Northman's Fury

If you want to outlive your fellow-Canadians, maybe you should pack for Prince Edward Island.

And, Alberta would be a place you'd want to avoid.

According to Statistics Canada figures for 2005, residents of the island province lived the longest in Canada -- to an average age of 75.6 years.

Alberta, meanwhile, has an average life expectancy of just 71.6 years, the lowest among provinces and third lowest when including the territories.

The Northwest Territories stood at 61.1 years and Nunavut had the lowest by an Arctic mile, at an average of 47.8 years.

47.8 years! If Nunavut were a country, we'd rank somewhere between Somalia and Nigeria, with very few countries, all but Afghanistan in sub-Saharan Africa, ranking below us.

That's almost unbelievably bad for a section of what is supposed to be a First-World country. It's unfortunate that I don't have to look too far to see the conditions that make it believable.

You know, the Conservatives have repeatedly blocked any members of the opposition from visiting Afghanistan, saying that their presence would put the troops at risk. (Visits by the Conservatives themselves apparently being far less risky.) What they failed to tell everyone, is that the reason opposition visits would be so risky, is because the Conservatives would blab to everyone about their itinerary.

The two politicians also toured a forward operating base in the Zhari region, where Canadian Forces soldiers are training their Afghan counterparts to fight the Taliban.

It was known they had travelled to Kabul, but the details of their trip to southern Afghanistan and their visit to the base were kept secret to protect them from attack.

But Helena Guergis, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, revealed in a Saturday statement criticizing Dion that he would be visiting the Canadian unit called the provincial reconstruction team, or PRT.

"I think he should apologize to our troops while he is touring the PRT in safety," she said.

And I'm not sure this is the best excuse:

A Guergis spokesperson said the minister didn't actually know Dion would visit the base, but that she assumed he would because his visit to Afghanistan wouldn't be complete unless he did.

Saying that some high value targets will be traveling to a certain location because you assume they will rather than actually knowing they will doesn't change the fact that you put that location, and the soldiers stationed there, high up on the enemies hit list. No change in intent or the possible consequences.

Get her the hell out.

A bit of an uproar in some of the blogs I read about a supposed pro-choice blogger decrying the use of the above term to attack those who claim to be "pro-life". Dave, Cathie, and Matt all do a fine job of responding to this call for civility for the pro-choice crowd, and I simply recommend reading them rather than trying to come up with some lesser rant of my own.

Frankly, the first time I saw the term, I thought it was rather descriptive of the folks who shove pictures of aborted fetus' at you and plant them on billboards and placards in front of abortion clinics. Besides, I don't base any of my positions on the tactics used by the most extreme elements of their proponents, but on the logic of the position itself.

I simply don't get someone thinking that the people who use the term are in any way in the same league as people who scream "murderer" at women and doctors who have had or who performed abortions; harassment, vandalism, assualts, and in extreme cases, bombing abortion clinics and assassinating medical personal.

I just don't see any equivalency there. Be civil with those who actually are; uncivil with those who won't be. Real fighting is ugly, get used to it.

CNN has learned that top staff members of Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign were asked to work without pay for the month of January, and perhaps longer, so that campaign resources could be focused on the Florida Republican presidential primary.

Two sources in the campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the campaign was not in dire financial straits. A third campaign source, however, said "things are starting to get tight" and that "it was more telling than asking" the senior staff to forgo paychecks beginning the first of the year.

I take it as an encouraging sign that Giuliani's campaign is on the way out. Despite the fact that I once thought he might be the best candidate for the Democrats to run against, given his impressively large and overflowing skeleton closet, I'd just as soon see him bow out early so there's less chance of him trying out his authoritarian tendencies.

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing I learnt about freedom in school. Great lines like, "Give me liberty! so I can cede it to the government and they can tell me what to do!"

Yep! No dictatorial tendencies there at all. /snark.

Of course, according to Jonah Goldberg, that would be his latent liberalism coming through.

Whatever else you can say about it, the Tata Nano is a significant achievement. Manufacturing a car for sale at $2,500.00 has huge implications, particularly when you take into consideration the populations of India, China, and the rest of the developing world.

Of course, there is the question of whether or not they'll be able to afford even the small amount of gas it needs once there's enough of them out there to drive demand even higher than it is now.

They should also consider some street lights.

Some good news,

The Federal Court of Appeal has rejected a controversial levy that would have raised the price of MP3 players, cellphones and computers.

The FCA, which released its decision Thursday, said the Copyright Board — a regulatory body that determines royalties for copyrighted works — did not have the authority to impose the levy on digital recorders.

The levy, which was slated to be introduced in 2008, would have amounted to an additional $5 to $75 depending on the storage capacity of the recorder.

I first read about this in July, and what I said then is still much how I feel now.

this certainly isn't about protecting the artists, because you can be quite certain that none of the artists are going to see a penny of a this kind of broad based levy. This is simple greed by the big labels, possibly linked to the move to DRM-free music downloads. After all, if you can no longer force people to buy multiple copies of the same music, you have to find some other way to squeeze more money out their pockets. Finding a way that cuts out the artists' take as well is just gravy.

You don't have to look much further than the Writer's Guild strike to see the truth in that. The studios don't want to pay the writers proper royalties for copies of their shows being sold on the internet or DVD. From that, you can be sure they wouldn't be sending them a cut of a levy being charged on all digital storage media regardless of what's being stored on it.

I'm all for the proper compensation of the people who create works like music and movies, but I'm very much against shelling out cash just to line the pockets of corporate executives, which is exactly what this levy would have done.

Sir Edmund Hillary, who, along with Nepalese Sherpa Tenzing Norgay, became the first person to climb the summit of Mount Everest, has died at the age of 88.

John Cole isn't feeling the love for Obama, and even approvingly links to a story by Karl Rove, the point of which is that Obama's just too good at the rhetoric and doesn't bore us all to death explaining in excruciating detail what his policy positions are. After all, listening to boring policy speeches is how we should be making our decisions about who to elect.

And frankly, that's probably true, but I don't recall hearing any detailed policy speeches from any candidate. I'm sure all of them, including Obama, have made a few by now, but the simple truth is that few people pay too close of attention to such things. Detailed policy papers aren't the most riveting of reading, and listening to people drone on about them is a good way to ensure that most people just tune right out.

Via John Robb, Dave Winer posted just how these things get decided:

A lot of my friends on Twitter dismiss Huckabee, and to be clear, I could not vote for a Republican this year, no matter who their candidate is, but he is a fantastic American personality. Elections are all about feelings, not policies or positions or even records as the pundits insist. Who you vote for is a function of how you feel about the country and the world in relation to yourself. The candidate who comes closest to validating your feelings is the person you vote for.

Emotion drives elections. Huckabee is doing well in large part because he's likable and funny, regardless of the fact that he's a religious nut with the foreign policy understanding of my two-year old neice. Part of Hillary's "comeback" in NH is credited on her welling up and showing emotion. Appealing to emotion and sending out a message of hope is how that other Clinton became president. Bush beat Gore in part because he was, "the guy you wanted to have a beer with", and Kerry because the Democrats thought uninspiring substance and policy was the way to go.

Obama inspires people, and that can't be discounted. Hillary also inspires people, the problem is that it's mostly the Republicans who go all frothy-mouthed at the mere mention of the name, "Clinton". As Balloon Juice commenter Krista notes:

There are obviously people who have qualms or doubts about Obama. But when it really comes down to it, on election day, if Obama IS indeed the candidate, would those people stay home rather than vote for him? They might grumble, but I still think they’d much rather have Obama than any Republican.

My concern is that with Hillary, there are not just people on the Dem side who have reservations about her, there are people who actively loathe her, and who really WOULD stay home rather than vote for her on election day. Conversely, I fear that a Hillary nomination would bring out Republican voters in record numbers – they just hate her that much.

The most important thing is that a Democrat is elected president. Full stop. It’s time to clean house and make the Republicans clean out their house before they’re given the reins again.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards—any of them are capable, and any of them would do a better job than Bush (Hell, my 10-year-old nephew would do a better job than Bush. Kid’s got more money invested than I do.) The question is: who’s going to bring out the most voters on the Dem side?

From the Washington Post:

New Estimate of Violent Deaths Among Iraqis Is Lower

A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.

. . .

The three-year toll of violent deaths calculated in the survey is one-quarter the size of that found in a smaller survey by Iraqi and Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the journal Lancet in 2006.

And from the New York Times:

W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited

The World Health Organization on Wednesday waded into the controversial subject of Iraqi civilian deaths, publishing a study that estimated that the number of deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 was at least twice as high as the oft-cited Iraq Body Count.

Spin the numbers however you like, it still comes out as a lot of people getting killed.

Bush says Israel must cede land

Israeli occupation of Arab land taken in 1967 must end, US President George W Bush has said.

Speaking after two days of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, he re-affirmed US commitment to an Israel inside secure and defensible borders.

He also said there must be a viable Palestinian state, and a solution to the refugee issue which would involve compensation payments.

I need popcorn.

I'm more than a little surprised to find out they still have this on the books, and that the government is still uncertain whether or not they should get rid of it.

The government has "every sympathy" for the case for abolishing blasphemy laws, Justice Minister Maria Eagle has said.

Speaking at the end of a debate on proposals to scrap the laws, she told MPs they wanted to first consult the Church of England.

Consult the Church of England? Nice to see that the secular government needs to go ask permission of the Church before changing the laws. It's like the right always says, Christianity has completely vanished as a force in European life.

More on point is this comment:

"The Almighty does not really need the protection of these ridiculous laws and that's why large numbers of people of a religious perspective share the view that these offences need to be abolished," he said.

I mean, if your god is all-powerful, then why get so worried about somebody saying nasty things about him? Such laws are less about belief and more about power.

Dr Harris's amendment to the bill comes after leading figures, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, wrote to the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, arguing the legislation was discriminatory as it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England beliefs.

The letter said it served "no useful purpose" and offered Christian activists a means to intimidate broadcasters, publishers and performers.

The High Court last month rejected an attempt by a Christian evangelical group to prosecute the director general of the BBC for blasphemy over the screening of the musical Jerry Springer - The Opera.

Too true. The ability to launch lawsuits, even nuisance ones you know you're going to lose, can both raise your profile and bleed money from those you disagree with. Shutting down the opportunities this medieval relic presents is a victory for free speech. Here's hoping they get it done soon.

Way I see it, America needs a president who's gonna somehow un-royally screw up the Middle East, do some serious cleaning up after you dropped your pants and took a steaming dump all over the fucking environment, and—boom!—restore dignity, honor, and all that shit to these United States.

. . .

But who comes to me, huh? Fucking nobody. Why ask old Jimmy anything? What the fuck could he know about peace in the Middle East? It's not like he fucking won the Nobel Peace Prize for that shit. You myopic pricks. Back in '79, I sat Sadat and Begin right down and made those two dicklicks shake hands. It was beautiful—I had all the pieces lined up and I smiled and waved in my best fucking suit and tie right there on TV. And what do you do, you pieces of shit? You screw the whole goddamn pooch.

Cocksuckers.

Oh, what's that I hear? The weather's all screwy? You got a global warming problem? Boo-fucking-hoo! I was telling you morons to turn off your lights and unplug all your shit at night to conserve energy in 19-fuckin'-75, for chrissake. Gee, I wonder what woulda happened if we'd all switched to solar power like I fucking did back when we had a fucking chance to do something about it. Think we'd still be sucking Saudi Arabia's dick like a five-dollar whore? I sure as fuck didn't get no fancy Oscar for that little spiel, though, did I? No. But Al Gore, that cum-sucking pig, steals the shit from me and now he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ made a fucking sandwich.

Full comments here.

Somehow I don't remember Carter having such a potty mouth.

MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. is selling the division that developed the distinctive Canadarm space shuttle technology to a U.S. firm as part of a $1.325 billion cash deal.

Apparently the technologies that went into the Canadarm will have better growth potential in the US.

The Journal reported that MDA management had long been frustrated by the difficulty of accessing the U.S. defence market. With U.S. owners, that will no longer be the case.

Well, that's certainly a growth market the way the US runs its foreign policy. I bet we'll be seeing a name change on the arm in the not-too-distant future, though.

Was it backlash for the misogyny of the media or the Bradley effect?

It has been quite interesting watching everyone scramble to explain why the polls for the Democrats in New Hampshire were so far off. (Added to the above are some theories regarding Diebold voting machines.)

It is possible, of course, that the polls just happened to be wrong. One data point does not a trend make. It will be interesting to see what happens in future battles.

And ultimately, New Hampshire means that there will be future battles, (on both sides), before anything is decided. And the emerging consensus seems to be that that is good news:

The Clinton campaign has announced its plans. It's going to fight for Nevada and South Carolina, as well as the "Super Duper Tuesday" states.

For those of us who want as long a primary season as possible, so more Democratic voters will have the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the choice of a nominee, this is good news.

The highlighted portion being the significant part to me, since there is nothing more annoying than having an election decided before you've had a chance to cast a vote. And, according to Sullivan, the NH result carries a silver lining for Obama as well.

Some home truths: a tough, long primary battle will take the sting out of the powerful backlash that he is the function of a fad of euphoria, marketing hype, or gas-baggery. It will take the edge off the criticism that he is untested. It will help him prove his mettle and endurance.

Ah well, another week of watching people try and figure out the political tea leaves before the Michigan primary. I must thank the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for making the race an interesting one.

Update:

According to Libby, it was a little of "all of the above", and I have to say I agree with her that its the most plausible explanation.

It appears the Canadian government is continuing its push to follow in Bush's footsteps.

Canada does not tolerate torture, but must sometimes work with countries that have questionable human rights records in its efforts to protect the public, a federal lawyer told an inquiry looking into torture claims by three Arab-Canadians.

. . .

Peirce began his inquiry submission with the strong declaration: "Canada does not countenance torture."

But then he went on to say that the risk of mistreatment abroad is just one factor that determines whether the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service should share suspect-related information with foreign governments.

And even if Ottawa did facilitate the men's arrests, he argued, that would not violate the UN International Convention on Torture, saying the agreement obliges Ottawa only from preventing torture on its own soil not in foreign countries.

We promise we won't torture you. We'll just have you picked up by somebody who will, feed them the questions we want confessions tortured out of you for, and then walk away whistling. And when they come back with the information we want . . . well, who are we to look a gift horse in the mouth?

Unfortunately, none of this is a surprise. It is entirely consistent with many of the other positions this government has taken.

Hand off prisoners taken on the battlefields of Afghanistan to people who may torture them? Not our problem. Just get us some new boots so we don't mess our own up walking through the blood and shit.

Our government won't lift a finger to ensure Canadians in Gitmo get a fair trail, and don't mind if other governments want to kill you.

In light of all that, sending some of us out to be tortured in the name of "security" is just par for the course.

McCain and Clinton win this time 'round.

On the Republican side, Thompson, with 1% of the vote last I checked, should probably start napping outside of the debates and bow out of the race shortly. Otherwise, the strong second by Romney and distant third by Huckabee, plus the possiblity that Guiliani's "big state" strategy might actually work, means the field is still very much open.

For the Democrats, the polls showing a huge shift towards Obama were obviously flawed, but I believe he still closed the gap of where he was pre-Iowa. The real question is where this leaves Edwards?

Oh, and I'd love to hear Gloria Steinem's take on Hillary's victory.

Part I

July 2007

First, a bungle. I thought McCain was toast; even that he may drop out of the race. Now, he may wind up being the establishment candidate Republicans rally around to defeat Huckabee. Oh well.

Beyond that, most of my major posts involved Pakistan, stemming from the battle around the Red Mosque at the time, including a warning from British generals that a loss in Afghanistan would cause Pakistan to fail, and possible US military action in the tribal areas. The situation certainly hasn’t improved much, though fortunately it hasn’t yet exploded.

All part of the problems the Bush administration will be passing on to whoever winds up being the successor, along with much damaged credibility.

As are the situations in Gaza and Somalia, which show some interesting similarities in their development.

August 2007

The Padilla verdict, and an account of his captivity that should terrify anyone who actually thinks about it.

One of the first indications that 2007 was going to be a record year in the Arctic.

Stu Bykofsky wrote an stupefying article titled “We need another 9/11”, which basically argued that another major terror attack killing thousands of innocents was needed to shut up all the opposition to Bush and the Iraq War.

August also brought some of the clearest indications of the shockwaves that the financial markets were going to feel from the sub-prime fiasco.

And I made another of several posts examining counterinsurgency and why we weren’t doing too well at it.

Welcome to the paradoxical world of counterinsurgency warfare -- the kind of war you win by not shooting.

The objective in fighting insurgents isn't to kill every enemy fighter -- you simply can't -- but to persuade the population to abandon the insurgents' cause. The laws of these campaigns seem topsy-turvy by conventional military standards: Money is more decisive than bullets; protecting our own forces undermines the U.S. mission; heavy firepower is counterproductive; and winning battles guarantees nothing.

September 2007

The Canadian Dollar reaches parity! And some people are nervous at the prospects.

Then there was the whole veiled voting “controversy” trotted out by our generous Conservative government, which got the desired results, even if they’re unlikely to admit it.

There was also much talk about the “serious people” in Washington, who are a big part of the war culture that drives such fiascos like Iraq, (and nearly could have done the same for Iran).

Then there were a few issues with some of America’s allies; both the Saudis, and of more current significance, the leader of Pakistan.

And finally, some words on the fact that the “surge” has morphed into an attempt to bring the “awakening” throughout Iraq.

This is a really bad idea for the long term. By throwing their support behind the local leaders and not the central government, the US is encouraging warlords and fiefdoms and a multitude of forces whose primary loyalties will be to something other than the state of Iraq. This is an extension of the policy that put Shiite and Kurdish militias into uniforms to create the illusion of progress in the creation of an Iraqi army, so that now we hear all sorts of stories about how these very same militias have “infiltrated” these units and are using them for their own purposes.

October, 2007

I lost a bet.

Another in what appears to be an endless series of former Bush lackeys coming out to say what everybody already knows as they launch their book tours.

There was also the case of little Graeme Frost, a 12-year old who, along with his family, was attacked and smeared by the right for daring to point out that SCHIP helped him, continuing a pattern of attacking anyone who disagrees with the party line, including those in uniform.

Several posts regarding rights and liberties, from former Nazi interrogators slamming current practices in the “War on Terror”, (and being lambasted as naive and foolish for it), to a true Big Brother scenario in Canada. The movie “Rendition” also came out, which led to a ham-handed attempt at de-bunking, and a line that to me, encapsulates the whole conservative argument on all of the above these days.

Also, in what is probably related to the above attitudes towards state police tactics, the tasering death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport, a story that wouldn’t really take off until a cell-phone video is finally released a month later.

And of course, the big news of the month is that Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Price. I’m still uncertain if it was deserved, but it was fun watching the outrage and taking on the skeptics.

Another Peace Price winner, Desmond Tutu, is banned from speaking at an American University because of his criticism of Israel, this a month after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a guest at Columbia.

November, 2007

Tasers! Tasers! Tasers!

The video showing the RCMP killing Robert Dziekanski with tasers is finally released and prompts reactions from Polish officials, ordinary Canadians, and dumb-asses. It also prompts some “safety” demonstrations, which probably look a little different than the way they get used in the real world. All of which leads to a post on how our police forces are evolving to face future challenges.

Some early indications of the fear the Republican establishment has of the Huckabee campaign, the Bush administration trying to bypass the yet-to-be-released NIE on its push for war with Iran, and too much support for torture.

Also notable was the Saudi ruling to punish a rape victim with 200 lashes, the Canadian Conservative Party’s dictatorial policies, and the debate over intelligence and DNA.

Then there was the crackdown in Pakistan and Bush’s delusional reading of it; our language becoming increasingly twisted, and I ask a question that I’m now sorry to say I will find out the answer to.

The situation in Pakistan is clearly tense, passions are on the rise, and a quite popular figure is about to take to the streets with, if the crowds greeting her return are any indication, possibly hundreds of thousands of supporters. Any crackdown is likely to be quite nasty and bloody.

Musharraf is desperate, and its very hard to predict what a desperate man will do. But as ugly as a heavy-handed crackdown would be, what if the "strong threat" is real? And what if it succeeds?

With all the pent-up rage and frustration there right now, what happens if Bhutto becomes a martyr?

December, 2007

The Iran NIE is finally released, and man, are the war shills upset! Suddenly the CIA and other intelligence agencies can’t be trusted and may in fact, be working for the Iranians. Abolish the bastards!

It manages to scuttle some of the fear-mongering. It would be so much easier were everybody as clueless as the White House staff apparently is.

On the Climate Change front, 2007 was a year to remember, though our government’s actions are shamefully puny.

And Climate Change isn’t the only place we’re losing ground; we’re also fast becoming a surveillance state. And such acts have very little to do with the “War on Terror” or any real concern for our military or defence.

There was also a sneak peek at history’s greatest book, Malawians showing the good judgment to ignore the “experts”, and some casualties in the “War on Christmas”.

In campaign news, a quixotic effort to make science an important issue in the race for president, and some more wisdom from Scott Adams:

The December 17th issue of Time had some interesting statistics on voters. When asked the “most important quality” for a candidate, Democrats picked “good judgment” 33% of the time, and Republicans picked it 21%. The other choices were caring about people, leadership, character, and experience.

Does it bother you that good judgment wasn’t the top choice for three-quarters of all voters?

Obviously experience doesn’t help if you have bad judgment. But a person with good judgment would consult with people who have experience. Clearly, judgment is more important than experience.

. . .

Clearly, good judgment should be the most important quality in a president. But how often do you hear someone say that a candidate “has good judgment”?[emp. mine]

So some sort of confrontation seems to have occurred between the Iranians and the US Navy in the Strait of Hormuz. Like Cernig, I don't trust either official version and was waiting for more information before posting anything.

Some people, of course, have conclusions ready to hand:

We should've sunk every one of them.

Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?

Because nothing saves blood and treasure like starting wars without proper preparation or forethought. But the real kicker is just how much Mr. Peters apparently knows about the internal workings of the Iranian regime:

Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.

At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?

Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?

And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.

The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.

I can certainly agree with that last sentence, with the caveat that Bush is a damn poor checkers player to boot. I have to hand to the guy; suspecting the Iranians were prepared for an escalation of an incident the US Navy was obviously unprepared for and yet still calling for them to open up on the Iranians regardless of the consequences. As is always the case with warmongers who don't have to face the consequences personally.

Anyway, reading another account of the incident brought this information to light:

Cosgriff said the five Iranian boats, outfitted with outboard motors and carrying three to four people each, rapidly approached three U.S. warships — cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham, which were passing through the Strait into the Gulf.

So we're basically talking little speedboats here. Two things come to mind; the first being an account of a war simulation carried out before the Iraq War where the "Red Team" commander sunk a good chunk of the naval forces arrayed against him by using small suicide speedboats in imitation of the USS Cole attack, which explains the nervousness of the naval forces here.

The other was a description of the Gulf traffic in a post I read some time back, (I forget where), that mentioned that IRGC members have a habit of running smuggled goods across the Gulf in such small boats, weaving in and out of the heavy traffic. That post too warned that such activity could find itself causing a confrontation with US naval forces.

I find myself wondering if the white boxes the crews were supposedly tossing over the sides of their boats weren't illicit goods they didn't want to be caught with while their buddies distracted the authorities?

At this point, it's as good an explanation as any.

that you guys are shocked by this. The ignorance of Americans regarding the rest of the world is legendary enough to have become a stereotype. Last I heard, at least a third of them can't find the US on a world map. Their efforts in finding countries like Iraq, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia shouldn't surprise anyone, unfortunately.

On average, young Americans can find one (1.3) of these four countries. Fourteen percent can point out all four countries correctly, while 44% cannot find any of them.

After three years of war in Iraq, only 37% of young Americans can find Iraq; 63% cannot. As many can—and cannot—identify Saudi Arabia. The result is even worse for Iran and Israel. Only one in four can find Iran (26%) or Israel (25%). Three-quarters cannot find these two countries. Overall, up to one in five say they “don’t know” where these four countries are located (ranging from 16% for Iraq to 20% for Iran).

Education makes a difference in young adults’ ability to locate these four countries in the headlines: young Americans with college experience (1.6 correct answers on average) are more likely than those with up to a high school education (0.9 correct) to locate these countries. That said, even the more educated group fares relatively poorly, with less than a quarter of those with a college education able to find all four countries (23%, 6% of those with up to a high school diploma).

On the other hand, I suppose I should stop trying to convince people of the dangers of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz by imploring them to, "look at the map". From the above, it's mostly wasted effort.

I don't often link to Ed Morrissey, but he nails what Gloria Steinem is saying in this column.

What Steinem demands is that voters stop considering Hillary as Hillary, and instead think of her as Generic Woman. Steinem doesn't want equality of opportunity; she wants grievances addressed. And she makes it clear that Women come before Black Men on the grievance agenda, writing "Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women[.]"

It's time for Generic Woman, not Black Man, on Steinem's dance card. Sorry, Barack. You're not scheduled to be Generic Black Man until 2016.

I do believe, and can if pressed come up with considerable evidence of, the fact that women in politics have a rough go of things. But I had always though that the liberal ideal was that people be chosen on their merits rather than some physical quality. This kind of shameless pandering to identity politics is a sign of desperation from Clinton supporters.

And as for the title of Steinem's article, Hillary was, and in some measures still is, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination from before she even announced her candidacy. Hell, she even polled better among blacks than Obama did last I checked. The nomination is hers to lose.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

Obama is seen as unifying because he preaches unity in his campaign. Hillary is seen as divisive because of the name Clinton and all the baggage that accompanies it. His race and her gender aren't the critical factors here, particularly among the progressive voters in the Democratic primaries.

We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

If I believed the first, I wouldn't need to add the second.

Normally, once I post something, I don't pay too much attention to it unless subsequent events remind of it, but with the new year and all the myriad lists it produced, I thought I'd go back and take another look at everything I posted over the last 13 months and compile a sort of post round-up of what I've been up to here. It has been somewhat fascinating to reread many of the posts and a good reminder of why I keep doing this.

December, 2006

Yeah, a bit early for a 2007 review, but it’s the first month I have blog posts up for. Looking through them, two are significant to me.

The first is this post regarding the wingnuts premature celebrating of Ethiopia’s victory of the Somali Islamists. To myself, and anyone else who had bothered to do a teeny bit of research on the situation and had paid attention to how the war in Iraq had progressed, it was obvious that the situation in the Horn was far from settled. I ended with this:

This wasn't the end of the regional war people have been warning the world about, it's the opening phase.

From this came a series of posts as I kept an eye on the situation, (here, here, here, and here), and the situation deteriorated as I had suspected. A few days ago, the BBC had this to say on the one-year anniversary:

The Ethiopian decision to invade Somalia in December 2006 altered the balance of power in the Horn of Africa.

On 28 December 2006, they helped government forces capture Islamists from the capital, Mogadishu, which they had controlled for six months.

Ethiopian forces, which had been facing Eritrea along their 1,000km border, but were otherwise confronting few security threats, are now engaged on three fronts.

The forces in Somalia are now bogged down and cannot withdraw, as Prime Minister Meles Zenawi recently acknowledged.

In addition to the conflict in Somalia they now also confront a growing rebellion in the Somali region of Ethiopia from the Ogaden National Liberation Front.

Knox Chitiyo, head of the Africa programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London, believes the Ethiopian military position is increasingly difficult.

"The government now has daggers pointing at it from all directions," he says.

"It is facing a multi-front war with no prospect of a military victory."

As with many other things, I take little satisfaction over the fact that I got this right, given the ugly consequences.

The second is a bit of a surprise; a post about the planned surge. I sometimes forget that the plans were already being bandied about that far back.

This worked out differently than I had expected. During the summer, it did appear that the dire predictions I had linked to of terrible casualties were more than accurate and the surge was doomed to a bloody failure. Instead, General Petreuas shifted strategies mid-stream and tamped down violence by co-opting the forces who they were fighting; the “awakening” inspired by the al Qaeda overreach in Anbar.

That strategy has its own problems, and it still doesn’t change the fact that the surge itself remains a failure, as Matthew Yglesias points out:

The weird thing about the surge is that it's failure has been much more unambiguous. The theory behind the surge was clear. Some people said more troops would bring more security to Iraq. Critics of that idea noted that sending more troops would be logistically unsustainable. Surge theorists posited that a temporary increase in force levels would create a temporary increase in security that would open window of opportunity for political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. So the surge was implemented. As of September, the surge had failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. Surge supporters told skeptics we had to give it more time. Three months later, the surge has still failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. Now we're near the point of de-surging -- the window is closing rapidly and nobody thinks the opportunity will be seized. And yet surge fans are declaring victory. It's doesn't make sense. The surge's architects laid out admirably clear goals for it. Laid them out and unambiguously failed to meet them.

January, 2007

A few good stories as I peruse the archive.

My first post regarding legalizing Afghanistan’s opium crop, something I still think is a good idea.

Some Global Warming “hype" regarding the first disappearance of a previously inhabited island due to rising seas.

One less than prophetic post regarding the imminent possibility of war with Iran, which appears far less likely than it once did.

And, in honour of the primary season finally starting, a post regarding the bogus story of Obama’s Muslim roots, and this snippet from Dilbert creator Scott Adams:

As more U.S. presidential wannabes slither into the race, I realize that flip-flopping season has officially opened.

For those of you who do not follow politics, flip-flopping is what happens when an intelligent person revises his opinion because the situation changes or new information becomes available. Flip-flopping goes by many other names including: rational behavior, thinking, and not being a frickin’ idiot. No one wants that sort of loser to have the nuclear codes.

The typical voter says to himself, “If a candidate goes off and starts using information and reason to make decisions, there’s no chance he’s going to agree with me.” No one wants that.

February 2007

A couple more posts about Climate Change, which appears to be one of my pet topics, the most amusing of which is this one where it was disclosed that ExxonMobil and other big oil companies were offering $10,000 for stories that played up shortcomings of the IPCC report.

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.

Of the Iran stories, this one looks considerably prophetic now that a portion of the NIE has been released, and goes to show just how unsurprising its conclusions should have been, were it not for the blatant politicization of the previous ones.

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.

March, 2007

This month is mostly significant because it is on the 31st that this blog took its current format. The previous months were originally posted on a different, far uglier little blog that I’ve since removed. I also added a statcounter to see if anyone was reading things; they weren’t, and continued not doing so through April and May. Oh well, this is mainly for my own venting anyways.

As for posts, I rather misread the signs for an imminent Canadian election, though the Conservatives continue to govern like an election campaign, and there were a couple hints at the dismal state of the US’s image abroad here and here.

April, 2007

The big story, at least early in the month, was the release of 15 British sailors that had been captured by the Iranians, in what I thought was quite the propaganda coup for the Iranians and slammed the idiots who thought Blair should have acted more like Thatcher during the Falklands War.

There was also McCain’s stroll through Baghdad, which wasn’t, shall we say, one of his finest moments.

Best post looking back is probably this one exploring how the British fought in Northern Ireland compared to the counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a nutshell, the reason the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are doomed can be summed up in two words, “Force Protection”. How often have you heard stories of troops firing on vehicles at checkpoints because they failed to stop on time and the troops felt threatened? The idea is to protect the troops from suicide bombers, and it’s hard to argue that this is a bad thing. Sometimes they’re right and stop suicide bombers. Other times they are tragically wrong and slaughter innocent civilians.

The message is that our troops’ lives are far more important than the civilians that they are supposedly there to protect. Look at the casualty figures in N. Ireland again. The reason the British suffered greater losses than the terrorists, is because they ignored “force protection” and put civilian life above their own. Part of the fifth point above, they were there as protectors, not tormentors. Shooting up innocent civilians turns their families against the occupiers and to the terrorists. Not shooting them up means some real terrorists get through and you suffer greater casualties.

May, 2007

A post on the Afghan campaign following the death of Mullah Dadullah that confirms the bit I quoted above:

After burying the dead, the tribe’s elders met with their chief, Hajji Arbab Daulat Khan, and resolved to fight American forces if they returned. “If they come again, we will stand against them, and we will raise the whole area against them,” he warned. Or in the words of one foreign official in Afghanistan, the Americans went after one guerrilla commander and created a hundred more.

And another with an eerily familiar incident; an Afghan soldier turning his weapon on his “allies” and killing two US soldiers.

May is also unique in that I found one of those rare instances when I agreed with the Bush administrations actions. In this case, regarding the situation in Darfur.

Also worth remembering is the story of how Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to strong-arm a sick and drugged-up Ashcroft into re-authorizing the warrentless eavesdropping program.

And there was the scare over tainted food coming from China, which seems to have been replaced by tainted toys without ever being solved, and an example of how the Chinese ignoring food safety is just a matter of following America’s example.

June, 2007

A significant month due to the fact that people actually started reading the site on a regular basis. Not very many people, mind you, but the fact that there appeared to be someone interested in what I was writing encouraged me to write a bit more often. It ended with a huge boost, when Cernig from The Newshoggers, who was doing the guest blog round-up at Crooks and Liars, linked to this post and for a while had me convinced the statcounter code was broken. From my regular 15-20 hits a day, I got over 1,500 in 24 hours. Left me somewhat giddy.

Otherwise, it was a quite busy month, with an appalling story regarding the Romney family’s dog, Canada’s no-fly list showing just how useful such things truly are, Vladimir Putin boning up on his “Person of the Year” credentials, and a post regarding how the “surge” was working after one of its bloodiest months.

And on the Climate Change posts, one particularly eloquent rant copied from David Brin on how the deniers are battling against measures that would make sense even if all the science backing them up was wrong.

Perennial Bush-defender Peter Worthington got all hot and bothered that the US didn’t place better in the Global Peace Index rankings, trying to argue that the strategy of “Wars for Freedom” should trump their actual record. Related to that was this post where I went on my true rants regarding the protection of “terrorists’ rights”

How blind to facts can people be? Protect the rights of terrorists? I don’t give a flying fuck about the terrorists. It's my rights I'm looking to protect.

Do you really want to live in a country where somebody can claim you’re a threat, and based solely on that claim, you can be dragged off the street and thrown into legal oblivion for the rest of your natural life?

Want to know why you were arrested? Sorry, you’re a terrorist now, we don’t have to tell you.

Want to challenge the evidence against you? Sorry, you’re a terrorist now, we don’t have to show you or anyone else what evidence we have.

Want a trial? Sorry, you’re a terrorist now, you don’t deserve a trial.

Say you’ve been abused? Tortured? Forced into confession? Too bad, you’re a terrorist, we don’t care about you.

. . .

Call me crazy, but if I get dragged off the street and thrown into a cell, I want to know why. I want to know what the charges against me are. I want the Government to be forced to produce some evidence of their claims. I want a trial and the chance to defend myself.

Part II should be up late today or tomorrow morning.

I don't know if some of the latest polls in New Hampshire showing Obama opening a double-digit lead are really accurate. We'll find out tommorrow. What is clear, is that with Obama winning in Iowa, the race is now truly a contest.

For the longest time, the Clinton campaign looked like an unstoppable juggernaut, at least for the Democratic nomination. Her candidacy was being discussed in 2004 as a done deal. One of the reasons Al Gore listed for not wanting to be drafted was the threat of going up against the Clinton machine. even as Obama and Edwards narrowed the gap in key states, her lead in national polls was looked upon as insurmountable.

Iowa changed all of that, and New Hampshire may continue the Obama momentum. The question now is not only can Clinton recover, but apparently whether or not she even has a plan for such a contingency.

One could make the argument that Lewis's audience here wasn't voters but political reporters. And she was trying to plant the seed of their counterattack on Obama. But it all amounts to the same thing. These folks have been knocked senseless by the events of the last three days. And they seem almost incapable of even thinking straight. Through the day I got pitched, formally and informally, by various Clintonites on Obama stories, most of which were almost embarrassing to hear.

I don't use these words and phrases lightly or indiscriminately. I find it difficult to conceive of how unprepared her team was for this not-that-hard-to-predict turn of events.

What it tells me is that they never really planned for this. And they literally have no idea what to do at the clutch moment. For the now they are grasping for anything and everything.

Planning on everything going your way looks great when it works, but you don't have to look any farther than Iraq to see what happens when you haven't taken into consideration any contingencies. If the Clinton campaign really didn't plan for this easily foreseeable occurrence, it speaks a great deal about the level of judgement they have.

As noted before, experience doesn't mean much if you have bad judgement. I hope Clinton learns that in the primaries so America doesn't have to learn it during her presidency.

A summary of the Republican debate from a nine-year old.

Via the comments at Balloon Juice

Updated below

President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The debate is a response to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government, several senior administration officials said.

The problem with this remains much the same as when this idea was bandied about back in July, 2007; the fact that it may actually accelerate the disintegration of Pakistan, The problem was clear then.

A large Pakistani military operation in the tribal regions, coupled with American officials' calls for action, could lead many Pakistanis to believe that Musharraf is acting as a U.S. surrogate, said analysts and officials in Islamabad. That in turn, they said, would make it easier for radical Islamists to legitimize terrorist attacks as strikes against a Western conspiracy to control an Islamic state.

"The U.S. lawmakers are absolutely oblivious of the ground realities," said Gul, the retired general. But, Gul said, Musharraf's political base has been badly shaken recently — by the controversial suspension of the Supreme Court's chief justice, and then the mosque raid — and he might bend to American pressure to launch large-scale military strikes in the border region.

"He is so weak internally that he needs the American support," Gul said.

It's one of the few things about which many officials in both the government and in opposition parties agree.

"The more the United States approves of such actions, the more problems we have with the public," said one senior Pakistani government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of U.S.-Pakistan relations. "It needs to be purely our own internal matter."

Imran Khan, a former Pakistani cricket star turned political upstart who has been vocal in his criticism of Musharraf, said approximately the same.

"Extremism is rising, because you don't fight extremism with a man perceived as an American stooge, you don't fight extremism with suppression — you fight it with a genuine democratic process," said Khan, a parliament member. "The tribal areas are out of his control, whatever leverage he had is gone now."

Musharraf's position is likely even more tenuous now, after the battle with the Supreme Court and Bhutto's assassination. He has very little legitimacy and any act on the Americans part could easily tip things irrevocably against him.

Update:

It appears the instability in Pakistan is even worse than I thought. It is so bad that people are fleeing into Afghanistan for safety!

Thousands of Pakistanis have fled into Afghanistan with the security situation deteriorating in Pakistan's tribal regions over the past week.

Hundreds of families, comprising some 6,000 mainly women and children, have been crossing the border.

The UN refugee agency says clashes between Pakistan's Shia and Sunni groups have forced people to flee.

It is the first time so many people have crossed this way as for years it was Afghans fleeing fighting.

I really don't think adding US military action to the mix would be a good idea.

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

All true, and in a just world, that would be more than enough to impeach them, particularly given the rather less serious offense that got Clinton impeached. But with the Republicans closing ranks around them during the first six years of their reign and the Democratic leadership making jellyfish look like vertebrates, the odds aren't even worth considering.

For that matter, why wait until now to pen this little editorial? Seven years to decide, "Gee, maybe we should do something about this"? Nice words, but this part at least, is well past it due date.

I do however, agree with the last part of the article.

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses.

This is the reason I think the upcoming election is one of the most important the US will face in my lifetime. I they don't change course and begin to repair the damage this administration has caused, they will be unlikely to ever recover fully from it. And that will leave the world a far worse place.

An Iraqi soldier allegedly shot dead two American troops while they were patrolling together north of the capital, the U.S. military and an Iraqi official said Saturday. The Iraqi official said the suspect has links to militant groups.

Wow! How could such a thing happen?

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, offered his strongest public support to date for U.S.-backed Sunni Arab groups that have joined the fight against al-Qaida, promising to integrate a ''large number'' of them in the security forces.

Oh right. Ever since the "surge" morphed into the "Awakening", the US has been pushing the integration of former, (and, as the above example indicates, often still current), insurgents into the Iraqi security forces. In fact, this has been the pattern for nearly the entire occupation, where the US started by putting together Iraqi units by throwing uniforms on Kurdish pesh merga and Shiite squads like the Iranian-trained Badr Brigades in an attempt to boost numbers on the cheap.

The loyalty of these units, of course, remains to the groups they were drawn from, and while they may be willing to use US weapons and money for their own purposes, they still view the Americans as occupiers to be defeated.

They have time on their side, and can afford to be patient. When the US starts drawing down troops again, as they must, we'll see just how loyal the rest of those forces really are.

On the coffee table, Shafman spreads out Taser's C2 "personal protector" weapons that the company is marketing to the public. It doesn't take long before the women are lined up in the hallway, whooping as they take turns blasting at a metallic target.

Boy, does that ever sound like fun! Has to beat tupperware and scrap-booking, in any case. And really, what could possibly go wrong with people using Tasers?

Shafman, a freelance construction consultant, says she always had a natural interest in self-defence products. She loved the idea of the Taser, which would allow her to stop an attacker from across the room without getting physical.

She tried moonlighting as a door-to-door Taser saleswoman. But years of negative press about Taser made it tough.

"I got tired of being pushed out of people's offices," she says. "Nobody wants to purchase a product that they think is lethal or going to kill somebody."

Yeah, there is that aspect, isn't there? This is a weapon that trained police officers have shown a willingness to use far too frequently as a substitute for negotiation, to enforce their will on anyone who doesn't automatically kowtow to them, and for pain compliance of suspects or prisoners in custody. It seems like the perfect tool to hand out to untrained civilians likely to shoot anyone that makes them even slightly nervous. After all, it's "non-lethal".

At the party in Gilbert, the shooting goes on into the night as everyone takes a shot.

Lori Busken, 48, is the first in line. Busken, who is single, says she'd feel better carrying a Taser than a gun. She didn't buy a C2 right away, but she says she's planning to buy one soon.

"It's not heavy," she says after holding the weapon in her hand. "It's great they make them for civilian use. You don't want to kill somebody. You just want to be safe, you know?"

And don't worry, we'll just file all the deaths under "excited delirium" and pretend it was the victims' fault, though I'm guessing some of the people who buy into the "non-lethal" press releases will be somewhat more affected by the deaths they wind up causing than the RCMP showed in Vancouver.

Some time ago, I read or heard somebody saying that child-rearing was now the ultimate outsourcing activity in the Western world. We have made the raising of children so expensive in the industrialized world that we cannot afford to have the large families that previous generations once did, and as a result, we now depend upon immigration to maintain any population growth. Effectively, we've outsources the cost of raising children to countries where the cost-of-living is far cheaper and are importing the finished product, (adults).

Well, forget child-rearing; we're now set to start major outsourcing in child-bearing.

Every night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalization, and that most natural of desires: to have a family.

The idea of surrogate motherhood isn't one that I've thought on very much, so I don't have any specific objections to the procedure in general. The biggest issue with this story is the fact that India has a rather alarmingly high maternal death rate, which ups the risk factor involved and makes the exploitation factor loom much larger. This isn't cost-of-living cheap, this is life being treated cheaply.

Despite that, I have a feeling this will turn into a booming industry. Via

One last, posthumous post from G'Kar at Obsidian Wings. Well worth the read.

He will be missed.

He flatlined in Iowa and he's struggling in New Hampshire, but Rudy Giuliani shook off the early-state blues Thursday as only he can.

"None of this worries me - Sept. 11, there were times I was worried," Giuliani said.

Wow! Giuliani mentioned 9/11! What a stunner!

That's really all his campaign has, isn't it?

The little comment at the end is probably the most depressingly accurate of the skit.

Well, he certainly looks and sounds presidential.

Apparent winners of the Iowa caucuses. Edwards is apparently slightly ahead of Clinton on the Democratic side, which, given I think Hillary is a bad choice for the Democrats, suits me just fine.

The Republican side is far more interesting, even with Huckabee a clear winner over Romney. The real surprises for me are how well Ron Paul has placed and just how utterly pathetic Guiliani looks right now. From a national front-runner just a short time ago to finish sixth, well behind Paul, with only a paltry 4% of the vote. Stick a fork in the boy.

It's 2008. Here's hoping it's a good one for everyone.

I had planned to do a retrospective of my blogging year before the year end, but travel and the intermittent connection to the net that came with it rather ruined that plan. I still hope to do so once I have reliable internet again in a couple of days. In the meantime, you can go here for some 2008 predictions.

And drink lots of water to help stave off the worst of the hangover in the morning. ;)