The polls have closed in Iraq and with only a smattering of candidate assassinations, voter intimidation and ballot-buying, everything seems to have gone remarkably well.
Now the wait begins. The results of Iraq's provincial elections may be a harbinger of what lies in store for that country over the next few years. Only Arab provinces, 14 of the 18 in total, will vote. Three Kurdish provinces will vote separately and the final district, Kirkuk, won't be voting at all. Kirkuk is the OK Corral of Iraq, the place where the Arab/Kurd showdown awaits. Baghdad doesn't want to light that fuze anytime soon even as the Kurds keep pushing Arabs out and Kurds in to make sure the referendum comes out their way.
The vote will test the relative strength of Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr; of the Shiite and the minority Sunni Arab factions. The provincial elections may also indicate what the future holds for Maliki in Iraq's national elections later this year. That's when Maliki could be challenged by his country's largest Shia party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.
The real threat to the survival of Iraq as a nation remains in the Kurdish north. If the Kurds secede, observers see Iraq splitting into three states; the Kurdish north, the Shiite south and the Sunni centre. There are some who think that outcome is literally pre-ordained by the Kurdish constitution which, to prevent civil war, the Baghdad government incorporated into the Iraqi constitution.
The Fat Lady sits patiently in Kirkuk, waiting to sing.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Whither Athabasca?
The bitumen rich Athabasca Tar Sands are in a slump now that world oil prices have collapsed to rational values. The Tar Sands are not only an environmental scourge but they're also incredibly expensive when it comes to producing a barrel of synthetic oil. It's costly to get the goop out of the sand and costly again to refine it into a form of oil capable of being refined into conventional petroleum products. Other unique features of the Tar Sands include the insane amount of greenhouse-gas emitting energy needed to extract and refine the goop and the massive quantities of water consumed in the process - not to mention those ginormous tailing ponds of toxic sludge, big enough they're visible from space, for which nobody has any solutions other than to let them slowly leech into the soil and water table.
Back when the Oil Patch was giddy with anticipation of $200 per barrel oil prices there was talk of carbon sequestration, an expensive and unproven scheme to capture the CO2 emissions and pump them into permanent storage in deep underground crevices. The viability of this technology is uncertain at best but you can draw your own conclusions by asking how much Athabasca CO2 has ever been sequestered. In today's economy it's a safe bet that the Oil Patch and the Conservative governments in Alberta and Ottawa are in no mood for bitumen sin taxes.
Still, with world oil prices in the tank and a decidedly Tar Sands unfriendly administration now in place in Washington, what will be the fate of the long-promised environmental remediation of Athabasca? It's already an environmental mess. Could that turn into an environmental catastrophe if these two governments don't start putting a boot up the backside of the Oil Patch to clean up the mess they've already made?
Both Harper and Ignatieff have warmly embraced the Tar Sands as a century's worth of wealth for Canada. Both have paid lip service to environmental problems in Athabasca. Neither has demanded a damned thing be done to really clean up this mess. Fortunately there's a guy headed to Ottawa next month who actually does have a spine and he's got the Tar Sands on his agenda, some might say in his crosshairs. Maybe the best solutions for Athabasca will be Made in America.
Back when the Oil Patch was giddy with anticipation of $200 per barrel oil prices there was talk of carbon sequestration, an expensive and unproven scheme to capture the CO2 emissions and pump them into permanent storage in deep underground crevices. The viability of this technology is uncertain at best but you can draw your own conclusions by asking how much Athabasca CO2 has ever been sequestered. In today's economy it's a safe bet that the Oil Patch and the Conservative governments in Alberta and Ottawa are in no mood for bitumen sin taxes.
Still, with world oil prices in the tank and a decidedly Tar Sands unfriendly administration now in place in Washington, what will be the fate of the long-promised environmental remediation of Athabasca? It's already an environmental mess. Could that turn into an environmental catastrophe if these two governments don't start putting a boot up the backside of the Oil Patch to clean up the mess they've already made?
Both Harper and Ignatieff have warmly embraced the Tar Sands as a century's worth of wealth for Canada. Both have paid lip service to environmental problems in Athabasca. Neither has demanded a damned thing be done to really clean up this mess. Fortunately there's a guy headed to Ottawa next month who actually does have a spine and he's got the Tar Sands on his agenda, some might say in his crosshairs. Maybe the best solutions for Athabasca will be Made in America.
Suddenly It's Raining Black Men
Don't get me wrong. I'm enormously happy that Americans elected a black president but the cynic in me can't help but noticing how many white bread operations are now looking whole wheat.
The Repuglicans seem pretty adept at this. When Hillary lost the Democratic presidential nomination, John McCain dropped his list of running-mate favourites and chose someone he'd met just once in his life - surprise, it's Sarah Palin! Given the governor's astonishing ignorance of all things national and international - staggering even for the anti-intellectual, "know nothing" party of the Deep South - it was obviously a ploy to snag disaffected female Democrats.
Now, with a black Democrat less than two weeks in the White House, the Repugs have done it again. Enter the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, the first African American to chair the RNC. From The New York Times:
The election of Mr. Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, means that both major political parties are being led by African-Americans. Mr. Steele is the first black chairman of his party, and his selection was particularly striking for Republicans, who have been criticized over the years as stirring racial animosities in an effort to build political coalitions, particularly in the South.
“It’s time for something completely different, and we’re going to bring it to them,” Mr. Steele said. “We’re going to bring this party to every corner, to every boardroom, to every neighborhood, to every community. And we’re going to say to friend and foe alike: ‘We want you to be a part of us. We want you to be with us, and for those of you who are going to obstruct, get ready to be knocked over.’ ”
Wait a minute, did you hear what he said, "time for something completely different?" Maybe someone should tell Mike that America just got something completely different eleven days ago. And that street brawling lingo, you're either with us or we're gonna knock you over? Two can play that game Mr. Steele and right now the weak bench is your team's.
The Repuglicans seem pretty adept at this. When Hillary lost the Democratic presidential nomination, John McCain dropped his list of running-mate favourites and chose someone he'd met just once in his life - surprise, it's Sarah Palin! Given the governor's astonishing ignorance of all things national and international - staggering even for the anti-intellectual, "know nothing" party of the Deep South - it was obviously a ploy to snag disaffected female Democrats.
Now, with a black Democrat less than two weeks in the White House, the Repugs have done it again. Enter the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, the first African American to chair the RNC. From The New York Times:
The election of Mr. Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, means that both major political parties are being led by African-Americans. Mr. Steele is the first black chairman of his party, and his selection was particularly striking for Republicans, who have been criticized over the years as stirring racial animosities in an effort to build political coalitions, particularly in the South.
“It’s time for something completely different, and we’re going to bring it to them,” Mr. Steele said. “We’re going to bring this party to every corner, to every boardroom, to every neighborhood, to every community. And we’re going to say to friend and foe alike: ‘We want you to be a part of us. We want you to be with us, and for those of you who are going to obstruct, get ready to be knocked over.’ ”
Wait a minute, did you hear what he said, "time for something completely different?" Maybe someone should tell Mike that America just got something completely different eleven days ago. And that street brawling lingo, you're either with us or we're gonna knock you over? Two can play that game Mr. Steele and right now the weak bench is your team's.
Keeping Down With The Jonses - California Style
Every now and then a really good, delightfully simple idea comes along - one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments.
California is the home of a lot of leading-edge ideas, most, but not all, of them good and this is a good one. To get homeowners to conserve electricity, utilities are experimenting with monthly statements that compare the customer's energy usage with the average in that neighbourhood and then with what their really efficient neighbours use. From The New York Times:
The district had been trying for years to prod customers into using less energy with tactics like rebates for energy-saving appliances. But the traditional approaches were not meeting the energy reduction goals set by the nonprofit utility’s board.
So, in a move that has proved surprisingly effective, the [Sacramento] district decided to tap into a time-honored American passion: keeping up with the neighbors.
Last April, it began sending out statements to 35,000 randomly selected customers, rating them on their energy use compared with that of neighbors in 100 homes of similar size that used the same heating fuel.
The customers were also compared with the 20 neighbors who were especially efficient in saving energy.
When the Sacramento utility conducted its first assessment of the program after six months, it found that customers who received the personalized report reduced energy use by 2 percent more than those who got standard statements — an improvement that Alexandra Crawford, a spokeswoman for the utility, said was very encouraging.
The approach has now been picked up by utilities in 10 major metropolitan areas eager to reap rewards through increased efficiencies, including Chicago and Seattle, according to Positive Energy, the software company that conceived of the reports and contracts to produce them. Following Sacramento’s lead, they award smiley faces only.
Two per cent doesn't sound like much but it's a good start and it supports research showing that, when trying to motivate behaviour of consumers, few techniques are as effective as comparing individuals to their peers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31compete.html?_r=1&hp
California is the home of a lot of leading-edge ideas, most, but not all, of them good and this is a good one. To get homeowners to conserve electricity, utilities are experimenting with monthly statements that compare the customer's energy usage with the average in that neighbourhood and then with what their really efficient neighbours use. From The New York Times:
The district had been trying for years to prod customers into using less energy with tactics like rebates for energy-saving appliances. But the traditional approaches were not meeting the energy reduction goals set by the nonprofit utility’s board.
So, in a move that has proved surprisingly effective, the [Sacramento] district decided to tap into a time-honored American passion: keeping up with the neighbors.
Last April, it began sending out statements to 35,000 randomly selected customers, rating them on their energy use compared with that of neighbors in 100 homes of similar size that used the same heating fuel.
The customers were also compared with the 20 neighbors who were especially efficient in saving energy.
When the Sacramento utility conducted its first assessment of the program after six months, it found that customers who received the personalized report reduced energy use by 2 percent more than those who got standard statements — an improvement that Alexandra Crawford, a spokeswoman for the utility, said was very encouraging.
The approach has now been picked up by utilities in 10 major metropolitan areas eager to reap rewards through increased efficiencies, including Chicago and Seattle, according to Positive Energy, the software company that conceived of the reports and contracts to produce them. Following Sacramento’s lead, they award smiley faces only.
Two per cent doesn't sound like much but it's a good start and it supports research showing that, when trying to motivate behaviour of consumers, few techniques are as effective as comparing individuals to their peers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31compete.html?_r=1&hp
Friday, January 30, 2009
60 Minutes' Bob Simon Under Attack
It took a lot of courage and integrity for 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon to produce his recent piece on the Palestinian plight in the West Bank and Israel's apartheid policy. The network and Simon have since come under attack from Jewish groups enraged at the report. Watch it for yourself and then think about writing CBS News with your thoughts.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Watch CBS Videos Online
Where Did All The Money Go?
Just a year or two ago it seemed that everyone was flying high. Money was plentiful, interest rates were cheap. Today the $ signs are used as a measure of debts and deficits instead. So what happened, where did all that money go? If you're curious, check out this informative presentation from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/dan-roberts-on-business-blog/interactive/2009/jan/29/financial-pyramid
The notional value of all derivatives, including credit default swaps, is estimated as high as EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE TRILLION DOLLARS! Impossible, you say? Well, you're right and you're wrong. We've entered an era where fiction and reality have combined.
Take credit default swaps, for example. They're a recently decriminalized form of bogus insurance. The Wall Street house wanted to sell you derivatives - hodgepodge bundles of bits of countless mortgages. You wanted extra protection so, to cinch the sale, the Wall Street house sold you a side bet called a credit default swap. The Wall Street house was, for pennies on the dollar, promising to insure your investment.
Now here's the thing. Anyone in his right mind who looked at these mortgage derivatives and the associated credit default swaps would know the Wall Street houses never had the mountain of retained assets that would be needed to make good those credit default swap insurance policies.
All of a sudden you have both notional assets plus notional debt obligations. It's not a lot better than buying a billion dollar IOU from the bum begging on the street corner.
I still maintain that the global financial crisis would be manageable if all this notional debt was parcelled out of the equation and recognized as debt only to the value actually paid for these swaps, pennies on the dollar. These were assets that were worthless to begin with. Why should anyone, especially innocent tax payers footing the bill, recognize them for a dime more than that? In fact you could argue that they should just be declared null and void. The mind boggles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/dan-roberts-on-business-blog/interactive/2009/jan/29/financial-pyramid
The notional value of all derivatives, including credit default swaps, is estimated as high as EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE TRILLION DOLLARS! Impossible, you say? Well, you're right and you're wrong. We've entered an era where fiction and reality have combined.
Take credit default swaps, for example. They're a recently decriminalized form of bogus insurance. The Wall Street house wanted to sell you derivatives - hodgepodge bundles of bits of countless mortgages. You wanted extra protection so, to cinch the sale, the Wall Street house sold you a side bet called a credit default swap. The Wall Street house was, for pennies on the dollar, promising to insure your investment.
Now here's the thing. Anyone in his right mind who looked at these mortgage derivatives and the associated credit default swaps would know the Wall Street houses never had the mountain of retained assets that would be needed to make good those credit default swap insurance policies.
All of a sudden you have both notional assets plus notional debt obligations. It's not a lot better than buying a billion dollar IOU from the bum begging on the street corner.
I still maintain that the global financial crisis would be manageable if all this notional debt was parcelled out of the equation and recognized as debt only to the value actually paid for these swaps, pennies on the dollar. These were assets that were worthless to begin with. Why should anyone, especially innocent tax payers footing the bill, recognize them for a dime more than that? In fact you could argue that they should just be declared null and void. The mind boggles.
What Is This? A Puppy Mill?
It's come out today that the woman who just gave birth to octuplets - as in eight sprogs - already had six kids at home, including a pair of two year old twins.
From The Guardian:
The woman, who has not been identified, received fertility treatment and was given the option of reducing the number of embryos but declined, according to her mother, Angela Suleman.
The embryos were implanted last year, and "they all happened to take," Suleman told the Los Angeles Times. "What do you suggest she should have done? She refused to have them killed. That is a very painful thing," she said.
The news that the woman would be faced with raising a family of 14 children came as medical experts continued to question the judgment of the team behind the delivery. Fertility specialists said that multiple births can endanger the mother and cause long-term health and developmental problems for the children.
Now reproductive freedom is one thing but using medical intervention to get 14-kids seems to go a tad beyond that. What kind of life are the parents going to be able to offer these kids? Do they even care? What if they decide to roll the dice again and head straight back to the fertility clinic?
Update - Oh great! CBS News is reporting that the mother, Hattie Kauffmann, is now living with her parents. The whereabouts of the father seems to be a mystery. A little over a year and a half ago, Hattie and Hubbie filed for bankruptcy and abandoned their home. Oh but it gets better.
Hattie's dad, the grandfather to the baker's dozen plus one gaggle of kids, has headed back to his native Iraq to earn money to support daughter and her kids. The grandparents' home, said to be a smallish, 2-3 bedroom bungalow, will house 14-children, eight of them infants, and three to four adults.
From The Guardian:
The woman, who has not been identified, received fertility treatment and was given the option of reducing the number of embryos but declined, according to her mother, Angela Suleman.
The embryos were implanted last year, and "they all happened to take," Suleman told the Los Angeles Times. "What do you suggest she should have done? She refused to have them killed. That is a very painful thing," she said.
The news that the woman would be faced with raising a family of 14 children came as medical experts continued to question the judgment of the team behind the delivery. Fertility specialists said that multiple births can endanger the mother and cause long-term health and developmental problems for the children.
Now reproductive freedom is one thing but using medical intervention to get 14-kids seems to go a tad beyond that. What kind of life are the parents going to be able to offer these kids? Do they even care? What if they decide to roll the dice again and head straight back to the fertility clinic?
Update - Oh great! CBS News is reporting that the mother, Hattie Kauffmann, is now living with her parents. The whereabouts of the father seems to be a mystery. A little over a year and a half ago, Hattie and Hubbie filed for bankruptcy and abandoned their home. Oh but it gets better.
Hattie's dad, the grandfather to the baker's dozen plus one gaggle of kids, has headed back to his native Iraq to earn money to support daughter and her kids. The grandparents' home, said to be a smallish, 2-3 bedroom bungalow, will house 14-children, eight of them infants, and three to four adults.
Pope's Holocaust Denier Says Remarks "Imprudent"
Bishop Richard Williamson, one of four previously excommunicated Catholic Bishops restored to the flock by Pope Benedict XVI, has apologized to the boss for all the fuss he's caused and said his remarks were "imprudent."
What Williamson hasn't done is to recant his views that the Holocaust is a wildly-exaggerated fair tale nor has he apologized to the people who really deserve it, the Jewish community worldwide.
So it sounds like Bishop Ricky is sticking to his guns on the Holocaust business. Now, Joe Ratzinger has to figure out what he's going to do about it.
What Williamson hasn't done is to recant his views that the Holocaust is a wildly-exaggerated fair tale nor has he apologized to the people who really deserve it, the Jewish community worldwide.
So it sounds like Bishop Ricky is sticking to his guns on the Holocaust business. Now, Joe Ratzinger has to figure out what he's going to do about it.
Even CanWest Sees Straight Through Iggy
CanWest's Don Martin isn't pulling any punches when he describes Ignatieff as something of a Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
It's his budget, not mine," Ignatieff snapped of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's sharp lurch into a five-year series of new deficits, although the rookie leader did claim credit for all the good parts.
It's a shrewd move to reject a budget-backing coalition with the Conservatives, albeit transparently scheming with self-interest. This strategy does not reflect concern for the welfare of hard-hit Canadians, even though Ignatieff masked himself with a feel-your-pain wince to attack the budget's deficit of green initiatives, equalization fairness and child-care support.
The hard swallow of the Liberal's wait-and-see strategy is how it loops Parliament into a wearisome cycle of partisan brinkmanship when Canadians were hoping for unity of purpose to keep the economy moving.
But these are not normal times and if there's something, ANYTHING, this Parliament should be doing to ease the pain, it should be put on the table for discussion immediately. Waiting to capitalize on its failure for political gain is not an option.
Besides, I doubt the Liberals have much more than tinkering in mind when it comes to governing differently in rocky times. Ignatieff's boast that many of the budget's ideas would be right at home on the Liberal side of the House is correct and his objections were not terribly objectionable.
To take advantage of an electoral opportunity, putting the government in limbo at the peak heat of an economic meltdown, would be the height of political arrogance and recklessness, the very traits Ignatieff pins on the Conservatives.
Like Martin, I think Iggy is ducking a paternity issue. He claims to have shaped the government budget, says most of it would be just fine in a Liberal budget and then props it up by voting for it. After all that, he turns coy and says it's Harper's budget, not his. Oh dear.
It's his budget, not mine," Ignatieff snapped of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's sharp lurch into a five-year series of new deficits, although the rookie leader did claim credit for all the good parts.
It's a shrewd move to reject a budget-backing coalition with the Conservatives, albeit transparently scheming with self-interest. This strategy does not reflect concern for the welfare of hard-hit Canadians, even though Ignatieff masked himself with a feel-your-pain wince to attack the budget's deficit of green initiatives, equalization fairness and child-care support.
The hard swallow of the Liberal's wait-and-see strategy is how it loops Parliament into a wearisome cycle of partisan brinkmanship when Canadians were hoping for unity of purpose to keep the economy moving.
But these are not normal times and if there's something, ANYTHING, this Parliament should be doing to ease the pain, it should be put on the table for discussion immediately. Waiting to capitalize on its failure for political gain is not an option.
Besides, I doubt the Liberals have much more than tinkering in mind when it comes to governing differently in rocky times. Ignatieff's boast that many of the budget's ideas would be right at home on the Liberal side of the House is correct and his objections were not terribly objectionable.
To take advantage of an electoral opportunity, putting the government in limbo at the peak heat of an economic meltdown, would be the height of political arrogance and recklessness, the very traits Ignatieff pins on the Conservatives.
Like Martin, I think Iggy is ducking a paternity issue. He claims to have shaped the government budget, says most of it would be just fine in a Liberal budget and then props it up by voting for it. After all that, he turns coy and says it's Harper's budget, not his. Oh dear.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Can You Feel the Heat? Libs Back Harper, Vote Down Pay Equity
That's what happens when you dance with the devil.
The Liberal Party of Canada (Ignatieff) was tonight forced to vote down pay equity. The pay equity issue was included in a Bloc Quebecois amendment motion that incorporated equalization formulae and rescinding the proposed tax breaks in the Harper-Ignatieff budget.
Way to go, guys. The Bloc had to stand up for pay equity - and you had to vote it down.
Doubtless though, the Liberal Party of Canada, to preserve its last shred of integrity and honour, will excise the pay equity issue from the Bloc's blatantly politico amendment and move to demand the very same themselves. Right? C'mon, we've had the glove across the face. This is the point where you stand up and defend your ideals, right?
What, I'm wrong? Oh, I see. We got rid of all those pesky ideals when we granted Israel pre-absolution for all the carnage it inflicted on Gaza. Of course, what was I thinking?
Tomorrow, Jack Layton will egg us on into defeating the amendment that scraps the tax cuts and frees the slaves. Do these guys sooo have us over the barrel, that same barrel we made.
Sorry, Iggy, but Ian is no Keith, not even remotely. And you're no Pierre, or Jean, or Alexander, you're no Lester, or Wilfred, or William Lyon, or Paul. Those guys made the ideals of this party and they made them on a perfectly defensible basis that people accepted. Yet, as though you would have far rather found a niche in a different party, you decided to accept second best - reshape the Liberal Party in your image according to your beliefs.
Ignatieff has pretty much shown his hand here and I think a lot of you Liberals who haven't been willing to acknowledge that yet, know it anyway.
Right now this country needs, so very much, a return to classic Liberal ideals that carry back to Alexander Mackenzie and the purpose of the party to stand for the weak every bit as much as anyone else. That's where we really started this thing - back at stonemason Alexander Mackenzie.
It's been a lumpy ride at times but, to hold and develop these ideals, you are going to be rocking some boats. Sometimes that was the big boats, usually it was the big boats, but, every now and then it was the little boats' turn to be rocked a bit. The idea was to balance all interests - in fairness.
This guy we've got now, he isn't much concerned about fairness. He's a one man show - he's the decider - and he'll gag his entire caucus to ensure his so very Harperesque iron-hand control of information. Let's face it, no matter whether you think Iggy is a conservative or not, you cannot deny that he likes Harper's style of running a party. We all found that contemptible when Harper did it but suddenly it's become just dandy when Ignatieff does it? Who actually gets the right to turn this Liberal Party of Canada's tap on and off? Did the job specification indicate "strongman" or "leader?" Here's a rule every Latin American knows by heart - never let a strongman in unless that's really what you want and unless you're willing to live with the inevitable outcome.
Now I am, for the first time in a long, long time, absolutely ashamed of the conduct of my party and its Members of Parliament. They've decided it's okay to pursue Harper not just to the right but also into the gutter.
And I guess that's where we part company.
The Liberal Party of Canada (Ignatieff) was tonight forced to vote down pay equity. The pay equity issue was included in a Bloc Quebecois amendment motion that incorporated equalization formulae and rescinding the proposed tax breaks in the Harper-Ignatieff budget.
Way to go, guys. The Bloc had to stand up for pay equity - and you had to vote it down.
Doubtless though, the Liberal Party of Canada, to preserve its last shred of integrity and honour, will excise the pay equity issue from the Bloc's blatantly politico amendment and move to demand the very same themselves. Right? C'mon, we've had the glove across the face. This is the point where you stand up and defend your ideals, right?
What, I'm wrong? Oh, I see. We got rid of all those pesky ideals when we granted Israel pre-absolution for all the carnage it inflicted on Gaza. Of course, what was I thinking?
Tomorrow, Jack Layton will egg us on into defeating the amendment that scraps the tax cuts and frees the slaves. Do these guys sooo have us over the barrel, that same barrel we made.
Sorry, Iggy, but Ian is no Keith, not even remotely. And you're no Pierre, or Jean, or Alexander, you're no Lester, or Wilfred, or William Lyon, or Paul. Those guys made the ideals of this party and they made them on a perfectly defensible basis that people accepted. Yet, as though you would have far rather found a niche in a different party, you decided to accept second best - reshape the Liberal Party in your image according to your beliefs.
Ignatieff has pretty much shown his hand here and I think a lot of you Liberals who haven't been willing to acknowledge that yet, know it anyway.
Right now this country needs, so very much, a return to classic Liberal ideals that carry back to Alexander Mackenzie and the purpose of the party to stand for the weak every bit as much as anyone else. That's where we really started this thing - back at stonemason Alexander Mackenzie.
It's been a lumpy ride at times but, to hold and develop these ideals, you are going to be rocking some boats. Sometimes that was the big boats, usually it was the big boats, but, every now and then it was the little boats' turn to be rocked a bit. The idea was to balance all interests - in fairness.
This guy we've got now, he isn't much concerned about fairness. He's a one man show - he's the decider - and he'll gag his entire caucus to ensure his so very Harperesque iron-hand control of information. Let's face it, no matter whether you think Iggy is a conservative or not, you cannot deny that he likes Harper's style of running a party. We all found that contemptible when Harper did it but suddenly it's become just dandy when Ignatieff does it? Who actually gets the right to turn this Liberal Party of Canada's tap on and off? Did the job specification indicate "strongman" or "leader?" Here's a rule every Latin American knows by heart - never let a strongman in unless that's really what you want and unless you're willing to live with the inevitable outcome.
Now I am, for the first time in a long, long time, absolutely ashamed of the conduct of my party and its Members of Parliament. They've decided it's okay to pursue Harper not just to the right but also into the gutter.
And I guess that's where we part company.
"Buy American" - It Makes Good Sense
President Obama is putting America's neck on the line with a 0.9-trillion dollar stimulus budget. Emphasis solidly on "stimulus." This is, as it has to be to do any good, an artificial, emergency economy built upon his country's normal economy. That's the very reason he wants that stimulus spending to be channeled into buying American products.
This isn't about "free trade" as the Harper-Ignatieff government might claim in screaming "protectionism." This is about national recovery, saving America's economy.
What are we doing? We'll be doling out bags of deficit bucks to let provincees, cities and reasonably well-to-do taxpayers buy crap from China or wherever they can get it cheapest. We're the dummies, not Obama.
When working class taxpayers take their meagre saving, they'll spend it buying Indian textiles, or Chinese toasters or Indonesian television sets. Now just how stupid are we to set up a programme like that?
So Obama should tell Harper and the rest of the planet that he's sticking by his guns and he'll decide how his deficit bucks will be spent and it has nothing to do with protectionism or trade agreements. He's right. We should wake up and realize that.
This isn't about "free trade" as the Harper-Ignatieff government might claim in screaming "protectionism." This is about national recovery, saving America's economy.
What are we doing? We'll be doling out bags of deficit bucks to let provincees, cities and reasonably well-to-do taxpayers buy crap from China or wherever they can get it cheapest. We're the dummies, not Obama.
When working class taxpayers take their meagre saving, they'll spend it buying Indian textiles, or Chinese toasters or Indonesian television sets. Now just how stupid are we to set up a programme like that?
So Obama should tell Harper and the rest of the planet that he's sticking by his guns and he'll decide how his deficit bucks will be spent and it has nothing to do with protectionism or trade agreements. He's right. We should wake up and realize that.
Now This Could Get Bloody
Let's see, Barack Obama, is the president of the United States of America. Being POTUS means you're Commander in Chief of the nation's armed forces, the top dog.
So, when the CinC "requests" that Gitmo trials be stood down for 90-days so his administration can scrutinize and assess the entire process, you might think it was a given that those military judges would click their heels, salute and wait to hear back from the boss.
Not so. From the Associated Press:
A military judge at Guantanamo on Thursday rejected a White House request to suspend a hearing for the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, creating an unexpected challenge for the Obama administration as it reviews the U.S. war-crimes trials process.
The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, said his decision was difficult but necessary to protect "the public interest in a speedy trial." The ruling came in the case against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The bombing of the Navy destroyer in 2000 in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, killed 17 U.S. sailors.
It seemed to take the Pentagon completely by surprise.
"The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl's ruling," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman. "We will be in compliance with the President's orders regarding Guantanamo."
C'mon, a "speedy trial?" Gitmo? Get real.
That flushing sound you hear is the Colonel's chance of ever making Brigadier. Maybe he's looking to get out and run as a Republican anyway.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvgzauEfo94g-QRVik7N_BMXozlwD961028O0
So, when the CinC "requests" that Gitmo trials be stood down for 90-days so his administration can scrutinize and assess the entire process, you might think it was a given that those military judges would click their heels, salute and wait to hear back from the boss.
Not so. From the Associated Press:
A military judge at Guantanamo on Thursday rejected a White House request to suspend a hearing for the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, creating an unexpected challenge for the Obama administration as it reviews the U.S. war-crimes trials process.
The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, said his decision was difficult but necessary to protect "the public interest in a speedy trial." The ruling came in the case against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The bombing of the Navy destroyer in 2000 in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, killed 17 U.S. sailors.
It seemed to take the Pentagon completely by surprise.
"The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl's ruling," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman. "We will be in compliance with the President's orders regarding Guantanamo."
C'mon, a "speedy trial?" Gitmo? Get real.
That flushing sound you hear is the Colonel's chance of ever making Brigadier. Maybe he's looking to get out and run as a Republican anyway.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvgzauEfo94g-QRVik7N_BMXozlwD961028O0
Obama Dems To The Rescue - Again
For two guys so utterly bereft of vision, Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff could get so much if they just looked south.
Remind me. How long have Steve and Mike had their jobs anyway? Now, how long as Obama had his? Last Tuesday was pretty much a party day and, after all, it only really started at noon, so let's call it eight days all in.
Barack Obama has done more, clear-headed rescue/stimulus work in eight days than our best and brightest have managed to achieve in months.
The latest? Today it's goodies for the poor and financially beset homeowner. From the Washington Post:
A measure allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages of troubled homeowners, including cutting the principal they owe, cleared a key congressional committee yesterday.
Under legislation passed by the House Judiciary Committee, a bankruptcy judge could change the terms of a loan by reducing its interest rate, extending its length, or lowering the principal or loan balance. These are known as "cramdown" provisions.
"While bankruptcy reform may not provide all of the answers to this crisis, surely it provides a common sense and practical approach to helping stop the spiral of home foreclosures, which are not helping anyone," committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said.
My God but these guys are making us look pathetic, even clueless.
Remind me. How long have Steve and Mike had their jobs anyway? Now, how long as Obama had his? Last Tuesday was pretty much a party day and, after all, it only really started at noon, so let's call it eight days all in.
Barack Obama has done more, clear-headed rescue/stimulus work in eight days than our best and brightest have managed to achieve in months.
The latest? Today it's goodies for the poor and financially beset homeowner. From the Washington Post:
A measure allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages of troubled homeowners, including cutting the principal they owe, cleared a key congressional committee yesterday.
Under legislation passed by the House Judiciary Committee, a bankruptcy judge could change the terms of a loan by reducing its interest rate, extending its length, or lowering the principal or loan balance. These are known as "cramdown" provisions.
"While bankruptcy reform may not provide all of the answers to this crisis, surely it provides a common sense and practical approach to helping stop the spiral of home foreclosures, which are not helping anyone," committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said.
My God but these guys are making us look pathetic, even clueless.
Ten Trillion Dollars Worth of Stimulus Spending - for Survival
The World Economic Forum, the outfit that puts on the annual Davos summit of business and political leaders, estimates that ten trillion dollars will have to be invested in green technology between now and 2030 if the planet is to avoid an unsustainable warming. From The Guardian:
Green investment has increased more than fourfold, from $30bn to $140bn, between 2004 and 2008, but would still need to triple to meet the target set by the WEF and the co-authors of the report, New Energy Finance. Outlays of $500bn a year would be needed to prevent a rise of more than 2C in global temperatures by 2030.
The study identified eight emerging, large-scale clean energy sectors that were seen as playing a crucial role in the transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy strategy over the next two decades. These were: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal electricity generation, municipal solar waste-to-energy, sugar-based ethanol, cellulosic and next-generation biofuels, and geothermal power.
Max von Bismarck and Anuradha Gurung from the World Economic Forum, and Chris Greenwood and Michael Liebreich from New Energy Finance, said "enormous investment in energy infrastructure is required to address the twin threats of energy insecurity and climate change. In light of the global financial crisis, it is crucial that every dollar is made to 'multi-task' to create a sustainable low-carbon economy."
At a time when the global economy has been struggling, the report said business had an opportunity to make healthy profits from the fight against climate change. An index of the world's 90 leading clean energy companies had a five-year compounded annualised return of almost 10%, unmatched by the world's major stock indices.
Thinking about this, in conjunction with the Harper-Ignatieff "stimulus" budget, is just depressing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/29/davos-green-energy
Green investment has increased more than fourfold, from $30bn to $140bn, between 2004 and 2008, but would still need to triple to meet the target set by the WEF and the co-authors of the report, New Energy Finance. Outlays of $500bn a year would be needed to prevent a rise of more than 2C in global temperatures by 2030.
The study identified eight emerging, large-scale clean energy sectors that were seen as playing a crucial role in the transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy strategy over the next two decades. These were: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal electricity generation, municipal solar waste-to-energy, sugar-based ethanol, cellulosic and next-generation biofuels, and geothermal power.
Max von Bismarck and Anuradha Gurung from the World Economic Forum, and Chris Greenwood and Michael Liebreich from New Energy Finance, said "enormous investment in energy infrastructure is required to address the twin threats of energy insecurity and climate change. In light of the global financial crisis, it is crucial that every dollar is made to 'multi-task' to create a sustainable low-carbon economy."
At a time when the global economy has been struggling, the report said business had an opportunity to make healthy profits from the fight against climate change. An index of the world's 90 leading clean energy companies had a five-year compounded annualised return of almost 10%, unmatched by the world's major stock indices.
Thinking about this, in conjunction with the Harper-Ignatieff "stimulus" budget, is just depressing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/29/davos-green-energy
Bad Times for Pope Benny
Vatican boss, Pope Benedict Ex Vee Eye, just keeps getting drawn deeper in controversy over his decision to restore to the RC fold four previously excommunicated Bishops, one of whom is - well, let's face it - a Holocaust denier.
The wave of outrage and condemnation has had the Vatican spin doctors in overdrive. But today, it all got so much worse. From the Associated Press:
A priest in an ultraconservative society recently rehabilitated by Pope Benedict XVI has defended a bishop in his group and joined him in expressing doubts about the Holocaust.
While making more cautious remarks than Bishop Richard Williamson, the Rev. Floriano Abrahamowicz echoed, in an interview published Thursday by an Italian daily, the prelate's doubts that Jews were gassed during World War II.
"I know gas chambers existed at least to disinfect, I can't say if anybody was killed in them or not," Abrahamowicz told "La Tribuna di Treviso," a newspaper in northern Italy.
And, as if that wasn't bad enough, Father Floriano managed to put the other boot in at the same time:
Abrahamowicz also referred to Jews as being "the people of God who then became the God-killing people" — a remark that contradicts the Vatican II teaching that Jews as a people cannot be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The wave of outrage and condemnation has had the Vatican spin doctors in overdrive. But today, it all got so much worse. From the Associated Press:
A priest in an ultraconservative society recently rehabilitated by Pope Benedict XVI has defended a bishop in his group and joined him in expressing doubts about the Holocaust.
While making more cautious remarks than Bishop Richard Williamson, the Rev. Floriano Abrahamowicz echoed, in an interview published Thursday by an Italian daily, the prelate's doubts that Jews were gassed during World War II.
"I know gas chambers existed at least to disinfect, I can't say if anybody was killed in them or not," Abrahamowicz told "La Tribuna di Treviso," a newspaper in northern Italy.
And, as if that wasn't bad enough, Father Floriano managed to put the other boot in at the same time:
Abrahamowicz also referred to Jews as being "the people of God who then became the God-killing people" — a remark that contradicts the Vatican II teaching that Jews as a people cannot be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
More Democracy Than The Middle East Can Handle
Well that should simplify the recounts. Three days before Iraqis go to the polls, gunmen and simplifying the slate of candidates in next week's runoff by gunning down three of them - for starters. You can be pretty sure there'll be more, especially in the cauldron of the Kurdish-Arab region.
And, in that other showcase of Western democracy, Afghanistan, the electoral commission says, constitution or no, they're putting the general election back to next August. Karzai's term of office expires in May and there's nothing in the constitution that allows him to govern after that.
The Afghan opposition legislators say, kind of understandably, that they won't recognize anything Karzai tries to do after the mandated end of his term.
And, in that other showcase of Western democracy, Afghanistan, the electoral commission says, constitution or no, they're putting the general election back to next August. Karzai's term of office expires in May and there's nothing in the constitution that allows him to govern after that.
The Afghan opposition legislators say, kind of understandably, that they won't recognize anything Karzai tries to do after the mandated end of his term.
If You Like Michelle Obama
I sure do, I think she's an awesome First Lady.
Fresh faces. Hardly any of us even knew these people a couple of years ago but we all know them now, or at least we think we do.
That's why I was intrigued to read "A Couple in Chicago" an interview with Michelle and Barack Obama from 1996 before he began his political career. You can find it in the January 19 edition of the New Yorker.
I don't want to try to paraphrase the interviews but, if you're wondering if the Obamas you see today are genuine, this article will put your mind at ease.
Fresh faces. Hardly any of us even knew these people a couple of years ago but we all know them now, or at least we think we do.
That's why I was intrigued to read "A Couple in Chicago" an interview with Michelle and Barack Obama from 1996 before he began his political career. You can find it in the January 19 edition of the New Yorker.
I don't want to try to paraphrase the interviews but, if you're wondering if the Obamas you see today are genuine, this article will put your mind at ease.
Layton Attacks - Brace Yourselves, There'll Be More
Layton and the NDP haven't wasted a minute airing their first round of attack ads. Nothing surprising there, Ignatieff practically wrote them himself.
Jack is now positioned to do what he did so effectively to Stephane Dion; paint the Liberal leader as a feckless stooge of Stephen Harper. He can already make a plausible argument that there exists a Tory-Liberal coalition, that Steve and Mikey are peas in a pod.
The NDP attack ads are just the beginning. Secure in their third party status, the New Democrats have everything to gain and nothing to lose by depicting Harper and Iggy in bed together and then positioning the NDP well clear of them.
All you Liberal strategists who claim that Iggy's propping up Harper's pathetic stimulus/recovery budget somehow positions Ignatieff to hold the whip hand over the Cons, to simply pull the pin at a moment of his choosing, miss the point. To bring down Harper, the Libs will need the support of the NDP and the Bloc and I think Ignatieff has given them solid grounds to refuse, saying "you made your bed, sleep in it."
What was supposed to be a three ring circus is a thing of the past.
It frustrated me to no end to watch Jack Layton repeatedly out maneuvre Stephane Dion, something that damaged the Libs in the last election and really helped out Jack. Now I fear Layton is going to be able to effectively depict Michael Ignatieff as just a continuation of feckless Liberal leadership.
Jack is now positioned to do what he did so effectively to Stephane Dion; paint the Liberal leader as a feckless stooge of Stephen Harper. He can already make a plausible argument that there exists a Tory-Liberal coalition, that Steve and Mikey are peas in a pod.
The NDP attack ads are just the beginning. Secure in their third party status, the New Democrats have everything to gain and nothing to lose by depicting Harper and Iggy in bed together and then positioning the NDP well clear of them.
All you Liberal strategists who claim that Iggy's propping up Harper's pathetic stimulus/recovery budget somehow positions Ignatieff to hold the whip hand over the Cons, to simply pull the pin at a moment of his choosing, miss the point. To bring down Harper, the Libs will need the support of the NDP and the Bloc and I think Ignatieff has given them solid grounds to refuse, saying "you made your bed, sleep in it."
What was supposed to be a three ring circus is a thing of the past.
It frustrated me to no end to watch Jack Layton repeatedly out maneuvre Stephane Dion, something that damaged the Libs in the last election and really helped out Jack. Now I fear Layton is going to be able to effectively depict Michael Ignatieff as just a continuation of feckless Liberal leadership.
No Matter How You Cut It, Ignatieff Failed Canada
Let's put aside what some of us consider Michael Ignatieff's inexcusable capitulation to Steve Harper's ginormous dud of a recovery stimulus budget. What's done is done and even as Mike gets ready to "swallow hard" on Stephen's package, the question is what has Mr. Ignatieff foisted on Canada?
I was watching the news last night. I thought I could use a bit of inspiration so I watched an American newscast. On cue, there was Obama, outlining his vision for stimulus spending. Surprise, Obama actually has a vision! He outlined projects and programmes that will leave America stronger, more resilient, more competitive.
First and foremost was the overhaul of America's Edison-era power grid. Now there's a stimulus package worth going into deficit for. The existing power grid is antiquated and ureliable and, for America, it's actually dangerous. So, it's an ideal candidate for a major overhaul, a programme that will create the sort of electricity grid America will need in the century to come. Then there was a major renewal programme for the nation's highways and bridges. Again, big investment for long-term dividends.
So, just what vision did Stephen Harper bring to Canada's stimulus budget that Michael Ignatieff found so irresistible? What visionary programmes did these two offer a worried Canadian people in their moment of uncertainty? What are we getting? New highways? A new national railroad? Airports, bridges, harbours, schools, what exactly? Exactly.
These two guys turned up for their showdown with no vision. Their best effort was a plan to have the feds borrow billions in deficit bucks and hope somebody else can find something to spend it on. Jesus Christ on a crutch, that's all Canada's two top politicians had to show for their two month Christmas holiday!
I've said quite a bit on Blind Steve leading Blind Mike, so I'll let the Toronto Star's James Travers have a go:
.Canada's ruling elite is what your grandmother might have called hard of hearing. Even when opportunity pounds on the door, as it is now, politicians are too preoccupied with politics to respond
Bad as these times are, they are surprisingly good for making the difference party leaders loudly promise before quietly forgetting. This country has work to do and the money to do it while waiting to be dragged out of the recession it was dragged into by the U.S. Better yet, politicians have public permission to dance with the deficit devil to get the job done.
What that means is this: Between now and when bust swings back toward boom, Canada has a chance to dramatically raise its game. It could make cities more habitable, energize lethargic productivity or open sclerotic trade arteries to southern, sustaining markets. It could get serious about shading brown to green, making Canadians the big-brains of the knowledge economy or erasing the national stain of aboriginal despair.
Beyond vision and focus, establishing clear, quantifiable objectives would demand some of the courage and purpose past generations found in confronting fascism and outlasting the Great Depression. That would ask a lot of fortunate Canadians who don't want for much. So ruling Conservatives, with the conditional approval of opposition Liberals, will be satisfied if you build a deck, buy a furnace or pocket a modest tax cut.
Measured only against the list of beneficiaries, the billions to be spent, and the government's escape, the budget could easily be mistaken for a success. Instead, it's a crushing disappointment. In saving themselves, Tories fell back on the mushy-middle, high-cost, low-return politics and policies of the last century. In failing to seize the moment, they failed to invite Canadians to rise to the occasion.
But it's also true, as well as self-evident, that just getting by is no longer good enough. By not investing shrewdly in the future, Canada squandered a decade of surpluses. Now politicians are so absorbed in partisan games that they're deaf to the opportunity that, along with deficits, has come knocking.
So, yeah, please remind me again what a brilliant coup the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada achieved in backing this stillborn stimulus budget. Coming off his masterful performance on the Gaza crisis, Iggy has succeeded in lowering the bar yet again.
I was watching the news last night. I thought I could use a bit of inspiration so I watched an American newscast. On cue, there was Obama, outlining his vision for stimulus spending. Surprise, Obama actually has a vision! He outlined projects and programmes that will leave America stronger, more resilient, more competitive.
First and foremost was the overhaul of America's Edison-era power grid. Now there's a stimulus package worth going into deficit for. The existing power grid is antiquated and ureliable and, for America, it's actually dangerous. So, it's an ideal candidate for a major overhaul, a programme that will create the sort of electricity grid America will need in the century to come. Then there was a major renewal programme for the nation's highways and bridges. Again, big investment for long-term dividends.
So, just what vision did Stephen Harper bring to Canada's stimulus budget that Michael Ignatieff found so irresistible? What visionary programmes did these two offer a worried Canadian people in their moment of uncertainty? What are we getting? New highways? A new national railroad? Airports, bridges, harbours, schools, what exactly? Exactly.
These two guys turned up for their showdown with no vision. Their best effort was a plan to have the feds borrow billions in deficit bucks and hope somebody else can find something to spend it on. Jesus Christ on a crutch, that's all Canada's two top politicians had to show for their two month Christmas holiday!
I've said quite a bit on Blind Steve leading Blind Mike, so I'll let the Toronto Star's James Travers have a go:
.Canada's ruling elite is what your grandmother might have called hard of hearing. Even when opportunity pounds on the door, as it is now, politicians are too preoccupied with politics to respond
Bad as these times are, they are surprisingly good for making the difference party leaders loudly promise before quietly forgetting. This country has work to do and the money to do it while waiting to be dragged out of the recession it was dragged into by the U.S. Better yet, politicians have public permission to dance with the deficit devil to get the job done.
What that means is this: Between now and when bust swings back toward boom, Canada has a chance to dramatically raise its game. It could make cities more habitable, energize lethargic productivity or open sclerotic trade arteries to southern, sustaining markets. It could get serious about shading brown to green, making Canadians the big-brains of the knowledge economy or erasing the national stain of aboriginal despair.
Beyond vision and focus, establishing clear, quantifiable objectives would demand some of the courage and purpose past generations found in confronting fascism and outlasting the Great Depression. That would ask a lot of fortunate Canadians who don't want for much. So ruling Conservatives, with the conditional approval of opposition Liberals, will be satisfied if you build a deck, buy a furnace or pocket a modest tax cut.
Measured only against the list of beneficiaries, the billions to be spent, and the government's escape, the budget could easily be mistaken for a success. Instead, it's a crushing disappointment. In saving themselves, Tories fell back on the mushy-middle, high-cost, low-return politics and policies of the last century. In failing to seize the moment, they failed to invite Canadians to rise to the occasion.
But it's also true, as well as self-evident, that just getting by is no longer good enough. By not investing shrewdly in the future, Canada squandered a decade of surpluses. Now politicians are so absorbed in partisan games that they're deaf to the opportunity that, along with deficits, has come knocking.
So, yeah, please remind me again what a brilliant coup the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada achieved in backing this stillborn stimulus budget. Coming off his masterful performance on the Gaza crisis, Iggy has succeeded in lowering the bar yet again.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What Choice Did They Have?
There's been a river of drivel flowing out of Iggy supporters and Iggy apologists today since he folded and embraced the Harper stimulus budget.
Here's one some joker threw my way. A majority of Canadians and a majority of Liberals support this budget. Okay, I tracked down one poll showing 51% of Canadians surveyed supported the budget. But wait, what choice did they have? Was anybody offering an alternative? No, of course not. An opposition party might have done that but the existing Liberal opposition came with empty hands, said "me too," and cinched the deal.
There being no other proposals on the table and the crest of the recession wave nearing shore, what's a girl to do but take what she can get?
But there are Iggy supporters who say that the budget is okay because Harper folded to Iggy's demands. Ignatieff actually made Harper produce this budget. Really? Why then is it so godawful?
What I like best, though, is how these same Iggy supporters howl like vampires caught in the noonday sun when anyone suggests this is a Harper-Ignatieff budget. Well it must be if Iggy forced Harper's hand. Geez, that sounds like a coalition government in everything but name.
Well if these Iggy supporters are right, that speaks volumes. The total lack of vision in this illegitimate creature is a collaborative effort. Neither of these, er, leaders has any vision. That's why this budget isn't driven by federal recovery spending programmes. It's just the feds throwing money around for others to figure out how it will be spent.
This country may be in for a fiscal thumping worse than any seen in generations. Jobs will be lost, homes too. Families will fall apart. Yet so many of my fellow Liberals are focused instead on who's ahead on points as though this was a political football game. Oh, Iggy's setting Steve up so he can pounce on him when the moment is ripe. Of for Christ's sake, the time is now, maybe not for Harper or for Iggy or for those who cheer on this game - but for a lot of your fellow Canadians, the time is definitely now.
Christ what a sad pair. But a pair nonetheless.
Here's one some joker threw my way. A majority of Canadians and a majority of Liberals support this budget. Okay, I tracked down one poll showing 51% of Canadians surveyed supported the budget. But wait, what choice did they have? Was anybody offering an alternative? No, of course not. An opposition party might have done that but the existing Liberal opposition came with empty hands, said "me too," and cinched the deal.
There being no other proposals on the table and the crest of the recession wave nearing shore, what's a girl to do but take what she can get?
But there are Iggy supporters who say that the budget is okay because Harper folded to Iggy's demands. Ignatieff actually made Harper produce this budget. Really? Why then is it so godawful?
What I like best, though, is how these same Iggy supporters howl like vampires caught in the noonday sun when anyone suggests this is a Harper-Ignatieff budget. Well it must be if Iggy forced Harper's hand. Geez, that sounds like a coalition government in everything but name.
Well if these Iggy supporters are right, that speaks volumes. The total lack of vision in this illegitimate creature is a collaborative effort. Neither of these, er, leaders has any vision. That's why this budget isn't driven by federal recovery spending programmes. It's just the feds throwing money around for others to figure out how it will be spent.
This country may be in for a fiscal thumping worse than any seen in generations. Jobs will be lost, homes too. Families will fall apart. Yet so many of my fellow Liberals are focused instead on who's ahead on points as though this was a political football game. Oh, Iggy's setting Steve up so he can pounce on him when the moment is ripe. Of for Christ's sake, the time is now, maybe not for Harper or for Iggy or for those who cheer on this game - but for a lot of your fellow Canadians, the time is definitely now.
Christ what a sad pair. But a pair nonetheless.
I Told You So
When Governor General Michaelle Jean granted Stephen Harper's wish and prorogued parliament, I wrote that the opposition parties absolutely had to take advantage of the opportunity to sit down and work out an alternative budget so they could have something to present to the Canadian public, something with clear vision, something assuring, should the government fall when it returned.
Now you would have thought the guy who stood next in line to the throne, Michael Ignatieff, wouldn't have to be told that. You would have thought the guy who wants Canadians to believe he has what it takes to govern would have sat down and hammered out a Liberal plan to respond to the country's economic emergency.
So what did we get? Nothing, at least nothing from Michael Ignatieff.
We got a deeply flawed, ill-conceived and ineffectual recovery budget crafted by a pack of clowns who, just four months back, were predicting five years of budget surpluses. Oh yeah, we also got a guy who, by virtue of living in Stornoway if nothing else, is supposed to be an opposition leader who came to the party with empty hands and had no choice but to say "me too."
If there was ever a chance to lower the boom on Stephen Harper, this was it. It's a sad day for the Liberal Party that this moment slipped through our fingers.
Now you would have thought the guy who stood next in line to the throne, Michael Ignatieff, wouldn't have to be told that. You would have thought the guy who wants Canadians to believe he has what it takes to govern would have sat down and hammered out a Liberal plan to respond to the country's economic emergency.
So what did we get? Nothing, at least nothing from Michael Ignatieff.
We got a deeply flawed, ill-conceived and ineffectual recovery budget crafted by a pack of clowns who, just four months back, were predicting five years of budget surpluses. Oh yeah, we also got a guy who, by virtue of living in Stornoway if nothing else, is supposed to be an opposition leader who came to the party with empty hands and had no choice but to say "me too."
If there was ever a chance to lower the boom on Stephen Harper, this was it. It's a sad day for the Liberal Party that this moment slipped through our fingers.
Now That The Emergency's Over - How About a Leadership Contest?
I don't follow these things as closely as I should so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the reason Michael Ignatieff was anointed interim leader of the LPC was due to the prospect of the Harper goverenment falling. Am I right?
So, now that Ignatieff has taken Harper's outstretched hand and formed a Tory-Grit coalition, that whole emergency thing is over, right?
And as Ignatieff has shown himself devoid of both vision and good judgment, wouldn't this be a good time to find a fitting leader for the Liberal Party of Canada?
I realize that, thanks to GG Jean, Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, it's a bit late in the day for contenders to step forward but surely there must be somone who can at least make sure that our Imperial leadership doesn't turn into a rank coronation. Of is it too late?
So, now that Ignatieff has taken Harper's outstretched hand and formed a Tory-Grit coalition, that whole emergency thing is over, right?
And as Ignatieff has shown himself devoid of both vision and good judgment, wouldn't this be a good time to find a fitting leader for the Liberal Party of Canada?
I realize that, thanks to GG Jean, Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, it's a bit late in the day for contenders to step forward but surely there must be somone who can at least make sure that our Imperial leadership doesn't turn into a rank coronation. Of is it too late?
How to Guarantee a World War
I've just been re-reading a Harper's article on Georgia and Shakashvili and it got me thinking about NATO's expansion under the Bush regime.
I got to wondering how NATO functioned so well for so long and how it began to show such weakness and division since the end of the Cold War?
It became apparent (to me at least) that an alliance like NATO really only works well when it is confined both in membership and in purpose. The rationale for NATO made sense when the Soviet Union presented a genuine menace to Western Europe and North America. It made sense when its membership was delineated by the North Atlantic and the northern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It made sense when the United States was counterbalanced by the Soviet Union and NATO was vaguely offset by the Warsaw Pact. It made sense because its very organization almost completely eliminated the chance of a shooting war.
Bush really, really wanted NATO to open the roster and ink in the names of Georgia and Ukraine and what a disastrous thing that could have been.
Shakashvili turned out to be a lying hothead who couldn't wait to poke Moscow in the eye with a sharp stick. Imagine what he might have done if he believed he could invoke Article 5, the mutual-defence provision of the NATO charter?
If this nutjob (okay, both nutjobs - Bush and Shakashvili) had his way, Canada could have been duty bound to get into a shooting war with Russia and Shakashvili has made it plain he thinks that would have been a fine idea.
And just what have all these newly-minted NATO members been doing to pull their weight in Alliance hot spots like Afghanistan? They act like they've never heard of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's not like they haven't got troops, scads of troops. They do. You would think they'd be lining up for the chance to replace the Dutch contingent next year or our own forces the year after that. But they're not. NATO calls and calls and calls and they don't pick up the phone. Yet we're supposed to go running to their defence if they pick a fight with Moscow?
There was even talk under Bush of somehow stretching the North Atlantic all the way over to South Asia, perhaps even Australia. Now, wait a minute. Of course that was when Bush was just getting old NATO accustomed to serving as America's Foreign Legion. Here's hoping Obama will simply let that perverse initiative die a natural death.
There will always be wars, especially during periods that usher in changes in global power structures. The more we push, the more push back we can expect, especially from China. Quite frankly, I don't want Canadian Forces dragged into a war with Russia over Georgia any more than I want them dragged into a war with China over Taiwan.
If NATO is going to keep heading down this dangerous path, it's a formula for disaster. We either rationalize and consolidate the membership or we shed Article 5 entirely. We might as well ditch the mutual defence provision. We know that several Western European states have said they wouldn't get into a shooting war with Russia over Georgia anyway.
I got to wondering how NATO functioned so well for so long and how it began to show such weakness and division since the end of the Cold War?
It became apparent (to me at least) that an alliance like NATO really only works well when it is confined both in membership and in purpose. The rationale for NATO made sense when the Soviet Union presented a genuine menace to Western Europe and North America. It made sense when its membership was delineated by the North Atlantic and the northern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It made sense when the United States was counterbalanced by the Soviet Union and NATO was vaguely offset by the Warsaw Pact. It made sense because its very organization almost completely eliminated the chance of a shooting war.
Bush really, really wanted NATO to open the roster and ink in the names of Georgia and Ukraine and what a disastrous thing that could have been.
Shakashvili turned out to be a lying hothead who couldn't wait to poke Moscow in the eye with a sharp stick. Imagine what he might have done if he believed he could invoke Article 5, the mutual-defence provision of the NATO charter?
If this nutjob (okay, both nutjobs - Bush and Shakashvili) had his way, Canada could have been duty bound to get into a shooting war with Russia and Shakashvili has made it plain he thinks that would have been a fine idea.
And just what have all these newly-minted NATO members been doing to pull their weight in Alliance hot spots like Afghanistan? They act like they've never heard of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's not like they haven't got troops, scads of troops. They do. You would think they'd be lining up for the chance to replace the Dutch contingent next year or our own forces the year after that. But they're not. NATO calls and calls and calls and they don't pick up the phone. Yet we're supposed to go running to their defence if they pick a fight with Moscow?
There was even talk under Bush of somehow stretching the North Atlantic all the way over to South Asia, perhaps even Australia. Now, wait a minute. Of course that was when Bush was just getting old NATO accustomed to serving as America's Foreign Legion. Here's hoping Obama will simply let that perverse initiative die a natural death.
There will always be wars, especially during periods that usher in changes in global power structures. The more we push, the more push back we can expect, especially from China. Quite frankly, I don't want Canadian Forces dragged into a war with Russia over Georgia any more than I want them dragged into a war with China over Taiwan.
If NATO is going to keep heading down this dangerous path, it's a formula for disaster. We either rationalize and consolidate the membership or we shed Article 5 entirely. We might as well ditch the mutual defence provision. We know that several Western European states have said they wouldn't get into a shooting war with Russia over Georgia anyway.
The Coalition Lives!
It's on. It's just not a Liberal/NDP coalition. It's a Tory/Liberal coalition with Iggy playing the dutiful handmaiden to his new master.
Try as he might to squirm and spin himself a safe distance from this ill-conceived stimulus budget, Iggy can't get out from under himself. It was his call. It was his budget to reject or embrace. It is now the Stephen Harper-Michael Ignatieff budget.
Today's International Monetary Fund report doesn't mince words. It claims that the fiscal assumptions on which the Harper-Ignatieff budget is based are unsound. The IMF says the recession Canada is facing is going to be far deeper and more protracted than the far milder recession the Harper-Ignatieff budget pretends to be able to meet.
So, how is Iggy going to pin this on Harper if the budget flops, the budget he has chosen to back?
If you're going into a battle that requires six divisions of troops to win but all you show up with are three divisions, who do you blame when you get wiped out?
Unfortunately, the Dynamic Duo share the same flaw. They both lack vision. It's reflected in the timidity of their response to this recession and it virtually guarantees that the scores of billions of Harper Bucks that will be poured into this will be haphazardly and ineffectually spent.
Try as he might to squirm and spin himself a safe distance from this ill-conceived stimulus budget, Iggy can't get out from under himself. It was his call. It was his budget to reject or embrace. It is now the Stephen Harper-Michael Ignatieff budget.
Today's International Monetary Fund report doesn't mince words. It claims that the fiscal assumptions on which the Harper-Ignatieff budget is based are unsound. The IMF says the recession Canada is facing is going to be far deeper and more protracted than the far milder recession the Harper-Ignatieff budget pretends to be able to meet.
So, how is Iggy going to pin this on Harper if the budget flops, the budget he has chosen to back?
If you're going into a battle that requires six divisions of troops to win but all you show up with are three divisions, who do you blame when you get wiped out?
Unfortunately, the Dynamic Duo share the same flaw. They both lack vision. It's reflected in the timidity of their response to this recession and it virtually guarantees that the scores of billions of Harper Bucks that will be poured into this will be haphazardly and ineffectually spent.
IMF Says Harper/Iggy Are Dead Wrong
The International Monetary Fund says Canada is in for a tougher recession ride than what's been forecasted by the Bank of Canada, the Harper government and their supporting cast of Ignatieff Liberals.
From, of all places, CanWest:
...the recession in Canada this year will be much deeper than this week's federal budget is projecting and the recovery next year a lot weaker than projected by either the government or Bank of Canada.
"A sustained economic recovery will not be possible until the financial sector's functionality is restored and credit markets are unclogged," the global lender of last resort warned in releasing its latest forecast.
It now sees the Canadian economy contracting by 1.2% this year, which is weaker than the 0.8% shrinkage projected in the federal budget, and then posting only a marginal 1.6% recovery next year, which is also less than the 2.4% projected in the budget and the 3.8% forecast last week by the Bank of Canada.
The IMF's forecast for Canada this year is also down from its previous projection of 0.3%, noted TD economist Eric Lascelles.
More interesting, however, is the weakness of the IMF forecast for Canada's economy next year, he added.
"This is the weakest figure we have seen, and it appears that the IMF has revised the Canadian outlook downward by the most of any 'advanced economy,' " he observed. "The divergence between the IMF and the Bank of Canada outlooks are extreme, and we are more sympathetic to the IMF than the Bank of Canada outlook at this juncture, given all of the risks of a sustained slowdown."
Great, so we've got a stimulus budget - backed by the Ignatieff Liberals - that's based on hopelessly flawed, fatally optimistic projections.
Way to go, Iggy.
From, of all places, CanWest:
...the recession in Canada this year will be much deeper than this week's federal budget is projecting and the recovery next year a lot weaker than projected by either the government or Bank of Canada.
"A sustained economic recovery will not be possible until the financial sector's functionality is restored and credit markets are unclogged," the global lender of last resort warned in releasing its latest forecast.
It now sees the Canadian economy contracting by 1.2% this year, which is weaker than the 0.8% shrinkage projected in the federal budget, and then posting only a marginal 1.6% recovery next year, which is also less than the 2.4% projected in the budget and the 3.8% forecast last week by the Bank of Canada.
The IMF's forecast for Canada this year is also down from its previous projection of 0.3%, noted TD economist Eric Lascelles.
More interesting, however, is the weakness of the IMF forecast for Canada's economy next year, he added.
"This is the weakest figure we have seen, and it appears that the IMF has revised the Canadian outlook downward by the most of any 'advanced economy,' " he observed. "The divergence between the IMF and the Bank of Canada outlooks are extreme, and we are more sympathetic to the IMF than the Bank of Canada outlook at this juncture, given all of the risks of a sustained slowdown."
Great, so we've got a stimulus budget - backed by the Ignatieff Liberals - that's based on hopelessly flawed, fatally optimistic projections.
Way to go, Iggy.
Straight from the Horse's Mouth - Propping Up Harper and Supporting the Harper Budget IS In Canada's Interests
No matter which way he squirms and spins, Michael Ignatieff is going to be saddled with this decision and it's going to come back to haunt him for years.
We won't support a budget that contains tax cuts! Remember that? It sounds an awful lot like Stephane Dion saying the Liberals would never, ever, positively not ever support an extension of the Afghanistan mission past 2009.
In his statement, Iggy goes on to list some of the many obvious failures in the Harper budget and then says he's going to demand it be amended. What, to address those failures? That would be a good thing, no? No. He's going to demand periodic reporting to, well to him. Whoa, now there's a man of action!
“This government’s mismanagement of the economic crisis and failure to act has rightfully given Parliament – and Canadians – a reason to question the credibility of this government on economic matters,” which, in Iggy talk somehow comes out to mean, "all the more reason to give the Tories carte blanche approval." (oh yeah, with periodic report cards).
You can read the oh-so interim leader's statement here:
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15596_e.aspx
We won't support a budget that contains tax cuts! Remember that? It sounds an awful lot like Stephane Dion saying the Liberals would never, ever, positively not ever support an extension of the Afghanistan mission past 2009.
In his statement, Iggy goes on to list some of the many obvious failures in the Harper budget and then says he's going to demand it be amended. What, to address those failures? That would be a good thing, no? No. He's going to demand periodic reporting to, well to him. Whoa, now there's a man of action!
“This government’s mismanagement of the economic crisis and failure to act has rightfully given Parliament – and Canadians – a reason to question the credibility of this government on economic matters,” which, in Iggy talk somehow comes out to mean, "all the more reason to give the Tories carte blanche approval." (oh yeah, with periodic report cards).
You can read the oh-so interim leader's statement here:
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15596_e.aspx
Iggy, You Want - Reports?
If the Toronto Star is right, the Iggy Liberals are everything I feared they could become.
The paper claims that Ignatieff has offered to support Stephen Harper's ridiculously flawed, overpriced, do-nothing budget - if Harpo agrees to provide "periodic economic statements" to parliament.
Puffing himself up as perhaps no one else can, Iggy said, "We are putting this government on probation." Gee, Mike, I thought a minority government with an unruly opposition was always on probation. Was I missing something?
"We will be watching like hawks to make sure the investments Canadians need actually reach them," he said. Gee, he sounds to me a lot more like the legendary Norwegian Blue than any manner of hawk.
Let's get this straight. The interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, our nation's Official Opposition, is content to allow Canada in the face of this fiscal emergency to wallow haplessly under the weight of Harper's visionless bailout budget. If Ignatieff supports this budget, that's exactly what he has done.
If Ignatieff supports Harper on this one, he'll chalk up one more odious similarity to our Furious Leader - he'll put his personal political fortunes ahead of the interests of Canada.
Harper's budget is the fiscal equivalent of kicking a soccer ball halfway up a steep hill. It's a lot of effort to get nowhere.
I'm sorry Mr. Ignatieff but periodic reports aren't going to do bugger all for Canadians and their economy and neither is Harper's budget. If you support this budget, Mikey, you're saying "okay" to everything that's in it - and that's anything but okay to me.
The paper claims that Ignatieff has offered to support Stephen Harper's ridiculously flawed, overpriced, do-nothing budget - if Harpo agrees to provide "periodic economic statements" to parliament.
Puffing himself up as perhaps no one else can, Iggy said, "We are putting this government on probation." Gee, Mike, I thought a minority government with an unruly opposition was always on probation. Was I missing something?
"We will be watching like hawks to make sure the investments Canadians need actually reach them," he said. Gee, he sounds to me a lot more like the legendary Norwegian Blue than any manner of hawk.
Let's get this straight. The interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, our nation's Official Opposition, is content to allow Canada in the face of this fiscal emergency to wallow haplessly under the weight of Harper's visionless bailout budget. If Ignatieff supports this budget, that's exactly what he has done.
If Ignatieff supports Harper on this one, he'll chalk up one more odious similarity to our Furious Leader - he'll put his personal political fortunes ahead of the interests of Canada.
Harper's budget is the fiscal equivalent of kicking a soccer ball halfway up a steep hill. It's a lot of effort to get nowhere.
I'm sorry Mr. Ignatieff but periodic reports aren't going to do bugger all for Canadians and their economy and neither is Harper's budget. If you support this budget, Mikey, you're saying "okay" to everything that's in it - and that's anything but okay to me.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Are Ya Feelin' Stimulated Yet?
Define stimulus. Okay, now define what stimulus spending isn't.
You see, without a definition, it's just a lot of money wandering about aimlessly and, when that happens, it almost never winds up where you wanted it to go.
Now I suppose you could say that any spending, by any entity, for any purpose is stimulus spending. You could say that, but would you? Maybe you would if you were a guy named Steve with a last name that rhymed with Carper but I'm not that guy and I'm pretty sure you aren't either.
Harper's focus seems to be on getting money moving faster. He's placing less emphasis on what that money is for. But isn't it important that the money he's borrowing, the money we'll have to repay with interest in the future, went on "new" spending. Isn't that more effective, more bang for the buck, than throwing federal deficit dollars on projects that were going to be built anyway?
Take Vancouver - please! I just listened to an interview with the city's newly minted mayor, Angus MacFergus MacTavish Dundee Robertson. He can't wait to get his hands on a truckload of Harper Bucks to pour into Vancouver's sewers. You see, the city's water/sewer system is old and has been neglected by the city fathers so long that it's at risk of becoming just one system (sewer plus water - just don't turn on the taps).
Now those sewer and water pipes were going to be repaired anyway so is that a "stimulus" project? Or is it just a federally subsidized municipal works programme that was going ahead even without the federal money. Is it simply replacing municipal borrowing with federal borrowing? Does it even matter? Call me an unrepentant sinner but I think it does.
Yes the Harper Bucks extravaganza may cause some projects to be accelerated and yes, I suppose, that'll get money into circulation a bit quicker, but is that as good a deal as it can be, as good a deal as it should be?
Maybe it's time for a new deck, or a New Deal. You see, Harper isn't stimulating anything, he doesn't have a clue. His response is to use the federal government's borrowing power to come up with truckloads of Harper Bucks to throw about in the general direction of anyone who says they can use it.
If it's infrastructure he wants to spend money on, why doesn't He spend it - on new, federal infrastructure programmes that will benefit the entire country at large rather than a gaggle of municipalities who've got a convenient pocket ready to snag a bag of Harper Bucks?
Why doesn't Harper put up some serious money and build us all a Canadian railroad for the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd centuries, something that would return plenty of dividends - fiscally and environmentally - for as long as we can possibly imagine, certainly for the duration of our lifetimes and those of our kids and grandkids? After all, those "taxpayers yet to be" will be picking up their share of this too.
Christ, this country is calling out for that sort of vision, that type of nation-building initiative. When since Confederation has the moment been better?
But you see, Stephen Harper isn't a man of vision. He doesn't see horizons any more than he sees the future. Stephen Harper has very small vision because all he ever sees is Stephen Harper and the only future he's interested in exploring is Stephen Harper's political future.
Is Iggy any better? I'm the last person anyone should ask. But he might be good enough, if he really cares for our country more than he cares for his hold on the Liberal Party. If he ever wanted an opportunity to show what he's made of, this is it.
You see, without a definition, it's just a lot of money wandering about aimlessly and, when that happens, it almost never winds up where you wanted it to go.
Now I suppose you could say that any spending, by any entity, for any purpose is stimulus spending. You could say that, but would you? Maybe you would if you were a guy named Steve with a last name that rhymed with Carper but I'm not that guy and I'm pretty sure you aren't either.
Harper's focus seems to be on getting money moving faster. He's placing less emphasis on what that money is for. But isn't it important that the money he's borrowing, the money we'll have to repay with interest in the future, went on "new" spending. Isn't that more effective, more bang for the buck, than throwing federal deficit dollars on projects that were going to be built anyway?
Take Vancouver - please! I just listened to an interview with the city's newly minted mayor, Angus MacFergus MacTavish Dundee Robertson. He can't wait to get his hands on a truckload of Harper Bucks to pour into Vancouver's sewers. You see, the city's water/sewer system is old and has been neglected by the city fathers so long that it's at risk of becoming just one system (sewer plus water - just don't turn on the taps).
Now those sewer and water pipes were going to be repaired anyway so is that a "stimulus" project? Or is it just a federally subsidized municipal works programme that was going ahead even without the federal money. Is it simply replacing municipal borrowing with federal borrowing? Does it even matter? Call me an unrepentant sinner but I think it does.
Yes the Harper Bucks extravaganza may cause some projects to be accelerated and yes, I suppose, that'll get money into circulation a bit quicker, but is that as good a deal as it can be, as good a deal as it should be?
Maybe it's time for a new deck, or a New Deal. You see, Harper isn't stimulating anything, he doesn't have a clue. His response is to use the federal government's borrowing power to come up with truckloads of Harper Bucks to throw about in the general direction of anyone who says they can use it.
If it's infrastructure he wants to spend money on, why doesn't He spend it - on new, federal infrastructure programmes that will benefit the entire country at large rather than a gaggle of municipalities who've got a convenient pocket ready to snag a bag of Harper Bucks?
Why doesn't Harper put up some serious money and build us all a Canadian railroad for the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd centuries, something that would return plenty of dividends - fiscally and environmentally - for as long as we can possibly imagine, certainly for the duration of our lifetimes and those of our kids and grandkids? After all, those "taxpayers yet to be" will be picking up their share of this too.
Christ, this country is calling out for that sort of vision, that type of nation-building initiative. When since Confederation has the moment been better?
But you see, Stephen Harper isn't a man of vision. He doesn't see horizons any more than he sees the future. Stephen Harper has very small vision because all he ever sees is Stephen Harper and the only future he's interested in exploring is Stephen Harper's political future.
Is Iggy any better? I'm the last person anyone should ask. But he might be good enough, if he really cares for our country more than he cares for his hold on the Liberal Party. If he ever wanted an opportunity to show what he's made of, this is it.
Keeping the Focus on Stimulus Spending
Obama made it plain from the outset that his government's stimulus package would target "made in America" products and services. It only makes sense to ensure that the bang you get for the buck is felt at home where it'll do some good.
So, what's the average middle class Canadian going to do to help stimulate the Canadian economy - that is, of course, assuming they don't just hoard the money or pay off old debts?
Well, I suppose these being lean times and all, they could head down to Wal-Mart for a little stimulus spending. What are they going to buy? A toaster made in China, a T-shirt made in India, maybe a television made in Malaya? I guess that is stimulus spending - if you're Chinese or Indian or Malayan.
The government can control both the bucks and the bang which is probably a good idea when it's all borrowed money anyway. But when you're borrowing money - the bucks - and handing it out in tax cuts - chances are that if there even is a bang, it's not going to be where you wanted it.
So please Steve, if you're going to saddle us with the debts anyway, how be you spend that money so the buck truly does stop here?
So, what's the average middle class Canadian going to do to help stimulate the Canadian economy - that is, of course, assuming they don't just hoard the money or pay off old debts?
Well, I suppose these being lean times and all, they could head down to Wal-Mart for a little stimulus spending. What are they going to buy? A toaster made in China, a T-shirt made in India, maybe a television made in Malaya? I guess that is stimulus spending - if you're Chinese or Indian or Malayan.
The government can control both the bucks and the bang which is probably a good idea when it's all borrowed money anyway. But when you're borrowing money - the bucks - and handing it out in tax cuts - chances are that if there even is a bang, it's not going to be where you wanted it.
So please Steve, if you're going to saddle us with the debts anyway, how be you spend that money so the buck truly does stop here?
What's That? It's The Smell of Consensus
It's taken a couple of hours to gel but there is a clear consensus emerging from the left and centre that the Harper budget is a travesty that will do next to nothing to help Canada bounce back from a recession.
The more you read, the more it becomes clear that a lot of snake oil has gone into the production of this budget. It's a plan crafted mainly for spin potential rather than to help the country and the Canadian people.
The unnecessary measures to thwart pay equity are bad enough but the ludicrous middle class tax cuts are inexcusable. A government doesn't make tax cuts when they can only be paid for out of borrowed money.
What infrastructure spending there is has been grossly overstated. The priorities are skewed. Missing is the essential emphasis on investment spending, the sort of infrastructure programmes that will pay big dividends in the long-term, and visibility. The public needs to know where the money is going. They need to see it and they need to see it in every part of the country. Doing that means going big.
The Tories have had plenty of time to come up with big ideas, the sort of projects that can capture the public imagination and the public's support. But the budget doesn't contain that sort of substance but, then again, it can't because the actual infrastructure spending is a pittance of what would be needed for any realistic investment.
Harper has mastered the Bush/Cheney/Rove art of saying what people want to hear and then delivering just the opposite. Remember when Harper admitted that global warming was the greatest threat to mankind and needed urgent action? So, what's he done in your neighbourhood, in your province?
No, this is a budget that reveals incredibly insincere commitment to rather loudly stated promises. It's a hoax, a fraud ginned up with Harper's electoral fortunes first and foremost.
I guess it's fair to say that the Harper budget is "predictable." What remains uncertain is what we can expect from Michael Ignatieff. Will he and the Liberal Party choose Canada or Stephen Harper?
The more you read, the more it becomes clear that a lot of snake oil has gone into the production of this budget. It's a plan crafted mainly for spin potential rather than to help the country and the Canadian people.
The unnecessary measures to thwart pay equity are bad enough but the ludicrous middle class tax cuts are inexcusable. A government doesn't make tax cuts when they can only be paid for out of borrowed money.
What infrastructure spending there is has been grossly overstated. The priorities are skewed. Missing is the essential emphasis on investment spending, the sort of infrastructure programmes that will pay big dividends in the long-term, and visibility. The public needs to know where the money is going. They need to see it and they need to see it in every part of the country. Doing that means going big.
The Tories have had plenty of time to come up with big ideas, the sort of projects that can capture the public imagination and the public's support. But the budget doesn't contain that sort of substance but, then again, it can't because the actual infrastructure spending is a pittance of what would be needed for any realistic investment.
Harper has mastered the Bush/Cheney/Rove art of saying what people want to hear and then delivering just the opposite. Remember when Harper admitted that global warming was the greatest threat to mankind and needed urgent action? So, what's he done in your neighbourhood, in your province?
No, this is a budget that reveals incredibly insincere commitment to rather loudly stated promises. It's a hoax, a fraud ginned up with Harper's electoral fortunes first and foremost.
I guess it's fair to say that the Harper budget is "predictable." What remains uncertain is what we can expect from Michael Ignatieff. Will he and the Liberal Party choose Canada or Stephen Harper?
The Inconvenient Truth of Tax Cuts
Tax cuts by a government running a deficit are a different creature than tax cuts by a government with a balanced budget. The latter is merely a distribution of surplus. The former, the tax cut we have in the Harper budget, is a distribution of borrowed money.
The Harper government wants stimulus spending and tax cuts. The stimulus spending alone will put the government budget into deficit. That means the added tax cuts will have to be funded by increased government borrowing, by new debt that will have to be repaid, with interest, by future taxpayers.
In essence, Stephen Harper is doing what Bush did during his regime - playing politics with tax cuts his government couldn't afford. Bush was putting his partisan interests ahead of his country.
Stephen Harper, like Bush, is putting his partisan interests ahead of Canada's. It's that plain, that simple.
If those tax cuts would actually generate economic stimulus they might be more tolerable. They won't. Those who do get a tax break are those lucky enough not to have lost their jobs, those who still have an income in a highly uncertain economy. They will do what those in such vulnerable circumstances inevitably do - they will hoard the money or use it to pay off debts for things they bought long ago, goods and services past, that have no stimulus effect.
Middle class tax cuts are a partisan political scam, compounding the ills of an already defunded federal government. Harper is giving away money the government doesn't have. He is going to borrow every last dime needed to fund this programme.
The only question now is whether the interim leader of the Liberal Party will condone this sham. It's been a hallmark of Harper's style of government that he doesn't hesitate to put his partisan political advantage ahead of the interests of Canada. Now he's extending his hand, asking Iggy to do the same.
The Harper government wants stimulus spending and tax cuts. The stimulus spending alone will put the government budget into deficit. That means the added tax cuts will have to be funded by increased government borrowing, by new debt that will have to be repaid, with interest, by future taxpayers.
In essence, Stephen Harper is doing what Bush did during his regime - playing politics with tax cuts his government couldn't afford. Bush was putting his partisan interests ahead of his country.
Stephen Harper, like Bush, is putting his partisan interests ahead of Canada's. It's that plain, that simple.
If those tax cuts would actually generate economic stimulus they might be more tolerable. They won't. Those who do get a tax break are those lucky enough not to have lost their jobs, those who still have an income in a highly uncertain economy. They will do what those in such vulnerable circumstances inevitably do - they will hoard the money or use it to pay off debts for things they bought long ago, goods and services past, that have no stimulus effect.
Middle class tax cuts are a partisan political scam, compounding the ills of an already defunded federal government. Harper is giving away money the government doesn't have. He is going to borrow every last dime needed to fund this programme.
The only question now is whether the interim leader of the Liberal Party will condone this sham. It's been a hallmark of Harper's style of government that he doesn't hesitate to put his partisan political advantage ahead of the interests of Canada. Now he's extending his hand, asking Iggy to do the same.
What Goes Up...
What goes up must come down but what goes way, way up tends to come down an awful lot harder. That's the lesson of the Athabasca Tar Sands.
When crude oil prices were gamed last year upwards of $150 per barrel, Alberta's Tar Sands looked like a bottomless well of wealth. And, man, did that wealth get around.
I rode my motorcycle through the oil patch in the heydays. At a gas pump I met a young fellow who, as fate would have it, was from my own small town on Vancouver Island. He said how he'd been lucky to earn $30,000 a year as a labourer at home but was pulling in $130,000 a year as a labourer in the oil patch. The big-ass, top of the line pick up truck he was driving left no doubt that the kid was enjoying his newfound prosperity.
That was then, this is now. Oil has fallen to its rational price, well below $50 per barrel and, with the global economy in such a rotten mess, it's likely to stay there for a good while to come. Good news for some, bad news for others, especially if you're a province that got hooked on an enormous oil boom.
Booms touch every aspect of an economy. As more money starts circulating, prices go up - way up. The Tar Sands expansion brought an influx of workers from other parts of Canada, each of them a fresh consumer with pockets full of money. Oil companies found their Tar Sands project development costs skyrocketing in the supply and demand nutckracker they themselves had created.
Booms, whether technology or housing or oil driven, bring inelasticity to affected economies. The more expansion, the nearer the breaking point. Overheated economies rarely end well.
According to the Calgary Herald, Calgarians are bracing for a shock wave of bad news:
Calgarians will see more layoffs, cancelled projects and losses on investment this week and over the next several weeks as oil and gas companies deliver what analysts are predicting will be the worst fourth-quarter results in years.
The contrast with the third quarter, when many companies reported record profits, couldn’t be more stark. As oil prices plunged from all-time highs last summer and credit markets tightened, trust companies have chopped distributions to investors, stock prices have plummeted and 2009 spending plans have been cut to the bone.
UBS economist Jan Stuart warned in a published report last week there’s little in market recovery to fuel a rebound in commodity prices.
“Latest data confirm our projections of unprecedented, steep contractions of global oil demand in the last few months of 2008,” said the report, adding a three per cent decline in world demand in the fourth quarter will likely be repeated in the first three months of 2009 and demand is not likely to turn around until after the third quarter.
One constant problem with booms is that as notional wealth expands, so too does the willingness of business and individuals to take on debt. Debt, unfortunately, is not notional. Wealth can disappear but debt lives on and on and on. And when you do look to those assets you bought with your notional wealth and inflated borrowing power, you find that their value was as notional as your wealth.
When crude oil prices were gamed last year upwards of $150 per barrel, Alberta's Tar Sands looked like a bottomless well of wealth. And, man, did that wealth get around.
I rode my motorcycle through the oil patch in the heydays. At a gas pump I met a young fellow who, as fate would have it, was from my own small town on Vancouver Island. He said how he'd been lucky to earn $30,000 a year as a labourer at home but was pulling in $130,000 a year as a labourer in the oil patch. The big-ass, top of the line pick up truck he was driving left no doubt that the kid was enjoying his newfound prosperity.
That was then, this is now. Oil has fallen to its rational price, well below $50 per barrel and, with the global economy in such a rotten mess, it's likely to stay there for a good while to come. Good news for some, bad news for others, especially if you're a province that got hooked on an enormous oil boom.
Booms touch every aspect of an economy. As more money starts circulating, prices go up - way up. The Tar Sands expansion brought an influx of workers from other parts of Canada, each of them a fresh consumer with pockets full of money. Oil companies found their Tar Sands project development costs skyrocketing in the supply and demand nutckracker they themselves had created.
Booms, whether technology or housing or oil driven, bring inelasticity to affected economies. The more expansion, the nearer the breaking point. Overheated economies rarely end well.
According to the Calgary Herald, Calgarians are bracing for a shock wave of bad news:
Calgarians will see more layoffs, cancelled projects and losses on investment this week and over the next several weeks as oil and gas companies deliver what analysts are predicting will be the worst fourth-quarter results in years.
The contrast with the third quarter, when many companies reported record profits, couldn’t be more stark. As oil prices plunged from all-time highs last summer and credit markets tightened, trust companies have chopped distributions to investors, stock prices have plummeted and 2009 spending plans have been cut to the bone.
UBS economist Jan Stuart warned in a published report last week there’s little in market recovery to fuel a rebound in commodity prices.
“Latest data confirm our projections of unprecedented, steep contractions of global oil demand in the last few months of 2008,” said the report, adding a three per cent decline in world demand in the fourth quarter will likely be repeated in the first three months of 2009 and demand is not likely to turn around until after the third quarter.
One constant problem with booms is that as notional wealth expands, so too does the willingness of business and individuals to take on debt. Debt, unfortunately, is not notional. Wealth can disappear but debt lives on and on and on. And when you do look to those assets you bought with your notional wealth and inflated borrowing power, you find that their value was as notional as your wealth.
A Big Box of BandAids
It's shaping up to be a Post-It Notes budget, a hobbled-together porridge of ordinary government spending, stimulus spending, non-stimulus handouts and income tax cuts.
Now, if it sounds a bit rich for a government that emptied the federal coffers in good times to introduce further tax cuts when it's just settling in to a return of Mulroney-era deficits - well, it is. It sounds like Harper has been on the phone to Congressional Republicans in Washington.
Naturally, a lot of the "new" spending is simply recycled old spending, the run of the mill sleight of hand we've come to expect from Harper. Income tax cuts are great - for those who manage to keep their jobs, and income - but inevitably lessen the support the feds can provide to those who don't.
And, for what little actual stimulus spending there is, it has one fatal flaw. It's penny ante, small stuff. Canadians will lose sight of it and, as they say, out of sight, out of mind.
Infrastructure spending is about more than employment and getting money moving again, much more than that. It has to be money spent on investments that will yield returns for decades to come. It has to go on investments that are big and plainly visible. There has to be both the payback factor - the return generated by real infrastructure projects - and there has to be the added, psychological factor, the confidence building that occurs when people see and understand that infrastructure investment in action.
When Jim down the block gets a thousand dollar grant to help renovate his house with energy-efficient windows that's not really infrastructure spending. Sure a small amount of money - his and the government's - gets injected in the economy and, sure, a couple of guys get a day or two's work out of it but that's pretty much where it ends. There's no great return on investment for the nation and even if the neighbours notice the new windows they won't for long.
But it's the middle class tax cuts, a sheer vote-buying ploy that undermines the stimulus budget, that Iggy must reject. As mentioned previously, those tax cuts are only relevant to those who have kept their jobs and incomes. But, worse, in trying times people horde money, they don't spend it. They won't stimulate spending among people who have doubts about the security of their job. In terms of helping Canada, these tax cuts are daft. In terms of helping Harper at the expense of Canada, they make perfect sense.
Let's hope Ignatieff has the courage to say no to a tax cut budget.
Now, if it sounds a bit rich for a government that emptied the federal coffers in good times to introduce further tax cuts when it's just settling in to a return of Mulroney-era deficits - well, it is. It sounds like Harper has been on the phone to Congressional Republicans in Washington.
Naturally, a lot of the "new" spending is simply recycled old spending, the run of the mill sleight of hand we've come to expect from Harper. Income tax cuts are great - for those who manage to keep their jobs, and income - but inevitably lessen the support the feds can provide to those who don't.
And, for what little actual stimulus spending there is, it has one fatal flaw. It's penny ante, small stuff. Canadians will lose sight of it and, as they say, out of sight, out of mind.
Infrastructure spending is about more than employment and getting money moving again, much more than that. It has to be money spent on investments that will yield returns for decades to come. It has to go on investments that are big and plainly visible. There has to be both the payback factor - the return generated by real infrastructure projects - and there has to be the added, psychological factor, the confidence building that occurs when people see and understand that infrastructure investment in action.
When Jim down the block gets a thousand dollar grant to help renovate his house with energy-efficient windows that's not really infrastructure spending. Sure a small amount of money - his and the government's - gets injected in the economy and, sure, a couple of guys get a day or two's work out of it but that's pretty much where it ends. There's no great return on investment for the nation and even if the neighbours notice the new windows they won't for long.
But it's the middle class tax cuts, a sheer vote-buying ploy that undermines the stimulus budget, that Iggy must reject. As mentioned previously, those tax cuts are only relevant to those who have kept their jobs and incomes. But, worse, in trying times people horde money, they don't spend it. They won't stimulate spending among people who have doubts about the security of their job. In terms of helping Canada, these tax cuts are daft. In terms of helping Harper at the expense of Canada, they make perfect sense.
Let's hope Ignatieff has the courage to say no to a tax cut budget.
Global Warming Could Be Over By 3009!
If we get our act together - very soon - and slash carbon emissions - a lot - the effects of man-made global warming could pass within a mere thousand years.
The 22nd century is out, so is the 23rd, ditto for the 24th.
An international team of researchers led by some flaky outfit called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory has released a report showing that the climate change effects we've already caused are slow to become apparent but infinitely slower to recede, a millenium worth of slow.
From CBC News:
In her paper, [the NOAA's Susan] Solomon, a leader of the International Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's best known researchers on the subject, noted that temperatures around the globe have risen and changes in rainfall patterns have been observed in areas around the Mediterranean, southern Africa and southwestern North America.
Warmer climate also is causing expansion of the ocean, and that is expected to increase with the melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica, the researchers said.
"I don't think that the very long time scale of the persistence of these effects has been understood," Solomon said.
Global warming has been slowed by the ocean, Solomon said, because water absorbs a lot of energy to warm up. But that good effect will not only wane over time, the ocean will also help keep the planet warmer by giving off its accumulated heat to the air.
Climate change has been driven by gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from solar radiation and raise the planet's temperature — the "greenhouse effect." Carbon dioxide has been the most important of those gases because it remains in the air for hundreds of years. While other gases are responsible for nearly half of the warming, they degrade more rapidly, Solomon said.
Top climate scientists are becoming increasingly vocal in warning that the IPCC "consensus" reports, alarming as they may sound, tend to sugar coat the problem.
Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research added, "The temperature changes and the sea level changes are, if anything, underestimated and quite conservative, especially for sea level."
Psst - about your plans for that retirement condo in Arizona.
The 22nd century is out, so is the 23rd, ditto for the 24th.
An international team of researchers led by some flaky outfit called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory has released a report showing that the climate change effects we've already caused are slow to become apparent but infinitely slower to recede, a millenium worth of slow.
From CBC News:
In her paper, [the NOAA's Susan] Solomon, a leader of the International Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's best known researchers on the subject, noted that temperatures around the globe have risen and changes in rainfall patterns have been observed in areas around the Mediterranean, southern Africa and southwestern North America.
Warmer climate also is causing expansion of the ocean, and that is expected to increase with the melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica, the researchers said.
"I don't think that the very long time scale of the persistence of these effects has been understood," Solomon said.
Global warming has been slowed by the ocean, Solomon said, because water absorbs a lot of energy to warm up. But that good effect will not only wane over time, the ocean will also help keep the planet warmer by giving off its accumulated heat to the air.
Climate change has been driven by gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from solar radiation and raise the planet's temperature — the "greenhouse effect." Carbon dioxide has been the most important of those gases because it remains in the air for hundreds of years. While other gases are responsible for nearly half of the warming, they degrade more rapidly, Solomon said.
Top climate scientists are becoming increasingly vocal in warning that the IPCC "consensus" reports, alarming as they may sound, tend to sugar coat the problem.
Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research added, "The temperature changes and the sea level changes are, if anything, underestimated and quite conservative, especially for sea level."
Psst - about your plans for that retirement condo in Arizona.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sussex Drive Renamed In Honour of Current Occupant
Sorry, I couldn't resist. This came from a New York Times fluff piece today exploring the English penchant for weird names.
At Least She's Not Sitting In His Lap
National Post released this delightful photo of the Governor General and Furious Leader yucking it up moments before Madame Jean read today's Throne Speech. It sounded like 10-minutes of standard Harper drivel.
The Daisy Chain of Bailout Begging
Before Christmas it was the Big Three automakers that headed to Washington, begging bowls in hand. Now, according to the Washington Post, it's the auto supplier industry, the smaller companies that build parts and components for the Big Three and other car companies.
Suppliers are bracing themselves to feel the brunt of the weak U.S. auto market. The auto industry ended 2008 with its worst sales in 16 years. Industry-wide, automakers sold 896,124 new cars, minivans and trucks in December, a drop of 36 percent compared with December 2007.
It's a complex, interwoven predicament: Many automakers and suppliers rely on a trade credit system, in which the supplier provides parts to the automakers under an agreement to be paid at a later date. Suppliers then put up those billings, or receivables, up as collateral for working capital loans.
If the auto suppliers get bail outs, just where is this going to stop? There has to be a clear delineating rationale for bail outs. If the auto industry needs only four companies to produce door handles why not keep the best four alive and let the others close? What is the possible advantage to the United States of burdening taxpayers, present and in generations to come, with the expense of keeping surplus door handle manufacturers alive? It's not going to increase the demand for door handles, is it?
In the United States today, who doesn't want a bail out? Most of the states are asking Washington for bail out money. A lot of cities are heading the same way. Individual homeowners want Washington to come through with foreclosure relief. Everybody can't be lending bail out money to everyone else.
Let's face it. A major factor in today's fiscal mess is that, for years, Americans were so awash in cheap money that they borrowed as though they believed they could defy gravity, that there would be no tomorrow.
Money borrowed to spend on bail outs is money Washington won't have to invest on infrastructure projects. Money handed out to allow a company to buy a little time is money that won't be available to buy a bridge.
It's an ordinary part of business that, when downturns arrive, it's survival of the fittest with the weakest, most poorly managed firms going under. Bail outs should not be used in a futile effort to prop up failed business.
Suppliers are bracing themselves to feel the brunt of the weak U.S. auto market. The auto industry ended 2008 with its worst sales in 16 years. Industry-wide, automakers sold 896,124 new cars, minivans and trucks in December, a drop of 36 percent compared with December 2007.
It's a complex, interwoven predicament: Many automakers and suppliers rely on a trade credit system, in which the supplier provides parts to the automakers under an agreement to be paid at a later date. Suppliers then put up those billings, or receivables, up as collateral for working capital loans.
If the auto suppliers get bail outs, just where is this going to stop? There has to be a clear delineating rationale for bail outs. If the auto industry needs only four companies to produce door handles why not keep the best four alive and let the others close? What is the possible advantage to the United States of burdening taxpayers, present and in generations to come, with the expense of keeping surplus door handle manufacturers alive? It's not going to increase the demand for door handles, is it?
In the United States today, who doesn't want a bail out? Most of the states are asking Washington for bail out money. A lot of cities are heading the same way. Individual homeowners want Washington to come through with foreclosure relief. Everybody can't be lending bail out money to everyone else.
Let's face it. A major factor in today's fiscal mess is that, for years, Americans were so awash in cheap money that they borrowed as though they believed they could defy gravity, that there would be no tomorrow.
Money borrowed to spend on bail outs is money Washington won't have to invest on infrastructure projects. Money handed out to allow a company to buy a little time is money that won't be available to buy a bridge.
It's an ordinary part of business that, when downturns arrive, it's survival of the fittest with the weakest, most poorly managed firms going under. Bail outs should not be used in a futile effort to prop up failed business.
Can Obama Resist Putting the Bushies on Trial?
Barack Obama is in a morally risky position in dealing with the blatant criminality of the Bush regime and its flunkeys. Obama has skirted the issue, saying there are too many urgent demands ahead to be dealt with to waste time looking back. It's pretty clear that he doesn't want to start a precedent of an incoming administration leaping into action to prosecute an outgoing administration. And yet there is a growing outcry for redress, for correcting the way the presidency was skewed and criminalized.
The latest voice is that of Joe Galloway, the veteran Vietnam war correspondent with McClatchey Newspapers:
...It's the attorney general's sworn duty to uphold the law and pursue criminal violations, wherever they lead. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President of the United States and those around him are immune to criminal charges.
The Republicans ...want a Justice Department and an attorney general who will sign on to politics as usual, as it was defined in the time of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their pitiful attorneys general from John Ashcroft to Michael Mukasey.
Not since the days of John Mitchell has the office of attorney general been so degraded as it was during the tenure of Alberto Gonzales, who today has a grand jury all over him investigating whether he committed crimes large and small.
The Republicans in the Senate apparently want Holder to reprise Gonzales' role of seeing, speaking and hearing no evil, even when evil is all around him.
Mr. Holder's response must be a simple, “No, I cannot and I will not do that. I will repair and restore a Justice Department that will fulfill its duty and mission of upholding the law. I cannot begin my term by promising that I won't do my duty under the law.”
And as much as President Obama may want to focus on the urgent problems he's inherited and face the future, not the past, it would be a grievous error to turn a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the last administration.
It will fall to Mr. Holder and his renovated and reinvigorated Justice Department to plumb the depths of lawbreaking by the previous administration and its leaders and followers.
Nothing less will suffice. Nothing less will convince the American people that we live in a nation where no man is above the law.
Our farsighted forebears had reason to fear and hate the capricious rule of kings and emperors, and they sought in virtually every line of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure that no man was ever above the law; that no man in America could ever appropriate absolute power for himself.
We've lived through a long national nightmare — a time when those in power played on our fears to emasculate constitutional protections and individual rights in the name of security. Taking away freedom to protect freedom is akin to that Vietnam War officer who famously said: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
The only way we can repair all the damage they did is to confront those who led us astray, led us far from our roots and our hopes and our dreams and into a dark nether world where in order to save freedom we were willing to surrender it.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, after all, is for good men to do nothing.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60658.html
The latest voice is that of Joe Galloway, the veteran Vietnam war correspondent with McClatchey Newspapers:
...It's the attorney general's sworn duty to uphold the law and pursue criminal violations, wherever they lead. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President of the United States and those around him are immune to criminal charges.
The Republicans ...want a Justice Department and an attorney general who will sign on to politics as usual, as it was defined in the time of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their pitiful attorneys general from John Ashcroft to Michael Mukasey.
Not since the days of John Mitchell has the office of attorney general been so degraded as it was during the tenure of Alberto Gonzales, who today has a grand jury all over him investigating whether he committed crimes large and small.
The Republicans in the Senate apparently want Holder to reprise Gonzales' role of seeing, speaking and hearing no evil, even when evil is all around him.
Mr. Holder's response must be a simple, “No, I cannot and I will not do that. I will repair and restore a Justice Department that will fulfill its duty and mission of upholding the law. I cannot begin my term by promising that I won't do my duty under the law.”
And as much as President Obama may want to focus on the urgent problems he's inherited and face the future, not the past, it would be a grievous error to turn a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the last administration.
It will fall to Mr. Holder and his renovated and reinvigorated Justice Department to plumb the depths of lawbreaking by the previous administration and its leaders and followers.
Nothing less will suffice. Nothing less will convince the American people that we live in a nation where no man is above the law.
Our farsighted forebears had reason to fear and hate the capricious rule of kings and emperors, and they sought in virtually every line of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure that no man was ever above the law; that no man in America could ever appropriate absolute power for himself.
We've lived through a long national nightmare — a time when those in power played on our fears to emasculate constitutional protections and individual rights in the name of security. Taking away freedom to protect freedom is akin to that Vietnam War officer who famously said: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
The only way we can repair all the damage they did is to confront those who led us astray, led us far from our roots and our hopes and our dreams and into a dark nether world where in order to save freedom we were willing to surrender it.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, after all, is for good men to do nothing.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60658.html
Hardball. Ignatieff Up to Bat
Remember the Ralph Goodale/income trust leak scandal that allowed Stephen Harper defeat the Martin government? Weren't the Cons indignant and self-righteous back then? That was then, this is now.
The Cons, with Parliament locked down to preserve their power, are freely leaking budget details at every turn. They're openly admitting they're leaking the budget to garner public support that they hope will deter the opposition from showing them the door. But they're quick to add this isn't a "political game." Say what?
Harper and his minions are playing hardball. They're pitching to the public and the batter is Michael Ignatieff. This is a tactic to get at Iggy, to sap his will, to intimidate him. Pretty aggressive stuff that.
Ignatieff is being shoved around. I think Harper figures he's got the measure of Ignatieff and that all that remains now is to get Iggy to actually jump through that hoop.
The Cons, with Parliament locked down to preserve their power, are freely leaking budget details at every turn. They're openly admitting they're leaking the budget to garner public support that they hope will deter the opposition from showing them the door. But they're quick to add this isn't a "political game." Say what?
Harper and his minions are playing hardball. They're pitching to the public and the batter is Michael Ignatieff. This is a tactic to get at Iggy, to sap his will, to intimidate him. Pretty aggressive stuff that.
Ignatieff is being shoved around. I think Harper figures he's got the measure of Ignatieff and that all that remains now is to get Iggy to actually jump through that hoop.
American Madness
How can an entire country go mad. The while thing - a people, their economy, their governments - all of them mad as hatters.
As details emerge demonstrating that America is gripped not by a liquidity problem but a widespread insolvency problem, the question must become how could such a powerful, privileged and advanced people have thought to spend themselves into a fiscal gutter?
We know where the madness began. It started with the Nixon administration. That ushered in what Lewis Lapham has described as the moment when Americans began to equate wealth with virtue. It was when the Calvinism of the pilgrims began yielding to hedonistic nationalism. But it was the presidential mad hatter himself, Ronald Reagan, who launched America headlong onto the path of illusion and self-deception.
Remember the anecdote of Cheney, goading Bush into a second wave of tax cuts for the rich, noting that Reagan had shown that "deficits don't matter." It was lunacy enough that Cheney should make the point but even more insane that Bush should swallow it. It echoed in a blue collar class fed a diet rich in triumphalism to mask their famine.
There's been a lot of nonsense spawned over the last decade about Canadians harbouring a seething anti-Americanism. In my case, at least, it wasn't envy at American prosperity that led me to speak out, it was fear of American profligacy. I knew that Reagan had transformed the United States from the world's largest creditor nation, when he took office, to the world's largest debtor nation, when he left office just eight years later. I followed America's balance of trade deficits and their balance of payments deficits along with their wholesale outsourcing of manufacturing to Asia. I watched the Dot.Com bubble and saw how people made and lost fortunes on companies that never, ever, not once turned a profit before they disintegrated. I watched as the Dot.Com bubble gave way to an equally insane housing bubble. I watched, and worried, as the initiative to deeply integrate the Canadian and American economies quietly progressed.
And yes I did speak out about this and I freely criticized the United States and the American people for acting as though they could actually defy gravity. Bear in mind that there were a great many Americans saying the same thing - a lot but just not enough.
And yes I criticized the Bush government at every turn. I criticized the juvenile Bush doctrine and a foreign policy that undermined global security and even fueled Islamist extremism. I criticized Bush for his illegal invasion of Iraq, a folly that, like so many stupid things he did, added more bricks to the backpack America carried until it could carry it no more.
And when we became ensnarled with a prime minister who actually admired the people and politics that were bringing America to the edge of collapse, I criticized the American government even more. It was a close thing. It was more than fate that kept the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives from coming to power with the majority they would have required to steer Canada down the Bush/Cheney/Howard path. It was a level of awareness, or unease that stopped Harper in his pro-Republican tracks.
The madness of America is only starting to be played out. The recession won't be like other downturns in which an otherwise sound economy bounces back. This recession has a millstone tied around its feet, a massive indebtedness that reaches through the federal, state and municipal governments; most of the corporate sector; and straight into American families. Losing your job is one thing but losing your job right when you're up to your alligators in debt with assets whose value is steadily dwindling is another matter altogether. It's enough to drive you mad.
As details emerge demonstrating that America is gripped not by a liquidity problem but a widespread insolvency problem, the question must become how could such a powerful, privileged and advanced people have thought to spend themselves into a fiscal gutter?
We know where the madness began. It started with the Nixon administration. That ushered in what Lewis Lapham has described as the moment when Americans began to equate wealth with virtue. It was when the Calvinism of the pilgrims began yielding to hedonistic nationalism. But it was the presidential mad hatter himself, Ronald Reagan, who launched America headlong onto the path of illusion and self-deception.
Remember the anecdote of Cheney, goading Bush into a second wave of tax cuts for the rich, noting that Reagan had shown that "deficits don't matter." It was lunacy enough that Cheney should make the point but even more insane that Bush should swallow it. It echoed in a blue collar class fed a diet rich in triumphalism to mask their famine.
There's been a lot of nonsense spawned over the last decade about Canadians harbouring a seething anti-Americanism. In my case, at least, it wasn't envy at American prosperity that led me to speak out, it was fear of American profligacy. I knew that Reagan had transformed the United States from the world's largest creditor nation, when he took office, to the world's largest debtor nation, when he left office just eight years later. I followed America's balance of trade deficits and their balance of payments deficits along with their wholesale outsourcing of manufacturing to Asia. I watched the Dot.Com bubble and saw how people made and lost fortunes on companies that never, ever, not once turned a profit before they disintegrated. I watched as the Dot.Com bubble gave way to an equally insane housing bubble. I watched, and worried, as the initiative to deeply integrate the Canadian and American economies quietly progressed.
And yes I did speak out about this and I freely criticized the United States and the American people for acting as though they could actually defy gravity. Bear in mind that there were a great many Americans saying the same thing - a lot but just not enough.
And yes I criticized the Bush government at every turn. I criticized the juvenile Bush doctrine and a foreign policy that undermined global security and even fueled Islamist extremism. I criticized Bush for his illegal invasion of Iraq, a folly that, like so many stupid things he did, added more bricks to the backpack America carried until it could carry it no more.
And when we became ensnarled with a prime minister who actually admired the people and politics that were bringing America to the edge of collapse, I criticized the American government even more. It was a close thing. It was more than fate that kept the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives from coming to power with the majority they would have required to steer Canada down the Bush/Cheney/Howard path. It was a level of awareness, or unease that stopped Harper in his pro-Republican tracks.
The madness of America is only starting to be played out. The recession won't be like other downturns in which an otherwise sound economy bounces back. This recession has a millstone tied around its feet, a massive indebtedness that reaches through the federal, state and municipal governments; most of the corporate sector; and straight into American families. Losing your job is one thing but losing your job right when you're up to your alligators in debt with assets whose value is steadily dwindling is another matter altogether. It's enough to drive you mad.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Riding the Tiger
I've written about this before but Mike ("Rational Reasons") posted a link to this clip at Red Tory.
Canada is straddled atop the tiger that is the United States. We have no choice but to stay where we are because it's just too dangerous to get off.
Wonder what's coming? Check this out:
I love how the American narrative has shifted to evil "entitlement" programmes, a term that plainly implies unearned, undeserved charity. As this clip shows, American workers have done just fine by their Social Security system which, for decades, has been running a surplus (that was money the Boomers were putting in for their retirement). Instead of retaining and investing those "surpluses", the US government simply stole the money, took it into general revenue and used it to fund current expenses.
Now that they've stolen the blue and white-collar workers' contributions, Congress - Republican and Democrat alike - are pointing the finger at "entitlement" programmes, blaming the victims. This is just scandalous.
Canada is straddled atop the tiger that is the United States. We have no choice but to stay where we are because it's just too dangerous to get off.
Wonder what's coming? Check this out:
I love how the American narrative has shifted to evil "entitlement" programmes, a term that plainly implies unearned, undeserved charity. As this clip shows, American workers have done just fine by their Social Security system which, for decades, has been running a surplus (that was money the Boomers were putting in for their retirement). Instead of retaining and investing those "surpluses", the US government simply stole the money, took it into general revenue and used it to fund current expenses.
Now that they've stolen the blue and white-collar workers' contributions, Congress - Republican and Democrat alike - are pointing the finger at "entitlement" programmes, blaming the victims. This is just scandalous.
Dumbing Down
It's easy to blame television for "dumbing down" modern society. We blame the media because with the advent of guys like Geraldo Rivera, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and those of their kind, control of public airwaves has been used to skew information, distort reality and manipulate public opinion.
But our governments have played a major role in bringing about a lowering of public awareness and a coarsening of public debate. They did this by deciding to step back from regulating and supporting our news media.
There was a time, a couple of decades back, where we discussed issues such as concentration of media ownership and cross-ownership. We saw these as problems, genuine threats to democracy. Media outlets have the same monopolistic bent as other industries, perhaps even more so. As they expand their influence in various markets, they also expand their political clout exponentially. Politicians and media barons go hand in hand, each positioned to scratch the other's back. What does a politician care if there's only one media voice dominating a particular market so long as that voice echoes that politician's message?
Restricting concentration of ownership and cross-ownership benefits the public rather than the politician. It introduces new voices and encourages independent thought. It raises the essential level of debate and leaves the several owners of media outlets less beholden to political benefactors.
I expect we'll see movement on this problem, eventually, by the Obama camp. The FCC had a pretty rough time of it during the Bush years. I hope we'll also see the issue brought forward as a priority should the Harper government be unseated. We've been going the wrong way on this one for far, far too long.
But our governments have played a major role in bringing about a lowering of public awareness and a coarsening of public debate. They did this by deciding to step back from regulating and supporting our news media.
There was a time, a couple of decades back, where we discussed issues such as concentration of media ownership and cross-ownership. We saw these as problems, genuine threats to democracy. Media outlets have the same monopolistic bent as other industries, perhaps even more so. As they expand their influence in various markets, they also expand their political clout exponentially. Politicians and media barons go hand in hand, each positioned to scratch the other's back. What does a politician care if there's only one media voice dominating a particular market so long as that voice echoes that politician's message?
Restricting concentration of ownership and cross-ownership benefits the public rather than the politician. It introduces new voices and encourages independent thought. It raises the essential level of debate and leaves the several owners of media outlets less beholden to political benefactors.
I expect we'll see movement on this problem, eventually, by the Obama camp. The FCC had a pretty rough time of it during the Bush years. I hope we'll also see the issue brought forward as a priority should the Harper government be unseated. We've been going the wrong way on this one for far, far too long.
Oh Dear - California Craters
With the focus on Wall Street and the US federal government, the fiscal plight of individual states is understandably overlooked. Well, no longer. California, which if it were a country, would have the 7th largest economy in the world, is tapped.
The last time the state had money to pay its bills was July 17th, 2008. Since then it's been borrow, borrow, borrow until it can't borrow any more or, in layman's terms, today. McClatchey Newspapers reports California has gone through a mountain of borrowed money:
As in $21.5 billion worth of borrowed money, according to state Controller John Chiang: $16.5 billion borrowed from some of the state's 1,000-plus special funds, plus $5 billion in "revenue anticipation notes," which are basically money borrowed from private investors.
But, Chiang, whose office writes the state's checks, says California is about out of stopgap tricks to pay its bills and keep all its programs running.
The controller says California is down to Plan D on its checklist of paying bills. Its cash reserves are piddling; the special funds it borrows from are tapped out, and no one in the private sector is going to lend it any cash at a reasonable interest rate.
That leaves what in state government circles are called "payment deferrals" and what in real life is called "stiffing your creditors."
California contributes about 13% of the American economy. The fiscal health of the state (and it's also unmentioned municipalities) impacts on the entire nation. The trouble is that bailing out California (the Governator already asked Bush) is to open a door to the swarm of other states in the same predicament.
When you begin factoring in broke states and municipalities and heap them up on the pile of broke industries, federal government debt and homeowner debt, about the only thing that America has in abundance is debt.
I think the experts may be right. What's facing Obama now isn't a matter of liquidity, it's a full-blown, national insolvency. And, just to tweak your memory, our economy is lashed tightly to theirs.
Someone's Going to Flinch on Tuesday - Will It Be Harper or Ignatieff?
We know it's going to be big and we know it's going to be printed with red ink - and that's about all we know about the Conservatives' budget until the wraps come off on Tuesday.
There's been talk of a middle class tax cut which would be the most blatantly partisan ploy imaginable in a deficit budget. To the extent this sort of tax cut ever works, it depends on the beneficiaries identifying their windfall and then spending it - putting it into the economy. At a time when the country is just getting into a recession of a scope and duration nobody, I repeat nobody, can reliably forecast, the middle class won't be spending what they pocket from tax cuts. They'll be hording it either tucking it away or paying down debt from past spending.
If Harper goes for middle class tax cuts, he'll be running true to form in putting his own partisan interests ahead of the nation's. In that case, what choice would Iggy have but to pull the pin and defeat the government?
I think Harper is too clever by far to risk putting Ignatieff in a corner where he has no choice but to vote down the budget. He'll draft his budget with a general election in mind. Harper will want to build in provisions on which he could attack the Libs in an election.
Poor Harp, he of the far right branch of the conservative tree. A lot of Harper's base gags at the very mention of deficits. I spoke with a well-placed Tory insider recently and was shocked at the vitriol in his comments on Harper and deficit budgets. Harper is in a position where he has to override his base on a budget that could land him in an election and dependent on that base for his survival. It won't take many of them staying home on voting day to end Stephen Harper's political career.
Come Tuesday, somebody's going to flinch. If it's Ignatieff he risks being seen as just another feckless leader like Dion whose caucus was known to steer clear of Parliament on confidence votes they couldn't support. Iggy is still just interim leader. How he handles the budget on Tuesday could impact on his expected coronation. He too has issues with his base, both existing supporters and those voters he needs to attract to the party.
Can Harper serve up a budget Ignatieff can't refuse without looking weak, even frightened of the new Liberal leader? Can Ignatieff support a deficit budget that doesn't meet his stated demands?
The optics of this contest are fascinating. What a week this is going to be.
There's been talk of a middle class tax cut which would be the most blatantly partisan ploy imaginable in a deficit budget. To the extent this sort of tax cut ever works, it depends on the beneficiaries identifying their windfall and then spending it - putting it into the economy. At a time when the country is just getting into a recession of a scope and duration nobody, I repeat nobody, can reliably forecast, the middle class won't be spending what they pocket from tax cuts. They'll be hording it either tucking it away or paying down debt from past spending.
If Harper goes for middle class tax cuts, he'll be running true to form in putting his own partisan interests ahead of the nation's. In that case, what choice would Iggy have but to pull the pin and defeat the government?
I think Harper is too clever by far to risk putting Ignatieff in a corner where he has no choice but to vote down the budget. He'll draft his budget with a general election in mind. Harper will want to build in provisions on which he could attack the Libs in an election.
Poor Harp, he of the far right branch of the conservative tree. A lot of Harper's base gags at the very mention of deficits. I spoke with a well-placed Tory insider recently and was shocked at the vitriol in his comments on Harper and deficit budgets. Harper is in a position where he has to override his base on a budget that could land him in an election and dependent on that base for his survival. It won't take many of them staying home on voting day to end Stephen Harper's political career.
Come Tuesday, somebody's going to flinch. If it's Ignatieff he risks being seen as just another feckless leader like Dion whose caucus was known to steer clear of Parliament on confidence votes they couldn't support. Iggy is still just interim leader. How he handles the budget on Tuesday could impact on his expected coronation. He too has issues with his base, both existing supporters and those voters he needs to attract to the party.
Can Harper serve up a budget Ignatieff can't refuse without looking weak, even frightened of the new Liberal leader? Can Ignatieff support a deficit budget that doesn't meet his stated demands?
The optics of this contest are fascinating. What a week this is going to be.
Remember Those GST Cuts? Here's Your Bill and Have A Nice Day
When Stephen Harper comes calling with his "rescue" budget on Tuesday, he'll be handing you the bill for those GST cuts he gave you. That 2% sales tax break is going to be charged back to your account. Because of the size of the deficit, it's like Harper's taking all that money back - with interest from the date you began enjoying the savings, interest that will continue to accrue on the deficit until you pay that off too.
Who knows, maybe you're one of the few who really benefited from the tax cuts. Maybe you shaved a couple of points off a new car or, better yet, a brand new house. Or maybe, like the rest of us, you just got an almost unnoticeable lightening of your grocery bills. Be that as it may, that money is all being recalled through the levying of the deficit on our tax bills.
I am hardly opposing stimulus spending. There's really not much choice. I'm just miffed that Boss Harp fiddled with federal finances for his personal political advantage in the good times, leaving the cupboard bare when the tough times inevitably arrived.
Just keep in mind that the 2% GST cut Harper said he was giving you was just a gag, a cheap political stunt. Now give us that money back and don't forget a penny of interest either.
Who knows, maybe you're one of the few who really benefited from the tax cuts. Maybe you shaved a couple of points off a new car or, better yet, a brand new house. Or maybe, like the rest of us, you just got an almost unnoticeable lightening of your grocery bills. Be that as it may, that money is all being recalled through the levying of the deficit on our tax bills.
I am hardly opposing stimulus spending. There's really not much choice. I'm just miffed that Boss Harp fiddled with federal finances for his personal political advantage in the good times, leaving the cupboard bare when the tough times inevitably arrived.
Just keep in mind that the 2% GST cut Harper said he was giving you was just a gag, a cheap political stunt. Now give us that money back and don't forget a penny of interest either.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Older We Get
When I was a kid we were - there's no other word for it - racist. Our parents fed us this stuff and, there being no contrary voice raised, we pretty much bought.
We also believed it was worth an Armageddon-level nuke strike on Moscow to preserve our God-given right to something - oh yeah, now I.remember, our right to capitalism.
But, for all the Pat Boones, there were singers and writers who stayed with the tried and true - with the blues. They made unforgettable music - just like this by Joan Osbourne. (psss. up the bass, now)
And, if you liked that, I'm pretty sure you'll be swept away with this:
Do let me know if I'm wrong.
These clips are courtesy of a bunch of southern musicians who were carried north to work in factories, in particular the car plants in Detroit. They worked their musical way out of the factories slowly and almost under the radar.
Yet, when Motown evolved it needed a pop/blues "orchestra" that would write it's own music to the tune. That group of exceptional musicians became known as The Funk Brothers.
Time passes, memory fades. The Funk Brothers I knew and understood in the late 60's/early 70's were lost to us just a couple of years after they had really taken off. Once Motown became the music focus for Michael Jackson, any remaining hope of jazz and blues became one dark farce.
Only today are we recognizing the Funk Brothers. That's long overdue.
We also believed it was worth an Armageddon-level nuke strike on Moscow to preserve our God-given right to something - oh yeah, now I.remember, our right to capitalism.
But, for all the Pat Boones, there were singers and writers who stayed with the tried and true - with the blues. They made unforgettable music - just like this by Joan Osbourne. (psss. up the bass, now)
And, if you liked that, I'm pretty sure you'll be swept away with this:
Do let me know if I'm wrong.
These clips are courtesy of a bunch of southern musicians who were carried north to work in factories, in particular the car plants in Detroit. They worked their musical way out of the factories slowly and almost under the radar.
Yet, when Motown evolved it needed a pop/blues "orchestra" that would write it's own music to the tune. That group of exceptional musicians became known as The Funk Brothers.
Time passes, memory fades. The Funk Brothers I knew and understood in the late 60's/early 70's were lost to us just a couple of years after they had really taken off. Once Motown became the music focus for Michael Jackson, any remaining hope of jazz and blues became one dark farce.
Only today are we recognizing the Funk Brothers. That's long overdue.
Hey Boomers! "Shotgun" Ring Any Bells?
If you're a Boomer, you still haven't figured out what your kids, much less your grandkids, are listening to now.
Guess what? You're never gonna get it - just as our parents, thank God, didn't get it in our turn.
But that doesn't mean the succession has to deny us our own "stuff". Check out this from the recently departed Gerald Levert, "Shotgun". You'll need your Bass seriously pumped for this:
Yep, it's the Funk Brothers again
Guess what? You're never gonna get it - just as our parents, thank God, didn't get it in our turn.
But that doesn't mean the succession has to deny us our own "stuff". Check out this from the recently departed Gerald Levert, "Shotgun". You'll need your Bass seriously pumped for this:
Yep, it's the Funk Brothers again
Bootsy and Motown
Canadian as I am (from that part of Canada that fought for our freedom in 1812-14) I still grew up less than 10 miles, in a straight line, from Hitsville, USA, a rented house that grew to become Motown. Not the California Motown since the 80's, but the real Motown, the Detroit Motown, the "Motor City" town.
Here's one of my favourite hits performed by the great, Bootsy Collins
Yeah, Funk Brothers!
Sorry, but if this song doesn't get your frame hauling just a tad, call somebody straight away because - you're dead. And then, there's this:
And again, Funk Brothers
Bootsy collins.do you love me
Uploaded by zorore0
Here's one of my favourite hits performed by the great, Bootsy Collins
Yeah, Funk Brothers!
Sorry, but if this song doesn't get your frame hauling just a tad, call somebody straight away because - you're dead. And then, there's this:
And again, Funk Brothers
Bootsy collins.do you love me
Uploaded by zorore0
Champagne & Reefer
Does it really get much better than this?
They turned my life to Blues when I was 15 and I've been a Stones devotee ever since. You purists, I've heard it all before and thank you muchly for the same ole grind 40-years later but I'm sticking with these guys.
Scorcese's documentary "Shine A Light" is decent enough fare. I really believe he tried.
But there was one moment in the documentary when I think he really nailed it - when he recorded The Stones and Buddy Guy singing "Champagne & Reefer."
Now I must confess to having 38-Stones CDs (no "Goat's Head Soup" thank you anyway) and half a dozen Buddy Guy including the legendary "Lightning in a Bottle." But one of the greatest songs in Scorcese's documentary surely must remain "Champagne & Reefer"
Check it out for yourself
Damn It, I Just Don't Look Good in Sackcloth & Ashes
I fired up my two-wheeler Beemer today and sallied forth into the cold, cold Great Outdoors.
I don't own a Hummer or an SUV of any description, not even a big-ass 300-series pickup. When I drive at all it's a somewhat fuel-miserly 1999 VW that I nurse along with a light, fuel-saving foot.
My house is comfortably small, built with all the modern energy-saving technologies this side of solar panels. I'm waiting until they go up a bit in quality and come down a tad in price. I compost and I recycle and shy away from excessive packaging, I bulk shop and all that good stuff. I keep my house cool enough to hang meat and I just renovated with energy-efficient windows.
And yet I know that I'm an environmental sinner. I can't give up the bike or riding it whenever I can. It's how I holiday. A couple of years ago I rode out to see my elderly Dad in Ontario (I took the 401 out and explored far northern highways on the return trip - awesome). A year after that I rode down to Cabo san Lucas at the bottom tip of the Baja. I love to ride the Pacific coast roads through Oregon and Northern California.
I like to ride alone. There's a powerful serenity, a genuine inner peace, that comes from hours in the saddle wending one's way through back roads and, sometimes, marginal paths or no road at all. One's mind rests while it's simultaneously constantly alert. There's no place for daydreaming. That will only leave you heading for a ditch - or worse. Riding solo also affords an opportunity to restore one's acquaintance with self-reliance, something that's been nearly suffocated out of modern life.
I crashed my first motorcycle at the age of 15 and did in a few more in the years after that. I have seen the inside of the big white taxi cab with the flashing red lights. Somehow, after four decades, I figured out there's not much point in finding out how far a motorcycle will lean over or how fast it can go - until it doesn't. You can't stop doing those things but you can learn to stop doing them in time, before you reach the point of departure.
So, carbon footprint or no, I'm going to keep on sinning in the arms of the magnificent Gelande Strasse. I've given up flying for recreation. If I'm going to part with a dollar to Air Canada you had better be a relative, you had better be a close relative and you had better be dead. The bike stays.
When I was young, death was an issue. I made it through those years but a bunch of my contemporaries weren't so lucky. When I went down to the states for my undergrad it was even worse. Vietnam really made young people, at least American young people, aware of their mortality.
Then you make it through and hit 30. Once you've gotten through the reckless teens and casual 20's, you're pretty well positioned to slide through at least until you reach 50. And that's when the old mortality business returns with a vengeance.
Once you get to 50, your parents and those of their generation, begin to expire - in droves. But even worse, your own contemporaries are suddenly dying again just like they did when you were young and drunk and stupid. Your kind begin sliding away as a result of decades of hard living and bad habits. They get caught by weird diseases like dimentia. Some take their leave by their own hand. People are going but they're not having the kind of fun they used to have on the way out when you were young. And as you watch them depart this mortal coil, you wonder when your number is going to come up.
That's one of the reasons I ride today. I ride across Canada or into Mexico or just down to Santa Monica because I don't know if I will even be able to ride to any of those places in five years or ten years. I know that if I pass up these opportunities, these modest, even humble adventures, I may well be miserable for it when that day arrives that they're no longer an option open to me. Damn but I dread that day. I hope I'm able to throw a leg over a bike for another 30-years at least.
(photo - above, the mighty GS - Gelande Strasse. Below, my buddy, "Mike")
I don't own a Hummer or an SUV of any description, not even a big-ass 300-series pickup. When I drive at all it's a somewhat fuel-miserly 1999 VW that I nurse along with a light, fuel-saving foot.
My house is comfortably small, built with all the modern energy-saving technologies this side of solar panels. I'm waiting until they go up a bit in quality and come down a tad in price. I compost and I recycle and shy away from excessive packaging, I bulk shop and all that good stuff. I keep my house cool enough to hang meat and I just renovated with energy-efficient windows.
And yet I know that I'm an environmental sinner. I can't give up the bike or riding it whenever I can. It's how I holiday. A couple of years ago I rode out to see my elderly Dad in Ontario (I took the 401 out and explored far northern highways on the return trip - awesome). A year after that I rode down to Cabo san Lucas at the bottom tip of the Baja. I love to ride the Pacific coast roads through Oregon and Northern California.
I like to ride alone. There's a powerful serenity, a genuine inner peace, that comes from hours in the saddle wending one's way through back roads and, sometimes, marginal paths or no road at all. One's mind rests while it's simultaneously constantly alert. There's no place for daydreaming. That will only leave you heading for a ditch - or worse. Riding solo also affords an opportunity to restore one's acquaintance with self-reliance, something that's been nearly suffocated out of modern life.
I crashed my first motorcycle at the age of 15 and did in a few more in the years after that. I have seen the inside of the big white taxi cab with the flashing red lights. Somehow, after four decades, I figured out there's not much point in finding out how far a motorcycle will lean over or how fast it can go - until it doesn't. You can't stop doing those things but you can learn to stop doing them in time, before you reach the point of departure.
So, carbon footprint or no, I'm going to keep on sinning in the arms of the magnificent Gelande Strasse. I've given up flying for recreation. If I'm going to part with a dollar to Air Canada you had better be a relative, you had better be a close relative and you had better be dead. The bike stays.
When I was young, death was an issue. I made it through those years but a bunch of my contemporaries weren't so lucky. When I went down to the states for my undergrad it was even worse. Vietnam really made young people, at least American young people, aware of their mortality.
Then you make it through and hit 30. Once you've gotten through the reckless teens and casual 20's, you're pretty well positioned to slide through at least until you reach 50. And that's when the old mortality business returns with a vengeance.
Once you get to 50, your parents and those of their generation, begin to expire - in droves. But even worse, your own contemporaries are suddenly dying again just like they did when you were young and drunk and stupid. Your kind begin sliding away as a result of decades of hard living and bad habits. They get caught by weird diseases like dimentia. Some take their leave by their own hand. People are going but they're not having the kind of fun they used to have on the way out when you were young. And as you watch them depart this mortal coil, you wonder when your number is going to come up.
That's one of the reasons I ride today. I ride across Canada or into Mexico or just down to Santa Monica because I don't know if I will even be able to ride to any of those places in five years or ten years. I know that if I pass up these opportunities, these modest, even humble adventures, I may well be miserable for it when that day arrives that they're no longer an option open to me. Damn but I dread that day. I hope I'm able to throw a leg over a bike for another 30-years at least.
(photo - above, the mighty GS - Gelande Strasse. Below, my buddy, "Mike")
Britain's Economic Ice Age
It's something every Canadian kid understands. Sure the water feels cold when you gingerly put a toe in but it's not until that water reaches the equator that you fully grasp just how cold, cold can truly be.
Brits seem to be getting the idea that they're just beginning to get immersed in the cold water, that they're going to get in a lot deeper and that water is going to get a lot higher before they ever see dry land again.
Like their American counterparts, the Brits got a bad case of dormophrenia or house madness. By some accounts, Britain's housing bubble was almost twice as inflated as America's and, like America, Britain became insanely dependent on and, hence, vulnerable to its financial sector as its economic engine of prosperity. Today the pound sterling tumbled to $1.36 US, its lowest point in 23 years and no one knows where the bottom will be found.
The Brit newspaper The Independent says it's time the Brown government, and all Britons for that matter, came clean:
Yes, the downturn is global. But it was the failure of Mr Brown as Chancellor to curb the excesses of our financial services sector in the boom years that lies at the root of our particular troubles. The liabilities of our stricken banking sector are more than four times the size of our national output. That is why the value of the pound is slumping so dramatically on international currency exchanges.
Foreign investors increasingly doubt the ability of British taxpayers to meet those liabilities if called upon to do so. David Cameron's prediction that Britain could be forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help looks extreme, but certainly not impossible.
...But the true root of this crisis was not excessive Government spending; it was the stupid lending and irresponsible risk-taking of our hubristic banks.
Stupid lending. Irresponsible risk taking? Does that sound familiar? Even poor Ireland is again, well, poor. The Celtic Tiger revolution that saw the Irish economy become the most open and vibrant in the European Union is crashing down. One account this past week predicted that Irish real estate could drop up to 80% in value before this is over.
Does anyone remember when Stephen Harper used to ridicule Canada as a Northern European-style welfare state that was punished by higher taxes and lower growth causing a lower standard of living than our enlightened, adventuresome neighbours to the south? Compared to the United States and England, Canada looked downright backward to Steve.
Canada is indeed lucky. We were backward with our banks, our entire financial sector for that matter. Successive Liberal governments resisted the financial sector's demands for permission to have their own Mardi Gras north of the 49th. We're also lucky that we remained such lowly hewers of wood and drawers of water with a hefty resource base that has and will do much to insulate us from the worst of the travails facing our Anglo-Saxon cousins.
Brits seem to be getting the idea that they're just beginning to get immersed in the cold water, that they're going to get in a lot deeper and that water is going to get a lot higher before they ever see dry land again.
Like their American counterparts, the Brits got a bad case of dormophrenia or house madness. By some accounts, Britain's housing bubble was almost twice as inflated as America's and, like America, Britain became insanely dependent on and, hence, vulnerable to its financial sector as its economic engine of prosperity. Today the pound sterling tumbled to $1.36 US, its lowest point in 23 years and no one knows where the bottom will be found.
The Brit newspaper The Independent says it's time the Brown government, and all Britons for that matter, came clean:
Yes, the downturn is global. But it was the failure of Mr Brown as Chancellor to curb the excesses of our financial services sector in the boom years that lies at the root of our particular troubles. The liabilities of our stricken banking sector are more than four times the size of our national output. That is why the value of the pound is slumping so dramatically on international currency exchanges.
Foreign investors increasingly doubt the ability of British taxpayers to meet those liabilities if called upon to do so. David Cameron's prediction that Britain could be forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help looks extreme, but certainly not impossible.
...But the true root of this crisis was not excessive Government spending; it was the stupid lending and irresponsible risk-taking of our hubristic banks.
Stupid lending. Irresponsible risk taking? Does that sound familiar? Even poor Ireland is again, well, poor. The Celtic Tiger revolution that saw the Irish economy become the most open and vibrant in the European Union is crashing down. One account this past week predicted that Irish real estate could drop up to 80% in value before this is over.
Does anyone remember when Stephen Harper used to ridicule Canada as a Northern European-style welfare state that was punished by higher taxes and lower growth causing a lower standard of living than our enlightened, adventuresome neighbours to the south? Compared to the United States and England, Canada looked downright backward to Steve.
Canada is indeed lucky. We were backward with our banks, our entire financial sector for that matter. Successive Liberal governments resisted the financial sector's demands for permission to have their own Mardi Gras north of the 49th. We're also lucky that we remained such lowly hewers of wood and drawers of water with a hefty resource base that has and will do much to insulate us from the worst of the travails facing our Anglo-Saxon cousins.
Pope Re-Instates Holocaust Denier
Joe "The German" Ratzinger, who also goes by the stage name of Pope Benedict Ex Vee Eye or Benedict XVI, has nixed the excommunications of four unruly Catholic Bishops, one of whom said just last week that he doesn't believe the Nazis sent Jews to gas chambers.
Bad Boy Brit Bishop Richard Williamson, was one of four "shake and bake" Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X. They were turfed by the Vatican when society founder Archbishop LeFebvre consecrated the quartet as Bishops in 1970 without papal sanction.
Jewish groups have condemned the re-hirings. Hmmm, wonder what that's all about?
Bad Boy Brit Bishop Richard Williamson, was one of four "shake and bake" Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X. They were turfed by the Vatican when society founder Archbishop LeFebvre consecrated the quartet as Bishops in 1970 without papal sanction.
Jewish groups have condemned the re-hirings. Hmmm, wonder what that's all about?
America's Problem Isn't Liquidity - It's Insolvency
America's problem isn't finding a way to free up credit. It isn't the federal government's debt. The problem is that the country, and especially the private sector, is hopelessly debt-bound. The country is insolvent, it's broke, it's bankrupt.
Ed Kemp writing in Reuters makes a compelling argument that America's efforts to rescue the country through trillions of dollars of bailouts and stimulus spending can't work because those measures don't shrink what's squeezing the life out of America, the mountain of debt weighing down on its chest.
The United States and the United Kingdom stand on the brink of the largest debt crisis in history.
While both governments experiment with quantitative easing, bad banks to absorb non-performing loans, and state guarantees to restart bank lending, the only real way out is some combination of widespread corporate default, debt write-downs and inflation to reduce the burden of debt to more manageable levels. Everything else is window-dressing.
Kemp notes that America's fiscal house began falling apart around 1970. From 1975 to 2997, total US output, gross domestic product or GDP, has increased just under eight fold. In that same interval, however, rose 20 fold, two and a half times faster than the growth in GDP. In the result, total debt, public and private sector, soared from 155% of GDP to the astonishing 355% where it stands today.
...the real debt explosion has come from the private sector. Private debt outstanding has risen an enormous 22 times, three times faster than the economy as a whole, and fast enough to take the ratio of private debt to GDP from 117 percent to 303 percent in a little over thirty years.
For the most part, policymakers have been comfortable with rising private debt levels. Officials have cited a wide range of reasons why the economy can safely operate with much higher levels of debt than before, including improvements in macroeconomic management that have muted the business cycle and led to lower inflation and interest rates. But there is a suspicion that tolerance for private rather than public sector debt simply reflected an ideological preference.
...By 2000-2007, total debt was rising almost twice as fast as output, with the rapid issuance all coming from the private sector, as well as state and local governments.
This created a dangerous interdependence between GDP growth (which could only be sustained by massive borrowing and rapid increases in the volume of debt) and the debt stock (which could only be serviced if the economy continued its swift and uninterrupted expansion).
...the necessary condition for resolving the debt crisis is a reduction in the outstanding volume of debt, an increase in nominal GDP, or some combination of the two, to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to a more sustainable level.
...having governments buy distressed assets from the banks, or provide loan guarantees, is not an effective solution. It does not reduce the volume of debt, or force recognition of losses. It merely re-denominates private sector obligations to be met by households and firms as public ones to be met by the taxpayer.
This type of debt swap would make sense if the problem was liquidity rather than solvency. But in current circumstances, taxpayers are being asked to shoulder some or all of the cost of defaults, rather than provide a temporarily liquidity bridge.
Avoiding Depression
Trying to cut debt by reducing consumption and investment, lowering wages, boosting saving and paying down debt out of current income is unlikely to be effective either. The resulting retrenchment would lead to sharp falls in both real output and the price level, depressing nominal GDP. Government retrenchment simply intensified the depression during the early 1930s. Private sector retrenchment and wage cuts will do the same in the 2000s.
Shrinking the Real Beast
The solution must be some combination of policies to reduce the level of debt or raise nominal GDP. The simplest way to reduce debt is through bankruptcy, in which some or all of debts are deemed unrecoverable and are simply extinguished, ceasing to exist.
But widespread bankruptcies are probably socially and politically unacceptable. The alternative is some mechanism for refinancing debt on terms which are more favorable to borrowers (replacing short term debt at higher rates with longer-dated paper at lower ones).
The final option is to raise nominal GDP so it becomes easier to finance debt payments from augmented cashflow. But counter-cyclical policies to sustain GDP will not be enough. Governments in both the United States and the United Kingdom need to raise nominal GDP and debt-service capacity, not simply sustain it.
There is not much government can do to accelerate the real rate of growth. The remaining option is to tolerate, even encourage, a faster rate of inflation to improve debt-service capacity. Even more than debt nationalization, inflation is the ultimate way to spread the costs of debt workout across the widest possible section of the population.
Could Kemp possibly have this right? Are the governments, especially the American and British administrations, simply squandering trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulus spending?
If Kemp is right, America has a near lethal addiction to debt, one that its foreign lenders have been willing to keep supplied. One flaw in his thinking is that he's looking at solutions to clean up the mess that's accumulated since the Nixon days. What he doesn't address is what an America, freed of debt addiction, would look like. How is America to function, how are its people to live, if they have to operate on a reality budget, if they have to live within their means?
Suddenly Stevie Harper's grand vision of America the Beautiful doesn't look nearly as grand any longer.
http://www.alternet.org/story/122302/the_u.s._and_uk_are_on_the_brink_of_debt_disaster/?page=1
Friday, January 23, 2009
Most Canadians Support Deficit Spending
Nothing too surprising there. CanWest reports that 53% of Canadians believe the feds must run a deficit between 30 to 40-billion dollars to stimulate the economy. 41% are opposed to deficit spending by the Harper government.
Not surprisingly, opposition to budget deficits is highest in provinces where Harper's Conservatives gain much of their support - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
In other words, it looks like Steve is turning on his base. Jeebus that's gotta hurt, especially for a guy who's been such a meticulous practitioner of wedge politics.
Strangely enough, CanWest doesn't seem to have asked its pollster, Ipsos Reid to compile stats according to party affiliation.
Not surprisingly, opposition to budget deficits is highest in provinces where Harper's Conservatives gain much of their support - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
In other words, it looks like Steve is turning on his base. Jeebus that's gotta hurt, especially for a guy who's been such a meticulous practitioner of wedge politics.
Strangely enough, CanWest doesn't seem to have asked its pollster, Ipsos Reid to compile stats according to party affiliation.
How To Ditch a Jetliner
These two clips, courtesy of The Guardian, show US Airways 1549 coming down in New York's Hudson River. The first clip shows how gently the pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, set the plane down, slightly nose high, which probably explains how the aircraft was able to shed its engines without tearing off the wings and breaking up the fuselage in the process.
The second clip shows the aircraft afloat, drifting down river (rather quickly in fact) while the emergency exits are opened and the passengers escape out onto the wings. The crew wisely kept the rear exit doors closed which probably kept the aircraft from sinking and taking passengers down with it.
The
The second clip shows the aircraft afloat, drifting down river (rather quickly in fact) while the emergency exits are opened and the passengers escape out onto the wings. The crew wisely kept the rear exit doors closed which probably kept the aircraft from sinking and taking passengers down with it.
The
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Is The Era of Authoritarianism Coming to a Close?
Barack Obama's committment to transparency and accountability in government may call the curtain down on the era of authoritarianism and the oligarchs who thrived on it.
Stephen Harper promised Canadians transparency and accountability when that suited him but, once in power, quickly reneged and instead imposed a system of government as authoritarian, secretive and uncommunicative as any in postwar Canadian history.
Stephen Harper didn't govern Canada, he didn't lead the Canadian people. Stephen Harper ruled us. He rules the Canadian people just as he rules his caucus - with an iron hand and sealed lips. With the collaboration of a pitiful national media, he simply gagged critical government departments such as National Defence and the Environment Ministry. Our media sat by like complacent stooges as he installed political commissars in the Prime Minister's Office to clamp down on communications between citizen and government and to skew and politically filter what little information the public was able to get from its government. That's despotic, tyrannical and yet we sat by and allowed it to happen - allowed it to happen to us.
Transparency and accountability are fine - for those who would lead - but they're anathema to those who seek, instead, to rule. That's why Harper wasted no time ditching both promises. Information became something that flowed from the citizen to their government, not from the government to the public. That is what suits authoritarian rule. That is the guiding principle behind such odious legislation as America's Patriot Act. It's all about degrading individual freedoms and rights while expanding government powers and secrecy, all in the name of collective security.
Barack Obama has proclaimed the era of authoritarianism at an end in America. We should finally stand up and demand an end to it in our own country as well.
Stephen Harper promised Canadians transparency and accountability when that suited him but, once in power, quickly reneged and instead imposed a system of government as authoritarian, secretive and uncommunicative as any in postwar Canadian history.
Stephen Harper didn't govern Canada, he didn't lead the Canadian people. Stephen Harper ruled us. He rules the Canadian people just as he rules his caucus - with an iron hand and sealed lips. With the collaboration of a pitiful national media, he simply gagged critical government departments such as National Defence and the Environment Ministry. Our media sat by like complacent stooges as he installed political commissars in the Prime Minister's Office to clamp down on communications between citizen and government and to skew and politically filter what little information the public was able to get from its government. That's despotic, tyrannical and yet we sat by and allowed it to happen - allowed it to happen to us.
Transparency and accountability are fine - for those who would lead - but they're anathema to those who seek, instead, to rule. That's why Harper wasted no time ditching both promises. Information became something that flowed from the citizen to their government, not from the government to the public. That is what suits authoritarian rule. That is the guiding principle behind such odious legislation as America's Patriot Act. It's all about degrading individual freedoms and rights while expanding government powers and secrecy, all in the name of collective security.
Barack Obama has proclaimed the era of authoritarianism at an end in America. We should finally stand up and demand an end to it in our own country as well.
The West's Dying Forests
Along the West coast of North America from California to British Columbia, trees are dying faster, almost twice as fast as they did only three decades ago. It's a phenomenon that has wide-ranging implications for the region, its inhabitants and for the global environment. From The Guardian:
Trees in the western United States are dying twice as quickly as they did three decades ago and scientists think global warming is to blame.
In their surveys, ecologists found that a wide range of tree species were dying including pines, firs and hemlocks and at a variety of altitudes. The changes can have serious long-term effects including reducing biodiversity and turning western forests into a source of carbon dioxide as they die and decompose. That could lead to a runaway effect that speeds up climate change.
The forest survey, carried out by a team of scientists led by van Mantgem, is published tomorrow in the journal "Science." It showed that death rates of trees overall had more than doubled since 1955. In the Pacific north-west and British Columbia, deaths had doubled in 17 years. In California, the death rate took 25 years to double.
The data for the research was gathered by several generations of scientists counting trees over more than 50 years. It included forests in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and south-western British Columbia. All were older than 200 years, with many being established more than 500 years ago. Death rates in old forests tend to be more stable since they mostly contain very old trees.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/22/trees-death-global-warming
Porsche - Playing the Market in Wolfsburg
BBC News has a fascinating story about the legendary Porsche automaker and how it became a "a hedge fund with a carmaker attached."
It seems Ferdinand Porsche's namesake, known for its iconic sports cars, has been furiously playing the stock markets. Last year Porsche made six times more on the market than it did on its car business.
Why?
It's been playing the market to get enough money to achieve its life long dream of getting total ownership of Dr. Ferdinand's other brainchild, Volkswagen. Right now Porsche owns or controls nearly three quarters of the outstanding shares of VW.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7843262.stm
It seems Ferdinand Porsche's namesake, known for its iconic sports cars, has been furiously playing the stock markets. Last year Porsche made six times more on the market than it did on its car business.
Why?
It's been playing the market to get enough money to achieve its life long dream of getting total ownership of Dr. Ferdinand's other brainchild, Volkswagen. Right now Porsche owns or controls nearly three quarters of the outstanding shares of VW.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7843262.stm
At Least There'll Be Enough Porta-Potties
It's hardly the best way to recall the momentous day but, according to McClatchey Newspapers, Obama's inauguration day also turned out to be "the largest temporary toilet event in the history of the United States."
Most of the blue beacons were provided by Don's Johns of Chantilly, Virginia. According to McClatchey the johns didn't get nearly the workout planners had expected. Which is probably good news as it ensures there'll be plenty of surplus available for the 200,000 anti-abortion protestors who'll march on Washington today to demand that Obama move to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Observers (okay, just me) predict that a gang that large that thinks it has the slightest chance of getting that point across to Obama is so full of it they might just be able to fill the unused capacity of all those porta-potties.
Most of the blue beacons were provided by Don's Johns of Chantilly, Virginia. According to McClatchey the johns didn't get nearly the workout planners had expected. Which is probably good news as it ensures there'll be plenty of surplus available for the 200,000 anti-abortion protestors who'll march on Washington today to demand that Obama move to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Observers (okay, just me) predict that a gang that large that thinks it has the slightest chance of getting that point across to Obama is so full of it they might just be able to fill the unused capacity of all those porta-potties.
Gaza, Afghanistan & Iraq - The Same Old Story
What does Israel's failed war in Gaza have to do with the West's war in Afghanistan and the American misadventure in Iraq? All of these conflicts illustrate how readily overwhelming military superiority can be undermined by bad political leadership.
Not one of these wars had the critical political deliberation required before they were launched. That meant that only the simplest military objectives could be achieved - the immediate, tactical victories - while the meaningful objectives, the political and strategic purposes languished, obscure and ill-defined.
The old adage holds that war is simply an extension of politics when diplomacy fails. War is the application of state violence to achieve a political outcome. We can quibble over the fine points of these definitions but they're essentially true.
All other things being equal, good political leadership can win wars while bad political leadership can lose wars. We have more than two millenia of recorded history demonstrating that.
In Afghanistan, Washington's focus was on exacting revenge for the 9/11 attacks. The goal was to drive the Taliban out of power, to destroy al-Qaeda and to decapitate its leadership. The tactical part was easy. American air power was all that was needed to tip the scales in favour of the Northern Alliance warlords whose rout of the Taliban outpaced the Pentagon's ability to keep up. The strategic goals of destroying al-Qaeda and killing its leadership turned into a dismal and, by all accounts, needless failure.
The Afghan war ought to have been conclusively decided by 2003. Its Achilles' Heel was bad political leadership from the White House. Instead of winning the winnable victory in Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to shift military resources out of the Afghan theatre in preparation for a needless invasion and conquest of Iraq. Five years later, that fateful neglect continues to play out in the quagmire of today's Afghanistan with its corrupt government, flourishing drug trade and resurgent Taliban insurgency
The same bad political leadership that dropped the ball in Afghanistan perpetrated the disastrous, even negligent decision-making that turned into the Iraq debacle. On last night's Daily Show, the New York Times' David Sanger appeared promoting his book, The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power. Sanger's book is a 490-page inventory of the enormous mess Obama inherits resulting from the Bush/Cheney war of whim in Iraq. It details all the threats that were allowed to grow while America was stuck in and focused on Iraq.
The Iraq war suffered from such an enormous vacuum of political leadership that not one of the key, domestic problems that beset the new Iraqi state has been resolved. You have the Sadr/Mahdi versus Maliki/Badr Shiite struggle, the Shiite versus Sunni struggle, the Arab versus Kurd struggle and they're not going away by themselves.
Bad political leadership failed to foresee that both Shiite and Sunni would resist occupation, that Iraq wasn't ready for secular democracy, that Iran would be the real winner, that the Kurds wouldn't be complacent to American dictates, that the occupation would play straight into the hand of Islamist extremists including al-Qaeda. The US military was readily able to deliver a stunning tactical victory but was completely unprepared and ill-led to achieve a strategic win.
Look at it this way. The invasion launched a war to topple Saddam. That was supposed to be it. Saddam gone, American stooge government in. But the war to topple Saddam rapidly turned into a war against the Sunni resistance (Rumsfeld's "dead-enders") that morphed into a war against the Shiite militias and a Sunni/Shia civil war that evolved into a war against terrorists when al-Qaeda and other Islamists beganto arrive for the party. Not one of these follow-on wars was foreseen by the political leadership and that's how what was to have been a 60-day conquest has turned into a 6-year disaster.
That war needed to be over by 2004 at the latest but that would have meant flooding Iraq with enough troops to stabilize the country for a handover to a viable central government.
Then we have the Gaza war led by that incompetent author of the Lebanon disaster, Ehud Olmert. Bad political leadership ensured that Israel had lost that war before the first tank rolled into the Gaza Strip.
The tactical victory was easy. Israeli troops, backed by artillery, tanks, attack helicopters and jet fighters, suffered extremely light casualties as they drove through Gaza pretty much at will. The problem was once they achieved the tactical objective, they had no strategic objective they could accomplish unless Hamas, its entire leadership and all of its fighters had been willing to make a suicide charge into the Israeli guns. And so, with the new guy showing up for work in Washington, the Israeli forces had no choice but to di di mau out of Gaza.
What did Israel accomplish from this folly? Sweet Fanny Adams, that's what. It undermined its Palestinian ally, Abbas and Fatah. It drew international sympathy to the suffering and hopeless plight of the Gazan Palestinians. It probably handed a dandy political victory to Hamas and certainly left it in control of Gaza.
If there is a lesson to this it's that we in the West can no longer afford this incompetence from our political leadership. No more unwinnable wars. No more wars on the cheap because quick & dirty doesn't work. We need to understand that even successful military campaigns can trigger blowback but when we wage unsuccessful wars that's a certainty.
Not one of these wars had the critical political deliberation required before they were launched. That meant that only the simplest military objectives could be achieved - the immediate, tactical victories - while the meaningful objectives, the political and strategic purposes languished, obscure and ill-defined.
The old adage holds that war is simply an extension of politics when diplomacy fails. War is the application of state violence to achieve a political outcome. We can quibble over the fine points of these definitions but they're essentially true.
All other things being equal, good political leadership can win wars while bad political leadership can lose wars. We have more than two millenia of recorded history demonstrating that.
In Afghanistan, Washington's focus was on exacting revenge for the 9/11 attacks. The goal was to drive the Taliban out of power, to destroy al-Qaeda and to decapitate its leadership. The tactical part was easy. American air power was all that was needed to tip the scales in favour of the Northern Alliance warlords whose rout of the Taliban outpaced the Pentagon's ability to keep up. The strategic goals of destroying al-Qaeda and killing its leadership turned into a dismal and, by all accounts, needless failure.
The Afghan war ought to have been conclusively decided by 2003. Its Achilles' Heel was bad political leadership from the White House. Instead of winning the winnable victory in Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to shift military resources out of the Afghan theatre in preparation for a needless invasion and conquest of Iraq. Five years later, that fateful neglect continues to play out in the quagmire of today's Afghanistan with its corrupt government, flourishing drug trade and resurgent Taliban insurgency
The same bad political leadership that dropped the ball in Afghanistan perpetrated the disastrous, even negligent decision-making that turned into the Iraq debacle. On last night's Daily Show, the New York Times' David Sanger appeared promoting his book, The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power. Sanger's book is a 490-page inventory of the enormous mess Obama inherits resulting from the Bush/Cheney war of whim in Iraq. It details all the threats that were allowed to grow while America was stuck in and focused on Iraq.
The Iraq war suffered from such an enormous vacuum of political leadership that not one of the key, domestic problems that beset the new Iraqi state has been resolved. You have the Sadr/Mahdi versus Maliki/Badr Shiite struggle, the Shiite versus Sunni struggle, the Arab versus Kurd struggle and they're not going away by themselves.
Bad political leadership failed to foresee that both Shiite and Sunni would resist occupation, that Iraq wasn't ready for secular democracy, that Iran would be the real winner, that the Kurds wouldn't be complacent to American dictates, that the occupation would play straight into the hand of Islamist extremists including al-Qaeda. The US military was readily able to deliver a stunning tactical victory but was completely unprepared and ill-led to achieve a strategic win.
Look at it this way. The invasion launched a war to topple Saddam. That was supposed to be it. Saddam gone, American stooge government in. But the war to topple Saddam rapidly turned into a war against the Sunni resistance (Rumsfeld's "dead-enders") that morphed into a war against the Shiite militias and a Sunni/Shia civil war that evolved into a war against terrorists when al-Qaeda and other Islamists beganto arrive for the party. Not one of these follow-on wars was foreseen by the political leadership and that's how what was to have been a 60-day conquest has turned into a 6-year disaster.
That war needed to be over by 2004 at the latest but that would have meant flooding Iraq with enough troops to stabilize the country for a handover to a viable central government.
Then we have the Gaza war led by that incompetent author of the Lebanon disaster, Ehud Olmert. Bad political leadership ensured that Israel had lost that war before the first tank rolled into the Gaza Strip.
The tactical victory was easy. Israeli troops, backed by artillery, tanks, attack helicopters and jet fighters, suffered extremely light casualties as they drove through Gaza pretty much at will. The problem was once they achieved the tactical objective, they had no strategic objective they could accomplish unless Hamas, its entire leadership and all of its fighters had been willing to make a suicide charge into the Israeli guns. And so, with the new guy showing up for work in Washington, the Israeli forces had no choice but to di di mau out of Gaza.
What did Israel accomplish from this folly? Sweet Fanny Adams, that's what. It undermined its Palestinian ally, Abbas and Fatah. It drew international sympathy to the suffering and hopeless plight of the Gazan Palestinians. It probably handed a dandy political victory to Hamas and certainly left it in control of Gaza.
If there is a lesson to this it's that we in the West can no longer afford this incompetence from our political leadership. No more unwinnable wars. No more wars on the cheap because quick & dirty doesn't work. We need to understand that even successful military campaigns can trigger blowback but when we wage unsuccessful wars that's a certainty.
The Bar Has Definitely Been Raised
Poor Stephen Harper and, to a lesser extent, poor Iggy. Both must be feeling a bit like the sap who shows up in a pirate costume only to find it's actually a black tie affair.
The pirate costume is the mantle of the Bush administration. The black tie outfit is the new reality, the Obama administration. Folks who once backed the invasion of Iraq are laying low right now. Gitmo and enhanced interrogation techniques are so yesterday. The bar that the Frat Boy set easy low for the limbo party is no more. It's now a high jump bar again so everybody better ditch the Hawaiian shirts and put on their track shoes.
Poor Stevie Harper. He so wanted to bring the Reagan Revolution to his native land, hit us with it right between the eyes before we could do anything about it. But all that hinged on somebody keeping that dark farce playing to packed crowds in the theatre halls of Pennsylvania Avenue. Whoopsie!
A bit of Steve must've died as he watched his American Idol hop the last chopper out of the White House before the mob arrived with the pitchforks and torches. I'll bet in his pointy little mind he had an image of the Gipper weeping.
The era of rank ideology evaporated overnight. Sorry Steve. When it comes to mental flexibility, Steve has chronic osteoporosis of the brain. His brittle little mind is on rails, tightly tied down, not a hair out of place. He truly doesn't have a B Game at the very moment when that's the only game in town. Jim Travers offers these insights in today's Toronto Star:
Whatever Harper was doing up here, Bush was doing more of it down there. While the Prime Minister, like his Liberal predecessors, was trying to ignore the human and legal rights of one Canadian that were being denied at Guantanamo Bay, the president was keenly defending and justifying the U.S. abuse of hundreds of prisoners. Canadian opposition to the Afghanistan mission was a mere peep compared to the screams against the war in Iraq.
When only a few academics and journalists here worried about eroding democracy and the concentration of control in the Prime Minister's Office, a U.S. public debate was roiling over the Bush administration's determination to remove constitutional checks, tipping the balance of power in the president's favour.
For a federal government with a more or less parallel U.S. agenda, political cover that broad is priceless. Among other things, it reinforces the me-too logic of economic, social and foreign policies arcing across the spectrum; from the lethal combo of low taxes and high spending to climate change foot-dragging and big-stick solutions to problems begging more subtle answer.
Much of what the new president told America in his sobering inaugural address resonates with similar urgency in Canada. Fear is no excuse for injustice, greed can't be a synonym for free markets, and dumping the planet's problems on the next generation is not an acceptable option.
Obama is a phenomenon – a seductive mix of upright character, soaring intellect and stirring rhetoric – that Canadian leaders can't and shouldn't try to duplicate. They can, and should, rise to his challenge of restoring principles to policies and to politics.
How We Lost Afghanistan
We lost Afghanistan? Yeah, that's right. We lost Afghanistan because we chose to lose, or at least Washington chose to lose it.
We lost Afghanistan in 2002 when no one could be bothered to send Western troops into Tora Bora to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership. We, or at least Washington, cemented the loss in 2003 when it chose to deploy the massive American military force needed in Afghanistan to Iraq instead.
The New York Times has an enlightening explanation for the resurgence of the Taliban:
The Taliban are everywhere the soldiers are not, the saying goes in the southern part of the country.
And that is a lot of places.
For starters, there is the 550 miles of border with Pakistan, where the Taliban’s busiest infiltration routes lie.
“We’re not there,” said Brig. Gen. John W. Nicholson, the deputy commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. “The borders are wide open.”
Then there is the 100-mile stretch of Helmand River running south from the town of Garmser, where the Taliban and their money crop, poppy, bloom in isolation.
“No one,” General Nicholson said, pointing to the area on the map.
Then there is Nimroz Province, all of it, which borders Iran. No troops there.
And the Ghorak district northwest of Kandahar, which officers refer to as the “jet stream” for the Taliban fighters who flow through.
Ditto the districts of Shah Wali Kot, Kharkrez and Nesh, where the presence of NATO troops is minimal or nil.
“We don’t have enough forces to secure the population,” General Nicholson said.
A force of about 20,000 American, British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers have been trying for years to secure the 78,000 square miles of villages, cities, mountains and deserts that make up southern Afghanistan. The region is one of the two centers of the Taliban insurgency, which has made a remarkable resurgence since being booted from power in November 2001.
It is perhaps in Kandahar, one of the provincial capitals, where the lack of troops is most evident. About 3,000 Canadian soldiers are assigned to secure the city [the entire province in fact], home to about 500,000 people [actual population 890,000]. In a recent visit, this reporter traveled the city for five days and did not see a single Canadian soldier on the streets.
The lack of troops has allowed the Taliban to mount significant attacks inside the city. Two clerics who joined a pro-government advisory council, for instance, have been gunned down in the past two months, bringing the total assassinated council members to 24. Over the summer, a Taliban force invaded Kandahar and stormed its main prison, freeing more than 1,200 inmates.
But whether extra troops will have the desired impact is unclear. Adding 20,000 new troops to the 20,000 Western soldiers already here — in addition to an equal number of Afghan policemen and army personnel — would bring the total to 60,000. The six provinces that make up southern Afghanistan have a population of 3.2 million. In that case, the ratio of troops to population would just match that [minimum] recommended by the United States Army's counterinsurgency manual: 50 people per soldier or police officer.
Where this article is right is that Western forces are not remotely strong enough to secure the Afghan people against the Taliban. Beyond that, it's wrong in several respects.
The article implies that, at this late stage, another 20-30,000 troops will rectify the rot that's set in over the past seven years. That's nonsense. The Taliban are astonishingly resilient and their insurgency has morphed to incorporate new players (everything from once hostile warlords to student nationalists) and spread far beyond the traditional southern homeland of the Pashtun Taliban into eastern and northern provinces. More troops will not defeat the dual scourge of warlordism and tribalism nor will they cleanse the central government and its security services of the rampant corruption that predates lowly Afghans and drives them into the arms of the insurgents.
In other words, an extra 20-30,000 troops represents a bandaid solution that does nothing to staunch the other mortal wounds from which Afghanistan is bleeding out. It is, at best, a military response to a conflict we freely and regularly admit cannot be won militarily.
Petraeus knows that the Afghan conflict is a political war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. More soldiers won't win back their essential support for the Kabul government. When a critical mass of the populace sees their central government and its Western defenders, not as liberators, but as occupiers and oppressors, a few tens of thousands of extra troops aren't much of an answer.
We lost Afghanistan in 2002 when no one could be bothered to send Western troops into Tora Bora to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership. We, or at least Washington, cemented the loss in 2003 when it chose to deploy the massive American military force needed in Afghanistan to Iraq instead.
The New York Times has an enlightening explanation for the resurgence of the Taliban:
The Taliban are everywhere the soldiers are not, the saying goes in the southern part of the country.
And that is a lot of places.
For starters, there is the 550 miles of border with Pakistan, where the Taliban’s busiest infiltration routes lie.
“We’re not there,” said Brig. Gen. John W. Nicholson, the deputy commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. “The borders are wide open.”
Then there is the 100-mile stretch of Helmand River running south from the town of Garmser, where the Taliban and their money crop, poppy, bloom in isolation.
“No one,” General Nicholson said, pointing to the area on the map.
Then there is Nimroz Province, all of it, which borders Iran. No troops there.
And the Ghorak district northwest of Kandahar, which officers refer to as the “jet stream” for the Taliban fighters who flow through.
Ditto the districts of Shah Wali Kot, Kharkrez and Nesh, where the presence of NATO troops is minimal or nil.
“We don’t have enough forces to secure the population,” General Nicholson said.
A force of about 20,000 American, British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers have been trying for years to secure the 78,000 square miles of villages, cities, mountains and deserts that make up southern Afghanistan. The region is one of the two centers of the Taliban insurgency, which has made a remarkable resurgence since being booted from power in November 2001.
It is perhaps in Kandahar, one of the provincial capitals, where the lack of troops is most evident. About 3,000 Canadian soldiers are assigned to secure the city [the entire province in fact], home to about 500,000 people [actual population 890,000]. In a recent visit, this reporter traveled the city for five days and did not see a single Canadian soldier on the streets.
The lack of troops has allowed the Taliban to mount significant attacks inside the city. Two clerics who joined a pro-government advisory council, for instance, have been gunned down in the past two months, bringing the total assassinated council members to 24. Over the summer, a Taliban force invaded Kandahar and stormed its main prison, freeing more than 1,200 inmates.
But whether extra troops will have the desired impact is unclear. Adding 20,000 new troops to the 20,000 Western soldiers already here — in addition to an equal number of Afghan policemen and army personnel — would bring the total to 60,000. The six provinces that make up southern Afghanistan have a population of 3.2 million. In that case, the ratio of troops to population would just match that [minimum] recommended by the United States Army's counterinsurgency manual: 50 people per soldier or police officer.
Where this article is right is that Western forces are not remotely strong enough to secure the Afghan people against the Taliban. Beyond that, it's wrong in several respects.
The article implies that, at this late stage, another 20-30,000 troops will rectify the rot that's set in over the past seven years. That's nonsense. The Taliban are astonishingly resilient and their insurgency has morphed to incorporate new players (everything from once hostile warlords to student nationalists) and spread far beyond the traditional southern homeland of the Pashtun Taliban into eastern and northern provinces. More troops will not defeat the dual scourge of warlordism and tribalism nor will they cleanse the central government and its security services of the rampant corruption that predates lowly Afghans and drives them into the arms of the insurgents.
In other words, an extra 20-30,000 troops represents a bandaid solution that does nothing to staunch the other mortal wounds from which Afghanistan is bleeding out. It is, at best, a military response to a conflict we freely and regularly admit cannot be won militarily.
Petraeus knows that the Afghan conflict is a political war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. More soldiers won't win back their essential support for the Kabul government. When a critical mass of the populace sees their central government and its Western defenders, not as liberators, but as occupiers and oppressors, a few tens of thousands of extra troops aren't much of an answer.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Steve Bell's Parting Shot
One guy who's gotten a lot of mileage out of the Bush years is The Guardian editorial cartoonist Steve Bell. Here's Steve's farewell to Bush and his Dick.
Obama Might Have Palestine Figured Out
Hamas won't like it. Israel won't like it. That sure sounds like a way forward to me.
A rough idea of President Obama's initiative for peace in Palestine is emerging. The thrust of it seems to be to isolate Hamas in Gaza for now, clear the West Bank as a Palestinian homeland, create a vibrant economy and society in the West Bank and wait for the Gazans to sign on to a winning deal.
It will probably entail concessions from Israel, in particular clearing out all illegal settlements in the West Bank. The settler population is now estimated at upwards of 430,000, 40% of which arrived during the Bush Jr. administration
That will probably give the Israelis fits but, if there's to be any hope of lasting peace, that's pretty much unavoidable. Many Israeli papers have not warmly greeted the Obama inauguration. They seem to be getting the idea that the carte blanche thing is rapidly coming to a close.
Obama will have to tread carefully to resolve the Fatah-Hamas split. While Hamas was weakened by the Gaza war, many think Fatah suffered the greatest loss of Palestinian support. That may just create an opening for a genuine, national unity government for the Palestinian people.
A rough idea of President Obama's initiative for peace in Palestine is emerging. The thrust of it seems to be to isolate Hamas in Gaza for now, clear the West Bank as a Palestinian homeland, create a vibrant economy and society in the West Bank and wait for the Gazans to sign on to a winning deal.
It will probably entail concessions from Israel, in particular clearing out all illegal settlements in the West Bank. The settler population is now estimated at upwards of 430,000, 40% of which arrived during the Bush Jr. administration
That will probably give the Israelis fits but, if there's to be any hope of lasting peace, that's pretty much unavoidable. Many Israeli papers have not warmly greeted the Obama inauguration. They seem to be getting the idea that the carte blanche thing is rapidly coming to a close.
Obama will have to tread carefully to resolve the Fatah-Hamas split. While Hamas was weakened by the Gaza war, many think Fatah suffered the greatest loss of Palestinian support. That may just create an opening for a genuine, national unity government for the Palestinian people.
Harper, Looking More Than Foolish, "Reconsiders" Khadr.
Apparently realizing just how incredibly stupid they look, the Harper government is pulling its thumb out and taking a close look at the Tory political liability also known as Omar Khadr.
Apparently awakened by the dawn of a new day in Washington, Harper DefMin Peter McKay says the government is "reassessing" its position on Khadr, the child soldier who continues to be held in Guantanimo.
From The Globe and Mail:
Ottawa appears to be hedging its bets, preparing for a possible request from Washington to take Mr. Khadr back. The issue the Conservative government has wished for so long to avoid may well end up surfacing during the first meeting between Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Canada's Incredibly Sheepish New Government looks like it's waiting for Obama to tell it to jump and to clarify just how high that jump should be. Funny how the Ottawa John Wayne gang turned into cloned Urkels with the arrival of the Democratic president. Kind of makes you think they were Washington stooges all along, doesn't it?
Apparently awakened by the dawn of a new day in Washington, Harper DefMin Peter McKay says the government is "reassessing" its position on Khadr, the child soldier who continues to be held in Guantanimo.
From The Globe and Mail:
Ottawa appears to be hedging its bets, preparing for a possible request from Washington to take Mr. Khadr back. The issue the Conservative government has wished for so long to avoid may well end up surfacing during the first meeting between Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Canada's Incredibly Sheepish New Government looks like it's waiting for Obama to tell it to jump and to clarify just how high that jump should be. Funny how the Ottawa John Wayne gang turned into cloned Urkels with the arrival of the Democratic president. Kind of makes you think they were Washington stooges all along, doesn't it?
Khadr's lawyer is optimistic that Obama will end the military tribunal proceedings against his client. "I cannot believe that the Obama administration really wants its legacy to be that the first thing it did was put on trial a child soldier," said Lieutenant-Commander Bill Kuebler.
(Photo caption - Peter McKay demonstrates new cost-cutting, no pants uniforms for Canadian Forces )
Obama Introduces Transparent, Accountable Government - Same Thing Once Promised by Harper
Remember when Stevie Harper pulled our leg by promising us transparent, accountable government? Instead he pulled a shroud over the federal government, gagged sensitive departments including National Defence and the Environment Ministry, appointed political commissars to the Prime Minister's Office to filter and skew information Canadians could get and threw an iron-fisted veil of secrecy over his administration.
Barack Obama promised the American people transparent, accountable government. It took him precisely one day to deliver. From The New York Times:
Every governmental agency or department should know, Mr. Obama said, that his administration stands not “on the side of those who want to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.”
Some of the changes he discussed will be made through executive order, and others by changes in regulations.
In his first day in office, Obama plainly hit the floor running. It's safe to say he achieved more governance before dinner time in Washington today than Harper has managed in nearly three years. Reminds me of one of my favourite passages from Shakespeare:
"Yea, there thou makest me sad and makest me sin in envy that my Lord Northumberland should be the father to so blest a son; a son who is the theme of honour's tongue; Amongst a grove the very straightest plant, who is sweet Fortune's minion and her pride; whilst I, by looking on the praise of him see riot and dishonour stain the brow of my young Harry."
-Henry IV, Part I.
Sorry, Steve, I couldn't resist.
Barack Obama promised the American people transparent, accountable government. It took him precisely one day to deliver. From The New York Times:
Every governmental agency or department should know, Mr. Obama said, that his administration stands not “on the side of those who want to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.”
Some of the changes he discussed will be made through executive order, and others by changes in regulations.
In his first day in office, Obama plainly hit the floor running. It's safe to say he achieved more governance before dinner time in Washington today than Harper has managed in nearly three years. Reminds me of one of my favourite passages from Shakespeare:
"Yea, there thou makest me sad and makest me sin in envy that my Lord Northumberland should be the father to so blest a son; a son who is the theme of honour's tongue; Amongst a grove the very straightest plant, who is sweet Fortune's minion and her pride; whilst I, by looking on the praise of him see riot and dishonour stain the brow of my young Harry."
-Henry IV, Part I.
Sorry, Steve, I couldn't resist.
Wait A Minute. Gaza Spurred Gas Price Hike?
After 60 Minutes exposed how Wall Street gamed gas prices using practices similar to those employed by Enron to game electricity prices in California, the myth of market-based prices went out the window.
Now with world oil prices in the cellar, many Canadians are wondering why pump prices have shot up twenty cents a litre or more, from the mid 70s as recently as two weeks ago to the high 90s today.
According to Montreal newspaper The Gazette, the latest price spike was caused by - the Israeli invasion of Gaza:
For the Montreal region, the realistic price yesterday was 86.4 cents a litre for regular unleaded fuel.
On Jan. 6, prices surged by up to 15 cents a litre during the crisis in Gaza. Those prices peaked at 84.5 cents a litre before dropping down to the 76 to 77 cent range we were enjoying this past weekend.
What? Did they think that the Palestinians were going to set fire to their non-existant oil fields, a la Saddam? Did they think the Israeli army was going to call up reservists from Israeli oil fields?
It's about time that oil speculators got a well-deserved smackdown. It's one thing when oil fields or refineries are jeopardized but the Gaza crisis was a gossamer-thin pretext for price gouging.
Now with world oil prices in the cellar, many Canadians are wondering why pump prices have shot up twenty cents a litre or more, from the mid 70s as recently as two weeks ago to the high 90s today.
According to Montreal newspaper The Gazette, the latest price spike was caused by - the Israeli invasion of Gaza:
For the Montreal region, the realistic price yesterday was 86.4 cents a litre for regular unleaded fuel.
On Jan. 6, prices surged by up to 15 cents a litre during the crisis in Gaza. Those prices peaked at 84.5 cents a litre before dropping down to the 76 to 77 cent range we were enjoying this past weekend.
What? Did they think that the Palestinians were going to set fire to their non-existant oil fields, a la Saddam? Did they think the Israeli army was going to call up reservists from Israeli oil fields?
It's about time that oil speculators got a well-deserved smackdown. It's one thing when oil fields or refineries are jeopardized but the Gaza crisis was a gossamer-thin pretext for price gouging.
Clear-Headed Thinking on Infrastructure
The Brookings Institute has published an op-ed piece, Memo to the President: Invest in Long-Term Prosperity, that offers some sage advice (to president Obama) on infrastructure investment, tips that would make good reading for Ottawa too:
Given your economic recovery platform, with action on education, energy and related topics, your administration has the opportunity to get the infrastructure investment right. This is critical because:
Roads, transit, rail and ports speed the movement of goods and people within and across markets, facilitating greater business investment, enhancing agglomeration economies, promoting labor-market flexibility and opening new domestic and international markets.
Improved infrastructure will assure a reliable energy supply, allowing firms to reduce operating costs, make sound long-term decisions and take full advantage of other infrastructure investments.
Investments in infrastructure can support sustainable growth by reducing traffic congestion, linking transit to dense residential and employment nodes or supporting clean-fuel technologies.
Major infrastructure projects of the past—such as the interstate highway system in the 1950s—were associated with steep increases in productivity. This productivity has receded in recent decades as investments have lost direction and failed to focus on key areas. Without a national strategy for infrastructure, we are not experiencing the economic benefits of transformational programs like the interstates, the social benefits of iconic programs like rural electrification, or the sustainability benefits of air and water pollution control programs of the 1970s and 1980s.
In the absence of a unified strategy, special interest and congressional politics spread funding around the country like peanut butter on a slice of bread, with no effort to advance national priorities or use cost-benefit analysis to optimize our investments.
To achieve such goals as job creation and a green economy—and the even broader aims of productive, inclusive and sustainable growth—we need to reform as we invest. Getting it done right is more important than getting it done fast.
In the short term, you should ensure that infrastructure reform is part of the agenda, improve the White House policy structure on infrastructure issues and develop a national infrastructure bank. In the intermediate term, you should articulate a bold national vision on infrastructure, empower state and local governments and commit to evidence-based decisions.
Emphasize Infrastructure Reform: A crucial first step is to restrict substantial funding from the recovery package to investments that:
secure and rebuild the system
help transition to a clean, efficient, energy-independent future
give some direct funding to metro areas, not just states and
create millions of green jobs.
Establish a National Infrastructure Bank:
Permanent and independent, this bank would provide financial assistance for innovative infrastructure projects of true national significance, acting where national uniformity is needed or the scale and geographic reach of a problem requires national attention. It would give priority to public-private partnerships that stimulate market-led advances in energy efficiency and transit-oriented development.
Bank-funded projects might unblock major ports and gateways, develop a smart electric grid, modernize air traffic control, upgrade rural telecommunications and broadband networks, and improve and expand intercity passenger rail. Small-scale or local projects should be funded through an enhanced Community Development block grant program.
While America's situations and her needs naturally differ from Canada's there's enough commonality of interest and benefit to make this report relevant to Ottawa. Whether it's Harper or an Ignatieff-led coalition, getting the infrastructure programme done right is indeed more important than getting it implemented quickly. It's also critical for Canada to ensure that the money path is tightly focused with full emphasis placed on restricting funding to projects that have the highest prospect of return to the economy in the future.
Read the entire report here:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0112_prosperity_memo.aspx?emc=lm&m=221447&l=49&v=988309
Given your economic recovery platform, with action on education, energy and related topics, your administration has the opportunity to get the infrastructure investment right. This is critical because:
Roads, transit, rail and ports speed the movement of goods and people within and across markets, facilitating greater business investment, enhancing agglomeration economies, promoting labor-market flexibility and opening new domestic and international markets.
Improved infrastructure will assure a reliable energy supply, allowing firms to reduce operating costs, make sound long-term decisions and take full advantage of other infrastructure investments.
Investments in infrastructure can support sustainable growth by reducing traffic congestion, linking transit to dense residential and employment nodes or supporting clean-fuel technologies.
Major infrastructure projects of the past—such as the interstate highway system in the 1950s—were associated with steep increases in productivity. This productivity has receded in recent decades as investments have lost direction and failed to focus on key areas. Without a national strategy for infrastructure, we are not experiencing the economic benefits of transformational programs like the interstates, the social benefits of iconic programs like rural electrification, or the sustainability benefits of air and water pollution control programs of the 1970s and 1980s.
In the absence of a unified strategy, special interest and congressional politics spread funding around the country like peanut butter on a slice of bread, with no effort to advance national priorities or use cost-benefit analysis to optimize our investments.
To achieve such goals as job creation and a green economy—and the even broader aims of productive, inclusive and sustainable growth—we need to reform as we invest. Getting it done right is more important than getting it done fast.
In the short term, you should ensure that infrastructure reform is part of the agenda, improve the White House policy structure on infrastructure issues and develop a national infrastructure bank. In the intermediate term, you should articulate a bold national vision on infrastructure, empower state and local governments and commit to evidence-based decisions.
Emphasize Infrastructure Reform: A crucial first step is to restrict substantial funding from the recovery package to investments that:
secure and rebuild the system
help transition to a clean, efficient, energy-independent future
give some direct funding to metro areas, not just states and
create millions of green jobs.
Establish a National Infrastructure Bank:
Permanent and independent, this bank would provide financial assistance for innovative infrastructure projects of true national significance, acting where national uniformity is needed or the scale and geographic reach of a problem requires national attention. It would give priority to public-private partnerships that stimulate market-led advances in energy efficiency and transit-oriented development.
Bank-funded projects might unblock major ports and gateways, develop a smart electric grid, modernize air traffic control, upgrade rural telecommunications and broadband networks, and improve and expand intercity passenger rail. Small-scale or local projects should be funded through an enhanced Community Development block grant program.
While America's situations and her needs naturally differ from Canada's there's enough commonality of interest and benefit to make this report relevant to Ottawa. Whether it's Harper or an Ignatieff-led coalition, getting the infrastructure programme done right is indeed more important than getting it implemented quickly. It's also critical for Canada to ensure that the money path is tightly focused with full emphasis placed on restricting funding to projects that have the highest prospect of return to the economy in the future.
Read the entire report here:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0112_prosperity_memo.aspx?emc=lm&m=221447&l=49&v=988309
Oops, I Forgot How to Hate
Hatred; that seething, furious, bottomless loathing; is something best suited to the young.
I don't think I've genuinely hated anybody in at least ten, no fifteen years. There was, way back when, a person I genuinely ought to have hated, in the fullest sense of the word, but I chose not to and, since then, I've been essentially unable to hate anyone else either.
There's plenty of room left to get angry at what people do. Sometimes I truly hate what some people do, usually when they do it to others or, worse yet, to me, but that doesn't translate into hatred for the person.
Maybe I'm just too lazy to hate anyone or too selfish or too self-centred. Maybe I'm just too damned old. You know it takes an awful lot of effort to really hate a person the way I've seen some people hate others. You have to invest a lot of yourself into it just to keep the fires from going out.
Now I suppose if somebody murdered one of my children I might hate them. In all honesty, I probably would. Actually I'd probably be able to hate anyone who murdered anyone's children but I think that's still setting the bar pretty high.
I have a friend, a well-placed, very bright, accomplished Conservative who genuinely hated Mike Harris. He hated what Harris was, he hated what Harris did, he truly hated the man himself. It wasn't jealousy or political rivalry but outright, visceral hatred. I found it perplexing, even a bit frightening but it also made me realize I didn't have that energy and drive to ever emulate the guy.
I guess what I learned from my friend is that, if you're really going to hate someone, do it right. It's too easy to "pretend hate" which gives you all the bad without any hope of the slightest good. If you haven't got the commitment to hate properly, why not try the lazy way out? Just let it go. When you do you might just find it lets go of you in return. That's usually when you discover that the person you thought you hated really isn't worth the bother of hating.
I don't think I've genuinely hated anybody in at least ten, no fifteen years. There was, way back when, a person I genuinely ought to have hated, in the fullest sense of the word, but I chose not to and, since then, I've been essentially unable to hate anyone else either.
There's plenty of room left to get angry at what people do. Sometimes I truly hate what some people do, usually when they do it to others or, worse yet, to me, but that doesn't translate into hatred for the person.
Maybe I'm just too lazy to hate anyone or too selfish or too self-centred. Maybe I'm just too damned old. You know it takes an awful lot of effort to really hate a person the way I've seen some people hate others. You have to invest a lot of yourself into it just to keep the fires from going out.
Now I suppose if somebody murdered one of my children I might hate them. In all honesty, I probably would. Actually I'd probably be able to hate anyone who murdered anyone's children but I think that's still setting the bar pretty high.
I have a friend, a well-placed, very bright, accomplished Conservative who genuinely hated Mike Harris. He hated what Harris was, he hated what Harris did, he truly hated the man himself. It wasn't jealousy or political rivalry but outright, visceral hatred. I found it perplexing, even a bit frightening but it also made me realize I didn't have that energy and drive to ever emulate the guy.
I guess what I learned from my friend is that, if you're really going to hate someone, do it right. It's too easy to "pretend hate" which gives you all the bad without any hope of the slightest good. If you haven't got the commitment to hate properly, why not try the lazy way out? Just let it go. When you do you might just find it lets go of you in return. That's usually when you discover that the person you thought you hated really isn't worth the bother of hating.
Karzai Moves to Rein In Western Forces
Can't we all just get along? Apparently not.
Perhaps with an eye to upcoming Afghan elections, the Karzai government is moving to clamp down on NATO operations in Afghanistan. From CBC News:
Karzai told lawmakers Tuesday that the government had sent NATO headquarters a draft agreement that would give Afghanistan more control over future NATO deployments.
It would also prohibit NATO troops from searching Afghan homes, according to a copy of the draft obtained by the Associated Press.
Late Tuesday, Karzai met Gen. David Petraeus, commander of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to discuss civilian casualties and an increased role for Afghan forces in U.S. military missions, Karzai's office said.
The U.S. is expected to increase its focus on the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan after President Barack Obama's inauguration. Some 33,000 U.S. troops are deployed in the country, but military commanders have said up to 30,000 more American forces will be sent to Afghanistan this year.
Taliban militants have taken control of territory throughout southern Afghanistan in the last three years. American military commanders say they have enough troops to win every battle but that there aren't enough U.S., NATO and Afghan troops to hold territory where militants operate.
It has become increasingly obvious lately that Karzai and the Western forces are on a different page in tackling the insurgency. Both sides keep demanding of each other what isn't to be had.
We want Karzai to cleanse his government of corruption. He can't, he doesn't control his government. It's fallen into the hands of warlords and thugs. We might as well ask Karzai to disarm the Taliban.
Karzai keeps demanding that we stop killing innocent Afghans. We can't, we don't have remotely enough troops to break our reliance on heavy firepower - air strikes and artillery barrages. We have to use these to defend our forces when they're attacked by insurgents.
You say potato, and I say... Well, you know. Both sides are unable to stop doing the very things that are destroying the public's confidence in the Kabul government, sapping their support for Westerners and driving them instead into the arms of the insurgency.
What's the answer? I don't know if there is one any longer. Too much time has passed that turning the situation around may no longer be possible.
Maybe we should take a hard look to see if what Karzai claims can possibly be true - that we're making the situation worse, not better. If we've become a net drain on Afghanistan's security and its future and if we can't or won't reverse that, the answer should be obvious.
Is Tar Sands Carbon Sequestration a Myth?
Proponents of the Athabasca Tar Sands like to dismiss the environmental problem as readily resolved by carbon sequestration, burying the carbon dioxide produced in mining and refining bitumen by pumping it into deep underground caverns.
Nobody seems to want to ask, much less answer the question why, if it was that simple, haven't the big oil companies been doing just that all these years? Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason.
The Toronto Star used the Freedom of Information Act to get its hands on an Environment Canada study on the viability of carbon sequestration in Athabasca:
By capturing about 200 megatonnes a year of carbon dioxide, sequestration (as carbon dioxide storage is known) is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost 80 per cent in 2017, says an Environment Canada study obtained under the Access to Information Act.
But, the study notes, "there are emissions of CO2 and air contaminants resulting from the generation of the energy required by (carbon capture and storage) facilities. The CO2 emissions offset the volumes captured by the facilities, while the air contaminant emissions add to the load on the environment."
The June 2008 study predicts emissions of sulphur dioxide, the main ingredient in acid rain, will rise by up to 34 per cent by 2017. Nitrous oxides – responsible for ozone layer depletion – will rise by up to 24 per cent. Ozone depletion is linked to higher rates of skin cancer, among other health problems.
Tiny particulate matter is set to jump by more than 60 per cent in the oil sands and could lead to hazy skies and aggravate existing lung and heart problems.
"It is dirty oil for any number of reasons, and it's not just carbon dioxide," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, which has researched the links between oil sands production and health problems.
"It's very clear that we need to turn our attention to those other types of pollutants or else it's going to be a disaster in the future."
All party leaders right of Jack Layton are committed to the development and expansion of the Tar Sands for a century or more. All party leaders right of Jack Layton like to frame the Tar Sands environmental troubles as a matter of carbon sequestration. The Liberal leader has, however, mentioned the cancer plague affecting the Fort Chippewayn community downstream.
One party leader right of Jack Layton has chosen to frame opposition to the Tar Sands as disingenous and truly motivated by an anti-Alberta bias. In being so dismissive of Tar Sands opponents while understating the environmental disaster waiting to befall Athabasca, this party leader right of Jack Layton seems to be revealing his own motivation for supporting this reckless adventure.
Nobody seems to want to ask, much less answer the question why, if it was that simple, haven't the big oil companies been doing just that all these years? Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason.
The Toronto Star used the Freedom of Information Act to get its hands on an Environment Canada study on the viability of carbon sequestration in Athabasca:
By capturing about 200 megatonnes a year of carbon dioxide, sequestration (as carbon dioxide storage is known) is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost 80 per cent in 2017, says an Environment Canada study obtained under the Access to Information Act.
But, the study notes, "there are emissions of CO2 and air contaminants resulting from the generation of the energy required by (carbon capture and storage) facilities. The CO2 emissions offset the volumes captured by the facilities, while the air contaminant emissions add to the load on the environment."
The June 2008 study predicts emissions of sulphur dioxide, the main ingredient in acid rain, will rise by up to 34 per cent by 2017. Nitrous oxides – responsible for ozone layer depletion – will rise by up to 24 per cent. Ozone depletion is linked to higher rates of skin cancer, among other health problems.
Tiny particulate matter is set to jump by more than 60 per cent in the oil sands and could lead to hazy skies and aggravate existing lung and heart problems.
"It is dirty oil for any number of reasons, and it's not just carbon dioxide," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, which has researched the links between oil sands production and health problems.
"It's very clear that we need to turn our attention to those other types of pollutants or else it's going to be a disaster in the future."
All party leaders right of Jack Layton are committed to the development and expansion of the Tar Sands for a century or more. All party leaders right of Jack Layton like to frame the Tar Sands environmental troubles as a matter of carbon sequestration. The Liberal leader has, however, mentioned the cancer plague affecting the Fort Chippewayn community downstream.
One party leader right of Jack Layton has chosen to frame opposition to the Tar Sands as disingenous and truly motivated by an anti-Alberta bias. In being so dismissive of Tar Sands opponents while understating the environmental disaster waiting to befall Athabasca, this party leader right of Jack Layton seems to be revealing his own motivation for supporting this reckless adventure.
Israel Admits It "May" Have Used White Phosphorus in Gaza
"May" have used? As though Israel doesn't keep a precise inventory on the number of white phosphorus weapons in its arsenal. Please.
The photo above from The Guardian shows an Israeli 155 mm. howitzer. The light green shells are Willie Pete or white phosphorus rounds.
From The Guardian:
Israel has admitted – after mounting pressure – that its troops may have used white phosphorus shells in contravention of international law, during its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip.
One of the places most seriously affected by the use of white phosphorus was the main UN compound in Gaza City, which was hit by three shells on 15 January. The same munition was used in a strike on the al-Quds hospital in Gaza City the same day.
Just mentioning this is enough these days to get one branded an anti-Semite. So here's another way to look at it. Would you accept Canadian forces firing white phosphorus rounds into Afghan villages where they thought they'd spotted Taliban insurgents? Would you expect Canadian commanders who had used such terrible weapons on civilian areas to be punished? I know I sure as hell would but, then again, I don't think you would find a Canadian officer willing to fire white phosphorus into a residential area, much less at a United Nations compound.
The photo above from The Guardian shows an Israeli 155 mm. howitzer. The light green shells are Willie Pete or white phosphorus rounds.
From The Guardian:
Israel has admitted – after mounting pressure – that its troops may have used white phosphorus shells in contravention of international law, during its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip.
One of the places most seriously affected by the use of white phosphorus was the main UN compound in Gaza City, which was hit by three shells on 15 January. The same munition was used in a strike on the al-Quds hospital in Gaza City the same day.
Just mentioning this is enough these days to get one branded an anti-Semite. So here's another way to look at it. Would you accept Canadian forces firing white phosphorus rounds into Afghan villages where they thought they'd spotted Taliban insurgents? Would you expect Canadian commanders who had used such terrible weapons on civilian areas to be punished? I know I sure as hell would but, then again, I don't think you would find a Canadian officer willing to fire white phosphorus into a residential area, much less at a United Nations compound.
Pulling the Pin on Good Business
Bankers are funny types. In an economy awash in bad debts, some have an instinctive impulse to add more to the pile.
The New York Times reports on banks calling loans on companies that have perfect loan repayment records. This is what often happens when credit shrinks and banks no longer need compete for borrowers.
The article focuses on Dave Brown of Tempe, Arizona, a home builder who had been in business, successfully, for 33-years. That came to an end when his bank, panicked at his company's declining revenues, demanded additional collateral for its loans - assets Brown simply didn't have. Even though not one payment had been missed, the bank simply called its "demand loans." That left Brown unable to complete his current projects which rendered them unmarketable and which led the bank to step in and foreclose.
Banks do this and they do it here in Canada as well. Every now and then something happens and the banks go "medieval" on their borrowers (h/t Pulp Fiction). When this develops into a trend it ripples through communities and, eventually, entire societies.
Here's what I mean. In the 80's there was a recession in Canada. In Vancouver, car dealers were particularly hard hit. The lenders - banks and automaker acceptance companies - panicked. They called their notes and hired bankruptcy lawyers and trustees (oh, the gravy!).
One particular trustee seemed to get most of the many car dealers, one by one, on a particular thoroughfare. He would move in and throw the dealer's inventory on the market at firesale prices. Basically he went into competition with every other car dealer in that market and they couldn't afford to match those prices and service their own debts. Like dominoes, one by one they fell as the market got saturated with below-cost inventory.
It wasn't just car dealers who fell victim to these debt realization Berserkers. Commercial auction houses were flooded with inventories of companies that fell into receivership. It was not atypical for assets to be blown out at ten cents or less on the dollar. Out of the paltry recovery the lawyers, trustees and disposal experts would all have a fine feast. They were often creating the conditions for the next company's failure. Buzzards are supposed to eat carrion, not manufacture it.
Then the recession passed and, once the hangover cleared, the banks noticed that they had little to show for their efforts, pennies on the dollar, in large part because of their counterproductive approach to debt realization. They had been pulling the trigger but the gun had barrels pointed at their own head as well as the debtor's.
That finally ushered in the era of "work outs," recognizing when a debtor was in trouble and concentrating on how to maximize recovery which in some cases meant keeping that company in business by writing off debt or deferring repayment. The bank got more than it would by shutting down the company, the business sometimes managed to keep operating and the employees kept their jobs and paycheques and kept contributing to society.
But this is a pendulum that can swing back again. We're going into a recession. Even Harper has finally grasped the need for a stimulus plan. But the devastation the feds need to offset should be addressed by the feds and the provinces. Preventing Kamikaze debt realization ought to be explored - now. It's much harder to force banks to extend credit than it is to restrict their freedom to shrink existing credit facilities.
I think we need to look at measures to protect borrowers during this extraordinary time. There's no point blaming them and saying they ought to have known better when our banks and our government utterly failed to see what was coming. Keeping as many companies as possible in business during this recession makes good sense. It continues economic activity and it reduces unemployment and all the consequent ills that flow from that.
Let's face it, we've got billions to bail out banks but, in terms of employment, they're small change.
Now, if the interim leader of the Liberal Party wants to look progressive, there's something he can chew on.
The New York Times reports on banks calling loans on companies that have perfect loan repayment records. This is what often happens when credit shrinks and banks no longer need compete for borrowers.
The article focuses on Dave Brown of Tempe, Arizona, a home builder who had been in business, successfully, for 33-years. That came to an end when his bank, panicked at his company's declining revenues, demanded additional collateral for its loans - assets Brown simply didn't have. Even though not one payment had been missed, the bank simply called its "demand loans." That left Brown unable to complete his current projects which rendered them unmarketable and which led the bank to step in and foreclose.
Banks do this and they do it here in Canada as well. Every now and then something happens and the banks go "medieval" on their borrowers (h/t Pulp Fiction). When this develops into a trend it ripples through communities and, eventually, entire societies.
Here's what I mean. In the 80's there was a recession in Canada. In Vancouver, car dealers were particularly hard hit. The lenders - banks and automaker acceptance companies - panicked. They called their notes and hired bankruptcy lawyers and trustees (oh, the gravy!).
One particular trustee seemed to get most of the many car dealers, one by one, on a particular thoroughfare. He would move in and throw the dealer's inventory on the market at firesale prices. Basically he went into competition with every other car dealer in that market and they couldn't afford to match those prices and service their own debts. Like dominoes, one by one they fell as the market got saturated with below-cost inventory.
It wasn't just car dealers who fell victim to these debt realization Berserkers. Commercial auction houses were flooded with inventories of companies that fell into receivership. It was not atypical for assets to be blown out at ten cents or less on the dollar. Out of the paltry recovery the lawyers, trustees and disposal experts would all have a fine feast. They were often creating the conditions for the next company's failure. Buzzards are supposed to eat carrion, not manufacture it.
Then the recession passed and, once the hangover cleared, the banks noticed that they had little to show for their efforts, pennies on the dollar, in large part because of their counterproductive approach to debt realization. They had been pulling the trigger but the gun had barrels pointed at their own head as well as the debtor's.
That finally ushered in the era of "work outs," recognizing when a debtor was in trouble and concentrating on how to maximize recovery which in some cases meant keeping that company in business by writing off debt or deferring repayment. The bank got more than it would by shutting down the company, the business sometimes managed to keep operating and the employees kept their jobs and paycheques and kept contributing to society.
But this is a pendulum that can swing back again. We're going into a recession. Even Harper has finally grasped the need for a stimulus plan. But the devastation the feds need to offset should be addressed by the feds and the provinces. Preventing Kamikaze debt realization ought to be explored - now. It's much harder to force banks to extend credit than it is to restrict their freedom to shrink existing credit facilities.
I think we need to look at measures to protect borrowers during this extraordinary time. There's no point blaming them and saying they ought to have known better when our banks and our government utterly failed to see what was coming. Keeping as many companies as possible in business during this recession makes good sense. It continues economic activity and it reduces unemployment and all the consequent ills that flow from that.
Let's face it, we've got billions to bail out banks but, in terms of employment, they're small change.
Now, if the interim leader of the Liberal Party wants to look progressive, there's something he can chew on.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
From Russia With... Well, Not Exactly Love
The United States has negotiated a deal that will allow supplies for its forces in Afghanistan to come on a northern overland route through, among other countries, Russia.
American commanders have been looking for a new, safer route to replace the truck routes from western Pakistan that pass through the Khyber Pass. An increasing Taliban presence there has rendered normal supply lines unreliable.
The New York Times reports that Russia is already the main supplier of fuel to Western forces in Afghanistan.
American commanders have been looking for a new, safer route to replace the truck routes from western Pakistan that pass through the Khyber Pass. An increasing Taliban presence there has rendered normal supply lines unreliable.
The New York Times reports that Russia is already the main supplier of fuel to Western forces in Afghanistan.
Obama Blocks Gitmo Trials
President Barack Obama has ordered a postponement of military tribunal trials at Guantanimo until at least May. Military judges at the base are expected to consider the "request" today. Coming from their Commander in Chief, they'll probably do as they've been asked.
Obama wants the 90-day suspension to review the military tribunal process.
Obama wants the 90-day suspension to review the military tribunal process.
Has The Ground Shifted Beneath Us?
What the cynics fail to understand is that
the ground has shifted beneath them
In that one line, Barack Obama today rebuked, denounced, rejected and consigned to the trash the ideology spawned by Ronald Reagan that grew, under Bush/Cheney, to very nearly choke to death American democracy itself.
When I heard Obama state those words I said to myself "it's about time" before wondering if, indeed, the ground hasn't finally shifted beneath all of us.
I hope and believe that the Obama presidency will usher in a new era restoring America's progressive legacy. That Obama is a progressive is beyond doubt.
But what of Canada's rich, progressive tradition? It's been taking a beating the past couple of years but, surely, there is no better time to restore progressive democracy to Canada than now. Has the ground shifted beneath us too?
I don't expect to hear anything progressive from Stephen Harper. He's too tightly invested in the failed ideology of those who were helicoptered out of Washington today.
What of the Liberal Party of Canada? Liberals past would have been very comfortable hearing Obama's inaugural address. They would have heard in it many of their own, core beliefs.
Wouldn't it be great if today's Liberal leadership revealed a real understanding and appreciation of our great progressive tradition? How encouraging it would be if, instead of drawing itself closer to Harper on the right, the Liberal leadership broke from that and declared that the ground has shifted beneath us too, that we were taking Canada back to the centre where this nation belongs.
Those who might dismiss this as so much leftwing sentimentality weren't listening to what Obama was saying. He embraces progressive democracy because he knows that, with the enormous challenges that are already here and the even greater challenges that are coming, it is the only way for his nation, any nation, to meet them.
Ignatieff Backer Calls Chretien "Right-Wing Neo-Con Wingnut"
I know him only as "Ted." Whatever else he may be, Ted is a resolute supporter of Michael Ignatieff and the Neo-Liberal Party of Canada.
Earlier today I criticized Iggy's rebuke of Harper for taking Canada to the far right, pointing out that Ignatieff seemed hell bent on taking the LPC in the very same direction.
That obviously touched a nerve for Ted who furiously came out denouncing Jean Chretien as a "rightwing neo-con wingnut." Let's run that through, Ted. You mean the guy who stood up to Bush and refused to send Canadian troops to Iraq, that Chretien? Remind me, Ted, what was your man Ignatieff's policy at that time, before it became politically inconvenient? Oh that's right. Your man Iggy was all for the Iraq war, or am I thinking of another Ignatieff? Just like George Busyh, Dick Cheney, Steve Harper.
And, let me see, one of those seemed just fine with "enhanced interrogation techniques." Was that Jean Chretien, Ted, or was that your man Iggy again? Just like George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And which one of those guys lashed the Liberal Party to the Israeli assault on Gaza? Correct me if I'm wrong, Ted, but I don't think that was Mr. Chretien. Just like Bush/Cheney (and however quietly Steve Harper).
And who scrubbed the notion of a carbon tax from the Liberal Party policy book? Well Jean Chretien wasn't even around to bring his rightwing neo-con wingnut ideology to bear on that one, was he?
But Ted reminds us that the true meaning of the Ingatieff ascendancy is that, "The Liberal Wing of the Liberal Party is back and it is driving the Ralph Nader wing of the Liberal Party absolutely nuts."
You see, Ted, that's where you're wrong. The "Liberal wing" of the Liberal Party? Where did you get that, from Sarah Palin? That's just the sort of thing she was so fond of pulling out of her butt when she praised "real America." Maybe we should call it the "Sarah Palin wing of the Liberal Party," if only for the sake of accuracy.
As for the rest of us, Ted, you're not driving us "absolutely nuts" either. I had always understood this to be a party of progressives, the genuinely liberal wing of the Liberal Party.
Earlier today I criticized Iggy's rebuke of Harper for taking Canada to the far right, pointing out that Ignatieff seemed hell bent on taking the LPC in the very same direction.
That obviously touched a nerve for Ted who furiously came out denouncing Jean Chretien as a "rightwing neo-con wingnut." Let's run that through, Ted. You mean the guy who stood up to Bush and refused to send Canadian troops to Iraq, that Chretien? Remind me, Ted, what was your man Ignatieff's policy at that time, before it became politically inconvenient? Oh that's right. Your man Iggy was all for the Iraq war, or am I thinking of another Ignatieff? Just like George Busyh, Dick Cheney, Steve Harper.
And, let me see, one of those seemed just fine with "enhanced interrogation techniques." Was that Jean Chretien, Ted, or was that your man Iggy again? Just like George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And which one of those guys lashed the Liberal Party to the Israeli assault on Gaza? Correct me if I'm wrong, Ted, but I don't think that was Mr. Chretien. Just like Bush/Cheney (and however quietly Steve Harper).
And who scrubbed the notion of a carbon tax from the Liberal Party policy book? Well Jean Chretien wasn't even around to bring his rightwing neo-con wingnut ideology to bear on that one, was he?
But Ted reminds us that the true meaning of the Ingatieff ascendancy is that, "The Liberal Wing of the Liberal Party is back and it is driving the Ralph Nader wing of the Liberal Party absolutely nuts."
You see, Ted, that's where you're wrong. The "Liberal wing" of the Liberal Party? Where did you get that, from Sarah Palin? That's just the sort of thing she was so fond of pulling out of her butt when she praised "real America." Maybe we should call it the "Sarah Palin wing of the Liberal Party," if only for the sake of accuracy.
As for the rest of us, Ted, you're not driving us "absolutely nuts" either. I had always understood this to be a party of progressives, the genuinely liberal wing of the Liberal Party.
Israeli Angst Over Obama?
The left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz doubts whether the expected next leader of Israel, hard right winger Benjamen Netanyahu, will get an easy time of it from Barack Obama:
Obama is surrounded by Jewish advisers who are very familiar with Israeli tricks and stalling tactics, especially when it comes to the settlements (have we mentioned "natural growth" yet?), but they would still want the new president to adopt the tradition of the "special relationship" with the Jewish state. Obama, however, has also been exposed to the school of thought, existing in both the administration and the American think tanks, that argues that the excessive closeness between the U.S. and Israel undermines America's strategic interests in the Arab world.
Brent Scowcroft, one of the shapers of foreign policy under President George H.W. Bush, and according to Time magazine, a strong influence on Obama, has called for a fundamental restructuring of American policy in the Middle East. Scowcroft, who was the boss of the current (and incoming) defense secretary Robert Gates, and a friend of the new national security adviser, James Jones, is proposing that the "special relationship" be adjusted to a "natural relationship." Perhaps such a change would be able to transform celebratory ceremonies into dry agreements.
Let's hope that Obama does indeed chart a new, balanced approach to the Middle East. There's too much at stake to perpetuate the blind patronage of Israel that has contributed so much to unrest in the Middle East.
Obama is surrounded by Jewish advisers who are very familiar with Israeli tricks and stalling tactics, especially when it comes to the settlements (have we mentioned "natural growth" yet?), but they would still want the new president to adopt the tradition of the "special relationship" with the Jewish state. Obama, however, has also been exposed to the school of thought, existing in both the administration and the American think tanks, that argues that the excessive closeness between the U.S. and Israel undermines America's strategic interests in the Arab world.
Brent Scowcroft, one of the shapers of foreign policy under President George H.W. Bush, and according to Time magazine, a strong influence on Obama, has called for a fundamental restructuring of American policy in the Middle East. Scowcroft, who was the boss of the current (and incoming) defense secretary Robert Gates, and a friend of the new national security adviser, James Jones, is proposing that the "special relationship" be adjusted to a "natural relationship." Perhaps such a change would be able to transform celebratory ceremonies into dry agreements.
Let's hope that Obama does indeed chart a new, balanced approach to the Middle East. There's too much at stake to perpetuate the blind patronage of Israel that has contributed so much to unrest in the Middle East.
Pot to Kettle - About That Swing to the Right
According to the Toronto Star, the interim leader of the Liberal Party decries prime minister Harper's efforts to drag Canada to the far right.
"And when you shift the centre of Canadian politics to the right, then everything changes.
"The federal government is weakened, the country becomes more regionalized. It becomes a more unjust and more unequal society bit by bit. This is (the Conservatives') long-term strategic plan," he said.
Iggy's scathing criticisms are pretty hilarious coming from a guy who's taken a riding crop to the Liberal Party, driving it to the right in hot pursuit of Harper.
From embracing the Tar Sands to his unqualified support of Israel in the Gaza war to abandoning carbon taxes in favour of hapless cap & trade "pretend" measures on carbon emissions, Ignatieff has dragged the LPC hard right. That he can do this and pretend to be progressive is farcical.
"And when you shift the centre of Canadian politics to the right, then everything changes.
"The federal government is weakened, the country becomes more regionalized. It becomes a more unjust and more unequal society bit by bit. This is (the Conservatives') long-term strategic plan," he said.
Iggy's scathing criticisms are pretty hilarious coming from a guy who's taken a riding crop to the Liberal Party, driving it to the right in hot pursuit of Harper.
From embracing the Tar Sands to his unqualified support of Israel in the Gaza war to abandoning carbon taxes in favour of hapless cap & trade "pretend" measures on carbon emissions, Ignatieff has dragged the LPC hard right. That he can do this and pretend to be progressive is farcical.
Canada Needs an Image Change
Canada's ambassador to the United States, former Mulroney crone Michael Wilson, warns that we're going to have to work hard to shed our image as, "a purveyor of dirty oil."
"This image (of Canada) is fed in part from negative perceptions of the Canadian oil sands industry. But it also stems from a general under-appreciation in the United States of Canada's considerable efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase renewable energy production (as well as) a general under-appreciation of just how much our two economies are linked."
Maybe before he launches that spin on a skeptical White House, Wilson might want to try convincing Canadians of "Canada's considerable efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase renewable energy production." Just what considerable efforts would these be, Mike? Tell us where to look. It sounds to me a lot like George w's frantic search for WMDs in Iraq. It'll take more than fairy tales about carbon sequestration in Athabasca too.
There's no doubt we do need an image change but that's probably not in the cards until we get a change of government in any case.
"This image (of Canada) is fed in part from negative perceptions of the Canadian oil sands industry. But it also stems from a general under-appreciation in the United States of Canada's considerable efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase renewable energy production (as well as) a general under-appreciation of just how much our two economies are linked."
Maybe before he launches that spin on a skeptical White House, Wilson might want to try convincing Canadians of "Canada's considerable efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase renewable energy production." Just what considerable efforts would these be, Mike? Tell us where to look. It sounds to me a lot like George w's frantic search for WMDs in Iraq. It'll take more than fairy tales about carbon sequestration in Athabasca too.
There's no doubt we do need an image change but that's probably not in the cards until we get a change of government in any case.
Business as Usual, Bush/Cheney Style - Is Over!
President Barack Obama wasted no time and left no doubt in assuring Americans and the world that the Bush/Cheney days and ways ended at noon this day.
Here are a few of my favourite excerpts from the President's inaugural address:
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
...everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
I don't think there was any immortal catch phrase, no definiung sound bite, of the sort we associate with John Kennedy but there was a moving effort to restore balance to America and to redefine its relationship with all of its citizens and with the world.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Mired In Afghanistan
Have we just realized we've painted ourselves into a corner in Afghanistan?
You can read that into the views expressed by NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer over the weekend.
Scheffer took a swipe at the Karzai government in Kabul, writing that government corruption was as much a hurdle for NATO as the Taliban. Scheffer's assessment, while it might sound harsh, unfortunately is true but one could be forgiven for asking why it's taken NATO seven years since the initial ouster of the Taliban to realize it?
The worst thing is, it's our fault.
We, the West, and in particular the United States, created the conditions for the evolution of a hopelessly corrupt central government in Afghanistan. The criminal enterprise that is the Kabul government is a creature of our neglect.
America went into Afghanistan to seek revenge on the Taliban and al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. That effort mainly consisted of employing massive US Air Force firepower in support of the Northern Alliance warlords. And that's where the problems began - with American acceptance of Afghanistan's warlords.
The "mine enemy's enemy" thing has its limitations. One of them is that the newfound ally might be a bad dude in the greater scheme of things. You're allies, after all, only because you both want to attack the same enemy.
After the Taliban were sent packing into the mountainous borderlands of Pakistan, there was lip service paid to instituting a democratic government in Afghanistan but no real thought given to the problem of warlordism.
We got the numerous militias to give up their heavy weapons - tanks and artillery - mainly because they had little use for them anyway. We didn't finish the job by taking down the political feifdoms of the warlords which meant that Afghanistan would be ruled only with their consent.
The Americans gave Karzai a list of thugs, criminals and warlords he was absolutely not to appoint to any positions of power in his administration. But the US and the West didn't give Karzai the means to stand up and say no to them. Without our essential support at the outset, Karzai was left vulnerable and unable to say no to a gang upon whose support depended his very survival.
In this way what is today's narco-state headed by a government best described as a criminal enterprise was birthed. Now, when it's too late, everybody is pointing fingers.
Can we start over, please?
No, we can't. It might be wonderful if we could just sweep away the Kabul government and dismantle its corrupt and predatory bureaucracy but it really is too late for such a wholesale do-over. And besides, we don't have the strength to attempt it.
To try to rectify our first, failed experiment, the Western states would have to wipe the slate clean and that would mean occupying the countryside with a massive number of troops. You can't take down the warlords by locking down Kabul. What's worse is that, at this point, they have an option and they know it. They can join the growing and spreading insurgency. They can reform their militias, just as Hekmatyar did, and sign on with the team that's devoted to driving out the Infidel occupiers.
I suppose the first thing that happens when you begin to suspect that you might have painted yourself into a corner is that you look around desperately hoping you can find a way out. When you find that you have indeed painted yourself in a corner, the next reaction is frustrated resignation.
Scheffer's remarks seem to embrace both frustration and resignation. Carping at Karzai is about as effective as baying at the moon. Karzai is not the master in his house. He's widely dismissed as little more than the mayor of Kabul. Outside the capital, power is vaguely apportioned, often in layers, among government agents, warlords, drug barons and the insurgency.
Kabul's reach is steadily shrinking just as the insurgency's is spreading. This hardly seems the moment to be demanding top to bottom house cleaning from Karzai. It's hard to see how he could, even if he wanted to (and he might actually want nothing better).
Obama, perhaps naively, wants a surge in US forces in Afghanistan. That must be, in part, to justify the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. It might also be, in part, political imperative. No one wants to be saddled with the legacy and inevitable finger-pointing that would follow pulling American forces out of both countries.
A recent assessment from Chatham House questions whether a doubling of American ground forces in Afghanistan can truly accomplish much. It also raises the prospect that what may be achieved is simply an increase in violence, more civilian deaths and even stronger public perception that the West is an army of occupation.
It's hard to see the way out of Afghanistan. We can cling to the idealistic fantasy that we're there only until we can train, equip and field adequate numbers of Afghan soldiers and police. That ignores the fact that no army can achieve much if it serves a corrupt civilian regime.
The Dutch are supposed to be out of Afghanistan in 2010 with Canada following a year later. But cracks are beginning to appear in the Dutch resolve and the idea of a further extension beyond 2010 is being discussed, albeit quietly.
Canada doesn't appear to be making any progress toward a 2011 withdrawal either. These things have to be negotiated with the overall force structure, ISAF. Arrangements have to be made for a replacement force to be mustered, trained, equipped and readied to take over. We don't even have a shortlist of countries willing to consider the job. We have no committment from either ISAF or NATO to furnish a relief force. We're as far out on the limb as we've ever been. When Obama comes calling are we really ready to say no?
You can read that into the views expressed by NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer over the weekend.
Scheffer took a swipe at the Karzai government in Kabul, writing that government corruption was as much a hurdle for NATO as the Taliban. Scheffer's assessment, while it might sound harsh, unfortunately is true but one could be forgiven for asking why it's taken NATO seven years since the initial ouster of the Taliban to realize it?
The worst thing is, it's our fault.
We, the West, and in particular the United States, created the conditions for the evolution of a hopelessly corrupt central government in Afghanistan. The criminal enterprise that is the Kabul government is a creature of our neglect.
America went into Afghanistan to seek revenge on the Taliban and al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. That effort mainly consisted of employing massive US Air Force firepower in support of the Northern Alliance warlords. And that's where the problems began - with American acceptance of Afghanistan's warlords.
The "mine enemy's enemy" thing has its limitations. One of them is that the newfound ally might be a bad dude in the greater scheme of things. You're allies, after all, only because you both want to attack the same enemy.
After the Taliban were sent packing into the mountainous borderlands of Pakistan, there was lip service paid to instituting a democratic government in Afghanistan but no real thought given to the problem of warlordism.
We got the numerous militias to give up their heavy weapons - tanks and artillery - mainly because they had little use for them anyway. We didn't finish the job by taking down the political feifdoms of the warlords which meant that Afghanistan would be ruled only with their consent.
The Americans gave Karzai a list of thugs, criminals and warlords he was absolutely not to appoint to any positions of power in his administration. But the US and the West didn't give Karzai the means to stand up and say no to them. Without our essential support at the outset, Karzai was left vulnerable and unable to say no to a gang upon whose support depended his very survival.
In this way what is today's narco-state headed by a government best described as a criminal enterprise was birthed. Now, when it's too late, everybody is pointing fingers.
Can we start over, please?
No, we can't. It might be wonderful if we could just sweep away the Kabul government and dismantle its corrupt and predatory bureaucracy but it really is too late for such a wholesale do-over. And besides, we don't have the strength to attempt it.
To try to rectify our first, failed experiment, the Western states would have to wipe the slate clean and that would mean occupying the countryside with a massive number of troops. You can't take down the warlords by locking down Kabul. What's worse is that, at this point, they have an option and they know it. They can join the growing and spreading insurgency. They can reform their militias, just as Hekmatyar did, and sign on with the team that's devoted to driving out the Infidel occupiers.
I suppose the first thing that happens when you begin to suspect that you might have painted yourself into a corner is that you look around desperately hoping you can find a way out. When you find that you have indeed painted yourself in a corner, the next reaction is frustrated resignation.
Scheffer's remarks seem to embrace both frustration and resignation. Carping at Karzai is about as effective as baying at the moon. Karzai is not the master in his house. He's widely dismissed as little more than the mayor of Kabul. Outside the capital, power is vaguely apportioned, often in layers, among government agents, warlords, drug barons and the insurgency.
Kabul's reach is steadily shrinking just as the insurgency's is spreading. This hardly seems the moment to be demanding top to bottom house cleaning from Karzai. It's hard to see how he could, even if he wanted to (and he might actually want nothing better).
Obama, perhaps naively, wants a surge in US forces in Afghanistan. That must be, in part, to justify the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. It might also be, in part, political imperative. No one wants to be saddled with the legacy and inevitable finger-pointing that would follow pulling American forces out of both countries.
A recent assessment from Chatham House questions whether a doubling of American ground forces in Afghanistan can truly accomplish much. It also raises the prospect that what may be achieved is simply an increase in violence, more civilian deaths and even stronger public perception that the West is an army of occupation.
It's hard to see the way out of Afghanistan. We can cling to the idealistic fantasy that we're there only until we can train, equip and field adequate numbers of Afghan soldiers and police. That ignores the fact that no army can achieve much if it serves a corrupt civilian regime.
The Dutch are supposed to be out of Afghanistan in 2010 with Canada following a year later. But cracks are beginning to appear in the Dutch resolve and the idea of a further extension beyond 2010 is being discussed, albeit quietly.
Canada doesn't appear to be making any progress toward a 2011 withdrawal either. These things have to be negotiated with the overall force structure, ISAF. Arrangements have to be made for a replacement force to be mustered, trained, equipped and readied to take over. We don't even have a shortlist of countries willing to consider the job. We have no committment from either ISAF or NATO to furnish a relief force. We're as far out on the limb as we've ever been. When Obama comes calling are we really ready to say no?
Canada's Next Great Dud?
Stephane Dion's fundamental flaw was his inability to connect with average Canadians. People didn't "relate" to him and that left Dion easy meat for underhanded smear campaigns by Harper.
Now it's Iggy's turn to see whether he can navigate the shoals of public acceptance to get through to rank and file Canadians with a message they'll understand, one they'll be willing to support in an election campaign.
Harper, desperate to rip a page out of someone's book, has gone into Obomaton mode to propose middle class tax cuts in his stimulus package budget. Of course Obama is trying to even the keel of the upper-class tax cuts that Bush inflicted on the United States, something we were spared.
Ignatieff is, quite rightly, opposed to tax cuts as a recession-fighting strategy. Tax cuts don't do much for the economy unless people will spend the money saved, inject it into the economy. In times of uncertainty people understandably horde money, they don't spend it. Ask retailers, they know.
The tax cuts proposed by Harper won't do much except deepen the deficit. The tax revenue the feds will give up won't go back into the economy, won't free up credit, won't contribute to employment. It'll sit under someone's mattress where it does no one any good.
So Ignatieff is right in drawing the line by telling Harper the Libs will vote against the budget if it incorporates the suggested tax cuts. But, should that heady moment actually arrive, Iggy will then face the greater challenge - to explain it to the Canadian people well enough to win their trust and their support. Can he do that? I'm not so sure.
To me, Ignatieff comes across as a bit of a stiff. He's like cardboard. Last week I listened to a lengthy Toronto news interview with Iggy - without the video. Damn if his speech and delivery didn't sound just like Grampa McCain! He sounds like an old man, seriously deficient in vitality and spark.
For Iggy the good news is that he's up against a consummate stiff. Harper conjures up all the excitement of a sweat sock. So it's not like Iggy is up against a powerhouse of charisma. He's not. Still it will be more than slightly interesting to see if Ignatieff can lift himself out of geezer mode, which he might just have to do if he's to win the support of the Canadian public.
Now it's Iggy's turn to see whether he can navigate the shoals of public acceptance to get through to rank and file Canadians with a message they'll understand, one they'll be willing to support in an election campaign.
Harper, desperate to rip a page out of someone's book, has gone into Obomaton mode to propose middle class tax cuts in his stimulus package budget. Of course Obama is trying to even the keel of the upper-class tax cuts that Bush inflicted on the United States, something we were spared.
Ignatieff is, quite rightly, opposed to tax cuts as a recession-fighting strategy. Tax cuts don't do much for the economy unless people will spend the money saved, inject it into the economy. In times of uncertainty people understandably horde money, they don't spend it. Ask retailers, they know.
The tax cuts proposed by Harper won't do much except deepen the deficit. The tax revenue the feds will give up won't go back into the economy, won't free up credit, won't contribute to employment. It'll sit under someone's mattress where it does no one any good.
So Ignatieff is right in drawing the line by telling Harper the Libs will vote against the budget if it incorporates the suggested tax cuts. But, should that heady moment actually arrive, Iggy will then face the greater challenge - to explain it to the Canadian people well enough to win their trust and their support. Can he do that? I'm not so sure.
To me, Ignatieff comes across as a bit of a stiff. He's like cardboard. Last week I listened to a lengthy Toronto news interview with Iggy - without the video. Damn if his speech and delivery didn't sound just like Grampa McCain! He sounds like an old man, seriously deficient in vitality and spark.
For Iggy the good news is that he's up against a consummate stiff. Harper conjures up all the excitement of a sweat sock. So it's not like Iggy is up against a powerhouse of charisma. He's not. Still it will be more than slightly interesting to see if Ignatieff can lift himself out of geezer mode, which he might just have to do if he's to win the support of the Canadian public.
Karzai's New Sponsor - Moscow?
Hillary Clinton recently told the US Senate that Afghanistan is a "narco-state." NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer went after Karzai on the weekend over the rank corruption of his government.
Poor Hamid's been getting it upside the head from the West lately and he's getting antsy. Just in the nick of time he gets a "Hi Neighbour" letter from Moscow offering co-operation on Afghan defence matters. From CBC News:
"As a friendly government to Afghanistan, Russia is ready to offer its co-operation to an independent and a democratic Afghanistan," the statement quoted Medvedev as saying.
The statement did not say how the two countries would co-operate.
The image of Russian tanks rolling back into Afghanistan is beyond bizarre but, of late, Putin has been looking for opportunities to poke a sharp stick into NATO eyes so it's not surprising that meddling in Afghanistan would hold some appeal.
Poor Hamid's been getting it upside the head from the West lately and he's getting antsy. Just in the nick of time he gets a "Hi Neighbour" letter from Moscow offering co-operation on Afghan defence matters. From CBC News:
"As a friendly government to Afghanistan, Russia is ready to offer its co-operation to an independent and a democratic Afghanistan," the statement quoted Medvedev as saying.
The statement did not say how the two countries would co-operate.
The image of Russian tanks rolling back into Afghanistan is beyond bizarre but, of late, Putin has been looking for opportunities to poke a sharp stick into NATO eyes so it's not surprising that meddling in Afghanistan would hold some appeal.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Obama's Biggest Challenge - Saving Planet Earth
NASA scientist and leading American climate change expert James Hansen gives Obama just four years to save the world from global warming. From The Guardian:
"We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.
While committed to tackling global warming, Obama comes into office with a plate heaped full of crises ranging from the US economy to global security, Iraq and Afghanistan to undoing damage needlessly inflicted by the Bush administration. Let's hope that he gives climate change the priority it deserves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
"We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.
While committed to tackling global warming, Obama comes into office with a plate heaped full of crises ranging from the US economy to global security, Iraq and Afghanistan to undoing damage needlessly inflicted by the Bush administration. Let's hope that he gives climate change the priority it deserves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
Barking Noises from the Axis of Evil
As a parting gift to the Bush administration, North Korea, charter member of the Axis of Evil, announced that it has weaponized enough plutonium to fashion four to five nuclear bombs. A NK foreign ministry spokesman made it clear the country has no intention of getting rid of the material so long as it perceives a nuclear threat from the U.S. - in other words, ever.
Tensions between a recently more aggressive South Korea and the ever bellicose North racheted up this weekend when the NK military declared an "all out confrontational posture" against the South, something that seems to be the equivalent of Def-Con Two.
The North alluded to the possibility of a naval engagement along the two countries' western marine boundary.
Tensions between a recently more aggressive South Korea and the ever bellicose North racheted up this weekend when the NK military declared an "all out confrontational posture" against the South, something that seems to be the equivalent of Def-Con Two.
The North alluded to the possibility of a naval engagement along the two countries' western marine boundary.
A Measure Of Futility In Afghanistan
Now Kabul and NATO are squabbling.
NATO sock puppet Jaap de Hoop Scheffer used the Washington Post to express his frustration with the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai.
The basic problem in Afghanistan is not too much Taliban; it's too little good governance. Afghans need a government that deserves their loyalty and trust; when they have it, the oxygen will be sucked away from the insurgency. ...we have paid enough, in blood and treasure, to demand that the Afghan government take more concrete and vigorous action to root out corruption and increase efficiency.
Gee, Mr. Secretary-General, ya think? Great timing, we've only been at it over there for what, seven years?
The Afghan government fired back through a foreign ministry spokesman named Baheen who complained that the Karzai government's efforts to promote the rule of law were undermined by "the international community, including some powerful NATO-member countries, have their own favourite warlords" who they back against Karzai.
Baheen also said that Afghanistan's opium production was only high in places where international foreign forces are stationed, like the British troops in Helmand.
NATO sock puppet Jaap de Hoop Scheffer used the Washington Post to express his frustration with the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai.
The basic problem in Afghanistan is not too much Taliban; it's too little good governance. Afghans need a government that deserves their loyalty and trust; when they have it, the oxygen will be sucked away from the insurgency. ...we have paid enough, in blood and treasure, to demand that the Afghan government take more concrete and vigorous action to root out corruption and increase efficiency.
Gee, Mr. Secretary-General, ya think? Great timing, we've only been at it over there for what, seven years?
The Afghan government fired back through a foreign ministry spokesman named Baheen who complained that the Karzai government's efforts to promote the rule of law were undermined by "the international community, including some powerful NATO-member countries, have their own favourite warlords" who they back against Karzai.
Baheen also said that Afghanistan's opium production was only high in places where international foreign forces are stationed, like the British troops in Helmand.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Ignatieff's Folly
Backing another country's war is one thing. Backing a stupid war doomed to failure is quite another.
Before he gave his unqualified endorsement of Israel's assault on Gaza, Michael Ignatieff ought to have given it some thought. He ought to have considered what Israel was really setting out to accomplish and he ought to have weighed whether its objectives were realistic and achievable. Mr. Ignatieff did neither.
It was obvious from the outset that this war wasn't really about some feeble rocket barrages that killed suprisingly few Israelis. It was obvious from the outset that this war had everything to do with the looming arrival of a new American president and with Israel's elections on February 10th.
It ought to have been obvious to Mr. Ignatieff that this war could not turn out well for Israel. There is no way on God's green earth that air strikes and artillery barrages will deter militants from lobbing rockets out of Gaza. The stated objective was not achievable. There is no way that a heavy-firepower campaign in a densely populated area could not inflict massive civilian carnage, further destabilizing the Middle East and drawing world anger to Israel. The blowback was utterly predictable.
What was our leader thinking?
Mr. Ignatieff rashly, pointlessly even, brought the Liberal Party of Canada hard to the right on the Gaza war, abandoning all pretence of objectivity. In the calm following the cease fire, details will begin to emerge of the brutal suffering inflicted on the civilians, particularly the children, trapped in Gaza, from the assault Michael Ignatieff wholeheartedly endorsed. Much as he may try to say these deaths are the sole responsibility of Hamas, that's an empty excuse.
This is a dark moment for the Liberal Party of Canada. It is quite possibly the darkest moment the party has endured going back four decades or more.
Before he gave his unqualified endorsement of Israel's assault on Gaza, Michael Ignatieff ought to have given it some thought. He ought to have considered what Israel was really setting out to accomplish and he ought to have weighed whether its objectives were realistic and achievable. Mr. Ignatieff did neither.
It was obvious from the outset that this war wasn't really about some feeble rocket barrages that killed suprisingly few Israelis. It was obvious from the outset that this war had everything to do with the looming arrival of a new American president and with Israel's elections on February 10th.
It ought to have been obvious to Mr. Ignatieff that this war could not turn out well for Israel. There is no way on God's green earth that air strikes and artillery barrages will deter militants from lobbing rockets out of Gaza. The stated objective was not achievable. There is no way that a heavy-firepower campaign in a densely populated area could not inflict massive civilian carnage, further destabilizing the Middle East and drawing world anger to Israel. The blowback was utterly predictable.
What was our leader thinking?
Mr. Ignatieff rashly, pointlessly even, brought the Liberal Party of Canada hard to the right on the Gaza war, abandoning all pretence of objectivity. In the calm following the cease fire, details will begin to emerge of the brutal suffering inflicted on the civilians, particularly the children, trapped in Gaza, from the assault Michael Ignatieff wholeheartedly endorsed. Much as he may try to say these deaths are the sole responsibility of Hamas, that's an empty excuse.
This is a dark moment for the Liberal Party of Canada. It is quite possibly the darkest moment the party has endured going back four decades or more.
Americans Greet Obama with Optimistic Realism
A New York Times/CBS News poll shows that Americans are optimistic about the future of their country under Obama's administration but also realistic enough to understand it may take years for him to turn the country around.
There has been a lot of concern that Americans would place unattainable expecations on their new president and then quickly become disillusioned.
While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found, expectations for what Mr. Obama will actually be able to accomplish appear to have been tempered by the scale of the nation’s problems at home and abroad.
The findings suggest that Mr. Obama has achieved some success with his effort, which began with his victory speech in Chicago in November, to gird Americans for a slow economic recovery and difficult years ahead after a campaign that generated striking enthusiasm and high hopes for change.
Most Americans said they did not expect real progress in improving the economy, reforming the health care system or ending the war in Iraq — three of the central promises of Mr. Obama’s campaign — for at least two years. The poll found that two-thirds of respondents think the recession will last two years or longer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=1&hp
There has been a lot of concern that Americans would place unattainable expecations on their new president and then quickly become disillusioned.
While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found, expectations for what Mr. Obama will actually be able to accomplish appear to have been tempered by the scale of the nation’s problems at home and abroad.
The findings suggest that Mr. Obama has achieved some success with his effort, which began with his victory speech in Chicago in November, to gird Americans for a slow economic recovery and difficult years ahead after a campaign that generated striking enthusiasm and high hopes for change.
Most Americans said they did not expect real progress in improving the economy, reforming the health care system or ending the war in Iraq — three of the central promises of Mr. Obama’s campaign — for at least two years. The poll found that two-thirds of respondents think the recession will last two years or longer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=1&hp
Praying For Big, Fat Honkers
I firmly believe that pilots often get a raw deal in aircraft accident investigations. Especially in the bad crashes, where there's no pilot surviving to defend him/herself, it's all too easy to write uncertainty off to "pilot error."
That's why I fervently hope they find the calling card of big, fat Canadian geese in both engines of US Airways flight 1549 when they're dredged up out of the Hudson River.
The airmanship displayed by the pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger, was one of those good news stories that we all need, especially with all the bad news stories that swarm us today. The way he set that Airbus down in the Hudson to keep it intact and allow the passengers and crew to escape unharmed is just this side of miraculous.
All that remains now is to confirm that bird strikes indeed crippled both engines to cinch the deal. What worries me is that even great pilots can make mistakes, the all too common "pilot error." The flight recorders and the recovery of the engines awaits to seal the verdict of this amazing pilot. I'm sure pulling for him and praying for big, fat honkers.
That's why I fervently hope they find the calling card of big, fat Canadian geese in both engines of US Airways flight 1549 when they're dredged up out of the Hudson River.
The airmanship displayed by the pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger, was one of those good news stories that we all need, especially with all the bad news stories that swarm us today. The way he set that Airbus down in the Hudson to keep it intact and allow the passengers and crew to escape unharmed is just this side of miraculous.
All that remains now is to confirm that bird strikes indeed crippled both engines to cinch the deal. What worries me is that even great pilots can make mistakes, the all too common "pilot error." The flight recorders and the recovery of the engines awaits to seal the verdict of this amazing pilot. I'm sure pulling for him and praying for big, fat honkers.
Riding the Wild Hog in Alberta
For three years, steadily rising oil prices have allowed the Alberta government to spend like there's no tomorrow. And then tomorrow showed up.
"Special Ed" Stelmach is running into the same problem as Harper. After riding high on the hog, plummeting oil prices are leaving Ed with a lot of unfunded expectations. It's gotten Ed musing about having to introduce a repeat of the old Klein "slash and burn" cost cutting. According to the Calgary Herald, forces are massing to oppose such a move:
Opposition parties, labour unions and other interest groups said the province's social and environmental programs can't handle another round of 1990s style budget slashing, which Stelmach floated Thursday as a potential way to deal with a revenue shortfall in the coming fiscal year.
The Alberta Liberals accused the government of panicking in a cyclical economy and turning to the only strategy they know.
"This shows a complete lack of imagination," deputy leader Laurie Blakeman said. "Albertans feel that they made their sacrifices, they tightened their belt in the '90s to get out of this and many of them feel that they're now being asked to do that again."
The province's revenues are in free fall, with oil trading Friday around $36 US a barrel, down from a high of $147 this summer. With the economic downtown, corporate and personal income taxes are also expected to be much lower than previous years.
Compounding the revenue dip is the fact government spending has increased almost 30 per cent over the past two years to $38 billion. Yet, legislation passed by former premier Ralph Klein prevents the government from running a budget deficit.
"Special Ed" Stelmach is running into the same problem as Harper. After riding high on the hog, plummeting oil prices are leaving Ed with a lot of unfunded expectations. It's gotten Ed musing about having to introduce a repeat of the old Klein "slash and burn" cost cutting. According to the Calgary Herald, forces are massing to oppose such a move:
Opposition parties, labour unions and other interest groups said the province's social and environmental programs can't handle another round of 1990s style budget slashing, which Stelmach floated Thursday as a potential way to deal with a revenue shortfall in the coming fiscal year.
The Alberta Liberals accused the government of panicking in a cyclical economy and turning to the only strategy they know.
"This shows a complete lack of imagination," deputy leader Laurie Blakeman said. "Albertans feel that they made their sacrifices, they tightened their belt in the '90s to get out of this and many of them feel that they're now being asked to do that again."
The province's revenues are in free fall, with oil trading Friday around $36 US a barrel, down from a high of $147 this summer. With the economic downtown, corporate and personal income taxes are also expected to be much lower than previous years.
Compounding the revenue dip is the fact government spending has increased almost 30 per cent over the past two years to $38 billion. Yet, legislation passed by former premier Ralph Klein prevents the government from running a budget deficit.
Hey Mike, They're TAR Sands, Not Oil Sands
I wasn't really surprised when the clip came out of Michael Ignatieff praising the "oil sands" as the very future of Canada. Oh sure, he said, we have to do a bit of cleaning up but, hey, once we get that little chore handled it'll be all gravy for a century.
Hey Mike, as usual, you're full of it. Pandering for every vote you can grind out of discarded Liberal principles is costing you as much support as you're bringing in. And, as far as the "Oil Sands" are concerned? Maybe you should read the G&M review of Nikiforuk's new book. It's succinct and makes the points you plainly choose to ignore:
The Alberta tar sands - which boosters like to reposition as the Alberta oil sands because that makes them sound a little cleaner - are Canada's dirty little secret. They are the world's largest energy project, largest construction project and largest capital project, so large that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has likened them to the building of the Egyptian Pyramids or the Great Wall of China.
But their impact on the planet is on a scale that far outpaces those other human-built wonders of the world. And what does it leave? The monument to a thriving culture? No. Open-pit mines. Tailing ponds full of weeping toxic sludge. Masses of local pollution. And enough climate- and ocean-destroying carbon dioxide to make it a world-class catastrophe.
As Nikiforuk shows all too clearly, the massive and growing project gulps fresh water, destroys valuable boreal forest, poisons air, water and soil and uses up a substantial portion of the energy it produces. To wit (using figures Nikiforuk says are conservative): To make one barrel of bitumen, the muck that can eventually be processed into synthetic crude oil, takes an average of three barrels of fresh water and two tons of sand.
That same barrel produces at least 1.3 barrels of fine-tailings toxic waste and an ounce of acid-rain-producing sulphur dioxide. Then it uses up 1,400 cubic feet of natural gas in the upgrading, or a third of the amount of energy the barrel will eventually produce. By the time the sludge is a barrel of processed synthetic crude, it has produced 187 pounds of carbon dioxide, three times as much greenhouse gas as a traditional barrel of oil. And that's before it's burned.
It's a bad deal for the local environment. It's a rotten deal for taxpayers and citizens. The ratcheting up of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentrations - both in the natural gas used to extract the tarry sludge and in the destruction of carbon-storing forests and bogs - makes it unconscionable in the larger arena of planetary health. The tar sands are Canada's largest (and growing) source of carbon dioxide.
But don't let the facts get in your way, Michael, when you're just getting started in creating the Illiberal Party of Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090117.BKNIKI17/TPStory/Entertainment
Hey Mike, as usual, you're full of it. Pandering for every vote you can grind out of discarded Liberal principles is costing you as much support as you're bringing in. And, as far as the "Oil Sands" are concerned? Maybe you should read the G&M review of Nikiforuk's new book. It's succinct and makes the points you plainly choose to ignore:
The Alberta tar sands - which boosters like to reposition as the Alberta oil sands because that makes them sound a little cleaner - are Canada's dirty little secret. They are the world's largest energy project, largest construction project and largest capital project, so large that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has likened them to the building of the Egyptian Pyramids or the Great Wall of China.
But their impact on the planet is on a scale that far outpaces those other human-built wonders of the world. And what does it leave? The monument to a thriving culture? No. Open-pit mines. Tailing ponds full of weeping toxic sludge. Masses of local pollution. And enough climate- and ocean-destroying carbon dioxide to make it a world-class catastrophe.
As Nikiforuk shows all too clearly, the massive and growing project gulps fresh water, destroys valuable boreal forest, poisons air, water and soil and uses up a substantial portion of the energy it produces. To wit (using figures Nikiforuk says are conservative): To make one barrel of bitumen, the muck that can eventually be processed into synthetic crude oil, takes an average of three barrels of fresh water and two tons of sand.
That same barrel produces at least 1.3 barrels of fine-tailings toxic waste and an ounce of acid-rain-producing sulphur dioxide. Then it uses up 1,400 cubic feet of natural gas in the upgrading, or a third of the amount of energy the barrel will eventually produce. By the time the sludge is a barrel of processed synthetic crude, it has produced 187 pounds of carbon dioxide, three times as much greenhouse gas as a traditional barrel of oil. And that's before it's burned.
It's a bad deal for the local environment. It's a rotten deal for taxpayers and citizens. The ratcheting up of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentrations - both in the natural gas used to extract the tarry sludge and in the destruction of carbon-storing forests and bogs - makes it unconscionable in the larger arena of planetary health. The tar sands are Canada's largest (and growing) source of carbon dioxide.
But don't let the facts get in your way, Michael, when you're just getting started in creating the Illiberal Party of Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090117.BKNIKI17/TPStory/Entertainment
Obama's Afghan Trap
Afghanistan will be a millstone around the neck of America's next president, one that time and circumstances probably left him no option but to accept.
It will be hard enough for Obama to extract American forces from Iraq. No one should be under any illusions that anything really meaningful has been achieved there. The contest between the natonalist Mahdi Army of Sadr and Maliki's pro-Iran Badr Brigades is unresolved. The Sunni versus Shia struggle hasn't been settled although it is one area where some progress has been made. The Arab versus Kurd powderkeg continues to grow more dangerous as its sizzling fuze gets ever shorter.
The one reason Obama has been able to win public support for pulling America out of Iraq is the promise that will enable the military to win the true war, the just war - Afghanistan. Americans don't want to walk away from the Bush adventures with two losers. That would inflict a psychological scar somewhat akin to the post-Vietnam era.
But wanting to win in Afghanistan, like pledging to win in Afghanistan, is a far cry from actually winning in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Obama is still framing this as a struggle between the West and the Taliban, a reality that ceased to exist two, possibly three years ago.
Throwing another thirty or sixty or even ninety thousand troops at the problem isn't much of an answer because it does almost nothing to address what is a multi-faceted problem.
There can be no hope of success until something is done to break what Chatham House calls the "nexus" of the Afghan government, the warlords and the drug barons. They are, to use the vernacular, "in cahoots." The government of Afghanistan is a criminal enterprise.
If Obama's army is to have any chance of success steps will have to be taken to eradicate warlordism. Not just Pashtun warlords either. Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara warlords, Aimak, Turkmen and Baloch - the works. They are an absolute obstacle to American objectives in Afghanistan. The worst part is they know it.
The warlords know that America can't defeat the ever widening insurgency without taking them down in the process. That is why some, such as Hekmatyar have already gone over and others, such as Dostum, probably will embrace the insurgency before surrendering. At that point, Western forces reprise the role of the former Soviet occupation at war with all the tribes.
Obama's Afghan war comes with the manacles of time wasted and lost opportunities. The time for crushing the Taliban and al-Qaeda was 2001. Allowing their leaders to slip out of Tora Bora was a fatal mistake. The time for subduing the warlords was 2002-2003. Allowing these thugs to hold a knife to Karzai's throat until his survival depended on permitting them to insinuate themselves into positions of power in his government was a fatal mistake.
Look at it this way. How many drug barons have been apprehended, tried and imprisoned by the Karzai regime? I really don't have to tell you the answer to that, do I?
Inheriting a seven year old counterinsurgency is like being handed the keys to a beater with flat tires. Way back before he got to command this gig, Petraeus warned the counterinsurgents have a very limited shelf life after which they go in the locals' eyes from defender/liberator to occupier/oppressor.
Numerous studies and reports released recently show that the Afghan people have come to despise the Western forces in their land. Nobody should be surprised at this. It's as logical as anything can be. Look at our track record.
It's been about seven years since we backed the Northern Alliance into driving the Taliban and al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. Mistake one was when we allowed their leadership to escape, ensuring they would regroup. Mistake two was not flooding the country with enough troops to secure the civilian population against a return of the Taliban as insurgents.
The Afghan villagers are helpless prey to both sides in this struggle. We don't occupy their villages, ensuring that the insurgents will. Without our protection how are they to resist the demands of the Taliban? While this is going on these same villagers get predated by the Kabul government's corrupt security services and bureaucrats. The people come to equate corrupt government officials with the Western forces that defend them and it doesn't help when we visit their villages with airstrikes and artillery barrages. I've found it surprising how deeply these civilian deaths resonate through the Afghan people. They hate us for it.
We fail, we lose the war, when we allow the public to remain caught in this vice of the insurgents on one side and corrupt government officials and our heavy firepower on the other. That's how our side loses in this sort of warfare. It's our failure to provide security to the Afghan people - security from the insurgents and from their predatory government - that dooms our efforts.
It's a feature of these wars that one side (almost always our side) loses long before they realize it. That's because of a couple of reasons. One, they're "low intensity" wars, the kind in which there are no decisive battlefield victories and defeats to measure success or failure. Two, it's almost impossible to judge when the populace has reached a critical mass in giving their support to the insurgency and turning on the government. Because of these factors it's common for the government side to keep banging away for years after the issue has actually been decided.
You see, our leaders have promised the folks at home a military victory. There's nothing else acceptable when you've been waging a military war. Once the insurgents achieve enough public support that they cannot be destroyed militarily, they win. It's entirely conceivable that the Taliban have already reached that point. But, since they never have the military prowess (no tanks, artillery, helicopters, jet fighters) to defeat the government forces, particularly the outside help, they have to wait, denying the government side their essential military victory, until the people at home get tired of waiting for a victory parade that's never coming and throw in the towel.
And that's the dilemma facing Barack Obama. He'll be under enormous pressure to produce a miracle of alchemy, a military victory.
Here's one thing to watch for, something the Pentagon has tried before - a military coup. You may think it sounds far fetched and there's been nary a mention of it in official statements or in the media but, a couple of months ago, it came out that US commanders were making overtures to Hekmatyar, a warlord who makes Vlad the Impaler look like a pussy.
Hekmatyar is a Pashtun hustler and a vicious thug. He thought he was in line to rule Afghanistan until the ISI switched its allegiance to the Taliban and they got in instead. Long a Taliban rival. Hekmatyar returned from exile in Iran, reconstituted his militia and, eventually, joined the insurgency. This guy wants one thing, power, and the US military might see in him the iron hand sort of character who would be needed to run a military dicatatorship in Afghanistan.
It will be hard enough for Obama to extract American forces from Iraq. No one should be under any illusions that anything really meaningful has been achieved there. The contest between the natonalist Mahdi Army of Sadr and Maliki's pro-Iran Badr Brigades is unresolved. The Sunni versus Shia struggle hasn't been settled although it is one area where some progress has been made. The Arab versus Kurd powderkeg continues to grow more dangerous as its sizzling fuze gets ever shorter.
The one reason Obama has been able to win public support for pulling America out of Iraq is the promise that will enable the military to win the true war, the just war - Afghanistan. Americans don't want to walk away from the Bush adventures with two losers. That would inflict a psychological scar somewhat akin to the post-Vietnam era.
But wanting to win in Afghanistan, like pledging to win in Afghanistan, is a far cry from actually winning in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Obama is still framing this as a struggle between the West and the Taliban, a reality that ceased to exist two, possibly three years ago.
Throwing another thirty or sixty or even ninety thousand troops at the problem isn't much of an answer because it does almost nothing to address what is a multi-faceted problem.
There can be no hope of success until something is done to break what Chatham House calls the "nexus" of the Afghan government, the warlords and the drug barons. They are, to use the vernacular, "in cahoots." The government of Afghanistan is a criminal enterprise.
If Obama's army is to have any chance of success steps will have to be taken to eradicate warlordism. Not just Pashtun warlords either. Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara warlords, Aimak, Turkmen and Baloch - the works. They are an absolute obstacle to American objectives in Afghanistan. The worst part is they know it.
The warlords know that America can't defeat the ever widening insurgency without taking them down in the process. That is why some, such as Hekmatyar have already gone over and others, such as Dostum, probably will embrace the insurgency before surrendering. At that point, Western forces reprise the role of the former Soviet occupation at war with all the tribes.
Obama's Afghan war comes with the manacles of time wasted and lost opportunities. The time for crushing the Taliban and al-Qaeda was 2001. Allowing their leaders to slip out of Tora Bora was a fatal mistake. The time for subduing the warlords was 2002-2003. Allowing these thugs to hold a knife to Karzai's throat until his survival depended on permitting them to insinuate themselves into positions of power in his government was a fatal mistake.
Look at it this way. How many drug barons have been apprehended, tried and imprisoned by the Karzai regime? I really don't have to tell you the answer to that, do I?
Inheriting a seven year old counterinsurgency is like being handed the keys to a beater with flat tires. Way back before he got to command this gig, Petraeus warned the counterinsurgents have a very limited shelf life after which they go in the locals' eyes from defender/liberator to occupier/oppressor.
Numerous studies and reports released recently show that the Afghan people have come to despise the Western forces in their land. Nobody should be surprised at this. It's as logical as anything can be. Look at our track record.
It's been about seven years since we backed the Northern Alliance into driving the Taliban and al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan. Mistake one was when we allowed their leadership to escape, ensuring they would regroup. Mistake two was not flooding the country with enough troops to secure the civilian population against a return of the Taliban as insurgents.
The Afghan villagers are helpless prey to both sides in this struggle. We don't occupy their villages, ensuring that the insurgents will. Without our protection how are they to resist the demands of the Taliban? While this is going on these same villagers get predated by the Kabul government's corrupt security services and bureaucrats. The people come to equate corrupt government officials with the Western forces that defend them and it doesn't help when we visit their villages with airstrikes and artillery barrages. I've found it surprising how deeply these civilian deaths resonate through the Afghan people. They hate us for it.
We fail, we lose the war, when we allow the public to remain caught in this vice of the insurgents on one side and corrupt government officials and our heavy firepower on the other. That's how our side loses in this sort of warfare. It's our failure to provide security to the Afghan people - security from the insurgents and from their predatory government - that dooms our efforts.
It's a feature of these wars that one side (almost always our side) loses long before they realize it. That's because of a couple of reasons. One, they're "low intensity" wars, the kind in which there are no decisive battlefield victories and defeats to measure success or failure. Two, it's almost impossible to judge when the populace has reached a critical mass in giving their support to the insurgency and turning on the government. Because of these factors it's common for the government side to keep banging away for years after the issue has actually been decided.
You see, our leaders have promised the folks at home a military victory. There's nothing else acceptable when you've been waging a military war. Once the insurgents achieve enough public support that they cannot be destroyed militarily, they win. It's entirely conceivable that the Taliban have already reached that point. But, since they never have the military prowess (no tanks, artillery, helicopters, jet fighters) to defeat the government forces, particularly the outside help, they have to wait, denying the government side their essential military victory, until the people at home get tired of waiting for a victory parade that's never coming and throw in the towel.
And that's the dilemma facing Barack Obama. He'll be under enormous pressure to produce a miracle of alchemy, a military victory.
Here's one thing to watch for, something the Pentagon has tried before - a military coup. You may think it sounds far fetched and there's been nary a mention of it in official statements or in the media but, a couple of months ago, it came out that US commanders were making overtures to Hekmatyar, a warlord who makes Vlad the Impaler look like a pussy.
Hekmatyar is a Pashtun hustler and a vicious thug. He thought he was in line to rule Afghanistan until the ISI switched its allegiance to the Taliban and they got in instead. Long a Taliban rival. Hekmatyar returned from exile in Iran, reconstituted his militia and, eventually, joined the insurgency. This guy wants one thing, power, and the US military might see in him the iron hand sort of character who would be needed to run a military dicatatorship in Afghanistan.
Rivers of Venom in Gaza
A ceasefire may finally be at hand. It's being widely reported that the Israeli government cabinet has agreed to implement a ceasefire this weekend but on what terms remains unclear. Some believe the deal will see Israeli troops and tanks remain in occupation of Gaza for an indefinite period.
An end to the massively excessive carnage certainly will be a welcome development but it raises the question of what's next? How does Israel build on whatever it is it thinks it has achieved? How do the Gazan Palestinians recover? How does anyone find peace out of this savagery?
It's hard to see how Israel hasn't cut its own throat. The Israeli military campaign was utterly misconceived. It had no achievable strategic objective. The IDF knew it stood to repeat the strategic blunders it created in Lebanon in 2006. It knew that punishing the civilian population without destroying Hamas would only enable Hamas to emerge stronger.
This war was never about more than winning votes in the Feburary 10th elections and, given its continued popularity with Israelis, it might still yield dividends for Barak and Livni. It was a stupid war waged for a corrupt purpose, the sort of war that virtually never succeeds.
Israel's use of collective punishment against the Gaza Palestinians has been myopic. To believe that it could somehow counter militants firing a few feeble rockets into nearly Israeli communities by depriving the civilian population of food, medicines and other necessaries of life was just plain dumb. To cap that off with three weeks of airstrikes and artillery barrages, heavy firepower, area-weaponry that had no application in densely populated, urban settings, was to take collective punishment to a new level of barbarity.
Israel will not be forgiven for the hundreds of civilians, especially the hundreds of children, it slaughtered. It has handed the Gaza militants and Islamists in every corner of the Muslim world a brand new reason to hate Israel and seek revenge.
It may be too much to expect an actual ceasefire while Israeli forces remain in occupation of the Gaza Strip. There are just too many people now willing to put a round in any Israeli soldier's back to prevent the sort of incidents that will almost surely lead to a resumption of Israeli attacks.
An end to the massively excessive carnage certainly will be a welcome development but it raises the question of what's next? How does Israel build on whatever it is it thinks it has achieved? How do the Gazan Palestinians recover? How does anyone find peace out of this savagery?
It's hard to see how Israel hasn't cut its own throat. The Israeli military campaign was utterly misconceived. It had no achievable strategic objective. The IDF knew it stood to repeat the strategic blunders it created in Lebanon in 2006. It knew that punishing the civilian population without destroying Hamas would only enable Hamas to emerge stronger.
This war was never about more than winning votes in the Feburary 10th elections and, given its continued popularity with Israelis, it might still yield dividends for Barak and Livni. It was a stupid war waged for a corrupt purpose, the sort of war that virtually never succeeds.
Israel's use of collective punishment against the Gaza Palestinians has been myopic. To believe that it could somehow counter militants firing a few feeble rockets into nearly Israeli communities by depriving the civilian population of food, medicines and other necessaries of life was just plain dumb. To cap that off with three weeks of airstrikes and artillery barrages, heavy firepower, area-weaponry that had no application in densely populated, urban settings, was to take collective punishment to a new level of barbarity.
Israel will not be forgiven for the hundreds of civilians, especially the hundreds of children, it slaughtered. It has handed the Gaza militants and Islamists in every corner of the Muslim world a brand new reason to hate Israel and seek revenge.
It may be too much to expect an actual ceasefire while Israeli forces remain in occupation of the Gaza Strip. There are just too many people now willing to put a round in any Israeli soldier's back to prevent the sort of incidents that will almost surely lead to a resumption of Israeli attacks.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Out With The Old...
This photograph from the Washington Post says it all. It shows workers from Madame Tussaud's in Amsterdam hauling away the likeness of George w. while the wax sculpture of Obama appears to look on with a delightful, perhaps even approving smile.
The paper reports that Americans abroad are also feeling the love. Gone are the years of having to endure rebukes over Bush and Cheney and Iraq and so many other gaffes, they're now all being Obamafied:
As Micha Wyatt plans an inaugural bash at the Chicago Rib Shack in London, she is basking in the new warmth toward Americans overseas.
It's cool to be an American again, Wyatt said. "Finally! I'm tired of pretending I'm Canadian."
It's this sort of thing that goes a long way to dispelling the myth that critics of the Bush regime were anti-American. With rare exception that wasn't true. Even at the worst moments we knew that half of the American people believed the same things we did.
CIA Director - We Were Only Following Orders
I've watched several American administrations come and go as far back as the arrival of the Kennedys at the White House. They all seem to come in so fresh and full of promise yet never seem to leave that way. When they finally quit Washington it's usually a quiet affair as movers cart away boxes full of scandals, disappointments, failures and defeats. There's a sort of melancholy about it all.
This time, however, there's something different. It's fear. Many of the Bushies are spending a lot of time looking over their shoulders as they pack their pencils. Some of them plainly wonder whether their lives hold the promise of gentle retirement or something less kind, even jail perhaps.
Take the feeble offerings from outgoing CIA director Michael Hayden who seeks to justify the secret prisons, enhanced interrogation (aka in Obamese as "torture") and renditions by assuring all and sundry that, well, it's not like we enjoyed it. In Hayden's language that translates to we acted, "out of duty, not out of enthusiasm."
Ah yes, the old "we were only following orders" defence. It seems to me that's been tried before. It didn't work back then but maybe it will work now. From McClatchey Newspapers:
Hayden argued that the CIA detainee program shouldn't be subjected to a public investigation because the administration had obtained Justice Department legal opinions to support it and had informed members of Congress.
A public inquiry also would damage the careers of dedicated intelligence officers and the agency's espionage operations, he said.
"We are asked to do things routinely that no one else is asked to do, that no one else is allowed to do," Hayden said. "You can't do this to these people."
What Hayden's defence boils down to is that his people are above the law, beyond inquiry, immune from prosecution. Why? Because Alberto Gonzalez told them that torture was okay.
Hayden sat down for his final interview shortly after Attorney General nominee Eric Holder told his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that he thought that waterboarding, an interrogation method that simulates drowning, is torture.
...Asked if he was concerned by Holder's view that waterboarding is torture, Hayden replied: "It's an uninteresting question to the Central Intelligence Agency."
It may well be "uninteresting" to the Central Intelligence Agency but there are a lot of people who find it more than interesting and they want the CIA brought out into the sunlight.
This time, however, there's something different. It's fear. Many of the Bushies are spending a lot of time looking over their shoulders as they pack their pencils. Some of them plainly wonder whether their lives hold the promise of gentle retirement or something less kind, even jail perhaps.
Take the feeble offerings from outgoing CIA director Michael Hayden who seeks to justify the secret prisons, enhanced interrogation (aka in Obamese as "torture") and renditions by assuring all and sundry that, well, it's not like we enjoyed it. In Hayden's language that translates to we acted, "out of duty, not out of enthusiasm."
Ah yes, the old "we were only following orders" defence. It seems to me that's been tried before. It didn't work back then but maybe it will work now. From McClatchey Newspapers:
Hayden argued that the CIA detainee program shouldn't be subjected to a public investigation because the administration had obtained Justice Department legal opinions to support it and had informed members of Congress.
A public inquiry also would damage the careers of dedicated intelligence officers and the agency's espionage operations, he said.
"We are asked to do things routinely that no one else is asked to do, that no one else is allowed to do," Hayden said. "You can't do this to these people."
What Hayden's defence boils down to is that his people are above the law, beyond inquiry, immune from prosecution. Why? Because Alberto Gonzalez told them that torture was okay.
Hayden sat down for his final interview shortly after Attorney General nominee Eric Holder told his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that he thought that waterboarding, an interrogation method that simulates drowning, is torture.
...Asked if he was concerned by Holder's view that waterboarding is torture, Hayden replied: "It's an uninteresting question to the Central Intelligence Agency."
It may well be "uninteresting" to the Central Intelligence Agency but there are a lot of people who find it more than interesting and they want the CIA brought out into the sunlight.
Back To The 50's - "Duck'n Cover" Time for Harpo
Like errant school children, the Harper Tories are working on talking points they hope will make Canadians believe the dog actually did eat their homework.
The theme seems to be we're not responsible for this recession, it was all somebody else's fault, we didn't make it worse for Canada and nobody could've seen it coming, not even us.
In other words there was no reason for Canada's Newly Awakened Government not to have acted these past three years as though Canada was recession-proof, despite the alarm bells that were ringing off the walls down south. There was no reason not to defund the federal government. No reason to have at least tried to introduce measures that would have reduced Canadian exposure to the looming American meltdown.
Nope, that's the past. Let bygones be bygones. Hey, isn't that the same message flogged to death by Grandpa McCain back in November?
From TorStar:
Don't expect apologies for having projected surpluses just two short months ago or for inserting into the November economic update those provocative cuts to public financing for political parties or curbs to public servants' right to strike that sparked the opposition's threat to bring down the government.
And don't expect any acknowledgment that Conservative policies – such as relaxed rules around mortgage financing brought in by the government – exacerbated the economic situation.
Instead, the tone remains defiant.
As far as Harper is concerned, and Conservatives will continue to repeat, the economic crisis "originated outside Canada's borders" and was not, as opposition critics argue, worsened by tax cuts or excessive spending by the government.
Conservatives are instructed to declare that the government's actions put Canada in a better position to weather the storm and to point to the "stable leadership" Harper has shown.
The goal is to hammer the opposition proposal to offer a coalition government if the budget fails. Expect to hear lots of Conservatives mouthing phrases like this: "The political chaos of an unstable coalition would leave our economy, unity and public institutions at risk."
It's part of a two-track strategy: Woo the Liberals, bring them into the tent, just as the government has invited provinces and municipalities to share responsibility for the budget-making. At the same time, delegitimize any coalition the Liberals might lead as a political option for leading Canada out of the crisis.
So there, sadly, you have it. Taking a page totally out of the Bush/Cheney/Rove playbook, the tactic is to simply ignore the facts, invent fanciful nonsense to use instead, and then lie your ass off until those dumb enough to believe you, do. Hey, Harper knows there's a good hunk of that type of voter to be found in the 38% who gave him the nod last time. When you really have no other choice, why not roll that dice again?
The theme seems to be we're not responsible for this recession, it was all somebody else's fault, we didn't make it worse for Canada and nobody could've seen it coming, not even us.
In other words there was no reason for Canada's Newly Awakened Government not to have acted these past three years as though Canada was recession-proof, despite the alarm bells that were ringing off the walls down south. There was no reason not to defund the federal government. No reason to have at least tried to introduce measures that would have reduced Canadian exposure to the looming American meltdown.
Nope, that's the past. Let bygones be bygones. Hey, isn't that the same message flogged to death by Grandpa McCain back in November?
From TorStar:
Don't expect apologies for having projected surpluses just two short months ago or for inserting into the November economic update those provocative cuts to public financing for political parties or curbs to public servants' right to strike that sparked the opposition's threat to bring down the government.
And don't expect any acknowledgment that Conservative policies – such as relaxed rules around mortgage financing brought in by the government – exacerbated the economic situation.
Instead, the tone remains defiant.
As far as Harper is concerned, and Conservatives will continue to repeat, the economic crisis "originated outside Canada's borders" and was not, as opposition critics argue, worsened by tax cuts or excessive spending by the government.
Conservatives are instructed to declare that the government's actions put Canada in a better position to weather the storm and to point to the "stable leadership" Harper has shown.
The goal is to hammer the opposition proposal to offer a coalition government if the budget fails. Expect to hear lots of Conservatives mouthing phrases like this: "The political chaos of an unstable coalition would leave our economy, unity and public institutions at risk."
It's part of a two-track strategy: Woo the Liberals, bring them into the tent, just as the government has invited provinces and municipalities to share responsibility for the budget-making. At the same time, delegitimize any coalition the Liberals might lead as a political option for leading Canada out of the crisis.
So there, sadly, you have it. Taking a page totally out of the Bush/Cheney/Rove playbook, the tactic is to simply ignore the facts, invent fanciful nonsense to use instead, and then lie your ass off until those dumb enough to believe you, do. Hey, Harper knows there's a good hunk of that type of voter to be found in the 38% who gave him the nod last time. When you really have no other choice, why not roll that dice again?
Who Wants To Be a Trillionaire?
In Zimbabwe, inflation really is a plague, a horrible disease that ravages what shreds remain of that nation's once proud economy.
Today the central bank has unveiled the one hundred trillion dollar bank note that's worth a decidedly underwhelming $33 U.S. Even Zimbabweans won't be rushing out to get theirs because there's not much to buy on their store shelves and what little there is usually can't be bought in Zimbabwe currency.
The hundred trillion note is described as part of a "new family" of bank notes that will begin with the meagre 10-trillion dollar bill.
With cholera breaking out just to make things worse one has to ask, as we've been asking for two years now, when Mugabe is finally going to be deposed?
Today the central bank has unveiled the one hundred trillion dollar bank note that's worth a decidedly underwhelming $33 U.S. Even Zimbabweans won't be rushing out to get theirs because there's not much to buy on their store shelves and what little there is usually can't be bought in Zimbabwe currency.
The hundred trillion note is described as part of a "new family" of bank notes that will begin with the meagre 10-trillion dollar bill.
With cholera breaking out just to make things worse one has to ask, as we've been asking for two years now, when Mugabe is finally going to be deposed?
It's Geography - A Snap Quiz
Here's a simple test of your knowledge of the Muslim world from West Africa to South Asia. See you many you can get right.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/just_fun/games/mapgame.html
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/just_fun/games/mapgame.html
Thursday, January 15, 2009
I'm No Dick Says Biden
Barack Obama's affable veep-to-be (in just 4 days, yippee!) says he won't be another Dick Cheney when he gets to the White House.
Mr Biden told The New York Times that he would "restore the balance" of the vice-presidency by returning to the days when the second-most powerful person in America was neither seen nor heard. He used his first newspaper interview since the election to accuse Vice-President Dick Cheney of extending the office out of all proportion.
The Dickster, unable to blow off Joe Biden's face, blasted back anyway:
Mr Cheney also mocked Mr Biden for saying he does not intend to have his own "shadow government" in the White House. He said it was up to Mr Biden to decide if he wants "to diminish the office of vice-president". There was more scorn in the ultra-conservative Weekly Standard magazine which said recently that "it may be fair to assume that Biden will be the least consequential vice-president since Alben Barkley", a dimly remembered No 2 to Harry Truman.
Mr Cheney's efforts to airbrush his dark record in office have been called dishonest. This has been well-chronicled by investigative journalists and authors who have pointed to his hidden role in the Bush administration's most fateful choices in war: shifting the focus from al-Qa'ida to Iraq, promoting torture and allowing US intelligence services to spy on US citizens at home.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/preparing-for-power-biden-limbers-up-for-office-with-scathing-cheney-attack-1380410.html
The National Bank of America. No, Seriously...
Americans may soon have a new banker - the government of the United States of America.
In the land of capitalism and the home of free enterprise, major banks are in such distress that some think the feds may have to inject so much capital that they're bound to wind up the majority shareholder. From The New York Times:
With two of the nation’s largest banks buckling under yet another round of huge losses, the incoming administration of Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve are suddenly dealing with banks that are “too big to fail” and yet unable to function as the sinking economy erodes their capital.
Particularly in the case of Citigroup, the losses have become so large that they make it almost mathematically impossible for the government to inject enough capital without taking a majority stake or at least squeezing out existing shareholders.
“We are down a path that this country has not seen since Andrew Jackson shut down the Second National Bank of the United States,” said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets. “We are going to go back to a time when the government controlled the banking system.”
And there you have it kids, the triumph of conservative capitalist ideology. Brilliant, positively brilliant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/16banking.html?_r=1&hp
In the land of capitalism and the home of free enterprise, major banks are in such distress that some think the feds may have to inject so much capital that they're bound to wind up the majority shareholder. From The New York Times:
With two of the nation’s largest banks buckling under yet another round of huge losses, the incoming administration of Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve are suddenly dealing with banks that are “too big to fail” and yet unable to function as the sinking economy erodes their capital.
Particularly in the case of Citigroup, the losses have become so large that they make it almost mathematically impossible for the government to inject enough capital without taking a majority stake or at least squeezing out existing shareholders.
“We are down a path that this country has not seen since Andrew Jackson shut down the Second National Bank of the United States,” said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets. “We are going to go back to a time when the government controlled the banking system.”
And there you have it kids, the triumph of conservative capitalist ideology. Brilliant, positively brilliant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/16banking.html?_r=1&hp
The Curtain Falls On The Incurious George Travelling Baloney Show
True to form, George w. Bush - aka Incurious George, Shrub, Bushie, etc., etc. - said farewell to a supposedly grateful nation tonight in a blur of hollow self-congratulation and lame excuse.
Oh sure, he'd had his "setbacks" but what great president before him hadn't? Bill Clinton had that blue dress. Nixon had those damned tapes. Setbacks - the inevitable plague of presidencies everywhere.
But, loathe him or hate him, he reminded us that we all had to appreciate him for making the tough decisions. He was, after all, The Decider!
Overall, it was a farewell address entirely befitting the man who never let reality get in his way and, in the process, likely distinguished himself as the very worst president in his nation's history.
The only thing missing was the moment of departure. It would have been so much better if only they'd marched Bush off to the strains of Sinatra singing "I did it my way."
Oh sure, he'd had his "setbacks" but what great president before him hadn't? Bill Clinton had that blue dress. Nixon had those damned tapes. Setbacks - the inevitable plague of presidencies everywhere.
But, loathe him or hate him, he reminded us that we all had to appreciate him for making the tough decisions. He was, after all, The Decider!
Overall, it was a farewell address entirely befitting the man who never let reality get in his way and, in the process, likely distinguished himself as the very worst president in his nation's history.
The only thing missing was the moment of departure. It would have been so much better if only they'd marched Bush off to the strains of Sinatra singing "I did it my way."
Liblogs - An Alternate Reality
I just scanned today's posts at LiberalsOnline, Progressive Bloggers and Liblogs. In terms of editorial content there's one that stands out from the rest - Liblogs.
If you were to glance down the list at Liblogs you would be hard pressed to know that there's anything underway in Gaza - anything at all. It's like there's this enormous void over there that sucks out any mention of the Israel assault on Gaza or the carnage inflicted on the Palestinians. Out of sight, out of mind. Move on, nothing to see here.
If you were to glance down the list at Liblogs you would be hard pressed to know that there's anything underway in Gaza - anything at all. It's like there's this enormous void over there that sucks out any mention of the Israel assault on Gaza or the carnage inflicted on the Palestinians. Out of sight, out of mind. Move on, nothing to see here.
Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land
h/t ArtThreat.net for this one. The clip below is a preview of the documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land by the Media Education Foundation. Because of the current war on Gaza, the MEF is making the entire documentary available, free of charge, online (you can also download it free). Check out the clip below. If you want to view or copy the whole documentary, go here:
http://www.pppl.org/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Savicom&utm_campaign=MEF%20Film%20Offered%20Free%20Online&utm_term=%0A&utm_content=elle-provocateur%40sympatico.ca
http://www.pppl.org/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Savicom&utm_campaign=MEF%20Film%20Offered%20Free%20Online&utm_term=%0A&utm_content=elle-provocateur%40sympatico.ca
More on the Covenant Alliances - Canada's "Israel Allies Caucus" Parliamentary Lobby
I was intrigued this morning to learn about Canada's parliamentary Israel Allies Caucus. That led me to the American Covenant Alliances web page (http://www.covenantalliances.org/) which began with what was called The Jerusalem Accord:
Believing it to be a pillar of both the Jewish and Christian faiths that the Land of Israel and its eternal capital, Jerusalem, are the inheritance of the Jewish people forever, and wishing to take concrete steps to support this just and righteous truth, we pledge to petition our government to take the following three steps on behalf of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle East and the world.
In accordance with the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 enacted by the U.S. Congress, build a new embassy in Jerusalem within two years, in acknowledgment of the eternal truth that an undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people.
Vigorously work for the resettlement of the Palestinian refugees to the lands of their Arab kinsmen in order to rescue them from the purgatory of refugee status and restore to them the hope of a better future.
Demand the Palestinian Authority disarm the terrorists in their midst, and halt all violence, propaganda, and incitement against the people of Israel, failing which the Oslo Agreements shall be null and void.
We hereby agree and declare that the Land of Israel is promised by God to the Jewish people. We oppose any policy that fails to take God’s word into account and attempts to separate the Jewish people from the Land of Israel.
What these Evango-nutjobs are plainly advocating is the expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and their "resettlement" in other Arab countries.
Is the Canadian Israel Allies Caucus in on this? Just what is this caucus, who belongs to it, what lobbying are they doing to subvert the government of Canada? Whatever this "caucus" is, the lobby, its members and their activities need to be brought out into the open. They're supposed to be serving Canada, not Israel.
Believing it to be a pillar of both the Jewish and Christian faiths that the Land of Israel and its eternal capital, Jerusalem, are the inheritance of the Jewish people forever, and wishing to take concrete steps to support this just and righteous truth, we pledge to petition our government to take the following three steps on behalf of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle East and the world.
In accordance with the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 enacted by the U.S. Congress, build a new embassy in Jerusalem within two years, in acknowledgment of the eternal truth that an undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people.
Vigorously work for the resettlement of the Palestinian refugees to the lands of their Arab kinsmen in order to rescue them from the purgatory of refugee status and restore to them the hope of a better future.
Demand the Palestinian Authority disarm the terrorists in their midst, and halt all violence, propaganda, and incitement against the people of Israel, failing which the Oslo Agreements shall be null and void.
We hereby agree and declare that the Land of Israel is promised by God to the Jewish people. We oppose any policy that fails to take God’s word into account and attempts to separate the Jewish people from the Land of Israel.
What these Evango-nutjobs are plainly advocating is the expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and their "resettlement" in other Arab countries.
Is the Canadian Israel Allies Caucus in on this? Just what is this caucus, who belongs to it, what lobbying are they doing to subvert the government of Canada? Whatever this "caucus" is, the lobby, its members and their activities need to be brought out into the open. They're supposed to be serving Canada, not Israel.
Are there any Liberals in this outfit? There's no reason the LPC shouldn't come clean on this.
US Airways Jet Ditches in Hudson River - All Aboard Safe
This photo from the New York Times is one for the books. It shows a ferry rescuing passengers from US Airways Airbus A320 that put down in the Hudson River shortly after take off. All 148 passengers and 5 crewmembers are believed to be safe. That must've been one fine piece of flying.
Arms Race Update - Boxing China
In yesterday's Arms Race Update report, India's drive to acquire US anti-missile battery systems was explored. The ostensible purpose is for India to have a safeguard against a nuclear missile strike from Pakistan - just in case the Pakistanis should suddenly go full-bore Islamist, I suppose.
Of course India's rival for emerging economic superpowerdom, China, would also be impacted especially as India moves to develop its own nuclear arsenals.
There's a report in today's Asia Times that Indian anti-missile batteries might merely be a western anchor of an American system stretching eastward through South Korea and into Japan. blanketing China.
Washington could argue that it is merely trying to help India, South Korea and Japan defend themselves against rogue missiles fired out of Pakistan or North Korea. That argument would be about as convincing to Beijing as claiming the Czech and Polish anti-missile system deployments to defend against rogue missiles out of Iran was to Moscow.
It would be naive not to expect China to take this as a clear provocation and a challenge to its own security. After all, if Chinese missiles are neutralized, it's nuclear deterrence capability is crippled and it then becomes enormously vulnerable to nuclear aggression from its rivals.
Unlike the United States or Russia, Chinese military affairs are typically kept very low key but it would be a dangerous mistake to confuse a lack of Chinese outrage with a willingness to tolerate this sort of thing.
China, like Russia, knows there are ways to counter these threats - new missile technologies, more and better warheads, alternate delivery systems including more missile subs - generally upping the ante and, in the process, lowering the nuclear threshold.
This is a high-risk game of brinksmanship that's underway well below the media's radar. Let's hope Obama slams the cork back into this little bottle before the genie is truly out.
Of course India's rival for emerging economic superpowerdom, China, would also be impacted especially as India moves to develop its own nuclear arsenals.
There's a report in today's Asia Times that Indian anti-missile batteries might merely be a western anchor of an American system stretching eastward through South Korea and into Japan. blanketing China.
Washington could argue that it is merely trying to help India, South Korea and Japan defend themselves against rogue missiles fired out of Pakistan or North Korea. That argument would be about as convincing to Beijing as claiming the Czech and Polish anti-missile system deployments to defend against rogue missiles out of Iran was to Moscow.
It would be naive not to expect China to take this as a clear provocation and a challenge to its own security. After all, if Chinese missiles are neutralized, it's nuclear deterrence capability is crippled and it then becomes enormously vulnerable to nuclear aggression from its rivals.
Unlike the United States or Russia, Chinese military affairs are typically kept very low key but it would be a dangerous mistake to confuse a lack of Chinese outrage with a willingness to tolerate this sort of thing.
China, like Russia, knows there are ways to counter these threats - new missile technologies, more and better warheads, alternate delivery systems including more missile subs - generally upping the ante and, in the process, lowering the nuclear threshold.
This is a high-risk game of brinksmanship that's underway well below the media's radar. Let's hope Obama slams the cork back into this little bottle before the genie is truly out.
White Phosphorus For The U.N.?
There are reports that Israeli forces fired three white phosphorus rounds at the UN headquarters in the Gaza Strip. From CBC News:
Israel shelled the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, engulfing the compound and a warehouse in fire and destroying thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies intended for Palestinian refugees.
UN workers and Palestinian firefighters, some wearing bulletproof jackets, struggled to douse the flames and pull bags of food aid from the debris.
Israeli officials say their forces were fired on from the compound by Hamas guerrillas.
UN officials at the scene dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense."
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is in the region to end the devastating offensive in Gaza, demanded a "full explanation" for the attack, which also wounded three people.
He said the Israeli defence minister told him there had been a "grave mistake."
However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the military fired artillery shells at the UN compound after Hamas opened fire from the location.
Israel shelled the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, engulfing the compound and a warehouse in fire and destroying thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies intended for Palestinian refugees.
UN workers and Palestinian firefighters, some wearing bulletproof jackets, struggled to douse the flames and pull bags of food aid from the debris.
Israeli officials say their forces were fired on from the compound by Hamas guerrillas.
UN officials at the scene dismissed the Israeli claim as "nonsense."
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is in the region to end the devastating offensive in Gaza, demanded a "full explanation" for the attack, which also wounded three people.
He said the Israeli defence minister told him there had been a "grave mistake."
However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the military fired artillery shells at the UN compound after Hamas opened fire from the location.
