Northman's Fury

The edge of the ice floe along Davis Strait and southern Baffin Island has moved closer to shore this year, Environment Canada says.

Normally the ice floe edge is 400 to 500 kilometres offshore but this winter it's about half that distance, says Lionel Hache who is with the department's Canadian Ice Service.

Hunters in Pangnirtung say it's the worst year ever in Cumberland Sound, off Davis Strait.

Peterloosie Qarpik, chair of the Pangnirtung Hunters and Trappers Organization, says the ice is not safe for travel — hunters are seeing young seals falling into the water because the ice is so thin.

None of this is any surprise to me, and its not like I go out on a ski-doo hunting seals. Last year the ice in the bay broke up without the need for an icebreaker to visit, the first time in the eighteen summers I've been up here where that was the case.

On the bright side, my sealift order should arrive earlier this year.

An 11-year-old Ottawa girl was asked to leave the field at a soccer tournament in Laval this weekend for wearing a hijab.

The Ottawa Sun and Ottawa Citizen reports Asmahan Mansour was forced to leave the field after the referee expressed concerns the hijab was a physical threat to the other players.

The coach pulled Mansour and the Nepean Hotspurs under-12 girls soccer team out of the tournament. Four other Ottawa youth soccer teams also forfeited the tournament.

It must have been one of those wild and crazy, leap off their owner and strangle innocent bystanders hijabs. After all, its not like the good people of Quebec have ever done or said anything that would indicate a predisposition to bigotry concerning minorities

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

Wow! Really! You mean the guys who kept insisting that Iraq had secret weapons facilities despite the fact that weapons inspectors couldn’t find them are now saying that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program despite the fact that nobody can find any evidence of it? Well, you can knock me over with a feather!

Laying Claim to Canada's Internal Waters

the PM insists more than rhetoric is required to assert Canada's sovereignty, and says he's firmly committed to backing up his political stand with significant financial resources and military might.

"The first priority of national defence is to assert your sovereign presence on your territory, to be prepared to defend Canadians from threats of all kinds, whether they be major threats of invasion, or simply minor threats of unauthorized surveillance or potential unauthorized economic activity," Harper said in an interview with Sun Media. "We believe that this is a first priority. We believe that Canadians are excited about the government asserting Canada's control and sovereignty in the Arctic. We believe that's one of the big reasons why Canadians are excited and support our plan to rebuild the Canadian Forces."

Huge capital costs for specialized equipment means holding our ground won't come cheap, but the PM says even the pricey ongoing military mission in Afghanistan won't deter delivery on his campaign pledge to build a new port, icebreaker capability and enhanced patrol and surveillance in the Arctic. He also intends to bolster the ranks of the reservist Canadian Rangers who carry out sovereignty operations in the most remote regions of the country.

This all sounds quite nice, and as a northern resident, I'm all for keeping the territory firmly under Canadian rule. However, being a northern resident means I probably keep a closer eye on this than most. Harper's campaign promises of the last election haven't translated into much action so far, and while the story line for southern consumption hasn't changed much, the government has already begun to back off on its promises.

The federal Conservative government appears to be backing off on an election promise to build a deepwater port in Nunavut – something that does not please Iqaluit’s mayor, Elisapee Sheutiapik.

”It’s very disappointing news,” Sheutiapik said at a council meeting Tuesday last week, during a member’s statement on the matter.

Sheutiapik referred to a Feb. 3 article published in the Ottawa Citizen that quotes an internal defence department document, the revised Canada First Defence Strategy.

The new strategy appears to scale back the election promise of building an Arctic sea port, along with three armed icebreakers that would patrol Canadian Arctic waters.

Instead, it calls for the construction of a refuelling and berthing site for navy ships in the Arctic, as a “forward operating location,” rather than a multi-use, civilian-military seaport.

The strategy also calls for building six Arctic patrol vessels, but these ships would not be icebreakers, and would be unable to travel through areas with heavy sea ice.

The announcement for where the arctic seaport was going to be built was scheduled for late 2006. They're now saying it will be late this year. Cynic that I am, I figure its to keep the popular idea in the news until after the next election, after which it will become much less of a priority.

One problem with having so few people in the arctic is that there are few people to notice when they fail to follow through on promises.

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the security certificate system used by the federal government to detain and deport foreign-born terrorist suspects.

It's nice to see that every now and again, we get something right in this country. Personally, I'm not in favour of living in a country where the government can grab people off the street, imprison them for years without charges and/or exile them to countries where torture and the above practice of snatching people off the street and holding them without charges is commonplace.

Of course, if you want to see why democratic countries cam slip into becoming police states, you don't have to look farther than the on-line poll at CNEWS, where currently two-thirds of the respondents think the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in upholding our Constitution.

Update: That was, I believe the shortest on-line poll in Canoe history. It didn't last a day before being taken down. They must not have liked the answer.

The federal government's priority is to help northerners reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than adapt to climate change, Environment Minister John Baird says.

. . .

"Certainly adaptation is a significant challenge," he said. "It's obviously got to be part of any initiative but we can't set our sites away from the need to reduce greenhouse gases, the need to tackle climate change head on, which is obviously the most urgent priority."

Given the great amount of effort they've put into climate change so far, urgency isn't the adjective that comes to mind. Political expediency is closer to the truth.

Although he has "certainly been told about the schools that are beginning to shift because of the permafrost melting and the huge impact on public infrastructure and highways," Baird said these things have to be balanced against the need to slow down climate change.

If all you're going to do is slow down climate change and not try and stop it, then adaptation becomes even more important, not that any of our current leaders are far-sighted enough to realize that. Sound bites for the next election are about as far as they think ahead.

In the meantime, living on permafrost along the coastline, I guess I'll read the fine print on my home insurance to see if, "collapse due to foundation melting" is covered.

the other day when I said it looked like terrorism outside of Iraq and Afghanistan was declining.

First Thailand:

Twenty-nine bombings and 20 other attacks rocked the country's four southernmost provinces Sunday night. Most of the attacks took place in a span of 45 minutes, Akara said. The targets were karaoke lounges, hotels, schools, gasoline stations and power grids.

The big one in India:

At least 65 people have been killed after a bomb attack aboard a train travelling from India to Pakistan.

And another rash of fighting in Somalia:

Somali government forces and Ethiopian troops have shelled areas of Somalia's capital Mogadishu after their positions came under fire from insurgents.

At least 12 people, mostly civilians, were killed in the exchanges - the heaviest since the government took Mogadishu from Islamists last year.

Unknown gunmen launch almost daily attacks in the city.

I suppose I could take some small pleasure in predicting that the fighting in Somalia was bound to continue after the premature crowing about Ethiopia's easy conquest, but being right about terrible things happening is something I'd prefer to be wrong about.

Lest anyone think I relish bashing Bush I will be the first to announce some good news that the President and his Administration will be certain to tout in April concerning progress in the global war on terrorism (GWOT). After two straight years of unprecedented increases terrorist incidents in which people were killed or wounded outside of Iraq and Afghanistan have declined significantly. While it may be premature to pop champagne corks, there was only one major mass casualty terrorist attack outside the aforementioned war zones--Mumbai, India, which killed more than 200 and wounded over 700.

How much credit the Bush Administration deserves for the decrease, or conversely blame for the previous increases, is beyond my ability to assign. Iraq and Afghanistan continue to spiral downwards, so this is unlikely to help Bush's fortunes too much in any case.

Still, fewer terror attacks outside of those war zones is good news. There might be hope for us yet.

The rhetoric is being heavily upped as are naval and air forces. (The ground forces have been all but used up, but the Pentagon has all these flashy and expensive toys that aren’t being used and if they don’t find something for them to do, people might start cutting their budget to start helping the poor sods on the ground.)

U.S. military officials on Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces.

. . .

Three senior military officials who explained the display said the “machining process” used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

Ooh! A “machining process”! That certainly sounds ominous, yet oddly not terribly convincing. And why is it that these military officials don't want to be named? At least when Colin Powell blew his load four years ago to sell a bullshit case for attacking Iraq, he did it publicly. This time the evidence is apparently so strong nobody wants their name attached to it.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents.

It included a PowerPoint slide program and a handful of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades which the military officials said were made in Iran.

Wow! Powerpoint slides! I can't believe anyone would be skeptical. So who are these weapons going to, anyway?

The EFPs, as well as Iranian-made mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades, have been supplied to what the military officials termed “rogue elements” of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He is a key backer of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The U.S. officials glossed over armaments having reached the other major Shiite militia organization, the Badr Brigade. It is the military wing of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leaders also have close ties to the U.S.

So let’s see, some to the Mahdi Army who hasn’t fought the US since August of 2004 and who generally haven’t used roadside bombs when they did fight them. Oh, and they’re arming the US-backed government forces. Sounds really troublesome. Any real evidence that weapons from Iran are killing US troops?

“We know more than we can show,” said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran.

Well, that’s awfully reassuring. As another fellow said:

So, you see? This case is different. This time we can trust the "intelligence" sources. Because, last time, we'd merely had crews of trained inspectors swarming the country for years, and they reported confidently that there weren't any WMD there. This time, we have amateurs observing the situation in the middle of guerrilla warfare, and they say they've got the goods but can't reveal them. So, you see, it's different.

I hope that what you know doesn’t turn out to be that you know all this is so much bullshit and you can’t offer tangible evidence because none exists. We’ve been down that road with the Iraqi WMD’s and frankly I doubt people wil quite as forgiving when you start yet another war on false pretenses.

Of course, it will be too late by then.

A couple weeks ago. the US military announced the death of five personnel in what they said was an attack on one of their bases in Karbala. Subsequently it was disclosed that only one of the soldiers was killed on the base. The other four had been captured, driven off, and then executed. The attackers used US military uniforms and vehicles typically used by private contractors to bypass the security perimeter.

One of the consequences of that attack is that US military and mercenary personnel now have to go through the same sort of security screening they put Iraqis through, with similar results.

The U.S. military confirmed Saturday that U.S. forces at Camp Anaconda, the huge air base north of Baghdad, shot and killed a civilian contract truck driver.

Oops!

The U.S. Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes

The special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, said in a January 2005 report that $8.8 billion was unaccounted for after being given to the Iraqi ministries.

Oh well, it was just the Iraqis' money. Who's going to miss that?

US Blames Iran for Iraqi arms surge

Nice to see the term surge has so many uses. Bush is "surging" troops, the insurgents are "surging" weapons, and it's all Iran's fault!

This amongst news of a sixth chopper going down in Iraq. I'm guessing VIP photo ops in Baghdad are about to experience a slow-down.

A US Sea Knight helicopter has gone down near Baghdad, killing all seven crewmembers and passengers on board, the US military has said.

Since IED's have made land routes rather dangerous, the potential loss of safe air routes could put US troops in a very precarious situation.

I believe all five helos have been downed in Sunni-controlled areas. I wonder if this is a good time to point out the fact that the Sunni insurgency has recently seen a major increase in support from Saudi Arabia? You know, the place where Osama bin Laden is from, along with fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers.

Never mind, just keep blaming Iran. It's far easier than thinking.

Parliament passes a motion to reaffirm Canada's commitment to Kyoto.

Members of Parliament voted Monday in favour of a motion from Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion that reaffirms Canada's support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government followed party orders and voted unanimously against it, but 161 MPs voted in favour and 115 against the motion.

It is of course a non-binding motion. The major parties talk a good talk, but it still seems they can't quite get around to doing the walk.

President Bush's tough new stance on Iran and his military buildup in the Persian Gulf recall some of the drumbeats that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As then, the Bush administration is making allegations about Iran without providing proof.

It is suggesting Iran is sending weapons to Iraq, yet offering no evidence the supplies can be traced to Tehran. There are whispers, too, that Iranian intelligence agents were behind the recent abduction and execution of five U.S. soldiers.

Iran is the "axis of evil" country whose nuclear ambitions must be stopped. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now Bush's primary Mideast nemesis, replacing the late Saddam Hussein.

Bush insists he has no plans to invade Iran, only to protect U.S. troops in Iraq.

But in recent days:

_Bush raised the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf to its highest level since 2003 by ordering a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region.

_The administration confirmed that Bush has authorized the military to kill or capture Iranian agents who are plotting attacks on U.S. forces.

_The administration has armed Iran's Arab neighbors with Patriot missiles. The Pentagon halted sales of spare parts from the its recently retired F-14 fighter jet fleet because of concerns they could be transferred to Iran.

The Intel is a bit ambiguous as well.

U.S. officials still maintain that Iran is helping Iraqi Shia insurgents build bombs that are particularly deadly because they can penetrate armored vehicles. But three U.S. officials familiar with unpublished intel (unnamed when discussing sensitive info) said evidence of official Tehran involvement is "ambiguous,"

. . .

Last week U.S. military officials in Baghdad were set to brief reporters about evidence American forces had assembled about Iran's interference in Iraq. But the briefing was canceled; one of the U.S. officials suggested it had been put off because intel officials couldn't agree about the info.

At least if I'm paranoid about the possibility of war, I'm not alone.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American adults say it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will be at war with Iran before another year goes by

In some ways this isn't at all a surprise. What they're saying is what all credible military experts have been saying since it became clear the Bush Administration was eyeing a strike on Iran.

They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq.

They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran.

Why this is interesting is that the letter was published in a British newspaper and it's the BBC that is carrying the story. I looked over at CBC, CNN, and Sun Media and found no mention of the warning. Hard to make an informed decision when you don't get all the information.

Update: CNN has posted the story.

On Friday the Conservatives again announced the purchase of four strategic lift aircraft from Boeing for $3.4 billion.

Now, these are good aircraft if you want to send men halfway across the planet for some reason, and by itself this doesn't look like all that bad a purchase, but this "new era" has a troubling side note when put into context. In this case, the fact that the navy is having trouble buying fuel for its ships.

The Canadian navy is pulling three ships out of planned NATO exercises off Nova Scotia next week, citing a lack of funding.

There's no money for the warships to join the U.S. and German ships, navy officials said Friday.

. . .

The decision to tie up the three ships follows a decision two weeks ago to cancel a scheduled sovereignty exercise.

HMCS Halifax was supposed to patrol off Newfoundland, but the navy couldn't afford fuel. Hours after CBC News aired the story, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said $3.5 million would be made available and the ship was ordered to sea.

Now, it seems to me the ability to put ships out to sea guarding our rather large coastline would make better sense from a defense perspective than flying a few troops thousands of miles away. A back of the envelope calculation means that the purchase price of one plane could fuel 200 patrols. It's not really that simple of course, but I wonder when the Conservative government went on it's military spending spree this spring what kinds of missions they had in mind for the "new era", and if guarding our coastlines and borders rated as highly as sending troops into hot spots far from home.

I wasn't going to bother writing anything about the report saying humans are behind climate change. The only people who don't already realize that are part of the same delusional sect that figure the Iraq invasion was a great idea. The fact that all of the evidence is against them doesn't matter, they have faith!

However, I then noticed this article:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Not exactly the most subtle ploy, and frankly, only $10,000? Exxon/Esso made $40 billion last year. You think they could put up a bit more money than that.

Of course, you'll note they're not funding research to try and dispute the findings. They know the science is against them. They just want to pay for hacks to criticize the scientific findings. So long as they can keep people thinking there is actually some controversy over the topic, they figure they can keep on business as usual.

The unfortunate part is that they're probably right, at least for the moment. Ultimately they'll go the way of the dinosaurs whose remains fuels their profits today. One of the stupidest arguments about why we can't act on climate change is that it will cost too much and hurt too many businesses. The same philosophy kept American car makers from increasing fuel efficiency. I'm sure Ford and GM are real happy they saved all that money and let Toyota and Honda waste their resources complying with Japan's government standards.

Even if climate change was a myth, the more efficient you make your business, the less energy you waste, the more sustainable your developments, the more likely you are to succeed. Canada can continue to pour billions in tax breaks for oil companies and ignore alternative energy sources and watch the rest of the world pass us by. All that means is that we'll be paying a lot more when the time to catch up comes, and you can be sure the oil company executives won't be the ones footing the bill.