Tories backpedal -- sort of So the Tories are going to support the budget after all.
If he had announced this sensible approach two weeks, Harper might not have lost Stronach.
But even though he finally did the right thing on the February budget, it seems he still cannot control his temper. In the middle of what was an awful day for the Conservatives, Harper goes and picks another fight.
Here's the background: not surprisingly, the Maritimes premiers were agitated about what would happen to the Atlantic Accord if the budget didn't pass. But now that Harper has announced the Conservatives will support the budget, I would think that this problem has been resolved, right?
So what does Harper do? When he is annoucing that he will support the budget after all, he seizes the opportunity to throw a hissy fit and wag his finger at Conservative premier Danny Williams in Newfoundland.
"Flanked by [Nfld MPs] Hearn and Doyle, Harper lashed out at Williams on Tuesday. "They stood by Danny Williams, they stood by Newfoundland, they always will," he said of the MPs. "And it's about time Danny Williams stood by some of his boys down here too. That's the only way Newfoundland and Labrador is going to get anywhere in this country." He insisted a Conservative government would ensure the province would get its money. "Danny's going to get his money. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going get(their) money," he said. "And I don't care whether Danny likes me today, or doesn't like me. We'll give the money to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because they deserve it, and it's the right thing to do."
Harper seems to have forgotten that Danny Williams holds the Canadian Hissy Fit National Championship.
In an area of the country where the Conservatives need to pick up some seats, Harper threw away the chance to see some stories in tomorrow's papers praising Harper. Instead, the voters will be reading Williams trash-talking response to Harper's needlessly indignant remarks.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Oops!
Well, considering all the comments on the post below, I am intending to look into the questions raised about Canadian defense and blog on this some more.
But in the meantime, I got a kick out of this story: Man Admits 'Bad Judgment' in Raze Blaze
Sounds amazing I know, but it reminded me of the time we watched the dentist across the street do something similar.
He was trying to kill some weeds in the walkway next to his garage, see. But instead of going to the garden centre and getting some weedkiller, he though it would be simpler to just put some gasoline on them and set them on fire. From across the street we noticed him pouring something on the weeds, but we didn't realize what it was until he lit the match.
Well, you can guess what happened. The flames shot up about 15 feet and he almost set his hair and his garage on fire.
He got the fire out -- but then, of course, he had to repair and repaint the garage!
But in the meantime, I got a kick out of this story: Man Admits 'Bad Judgment' in Raze Blaze
Sounds amazing I know, but it reminded me of the time we watched the dentist across the street do something similar.
He was trying to kill some weeds in the walkway next to his garage, see. But instead of going to the garden centre and getting some weedkiller, he though it would be simpler to just put some gasoline on them and set them on fire. From across the street we noticed him pouring something on the weeds, but we didn't realize what it was until he lit the match.
Well, you can guess what happened. The flames shot up about 15 feet and he almost set his hair and his garage on fire.
He got the fire out -- but then, of course, he had to repair and repaint the garage!
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Americans surrender in Iraq
New York Times: Some Sunnis Hint at Peace Terms in Iraq, U.S. Says: "The Bush administration, struggling to cope with a recent intensification of insurgent violence in Iraq, has received signals from some radical Sunni Arab leaders that they would abandon fighting if the new Shiite majority government gave Sunnis a significant voice in the country's political evolution, administration officials said this week."
This, of course, is total bullshit -- neither the US military nor the embassy have any contacts with the insurgency except for the 9.000 Iraqis they have arrested and thrown into concentration camps throughout the country, without trials or hearings or habeus corpus. And, as in Guantanamo, they have no idea who most of these people are or whether they are with the insurgency or not.
So, not knowing who the insurgency is, the US in now trying to negotiate with them through the New York Times.
It's not the insurgency which is suing for peace here, it is the Bush admistration. I think this article is actually a declaration of surrender. It offers the insurgency leaders a trade-off - we'll give you political power if you will stop shooting at our troops.
As you read further down the article, the truth becomes more apparent:
-- The US has realized that their so-called anti-insurgency strategy (of capturing or killing insurgents, training more Iraqi forces, etc) is not producing results and so they now say that "quelling the insurgency would also require an effective political strategy to stabilize areas where insurgents have been most active, including Baghdad and Mosul, two of Iraq's biggest cities." In other words, surrender.
-- The problem is finding someone to negotiate surrender with: "American officials, two years into the war, acknowledge that they have little understanding of who the leaders are, apart from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" and of course possibly some of those 9,000 detainees
-- So the US wants the Iraqi government to do the negotiating instead: "the United States is urging Dr. Jaafari, the new Iraqi leader, to renew talks with a coalition of Sunni Arab groups known as the National Dialogue Council, which has links to elements in the insurgency who it says are ready to explore openings toward a political settlement" even though there are "doubts that the council has the influence with the insurgents that it claims",
-- But they're having a hard time bullying the Iraqi government to not sabatoge these negotiations before they even begin: "the [National Dialogue] council's leaders have been deeply angered by raids by Iraqi forces on its Baghdad offices in the past 10 days. The raids resulted in the arrests of more than a dozen people, including some who had played a role in earlier contacts with the Shiite leaders."
-- So, even though Bush promised to stay until Iraq was stable, the US going to declare victory and leave, by blaming the continuing violence on the Iraqi government itself: "many [Sunnis] wanted to join in the political system, including the writing of a permanent constitution. But the political feuding that delayed the formation of the government for nearly three months after the elections has so far blocked the kind of concessions the Sunnis are demanding" and the article later quotes a "US military official" as saying "The Iraqis are going to have to figure this out for themselves".
And in the meantime, we're outta here!
This, of course, is total bullshit -- neither the US military nor the embassy have any contacts with the insurgency except for the 9.000 Iraqis they have arrested and thrown into concentration camps throughout the country, without trials or hearings or habeus corpus. And, as in Guantanamo, they have no idea who most of these people are or whether they are with the insurgency or not.
So, not knowing who the insurgency is, the US in now trying to negotiate with them through the New York Times.
It's not the insurgency which is suing for peace here, it is the Bush admistration. I think this article is actually a declaration of surrender. It offers the insurgency leaders a trade-off - we'll give you political power if you will stop shooting at our troops.
As you read further down the article, the truth becomes more apparent:
-- The US has realized that their so-called anti-insurgency strategy (of capturing or killing insurgents, training more Iraqi forces, etc) is not producing results and so they now say that "quelling the insurgency would also require an effective political strategy to stabilize areas where insurgents have been most active, including Baghdad and Mosul, two of Iraq's biggest cities." In other words, surrender.
-- The problem is finding someone to negotiate surrender with: "American officials, two years into the war, acknowledge that they have little understanding of who the leaders are, apart from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" and of course possibly some of those 9,000 detainees
-- So the US wants the Iraqi government to do the negotiating instead: "the United States is urging Dr. Jaafari, the new Iraqi leader, to renew talks with a coalition of Sunni Arab groups known as the National Dialogue Council, which has links to elements in the insurgency who it says are ready to explore openings toward a political settlement" even though there are "doubts that the council has the influence with the insurgents that it claims",
-- But they're having a hard time bullying the Iraqi government to not sabatoge these negotiations before they even begin: "the [National Dialogue] council's leaders have been deeply angered by raids by Iraqi forces on its Baghdad offices in the past 10 days. The raids resulted in the arrests of more than a dozen people, including some who had played a role in earlier contacts with the Shiite leaders."
-- So, even though Bush promised to stay until Iraq was stable, the US going to declare victory and leave, by blaming the continuing violence on the Iraqi government itself: "many [Sunnis] wanted to join in the political system, including the writing of a permanent constitution. But the political feuding that delayed the formation of the government for nearly three months after the elections has so far blocked the kind of concessions the Sunnis are demanding" and the article later quotes a "US military official" as saying "The Iraqis are going to have to figure this out for themselves".
And in the meantime, we're outta here!
Hero dogs
I love heroic dog stories.
Meet Shannon
She is the Missouri dog who won a Hero Award for 2005. Shannon's owner Ted Mandry was unloading debris about a quarter-mile from his house when a parked tractor popped out of gear, rolled down a ravine and toppled into a 10-foot deep gully. The tractor's front end loader trapped Mandry's right leg. "I was calling for help and whistling for two hours, but no one knew where I was," he said. Peggy Mandry, who thought her husband was out mowing hay, stepped out for a while and Shannon, a border collie/golden mix, was locked inside the house. When she returned, Shannon was howling and scratching at the door. When she was let out, Shannon bolted from the door, dragging Peggy Mandry through the pasture and into the wood. "I was bleeding, I began to get weaker. I reached a point where there was either going to be a minor miracle or this was it for me," said Ted Mandry, 65. "At that point, my wife and my dog came to the edge of the gully."
And some previous Hero Dog winners:
Here's Rocky's story - During a late Sunday night while the Staples slept in their Hatboro, PA home, they were startled by the screams of their 8-year-old daughter, Laura. An intruder and known sex offender had snatched her from her bedroom and was carrying her down the stairs as he covered her mouth trying to prevent her from screaming. All Laura could do in the midst of her restrained horror was to kick her bedroom door as the intruder carried her out. It was this hard sound that woke Rocky, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, from a deep sleep on the third floor and alerted him that something was wrong. Rocky flew down two flights of stairs and threw his massive body against the man. The would-be kidnapper then dropped Laura and ran with Rocky in close pursuit. Rocky managed to bite the intruder numerous times before racing back to check on Laura, who frantically screamed in the comfort of her parent's arms. The intruder had managed to escape, but was soon found by police in a nearby park, bleeding from multiple wounds. "Rocky has spared our family an unspeakable horror," says Joan Staples, Laura's mother. "There's no way we can overstate our gratitude for his bravery and quick response."
And Shadow This story reports that Alaskan wilderness guide Don Mobley was gathering firewood on a sandbar of the Nakochna River when he found himself between a grizzly sow and her cub. The sow growled and charged. Mobley, convinced he was about to be mauled, ran. The bear was within 10 feet of him when Shadow, his 3-year-old German shepherd mix, zipped out of the woods and lunged at the advancing bruin. Barking madly, Shadow chased the bear and cub into the woods. "The only thing that saved me was my dog," Mobley said.
And Brutis a seven-year old golden whose owner Fram Oreto said she was picnicking with her grandchildren in September when Brutis snatched a 6-inch-long snake that was just five feet from them. Brutis suffered a bite and was taken to an animal emergency hospital, where he received antivenin more than three hours after the attack. "It's quite an amazing feat that he survived at all," Oreto said. "He was a strong enough dog to pull through."
And Shilo also received a Courage award because she followed her companion, 11-year-old Sarah Irmen of Littlerock, Calif., when a kidnapper forced her into a car in June. When the kidnapper tried to get Sarah out of the car, Shilo bit him and the girl escaped.
Heros all.
Meet Shannon
She is the Missouri dog who won a Hero Award for 2005. Shannon's owner Ted Mandry was unloading debris about a quarter-mile from his house when a parked tractor popped out of gear, rolled down a ravine and toppled into a 10-foot deep gully. The tractor's front end loader trapped Mandry's right leg. "I was calling for help and whistling for two hours, but no one knew where I was," he said. Peggy Mandry, who thought her husband was out mowing hay, stepped out for a while and Shannon, a border collie/golden mix, was locked inside the house. When she returned, Shannon was howling and scratching at the door. When she was let out, Shannon bolted from the door, dragging Peggy Mandry through the pasture and into the wood. "I was bleeding, I began to get weaker. I reached a point where there was either going to be a minor miracle or this was it for me," said Ted Mandry, 65. "At that point, my wife and my dog came to the edge of the gully."
And some previous Hero Dog winners:
Here's Rocky's story - During a late Sunday night while the Staples slept in their Hatboro, PA home, they were startled by the screams of their 8-year-old daughter, Laura. An intruder and known sex offender had snatched her from her bedroom and was carrying her down the stairs as he covered her mouth trying to prevent her from screaming. All Laura could do in the midst of her restrained horror was to kick her bedroom door as the intruder carried her out. It was this hard sound that woke Rocky, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, from a deep sleep on the third floor and alerted him that something was wrong. Rocky flew down two flights of stairs and threw his massive body against the man. The would-be kidnapper then dropped Laura and ran with Rocky in close pursuit. Rocky managed to bite the intruder numerous times before racing back to check on Laura, who frantically screamed in the comfort of her parent's arms. The intruder had managed to escape, but was soon found by police in a nearby park, bleeding from multiple wounds. "Rocky has spared our family an unspeakable horror," says Joan Staples, Laura's mother. "There's no way we can overstate our gratitude for his bravery and quick response."
And Shadow This story reports that Alaskan wilderness guide Don Mobley was gathering firewood on a sandbar of the Nakochna River when he found himself between a grizzly sow and her cub. The sow growled and charged. Mobley, convinced he was about to be mauled, ran. The bear was within 10 feet of him when Shadow, his 3-year-old German shepherd mix, zipped out of the woods and lunged at the advancing bruin. Barking madly, Shadow chased the bear and cub into the woods. "The only thing that saved me was my dog," Mobley said.
And Brutis a seven-year old golden whose owner Fram Oreto said she was picnicking with her grandchildren in September when Brutis snatched a 6-inch-long snake that was just five feet from them. Brutis suffered a bite and was taken to an animal emergency hospital, where he received antivenin more than three hours after the attack. "It's quite an amazing feat that he survived at all," Oreto said. "He was a strong enough dog to pull through."
And Shilo also received a Courage award because she followed her companion, 11-year-old Sarah Irmen of Littlerock, Calif., when a kidnapper forced her into a car in June. When the kidnapper tried to get Sarah out of the car, Shilo bit him and the girl escaped.
Heros all.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Remember the budget? Anyone?
Well, I see the columnists in today's Globe and Mail agree with me -- What a jerk! I cannot, of course, actually link to these columns, because the Globe now charges extra for online access to these parts of its newspaper, and I refuse to pay it because I already subscribe to the paper version of the paper.
So here I am actually complimenting their columnists, whom I often criticize, but they cannot benefit from being quoted directly in my widely-read blog --oh well, their loss.
Anyway, several Mop and Pail columnists do write about how it would be the height of arrogance and stupidty for Harper to defeat the budget next Thursday -- the most popular budget in a decade and one that a huge majority of Canadians want to see implemented.
Remember the budget? I think Harper, in particular, has forgotten all about it.
Here is what we will lose if the budget is defeated.
From the February budget:
PLUS the Liberal/NDP accord in April:
So here I am actually complimenting their columnists, whom I often criticize, but they cannot benefit from being quoted directly in my widely-read blog --oh well, their loss.
Anyway, several Mop and Pail columnists do write about how it would be the height of arrogance and stupidty for Harper to defeat the budget next Thursday -- the most popular budget in a decade and one that a huge majority of Canadians want to see implemented.
Remember the budget? I think Harper, in particular, has forgotten all about it.
Here is what we will lose if the budget is defeated.
From the February budget:
- $12.8 billion over the next five years for Canada's military, the biggest increase in defence spending in two decades. About $3 billion will go to boosting the strength of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 troops and the reserves by 3,000 soldiers and another $3.2 billion to bolster training, improve medical care, cover supply and repair shortages, and repair infrastructure.
- An increase in the basic personal exemption on income-from $8,012 in 2004 to $10,000 by 2009, allowing Canadians to earn more money tax-free.
- Increases the annual contribution limit on registered retirement savings plans and registered pension plans to $22,000 by 2010, and eliminates the 30 per cent foreign content rule on RRSPs and pension plans immediately.
- Ottawa to share gas tax revenues with municipalities – 1.5 cents per litre, or $600 million in 2005, rising to 5 cents a litre or $2 billion annually by 2009-2010.
- $700 million in a trust fund this year and next for national child care program, with a total commitment of $5 billion over the next five years.
Ottawa to share gas tax revenues with municipalities. - $170 million over five years to improve Canada's drug safety oversight.
- A pledge to reduce the general corporate tax rate from the current 21 per cent to 20.5 per cent in 2008, 20 per cent in 2009 and 19 per cent by 2010.
- A promise to eliminate the corporate surtax by 2008.
- $1 billion for a Clean Fund for projects to combat climate change.
PLUS the Liberal/NDP accord in April:
- $1.6 billion for affordable housing construction, including aboriginal housing.
- A $1.5-billion increase in transfers to provinces for tuition reduction and better training through EI.
- $900 million for the environment, with one more cent of the federal gas tax going to public transit.
- $500 million for foreign aid to bring Canada in line with a promise of 0.7 per cent of GDP.
- $100 million for a pension protection fund for workers.
- Promised tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses will remain but cuts for large corporations will be deferred.
So irregardless of whether every single Tory turns up in Ottawa on Thursday, I am hoping that Harper will arrange for a few of them to get the flu or to develop "urgent family emergencies" by which means they would be unavoidably delayed in reaching the Commons in time to vote against this budget.
So much for the meek
Here is a website posting about The Forceful Men Of FORCE Ministries.
The goal of FORCE Ministeries is "equiping military personnel for Christ-centred duty."
And as one of the comments said: "Man, the meek are fucked. They're NEVER going to inherit the earth now." So true, so true.
The goal of FORCE Ministeries is "equiping military personnel for Christ-centred duty."
And as one of the comments said: "Man, the meek are fucked. They're NEVER going to inherit the earth now." So true, so true.
Good, bad, ugly
Good:
Brian Gable, The Globe & Mail
Bad:
M. e. Cohen, New Jersey, Freelance
Ugly:
Marshall Ramsey, Jackson Mississippi, The Clarion Ledger
And just a note to say I get most of my weekly "good,bad,ugly" cartoons from Daryl Cagle's cartoon index on Slate. Its a great site.
Brian Gable, The Globe & Mail
Bad:
M. e. Cohen, New Jersey, Freelance
Ugly:
Marshall Ramsey, Jackson Mississippi, The Clarion Ledger
And just a note to say I get most of my weekly "good,bad,ugly" cartoons from Daryl Cagle's cartoon index on Slate. Its a great site.
"Nice little military base you've got here, Senator. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it"
Democrats should beware of false hope.
I am concerned that the Senate Dems and the progressive bloggers have talked themselves into believing a fairy tale -- that they actually have a serious chance to stop Bolton, and to retain the filibuster, and to stop those seven awful judges.
This Financial Times article about the Bolton nomination Bolton set for long battle on Senate floor says that "questions from [foreign services ] committee Republicans could pave the way for more opposition when the Senate takes up [the Bolton nomination]"
Well, yes, that may well be true -- the discussion may well go on for a week! Or ten days even!
But in the end, the Democrats will most likely lose.
The White House has turned all these votes into a do-or-die situation, a 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' kind of vote. So the chances that six republicans will actually risk their careers to vote against the Wnite House are miniscule -- three, maybe four, is possible; six is highly unlikely.
The American people may be lukewarm now about Boy George, but they aren't angry enough at the Bush administration to cheer Senators who would vote against him. But the Christian Right and the right-wing media/blogosphere, who have wholeheartedly accepted the do-or-die framing, would crucify any senator who voted against Bush (and they are also the ones who wouldn't forgive Bush unless he pulls out all the stops to win). On the filibuster and judges issues in particular, there is the added pressure from prolifers who think they can eliminate abortion if they can eliminate the filibuster and get some anti-abortion judges in the lower courts and then get a Supreme Court which would overturn Roe v Wade.
While presidents in the past would have realized that appointees like Bolton and the Ridiculous Seven will be seen as biased and ineffective in their positions without a bipartisan majority in favour of their appointment, the Bush administration has demonstrated repeatedly since the election that they don't care whether any vote is 90 to 10 or 51 to 49. they only care about winning in whatever way they can.
Finally, the announcement about those military base closings is suspisciously well-timed -- as in "Nice little military base you've got here in your state, Senator. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Chances are that well before the 2006 midterms, the filibuster will be gone and Bolton will be in and the Ridiculous Seven will be in and so will at least one, or maybe two, anti-abortion Supreme Court justices. And Cheney's fishing buddy Scalia will be Chief Justice.
Though democrats should, and must, keep fighting on every vote, they also need a Plan B.
I just have no idea what that could be.
I am concerned that the Senate Dems and the progressive bloggers have talked themselves into believing a fairy tale -- that they actually have a serious chance to stop Bolton, and to retain the filibuster, and to stop those seven awful judges.
This Financial Times article about the Bolton nomination Bolton set for long battle on Senate floor says that "questions from [foreign services ] committee Republicans could pave the way for more opposition when the Senate takes up [the Bolton nomination]"
Well, yes, that may well be true -- the discussion may well go on for a week! Or ten days even!
But in the end, the Democrats will most likely lose.
The White House has turned all these votes into a do-or-die situation, a 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' kind of vote. So the chances that six republicans will actually risk their careers to vote against the Wnite House are miniscule -- three, maybe four, is possible; six is highly unlikely.
The American people may be lukewarm now about Boy George, but they aren't angry enough at the Bush administration to cheer Senators who would vote against him. But the Christian Right and the right-wing media/blogosphere, who have wholeheartedly accepted the do-or-die framing, would crucify any senator who voted against Bush (and they are also the ones who wouldn't forgive Bush unless he pulls out all the stops to win). On the filibuster and judges issues in particular, there is the added pressure from prolifers who think they can eliminate abortion if they can eliminate the filibuster and get some anti-abortion judges in the lower courts and then get a Supreme Court which would overturn Roe v Wade.
While presidents in the past would have realized that appointees like Bolton and the Ridiculous Seven will be seen as biased and ineffective in their positions without a bipartisan majority in favour of their appointment, the Bush administration has demonstrated repeatedly since the election that they don't care whether any vote is 90 to 10 or 51 to 49. they only care about winning in whatever way they can.
Finally, the announcement about those military base closings is suspisciously well-timed -- as in "Nice little military base you've got here in your state, Senator. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Chances are that well before the 2006 midterms, the filibuster will be gone and Bolton will be in and the Ridiculous Seven will be in and so will at least one, or maybe two, anti-abortion Supreme Court justices. And Cheney's fishing buddy Scalia will be Chief Justice.
Though democrats should, and must, keep fighting on every vote, they also need a Plan B.
I just have no idea what that could be.
Rick Salutin nails it
Rick Salutin's rabble column: Embrace Ottawa's dysfunction tells it like it is.
I tried to cut it down, but I have ended up posting almost all of it below -- its just that good:
I tried to cut it down, but I have ended up posting almost all of it below -- its just that good:
. . . some of our political traditions are being desecrated. The question is: Do you care? . . .the Martin-Layton deal . . . provides childcare, housing, urban relief, and a balanced budget — exactly what voters say they want! Finally they get it — and Parliament is dysfunctional? Paul Martin was dithering. Now he's acting. So it's time to pull the plug on him? As for democracy, the Liberals and NDP polled a majority of votes last election: 52.4 per cent, versus just 42 per cent for Conservatives and the Bloc. So their deal makes democratic sense. Chantal Hébert wrote in her column for the Toronto Star, “There is no longer any question about how far Paul Martin is willing to go to avoid a snap election.” How far is that? Well, he's actually giving citizens what they say they'd like, and what he promised to do. Why must he be punished for it? So what if fear made him do it? Stephen Harper got pressured into backing off on abortion. That's politics — in fact, that's democracy . . . Motives don't matter. At least not for most people.
Columnists may be exceptions. They live by their opinions, they hate backing down, maybe it means more to them than the benefits of public childcare or urban renewal. They are incensed when voters indicate they might be willing to be “bought off” or “bribed with their own money.” Excuse me, but isn't that the point of taxes: to spend on behalf of the taxpayers for things they couldn't purchase by themselves?
Poor voters. They may be disgusted by the sponsorship mess, but must weigh the temptation to voice their rage, against the dire effects if they replace a Martin with a Harper. Do it and you will not get childcare or urban transit or tuition relief. And all this at a time when the system is finally starting to deliver for citizens. Me, I'd string the catastrophe out as long as possible. A dysfunctional Parliament may be as good as it gets. . .
Lies? Peter MacKay, Conservative deputy leader, lied with gusto and signed a pledge not to merge his party in order to become PC leader, then reneged and didn't even look sheepish. Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer's head seems ready to explode in Question Period; but he had an
aide impersonate him on radio and lied about it when he got caught. They're outraged? I'm outraged that they're outraged! This is the worst scandal in our history? Canada was born in scandal. Ever hear of the CPR? . . . from this scandal voters may gain a little ground in areas that matter to them. If this be dysfunction, make the most of it!
Friday, May 13, 2005
Winning hearts and minds
Afghanistan: Protests on insult to Qur'an spread:
Over the past three years, Rumsfeld and the military have been able to intimidate the American media into accepting a brazen stream of lies about Iraq.
Remember these whoppers? "things are getting better every day in Iraq", "why aren't you reporting the good news, like the schools?", "we don't torture people, its just a few bad apples", "extraordinary rendition? of course we would never send people to places where they will be tortured!", "we know exactly where the WMD are", "we're very close to capturing XXX - we almost got him last week", "Iraqi oil will easily pay for the costs of the war", "they'll greet us with flowers in the streets" -- and the greatest one of all: "we can't wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
So now they think they can just leak this ridiculous spin and all of the Muslim outrage will go away: "Military officials said privately this week that they believe some former detainees are embroidering tales of abuse to stir anti-American passions."
Oh sure, guys -- the Guantanamo interrogators beat people and drowned them and shaved their beards and sexually humliated them and smeared them with menstrual blood to shame then. But of course they didn't tear up the Koran and flush it, nope, never happened -- these spooks are such devout Christian men and women, they just have too much respect for the Muslim religion ever to do such a thing.
Or if it DID happen, why then it must have been the prisoners themselves who did it -- manipulative Koran-injurious behaviour.
So maybe this talking point will shut up the American media and the pro-republican bloggers and the talk show hosts and the Christian Right.
But the rest of the world just won't believe it. And Google news now lists more than a thousand stories about the riots, from newspapers and media outlets all over the world.
Over the past three years, Rumsfeld and the military have been able to intimidate the American media into accepting a brazen stream of lies about Iraq.
Remember these whoppers? "things are getting better every day in Iraq", "why aren't you reporting the good news, like the schools?", "we don't torture people, its just a few bad apples", "extraordinary rendition? of course we would never send people to places where they will be tortured!", "we know exactly where the WMD are", "we're very close to capturing XXX - we almost got him last week", "Iraqi oil will easily pay for the costs of the war", "they'll greet us with flowers in the streets" -- and the greatest one of all: "we can't wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
So now they think they can just leak this ridiculous spin and all of the Muslim outrage will go away: "Military officials said privately this week that they believe some former detainees are embroidering tales of abuse to stir anti-American passions."
Oh sure, guys -- the Guantanamo interrogators beat people and drowned them and shaved their beards and sexually humliated them and smeared them with menstrual blood to shame then. But of course they didn't tear up the Koran and flush it, nope, never happened -- these spooks are such devout Christian men and women, they just have too much respect for the Muslim religion ever to do such a thing.
Or if it DID happen, why then it must have been the prisoners themselves who did it -- manipulative Koran-injurious behaviour.
So maybe this talking point will shut up the American media and the pro-republican bloggers and the talk show hosts and the Christian Right.
But the rest of the world just won't believe it. And Google news now lists more than a thousand stories about the riots, from newspapers and media outlets all over the world.
He just doesn't get it
How to demonstrate your fitness to govern:
First, paralyze Parliament
Second, demand that the Liberals resign because Parliament is paralyzed.
And you know what this is all in aid of, don't you?
Harper himself is actually the one who is paralyzed -- paralyzed with fear about how his restless MPs will react when they realize that their leader's hysterical tirades against the Liberals have boxed them into an impossible position -- they can either vote in favour of the budget, after a month of pontificating about how the Liberals have lost the authority to govern. Or they can vote against the budget and bring down the government, leaving all those Conservative MPs. and candidates, to explain to their constituents why they didn't want Canadians to get all that extra money for the military, for cities, for day care. for equalization.
It sort of limits your campaign options when you cannot make speeches about how a Conservative government would spend extra money on the military, on cities, on day care and on equalization.
Oh well, I guess your MPs can always make speeches about how you stopped that awful gay marriage bill. That will go over well, particularly in Ontario and BC.
Steve, smarten up -- remember you cannot get any more seats in Alberta, that where you need them is in Ontario and BC.
All this demonstrates is that Harper seems to be incapable of thinking strategically or acting responsibly. Harper's over-the-top rhetoric had narrowed his options now to one -- to try to force a non-confidence motion before the budget bill can be introduced. And how is he trying to do this? By announcing he is going to adjourn the house every day between now and then. Huh?
Oh, Steve, if your're trying to prove to Canadians that you can do a great job of boxing your own party into a corner. where your MPs will continue to get paid for refusing to work, you've certainly done it with this tactic. Commons grinds to a halt
But Harper's problem could still be solved -- that Globe story points out that "The NDP has offered to pull one or more of its MPs on Thursday so that MPs battling cancer can miss the vote without affecting the final result. Conservative House Leader Jay Hill said the party will consider the offer, which is called pairing." Well, of course, this is the solution.
He should graciously accept this pairing arrangement for his ill MPs, which shows how mature and parliamentary and caring he is. Then all he has to do is hope and pray that the NDP and the Liberals pull a dirty trick and break their word.
This would get the budget passed and out of the way, so he could defeat the government later on a less popular bill when people would no longer care how his MPs voted on the budget. And it would also give the Conservatives an absolutely great campaign issue - the Martin liberals claim they have already cleaned up their party but look how untrustworthy they really are!
But no. He is resolute in rejecting any strategy which could help him or his candidates during a campaign. "Mr. Harper said he would prefer that the ailing MPs be allowed to cast their own votes. 'I am told, though, that [former prime minister] Joe Clark lost the vote in 1979 because people said they would pair and then they reneged on that commitment in the last minute,' he said."
He just doesn't get it. That's what he WANTS to happen this time.
First, paralyze Parliament
Second, demand that the Liberals resign because Parliament is paralyzed.
And you know what this is all in aid of, don't you?
Harper himself is actually the one who is paralyzed -- paralyzed with fear about how his restless MPs will react when they realize that their leader's hysterical tirades against the Liberals have boxed them into an impossible position -- they can either vote in favour of the budget, after a month of pontificating about how the Liberals have lost the authority to govern. Or they can vote against the budget and bring down the government, leaving all those Conservative MPs. and candidates, to explain to their constituents why they didn't want Canadians to get all that extra money for the military, for cities, for day care. for equalization.
It sort of limits your campaign options when you cannot make speeches about how a Conservative government would spend extra money on the military, on cities, on day care and on equalization.
Oh well, I guess your MPs can always make speeches about how you stopped that awful gay marriage bill. That will go over well, particularly in Ontario and BC.
Steve, smarten up -- remember you cannot get any more seats in Alberta, that where you need them is in Ontario and BC.
All this demonstrates is that Harper seems to be incapable of thinking strategically or acting responsibly. Harper's over-the-top rhetoric had narrowed his options now to one -- to try to force a non-confidence motion before the budget bill can be introduced. And how is he trying to do this? By announcing he is going to adjourn the house every day between now and then. Huh?
Oh, Steve, if your're trying to prove to Canadians that you can do a great job of boxing your own party into a corner. where your MPs will continue to get paid for refusing to work, you've certainly done it with this tactic. Commons grinds to a halt
But Harper's problem could still be solved -- that Globe story points out that "The NDP has offered to pull one or more of its MPs on Thursday so that MPs battling cancer can miss the vote without affecting the final result. Conservative House Leader Jay Hill said the party will consider the offer, which is called pairing." Well, of course, this is the solution.
He should graciously accept this pairing arrangement for his ill MPs, which shows how mature and parliamentary and caring he is. Then all he has to do is hope and pray that the NDP and the Liberals pull a dirty trick and break their word.
This would get the budget passed and out of the way, so he could defeat the government later on a less popular bill when people would no longer care how his MPs voted on the budget. And it would also give the Conservatives an absolutely great campaign issue - the Martin liberals claim they have already cleaned up their party but look how untrustworthy they really are!
But no. He is resolute in rejecting any strategy which could help him or his candidates during a campaign. "Mr. Harper said he would prefer that the ailing MPs be allowed to cast their own votes. 'I am told, though, that [former prime minister] Joe Clark lost the vote in 1979 because people said they would pair and then they reneged on that commitment in the last minute,' he said."
He just doesn't get it. That's what he WANTS to happen this time.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Framing the fillibuster
Hey, the democrats are finally "framing" the fillibuster issue in the simple, clear language that ordinary Americans will hear and understand -- the ones who don't have time to read a Harper's-style article, but who can understand the basic problem if it can be framed in a way which is meaningful to them.
Here's one example from a Harry Reid speech quoted in Daily Kos Reid to Frist: Let's vote:
Here's one example from a Harry Reid speech quoted in Daily Kos Reid to Frist: Let's vote:
Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees. (emphasis mine)And NAACP's Julian Bond yesterday on Hardball also described the whole fillibuster issue clearly and easily:
The precedent in the Senate is, they have operated by the same rules and the same standard for all these many years. And President Bush has enjoyed unusual success. He‘s had more of his judges confirmed than his last three predecessors. Now, all a sudden, because they can‘t win under these old rules, under the present rules, they want to change the rules. Why don‘t they work on changing the votes?" (emphasis mine)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
What a jerk!
Budget vote set for May 19
But this isn't good enough for His Arrogance Mr. Harper. Oh, no, no.
Waiting a week to demonstrate the nation's contempt for the liberals by a descisively crushing vote of 153 to 152 just isn't good enough. He wants to vote on a confidence motion NOW, NOW, NOW!!!
The fact that this unseemly partisanship will screw up the Queen's visit to celebrate Saskatchewan's centennial means nothing to him, nothing at all.
Nope -- its just so much more important that the Conservative Party NOT be placed in the uncomfortable position of having to vote against Martin's budget, which is the best budget the nation has seen in more than a decade. So Harper doesn't want to have to campaign in an election which his party can be said to have instigated by voting against the budget. And obviously, Harper's political manouvering is just so much more important than measely old Saskatchewan -- we only have a few hundred thousand votes, and our government is NDP, so why should he care about us anyway?
He might as well have told us to "fuddle-duddle".
This photo from the Globe and Mail shows Harper glaring at Martin yesterday in the Commons.
But this isn't good enough for His Arrogance Mr. Harper. Oh, no, no.
Waiting a week to demonstrate the nation's contempt for the liberals by a descisively crushing vote of 153 to 152 just isn't good enough. He wants to vote on a confidence motion NOW, NOW, NOW!!!
The fact that this unseemly partisanship will screw up the Queen's visit to celebrate Saskatchewan's centennial means nothing to him, nothing at all.
Nope -- its just so much more important that the Conservative Party NOT be placed in the uncomfortable position of having to vote against Martin's budget, which is the best budget the nation has seen in more than a decade. So Harper doesn't want to have to campaign in an election which his party can be said to have instigated by voting against the budget. And obviously, Harper's political manouvering is just so much more important than measely old Saskatchewan -- we only have a few hundred thousand votes, and our government is NDP, so why should he care about us anyway?
He might as well have told us to "fuddle-duddle".
This photo from the Globe and Mail shows Harper glaring at Martin yesterday in the Commons.
Here's some good news - for the Chretien liberals
PM's honesty an issue as Tories lead in poll
I haven't followed the Gomery Inquiry testimony, except for reading the Globe coverage and hearing occasional testimony on the evening news. But its been my impression that the 'sponsorship liberals' who are testifying are happy to smear themselves as long as they can also skewer Paul Martin and his supporters as well -- with the long-term goal, I suspect, that Martin will lose the election and have to resign and then they can get one of Chretien's people into the leadership. Now, who this would be, I wouldn't have a clue, though I also suspect that people like Tobin and Manley would be happy to come in out of the cold if they thought they had a chance. Sorry, Tobin is a quitter, and Manley still looks too much like Beeker on the Muppets.
I haven't followed the Gomery Inquiry testimony, except for reading the Globe coverage and hearing occasional testimony on the evening news. But its been my impression that the 'sponsorship liberals' who are testifying are happy to smear themselves as long as they can also skewer Paul Martin and his supporters as well -- with the long-term goal, I suspect, that Martin will lose the election and have to resign and then they can get one of Chretien's people into the leadership. Now, who this would be, I wouldn't have a clue, though I also suspect that people like Tobin and Manley would be happy to come in out of the cold if they thought they had a chance. Sorry, Tobin is a quitter, and Manley still looks too much like Beeker on the Muppets.
Monday, May 09, 2005
The Hollow Men
Here it is, in a nutshell -- the basic problem with the Bush administration.
At an event in Holland, Bush was asked whether there would come a day when the Patriot Act was not needed any more. He said "[We] must balance the government's most important duty, which is to protect the American people from harm, with the civil liberties of our citizens."
He has said this type of thing before -- he has used this description of his job to justify every post-911 monstrosity from the Patriot Act to the preemptive strike doctrine to the Iraq War to Guatanamo.
But he is wrong. Here is the oath that each president takes as he is sworn into the presidency: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
His duty as president is not to the people but to the Constitution. It is only through his commitment to protect the Constitution that his people can also be protected.
But Bush just doesn't get it, and neither do the people around him. "Protecting the people" is the corrupt justification for illegal acts that we hear in the speeches of every tin-pot dictator from Stalin to PolPot to Idi Amin. The idea that one person is actually responsible for protecting an entire nation is romantic megalomania. It leads to the pretense that the country is surrounded by and infested with enemies who must be beaten regardless of any illegality. Without the Constitution, in fact, the very concept of illegality becomes hollow. Thus Bush turns Americans into a nation of hollowmen who promote the demonization of Muslims and pregnant women and gay people, deny the legal authority of judges, support religious zealots, and justify torture.
. . . Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men . . .
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
At an event in Holland, Bush was asked whether there would come a day when the Patriot Act was not needed any more. He said "[We] must balance the government's most important duty, which is to protect the American people from harm, with the civil liberties of our citizens."
He has said this type of thing before -- he has used this description of his job to justify every post-911 monstrosity from the Patriot Act to the preemptive strike doctrine to the Iraq War to Guatanamo.
But he is wrong. Here is the oath that each president takes as he is sworn into the presidency: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
His duty as president is not to the people but to the Constitution. It is only through his commitment to protect the Constitution that his people can also be protected.
But Bush just doesn't get it, and neither do the people around him. "Protecting the people" is the corrupt justification for illegal acts that we hear in the speeches of every tin-pot dictator from Stalin to PolPot to Idi Amin. The idea that one person is actually responsible for protecting an entire nation is romantic megalomania. It leads to the pretense that the country is surrounded by and infested with enemies who must be beaten regardless of any illegality. Without the Constitution, in fact, the very concept of illegality becomes hollow. Thus Bush turns Americans into a nation of hollowmen who promote the demonization of Muslims and pregnant women and gay people, deny the legal authority of judges, support religious zealots, and justify torture.
. . . Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men . . .
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)