lazy days of summer

Please excuse my lack of posts. These last few days of summer have been busy ones. I'm trying to spend as much time as possible with my kids before they head back to school since I didn't have much vacation time this year.

I've got a few ideas for posts half-written up and half-baked (like most of my notions) but I'll confess I've spent more time writing up replies on the assorted blogs which I frequent than I have on my own.

Since I'm still relatively new to blogging, I keep discovering things about bloggers... what makes them tick, what motivates them, the means of communicating effectively instead of evoking emotional responses. Some folks don't care and prefer to stir up a good yelling match. Others are more prim and proper. I always try to be polite and articulate... I rarely swear although I'll dip into the rhetoric jar occasionally. It's hard to be funny in the written word since every word is subject to interpretation.

I'll polish off one of my posts in the next couple days... I hope!!

-Mac

Does Khan appointment transcend partisan politics?

According to Wajid Khan, the importance of his appointment transcends partisan politics... or at least, that's what he told interim Liberal leader Bill Graham, reports the Globe & Mail.

According to the great thinkers and at least one leadership candidate, Khan is dead wrong and should either quit the appointment or leave the Liberal caucus. Wait a minute... does that mean "You're either with us or against us." isn't strictly a Republican notion?

Evidently, PM Stephen Harper is so "inside" the heads of some Liberals, they can't imagine this appointment is anything other than an attempt to subvert the Liberals, reverse the highly touted slide in a poll and/or desperate attempt at damage control over the lack of 'nuance' about calling Hezbollah terrorists and supporting Israel's right to defend themselves against terrorist attacks.

I hope, after completing his tour and making his recommendations, Wajid Khan takes the time to review his relationship with the Liberal Party and see what his fellows think of him and what low regard they have for his discretion. I don't care whether Khan crosses the floor (as some suggest he should) or works within the Liberal Party but hopefully some good will come of this distasteful display of hyper-partisan paranoia.

Thanks for the Sanctions!

An interesting look at an age-old problem... what to do about despot regimes? This is written from an American perspective but it's none less true for the rest of us. I've only included the first couple of paragraphs. Click the link to read the rest!

-Mac


Thanks for the Sanctions

Why do we keep using a policy that helps dictators?
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006, at 4:45 PM ET

When trying to rein in the misbehavior of roguish regimes, be it nuclear proliferation, support for terrorism, or internal repression, the United States increasingly turns to a policy of economic sanctions.

A quick survey: We began our economic embargo against North Korea in 1950. We've had one against Cuba since 1962. We first applied economic sanctions to Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and are currently trying for international sanctions aimed at getting the government there to suspend uranium enrichment. We attached trade sanctions to Burma beginning in 1990 and froze the assets of Sudan beginning in 1997. President Bush ordered sanctions against Zimbabwe in 2003 and against Syria beginning in 2004. We have also led major international sanctions campaigns against regimes since brought down by force of arms: Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Saddam's Iraq, and Taliban Afghanistan.

America's sanctions policy is largely consistent, and in a certain sense, admirable. By applying economic restraints, we label the most oppressive and dangerous governments in the world pariahs. We wash our hands of evil, declining to help despots finance their depredations, even at a cost to ourselves of some economic growth. We wincingly accept the collateral damage that falls on civilian populations in the nations we target. But as the above list of countries suggests, sanctions have one serious drawback. They don't work. Though there are some debatable exceptions, sanctions rarely play a significant role in dislodging or constraining the behavior of despicable regimes.

Sanctions tend to fail as a diplomatic tool for the same reason aerial bombing usually fails. As Israel is again discovering in Lebanon, the infliction of indiscriminate suffering tends to turn a populace against the proximate cause of its devastation, not the underlying causes. People who live in hermit states like North Korea, Burma, and Cuba already suffer from global isolation. Fed on a diet of propaganda, they don't know what's happening inside their borders or outside of them. By increasing their seclusion, sanctions make it easier for dictators to blame external enemies for a country's suffering. And because sanctions make a country's material deprivation significantly worse, they paradoxically make it less likely that the oppressed will throw off their chains.

a brief overview

I got this "brief overview" as an email which claimed the author was comedian Dennis Miller. I did a couple quick checks and discovered the author was, in fact, columnist/humourist Larry Miller. The original article was published back in 2002. I would link to it but HTML hates me (and vice versa) but if you check snopes.com, there is a link there.

There is much more in the article, mostly relating to an interview which Larry watched on Fox News which enraged him enough to inspire the article but I like the overview part which was excerpted in the email.... so here it is!!

-Mac

A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Don't thank me. I'm a giver. Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal

Struggle And Death." I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."

Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course--that's where the real fun is--but mostly they want Israel. Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel--or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it--for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something. It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . uh, that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

There's bad news on the losing moral weight front, and the signs are out there. Last week, the day after Secretary Powell left on his mission (whatever that was), the Los Angeles Times ran its lead editorial in one hundred percent support of the trip and the pressure he and President Bush were putting on Israel. Here's a good rule of thumb: If the Los Angeles Times thinks you're doing a great job, everything you're doing is wrong, stupid and mortally dangerous. If they think everything you're doing is wrong, stupid and mortally dangerous, you're doing a great job, and, in fact, your chances are probably very good for getting on the fast track for sainthood.

Someone thinks PM Harper is right

I don't know whether to applaud or be worried but it's an interesting development regardless.

-Mac

Liberal power couple back Harper on Mideast

CAMPBELL CLARK

From Friday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Liberal power couple Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz have publicly broken with the Liberal Party line on the Middle East crisis and are turning to Prime Minister Stephen Harper because of his support of Israel.

Mr. Schwartz, a confidante of former prime minister Paul Martin and one of Canada's most influential businessmen as the head of Onex Corp., is one of the eight signatories of an advertisement placed in a newspaper in Cornwall, Ont., where the Conservatives are holding caucus meetings.

The ad welcomes the caucus to Cornwall and expresses appreciation to Mr. Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Conservative MPs for "standing by" Israel. It also lauds other G8 leaders and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for their stands on the war.

Mr. Schwartz's wife, Ms. Reisman, says she is leaving the party to support the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.

the rest of the story

Municipal Politics

Politics (and politicians) are come in all shapes and sizes. I must admit I find it amusing how people act and react to politics.

You see, in Canada, we have three main levels of government; federal, provincial and municipal, each with it's own role in picking the pockets of citizens.

Every citizen with a whit of political interest knows who their federal representative. For instance, my local member of parliament is Russ Hiebert, a Conservative. Before the 2004 election, Russ managed to outstrip incumbent candidate, Val Meredith (a Reformer, who'd been the MP since 1993) for the nomination and won the election 2004 and then the 2006 elections handily.

Provincially, the interest becomes a bit intense. My local MLA is Gordie Hogg, a Liberal... but that's no surprise since British Columbia doesn't have a viable rightwing party. Hogg has been the MLA for a long time but I'm really not sure how long. My most distinct memory of Hogg is from a couple years ago when he created a minor stir when he attended the funeral of a local Hells Angel. Things that make you go "hmmmm"...

Municipally, I know the name of the mayor, Dianne Watts, but most of the councillors are a bit of a blur. When their names appear in the local newsrag, I usually recognize them but not always.

My point? The federal government plays a minor role in most citizens' lives... other than that whole "income tax" thing. The laws which generally impact upon us are provincial jurisdiction... but the government which has the most "in-yer-face" powers are the municipalities. Yup, the local government can make or break you AND your neighbourhood with a stroke of a pen.

Federal politicians generally have a larger population base for their electoral base. The provincials are a bit smaller and the municipal politicians are smaller still. Federal politicians tend to be professionals; lawyers, teachers, doctors and so forth. Provincial politicians are often professionals but not always. They're quite often people who've started off in municipal politics and "stepped up" to the "big leagues" so to speak. Municipal politicians? You'll find a combination of local cranks, kooks and up-and-comers honing their skills. I can't recall ever seeing a lawyer running for municipal council... perhaps in the bigger centres but certainly in small towns, it's rare.

So why are we so focused on the Feds? What do they give us that makes them so fascinating?? It's certainly not wisdom!!

Conversely, what aren't we focused on the Munies? The folks who control your water & sewer control your lives. What is it about them that inspires such boredom?

Perhaps it's the focus of the attentions of the various levels of government. Municipal governments deal with the mundane details of daily life (boring!!) whereas the provincial governments deal with slightly bigger issues of economy and law. The Feds operate on a higher level, dealing with the entire nation and the world.

My point? Perhaps Canadians are all dreamers at heart. We want to think about the big picture and imagine our vote (and therefore our candidate) is dealing with the huge issues of life!!

be gentle

I still haven't entirely figured out Blogger so don't feel tempted to take advantage of my relative newby-ness. I do know how to "remove" comments and I won't hesitate to do so. After all, this is a blog, not a government agency. You can take your "right to freedom of speech" and shove it into whatever convenient orifice suits you best.

Initially, I wasn't going to bother posting (and I still can't imagine being a high-volume blogger) but maybe I'll stick in a note or two occasionally as thoughts trickle across my feeble mind...

-Mac

Veteran plates?

One of the reasons I love reading the local community newspaper is the Letters to the Editor pages which are usually top-filled with local flavour. There are all the usual complaints about municipal affairs. Municipal politics... note to self for another blog entry....

The other day, there was a letter from a ranting senior about parking. One of the things he mentioned was veteran plates. It was mid-ramble between a sneer about parking rates and a snarl about the new 'credit card friendly' parking system.

Here in British Columbia, the provincial government, through it's amorphous car insurance monopoly, ICBC, decided to issue special licence plates to military veterans. Now, I'm all for honouring veterans or anyone who devotes their lives to serving the greater good of mankind (in general) and the dominion of Canada (in particular) but I have some reservations about this one.

I haven't really researched this so I'm not sure of the details but I've seen numerous cars bearing these 'veteran' plates and it's made me a bit curious.Just off the top of my head, I came up with a few questions...

qualifications:

Are veteran plates restricted to ex-members of the Canadian Armed Forces? If so, why??
How much service does one have to do to qualify for veteran plates?
Is there an accepted minimum amount of service? If so, based on what criterea?
Do those who were dishonourably discharged still qualify?
Do retired British Armed Forces personnel qualify?
Do Military Reserve officers qualify?
Do retired RCMP officers (ie: paramilitary force) qualify?

cost/benefits:

Are there any tangible benefits to veteran plates, especially regarding insurance?
Are there any costs associated to veteran plates, especially regarding insurance?
Are the rules regarding the lawful use of licence plates different for veteran plates?
What purpose is served by veteran plates? What is the idea behind them?

During coffee talk at work I raised a couple of these points. When I mentioned RCMP officers, one of the guys jokingly suggested an RCMP veteran plate would be tantamount to a target for vandals & thieves. He might be right!

Do the other provinces have veteran plates and, if so, what do you think about them?

-Mac