Oh, sure

C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, U.S. Officials Say Another headline for The Project.
But, you know, it occured to me that the one positive thing resulting from the whole flap over WMD intelligence is that nobody has to take John Bolton seriously anymore.

Clean sweep

Sorry for the lack of new posts -- we've been doing one of those once-a-decade projects of cleaning everything out of the laundry room and the storage room, repainting, repacking everything into plastic storage bins, plus throwing tons of stuff out. My goal was a 50 per cent reduction -- we didn't quite achieve that, but it's close!
This is the kind of exciting holiday event that you, too, can look forward to when you've been married for 30+ years!

It's a beginning

Ted Rall often strikes me as a bit of a left-wing nutcase, but I can appreciate the feeling behind his latest screed
We are at war, but the terrorists aren't foreigners. We are fighting for our nation's soul. The right-wing Republicans who control the government and the media have no intention of sharing their power. Thus they present themselves and their ideas--that we should spend our national treasury on invading oil-producing nations but not on national healthcare, that it's acceptable to throw people into concentration camps--as the living embodiment of what it means to be American. Meanwhile the neofascist bullies slime everybody else--the majority--as 'anti-American.' The United States is living under ideological apartheid. There are a many more of us than there are corporatist neofascists, but as any prison inmate can attest, numerical superiority does not assure victory. Excluded from access to mainstream politics and media, measured and even-toned opponents are ignored and marginalized. The current situation calls for radical, loud, even ugly, tactics. Nelson Mandela, fighting the racist white minority government of South Africa, resorted to building bombs to loosen the grip of apartheid. Here in America, one unfair, dissembling movie by a liberal loudmouth like Michael Moore, no matter how successful, could never be powerful enough to counter the millions of conservative lies disseminated by thousands of talk radio stations and newspapers every minute of every day of every year. But it's a beginning.

You Know you're Canadian If....

1. You've frozen your tongue to something metal and lived to tell about it.
2. You're not offended by the term "Homo Milk"
3. You drink pop, not soda
4. You understand the sentence "Could you please pass me a
serviette, I spilled my poutine"
5. You know that a mickey and a 2-4 means "Party at the camp eh!"
6. You talk about the weather with friends and strangers alike
7. When there is a social problem, you turn to your government to fix it instead of telling them to stay out of it.
8. You're not sure if the leader of your nation has EVER had sex and you don't want to find out!
9. You dismiss all beers under 6% as "for children or the elderly"
10. You know that Casey and Finnegan aren't a Celtic music group
11. You participated in "Participaction"
12. You are excited whenever an American tv show mentions Canada
13. Back bacon and Kraft dinner are two of your favourite food
groups
14. You wear socks with our sandals
15. You know all the words to "If I had a million dollars" by The Barenaked Ladies, including the inter-stanza banter between Steven and Ed.
16. You think Ed the Sock is funny.
17. You wonder why there isn't a 5 dollar coin.
16. You have memorized the Heritage Foundation's Heritage Moments, including your favourites, "You know I canna read a word...", "Come on, Vince" and "Kanata".
17. You can sing "O' Canada" in French and actually know what the words mean!
18. You send angry letters to the CBC demanding the return of the Hinterland Who's Who so you can finally find out what happens to the arctic ptarmigan in winter.
19. You think Great Big Sea isn't Maritime-centric enough.
20. Your backpack has more than one Canadian flag iron-on.
21. You have been on Speaker's Corner.
22. You know the French equivalents of ``free,'' ``prize'' and ``no sugar added,'' thanks to your extensive education in bilingual cereal packaging.
23. You know who said "Now I'll call Rusty".
24. You had a crush on Joey Jeremiah from Degrassi Junior High.
25. You think -10 C is mild weather.
26. You have twins named Donovan and Bailey.
27. You have twins named Wayne and Gretzky (alternatively Gordie and Howe).
28. Thinking of Johnny Wayne causes gales of laughter. I told him, Julie, don't go.
29. You're proud that Captain Kirk came from Montreal.
30. You read rather than scanned this list.
(Thanks to various other Canadian websites, from which I stole some of these items.)

Right-wing crazy

Framing Michael Moore -- In These Times
So the right wing is going crazy about Fahrenheit 9/11, trying to blanket the airwaves with all sorts of accusations about how the film is "lying" about this, that and the other. They seem to be focusing on three things -- first, flying the saudis out of the country acutally happened September 14, not 13. Second, that the Carlyle Group isn't really such a big deal, links to the Carlyle Group -- well, the CG isn't really as big a deal as it seems to be. And third, that James Bath wasn't as much of a Bush frield as Moore says he is.
Well, pardon me, but so what?
Eric Alterman, in Michael Moore, Cause for War? - asks why journalists are hysterical about Moore's film when they did not subject Bush evidence for war to any examination at all -- "Perhaps not all of Moore's contentions are equally valid; perhaps some are even wrong. But his record so far looks awfully good compared to those of Mssrs. Bush and Cheney. If only the media that enabled those two had taken their contentions remotely as seriously..."
And the one big scene in F9/11 which no one can rebut is the seven minutes that Bush spent reading My Pet Goat, while thousands were burning and jumping and dying in the World Trade Centre. Why did Bush do nothing? Because he's a coward. When faced with the need for decisive action, he froze.
And there is no way that all the journalists and right-wing crazies in the world can get around that fact.

Yesterday's news

I always think the catch-phrases that media outlets use for their continuing stories are instructive. For example, during the Iraq war, we're seen phrases like 'America at War' and then 'America in Iraq'. Now, we're seeing a definite tone-down, reflecting the idea that as far as the American media is concerned, they want to treat Iraq as yesterday's news:
MSNBC now uses "Iraq: Transfer of Power". CNN calls their section "The Struggle for Iraq". The New York Times section head is incomprehensible: "The Reach of War", while CBSjust uses "Iraq: After Saddam". The word "America" has disappeared, in spite of the fact that not a single American soldier is coming home because of the so-called transfer -- in fact, another 6,000 are being drafted. Happy July 4th to them and their families!

The GOP headline project

Josh Marshall writes about the recent Financial Times story about how there really was uranium evidence after all.
What is happening here is this: Rove and the GOP are getting their ducks in a row. One by one, they're getting SOMEONE to publish refutations of all of their problem areas -- no WDM, no uranium, no links between Hussein and 9-11 -- as news stories. Many of these have been in the New York Times, but some are being slipped in elsewhere.
Now, it doesn't matter to Rove or the GOP that these stories make no sense -- as Marshall points out about the uranium story, don't you think that if the Bush administration had had any evidence whatsoever of Iraq yellowcake interest, they would have used it a year ago when Wilson hit the news? And it doesn't matter whether the stories are actually proven wrong the next day -- remember the one where Putin supposedly told Washington a year ago that Hussein was behind 9/11, and the State Department replied "Huh?" And it doesn't matter whether there is any follow-up on the stories, or whether any other media print or broadcast them. The Putin story, for example, was widely seen as a joke two days after it appeared.
The point is only to make sure that one story gets published.
So now, when Bush is asked on the campaign trail about all these probems, he can state, truthfully, that major media outlets have published stories confirming the truth of his claims. And they can use the headlines in their ads, too.
Watch for more of these types of stories in the coming months. You will recognize them by how conveniently their headlines dovetail with the Bush reelection slogans.
So now I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more foreign affairs headlines coming soon, perhaps about how grateful the former soviet satellite states are for Bush's strong leadership. I predict we will also be seeing headlines aimed to the domestic agenda -- how well the No Child Left Behind act is going, how grateful seniors are for their drug benefit, and how any day now there will be a ton of new jobs for everyone.
It doesn't matter what the truth is, just what the headlines are.

Second verse, same as the first

So I checked out Today in Iraq, to see if anything had changed since the big handover on Monday.
Nope, it hasn't. They're still dying over there.

Bush the debater

Read James Fallow's latest in The Atlantic Monthly (unfortunately, the article is not online), about how the Bush/Kerry debates will go -- very interesting stuff, especially about Bush's skills as a debater, and how his side always manages expectations by promoting what a terrific debater the other guy is, and how terrible Bush is, to the extent that Bush gets himself declared "the winnah" just because he doesn't fall off the stage. In reality, Bush is an excellent debater, on message, clear, thinking on his feet, coming across as warm and responsive without actually responding, etc etc.
Apparently there will be four debates this year beginning September 30 in the University of Miami.

American polls

With the Canadian election so interesting, I haven't been looking much at American stuff for the last few days. Josh Marshall writes about the recent polls, showing Bush at 4 out of 10 approval.
I guess this is OK, though I would be much happier if it were 3 out of ten.
As Canadian polls showed, sometimes polls don't get you very far -- they may help people decide who to vote for, or against, but I'm not sure how useful they are in predicting results. The last Canadian polls were done about 5 days before the election, and the thinking is that there was a bit of a turnaround over the last weekend, enough to give Martin an extra 20 seats -- I guess his last-minute coast-to-coast sprint was a vote-getter -- he came across as pumped up, positive, energetic. So even a day can make a difference, I guess.
So when it comes to the American polls, I don't know how much faith to put in them. Also, by their nature, national polls are not reflective of the riding results or, I presume, the Electoral College results -- after all, it doesn't matter whether Kerry gets 95 per cent of the New York vote, or 55 per cent, he still gets 31 electoral college votes. And likewise, whether Bush gets 52 per cent in Texas, or 98 per cent, it still gets him 34 electoral college votes.
So when you read those national polls that have asked a thousand voters nationwide how they will vote, the result has to be read with a bale of salt -- a 30/70 split is large enough to be significant in the electoral college, but a 40/60 split may not be, depending on where those votes are. And a state-by-state breakdown of a thousand-person poll is meaningless.

Some more random thoughts on the election

Next election - 2006 - I think it will be a long time (like two years or more) before we go to the polls again unless the Liberals decide to go.
The Bloc won't want another election any time soon -- they have nowhere to go except down now. Basically, the Liberals want 25 more seats in Quebec, which they can only get from the Bloc. Bloc support in Quebec is soft -- it was based on Quebec anger over the sponsorship scandal. Once that is over (and presuming that Martin himself doesn't get tainted with it)the Bloc has no issues to win on next time. So they will want to hang onto their seats now as long as they can by supporting the Liberals as often as possible. Martin is in a position of strength with the Bloc, not a position of weakness.
The NDP won't want a quick election, either. They did pretty badly, really, in spite of Layton's rhetoric, and they need to regroup -- their vote went to the Liberals, and even more will go if Martin does a half-decent job.
And the Conservatives won't want a quick election -- they need time to find an Ontario leader who can speak French (sorry, Brenda). The long knives will be out for Harper now.
Proportional referendum? Even if Layton gets a national referundum on proportional representation, who will vote for it? I would predict 65-35 against. Look at how resentful people were when the party leaders picked even a few candidates - I think the CBC said Martin picked 8, out of 308 ridings, and we had losers crying all over the place. So imagine how people would feel if the party leaders picked everyone in the government? I think its just too gigantic a step, in a country as diverse and individualistic as ours, to expect that people will not want to pick their own representative, however flawed the first-past-the-post system is, rather than have a representative picked for them somehow from a slate.
Sask outcome - In Saskatchewan, Liberal support picked up quite a bit -- this is why the NDP lost their two seats here --the usual NDP vote went to the liberals instead. It was not enough for either the liberals or NDP to win, so conservatives took the seats. So it will be interesting to see what happens next time.
And thank you Jesus - Jim Pankiw is gone, gone, gone! After all the local concern about whether he would win again by dividing his opponents, in the end he finished FOURTH, behind the Conservatives, the Liberals AND the NDP. This only proves there is a God.

Winners and losers

Canadians give Liberals a minority; 'We must do better,' Martin pledges So Harper loses by winning more seats, but not enough. And Martin wins by losing some seats, but not enough.
According to the final count, unless recounts change it, Martin doesn't need the NDP as long as he has about half of the Bloc. But with the NDP alone, he cannot do it.
A "majority" in this government is not actually 155, its 154, considering that one member will serve as speaker (I think I have that right). If a Liberal is speaker, that cuts Martin down to 134 votes. Adding the NDP's 19, it still is only 153 votes, one short if the Conservatives, the Bloc and Cadman all vote against Martin. So Martin needs the Bloc, at least one or two or them, or the NDP plus Chuck Cadman, whose main focus is on law-and-order issues like illegal street racing and grow ops.
Oh, may you live in interesting times.

Don't worry, be happy

Hitler used in Bush election campaign ad
I think the Democrats should let this one stand -- it hurts the Republicans themselves more than it hurts Kerry. Its on the Bush-Cheney 2004 site.
As an ad, its very strange -- the controversial shots of Hitler are interspersed with the quotes from Gore and Dean and Moore, and its not very clear whether the ad is trying to imply that Hitler is against Bush too, or that Gore and Dean and Moore are also opposed to Hitler. And the quotes they use are strong statements against the war and against the Bush administration's use of fear as a tactic -- they don't actually come across as irrational rants, though maybe the RNC thinks they are. But the wierdest thing is at the end, with the cheery little burst of music and the smiling Bush -- I guess the conclusion is supposed to feel like "don't worry, be happy" and it comes across like Bush comforting the faithful by playing Bobo the clown-- well, considering the hundreds dying daily now in Iraq, its pretty disconcerting and strange.

Sensible discussion

What Next? Rolling Stone convenes a panel of experts to discuss what went wrong in Iraq
Finally, some sensible talk about Iraq from smart people who have actually worked in the region. Some selected quotes:
Chas Freeman U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992; assistant secretary of defense, 1993-1994: Increasing sophistication in the ambush tactics and improvised explosive devices used to kill American troops indicate growing cooperation between secular Iraqi factions and religious extremists like Al Qaeda. Sunni insurgents in Iraq are being helped by Hamas from the Palestinian occupied territories, and the Shiites are being assisted by Hezbollah from Lebanon. All these forces are cooperating, even though many have historically been mortal enemies. Clearly, the U.S. is a big enough enemy for everyone in the region to put aside their differences.
Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of Centcom, 1997-2000; special envoy to the Middle East, 2002-2003; author of Battle Ready: Any time we look at an "enemy," we look at it at three levels. At the tactical level, the enemy is the terrorist organizations and the financing they get. The operational level is the enemy's center of gravity -- it's the rationale, which is radical Islam. At the strategic level, it's the continuous flow of young people so desperate and angry that they're willing to believe it.
At the tactical level, we could be winning - we could be hurting Al Qaeda and capturing its leadership. But as an ideology, it's strengthening. It is probably stronger now than before September 11th, in terms of recruiting manpower willing to kill themselves.
Sen. Joseph Biden Ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I was in the Oval Office the other day, and the president asked me what I would do about resignations. I said, "Look, Mr. President, would I keep Rumsfeld? Absolutely not." And I turned to Vice President Cheney, who was there, and I said, "Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." I turned back to the president and said, "Mr. President, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are bright guys, really patriotic, but they've been dead wrong on every major piece of advice they've given you. That's why I'd get rid of them, Mr. President -- not just Abu Ghraib." They said nothing. Just sat like big old bullfrogs on a log and looked at me.
Youssef Ibrahim Managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group; former Middle Eastern correspondent for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal: The sixty-year relationship we've had with Saudi Arabia is on the verge of collapse. How many times have we asked them to please, please open the spigots so we can bring prices down? There's a new 900-pound gorilla coming called China. In ten years, it's going to be the largest consumer of oil in the world, which means that the people who produce oil are no longer kissing America's ass -- they're beginning to kiss China's ass. [In response to a question about whether the war has produced a new respect for American military power] Hardly. We are no longer loved because of Iraq, and we are also no longer feared because of Iraq. The neoconservative dream of regime change throughout the region -- in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Somalia -- is dead. Do you really think any of those countries are afraid of us after watching us bleed in the streets of Iraq?

Martin the listener

Rick Salutin's column Ideas on election ideas sums up a lot of my own thoughts. He quotes Jack Layton saying "Elections should be about ideas" and then continues "Uh, I think that's a bad idea. Undergraduate education should be about ideas. You get great reading lists, inspiring profs, you yak in the dorm late at night. But elections? They should be about what happens to ideas put into practice. . . . Elections are also about judging leaders' capacity for judgment, since mostly what they deal with in power is unexpected crises, such as SARS or 9/11, that you can't have ready-made ideas for."
So on the basis of judgment, whose should I trust, Martin's or Harper's? Clearly, as far as I am concerned, its Martin by a landslide.
Over the course of this campaign, Harper has shown himself to be not-ready-for-prime-time -- he cannot even manage the continuing gay-bashing, abortion-bashing blather from his own caucus. And clearly, he has an agenda about which he does not want to talk. Salutin writes "For a real ideologue, you have to turn to Stephen Harper. He doesn't spew ideas, he takes a few and muses on how he got them, honed them, stuck to them . . . These ideas are clearly a deep part of his sense of self. Or should I say, this idea. The sign of ideology is the conviction that one idea, or a tight, related set, can be successfully applied to any topic or situation. Everything follows reasonably, except the monomaniacal premise it starts from."
Martin's mistakes, on the other hand, have been more personal -- he doesn't have Chretien's ready wit or ability to lunge for the quick ripose; he comes across looking clumsy, stuttering. But his heart is in the right place -- in the CBC interview on Wednesday night, the audience warmed to him when he demonstrated how responsive he is toward this country and the people who live in it. He wants to do, not what he thinks is best for us, but what we think is best for ourselves. As Salutin says, this makes Martin appear to be waffling:
"I know people who say Paul Martin's real agenda is to serve the rich and the corporate elite. But after watching a lot of TV for the past six weeks, I've come to the conclusion that his real problem is that he has no agenda. (He may not realize this, but what difference does that make?) And maybe it's not a problem. Maybe for the next 10 years, he could get as excited about building a vibrant health-care system as he was about erasing the deficit -- come hell, high water or sick people -- during the past decade."
Salutin continues " He's like Groucho Marx, who barked, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." Principles can be overrated when dealing with reality. Even V. I. Lenin, whom you'd normally consider a total Marxist ideologue, after seizing power in a devastated Russia, decided: What this country needs is a little capitalism. That showed genius."
Basically, what I like about Martin is that he takes his cue from us -- if we say that defeating the deficit is what we want, then he does it. If we say health care is our top priority -- as poll after poll has shown -- then it becomes Martin's top priority too. He listens to us. That's the kind of man I want as Prime Minister.