Conservative language critic resigns but not before his message got sent -- and just listen to Harper's so-called position:
Although Mr. Harper said he does not envision changes at this time, he laid out his own philosophy that communities where French is spoken first are best equipped to keep the language alive. "We have to provide minority service where language warrants, but I think obviously we do it in a way that makes sure that strong communities stay strong."He said his party would make changes to the bilingualism policy in the country only if there was a wide consensus in his own caucus and among parliamentarians.
So what the heck does that mean? I think it means that, if Harper is elected, all the old-line unilingual Reform/Social Credit types from BC and Alberta will be flooding into Ottawa, and we'll start hearing the 30-year-old "lets get the French off the cornflake boxes" crap again.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Thanks, Alfonso
The Globe and Mail - Gagliano sues Martin and Martin says "thanks!" Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, there isn't a single Canadian who thinks Martin was wrong to fire Gagliano (or maybe there is one, but even Jean Chretien will have the brains to shut up about it.)
Feeling a draft?
Hackworth's column about the exodus of people from the Army states that "Unless so-called Army short tours in the badlands of Iraq and Afghanistan become manageable based on the number of troops available – right now the Army is trying to do the work of 14 divisions with 10 under-strength, active-duty divisions – we’ll see a mass exodus from the Green Machine and the inevitable return of the draft."
Well, of course there will be a return of the draft in the US --does anyone doubt it? They're just waiting until after the election. It's quite clear that the US armed forces are in serious trouble because they are badly understaffed for the missions they are involved in around the world even now -- and don't forget the thousands injured in Iraq, too.
If Bush is elected, the draft will be back by next spring. If Kerry is elected, there will still be tremendous pressure from the military to bring in a draft, at least for some specialities. I'm not sure whether he would do this or not.
And then Canada will get the draft dodgers again, which would be OK -- having met several over the years, they were pretty good immigrants to have, hardworking, productive, etc, so I have no doubt they will be again.
Well, of course there will be a return of the draft in the US --does anyone doubt it? They're just waiting until after the election. It's quite clear that the US armed forces are in serious trouble because they are badly understaffed for the missions they are involved in around the world even now -- and don't forget the thousands injured in Iraq, too.
If Bush is elected, the draft will be back by next spring. If Kerry is elected, there will still be tremendous pressure from the military to bring in a draft, at least for some specialities. I'm not sure whether he would do this or not.
And then Canada will get the draft dodgers again, which would be OK -- having met several over the years, they were pretty good immigrants to have, hardworking, productive, etc, so I have no doubt they will be again.
Another year for the beef ban
Opening the border to beef? Ain't gonna happen. This story Ranchers in U.S. fight for beef ban is not good news. I think we can forget about live cattle or even beef products crossing the border, likely until next spring -- the US beef growers are happy with the way things are now, and the packers don't have enough clout to fight both them and the consumers union. The Canadian cattle industry has had their own 9.11, and they can talk all they like about an integrated market, it isn't integrated any more. If we want to sell our beef products, we are just going to have to test every single animal before its meat is used. I know, I know, its a complete waste of money, but that's the way it is. And there's not ever going to be a US market for our older cattle now.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Today's dumb and dumberer watch
Lots of dumb stuff on the campaign trail today --
First, we see the end of the NDP in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver for sure, and likely vast swaths of rural Canada too -- doesn't Layton realize that, with real estate as high as it is in those cities, an inheritance tax on "any parent-to-child wealth transfers that amount to more than $1-million" will hit thousands of people with a house, a pension plan and some insurance? And he can say what he likes about farm land not being affected -- so if a farmer sells his land to a housing developer, and then dies, what are the chances that his estate would still be considered as farmland?
Then there is Harper, promising Atlantic Canada to end the clawback for oil and gas revenues. This may make the East Coast happy, but what will Ontario and Quebec and Alberta think, which is where the funds will come from?
And finally there is Martin, who is going to deal with high gas prices, yes sir! He's going to "really ask" OPEC to increase production at the G-8 in Georgia. Yes, that will do it, Paul!
First, we see the end of the NDP in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver for sure, and likely vast swaths of rural Canada too -- doesn't Layton realize that, with real estate as high as it is in those cities, an inheritance tax on "any parent-to-child wealth transfers that amount to more than $1-million" will hit thousands of people with a house, a pension plan and some insurance? And he can say what he likes about farm land not being affected -- so if a farmer sells his land to a housing developer, and then dies, what are the chances that his estate would still be considered as farmland?
Then there is Harper, promising Atlantic Canada to end the clawback for oil and gas revenues. This may make the East Coast happy, but what will Ontario and Quebec and Alberta think, which is where the funds will come from?
And finally there is Martin, who is going to deal with high gas prices, yes sir! He's going to "really ask" OPEC to increase production at the G-8 in Georgia. Yes, that will do it, Paul!
RBI
Thanks to POGGE for the link to this post about Al Gore's speech today -- Explananda: Al Gore at NYU
I'm so glad some of the high-profile Democrats are speaking out now -- Kennedy, of course, and Pelosi last week, now Gore this week. Though it is important for Kerry to get better known in America, Liberal Oasis noted some time ago that they had to stop letting Kerry carry all the water in attacking Bush, and being the only one subject to the RNC attacks in return. At least some other democrats are standing up to the plate now and swinging, even occasionally taking a hit for the team. Carrying on the baseball analogy, it sounds like Gore at least got an RBI out of this speech.
Gore talked in particular about how Bush and his administration had let Americans down by their lawless approach. And finally, finally!, Gore has pinpointed what I always considered to be the creepiest, most shocking line ever spoken by a political leader, from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address - President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."
I'm so glad some of the high-profile Democrats are speaking out now -- Kennedy, of course, and Pelosi last week, now Gore this week. Though it is important for Kerry to get better known in America, Liberal Oasis noted some time ago that they had to stop letting Kerry carry all the water in attacking Bush, and being the only one subject to the RNC attacks in return. At least some other democrats are standing up to the plate now and swinging, even occasionally taking a hit for the team. Carrying on the baseball analogy, it sounds like Gore at least got an RBI out of this speech.
Gore talked in particular about how Bush and his administration had let Americans down by their lawless approach. And finally, finally!, Gore has pinpointed what I always considered to be the creepiest, most shocking line ever spoken by a political leader, from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address - President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."
Youth - wasted once again on the young
The Globe and Mail: Few answers as to why young people disengaged
You know, this kind of story appears in the first week of every single election campaign, federal provincial municipal. Its because reporters don't have much else to write about, because no polls have yet been done and the platforms are just getting filled out.
But I do get tired of reading about those poor, poor 20-somethings, who are just so, so bored with politics. First, who ever gave them the impression that politics should be roses roses all the way, rave on Paul, rock on Stephen? It takes some work to read over all the platforms and consider candidate qualifications and find out where your polling station is and actually go and vote -- its not supposed to be fun, fun, fun.
And my, Im' getting grumpy already, aren't I?
That said, I must also say that MuchMusic does a terrific job of covering elections -- during the last federal election, my husband and I agreed that they had done a better job than just about any other network in covering caididates, issues, voting patterns, etc. etc. , sock puppet and all, particularly on election night.
You know, this kind of story appears in the first week of every single election campaign, federal provincial municipal. Its because reporters don't have much else to write about, because no polls have yet been done and the platforms are just getting filled out.
But I do get tired of reading about those poor, poor 20-somethings, who are just so, so bored with politics. First, who ever gave them the impression that politics should be roses roses all the way, rave on Paul, rock on Stephen? It takes some work to read over all the platforms and consider candidate qualifications and find out where your polling station is and actually go and vote -- its not supposed to be fun, fun, fun.
And my, Im' getting grumpy already, aren't I?
That said, I must also say that MuchMusic does a terrific job of covering elections -- during the last federal election, my husband and I agreed that they had done a better job than just about any other network in covering caididates, issues, voting patterns, etc. etc. , sock puppet and all, particularly on election night.
The press conference
So here's the transcript of the big press conference -- it isn't even on the Washington Post website but I found the transcript on CNN.
And how is the FBI going to respond to all this chatter, this horrendous terror threat. They're going to INTERVIEW PEOPLE -- yes, the seven so-called terrorists listed at the prese conference can quake in their boots - might as well give up. As was noted at the conference, Tom Ridge wasn't there, just Ashcroft and Mueller. The reason for Ridge's absence, apparently, was so that he wouldn't have to answer any questions about why the threat level is not being raised.
QUESTION: If there's credible intelligence suggesting the United States is going to be attacked between now -- there is a plan to attack the United States between now and the election, why not raise the threat level?
ASHCROFT: We believe that the kind of activities that are engendered in this task force kind of information which is developed. (sic - and no, I don't understand it either) And the Homeland Security Council, led by Secretary Ridge, would make such a decision, and for me to try to speak for them at this time would be inappropriate.
And how is the FBI going to respond to all this chatter, this horrendous terror threat. They're going to INTERVIEW PEOPLE -- yes, the seven so-called terrorists listed at the prese conference can quake in their boots - might as well give up. As was noted at the conference, Tom Ridge wasn't there, just Ashcroft and Mueller. The reason for Ridge's absence, apparently, was so that he wouldn't have to answer any questions about why the threat level is not being raised.
QUESTION: If there's credible intelligence suggesting the United States is going to be attacked between now -- there is a plan to attack the United States between now and the election, why not raise the threat level?
ASHCROFT: We believe that the kind of activities that are engendered in this task force kind of information which is developed. (sic - and no, I don't understand it either) And the Homeland Security Council, led by Secretary Ridge, would make such a decision, and for me to try to speak for them at this time would be inappropriate.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
The sky falls yet again
U.S. Warns Of Al Qaeda Threat This Summer Once again, a bunch of unnameable officials are saying that everyone had better watch out. Why does this remind me of the children's song -- they're here, they're there, they're everywhere. So beware!
And note the timing -- key graf: ". . . al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United State . . . " Yeah, sure. The terrorists want you to vote for Kerry but good Americans won't be fooled, they'll vote for Bush just to show those terrorists who's boss. And Bush will keep you safe -- he's focusing on terror again now, didn't you know.
And note the timing -- key graf: ". . . al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United State . . . " Yeah, sure. The terrorists want you to vote for Kerry but good Americans won't be fooled, they'll vote for Bush just to show those terrorists who's boss. And Bush will keep you safe -- he's focusing on terror again now, didn't you know.
Mea culpa from the NYT
From the Editors: The Times and Iraq "We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight." Well, its about time.
It is so difficult to be sultan!
Thanks to Atrios for this quote from a Washington Post story on how the Republicans are falling apart For Republicans, a House (And Senate) Divided
"It's extremely difficult to govern when you control all three branches of government." (attributed to Speaker Hastert's spokesman John Feehery)
Reminded me of the great quote in The Wind and The Lion, when the sultan complains to the American ambassador - "It is so difficult to be sultan! You Americans do not understand."
Ah, yes, the burden of command, the lonliness of leadership, when you don't have any excuses for not being able to get things done, other than your own lack of ideas and competence. Its terrible when you cannot blame anything on anybody.
This is a problem that parliamentary systems do not have, because the Prime Minister, by definition, has to have the support of a majority of parliament. Therefore no politician can complain about government paralysis, and there are no excuses for a government not to get its legislative agenda through. It requires the Prime Minister to exert firm control over the Cabinet ministers who are bringing forward legislation, so that a coherent and achievable legislative agenda can be enacted -- in other words, in a parliamentary system the government COULD do just about anything it wants, but this doesn't mean it WILL do it all. There will still be lots and lots of things that aren't high enough priority, or are too controversial, or are too complicated to enact, or that it cannot afford to pay for. Prime ministers must ruthlessly limit what their cabinet ministers want to do and must force ministers to focus on government priorities, or they don't last very long.
In the American system, when voters frequently elect one party to the governorship or the presidency and the other party to the House or Senate, governing requires he skills of horse trading and deal making, taking another political party's good idea and getting your own party to support it, advancing your own party's good ideas by doing quid quo pros with the other guys -- these skills are seen by American politicians as the normal way of governing.
When one party faces the ususual situation of having actual control of the government and legislative agenda, like the Republicans do now, it requires a different type of governing style, one which can balance and reconcile competing interests and present a unified legislative program which meets the needs of the public and which coordinates with the tax and revenue policies through which it is financed. These are skills that many American politicians have never developed -- particularly, I dare say, today's national Republicans, who spent the last decade focusing on a narrow and rigidly ideological right-wing agenda that is unpopular, expensive, and inadequate to meet the problems faced by the Americans today. Thus we see the President introducing scattershot legislation (drug benefits, education reform) and making scattershot policy announcements (Mars, immigration, etc) with no followthrough, while the house and senate Republicans make speeches in committees about how torturing Iraqis really isn't so bad.
"It's extremely difficult to govern when you control all three branches of government." (attributed to Speaker Hastert's spokesman John Feehery)
Reminded me of the great quote in The Wind and The Lion, when the sultan complains to the American ambassador - "It is so difficult to be sultan! You Americans do not understand."
Ah, yes, the burden of command, the lonliness of leadership, when you don't have any excuses for not being able to get things done, other than your own lack of ideas and competence. Its terrible when you cannot blame anything on anybody.
This is a problem that parliamentary systems do not have, because the Prime Minister, by definition, has to have the support of a majority of parliament. Therefore no politician can complain about government paralysis, and there are no excuses for a government not to get its legislative agenda through. It requires the Prime Minister to exert firm control over the Cabinet ministers who are bringing forward legislation, so that a coherent and achievable legislative agenda can be enacted -- in other words, in a parliamentary system the government COULD do just about anything it wants, but this doesn't mean it WILL do it all. There will still be lots and lots of things that aren't high enough priority, or are too controversial, or are too complicated to enact, or that it cannot afford to pay for. Prime ministers must ruthlessly limit what their cabinet ministers want to do and must force ministers to focus on government priorities, or they don't last very long.
In the American system, when voters frequently elect one party to the governorship or the presidency and the other party to the House or Senate, governing requires he skills of horse trading and deal making, taking another political party's good idea and getting your own party to support it, advancing your own party's good ideas by doing quid quo pros with the other guys -- these skills are seen by American politicians as the normal way of governing.
When one party faces the ususual situation of having actual control of the government and legislative agenda, like the Republicans do now, it requires a different type of governing style, one which can balance and reconcile competing interests and present a unified legislative program which meets the needs of the public and which coordinates with the tax and revenue policies through which it is financed. These are skills that many American politicians have never developed -- particularly, I dare say, today's national Republicans, who spent the last decade focusing on a narrow and rigidly ideological right-wing agenda that is unpopular, expensive, and inadequate to meet the problems faced by the Americans today. Thus we see the President introducing scattershot legislation (drug benefits, education reform) and making scattershot policy announcements (Mars, immigration, etc) with no followthrough, while the house and senate Republicans make speeches in committees about how torturing Iraqis really isn't so bad.
Monday, May 24, 2004
The grandfather joke
Bob Herbert's newest column The New York Times > Opinion > Did Somebody Say War?:
There's a terrible sense of dread filtering across America at the moment and it's not simply because of the continuing fear of terrorism and the fact that the nation is at war. It's more frightening than that. It grows out of the suspicion that we all may be passengers in a vehicle that has made a radically wrong turn and is barreling along a dark road, with its headlights off and with someone behind the wheel who may not know how to drive.
For some odd reason, this reminds me of the grandfather joke "When I die, I want to be sleeping peacefully like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers."
There's a terrible sense of dread filtering across America at the moment and it's not simply because of the continuing fear of terrorism and the fact that the nation is at war. It's more frightening than that. It grows out of the suspicion that we all may be passengers in a vehicle that has made a radically wrong turn and is barreling along a dark road, with its headlights off and with someone behind the wheel who may not know how to drive.
For some odd reason, this reminds me of the grandfather joke "When I die, I want to be sleeping peacefully like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers."
Sunday, May 23, 2004
And they're off!
Martin makes it official: Canada votes on June 28
Its hard to avoid the horserace analogies, but I hope we will be able to do so this time. Portraying elections as horseraces is a vivid image which becomes habitual -- Martin's in the lead but Harper is preathing down his neck. Now Layton makes his move but may have moved too soon, etc. etc. -- and it has a certain applicability in our relatively short political campaigns.
But if elections are horseraces then what are the voters? Just spectators? We have, of course, much more stake in the election outcome than do racetrack bettors. I know the national media focus is always on "who's winning" and voters are interested too, but of much more relevance than national opinion polls is to keep up with what is happening in individual ridings. The Globe has what looks to be a pretty good Election page set up, which I have bookmarked.
Personally, I think I am intending to vote Liberal in this election, for the first time in about 20 years, because I think Martin is going to make a difference in how Parliament and government functions, and I think he expects voters to be grownups, too, with a variety of positions and beliefs on a variety of issues, instead of treating us like blissfully-ignorant sheep, knee-jerk robots or loud-mouthed protesters, the attitude that Chretien and the other party leaders seem to have about Canadians.
Its hard to avoid the horserace analogies, but I hope we will be able to do so this time. Portraying elections as horseraces is a vivid image which becomes habitual -- Martin's in the lead but Harper is preathing down his neck. Now Layton makes his move but may have moved too soon, etc. etc. -- and it has a certain applicability in our relatively short political campaigns.
But if elections are horseraces then what are the voters? Just spectators? We have, of course, much more stake in the election outcome than do racetrack bettors. I know the national media focus is always on "who's winning" and voters are interested too, but of much more relevance than national opinion polls is to keep up with what is happening in individual ridings. The Globe has what looks to be a pretty good Election page set up, which I have bookmarked.
Personally, I think I am intending to vote Liberal in this election, for the first time in about 20 years, because I think Martin is going to make a difference in how Parliament and government functions, and I think he expects voters to be grownups, too, with a variety of positions and beliefs on a variety of issues, instead of treating us like blissfully-ignorant sheep, knee-jerk robots or loud-mouthed protesters, the attitude that Chretien and the other party leaders seem to have about Canadians.
People of Mass Destruction
Paul Krugman's latest column The Search for P.M.D.'s asks about the suicide bombers in Iraq. He notes several aspects that I have wondered about, too -- who are these young men who are so willing, so eager to die? What are they doing it for? Who are they doing it for? And what do they hope to accomplish? Nobody seems to know. There's no apparent organization to which they belong, no one seeks credit for their acts, there seems to be no apparent knowledge of who they are or what their families think of what they have done. Krugman writes ". . . these people are utter nihilists . . . The people running the suicide operations in Iraq, whether they are working independently or are just one organization, don't even claim credit, let alone make any demands." Krugman concludes " They just want to ensure that America fails to produce anything decent in Iraq and they are ready to sacrifice all Iraqis for that end."
But I am not so sure their goals are that strategic or comprehensible. The only thing I can compare it to is the monks who set themselves on fire in south Vietnam and the kamicaze pilots during WWII. In both these cases, their goal was primarily religious, a demonstration to their God of the purity of their faith contrasted with the corruptness of the earthly regime they were fighting.
Such intensity of religious feeling makes these tactics impossible to stop by "secular" means. Now the FBI is warning that suicide bombers might attack in the United States. Its such a useless warning -- police are supposed to keep an eye out for "people wearing bulky overcoats in the heat of summer, people with electric wires sticking out of their clothing, or people smelling of chemicals" but what are Americans supposed to do if such a person is spotted -- run screaming for the exits?
It would be better to talk to Muslim religious leaders, at a high and sustained level, about how this kind of fanaticism can be dealt with -- though considering the track record of the FBI (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and the Bush administration (some of whom seem to be actually trying to turn this into a religious war of Judaeo-Christians against Islam) this may not be a very realistic suggestion.
UPDATE -- maybe they really do want a religious war - read this article by Sydney Blumenthal about General Boykin.
But I am not so sure their goals are that strategic or comprehensible. The only thing I can compare it to is the monks who set themselves on fire in south Vietnam and the kamicaze pilots during WWII. In both these cases, their goal was primarily religious, a demonstration to their God of the purity of their faith contrasted with the corruptness of the earthly regime they were fighting.
Such intensity of religious feeling makes these tactics impossible to stop by "secular" means. Now the FBI is warning that suicide bombers might attack in the United States. Its such a useless warning -- police are supposed to keep an eye out for "people wearing bulky overcoats in the heat of summer, people with electric wires sticking out of their clothing, or people smelling of chemicals" but what are Americans supposed to do if such a person is spotted -- run screaming for the exits?
It would be better to talk to Muslim religious leaders, at a high and sustained level, about how this kind of fanaticism can be dealt with -- though considering the track record of the FBI (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and the Bush administration (some of whom seem to be actually trying to turn this into a religious war of Judaeo-Christians against Islam) this may not be a very realistic suggestion.
UPDATE -- maybe they really do want a religious war - read this article by Sydney Blumenthal about General Boykin.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Chalabi, master spy?
Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran
" . . . one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history . . . " Well, I should say. In 70 years of trying, did the KGB ever in its wildest dreams think it could trick the United States into going to war against another country, at a cost of 500 killed, 10,000 wounded, $200 billion?
If this is true, if the Bush and Blair administrations really were played for such fools by the Iranians, then Bush, Cheney and Blair will likely have no choice except to resign. I think that means the Secretary of State (Powell?) would become president, but I'm not sure.
" . . . one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history . . . " Well, I should say. In 70 years of trying, did the KGB ever in its wildest dreams think it could trick the United States into going to war against another country, at a cost of 500 killed, 10,000 wounded, $200 billion?
If this is true, if the Bush and Blair administrations really were played for such fools by the Iranians, then Bush, Cheney and Blair will likely have no choice except to resign. I think that means the Secretary of State (Powell?) would become president, but I'm not sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)