military or your military and that of other countries with which you may ally yourself threaten to surpass his military might, he claims the right to attack you. On what basis? Because he can. Because might is right.
That little bit of madness is enshrined in today's Bush Doctrine. It's a perverse form of American exceptionalism that has other nations paying a lot of attention to the goings on in Washington. So, what do they see when their gaze shifts to the Potomac?
They see a nation that has gone for its guns, arming itself as though it was already in a total war and preparing for another. They see a nation bent on achieving superiority, on a generational scale, in everything from ships and submarines, to aircraft, to nuclear weapons and the militarization of space itself. They see a nation that has commercialized not just its armaments industry but warfare itself, a government whose elite friends (outfits such as Halliburton) now rake in unconscionable profits from actual warfare, an industrialized mercenary cash cow.
Bush/Cheney & Company cherish fear. It's a weapon they use on everyone, including their own people. To them, it's far easier and infinitely more effective to use fear as a motivator than to employ legitimate means of persuasion. Get'em afraid enough and they'll do anything. The trouble is, other nations aren't as easily intimidated as the American people.
As America has gone for its guns so have others. Russia, China, India, the Koreas, even Japan are all in the midst of one or more arms races. It's even rumoured Brazil may seek to establish a nuclear hegemony in South America. What else do all these countries have in common? They're all emerging economic superpowers. They're all looking to expand trade with each other. And, with the exception of Brazil, they're all geographically contiguous.
Asia Times Online has a good article on the Asian arms race: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JB14Ad02.html
Russia's Vlad Putin has been outspoken about his nation's insistence that it will not be cowed by American threats. Recently Putin said that Russia will soon field its own advanced weaponry and its own next-generation nuclear weapons with new missiles specifically designed to defeat Bush's anti-missile defence systems. He has scrapped the Coventional Forces treaty and has promised to target Russian missiles at any nation that participates in the Bush anti-missile system.
First the guns, then fear, then more guns and, inevitably, the paranoia. This is the potentially lethal cocktail produced by mixing fear, a lack of confidence, and a powerful shot of suspicion.
Here's the latest example. The United States has announced it will use a missile next week to destroy a defective spy satellite. Washington claims the satellite was launched just over a year ago, failed immediately, and now threatens to smash into earth with a deadly cargo of hydrazine fuel.
Russia, however, suspects an ulterior motive. From BBC:
It's curious how they always seem to follow the same course - first the guns, then the paranoia and then... well, let's leave that for a moment.
Guns. Nobody likes them more than the United States of America. Its economy may be in decline, it may be struggling to breathe under a suffocating blanket of debt, but there's nothing known to man or earth that'll stop it from spending more on its military than every other nation combined. Think about that. Five per cent of the world's population, twenty five per cent of its greenhouse gas emissions, fifty per cent of its military spending. Wowee, zowee!
It's a scary world when the hillbillies have all the guns.
Imagine you live in a big, old house with a big verandah where you like to sit to catch the cool evening breezes in the height of summer. In the big, old house across the street your somewhat strange neighbour also sits out in the evening. But one day you notice something different. Lined up along the porch railing you see the neighbour has leaned a couple of rifles and a shotgun. It's enough that you notice it but you don't react. Then the following night you see that he's added an automatic assault rifle. The next night it's a sniper rifle. About this time you might be getting a little worried about all this firepower and just what the guy has in mind. When you see him actually pointing a cannon at you, just that once, you realize you can't keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Now take that situation to the global stage. You have one country that has served notice that it reserves the right to launch "pre-emptive" war against any nation that it perceives as an emerging rival, militarily or even economically. That's right. If your economy stands to surpass his economy, he claims the right to attack you. If your military or your military and that of other countries with which you may ally yourself threaten to surpass his military might, he claims the right to attack you. On what basis? Because he can. Because might is right.
That little bit of madness is enshrined in today's Bush Doctrine. It's a perverse form of American exceptionalism that has other nations paying a lot of attention to the goings on in Washington. So, what do they see when their gaze shifts to the Potomac?
They see a nation that has gone for its guns, arming itself as though it was already in a total war and preparing for another. They see a nation bent on achieving superiority, on a generational scale, in everything from ships and submarines, to aircraft, to nuclear weapons and the militarization of space itself. They see a nation that has commercialized not just its armaments industry but warfare itself, a government whose elite friends (outfits such as Halliburton) now rake in unconscionable profits from actual warfare, an industrialized mercenary cash cow.
Bush/Cheney & Company cherish fear. It's a weapon they use on everyone, including their own people. To them, it's far easier and infinitely more effective to use fear as a motivator than to employ legitimate means of persuasion. Get'em afraid enough and they'll do anything. The trouble is, other nations aren't as easily intimidated as the American people.
As America has gone for its guns so have others. Russia, China, India, the Koreas, even Japan are all in the midst of one or more arms races. It's even rumoured Brazil may seek to establish a nuclear hegemony in South America. What else do all these countries have in common? They're all emerging economic superpowers. They're all looking to expand trade with each other. And, with the exception of Brazil, they're all geographically contiguous.
Asia Times Online has a good article on the Asian arms race: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JB14Ad02.html
Russia's Vlad Putin has been outspoken about his nation's insistence that it will not be cowed by American threats. Recently Putin said that Russia will soon field its own advanced weaponry and its own next-generation nuclear weapons with new missiles specifically designed to defeat Bush's anti-missile defence systems. He has scrapped the Coventional Forces treaty and has promised to target Russian missiles at any nation that participates in the Bush anti-missile system.
First the guns, then fear, then more guns and, inevitably, the paranoia. This is the potentially lethal cocktail produced by mixing fear, a lack of confidence, and a powerful shot of suspicion.
Here's the latest example. The United States has announced it will use a missile next week to destroy a defective spy satellite. Washington claims the satellite was launched just over a year ago, failed immediately, and now threatens to smash into earth with a deadly cargo of hydrazine fuel.
Russia, however, suspects an ulterior motive. From BBC:
Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites".
"Speculations about the danger of the satellite hide preparations for the classical testing of an anti-satellite weapon," a statement reported by Itar-Tass news agency said.
"Such testing essentially means the creation of a new type of strategic weapons," it added.
"The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space," the statement continued.
The Russian defence ministry argued that various countries' spacecraft had crashed to Earth in the past, and many countries used toxic fuel in spacecraft, but this had never before merited such "extraordinary measures".
It troubles and perplexes me that, as far as our leaders seem to be concerned, these arms races aren't even on their radar. No one on our side speaks out demanding this be stopped and I can only assume that's because it is the United States that is driving this lunacy. The good news is that not every arms race leads to major power war. The Cold War is an example, although there was a lot of luck involved and it had an abundance of troubles of its own. However the First and Second World Wars clearly did trace back to arms races.
There are political and economic shifts underway of a tectonic scale. It'll be tough enough travelling that rocky road without everyone pointing guns with hair triggers.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
T-Rex Murphy's Con Game
It's called "sophistry," "unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning" and it fits Rex Murphy to a T. Anyone who has heard or read this devout contrarian go on about the "theory" of global warming will know that no amount of scientific study will ever inform his tightly locked mind on this subject.
Murphy routinely ridicules the scientific community, the IPCC, environmentalists and anyone else calling for action to arrest man-made greenhouse gas emissions and, curiously, as the science builds his skepticism never truly recedes. For Rex Murphy there is no reality tipping point. He is the hi-brow Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter of anthropogenic global warming.
Here are excerpts from Murphy's latest adventure into denial and deceit from the Globe & Mail:
"I am under no illusion about the force of the global warming consensus.
It is the grand orthodoxy of our day. Among right-thinking people, the idea of expressing any doubts on some of its more cataclysmic projections, to speak in tones other than those of veneration about its high-priests, such as Mr. Suzuki or Al Gore, is to stir a response uncomfortably close to what in previous and less rational times was reserved for blasphemers, heretics and atheists."
(ah, nice try, Rex. Set yourself up as the latter day Galileo. There was a difference, Rex. Galileo sought to advance science, you seek to ridicule it, not with any reference to contrary science, but with the power of empty rhetoric. Just like your mentors, Ann and Rush.)
"But wherever we are on global warming, and on the models and theories supporting it, it is not yet The Truth, nor is it yet Science (with a capital S) as such. And to put a stay on our full consent to its more clamorous and particular alarms is not, pace Dr. Suzuki, either “ignoring science” or complicity in criminal endeavour. Nor is reasoned dissent or dispute, on some or all of the policy recommendations that global warming advocates insist flow, as night follows day, from their science."
(nice, Rex. Yes, anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory. Gravity and evolution are also theories. Since gravity is a theory, Rex, maybe you would like to see how well your 767 flies when the wings fall off at 35,000 feet. Theories sometimes kill, Rex, and, until you come up with some meaningful science of your own, it's best to bear that in mind.
Here Murphy sets himself up as a voice of "reasoned dissent" while providing no reason, no justification, no explanation. A misleading and superficial argument typical of this clown.)
"It's worth pausing on this point. What global warming is, what portion of it is man-made, is one set of questions properly within the circle of rational inquiry we call science. What to do about it – shut down the oil sands, impose a carbon tax, sign on to Kyoto, mandate efficient light bulbs or hybrid cars – are choices within a range of public policy that have to be made outside any laboratory whatsoever. Global warming's more fulminating spokespeople are apt to finesse that great chasm between the science and the politics. They are further apt to imply a continuum between the unassailable authority of real and neutral science and their own particular policy prescriptions. (I notice that late in the week that something called Environmental Defence has hailed the Alberta oil sands as “the most destructive project on Earth.” It goes on to say that “your desire to tackle global warming is being held hostage by the Tar Sands.”
If global warming is primarily a “man-made” phenomenon, then what to do about it is a political discussion before it is anything else at all."
(Fair enough but, again, misleading and superficial. This is a scientific issue and, while remedial actions fall within the political realm, the "discussion" needs to be informed by science. Rex, quite craftily, avoids drawing the essential link. Going to war is, likewise, a political decision but it's always best if the politicians are first properly informed by their military chiefs. Look what happened in Iraq when Bush refused to listen to his top general, Eric Shinseki. Same idea, Rex.
Since when is the issue whether "global warming is primarily a man-made phenomenon"? Man is certainly a critical source of GHG emissions but which is the "primary" source is irrelevant. See how cheesy T-Rex can get when he slips irrelevant and misleading considerations into his arguments?)
"If Environmental Defence or Dr. Suzuki thinks shutting down the oil sands is not a political choice, I advise both the group and the man to visit Alberta and acquaint themselves, while they are at it, with the history of the national energy program – and what its consequences were for the West and Confederation.
Shutting down the oil sands would make the storm over the NEP feel like a soft rain on a sultry day by comparison. It would break the Confederation."
("Break confederation?" Why, because you say so Rex? Nothing to see here, move along, eh? So, what's the alternative, Rex, give up? Just ignore it? Oh, that's right, Rex doesn't come up with alternatives or factual responses. He doesn't have to. He's T-Rex.)
Murphy routinely ridicules the scientific community, the IPCC, environmentalists and anyone else calling for action to arrest man-made greenhouse gas emissions and, curiously, as the science builds his skepticism never truly recedes. For Rex Murphy there is no reality tipping point. He is the hi-brow Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter of anthropogenic global warming.
Here are excerpts from Murphy's latest adventure into denial and deceit from the Globe & Mail:
"I am under no illusion about the force of the global warming consensus.
It is the grand orthodoxy of our day. Among right-thinking people, the idea of expressing any doubts on some of its more cataclysmic projections, to speak in tones other than those of veneration about its high-priests, such as Mr. Suzuki or Al Gore, is to stir a response uncomfortably close to what in previous and less rational times was reserved for blasphemers, heretics and atheists."
(ah, nice try, Rex. Set yourself up as the latter day Galileo. There was a difference, Rex. Galileo sought to advance science, you seek to ridicule it, not with any reference to contrary science, but with the power of empty rhetoric. Just like your mentors, Ann and Rush.)
"But wherever we are on global warming, and on the models and theories supporting it, it is not yet The Truth, nor is it yet Science (with a capital S) as such. And to put a stay on our full consent to its more clamorous and particular alarms is not, pace Dr. Suzuki, either “ignoring science” or complicity in criminal endeavour. Nor is reasoned dissent or dispute, on some or all of the policy recommendations that global warming advocates insist flow, as night follows day, from their science."
(nice, Rex. Yes, anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory. Gravity and evolution are also theories. Since gravity is a theory, Rex, maybe you would like to see how well your 767 flies when the wings fall off at 35,000 feet. Theories sometimes kill, Rex, and, until you come up with some meaningful science of your own, it's best to bear that in mind.
Here Murphy sets himself up as a voice of "reasoned dissent" while providing no reason, no justification, no explanation. A misleading and superficial argument typical of this clown.)
"It's worth pausing on this point. What global warming is, what portion of it is man-made, is one set of questions properly within the circle of rational inquiry we call science. What to do about it – shut down the oil sands, impose a carbon tax, sign on to Kyoto, mandate efficient light bulbs or hybrid cars – are choices within a range of public policy that have to be made outside any laboratory whatsoever. Global warming's more fulminating spokespeople are apt to finesse that great chasm between the science and the politics. They are further apt to imply a continuum between the unassailable authority of real and neutral science and their own particular policy prescriptions. (I notice that late in the week that something called Environmental Defence has hailed the Alberta oil sands as “the most destructive project on Earth.” It goes on to say that “your desire to tackle global warming is being held hostage by the Tar Sands.”
If global warming is primarily a “man-made” phenomenon, then what to do about it is a political discussion before it is anything else at all."
(Fair enough but, again, misleading and superficial. This is a scientific issue and, while remedial actions fall within the political realm, the "discussion" needs to be informed by science. Rex, quite craftily, avoids drawing the essential link. Going to war is, likewise, a political decision but it's always best if the politicians are first properly informed by their military chiefs. Look what happened in Iraq when Bush refused to listen to his top general, Eric Shinseki. Same idea, Rex.
Since when is the issue whether "global warming is primarily a man-made phenomenon"? Man is certainly a critical source of GHG emissions but which is the "primary" source is irrelevant. See how cheesy T-Rex can get when he slips irrelevant and misleading considerations into his arguments?)
"If Environmental Defence or Dr. Suzuki thinks shutting down the oil sands is not a political choice, I advise both the group and the man to visit Alberta and acquaint themselves, while they are at it, with the history of the national energy program – and what its consequences were for the West and Confederation.
Shutting down the oil sands would make the storm over the NEP feel like a soft rain on a sultry day by comparison. It would break the Confederation."
("Break confederation?" Why, because you say so Rex? Nothing to see here, move along, eh? So, what's the alternative, Rex, give up? Just ignore it? Oh, that's right, Rex doesn't come up with alternatives or factual responses. He doesn't have to. He's T-Rex.)
Friday, February 15, 2008
What's Wrong With The Afghanistan Motion
I watched the Liberal Party clip of Stephane Dion presenting and explaining his motion on the future of "the mission" in Afghanistan.
The motion was obviously an exercise in political posturing and nothing more. It demands that the Canadian government "address" Afghanistan's opium problem. Address as in what exactly? How is a force that controls just a small portion of just a single province in a lawless and corrupt narco-state supposed to address a national problem of the scope of Afghanistan's opium industry?
Dion notionally insists that NATO honour the non-existant "rotation" principle of sending in a force of soldiers to relieve Canada's soldiers so they can get on with training and security. Yet he leaves more than ample wiggle room in the proposal as to render it virtually meaningless so long as the Tory demand for another thousand troops is met.
If we're going to continue as America's Foreign Legion until February, 2011, then we'll need NATO to furnish Canada with its own, mini-Foreign Legion to handle the fighting in Kandahar until we leave, is that it? So, we're going to remain in control of Kandahar province and other countries are going to send their soldiers there to serve under us as our battle group? Say what?
Then there's the sleight-of-hand insistence on a "firm end date" of February, 2011. Dion wants Harper to write a letter to NATO saying this time we mean it, we're really leaving, seriously folks - no, seriously, this isn't a joke, we're going in February, 2011. Stop laughing. We mean it, there's nothing to laugh about. We're serious. Really, this time we're serious.
If we're going to have a "firm end date" there's only one way to get it. We need to negotiate a binding agreement, with NATO and with the US, under which both acknowledge we're out in February, 2011 and with an express American guarantee that, if NATO doesn't come up with a replacement force by February, 2010, the US will begin assembling and training an American force to be in place no later than February, 2011 to relieve Canada's forces. We need that deal BEFORE we approve any extension because you can't get it afterward.
We're in the mess we're in now because we extended to 2009 without that very agreement from NATO and the US. We didn't bind them to our deal and they weren't about to jump in to find replacements for the Canadian mission as the deadline approached.
NATO and the US are not our faithful friends in this. They knew what was needed for Canadian forces to "rotate" out in 2009 and they did absolutely nothing - nothing - to facilitate that end. We were stupid to believe they would do otherwise. Yet here we are, once again, extending a mission to another deadline without the firm commitment of the two key players, NATO and the US, a glaring omission that virtually assures we will be stuck in the same situation in 2010 that we're in today. If anything it'll be worse for us because NATO will be scrambling to find someone to fill in for the departing Dutch contingent.
Another precondition of the Liberal motion is described as, "development of sound judicial and correctional systems." Given that another NATO member, I believe Italy, has assumed responsibility for development of an Afghan judicial system it's unclear how this condition can have any relevance to the mission extension except as meaningless window dressing.
This is followed by demands for, "addressing freshwater shortages and addressing the drug economy." Just what does Mr. Dion have in mind that Canada should do to address Afghanistan's freshwater shortages from our dangerous little perch in Kandahar?
These conditions are plainly demands on Kabul or NATO or both so it's difficult to conceive what purpose there is in incorporating them into the extension. It is neither coincidence nor oversight that completely absent in these supposed demands is any discussion of just what Canada is to do if development of sound judicial and correctional systems isn't achieved or if the opium economy isn't addressed (whatever that may mean) or if the freshwater shortages aren't addressed (ditto). Do we leave? Do we throw a tantrum? Do we speak harshly to Hamid Karzai?
These policies and conditions don't even pretend to be more than meaningless, irrelevant drivel. We seem to have arrived at an era where we use proud words to mask the absence of ideas rather than to convey courageous solutions; to construct the appearance of decisiveness as a facade to hide angry confusion and indecisiveness; to stand fact and logic completely on their heads to create the bare illusion of leadership where none exists. It's bad enough that Stephen Harper insists on modelling himself after the flawed image of his American Idol. Why does the Liberal leader feel obliged to follow suit?
The Canadian people don't support the mission and their knowledge barely scratches the surface of the true situation on the ground in Afghanistan. The more they know, the less they're bound to like it. NATO isn't committed to winning this, neither is the United States, so what conceivable reason can there be to extend the mission beyond 2010 when the Dutch are leaving in their neighbouring province?
Stand on principle, draw a line, if necessary fight an election on 2010. But that's not going to happen, is it.
The motion was obviously an exercise in political posturing and nothing more. It demands that the Canadian government "address" Afghanistan's opium problem. Address as in what exactly? How is a force that controls just a small portion of just a single province in a lawless and corrupt narco-state supposed to address a national problem of the scope of Afghanistan's opium industry?
Dion notionally insists that NATO honour the non-existant "rotation" principle of sending in a force of soldiers to relieve Canada's soldiers so they can get on with training and security. Yet he leaves more than ample wiggle room in the proposal as to render it virtually meaningless so long as the Tory demand for another thousand troops is met.
If we're going to continue as America's Foreign Legion until February, 2011, then we'll need NATO to furnish Canada with its own, mini-Foreign Legion to handle the fighting in Kandahar until we leave, is that it? So, we're going to remain in control of Kandahar province and other countries are going to send their soldiers there to serve under us as our battle group? Say what?
Then there's the sleight-of-hand insistence on a "firm end date" of February, 2011. Dion wants Harper to write a letter to NATO saying this time we mean it, we're really leaving, seriously folks - no, seriously, this isn't a joke, we're going in February, 2011. Stop laughing. We mean it, there's nothing to laugh about. We're serious. Really, this time we're serious.
If we're going to have a "firm end date" there's only one way to get it. We need to negotiate a binding agreement, with NATO and with the US, under which both acknowledge we're out in February, 2011 and with an express American guarantee that, if NATO doesn't come up with a replacement force by February, 2010, the US will begin assembling and training an American force to be in place no later than February, 2011 to relieve Canada's forces. We need that deal BEFORE we approve any extension because you can't get it afterward.
We're in the mess we're in now because we extended to 2009 without that very agreement from NATO and the US. We didn't bind them to our deal and they weren't about to jump in to find replacements for the Canadian mission as the deadline approached.
NATO and the US are not our faithful friends in this. They knew what was needed for Canadian forces to "rotate" out in 2009 and they did absolutely nothing - nothing - to facilitate that end. We were stupid to believe they would do otherwise. Yet here we are, once again, extending a mission to another deadline without the firm commitment of the two key players, NATO and the US, a glaring omission that virtually assures we will be stuck in the same situation in 2010 that we're in today. If anything it'll be worse for us because NATO will be scrambling to find someone to fill in for the departing Dutch contingent.
Another precondition of the Liberal motion is described as, "development of sound judicial and correctional systems." Given that another NATO member, I believe Italy, has assumed responsibility for development of an Afghan judicial system it's unclear how this condition can have any relevance to the mission extension except as meaningless window dressing.
This is followed by demands for, "addressing freshwater shortages and addressing the drug economy." Just what does Mr. Dion have in mind that Canada should do to address Afghanistan's freshwater shortages from our dangerous little perch in Kandahar?
These conditions are plainly demands on Kabul or NATO or both so it's difficult to conceive what purpose there is in incorporating them into the extension. It is neither coincidence nor oversight that completely absent in these supposed demands is any discussion of just what Canada is to do if development of sound judicial and correctional systems isn't achieved or if the opium economy isn't addressed (whatever that may mean) or if the freshwater shortages aren't addressed (ditto). Do we leave? Do we throw a tantrum? Do we speak harshly to Hamid Karzai?
These policies and conditions don't even pretend to be more than meaningless, irrelevant drivel. We seem to have arrived at an era where we use proud words to mask the absence of ideas rather than to convey courageous solutions; to construct the appearance of decisiveness as a facade to hide angry confusion and indecisiveness; to stand fact and logic completely on their heads to create the bare illusion of leadership where none exists. It's bad enough that Stephen Harper insists on modelling himself after the flawed image of his American Idol. Why does the Liberal leader feel obliged to follow suit?
The Canadian people don't support the mission and their knowledge barely scratches the surface of the true situation on the ground in Afghanistan. The more they know, the less they're bound to like it. NATO isn't committed to winning this, neither is the United States, so what conceivable reason can there be to extend the mission beyond 2010 when the Dutch are leaving in their neighbouring province?
Stand on principle, draw a line, if necessary fight an election on 2010. But that's not going to happen, is it.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Water, Water Everywhere - Just Not Here, or Here, or There Either
One of the main themes on this site, other than Afghanistan, has been the environment and, especially, the looming freshwater/groundwater crisis that is spreading rapidly around the world. As Maude Barlow points out in the following excerpts from her interview in Alternet, it's a razor-sharp, double-edged sword that is both a result and a cause of global warming:
"By farming in deserts and taking up water from aquifers or watersheds. Or by urbanizing -- massive urbanization causes the hydrologic cycle to not function correctly because rain needs to fall back on green stuff -- vegetation and grass -- so that the process can repeat itself. Or we are sending huge amounts of water from large watersheds to megacities and some of them are 10 to 20 million people, and if those cities are on the ocean, some of that water gets dumped into the ocean. It is not returned to the cycle.
"We are massively polluting surface water, so that the water may be there, but we can't use it. And we are also mining groundwater faster than it can be replenished by nature, which means we are not allowing the cycle to renew itself. The Ogallala aquifer is one example of massive overpumping. There are bore wells in the Lake Michigan shore that go as deep into the ground as Chicago skyscrapers go into the ground and they are sucking groundwater that should be feeding the lake so hard that they are pulling up lake water now, and they are reversing the flow of water in Lake Michigan for the first time.
"We are interrupting the natural cycle. And another thing we are doing is something called virtual water trade. That is where you send water out of the watershed in the form of products or agriculture. You've used the water to produce something and then you export it, and about 20 percent of water used in the world is exported out of watershed in this way, because so much of our economy is about export. In the U.S. you are sending about one-third of your water out of watersheds -- it is not sustainable.
"This is not a cyclical drought. We are actually creating hot stains, as I and some scientists call them, around the world. These are parts of the world that are running out of water and will be, or are, in crisis. Which means that millions more people will be without water. I argue that this is one of the causes of global warming. We usually hear water being a result of climate change, and it is, particularly with the melting of the glaciers. But our abuse, mismanagement and treatment of water is actually one of the causes, and we have not placed that analysis at the center of our thinking about climate change and environmental destruction, and until we do, we are only addressing half the question."
Barlow was being interviewed in connection with the release of her new book, "Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water." You can read the entire interview here:
http://www.alternet.org/water/76819/?page=2
"By farming in deserts and taking up water from aquifers or watersheds. Or by urbanizing -- massive urbanization causes the hydrologic cycle to not function correctly because rain needs to fall back on green stuff -- vegetation and grass -- so that the process can repeat itself. Or we are sending huge amounts of water from large watersheds to megacities and some of them are 10 to 20 million people, and if those cities are on the ocean, some of that water gets dumped into the ocean. It is not returned to the cycle.
"We are massively polluting surface water, so that the water may be there, but we can't use it. And we are also mining groundwater faster than it can be replenished by nature, which means we are not allowing the cycle to renew itself. The Ogallala aquifer is one example of massive overpumping. There are bore wells in the Lake Michigan shore that go as deep into the ground as Chicago skyscrapers go into the ground and they are sucking groundwater that should be feeding the lake so hard that they are pulling up lake water now, and they are reversing the flow of water in Lake Michigan for the first time.
"We are interrupting the natural cycle. And another thing we are doing is something called virtual water trade. That is where you send water out of the watershed in the form of products or agriculture. You've used the water to produce something and then you export it, and about 20 percent of water used in the world is exported out of watershed in this way, because so much of our economy is about export. In the U.S. you are sending about one-third of your water out of watersheds -- it is not sustainable.
"This is not a cyclical drought. We are actually creating hot stains, as I and some scientists call them, around the world. These are parts of the world that are running out of water and will be, or are, in crisis. Which means that millions more people will be without water. I argue that this is one of the causes of global warming. We usually hear water being a result of climate change, and it is, particularly with the melting of the glaciers. But our abuse, mismanagement and treatment of water is actually one of the causes, and we have not placed that analysis at the center of our thinking about climate change and environmental destruction, and until we do, we are only addressing half the question."
Barlow was being interviewed in connection with the release of her new book, "Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water." You can read the entire interview here:
http://www.alternet.org/water/76819/?page=2
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Stephane Dion Folds on Afghanistan
The great debate seems to be whether Liberal leader Stephane Dion "compromised" or "capitulated" in reaching an accord with Stephen Harper on extending the mission in Afghanistan.
Jason Cherniak opines that it was neither, instead a "marriage of communications convenience between the Liberals and the Conservatives, neither of whom want an election with Afghanistan as the prominent issue."
I think it's much more than communications convenience, whatever you take that to mean. Here are excerpts from Dion's principled Afghanistan policy speech in February, 2007:
"...by May, a mere three months after Canada’s combat force went into Kandahar, the government knew that we were facing a significant and violent insurgency, well beyond anything NATO had experienced in the past or had planned for. And before too long we saw that the Canadian effort in Kandahar had shifted from the original over-riding objective of reconstruction to fighting a violent insurgency.
Faced with that new reality, what should the Canadian government have done? It should have taken the time to determine whether and how our mission could still achieve the goals we had set out, in such a rapidly deteriorating security environment.
Instead, what did Prime Minister Harper do? He extended the mission by 2 years. And he did so without having obtained commitments from our allies to help us cope with the changed situation. He made no prior effort to obtain assurances from the government of Pakistan to secure their border with Afghanistan, across which the insurgents move with impunity. And he got no assurances from our NATO allies to replace Canada at the end of our mission. In other words, he made a rash decision on a critical issue.
In addition, the Prime Minister misled Members of Parliament to get them to support this extension. He promised MPs that this mission would not hinder Canada’s ability to undertake peace-support missions elsewhere, such as in Darfur or Haiti. But within a few weeks of the vote in Parliament, his defence minister made it clear that Canada no longer had any such troop capacity. General Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, has more recently confirmed this. With this mission extension, the Prime Minister has thrown away Canada’s flexibility to respond to other international peace and security priorities.
In the face of changed circumstances on the ground, this government and this Prime Minister steamrolled Parliament without facts, information or realistic debate. They told Canadians this mission represented continuity of an existing mission, yet the security context deteriorated so much that shortly after this decision the government went as far as to send tanks to Kandahar.
I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada’s combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009. That means Canada must inform NATO today how firm this deadline is and that it must find a replacement nation for us. The Harper government has not done this. To the contrary, military documents have come to light that show that the Harper government is planning for the Canadian Forces to stay in Kandahar until 2011. Our allies have surely taken note of this. As long as other NATO countries believe our commitment is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure."
So, it's "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Harper, with the requisite endorsement of the opposition parties, extended the mission by two years to 2009, without having obtained assistance from NATO partners or assurances from Pakistan or assurances from NATO allies to replace us when the term ends in 2009.
Okay, now Dion has agreed to an extension to 2011 without having obtained assistance from NATO partners or assurances from Pakistan or assurances that we'll be replaced when the term ends in 2011. "As long as other NATO countries believe our commitment is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure." Well said Stephane so why does this no longer trouble you?
"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February, 2009." Of course the decision hasn't fallen to a Liberal government led by Dion but to a Liberal opposition led by Dion. I guess that must let him off the hook.
Ocean Freighter Emissions Triple Estimate
The Guardian has managed to get its ink-stained hands on a leaked copy of a UN study that finds CO2 emissions from shipping may be treble what was previously believed.
The report suggests that shipping contributes 1.12 bn tonnes of CO2 annually, far more than the 650 m tonnes attributed to the aviation industry. The revised figures leave shipping as contributing 4.5% of global GHG emissions.
If unchecked, shipping emissions are predicted to increase as much as 30% by 2020.
Scalia's Jack Bauer Moment
US Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia says some physical interrogation could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a bomb set to go off.
Scalia told BBC, “You can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, ‘Oh, it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.”
Justice Scalia said it would be “extraordinary” to assume that the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applied to “so-called” torture in the face of imminent threat. He said that the Constitution “is referring to punishment for crime.”
But “is it really so easy,” he said, “to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?”
“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that,” the justice said. “And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”
This is just the sort of thinking we ought to expect from Cheney hunting partner and fellow moral reprobate Scalia. It glibly masks what's not said.
For example, who on this planet believes that security services wouldn't freely smack someone in the face if they believed that necessary to discover the whereabouts of a hidden bomb? But this isn't about a smack across the face, is it? Scalia tacitly admits that when he concedes the issue becomes one of justification of torture - cause and extent. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can the infliction of pain be?
What Scalia deliberately omits is the real issue - how legitimate does the threat have to be? His sanction would absolve a torturer who could claim an "honest but mistaken" belief that something dire was imminent. What if it's nothing more than a perceived threat, something based on ginned-up "intelligence" of the sort that Bush manipulated to justify invading Iraq? With enough wiggle room, anything is excusable, there is no excess.
No, I'm sorry. Torture needs to remain illegal because claiming that it all depends on circumstances admits just too many vagaries into the calculation of right and wrong, so many as to render judgment virtually impossible and meaningless.
Scalia then went on to show the BBC audience what a knuckle-dragger he is by wading into the death penalty issue:
“If you took a public opinion poll, if all of Europe had representative democracies that really worked, most of Europe would probably have the death penalty today,” he said. Excuse me, Tony, "representative democracies that really worked?" You mean like your own, the United States of America? This man is positively delusional.
Scalia told BBC, “You can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, ‘Oh, it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.”
Justice Scalia said it would be “extraordinary” to assume that the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applied to “so-called” torture in the face of imminent threat. He said that the Constitution “is referring to punishment for crime.”
But “is it really so easy,” he said, “to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?”
“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that,” the justice said. “And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”
This is just the sort of thinking we ought to expect from Cheney hunting partner and fellow moral reprobate Scalia. It glibly masks what's not said.
For example, who on this planet believes that security services wouldn't freely smack someone in the face if they believed that necessary to discover the whereabouts of a hidden bomb? But this isn't about a smack across the face, is it? Scalia tacitly admits that when he concedes the issue becomes one of justification of torture - cause and extent. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can the infliction of pain be?
What Scalia deliberately omits is the real issue - how legitimate does the threat have to be? His sanction would absolve a torturer who could claim an "honest but mistaken" belief that something dire was imminent. What if it's nothing more than a perceived threat, something based on ginned-up "intelligence" of the sort that Bush manipulated to justify invading Iraq? With enough wiggle room, anything is excusable, there is no excess.
No, I'm sorry. Torture needs to remain illegal because claiming that it all depends on circumstances admits just too many vagaries into the calculation of right and wrong, so many as to render judgment virtually impossible and meaningless.
Scalia then went on to show the BBC audience what a knuckle-dragger he is by wading into the death penalty issue:
“If you took a public opinion poll, if all of Europe had representative democracies that really worked, most of Europe would probably have the death penalty today,” he said. Excuse me, Tony, "representative democracies that really worked?" You mean like your own, the United States of America? This man is positively delusional.
Stop the Presses - Uno is Best in Show
The handsome hound pictured above is "Uno" and this mutt broke a nearly 70-year shut out by taking Best in Show last night at America's top canine contest, the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in New York.
It's been widely thought that the Beagle was much too pedestrian to take top honours over the frilly (i.e. "pimped") creatures that usually dominate these competitions.
The New York Times reports that Uno entered the ring, "to thunderous applause, as if Willis Reed had walked into the arena one last time," to trounce the other six finalists.
Uno, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to my own Beagle, Mikey.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Muddling Along Meaninglessly
It looks as though Harper and Dion have found a compromise on Afghanistan - stay until 2011 and then out.
Excuse me while I wretch.
What these clowns have compromised on is a big bag of nothingness. It is less than a joke, darker than a farce. Where to begin?
Let's start with the absence of the most important players at the negotiating table - NATO and Washington. Harper and Dion can agree to anything they like. Without the agreement and binding committment of NATO and Washington, it's as meaningless as the previous agreement to extend "the mission" to 2009.
When we said "out in 2009" what did that comedian de Hoop Scheffer do in recognition of our offer to extend our nation's committment, to sustain further losses? He did nothing. The Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took it as a freebie and gave absolutely nothing in return. He didn't begin pestering other NATO members to have replacements ready to take over in early 2009. Neither did Washington which, after all, intends to maintain permanent garrison forces in Iraq and needs NATO soldiers to make that possible by carrying America's baggage in Afghanistan.
Surprise, surprise - here we are long after the deadline has passed to muster a replacement force and Brussels and Washington have done SFA. So, now we'll draw another line in the sand, this one two years further down the road, 2011, and - naturally - we'll neither demand nor obtain any committment from the US or NATO.
So let's flash forward to 2010. That's the year the Dutch say they're pulling out of Afghanistan. What are the chances Scheffer is going to be bothered with Canada's deadline in 2010? We've shown him what Canada's deadlines mean - nothing. Ignore us and we'll bitch and then roll over.
Better yet, what does 2011 mean to the Taliban? Two years is essentially meaningless to a nationalist insurgency. "We have all the watches, they have all the time," remember?
And what of Afghanistan's New Government, Karzai's Kabul Klan? There'll be elections next year and word has it that the Americans want to get rid of the hapless Karzai in favour of a more reliable water boy. But power in Afghanistan has already passed into the hands of the warlords who have ensured the countryside is safely contained in fundamentalist feudalism. If we don't have even a small fraction of the soldiers needed to combat the Taliban, just how are we to wrest power from the iron fists of the warlords and drug barons?
And what of Pakistan? Now that the Pakistani army has been "militarily defeated" in the autonomous Tribal Lands and the Northwest Frontier to the point where it has again negotiated a ceasefire with al-Qaeda and the Taliban forces, what will staying until 2011 do to ease that threat? Is it A: Nothing, B: Nothing or C: Nothing. Full points if you chose "Nothing."
So, if staying until 2011 isn't likely to result in any significant change on the ground in Afghanistan, then why stay at all? Of course if you're interested in fighting a political war at home and indifferent to the military war abroad, you can duck that question entirely.
By the way, who do you think will be leading the Liberals and the Conservative parties when 2010 rolls around and we find ourselves still stuck firmly in Afghanistan and playing politics over whether to stay or leave?
Excuse me while I wretch.
What these clowns have compromised on is a big bag of nothingness. It is less than a joke, darker than a farce. Where to begin?
Let's start with the absence of the most important players at the negotiating table - NATO and Washington. Harper and Dion can agree to anything they like. Without the agreement and binding committment of NATO and Washington, it's as meaningless as the previous agreement to extend "the mission" to 2009.
When we said "out in 2009" what did that comedian de Hoop Scheffer do in recognition of our offer to extend our nation's committment, to sustain further losses? He did nothing. The Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took it as a freebie and gave absolutely nothing in return. He didn't begin pestering other NATO members to have replacements ready to take over in early 2009. Neither did Washington which, after all, intends to maintain permanent garrison forces in Iraq and needs NATO soldiers to make that possible by carrying America's baggage in Afghanistan.
Surprise, surprise - here we are long after the deadline has passed to muster a replacement force and Brussels and Washington have done SFA. So, now we'll draw another line in the sand, this one two years further down the road, 2011, and - naturally - we'll neither demand nor obtain any committment from the US or NATO.
So let's flash forward to 2010. That's the year the Dutch say they're pulling out of Afghanistan. What are the chances Scheffer is going to be bothered with Canada's deadline in 2010? We've shown him what Canada's deadlines mean - nothing. Ignore us and we'll bitch and then roll over.
Better yet, what does 2011 mean to the Taliban? Two years is essentially meaningless to a nationalist insurgency. "We have all the watches, they have all the time," remember?
And what of Afghanistan's New Government, Karzai's Kabul Klan? There'll be elections next year and word has it that the Americans want to get rid of the hapless Karzai in favour of a more reliable water boy. But power in Afghanistan has already passed into the hands of the warlords who have ensured the countryside is safely contained in fundamentalist feudalism. If we don't have even a small fraction of the soldiers needed to combat the Taliban, just how are we to wrest power from the iron fists of the warlords and drug barons?
And what of Pakistan? Now that the Pakistani army has been "militarily defeated" in the autonomous Tribal Lands and the Northwest Frontier to the point where it has again negotiated a ceasefire with al-Qaeda and the Taliban forces, what will staying until 2011 do to ease that threat? Is it A: Nothing, B: Nothing or C: Nothing. Full points if you chose "Nothing."
So, if staying until 2011 isn't likely to result in any significant change on the ground in Afghanistan, then why stay at all? Of course if you're interested in fighting a political war at home and indifferent to the military war abroad, you can duck that question entirely.
By the way, who do you think will be leading the Liberals and the Conservative parties when 2010 rolls around and we find ourselves still stuck firmly in Afghanistan and playing politics over whether to stay or leave?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bloomberg Pans Corn Ethanol
New York's billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has slammed a new US energy law that he says will raise global food prices and spread death through starvation.
"People literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up," Bloomberg told reporters after addressing a U.N. General Assembly debate on climate change.
The new U.S. law, which came into force late last year, increased fivefold the required amount of blending of biofuels like corn ethanol -- creating higher demand for the grain that will push up corn prices.
America subsidizes its own corn ethanol production while levying duties on imported ethanol from sugar cane. Bloomberg also attacked the efficiency of corn ethanol production which uses about the same amount of energy to produce, transport and distribute as it yields.
Bloomberg didn't pull any punches in his assessment of the dangers of global warming. "Terrorists kill people, weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill enormous numbers of people, global warming has the potential to kill everybody."
"People literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up," Bloomberg told reporters after addressing a U.N. General Assembly debate on climate change.
The new U.S. law, which came into force late last year, increased fivefold the required amount of blending of biofuels like corn ethanol -- creating higher demand for the grain that will push up corn prices.
America subsidizes its own corn ethanol production while levying duties on imported ethanol from sugar cane. Bloomberg also attacked the efficiency of corn ethanol production which uses about the same amount of energy to produce, transport and distribute as it yields.
Bloomberg didn't pull any punches in his assessment of the dangers of global warming. "Terrorists kill people, weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill enormous numbers of people, global warming has the potential to kill everybody."
Putin Vows Russia Will Win New Arms Race
Just weeks before he steps down as Russia's president, Vladimir Putin has delivered a defiant warning to the West - Russia intends to win the arms race launched by George w. Bush. From The Independent:
"It's clear that a new arms race is unfolding in the world," said Mr Putin, one that Russia did not start. And he vowed that Russia would respond to the threats by developing newer and more modern weapons that were as good as if not better than those possessed by Western countries. "We are being forced into retaliating ... Russia has and always will have the answers to these challenges," he said.
Russian bomber patrols have recently been made over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans and approached close to the borders of Nato airspace. Two Russian Tupolev-95 aircraft strayed south from their routine patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland last September.
In the most recent incident, two long-range "Blackjack" bombers flew to the Bay of Biscay off France and Spain to test-launch missiles. The Russians have also hinted they want to re-establish a naval presence in the Mediterranean, probably using Syrian ports. The strategy is designed to heighten the visibility of Russia's military might but the sabre-rattling has alarmed Western countries and fuelled talk of a new Cold War.
Mr Putin went into overdrive yesterday, painting Russia as the victim of Western aggression and expansion, and promised a Russian response. He said Western countries spent far more on defence than Russia, and also returned to a theme he has raised many times before – that of Nato enlargement towards Russian borders. "We pulled out of bases in Cuba and Vietnam," he said. "And what did we get? New American bases in Bulgaria and Romania."
Symbolically ominous changes are under way too: Russia recently announced that vast parades in Red Square to showcase the nation's military strength are to be revived this year for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mr Putin also accused unnamed foreign countries of cynically trying to gain unfair access to Russia's natural resources. "Many conflicts, foreign policy acts and diplomatic démarches smell of oil and gas," he said. "This is the context in which we understand the growing interest towards Russia." He said the sovereignty of certain countries had been completely destroyed under slogans of freedom and democracy."
Russia isn't the only country that has been furiously rearming since George w. Bush came to power in 2000. China is developing a large and modern air force and will soon field a true, blue water navy. India is also pursuing large scale naval expansion.
NATO expansion, the hyper-aggressive Bush Doctrine and US Space Doctrine, America's programme to deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons including "first strike" warheads were bound to trigger this sort of response, particularly among the emerging economic superpowers. There have even been rumours recently that China may be negotiating to establish a major naval base in Iran.
"It's clear that a new arms race is unfolding in the world," said Mr Putin, one that Russia did not start. And he vowed that Russia would respond to the threats by developing newer and more modern weapons that were as good as if not better than those possessed by Western countries. "We are being forced into retaliating ... Russia has and always will have the answers to these challenges," he said.
Russian bomber patrols have recently been made over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans and approached close to the borders of Nato airspace. Two Russian Tupolev-95 aircraft strayed south from their routine patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland last September.
In the most recent incident, two long-range "Blackjack" bombers flew to the Bay of Biscay off France and Spain to test-launch missiles. The Russians have also hinted they want to re-establish a naval presence in the Mediterranean, probably using Syrian ports. The strategy is designed to heighten the visibility of Russia's military might but the sabre-rattling has alarmed Western countries and fuelled talk of a new Cold War.
Mr Putin went into overdrive yesterday, painting Russia as the victim of Western aggression and expansion, and promised a Russian response. He said Western countries spent far more on defence than Russia, and also returned to a theme he has raised many times before – that of Nato enlargement towards Russian borders. "We pulled out of bases in Cuba and Vietnam," he said. "And what did we get? New American bases in Bulgaria and Romania."
Symbolically ominous changes are under way too: Russia recently announced that vast parades in Red Square to showcase the nation's military strength are to be revived this year for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mr Putin also accused unnamed foreign countries of cynically trying to gain unfair access to Russia's natural resources. "Many conflicts, foreign policy acts and diplomatic démarches smell of oil and gas," he said. "This is the context in which we understand the growing interest towards Russia." He said the sovereignty of certain countries had been completely destroyed under slogans of freedom and democracy."
Russia isn't the only country that has been furiously rearming since George w. Bush came to power in 2000. China is developing a large and modern air force and will soon field a true, blue water navy. India is also pursuing large scale naval expansion.
NATO expansion, the hyper-aggressive Bush Doctrine and US Space Doctrine, America's programme to deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons including "first strike" warheads were bound to trigger this sort of response, particularly among the emerging economic superpowers. There have even been rumours recently that China may be negotiating to establish a major naval base in Iran.
Will the White House be Decided by Stay At Home Voters?
Both the Demutantes and the Repuglicans are facing internal turmoil in their presidential nomination campaigns.
The "movement conservatives" of the Rove/Cheney camp detest their frontrunner, John McCain, while on the Democratic side, relations between the Clinton and Obama camps are positively toxic.
Of the two sides, the Republican dissent appears the least debilitating. McCain may never be right wing enough for his party's base but he can ease their discontent by chosing the right running mate and relying on the endorsements of key Republicans - like the nod he just got from George w. Bush. Also he's got eight months to win over the dissenters.
The Dems seem to be in worse shape. A lot of Hillary supporters say they'll stay home on election day rather than vote for Obama and that seems to be echoed in reverse by many in the Obama camp. Despite their fleeting moments of civility, it appears these candidates are in store for a lot more bloodletting that could continue right up to the convention. That, right now, may be the Republican's best hope for retaining the White House.
The Dems' best hope might be for a Clinton-Obama ticket, something to reconcile both warring camps. Clinton for president, Obama in the wings to succeed her. Unfortunately the Clintons have shown themselves less than helpful to their vice-president in the past. Hillary stepped all over Gore while Bill was president and Bill was probably Gore's greatest drawback in the Gore-Bush runoff.
Could Obama trust Hillary if he joined her ticket? Probably not. However the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket isn't realistic. Hillary would never take second place. She's already been a vice president.
But Hillary may not be able to win without Obama and he may not be able to win without her supporters. Unless someone can find a way to defuse the bitterness and anger between the two candidates' supporters, they might just hand John McCain the presidency.
The "movement conservatives" of the Rove/Cheney camp detest their frontrunner, John McCain, while on the Democratic side, relations between the Clinton and Obama camps are positively toxic.
Of the two sides, the Republican dissent appears the least debilitating. McCain may never be right wing enough for his party's base but he can ease their discontent by chosing the right running mate and relying on the endorsements of key Republicans - like the nod he just got from George w. Bush. Also he's got eight months to win over the dissenters.
The Dems seem to be in worse shape. A lot of Hillary supporters say they'll stay home on election day rather than vote for Obama and that seems to be echoed in reverse by many in the Obama camp. Despite their fleeting moments of civility, it appears these candidates are in store for a lot more bloodletting that could continue right up to the convention. That, right now, may be the Republican's best hope for retaining the White House.
The Dems' best hope might be for a Clinton-Obama ticket, something to reconcile both warring camps. Clinton for president, Obama in the wings to succeed her. Unfortunately the Clintons have shown themselves less than helpful to their vice-president in the past. Hillary stepped all over Gore while Bill was president and Bill was probably Gore's greatest drawback in the Gore-Bush runoff.
Could Obama trust Hillary if he joined her ticket? Probably not. However the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket isn't realistic. Hillary would never take second place. She's already been a vice president.
But Hillary may not be able to win without Obama and he may not be able to win without her supporters. Unless someone can find a way to defuse the bitterness and anger between the two candidates' supporters, they might just hand John McCain the presidency.
The Lobbyist Who Never Was
Brian Mulroney was in a spot. He needed to explain why he received cash-stuffed envelopes from Karlheinz Schreiber, money about which he kept very quiet until Schreiber's bank records became public sending Mulroney racing off to Revenue Canada to file a belated, "voluntary disclosure."
The answer? He was retained by Schreiber to lobby foreign governments on behalf of Schreiber's German customers, outfits like Thyssen. Now you would have expected that Thyssen would be delighted to have a former Canadian prime minister working to flog its products to new customers and it might have - if it had ever known about it. But, it seems, this was a secret Mulroney kept from everyone, even the companies he was supposedly earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote. From the Globe & Mail:
"In interviews with The Globe and Mail and CBC, a former Thyssen executive and a spokeswoman for the company, which has changed names after merging with another company in 1999, said they are not aware of the lobbying that the former prime minister says he did for Thyssen in China, Russia and France between 1993 and 1994.
"He never worked for Thyssen," Winfried Haastert, a former Thyssen executive, said in a phone interview.
"I cannot imagine how he could expect to sell something like this to Russia or even to China. It's absolute nonsense. Maybe he tried to support us. I don't know."
Anja Gerber, a spokeswoman for ThyssenKrupp Technologies, also said that Mr. Mulroney had "no official business with Thyssen."
So that means that there's just one person who can substantiate Mulroney's bizarre claims - Karlheinz Schreiber - who vociferously disputes Mulroney's story.
The answer? He was retained by Schreiber to lobby foreign governments on behalf of Schreiber's German customers, outfits like Thyssen. Now you would have expected that Thyssen would be delighted to have a former Canadian prime minister working to flog its products to new customers and it might have - if it had ever known about it. But, it seems, this was a secret Mulroney kept from everyone, even the companies he was supposedly earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote. From the Globe & Mail:
"In interviews with The Globe and Mail and CBC, a former Thyssen executive and a spokeswoman for the company, which has changed names after merging with another company in 1999, said they are not aware of the lobbying that the former prime minister says he did for Thyssen in China, Russia and France between 1993 and 1994.
"He never worked for Thyssen," Winfried Haastert, a former Thyssen executive, said in a phone interview.
"I cannot imagine how he could expect to sell something like this to Russia or even to China. It's absolute nonsense. Maybe he tried to support us. I don't know."
Anja Gerber, a spokeswoman for ThyssenKrupp Technologies, also said that Mr. Mulroney had "no official business with Thyssen."
So that means that there's just one person who can substantiate Mulroney's bizarre claims - Karlheinz Schreiber - who vociferously disputes Mulroney's story.
We're Winning in Kandahar
How's this for logic? If we abandon territory, they won't fight us for that territory and therefore we can claim victory because there's less fighting. I guess that means if we packed up all our soldiers and flew them back to Canada we could claim total victory. From the Globe & Mail:
"Secret military statistics show that Taliban attacks have decreased in Kandahar's core districts in the past year, illustrating the success of Canada's new strategy of pulling back its troops into the heart of the province, a top military commander says.
Insurgent ambushes have fallen in four of Kandahar's 17 districts as the latest rotation of troops has focused on protecting the vital zone around the provincial capital, said Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, although he did not give specific numbers.
"In relation to where we're focused, I think we are winning," he said.
Geographic focus was a key part of the general's assessment. While saying that security has improved in the districts of Panjwai, Zhari, Spin Boldak and Kandahar city, he repeatedly declined to comment about the provincial situation as a whole.
In places just beyond the Canadians' zone of control, the Taliban have established a parallel court system, enforced curfews, and mounted road checkpoints.
But Gen. Gauthier described his troops in a dilemma similar to that faced by a hospital triage nurse, deciding which patients require the most urgent attention: "You have to prioritize," he said."
Trying to secure a territory the size of Kandahar province with a battle group of but 1,000 soldiers was never more than a preposterous fantasy anyway so it makes sense that the Canadian force would retreat and concentrate on holding the most critical assets, the cities. Is that what "winning" looks like? I guess so, if you can define "victory" as going on the defensive.
"Secret military statistics show that Taliban attacks have decreased in Kandahar's core districts in the past year, illustrating the success of Canada's new strategy of pulling back its troops into the heart of the province, a top military commander says.
Insurgent ambushes have fallen in four of Kandahar's 17 districts as the latest rotation of troops has focused on protecting the vital zone around the provincial capital, said Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, although he did not give specific numbers.
"In relation to where we're focused, I think we are winning," he said.
Geographic focus was a key part of the general's assessment. While saying that security has improved in the districts of Panjwai, Zhari, Spin Boldak and Kandahar city, he repeatedly declined to comment about the provincial situation as a whole.
In places just beyond the Canadians' zone of control, the Taliban have established a parallel court system, enforced curfews, and mounted road checkpoints.
But Gen. Gauthier described his troops in a dilemma similar to that faced by a hospital triage nurse, deciding which patients require the most urgent attention: "You have to prioritize," he said."
Trying to secure a territory the size of Kandahar province with a battle group of but 1,000 soldiers was never more than a preposterous fantasy anyway so it makes sense that the Canadian force would retreat and concentrate on holding the most critical assets, the cities. Is that what "winning" looks like? I guess so, if you can define "victory" as going on the defensive.
Taking the Tough Decision on Afghanistan
Our Liberal leader needs to confront reality and make a reality-based decision. Do Canadian troops remain in Kandahar beyond 2009 or do we leave? Those are the two options - the only options - that reality affords us.
Yet that didn't stop Stephane Dion from taking to the national airwaves yesterday going on about a "process" that, in the reality world, doesn't exist:
"It is the rotation process. You will have a country or set of countries that will do the combat after Canada doing three years, and Canada then will be able to focus its efforts elsewhere," Dion told CTV's Question Period yesterday.
"You will have a country or set of countries..." What country or set of countries? Surely if there is such a thing as a "rotation process" there must be countries' soldiers to be rotated in as Canadian soldiers are rotated out. Unless, of course, there is no process and it's merely a fictional device to allow a politician to avoid saying he'd unilaterally yank Canadian soldiers out of their combat role in Kandahar.
I think a solid case can be made for withdrawal if a leader was prepared to show the courage to stand up and argue the point. But to tie the issue to a nonexistant "process" is to reduce that argument to a level of sophistry. And for a man already perceived as weak that can only reinforce those negative perceptions.
Here's an idea. Leaving Kandahar in 2009 is already pretty much impossible. There simply isn't time for NATO to recruit a replacement force and then to have that force trained for the mission by that deadline. However 2010 should still be a viable option. And that's the year the Dutch are leaving, something they've made quite clear.
We should also make it clear that we're not going to depend on NATO finding a non-combat role for our forces somewhere else in Afghanistan. If NATO can find a suitable role for us, fine. If it can't - or won't - fine, we'll accept we're not needed in any other capacity and leave the place entirely.
Yet that didn't stop Stephane Dion from taking to the national airwaves yesterday going on about a "process" that, in the reality world, doesn't exist:
"It is the rotation process. You will have a country or set of countries that will do the combat after Canada doing three years, and Canada then will be able to focus its efforts elsewhere," Dion told CTV's Question Period yesterday.
"You will have a country or set of countries..." What country or set of countries? Surely if there is such a thing as a "rotation process" there must be countries' soldiers to be rotated in as Canadian soldiers are rotated out. Unless, of course, there is no process and it's merely a fictional device to allow a politician to avoid saying he'd unilaterally yank Canadian soldiers out of their combat role in Kandahar.
I think a solid case can be made for withdrawal if a leader was prepared to show the courage to stand up and argue the point. But to tie the issue to a nonexistant "process" is to reduce that argument to a level of sophistry. And for a man already perceived as weak that can only reinforce those negative perceptions.
Here's an idea. Leaving Kandahar in 2009 is already pretty much impossible. There simply isn't time for NATO to recruit a replacement force and then to have that force trained for the mission by that deadline. However 2010 should still be a viable option. And that's the year the Dutch are leaving, something they've made quite clear.
We should also make it clear that we're not going to depend on NATO finding a non-combat role for our forces somewhere else in Afghanistan. If NATO can find a suitable role for us, fine. If it can't - or won't - fine, we'll accept we're not needed in any other capacity and leave the place entirely.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Since When Does a Prime Minister Lobby for a Lobbyist?
Karlheinz Schreiber may be a sideshow in the financial affairs of Brian Mulroney. It was always thought that Schreiber received the $20-million in Schmiergelder, or grease (bribe) money, paid out by Airbus Industries in the course of the Air Canada deal. Schreiber says that money went, instead, to GCI (Government Consultants International), a lobby firm owned by Mulroney croney, the late Frank Moores.
GCI is gone and Frank Moores is dead so getting to the bottom of this is going to be more difficult than it otherwise might. That said, the records of Air Canada and its board during the Mulroney years do exist and might shed a lot of light on what happened.
Why did Mulroney sack some 15-Air Canada directors and why did he include among the replacements he appointed Frank Moores? Why did Frank Moores hurriedly resign this directorship? Why did Moores repeatedly deny claims that he and GCI acted for Airbus on the sale (although correspondence has emerged plainly showing just that)? Why did Moores run off in lockstep with Mulroney to make his own "voluntary disclosure" to Revenue Canada when Schreiber's Swiss bank records became public?
One thing, however, stands out. It's been reported that Mulroney repeatedly pressured the Air Canada board to pay GCI a $5-million fee of some sort related to the Airbus purchase. Did Mulroney, while prime minister, really lobby for the lobbyist and, if so, why and what did he get out of it? Why would Air Canada pay a fee to GCI if it was acting as lobbyist for Airbus? Did any money pass from Air Canada to GCI or Frank Moores and, if so, how much and for what?
Norman Spector did ponder what the Commons ethics committee might have learned had it held the current enquiry back in 2002 while Moores was still alive. It's too bad he was never asked to expand on that thought.
GCI is gone and Frank Moores is dead so getting to the bottom of this is going to be more difficult than it otherwise might. That said, the records of Air Canada and its board during the Mulroney years do exist and might shed a lot of light on what happened.
Why did Mulroney sack some 15-Air Canada directors and why did he include among the replacements he appointed Frank Moores? Why did Frank Moores hurriedly resign this directorship? Why did Moores repeatedly deny claims that he and GCI acted for Airbus on the sale (although correspondence has emerged plainly showing just that)? Why did Moores run off in lockstep with Mulroney to make his own "voluntary disclosure" to Revenue Canada when Schreiber's Swiss bank records became public?
One thing, however, stands out. It's been reported that Mulroney repeatedly pressured the Air Canada board to pay GCI a $5-million fee of some sort related to the Airbus purchase. Did Mulroney, while prime minister, really lobby for the lobbyist and, if so, why and what did he get out of it? Why would Air Canada pay a fee to GCI if it was acting as lobbyist for Airbus? Did any money pass from Air Canada to GCI or Frank Moores and, if so, how much and for what?
Norman Spector did ponder what the Commons ethics committee might have learned had it held the current enquiry back in 2002 while Moores was still alive. It's too bad he was never asked to expand on that thought.
The Biofuel Myth
We've been sold the line that biofuels hold the promise of great GHG emission cuts. Maybe not. In fact, dirty old fossil fuel that biofuel is supposed to replace may actually be less harmful. From the New York Times:
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
Guess What? They're Standing Up! So, Aren't We Supposed to be Standing Down?
Great news out of Afghanistan. The Afghan National Army is well ahead of schedule and expects to reach a force level of 80,000 next year. From Reuters:
Afghanistan has accelerated training for army recruits and expects to have a combat-ready force of 80,000 troops by early 2009, well ahead of initial targets, the country's defence minister said on Friday.
Abdul Rahim Wardak told Reuters the effort was part of a strategy to take over the brunt of fighting from NATO troops as soon as possible. But he repeated Afghanistan still needed help to create a viable air force before taking over full leadership.
"It will save lives for our friends and allies," Wardak said in an interview after talks with NATO counterparts in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.
Wardak said U.S.-backed army training was being stepped up with the aim of turning out 4,000 soldiers a month compared with 2,000 late last year, enabling Afghanistan to surpass an internationally agreed 2006 target of 70,000 troops by end-2010.
"We hope by April, May this year we will achieve that number and we are hopeful we will reach 80,000 by March, April of 2009," Wardak said.
Training of Afghan forces was already ahead of target but Wardak's announcement that the effort would be further accelerated underlined the push to off-load more of the combat burden from the 43,000-strong NATO-led force."
So, there we go, we can leave. It's over. The Afghans are going to have plenty of troops, high-quality US trained soldiers, well more than we estimated. The Afghan army is up in the high fives while we're told the insurgents remain in the low fours. Isn't it time then for the "we'll stand down" promise? This is certainly what we were promised by Rick Hillier and his retired cheerleader, Lewis MacKenzie.
Maybe, though, we haven't been told the truth by Hillier or the government of the day. Maybe while the Afghan army has been standing up, so has the Taliban. Maybe the highly trained Afghan army isn't as capable or reliable as it should be. Who knows? It would be nice if Lardo would trust us enough to keep us informed of what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan but he doesn't and he won't.
Afghanistan has accelerated training for army recruits and expects to have a combat-ready force of 80,000 troops by early 2009, well ahead of initial targets, the country's defence minister said on Friday.
Abdul Rahim Wardak told Reuters the effort was part of a strategy to take over the brunt of fighting from NATO troops as soon as possible. But he repeated Afghanistan still needed help to create a viable air force before taking over full leadership.
"It will save lives for our friends and allies," Wardak said in an interview after talks with NATO counterparts in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.
Wardak said U.S.-backed army training was being stepped up with the aim of turning out 4,000 soldiers a month compared with 2,000 late last year, enabling Afghanistan to surpass an internationally agreed 2006 target of 70,000 troops by end-2010.
"We hope by April, May this year we will achieve that number and we are hopeful we will reach 80,000 by March, April of 2009," Wardak said.
Training of Afghan forces was already ahead of target but Wardak's announcement that the effort would be further accelerated underlined the push to off-load more of the combat burden from the 43,000-strong NATO-led force."
So, there we go, we can leave. It's over. The Afghans are going to have plenty of troops, high-quality US trained soldiers, well more than we estimated. The Afghan army is up in the high fives while we're told the insurgents remain in the low fours. Isn't it time then for the "we'll stand down" promise? This is certainly what we were promised by Rick Hillier and his retired cheerleader, Lewis MacKenzie.
Maybe, though, we haven't been told the truth by Hillier or the government of the day. Maybe while the Afghan army has been standing up, so has the Taliban. Maybe the highly trained Afghan army isn't as capable or reliable as it should be. Who knows? It would be nice if Lardo would trust us enough to keep us informed of what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan but he doesn't and he won't.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Floating Canada Out of NATO?
What's floating around is an idea about getting British, Canadian and Dutch troops fighting in southern Afghanistan out of NATO's ISAF structure and directly under American command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
From the Washington Post:
"Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration.
"I think it should enter into the dialogue" with NATO, McNeill said."
From the Washington Post:
"Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration.
"I think it should enter into the dialogue" with NATO, McNeill said."
I think somebody should tell McNeill that we're not about to become America's Foreign Legion so that it can maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Romney Quits - McCain Wins
Maybe he's tired of watching his bank account dwindle. Maybe he's just seen the writing on the wall. Maybe his friends got to him. Whatever the motivation, it's reported that Mitt Romney is abandoning his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
That pretty much leaves John McCain the anointed choice of the Republican side even as Movement Conservatives boil in their own juices.
"I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney said in remarks prepared for his appearance and released by his campaign.
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win," the statement says. "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
That pretty much leaves John McCain the anointed choice of the Republican side even as Movement Conservatives boil in their own juices.
"I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney said in remarks prepared for his appearance and released by his campaign.
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win," the statement says. "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
A Civilized Debate
Stephane Dion claims Harper has promised a "civilized debate" on Canada's role in Afghanistan followed by a vote somewhere near the end of March.
A civilized debate. How can you debate anything unless you have clear, convincing facts? When it comes to "the mission," what are the facts?
I think it would be fatal to the debate to allow it to be informed by the Manley report. There is so much solid information that exposes the report's many errors and shortcomings. Why doesn't the Commons committee start gathering its own evidence on the state of today's Afghanistan?
Call the UN's drug czar to testify. Let's get a clear picture of Afghanistan's opium economy and let's have a look at the key players - the Taliban to be sure but also the ties to the Karzai government. Let's get an assessment on Afghanistan's slide into feudal fundamentalism with a central government that exists at the suffrance of a warlord power base. Let's have a look at what's going on across the border in Pakistan - in the Northwest Frontier and the autonomous Tribal Lands and Islamabad itself. Let's receive expert (i.e. non-Manley) evidence on the true state of NATO's hapless, disjointed and counterproductive military efforts, how the Taliban was allowed to become resurgent and whether anything is going to end that threat to Kabul. Let's hear about the core principles of counterinsurgency warfare and how few of them are being met in the type of war we're waging over there.
Once we get this sort of honest, meaningful and accurate information then parliament can hold a civilized debate. Then our debate will be manifest to Brussels and Washington. Then Canadians will have an opportunity to decide what they think we ought to do. If we're going to have an election on this issue, our government owes us that much.
A civilized debate. How can you debate anything unless you have clear, convincing facts? When it comes to "the mission," what are the facts?
I think it would be fatal to the debate to allow it to be informed by the Manley report. There is so much solid information that exposes the report's many errors and shortcomings. Why doesn't the Commons committee start gathering its own evidence on the state of today's Afghanistan?
Call the UN's drug czar to testify. Let's get a clear picture of Afghanistan's opium economy and let's have a look at the key players - the Taliban to be sure but also the ties to the Karzai government. Let's get an assessment on Afghanistan's slide into feudal fundamentalism with a central government that exists at the suffrance of a warlord power base. Let's have a look at what's going on across the border in Pakistan - in the Northwest Frontier and the autonomous Tribal Lands and Islamabad itself. Let's receive expert (i.e. non-Manley) evidence on the true state of NATO's hapless, disjointed and counterproductive military efforts, how the Taliban was allowed to become resurgent and whether anything is going to end that threat to Kabul. Let's hear about the core principles of counterinsurgency warfare and how few of them are being met in the type of war we're waging over there.
Once we get this sort of honest, meaningful and accurate information then parliament can hold a civilized debate. Then our debate will be manifest to Brussels and Washington. Then Canadians will have an opportunity to decide what they think we ought to do. If we're going to have an election on this issue, our government owes us that much.
Another Record Year for Afghanistan?
The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime has just released its winter estimates for Afghanistan's opium poppy crop and it looks as though the drug barons/warlords/insurgents/government are in for another bountiful year, perhaps even surpassing last year's record production.
It's not clear just yet whether opium cultivation is as extensive as last year and the UN says the good news is that the rate of increase in production is tapering off. However Afghan farmers are making up for that by huge increases in marijuana production.
It's not clear just yet whether opium cultivation is as extensive as last year and the UN says the good news is that the rate of increase in production is tapering off. However Afghan farmers are making up for that by huge increases in marijuana production.
The Battle of Kabul, Ottawa
Well it looks like our Furious Leader has found an issue he's prepared to hang an election on - Afghanistan. Word has it he's going to toss out a confidence motion calling for an extension of Canada's Afghan mission beyond 2009.
Sounds to me like Stephane Dion had better pull his thumb out and find a clear position he can explain to the Canadian public, a position they can support. I'm betting that's what Harpo believes Dion can't do and he plans to make the election a referendum on the Liberal leader. The way everything else is going for Lardo this is probably his best bet.
The first thing Dion needs to do is to ensure that his policy is viable. As Hillier has said we can't stay in Kandahar and not fight. It's bandit country and, unless Dion can get the Taliban to go away, they'll take over if we don't fight to defend our turf. Can't be any simpler.
Reconstruction? Sure, just as soon as we establish an adequate level of security. Oops, there we go again, fighting.
No, I think this is a "take it or leave it" question and the Libs are going to have to support the Cons or fall into line with the Dippers. I'm pretty sure that's what Harpo's thinking too.
Maybe it's time to reassess the whole business. Let's not get snowed by the Manley panel report. It's simply not reality based. An extra thousand soldiers and a few helicopters isn't going to secure Kandahar province, not even close. That's a political sop, nothing more, and Manley ought to be ashamed for playing Harper's stooge.
We could begin by asking what "success" in Afghanistan would look like and then contrast that with conditions on the ground to see what needs to be done to get there if that's even possible. What do we want out of this? What's our bottom line?
If our goal is simply to be a dutiful member of NATO, success or failure against the Taliban is irrelevant, the corrupt and chaotic central government is irrelevant, the Afghan security services that alienate the people in the countryside are irrelevant, the looming unrest and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan are irrelevant. Just by staying there, we succeed. Afghanistan may utterly fail but that doesn't matter.
If the Canadian people want a "goal oriented" approach then our participation in the NATO/ISAF mission becomes less significant and all the irrelevant considerations above suddenly become very meaningful. Suddenly it becomes relevant that we're not winning against the Taliban. It becomes relevant that the central government is corrupt and unviable. It becomes relevant that the Afghan security services are actually undermining our best efforts to build support among the Afghan people for their central government. The descent into violence and destabilizing religious extremism across the border in Pakistan becomes relevant.
So what we need is to engage the voting public on these issues, to make them see the fundamental flaws in the Afghan mission. The Canadian people have been kept in the dark about this little war and that's understandable - the less they know the better it is for Lardo. The same goes for Hillier. Then there's John Manley. Manley has done Harpo an enormous favour, a shield that Stevie can hide behind and a club he can use to bludgeon Dion.
Working around Harpo, Hillier and Manley will be tough. It'll require a clear message and solid communication with the voting public and I'm not sure the Libs can manage either challenge. Their message is muddled and indecisive and, as for a communicator, well it's Stephane Dion.
Sounds to me like Stephane Dion had better pull his thumb out and find a clear position he can explain to the Canadian public, a position they can support. I'm betting that's what Harpo believes Dion can't do and he plans to make the election a referendum on the Liberal leader. The way everything else is going for Lardo this is probably his best bet.
The first thing Dion needs to do is to ensure that his policy is viable. As Hillier has said we can't stay in Kandahar and not fight. It's bandit country and, unless Dion can get the Taliban to go away, they'll take over if we don't fight to defend our turf. Can't be any simpler.
Reconstruction? Sure, just as soon as we establish an adequate level of security. Oops, there we go again, fighting.
No, I think this is a "take it or leave it" question and the Libs are going to have to support the Cons or fall into line with the Dippers. I'm pretty sure that's what Harpo's thinking too.
Maybe it's time to reassess the whole business. Let's not get snowed by the Manley panel report. It's simply not reality based. An extra thousand soldiers and a few helicopters isn't going to secure Kandahar province, not even close. That's a political sop, nothing more, and Manley ought to be ashamed for playing Harper's stooge.
We could begin by asking what "success" in Afghanistan would look like and then contrast that with conditions on the ground to see what needs to be done to get there if that's even possible. What do we want out of this? What's our bottom line?
If our goal is simply to be a dutiful member of NATO, success or failure against the Taliban is irrelevant, the corrupt and chaotic central government is irrelevant, the Afghan security services that alienate the people in the countryside are irrelevant, the looming unrest and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan are irrelevant. Just by staying there, we succeed. Afghanistan may utterly fail but that doesn't matter.
If the Canadian people want a "goal oriented" approach then our participation in the NATO/ISAF mission becomes less significant and all the irrelevant considerations above suddenly become very meaningful. Suddenly it becomes relevant that we're not winning against the Taliban. It becomes relevant that the central government is corrupt and unviable. It becomes relevant that the Afghan security services are actually undermining our best efforts to build support among the Afghan people for their central government. The descent into violence and destabilizing religious extremism across the border in Pakistan becomes relevant.
So what we need is to engage the voting public on these issues, to make them see the fundamental flaws in the Afghan mission. The Canadian people have been kept in the dark about this little war and that's understandable - the less they know the better it is for Lardo. The same goes for Hillier. Then there's John Manley. Manley has done Harpo an enormous favour, a shield that Stevie can hide behind and a club he can use to bludgeon Dion.
Working around Harpo, Hillier and Manley will be tough. It'll require a clear message and solid communication with the voting public and I'm not sure the Libs can manage either challenge. Their message is muddled and indecisive and, as for a communicator, well it's Stephane Dion.
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
100-million tonnes of garbage. Flotsam - floating debris. Spread out over an area twice the size of the United States.
It's all floating off the shores of California and Hawaii and other Pacific Rim nations. Much of it comes in the form of discarded plastic. From AlterNet:
The vast expanse of debris -- in effect the world's largest rubbish dump -- is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting "soup" stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.
It's all floating off the shores of California and Hawaii and other Pacific Rim nations. Much of it comes in the form of discarded plastic. From AlterNet:
The vast expanse of debris -- in effect the world's largest rubbish dump -- is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting "soup" stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.
Charles Moore, an American oceanographer who discovered the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Marcus Eriksen, a research director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which Mr Moore founded, said yesterday: "The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States."
Curtis Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer and leading authority on flotsam, has tracked the build-up of plastics in the seas for more than 15 years and compares the trash vortex to a living entity: "It moves around like a big animal without a leash." When that animal comes close to land, as it does at the Hawaiian archipelago, the results are dramatic. "The garbage patch barfs, and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic," he added.
Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water's surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs. "You only see it from the bows of ships," he said.
Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."
Few realize it but, with the exception of a very small amount that's been incinerated, every bit of plastic that's ever been produced still exists somewhere. Recycling? Globally, we're recycling somewhere between 3 to 5% of total production.
Drive through the back country of Mexico, for example. The sides of the roads are covered in discarded plastic bags. The fences are full of them. Unless you've seen it you can't believe it.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Is the World Facing Son of Bush?
Correct me if I'm wrong. Please, set me straight. I've not been following the US presidential nomination campaigns all that closely but, that said, I haven't noticed one candidate on either side come out and say they would move to restrict the unconstitutionally-seized powers established by George w. Bush.
Governing by fiat, recess appointment, signing statements and outright defiance of the constitution has become so "second nature" with the Bush/Cheney tyranny that many, on both sides of the aisle, urged impeachment for the sake of restoring, unequivocally the constitutional balance of checks and powers. It wasn't so much for the sake of punishing Bush or Cheney as for upholding the constitution by prevailing on the legislative and judicial branches to rein in the executive.
An executive that cannot be removed by confidence vote and forced to defend its actions in front of the electorate surely must be otherwise restrained lest the nation itself turn into a quasi-dictatorship. And yet I haven't seen that this issue has achieved any prominence in the current campaigns.
Am I wrong? Please advise.
Governing by fiat, recess appointment, signing statements and outright defiance of the constitution has become so "second nature" with the Bush/Cheney tyranny that many, on both sides of the aisle, urged impeachment for the sake of restoring, unequivocally the constitutional balance of checks and powers. It wasn't so much for the sake of punishing Bush or Cheney as for upholding the constitution by prevailing on the legislative and judicial branches to rein in the executive.
An executive that cannot be removed by confidence vote and forced to defend its actions in front of the electorate surely must be otherwise restrained lest the nation itself turn into a quasi-dictatorship. And yet I haven't seen that this issue has achieved any prominence in the current campaigns.
Am I wrong? Please advise.
National Spot Whitewashes National Spot
If Norman Spector really slammed anything or anyone in his testimony before the Commons ethics committee it was the National Post which he singled out for spiking the Mulroney/Schreiber story at the outset. He suggested that there was a cozy relationship between the Spot and Mulroney who appointed Conrad Black to the Privy Council and who subsequently intervened on behalf of David Milgard, a pet cause of the Aspers. Strangely enough, not a word of this made it into the Spot's reportage of Spector's testimony.
Spector had promised to drop bombshells in his testimony before the committee but his ordinance turned out to be a dud. He mainly expressed concerns in his capacity as a citizen and not very much in the way of hard detail about the dealings of the Schreiber and the former P.M.
One interesting remark from Spector's opening remarks came in a reference to the late Frank Moores, head of the lobby firm GCI, which represented Airbus on the Air Canada deal and which, according to Schreiber, received $20-million in bribe money.
Spector had promised to drop bombshells in his testimony before the committee but his ordinance turned out to be a dud. He mainly expressed concerns in his capacity as a citizen and not very much in the way of hard detail about the dealings of the Schreiber and the former P.M.
One interesting remark from Spector's opening remarks came in a reference to the late Frank Moores, head of the lobby firm GCI, which represented Airbus on the Air Canada deal and which, according to Schreiber, received $20-million in bribe money.
Spector Bombshell
Here are a few opening remarks by Spector: A proper post will follow
Can you imagine a newspaper like the National Post killing a story like this?
Fred Doucet extraordinary access to Mulroney
Imagine if this committee hearing was held in 2001 when Frank Moores was still alive?
Documents a "more prosaic" source of cash. Explains why Mulroney was willing to cater to the rich and powerful - obsessed with how he would get by after leaving office.
I have grave doubts that Mr. Harper wants "airbus answers" in contrast to Mr. Martin's response to the sponsorship scandal?
Harvey Andre?
RCMP botched Airbus investigation.
Story suppressed by remarkably large segment of the media.
Subpoena bank and tax records.
Start pressing government to offer Schreiber a deal to spill the beans.
Can you imagine a newspaper like the National Post killing a story like this?
Fred Doucet extraordinary access to Mulroney
Imagine if this committee hearing was held in 2001 when Frank Moores was still alive?
Documents a "more prosaic" source of cash. Explains why Mulroney was willing to cater to the rich and powerful - obsessed with how he would get by after leaving office.
I have grave doubts that Mr. Harper wants "airbus answers" in contrast to Mr. Martin's response to the sponsorship scandal?
Harvey Andre?
RCMP botched Airbus investigation.
Story suppressed by remarkably large segment of the media.
Subpoena bank and tax records.
Start pressing government to offer Schreiber a deal to spill the beans.
What Does Spector Know Anyway?
In his many columns written for The Globe & Mail, I always found Norman Spector to be a reliable toady for his old boss, Brian Mulroney. That's why I figured his appearance before the Commons ethics committee to discuss the cash that flowed through 24 Sussex Drive would likely be some sort of mundane whitewash - the "nothing to see here" sort of appearance.
But Brian Mulroney is plainly concerned about what his former minion may have to tell the committee members. About an hour before Spector's scheduled appearance, Mulroney has dumped a mass of documents onto the committee.
"Norman Spector will appear before the ethics committee beginning at 3:30 p.m. EST – an hour after the Mulroney camp launched a pre-emptive strike in the form of documents released by Mr. Mulroney's camp and posted to his media relations site.
The documents include a statement by Marilyn Burk, former assistant to Mr. Spector, concerning the removal of confidential files from the prime minister's office. In it, Ms. Burk claims a secretary was instructed by Mr. Spector in late 1991” to photocopy a file that contained records of household expenses submitted by Mr. Mulroney's wife, Mila.
There are also “various documents relating to the system of expense management at the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) and OLO (Opposition Leader's Office)” and “to payments for 24 Sussex furnishings.”
The hearing is just about to begin so I think I'll take it in on Newsworld. This could just be interesting after all.
But Brian Mulroney is plainly concerned about what his former minion may have to tell the committee members. About an hour before Spector's scheduled appearance, Mulroney has dumped a mass of documents onto the committee.
"Norman Spector will appear before the ethics committee beginning at 3:30 p.m. EST – an hour after the Mulroney camp launched a pre-emptive strike in the form of documents released by Mr. Mulroney's camp and posted to his media relations site.
The documents include a statement by Marilyn Burk, former assistant to Mr. Spector, concerning the removal of confidential files from the prime minister's office. In it, Ms. Burk claims a secretary was instructed by Mr. Spector in late 1991” to photocopy a file that contained records of household expenses submitted by Mr. Mulroney's wife, Mila.
There are also “various documents relating to the system of expense management at the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) and OLO (Opposition Leader's Office)” and “to payments for 24 Sussex furnishings.”
The hearing is just about to begin so I think I'll take it in on Newsworld. This could just be interesting after all.
Mitt Romney Steps In It
Mitt Romney just stepped in it - and deep. With Republicans going to the polls in Super Tuesday primaries, Romney blurted out a sneer at Bob Dole.
It all began with a letter the former Republican senator wrote to Rush Limbaugh who has been hypercritical of John McCain. Dole told Limbaugh to cut it out saying the Republicans needed to unite behind their party's nominee. From - gasp - FoxNews:
"Romney immediately seized on the letter, saying on FOX News Tuesday morning, “Well, it’s probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me. … I think there are a lot of folks who tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is a bit like Bob Dole’s race — that it’s the guy who’s next in line, the inevitable choice. “
McCain shot back, saying in a statement: “Gov. Romney’s attack on Bob Dole is disgraceful, and Governor Romney should apologize. Bob Dole is a war hero who has spent his life in service to this nation and nobody has worked harder to build the Republican Party. Bob Dole deserves the respect of every American and certainly every Republican.”
Once he realized the enormity of his gaffe, Romney began to furiously backpedal. This day of all days. What an idiot.
It all began with a letter the former Republican senator wrote to Rush Limbaugh who has been hypercritical of John McCain. Dole told Limbaugh to cut it out saying the Republicans needed to unite behind their party's nominee. From - gasp - FoxNews:
"Romney immediately seized on the letter, saying on FOX News Tuesday morning, “Well, it’s probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me. … I think there are a lot of folks who tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is a bit like Bob Dole’s race — that it’s the guy who’s next in line, the inevitable choice. “
McCain shot back, saying in a statement: “Gov. Romney’s attack on Bob Dole is disgraceful, and Governor Romney should apologize. Bob Dole is a war hero who has spent his life in service to this nation and nobody has worked harder to build the Republican Party. Bob Dole deserves the respect of every American and certainly every Republican.”
Once he realized the enormity of his gaffe, Romney began to furiously backpedal. This day of all days. What an idiot.
Khadr's Kangaroo Kourt
Any remaining doubt that the US Government is trying to rig the trial of Omar Khadr evaporated yesterday.
That's when a classified document was mistakenly released to reporters. The document, an eyewitness statement, contradicts the government's position that Khadr had to be responsible for throwing the grenade that exploded, killing a Delta force soldier, because he was the only suspect alive at the time.
Turns out that wasn't quite true. There was a second guy, still lying on his side, moaning, until he was dispatched by a single shot to the head. The witness then spotted Khadr, sitting up but facing away from the soldier. Khadr was then shot twice in the back.
No one saw Khadr throw anything. The government theory was that, since he was the only one alive, he must have thrown the grenade. It seems the US government was quite prepared to run Khadr through a rigged trial, concealing this exculpatory evidence.
I don't have any sympathy for Khadr or his cause but he was a child soldier and the US government is rigging the case against him and - like it or not - he is a Canadian citizen. With this latest revelation, our Furious Leader, if he has a shred of decency in him, ought to be demanding Khadr's immediate release and return to Canada. Who knows what else they've got cooked up to use against him? If there ever was a Kangaroo court, this is it.
That's when a classified document was mistakenly released to reporters. The document, an eyewitness statement, contradicts the government's position that Khadr had to be responsible for throwing the grenade that exploded, killing a Delta force soldier, because he was the only suspect alive at the time.
Turns out that wasn't quite true. There was a second guy, still lying on his side, moaning, until he was dispatched by a single shot to the head. The witness then spotted Khadr, sitting up but facing away from the soldier. Khadr was then shot twice in the back.
No one saw Khadr throw anything. The government theory was that, since he was the only one alive, he must have thrown the grenade. It seems the US government was quite prepared to run Khadr through a rigged trial, concealing this exculpatory evidence.
I don't have any sympathy for Khadr or his cause but he was a child soldier and the US government is rigging the case against him and - like it or not - he is a Canadian citizen. With this latest revelation, our Furious Leader, if he has a shred of decency in him, ought to be demanding Khadr's immediate release and return to Canada. Who knows what else they've got cooked up to use against him? If there ever was a Kangaroo court, this is it.
Peeking Into Mulroney's Bags of Cash
The Brian Mulroney soap opera resumes today when former aide Norman Spector testifies before the Commons ethics committee. Spector supposedly has information pertaining to piles of cash that were delivered to 24 Sussex Drive while Mulroney was prime minister.
So many questions. Why cash? Did Mulroney hit the stores for bouts of shopping? I guess Mila did. Whose cash was it? Who delivered it and why? How did Mulroney treat the money for tax purposes? How was it recorded and where are those records today? What, if anything, did Mulroney do to get this money? Did Mulroney keep a safe in the basement to handle this cashflow? Where did all this cash go?
After Spector, former justice minister Allan Rock is expected to testify, presumably in regard to Mulroney's defamation lawsuit against the government of Canada. Again, so many questions.
So many questions. Why cash? Did Mulroney hit the stores for bouts of shopping? I guess Mila did. Whose cash was it? Who delivered it and why? How did Mulroney treat the money for tax purposes? How was it recorded and where are those records today? What, if anything, did Mulroney do to get this money? Did Mulroney keep a safe in the basement to handle this cashflow? Where did all this cash go?
After Spector, former justice minister Allan Rock is expected to testify, presumably in regard to Mulroney's defamation lawsuit against the government of Canada. Again, so many questions.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Afghanistan - That Flushing Sound
According to The Guardian, Afghan and NATO forces have managed to kill another bagful of civilians including women and kids. The supposed bad guy? Well, he got away.
A district police chief in Farah province says the troops stormed the house of a suspected Taliban leader Mullah Manan and by the time the final shell casing hit the floor the soldiers had killed nine, incuding two women and two children, but Manan got away.
Troops in the British-controlled Helmand province did better. They killed the suspected Taliban and merely wounded his 8-year old daughter.
Meanwhile the sister paper, The Observer, managed to get unpublished figures from allied military sources showing that insurgent attacks on international and Afghan troops jumped somewhere between 20 and 33% last year.
"Nato sources argue that more troops are needed to fill gaps in the south west in particular but argue that targeting resources on providing more training teams for the nascent Afghan army would do more good than pouring in soldiers. A particular frustration for the US is the restrictions imposed by national governments on the deployment of their troops. Germany, France, Italy and Spain - the latter two countries with troops in western Afghanistan - all agreed last year to send troops to the violent south, but only in extremis. Since the agreement, no troops from those countries have been deployed.
General Carlos Branco, spokesman for Nato forces in Afghanistan, conceded to reporters last month that violence had increased in Afghanistan, but argued that suicide bombs reflected desperation by the Taliban. 'As an insurgency movement, the Taliban movement are a failure,' he said."
Gee, if the Taliban are failing, we must be winning, right? Now ain't that good news? What is that flushing sound anyway?
A district police chief in Farah province says the troops stormed the house of a suspected Taliban leader Mullah Manan and by the time the final shell casing hit the floor the soldiers had killed nine, incuding two women and two children, but Manan got away.
Troops in the British-controlled Helmand province did better. They killed the suspected Taliban and merely wounded his 8-year old daughter.
Meanwhile the sister paper, The Observer, managed to get unpublished figures from allied military sources showing that insurgent attacks on international and Afghan troops jumped somewhere between 20 and 33% last year.
"Nato sources argue that more troops are needed to fill gaps in the south west in particular but argue that targeting resources on providing more training teams for the nascent Afghan army would do more good than pouring in soldiers. A particular frustration for the US is the restrictions imposed by national governments on the deployment of their troops. Germany, France, Italy and Spain - the latter two countries with troops in western Afghanistan - all agreed last year to send troops to the violent south, but only in extremis. Since the agreement, no troops from those countries have been deployed.
General Carlos Branco, spokesman for Nato forces in Afghanistan, conceded to reporters last month that violence had increased in Afghanistan, but argued that suicide bombs reflected desperation by the Taliban. 'As an insurgency movement, the Taliban movement are a failure,' he said."
Gee, if the Taliban are failing, we must be winning, right? Now ain't that good news? What is that flushing sound anyway?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Harper is Genuinely Afraid - Of Us
Stephen Harper doesn't like the people of Canada. No, really, he doesn't. Just look at how he mocked the Canadian people - you and me - for the sport of his elite American friends in the ultra-secret, uber-right Council for National Policy when he was honoured with an invitation to address them in Montreal a decade ago.
"It may not be true but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."
"The NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the lives of men. Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology."
"Before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights, officially - officially in favour of abortion on demand. Officially - what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized health care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of this country."
But, jesting or not, Harper's plainly stated contempt of the Canadian people - you and me - has morphed (as it was bound to) into fear now that he heads a minority government that keeps bashing into the wall of his decidedly un-Canadian dogma.
Fear? Of course. The proof lies in the information lock-down imposed by our Furious Leader on departments in the spotlight such as the Department of National Defence and Environment Canada.
Prime minister Lardo is petrified that someone in those departments might inadvertently blurt out - the truth - and make him look bad. Can't be having that because the truth doesn't match the message. The more you know, the less believable Harpo and his policies become.
It's gotten to the point where even the KanWest gang has had its fill of our Furious Leader's antics. From the National Spot:
Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper's election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a "fog over information" has crept across the government's activities.
Marleau said complaints to the commissioner's office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year.
The Access to Information Act seems like the only way for MPs, interest groups, journalists and others to get government information, Mr. Marleau said in an interview.
Donald Savoie, a New Brunswick academic who has documented the trend toward "governing from the centre," says the Mr. Harper team's penchant for below-the-radar policy making is risky.
Mr. Savoie says Canadians should take Mr. Harper's [transparency pledge] with a grain of salt.
"I don't think we'll ever have an open, transparent government as long as we have a minority government," he said. "There is a lack of confidence or insecurity because they don't know where the landmine is going to come from, and when it's going to blow up. So, they try to control it."
"It may not be true but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."
"The NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the lives of men. Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology."
"Before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights, officially - officially in favour of abortion on demand. Officially - what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized health care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of this country."
But, jesting or not, Harper's plainly stated contempt of the Canadian people - you and me - has morphed (as it was bound to) into fear now that he heads a minority government that keeps bashing into the wall of his decidedly un-Canadian dogma.
Fear? Of course. The proof lies in the information lock-down imposed by our Furious Leader on departments in the spotlight such as the Department of National Defence and Environment Canada.
Prime minister Lardo is petrified that someone in those departments might inadvertently blurt out - the truth - and make him look bad. Can't be having that because the truth doesn't match the message. The more you know, the less believable Harpo and his policies become.
It's gotten to the point where even the KanWest gang has had its fill of our Furious Leader's antics. From the National Spot:
Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper's election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a "fog over information" has crept across the government's activities.
Marleau said complaints to the commissioner's office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year.
The Access to Information Act seems like the only way for MPs, interest groups, journalists and others to get government information, Mr. Marleau said in an interview.
Donald Savoie, a New Brunswick academic who has documented the trend toward "governing from the centre," says the Mr. Harper team's penchant for below-the-radar policy making is risky.
Mr. Savoie says Canadians should take Mr. Harper's [transparency pledge] with a grain of salt.
"I don't think we'll ever have an open, transparent government as long as we have a minority government," he said. "There is a lack of confidence or insecurity because they don't know where the landmine is going to come from, and when it's going to blow up. So, they try to control it."
Uncle Joe Harper's Political Commisars
"In all dictatorships, targeting the free press begins with political pressure - loud, angry campaigns for the news to be represented in a way that supports the group that seeks dominance." - Naomi Wolf, "The End of America."
Now, relax, I'm not claiming that Harper intends to seize dictatorial power in Canada. I think it's only a matter of time before that chump runs his course and the stain of his administration fades. That said, we do need to be mindful of this guy's autocratic bent. Part of that lies in Harper's manipulation of the Canadian media.
It came out late last year that Harpo had imposed a political filter on the Department of National Defence where requests for interviews or the release of information to the media had to be pre-cleared with senior bureaucrats in the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office. These political commisars were obviously intended to control the message on the Afghanistan controversy. It's a form of media manipulation and it's a technique that Harper has shown he'll use with other controversial issues.
The Vancouver Sun, a full-fledged KanWest paper, says the same tactics are being used by Harpo against Environment Canada.
"Environment Canada's muzzling of its scientists might be shocking, but it's hardly surprising.
The new policy, which apparently went into force in recent weeks, is designed to control the media message and ensure that Environment Minister John Baird faces no "surprises" when he reads or listens to the news.
The policy dictates that researchers refer all media queries to Ottawa. The media office then directs reporters to submit their questions in writing, and then researchers are to send written responses to senior management for approval. If the researcher is cleared to do an interview, he or she is asked to stick to "approved lines," though it's not clear what that enigmatic phrase means.
Needless to say, the new policy has infuriated scientists and sent a chill through Environment Canada. After all, while Gregory Jack, acting director of Environment Canada's ministerial and executive services, insisted "there is no change in the access in terms of scientists being able to talk," it's clear that scientists are being severely hobbled in their ability to speak freely.
This is in stark contrast to Environment Canada's treatment under previous governments, when it was one of the most open and accessible federal departments. That openness and accessibility, however, is seen by Environment Canada's executive committee as a problem that needs to be remedied.
It appears that the Conservatives refuse to recognize any distinction between policy based on science and science itself. Rather than using scientific evidence to inform policy, the Conservatives seem more interested in ensuring that the science conforms to their policy."
Once again we see the true face of Stephen Harper and it's pretty ugly.
Now, relax, I'm not claiming that Harper intends to seize dictatorial power in Canada. I think it's only a matter of time before that chump runs his course and the stain of his administration fades. That said, we do need to be mindful of this guy's autocratic bent. Part of that lies in Harper's manipulation of the Canadian media.
It came out late last year that Harpo had imposed a political filter on the Department of National Defence where requests for interviews or the release of information to the media had to be pre-cleared with senior bureaucrats in the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office. These political commisars were obviously intended to control the message on the Afghanistan controversy. It's a form of media manipulation and it's a technique that Harper has shown he'll use with other controversial issues.
The Vancouver Sun, a full-fledged KanWest paper, says the same tactics are being used by Harpo against Environment Canada.
"Environment Canada's muzzling of its scientists might be shocking, but it's hardly surprising.
The new policy, which apparently went into force in recent weeks, is designed to control the media message and ensure that Environment Minister John Baird faces no "surprises" when he reads or listens to the news.
The policy dictates that researchers refer all media queries to Ottawa. The media office then directs reporters to submit their questions in writing, and then researchers are to send written responses to senior management for approval. If the researcher is cleared to do an interview, he or she is asked to stick to "approved lines," though it's not clear what that enigmatic phrase means.
Needless to say, the new policy has infuriated scientists and sent a chill through Environment Canada. After all, while Gregory Jack, acting director of Environment Canada's ministerial and executive services, insisted "there is no change in the access in terms of scientists being able to talk," it's clear that scientists are being severely hobbled in their ability to speak freely.
This is in stark contrast to Environment Canada's treatment under previous governments, when it was one of the most open and accessible federal departments. That openness and accessibility, however, is seen by Environment Canada's executive committee as a problem that needs to be remedied.
It appears that the Conservatives refuse to recognize any distinction between policy based on science and science itself. Rather than using scientific evidence to inform policy, the Conservatives seem more interested in ensuring that the science conforms to their policy."
Once again we see the true face of Stephen Harper and it's pretty ugly.
Oh Boy, Our Turn!
Big news in Afghanistan. A Canadian general is taking the reins in the south. From the Toronto Star:
"A change in tact and tactics for international coalition efforts in southern Afghanistan is coming with the changing of the guard, according to the Canadian now in control of international military efforts in the region.
Maj.-Gen. Mark Lessard yesterday took over leadership of Regional Command South, the designation given by the International Security Assistance Force to Afghanistan's six southernmost provinces."
And there's the problem. As one commander rotates in to replace the outgoing commander, he brings his war to Afghanistan. So the forces in the south will get to fight Mark Lessard's war this year and then a year from now they'll learn to fight some Dutch or British or American general's vision of what needs to be done in southern Afghanistan.
If it sounds like tactical schizophrenia, it is.
"We blocked in 2007," Lessard said of the last year's activities. "In 2008, we're going on the offensive."
Lessard, who I'm sure bears no resemblance to the commandant of the "Police Academy" movies, is clearly in a shoot'em up mood.
"A change in tact and tactics for international coalition efforts in southern Afghanistan is coming with the changing of the guard, according to the Canadian now in control of international military efforts in the region.
Maj.-Gen. Mark Lessard yesterday took over leadership of Regional Command South, the designation given by the International Security Assistance Force to Afghanistan's six southernmost provinces."
And there's the problem. As one commander rotates in to replace the outgoing commander, he brings his war to Afghanistan. So the forces in the south will get to fight Mark Lessard's war this year and then a year from now they'll learn to fight some Dutch or British or American general's vision of what needs to be done in southern Afghanistan.
If it sounds like tactical schizophrenia, it is.
"We blocked in 2007," Lessard said of the last year's activities. "In 2008, we're going on the offensive."
Lessard, who I'm sure bears no resemblance to the commandant of the "Police Academy" movies, is clearly in a shoot'em up mood.
Here's Something Karzai Can Tackle - The Sale of Afghan Kids
Our good friend and faithful ally in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, must be about the most useless president of any country on earth. He can't handle the insurgency that's spreading throughout his country. He can't handle the flourishing opium trade that has left his country strapped to a runaway narco-economy. He can't handle the rampant corruption in his police and security services. He can't prevent torture in his prisons. He can't bring his country's warlords to heel.
He has been able to safeguard his own job and install his friends in high places. He has managed to thwart the UN's efforts to appoint a super-envoy to organize reconstruction and aid efforts lest that somehow diminish Karzai's own standing.
But surely he has time to protect his country's children. The UN is warning of an increasing problem of parents selling children. I'm sure it's just a coincidence but the kids being sold are all girls. Hmm, wonder why that could be.
In three recent cases, the parents all pleaded poverty, claiming they sold their daughters because they couldn't afford to feed them. In fairness, famine is a widespread problem in Afghanistan, particularly this winter. The going rate seems to range anywhere from $20 up to $240 per girl.
It seems Karzai & Company just haven't had time to pass laws prohibiting the sale and trafficking in Afghan kids or even child abuse. The good news is that they've assured the UN they're working on it.
He has been able to safeguard his own job and install his friends in high places. He has managed to thwart the UN's efforts to appoint a super-envoy to organize reconstruction and aid efforts lest that somehow diminish Karzai's own standing.
But surely he has time to protect his country's children. The UN is warning of an increasing problem of parents selling children. I'm sure it's just a coincidence but the kids being sold are all girls. Hmm, wonder why that could be.
In three recent cases, the parents all pleaded poverty, claiming they sold their daughters because they couldn't afford to feed them. In fairness, famine is a widespread problem in Afghanistan, particularly this winter. The going rate seems to range anywhere from $20 up to $240 per girl.
It seems Karzai & Company just haven't had time to pass laws prohibiting the sale and trafficking in Afghan kids or even child abuse. The good news is that they've assured the UN they're working on it.
Israeli Clusterbombing Violated International Law
Barely a month after the Israeli military cleared itself of all wrongdoing in the use of clusterbombs against Lebanon during its 2006 war with Hezbollah, the Winograd commission into the war has found just the opposite - that the weapons and the way they were used clearly violated international law.
From the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs:
"The Winograd Committee said it did not find any evidence to prove that soldiers fired cluster bombs at civilian targets or that civilians were injured by the bomblets during the war, but it did say that firing the bombs at built-up areas - even if they were being used by Hezbollah as military posts at the time - "does not comply with the rationale on which the restrictions [in Israeli and international law] on the use of cluster [bombs] is based."
The committee, set up by the Israeli government to investigate the war, found that firing the bombs into residential areas, even if the residents had left, was not an "acceptable widening" of the rules, as civilians would be hurt.
The Winograd Comittee had five members, who were appointed by the cabinet about a month after the war ended, and was headed by retired judge Eliyahu Winograd. The committee’s mandate was to investigate and reach conclusion on the conduct of political leaders as well as the military and defence systems.
In the final report, it said that the cluster bombs were inaccurate and spread out over a wide area; not all the bomblets exploded and continue to cause harm long after they were fired.
About 90 percent of the cluster bombs were fired in the last days of the war, when it was clear a ceasefire would soon be announced. Over four million bomblets were fired during the war, according to the UN."
The UN says unexploded cluster bomblets such as those shown above continue to exact a toll on Lebanese civilians having killed 30 and wounded 200 since the war ended.
The Israeli military still refuses to assist UN workers trying to clear the remaining weapons, finding ten new sites every month.
"All these weapons systems are computerised and grid references are entered before the bombs drop. Not receiving the cluster bomb strike data from the Israelis remains our biggest obstacle to clearance,” Dalya Farran, a spokeswoman for the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre for South Lebanon (MACSL), told IRIN. The UN estimates that Israel rained down around four million bomblets - most US-supplied - onto south Lebanon in the last three days of its 2006 July war with Hezbollah fighters, when a ceasefire had already been agreed.
And this, supposedly, is our ally and friend.
From the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs:
"The Winograd Committee said it did not find any evidence to prove that soldiers fired cluster bombs at civilian targets or that civilians were injured by the bomblets during the war, but it did say that firing the bombs at built-up areas - even if they were being used by Hezbollah as military posts at the time - "does not comply with the rationale on which the restrictions [in Israeli and international law] on the use of cluster [bombs] is based."
The committee, set up by the Israeli government to investigate the war, found that firing the bombs into residential areas, even if the residents had left, was not an "acceptable widening" of the rules, as civilians would be hurt.
The Winograd Comittee had five members, who were appointed by the cabinet about a month after the war ended, and was headed by retired judge Eliyahu Winograd. The committee’s mandate was to investigate and reach conclusion on the conduct of political leaders as well as the military and defence systems.
In the final report, it said that the cluster bombs were inaccurate and spread out over a wide area; not all the bomblets exploded and continue to cause harm long after they were fired.
About 90 percent of the cluster bombs were fired in the last days of the war, when it was clear a ceasefire would soon be announced. Over four million bomblets were fired during the war, according to the UN."
The UN says unexploded cluster bomblets such as those shown above continue to exact a toll on Lebanese civilians having killed 30 and wounded 200 since the war ended.
The Israeli military still refuses to assist UN workers trying to clear the remaining weapons, finding ten new sites every month.
"All these weapons systems are computerised and grid references are entered before the bombs drop. Not receiving the cluster bomb strike data from the Israelis remains our biggest obstacle to clearance,” Dalya Farran, a spokeswoman for the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre for South Lebanon (MACSL), told IRIN. The UN estimates that Israel rained down around four million bomblets - most US-supplied - onto south Lebanon in the last three days of its 2006 July war with Hezbollah fighters, when a ceasefire had already been agreed.
And this, supposedly, is our ally and friend.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Afghan Senate Backs Down on Kambaksh Execution
International outrage has finally got through the thick skulls of the Afghan senate. Citing "a technical mistake," the Senate withdrew its confirmation of Kambaksh's death sentence for supposed blasphemy consisting of downloading a report on women's rights. From The Independent:
The move follows widespread international protests and appeals to the President, Hamid Karzai, after the case was highlighted by The Independent and more than 38,000 readers signed our petition to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. In Britain, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, backed the campaign, and there have been demonstrations in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
The first ruling by the Senate supporting the death sentence on Mr Kambaksh by a religious court in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north of the country, was proposed by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of President Karzai, and was seen as a severe blow to the 23-year-old journalism student's chances of avoiding execution.
Mr Kambaksh can now petition the court of appeal against both his conviction and sentence, and, afterwards, the supreme court. If he fails there, he can appeal directly to Mr Karzai – who has been inundated with emails about the case – for a pardon. Mr Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, welcomed the new position adopted by the Senate. He added, however, that he might have difficulties finding lawyers to present the case at the appeal court after warnings from fundamentalist groups against people "allying themselves with the apostate". He said the only realistic chance of his brother being freed might be the personal intervention of Mr Karzai. "
The move follows widespread international protests and appeals to the President, Hamid Karzai, after the case was highlighted by The Independent and more than 38,000 readers signed our petition to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. In Britain, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, backed the campaign, and there have been demonstrations in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
The first ruling by the Senate supporting the death sentence on Mr Kambaksh by a religious court in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north of the country, was proposed by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of President Karzai, and was seen as a severe blow to the 23-year-old journalism student's chances of avoiding execution.
Mr Kambaksh can now petition the court of appeal against both his conviction and sentence, and, afterwards, the supreme court. If he fails there, he can appeal directly to Mr Karzai – who has been inundated with emails about the case – for a pardon. Mr Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, welcomed the new position adopted by the Senate. He added, however, that he might have difficulties finding lawyers to present the case at the appeal court after warnings from fundamentalist groups against people "allying themselves with the apostate". He said the only realistic chance of his brother being freed might be the personal intervention of Mr Karzai. "
Taxes Can Reform Attitudes
The New York Times reports on a highly successful Irish initiative to do away with the scourge of plastic bags:
"There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog."
Now I know this is going to send you libertarian folks out there into cardiac arrest but it shows that, like public smoking bans, we can adapt quite easily and, afterward, wonder what all the fuss was about.
"There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog."
Now I know this is going to send you libertarian folks out there into cardiac arrest but it shows that, like public smoking bans, we can adapt quite easily and, afterward, wonder what all the fuss was about.
Canada Won't Scuttle NATO But America Might
A report in The Times indicates that tempers are flaring among some NATO members in response to angry demands by US defense secretary Robert Gates for them to contribute soldiers to the combat zone of southern Afghanistan.
"An unusually stern letter from Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to his German counterpart about the role of Germany’s troops in Afghanistan caused anger not just in Berlin but elsewhere in the alliance.
Washington has taken the lead in putting pressure on Nato with a warning that the credibility of the alliance is at stake. But Mr Gates’s latest intervention seems likely to cause more division.
His letter to Franz Josef Jung, the German Defence Minister, went to the heart of the problem that has faced Nato since its mission expanded throughout Afghanistan, and in particular to the southern provinces where the Taleban are concentrated.
German diplomatic sources said the letter from Mr Gates had been harsh, although they would not divulge the contents. Mr Jung replied in similar mode with a “direct and stern” letter to Mr Gates, according to Suddeutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper.
The whole question of burden-sharing in Afghanistan — in particular sharing the burden of combat — is due to come up at Nato’s next summit in Bucharest in April. One Nato diplomat said: “I think Mr Gates’s intervention is more about domestic politics than anything else but sometimes I wonder whether the US realises the negative impact these spats have outside America.”
"An unusually stern letter from Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to his German counterpart about the role of Germany’s troops in Afghanistan caused anger not just in Berlin but elsewhere in the alliance.
Washington has taken the lead in putting pressure on Nato with a warning that the credibility of the alliance is at stake. But Mr Gates’s latest intervention seems likely to cause more division.
His letter to Franz Josef Jung, the German Defence Minister, went to the heart of the problem that has faced Nato since its mission expanded throughout Afghanistan, and in particular to the southern provinces where the Taleban are concentrated.
German diplomatic sources said the letter from Mr Gates had been harsh, although they would not divulge the contents. Mr Jung replied in similar mode with a “direct and stern” letter to Mr Gates, according to Suddeutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper.
The whole question of burden-sharing in Afghanistan — in particular sharing the burden of combat — is due to come up at Nato’s next summit in Bucharest in April. One Nato diplomat said: “I think Mr Gates’s intervention is more about domestic politics than anything else but sometimes I wonder whether the US realises the negative impact these spats have outside America.”
The Guardian reports that the dispute has gotten so bad that Condoleeza Rice has been dispatched to Europe, "to tackle an escalating row over Nato troop reinforcements for Afghanistan, amid worries that the entire international stabilisation strategy is in danger of failing."
"Conservative MPs are starting to question the wisdom of continuing to support the president [Karzai]. Ministers are braced for another critical report from the Commons international development select committee amid concern that popular support for the war will start to wane, especially as Karzai adopts an increasingly independent view."
NATO is ill-suited to the role in Afghanistan now foisted on it by Washington. It was never intended to be America's Foreign Legion and the grousing of its member states isn't helped at all by the incompetence of the White House and Pentagon leadership. This is a particularly bad time to be asking countries like Germany to make commitments that could serve as obligational precedents when a presidential election looms that could see the United States take a sharply different course in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Friday, February 01, 2008
It's A Start
The Netherlands has introduced a new tax on gas guzzlers. Beginning today, buying a Hummer will set you back an additional $28,000 in environmental taxes.
Most high-end, V-8 cars will now cost at least $10,000 more. What remains to be seen is the extent to which this will influence buyers.
"It varies a bit, but if you take the high-end V8 vehicles, it will easily go up by up to 10,000 euros," Mercedes-Benz Netherlands spokesman Hubert Dubbelman said.
But the companies said drivers might continue buying gas guzzlers anyway.
"It is not clear if a customer who is willing to pay 160,000 euros for such a car is affected by the fact that he has to pay 10,000 more," Dubbelman said.
Most high-end, V-8 cars will now cost at least $10,000 more. What remains to be seen is the extent to which this will influence buyers.
"It varies a bit, but if you take the high-end V8 vehicles, it will easily go up by up to 10,000 euros," Mercedes-Benz Netherlands spokesman Hubert Dubbelman said.
But the companies said drivers might continue buying gas guzzlers anyway.
"It is not clear if a customer who is willing to pay 160,000 euros for such a car is affected by the fact that he has to pay 10,000 more," Dubbelman said.
Dion, Make Up Your Mind - Stay or Leave?
I'm not sure where Stephane Dion stands on the question of Canadian participation in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. It strikes me that he's more intent on finding a place to stand that's not already occupied than in taking a clear, genuinely principled position.
He's allowed himself to get snookered again. Harper's occupying the "stay" corner, Layton has staked out the "leave" corner. It seems that Dion's focus is to define a posture that is somehow betwixt and between - as though that were possible.
So we'll stay in Kandahar but someone else will do the fighting. And NATO is going to adopt rotational deployment so that all those other nations that are lining up to jump in can get their fair share of the combat mission.
The trouble with Dion's position is reality. If you're in Kandahar you're going to fight. Option B doesn't exist. And NATO doesn't have any suitably sized reinforcements available to rotate in. That's the problem Stephane, that's why we're in this 2009 predicament.
Germany's defence minister announced today that his country's forces, like those of Italy, France and Turkey, will be staying in the relatively peaceful north. They're not budging and so any prospect of rotation is unrealistic.
Unfortunately for the Liberal leader, Harper's also got the "stay, but..." option, the Manley option, staked out.
Between them, Harper and Layton have pretty much got the reality options filled. So, Stephane, who are you going to side with?
He's allowed himself to get snookered again. Harper's occupying the "stay" corner, Layton has staked out the "leave" corner. It seems that Dion's focus is to define a posture that is somehow betwixt and between - as though that were possible.
So we'll stay in Kandahar but someone else will do the fighting. And NATO is going to adopt rotational deployment so that all those other nations that are lining up to jump in can get their fair share of the combat mission.
The trouble with Dion's position is reality. If you're in Kandahar you're going to fight. Option B doesn't exist. And NATO doesn't have any suitably sized reinforcements available to rotate in. That's the problem Stephane, that's why we're in this 2009 predicament.
Germany's defence minister announced today that his country's forces, like those of Italy, France and Turkey, will be staying in the relatively peaceful north. They're not budging and so any prospect of rotation is unrealistic.
Unfortunately for the Liberal leader, Harper's also got the "stay, but..." option, the Manley option, staked out.
Between them, Harper and Layton have pretty much got the reality options filled. So, Stephane, who are you going to side with?
Don't Tell Him There Is No Santa
John Gomery was instrumental in shoehorning Stephen Harper into power. He even posed for photos shaking Harpo's hand as Lardo stood at the alter of transparency like a true believer.
Oops. Fooled ya, Johnny!
A report in the Toronto Star quotes Gomery, speaking for a position of complete irrelevance, as dissatisfied with today's Harpo.
"I have to tell you, I'm very disappointed," Gomery said from the farm in Havelock, Que., where he now lives in retirement.
He said most of the changes he proposed fell into a "black hole" of indifference or were rejected out of hand.
Gomery's scathing indictment of the previous Liberal government was widely credited with helping the Conservatives come to power in 2006.
Gomery recommended a reversal of a decades-long trend to centralize power in the hands of the prime minister.
It was a goal Harper appeared to share when he was in opposition, says Gomery. But since taking power "there's more concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office than we've ever had before, which is quite remarkable in a minority government, but he's pulled it off."
Gomery also slammed Harper for abandoning the effort to install a new appointments commissioner to ensure that merit – not patronage – would be the main criterion in naming people to the boards of Crown corporations and other key posts.
Conference Board Backs Carbon Taxes
The Conference Board of Canada is recommending the prompt introduction of hefty carbon taxes on businesses and individuals alike in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. From the Toronto Star:
"The think-tank joined a growing list of research and business groups calling for taxes or other financial policies to reduce emissions from coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuels.
All companies and individuals should pay a tax that stings enough to make them change their behaviour and adopt less-polluting technologies, the report says.
The recommendation includes measures far tougher than what the report calls the federal government's "modest" climate change plan. It also suggests a starting price of about $25 a tonne for emissions – far higher than Ottawa has proposed in its limited scheme – and says the price should keep rising.
For Canada's largest greenhouse gas emitters – mainly in the oil and gas industry, electricity generation and major energy users such as steel, aluminum, chemicals, mining, cement and forest products– the board proposes the tax be accompanied by an emissions cap-and-trade system.
"Canadians pay nothing to spew greenhouse gases, even though the pollution will cause floods, droughts, storm damage, physical and mental health problems and many other "potentially irreversible disruptions," the report says. "Since there is no price on these negative consequences, consumers and producers have no need to factor the cost of emissions into their decision-making."
The challenge, the board says, "is to derive a price ... which consumers and producers would then take into account."
The Capital Crimes of Sayed Kambaksh
Sayed Pervez Kambaksh is an Afghan journalism student recently sentenced to death by an Islamic court for offending Islam, essentially blasphemy.
According to The Independent, Kambaksh's crime consisted of downloading and distributing a report he obtained from the internet.
"He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website that stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.
According to The Independent, Kambaksh's crime consisted of downloading and distributing a report he obtained from the internet.
"He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website that stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.
Kambaksh, 23, distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter. But a complaint was made against him, and he was arrested, tried by religious judges without -- say his friends and family -- being allowed legal representation and sentenced to death.
The United Nations, human rights groups, journalists' organizations and Western diplomats have urged Karzai's government to intervene and free him. But the Afghan Senate passed a motion yesterday confirming the death sentence.
The MP who proposed the ruling condemning Kambaksh was Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of Karzai. The Senate also attacked the international community for putting pressure on the Afghan government and urged Karzai not to be influenced by outside non-Islamic views.
Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, is also a journalist and has written articles for IWPR in which he accused senior public figures, including an MP, of atrocities, including murders. He said: "Of course we are all very worried about my brother. What has happened to him is very unjust. He has not committed blasphemy, and he was not even allowed to have a legal defense. And what took place was a secret trial."
Qayoum Baabak, the editor of Jahan-i-Naw, said a senior prosecutor in Mazar-i-Sharif, Hafiz Khaliqyar, had warned journalists that they would be punished if they protested against the death sentence passed on Kambaksh.
So, this is the grand, democratic Afghanistan our soldiers are dying to defend? This rabid fundamentalist, vile, corrupt, narco-state? The notion of a decent Afghanistan worthy of joining the community of nations is slipping through our fingers and the troubles don't lie just across the border in Pakistan but also in the mosques of Afghanistan and in its central government palaces in Kabul. Our side in this civil war, the thugs we put into power after driving the Taliban out, are reminding us that neither side was worth saving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
