Ah - the truth emerges...

This week's presidential address to the nation is a most telling bit of speaking, and possibly the most candid that Bush and his administration have been since reaching the White House.

One does have to do a little bit of reading betwixt the words, but statements are made that are very clear about the intentions of Bush and his advisors:

As the September the 11th Commission concluded, our country is safer than we were three years ago, but we are not yet safe.

Ah - so, you are going to continue to introduce legislation that curtails individual rights and freedoms? (a la what was proposed for "Patriot II") Or, is this simply another one of those lines used to further spread fear and uncertainty among the people?

The United States is determined to stay on the offensive, and to pursue the terrorists wherever they train, or sleep, or attempt to set down roots. We have conducted this campaign from the mountains of Afghanistan, to the heart of the Middle East, to the horn of Africa, to the islands of the Philippines, to hidden cells within our own country.

Let's be honest here - what you're really saying is that you believe the United States has the right to impose its will on other sovereign nations - with or without their cooperation. More or less, the stance of the US since 9/11 has been that it is their right to invade countries at will, under the graceless excuse of 'excising terrorists' - regardless of any persuasive evidence to substantiate those allegations being put to the public?

The United States is also determined to advance democracy in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring the peace and security we all want. When the peoples of that region are given new hope and lives of dignity, they will let go of old hatreds and resentments, and the terrorists will find fewer recruits.

I hate to point out the obvious, but it took the civilizations of 'Western European' tradition about a millenium and half for democracy to emerge. Even if the Middle East were willing to become democracies based on that tradition, it will take a minimum of 3 - 5 generations before the countries will truly be "democracies" in the sense that we are familiar with. Simply imposing a model of government is guaranteed to create the very conditions under which strongmen and madmen are able to eventually assert power. Imposing any government on a nation under military occupation guarantees a government that will only survive as long as its control over the military does.

I will grant that giving people legitimate hope and dignity will make it harder for shadow organizations like al Qaeda to find recruits - but it won't solve the issue entirely. In the United States itself, the liberty and opportunity of that land didn't stop Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols from setting off a huge truck-bomb in Oklahoma. It would be foolish to believe that the Arab world will "welcome" a cultural structure that is highly individualistic when they are still living in a loosely tribal mode that has survived since the collapse of the Roman Empire. Many will resent the changes, and will attempt to reverse them, or will carry their grievances to violent acts.

Our present work in Iraq and Afghanistan is difficult. It is also historic and essential. By our commitment and sacrifice today, we will help transform the Middle East, and increase the safety of our children and grandchildren.

Urk! Logical disconnect here. The chances of successful 'transformation' of the cultural context that exists in the Middle East is slim at best. Consider the history of the Middle East as a whole:

1. The Roman Empire tried to occupy and tame the region, stretching almost into the Persian Gulf. Ultimately, they were unable to control it directly, and governors placed in the region were largely unsuccessful in their efforts.
2. Various Popes tried to redefine the Middle East via the Crusades. Aside from creating a lot of dead bodies on both sides, neither really succeeded.
3. The British Empire tried to remap the region into what it thought would improve the lot of their interests there. Needless to say, their success was limited at best.
4. The Soviet Union tried to occupy and control Afghanistan - with a decided lack of success.

So...what would make any rational human being believe that this most recent foray into the Middle East by a "western power" is going to succeed where others have failed over the millenia?

So - is the objective really about making the world safer, or is it about placing a veneer of American values over the world, and believing that somehow this makes things "safer"?

Does Military Service Really Matter?

It seems that the topic of the week in the US Presidential election race is military service. For whatever reason, there seems to be a belief that someone's service in the military 30+ years ago has a bearing on their ability to serve as President of the United States today.

This week, the Democrats have been sliming Bush's brief tenure in the National Guard. Last week, it's been the Republicans trying to marginalize Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam.

The question in my mind - does it really matter? I find it's a bit of a 'yes-and-no' thing. Yes it matters, but not because it demonstrates that one or the other is fit to take on an executive command role. At most, I think it may speak somewhat to the character of the candidates. Kerry went into a dangerous situation, and apparently performed well - or at least so the written record shows. Bush spent a short tour in the National Guard, but the records are perhaps less than complete, and the reports are somewhat less than glowing in their praise of his commitment to the endeavor.

The mud-slinging over military service thirty odd years ago seems petty and foolish. Would such a big issue of military service be made if the candidates were women? I doubt it. If the discussion has any relevance at all, it is purely in the realm of their character 30 years ago. In as much as leopards seldom change their spots, past behaviour is perhaps the best indicator of future habits.

Both men have significant track records in public life - Bush as Governor of Texas; Kerry as a Senator.

Where Kerry can be accused of 'flip-flopping' on issues; Bush can be equally accused of being rigid and inflexible.

If Kerry bends with the winds as he sees them, Bush seems unwilling and unable to compromise - it's his way or no way.

I don't know enough about Kerry's alleged 'flip-flops' to really know if they are truly significant or not. I'll assume that they are not (were there riders on those bills that he wanted to pass?), just as I assume that Bush's service in the National Guard is fundamentally irrelevant to today.

Ideally, I like to feel that the politicians leading a country are basically honest. So far, anything that Kerry has been openly challenged on has left me with the impression that he fulfils that criteria - at least as far as I can tell.

Bush on the other hand, I have a much harder time accepting as "honest". I will point to his track record as President:

1. Where was the honesty in the run up to invading Iraq? The story changed more often than the dunes of the desert.
2. When challenged today on that subject, we get a 'well we still did the right thing, Saddam's out of power now' answer. (Ah - so the ends justify the means do they?)
3. On the handling of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and other locales, we are told that they are 'outside' of the rule of law. Even as the US court system asserts that those prisoners are in fact subject to the rule of law, Bush continues to insist that 'executive privilege' trumps all.
4. Take a long look at the Patriot Act, and what was proposed as Patriot II. Do these pieces of legislation have anything to do with security, or is it just a way to roll back civil and individual rights?
5. Look at Bush on so-called "moral" issues. His stance is obstructive at best. On stem cell research, he has effectively stale-mated any real progress; on gay marriage, he advocates admending the constitution to ban it; on the Death Penalty, he granted clemency a total of once during his time as Governor - even when it was recommended; on abortion, he would cheerfully ban it if he thought he would get away with it.

Bush's own record speaks for itself. He appears to be rigid and inflexible. Either unable or unwilling to see that other perspectives have a validity. Worse, since 9/11, he has cloaked himself in the mantle of 'War President'. I'll give him some credit - after the crisis of 9/11/01, he took some clear, and decisive action. What's unfortunate is that he has used the war in Iraq as a distraction - signing into law bits of legislation that enact parts of the Patriot II proposals while the public has been looking towards Iraq. Is that honest?

Does his legislative agenda show us a man willing to compromise? Not really. It shows us a man whose ideology and concepts of the world are so strongly entrenched that he will not bend. Even the mightiest oak must bend somewhat to the wind, or the wind will break it. I would argue that the winds are blowing rather hard right now.

What do Harper and Bush have in common?

Besides being ideological brethren, Harper seems to share GWB's absolute cluelessness when it comes to foreign affairs.

In today's Globe and Mail, there is this article in which Harper is basically blaming Martin for the lack of resolution of the BSE crisis.

I don't want to get into a "but he started it" argument, but from my perspective, relations with the US nosedived the day that GWB elected. Bush made it abundantly clear that he had little interest in anything outside of the US at that time, and then proceeded to rather blatantly snub the leader of his largest trading partner.

Since then, little has happened to ameliorate anything. The protectionist lobby groups in the US continue to push for more and more blockages in the trade system; Bush and his inner circle seem quite content to ignore anything outside of empire building.

I'm pretty sure that even if Harper was our elected Prime Minister, anything short of surrendering Canada to American whim would be ignored. (The only reason that the former proposition might be considered is for access to Canada's significant resources - particularly oil and fresh water)

Harper seems to think that the Prime Minister has been inert, and inactive on the BSE discussion. Martin certainly hasn't had any "breakthrough successes" with the US government, but given that this is a Presidential Election year, that's hardly any big surprise. Their focus right now is entirely on convincing Americans that _their_ interests are being protected and furthered. The interests of a trading partner such as Canada don't even register on the radar.

A brief look at the headlines on CNN this morning underscores this:

Kerry Blasts Bush Deficit
Cheney: Kerry Win Risks Another Attack

Let's face it, It doesn't matter who is in charge down there right now - they aren't paying attention to anything that doesn't register on the voter opinion polls. (And since the US still has meat on the store shelves, BSE doesn't register)

Mr. Harper needs to get a grip on reality and start being constructive - within Canada. How about removing the inter-provincial trade barriers that force much of our beef production into the US? Where is the obvious initiatives to broaden Canada's market access around the world? Where are his proposals for made in Canada solutions?

A closed border _is_ a Canadian problem. Let's solve it in Canada. If the US doesn't want to trade with Canada's beef, then let's get out there and find someone who does. The pre-BSE crisis status quo was foolishly tied to the Americans actually respecting the border and free trade. Since that's clearly not the case, let's move forward.

Whether Bush or Kerry gets elected this November doesn't matter - Canada has a problem with selling Beef to the US. Let's work on expanding our capabilities in Canada (hmmm - lessee - creates jobs, opportunity etc.), and find countries that are interested in our trade. The EU, Mexico and much of South America are very realistic trading allies, let's work on those markets instead of worrying about the lack of progress with the US.

Mr. Harper seems to think the world revolves around the United States. It doesn't, and Canada should be positioning itself so that we aren't put into crisis by the American proclivity for protectionism.

As the pot calleth the kettle black...

In today's Calgary Sun, columnist Paul Jackson gives us this perspective on the GOP nomination convention this past week.

Ordinarily, I can't be bothered to give this nitwit the time of day - his attitude is sneering and condescending, his arguments are filled with holes you could drive a truck through. Like his compatriot in silliness, Ezra Levant, Jackson is amazingly blind to how the accusations he levels at the "Lib-Left" apply to him:

Liberals and socialists are smug and hypocritical.

On the flipside of the political coin, Conservatives believe in assessing opposing viewpoints and countering them on an intelligent and intellectual basis.

This is exactly the opposite of my experience in this country. That Jackson would be so bold as to accuse left-leaning people of being "smug and hypocrytical", and yet I've encountered more rude smugness from so-called "conservatives" the last ten years or so than I have ever seen from those left-leaning people I know.

In general, I have found what passes for a "Conservative" these days is more likely to fall back on arguments based on a particularly nasty interpretation of the Holy Bible where social issues are concerned; and seems to be blindly unaware of the negative effects of privatization and globalization on people in the middle and lower economic strata.

Further, I will point out that Jackson has never bothered to counter a rational argument that I have seen. His arguments are typically emotionally loaded, and sneering in tone at best. (Read a few of his columns, I'm sure it will speak for itself) For someone who purports to be a proponent of intellectual debate, Jackson slams the door on any such discussion by his tone and vapid arguments.

Bush, always scorned by the Liberal-Left media, academia and the pseudo-intellectual crowd -- as was Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents of the last century -- also gave a measured, quietly patriotic speech. He's leading America at one of the most dangerous times in history, and leading it with a steady hand.

Perhaps, just maybe, Jackson should take a look at _WHY_ Bush is seen in such a poor light by those people. He might come to understand that there is a significant proportion of the population that perceives Bush as having engaged in some of the worst forms of statecraft that we have seen for quite some time. I wouldn't care to compare Bush to Reagan - Reagan never did enough to particularly impress me; Bush has only served to infuriate me. Bush may well be "patriotic", but patriotism does not ensure good governance. Balance, wisdom and a willingness to listen to all points of view do. Bush has demonstrated little of any of those qualities.

The Liberal-Left, who haven't any idea how to fight terrorism, ridicules Bush with rhetoric, but not with any substance.

Ah, the Lib-Left has no idea how to fight terrorism? And Bush does? He has been successful in reducing the risk in the world how? Afghanistan remains a country whose government is on the edge of collapse; warlords still control much of rural Afghanistan, people who have known sympathies for Osama bin Laden. Iraq is a country on the verge of civil war, and the US has yet to bring much that resembles order to it. Instead, at Abu-Ghraib, their troops come up with more ways to humiliate and infuriate the Iraqis. My, such a track record of success. The arguments I have seen from the left reflect my own intuition - if you want to dismantle terrorist organizations, you do so by infiltration and sabotage, not with tanks. These are borderless organizations which do not conform to the kind of military model that the US has been using to wage war.

In Canada, several parties, still two philosophies.

If you believe that there are only two philosophies in Canada (or the US), then you are even more intellectually blinded than I first thought you to be. The Right-Left spectrum is at best a simplistic convenience, and hardly one that reflects the diversity of political opinion and thought that is expressed in either nation.

So we have it: Two parties, two philosophies. In Canada, several parties, still two philosophies.

In each country, personalities who stand on principle; personalities who stand for what they can get.

Look in the mirror, pal. Bush's cronies are the ones benefitting from tax cuts, not the poor. The poor struggle to pay their rent from one month to the next, and cannot afford the extra capital required to make investments. Their investment is entirely in survival.

The wealthiest can afford whatever health care they need or desire - what about the schmoe working at McDonald's for $6.50 an hour?

Where's the respect for legality and human rights? The US currently has many prisoners at facilities like Guantanamo Bay, where the prisoners are held outside of law, outside of any recourse or representation? The so-called Patriot Act and its derivitives increase the rights of the US government to engage in unbridled surveillance and seizure without adequate judicial oversight. How does this make anyone safer?

Yes, Mr. Jackson, there are those who stand on principle, and those who are out 'for what they can get'. I suggest that you may have them switched in your mind. The right-wing in the US that you so admire is far from perfect. Before you get so smug about the inferiority and hypocrisy of the lib-left, I suggest strongly you be damned sure that your own house is clean.

The Moral Obligation of Politicians to Tell The Truth

I ran across this small, but rather interesting article on CNN.

Superficially, this article speaks about Arnold's "historical accuracy" in his speech to the recent Republican National Convention. However, it raises a very interesting, and important question for us to consider - to what degree should politicians be held to speak the truth?

Those with a sense of absolute "rightness" will no doubt argue that the politicians should be held to a higher standard of truthfulness than the rest of the population. Others, will argue that "it's fine for a politician to bend the truth a bit", recognizing that there are occasions where a specific presentation of facts will allow the speaker to be more persuasive in arguing their position.

Arnold states:

"I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

There's a couple of points here - I think -

The historians can argue until they are blue in the face about whether Arnold in fact saw those tanks. Perhaps he did; perhaps not - beyond being a mild exaggeration of his experiences, I'm not too worried about it.

The spin that is much more worrisome is the second sentence - "I saw communism with my own eyes". No, you didn't, Arnold. If you saw anything, it was the occupation of a country by a military, totalitarian regime. Communism, even in the "Marxist-Leninist" form that the Soviets followed is not necessarily either.

A brief investigation of the various US military occupations of countries around the world could easily lead one to make the same argument about "Capitalism" - especially in various countries in Central/South America (Chile; El Salvador; Panama to name a few)

Arnold has engaged in a very simple, but trivial argument - the pot calling the kettle black. A critical review of the other side of the equation.

Did Arnold lie? Perhaps not intentionally. The measure of truthfulness that we must apply to our politicians must be tempered by a careful evaluation of their motives. The Republicans are trying to retain their grip on the White House - they will say just about anything that they believe the public will accept as "reasonable".

In Alberta, Ralph Klein recently declared Alberta "Debt Free". That was perhaps a much more blatant lie. Alberta will be debt free if, and only if a series of preconditions come true:

1. The revenue surplus at the end of the year is in excess of $3 billion.
2. The government in fact applies all of that $3 billion dollars towards the debt
3. Interest charges accrued between now and then do not push the net sum over the size of the surplus.

There is a good chance of those preconditions occurring next March or so, but those are preconditions, not facts. What was Ralph's motivation in making such a declaration? Given the timing, and a few other things, one has to suspect that it is a matter of Ralph wanting to set the stage for his next election campaign. Given that the election is likely to occur before next March, I would say that Ralph has engaged in the most cynical form of political lie - he didn't say that the debt _would_ be paid off, he declared it was. Most people are likely to take such words at face value.

George W. Bush has made many statements about the reasons for invading Iraq. As time has gone by, the various reasons have apparently evaporated into the desert winds. Did Bush lie? Perhaps - he may have believed that he had accurate information. I don't know. However, as time has gone on, and the justifications presented have lost any substance, Bush has fallen back onto arguments where the 'end justifies the means'. (Basically, "we deposed a nasty dictator, things can only improve now") I worry about such sophistry coming from politicians. Not only does it suggest to me that the speaker knew they were full of fiction earlier on in the saga, but it also suggests that they believe that the public is largely a bunch of idiots that won't see through the fiction.

So - what is the standard we should hold our politicians to? I would argue that as citizens, we cannot expect much better from our politicians than we currently get. The corridors of power create an environment where it is often easier to lie in the name of retaining power than it is to deal with the truth. It is our job as the electorate to view the pronouncements of our politicians with caution. Look between the lines of what is said, and try to determine what underlying motives influence the statements. If we find our political leaders are engaging in egregious lies, it is up to us to vote those people out of power. Voting along partisan lines is foolish many times. No matter how fervently one may believe in the goals of a party, if its leadership is filling the population with falsehoods, that party will never fulfil its stated goals.

Leadership? what Leadership?!

So, King Ralph skips out of this week's Premiers' Conference, pleading that he "will be on vacation".

He has previously stated that he wasn't going to attend any more than the first day of the First Ministers Conference with Paul Martin - the one intended to get the discussion going with the provinces over Health Care.

I may not agree with what Paul Martin wants to do any more than Ralph does - I really haven't seen enough to have a clear impression one way or the other. However, I think I'd like to see what it was for myself. Martin is making a clear, and public, attempt to open lines of discourse between Ottawa and the Provinces. I applaud that.

So - what's Ralph in a snit about? Basically, because the press will be there, and the meetings will be open sessions, it won't be Ralph's favorite playground - 'Behind Closed Doors'. This means he can't play his usual hardball cards in the meetings - it won't play well on camera, and Ralph knows it. He also knows that he wants to call a provincial election - soon.

The excuse Ralph gave for this week is such an obvious crock of steer manure it's not even funny. For a man on 'vacation', he seems to have an amazingly busy agenda galavanting around the province to speaking engagements, ceremonies and goodness knows what else. If this is Ralph's idea of a vacation, he's suddenly become a lot more "Type A" than he has been in the past.

Frankly, I see it as yet another lie from a man who has slowly lost his ability to distinguish what the public will believe from an obvious crock.

This combined with the recent "what should we do with the surplus" survey makes it pretty clear that the Alberta Conservatives don't have a clue any more. They've run out of gas - they have no vision for Alberta that extends beyond the next opinion poll to be published. A recent 'first quarter' analysis released by the Government claims that spending will be much higher, and that will eat up most of the surplus, leaving conveniently around 3 billion to wipe out the debt. Far too convenient. With oil prices staying well over $40/bbl, I just don't see that 3 billion dollar surplus staying at 3 billion - even with what the Tories have proposed to throw into the mix.

The survey about 'future' surpluses is no more than cheap electioneering - basically the Conservatives are doing an opinion poll on taxpayer coin. What's the outcome of this poll? They want to use it to decide which way the political winds are blowing in the province. No more, and no less. Don't waste your time on the survey, spend it more wisely - inform yourself about the other options in the province, and on voting day - whenever that is - go to the ballot box with a clear idea of what Alberta can be - look beyond Ralph and his Henchmen.

Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice?

I hope not!

I had started a rant about King Ralph's latest attempt at electioneering - then a friend sent me this as an e-mail:

Dear Cracked,

I wanted to share with you my disgust with the Klein government's latest attempt at campaigning using taxpayer dollars under the guise of "government business".

Of course, I am referring to the latest mailing that was circulated to some three million Albertans - at our own cost of course. This thinly veiled campaign spreads the message that the current government of Alberta has done many great things for us (with the obvious focus on being debt-free), and identifying some of the, ahem, "challenges and opportunities" that we as Albertans face. They identify improving the health care system and investing in education among other options.

Now, this is where the pamphlet gets interesting - the survey. It is obviously engineered to engender the responses that the government wants by pushing our hot buttons and wording the questions in a very one-sided manner. Who among us would claim that a "quality, affordable Alberta health care system" is a low priority, or that we don't want an "outstanding education system" or that it is not important to "build a more diverse, innovative economy" or indeed "provide support to Albertans who need help". Forgive me, by my eye is tearing up at the obvious concern and compassion that OUR Alberta government has for our wellbeing after they have slashed education budgets, tried to privatize health care and don't even let me START in on my opinion on privatized utilities.

I can HEAR the violins playing in the background and can't help but wonder how many sheep, er, um, I mean voters are going to read the pamphlet, and decide that the government is showing care and concern for THEIR well-being, is asking for THEIR opinion, and wants to help THEM! It makes me want to stand up on the podium and explain gently that this is the same government who by their actions has proven time and time again that the opinions and voice of Albertans does NOT count, that they do NOT care about our well-being, and that if they truly believe that Klein cares about THEM that I have a choice piece of waterfront property in Arizona that they might be interested in purchasing.

But, I digress - continuing on the survey, the Klein government goes so far as to state that "Now that the unexpected windfall money no longer has to go to pay down the debt, what priority would you place on...". There is a rather large tasty carrot offered to us in the very first option "Provide a REFUND to EVERY Albertan". Ah, visions of dollar signs and sugarplums dance in the heads of Albertans, they TOO can receive a windfall from the government - imagine, free money! And all they have to do is ASK Klein nicely - that and hope that he gets voted in again so that the promised money actually magically appears in their mailbox. Bah!

As I recall, Klein pulled a similar stunt with the LAST election - he sold off our utilities, and gave each Albertan of voting age a trifling sum of money, a "refund" - or, as I prefer to call it "a bribe". Come on - who among us are so naive that we cannot see his refund as a pitiful attempt to buy more votes? And what is the state of our Utilities now? How much of that bribe money have we had to put into increased rates - face it, we paid the bribe out of our own pocket; and somehow I don't feel a lot of sympathy for a government who wrote me a check out of my own bank account.

Do you want to take a sucker bet? How much do you want to bet that one of two scenarios will take place:

#1. The Klein government announces that an overwhelming number of Albertans have shared their opinions and have asked for a refund. No big surprise there. And - of course - the KLEIN government will hold out as a tasty carrot - er, I mean election promise - that they will continue to listen to Albertans, and out of the goodness of their own hearts , they will send out the refunds just as soon as they are voted back in.

or

#2. The Klein government makes the same announcement as #1, and SENDS out a paltry sum to each Albertan, and puts out an election promise that they will continue to, ahem, "refund" any more windfall monies just as long as they are in power.

I have very little patience for this thinly veiled bribery on the part of our elected officials - and, indeed, I am a little disgusted with the favourable timing timing of this "survey" (and I'm not even sure if I am willing to give it the name "survey" as that would imply that it was a scientifically crafted questionnaire with the intent to poll Albertans in an unbiased manner to determine their views, rather than leading them around using a ring through their noses).

Read the survey for yourself. And recognize it for what it really is - a series of statements designed to lead us into false security that our health care, education system and infrastructure remains in good shape, and that there is hope for the future. False hope - perhaps. Bah!

Thanks, but this election I'll De-Klein.

I think that says it all...

Perhaps, this election we should all go to the polls, but not as the drugged sacrificial bull of Roman sacrifice.