February 2006 Archives

The war in Iraq is going badly, and it is time to bring the troops home, say 72 percent of respondents to a new Zogby poll.

Who are these lily-livered peacenik girl's blouses who are obviously in love with Saddam and terrorists and have no idea of the sacrifice the brave fighting men and women in Iraq are making? The U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

Now, can we please put to rest the great "success story" that is Iraq and the fiction of the "foreign fighters"? If the boots on the ground don't think things are going all that well, can we at least assume they might have some idea about what their talking about? I mean, I realize they are not Bush PR flacks or right wing warbloggers, but still, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Think there is any chance King George will actually live up to his rhetoric of supporting the troops and take their views into consideration? No, I didn't think so either.

In the United States, bloggers call them "zombie lies". Disproven time and time again, these lies still surface among right wing blogs and often in the mainstream media as conventional wisdom, lurching through the graveyards of public discourse, eating the brains of all who accept them as truth. The greatest zombie lie of them all is the myth of the liberal media, and no how many studies are carried out or how much evidence is provided daily on the airwaves and in the pages of the mainstream media, this remains a rock-solid article of faith among many of our conservative brethren.

Nonetheless, there are still brave souls out there who continue to hack off the zombie heads in a noble but futile attempt to drive the myth back to its grave. One such stalwart is Antonia Zerbisias, who profiles a study commisioned by the CBC which shows that its poltiical coverage during the election was balanced in its treatment of all parties. She also highlights an internal review conducted by CBC staff which shows similar results. Ms. Z. writes:

Phase one of the dream has been accompished. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are in power. They don't have the full run of the place, to be sure, but nonetheless, they get the nicest cars and the biggest offices. Now comes the tricky part. How do you weld together a fragmented mass of voters and support groups that helped him into office on January 23 into a winning coalition in furture elections? As it turns out (to no one's surprise) that's a very tricky task, and so far, Harper has not been managing it all that well.

Here's Gerry Nicholls of the National Citizen's Coalition, a right wing pseudo-populist organization formerly led by harper himself:

Attention all you deep thinkers in the Conservative Party (Yes I know you read this blog)

You need to know that some of your antics --- Emerson, canceling a privatization in BC, wimping out on Islamic violence – are alienating your base.

Remember your base?

They are the people who stuck by you all those years when you were wandering around the political wilderness. They are the people who voted for you and helped you win the election.

And right now they are angry.

In fact, here at the National Citizens Coalition our phones are ringing off the hook. Our supporters are upset, confused and disillusioned. They want to know what the Conservatives think they are doing.

Here’s an email I got from an NCC supporter in response to a blog I wrote where I wondered if I was too hard on Stephen Harper for all this:

“No I don't think you were too hard on Stephen Harper. His debut was inauspicious at best. Then we read that he abandoned the notion of privatizing some northern Crown corporation at the advice of David Emerson. Then we get Peter MacKay's silly imitation of Pettigrew with his lame and coy defence of free speech while urging tolerance for the intolerant amongst us. Whatever happened to our Stephen of NCC days?”

Ok Harper has been PM for less than a week. So maybe we are all over-reacting a bit. Maybe we should cut him some slack and see where he goes in the next few weeks and months.

But one thing the Tories need to understand is this: they can’t take the conservative vote for granted.

Canadian conservatives want change not more of the same and they won’t tolerate a betrayal of their principles.

If you Deep Conservative Party thinkers don’t learn this quickly, your party will end up less popular than the Danish ambassador at a Jihadist convention.

After hearing Conservatives harp about the wasted money on the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal for years, I am going to be mighty pissed off if they throw away millions of dollars supporting a ballistic missile defense system that simply does not work and is, in fact, a side door approach to weapons in space. Today, we hear from an expert that BMD is a complete waste of money, and he urged Canada to steer clear of it.

TORONTO — A former top Pentagon official is warning Canada not to join Washington's missile defence program, calling it a colossal waste of money that would make the country more vulnerable to attack, not less.

In fact, Canada should be leading international talks to prevent the weaponization of space, said Phil Coyle, who was assistant secretary of defence and senior weapons tester at the U.S. Department of Defence from 1994 to 2001.

"The concept of missile defence is quite seductive," Coyle said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.

But, he added, "it's destabilizing, it's incredibly expensive, and it doesn't work."

A year ago, former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin pulled the plug on Canadian participation in developing and deploying a system that would, in theory, shoot incoming missiles out of the sky before they strike North American targets.

The decision drew pointed scorn from the American ambassador at the time, Paul Cellucci, who called it a "perplexing, astounding" and "disappointing" decision that amounted to Canada wimping out and hiding behind the skirts of the U.S. military.

"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile," Cellucci said during a speech in Toronto last year.

"We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

Now, my interest in what a Bush administration hack thinks about Canada's sovereign interests is about the same as Bush's interest in social justice, so let's just move on.

Coyle's point is that the system is not only technolgically unworkable as it currently stands, it is also unworkable in the long run, and he added that the project is in reality a first step toward the weaponization of space, a prospect that is unwlecome in most of the world.

One of the the three protesters who defaced a painting of Mao Zedong during the Tiananmen Square Protest in 1989 emerged from prison today a broken and insane man. Lest we consider China simply an eventual competitor and economic rival, this should remind us that it is in fact a brutal dictatorship that the corporate world - ever hungry for new, vast markets - has hung a shroud of respectability over.

Beijing — It was one of the most famous symbols of the Tiananmen Square protests: an angry splash of red paint hurled at the massive portrait of Mao Zedong that dominates the entrance to Beijing's Forbidden City.

It was a defiant gesture that infuriated the Communist rulers. And so, when tanks crushed the pro-democracy protests on June 4, 1989, some of the harshest punishments were imposed on the three men who had dared to deface the image of Chairman Mao.

The last of the paint-throwers was finally freed from prison yesterday a shattered and mentally ill 38-year-old man. The prisoner, Yu Dongyue, was driven insane by 16 years of beatings, torture and solitary confinement. He is reported to be incoherent and unable to communicate.

“He doesn't recognize me and we can't understand each other,” his brother told Reuters News Agency last night after he brought Mr. Yu to the home of their parents in Hunan province.

*snip*

According to a Hong Kong report, he was beaten by the Chinese police and struck with electric batons. He was also beaten by fellow inmates who were reportedly encouraged by the police to attack him. He spent two years in solitary confinement in a tiny cell of two square metres.

In 1992, he wrote on a prison blackboard the words “re-evaluate June 4” and “Down with Deng Xiaoping,” the Chinese leader at the time, which led to further brutal beatings, according to a human-rights group.

This is savagery, plain and simple, and serves to remind us of how crushing life can still be under China's autocratic government. The trappings of capitalism have not brought individual freedom. It is interesting - and depressing - to note that China remains a respected trading partner with most western nations (including Canada) while exhibiting behaviour that earned Saddam Hussein a heavy dose of shock and awe. China suffers from no economic sanctions, no trade boycotts, and little international condemnation, despite that fact that it treats its citizens as cattle and dissenters as insects to be squashed underfoot. But they are certainly not alone in this behaviour among the world great powers.

I would like everyone to hold an image of poor shattered Yu in their minds and consider the inmates of the new American gulag archipelago, including such hot spots as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and an array of black sites spread throughout eastern Europe. How many similarly broken men and women are being manufactured at these sites, held without charge, with no hope for justice and in constant fear of torture?

This will be George Bush's legacy: proving that America can compete with China - not in the business world, but in sheer brutality.

Here's a disturbing bit of news: nine Canadian university professors have signed a petition expressing their doubts about evolution.

A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.

Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.

At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.

Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.

"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.

"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."

The scientists' public positions against evolution mark perhaps the first time the issue has arisen recently in Canada, despite a raging debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

I like Cheesman's approach to this subject. "I, personally, couldn't create DNA, therefore, God must have." Really, you can't make this stuff up. Note to any students of these professors: please feel free to express your outrage at their rejection of science - you know, that subject they are supposed to be teaching and researching - in favour of scienciness.

Never mind arming our border guards. Can we train them to stop wingnut ideas at the border?

Many people see Stephen Harper a bloodless policy wonk, cold and antiseptic in his approach to governance. I have always felt he was an emotionally stunted man whose tightly-lidded feelings would occasionally show themselves in ugly ways, like this, for example:

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper has replaced his communications chief just two weeks after taking office, in what will be seen as a blunt acknowledgement of the bad public-relations tone set by his first days in power.

The Prime Minister's Office issued a terse statement late last night, announcing that the new communications director was Sandra Buckler, who was the lead person in the Conservatives' "war room" during the election campaign.

Buckler abruptly displaces William Stairs, who had been confirmed in the communications post less than two weeks ago.

The PMO statement praised Buckler, 40, as a communications expert.

"Sandra brings a wealth of communications experience to her new post," chief of staff Ian Brodie is quoted as saying in the release. "She has advised national and international companies and agencies on communications matters for several years. Before that, she worked as a communications advisor to several cabinet ministers."

Stairs, meanwhile, is discussed in the past tense in the release, which says only that he is moving on to "new opportunities." In political-workplace lexicon, this The phrase is a polite way of saying that Stairs' departure was not voluntary.

The 49-year-old Nova Scotian was formerly director of communications for Peter MacKay when the latter was leader of the now-defunct Progressive Conservatives.

Around Ottawa last night, there was shock and surprise that Harper had tried to dispatch his communications problems so bloodlessly and quickly. It is almost unheard-of for a Prime Minister to send a top official packing so soon into a new regime.

Sources said Stairs was called into Brodie's office yesterday afternoon where he was summarily dismissed, a move that clearly caught many staffers — including Stairs — by surprise.

Harper's first days in office have been characterized by an unusual degree of bad press and hostile relations between reporters and the PMO. His controversial decisions to put Liberal defector David Emerson into the cabinet and the unelected, backroom Tory Michael Fortier into the Senate and as Public Works Minister have generated public anger that doesn't seem to be dissipating.

Harper was said to have been dissatisfied with the way his team handled the first week of the new Tory cabinet and the attendant controversies with Emerson and Fortier.

Stairs, however, was not blamed — at least externally — for the communications problems. He was seen more as the messenger of dubious news and the man who had to manage an almost-impossible relationship between the press and a Prime Minister who has made it clear he resents media criticism.

The communications problems have been demonstrated by Harper's press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, who has gone to unusual lengths of holding down reporters' hands when they've tried to ask questions or shouting at journalists who don't abide by her rules for press dealings. The fact that Harper chose to keep Stewart-Olsen and eject Stairs was seen last night as largely a cosmetic answer to the deeper issue of his public-relations problems and Harper's distrust of anything related to the media.

Canadian Maher Arar's attempt to find some vindication for his deportation by the United States to Syria and his subsequent torture has been stomped down by a U.S. court:

Washington — A U.S. federal judge has dismissed Maher Arar's lawsuit against American officials claiming he was deported to Syria as a terrorism suspect to be tortured.

In a ruling Thursday in New York, Judge David Trager said he can't interfere in the case because it involves crucial national security and foreign relations issues in the anti-terror fight.

“The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted,” Judge Trager wrote in his 88-page ruling.

“One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria.”

He also noted Congress has yet to take a position on court reviews of cases like Mr. Arar's, saying judges should be “hesitant” to hold officials liable for damages without “explicit direction” from legislators, “even if such conduct violates our treaty obligations or customary international law.”[Emphasis mine.]

In Ottawa, Mr. Arar called the decision “very disappointing, emotionally very hard to digest.”

“I was not expecting the judge to dismiss the entire case. I was hoping that he could let at least part of it proceed to discovery,” he said.

“It is giving the green light to the Bush administration and the CIA to continue with their practice of rendition.

“Basically they're telling people ... if you're ever wronged by our politicians or intelligence people, you are on your own, good luck.”

The decline of the rule of law in the United States has been precipitious under the Bush administration. National security has been used to excuse illegal wiretapping, a war of aggression, the torture of prisoners and illegal detention. Now a U.S court has given them tacit approval for the shipment of foreign nationals to other countries for the purposes of torture, and explicit approval to ignore treaties and international law. Mr. Arar is seeking justice in a Bizarro land where human rights are rendered null and void by the Bush administration's tendency to find enemies everywhere, and to dispose of them in morally and legally questionable ways.

Remember when we used to live next door to America? I miss that country.

Even as our new Public Safety Minister is conferring with his colleagues on the easiest way to kill the gun registry, Stockwell Day, fresh from a consultation with American Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, is musing out loud about a much more ambitious, and potentially much more invasive, project.

The new federal minister of public safety, Stockwell Day, is suggesting that a national identification card is inevitable for Canadians.

Day suggested in an interview with The Canadian Press that a government-issued national ID card, which Britain could begin to phase in by next year, is likely forthcoming for Canadians.
...
Now that the United States has dropped its demand requiring Canadians to show passports to travel across the border, the proposal for a national ID card appears to be back on the table.

"We also want to be able to stop people who are a menace or a threat from getting in or getting out, so that's the overall goal," Day said.

It's time to add a new word to the lexicon. We have "fisking" defined as "A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form." I propose adding a new word - "zolfing" defined as "doing an analysis of a situation and arriving at a conclusion completely unrelated to and/or unsupported by the preceding analysis".

Maher Arar's lawsuit against the American government for its role in his detention and torture in Syria has been dismissed by Brooklyn District Court Judge David Trager. I thought this quote from the ruling was particularly interesting.

"The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted," Trager wrote in an 88-page judgment. "One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria."

A justice official said the ruling pleased the government.

Justice O'Connor's preliminary report on our own inquiry is due out in the spring and it might present an interesting dilemma for Stephen Harper's government. They may have a chance to score some serious points on their Liberal predecessors. But doing so may involve actually standing up in opposition to the right of King George and his court to do pretty much whatever they please to Canadian citizens and then hide behind the excuse that it can't be investigated because it might embarrass someone.

My post below regarding the Muhammed cartoons touched off an excellent debate in the comments, with many people passionately and intelligently weighing in on both sides of the argument. For me, it really comes down to this: if the exercising of your free speech causes death, injury and suffering to people who have no stake in your particular battle, you might want to consider coming down on the side of discretion.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Protesters burned a KFC restaurant and movie theatres in Pakistan's biggest protest yet against the Prophet Muhammad cartoons on Wednesday — the third straight day of violent demonstrations in the Islamic country. Three died and dozens were injured in protests in two cities, police and witnesses said.

More than 70,000 people flooded into the streets of the northwestern city of Peshawar, said Saeed Wazir, a senior police officer. The massive crowd went on a rampage, torching businesses and fighting police, who struck back with tear gas and batons.

Is the worldwide mayhem that has resulted from the publication of a bunch of third-rate cartoons worth the deaths of these people, or the destruction of property and livelihoods? I would venture to say it is not.

(Please note: This does not in any way condone the egregious behaviour of the fundamentalists who have used this issue as a reason to vent their hatred. In many ways, they are the mirror image of the right wingers who seek to make this a "clash of civilizations". Each side uses the cartoon issue to demonize the other and justify their hate, and innocents are caught between fundamentalist hammer and ideological anvil.)

There are times when free people must stand up and risk everything for free speech. The cause of these foolish cartoons do not constitute one of those times.

Update: Afghan war veteran Cpl. Russell Storring sums it up nicely:

Freedoms are something many people here in Canada and around the world take for granted; the minute someone perceives that those freedoms are being infringed upon, a whole movement begins that can quickly snowball out of control.

I am a soldier that believes deeply in freedom, and by virtue of service for my country I have and am willing to put my life on the line for what my country believes in. With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices.

Deciding to not print those controversial cartoons has nothing to do with being cowed by fear of Islamic retribution; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense that Canadians have always been known for around the world.

'Nuff said.

(Thanks to Robert for the link to Cpl. Storring's piece.)

One of the ways that fans of the Bush administration have tried to deny the importance of the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent is to claim that she was just a desk jockey who hadn't been an active agent for years and that everyone knew who she was anyway. No real harm done, you know?

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say

The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.
...
Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

Secondly, when the Bush administration tries to tell us how big a threat Iran is, do we get to say "How would you know when your own people screwed up your intelligence operation?"

Why am I not suprised that colour-printed toilet paper known as the Western Standard has decided to reprint the cartoons that sparked riots throughout the world?

The Western Standard, a political magazine based in Calgary, will today reprint eight of the 12 Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that have caused riots and controversy around the world, and one Canadian Muslim leader warns that hate-crime charges may follow.

Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, a former Reform and Canadian Alliance activist, calls the cartoons "innocuous" and accused Canada's "mainstream media," including The Globe and Mail, of failing to stand up for free speech for refusing to print the images.

"I was prepared to see the most outrageous, depraved, blasphemous cartoons," Mr. Levant said in an interview yesterday. "I was surprised by how tame they were."

Yes, Levant, you fetid homunculus, they are innocuous if you are not a Muslim. If you are, then they can certainly be considered blaphemous.

I haven't blogged on the cartoons before because, really, what was there to comment on? A right-wing newspaper started this furor, and right wing bloggers throughout the world have picked it up as a cause for free speech. But what was the point of the cartoons? To prove that there are Muslim fanatics who will use any excuse to vent their frustration and hatred toward the west? Well, fucking, duh, you morons.

If I walk into a gangsta rap clubhouse and declare for all to hear that anyone who listens to Snoop Dogg is an asshole with no musical taste, I am well within my rights, but I should not be surprised when my features are forcibly rearranged.

If I go into a Montreal biker bar and declare that only pansies ride Harleys, I should not be surprised when, in taking a contrary position to mine, a number of the patrons decide to rearrange my dental work.

If I go into a Wyoming redneck bar and proceed to explain to a number of the patrons that Christianity is a backward religion adhered to by brain-damaged inbred knobs, I should not be surprised to wake up in a hospital a short time later nursing some fairly grievous injuries.

The vast majority of Muslim people actually follow the precepts of peace that Mohammed pretty clearly set down in the Quran. That there is a large minority that has twisted their religion into a cause for hatred is well known, much in the same way that U.S. fundamentalists have twisted Christianity to justify their hatred of gays and Islam.

What did these cartoons prove? That many right wingers have no clue about the difference between just causes in the name of freedom of speech and being an asshole. At the risk of stating the obvious, Ezra Levant, you're an idiot.

So the cash-strapped City of Toronto is considering holding a lottery to raise money for municipal works. As embarrassing a symbol as this is of our national commitment to liveable cities, I applaud the City Council’s creativity in acquiring new funds, and would like to suggest the following ideas to help other Canadian metropolises fund their needs:

Ottawa: Charge a one dollar “broken promises” tax on the federal government. During the Chretien-Martin years, this would have funded Olympic-sized sports infrastructure, three major highways and a new penitentiary to host Liberal Party hacks. Stephen Harper has already broken enough promises to build a new wing at the Museum of Civilization to host a display on the “Artwork of the Conservative Revolution: A Paint-by-Numbers Retrospective”.

Montreal: The “joual” penalty. Every time someone uses a francicized English word, they have to put a loonie into one of the “language purity boxes” distributed throughout the city. The neighbourhood of Verdun alone would fund another white elephant airport in about three days.

Vancouver: The “smug-about-the-weather” surcharge. Each smug e-mail a Vancouverite sends to a friend or relative in another part of Canada during the winter months crowing about “the flowers that are blooming” costs $10. Winter Olympics paid for three times over in about a week.

Halifax: Name the mascot contest. Each city resident could pay a toonie to enter their suggestion for a name for a new city mascot. The winner would receive half the money, while the other half could go toward scraping 250 years of raw sewage from the bottom Halifax Harbour. My entry: “Fecal Freddy the Happy Turd.”

Winnipeg: The cliché levee. Every time someone mentions “Winterpeg”, “Loserpeg” or “Win-a-Pig”, they would be required to pay this stately prairie city five dollars. Winnipeggers would raise enough cash in a month to build a giant drainage ditch that would funnel any Red River flooding back in to North Dakota, where FEMA would quickly and efficiently deal with any resulting problems.

Yellowknife: The we’ve-got-it-all manoeuvre. Use the fact that they have half the MLAs in the territorial legislature to wield massive political influence to centralize and expand most Government of the Northwest Territories functions to the detriment of other NWT communities. Oh wait, mission accomplished...

As you can see, there are many creative ways to rebuild our crumbling cities. Please feel free to suggest your own.

At the end of the first week of Stephen Harper's government, it has become apparent that the only thing that has changed since the Liberals left office is the stationery in the PMO.

On his very first day as Prime Minister, Harper wielded his newfound power as discreetly as a feudal lord, blowing his promises about accountable government, respect for the wishes of voters, and lobby reform.

These moves have drawn the ire of his own caucus members, many of whom thought Harper was serious about doing things differently.

Newly minted Trade Minister David Emerson has been touted by some of his (now) fellow Conservatives as just the man to straighten out the softwood lumber mess. But perhaps they should hold that thought.

Questions are being raised about whether David Emerson, the newly appointed Trade Minister will be able to work on the softwood lumber file, the most pressing file in his department.
...
...on November 11, 2004, Emerson signed a public declaration of recusal with the ethics commissioner's office forbidding himself from being involved in matters that directly involve Canfor.

Canfor is Canada's largest forestry company and one of the companies specifically named in the anti-dumping case initiated by the U.S. in the softwood dispute.

"As former president and CEO of Canfor Corporation, I have an entitlement to an unregistered pension plan, partially funded through a Retirement Compensation Agreement," Emerson's declaration of recusal states.

"In order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest situation from arising, I have undertaken, in the exercise of my duties and responsibilities to abstain from any participation in discussions or decision-making processes involving direct dealings with Canfor Corporation, its subsidiaries and affiliates."
...
Anti-dumping investigations concern the pricing practices of individual companies. The firms and not the federal government are party to the investigations. The US Department of Commerce issued anti-dumping questionnaires to six Canadian companies, including Canfor.

Duff Conacher of the public interest group Democracy Watch says Emerson cannot work on the softwood lumber file without being in a conflict.

Tory MPs riled by Harper's outsiders

Members of the Conservative caucus squirmed in public and seethed in private yesterday, trying to come to grips with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's two controversial cabinet appointments.

"This looks like expediency, even hypocrisy," a veteran Conservative MP from Western Canada said of the appointments of David Emerson, who was elected last month as a Liberal, and Conservative campaign co-chairman Michael Fortier, who didn't run but will get a Senate appointment.

"This is shocking. It's just unbelievable. Who was Stephen talking to? We campaigned against this kind of stuff," the MP said.

A rookie MP said: "I'm not sure how I'm going to explain these appointments to my constituents. It's bewildering."

The MPs did not want to be identified because of caucus secrecy, but wanted it known that other Conservatives also question the political wisdom of the appointments.

It's been suggested that Harper's leadership style is very much top-down. He listens to his close circle of advisors and ignores everybody else and this seems to confirm it. If his own caucus is already fracturing I'd say we're in for an interesting ride for the next few months. And months may be all Harper has if he does a good enough job of alienating his own MPs.

I think it's going well so far, don't you?

Stephen Harper Version 1.0:

OTTAWA – Conservative leader and Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper said today his first piece of legislation as Prime Minister will be to introduce a new Federal Accountability Act designed to end the influence of big money in Ottawa and crack down on a lobbying culture that has thrived under Paul Martin.

The current government works with a culture of entitlement. No public official is entitled to use taxpayer’s money for their own purposes. “We propose to clean up government and give hard working Canadians a government they deserve,” said Harper. “Government exists to serve Canadians; government must serve the public interest, not personal interests.”

Stephen Harper Version 2.0:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - New Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Wednesday dismissed widespread unhappiness with his Conservative cabinet as "superficial criticism" and said he had no regrets about giving top jobs to an unelected aide and to a recent defector from the Liberals.

Newspapers and media commentators condemned both decisions, saying they flew in the face of Harper's promises to run a more accountable government after winning the January 23 election.

"I expected some of the superficial criticism I've seen," Harper told the Vancouver Sun in an interview.

Frankly, I always felt that John Reynold's was a stool sample that walked in human form, but the staggering contempt he shows for the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway with this statement is jaw-dropping:

Party stalwart John Reynolds first approached Emerson the day after the election, and was crowing about his talented recruit.

He dismissed complaints in Mr. Emerson's riding as sour grapes.

“I'm sure a great percentage of the NDP people in his riding are yelling and screaming today. But everybody else is happy,” Mr. Reynolds said.

Party of the people, those Conservatives.

Using cutting-edge surveillance technology on loan from the NSA, who are taking a break from some top-level spying on their own citizens, the team here at the Pogge Institute is proud to bring you the transcript from the first meeting of Stephen Harper's Conservative Cabinet. Let's listen in, and thrill to the majestic workings of the inner circles of power...

The setting – A wood-panelled conference room where meets for the first time the cabinet of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper:

Harper: All right, everyone, settle down please…I want to get this meeting going. I’ve got a federation to dismantle here, and who knows how long this minority government is going to last.

Vic Toews (Justice): I want my issues on the agenda, Stephen. I brought my electric chair from my garage at home and I’m ready to warm it up…

Harper: Relax, Vic, we’ll get to the execution of criminals eventually, but let’s first talk about executing this social contract that is dragging down our corporate backers.

Peter MacKay (Foreign Affairs): (Hesitantly) Well, not all the social contract, surely. I mean, you know, there some stuff we might want to retain…you know…medicare for a few of the poorer folks; some sort of employment insurance, and…you know…(trails off)…

*Crickets*

Harper: (Rolling his eyes) Anyway, let’s leave Peter’s comments to hang in the air like an unclaimed fart and move on, shall we? Let’s start by welcoming two new members to the team: David Emerson and Michel Fortier. Dave…welcome, Michel…bienvenue…

Toews: God bless you.

Harper: Pardon me?

Toews: You sneezed. I said God bless you.

Harper: I didn’t sneeze! I said “bienvenue”. That’s French!

Toews: Oh…I thought we’d agreed no froggy talk in here.

There is much gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and such about the cabinet appointments of Emerson and Fortier. The surprising thing to me is that anyone is surprised.

I had already addressed this subject not long after the election campaign began. It seems appropriate to reprint this comment of mine from an earlier post on the front page.

I find your position that the Conservatives will definitionally bring credibility to Ottawa amusing to say the least. I have had a great deal of dealings with Conservatives over several decades and I have found them, without exception, to be crooks and liars of the highest order just like all other politicians.

It isn't membership in a particular political party that makes one dishonest. It is being a politician that does that. When you have been around as long and been involved in the internal workings of as many political parties as I have, there is an unpleasant lesson you learn. The adage that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is not true. What is true is that only the corrupt seek power and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power.

All politicians and rulers regardless of era, country, ideology or party have more in common with each other than any of them has with the people they govern.

Most people want only a measure of control over their own lives. What sets all politicians apart from everyone else is the desire for power over other peoples' lives. That makes all of them definitionally suspect.

I was at a campaign meeting in a rural area many years ago where a friend of mine, who was running as the Conservative candidate, was told by one of the local farmers "I have never met a politician yet who wasn't crooked enough to slide through a 6 inch grain auger". The farmer was close to right. When it comes to politicians, guilty until proven innocent is a reasonable and prudent precaution.

And lest I be accused of gloating, that isn't what I'm doing. This is simply a wake-up slap upside the head. There has always been one simple and easy way to tell if a politician is lying - his (her) lips are moving.

Gee, Harper turned out to be a politician disguised as a politician. I'm shocked. Whoda thunk it? What will we tell Polyanna?

This might be a good time to go here.

Now this is pretty sad:

I don't have much else to say about this at the moment. Gloat in the comments if you must, or try to justify the CPC's poor ethics if that floats your boat. Whichever you choose is fine with me.

Personally, I'm feeling just a tad disillusioned at the moment. I did not volunteer literally days of my time for a party that thought it was "entitled to its entitlements".... at least I didn't think I was doing so through the campaign.

Andrew is not just a good blogger and a nice guy, he is also a principled supporter of his chosen political party. So this really must come as a hoof in the goolies for him. And he is not alone.

Between the cabinet seat for floor-crosser David Emerson and the appointment of an unelected Michel Fortier to the Senate and to cabinet, we probably have quite a few perturbed Conservative supporters out there. A firm stand on principles in Stephen Harper's prime ministership lasted about half an hour.

But, really, these folks kind of had a fall coming for proclaiming - and fervently believing - that their politicians would be more principled than the politicians they are replacing. It is not that politicians are inherently evil (Bush administration notwithstanding), it's that politics is a game that requires a malleable set of principles in order to gain and keep power, and then a good PR shop to convince people why the abandonment of principles was, in itself, a principled act.

This really isn't gloating, and Harper and his gang aren't any ethically worse than any other politicians out there. The Conservatives are simply getting a dose of reality now that they hold the reins of power, and so are their more idealistic supporters. Leadership requires tough choices often tinged with shades of grey. Deal with it, folks. There's more to come.

Do you think the headline of this post is actually going to happen to David Emerson, who crossed the floor today to join the Conservative party? Me neither.

OTTAWA - Former Liberal industry minister David Emerson will cross the floor and sit in the Conservative cabinet.

Stunned onlookers barely had a chance to ask a question of the Vancouver MP and former head of lumber giant Canfor as he strolled into Rideau Hall shortly before the Tory cabinet was being announced.

Pinching Emerson might be seen as Conservative retribution for the defection of Belinda Stronach, who went from being a Tory leadership candidate to a Liberal cabinet minister in about a year.

Several Conservatives responded by demanding laws forcing floor-crossers to go back to the electorate for another mandate.

In the recent federal election, Emerson was featured in televised Liberal election ads promoting the party in British Columbia.

He was also frequently under fire from the Tories in the last Parliament over a multibillion-dollar program in the Industry Department.

It is interesting to recall the reaction to Belinda Stronach's defection, which one could categorize as spittle-flecked rage on the part of the many conservative commentators. Even the most reasonable of voices got somewhat strident.

She was a traitor, a slut, a dumb blonde to name but a few of the epithets that were lobbed her way. How could she go from Conservative leadership hopeful to Liberal Cabinet Minister? Doesn't she have any principles? Actually, it was a pretty easy move for her, as she saw the Red Tory wing that she was part of being slowly purged from Conservative ranks.

She swears she didn't leave the Tories to get a cabinet job, because with all the non-confidence in the air she might have lasted as the Hon. Ms. Stronach for only a day.

"Baloney, And I certainly am not in it for the lifestyle." Yes, you should see the digs for her dad's outfit, called the Magna compound by locals. Stunning in the English manor sort of stunning.

Belinda maintains she just wanted the budget passed and she didn't think Stephen Harper should've pushed for a vote without more party support in Quebec.

She does talk about Harper, who is clearly not her kind of guy. "I wanted to see a modern mainstream party. The Conservative party is not the party of Brian Mulroney, fiscally conservative but socially liberal. They are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Canadians are more middle of the road."

Sounds pretty sensible, really, but that didn't stop conservative commentators from going completely bonkers.

Emerson, I suppose, could make a similar claim that he was following his principles, coming as he does from the Blue Grit camp of the Liberal Party.

David Emerson was first elected to the House of Commons, in 2004. He attended the University of Alberta and obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in economics. He then went on to Queen’s University, where he received his doctorate in economics.

In 1975, Mr. Emerson joined the Government of British Columbia, becoming the province's deputy minister of finance in 1984.

In 1986, Mr. Emerson left government to become president and CEO of the Western and Pacific Bank of Canada. Four years later, he was appointed deputy minister of finance, then deputy minister to the Premier and later president of B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

In 1992, David Emerson was appointed to lead the newly created Vancouver International Airport Authority. In 1998, Mr. Emerson was appointed president and CEO of Canfor Corporation.

So more power to him, I say. If he does his job well, the people of Vancouver-Kingsway will probably accept his floor-crossing as part of politics as usual. Certainly Stronach earned the respect and trust of her consituents, winning the last election more convincingly than she did as a Conservative.

Regardless, I calmly await the principled rage the Blogging Tories will no doubt send the traitorous Mr. Emerson's way.

Update: Edited to correct the name of Mr. Emerson's riding. (Thanks to Declan for noting the error.)

Murphy staying on

Tim Murphy, the chief of staff to Prime Minister Paul Martin, will be part of Liberal opposition leader Bill Graham's office, PoliticsWatch has learned.

Murphy's appointment was made during a meeting of chiefs of staff on Parliament Hill Wednesday.

It is not clear exactly in what capacity he will serve the new leader of the opposition, but one source said he will be "playing a role."

This is another development that has some of us wondering.

High-security centre to house terror suspects

Call it Guantanamo North, or perhaps Guantanamo Lite.

What's for sure is that the new high-security detention centre being built near Kingston to house foreign terrorism suspects is exceedingly small, with space for just six inmates.

As things stand, that should pose no problem for Canada's security needs. Just four people -- all Arab nationals -- are believed detained under the government's controversial security certificates. All are resisting deportation on grounds that they fear persecution if sent home.

A fifth man is free on bail in Montreal, subject to severe restrictions. None of the five has been charged with a crime.

The self-contained unit, under construction behind the walls of maximum-security Millhaven Penitentiary, is due to open at the end of March and all four suspects will be going there, Correctional Service Canada spokeswoman Michele Pilon-Santilli said yesterday.

Martin to split duties with interim leader Bill Graham

Paul Martin says he will continue as the Liberal party's leader until a convention to replace him is held, but he will hand over his parliamentary duties to interim leader Bill Graham.

The outgoing prime minister cited tradition on Wednesday in making his decision.

At this point some of us aren't going to accept that any talk about policy from the Liberals can be taken as anything more than window dressing until they've shown that they've started to look seriously at the process inside their own party.

This piece in the National Post* by Adam Radwanski on his adventures in the LPC is an interesting read (if you can get to it before it disappears). It speaks of a party that's far more about power than policy and one that insists it should govern because it's entitled to, not because it deserves to. That's the perception that the Liberals need to overcome and having Bill Graham in charge during Question Period while Martin continues to be the leader behind the scenes doesn't do that.

Hat-tip to Bad Red Apple for the National Post story.

* And thanks to The Tiger In Exile for a permanent link to the Radwanski article.

I see that Canada's own Green Knight is up for a Koufax Award* for best post. Congratulations to GK for his much-deserved nomination, and best of luck at winning. Reviewing the list of nominees, he is in fine company, and if you read his entire post you will see why. It is a superb dissertation on the foundations of liberalism, and how those foundations are distorted through the right wing lens:

When right-wingers accuse liberals of intolerance, they assume that they're accusing liberals of hypocrisy. Their notion is that liberalism is simply another name for tolerance, by which they mean putting up with everything anybody wants to do, be, or say. Their idea is that tolerance, per se, is the central (or only) quality of liberalism, and that therefore liberals have to put up with everything and anything (including, say, dominionism or creationism or bigotry) or else be morally inconsistent.

Here's why that's wrong.

First of all, liberalism is not now and has never been about absolute tolerance. That is simply a red herring. The central, core idea of liberalism is in fact this: Institutions serve the people. We do not serve them. The job of the government is to serve the people. The job of the police and military is to protect the people. The job of the corporations is to provide goods, services, and jobs to the people. The job of the churches is to bring good counsel and wisdom to the people. The job of the schools is to educate the people's children.

This idea has a lot of implications, but the most important one is that Institutions do not by themselves have the authority to determine morality; every person's conscience has that authority. If you are a religious person, that means that God speaks to your soul; but he does not speak to or through your society's official structures. That means that people may differ on what they consider right and wrong; it does not mean that there is no right and wrong. It means that I personally have to take responsibility for my moral decisions. The government is not and cannot be the voice of God or conscience for me. I am free to make my own decisions, and I am also responsible for them.

There's more, and I urge you to read it all. Great stuff.

*The Koufax Awards are the American left-side blogosphere's annual awards.

Ricia from the Impetus Green Room has provided me with an opportunity to blog about something a little lighter than our normal fare, and I am going to take her up on it. She tagged the Pogge gang with the latest blogging meme (call it the "meme of four", I guess.):

Four vehicles you've owned:

My first car was a 1978 pine green AMC Hornet, and it was a sexy as that sounds. All the design mojo AMC was famous for went into producing this frumpiest of vehicles, but it got me and my buddies back and forth to college for three years, and was relatively trustworthy.

I went several years without owning a car, using instead a cheap Raleigh mountain bike to get to work and back. Tough slogging in the winter, but wonderfully inexpensive compared to a car.

When I moved north in the late 80s I bought a well-worn 1977 Toyota Corolla. It was cobbled together and jury-rigged so strangely by previous owners, I could only take it to one mechanic in town, as no one else would touch it. Strong men would cringe when I opened the hood. More than once, I heard the question "What the hell is that thing?" from guys who were pretty knowledgeable about engines.

And of course, today I am a minivan owner (two kids after all). I'm not keen on minivans, but I can't deny their usefulness when packing a load of kids around.

Four jobs you've had:

Bingo Hall worker.
Warehouseman in a refrigerated warehouse.
Newspaper reporter.
Newspaper editor.

Quite a career arc, eh?

Four places you've lived:

I've never lived outside of Canada: Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. If I ever decided to emigrate (which I doubt), the only real candidates would be New Zealand or the British Isles.

Four vacations you've taken:

As a younger man I travelled to Europe several times. My first trip took in Germany and France. My second Germany and the Netherlands. I highly recommend the Netherlands - a wonderful mixture of high culture and hedonism. One minute you're in the Rijksmuseum, experiencing art by some of the greatest minds in history, the next you're quaffing a Turkish coffee amid pungent clouds of hashish smoke in the Bulldog Cafe.

But that was another life, of course. Now, my wife and I take our kids across Canada to see demanding relatives who refuse to travel to the NWT. Last year, we got rebellious and refused to travel back to Ontario and Nova Scotia, and instead took the kids on a camping trip across Alberta, basing ourselves at Dinosaur Provincial Park. Best family vacation we ever took, although the Alberta badlands get outrageously hot at the height of summer.

And now let's pass on the tag to four others:

The Stageleft crew
Damian Brooks
Declan
Antonia Zerbisias (I've never know her to do memes, but I thought I'd go out on a limb on this last one.)