Thanks again, Jean

The international illegality of 'regime change' is being noted across the blogosphere today. Here is Informed Comment : ". . . As Michael Smith reports for the London Times, 'regime change' is illegal in international law without a United Nations Security Council resolution or other recognized sanction (national self-defense, or rescuing a population from genocide). "
Regardless of how sleazy the sponsorship scandal proves Chretien to be, or how much I dislike his propensity to undermine Martin, I will always be grateful that Chretien did his job as prime minister.
He kept Canada out of an illegal war. He said in 2003 that the US stated goal of regime change in Iraq was illegal. Here's the Reuters story of March 1, 2003: "Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on Friday strongly criticized U.S. calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein and told the United States to limit its ambitions in Iraq to disarmament. "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem. Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities," Chretien said on a visit to Mexico City. He said there was nothing about ending Saddam's rule in U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, the legal and diplomatic basis for much of the international pressure on Baghdad. "I think that if I read 1441, it's talking about disarmament of the government of Saddam Hussein. That is the resolution that we are working on. If you read it it is not talking about a regime change," he said. Speaking to reporters at his hotel in the Mexican capital, Chretien was visibly agitated. He clenched his fists and held them in the air while speaking."
Oh, and from the same news story, here is Ari Fleischer saying "The president has made it clear his policy remains to settle this peacefully. He hopes it can be done peacefully, but the goal remains disarmament and regime change."
Just one more proof that the "Everybody always knew the US was going to war" line is just another convenient lie.

Well, I was one of the millions who didn't know

Atrios refers to Kevin Drum's rather astounding statement about the Downing Street memo:

"Was the Iraq war a foregone conclusion by early 2002? Of course it was. These new memos provide further evidence of that, but I'm not sure there's anyone who really doubted it in the first place."

Atrios continues:

Look, this is just bullshit. There are two sets of people here. One consists of inside the beltways types and assorted news junkies and the other consists of The Amerkin Public. The former knew the Iraq war was a foregone conclusion by early 2002, but didn't bother to tell the Amerkin Public. They still haven't . . . The American press did not bother to tell people. And, now, they still don't want to bother to tell people. This isn't about attacking Drum, I've fallen into this trap before myself. Everyone should've known this in 2002. But, they didn't. It's just like Russert calling the Downing Street Memo the 'famous' Downing Street Memo? Famous to whom? To all the fuckers who didn't give a shit enough in 2002 to tell us what was obvious to anyone who was paying attention.

Well, I WAS paying attention, but I didn't know in 2002 that the US was determined to go to war against Iraq.
I actually believed that Bush still was making up his mind.
I actually believed that whether Saddam accepted the inspectors back actually mattered, that what Iraq reported about its weapons actually mattered, that whether the UN supported the war actually mattered.
And I thought that the anti-war demonstrations in September and October of 2002 and in January 2003 actually mattered too -- the millions who marched in these demonstrations around the world must also have believed their opinion would make a difference.
Well, I guess we were all just fools. Of course, I do keep forgetting that I am hopelessly naive. I think I was the only person in North America who also believed "I did not have sex with that woman."
Kevin Drum, you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for this spin. The idea that "everyone" knew in 2002 that the US had decided to go to war is ridiculous -- its an RNC talking point, designed to spread the blame around and let Bush off the hook for all his lies.
UPDATE: I guess The Editors were in the Coalition of the Shilled too: "Bush lied to us. Stood up there, pulled his most serious face, and lied to us. Chumped us. Played us like chumps. And now God knows how many people are dead, and Iraq is shaping up to be a bigger, bloodier Lebanon, and American power and credibility has been pissed away. All the while he lied to our chump faces. At what point does this become intolerable? At what point do people start saying 'enough'?"
UPDATE II -- THE BEGINNING: Americablog points to this New York Review of Books article "The Secret Way to War" which explains the backstory about why these Downing Steet Memos are important.
(And I promise to quit with the updates now!)

Silent night/ 7 o'clock news

When I looked at Antiwar.com tonight, I suddenly thought of this -- anyone remember it?

Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild

Here was the evening news* in 1966 . . .
. . . In Washington the atmosphere was tense today as a special subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American activities continued its probe into anti-Vietnam war protests. Demonstrators were forcibly evicted from the hearings when they began chanting anti-war slogans. Former Vice-President Richard Nixon says that unless there is a substantial increase in the present war effort in Viet nam, the U.S. should look forward to five more years of war. In a speech before the Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in New York, Nixon also said opposition to the war in this country is the greatest single weapon working against the U.S.

And here is the evening news today:
Army Recruitment Crisis Deepens
34 Iraqis, 2 US Marines Killed in Iraq Attacks
US Says Air Strike Kills 40 Insurgents
Iraq Hardliners Fear Defeat in Election
Diverse Afghan Groups Behind Unrest
Israeli Soldiers Denounce Revenge Attack
Support for Gaza Pullout Slumps as Threats to Sharon Rise
Disputed Iraq Raids Blamed on Bad Intelligence
Poll: 42% Say US Headed to Vietnam-Like Situation in Iraq
Poll: Bush Job Approval Dips to New Low
Iraq Sunnis Reject Compromise on Constitution
Iraq Bomb Kills 5 US Marines
Iraq Shootings May Lead to Curbs on Private Guards
Contractor Alleges Abuse by Marines
CIA Didn't Tell FBI About 9/11 Hijackers
Iran Has Frozen Work at Nuclear Site
US: Syria Out to Kill Beirut Politicians
Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief . . .

That's the 7 o'clock edition of the news. Goodnight

Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace.

* select the first song on Player One - show controls - play.

Good, better, best

Good.

One of Nick Anderson's Pulitzer prize winning cartoons.

Better.

Brian Gable, Globe and Mail

Best.

Brian Gable, Globe and Mail

PS: By the way, it is the cartoons themselves, not the events they protray, that are good, better or best, IMHO.

Sunrise, sunset

Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly fly the years
One season following another
Laden with happiness and tears.

As a parent, it's often hard to decide where your pity for your child's pain should stop, and your obligation to your child's future should begin.
I thought about this while watching the coverage of the 13-year-old Texas girl with Hodgkins in remission who wanted to refuse the radiation treatments which her doctors recommended to try to prevent recurrance of the cancer.
First, the tone of the coverage surprised me. The law says that no 13-year-old is considered to be sufficiently independent and mature that she can make her own decisions about medical treatment. The law also says that the state is obliged to care for children who are in danger. Any time society wants to change these laws, it can certainly do so. But the TV news last week adopted the tone that the 'state' was just being a big, bad meanie, ripping this child away from the loving arms of her family who just didn't want her to suffer anymore.
Well, sure, who would want more radiation treatments? Of course she didn't want to go through this again. But that's not the point. Sometimes being a parent means making the hard decisions on your child's behalf, and being strong enough to deal with her tears.
We had a miserable case like this here a few years ago -- a 12-year-old boy had bone cancer in his leg, and the boy didn't want his leg removed. So the parents tried to go the alternative medicine route and the doctors tried to stop them. After an ugly legal fight lasting some weeks, the court ruled that the doctors could remove the leg. Well, of course, by that time the cancer had spread and amputation would no longer have offered any hope of cure. So the boy died about two months later.
Now the Texas girl's cancer has also recurred.

Isn't there someone who will let us surrender?

A month ago, I titled a post "Americans surrender in Iraq", based on a NYT story which said that the insurgents were ready to negotiate a surrender. To my eye, it appeared that America was using the media to declare its own intent to surrender, but saving face by implying it was merely responding to an insurgent initiative.
Now, here's another straw in the wind showing that America is giving up -- this Boston Globe story Decisive victory doubtful in Iraq says that "Military operations in Iraq have not succeeded in weakening the insurgency, and Iraq's government, with U.S. support, is now seeking a political reconciliation among the nation's ethnic and tribal factions as the only viable route to stability, according to U.S. military officials and private specialists."
So it looks to me like America is still trying to surrender through the media, but this time saving face by implying that the Iraqi government wants to negotiate peace and America is merely supporting them.
But perhaps I need to make a significant revison in my surrender thesis.
Perhaps it isn't actually "America" which wants to surrender, but rather just the American military. Maybe they're trying to get their boys and girls out of Iraq before the military collapses again as badly as it did after Vietnam. But the Bush administration isn't listening.
The Globe article points out that "despite US estimates that it kills or captures 1,000 to 3,000 insurgents a month the number of daily attacks is going back up . . to at least 70 per day", that the insurgents have "steady streams of funding and weapons", that they are "mounting an effort comparable to where they were a year ago", that in the first five months of 2005, almost 1.000 Iraqi police and security have been killed, that more than half of the attacks now involve suicide bombers, and that an average of two US soldiers day each day "and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians are being caught in the crossfire." And we've all heard the stories about how miserable the military recruiting numbers have been lately, to the point that they are recruiting less qualified candidates, and refusing to discharge people who shouldn't be in the military anymore. And fragging may be making a comeback.
So how can Dick Cheney say that the insurgency is in its "last throes"?
The article quotes a military specialist on the Cheney remark - 'There is simply no basis for making that statement". He's obviously forgotten that the Bush administration thinks they do not have to deal with actual facts -- they can create their own reality by wishing it to be so.
So as the military gets weaker and more desperate to surrender, how long can the Bush administration sustain its mythical but comfortable belief that freedom is on the march? How long will they continue to believe that the combination of tough talk and Tinker Bell clapping can suspend the laws of time and space and physics, so that they can continue to think that things are going exactly according to plan in Iraq.
If the military is trying to surrender, will the Bush administration let them? Or will the military be forced to stay on and on in Iraq, hunkered down in their bases year after year, seeing thousands of soldiers and ten of thousands of Iraqis die? The Bushies are, after all, a bunch of chickenhawks, backed up by the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. They've always thought they knew better than the military how to win a war -- yeah, just talk them to death!

A short history

Neddie from American Street points to this great art-essay, Robert R. Crumb's "Short history of America", which was reprinted in the Guardian recently.
Neddie asks: If you could wave a wand at one of those frames and magically make the destruction stop at that moment in time, which frame would it be?


Yes -- what IS next?

"If you could see her through my eyes . . .

. . . she wouldn't look Jewish at all" -- Joel Grey in Cabaret.
I just wanted to remind everybody else that once upon a time, anti-semitism was pretty common. I myself was reminded of it when I read the gratuitously bigoted language in this Canadian Press story.
So here is a test.
See if you can figure out which word I have replaced in this news story:

Cotler might amend Jewish bill
. . . [Justice Minister Cotler said] it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away Jewish couples . . . "That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits. Ottawa has the authority to define marriage, but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings. A range of conflicts has already emerged. Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for Jewish celebrations. Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform Jewish weddings against their beliefs. A couple in Prince Edward Island shut down their bed-breakfast rather than rent a room to a Jewish couple. "These are very significant issues," says Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, a vocal opponent of the bill. "We are opening up a Pandora's box, and this minister has steadfastly refused (to concede) that there are any problems." . . . The bill is expected to pass the Commons in a vote as early as next week . . . If it becomes law, Canada would be just the third country in the world after the Netherlands and Belgium to legalize Jewish marriage. Toews and other critics say crucial details must be worked out before the bill is enshrined in law. He says Cotler must "deal with each of the provinces in terms of enacting corresponding legislation that will protect religious organizations and those who object to Jewish marriage for reasons of conscience." Derek Rogusky, spokesman for Focus on the Family Canada, says those who oppose Jewish weddings are uneasy. "Faith-based groups are not all that confident if their rights are going to be left up to the courts," said the senior vice-president of the conservative family values group. Equality protections tend to trump religious freedoms in legal fights over Jewish rights, he said. The divisive debate continues to expose deep rifts among political parties and Canadians in general. Nearly three dozen Liberals are against changing the definition of marriage to allow Jewish weddings. Former Liberal Pat O'Brien's decision this week to bolt the party because of his concerns about the bill pushed the minority government to consider amendments. Cotler says any changes must be consistent with the need to balance equality rights and religious freedom. Still, he supports the bill as it is and suggested there will be little more than tinkering with language to calm fears over its impact.

Sorta jumps out at you, doesn't it?

Words CAN hurt them

The Poor Man writes about the basic brilliance of Amnesty International calling the American ghost prison system a gulag:

. . . a lot of techniques have been tried to make Republicans care that they, and their party, are supporting torture. Reporting facts has been tried, unsuccessfully. Releasing graphic photographs was also tried, to no avail. Asking nicely didn't work, begging didn't work, and guilt-tripping didn't work either. But there was one thing that hadn't been tried yet, not really, not until Amnesty tried it the other day: name-calling.

Childish? Can be. But effective. Report, photograph, explain, analyze, moralize - all useless. But it the post-modern world of the modern right wing, where objective facts are social constructs and the endlessly mutable text is all that really is, there is still one thing that has the power to inspire a reaction: words. Pick your word carefully, like, say, the word “gulag”, and watch the fun begin .

. . the moral degenerates who are the postmodern Republican party [are] fundamentally only concerned with words, appearances, and the power both can wield . . . Amnesty’s use of the word “gulag” in reference to Republican policies weakens the Republican party, a group that cares nothing for human rights, only power, and has substantially strengthened Amnesty, a group that cares only about exposing powerful violators of human rights, and has no fear of making enemies, with a decades-long record to back it up.

This is a very significant post -- the realization that words can actually hurt the American right wing is an insight I have not seen before.
On the whole, progressives try to deal with "reality". We pride ourselves on making a conscious effort not to be tricked by orwellian language. As a result, perhaps, we have not understood the crucial importance of this same orwellian language to the right wing. We attack what we think is their "reality" problem, but the right wing isn't listening because we're not dealing directly with the pseudonyms and talking points through which they can quell any vestige of uneasiness about what they are actually doing.
Offensive, unjustified and unprovoked war becomes "the Bush doctrine".
Protests against American agression becomes "they hate our freedom"
Bugging the security council becomes "reforming the UN"
Intolerant creationist bible worship becomes "intelligent design"
Threatening judges and picketing hospitals becomes "culture of life".
Demonizing gay people becomes "protecting the sancity of marriage"
The wrongfully imprisoned and possibly innocent people in Gitmo are "enemy combatants"
Locking people up without charge or trial or legal process becomes "protecting the American people"
As long as they continue to frame the world with poorly-defined but comforting pseudonyms, the right wing (and I include the Canadian right wing too) can continue to think of themsevles as morally upright, Christian people.
One thing I remember reading about Watergate was this -- that the worst thing about it was realizing "the nut at the end of the bar was right" -- you know, that blowhard guy who was ranting about conspiracies and bribery and crooks and liars and cover-ups.
Well, now we progressives may well be the 2005 version of the "nut at the end of the bar" -- and maybe people will listen if we use the language they understand.

Book tag

Thanks for the tag, Timmy G at Voice in the Wilderness I have added you to the blogroll.
I googled "book tag" and got 15,000 hits, so I couldn't track down where this started, but its growing exponentially all over the blogosphere.
Here are my answers:
1. Number of books I own: probably about 400 at this time. I try to keep mainly the books I will likely want to reread someday, but the others do pile up, too. Last summer we did a major book clearout and at least we got some of the bookshelves opened up.
2. What was the last book you bought? Well, I buy a lot of mysteries -- John Grisham's The Last Juror was probably the most recent one I bought. Grisham is one of those big-name, prolific authors who gets trashed by the hoity toity -- until you read some of his books and you understand why he is a big-name author. The quality varies a bit too much with Grisham, but I liked the pacing of The Last Juror -- its a bit of a mystery, but only at the end. Most of it is just a gently paced story about a small-town Mississippi newspaper editor and the stories he writes and the people he meets and what it is like to work at that kind of journalism and live in a small southern town in the 1970s.
3. What was the last book you read? Interspersed with other reading, I am rereading my way through Michael Connelly, so I am in the middle of Trunk Music right now. I often prefer to have a book I have already read for my pre-sleep reading, just so that I don't get so interested in the book that I never get to sleep.
I have liked the Harry Bosch series since the beginning. The series character can be both a writer's greatest strength and greatest weakness -- the strength of a series character is that the author can build the character's personality and experience from book to book; the weakness is, when the author gets bored then the series can get pretty boring too. As a general rule, the very best series character book is book two or book three; the slow decline can set in as early as book four, though with Connelly, his Bosch books have stayed pretty interesting all the way.
4. Five books that mean a lot to me.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I read these for the first time about 35 years ago, and I have been rereading them every two years or so, ever since. When I broke my leg a few years ago, and went through multiple surgeries and a two year recovery, it was Frodo's journey that helped me keep going.
Smiley's People. Fascinating characters, complex plot, subtle writing, not as dark as some of LeCarre's other books because Smiley finally wins in the end.
The Day the Universe Changed. James Burke's 1985 book gave me a unique perspective on history and on human progress, making me realize that human societies did not necessarily progress onward and upward, but sometimes could go sideways and backwards (as, I think, American society is going now under Bush.)
Chaos: The Making of a New Science. When I read James Gleick's book in 1989 it was just about the first "science" book this humanities major had ever read. It was the first time I saw that science has as many fascinating stories as English literature does, and that science theories, like chaos theory, could be useful and applicable in other disciplines.
The Blue Castle by Lucy Maude Montgomery. When I was a lonely teenager, this book gave me hope that I could have happiness one day. And I have.
Now I tag a whole bunch of people whose book stories I want to read about:
Sean Incognito
Canadian Cynic
RossK from Gazetteer
Edward T Bear in Blankout Times
Mike at Rational Reasons
Trucker Bob from Over the Road
People's Republic of Seabrook
And just to spread this across the pond, UK's Albion's Alchemist

Spring cleaning time

Get Organized! I've never been much of a house cleaner, but we do often enjoy watching HGTV and every now and then I check out their site.
After tonight's blog cleanup -- Pine and Embarassed to be Canadian, buh-bye -- I guess I am thinking about everything else that needs to be scrubbed around the house.
Some random observations:
What I have always disliked about house cleaning is this -- it never really gets you anywhere. All that work and the only thing you have to show for it is that the house briefly looks the way it should look all the time. But at least now we have all the Swifer stuff to make it quicker, which works great as long as your standards aren't too high.
Luckily, that has never been a problem for me.
I have tried hard never to be one of those annoying Poppins-wannabe little-red-hen sort of people who feel that only their own housework is good enough -- except that I do find myself bitching to my family that if they would only FOLD the damn laundry when it comes out of the dryer, instead of throwing it pellmell into the basket every which way, then it wouldn't get all WRINKLED and need IRONING . . . is anyone listening to me? Anybody? Oh, well . . .

Well, when you live by the sword . . .

. . . you die by the sword.
Sidelining the CIA "After nearly 60 years at the pinnacle of American intelligence- and at the elbow of Presidents - the CIA director is no longer automatically welcome at the President's National Security Council meetings. John Negroponte, the new director of National Intelligence, has taken his chair."
Well, I think this is sort of funny -- after spending last fall toeing the party line by firing a bunch of CIA leaders for their 'disloyalty' to the Bush administration, the man who had said at one time that he wasn't qualified to be a CIA agent is now being taken at this word. Here is what Goss is doing these days: ". . . he is spending more time focusing on needed reforms at the agency, visiting far-flung CIA spooks in the field and looking for ways to fill in gaps in the CIA's human intelligence and analysis." In orher words, he's a personnel manager -- and I'll bet those spooks in the field don't want to blow their cover by going anywhere near him.
Thanks to Buzzflash for the link.

Shut up

Why can't Harry Schmidt just shut the fuck up? Pilot who killed four Cdns. in friendly fire says he's a scapegoat
Everytime this yahoo opens his mouth, he just changes feet. Whine, whine, whine, blubber, sniff, oh poor little me, me, me.
He was the one who disobeyed orders -- "Despite orders to the contrary from air controllers, Schmidt dropped the 225-kilogram bomb that killed the four Canadians and injured six others" -- and he still refuses to accept responsibility for what he did. "I am truly sorry that the accident happened" he says -- yeah, like the bomb bay doors opened by accident, like the drop lever flipped all by itself. He still acts like it was an act of God, rather than an act of Harry.

Good, better, best

Good.

Brian Gable, Toronto, ON -- The Globe & Mail

Better.

Cameron (Cam) Cardow, Ottawa Citizen

Best.

Kevin Siers, North Carolina, The Charlotte Observer

Now, here's how to frame an issue!

Canadian Cynic writes "The same-sex marriage controversy, in a nutshell
Dear same-sex marriage opponents:
We're right. You're wrong. Fuck off."
That says it all, really . . .