If the war in Iraq didn't disgust me enough, the lies that have surrounded it, and seemingly every major action the US has taken with respect to Iraq certainly do.
Today, we are treated to the spectacle of the US Army ADMITTING that it has used White Phosphorus as a weapon in the seige of Fallujah. In the past, they had denied this, claiming that they were using it "only for illumination at night". Bullfeathers - starburst shells use Magnesium Oxide, not White Phosphorus.
At this rate, we should have the truth about the invasion of Iraq around about the time that Patrick Fitzgerald finishes writing his indictments up for the lies that various members of Bush's cabinet and senior advisors have told around the Valerie Plame affair.
The question in my mind is this - how long is it going to take for the hermetically sealed minds of the Republicans to wake enough to come out in open revolt against the lying bunch of scumbags that are currently running the country? Every time someone denies something, it turns out that there's more truth to the allegation than in the denial. (Lessee - WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Fallujah, Valerie Plame - what's next?)
Note for Stephen Harper: Do you really want to align yourself with this kind of crap? Really? Do you think Canadians are _that_ stupid?
[Update: 18:15 16/11/05]:
As I drove home, listening to the news, it struck me the duplicity of invading a nation allegedly because it had "WMDs", and then using that very class of weapons against that nation. Yes, I know that the US is not signatory to any convention that calls White Phosphorous a "Chemical Weapon", but given the type of injuries and death it can inflict, it's pretty hard to argue that it's anything other than a WMD. The moral double standard is disgusting.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Creepy Legislation - Your First Introduction
In the rather debatable logic of "better security in the post-9/11 era", the Liberal Government has introduced Bill C-74 as an amendment to the telecommunications act.
In many respects, this legislation is a long overdue reworking of what we used to know as "wiretap". The old wiretap rules had some pretty strict boundaries that meant that enforcement authorities had to convince a judge that they had probable cause before they could demand access to a telephone company's facilities in order to tap a particular phone line.
In today's world, the rather 'wire-centred' view of the old act really don't work. People have cell phones; e-mail is pervasive, and travels paths that we can't possibly guess; wireless network access is steadily becoming commonplace. The number of ways to nest a signal within other signals and communications is amazing. With a little bit of creativity, it is possible to open "tunnels" in the internet where protocols are nested one atop the other to bury a signal before someone can do anything with it.
My worry about this legislation, in its current form, is I don't think it provides adequate provisions for CSIS or the RCMP to show reasonable cause before they get access to communications data. It obliges ISPs and cellular providers to have very advanced logging and tracking capabilities, and to make those records available to the law enforcement officials "on demand". This is very bothersome for several reasons:
1. The costs incurred in gathering and archiving this data will become my direct cost as a consumer. The law enforcement agencies are not financing this expense, and the ISP world (or cell providers) sure as heck won't.
2. Ministerial approval/appeal is not an adequate protection for private citizens. I am deeply worried that there doesn't appear to be any reasonable appeal through the courts in this legislation. Just as giving the police "carte-blanche" rights to tap telephone lines is an unreasonable invasion of privacy, providing unfettered access to our digital communications is similarly troubling.
I will admit that I've only given the bill a cursory read, and I may well have misunderstood or missed entirely some of the counter balancing clauses, but a first pass reading gives far too much latitude to the law enforcement agencies without providing the private citizen with notification and recourse to unreasonable search and seizure of our communications.
In many respects, this legislation is a long overdue reworking of what we used to know as "wiretap". The old wiretap rules had some pretty strict boundaries that meant that enforcement authorities had to convince a judge that they had probable cause before they could demand access to a telephone company's facilities in order to tap a particular phone line.
In today's world, the rather 'wire-centred' view of the old act really don't work. People have cell phones; e-mail is pervasive, and travels paths that we can't possibly guess; wireless network access is steadily becoming commonplace. The number of ways to nest a signal within other signals and communications is amazing. With a little bit of creativity, it is possible to open "tunnels" in the internet where protocols are nested one atop the other to bury a signal before someone can do anything with it.
My worry about this legislation, in its current form, is I don't think it provides adequate provisions for CSIS or the RCMP to show reasonable cause before they get access to communications data. It obliges ISPs and cellular providers to have very advanced logging and tracking capabilities, and to make those records available to the law enforcement officials "on demand". This is very bothersome for several reasons:
1. The costs incurred in gathering and archiving this data will become my direct cost as a consumer. The law enforcement agencies are not financing this expense, and the ISP world (or cell providers) sure as heck won't.
2. Ministerial approval/appeal is not an adequate protection for private citizens. I am deeply worried that there doesn't appear to be any reasonable appeal through the courts in this legislation. Just as giving the police "carte-blanche" rights to tap telephone lines is an unreasonable invasion of privacy, providing unfettered access to our digital communications is similarly troubling.
I will admit that I've only given the bill a cursory read, and I may well have misunderstood or missed entirely some of the counter balancing clauses, but a first pass reading gives far too much latitude to the law enforcement agencies without providing the private citizen with notification and recourse to unreasonable search and seizure of our communications.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Now That Was Predictable
Harper has turned down the "February Election Proposal" that Jack Layton and the other opposition party leaders put forth last week.
I'm far from shocked by this revelation. When you sit down and look at it, the February proposal makes no sense for the Liberals. With Gomery II due to release in early February, the Layton proposal guarantees that voters are going to the polls at a time when they are maximally irritated about having the scab peeled once more. Martin isn't that stupid.
As the response to the first Gomery report has made clear, it's got a shelf life of a little over a week - maybe. After that, the public as a whole will be looking for something else.
Of course Stephen Harper has to say something, and as usual it's about as dense as the rock that makes up the Canadian Shield:
Think about this Harper:
Force an election for Christmas, and the public is not going to be happy having their Christmas celebrations interrupted by the idiot rantings of politicians crying in the snow bound wilderness.
Force an election in January, and the public will quite rightly slap you silly for dragging them to the polls a couple of months early. (What, couldn't you wait for that report?)
In both cases, the opposition parties will be the "bad guys" that triggered the election. Do you really think that Canadians are _that_ eager for another election? Martin's already promised one 30 days after Gomery II is delivered. Forcing an early election is not to the opposition's advantage. (And if the slavering moronity I'm seeing in the "Conservative Blogosphere" is any indication, Harper's going to need a lot of "nice white I love me jackets" to keep the nut-cases in his party quiet during an election) Of course, Klein could stump for Harper - between the two of them, they are the best people the Liberal party has working for them.
Update - 15:10 14/11/05
While the Conservatives are going to play the "Corrupt Liberal Party" card incessantly throughout the coming weeks - and any election campaign, don't be too surprised if the now notorious Grewal Tapes (and the oh-so-talentless editing thereof) resurface. Yes, the Liberals are corrupt - we even have some idea how corrupt. Now, the Conservatives...well just how "honest" are they really? Doubt is a very strong card for the Liberals to play, and I expect that it will get played for all it's worth in a coming election - especially if Martin's advisors are on their game.
I'm far from shocked by this revelation. When you sit down and look at it, the February proposal makes no sense for the Liberals. With Gomery II due to release in early February, the Layton proposal guarantees that voters are going to the polls at a time when they are maximally irritated about having the scab peeled once more. Martin isn't that stupid.
As the response to the first Gomery report has made clear, it's got a shelf life of a little over a week - maybe. After that, the public as a whole will be looking for something else.
Of course Stephen Harper has to say something, and as usual it's about as dense as the rock that makes up the Canadian Shield:
"What the prime minister doesn't seem to face is the election is either going to occur now or it's going to occur in January," said Harper. "We're not going to wait another four months."
Think about this Harper:
Force an election for Christmas, and the public is not going to be happy having their Christmas celebrations interrupted by the idiot rantings of politicians crying in the snow bound wilderness.
Force an election in January, and the public will quite rightly slap you silly for dragging them to the polls a couple of months early. (What, couldn't you wait for that report?)
In both cases, the opposition parties will be the "bad guys" that triggered the election. Do you really think that Canadians are _that_ eager for another election? Martin's already promised one 30 days after Gomery II is delivered. Forcing an early election is not to the opposition's advantage. (And if the slavering moronity I'm seeing in the "Conservative Blogosphere" is any indication, Harper's going to need a lot of "nice white I love me jackets" to keep the nut-cases in his party quiet during an election) Of course, Klein could stump for Harper - between the two of them, they are the best people the Liberal party has working for them.
Update - 15:10 14/11/05
While the Conservatives are going to play the "Corrupt Liberal Party" card incessantly throughout the coming weeks - and any election campaign, don't be too surprised if the now notorious Grewal Tapes (and the oh-so-talentless editing thereof) resurface. Yes, the Liberals are corrupt - we even have some idea how corrupt. Now, the Conservatives...well just how "honest" are they really? Doubt is a very strong card for the Liberals to play, and I expect that it will get played for all it's worth in a coming election - especially if Martin's advisors are on their game.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Hope For Alberta's Future?
Many times in the past, I have expressed my disgust with Alberta's current Premier. Ralph Klein has yet to do anything that strikes me as either good or intelligent policy. He seems to have turned into a wannabe Republican in the mould of George Bush and his merry band of Neo/TheoCons.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
The Alberta political scene is not by any means moribund. We have a number of new parties emerging (mostly isolationist/pseudo-separatist - like the Separation Party of Alberta. Along with the "Alberta Alliance", these parties seem to mostly reflect a sense of disaffection with the fortunes of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party over the last 15 years or so. Simply put, they appear to mostly be composed of 'bitter failed Reformers' still seeking "instant gratification" reforms.
As much as I admire the persistence and intelligence of the Alberta NDP caucus, I just can't say I'm overly impressed with Brian Mason as a speaker. Unlike Raj Pannu, Mason just hasn't been able to get his message out to the voters regularly. Also, with the last echoes of the McArthy era still rattling through the minds of baby boom voters, the odds of Alberta's NDP forming a government are slim at best.
Alberta's other opposition party, The Alberta Liberal Party, has made some significant improvements. Kevin Taft, the party leader is becoming much more successful at projecting his party and their message into the media. I don't know if Taft writes his own speeches, but he seems to be not merely articulate, but able to play to his home audience as well as articulate a vision for this province.
The next provincial election is unlikely to have Ralph Klein at the head of the Progressive Conservative Party. This is good news for those of us less who are less than impressed with Ralph's reign of late. Where Ralph seems to be able to produce some allegedly charismatic connection with voters - turning any election away from being a vote on issues, and turns it into a war of personalities. None of the PC contenders for Ralph's job have the kind of personality that engenders a connection with the voters. For the first time in fifteen years or so, we might actually see an election where issues such as "where should Alberta be headed?" are the topic of discussion, not "what a nice guy Ralph is" {he isn't - but that's a different problem}
The Alberta political scene is not by any means moribund. We have a number of new parties emerging (mostly isolationist/pseudo-separatist - like the Separation Party of Alberta. Along with the "Alberta Alliance", these parties seem to mostly reflect a sense of disaffection with the fortunes of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party over the last 15 years or so. Simply put, they appear to mostly be composed of 'bitter failed Reformers' still seeking "instant gratification" reforms.
As much as I admire the persistence and intelligence of the Alberta NDP caucus, I just can't say I'm overly impressed with Brian Mason as a speaker. Unlike Raj Pannu, Mason just hasn't been able to get his message out to the voters regularly. Also, with the last echoes of the McArthy era still rattling through the minds of baby boom voters, the odds of Alberta's NDP forming a government are slim at best.
Alberta's other opposition party, The Alberta Liberal Party, has made some significant improvements. Kevin Taft, the party leader is becoming much more successful at projecting his party and their message into the media. I don't know if Taft writes his own speeches, but he seems to be not merely articulate, but able to play to his home audience as well as articulate a vision for this province.
The next provincial election is unlikely to have Ralph Klein at the head of the Progressive Conservative Party. This is good news for those of us less who are less than impressed with Ralph's reign of late. Where Ralph seems to be able to produce some allegedly charismatic connection with voters - turning any election away from being a vote on issues, and turns it into a war of personalities. None of the PC contenders for Ralph's job have the kind of personality that engenders a connection with the voters. For the first time in fifteen years or so, we might actually see an election where issues such as "where should Alberta be headed?" are the topic of discussion, not "what a nice guy Ralph is" {he isn't - but that's a different problem}
Friday, November 11, 2005
How Much of an Idiot is Bush?
Apparenty in today's Veteran's Day speech, George W. Bush took the opportunity to accuse his critics of rewriting history.
Of course, it's the usual about how criticizing the justification given for invading Iraq is somehow "failing to support the troops" and sending "the wrong message" to them. Once again, Bush tied 9/11 to Iraq in his speech, meanwhile it's been painfully obvious for ages that there was exactly no relation between 9/11 and Iraq. If any country had a direct tie to 9/11 outside of Afghanistan it was Saudi Arabia - y'know - the country that bin Laden is from.
Hello? Is anybody home in the White House these days? Do you really think that your critics give a damn about whether or not the WMD intelligence was good, bad, distorted or indifferent? Frankly, the WMD intelligence had nothing to do with invading Iraq - the shifting sands of your story made that painfully clear. WMD's were just a convenient excuse for you to send your tanks in. When we went from a bad correlation between Hussein and 9/11, to doomsday scenarios involving WMDs; accusations that Hussein was "sponsoring terrorism" (whatever that means) and a plethora of other accusations.
Nobody cares whether your abuse of the intelligence indicating WMDs in Iraq was intentional, or merely a cynical abuse of your time. I can only guess at your intentions in launching an invasion of Iraq - but I suspect it has a lot more to do with control over some natural resources, and taking steps to make your older nemesis, Iran, more uncomfortable.
I support the troops - they are doing a job I wouldn't want to do even in the most valid of wars. The war itself - now that I feel quite free to condemn, along with the political masters of the army that saw fit to start it. Iraq has as much to do with 9/11 as the mess in my house has to do with the price of groceries in the store.
I cannot believe that while Bush's own pugilistic stupidity continues to create more dead bodies and permanently wounded veterans in Iraq, he turns around and uses a day intended to honor the troops to play out his own cheap political games.
Of course, it's the usual about how criticizing the justification given for invading Iraq is somehow "failing to support the troops" and sending "the wrong message" to them. Once again, Bush tied 9/11 to Iraq in his speech, meanwhile it's been painfully obvious for ages that there was exactly no relation between 9/11 and Iraq. If any country had a direct tie to 9/11 outside of Afghanistan it was Saudi Arabia - y'know - the country that bin Laden is from.
Hello? Is anybody home in the White House these days? Do you really think that your critics give a damn about whether or not the WMD intelligence was good, bad, distorted or indifferent? Frankly, the WMD intelligence had nothing to do with invading Iraq - the shifting sands of your story made that painfully clear. WMD's were just a convenient excuse for you to send your tanks in. When we went from a bad correlation between Hussein and 9/11, to doomsday scenarios involving WMDs; accusations that Hussein was "sponsoring terrorism" (whatever that means) and a plethora of other accusations.
Nobody cares whether your abuse of the intelligence indicating WMDs in Iraq was intentional, or merely a cynical abuse of your time. I can only guess at your intentions in launching an invasion of Iraq - but I suspect it has a lot more to do with control over some natural resources, and taking steps to make your older nemesis, Iran, more uncomfortable.
I support the troops - they are doing a job I wouldn't want to do even in the most valid of wars. The war itself - now that I feel quite free to condemn, along with the political masters of the army that saw fit to start it. Iraq has as much to do with 9/11 as the mess in my house has to do with the price of groceries in the store.
I cannot believe that while Bush's own pugilistic stupidity continues to create more dead bodies and permanently wounded veterans in Iraq, he turns around and uses a day intended to honor the troops to play out his own cheap political games.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
A Potpourri of Randomness
A number of things have caught my attention recently, but none of them have had enough to make me write about them individually.
[Education and Evolution]:
While Kansas has decided that they will redefine the term science to allow the notion of Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes, Dover County in Pennsylvania has punted out the board that was behind the Kitzmiller lawsuit that arose after they imposed ID as part of the science curriculum.
Two steps forward, one step back?
[The Sagging Fortunes of Bush and Blair]
While George Bush has suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks, including the indictment of advisors, we should also take note that the British are not being completely blind either.
I'm beginning to suspect that Bush is going to leave office under a cloud that only Brian Mulroney could appreciate.
[Meanwhile, at home]
Our new Governer General stuck her stilettoed foot in her mouth. Today, Jack Layton put forth a plan for an election in February - a move that only plays into the hands of the Conservative Party. The second half of the Gomery report is due in February, and as the first half has shown, voter outrage appears to only shift the polls for a few short days.
[Education and Evolution]:
While Kansas has decided that they will redefine the term science to allow the notion of Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes, Dover County in Pennsylvania has punted out the board that was behind the Kitzmiller lawsuit that arose after they imposed ID as part of the science curriculum.
Two steps forward, one step back?
[The Sagging Fortunes of Bush and Blair]
While George Bush has suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks, including the indictment of advisors, we should also take note that the British are not being completely blind either.
I'm beginning to suspect that Bush is going to leave office under a cloud that only Brian Mulroney could appreciate.
[Meanwhile, at home]
Our new Governer General stuck her stilettoed foot in her mouth. Today, Jack Layton put forth a plan for an election in February - a move that only plays into the hands of the Conservative Party. The second half of the Gomery report is due in February, and as the first half has shown, voter outrage appears to only shift the polls for a few short days.
Dear R@t B@$t@rd...
I'd like to know just how much AON Corp and its affiliates in the private health care gig have "donated" to your party in the last ten years or so. Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else as perhaps a trifle self-serving that the biggest health care insurance broker in North America is being hired to examine further "privatization" (politely called restructuring) in Alberta?
Then, yesterday, a set of so-called "working papers" comes out that shows us a cynical, ugly side to King Ralph's plans. Whether the leak was intentional or not - one of Ralph's infamous "trial balloons", it's consistent with this man's attitude, arrogance and gross overestimation of his own self-importance.
When the leaked documents (I'll link to them if I can ever find a set on the Web) indicate that Ralph is willing to have his government violate the Canada Health Act, I get very, very angry. Health Care, contrary to the neo-Conservative view, is not an expense, it is an investment. A healthy population is part of the Alberta Advantage. The fact that treatment is available, and it's not likely to bankrupt a family is also part of that advantage. If you take that away, the cost of doing business in Alberta will skyrocket. We only have to look to the United States for unequivocal proof of this. The economics of private health care in the US are crumbling - more and more small businesses cannot offer employees health insurance access. Why? Because the premiums are too high. HMOs make treatment decisions based not on what's best for the patient, but what's best for their god forsaken bottom line.
Seniors, low income earners, the self-employed. All of these people are living day by day as it is. Now Ralph comes along and wants to take one more peg out of the supports that society provides. News Flash Ralph! Society is about more than the people in their 20's and 30's. When we pass into our 40's and older, the body starts to change, and health care becomes more critical. In case you haven't heard, we don't have enough young people coming into the workforce these days. The more experienced workers are the best bet we've got! Keep them healthy, and you'll keep getting wealthy.
Myself, I may just move to Saskatchewan or B.C. if some of what is rumoured to be in those working papers is true. Fortunately for Albertans, there is a rising option - Kevin Taft and the Alberta Liberal Party. At least he is articulating a vision for Alberta that looks beyond just dollars on the government balance sheet.
- Oh yes - please do campaign for the Federal Conservatives this election. It'll give me a reason to call Stephen Harper out on his mushy platforms on health care and other social services that are little more than a thinly disguised plan to privatize everything in sight. You'll do wonders for their fortunes outside of Alberta.
Then, yesterday, a set of so-called "working papers" comes out that shows us a cynical, ugly side to King Ralph's plans. Whether the leak was intentional or not - one of Ralph's infamous "trial balloons", it's consistent with this man's attitude, arrogance and gross overestimation of his own self-importance.
When the leaked documents (I'll link to them if I can ever find a set on the Web) indicate that Ralph is willing to have his government violate the Canada Health Act, I get very, very angry. Health Care, contrary to the neo-Conservative view, is not an expense, it is an investment. A healthy population is part of the Alberta Advantage. The fact that treatment is available, and it's not likely to bankrupt a family is also part of that advantage. If you take that away, the cost of doing business in Alberta will skyrocket. We only have to look to the United States for unequivocal proof of this. The economics of private health care in the US are crumbling - more and more small businesses cannot offer employees health insurance access. Why? Because the premiums are too high. HMOs make treatment decisions based not on what's best for the patient, but what's best for their god forsaken bottom line.
Seniors, low income earners, the self-employed. All of these people are living day by day as it is. Now Ralph comes along and wants to take one more peg out of the supports that society provides. News Flash Ralph! Society is about more than the people in their 20's and 30's. When we pass into our 40's and older, the body starts to change, and health care becomes more critical. In case you haven't heard, we don't have enough young people coming into the workforce these days. The more experienced workers are the best bet we've got! Keep them healthy, and you'll keep getting wealthy.
Myself, I may just move to Saskatchewan or B.C. if some of what is rumoured to be in those working papers is true. Fortunately for Albertans, there is a rising option - Kevin Taft and the Alberta Liberal Party. At least he is articulating a vision for Alberta that looks beyond just dollars on the government balance sheet.
- Oh yes - please do campaign for the Federal Conservatives this election. It'll give me a reason to call Stephen Harper out on his mushy platforms on health care and other social services that are little more than a thinly disguised plan to privatize everything in sight. You'll do wonders for their fortunes outside of Alberta.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)