It's no big secret that the US forces in Iraq are stretched desperately thin. In an effort to round their numbers out, the United States has taken to hiring "civilian contractor" forces. Private militias or mercenaries. Paid by the American fiscal deficit, and only loosely associated with the command of the US military.
Contractors Shooting Civilians in Iraq
It would appear that the same hare-brained command that managed to allow Abu Ghraib to happen right under their nose has once again allowed tragedy to hurtle out of control in Iraq. Of course, this is the same military machine that used White Phosphorus in their assault on Fallujah and then claimed that they only targetted "insurgents". (How, pray tell, is an area of effect weapon supposed to differentiate between an insurgent and a "civilian".
By the time the US gets out of Iraq, I shudder to think what the record will show.
Friday, December 02, 2005
"No Parallel Private System"
Or so Stephen Harper claims. As with all politicians, you have to "read between the lines" a bit before you figure out what Harper's really saying. Frankly, I think Harper is so full of it when it comes to social policy it's not even funny. Why do I say this? Consider the following:
1) This article that Stephen Harper WROTE in 2003. (I've referenced it before, but I think it's important to review such a "seminal" work in Harper's oeuvre.
2) Within less than 24 hours of the writ being dropped, Harper resurrects the SGM debate
3) If nobody else hasn't noticed, the CPC hasn't exactly distanced itself from the hard-line elements of its Reform/Alliance background. In fact, MPs like Jason Kenney and Art Hanger are quite prominent in Tory circles. Hardly promising.
So - what do I think Harper's realy going to do:
1) The "wait times" thing will quickly vanish off into the sunset.
2) Medicare will become "MediInsure", with some kind of premium structure introduced similar to what Alberta uses. (after all, it's "insurance" isn't it - not like they would be increasing taxes or anything...)
3) Private corporate health care providers will be encouraged.
4) A restructured "Medi-Insure" system will then cease to provide all but the most fundamental of emergency services, and as much as possible, user-pay structure.
If you want a picture of how brilliant these programs can be, I refer you to Iowa's Department of Public Health. This is the same lot whose abstinence education program came up with this piece of idiocy.
Of course, private, corporate health care providers will happily take over all of the profitable enterprises - leaving the public system to deal with the most dire situations which are not profitable.
There won't be a parallel, private system - the public system it would be parallel to will be eviscerated. Even in a symposium held in Alberta, experts from the UK and New Zealand (which have done the dual parallel thing) said that it wasn't a good idea.
Oh yes, if Medicare costs are truly out of control, Harper may well find that he needs that extra 2% or so in the GST...if he's going to keep it alive.
1) This article that Stephen Harper WROTE in 2003. (I've referenced it before, but I think it's important to review such a "seminal" work in Harper's oeuvre.
2) Within less than 24 hours of the writ being dropped, Harper resurrects the SGM debate
3) If nobody else hasn't noticed, the CPC hasn't exactly distanced itself from the hard-line elements of its Reform/Alliance background. In fact, MPs like Jason Kenney and Art Hanger are quite prominent in Tory circles. Hardly promising.
So - what do I think Harper's realy going to do:
1) The "wait times" thing will quickly vanish off into the sunset.
2) Medicare will become "MediInsure", with some kind of premium structure introduced similar to what Alberta uses. (after all, it's "insurance" isn't it - not like they would be increasing taxes or anything...)
3) Private corporate health care providers will be encouraged.
4) A restructured "Medi-Insure" system will then cease to provide all but the most fundamental of emergency services, and as much as possible, user-pay structure.
If you want a picture of how brilliant these programs can be, I refer you to Iowa's Department of Public Health. This is the same lot whose abstinence education program came up with this piece of idiocy.
Of course, private, corporate health care providers will happily take over all of the profitable enterprises - leaving the public system to deal with the most dire situations which are not profitable.
There won't be a parallel, private system - the public system it would be parallel to will be eviscerated. Even in a symposium held in Alberta, experts from the UK and New Zealand (which have done the dual parallel thing) said that it wasn't a good idea.
Oh yes, if Medicare costs are truly out of control, Harper may well find that he needs that extra 2% or so in the GST...if he's going to keep it alive.
Conservative Platform Planks 3 and 4
Over the last couple of days, the Conservatives have unveiled two more of the planks of their platform.
First, they have promised to knock 2% off the GST. Aside from conveniently ignoring two basic facts about the GST this one almost sounds like they went over to the woodpile used for fence lumber - it's at least not completely filled with mythology. Of course, we have to remember that the GST was introduced by Brian Mulroney. Although Jean Chretien promised to eliminate the GST when he swept to office in 1993, the Liberals soon realized that their promise was quite impractical.
Optically, reducing the GST will be a very appealing campaign promise for a lot of people - it's a very direct tax that they see every day when they purchase something. People don't like being reminded of taxes in their every day lives. A 2% cut doesn't sound like it's all that big (supposedly $400 per year for an "average" family) I'm not so sure that a 2% reduction in the GST is good fiscal policy -
The second promise to Address Health Care Waiting Times is a complete crock. The problem here is not establishing "standardized waiting times", but rather getting the squabbling premiers - each with their own agendas - to agree to a set of measurements, and some form of accountability. The federal government has taken numerous swings at this particular topic over the last ten years or so. Listen carefully to Harper's statements - "for any publicly insured treatment", along with a series of denials of a "parallel private system". Uh-huh. Sure. I suppose it's true enough, there won't be a parallel system, once they eviscerate the public system to the point where all it will do is treat the unprofitable cases - like say - terminal cancers. (whereupon, premiers like Klein will whine incessantly about the "unsustainability" of the system, and the unavailability of qualified doctors.
Not bad - the CPC has driven nails into one plank of actual wood. The rest of their platform is composed of wood sufficiently rotten that even I wouldn't try reusing it. (and believe me, I've managed to reuse some amazingly dodgy lumber when I've rebuilt fences...)
First, they have promised to knock 2% off the GST. Aside from conveniently ignoring two basic facts about the GST this one almost sounds like they went over to the woodpile used for fence lumber - it's at least not completely filled with mythology. Of course, we have to remember that the GST was introduced by Brian Mulroney. Although Jean Chretien promised to eliminate the GST when he swept to office in 1993, the Liberals soon realized that their promise was quite impractical.
Optically, reducing the GST will be a very appealing campaign promise for a lot of people - it's a very direct tax that they see every day when they purchase something. People don't like being reminded of taxes in their every day lives. A 2% cut doesn't sound like it's all that big (supposedly $400 per year for an "average" family) I'm not so sure that a 2% reduction in the GST is good fiscal policy -
The second promise to Address Health Care Waiting Times is a complete crock. The problem here is not establishing "standardized waiting times", but rather getting the squabbling premiers - each with their own agendas - to agree to a set of measurements, and some form of accountability. The federal government has taken numerous swings at this particular topic over the last ten years or so. Listen carefully to Harper's statements - "for any publicly insured treatment", along with a series of denials of a "parallel private system". Uh-huh. Sure. I suppose it's true enough, there won't be a parallel system, once they eviscerate the public system to the point where all it will do is treat the unprofitable cases - like say - terminal cancers. (whereupon, premiers like Klein will whine incessantly about the "unsustainability" of the system, and the unavailability of qualified doctors.
Not bad - the CPC has driven nails into one plank of actual wood. The rest of their platform is composed of wood sufficiently rotten that even I wouldn't try reusing it. (and believe me, I've managed to reuse some amazingly dodgy lumber when I've rebuilt fences...)
Dang! - I Missed This One!
Occasionally, someone winds up making a complete ass of themselves.
Sadly, I didn't notice the headline when it went past ealier. Antonia Zerbisias does a lovely job of skewering Mr. Kenney. (I know, I generally avoid linking to other blogs/columns, but I'm making an exception this time)
So far, the CPC's first days in this election have been "gaffewatch" - it's nice to see Kenney adding his voice to the stupidity - confirming what I've always thought about the man.
Sadly, I didn't notice the headline when it went past ealier. Antonia Zerbisias does a lovely job of skewering Mr. Kenney. (I know, I generally avoid linking to other blogs/columns, but I'm making an exception this time)
So far, the CPC's first days in this election have been "gaffewatch" - it's nice to see Kenney adding his voice to the stupidity - confirming what I've always thought about the man.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
One More Thought on Harper's "Office of Public Prosecutions"
In conversation last night, one other chilling aspect of this "Office of Public Prosecutions" concept that Harper's talking about:
Dictators have used the notion of "secret police" to prosecute their political foes for a long time (certainly, prevalently throughout the 20th century - whether we are talking about Stalin, Hitler or Mugabe). It's fairly clear that the Conservatives would use this office at first to go on merry little witch hunts against the Liberals:
Hmmm - a little chilling, don't you think? Along with his "we'll tell you you're happy" comment after pushing his "non-confidence" motion through, what's next? If you're not happy, two big guys in trench coats are going to pay you a visit? (Once they find a way to expand the "Office of Public Prosecution"'s powers to include sedition or some such)
[Update]:
I just found an excellent analysis of the legal problems with Harper's proposal.
Dictators have used the notion of "secret police" to prosecute their political foes for a long time (certainly, prevalently throughout the 20th century - whether we are talking about Stalin, Hitler or Mugabe). It's fairly clear that the Conservatives would use this office at first to go on merry little witch hunts against the Liberals:
" The independent director of public prosecutions not a politician will decide on prosecutions arising from the sponsorship scandal we will let him do his job without interference"
Hmmm - a little chilling, don't you think? Along with his "we'll tell you you're happy" comment after pushing his "non-confidence" motion through, what's next? If you're not happy, two big guys in trench coats are going to pay you a visit? (Once they find a way to expand the "Office of Public Prosecution"'s powers to include sedition or some such)
[Update]:
I just found an excellent analysis of the legal problems with Harper's proposal.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
A Trashing We Will Go...Heigh Ho!
I just received the following e-mail:
The proposed "Office of Public Prosecutions" that Harper has put forth is lump of window dressing that looks like it fell out of the wrong end of a pigeon. As the author of that e-mail has pointed out, the Auditor General already has the authority to turn a report over to the RCMP for criminal investigation. What Harper has conveniently overlooked is a couple of basic realities of Canada's bureaucracy and legal system.
First, any "office" that is attached to the House of Commons is guaranteed to be politicized. Period. It's an unavoidable reality. No matter how you slice it, such an office has to be held at arms length from the legislative body, otherwise its every act is suspect.
Second, is the fact that we already have the required bodies: The RCMP and the Judiciary are deliberately held at arms length from the legislative components of our government. The reasons for such a distancing are so trivially obvious that I don't think I need to explain the utter irony of Harper's proposition.
I'm not against more accountability in government - goodness knows that former Prime Minister Mulroney's constant lawsuits against any investigation or inquiry into the now infamous Airbus affair leaves me deeply suspicious of how much he is trying to hide. Of course today, nearly 15 years later, the time for any meaningful prosecution of that fiasco is long past. We already have the appropriate mechanisms to chase malfeasance in the public service - another office of enforcement is mere political window dressing - demonstrative of a myopic party.
Strike one plank from the Conservative platform - it's suffering from dry rot before the nails are set in it.
When I got home tonight, I was treated to CBC interviewing both Bishop Henry and then Craig Chandler about Harper's latest gaffe on the subject of SGM.
Both of these nitwits completely missed a few points here. First - bill C-38 did not change the spiritual notion of marriage, only the legal, secular definition. Second, the legislation is quite clear about the issue of the Church's rights in the topic. Yes, there are challenges being raised against some churches on this matter, but the legislation is fairly clear on the matter, and the basic protections around individual religious freedom do serve as safeguards that the church clergy can fall back upon. (and I will not object to those refusals - that's a topic within the Churches themselves, and as long as the clergy doesn't try to make the secular world align with their specific beliefs, I don't much care).
Chandler then proceeded to divert the conversation from the bill C-38 discussion to bill C-250 (the hate crimes amendment), and went off on a tirade about how Christians were being prohibited from speaking their faith. He was quite shrill in his decryal of this "persecution" of Christians. I've pointed out before that personal freedoms are protected, and legitimate theological discussions are similarly protected. What "Christians" like Chandler cannot do is impose their faith upon others. My faith is not Mr. Chandler's faith - he has absolutely no right to judge - and condemn - others to a second tier life because of his faith.
With hardline cases like Bishop Henry and Craig Chandler cheering the CPC leader on, this topic serves as a warning for all who value civil rights and social equality. For these guys, equality is a matter of faith - if you don't match their faith model, you don't deserve to be treated equally.
Strike a second plank from the Conservative platform - this one's sat in swamp water for so long that nails just fall out of it, and when you put weight on it, well, it's rather like my deck last summer.
Next Plank Boys?
So Harper would propose an Office of Public Prosecutions to charge politicians involved in scandals. But the procedure is there now, so what do we gain except another bureaucracy?
Presently the Auditor General can refer her/his report to the RCMP to determine if charges can be laid against certain persons named therein - hence, I think, charges against Guite and Brault.
Also, the PM has referred the Gomery Report to th RCMP to determine if further action is required. Possible charges against Chretien and Galiano?
Further, how would Harper deal with a situation where one or more politicians scheme to hide the facts of a programme from their fellow policiticians and hence the public. Until the Auditor General has done the necessary work this scheme would not be uncovered. And, if I guess right, the uncovering of the nefarious scheme is done by sheer good luck sometimes.
Politicans are just like any other twit who gets involved in a criminal activity, they can be charged and have to account for their actions. They cannot always get immunity from their fellows.
The idea of an Office of Public Prosecutions sounds good until you think about it for a minute. Strange people these Conservatives, they would cut government yet in the next breath they want to increase the bureaucracy.
The proposed "Office of Public Prosecutions" that Harper has put forth is lump of window dressing that looks like it fell out of the wrong end of a pigeon. As the author of that e-mail has pointed out, the Auditor General already has the authority to turn a report over to the RCMP for criminal investigation. What Harper has conveniently overlooked is a couple of basic realities of Canada's bureaucracy and legal system.
First, any "office" that is attached to the House of Commons is guaranteed to be politicized. Period. It's an unavoidable reality. No matter how you slice it, such an office has to be held at arms length from the legislative body, otherwise its every act is suspect.
Second, is the fact that we already have the required bodies: The RCMP and the Judiciary are deliberately held at arms length from the legislative components of our government. The reasons for such a distancing are so trivially obvious that I don't think I need to explain the utter irony of Harper's proposition.
I'm not against more accountability in government - goodness knows that former Prime Minister Mulroney's constant lawsuits against any investigation or inquiry into the now infamous Airbus affair leaves me deeply suspicious of how much he is trying to hide. Of course today, nearly 15 years later, the time for any meaningful prosecution of that fiasco is long past. We already have the appropriate mechanisms to chase malfeasance in the public service - another office of enforcement is mere political window dressing - demonstrative of a myopic party.
Strike one plank from the Conservative platform - it's suffering from dry rot before the nails are set in it.
When I got home tonight, I was treated to CBC interviewing both Bishop Henry and then Craig Chandler about Harper's latest gaffe on the subject of SGM.
Both of these nitwits completely missed a few points here. First - bill C-38 did not change the spiritual notion of marriage, only the legal, secular definition. Second, the legislation is quite clear about the issue of the Church's rights in the topic. Yes, there are challenges being raised against some churches on this matter, but the legislation is fairly clear on the matter, and the basic protections around individual religious freedom do serve as safeguards that the church clergy can fall back upon. (and I will not object to those refusals - that's a topic within the Churches themselves, and as long as the clergy doesn't try to make the secular world align with their specific beliefs, I don't much care).
Chandler then proceeded to divert the conversation from the bill C-38 discussion to bill C-250 (the hate crimes amendment), and went off on a tirade about how Christians were being prohibited from speaking their faith. He was quite shrill in his decryal of this "persecution" of Christians. I've pointed out before that personal freedoms are protected, and legitimate theological discussions are similarly protected. What "Christians" like Chandler cannot do is impose their faith upon others. My faith is not Mr. Chandler's faith - he has absolutely no right to judge - and condemn - others to a second tier life because of his faith.
With hardline cases like Bishop Henry and Craig Chandler cheering the CPC leader on, this topic serves as a warning for all who value civil rights and social equality. For these guys, equality is a matter of faith - if you don't match their faith model, you don't deserve to be treated equally.
Strike a second plank from the Conservative platform - this one's sat in swamp water for so long that nails just fall out of it, and when you put weight on it, well, it's rather like my deck last summer.
Next Plank Boys?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The Problem With "Abstinence" Education Programs
The messages coming out of the "abstinence education" programs coming out of the United States are beginning to really bother me. This particular little gem struck me as particularly tasteless, as well as underscoring the problems with the whole "abstinence" movement.
First, understand one thing - I don't think abstinence is a bad idea - in fact I think it's a very prudent idea. But I'm also a realist. Teenagers are not fully rational human beings - they are walking, breathing collections of hormones whose rationality is suspect. Throughout the ages, once human adolescents reach a certain point in their development, they will start to experiment sexually - no matter what taboos society has established around the topic. Society is deeply mistaken if it naively believes that artificial taboos will make that behaviour change.
The photograph above really irritates me for a number of reasons - first, consider the message for young women especially. Sex becomes a tool of exchange - you exchange sex for a commitment (marriage). Pregnancy is shameful otherwise; sexual behaviour is a woman's problem - after all, men don't get pregnant. Oh yes, above all, sex is for procreation. (We won't go into the biology of why sex is wired into our brain's _pleasure centers_, will we? That might actually lead to some kind of logical understanding of reality)
While advocates of abstinence only approaches to sexuality like to claim that abstinence is the only "guaranteed way" to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STIs, organizations like Planned Parenthood are quite right to decry this trivial truism.
In a perfect world, perhaps the arbitrary prohibitions of society would be followed by all its members. History has shown that this is seldom, if ever the case in any society larger than a small village. Teaching teenagers about sexuality in a calm, rational manner is not immoral, nor is it giving them a license to engage in sexual activity. I'd much rather have them aware of the consequences of their actions; knowledgeable about condoms and other contraceptive devices for one basic reason - parents cannot be there every time a teenager makes a decision - the best that they can do is make sure that the teen has the best possible knowledge, and hope that the teen makes a good decision on their own. In an era where AIDS exists, a bad decision can be fatal; a bad decision made in ignorance is not only fatal, but it becomes society's failure.
Abstinence programs don't teach about sexuality; they don't teach people about contraception and family planning (and no, the rhythm method is not contraception, no matter what the Catholic Church claims). Instead, they retreat into the shadowy world of making sexuality a taboo in the vain hope that they can shame people into "behaving". Honest knowledge does not guarantee good behaviour, but it makes it a lot easier to for people to make better decisions. We do the generations coming behind us no favours by denying them access to knowledge because it is seen by some as "immoral".
Besides, a society where people aren't ashamed of their sexuality is ultimately going to be much healthier than one where the topic is buried in the mire of taboo and shame.
I wonder where Stephen Harper and the CPC come down on this issue? (I can guess - anyone for a little candidate baiting?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)