April 2006 Archives

A towering figure (literally: he was 6' 8" tall) in twentieth-century North American thought and writing about economics and politics, a beguiling story-teller, friend and confidant but also often fearless critic of the powerful, John Kenneth Galbraith, the man from Iona Station, Ontario, died yesterday in Cambridge, Mass., at the age of ninety-seven.

In a brief summary of his career, the CBC characterizes him as "the Canadian-born Harvard professor who won worldwide renown as a liberal economist, backstage politician and witty chronicler of affluent society." The New York Times provides a substantial overview of Galbraith's long career at the centre of imperial power, and some hints of his prickly charm as a person and a writer both:

Mr. Galbraith was one of the most widely read authors in the history of economics; among his 33 books was "The Affluent Society" (1958), one of those rare works that forces a nation to re-examine its values. He wrote fluidly, even on complex topics, and many of his compelling phrases — among them "the affluent society," "conventional wisdom" and "countervailing power" — became part of the language.

... Mr. Galbraith was consulted frequently by national leaders, and he gave advice freely, though it may have been ignored as often as it was taken. Mr. Galbraith clearly preferred taking issue with the conventional wisdom he distrusted.

He strived to change the very texture of the national conversation about power and its nature in the modern world by explaining how the planning of giant corporations superseded market mechanisms. His sweeping ideas, which might have gained even greater traction had he developed disciples willing and able to prove them with mathematical models, came to strike some as almost quaint in today's harsh, interconnected world where corporations devour one another.

"The distinctiveness of his contribution appears to be slipping from view," Stephen P. Dunn wrote in The Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics in 2002.

Mr. Galbraith, a revered lecturer for generations of Harvard students, nonetheless always commanded attention.

Robert Lekachman, a liberal economist who shared many of Mr. Galbraith's views on an affluent society that they both thought not generous enough to its poor or sufficiently attendant to its public needs, once described the quality of his discourse as "witty, supple, eloquent, and edged with that sheen of malice which the fallen sons of Adam always find attractive when it is directed at targets other than themselves."

I've been keeping a weather eye on this story. Its about the most serious threat to a free and open Internet we've yet seen:

Do you prefer to search for information on line with Google or Yahoo? What about bargain shopping -- do you go to Amazon or eBay? Many of us make these kinds of decisions several times a day, based on who knows what -- maybe you don't like bidding, or maybe Google's clean white search page suits you better than Yahoo's colorful clutter.

But the nation's largest telephone companies have a new business plan, and if it comes to pass you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google. Or that Amazon's Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay's

The changes may sound subtle, but make no mistake: The telecommunications companies' proposals have the potential, within just a few years, to alter the flow of commerce and information -- and your personal experience -- on the Internet. For the first time, the companies that own the equipment that delivers the Internet to your office, cubicle, den and dorm room could, for a price, give one company priority on their networks over another.

Whoa! That's not the way its been 'till now. Historically, since the Internet began, all content on it has been treated equally - web content companies (Google, E-bay) can't buy preferential treatment from the Internet Service Provider (ISP) whose pipeline you use to access the World Wide Web. But that may be about to change:

AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts! Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"

That means the end of 'network neutrality'. What is network neutrality?

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider."

We all remember Maclean's, don't we? Canada's "national magazine"? Founded in 1905?

So, ok, maybe it had been gathering a little moss since its glory days as a features magazine under the legendary editor Ralph Allen in the 1950s, or Gzowski, Templeton, and Newman in the 1960s and early 1970s. So maybe Newman's repositioning of Maclean's as a pale imitation of American newsmagazines was a little limp in the first place and mostly flaccid after that.

So maybe it needed a bit of a shake-up. An editor with a genius for marketing, the boy-wonder who had already made such a resounding financial success of the National Post and Saturday Night. A man who knows the edge when he sees it, and knows just how close to it he can creep without going right over.

I haven't read Maclean's except in waiting rooms for donkey's years - life is short, after all - but rumours reach me. I had gathered that lefty pundits like Rick Salutin were going to be less than charmed with a Maclean's that begins its right-wing editorials on its covers, that criticizes George W. Bush from an only slightly less extreme and still made-in-corporate-America conservative point of view.

But surely we all tug our forelocks in the presence of originality and creativity, yes? And we all want to know how it is done. Well, this morning we had a lesson. Rick Salutin, on discovering that his acid assessment of the new Maclean's has been co-opted for marketing purposes:

Sham endorsement alert: Maclean's magazine's latest promo pack includes a line I wrote: "Welcome to the new era at Maclean's." That's literally accurate, but tends to miss the dripping sarcasm and disgust with which it was employed in the original column, on the new editor Ken Whyte's retooling of the magazine into a, er, tool for U.S.-style neo-conservatism. I'm happy to provide alternate copy for the next go: "Don't blame me if you subscribed to this mean-spirited exercise in contempt for readers and manipulation of news." Feel free. I waive any right to object.

So that's how it is done. Oldest trick in the book. Your POGGE correspondent says, "A breathtaking display of tacky, cynical opportunism, of profound contempt and condescension towards its own readers," and next month's promo from Maclean's will read, "Breathtaking! Profound! -- POGGE International."

While the Conservatives were in opposition and subsequently on the campaign trail, they were quite right to point out that accountability and transparency were issues on which recent Liberal governments were pretty much stinking up the joint. What Harper and crew failed to mention was that, given the opportunity, they intended to be even worse.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done a complete about-face, introducing plans that would increase government secrecy after campaigning on openness, says Canada’s information czar.

The proposed Accountability Act, now being debated in the House of Commons, will actually make government less accountable when it comes to making information available to Canadians, Information Commissioner John Reid said Friday.

In a special report to Parliament, Reid said no government has ever put forward "a more retrograde and dangerous" set of proposals to change the Access to Information Act since the legislation first came into effect in 1983.

Updated below

The Globe and Mail is at its unctuous worst this morning with a giddy little love song to Stephen Harper's capitulation to the Americans on softwood lumber.

OTTAWA and WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has delivered what two Liberal predecessors could not: a truce in the five-year softwood lumber dispute with the United States that will buy peace for nearly a decade.

Canada and the United States agreed yesterday to a seven-year deal -- with the option of renewing for two more -- that ends one of this nation's costliest trade wars and returns $4-billion (U.S.) in U.S.-collected duties to Canadian firms.

"Canada's bargaining position was strong, our conditions were clear and this agreement delivers," Mr. Harper told Parliament yesterday as he announced the deal.

"Canada asked for stable and predictable access to the U.S. market. The United States has agreed to provide Canadian producers with unrestricted access under current market conditions," he said.

"This is what Canada wanted. This is what Canada got."

Actually, this is what Harper wanted: something he could hold up as a victory, and we will be hearing about this ad nauseum in the next election campaign. The deal in fact is a capitulation to American lumber interests, who got everything they wanted, including getting to keep a billion dollars stolen - a strong word, I know, but let's call a spade a spade - from Canada.

Updated below

As you will recall:

"The question is this: if there are energy shortages, in which of the three NAFTA countries are citizens most likely to freeze in the dark?"

So where does all this lead?

Some believe that the world as we have known it is about to change.

[US] Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) is talking about what he thinks could be the biggest challenge in our nation's history.

"The world has never faced a problem like this," Bartlett said.

A huge and sustained increase in the price of oil that would devastate our economy and the world economy, and would force all of us to change the way we live. Why?

It is a phenomenon known as "peak oil." The idea is that oil is a finite resource. There is only so much of it in the ground, and eventually we will start to run out.

And because energy-hungry nations like China and India are in the midst of economic booms, the demand for energy is increasing daily, while the supply of oil, if it is shrinking, will make oil scarcer, and much more expensive.

Some of us remember gasoline prices of 29 cents a gallon or less. Today, we have gotten used to gas prices that were once unthinkable. But what if gas prices were $7 a gallon, or more?

Our economy and way of life has been built around affordable oil. Many of us live in the suburbs. We have to drive to work, to grocery stores, to just about everywhere. We enjoy a high standard of living, thanks to affordable goods and services made possible because of cheap energy.

An oil price spike to perhaps $200 dollars a barrel or more could wreck whole sectors of our economy, like the airline industry, which is already hurting from oil at $70 a barrel. Just think what would happen if airline ticket prices tripled from today's levels!

We'd be grounded, that's what!

The old idea of uniting the left has reared its head again after the National Post ran a story showing there are some voters who would aupport a merger of the Liberals and the NDP.

Not having much of a stake in either party, I can look at this issue somewhat dispassionately. Is there a need for such a merger, and would it be beneficial to Canada? Staunch party supporters on either side would tell you there is no way for the two political cultures to ever meld. That may be so, but the prospect is nonetheless intriguing. The NDP have solid progressive bona fides, while the Liberals like being in power. The two parties have co-operated in the past, and there are opportunities for accommodation of a wide range of beliefs. Think of it as a melding of NDP idealism with Liberal practicality.

As with the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party, there are ideological outliers in each Party who will never be convinced of the practicality of such a merger. Blue Grits are far to the right of even the most centrist NDP supporters, and the NDP is a fairly large leftist tent that includes many who consider (quite rightly, in my opinion) the Liberals to be liberal in name only. Would a merged party of the left encompass the best of both, or would the new creation simply subsume one party at the expense of the other?

The idea of a merger between the NDP and the Liberal Party is once again making the rounds.

Voters like idea of a Liberal-NDP merger: poll
A new poll, released as two more left-leaning candidates prepare to enter the Liberal leadership race, suggests a merger of the Liberal and New Democratic parties could be an electoral winner.

The Decima Research poll found that 25 per cent of Canadians believed the two parties should unite.

Voters who supported either of the two parties in last winter's election were even more receptive to the idea: 36 per cent of Liberals favoured a merger and 32 per cent of New Democrats....

No Liberal leadership contender has so far advocated a formal merger of the two parties. But several of the perceived frontrunners, including Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are making a pitch for disenchanted voters who fled to the NDP in the Jan. 23 election.

Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, advocates uniting "progressive'' voters while Ignatieff, a rookie Toronto MP and acclaimed scholar, is urging the party to plant its flag firmly on the centre-left of the political spectrum....

The field will tilt a bit more to the left Thursday, when Gerard Kennedy, former Ontario education minister and one-time food bank founder, formally joins the race....

The leftward tilt will become even more pronounced Friday when another perceived left-winger, onetime hockey great Ken Dryden, becomes the tenth candidate to throw his hat in the ring.

This is an idea I intend to strongly support - about three weeks after the first flock of pigs flies by on their way to watch hell freeze over.

I am a very busy person these days. Consequently, my grand POGGE debut was to have been delayed until the middle of May. When (graciously) invited, I figured it would take an issue of life and death to cause me to risk academic peril by procrastinating during exams. Well guess what? That’s exactly what’s come along.

I’ve read with interest the various positions taken on the CPC decision to bar media coverage of our fallen soldiers’ return to Canada. I’ll not link to them all here because they are too numerous and I’m sure most of the readers will have read a similar cross-section themselves. While I was sufficiently agitated by a few authors to compose a post in direct response to their rationale, I’ve decided instead to simply put forth my own take on the subject in as non-confrontational a tone as I can muster. It’s a complex thing to articulate, so please bear with me.

Our Canadian approach to media coverage of conflict has always brought me a certain sense of security. I felt that so long as we continued to value life to the extent demonstrated by our collective participation in each soldier’s return, that our priorities were correct. I believed that as long as we kept looking at the true cost of conflict in terms of the lives lost, that we would never commit to a dishonourable war. I considered the American way of treating soldiers as anonymous “assets” to be disturbing and wrong. I thought that if the American public had to realize exactly who they lost each time a soldier died, that maybe our last superpower would be more judicious in its pursuits.

I felt that we in Canada had this right. We always knew who we lost, and who they left behind. We watched those who knew them best - their families and colleagues - conduct the ceremonies (like greeting the caskets) that help us all through our grief. This process serves to impart an immense appreciation for these, our best citizens, and the sacrifice they are willing to make in Canada’s name. I always watched because I felt I owed it to the soldier and their family to see it. While I understand this to be a privilege, I’ve also come to expect it as part of living in Canada.

At the risk of repeating myself, I see once again that Stephen Harper's Conservatives are emulating their neoconservative cousins to the south. As every sentient, non-kool aid drunk being knows by now, neoconservative policies are designed to benefit the wealthy, with the long-term goal of creating a wealthy ruling class and a poorly educated working class.

The Conservatives' child care "benefit" appears to be lifted directly from this philosophy. Thanks to the Cons planned elimination of the young-child supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, higher income Canadians will benefit the most from the child care payout, while lower- and middle-income Canadians will end up netting less than $200 annually from the program.

OTTAWA — Low- and middle-income families will realize the smallest net benefit from the Harper government's $1,200-a-year child-care payment in part because the Conservatives are scrapping a separate assistance program.

The Conservative plan for meeting the country's child-care needs is to give families a direct payment of $100 a month, $1,200 annually, for every child under 6. The specifics of how that plan will be unveiled are expected to be in next Tuesday's budget.

But the young-child supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, which currently pays $20.25 a month to parents who do not claim child-care expenses for their preschool-age children, will be eliminated at the same time. The benefit is due to increase in July to $249 annually.

The Tories outlined their intention during the election campaign to scrap the young-child supplement, and the government confirmed that it will do so to the Caledon Institute, a think tank that deals with child-care issues.

In a report to be released today, the institute takes the government to task for rolling the young-child supplement into the child-care allowance.

The report, called "The incredible shrinking $1,200 child-care allowance and how to fix it," says the supplement most often goes to families of low or modest income because higher-income parents are more likely to claim child-care expenses and are therefore disqualified from receiving the payment.

"When we factor that into the analysis," said Ken Battle, the institute's president, "it makes the inequality gap between the child-care allowance benefits for low- and modest-income families and high-income families all the wider, because the low-income families are losing that $249 annually whereas higher-income families never got it."

In the words of Adam Vaughan as reported at Pulse24.com:

“She was one of the first and clearly the leading critic of urban planning in this century,” he recounts. “She defined what was wrong with North America and western cities.

"She proposed solutions and mentored politicians and planners and architects and activists first in New York City where she was located and then later in Toronto …

“When she landed in Toronto, her impact and influence on this city is seen in every single neighbourhood, on every single main street in every single thing you see in the city, from the dipped sidewalks to the bicycle grates, to the trees, to the front porches …

“She was a mentor and an influence on virtually every progressive politician in this city.”

Breaking news and Tim's recent posts 'The Abyss' and 'Manufacturing another war', not to mention his prescient 'The future's been sold' (March 10, 2006), got me wondering: Why all the sabre-rattling?

I was jolted out of my peaceful reverie by this: Oil prices top record $75 US a barrel

And what are we doing about it? Precisely nothing:

The spike in world oil prices after Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to plan for coming oil and natural gas shortages. The Americans are discussing how to ensure security of supply. So are politicians in many countries. But not in Canada. We now have only 8.7 years of proven supply of natural gas. Conventional oil production is falling. Alberta's tar sands have plenty of oil, but it comes with horrific environmental damage. During an election campaign [recently], Canada's main political party leaders seem[ed] oblivious to Canada's energy security needs.

The question is this: if there are energy shortages, in which of the three NAFTA countries are citizens most likely to freeze in the dark?

Mexico, which along with Canada, exports the most oil to the US, could weather such a shock. Mexico's independent policy ensures public ownership and first access for domestic needs. Of the three NAFTA countries, only Canada has no plans for oil shortages even though Canada imports 1.3 mm bpd, about half of current use.

Where do the political parties stand on security of supply? The Liberals are committed to the Kyoto Accord, public transit, and wind power, but don't mention supply security. Neither do the Conservatives, who offer taxcredits for transit users, funds for environmental cleanup, [and] reviewing the Kyoto Accord. The Block favours Kyoto, making polluters pay, supporting wind, and taxing oil profits. The NDP has the greenest and most comprehensive energy policy, emphasizing job creation, renewables, protecting low income families and using oil to bargain with the US on softwood lumber.

But, even the best environmental policies will not help much as long as Canada is locked into exporting 70% of its oil and 56% of its natural gas to the US. Under NAFTA's proportionality rules, we must continue exporting at least the same proportion of energy to the US, even if we face shortages. If Canada conserves energy, as it must, we will export more of our dwindling supplies so that Americans can maintain their SUV "fix". Canada, and Alberta in particular, is the continent's environmental sacrifice zone.

Tories keep media away from coffins

The Conservative government has taken steps to keep the public from seeing images of flag-draped coffins when fallen soldiers are returned home from Afghanistan.

For the first time since the Afghan mission began, the government will shut down an Ontario airfield when the remains of four soldiers killed over the weekend are returned Tuesday.

Government officials said the new directive is permanent.

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor insisted politics had nothing to do with closing the Trenton air base for Tuesday’s return ceremony.

Senior government officials said the decision to restrict access to CFB Trenton was O’Connor’s.

But other government sources said the edict came directly from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office, and that defence brass were ordered to keep the media at bay.

A source at the Department of National Defence said that the request for privacy did not come from the military, and flew in the face of longstanding Canadian Forces practice.

Sometimes, fate takes a hand in a way that just makes my day. Like this, for example:

A small New Brunswick publishing house has a bestseller on its hands after the author was discouraged from attending a promotional event by the federal government.

Demand for Hotter Than Hell, the obscure debut novel from Ottawa scientist Mark Tushingham, has forced DreamCatcher Publishing of Saint John, N.B., to order a second printing of the book.

"Things have just gone crazy," publisher Elizabeth Margaris told CBC News. "I guess you could say they're hotter than hell."

Late last year, Margaris published Tushingham's fictional book, set in the not-so-distant future and dealing with the effects of global warming and a Canada-U.S. battle over fresh water.

The title had received little notice and minor sales until an incident in Ottawa earlier this month.

Margaris had organized a luncheon on April 17 in Ottawa, where Tushingham lives and works, in an attempt to spark interest in the book.

Tushingham was scheduled to attend the luncheon and speak about the science behind his book. However, he cancelled after receiving an order from the office of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose cautioning him against the appearance.

A spokesperson for Ambrose later said that the speech was billed as coming from an Environment Canada scientist and even though Tushingham's book is a work of fiction, he would have appeared to be speaking in an official capacity.

PORT SLUMBERTOWN, N.S. - The media is converging on this tiny Nova Scotia fishing village in a frenzied effort to land the first interview with Morris Finster, the only citizen left in Canada to not seek the leadership of the federal Liberal Party.

"We want to know what is going on in this person's headspace, dude," said Toronto Star reporter Rainbow Moonflower Peacenik, taking time to put down her bong and respond to interview questions. "32 million other Canadians can't be wrong. Unless they vote Conservative, of course. Then they're fascists."

Reporter Lyswell Tokkingpoint of the National Post said he was keen to land an interview with the one person who is not seeking to become "the top Commie."

"This could be the last true conservative in the land," said Tokkingpoint. "I'm keen to hear his opinions on how tax cuts improve government services, how public health care kills babies, and why we need to invade Cameroon."

The media frenzy has caught the tiny community of 162 people by surprise, and not everyone is pleased with the attention Finster is receiving.

"Everyone is concentrating on Morris, and really, what has he got to say?" said Margaret Grimley, who runs the local general store, craft shop and drive-thru plastic surgery clinic. "He's just an apolitical weirdo whose lack of ambition is making it difficult for serious leadership candidates like me to get our message out."

The unprecedented interest in the Liberal leadership would normally have commentators scratching their heads, but since all the usual commentators are running for the leadership, the pundits have been quiet on this issue.

"I don't think I should comment on the level of interest in the race," said Todd Kinghead, anchor for the Canadian News Television News Network News Service (News Division). "My campaign team and I - well, I am my own campaign team, but anyway - I am currently fleshing out my platform, and dodging interview requests from myself as to how the campaign will unfold. Until I am ready, though, I am not going to give myself the time of day. I don't want me to boil my statements down into the meaningless little soundbites I love so much."

The party leadership race ballooned from about 30 politicians to every other citizen of the country when it became clear that the minority government of Stephen Harper would be short-lived. Every citizen has their own unique reason for seeking the job that many believe is a direct ticket to the PMO.

"I'm from Vancouver," said Ajay Singh. "Have you seen the real estate prices here lately? The thought of living in Sussex Drive for free - in fact, while getting paid - is just too tempting. Becoming PM is my best chance at getting affordable housing."

"Although I am a separatist, the thought of sucking off the federal teat for a few years before we finally destroy this country is very attractive to me," said Serge Poupon. "My only problem is that I couldn't screw up the country as much as the previous office holders no matter how hard I tried. Damn, this country is harder to kill than one would think."

Former Liberal leader Jean Chretien has thrown his hat back into the ring in an effort to regain his old job. "My reason is pretty simple," he said. "I learned dere was more money left, and da t'ought of dat money not going to starving ad agency children in Montreal was just too heartbreaking."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is also running for the Liberal leadership. He released a few reporters from the locked cage he keeps them in and reluctantly allowed them to quote him on his decision.

"It's a two-fer for me, really," said the Prime Minister. "If I lose the election as a Conservative, being the leader of the Liberal Party leaves me a nice fallback position. Plus, I love the though of campaigning against me. Have you seen me stump? Gawd, I suck. I should be able to kick my butt."

Meanwhile, Finster is doing his best to avoid the limelight. "Look, I just want to be left alone to do my fishing and care for my boat," he said. "Why would I want a shitty job that leads to becoming prime minister, another shitty job?

"Now if the NDP leadership comes open," he added, "colour me interested!"

If you scroll down a bit you'll find our newest blogger writing about an older blogger. I've just added macadavy to the list of contributors at the right. In fact, due to the wonders of the alphabet he gets top billing. You don't suppose he chose that handle on purpose, do you?

So now we are five. And apparently my pop culture references go over everyone's head.

As an anglo kid growing up in Quebec I frequently read, and very much liked, the writing of reporter Boyce Richardson in the old Montreal Star. So I was delighted to discover he's still going strong at Boyce'sPaper. Only now that he's no longer a journalist for some media conglomerate, the gloves are off:

"When I started Boyce'sPaper more than 10 years ago, the word Blog had never been heard of. I started it as, originally, "a sounding-off board", just a place in which to write stuff that was of interest to me, to give me some place to express an opinion. The newspapers, since the arrival of Conrad Black and his minions, had closed up to me, and even the Canadian Forum, that mildly leftist weekly for which I contributed many articles, rejected an article attacking multinational corporations and their ethos, on the ground that "everybody knows what's in this article." (It turned out, everybody didn't know: when I circulated it on various lists, it aroused interest across the world, went on web sites in Europe, Australia and the United States, and gave the lie to the new caution of Canadian Forum. I decided that was it for me and journalism, and renounced the profession from that moment on. The Canadian Forum (he says, pretending to have had something to do with it) is now dead."

So it may be one of the world's oldest blogs (he's got the retro-HTML to prove it!) - written by someone who may just be one of the world's oldest bloggers:

"I suppose I should add to those factors the fact that I am getting old. I recently turned 78..."

The country is at a crossroads. We have elected our most right wing government ever, and it seems intent on dismantling the Canada we come to know and love.

Internationally, one ruinous major war rages while the malignant and unstable forces of neoconservatism cue up another target for destruction, even invoking the dreaded possiblity of nuclear war.

Environmentally, the world stands at the brink, as our own shortsightedness and greed propel us into an unknown landscape of megastorms and flooded coastlines.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these are indeed bleak times.

[geek mode]

But, hey! When there's news as great as this, who frickin' cares!?

J.J. Abrams is becoming the next Gene Roddenberry. Paramount is breathing life into its "Star Trek" franchise by setting "Mission: Impossible III" helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature, aiming for a 2008 release.

Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams' producing team from "Lost," also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.

Project, to be penned by Abrams and "MI3" scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto OrciRoberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.

Frolic, inner geek! Frolic like the wind! Wheeeeeee!

[/geek mode]

We now return to regularly scheduled political commentary.

["Frolic like the wind"? WTF? - Ed.]

First things first: nobody has been killed or seriously injured, and that matters.

But the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have some 'splainin' to do today after their bungled raid on a group of Six Nations protesters peacefully occupying a disputed tract of land near Caledonia in southwestern Ontario.

Curiously enough, the OPP are in the middle of quite a lot of 'splainin' at this very moment, over at the Ipperwash Inquiry, where questions about their assault on a group of unarmed First Nations protesters in September 1995 are at least complicated by questions about possible political pressure from the office of then-premier Mike Harris. The juxtaposition is astonishing. You'd think they'd learn, wouldn't you?

Premier McGuinty is insisting that he's learned. According to reports so far, no one knew of an immediate reason for the police raid just before dawn Thursday morning, much less of the raid itself. The developers who bought the land in 1992 had warned on Wednesday that they were going to take the OPP to court unless the occupiers were removed, but representatives of the Six Nations reserve and the federal and provincial governments had met in ongoing negotiations on Wednesday evening, and the raid seems to have come as a surprise to them all. The deputy commissioner of the OPP says darkly that those talks "did not lead to resolution of the land issue," leaving us to wonder whether the man quite grasps the meaning of the word negotiation, especially on this turf.

Stephen Harper has a message for us: we are not worthy of his leadership. We are Wayne and Garth before his divine Alice Cooper-like presence.

The media is getting in the way of his message, protestors are boring him with their same old song and dance, and academics (except for the unique brand of Calgary School academic wingnut that raised him from a fledgling anti-tax crusader to a full-blown neocon) well, don't get him started. Yes, the PM is vexed these days, and we are not meeting his high standards.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been out all week, aggressively flying in the face of all those who would dare to challenge him, and "Liberal" Toronto is the final stop on that tour.

Today, at a noontime speech at the Royal York Hotel, Harper is expected to hammer away at the formula he believes is working for him: move full-speed ahead with his own agenda, taunt an impressively long list of enemies and rally conservative sentiment to the cause.

The formula has its careful code words and props: Harper pointedly describes himself as head of "the new government" while surrounding himself with the symbols of office, from the big podium to the tiny Canadian flag affixed to his lapel.

Harper is intent on reasserting more traditional symbols of family, the military and the Arctic instead of symbols like multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights, which came to be associated with the Liberals.

As PMO communications director Sandra Buckler explained a while back to the parliamentary press gallery executive: "We're a different kind of government and we place a heavy value on communications and we like the visuals."

Hmmmm...who does that description remind me of? Oh yeah, him. Well, we all have our sources of inspiration, I guess. I had hoped Harper would have better taste in role models, but looking at his past associations, I don't know where that hope might have sprung from.

It has been said many times that politics makes strange bedfellows. Never has that been more true than in the case of the Hon.? David Emerson, the spotted black-and-white cat (ref. 'Mouseland, T.C. Douglas) elected Liberal MP for Vancouver-Kingsway who shortly (very shortly!) after the election jumped to the Regressive Preservative Party.
Mr Emerson now tells us he doesn't much care for whom he's been sleeping with. Sorry, fella you've made your bed - now lie in it! Furthermore:

"Emerson also said he is not content being in the Conservative cabinet and would like to get out of politics if he could, according to Epworth.

He said he would have quit by now but his wife wouldn't let him."

Oh puleeez, David, feel free to resign anytime - anytime at all!

Sign recall petition here

I wrote a post earlier this week in which I suggested that war with Iran would be incredibly foolish, and that I doubted that the intentions of the Bush administration in regards to Iran were honourable ones. Now, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly has found evidence that this is indeed the case. In 2003, Iran's government made overtures by way of the Swiss toward the United States in an effort to settle some of the areas of dispute between the two nations, including a recognition ont he part of Iran that they would have to address western concerns aobut their weapons programs. The Bush administration response was to rebuke the Swiss ambassador for carrying the message.

It started on May 6, 2003, shortly after George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On that day the Associated Press reported without elaboration that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman had confirmed that "Iran has exchanged messages with U.S. officials about Iraq through the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Tehran. He declined to give details."

What was that all about? Last January, Flynt Leverett, who worked for Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council, provided some initial clues:

"In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line."

There is much more, and I encourage you to read Drum's entire post.

The Bush administration does not want peace with Iran. It wants another boogeyman with which to frighten the U.S. population into supporting them in another disastrous military action. There is no depth to which these people will not sink; no action to vile for them to undertake.

There is a petition circulating urging the nomination of Stephen Lewis for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Lewis is the UN Secretary General's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. You can find the petition here:

Stephen Lewis needs recognition, not for himself, but for his cause. We would ask the committee to seriously consider Stephen Lewis for the 2007 Nobel Peace prize. As such, Africa would be put in the media spotlight, giving further credence to his campaign for change, in the lives of the poor and marginalised on the continent of Africa.

Late last summer there was a flurry of international comment on Lewis's work in Africa because he seemed to be offending some important people. He dared, for instance, to express frustration at the potential reversal of the "Ugandan miracle," publicly linking a change in contraception policy to pressure on the Ugandan government from the Bush administration:

"At the moment, the government of Uganda appears to be under the influence of the American policy through the presidential initiative of emphasising abstinence far and away over condoms," he said.

He suggested US President George Bush, who launched his multi-billion dollar campaign to tackle Aids in Africa two years ago, was acting under the influence of the religious right in US.

Robert over at My Blahg makes a very interesting discovery:

[W]hile looking through the list of people associated with the Montreal Economic Institute, I happened across a familiar name.

Dr Jacques Chaoulli
Senior Fellow

Funny, but in all those stories about Chaoulli’s court challenge of the Quebec healthcare system I don’t recall it once being mentioned he worked for a conservative astroturf organization. Do you? But knowing this, doesn’t it put the challenge in a whole new light?

Actually, yes, it does. What it looks like now is that Canada's corporate right wing did a very clever and damaging legal end run around our publicly funded medicare system. Meanwhile the media helped hide the fact that Chaoulli wasn't some small town GP on the lookout for the moms and tots in his waiting room.

All the Conservative Party's "support the troops" rhetoric seems a little flat when you couple it with this:

OTTAWA — Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier has been asked to submit advance copies of his public speeches for vetting by the Harper government, a move critics say shows mistrust of the country's blunt-spoken senior general.

"That is highly inappropriate," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said yesterday. "[General Hillier] is not a member of the cabinet. His role is to be a strong voice for our military and in that sense he's independent, so he can speak about the needs of the military."

Defence Department sources confirmed yesterday that Gen. Hillier, a voluble and at times controversial speaker, was asked to run his public remarks by the Minister of Defence before delivering them — a practice that did not occur under the Martin government.

Perhaps Stephen Harper wants to avoid the sort of embarrassment that generals speaking the truth sometimes brings to governments.

Maclean's magazine has certainly gone downhill since Ken Whyte turned it into the weekly National Post. The art design is amateurish, and the stories are poorly written and overly sensational. All this is painful, but there is simply no excuse for incorrect punctuation.

The cover of the April 17 issue issue has a photo of George Bush with the following headline on it:

The worst president in 100 years?

Any else spot the punctuation error? That's right, it has a question mark instead of a period. How sloppy!

Andrew Anderson has put the question to the Canadian blogging community:

My question is a simple one: Do you support military action against Iran? (Why or why not?)

Andrew comes down tepidly in favour of military action, seeing it as the only viable option.

While I did not support the invasion of Iraq for many reasons, the situation in Iran is far different, and military might is increasingly looking like the only option the world has to deal with the dangerous Iranian regime.

Surprisingly, James Bow has a similar response:

We cannot countenance a nuclear-armed nation speaking in terms of “annihilating” a democratic country such as Isreal. As much as such a move might play into the hands of the hardliners in Iran and destabilize Iraq, in the long term this would be better than giving a dictatorship the ability to engage in nuclear blackmail.

Before anybody says it: the United States and Israel are democracies. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. The former have what little moral high ground there is in this case. The sad fact is, when the stakes get this high, sometimes you do have to get your hands dirty.

I’m sure this doesn’t say good things about me, but that’s the way I think.

Harper changes tune on appointments

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is choosing which Conservative MPs will become chairs of Commons committees, reversing a parliamentary reform that he championed while leader of the Official Opposition.

...

Mr. Harper was a vocal critic of appointing chairs when he was leader of the Official Opposition. In 2002, he co-wrote a letter to The Globe with Chuck Strahl, now the Minister of Agriculture, accusing the Liberals of "posturing" on parliamentary reform.

"Standing committees of the House should not simply be extensions of the Prime Minister's Office, and members of Parliament should choose their committee chairs by secret ballot and set their own agenda, free from the Whip's direction," Mr. Harper and Mr. Strahl wrote.

In the fall of 2002, Mr. Harper successfully divided the Liberal caucus by proposing a motion that committee chairs be elected by secret ballot, rather than appointed directly by the Prime Minister. The motion passed when Paul Martin and his supporters in the Liberal caucus broke ranks with then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien.

At the time, Mr. Harper scoffed at Mr. Chrétien's suggestion that the prime minister must select the committee chairs to ensure regional and gender balance.

But now in office, Mr. Harper is planning to avoid the elections by pre-selecting one Conservative MP per committee to put their names forward as chair. This would mean that the person would be acclaimed and a secret ballot unnecessary.

Mr. Harper's spokeswoman, Carolyn Stewart Olsen, said other Conservative MPs are free to trigger a vote by putting their names forward to challenge the government's recommendation.

According to the BBC, the Rumsfeld affair continues to simmer. Gen Wesley Clark (2004 candidate for the Democratic nomination for President) has weighed in:

Gen Clark said he believed Mr Rumsfeld, along with Vice-President Dick Cheney, had helped push the Iraq invasion when there was "no connection with the war on terror".

This is not news for some of us, although it appears many Americans are just waking up to the facts in the case.

The two most senior generals to voice their unease over Mr Rumsfeld were Maj Gen John Riggs and Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, both of the Army.

In a radio interview Gen Riggs, a former division commander, said Mr Rumsfeld fostered an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership.

And where is this atmosphere of arrogance coming from if not straight from the White House? Let it simmer, in time it may come to a boil and cook Mr Bush's goose as well...

I've added skdadl to the Contributors list over there on the right. You may have noticed her recently trying to raise the tone of the place a little. Remember she has a Shrill Middle-Aged Man and Two Grumpy Old Bloggers to contend with so she has her work cut out for her.

So now we are four. Can anyone else hear that stirring theme music swelling in the background? I wonder who else will turn up.

Perhaps if Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay had spent more time doing the job for which he is being (over)paid during his recent trip to Washington instead of embarassing the entire country by acting like a schoolboy looking to get laid by George Bush's office wife, this wouldn't be happening:

The possibly contaminated waters of Devils Lake in North Dakota could start flowing into Manitoba waterways as early as May 1, even though a permanent filter has not been built.

An agreement was signed between Ottawa and Washington last August to build a permanent filter that would purify the waters of alien species before reaching the Red River system...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper pressed U.S. President George W. Bush to do everything in his power to prevent an environmental disaster from happening during their meetings in Mexico last month.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged a 'much more mature' relationship with the U.S. than existed under the Liberals. How's that working for us so far? Little Stevie has his man-date with Bush in Cancun and comes home with a pat on the head. Potato Boy goes to Washington, drools all over Condoleeza Rice and comes back with nothing.

Would somebody please point out to the Harpies that Bushco doesn't give a rat's ass about Canada as long as the oil and electricity keep flowing. Harper's "much more mature relationship" won't accomplish shit. All it means is the Bushwhacker Gang can continue to keep on doing whatever they want but now they don't have to listen to anybody bitch about it.

Ass kissing American politicians has a record of failure. Of course, in the Orwellian world of the Harpies, failure is success.

Regular visitors to Daily Kos will already know that Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (aka Jerome and Kos) have had an old-tech moment, authorized the felling of a few trees, and published a book, Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics.

In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Bill McKibben has written a newbie-friendly essay about the book and about the possibilities of Web political activism implicit in the story of the Dean campaign and the increasingly sophisticated Web-based organizing structures Kos assembled during that campaign and then in reaction to the old Democratic Party establishment.

McKibben is not entirely uncritical of the Kossaks. He recognizes that they have become focused on winning, and his reflections on that shift among American liberals are nuanced. Mainly, though, he is an enthusiast, and the fast survey he does of the left blogosphere (American section, of course) in part 2 of his essay is a useful introduction to the best-known and most influential sites.

To me, the lessons still come through most powerfully when they emerge from a careful, dogged narration of events, as here:

The reason the Dean campaign collapsed in Iowa, the authors argue persuasively, was largely that the new kind of campaign he was assembling threatened so many powerful people, from rich donors used to the kingmaking power their money gave them to "media advisers" unhappy at seeing their conventional wisdom ignored. Jerome and Kos tell the story of the series of TV ads that helped turn the polls against Dean; they were sponsored by a mysterious new group called Americans for Jobs and Healthcare and they showed, among other things, the face of Osama bin Laden in order to argue that "Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy." A few months later when mandatory financial reports finally emerged, it turned out that the ads had been financed by supporters of John Kerry and Richard Gephardt and organized by the "disgraced, corrupt former New Jersey senator Robert Torricelli." All in all, the backers of the ad had given more than $8.7 million to the Democratic Party in the previous few years. Dean made plenty of political gaffes on his own but he had been eliminated by powerful Democrats.

Peter MacKay has met with Condoleezza Rice, and he was very very very impressed:

"I've always been a fan of yours," Mr. MacKay said. "And much of our discussion today confirmed what I already knew about you from having followed your career."

Secretary Rice, according to Globe and Mail Washington correspondent Alan Freeman, while pleasant, stayed rather more practically on-message as she ran through a checklist of Bush administration foreign-policy commitments -- Haiti, Afghanistan, Iran, Darfur -- thanking Canada for our "help" in Haiti and Afghanistan, at least.

Mr MacKay, ever willing to be even more helpful, very very very strongly echoed each of the items on Secretary Rice's checklist. He was even "very encouraged" by his discussions with Ms Rice of American plans to require new identity documents for all cross-border trips:

He said there was a chance to "ensure that we will lessen the impact of any changes around passport requirements."

...

"I'm very encouraged by the openness that Secretary Rice has demonstrated in talking about it, and being very forthright in their plans."

Secretary Rice said she would keep us "fully informed."

This may come as a shock to some readers, but I am not a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada. I find their vision of a neutered federal government subservient to the provinces repellent, their views on social issues backwards and mean-spirited and their approach to justice cruel and overly punitive.

You can add to that list that they are stupid ideological bastards who will make incredibly destructive decisions as long as they can cut taxes.

The new Conservative government will be making deep spending cuts to programs designed to fight global warming in order to fund tax cuts, according to cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The documents show that the government will slash spending on Environment Canada programs designed to fight global warming by 80 per cent, as well as cuts of 40 per cent to budgets devoted to climate change.

The text reveals that the Tory campaign promise of tax breaks for transit passes would amount to a cost of $2 billion over the span of five years.

However, the government has no evidence the incentives will increase ridership.

"A wide range of data suggests that people are not very responsive to changes in transit fares," said a memo prepared for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose last week by officials in the office of her deputy minister. ". . . while the ridership impacts of the tax incentives are not known with precision, analysis suggests they will be low."

The six-page memo outlines five transit tax-incentive options, making it clear that the government prefers the pass holder tax break.

But its benefits to transit users may be invalidated, the memo states, because "it could be quite easy for the transit authorities to raise their fares to absorb the benefit of the tax credit."

The section of the documents on the budget cuts, written by an unidentified government official after a cabinet meeting in late March that approved the reductions, also said the Tories want to try to claw back $260 million the Liberals had offered to the United Nations to fund its international climate-change programs.

Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, refused to confirm or deny the details in the leak, adding that the government hasn't finalized its decisions on climate change.

"Once there is an announcement to be made, we'll make one," Sparrow told the Globe.

The documents, which were obtained by the opposition Liberals, bolster previous claims that large-scale cuts to climate-change programs are planned.

The documents reveal that while spending cuts are expected, staff positions will be retained.

"Only $375 million was approved for climate spending, with most of the dollars covering staff salaries until the new government determines next steps.

"What is clear is that staff will have little to do and that they will have no budgets to spend over the next year and that more cuts are coming."

According to the documents, the programs are being eliminated to help fund tax cuts, including the GST reduction, which was a key plank in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's election campaign.

The cuts drew fire from environmentalists such as John Bennett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club of Canada, accused the Tories of having a "slash and burn campaign."

The details from the leak were published one day after Climate Action Network Canada made public its accusations the government plans to cut funding to climate change programs.

David Coon, policy director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, encouraged the government to make the fight against climate change a priority.

"Canadians need a vision of hope in the face of the frightening consequences of rapid climate change," Coon said at the press conference on Wednesday. "For that hope they look to their government, and their expectations are high."

Anyone who is interested in good blogging in Canada must have paid a visit to Tilting at Windmills at one time or another. The gang at TAW provide some of the smartest non-partisan commentary around, and they are just plain interesting guys to boot.

Unfortunately, I see that TAW regular Kevin Brennan is packing it in, and given the roller coaster of a year he has coming up, I don't blame him.

Thanks for sharing your insights with us for the past couple of years, Kevin. Here's hoping we'll see you in the comments sometime.

Media relations between the prime minister and the Parliamentary Press Gallery have officially descended into farce. The latest episode in this sad little tug of war saw Stephen Harper trying to control who gets to ask him questions, much like, say, a U.S. president would at a media Q and A. The problem is, in Canada, the tradition has been to allow the media to select the questioners, better ensuring that someone who writes a story unpopular with the government won't be excluded from getting access to the PM.

Although no one covered themselves in glory in today's fracas, Harper came off the worse, petulantly agreeing to answer questions before abruptly departing from the room like Dick Cheney fleeing sunlight.

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper's dispute with the Parliamentary Press Gallery escalated yesterday when he reluctantly ceded control over which journalists could ask about his proposed federal accountability act -- and then took questions from just two of them.

The skirmish began when the press gallery stated its intention to set up two microphones at a morning news conference in the House of Commons lobby. That arrangement would have allowed reporters to determine who could ask questions and in what order. Mr. Harper's press assistant has made those choices ever since the Tories took office.

Some members of the media say that if the Prime Minister's Office controls who gets to ask questions, they won't call on reporters whose stories they don't like.

But Mr. Harper refused to give up the right to pick the questioners. So the news conference was moved down the hall, to a stifling space about the size of a large bedroom, and 128 reporters crammed inside.

Members of the press refused to put their name on the Prime Minister's list and, instead, formed their own line behind a microphone. They were initially told that Mr. Harper would allow no questions under those circumstances but, after giving his opening remarks, he relented.

The Prime Minister took two questions from the first journalist at the microphone then pointed to Tim Naumetz, a CanWest reporter who was seated and unaware of the line-up protocol. Mr. Naumetz stood to ask his question but was loudly chastised by the reporters around him.

"That's what the line-up's about," said one who was standing near the mike.

Mr. Harper was not dissuaded. "Go ahead, Tim. If you want a question, you can," he said. The reporters complained again.

"That's fine. I asked Tim to ask me a question. Go ahead Tim, if you want," replied Mr. Harper. The reporters complained a third time.

"Tim, do you want to ask a question or not?"

Mr. Naumetz started to sit down. "Well, I wasn't aware that there was a line," he explained.

Finally the Prime Minister turned to the first reporter behind the microphone but, after she asked three questions, he abruptly left the room.

No one expected him to go quietly, and it was always possible that he wouldn’t be going at all.

Silvio Berlusconi must be trying just now to think of the Italian election results as a temporary inconvenience. He is challenging the official results, of course, although even he must know that Romano Prodi’s centre-left coalition has certainly defeated him – for the time being. And interestingly, with some help from Italian Canadian voters.

It would be a mistake to think of Berlusconi merely as comic relief on the world stage, indisputably the most, ah, colourful of the European and G8 leaders. It’s awfully tempting, though. He is, after all, the man who ordered the women of Genoa to take in their laundry lines before the 2001 summit so that G8 leaders would not be scandalized at the sight of ladies’ bloomers flapping in the breeze. The man who launched Italy’s presidency of the EU in 2003 by snapping at a German member of the European Parliament that he would be perfectly cast as a Kapo in an upcoming movie about Nazi concentration camps. Who ended that presidency trying to settle a dispute among EU leaders by changing the subject:

"Let's talk about football and women," he suggested to them.

Turning to four-times-married German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, he added: "Gerhard, why don't you start?"

And the man who ended the election campaign (sort of concluded Monday night, but stay tuned) with wild accusations about a mild-mannered opposition that he associates with “Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot” and strange claims that Chinese Communists “boiled babies,” claims that have led, predictably, to polite but pointed diplomatic exchanges with the world’s largest nation. Who felt compelled to tell schoolchildren touring his official residence last Saturday that “all women over twenty-three in show business” have had breast enlargements.

I'm proud of the men and women in uniform in this country for most of the standard reasons (courage, sacrifice, honour, and so on) but their response to the Parliamentary debate on their deployment is simply fantastic.

Kandahar, Afghanistan — Given the difference in time zones, it's fair to say that most Canadian troops in Afghanistan happily snored through every word of the House of Commons debate over Canada's role in this war-torn region.

On reflection Tuesday, however, many said they saw it as an important democratic exercise, one of the principles they put their lives on the line to instill in this fractured, violent country.

“As an open society, we certainly have our own opinions,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of the provincial reconstruction team, based in Kandadar city.

“Some Canadians certainly support the mission, and others may not support the mission. For a variety of reasons, we have to give each and every Canadian their due respect and their own opinion.”

With an 8½-hour time difference between the countries and an early evening Eastern time start for the Commons debate, staying up to hear what MPs had to say about their presence here would have been a stretch, even for the hardcore news junkies.

The pace of operations in southern Afghanistan and the unceasing violence, marked Tuesday by a rocket attack on a school west of Kabul, also left little time to dissect the speeches and political rhetoric.

Before the workday began, troops on the ground had a chance to read only a few brief transcripts of what was said and catch snippets of the late-night Canadian news, beamed in by satellite.

Given how much political attention was focused on the debate back home, some troops were surprised and even disappointed at the sparse Commons turnout, as well as the fact that some MPs left before everyone finished speaking.

“Was the debate useful?” Sergeant Frank Bird asked rhetorically. “In a way yes, and in a way no. If they were going to have a debate like that, they should have all been in the House debating.”

Corporal Peter Bugslag said that just the fact that politicians were talking about them was positive.

“Anything that brings us into the public eye and raises awareness of what we are doing and what we are trying to do here, it has to help,” said the medic, who admitted to being more preoccupied with his duties than the debate.

Sgt. Bird agreed, saying the most positive aspect of the “take note” discussion was that “it told Canadians why we're here again.”

Over the past few days, there has been little discussion or comment among troops about the latest opinion poll in Canada that shows the public is still divided on the more combative role the troops are playing on the world stage.

The country's involvement in Afghanistan since 2002 has cost the lives of 11 soldiers and one diplomat.

Co. Doucette said it is clear the Conservative government is committed to the deployment.

“The soldiers, and I as well, are certainly interested in the results and the message being passed,” said the soft-spoken soldier of 31 years.

“We have our mission and we'll carry on with our mission.”

Well said. It is clear that our soldiers are undisturbed by the clunking machinery of democracy that keep grinding in Ottawa. They are simply professionals committed to getting on with their jobs. If only our MPs could say the same.

I see the Taliban has tossed out some top-notch fodder to drive the wingnuts loopy and convince us that this whole "public debate within a democracy thing" is actually bad for our society. That's right folks, according to the Taliban's PR man in southern Afghanistan, merely debating Canada's mission is Afghanistan is emboldening our enemies, and we should shut up and stop expressing our opinions on the matter.

In a weekend interview with The Canadian Press, insurgent spokesman Qari Yuosaf Ahmedi said the Taliban are convinced the resolve of the Canadian people is weak.

As suicide attacks and roadside blasts increase, the public will quickly grow weary, he said.

“We think that when we kill enough Canadians they will quit war and return home,” Mr. Ahmedi said in an interview, conducted through a translator, over a satellite telephone.

Given the fact troops are already deployed, Mr. Ahmedi suggested Monday's House of Commons debate as a sign of indecision among Canadians.

In addition to his fire-breathing rhetoric, the Taliban's public relations spokesman claimed that the insurgency had recruited 180 suicide bombers for operations in and around Kandahar over the next few weeks.

He said they are prepared to attack Canadians “any one else, at any place and at any time.”

Now given that this guy is a Taliban, his word must be good as gold. And given that he is a PR flack, and they are renowned for their truthfulness, we must take him at his word and stifle our natural tendencies to express ourselves on the Afghan deployment. At least that's what Andrew at Bound by Gravity would have us believe.

In our continuing efforts to ensure our formal induction into The Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill bring you interesting and lively commentary on politics and current events, we here at Peace, order and good government, eh? are pleased to announce that we will be introducing three new authors to our roster. But we're not going to tell you who they are. You'll just have to pay attention.

Stephen Harper has made a brave stand in favour of only halfway screwing over the Kyoto Accords. Despite Harper's pre-election rhetoric about ending Canada's participation in the Kyoto Accords, he has decided to not pull out of the agreement, but rather just not bother to meet the targets.

OTTAWA — The Conservative government will not pull out of the international Kyoto agreement on climate change even though it has no intention of meeting the deal's targets.

The Tories have criticized the Kyoto Protocol for years, and during the election said they would replace Liberal spending on the environment with a "made-in-Canada" solution that would produce concrete reductions in emissions. The word "Kyoto" does not appear in the party's environmental platform.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday that his government is moving money away from ineffective programs and working on a plan that will be more successful at reducing greenhouse gases.

Among the commitments to the environment made during their election campaign, the Conservatives said they would require all gasoline to be composed of 5-per-cent renewable materials, such as ethanol, by 2010. They also promised tax breaks for public transit users and legislation to reduce pollution.

However, a spokesman for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose confirmed to The Globe and Mail that the government will not pull out of the Kyoto deal.

"There's flaws to Kyoto and we realize that . . . and we're going to work within Kyoto to build a made-in-Canada solution," Ryan Sparrow said. "We're working within it, so we can't be pulling out of it."

Working within it, but not bothering to honour it. This is a sad bit of political sophistry designed to innoculate Harper in Quebec, where the Kyoto Accords are very popular, while signalling his buddies in the oil patch that Kyoto is essentially a dead agreement on his watch. (Allowing said buddies to continue their work on whatever plan the Conservatives will finally table.)

If Harper wants to weasel out of the accords he should have the strength of character to do it, or he should damn well honour an agreement to which the country he leads is a signatory. This halfway-to-nowhere plan is less than worthless.

The next time some Blogging Neocon refers to Paul Martin as "Mr. Dithers", we might want to remind them about Halfway Harper's moment in the sun on this issue.

There is an unconfirmed report in the Toronto Star that the Liberal Party has recruited Justin Trudeau to work on the party's renewal.

Justin Trudeau to head Liberal task force
The Liberals have persuaded Justin Trudeau, son of the late prime minister, to lead a task force on party renewal.

Trudeau, 34, is to head a "youth task force" as part of a renewal project examining how the party can rebuild after its January election defeat, CanWest News Service reported Friday....

Justin Trudeau, eldest of the former prime minister's three sons, has been an activist on youth and environmental issues. Axworthy wouldn't confirm the appointment and Trudeau couldn't be reached for comment, Canwest News said.

Trudeau is a soft spoken but passionate environmental activist and an excellent speaker. Personally, I like the guy. And he has more credibility than anyone else currently running for the leadership. He won't run this time but that is probably a smart decision because whoever is elected party leader this time is likely to have the job on something of an interim basis.

The next time the Liberals are in the market for a new leader, don't be surprised to see a Trudeau hat in the ring. The Liberals could and probably will do a whole lot worse.

U.S Republicans are famous for using code words to signal specific meanings to their base while leaving themselves with enough plausible deniability when called on to explain exactly what they mean.

Stephen Harper has drawn from this playbook in his throne speech, which focussed on three terms laden with ideological baggage and hidden meanings.

Those words include family, choice and openness.

And those are all good words as long as they mean to Harper's caucus what they mean to a majority of Canadians.

Family values are fine as long as they are inclusive and not an excuse for exclusion. Choice is attractive as long as there are viable social service options.

Open federalism is a promising concept until the federal government is too weak to vigorously pursue a cohesive, innovative and inspiring national vision.

Let's see if we can't unpack these terms and see what the Conservatives might actually have in store for us.

I have 945 news stroies on my feed reader today. Time to reduce, reuse amd recycle. Come and get 'em.

- The phone lines are down. Long–Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - Prayers by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large study has found.

- No global climate change here. Storms Batter 8 States, Leaving at Least 16 Dead - Thunderstorms, tornados and hailstones the size of grapefruits pounded towns in eight states in the Midwest and South Sunday night.

- Robin Hood Bush strikes again. Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments - President Bush's tax cuts reduced the bills of taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million by $500,000.

- Being the most watched citizens in the world obviously isn't enough. Britain's new 'FBI' squad launched - Tony Blair unveils a new crime-fighting agency designed to tackle "brutal, sophisticated crime".

- Satan's new friend. Apple makes Macs run Windows XP - Apple is releasing software that lets its Intel-based Macs run Windows XP.

- Impossible. Where's the intelligent designing? Arctic fossils mark move to land - Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say.

Ran out of time for today so I figured I had best post this before it's all yesterday's news. More will follow.

Sometimes, when your country is doing something very unpalatable, you just have to root against it. And Canada's efforts in trying to overturn the international ban on terminator seeds fall into this category. Let's start with a little background.

Terminator seeds are bioengineered to produce sterile seeds, forcing farmers to purchase new seeds each season, in essence stripping from them their historic ability to renew crops from seeds retained from their own stocks. There is a worldwide ban on the use of terminator seeds, but Canada, to our shame, is part of a three-government coalition - the other members are Australia and New Zealand - that is working to get the ban overturned. If they are successful, much of the world's food supply would be controlled by a handful of multinational corporations, who would eventually own the patent on the world's most important crops.

Fortunately, this coalition just suffered another defeat at the hands of the international community. This loss for Canada represents a significant victory for 1.4 billion farmers throughout the world.

The victory took place at a meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Curitiba, Brazil [on March 24, 2006]. The Brazilian government, chairing the meeting, announced that the 188 member governments of the CBD agreed to reject language that would have undermined the six year old moratorium on terminator. Promoters, including Canada, have called for a "case by case risk assessment" of terminator seeds, with the intention of allowing the technology to be approved through existing legislation for genetically modified crops.

Canada's loss is a huge victory for the approximately 1.4 billion farmers and peasants worldwide who depend for their livelihoods on using seeds kept from the previous harvest. If the winners are legion the losers are small in number; the so-called "Terminator Trio" -- the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The US also wants the moratorium lifted, but has not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. Many terminator critics accuse Canada of doing the US's dirty work in hope of some return favour.

The extent to which out-of-control ideology drives this technology is revealed by the fact that the three largest seed multinationals -- Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont) and Syngenta -- have all given up the fight in the face of global opposition. They have all pledged not to pursue the technology. At this point, only one major company, Delta and Pine Land (D&PL), joint owner of three US patents on terminator, has declared its intention of commercializing the technology.

Canada's quixotic pursuit of this technology is puzzling. The sole beneficiaries of terminator seeds would be the multinationals that hold the patents. Famrers would see their costs rise dramatically, and consumers throughout the world would see food prices skyrocket as production costs are passed on to them.

I don't usually use this forum to promote awareness of commercial products but in this case I'm willing to make an exception.

Pelmorex Communications Inc. the owners of The Weather Network and MétéoMédia have a proposal before the CRTC for an national emergency warning system.

This is the title of Eric Margolis' latest article. I was just going to post it in some drive by blogging but it dovetails nicely with Tim's post A dangerous job made worse

THREE BIG LIES ABOUT AFGHANISTAN
The public is getting distorted news from Afghanistan because the North American media has substituted jingoism and flag-waving for reporting of hard news.

Afghanistan’s complexity and lethal tribal politics have been marketed to the public by government and media as a selfless crusade to defeat the `terrorist’ Taliban, implant democracy, and liberate Afghan women. Afghanistan is part of the `world-wide struggle against terrorism,’ we are told.

None of this is true. In 1989, at the end of the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy and civil war. An epidemic of banditry and rape ensued.

Last week, American Jesus Freaks (with apologies to Jesus) gathered in Washington to discuss the "War on Christians" and other delusions that leak from their diseased imaginations. I know, as Canadians, we tend to shake our heads at this sort of nonsense and put it down to that unique and bizarre brand of religion that is "Christianity" in America, but we would be wrong to so sanguine about it. After all, look who showed up to represent Insane Religious Nuts North:

"[The War on Chistians] doesn't rise to the level of persecution that we would see in China or North Korea," said Tristan Emmanuel, a Canadian activist. "But let's not pretend that it's okay."

Let's see what their Christian brothers are going through in North Korea:

I was pretty appalled when I found out that our troops in Kandahar are opereating under U.S. command and under the aegis of Operation Enduring Freedom, instead of as part of the UN mandate. My main concern centred on the fact that Americans have proven themselves profoundly incompetent in how they have conducted their operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore any linkage between our troops and the actions of the Americans was only going to make things more difficult for us. Now I see the situation in southern Afghanistan is worse than I feared, largely due to the blinkered approach taken by the United States and its consuming obssession with Al Qaeda and its generally hostile approach to the local people.

The Afghan government's response to these developments has been characteristically weak. Despite a change in governors in Kandahar, provincial officials and security forces continue to act as predators, amassing money and power, treating inhabitants like dirt rather than serving and protecting them. What villagers here need is a reliable police force that knows the ways of the countryside, patrols regularly, treats people with respect, and protects them. "Community policing" is the American term for it. Instead, the Afghan security forces have adopted a war-fighting mentality from their American mentors and sally forth on occasional raids, the soldiers sporting dark glasses and hostile attitudes. Then they return to town, leaving the people alone to deal with the consequences, at the hands of the "fairies who come at night."

Local people are not going to make much distinction between American and Canadian troops, and why should they? In essence, our presence there under the American banner would seem to indicate at least our tacit approval of the (largely unsuccessful) methods the Americans have employed so far. Thus, our troops become surrogates for local anger fueled by the arrogant and ignorant approach the U.S. has adopted in Afghanistan.

The site should be back up now. Long story. Really long story.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if there's a way to hook beer up to an IV.

Update - Apr. 3rd, 9:53 am

Yes, we know. It may not look like anything is happening but trust me - I have enough email flying back and forth to keep several people busy.

We're working on a solution. Please bear with us.