A sensible report - What Can the U.S. Do in Iraq? International Crisis Group - with realistic observations and recommendations: "In Iraq, the U.S. is engaged in a war it already may have lost while losing sight of a struggle in which it still may have time to prevail. Its initial objective was to turn Iraq into a model for the region: a democratic, secular and free-market oriented government, sympathetic to U.S. interests, not openly hostile toward Israel, and possibly home to long-term American military bases. But hostility toward the U.S. and suspicion of its intentions among large numbers of Iraqis have progressed so far that this is virtually out of reach. More than that, the pursuit has become an obstacle to realisation of the most essential, achievable goal -- a stable government viewed by its people as credible, representative and the embodiment of national interests as well as capable of addressing their basic needs."
So what are the chances that anyone in the US government will listen?
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Arar as Everyman
Peace, order and good government, eh? describes why the Arar case is so important for all Canadians -- "If it can happen to Maher Arar, it can happen to any of us. Certainly his religion and ethnic background made him a more likely target, but if the treatment he received remains even remotely acceptable, if it's seen as even remotely "normal", it increases the odds that it can happen to me. Or you. That's why this story is so important."
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
A "cultural choice" world
This post about China and India, on the road to surfdom blog, reminded me about something I had wanted to comment on last week.
CBC National News ran a couple of terrific stories in their Road Stories series, about multiculturalism in Vancouver. The city is beyond multiculturalism, really, moving toward a new "cultural choice" world that should be the model for us all.
First, there was the woman who described her boyfriend as half-Irish, just like she was. Her other half was Scottish; his other half was Chinese. She said her parents weren't happy about the relationship, refusing to be molified by the Irish connection -- an attitude she and all her friends did not comprehend at all.
Then there was the Chinese Canadian restauranteur Todd Wong, who runs the largest Chinese restaurant in the Lower Mainland (something like 500 seats). Every year for the last several years he has hosted a traditional 12-course Chinese feast -- in honour of Robbie Burns Day. And his trio entertains the crowd -- Wong himself (who says his nickname now is Toddish McWong) plays the accordian wearing his kilt, while the East Indian band member plays sitar and the Scottish band member plays the pipes, I think, or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, its terrific!
CBC National News ran a couple of terrific stories in their Road Stories series, about multiculturalism in Vancouver. The city is beyond multiculturalism, really, moving toward a new "cultural choice" world that should be the model for us all.
First, there was the woman who described her boyfriend as half-Irish, just like she was. Her other half was Scottish; his other half was Chinese. She said her parents weren't happy about the relationship, refusing to be molified by the Irish connection -- an attitude she and all her friends did not comprehend at all.
Then there was the Chinese Canadian restauranteur Todd Wong, who runs the largest Chinese restaurant in the Lower Mainland (something like 500 seats). Every year for the last several years he has hosted a traditional 12-course Chinese feast -- in honour of Robbie Burns Day. And his trio entertains the crowd -- Wong himself (who says his nickname now is Toddish McWong) plays the accordian wearing his kilt, while the East Indian band member plays sitar and the Scottish band member plays the pipes, I think, or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, its terrific!
Not "what choice?" but "whose choice?"
With all of the discussion now about abortion and whether US democrats should be for it or against it, I wanted to do a post about what 'pro-choice" actually means.
I think a lot of people have forgotten -- the basic question is "whose choice is it?" not "what choice should be made?"
In Canada after 1969 it wasn't illegal to HAVE an abortion; rather, it was illegal for a doctor to PERFORM an abortion outside a hospital, without permission of a committee of doctors. In other words, it was the doctors' choice whether an abortion procedure was permitted or not. In 1988, our Supreme Court found this abortion law unconstitutional because it violated women's civil rights.
Ever since, it has been the woman's choice whether to have an abortion or not. Here, as in the United States, the Christian Right can disagree with a woman's decision to have an abortion, but its her choice to have it, not theirs. Even countries which still outlaw abortion usually have a "life or health of the mother" exception, which again makes the question "whose choice" rather than "what choice".
And that is still the issue. The so-called abortion issue is not whether abortion is moral or immoral. The issue is whether a woman has the right to make HER OWN DECISION, based on her own morality, about having an abortion, or whether a committee of doctors makes the decision for her.
Now in the United States, people keep saying that an anti-abortion Supreme Court would someday "make abortion illegal" again. But the Supreme Court cannot do this -- it can overturn Roe V Wade only by waiting for a state to pass an anti-abortion law, then supporting that law when it is appealed to them. I think it is unlikely that even an anti-abortion Supreme Court would support a draconian state law which simply bans abortion completely, thereby denying life-saving medical care to a woman whose pregnancy is killing her -- the Christian Right wouldn't like it, but chances are no state legislature would be able to pass such a restrictive law anyway. More likely, the Supremes would overturn Roe V Wade by supporting a law that restricted abortions unless a committee of doctors thought abortion was necessary to protect the life and/or health of the mother, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape.
So once again, we would be back to the committee decision, back to the "whose choice is it?" issue. Women who decided to seek an abortion would again be in a situation where a committee of doctors would be making the choice for her, evaluating whether her case to have an abortion was good enough.
Planned Parenthood defines pro-choice this way: "To be pro-choice is to believe that a woman has the right to decide for herself when and whether to have a child. It means believing that a woman can make that decision on her own, based on her personal beliefs, health, and life-circumstances, without government interference."
I agree.
I think a lot of people have forgotten -- the basic question is "whose choice is it?" not "what choice should be made?"
In Canada after 1969 it wasn't illegal to HAVE an abortion; rather, it was illegal for a doctor to PERFORM an abortion outside a hospital, without permission of a committee of doctors. In other words, it was the doctors' choice whether an abortion procedure was permitted or not. In 1988, our Supreme Court found this abortion law unconstitutional because it violated women's civil rights.
Ever since, it has been the woman's choice whether to have an abortion or not. Here, as in the United States, the Christian Right can disagree with a woman's decision to have an abortion, but its her choice to have it, not theirs. Even countries which still outlaw abortion usually have a "life or health of the mother" exception, which again makes the question "whose choice" rather than "what choice".
And that is still the issue. The so-called abortion issue is not whether abortion is moral or immoral. The issue is whether a woman has the right to make HER OWN DECISION, based on her own morality, about having an abortion, or whether a committee of doctors makes the decision for her.
Now in the United States, people keep saying that an anti-abortion Supreme Court would someday "make abortion illegal" again. But the Supreme Court cannot do this -- it can overturn Roe V Wade only by waiting for a state to pass an anti-abortion law, then supporting that law when it is appealed to them. I think it is unlikely that even an anti-abortion Supreme Court would support a draconian state law which simply bans abortion completely, thereby denying life-saving medical care to a woman whose pregnancy is killing her -- the Christian Right wouldn't like it, but chances are no state legislature would be able to pass such a restrictive law anyway. More likely, the Supremes would overturn Roe V Wade by supporting a law that restricted abortions unless a committee of doctors thought abortion was necessary to protect the life and/or health of the mother, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape.
So once again, we would be back to the committee decision, back to the "whose choice is it?" issue. Women who decided to seek an abortion would again be in a situation where a committee of doctors would be making the choice for her, evaluating whether her case to have an abortion was good enough.
Planned Parenthood defines pro-choice this way: "To be pro-choice is to believe that a woman has the right to decide for herself when and whether to have a child. It means believing that a woman can make that decision on her own, based on her personal beliefs, health, and life-circumstances, without government interference."
I agree.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Do you believe in magic?
Here's a random thought -- there are, I think, something like 4 billion people in the world now and, for 90 per cent of them or more, this story is absolutely and utterly incomprehensible -- Rice University Computer Scientists Find a Flaw in Google's New Desktop Search Program
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Sunday, December 19, 2004
42 days
Iraq election has monitors worried reports on an secret international meeting involving Canada, Latin America, Europe and Middle Eastern states, held in Ottawa this weekend, trying to pull America's fat out of the fire by figuring out how to organize the Iraq vote -- which is supposed to happen in just 42 days.
Media weren't supposed to know about the meeting, apparently, and no results were announced. But I'll bet they spent the first half-day just venting steam at the Americans for getting us all into this mess. The world has been saying "you broke it, you fix it" to the Americans for the last year, but it has now become embarassingly clear that America is utterly incapable of fixing anything in Iraq, nor even of electing a president who could have turned things around. So the world now feels it has no choice, I think, except to step up to the plate and try to salvage this shattered country.
Liberal house leader Tony Valeri is quoted as saying "We may in fact send people to Iraq. But it certainly needs to be safe, and we need to ensure that Canadians are protected.”
Oh, come on -- there is no safety in Iraq for anyone who is perceived to be on the American "side" there. If we do send people there, they will be risking their lives to witness their faith in democracy, for the chance that our being there will somehow make things a little better for the suffering Iraqi people.
I can admire their courage, while cursing the stupidity that created the need for it.
Media weren't supposed to know about the meeting, apparently, and no results were announced. But I'll bet they spent the first half-day just venting steam at the Americans for getting us all into this mess. The world has been saying "you broke it, you fix it" to the Americans for the last year, but it has now become embarassingly clear that America is utterly incapable of fixing anything in Iraq, nor even of electing a president who could have turned things around. So the world now feels it has no choice, I think, except to step up to the plate and try to salvage this shattered country.
Liberal house leader Tony Valeri is quoted as saying "We may in fact send people to Iraq. But it certainly needs to be safe, and we need to ensure that Canadians are protected.”
Oh, come on -- there is no safety in Iraq for anyone who is perceived to be on the American "side" there. If we do send people there, they will be risking their lives to witness their faith in democracy, for the chance that our being there will somehow make things a little better for the suffering Iraqi people.
I can admire their courage, while cursing the stupidity that created the need for it.
From the "wouldn't touch them wirh a ten foot pole" department
comes this story (thanks to Antiwar for the link) Agencies warn Bush that U.S. isn't defeating Iraq insurgents, which ends thusly ". . . a vital effort to woo Sunnis... hasn't borne fruit. 'It all boils down to the aura of the former regime. I think there are a lot of people sitting on the fence. They don't want to be seen as collaborating,' one defense official said. "
Or maybe they just don't want to . . you know . . . actually collaborate? Did anyone think of that?
Or maybe they just don't want to . . you know . . . actually collaborate? Did anyone think of that?
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Saving America once again
Well, I think I have finally figured out why the Bush administration is hell-bent-for-leather on destroying Social Security while simultaneously driving up US federal deficits to unsustainable levels -- they want to Save America!
"Saving America" has been a constant Republican/Christian Right refrain for the last two decades -- on issues as diverse as abortion-on-demand, Hollywood movies, gay marriage, charter schools, government bureaucracy, civil liberties, judicial appointments, foreign aid, and job creation, the Republicans have been convinced since the early 1990s that America is going to hell unless 'something is done'. It must be stopped! American values must prevail!
And the fact that economic prosperity and social progress highlighted Clinton's administration, after the higher crime rates and wars and economic depressions during the Reagan and HW administrations, really infuriated Republicans -- how could it be that things were getting better under the Democrats? No, no - things were WORSE, WORSE I TELL YOU. Any right-wing radio host could chatter endlessly during the 1990s about how awful things were, how America was endangered and declining and immoral.
But after George was elected, objective reality intruded again -- the American economy went into recession, giant companies like Enron disintegrated, terrorists launched the most horrific attack in American history, jobs disappeared as manufacturing went overseas -- and things continued to decline, got worse even, after the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.
How could this be, that things were getting worse under the Republican watch? So they had to find things to fix, to Save America.
I have written before about the Republican tendency to think there are Magic Bullets -- its a human tendency, really, to believe there is one noble action or policy which will, when aimed at a problem, solve it easily and magically in a single stroke, making everything better all at once, without any need for further effort or focus or incremental steps.
So they passed massive expensive legislation -- No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug benefits -- to save American schools and health care, and they promoted massive expensive wars -- Afghanistan, Iraq -- to save American democracy and bring peace to the world, and they ran up enormous expensive deficits to fund congressional pet projects across the country, and their social programs consist of one single act - the gay marriage ammendment - which somehow singlehandedly will save American morality and society. They even began to reject objective reality itself, promoting "faith-based" reality in which things were BETTER, BETTER I TELL YOU, regardless of the evidence.
So now here is Social Security, the most successful social program in American history. Democrats keep saying that Social Security doesn't need much fixing, that its basically OK for the next 40 years anyway, and that small-scale tweaks will keep it going after that. But for Republicans, that isn't good enough. The next Magic Bullet must be fired, and Social Security is in the cross-hairs. Democrats won't be able to stop it -- the Republicans are just too excited about it, too enamoured of another big, complicated, massive piece of legislation that will give them lots of ways to pontificate and to add more pork. And they are utterly convinced that destroying Social Security is their new opportunity to Save America!
"Saving America" has been a constant Republican/Christian Right refrain for the last two decades -- on issues as diverse as abortion-on-demand, Hollywood movies, gay marriage, charter schools, government bureaucracy, civil liberties, judicial appointments, foreign aid, and job creation, the Republicans have been convinced since the early 1990s that America is going to hell unless 'something is done'. It must be stopped! American values must prevail!
And the fact that economic prosperity and social progress highlighted Clinton's administration, after the higher crime rates and wars and economic depressions during the Reagan and HW administrations, really infuriated Republicans -- how could it be that things were getting better under the Democrats? No, no - things were WORSE, WORSE I TELL YOU. Any right-wing radio host could chatter endlessly during the 1990s about how awful things were, how America was endangered and declining and immoral.
But after George was elected, objective reality intruded again -- the American economy went into recession, giant companies like Enron disintegrated, terrorists launched the most horrific attack in American history, jobs disappeared as manufacturing went overseas -- and things continued to decline, got worse even, after the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.
How could this be, that things were getting worse under the Republican watch? So they had to find things to fix, to Save America.
I have written before about the Republican tendency to think there are Magic Bullets -- its a human tendency, really, to believe there is one noble action or policy which will, when aimed at a problem, solve it easily and magically in a single stroke, making everything better all at once, without any need for further effort or focus or incremental steps.
So they passed massive expensive legislation -- No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug benefits -- to save American schools and health care, and they promoted massive expensive wars -- Afghanistan, Iraq -- to save American democracy and bring peace to the world, and they ran up enormous expensive deficits to fund congressional pet projects across the country, and their social programs consist of one single act - the gay marriage ammendment - which somehow singlehandedly will save American morality and society. They even began to reject objective reality itself, promoting "faith-based" reality in which things were BETTER, BETTER I TELL YOU, regardless of the evidence.
So now here is Social Security, the most successful social program in American history. Democrats keep saying that Social Security doesn't need much fixing, that its basically OK for the next 40 years anyway, and that small-scale tweaks will keep it going after that. But for Republicans, that isn't good enough. The next Magic Bullet must be fired, and Social Security is in the cross-hairs. Democrats won't be able to stop it -- the Republicans are just too excited about it, too enamoured of another big, complicated, massive piece of legislation that will give them lots of ways to pontificate and to add more pork. And they are utterly convinced that destroying Social Security is their new opportunity to Save America!
Friday, December 17, 2004
War? What war?
In Thursday's front-page Globe story Klein turns up the heat in same-sex controversy Edmonton reporter Katherine Harding announces in her lead sentence that we are in the middle of a "national battle against same-sex marriage".
Really? Where?
I've seen this type of language frequently in the recent Globe stories on gay marriage -- apparently there is some sort of "national battle" going on about this "controversial issue". But where are the barricades? Who, other than Ralph Klein and his unnamed Alberta caucus, is manning them?
Note that the other people Harding quotes in the story are either dithering (two nonentity federal cabinet ministers) or critical of Klein (Peter MacKay). Pollster John Wright from Ipsos-Reid is quoted as saying that it is unlikely Klein's lobbying effort will change many minds on same-sex marriage. "There is a mood in the air for accepting equality rights."
So what is the Globe and Mail thinking by ginning up a controversy meme?
Maybe from Katherine Harding's perspective hanging around the Alberta legislature, there is some sort of national battle going on here. And she seems to think Klein is a "political heavyweight" nationally - she had described him this way in other stories.
And maybe the Globe editors know so little about any province other than Ontario that they actually think Klein has some credibility elsewhere in the west.
Here's a news flash, boys -- he doesn't. BC. Saskatchewan, and Manitoba think he is a buffoon, just like Ontario and Quebec and Eastern Canada do. Western Canadians all know that Ralph Klein has never lifted a finger to provide political, economic or social leadership in Western Canada, and he has never cared a whit about how Alberta's actions may have affected any other province. On the national stage, he opens his mouth only to change feet.
So nobody in the West gives a damn what Ralph Klein thinks about anything.
Really? Where?
I've seen this type of language frequently in the recent Globe stories on gay marriage -- apparently there is some sort of "national battle" going on about this "controversial issue". But where are the barricades? Who, other than Ralph Klein and his unnamed Alberta caucus, is manning them?
Note that the other people Harding quotes in the story are either dithering (two nonentity federal cabinet ministers) or critical of Klein (Peter MacKay). Pollster John Wright from Ipsos-Reid is quoted as saying that it is unlikely Klein's lobbying effort will change many minds on same-sex marriage. "There is a mood in the air for accepting equality rights."
So what is the Globe and Mail thinking by ginning up a controversy meme?
Maybe from Katherine Harding's perspective hanging around the Alberta legislature, there is some sort of national battle going on here. And she seems to think Klein is a "political heavyweight" nationally - she had described him this way in other stories.
And maybe the Globe editors know so little about any province other than Ontario that they actually think Klein has some credibility elsewhere in the west.
Here's a news flash, boys -- he doesn't. BC. Saskatchewan, and Manitoba think he is a buffoon, just like Ontario and Quebec and Eastern Canada do. Western Canadians all know that Ralph Klein has never lifted a finger to provide political, economic or social leadership in Western Canada, and he has never cared a whit about how Alberta's actions may have affected any other province. On the national stage, he opens his mouth only to change feet.
So nobody in the West gives a damn what Ralph Klein thinks about anything.
But George is such a truthful guy!
Krugman - Buying Into Failure - says "So the Bush administration wants to scrap a retirement system that works, and can be made financially sound for generations to come with modest reforms. Instead, it wants to buy into failure, emulating systems that, when tried elsewhere, have neither saved money nor protected the elderly from poverty. "
Yeah, well, that's what the Americans voted for. The 59 million who voted for George Bush knew exactly what they were voting for, because he told them what he would do.
The other stupid thing about this "personal accounts" idea is that in about 15 years, people will start clamouring to be allowed to withdraw "their" funds for things like house down-payments and college tuitions and health care expenses and paying off debts. So not only will today's so-called young workers in the US be retiring in 2055 with vastly reduced government pensions, their "accounts" will be so depleted that they won't have any personal pensions either.
Oh well, there's always Edward G Robinson's Solyent Green solution, I guess.
Yeah, well, that's what the Americans voted for. The 59 million who voted for George Bush knew exactly what they were voting for, because he told them what he would do.
The other stupid thing about this "personal accounts" idea is that in about 15 years, people will start clamouring to be allowed to withdraw "their" funds for things like house down-payments and college tuitions and health care expenses and paying off debts. So not only will today's so-called young workers in the US be retiring in 2055 with vastly reduced government pensions, their "accounts" will be so depleted that they won't have any personal pensions either.
Oh well, there's always Edward G Robinson's Solyent Green solution, I guess.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Snarling "Merry Christmas!"
at the top of their lungs! Christmas war of words in US Ah, those Christian Rightists -- striking the decisive blow for truth, justice and the American way. God bless us, everyone.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Grooming tips!
Even though I am far away from the New York scene he often writes about, I enjoy James Wolcott - he is one of those writers, like Garrison Kellior, whose writing is vivid and personal and truthful, a tremendously difficult thing to pull off.
Read this one for the New York sense of the Kerik thing. Bernie, We Hardly Knew Ye -- I particularly liked the parting shot at pandering Democrats: "I'm glad the press is having a dance party with this, because God knows the Democrats are frozen at the steering wheel. I just saw a segment on MSNBC . . . pitting a Republican strategist against a Democratic one, and the Democratic spokesman--who goes by the name of Michael Brown--seemed to have washed down his weeny pills with warm Ovaltine. Instead of kicking Kerik and Giuliana between the uprights for three points, Brown fretted that vetting process for cabinet candidates was 'going too far,' and that we were in danger of discouraging people from public service. Oh no, we wouldn't want to discourage philandering, pocket-lining, deadbeat no-show bully-boys like Bernard Kerik from having the opportunity to muck around with our civil liberties in the name of 'national security' and hold bigshot press conferences. I mean, if that sort of thing were to continue happening, people might start mistaking the Democrats for an opposition party and thinking that the press has an adversarial role to play, and we don't want that to happen, it might actually lead to signs of life in that mausoleum we call the nation's capital . . . I don't understand the self-emasculation of so many Democratic strategists, what they're afraid of, why they concede so much in advance. Give them an opening, and they close it like a silk kimono, ever so demure. What are they in politics for, the professional grooming tips? "
Read this one for the New York sense of the Kerik thing. Bernie, We Hardly Knew Ye -- I particularly liked the parting shot at pandering Democrats: "I'm glad the press is having a dance party with this, because God knows the Democrats are frozen at the steering wheel. I just saw a segment on MSNBC . . . pitting a Republican strategist against a Democratic one, and the Democratic spokesman--who goes by the name of Michael Brown--seemed to have washed down his weeny pills with warm Ovaltine. Instead of kicking Kerik and Giuliana between the uprights for three points, Brown fretted that vetting process for cabinet candidates was 'going too far,' and that we were in danger of discouraging people from public service. Oh no, we wouldn't want to discourage philandering, pocket-lining, deadbeat no-show bully-boys like Bernard Kerik from having the opportunity to muck around with our civil liberties in the name of 'national security' and hold bigshot press conferences. I mean, if that sort of thing were to continue happening, people might start mistaking the Democrats for an opposition party and thinking that the press has an adversarial role to play, and we don't want that to happen, it might actually lead to signs of life in that mausoleum we call the nation's capital . . . I don't understand the self-emasculation of so many Democratic strategists, what they're afraid of, why they concede so much in advance. Give them an opening, and they close it like a silk kimono, ever so demure. What are they in politics for, the professional grooming tips? "
What's that smell?
Do I smell a wiff of grapeshot in the air? This column Sun Ottawa Bureau Columnist: Greg Weston - Thinking the unthinkable in the House - reads like a challenge -- OK, all you religious righters, its time to start with the pressure on all your MPs to vote against the same-sex marriage bill and maybe you can defeat the bill! Oh, and wouldn't Canada's religious right just LOVE to get energized over this issue, start the fundraising, run an ad campaign on TV and radio, get interviewed here and in the US media. And wouldn't the media just LOVE to have a controversy to write about.
Hurry up, Paul -- lets get this done!
Hurry up, Paul -- lets get this done!
So quit already!
Federal Minister threatens to quit over gay marriage bill - so quit already and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Considering that everyone has known this legislation was coming for the last two years, its taken him a remarkably long time to make up his mind. "'I'm not going to say publicly what I'm going to do,' Mr. Efford told the CBC. 'I first owe it to the church leaders to meet with them and then I owe it to the Prime Minister to meet with him before I make any public statement.'" I guess talking to the CBC isn't "a public statement"?
Considering that everyone has known this legislation was coming for the last two years, its taken him a remarkably long time to make up his mind. "'I'm not going to say publicly what I'm going to do,' Mr. Efford told the CBC. 'I first owe it to the church leaders to meet with them and then I owe it to the Prime Minister to meet with him before I make any public statement.'" I guess talking to the CBC isn't "a public statement"?
Perfect timing
Isn't it nice that the Scott Peterson circus is over, so the media can now cover the Bernie Kerik circus -- The Missteps Cited in Kerik Vetting by White House. But don't worry, Bernie - something outrageous will happen later this week to send the flash crowds somewhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)