Bugs

They don't need an excuse. Believe me, nobody is thinking of attacking Iran to support these demonstrators. It's only people like Ahmedinijad and his ilk. (He spends half his time taunting western nations, trying to get a battle going. It isn't working.) Wouldn't it be nice if the West could have it ringing in as many Iranian ears as possible ... "What does it mean when the government is more afraid of its own people than of foreign enemies?" What kind of Revolutionary Guard would fire into crowds of their own people? Why would it hurt Iran to know of the world's revulsion? It takes guts to be free. You have to be willing to offend the oppressors. The Iranians have those guts, and all I (or Krauthammer) mean is that they should know they aren't alone. They should be cheered.

Look on the bright side. His usable body parts are probably giving a few people around the world reason for hope right now ... Sadly, the Chinese Criminal Code does not allow for a 'too dumb to know better' defense.

I hope y'all realize that the Queen doesn't get to say who her heir is. Not since Cromwell. This is the kind of stuff that started civil wars, though it's hard to imagine Charles fighting over anything. It used to be that the top politicians held a veto on these things. (These days, it's probably decided by a committee of the EU, who are a little concerned that the position isn't open to people of all races and genders.) The thing is ... in general, Canadians don't have any attachment to these people. They couldn't tell Harry from William. How many of these young princes did she whelp, anyway? How many people know? The thing we have to free ourselves from is not the British monarchy, it's the institutions, and the legal assumptions that go with the monarchy. That is, the people are subjects of a top-down state, rather than sovereign. That's a real problem.

I'm sorry you feel like that, Oleg. Really, the situation isn't that bleak. But I think you'll find that when nations see hated enemies working overtime to gain a decisive advantage over them, they often act to head off the inevitable. You understand what I am saying? Judged by that standard, Israel doesn't have to stand there, waiting for annihilation. Israel bombed a reactor that the French were building for Saddam, fearing that it would be used to build nuclear warheads that could be dropped on Tel Aviv. Nobody (really) blamed them. He likely would have done just as the Israelis feared. This idea that there's some kind of entity that acts as a referee, interpreting an 'international law' rule book, is probably one you should discard. We live in a really fortunate time because the top dog nation is one of the good guys. You know, democracy, mass prosperity, and all that crap. It turns out that a nation of hustlers and salesmen make a lot better neighbors than any European empire I can think of, particularly the ones the Russians were running at the time. God, if the KGB boys had their way, the whole continent of Europe would look like East Germany. And if these guys prevail, the goats will chew up every bit of greenery and turn the place into a desert, just as they've done in other parts of the world.

It's simply not true. There was no land claim registered on the land, or it couldn't have been sold by the Federal government. If the courts injunctions are optional, it means the courts have been demoted. Besides, where do the Six Nations get to register land claims in the first place? They have never held aboriginal title to any land in Canada. They got their land from the Queen of England. They are the children of immigrants, like all the rest of us.

Jeez, the Mossedegh mythology, which always omits how the dressing gown premier was playing footsie with the Russians, and the whole history of the crown of Iran. The prime players in the drama were the British, and, other in assenting in the move, the Americans did little. The oil ended up nationalized anyway, licensed by the Shah, and used to modernize Iran. It was the Shah who modernized and built up those universities you see on the UTube videos. He was a tough customer, and was his own kind of nemesis, but if he's to be faulted, it's that he tried to westernize his people too fast. There was a backlash. I don't see that the US has much leverage on the situation, at all. Nor does any other country. The two countries are technically at war, as a result of the Embassy kidnappings. In fact, the Iranians have played the Germans, the French, and the EU like a violin, when it comes to their nuclear program. Some serious pundits claim that the regime wants an invasion, to solidify its control of the country. Besides, there already is a boycott. If there's another boycott, will Russia and China maintain it? I am rather dismayed. I posted this with the suggestion it was time for some world leaders to condemn this nonsense in Iran. The regime is growing to rely on terror on the streets. This last holiday is normally a day of lamenting. It's the Sh'ia version of the split in the faith. It happens because a usurper displaced Mohammed's grandson, and the usurper was a gambler, a womanizer, and just not a genuine moslem as the Sh'ia see it. Now, the regime is being compared to the usurper, as people who have abandoned true moslem ideals for luxury, pleasure, and power as he did. They are really in bad odour. I think it is a time for world leaders to speak out. Nobody is talking about an invasion, or CIA squads dispatched to assassinate people.

I don't think that Harper works that way. What he does is prepare the ground in whatever way he can. Then he announces the question, and begins to mobilize the troops, as if he fully expects an election. So far, the Liberals have been unable to avoid the bravado, and the faux outrage in which they specialize, but they have avoided pulling the plug when the moment of truth came. Which makes them seem less than serious. In fact, I doubt if Harper does prefer an election. If his ploy works, the next thing we know, the Liberals will be congratulating themselves on not falling into the trap of causing an election. He prevails through a feint. I can only speculate. In March, there'll be a speech from the Throne that leads us towards austerity. The size of government will be tackled as a problem. The goal will be to bring the deficit in line without (a) raising taxes. or ( increasing the debt unduly. Look for frozen wages in the public sector, and perhaps the elimination of some marginal programs. The opposition parties will have to decide -- if they take the government down, can they win the election election? In the end, that's what it comes down to. This will be a watershed moment. Harper is prepared for either decision, but the question he puts to the House is entirely proper. It's not 'bullying' and it's not 'arrogant'. It's one of only two ways there is for a minority government to work. The other is a coalition government, which isn't a possibility for Harper. At that time, however, he is willing to use patronage to secure short-term support, to which the Bloc is vulnerable. If the Liberals collaborate with the Conservatives in disassembling of the welfare state, in any degree, Bob Rae will become restive. If they abandon the project they have relied upon since before Trudeau, it will open floodgates. The end of this process will pit all those who are in any way 'dependents' of the state, against all of those who work outside, in the 'private sector', but we're not there yet. If the Liberals stand up and say "No", they will go into the election defending higher deficits and taxes, at least somewhere down the road. I would imagine the Conservatives will already have the footage the will want to use if that happens. This is where Harper gets his reputation for strategy. He puts a lot of pressure on his opponents. He leaves them in the 'left' position, and takes the 'center'. (The 'right' wait patiently for majority government. In the meantime, they are shut out.) So far, the opposition have competed with each other to be the most outraged, the most extreme in their verbal opposition to the Conservatives ... and then, they seem surprised when the polls move to suggest the public doesn't want an election. Will Harper change something that has worked so well in the past? I doubt it. Its in the Liberal's hands, whether there's going to be an election or not.

Why is this a problem? My feeling is that the armed forces are an excellent opportunity for the development of a lot of skills. It's as it should be that they move often move out of the armed forces as they top off their careers. Not only that, but it also gives some excellent leadership training. There's never too much leadership in the world, folks. I would prefer to have an expectation that well trained military personnel will often build on their skills to make careers in the private economy. What is wrong with that? Turnover, up to a certain point, is good for organizations. If people leave, and take a job in the private sector, they will be contributing to the nation just as surely as if they are soldiers because they probably will be paying a lot of taxes. I understand that the people in our military might not like it, but there are other considerations. The real problem is probably that we can't afford to train enough people to allow for attrition, which ought to be rectified, in my book.

You make a handful of very valid points. These are returning chickens, but they don't seem to me to be Obama's chickens. These are the Ghosts of Congresses past ... In fact, these were the issues that George W. Bush thought he would be dealing with in his term -- not a War on Terrorism. More and more, I see Obama as a tragic figure. He's likable and he can appeal to the best in people. He has an attractive family. People want him to succeed, but he has been thrown into the pressure seat at the very moment that the sirens began to blow, and Spock reports that the shields are down to 10%. He's taken the Enterprise down a worm-hole, and now he doesn't know how to get out ... and his advisors are shape-shifters who are working for the Reptiles. He even seems to me to have started physically withering, and turning grey. Maybe the reptiles have zombied him.

Groan ... I don't know why you don't give me even a little bit of credit. Why couldn't the media ever, even once, give us illustrations of the kind of 'work' our troops were doing? Why couldn't they help us to understand the terrain, and the objectives of the mission? Its because the news is being collected as part of a narrative that depends on stressing the cost in blood, and ignoring the benefit. You tell me ... how were we going to understand the meaning of this struggle. The tide turned and the media never told us. We don't even know how this war went. They report from 'sources', or they're at the airport, waiting to get pictures of the ramp ceremony. I don't require rah-rah coverage, but do I have to suffer 1960ies style anti-war propagandizing parading as news coverage all over again? Can you deny what I say? No wonder people are vulnerable to worrying that, with Obama's election, the effort has been wasted. It will probably end up being a bargaining chip, thrown in, along with Israel, to try to cajole the Mullah's of Iran. ==================================== Angus Reid aside, I don't blame anybody for getting us into this war, the whole house supported it, and agreed to keep their mission out of politics for the duration. Good for them, especially the NDP, for whom it's been hard. I think we are there for the wrong reasons, and to make up for shirking in other respects earlier. At this point, I want the mission to end, myself. I wonder if there's any believable goals anymore. I think we can feel good about what we tried to do, but we recognize that a lot of our NATO partners are shirkers, too. We should start thinking about defending Canada the post Cold War world. We should wake up, and get out of any alliance which obligates us to defend other nations when there is little likelihood that those nations would help defend us.

Good for your niece. She volunteered for this. If she's into it, the country is behind her. None of what I say is meant to be critical of her. If you're worried for her, well, who wouldn't be? Any normal person would. However -- doesn't the fact that your niece is going to California for this training, and to acclimatize her body, tell you all you need to know? When did the Canadian army ever go to such lengths before? In the same way, doesn't the $21 billion in expenditures tell you anything? Sure, only a fraction goes to the troops, but our forces are better equipped now than they've been for two or three decades. What evidence is there that our troops' training is deficient? Or equipment, either? None, as far as I know. What I think is far more dangerous is that we don't get to know anything, anyway. Somehow, the military situation in Khandahar has turned around. We were stacking up the corpses two years ago, remember? Now our people are staying in their bases as much as possible, and the Taliban can do as they please. However this happened, however the Taliban did it, whenever it happened, we have seemingly lost our struggle. Our media -- the same media working so hard to pin some kind of remote association with torture on our troops -- totally missed the military aspects of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. All we know is what happens between the IED explosion and the ramp ceremony. Their coverage of the war is actually a disgrace. This bothers me far more than equipment and training. Our feckless, ideological media are trying to give Stephen Harper the George Bush treatment, rather than cover the war. As a result, we don't really know if our troops are involved in something futile, or if there's a point. And that makes all the difference. If a loved one is going to war for something with a prospect of success, and worthy, certainly it's different from seeing that loved one being used as a patsy in some bit of 'wag the dog' face-saving.

The theory runs that American aggression is the chief cause of tension and conflict in the world. The simple departure of Chimpy Bushitler, and his evil partner, Dick Cheney, alone, many believed, would alleviate much of the danger in the world. "And so, the Anointed One went unto the world, and said unto the world, 'I come with an open hand, if only you unclench the fist'." The world seems to be reacting accordingly. There are now a number of chickens coming home to roost, perhaps in 2010, perhaps in 2011 ... perhaps in 2012. 
 Meanwhile, domestically, another small flock of hens are approaching. But let's avert our eyes from things like the economy, or energy prices. It wouldn't be fair, would it, to consider our wait to see how well wind and solar do at filling the gap "a chicken coming home to roost". But terrorism is another matter ... Personally, I think the easiest prediction of all, for next year, is that Obama's foreign policy will be tested in ways that force him to make a military response or to withdraw power from areas of influence, thus creating power vacuums, and more dangerous times.

Don't you think the Defense Minister knows what happened? Why is a rogue diplomat to be more trusted than the minister, when it comes to that? I know, politicians have a terrible reputation, with reason, for evading and lying about unpleasant facts, but diplomats are probably the one occupational role you could have chosen who are worse. The 'drug trade' was 'eradicated' because the US paid the Taliban $30 million a year to stop production. I think it supports my version at least as much as yours, which is ... what? That our politicians are lying to the public so that the drugs can flow and the torturing can continue? I understand, you are outraged at the idea of violence and pain being used to settle conflicts -- but that's what war is all about. Breaking things and making it hurt. In this, one side is as bad as another.

Except that the calendar embodies a set of dates that are associated with certain past events. It was central to their social life, which was full of ceremonies. But to project that onto our immediate future is the worst kind of pagan superstition. We shouldn't get too romantic about the Mayas. They were massively into suicide and human sacrifice. It seems like a very morbid culture, if you ask me. For all their masonry, and cities, they hadn't really gotten to literacy yet. Just numbers. To put it in perspective, they were probably at approximately the level of social development of the civilizations before Egypt. The Egyptian pyramids are far more sophisticated monuments, with their smooth, surface stone, and the larger size, and far more precise construction. Mayan pyramids are essentially an elevated altar, with stairways inside so the priests could appear and disappear from the altar without being seen. The point is this is magic thinking.

You seem to prefer going for the capillaries, rather than the jugular. What percentage of their budgets do you think we'd squeeze out by having our top bureaucrats have to go through the line-ups, carry their own luggage, and rent only Smart Cars? Yet you don't even arch your eyebrow over the fact that the whole public service of Canada, at all levels, is paid 50% over market. It's what has destroyed the possibility of socialism. The state can no longer provide services efficiently because it is unionized, top to bottom.

I would never suggest you trust any political party, Mr. Ashley, but you seem a little excitable on this one, in particular. Actually, Chretien was far more deceitful than the present government is. Remember how he closed down the Somali Inquiry? So was Martin -- he declared he would never balance the budget on the backs of the working poor, and guess what? That's exactly what he did, through his fiddling with unemployment insurance. The surpluses from EI ware what balanced the budget. I thought Harper made it very evident that he wasn't going to extend the mission if it was going to become a political issue. There ended up being a multi-party deal. The decision to extend the mission was supported by all the parties. I think, in the same way, Harper will do what the consensus of the parties say about the next step. He still has a minority. I predict that the mission will be over on a date certain in 2011. The other non-military NGOs will have their own agendas and schedules. Personally, I think it's pretentious to think we can 'build' Afghans a society. What we 'build' is the elemental parts of a state. We're pushing a rock uphill on this one. The point is that the Afghan people are organized, and the main thing they need from government is security. They don't need us for anything more than keeping the bad guys away from them. The other part, which was never addressed, is the economics of the situation. The farmers produce poppies for income. The way that works (often) is that the Taliban 'front' the money, and collect part of the crop as repayment. it's essentially 'sharecropping'. To take Afghanistan out of the Taliban orbit, the farmers must not take the money when the seed goes into the ground -- they have to pay off their obligation, and take the money for the next year's crop from the West. We get squeamish because its opium, and, you know, big pharma, and all of that. But opium and its derivatives are the very best pain-killers. They could be a boon, I understand, to terminal cancer patients. My point is -- there is a legitimate, non-recreational use for opium and its derivatives. We should have thought down this line five years ago. Imho. But it'll be OK, Mr. Ashley, this is the one area where all the parties have a genuine agreed upon policy.

Very good questions. What is reasonable? A head of state is one thing -- extra security is a factor, etc. -- and they have a retinue. You don't want them landing in Copenhagen in a Hercules. And nobody objects to deputy ministers and ministers going first class. Where is the point where it is excessive? Frankly, I think everything in the public service, at every level, is excessive. Salaries in the public sector, matched with similar jobs in the private sector, are 50% and more higher. Not only that, almost no parts of the private labour market has the benefit packages that are normal in the civil service. I laughed, a few years ago I wandered through Queens Park area when the teachers were on strike, protesting. The CUPE guy was 'orating', so I stopped to listen for a few minutes. The rhetoric was pure British class warfare stuff, delivered with a Celtic burr. But who's he talking to? I wondered. The teachers were all wearing high priced 'surivival' jackets, and were driving late model minivans. Everything they had brought with them -- picnic hampers, etc. was grade A. I couldn't help myself -- I wondered why these people were pretending to be 'the working class'. The working class wears hoodies from Walmart, and "I'm with Dummy" t-shirts, and they bring beer in styrofoam coolers, not fruit juices in Colemans coolers. We have reached the point where the biggest determinant of an individual's level of consumption in life is now not their education, or their skills, but whether they get hired in the public sector or the private. And that's just wrong.

Shwa, it's too bad you don't know the first thing about what's going on in Caledonia before you start deciding this issue on the basis of your nasty racist stereotypes. I'll start my challenge right here, with that statement. No it wasn't. It was started when natives invaded the Douglas Creek Estates. That land was previously owned by the Government of Canada. They certainly held valid title. Further, the development was cleared with the Six Nations Tribal Council, and an archeologists certified that land had never been used for funerals before the municipal government would issue the building permits. There was no claim on the land. The Bank examined the deal and financed the whole project. The builder went to court, and obtained an injunction. The OPP, in fact, enforced the injunction in the middle of the night, catching the occupiers passing a bottle and a joint, and took possession of the property. The natives rounded up the Warriors Society, a bunch of thugs, many of them with US military training, and weapons, and the OPP ran away, like the bunch of $100,000+ lard-assed clerks that they actually are. They went back to the judge, of course, and he issued another injunction. The coppers simply ignored it. Later, he issued an order to appear to explain why the injunction wasn't enforced. They sent a flak-catcher. The judge got testy, and demanded an explanation. By this time, McGuinty and Fantino had entered the picture, and the former head of the OPP -- get this, a native woman!!!! -- and they must have simply told the judge to go pound salt. Five or six weeks after this incident, the builder was informed by his insurance company that they would not accept liability for the losses. He flipped. The Bank flips. Why the fuck not, they scream. The insurance companies pull out the law book, and show very clearly that while they would accept liability for losses due to fire, acts of nature, etc. but not for losses coming from armed insurrections. That " ... little rough-housing on the outskirts of Caledonia ... " fits the legal definition of a 'armed insurrection'. That simple. When it became clear to them what they faced, McGuinty started using the money of the people of Ontario, quickly, to keep it a secret, to hide the embarrassment that should naturally accrue to such an idiotic bit of mismanagement ... (At the time, they were persecuting Mike Harris about Ipperwash.) Can you believe it? They bought out the developer. They paid off the bank. And they withdrew police protection from the people of Caledonia. Those are the legal facts. Show me the fingerprints of who you think did this. =============================== More evidence of the continuing armed insurrection that Dalton McGuinty tolerates in Ontario: http://beta.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1013760 http://www.brantnews.com/news.cfm?page=news&section=read&articleId=6385 http://beta.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2239452&

Gosh, when did that happen? And did it have anything to do with Soviet plans for Iran? Of course, since then, Iran attacked the American embassy and took the staff prisoners -- itself an act of war. Let me turn the sarcasm off, and just to put the question: why would any politically organized people deal with these barbaric liars?

In fact, Cheney is advancing a debate that nobody else will take on. The ideologues are now deep in the pretense that everything is Bush's fault ... and yet, Obama and his team end up falling back on the Bush-Cheney policies that they love to ridicule. Even you, Oleg, have no reason for your position -- it's just your political taste. Look at how you savage the man, and tell me -- what reason do you have? Why to you dismiss him as a cranky old guy in the grip of 1950ies-type masculinity? Does Obama have a better approach? Where is the 'merit' in this argument? Oleg, perhaps it would be better if we just accepted that you are a decent person, right off the bat. That way, you wouldn't have to endorse all these 'squish' positions to show us what a fine and generous fellow you are with American lives and treasure. Now, at the level of practical politics, what is wrong with Cheney's defense of what were, probably, policies that were initiated by him? What better policy would you have the world adopt? And will those rules apply to the Moslem world?

Even so, watching the Gores pretending to passion on National television isn't something that every decade has to deal with.

There's a difference between being civilized and being effete. Were we less civilized in the 1940ies that we are now? In World War II, any German officer captured on a U-Boat was likely to be tortured at the hands of the British, and nobody called them uncivilized. The Romans crucified people in the thousands, and they set the standard of civilization for 500 years. You are a tad dogmatic in your pronouncements, Oleg. Just because civilized nations hide their torture doesn't mean they don't do it. I (personally) think that, in many cases, an execution would be less gratuitously cruel than life-imprisonment in some hell-hole, going quietly mad. Perhaps we should admit that, in fact, waterboarding represents a civilizational advance over the thumbscrew and rack, and that the brilliance of civilization is illustrated because the Americans can extract information without relying on inflicting pain to get it. Why not?

Did you read the famous 'memos' -- a guideline for the 'enhanced interrogation'? The document is very conscious of human rights, and it is clear they US military has developed techniques that conform to these 'international laws'. If these 'enhanced techniques' are torture, they are tortures that cause no pain, and do not damage to the body. They start with grabbing by the lapels. Some of them work through sleep deprivation and physical exhaustion. Some of them cause fear and even panic, ie. the use of insects, dogs, and even women, to add 'stress' to the prisoner. Waterboarding is the ace in the interrogator's deck. It works by inducing a panic. Anyone who has almost drowned knows the panic. By tricking that panic, they can get prisoners to agree to talk it they will stop. What offends me about this discussion is that those who have such high standards know very well that nobody, and certainly not the World Court, will go after serious war criminals and human right violators unless they are from the West. Nobody expects the Taliban to stop beheading let alone deal with the African dictators. Those who decry Abu Ghraib don't have a word of complaint about what went on in that very prison, before the Americans arrived, when Saddam's people were in charge of interrogation. I'll give you a taste -- they liked to hang people from the ceiling in different postures, douse them with water, and hit them with electrodes. The convulsions led them to pull their bones of their joints.

Isn't that a tad overwrought? You have to be at a very high level of abstraction to overlook all the differences between the slave chained to his oar, and someone with $10 a month interest charge on their credit card. A couple taking on a mortgage isn't entering bondage, they're protecting their futures. But more to the point -- this isn't a beef with Mastercard. No need to stare down the kid from the tele-harassers. It's way worse than that! The central financial institutions of the United States of America -- the US treasury, and the Federal Reserve -- could be playing three-card monte with the nation's wealth. $700 billion has just 'popped up', enough to top up the shortfall, no doubt, creating the illusion that the treasury auctions were capable of raising sufficient capital. In fact, there was a 40% shortfall. It's OK to let your jaw drop. If a private institution did the equivalent of this, they'd be in jail. The implications of three more years of this are devastating. The first thing you think of -- a kickass inflation is coming. They say, "No" ... they will withdraw the 'liquidity' when 'inflation looms'. (The way they talk, you'd think inflation was a presence at the foot of your bed, and they can leave the light on.) No, inflation is a sure sign of mismanagement. These people have developed ways of basing credit on almost any flow of income -- look at what they did with mortgages. When a bubble bursts, the question is -- who takes the burn. When they are talking about 'liquidity', whatever they think it means, in the end, if the system fails, the people of America will be expected to pay. But, also, think of the taxes that are coming! Nobody seems to want to look over that precipice.

I think we feel the same. I have pondered this a lot over the last two or three years, because my mother, in her declining years, gave me a lot of insight into what Ontario medical care is like for a user. My impression? Overall, they do a pretty good job but they are stretched very thin. Can they handle the demands of the baby boomers? Doubtful, to me, without huge costs. But it is medical care cafeteria style. What people don't want to face is the big expanding cost is geriatric medicine. That's the stuff that people should pay for themselves. First, they get better care, and secondly, not everybody wants to go through chemo, etc. In the old days, people carried medical insurance against catastrophic events, and paid for routine stuff out of their pockets. I could see the future state providing clinics for basic family medicine. Measles, mumps, broken bones, all of that stuff. Add to that, the routine investigations and what adults need to maintain their health, birth control all of that stuff. That kind of medicine means that young families get care, even if it is from clinics, it's there, no matter what -- which is what you want. And people should finance the extreme stuff with insurance. The public doesn't understand that there is an almost endless market for artificial knees if they cost nothing but the pain of getting them. The government pays something like $40,000 a pop. Maybe that's what RRSPs should be for. Or medical insurance plans. What they will do, instead, because it's politicians that decide -- they will let the health care decline so long as they can hide it. They will hollow it out, and leave us with less quality that we thought we had.