CNEWS - Canada: Saskatoon police officer says he knows nothing about teen's frozen death
The Stonechild inquiry has been going on for several months now, off and on. And as the testimony has come out day after day, I don't think there is anyone now who doesn't believe that officers of the Saskatoon police drove this 17-year-old drunken, abusive, screaming Aboriginal boy out of the city and left him in a field on that night a decade ago, where he froze to death.
They may never be able to put a court case together -- the RCMP tried for a year before this, and there doesn't seem to be enough clear-cut evidence anymore for a jury to find anyone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the testimony at the inquiry has convicted them nonetheless -- too many lies, too much wilful incompetence, too many notebooks missing, too many files empty, too much "we never discussed it", too much "I can't remember", day after day whenever the police testified, from the deputy chief on down.
Sometimes I am ashamed of my city.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
The party line - vote for Bush or the terrorists will have won
OpEd Columnist: Al Qaeda's Wish List
No wonder David Brooks is hysterical.
Spain just turfed a government that had arrogantly ignores contrary opinions, that led them into war in Iraq, and that tried to play politics about the terrorist attacks. Sound familiar?
Another point about this article -- the new right-wing line is emerging, that America has to prove it is steadfast by staying the course and supporting Bush, that a vote against Bush is a vote for the terrorists. Brooks writes "...I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself." In other words, voting for Kerry will give the terrorists a victory.
Kerry needs to respond quickly with a clear message about this -- the "foreign leaders" remark is hurting him with jingoistic American voters, who are also the most likely to respond to the "stay-the-course" line.
They need a Made-in-America reason to vote for Kerry and they need it fast.
No wonder David Brooks is hysterical.
Spain just turfed a government that had arrogantly ignores contrary opinions, that led them into war in Iraq, and that tried to play politics about the terrorist attacks. Sound familiar?
Another point about this article -- the new right-wing line is emerging, that America has to prove it is steadfast by staying the course and supporting Bush, that a vote against Bush is a vote for the terrorists. Brooks writes "...I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself." In other words, voting for Kerry will give the terrorists a victory.
Kerry needs to respond quickly with a clear message about this -- the "foreign leaders" remark is hurting him with jingoistic American voters, who are also the most likely to respond to the "stay-the-course" line.
They need a Made-in-America reason to vote for Kerry and they need it fast.
Or maybe it is you, not me
Opinion of U.S. Abroad Is Falling, Survey Finds :
Appropos of my post, below, some bad news from the Pew poll -- "...the poll showed some increased support in Muslim countries for suicide bombings and other forms of violence; 82 percent of Jordanians, 40 percent of Moroccans, 41 percent of Pakistanis and 15 percent of Turks said such violence could be justified. Majorities in Pakistan and Jordan had favorable views of Osama bin Laden, while majorities in Jordan and Morocco said attacks against Americans and Westerners in Iraq are justified. "
Appropos of my post, below, some bad news from the Pew poll -- "...the poll showed some increased support in Muslim countries for suicide bombings and other forms of violence; 82 percent of Jordanians, 40 percent of Moroccans, 41 percent of Pakistanis and 15 percent of Turks said such violence could be justified. Majorities in Pakistan and Jordan had favorable views of Osama bin Laden, while majorities in Jordan and Morocco said attacks against Americans and Westerners in Iraq are justified. "
The "It's not you, its me" explanation
LiberalOasis: LO quotes Jason Burke :"The call is direct to Muslims, "Rise up and together we will be able to free ourselves, liberate ourselves, have a just society."
And then LO continues "That's why it doesn't matter to them who is in office in Spain, or any other Western country. In the end, it's not about us, it's about themselves."
This has a ring of truth.
Seinfeld once did an episode on the break-up line "It's not you, its me" -- the line George uses when he breaks off with a girlfriend. She's baffled, of course, but its true -- he's breaking up with her not because of anything she did or said -- he's really not thinking about her at all, but of himself and his own plans or just his own convenience.
Countries also have their own agendas too, which are both obvious and necessary to their own citizens but are often incomprehensible to people on the other side of the world. A perfect example -- India and Pakinstan's 30-year fight about Kashmir -- deeply meaningful to them but baffling to everyone else. Another example is the "troubles" in Northern Ireland about battles fought and lost 300 years ago, forgotten by everyone else in the world. And I am sure that the Quebec separatist movement, which has dominated Canadian politics for the last 40 years, is mystifying even to border-state Americans, much less to people in, say, Malaysia.
How does this perspective help us in battling terrorism? At first glance, it makes it appear hopeless -- if terrorists are blowing things up in other countries just to inspire their own supporters, then how can the other country hope to settle things? The examples above are not encouraging, either, considering how long and lovingly grievances can be kept, even nurtured, from generation to generation.
But there are, I think, two helpful observations to be made.
First, we have to stop "taking revenge", no matter how justified the anger -- history shows the longer a revenge cycle goes on, the more intractable the situation becomes. Eventually, revenge has to stop -- like it has already, I hope, for the most part, in Kashmir, in Belfast, and in Montreal.
Second, we have to focus on kick-starting indigenous economic development -- create decent jobs, build housing, start businesses, increase food production. Easier said than done, I know, particularly with the IMF stomping around the world, but people who see a reasonable prospect of economic security for themselves and, more importantly, for their children, won't be entranced by nihilism and won't aspire to martrydom.
And then LO continues "That's why it doesn't matter to them who is in office in Spain, or any other Western country. In the end, it's not about us, it's about themselves."
This has a ring of truth.
Seinfeld once did an episode on the break-up line "It's not you, its me" -- the line George uses when he breaks off with a girlfriend. She's baffled, of course, but its true -- he's breaking up with her not because of anything she did or said -- he's really not thinking about her at all, but of himself and his own plans or just his own convenience.
Countries also have their own agendas too, which are both obvious and necessary to their own citizens but are often incomprehensible to people on the other side of the world. A perfect example -- India and Pakinstan's 30-year fight about Kashmir -- deeply meaningful to them but baffling to everyone else. Another example is the "troubles" in Northern Ireland about battles fought and lost 300 years ago, forgotten by everyone else in the world. And I am sure that the Quebec separatist movement, which has dominated Canadian politics for the last 40 years, is mystifying even to border-state Americans, much less to people in, say, Malaysia.
How does this perspective help us in battling terrorism? At first glance, it makes it appear hopeless -- if terrorists are blowing things up in other countries just to inspire their own supporters, then how can the other country hope to settle things? The examples above are not encouraging, either, considering how long and lovingly grievances can be kept, even nurtured, from generation to generation.
But there are, I think, two helpful observations to be made.
First, we have to stop "taking revenge", no matter how justified the anger -- history shows the longer a revenge cycle goes on, the more intractable the situation becomes. Eventually, revenge has to stop -- like it has already, I hope, for the most part, in Kashmir, in Belfast, and in Montreal.
Second, we have to focus on kick-starting indigenous economic development -- create decent jobs, build housing, start businesses, increase food production. Easier said than done, I know, particularly with the IMF stomping around the world, but people who see a reasonable prospect of economic security for themselves and, more importantly, for their children, won't be entranced by nihilism and won't aspire to martrydom.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Turn, Turn, Turn
Kerry Assails Bush Record on Security and Terrorism:
Do I sense a change in tone here, an admission by the NYT that the democrats actually have something important to say?
"Mr. Kerry, in his address to the firefighters' union, showed again that he was unwilling to be pre-empted by President Bush on security issues. He said the times demanded 'truly dedicating ourselves to homeland security, not using it as a political prop.' "
Do I sense a change in tone here, an admission by the NYT that the democrats actually have something important to say?
"Mr. Kerry, in his address to the firefighters' union, showed again that he was unwilling to be pre-empted by President Bush on security issues. He said the times demanded 'truly dedicating ourselves to homeland security, not using it as a political prop.' "
War is how we know who the bad guys are
Brendan O'Neill: Gloating at Madrid's graveside:
". . . what kind of people define their mission, their political vision, their entire belief system, in response to bloody, meaningless, nihilistic murder?The war against terror is not some gallant battle for the twenty-first century; it is not the equivalent of the Second World War for today's generation of political leaders, as Tony Blair suggested. Rather, it is a projection of domestic uncertainty into the international arena; it is a search for clear battles between good and evil where none exists at home, a desperate attempt to find a higher moral plane somewhere - anywhere - when there is such deep moral and political uncertainty on the domestic front.
"Political leaders and pro-war commentators may not know what they are for or where they are heading or where they stand in the Culture Wars or what ever happened to tradition and morality or why every domestic initiative ends in crisis or why major institutions are always beset by scandal....but they do know one thing for certain. They Are Against Terrorism. They are opposed to mass murder, to nihilistic bombings, to the killing of 200 innocents as they travelled to work on a Thursday morning. This is the morality of the lowest common denominator, an empty political vision defined in response to empty terrorist acts. To paraphrase Tony Blair: 'It is as pathetic as the terrorists are opportunistic.'"
Thanks to Antiwar.com for its link to this terrific blog post.
". . . what kind of people define their mission, their political vision, their entire belief system, in response to bloody, meaningless, nihilistic murder?The war against terror is not some gallant battle for the twenty-first century; it is not the equivalent of the Second World War for today's generation of political leaders, as Tony Blair suggested. Rather, it is a projection of domestic uncertainty into the international arena; it is a search for clear battles between good and evil where none exists at home, a desperate attempt to find a higher moral plane somewhere - anywhere - when there is such deep moral and political uncertainty on the domestic front.
"Political leaders and pro-war commentators may not know what they are for or where they are heading or where they stand in the Culture Wars or what ever happened to tradition and morality or why every domestic initiative ends in crisis or why major institutions are always beset by scandal....but they do know one thing for certain. They Are Against Terrorism. They are opposed to mass murder, to nihilistic bombings, to the killing of 200 innocents as they travelled to work on a Thursday morning. This is the morality of the lowest common denominator, an empty political vision defined in response to empty terrorist acts. To paraphrase Tony Blair: 'It is as pathetic as the terrorists are opportunistic.'"
Thanks to Antiwar.com for its link to this terrific blog post.
311
THE WAR IN CONTEXT: Woodward's comments about the Spanish election:
"March 11 may come to be seen as the day that America lost its war on terrorism. The notion that Iraq is the main front in the war on terrorism and that Americans are dying over there so that we won't have to fight the terrorists here was an idea that exploded in Madrid . . . " and how could something like this be stopped in Italy or England or the US? They apparently used cell phones to set off the explosives.
"March 11 may come to be seen as the day that America lost its war on terrorism. The notion that Iraq is the main front in the war on terrorism and that Americans are dying over there so that we won't have to fight the terrorists here was an idea that exploded in Madrid . . . " and how could something like this be stopped in Italy or England or the US? They apparently used cell phones to set off the explosives.
No Answer
TIME.com: -- Raising the Volume:
" Bush has to answer those within his party who are increasingly questioning the agility and management of his campaign"
And how 'bout answering those OUTSIDE his party who are increasingly questioning the CONTENT and POLICIES of his government? Nope, I don't think he can do it.
" Bush has to answer those within his party who are increasingly questioning the agility and management of his campaign"
And how 'bout answering those OUTSIDE his party who are increasingly questioning the CONTENT and POLICIES of his government? Nope, I don't think he can do it.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
How crass
CNEWS - World: U.S. officials muster offensive on Madrid bombing: So do Rice and Powell think this is another trifecta? At least Canadian Press makes the point: "there was little consideration of a fundamental question that's critical for President George W. Bush as he seeks re-election this year: did his Iraq invasion breed more terrorism and is the United States to blame for the latest horror? "
Read it and weep
We locked you up in jail for 25 years and you were innocent all along? That'll be L80,000 please - [Sunday Herald]:
This is unbelievably mean -- "The government seems intent on punishing innocent people. The state wants to be paid for making a mistake. It's hard to believe someone actually thought this policy up. If you tell a child about this they will think it insane. Only a sick mind could have invented this policy, yet the government is fighting to retain the right to act like this. It is cruelty with intent. They seem to want to punish people for having the audacity to be innocent"
Thanks to What Really Happened for the link.
This is unbelievably mean -- "The government seems intent on punishing innocent people. The state wants to be paid for making a mistake. It's hard to believe someone actually thought this policy up. If you tell a child about this they will think it insane. Only a sick mind could have invented this policy, yet the government is fighting to retain the right to act like this. It is cruelty with intent. They seem to want to punish people for having the audacity to be innocent"
Thanks to What Really Happened for the link.
Straws in the wind
MSNBC - Iraq One Year Later Front Page
I just noticed MSNBC has a new section "Objective: Peace - Iraq one year later". I found this to be an interesting title -- a year ago, nobody in the media was talking about peace being an objective. Anybody who said something like this was "unpatriotic".
One would think, coming up on the first anniversary, that we would have had a surfeit of heartwarming stories about how well the American boys are doing in making Iraq safe for Iraqis, how cute the Iraqis are in taking their first baby steps toward democracy by electing a mayor here or there, how little stores are starting up, how noble it is to be reopening schools ("The schools, boss, the schools!"). But, come to think of it, I haven't seen this kind of media cheerleading for some months now. No more talk about enduring freedom or Iraq liberation or all the other fine catchphrases the media jumped on a year ago.
And I haven't seen politicians and generals whining that there's all sorts of good news going on in Iraq that the media isn't covering. When they did this six or eight months ago, it sort of backfired, didn't it, when the media actually started covering how brutally the troops were treating the people, how poorly those schools had been repaired, how much the so-called ordinary Iraqis wanted the US to leave. In fact, the new official attitude seems to be that the less coverage given to Iraq, the better.
So now, here we are, talking about peace.
Too bad peace wasn't the US objective a year ago.
But the bombs keep going off and the soldiers keep dying -- a few days ago, a general said that the number of US soldier deaths is declining -- a statement like this always seems to "bring it on" in Iraq. Over the last two days another six have died.
How many deaths does it take till you know that too many people have died?
I just noticed MSNBC has a new section "Objective: Peace - Iraq one year later". I found this to be an interesting title -- a year ago, nobody in the media was talking about peace being an objective. Anybody who said something like this was "unpatriotic".
One would think, coming up on the first anniversary, that we would have had a surfeit of heartwarming stories about how well the American boys are doing in making Iraq safe for Iraqis, how cute the Iraqis are in taking their first baby steps toward democracy by electing a mayor here or there, how little stores are starting up, how noble it is to be reopening schools ("The schools, boss, the schools!"). But, come to think of it, I haven't seen this kind of media cheerleading for some months now. No more talk about enduring freedom or Iraq liberation or all the other fine catchphrases the media jumped on a year ago.
And I haven't seen politicians and generals whining that there's all sorts of good news going on in Iraq that the media isn't covering. When they did this six or eight months ago, it sort of backfired, didn't it, when the media actually started covering how brutally the troops were treating the people, how poorly those schools had been repaired, how much the so-called ordinary Iraqis wanted the US to leave. In fact, the new official attitude seems to be that the less coverage given to Iraq, the better.
So now, here we are, talking about peace.
Too bad peace wasn't the US objective a year ago.
But the bombs keep going off and the soldiers keep dying -- a few days ago, a general said that the number of US soldier deaths is declining -- a statement like this always seems to "bring it on" in Iraq. Over the last two days another six have died.
How many deaths does it take till you know that too many people have died?
Friday, March 12, 2004
The health police are looking for you!
The Globe and Mail: Obesity to top smoking as #1 killer
When they came for our cigarettes, I said nothing.
When they came for our cheeseburgers, I said nothing.
Next they'll come for our wine, and there won't be anyone left to say anything.
When they came for our cigarettes, I said nothing.
When they came for our cheeseburgers, I said nothing.
Next they'll come for our wine, and there won't be anyone left to say anything.
And he would know
Yahoo! News - Powell Says UK Guantanamo Prisoners Not Abused
And he would know, of course, because he has such a close working relationship with the Pentagon and Rumsfield, I'm sure they tell him everything.
And he would know, of course, because he has such a close working relationship with the Pentagon and Rumsfield, I'm sure they tell him everything.
Analyzate This!
Yahoo! News - "Analyzating" Bush's Grey Matter:
"Bush's penchant for talking about good and evil and for saying countries are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism may also reflect a learning disorder. His professed distaste for nuance could stem from an inability to process the complex sides of an issue. 'To analyze that, you have to analyze the language,' says Bonnie Rattner, a speech and language pathologist in San Mateo, Calif. "
So now its really not his fault! And if he loses the election, does he sue the electoral college for not providing accomodation for his disability?
"Bush's penchant for talking about good and evil and for saying countries are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism may also reflect a learning disorder. His professed distaste for nuance could stem from an inability to process the complex sides of an issue. 'To analyze that, you have to analyze the language,' says Bonnie Rattner, a speech and language pathologist in San Mateo, Calif. "
So now its really not his fault! And if he loses the election, does he sue the electoral college for not providing accomodation for his disability?
Another media circus coming up
CNEWS - World: Woman denies charges in C-section case This may be a "thin edge of the wedge" issue which turns out to be about the state forcing women to have surgery to deliver babies. Then again, it may be a case where a baby died because of a parent's negligence. I am waiting to hear more.
Having had two sections myself, they are no big deal, really. And even if it was a more dangerous surgery, I cannot understand why anyone (woman or man) wouldn't have surgery when told that their baby's life depended on it -- why would anyone think of this as a "choice"? Now, no one could forcibly hold her down for surgery -- but once she decided not to have it, and then the baby died, of course she will be charged with negligence, just like anyone would be whose inaction caused the death of someone else.
That's my opinion anyway; I could be wrong.
Having had two sections myself, they are no big deal, really. And even if it was a more dangerous surgery, I cannot understand why anyone (woman or man) wouldn't have surgery when told that their baby's life depended on it -- why would anyone think of this as a "choice"? Now, no one could forcibly hold her down for surgery -- but once she decided not to have it, and then the baby died, of course she will be charged with negligence, just like anyone would be whose inaction caused the death of someone else.
That's my opinion anyway; I could be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)