Finally, the beginning of justice for Neil Stonechild

Here are the Summary findings of the Stonechild report today. If you haven't heard of this before, the Globe story provides the background to the case.
Justice Wright says:
"1. Neil Stonechild [a 17-year-old Aboriginal boy] was the subject of two complaints of causing a disturbance [due to drunkenness] on the evening November 24, 1990.
2. Constable Bradley Senger and Constable Larry Hartwig, members of the Saskatoon Police Service, were dispatched at 11:51 p.m. to investigate a complaint about Neil Stonechild at Snowberry Downs.
3. Hartwig and Senger arrived at Snowberry Downs within minutes and carried out a search of the area. In the course of doing so, they encountered Neil Stonechild.
4. The constables took Stonechild into custody.
5. In the early morning hours of November 25, 1990, Stonechild died of cold exposure in a field in the northwest industrial area of Saskatoon.
6. Neil Stonechild’s frozen body was found in a field in the northwest industrial area of Saskatoon on November 29, 1990.
7. There were injuries and marks on Stonechild’s body that were likely caused by handcuffs.
8. The Saskatoon Police Service carried out an investigation. The preliminary investigation properly identified a number of suspicious circumstances surrounding the death.
9. The principal Investigator assigned to the case, Morality Sergeant Keith Jarvis, carried out a superficial and totally inadequate investigation of the death of Neil Stonechild.
10. Jarvis was informed by Jason Roy that Neil Stonechild was in the custody of the Saskatoon Police Service when Roy last saw Stonechild on the night of November 24/25, 1990. Jarvis did not record this important information in his notebook or Investigation Report.
11. Jarvis and his superior, Staff Sergeant Theodore (Bud) Johnson, concluded the investigation almost immediately and closed the file on December 5th, 1990, without answering the many questions that surrounded the Stonechild disappearance and death.
12. Jarvis dismissed important information provided to him by two members of the Saskatoon Police Service relating to the Stonechild disappearance and death.
13. In the years that followed, the chiefs and deputy chiefs of police who successively headed the Saskatoon Police Service, rejected or ignored reports from the Stonechild family members and investigative reporters for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix that cast serious doubts on the conduct of the Stonechild investigation. The self-protective and defensive attitudes exhibited by the senior levels of the police service continued, notwithstanding the establishment of an RCMP Task Force to investigate the suspicious deaths of a number of Aboriginal persons and the abduction of an Aboriginal man. These same attitudes were manifested by certain members of the Saskatoon Police Service during the Inquiry."
The full report is here. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet -- note that Justice Wright was to find out why Stonechild died, but not to express "any conclusion or recommendation regarding civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization." The Summary is devastating, however, clearly demonstrating Wright's opinion that police officers were criminally responsible for Stonechild's death because they abandoned him in a field in the middle of winter, and that much of the department was engaged in a cover-up -- during the inquiry hearings, police denied everything in the findings except 1, 2 and 6.
Whether there will ever be enough evidence to take someone to trial, however, is unknown -- unless someone now talks.
I listened to Stonechild's mother on the radio after this report was released -- she talked about forgiveness, but also said how much she still missed her boy. But can we ever forgive ourselves for how we have treated Aboriginal people in this province? It's been a trail of tears for more than a century.

Finally, an environment policy story

But its an odd headline MSNBC - Bush, Kerry styles clash on environment - for an equally odd story.
First, I didn't realize that environmental policies were a matter of "style" rather than of substance.
And here's one of the odder paragraphs: "Bush took office without an extensive environmental record, but he has made his mark by reversing several Clinton administration initiatives, such as barring road-building and logging on nearly 60 million acres of public land and choosing to use market strategies to achieve environmental goals."
Its a funny way of saying that Bush's environmental record is abysmal and primarily negative. Instead, the story goes on a great length about Bush's "market incentives" approach, only noting at the end that environmental critics are panning Bush's approach -- "This administration has walked away from environmental protection at the level that was advanced by presidents of both parties in the past." and Interior's conservation projects are described as "a nice little program, but it's a fig leaf in the context of the larger scheme of what we need to conserve in important public and private lands."

Honour missing, but not stolen

Looks like the Sinclair broadcast was actually OK for Kerry -- along with parts of Stolen Honor they also broadcast parts of Going Upriver, apparently a much stronger documentary. Here is the description from someone at Kos who watched what was actually broadcast:The Sinclair Protest Worked Turns out that the Fox station we get from Michigan must actually be a Sinclair station, because I noticed this was on the TV - but I couldn't bring myself to watch it, expecting it to be just too biased.
Media Matters has factchecked the broadcast and found some errors rebutted and some not. But over at Powerline it says readers are describing the broadcast as a Kerry campaign commercial. So it must have been OK.

A strange disconnect

MSNBC - Campaigns tangle over who can keep Americans safer
I guess Bush has decided that a secret trip to Afghanistan wasn't going to do it for him -- earlier this week, bloggers were commenting on Bush's announced intention to "take Saturday off" and speculating that something was up because no campaign, 10 days before the election, would take a day off.
Personally, I thought Bush likely intended a quick trip to Kabul for photos with the newly-elected president and the American troops there. I guess they decided it was either too dangerous, or would just highlight the Taliban resurgence -- better to let the media continue not reporting on THAT story.
One noticeable aspect of this campaign is the disconnect between what the media are reporting and what is actually happening. The national US media stories focus almost exclusively on what they can see in a quick web scan -- dueling speech quotes, meaningless and contradictory national polls, and a few gonzo stories about Kerry carrying his duck. Their 'reporting' consists of constantly interviewing other reporters, rather than talking to real people like, say, actual voters or civic leaders or 911 widows or former governors or scientists or diplomats or military commanders (and I note in passing how many of these real people have declared their support for Kerry.) Oh, and they also treat campaign ads as breaking news.
What they are not reporting is what is actually happening:
- tens of thousands of people are turning out for Kerry's speeches while Bush and Cheney continue to speak to small hand-picked audiences
- Bush STILL needs to shore up his base while Kerry can take his base for granted and can reach out now to conservative voters (witness the duck hunt). The GOP spun the media coverage of the puppies ad into another Reagan comparison, but it only highlights how clumsily Bush is trying to play the fear card.
- momentum is building as the battleground states turn decisively for Kerry. Kerry is winning the newspaper endorsement battle. His domestic policies, particularly on health care, are so clearly superior to anything the GOP can offer that Bush isn't even talking about them anymore.
- the Nader factor is disappearing as a negative for Kerry. When I saw Nader on Countdown last week, I thought he was delusional in talking about how conservative republicans would be voting for him instead of Bush, but apparently some polls are now backing this up.
- and forget about those mythical millions of evangelicals who supposedly did not vote last time. They live in Alabama and Texas anyway, where Bush doesn't need them. The democrats have registered millions and millions of their own new voters in the battleground states and are determined to get them to the polls.
The GOP knows all this, which is why their focus now is on hindering the voting itself. Why doesn't the national media?

Believe

It was the bottom of the ninth and the Yankees were ahead 4-3, three outs away from sweeping the Sox out of the World Series. But, in the stands, there still were the Boston fans, hearts on their sleeves, waving their little homemade cardboard signs - Believe!
I was touched by their steadfastness, their faith in a team which seemed so demoralized from last year's finish that they apparently had decided, subconsciously at least, that this year they could just save themselves a lot of pain by losing four straight. The team may have given up, but their fans never did - they still believed!
Then the Sox reached deep inside themselves and started the greatest comeback in sports history. It was magnificent - courageous pitching, intense batting, confident fielding. And now they're in the series opening tonight. I don't think the Yankees choked, not really -- it was just one of those rare times that no combination of pitching and hitting could overcome the Sox' absolute determination to win those games.
And as far as I am concerned, it all started with the fans.

Get the vote out EARLY

Message to all Democrats -- get to the polling stations early, before noon if you can.
Given the volume of stories I am reading now about the American election's voting problems and delays and challenges and and polling station confusion and touch-screen screwups, plus the huge turnout which I expect, chances are there will be thousands of people still in line when the polls close. And you can bet that the republicans will demand the polls close exactly on time -- there seems to be a deliberate republican policy now to prevent as many people from voting as possible, based on the likely-credible theory that a high turnout will be bad for Bush, so shutting the doors on people waiting to vote would be an excellent way of disenfranchising a lot of people.
So democrats need to get their vote out as early in the day as they can. And prepare their voters for long lineups.

Scary puppies

CNN.com - Transcripts
Well, I agree with Jon Stewart about TV like CNN's Crossfire hurting America, but sometimes it IS funny all the same. Here's the discussion about the new "scary puppies" Republican ad -- from leftwinger Paul Begala and rightwinger Joe Watkins, a radio talk show host. (Thanks to Atrios for the heads-up).

(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: That's the dumbest ad.
WATKINS: That's a great ad.
That's a great ad.
BEGALA: Those are puppies, Joe.
WATKINS: Americans
care about being safe.
BEGALA: Ronald Reagan used a bear, a big threatening
image, for the Soviet Union. These are puppies. What's next, Garfield the cat,
Lassie?
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Oh, I'm afraid. These puppies are coming. The
puppies are coming.
WATKINS: These are wolves.
WATKINS: Wolves are the
best symbol I can think of on terror. And what Americans care about is somebody
who is going to keep them safe.
BEGALA: How about goats, since the president
was reading 'My Pet Goat' while the terrorists were attacking us?
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: We should make a goat ad, if we're going to have animals.

On MyDD, Jerome Alexander provides this analysis of the basic issue with the puppies ad:

In their latest, they are going for the return of Reagan's Bear in the Woods (yep, those 1980's again), but it's not even close, it's weak. Those TV commercials expose beyond a doubt the fear-mongering scare tactics from a campaign that's in desperation mode. The Bush-Cheney team is trading on fear because they are losing. The Republican dream to return to having a "Cold War" strategy should be recognized for what it is; a hopelessly backward-dreaming message that's out of touch with the present, and has no vision other than "more of the same" for the future.

Stunning crowds for Kerry

Daily Kos :: Another Open Thread
I tried to post this photo of the crowds for Kerry in Minneapolis, but it wouldn't work -- so just go to Kos.

450 untold stories

The Swifties seem to be in the news again, with more moaning and whining about how Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony hurt their feelings. The question I have been asking about Kerry's testimony is this: How many US soldiers and POWs would have lived if Nixon had declared the ceasefire Kerry asked for in November, 1971, instead of waiting until January, 1973?
By my count, the answer is: at least 450.
I searched through various websites for this figure. The casualty figures aren't usually organized by date, but I was able to find some which were relevant. The Vietnam War Timeline which describes events in Vietnam during 1972, provides most of the information which follows, and I added some additional material from other websites.
December, 1971 - 157 US troops killed in action
January 1, 1972
Only 133,000 U.S. servicemen remain in South Vietnam. Two thirds of America's troops have gone in two years. The ground war is now almost exclusively the responsibility of South Vietnam, which has over 1,000,000 men enlisted in its armed forces.
March 30, 1972
Massed North Vietnamese Army artillery open a shattering barrage, targeting South Vietnamese positions across the DMZ. [NOTE: this is called the Eastertide offensive.] Upwards of 20,000 NVA troops cross the DMZ, forcing the South Vietnamese units into a retreat. The Southern defense is thrown into complete chaos. Intelligence reports had predicted a Northern attack, but no one had expected it to come on the DMZ.
April 1, 1972
North Vietnamese soldiers push toward the city of Hue, which is defended by a South Vietnamese division and a division of U.S. Marines. But by April 9, the NVA are forced to halt attacks and resupply.
April 13, 1972
In an assault spearheaded by tanks, NVA troops manage to seize control of the northern part of the city. But the 4,000 South Vietnamese men defending the city, reinforced by elite airborne units, hold their positions and launch furious counterattacks. American B-52 bombers also help with the defense. A month later, Vietcong forces withdraw.
April 27, 1972
Two weeks after the initial attack, North Vietnamese forces again battle toward Quang Tri City. The defending South Vietnamese division retreats. By April 29, the NVA takes Dong Ha, and by May 1, Quang Tri City.
Additional note: A May, 1972 report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, to which I cannot now find the link, says 147 US troops were killed from January to May, 1972.
May 8, 1972
In response to the ongoing NVA Eastertide Offensive, President Nixon announces Operation Linebacker I, the mining of North Vietnam's harbors along with intensified bombing of roads, bridges, and oil facilities. The announcement brings international condemnation of the U.S. and ignites more anti-war protests in America. During an air strike conducted by South Vietnamese pilots, Napalm bombs are accidentally dropped on South Vietnamese civilians, including children. Filmed footage and a still photo of a badly burned nude girl fleeing the destruction of her hamlet becomes yet another enduring image of the war.
July 19, 1972
With U.S. air support, the South Vietnamese Army begins a drive to recapture Binh Dinh province and its cities. The battles last until September 15, by which time Quong Tri has been reduced to rubble. Nevertheless, the NVA retains control of the northern part of the province.
December 13, 1972
In Paris, peace talks between the North Vietnamese and the Americans breakdown.
December 18, 1972
By order of the president, a new bombing campaign starts against the North Vietnamese. Operation Linebacker Two lasts for 12 days, including a three day bombing period by up to 120 B-52s. Strategic surgical strikes are planned on fighter airfields, transport targets and supply depots in and around Hanoi and Haiphong. U.S. aircraft drop more than 20,000 tons of bombs in this operation. Twenty-six U.S. planes are lost, and 93 airmen are killed, captured or missing. North Vietnam admits to between 1,300 and 1,600 dead.
January 8, 1973
North Vietnam and the United States resume peace talks in Paris.
January 27, 1973
All warring parties in the Vietnam War sign a cease fire.
March 1973
The last American combat soldiers leave South Vietnam, though military advisors and Marines, who are protecting U.S. installations, remain. For the United States, the war is officially over. Of the more than 3 million Americans who have served in the war, almost 58,000 are dead, and over 1,000 are missing in action. Some 150,000 Americans were seriously wounded.
Additional note: This website says 561 US soldiers died in Vietnam in 1972 including 300 KIA. A total of 2,338 soldiers were MIA in Vietnam; 766 were POWs, of whom 114 died in captivity. I could not find out how many died between November, 1971 and the releases which resulted from the January, 1973 ceasefire.
So, we add together the 157 from December, 1971 with the 300 from 1972, plus an unknown number from January, 1973, plus an unknown number of POWs.
And there it is -- at least 450 young, brave men died after Kerry asked the Senate why men had to keep dying for a mistake -- men who could have come home and worked and contributed to their communities and raised their families, and be playing today with their grandchildren. These are the Vietnam veterans who CANNOT speak today to support John Kerry.
No one will ever hear their stories.

Boy, I'll bet the GOP is thrilled about this one

ABC News: Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran (thanks to Liberal Oasis for the news).

Excuse me, Mr. President -- its God calling on line 2

Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine piece about Bush Without a Doubt begins with a discussion with a Republican domestic policy advisor named Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett says ''Just in the past few months, I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do . . . This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts. He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence. But you can't run the world on faith.''
The Suskind spends the rest of the article proving to a disbelieving political world that yes, Bush really does believe he is on a mission from God, and yes, so do his followers.
Its a lengthy article because people need a lot of convincing. This is a form of meglomaina that western democracies have never seen before -- even the great egotists like Nixon, DeGaulle, Churchill and Trudeau never actually thought of themselves as divinely ordained, at least not all of the time. In western culture, the only people we've seen before who went on a stated Mission from God were the Blues Brothers. Like Elwood and Jake, nothing will stop Bush from doing what he thinks God wants him to do. Luckily, God only wanted Jake and Elwood to put on a concert. God apparently wants Bush to transform the United States into a republican's vision of paradise - endless wars against the infidels, no abortions, and making sure the rich get richer. Lord, hear my prayer!

Kerry-o-phile priests

Will the Catholic clergy ever stop abusing their parishioners?
Maureen Dowd describes the Catholic bishops campaign against Kerry in Vote and Be Damned -- a threat which obviously meaningless to the New York Times editors, who in the same edition endorse Kerry for President without any concern whatsoever about the opinion of the Catholic church.
The American Catholic church will live to regret how they have marginalized themselves in American society -- regardless of who wins the election, they have shown themselves to be small-minded, mean-spirited, backward, sexist, manipulative bigots who have allowed their most holy sacrament, communion, to be trivialized into a media circus. After this, who could take their so-called "moral authority" on anything seriously ever again?

The "bad man" theme

Hullabaloo gets it right -- the focus until the election will be Kerry as a "bad man" -- the goal is to make Kerry look like a dirty campaigner, a liar, a cheat, etc etc.
"I think this is simply the opportunistic opening salvo in a full-on character attack on John Kerry as a "hit below the belt" dirty campaigner. Typical GOP projection. In between will be more of the Rove patented ratfucking that they will pin on the Democrats. At this point I don't think that Rove has anything too sophisticated up his sleeve. We are going to see simple, crude attacks on Kerry's character in the hopes that it will stimulate the neanderthals to vote and to swing a few simple minded undecideds. And, of course, this is an innoculation against a Kerry win. They are setting it up to say he stole it."

A desperation move from a failing campaign

Hilary Rosen's Washington Post column Outrage That Rings False shows how once again an issue made into an "outrage" by the Bush campaign is going to turn around and bite them on the ass.
The issue is turning now to how Lynne and Dick Cheney, and Mary, too, have ignored for four years the constant Republican attacks on gay people, not speaking out about any of the Bush administration's anti-gay manoeuvers, and are now using a manufactured "anger" just to try to demonize Kerry.
Rosen writes that she feels sorry for Mary Cheney, that she is now a pawn in this race. I don't feel sorry for her in the least.
The Cheneys, all of them, have had their chance to show leadership, and they decided long ago to shut up and make their alliance with the gay-bashers. I hope they all sink together.

More Doonesbury articles

Here is Friday's article, the Lone Star Iconoclast editorial "Kerry will restore American dignity" This editorial states "we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq."
and here is Saturday's article "A Questionable Kind of Conservatism" by George Will. Writing in July, 2003, Will says "Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent. "
And earlier this week I missed referencing Wednesday's article, Salon's "Why Conservatives must not vote for Bush" where Doug Bandow writes "Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle."
Its an interesting series that Doonesbury has undertaken here -- I would love to find some discussion about whether it has influenced anyone.
It is likely a useful exercise to gather these articles together -- the one problem I see is that the links are so complicated to read and to follow, particularly when written in 6- point type on newsprint, that I think it would have been better to post them day-by-day as links on a single website -- still, I hope they were read and discussed. When I google "Honest Voices Reading List" I get more links today than I did on Monday, so some blogs are talking about it. Unfortunately, many are complaining about the small print of the URLs, just like I did, instead of discussing the articles. For the left-wing, however, the articles are mainly old hat, yes-we-already-knew-that stuff. But hopefully they will open some previously-closed eyes.
And check this out, on a blog called John Dufresne there is a priceless photo of a movie theatre marquee whose owner has posted this message "Congratulations to John Kerry for exposing Bush as an incompetent moron in debate" -- just goes to show that blog-culture is spreading EVERYWHERE!