Babbling Brooks

Anti-democratic

2008-12-05T10:34:00.002-05:00

Babble on.

When it comes to this parliamentary mess we're in, everyone needs to stop throwing around the phrase "anti-democratic," like it's a clearly defined term that we can all agree upon. We can't.

The coalition parties are playing by the rules - they're working within the parliamentary system to bring a non-confidence vote to the floor of the House of Commons, defeat the government, and provide the Crown with an alternative government that could command the confidence of the House without resorting to another election.

So, as far as it goes, this article is substantively correct.

My problem is that it doesn't go far enough. Specifically, it doesn't address the fact that Harper's move is also playing by the rules. Until his government is defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, he's PM. And as PM, he gets to advise the GG. And his advice to the GG was to prorogue Parliament for a number of weeks. All within the rules.

One of the hallmarks of our democracy is that we play within the rules. Everyone's doing that, although no one wants to admit the other side is too. None of it is "anti-democratic" in the context of how our political system actually works.

Whether or not any of it should be off limits in our democracy is a different matter entirely. Our system of government doesn't match up with our democratic expectations - as I discovered during the Emerson affair. It was set up in a far different time, in a far different societal context, and it hasn't really evolved much over the decades. Maybe it should - maybe it will, now that many of us have seen its flaws exposed by politicians of all stripes pushing the rules to serve their own agendas.

Of course, maybe it will all just blow over as well. I know I'm a lot more sanguine about things this time around, since it's my side that seems to be making out best in all of this ("Yay! We're cream of the crap!"), than I was last time we went through a government not wanting to recognize they'd lost the confidence of the House.

What? You don't remember that? It was only three and a half years ago, people, with many of the same cast of rogues, but with some of the roles reversed. Here's what I had to say at the time:

I think the Liberals are being duplicitous here - surprise, surprise. The votes so far may not have technically been confidence votes, but anyone who's been watching this knows Martin doesn't have the confidence of the House. In a Westminster parliamentary system, tradition plays a big part - there's all sorts of gray areas because a lot of the rules aren't written down, they're just kind of followed by feel. A specific confidence motion is just a way of measuring that feel. But in this case, the government is really pushing the limits, both in terms of time, and in terms of what they will recognize as a confidence vote, and what they won't. And with the gray areas in our system, they can do that.

I think the idiots should have resigned last week when they lost the first vote. The wording may not have been the best, but a committee vote was all the opposition was left with, since the Liberals decided to push back opposition days. The intent was clear - anyone watching the news or reading a paper would have known that. Martin should have either resigned or scheduled an explicit confidence motion immediately. The fact that he didn't shows just what a weasel he really is. There's zero respect for parliamentary tradition - for anything other than staying in power right now. I hope nobody forgets all the tricks Martin pulled to postpone the inevitable as long as he possibly could. I hope they remember it when the candidates start knocking on doors and talking about the 'democratic deficit'. This guy has given up any credibility he might have had.

And if you'll remember, Martin then seduced Belinda Stronach to bail him out. If you'll recall, I talked at that time about the precedent that set, and how it would come back to bite all involved in the ass.

Welcome to the next level of the slippery slope down, folks.

"Anti-democratic?" Things have been getting more and more anti-democratic in Canadian politics for years now, and you and I don't have enough fingers on both hands to point at all those in every single political party who bear some responsibility for that state of affairs.

A pox on them all.

Babble off.

Leafs win the Cup! And I win the lottery!

2008-12-03T16:25:00.007-05:00

Babble on.

This just arrived in my e-mail inbox:

Canada was stunned Monday when it was announced that The Stanley Cup will be awarded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, possibly as early as December 6th. The cup will be stripped from from 2008 playoff champions the Detroit Red Wings and be awarded to the Leafs, who didn't even make the playoffs.

How is this possible, Canadians ask?

Well, the Leafs have formed a coalition with eastern conference semifinalists the Montreal Canadians, and conference quarter finalists the Ottawa Senators, whose total season points now outnumber the Red Wings. According to current Leaf coach Ron Wilson "the Red Wings have lost the confidence of the league and should hand the cup over immediately to our coalition".

Personally, I'm looking forward to making a coalition with other losing lottery-ticket holders and seeing if we can ~~scam~~ convince the OLG that we have a better claim to a 6/49 win than the schmuck who took the cheque home. I mean, between all our tickets we have not only the six winning numbers, but the bonus as well!

The more I think about this, the more I like the precedent...

Babble off.

Update: Turns out it was a blog post by Canadian Jedi before it started making the e-mail rounds!

From the horse's mouth

2008-10-29T16:19:00.005-04:00

Babble on.

Note to the "Support our troops, bring them home!" crowd: ordinary Afghans still feel security is their biggest issue:

The security situation is both the main reason respondents give for saying the country is moving in the right direction and the main concern for those who say the country is moving in the wrong direction. The proportion of respondents who cite insecurity as a reason for pessimism has increased by one-fourth in the past year.

The biggest problems faced by Afghanistan as a whole are identified as security (36%), economic issues including unemployment (31%), high prices (22%), poor economy (17%), and corruption (14%).

Who provides security? ISAF troops and Afghan troops, until the Afghans are trained up to do it all themselves. Who trains the Afghans? Our troops.

So tell me again how bringing Canadian troops home yesterday, if not sooner, helps the Afghans, you numpties?

More at The Torch, where I note that while the raw percentages are encouraging, the trends aren't. Our people are working hard, but this thing isn't won yet.

Babble off.

Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes

2008-10-15T13:59:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

To all my Liberal friends: now you understand a fraction of what it was like to support Preston Manning during the Chretien years.

Babble off.

"We are all in mortal peril of disappearing up our own backsides."

2008-09-30T15:34:00.003-04:00

Babble on.

Perhaps I'm late to the party; perhaps this has already been knocked around the blogosphere ad infinitum, and the few readers stumbling across this mostly dormant site are already rolling their eyes.

But Andrew Coyne's scathing indictment of political reporting in this country is devastatingly on point:

But here's the thing: in his secret heart of hearts, that's who the journalist wishes he was — one of the players, the guys in the room, and not one of those legions of drudges who must forever stand and wait outside the door. We write about the horse race, the polls and the strategy, not because it matters to our readers, but because it matters to the pros, the people we cover, the people we idolize. We parrot their language, even as we absorb their values: the latest campaign ad is analyzed from any number of angles — Will it work? Is it on-message? — except the most obvious: is it true?

My only quibble with his piece is the lack of context. I fear he neglected to measure political reporting against any other type of reporting in Canada, because the analysis would have only become more depressing.

The truth is that, bad as it is - and every criticism he levels is fair and true - political reporting is one of the things journalists do best. I'd say sports reporting is the only other category of journalism where the paid media have as much knowledge of the game, the players, the inside scoop, as they do in the political arena.

Put another way: if you think political reporting in Canada is poor, try critiquing military reporting, as we do over at The Torch.

As a journalist said to me the other day, "Journalism isn't a profession - there are no standards, or bodies enforcing those standards; nothing like a College of Physicians or Law Society. No, journalism is a craft."

He was right. Unfortunately for us, it's all too often a poorly practiced craft these days.

Babble off.

A lightbulb moment?

2008-09-08T11:37:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

From the New York Times, comes this unexpectedly insightful comment on Governor Palin's appeal:

Senator Clinton is a politician who also happens to be a wife and mother. Ms. Palin is a wife and mother who also happens to be a politician.

Bingo.

Babble off.

Rudy vs. Hillary! Or not! Who cares!

2008-08-28T15:31:00.004-04:00

Babble on.

OK, so I got it wrong. Not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last.

In an effort to regain my lost political prognostication credibility, I give you my prediction for the upcoming McCain vs. Obama race: who the hell knows? 6 to 5 and pick 'em. Flip a flippin' coin.

I have just as little confidence in my ability to predict the next Canadian election. Dion's a wet noodle, and Harper is giving himself a Grade III concussion pounding into that electoral glass ceiling right above him.

The thing is, I'm hard pressed to get my Give A F**k Factor above "comatose" about any of it. McCain's solid, but uninspiring from a political standpoint. Obama is all sizzle, no steak. The Liberals didn't ruin Canada under Chretien and Martin, and the Conservatives haven't "saved" it.

Nobody actually wants to steer the ship of state, they just want to be the ones with their grasping mitts on the controls. Which is a bloody shame, since I'm naturally inclined to care a lot more than I do right now.

Babble off.

Chuckles from Dion

2008-07-25T12:36:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

Stéphane Dion didn't even get one paragraph into Paul Wells' latest Macleans piece before he made me laugh:

"Lots of people have been in this office," Stéphane Dion told me. "Not all have managed to get downstairs."

No, Steffi, not all have managed that. Just every single Liberal leader since Edward Blake (leader from 1880-1887), who remains the only federal Liberal leader in history not to become Prime Minister at some point in his tenure.

But hey, play the low-expectations game if it floats your boat.

Babble off.

Make-work

2008-07-21T10:36:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

If I were a machiavellian executive at CTV or Global, I'd look into hiring a couple of dozen work-from-home staff to file ATI requests at the CBC. Pay them, say, $36,000 per year to file 50 or 100 requests each and every month - whatever's a reasonable workload.

Same thing for UPS and FEDEX with Canada Post.

I suspect it would be money well spent to completely screw up a direct competitor like that in a way that they couldn't reciprocate. Of course, you'd have to get a bean-counter to crunch the numbers, but from a hassle perspective alone, it might well be worth it.

Babble off.

What he said....

2008-06-10T10:58:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

Environmentalists. What is their deal? They managed to take an issue that everyone is on board with --a clean place to live-- and turn it into the most divise issue since abortion.
- John at OPFOR

I find myself saying words to that effect every single time I get into a 'climate change' discussion: I'm all for reducing pollutants in our environment, for preserving wild spaces and biodiversity, and for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. I'm just upset at how the 'climate change' crowd has hijacked the environmental movement.

Nice to see I'm not alone.

Babble off.

A not-so-modest proposal

2008-05-23T13:37:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

Here's an idea for the marketing gurus at the airlines to consider: charge based on the total weight hauled - whether human or cargo or a combination of both. If the real issue is fuel consumption, that's directly tied to the payload carried, not to the number of passengers or the number of checked bags.

Charging fares based upon the combined weight of each passenger and their baggage is much more easily justifiable than charging a flat fee per bag and per person. Why should a 130 lb woman with two fifty-pound checked bags be charged more than a 225 lb man with a 15 lb carry-on? He's responsible for 240 lbs of payload, and she's responsible for only 230 lbs.

Fare's fair? (couldn't resist)

Babble off.

Missing bones: not only in the back, but in the right hand

2008-04-11T12:47:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

Steffi introduced himself to me last night.

Remember how your dad told you early on in your life to look people in the eye and shake hands firmly? Someone still needs to learn that lesson.

Babble off.

Wells, nail, head

2008-03-13T12:18:00.002-04:00

Babble on.

Paul Wells has hit a particularly irksome nail squarely on the head, and I suspect Joe Clark is taking an Advil:

"There's not a lot of reconciliation in Mr. Harper's makeup," Clark says. "...By and large, instead of being a leader who has tried to find common ground among Canadians, he has too often followed policies that can be divisive."

Well. It's just a fact that Harper managed to reconcile the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance memberships where Clark had been trying, with exceedingly modest results, for years. It's just a fact that Harper could have done so earlier and that the main obstacle to his success was Joe Clark. It's just a fact that when the two parties did replace themselves with a new unified party, the only ones who didn't join the spirit of reconciliation were the Clark faction of the Progressive Conservatives: Clark, Scott Brison, John Herron. And that only Clark was unwilling to reconcile with... the Liberals by joining them. The great conciliator of High River spent his last months in Parliament sitting alone as an independent. He did not wish it so and it's sad that it happened, but it did.

And he's just warming up with that passage. You should really read the whole thing. It's about time somebody said it, and I'm glad it was Wells, since he said it so very well.

Babble off.

If you're not going to shoot the bear, you'd better have a damned good plan

2008-02-29T11:08:00.002-05:00

Babble on.

This guy almost had a Darwin Award nomination captured on film. Follow the sequence of events in the pictorial.

This line from the comments quite literally had me choking on my coffee:

The Idaho Fish and Game Department has more pickup trucks than employees. And the pickup trucks are smarter, too.

Tip of the toque to Darcey.

Babble off.

Six unimportant things

2008-02-27T15:56:00.002-05:00

Babble on.

Taylor's tagged me with this meme, and I figured better to post about it here than at The Torch. Ruin my serious blogging cred and all. Stop laughing.

Okeydokey, here goes:

I absolutely cannot handle watching people embarrass themselves. It's like getting hit in the funny-bone, or nails on blackboard for me. Drives my lovely wife batty. I leave the room when she's watching the auditions for American Idol. If I had to pick one single character on television that has made my flesh crawl more than any other, it would be Ross on Friends. I squirmed in my seat through entire scenes of There's Something About Mary. And my discomfort is getting more pronounced with age, not less.

If I'm eating coloured candies like Smarties or Skittles, I'll often arrange them in repeating patterns, or bar graphs by colour. Then I'll deplete them according to another pattern, like keeping each colour in equal supply, or eating two colours at a time, alternating between them, or any one of a number of other options. I try not to do it too much at work, as it's always awkward explaining to a co-worker why you're arranging your M&M's into lines on your desk.

I love meat, but dislike eating it off the bone. I used to think it was just that a quarter-chicken dinner at Swiss Chalet was just too much work - why de-bone your own meal when you can pay to have it done before it hits the table? - but my mom thinks it goes deeper than that. She remembers me being horrified as a wee boy when I found out how hamburger was made, and thinks it may have affected my meat-eating habits into adulthood. The thing is, I love meat - chicken breasts, steaks, roast beef, turkey dinner, ham, bacon, and hamburgers. Just don't give me wings or ribs.

I'm one of the few men alive who doesn't have to be forced at gunpoint to watch figure skating on TV.

If a genie popped out of a lamp and told me I could be world-class at one sport, I'd pick basketball. Which, if you've met me and seen my short arms, stocky body, and inability to jump much, is kind of funny. To this day, I have dreams in which I'm playing pickup hoops with my brothers or friends, and all of a sudden in the middle of a layup I'm high enough to dunk the ball. Love those dreams.

I pride myself on a fairly decent vocabulary, but I get my clock cleaned by my wife in word-games like Scrabble or Boggle. Consistently. By, like, a hundred points. On a positive note, it's great for keeping the old ego in check.

Now, who can I tag who hasn't already been nailed with this one?

Nicholas at Quotulatiousness

Bruce at Flit

Mark at Daimnation

Chris at Tart Cider

Paul at Celestial Junk

John Piedmont at OPFOR

Who will trump my weirdness?

Babble off.

Fifteen Days

2007-11-13T13:17:00.000-05:00

Babble on.

I'm a big fan of Christie Blatchford, so it wasn't surprising to me that I enjoyed her new book about soldiers in Afghanistan, Fifteen Days, so very much.

I've posted a review at The Torch for those who would like a glimpse into the character of the book before laying down their hard-earned money for a copy.

Babble off.

The Wheel of Time creaks to a halt for a moment

2007-09-18T13:32:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

Decorated U.S. military veteran James Oliver Rigney Jr., better known as bestselling author Robert Jordan, has died at the age of 58.

His works have brought me hours upon hours of fascinated immersion in a fantastic world, and so never having met the man, I will miss him.

The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose.... The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time.

But it was a beginning.

Rest in peace, sir.

Babble off.

Update: What an interesting quote this man gave in an interview:

There are things I am saying, things I am talking about, but I try not to make them obtrusive. The necessity to struggle against evil, the difficulty of identifying evil, how easy it is to go astray, are very simple questions. In modern mainstream fiction, if you discuss good and evil, you're castigated for being judgmental or for being old-fashioned. Originally this was a way of deciding which was the greater wrong - 'It is wrong to steal, but my child is starving to death. Obviously, in that situation it is better to steal than to let my child die of hunger.' But today that has been transmogrified into a belief that anything goes, it's what you can get by with, and there is no real morality, no right, no wrong� It's simply what produces the Platonic definition of evil: 'a temporary disadvantage for the one perceiving evil.'

In fantasy, we can talk about right and wrong, and good and evil, and do it with a straight face. We can discuss morality or ethics, and believe that these things are important, where you cannot in mainstream fiction. It's part of the reason why I believe fantasy is perhaps the oldest form of literature in the world, at least in the western canon. You go back not simply to Beowulf but The Epic of Gilgamesh. [Babbler's highlight]

By the way, if anyone can help me track down the citations for his Distinguished Flying Cross awards (two of them, if I've got it right), won as a helicopter gunner in Vietnam, I'd like to read it.

Steyn gets it wrong

2007-08-17T11:25:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

I was involved in a comments-section argument over at John Donovan's place, regarding a Mark Steyn post at The Corner:

Canada's ghastly human rights commissions are an an ersatz-judicial abomination to enforce PC bullying. In recent years, they've ordered a Catholic school in Alberta to employ a practising homosexual, fined a Christian printer in Toronto for refusing to print a gay activist group's publicity material, used their powers to support the suspension without pay of a evangelical Christian school teacher who had written to his local paper expressing concern over pro-gay education programs. In all case, the human rights commissions operated on the more or less consistent principle that "religious belief" was fine as long as you kept it furtive and walled up inside your private home but it did not have the right to impact on who you employed, what clients you accepted*, or even what views you expressed in the newspaper.

Apparently, it's different for Islam.

Steyn may well be right, but the case he's chosen to highlight doesn't make his point.

Why? Because it was a settlement, not a ruling. That's right: the B.C. Human Rights Commission didn't rule on the case, the parties involved settled it before the tribunal could hear the arguments.

The tribunal was to hear Mr. Gilmour's case on Monday; however, a settlement was reached last week with Mr. Saidy and his taxi company. "The parties have agreed ? to resolve Mr. Gilmour's complaint by balancing the rights of persons with seeing-eye dogs to obtain taxi service with the rights of Muslims to follow their religion," the settlement reads.

If you don't like the way this particular human rights complaint worked out, don't blame the Commission, blame the parties who agreed to the settlement.

My thanks to the confusing, but entertaining Alan of Gen X at 40 for pointing that out to me...eventually...after making me dig through his convoluted rhetoric at length.

Babble off.

Update: Blazing Cat Fur seems to want to twist the discussion around without proper deference to the realities of this particular case.

Scrolling through BCF's comments to his own post, you'll discover a gross misrepresentation of the case and its scope. It was a settlement, not a decision, and so set no legal precedent. It is binding upon no-one but the parties to the agreement, and restricts no other person's right to file a discrimination complaint.

I have that perspective separately from two different Canadian lawyer friends.

That is to say, if another blind patron is refused service by a Muslim driver because of a guide-dog, the blind patron can file a discrimination complaint with the BCHRC - even if the driver abides by the rules laid out in the Gilmour settlement by ordering another cab and waiting with the blind patron until that other cab arrives. This settlement doesn't restrict any future complaint in the slightest, or reliably predict its outcome.

I'd love to see the BCHRC forced to actually make a decision in a case like that, because I think this settlement stinks. I have little confidence the BCHRC would make the right decision.

But, unlike Steyn and BCF, I'm not willing to condemn the BCHRC for a decision they haven't yet made.

Don't worry about those long-term plans

2007-08-17T10:08:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

It's in the Book of Revelations, if you know where to look: when I agree with something Rick Salutin wrote, the end is nigh. Can you hear the hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen?

Babble off.

Damon, your ass is Greengrass

2007-07-24T16:55:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

There's a certain amount of pleasure to be derived from a discussion of which fictional character is better than another. Superman vs. Captain Marvel. X-Men vs. Avengers. Heck, they even made a movie out of one hypothetical: Alien vs. Predator.

So I'm not offended by the question posed to actor Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass, asking them to compare and contrast James Bond and their own big-screen effort, Jason Bourne. I am, however, offended by their answer:

Bond is "an imperialist and he's a misogynist. He kills people and laughs and sips martinis and wisecracks about it," Damon, 36, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Damon's new film, "The Bourne Ultimatum," opens Aug. 3.

"Bourne is this paranoid guy. He's on the run. He's not the government. The government is after him. He's a serial monogamist who's in love with his dead girlfriend and can't stop thinking about her," Damon said. "He's the opposite of James Bond."

...

Paul Greengrass, Damon's director on Universal's "Bourne Ultimatum" and its 2004 predecessor, "The Bourne Supremacy," agreed that Bond is a relic from a different era.

"He's an insider. He likes being a secret agent. He worships at the altar of technology. He loves his gadgets. And he embodies this whole set of misogynistic values," Greengrass said. "He likes violence. That's part of the appeal of the character. He has no guilt. He's essentially an imperial adventurer of a particularly English sort.

"Personally, I spit on those values. I think we've moved on a little bit from all that, the martini shaken, not stirred."

This is where the discussion of the comparative merits of one fictional character over another step outside the realm of the fan-boy, and take on some significance: where the characters stand for a set of real-world beliefs. So let's take a look at those values that Greengrass and Damon "spit on."

James Bond is derided for his misogyny, his violence, and his supposed lack of guilt. Boiled down to its essence, the criticism of Bond is that he's not sensitive enough - towards women, towards his opponents, and towards himself. Apparently even worse, Bond "likes being a secret agent" and an "imperialist."

Bourne, on the other hand, is lauded as a "paranoid guy" who is "not the government."

Let's get past the fact that Ludlum's Bourne was just as much a tool of his government as Bond is until Bourne lost his memory. Let's put aside the fascinating backstory that the producers created for their updated Bond (hit the "Enter Site" button, and look in his "Dossier"), one that explains a great deal of his own weaknesses and strengths.

No, let's simply look at the morality of the two characters: one uses his unique talents to benefit his country, and the other uses them to help himself. The distinction is important: Bond is to Bourne what the taxman is to the thief, what the policeman is to the vigilante, what the soldier is to the insurgent. Of course, if you don't subscribe to the idea that governments should have a monopoly on violence, that point won't sway you. But I'd guess that Greengrass and Damon aren't the Second-Amendment-libertarian types, which makes their case somewhat problematic.

Of course, it's only a problem if you're interested in intellectual consistency, rather than lurching about with each indoctrinated emotional wave that sloshes over your decks. I suspect, though, that the sixties-child Greengrass and the Hollywood-poisoned Damon are simply so enthralled with their romantic notions of Bourne's supposed fight against The Man that reason doesn't enter into their position at all.

Until recently, James Bond films have been nothing more than a visual roller-coaster, junk food for the soul. Other than for Casino Royale, I'm not much interested in defending them as anything other than a distracting romp.

But what Greengrass and Damon fail to realize is that much the same can be said for Bourne. At least Bond, viewed in his best light, is ridding the world of threats to Britain and the west. All of Bourne's violence, all the knife fights and the shootings and the car chases and the bombs are just to benefit him. If you worship at the altar of me, myself, and I, if you regard patriotism and duty as dangerous anachronisms, if your personal considerations outweigh the needs of a society far greater than you, then I guess Bourne should be your action hero of choice. But give me Bond any day of the week.

Oh, and speaking of fantasy match-ups, Daniel Craig could wipe his ass with Matt Damon and not even break a sweat doing it. What's more, I'd take Barbara Broccoli in a cage match against Paul Greengrass any day of the week. And my dad can beat up your dad too. Afterwards, he'd laugh and wisecrack as he drank his martini: shaken, not stirred.

Babble off.

"You give good clip"

2007-07-05T10:45:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

The post's title is the best line I've seen about Jack! in a very long time. It's taken from the comments section at The Torch, where frequent commenter Cam Campbell shows once again that Canada still has a few leftists that I'd be happy to share a pint with. He reproduces a letter he wrote to Layton:

Mr. Jack Layton,

On your biography page it says that you believe in practical solutions for problems. And yet you keep saying things like "The strategy being followed by NATO right now is producing the precise opposite effect to the one that the promoters of this mission are suggesting should be the goal," Layton said. "In other words, growth of support for the Taliban because of these air strikes."

Only a comprehensive peace process — not armed conflict — can resolve the crisis in Afghanistan, he argued, noting that "students of history will know that all major conflicts are resolved ultimately through peace-oriented discussions.""

Actually history shows us that peace happens when several conditions exist, not the least of which being that one side feels like they've lost, so your argument, respectfully, is utter crap.

I'm being quite serious, "peace-oriented discussions" (also known as peace negotiations or talks - who writes for you? They should be fired.) require that 1) everyone wants peace 2) there is a central authority to negotiate with 3) that the end of conflict will not immediately be replaced with some new, different kind of conflict (like, say, a series of genocidal massacres based on, say, supporting democracy and western style ideals of same).

So your thesis fails on point one horribly, on point two it's laughable, and on point three you're displaying a callousness towards human life that makes me want to vomit.

The reality is that there is no peace to keep, no peace to negotiate for, no one to negotiate with and no secure area to negotiate within. Pretending that these conditions exist is a fantasy.

Once the left was populated by people like my Uncles who fought in WW2, by people like Orwell and Trumbo, who could tell wrong from right and could figure out that something had to be done about it.

Now it's populated by people like you who believe in a pacifist unilateralism that appears to me to be suicidal. Certainly we don't get to negotiate peace with allies, but suggesting that the way forward in Afghanistan is via a policy of unidimensional " peace-oriented discussions" (still thinking that someone should loose their job over that..) ignores the reality and the complexity of the situation. This knee jerk reaction towards anything involving the US (and increasingly, NATO) is, frankly, childish and simplistic.

I think the current regime in the US are a pack of corrupt, right wing demagogues, most of whom need a good sending to bed without dinner (and/or jail time) but in my read, that has bugger all to do with the fact that the Canadian Forces presence in the reconstruction and (horrors) combat operations in Afghanistan is accomplishing good.

Additionally sir, the tying of Canadian troops, even tangentially, to what you seem to believe is a NATO policy of bombing civilians for sport is disgusting. It does your position utterly no good at all. It's wrong.

I know that journalists seek you out every time a Canadian is killed in Afghanistan and why not? You give good clip. But the constant sight of you scoring cheap political points with the deaths of our military personal? It wears sir. A suggestion, one that would ratchet up many peoples respect for you by something like 100%, would be to tell the journalists a variation on "There will be time to discuss the mission later, today our thoughts are with our brave soldiers and their families." Trite? Maybe. Lacking in the fun oomph of scoring cheap shots? Oh yes. Respectful and classy? Indeed.

I come from a family who's political views range from red Tory all the way to charter members of the CCF (my Great Aunt and Uncle were XXXX and XXXX), with stops along the way in trade unionism, full on communists and just about every other colour of the socially progressive rainbow. I've voted for your party in the past (and in the absence of your party running a viable candidate in my riding, for M. Duceppe), so it pains me to say this: I will never vote for the NDP while you are at it's helm.

Never.

I'll vote for a fringe party, the Monarchists, the Communist party, whatever local looney has managed to get together the deposit by borrowing the money from his friend, but never ever again the NDP.

I expect no response to this letter, I expect that you won't even see it or have it read to you (Hello, by the way, to the intern reading this. I hope you're having a great summer, my jobs always sucked and involved lifting boxes or digging holes, good on you for scoring a good one. Enjoy it, and good luck next semester. Stay in school.), I know that democracy no longer works that way but it felt like the least I could do.

With great regret,

Cameron Campbell

If we must have a socialist element in this country, let it be of the calibre of Orwell, of Hitchens, of those who value western ideals of freedom and democracy and are willing to defend them, with force when absolutely necessary.

The self-loathing and delusional sheep who would have us bare our throats to the wolves of the world in the name of peace are a disgrace, and a dangerous one at that.

I salute those like Cam Campbell and Terry Glavin who are willing to stand up to the majority within their own political faction, and decry the moral rot that has infected the Canadian left on this issue.

Babble off.

"Journalism as a public service, my ass."

2007-07-04T09:45:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

Bruce Rolston at Flit thoroughly exposes some sensationalist reporting this week:

The latest CP 'dirty bomb' scare story isn't just bad because the original study it's based on is not linked to by either the newspaper or the DRDC's own website, allowing people to make up their own minds from the source.

It's not just irresponsible because the report seems basically a rehash of the Federation of American Scientists' previous effort in this genre.

The real problem is that in covering a report that will undoubtedly have said that the disruption and injury will be the real cause of damage, it does nothing to alleviate that same panic. Journalism as a public service, my ass. [Babbler's emphasis]

That journalists so often refuse to acknowledge that they not only observe circumstances, but that their observations often change those circumstances, is willful blindness. That many of them refuse to consider the consequences of those changes in determining what they report and how they report it verges on negligence.

Down the rabbit hole and into an Arab jail

2007-06-19T15:42:00.001-04:00

Babble on.

I guarantee you that every single drug dealer in the entire world who read this story laughed his ass off.

Bert Tatham, 35, who advised the Afghan government on eradicating opium poppy crops, was arrested in April during a layover at Dubai International Airport while en route to Canada from Afghanistan.

The Vancouver resident was caught with 0.6 grams of hashish and two poppy bulbs, and pleaded not guilty during an arraignment last week. His lawyer is expected to appeal the sentence handed down Tuesday.

The prison sentence is a "cruel reward" for the dangerous work his son did in Kandahar, his father said.

Bert Tatham worked as a consultant for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and as an adviser to the Afghan government's poppy elimination program.

...

The poppy bulbs his son was carrying could not be used for opium production, as they had been harvested several years ago, he said.

"He was bringing those home for show-and-tell, basically," Tatham added.

As for the hashish, Tatham says his son is "mystified" as to how such a tiny amount became lodged in the seam of his pants.

"It is ubiquitous in Kandahar area and he was involved occasionally in the burning of drugs, and it was passed around socially as far as we know," he said.

Most stories I read where someone says "it wasn't my stuff!" make the needle on my Cynic-O-Meter redline in an instant. How can you have drugs on you by accident?

Except in this guy's case, where it's completely plausible. He was involved with both the United Nations and the Afghan government in confiscating and burning poppies and hashish. I'll make you a bet that if you had tested Canadian soldiers for trace amounts of marijuana in their system after their adventures last fall, they might have run into problems with the Dubai judiciary as well.

If evidence surfaces next week that Tatham was masterminding an international drug-smuggling cartel and using his official position as cover, I'll revise my position, but given the information we see in the public domain right now, I'd say this is a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Time for Canadian diplomats, Afghan officials who were employing him, and the United Nations bureaucrats who contracted him to intervene on his behalf with the government in Dubai.

Babble off.

Reluctant lumberjack

2007-06-09T13:11:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

That was a pretty freaky storm that went through the GTA yesterday. When I arrived home, I found I was short half a cherry tree.

It was leaning on the back fence, so I borrowed a chain-saw from my Dad and started cutting the downed half up into firewood. Looking at the trunk, I'm not sure the other half can even be saved. I guess there was rot in there to begin with, which is probably what weakened it enough to split like that.

Luckily none of the other trees on the property were damaged. We have another six large trees, one of which is a bit too close to the power lines for my comfort, but they were all OK.

But the cherry coming down is a real bummer. We've only been in this house a year now, and I was looking forward to another delicious crop this year. The blossoms this past spring were spectacular...I'm going to really miss that.

It could be worse, I know.

But what a damned shame.

Babble off.

Cultivated fantasy

2007-06-05T09:42:00.000-04:00

Babble on.

It sucks when the numbers get in the way of a "good idea."

Is it time we started calling this supposed solution an opiate for the opium problem?

(It should be noted that Bruce Rolston covered this argument even more comprehensively on his blog almost six months ago.)

Babble off.