Read A colourful chronicle of nurses' heroism .
My aunt was a war nurse in Italy -- she died when I was 16 or 17, and I don't remember ever asking her about her war experiences. She was one of the thousands of women who never married after World War II -- the family legend was that the soldier she would have married died in Italy.
Reading this story, I have no idea whether my aunt may have been one of the brave nurses on that transport ship. But maybe she was. I admire the Globe for tracking down these stories and for bringing credit to all of the Canadians in the Italian campaign -- lest we forget.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Flabby fist
So I heard a bit of Scott Taylor'sinterview on John Gormley Live yesterday -- Taylor, who edits Esprit de Corps magazine, survived five days as a hostage in Iraq in September.
He described Fallujah as "the Alamo" for Iraqis -- regardless of whether the US wins its offensive there, the city will remain a symbol of Iraq resistance, and the more destruction the greater its symbolic value.
Then today I read James Wolcott's piece
On Borrowed Time about the hollow core of the so-called American empire: "the US can no longer back up the big mouths of its leaders. If America chooses to go it alone in future conflicts, it'll be because it has no choice."
He goes on to quote from Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire:
"Todd, a French demographer and author of a book correctly foreseeing the fall of the Soviet Union, says the US has become a "big little bully" incapable of picking on anyone its own size. It makes a show of force attacking the weak--dirtpoor countries with no air defences, such as Iraq and Afghanistan--because a "show" is precisely what it is. "These conflicts that represent little or no military risk allow the United States to be 'present' throughout the world. The United States works to maintain the illusory fiction of the world as a dangerous place in need of America's protection." Problem is, the fiction is only fooling Americans. The rest of the world has wised up. Todd points out that Germany, Russia, France, and even Turkey declined to join our great adventure in Iraq, and guess what?--nothing happened! Apart from sappy boycotts and juvenile gestures ("freedom fries"), they went unpunished. . . "We should not follow America's military leaders for whom the term 'theater of operations' has ceased being a metaphor. Fighting alongside the Americans in Iraq would only amount to playing a small role in a bloody vaudeville show." . . . The US assault on Fallujah is a prime example of what Todd calls "theatrical micromilitarism.". . . For months the US has been touting this incursion and publicly built up forces outside the city for weeks, giving the enemy plenty of time to rig explosives and/or skip town. Billing it as a "decisive battle"--another fraud. Guerrilla warfare operates on an entirely different set of rules; as has been oft pointed out, America won every major battle during Vietnam and still lost. What's unfolding is not a decisive moment but a ghastly production that trains hellfire on a symbolic target and "plays well" to American citizens as a flex of muscle . . . Civilian casualties, the destruction of homes and livelihoods, the absence of any significant capture of insurgent ringleaders, these are secondary to getting good action footage over which benedictions can be said. Under a second Bush term, the neocons are more entrenched and missile-rattling than ever, eyeing Iran, Syria, even China. But the fist they shake at the world is a flabby one, as the world has somberly, resentfully come to recognize. "As for George W. Bush and his neoconservative helpers, they will go down in history as the grave diggers of the American empire."
He described Fallujah as "the Alamo" for Iraqis -- regardless of whether the US wins its offensive there, the city will remain a symbol of Iraq resistance, and the more destruction the greater its symbolic value.
Then today I read James Wolcott's piece
On Borrowed Time about the hollow core of the so-called American empire: "the US can no longer back up the big mouths of its leaders. If America chooses to go it alone in future conflicts, it'll be because it has no choice."
He goes on to quote from Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire:
"Todd, a French demographer and author of a book correctly foreseeing the fall of the Soviet Union, says the US has become a "big little bully" incapable of picking on anyone its own size. It makes a show of force attacking the weak--dirtpoor countries with no air defences, such as Iraq and Afghanistan--because a "show" is precisely what it is. "These conflicts that represent little or no military risk allow the United States to be 'present' throughout the world. The United States works to maintain the illusory fiction of the world as a dangerous place in need of America's protection." Problem is, the fiction is only fooling Americans. The rest of the world has wised up. Todd points out that Germany, Russia, France, and even Turkey declined to join our great adventure in Iraq, and guess what?--nothing happened! Apart from sappy boycotts and juvenile gestures ("freedom fries"), they went unpunished. . . "We should not follow America's military leaders for whom the term 'theater of operations' has ceased being a metaphor. Fighting alongside the Americans in Iraq would only amount to playing a small role in a bloody vaudeville show." . . . The US assault on Fallujah is a prime example of what Todd calls "theatrical micromilitarism.". . . For months the US has been touting this incursion and publicly built up forces outside the city for weeks, giving the enemy plenty of time to rig explosives and/or skip town. Billing it as a "decisive battle"--another fraud. Guerrilla warfare operates on an entirely different set of rules; as has been oft pointed out, America won every major battle during Vietnam and still lost. What's unfolding is not a decisive moment but a ghastly production that trains hellfire on a symbolic target and "plays well" to American citizens as a flex of muscle . . . Civilian casualties, the destruction of homes and livelihoods, the absence of any significant capture of insurgent ringleaders, these are secondary to getting good action footage over which benedictions can be said. Under a second Bush term, the neocons are more entrenched and missile-rattling than ever, eyeing Iran, Syria, even China. But the fist they shake at the world is a flabby one, as the world has somberly, resentfully come to recognize. "As for George W. Bush and his neoconservative helpers, they will go down in history as the grave diggers of the American empire."
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Voting fraud? But so what?
Olbermann remains commited to covering the voting fraud story, I hope.
Because what I cannot figure out yet in reading the internet stories on the voting problems is this: did the overvotes give Bush Ohio and Florida? Or not?
This is the "so what?" part of the story that we haven't reached yet.
There are two mutually-exclusive story lines here.
The right-wing blogs seem convinced that the voting fraud stories prove their belief that those low-down dirty Democrats tried to steal the election by signing up fraudulent voters who would vote illegally for Kerry. It was this belief that they used to justify the harrasment and intimidation and attempted disqualifications before and during the election; now they think it explains the overvote counties in Ohio. It also, for them, confirms their inner conviction that patriotic Americans simply couldn't have voted for Kerry.
The progressive blogs, on the other hand, are convinced that the fraud stories prove their assertion that electronic voting machines, particularly the optical scan vote counters, were rigged so republicans could steal the election for Bush. This also supports the long-standing fears about Diebold, whose CEO famously promised to deliver Ohio for Bush. And again, it confirms the inner conviction that sensible Americans simply couldn't have voted for Bush.
Of course, I tend to believe the progressive blogs are correct, while the right-wingers are wrong.
But what is missing so far in both storylines is actual human testimony -- someone coming forward to say, yes I registered a bunch of phoney democrats, or yes, I programmed a vote-counting computer to triple-count the Bush votes. And I cannot find yet a summary or analysis of who actually got the votes -- were the 93,000 Ohio overvotes credited to Bush? Or to Kerry? Did the disproportionate Bush votes in heavily Democratic Florida counties actually make the difference in turning Florida, or was there a sufficient margin in the rest of the state to render these votes meaningless anyway?
I disagree with Digby, who says the overall 3-million vote margin likely provides sufficient legitimacy to Bush's presidency -- it DOES matter who actually won the electoral college.
Because what I cannot figure out yet in reading the internet stories on the voting problems is this: did the overvotes give Bush Ohio and Florida? Or not?
This is the "so what?" part of the story that we haven't reached yet.
There are two mutually-exclusive story lines here.
The right-wing blogs seem convinced that the voting fraud stories prove their belief that those low-down dirty Democrats tried to steal the election by signing up fraudulent voters who would vote illegally for Kerry. It was this belief that they used to justify the harrasment and intimidation and attempted disqualifications before and during the election; now they think it explains the overvote counties in Ohio. It also, for them, confirms their inner conviction that patriotic Americans simply couldn't have voted for Kerry.
The progressive blogs, on the other hand, are convinced that the fraud stories prove their assertion that electronic voting machines, particularly the optical scan vote counters, were rigged so republicans could steal the election for Bush. This also supports the long-standing fears about Diebold, whose CEO famously promised to deliver Ohio for Bush. And again, it confirms the inner conviction that sensible Americans simply couldn't have voted for Bush.
Of course, I tend to believe the progressive blogs are correct, while the right-wingers are wrong.
But what is missing so far in both storylines is actual human testimony -- someone coming forward to say, yes I registered a bunch of phoney democrats, or yes, I programmed a vote-counting computer to triple-count the Bush votes. And I cannot find yet a summary or analysis of who actually got the votes -- were the 93,000 Ohio overvotes credited to Bush? Or to Kerry? Did the disproportionate Bush votes in heavily Democratic Florida counties actually make the difference in turning Florida, or was there a sufficient margin in the rest of the state to render these votes meaningless anyway?
I disagree with Digby, who says the overall 3-million vote margin likely provides sufficient legitimacy to Bush's presidency -- it DOES matter who actually won the electoral college.
See what I meant about anger?
Fuck the South "Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass. And no, you can't have your convention in New York next time. Fuck off."
The politics of grievance
When you look at the history of the last fifty years, the politics of grievance has been one of the most destructive forces in the world -- from Northern Ireland to Zimbabwe, from the Basques to the Palestinians, from Chechnya to Venezuela, tribal grievances motivate apparently endless cycles of outrage and retaliation.
Now Digby describes the 200-year-old sense of grievance held by the Southern US, which he says can only be dealt with by changing their own culture, not the so-called northern one: "maybe it's time for the heartland to take a good hard look at itself and ask when they are going to adopt the culture of responsibility they profess with such fervor. It sure looks to me as if they've been nursing a case of historical pique for more than 200 years and that resentment no longer has any more meaning than a somewhat self-destructive insistence on maintaining a cultural identity that's really defined by it's anger toward the rest of the country. They are talking themselves into a theocratic police state in order to "crack the whip over the heads of the northern men" and it's not likely to work out for them any better this time than it did the first time."
I was reading this to my husband and we both said "what does this remind us of" and the answer was "Quebec, and The West".
Quebec has an historical sense of grievance with "English" Canada, and Western Canada has a long-standing grievance with "the East"; both are mutally incompatible, and basically irrational; both have plagued Canadian politics for two centuries.
Two things have saved Canada from being split apart (at least so far) by the politics of grievance:
In Quebec, its educational system (the Jesuit Catholic tradition) has produced generations of brilliant politicians who have served Canada and Quebec well. I regret that some, like Rene Levesque and Lucien Bouchard and now Jean Charest, were "lost" to Canada because they turned away from Canadian politics and devoted their brilliance and considerable energies to Quebec itself. Levesque and Bouchard were separatists, but such principled men that they would not lie or cheat or steal in order to take their province out of confederation. Others like Pierre Trudeau and Marc Lalonde and Jean Chretien ran the federal government for decades and made it their goal to promote the federalist cause in Quebec. But both groups were deep thinkers and good strategists and have served Canada well.
In the West, we have had a number of anti-eastern/pro-western political parties over the years, and lots of alientation talk, but never enough to unite the four western provinces sufficiently to achieve separation -- an accident of geography, perhaps, because the Rocky Mountains will always separate BC from the Prairies psychologically as well as physically. Only occasionally in the last 50 years have the western-oriented Conservatives been able to get enough federal votes in Quebec and Ontario to form the government, but it happens often enough that they have not given up hope.
I have confidence that Canada's regional differences are becoming less divisive -- the separatist cause appears to be less attractive in Quebec as Canadian society increasingly accepts Quebec's distinct status, and "western alienation" doesn't seem to be grabbing headlines the way it once did either. Perhaps each region in our country is maturing politically -- accepting responsibility, as Digby recommends, for our own situations rather than playing self-indulgent and self-destructive blame games. Now, if we could only get Danny Williams and Ralph Klein to stop walking out of meetings in a huff . . .
Now Digby describes the 200-year-old sense of grievance held by the Southern US, which he says can only be dealt with by changing their own culture, not the so-called northern one: "maybe it's time for the heartland to take a good hard look at itself and ask when they are going to adopt the culture of responsibility they profess with such fervor. It sure looks to me as if they've been nursing a case of historical pique for more than 200 years and that resentment no longer has any more meaning than a somewhat self-destructive insistence on maintaining a cultural identity that's really defined by it's anger toward the rest of the country. They are talking themselves into a theocratic police state in order to "crack the whip over the heads of the northern men" and it's not likely to work out for them any better this time than it did the first time."
I was reading this to my husband and we both said "what does this remind us of" and the answer was "Quebec, and The West".
Quebec has an historical sense of grievance with "English" Canada, and Western Canada has a long-standing grievance with "the East"; both are mutally incompatible, and basically irrational; both have plagued Canadian politics for two centuries.
Two things have saved Canada from being split apart (at least so far) by the politics of grievance:
In Quebec, its educational system (the Jesuit Catholic tradition) has produced generations of brilliant politicians who have served Canada and Quebec well. I regret that some, like Rene Levesque and Lucien Bouchard and now Jean Charest, were "lost" to Canada because they turned away from Canadian politics and devoted their brilliance and considerable energies to Quebec itself. Levesque and Bouchard were separatists, but such principled men that they would not lie or cheat or steal in order to take their province out of confederation. Others like Pierre Trudeau and Marc Lalonde and Jean Chretien ran the federal government for decades and made it their goal to promote the federalist cause in Quebec. But both groups were deep thinkers and good strategists and have served Canada well.
In the West, we have had a number of anti-eastern/pro-western political parties over the years, and lots of alientation talk, but never enough to unite the four western provinces sufficiently to achieve separation -- an accident of geography, perhaps, because the Rocky Mountains will always separate BC from the Prairies psychologically as well as physically. Only occasionally in the last 50 years have the western-oriented Conservatives been able to get enough federal votes in Quebec and Ontario to form the government, but it happens often enough that they have not given up hope.
I have confidence that Canada's regional differences are becoming less divisive -- the separatist cause appears to be less attractive in Quebec as Canadian society increasingly accepts Quebec's distinct status, and "western alienation" doesn't seem to be grabbing headlines the way it once did either. Perhaps each region in our country is maturing politically -- accepting responsibility, as Digby recommends, for our own situations rather than playing self-indulgent and self-destructive blame games. Now, if we could only get Danny Williams and Ralph Klein to stop walking out of meetings in a huff . . .
Monday, November 08, 2004
Oh, great!
Atrios points to this article in the Financial Times Dollar expected to fall amid China's rumoured selling -- and wouldn't this be just ducky for us all. The Canadian dollar rose again against the US dollar last week; looks like it will go up further. While this is good news for Canadian snow birds, its not so great for our exporters. And if American interest rates go up, so will ours.
I wonder if this relates to the intense and unexpected criticism of the war in Iraq from former vice-premier and former longtime Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen. In an article from China Daily published just before the election, Qichen wrote that America's anti-terror campaign "has already gone beyond the scope of self-defence. And these latest moves, when seen with the background of the Gulf War and the Kosovo War, have made it obvious that the United States has not changed its Cold War mentality and that the country is still accustomed to applying military means to deal with various threats, visible or invisible. The philosophy of the "Bush Doctrine" is in essence force. It advocates the United States should rule over the whole world with overwhelming force, military force in particular." With the war in Iraq "Washington has opened a Pandora's box, intensifying various intermingled conflicts, such as ethnic and religious ones . . the current US predicament in Iraq serves as another example that when a country's superiority psychology inflates beyond its real capability, a lot of trouble can be caused. But the troubles and disasters the United States has met do not stem from threats by others, but from its own cocksureness and arrogance. The 21st century is not the "American Century." That does not mean that the United States does not want the dream. Rather, it is incapable of realizing the goal. In this century, all big powers should compete in a peaceful way, instead of military means."
Though the Chinese government distanced itself somewhat from these remarks, things got a little tense with China and with Taiwan during Powell's late October visit.
And, of course, once again there seemd to be complicated relationships between the Bush family and various Asian businespeople, as shown in this article from last year.
I wonder if this relates to the intense and unexpected criticism of the war in Iraq from former vice-premier and former longtime Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen. In an article from China Daily published just before the election, Qichen wrote that America's anti-terror campaign "has already gone beyond the scope of self-defence. And these latest moves, when seen with the background of the Gulf War and the Kosovo War, have made it obvious that the United States has not changed its Cold War mentality and that the country is still accustomed to applying military means to deal with various threats, visible or invisible. The philosophy of the "Bush Doctrine" is in essence force. It advocates the United States should rule over the whole world with overwhelming force, military force in particular." With the war in Iraq "Washington has opened a Pandora's box, intensifying various intermingled conflicts, such as ethnic and religious ones . . the current US predicament in Iraq serves as another example that when a country's superiority psychology inflates beyond its real capability, a lot of trouble can be caused. But the troubles and disasters the United States has met do not stem from threats by others, but from its own cocksureness and arrogance. The 21st century is not the "American Century." That does not mean that the United States does not want the dream. Rather, it is incapable of realizing the goal. In this century, all big powers should compete in a peaceful way, instead of military means."
Though the Chinese government distanced itself somewhat from these remarks, things got a little tense with China and with Taiwan during Powell's late October visit.
And, of course, once again there seemd to be complicated relationships between the Bush family and various Asian businespeople, as shown in this article from last year.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Hillary vs Jeb
Wouldn't that just be a spectacle?
There's all sorts of stuff on the blogosphere about how Hillary shouldn't run in 2008 and how Jeb has said he wouldn't run, and Josh Marshall has a post about how such a matchup would be too much.
But after thinking about the 2004 results and the reasons for them, I think this would be terrific -- the ultimate political version of Dynasty!
Commentators on this election are already saying that too many people in the US now think of presidential elections as just another reality TV show, where the main issue becomes whether they "like" or "trust" a candidate, with no relation to what that candidate actually says or stands for, that most Bush voters had mixed up Kerry's policies. Well, so what -- if so many people are ignorant, maybe ignorance is the new paradigm. Hillary could use "Stand by your man" as a campaign song -- she could blandly ignore all of the Whitewater attack stuff, and all of the right wing talk show hosts blathering on and on about it throughout the entire campaign would just mystify their listeners. As for Jeb, well, he would be burdened with every single bad decision ever made by the senior bushes.
And we'll have fun, fun, fun . . .
There's all sorts of stuff on the blogosphere about how Hillary shouldn't run in 2008 and how Jeb has said he wouldn't run, and Josh Marshall has a post about how such a matchup would be too much.
But after thinking about the 2004 results and the reasons for them, I think this would be terrific -- the ultimate political version of Dynasty!
Commentators on this election are already saying that too many people in the US now think of presidential elections as just another reality TV show, where the main issue becomes whether they "like" or "trust" a candidate, with no relation to what that candidate actually says or stands for, that most Bush voters had mixed up Kerry's policies. Well, so what -- if so many people are ignorant, maybe ignorance is the new paradigm. Hillary could use "Stand by your man" as a campaign song -- she could blandly ignore all of the Whitewater attack stuff, and all of the right wing talk show hosts blathering on and on about it throughout the entire campaign would just mystify their listeners. As for Jeb, well, he would be burdened with every single bad decision ever made by the senior bushes.
And we'll have fun, fun, fun . . .
Counter-Inaugural on Jan 20
A counter-inaugural protest is being organized by ANSWER and Dont Amend and likely a number of other groups. I wonder if Michael Moore will once again be the only media there?
Reading the tea leaves on weapons in space
The Arms Control Association November newsletter contains several ariticles about weapons in space, a great concern of Canada given the US pressure to sign on to the missle defense system.
Centre for Defense Information missile proliferation expert Theresa Hitchins writes about recent US space weapons policy, and finds cause for concern: "Officially, the National Space Policy promulgated by President Bill Clinton in 1996 still stands, a policy that had previously been interpreted as eschewing the deployment of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons and weapons in orbit, reflecting more than 40 years of informal restraint both by Republican and Democratic administrations . . . Meanwhile, there has been a steady trickle of lower-level military planning and doctrine documents that seem to codify U.S. intentions to develop, deploy, and eventually use space weapons. The most recent is the Air Force’s Aug. 2 “Counterspace Operations Doctrine.” This precedent-setting document outlines Air Force guidelines for conducting ASAT operations, possibly pre-emptively, against satellite systems being used by enemies, whether they be dedicated military satellites; those with primarily commercial functions; or those owned and/or operated by third parties, whether governments or commercial entities . . . One possible conclusion from reading the tea leaves, however, is that the White House and Pentagon are engaged in a clever political effort to avoid a controversial public argument on space weapons by reinterpreting Clinton-era policy or practice behind closed doors, that is, to reorient U.S. space policy in secret . . . the Clinton policy . . . stresses the peaceful uses of space and downplays military applications, it also leaves the door open for the employment of ASATs for national security reasons . . . Although vague, the 1996 policy was widely interpreted at the time as stressing a deterrent approach, while refraining from any first deployment of ASAT systems or space-based weapons for striking targets on earth . . . the Clinton administration was viewed as politically hostile even to the development of space weapons, particularly those that could be seen as having offensive attributes. Clinton canceled a number of research and development programs . . . the Bush administration has allowed a wide array of space weapons-related technology developments to go forward at the Pentagon. . . . The most recent Air Force planning document, the “Strategic Master Plan for FY 06 and Beyond” published in October 2003, maintains that national space policy actually requires the development and “deployment as needed” of “negation” capabilities to counter enemy space assets. It goes on seemingly to move the goalposts on when a presidential decision would be required. Although the Clinton policy can be read as requiring a presidential approval for deployment, the Air Force now insists presidential approval is not required for deployment but only to approve actual use of ASAT systems . . . With regard to space-based strike weapons, rather than repeat the Long Range Plan’s assertion that such systems are “not consistent with national policy,” the Strategic Master Plan states that such weapons are allowable under international law but that “our nation’s leadership will decide whether or not to pursue the development and deployment.” . . . As a unilateral move by the United States to deploy space weapons would come fraught with a variety of risks to national and global security, it is about time there was a public debate."
(Thanks to Antiwar for the link that led me to this site.)
Centre for Defense Information missile proliferation expert Theresa Hitchins writes about recent US space weapons policy, and finds cause for concern: "Officially, the National Space Policy promulgated by President Bill Clinton in 1996 still stands, a policy that had previously been interpreted as eschewing the deployment of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons and weapons in orbit, reflecting more than 40 years of informal restraint both by Republican and Democratic administrations . . . Meanwhile, there has been a steady trickle of lower-level military planning and doctrine documents that seem to codify U.S. intentions to develop, deploy, and eventually use space weapons. The most recent is the Air Force’s Aug. 2 “Counterspace Operations Doctrine.” This precedent-setting document outlines Air Force guidelines for conducting ASAT operations, possibly pre-emptively, against satellite systems being used by enemies, whether they be dedicated military satellites; those with primarily commercial functions; or those owned and/or operated by third parties, whether governments or commercial entities . . . One possible conclusion from reading the tea leaves, however, is that the White House and Pentagon are engaged in a clever political effort to avoid a controversial public argument on space weapons by reinterpreting Clinton-era policy or practice behind closed doors, that is, to reorient U.S. space policy in secret . . . the Clinton policy . . . stresses the peaceful uses of space and downplays military applications, it also leaves the door open for the employment of ASATs for national security reasons . . . Although vague, the 1996 policy was widely interpreted at the time as stressing a deterrent approach, while refraining from any first deployment of ASAT systems or space-based weapons for striking targets on earth . . . the Clinton administration was viewed as politically hostile even to the development of space weapons, particularly those that could be seen as having offensive attributes. Clinton canceled a number of research and development programs . . . the Bush administration has allowed a wide array of space weapons-related technology developments to go forward at the Pentagon. . . . The most recent Air Force planning document, the “Strategic Master Plan for FY 06 and Beyond” published in October 2003, maintains that national space policy actually requires the development and “deployment as needed” of “negation” capabilities to counter enemy space assets. It goes on seemingly to move the goalposts on when a presidential decision would be required. Although the Clinton policy can be read as requiring a presidential approval for deployment, the Air Force now insists presidential approval is not required for deployment but only to approve actual use of ASAT systems . . . With regard to space-based strike weapons, rather than repeat the Long Range Plan’s assertion that such systems are “not consistent with national policy,” the Strategic Master Plan states that such weapons are allowable under international law but that “our nation’s leadership will decide whether or not to pursue the development and deployment.” . . . As a unilateral move by the United States to deploy space weapons would come fraught with a variety of risks to national and global security, it is about time there was a public debate."
(Thanks to Antiwar for the link that led me to this site.)
Saturday, November 06, 2004
"the most horrific event I have ever seen"
In I, Cringely, journalist Robert X. Cringely compares the strength of belief in America and in the Middle East with this story (thanks to pandagon for the link):
"If the experts are correct, the 2004 election results mean we now live in a country where morality is apparently the major concern of people. Am I wrong, or is the same thing not true in Iran? And if our morality is in fundamental conflict with their morality, which side will be willing to sacrifice more to obtain what they view as their just end? I can tell you it ain't us.
Back in 1986 [reporting in Iran] I decided to go see the war since I had . . . never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers. It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people. Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind. Now put this in a current context. What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can't really stand in that part of the world. But of course President Bush, who may think he pulled the switch on a couple hundred Death Row inmates in Texas, has probably never seen a combat death. He doesn't get it and he'll proudly NEVER get it. Welcome to the New Morality."
"If the experts are correct, the 2004 election results mean we now live in a country where morality is apparently the major concern of people. Am I wrong, or is the same thing not true in Iran? And if our morality is in fundamental conflict with their morality, which side will be willing to sacrifice more to obtain what they view as their just end? I can tell you it ain't us.
Back in 1986 [reporting in Iran] I decided to go see the war since I had . . . never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers. It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people. Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind. Now put this in a current context. What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can't really stand in that part of the world. But of course President Bush, who may think he pulled the switch on a couple hundred Death Row inmates in Texas, has probably never seen a combat death. He doesn't get it and he'll proudly NEVER get it. Welcome to the New Morality."
Come to Saskatchewan!
For Americans who are thinking about Canada, here's some useful information and links.
Saskatchewan is my own province (we are next door to Alberta, north of Montana, if you aren't familiar with Canadian geography). We have an Immigrant Nominee program described here - SINP Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program for skilled workers and professionals, health professionals, business people, students, and farm operators. The Canadian immigration website is here where you can get links to other provinces and general information about immigration.
Tooting our own horn, Saskatchewan is a great province, and Saskatoon is a great city. In all, the provincial population is about one million -- we have two main cities of over 200,000 each, Regina and Saskatoon, plus a number of smaller cities like Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, North Battleford, Lloydminster.
Politically, Saskatchewan has been left-of-centre for much of the last 60 years -- the CCF (now NDP) government was first elected here in the 40s, a consortium of farmers and unions who believe, basically, that collective action supports individual initiative. Our CCF government pioneered North America's first Medicare program, in the 60s -- what an inspiring story that is, and a concrete example of how political leaders used to feel that their religious beliefs should support social justice. (Our NDP premier now, Lorne Calvert, is actually an ordained minister, but we don't hold that against him!)
Saskatoon is a beautiful city too -- we have a world-class university with about 20,000 students, including Canada's synchrotron research facility and a broad collection of professional colleges, plus potash mining and various high-tech businesses. Around the province, Regina also has a university of about 15,000 students, and we have various other resource-based industries, like the heavy oil upgrader in Lloydminster.
Come for a visit, at least -- if you liked John Kerry, we think you will like us!
Saskatchewan is my own province (we are next door to Alberta, north of Montana, if you aren't familiar with Canadian geography). We have an Immigrant Nominee program described here - SINP Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program for skilled workers and professionals, health professionals, business people, students, and farm operators. The Canadian immigration website is here where you can get links to other provinces and general information about immigration.
Tooting our own horn, Saskatchewan is a great province, and Saskatoon is a great city. In all, the provincial population is about one million -- we have two main cities of over 200,000 each, Regina and Saskatoon, plus a number of smaller cities like Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, North Battleford, Lloydminster.
Politically, Saskatchewan has been left-of-centre for much of the last 60 years -- the CCF (now NDP) government was first elected here in the 40s, a consortium of farmers and unions who believe, basically, that collective action supports individual initiative. Our CCF government pioneered North America's first Medicare program, in the 60s -- what an inspiring story that is, and a concrete example of how political leaders used to feel that their religious beliefs should support social justice. (Our NDP premier now, Lorne Calvert, is actually an ordained minister, but we don't hold that against him!)
Saskatoon is a beautiful city too -- we have a world-class university with about 20,000 students, including Canada's synchrotron research facility and a broad collection of professional colleges, plus potash mining and various high-tech businesses. Around the province, Regina also has a university of about 15,000 students, and we have various other resource-based industries, like the heavy oil upgrader in Lloydminster.
Come for a visit, at least -- if you liked John Kerry, we think you will like us!
Comedy Carolyn
There's a scene in every teenage horror movie that has one of the teenagers - usually the goofy comedian in the group - capering around laughing about how dumb they all were to be afraid of the supposedly-dead monster and how harmless the monster is now. And meanwhile in the background the monster is slowly coming back to life. As the music swells, the comedian's companions stop laughing and gradually adopt a horror-struck look and finally, the comedian says something like "hey, what's wrong? What are you guys looking at?" He turns around and --cue the music, eek! eek! eek! -- the monster strikes again!
I am reminded of this scene when I read about Carolyn Parrish insisting on her right to make cute remarks about George Bush -- Parrish earns PM's censure -- with Paul Martin and the rest of the Liberal cabinet adopting the demeanor of the horror-struck friends.
I am reminded of this scene when I read about Carolyn Parrish insisting on her right to make cute remarks about George Bush -- Parrish earns PM's censure -- with Paul Martin and the rest of the Liberal cabinet adopting the demeanor of the horror-struck friends.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Straight but not narrow
Its impressive how quickly Canadian society has changed.
Today, Saskatchewan became the seventh province to legalize gay marriage. Such a great day! And Saskatchewan as a whole has no problem with it - we're just waiting for some of the churches to catch up. Just last week, the Anglican bishop in Saskatoon found out that two gay choirs were planning a concert in an Anglican church -- someone complained about it, apparently. So instead of telling the complainants to get with the 21st century, the Bishop cancelled the concert.
Well, reaction was pretty swift and pretty negative -- just see this column by Star Phoenix features editor Joanne Paulson who blasted him all over the front page of the Lifestyles section. She writes:
"St. John's and other churches are hiding behind the scriptures -- really the Old Testament -- and using them to discriminate against people. The OT was also against adultery, incest and forced sex, and rightly so. But those are behavioural choices. Homosexuality is not. Neither is it a "lifestyle." Gay and lesbian people are just that, people with a different sexual orientation. They are Caucasian or African or Asian; they have various personalities, some outgoing, some quiet; they are devout Christians or Muslims or Buddhists; they are artists and accountants; they are singers and clergy. The single thing that sets them apart from heterosexuals is that some churches (and segments of society) are still discriminating against them . . . [continuing, she quotes the priest of an Anglican anti-gay splinter group] he said, "Blessing same-sex unions is the same as giving blessings to adulterous affairs and all other kinds of immoral living." It is not the same. Immoral living includes bringing AIDS or Hep C home to your family after visiting prostitutes. Immoral living includes forcing sex or perpetrating violence on anyone. Immoral living, if you want to be biblical, is largely warned against in the Ten Commandments, which you will notice do not mention homosexuality. Marrying someone you love, regardless of his or her gender, is not an immoral act. Neither is singing in a church. The blindness of segments of the Anglican Church on this issue is indefensible."
Today, Saskatchewan became the seventh province to legalize gay marriage. Such a great day! And Saskatchewan as a whole has no problem with it - we're just waiting for some of the churches to catch up. Just last week, the Anglican bishop in Saskatoon found out that two gay choirs were planning a concert in an Anglican church -- someone complained about it, apparently. So instead of telling the complainants to get with the 21st century, the Bishop cancelled the concert.
Well, reaction was pretty swift and pretty negative -- just see this column by Star Phoenix features editor Joanne Paulson who blasted him all over the front page of the Lifestyles section. She writes:
"St. John's and other churches are hiding behind the scriptures -- really the Old Testament -- and using them to discriminate against people. The OT was also against adultery, incest and forced sex, and rightly so. But those are behavioural choices. Homosexuality is not. Neither is it a "lifestyle." Gay and lesbian people are just that, people with a different sexual orientation. They are Caucasian or African or Asian; they have various personalities, some outgoing, some quiet; they are devout Christians or Muslims or Buddhists; they are artists and accountants; they are singers and clergy. The single thing that sets them apart from heterosexuals is that some churches (and segments of society) are still discriminating against them . . . [continuing, she quotes the priest of an Anglican anti-gay splinter group] he said, "Blessing same-sex unions is the same as giving blessings to adulterous affairs and all other kinds of immoral living." It is not the same. Immoral living includes bringing AIDS or Hep C home to your family after visiting prostitutes. Immoral living includes forcing sex or perpetrating violence on anyone. Immoral living, if you want to be biblical, is largely warned against in the Ten Commandments, which you will notice do not mention homosexuality. Marrying someone you love, regardless of his or her gender, is not an immoral act. Neither is singing in a church. The blindness of segments of the Anglican Church on this issue is indefensible."
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Here's the new map
Thanks to Eblog Canada for the link to this New Canadian Map with our four new provinces: New America, Mini-Willinois, Baja Canada, and the Tropic of Canada, all sitting safely north of the United State of Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)