Signs that the apocalypse is upon us

Sometimes ya just gotta shake your head:



Two spotted-billed pelicans participate in a wedding ceremony in a "bridal house" at a zoo in Fuzhou, southeast China's Fujian province April 25, 2007. The female pelican was found in south China's Hainan province, and brought to Fuzhou to mate with the male pelican, who lost his spouse three years ago, local media reported. REUTERS/CHINA DAILY



screen grab of CheddarVision.tv. A large English cheddar cheese has become a star of the Internet, attracting more than 1 million viewers to sit and stare at it as it slowly ripens. (www.cheddarvision.tv) Reuters



A horse stands next to a man sleeping on the floor of an all-night cash machine area in the foyer of a bank in Wiesenburg.

Selling water

Alison at Creekside continues to be my go-to person for all things related to the Grand Scheme For Truth, Justice And The American Way, AKA integration with the United States.
Now they're coming after our water -- see the Creekside posts here and here.
The last time I posted on this, Kate sent her winged monkeys over to insult me. They just didn't get it. They thought it was some kind of lefty anti-business anti-Americanism. So just let me explain it again as simply as I possibly can:

We cannot start selling our water. Because once we start, we can never stop.

For anyone of limited imagination, here's the scenario: Imagine if Arizona, say, or Nevada, or California built a pipeline to import millions of tonnes of water. They're not going to use this water just to irrigate a few acres to grow broccoli, not considering how much the pipeline would cost. No, to make their investment back they would have to use it to build new cities, with new homes and schools and factories as well as farms.
So now we have whole communities built because of Canadian water.
Now imagine if, 50 years later, Canada tried to say "sorry, we have to turn off that pipeline because we need the water for ourselves now"?
What would happen next? The US would simply not allow itself to be threatened in this way.
Remember in the 70s when people in Alberta started threatening to "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark"? It was a cruel and immoral and unreasonable taunt; Trudeau wouldn't permit the welfare and the economies of Quebec and Ontario to be endangered by Alberta, so he brought in the National Energy Program.
So what the US would do if Canada tried to say "let the American bastards die of thirst"? Would the United States allow hundreds of thousands or even millions of its citizens to lose their homes and their jobs, to be forced to relocate to other cities which, in turn, would not have enough water for them?
No, not likely. I think we all can envisage what would happen. Our own needs would be secondary to a voracious American demand.
Deciding to sell our water would, in the end, destroy Canada as an independent nation.

It is to laugh

There are a number of "laugh 'til you cry" moments in this Globe and Mail story about the Harper cabinet meltdown in handling the Afghan prisoner of war story.
(And by the way, why are they called "detainees" all the time by the media, when they are actually "prisoners of war"?)
Anyway, here's the first funny:

. . . A senior defence official, seeking to present Mr. O'Connor's views as he fights for his political life, said the Defence Minister feels he has been shouldering the blame for Canada's policies toward Afghan detainees for more than a year.

Well, that would likely be because he IS to blame for Canada's policies toward Afghan prisoners of war.
Here's another funny:

National Defence feels it has been carrying a disproportionate share of the load in Afghanistan — and the public-relations war.

And here I thought the Canadian military was fighting a real war in Afghanistan, not a "public relations war".
The "source" continues:

It believes other departments and agencies should be responsible for issues such as detainee policy, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.
“The bureaucrats at Foreign Affairs resisted getting stuck with this issue this week,” the defence source said. “They don't want this hornet's nest. They are happy going to their cocktail parties and eating little shrimps.”
In particular, there have been complaints that Canada's foreign aid is slow to arrive in the dangerous southern province where the Canadian Forces are active.
“When CIDA discovers the road to Kandahar, they will be able to send in their funds,” the defence source said.

"little shrimps"? Can't find the road? Ouch. The insults show just how much the Canadian military actually disrespects both Foreign Affairs and CIDA. So how willing would they be to follow their orders about treatment of prisoners of war?
As usual, toward the end of the article, we get around to blaming the Liberals:

. . . federal sources said the previous Liberal government made a mistake in 2005 when it tasked the military — and not Foreign Affairs, which has more expertise in human rights — to sign a deal with the Afghans to ensure that prisoners of war were not abused after their transfer into local jails.

And finishing with a flourish, here's the final "laugh til you cry" moment -- attacking Conservative policy on prisoners of war is "maligning our troops". So I guess in effect, they really think that the troops are to blame for this whole mess:

Mr. Day said yesterday that the opposition attacks had to stop because they were affecting Canadian officials in Afghanistan. “Stop maligning our corrections officers and stop maligning our troops,” Mr. Day said.

Oh, OK, I guess I'll have to shut up -- I wouldn't want to be considered unpatriotic.

Great line of the day

From Phoenix Woman at Firedoglake:

Speaking of our wonderful Iraqi occupation, it's creating jobs back home. Too bad they're for fitters of prosthetic limbs.

Charlie

I don't often write about personal stuff on this blog, but one of our dogs died today, and I wanted to talk a little about him.
Charlie was a Yellow Labrador with perhaps a little of something else in him. I wish I could post a photo of him but I don't have any easily available tonight.
He came to us just five years ago -- we wanted a companion for our other lab, Chillou, and Charlie's original family couldn't care for him anymore.
What a joy Charlie was. There was nobody who just loved food more than Charlie -- on occasion my son would feed the dogs and then, not realizing they has already eaten, my husband would feed them again, and Charlie was just in heaven! There was nobody more eager to chase a ball than Charlie -- he would quiver in anticipation and focus on the ball with total intensity. We have never had a dog so tentative and uncertain in his love than Charlie -- it took him years to really trust us, and to let us hug him and pet him and love him the way he deserved. He was a faithful and loyal dog and such a "good dog" -- though Chillou will still get up to mischief, chewing socks and the like, Charlie never did anything like that at all, he always tried so hard to be the best dog he could be. We will miss him.
It happened very quickly -- last Sunday he started acting sick, still eating but slowly and then vomiting, moving very slowly during his walk. We took him to the vet and got blood tests and by Wednesday he was diagnosed with acute kidney failure. We don't know why, maybe some kind of poison or maybe cancer or some other cause. The IVs and drugs just couldn't stop it, didn't even improve it at all.
We tried to bring him home from the vet today, for one last night at home; he walked out to the car and seemed happy enough to be with us, but then when we got home he was so ill he couldn't or wouldn't even get out of the car. He wasn't really Charlie anymore -- there were just a few flashes of the old Charlie, but most of the time he was just dozing and staring and panting.
So finally we had to just go back to the vet, and make the difficult decision to have him put to sleep. In the end, it was very peaceful.

Lying and denying, while people are dying

I haven't had a lot of time to blog this week, but I have been following this story: What Ottawa doesn't want you to know.
The Galloping Beaver has good coverage, here and here and here. As well as POGGE
There is a pattern here -- lying and denying over and over again, while Afghan prisoners are being tortured and killed.

Initially, the government denied the existence of the report, responding in writing that "no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists." After complaints to the Access to Information Commissioner, it released a heavily edited version this week.

The redactions in the report were actually quite frightening, because they demonstrate so clearly the pattern of denial and deceit.
The deleted sections have nothing to do with state secrets, personnel issues, money, or protection of personal information. Instead, the deleted sentences confirm that prisoners turned over to the Afghan government by Canadian forces are being tortured.
Its pretty obvious that they were blacked out so that Harper and O'Connor and Hillier could all continue to spout the Harper line, echoed by the rest of the caucus, that nobody knew nothin' about nothin' -- let's call it the Sergeant Schultz defense "I know nothing, NOTHING!"
But the redactions did no good. The Globe and Mail found or was given its own copy of the report. And so they were able to figure out what the blacked-out lines said, thus exposing the Harper government's pathetic lies:

Among the sentences blacked out by the Foreign Affairs Department in the report's summary is "Extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common," according to full passages of the report obtained independently by The Globe.
The Foreign Affairs report, titled Afghanistan-2006; Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, was marked "CEO" for Canadian Eyes Only. It seems to remove any last vestige of doubt that the senior officials and ministers knew that torture and abuse were rife in Afghan jails.
The report leaves untouched many paragraphs such as those beginning "one positive development" or "there are some bright spots."
But heavy dark blocks obliterate sentences such as "the overall human rights situation in Afghanistan deteriorated in 2006."
. . .
A comparison of the full text — parts of which were obtained by The Globe and Mail — with the edited version shows a consistent pattern of excising negative findings or observations from the report with positive ones left in.
There was no explanation for blacking out observations such as "military, intelligence and police forces have been accused of involvement in arbitrary arrest, kidnapping extortion, torture and extrajudicial killing."
. . .
The report raises a red flag for any government bound by the Geneva Conventions and responsible for safeguarding transferred detainees from torture and abuse.
It makes repeated dark references to the reputation and performance of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, or intelligence police. Most prisoners captured by Canadian troops are now turned over to the widely feared NDS, which is considered tougher but perhaps less corrupt that the Afghan National Police. "Allegations of torture and arbitrary detention by NDS officials have also been reported," the full text of the report says.
Another portion that is blacked out reads "widespread allegations of corruption and human-rights violations exist with respect to the Afghanistan National Police (ANP) and Ministry of Interior (MOI)."

This is what has been happening to them:

Most of those held by the NDS for an extended time said they were whipped with electrical cables, usually a bundle of wires about the length of an arm. Some said the whipping was so painful that they fell unconscious.
Interrogators also jammed cloth between the teeth of some detainees, who described hearing the sound of a hand-crank generator and feeling the hot flush of electricity coursing through their muscles, seizing them with spasms.
Another man said the police hung him by his ankles for eight days of beating. Still another said he panicked as interrogators put a plastic bag over his head and squeezed his windpipe.
Torturers also used cold as a weapon, according to detainees who complained of being stripped half-naked and forced to stand through winter nights when temperatures in Kandahar drop below freezing.
The men who survived these ordeals often seem like broken husks. They tell their stories with quiet voices and trembling hands. They can't sleep, they complain of chronic pain and they forget the simplest things, such as remembering to pull down their pants when they use the toilet.
After interrogation, the NDS often sends Taliban suspects to Sarpoza prison, on the western edge of the city. Detainees who arrive at the facility's tall metal gates are occasionally so badly impaired that they're incapable of caring for themselves properly and prison officials and fellow inmates complain that they're left with the chores of washing, dressing, and feeding them.

Great moments in journalism

Remember the New York Times' Elizabeth Bulmiller describing that great moment in journalism, why the press didn't ask Bush anything at his March 2003 press conference?

"We were very deferential because…it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

And now we have a treasure trove of more great moments in journalism, from yesterday's TV show Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War
First, here's one of those hard-hitting questions which some reporter actually did have the courage to ask at that Presidential press conference:

APRIL: How is your faith guiding you?
PRESIDENT BUSH: My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance.

Now here's some reminiscing about Big Brother, from the CEO of CNN:

WALTER ISAACSON: There was a patriotic fervor and the administration used it so that if you challenged anything you were made to feel that there was something wrong with that . . . And there was even almost a patriotism police which, you know, they'd be up there on the internet sort of picking anything a Christiane Amanpour, or somebody else would say as if it were disloyal.

Meanwhile, over at CBS, they really were trying to do stories on the Bush administration's push for war, but without actually being too... well, you know, critical:

BOB SIMON (60 MINUTES): And I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it in a way almost light, if that doesn't seem ridiculous.
BILL MOYERS: Going to war, "almost light"?
BOB SIMON: Not to-- not to present it as a frontal attack on the administration's claims. Which would have been not only premature, but we didn't have the ammunition to do it at the time. We did not know then that there were no mass-- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We only knew that the connection the administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things. And therefore we could present the Madison Avenue campaign on these things. Which was a-- sort of softer, less confrontational way of doing it
BILL MOYERS: Did you go to any of the brass at CBS-- even at 60 MINUTES-- and say, "Look, we gotta dig deeper. We gotta connect the dots. This isn't right.
BOB SIMON: No in all-- in all honesty, with a thousand Mea Culpas-- I've done a few stories in Iraq. But-- nope I don't think we followed up on this.

There was even a quota system for talking to war opponents:

PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.
BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.
PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true-
BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?
PHIL DONOHUE: Yes . . . there's just a terrible fear. And I think that's the right word.
BILL MOYERS: Eric Sorenson, who was the president of MSNBC, told the NEW YORK TIMES quote: "Any misstep and you can get into trouble with these guys and have the patriotism police hunt you down."
PHIL DONOHUE: He's the management guy. So his phone would ring. Nobody's going to call Donahue and tell him to shut up and support the war. Nobody's that foolish. It's a lot more subtle than that.

And what is Tim Russert's excuse? He says it's all our fault, not his. Somebody shouldda called him and told him the real story:

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES [the one about the aluminum tubes] And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.
TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that . . . What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

Or maybe is really all the Democrats' fault....yeah, that's it, its the Democrats!

BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?
TIM RUSSERT: It's important that you have a-- an oppos-- opposition party. That's our system of government.
BILL MOYERS: So, it's not news unless there's somebody-
TIM RUSSERT: No, no, no. I didn't say that. But it's important to have an opposition party, your opposit-- opposing views.

Because that's what journalists do, after all -- search out those opposing views and make sure the public knows the whole story. Or, rather, that's what they WOULD do, if only it wasn't so much work . . .

Crazy line of the day

From John Gibson at Fox News:

If this war is lost, it's Iraqis who lost it.

Incoherent, aren't they? The American war media don't even know whose zooming who in Iraq anymore.

The cartoon

Apparently there's a big fuss going on about accusations that the Supreme Court let religion influence their abortion ruling last week, including uproar about this Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon:

Joseph Cella, president of the Catholic-based organization Fidelis, called the cartoon "venomous, terribly misleading and blatantly anti-Catholic."

Well, the abortion decision itself was venomous, terribly misleading and blatantly pro-Catholic.

"Don't touch me"

Karl Rove and Sheryl Crowe:

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me."

Now what did that remind me of? Oh, yeah...

"Isn't there an old Neil Young song in there somewhere?"

Why yes, RossK, and here it is!

Out of the blue
and into the black
You pay for this,
but they give you that
And once you're gone,
you can't come back
When you're out of the blue
and into the black.

Great line of the day

From Travis G at Sadly, No

Shorter Everybody On The Internet:
The senseless massacre at Virginia Tech basically confirms everything I’ve been saying all along.

Earth Day

Remember when Edward G. Robinson goes to the euthanasia centre in Soylent Green, and his last moments are spent with a video of how beautiful the earth used to be?
I hope my last moments aren't spent that way, though this is a beautiful video.



Cherniak provides the following summary of the Tory logic about global warming:

Let's get the Tory argument straight:
1) The Senate sucks;
2) The Senate should overturn the Kyoto bill passed by the House of Commons;
3) The Liberal government didn't do enough;
4) Stéphane Dion wants to do too much;
5) Kyoto targets cannot be met; and
6) The government is committed to the principles of Kyoto.

. . . More Tory logic:
1) Liberals had no programs to decrease greenhouse gases;
2) Liberal programs to decrease greenhouse gasses had to be cancelled because they did not work;
3) Tory reinstatement of Liberal programs to decrease greenhouse gasses with less funding proves that the Tories are taking greenhouse gases seriously;
4) The Tories will introduce new programs to decrease greenhouse gases because not enough is being done;
5) Any real effort to reduce greenhouse gases will lead to economic destruction.

Yep, that pretty well sums it up.
In a pathetic effort to appeal both to their wingnut base and to the majority of concerned Canadians, the Harper Conservatives actually WANT to talk out of both sides of their mouths on the global warming issue.
UPDATE: Anyone who still thinks global warming is scientifically questionable needs to read this great post by Devilstower at Kos.

Clark, the Canadian Hockey Goalie

Your hilarious You-Tube clip of the day:

Psychic advice?

This is really getting good -- Steven Harper's personal stylist is apparently also a clairvoyant. Now, of course, Harper denies ever asking her any questions -- but if she volunteers something, does he block his ears and mumble "nah-nah-nah" until she stops talking?

Neither Harper nor anyone on his staff pays for any kind of psychic services, a spokeswoman said Friday amid reports that stylist Michelle Muntean has a clairvoyant gift . . .
"We now know the prime minister's personal stylist and spiritualist is on the public payroll," Liberal MP Todd Russell said in the House of Commons.
"He thought this blemish would stay concealed. One would think the Prime Minister would blush with embarrassment at being caught out on such inconsistency. It strikes at the foundation of everything he supposedly ever stood for. It contradicts the makeup of his supposed fiscal responsibility. It just does not gel with the Canadian public.
"How can the Prime Minister justify stiffing the Canadian taxpayer for his vanity?"

But maybe she's advising Harper on when the stars align to call an election?
Harper's birthday is April 20, so here's his horoscope:

A stimulating, intimate and aesthetic encounter can be arranged. It is an excellent time for art and music. Buy some tickets now.
Current Influence of the Inner Planets
Each influence lasts from a day to several weeks.
Cultivate mutuality and understanding. You can improve the relationships.... Make plans and goals for the 12 months. Start a new cycle for self-expression, leadership, honor and glory.... Take three deep breaths and think deep thoughts. Find a new focus. You are the star. Communicate.... Your efforts can bring you recognition.
Current Influence of the Outer Planets
Each influence lasts from several weeks to a month or more.
Work with appropriate professionals.... Reach after spiritual goals. Commission a portrait. Live music brings good luck.... Go with some intense self-expressions.

Oh, great -- did someone actually have to tell Harper that "you are the star"?

From The Sir Robert Bond Papers.