More from 'Canada's New Government'

“I think if we’re spending $20 million and we have one out of seven folks in the country that are functionally illiterate, we’ve got to fix the ground floor problem and not be trying to do repair work after the fact”- federal Treasury Board President, defending his government’s cuts to adult literacy programs

OK, and by the same logic, we should be spending our health care money on prevention, not on “repair work after the fact”.

One would think that with a $13.2 billion surplus, this sort of either/or proposition would be unnecessary. The cuts to adult literacy programs will “save” $17.7 million over two years!

These cuts are a cynical symbolic exercise designed for the Conservatives to demonstrate their “fiscal prudence” on the back of marginalized groups in society. The damage caused to people by them will far exceed the benefit caused by “saving” this money, but the Conservatives are betting that most people won’t care, as long as they’re not being personally affected.

All Hail "Canada's New Government"!

“Canada’s New Government is committed to the swift return of duty deposits to individual softwood producers, and to a level playing field for all companies benefiting from the Agreement we have signed with the United States,” said Minister Emerson.("Canada's New Government Delivers a Plan to Return Billions to Canadian Softwood Producers", September 13, 2006)“The new Expenditure Management System will make responsible spending the norm for how Canada’s New Government does business. It will require that all new and existing programs go through a systematic and rigorous examination. This will ensure that this Government only approves funds that are actually needed to achieve measurable results in a way that is effective, and provides value for money on behalf of Canadians.” Backgrounder - Effective Spending, September 26, 2006http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/nr-cp/2006/0925_e.asp

"New" governments that engage in branding gimmicks get old really fast.

Who Has the Right to Self-Defence?

Tonight I went to this event about the war in Lebanon, in order to table for an organization I'm part of. Somehow my roomate got wind of this and asked me if this was "anti-Israel" and "pro-Hezbollah". I quipped "I hope not" in answer to the last question. However, I have to say that there was definately a "pro-Hezbollah" vibe, with salutations to the "resistance".

My feelings about Hezbollah have been ambivilent at best. But the fact remains that Hezbollah did resist Israeli aggression in Lebanon. One can say that it was wrong to kidnap Israeli soldiers. But then, why is Israel detaining thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese without charge? People say that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Why? Because it doesn't recognize Israel? Who calls Israel terrorist when it refuses to recognize the Palestinians as a people with full political rights? Is it because Hezbollah has fired rockets into northern Israel, killing and terrorising civilians? OK, we've got a better argument here. But do you know how many civilians Hezbollah killed during the war? 30, or a bit more. How many civilians did Israel kill in the last war? Over 1000! Think about that, and then consider- who are the terrorists?

Those who say that Israel had the right to defend itself by invading the territory of others deny those others the right to self-defence.

I still believe, as I've stated before, that Hezbollah as well as Israel committed war crimes. However, as the figures above indicate, the gravity of the crimes are not of the same magnitude. This is mainly due to the power imbalance between the two sides, although there is also the fact of Israeli aggression, which is itself a crime. Still, Hezbollah could not have killed that many civilians. Perhaps if they could have they would have but now we are in the realm of the hypothetical. In the real world, in the world of what is and what has been done, Israel had the power to kill that many people and they used it. They had the power to terrorize the population and destroy the infrastructure of a country and they used it.

During the war, the people subjected to this onslaught were almost alone. If they praise Hezbollah's resistance, let us ask ourselves- who else was on their side? And Israel would have sent troops deep into Lebanon, were it not for the fact that Hezbollah was putting up fierce resistance on the ground. No one else was resisting the Israeli invasion. And there's something else. We're not the only ones with pride. We're not the only ones who don['t like being always kicked around. Israel has long seemed militarily invincible, able to beat up on Arabs with impunity. People admire Hezbollah for stopping the Israeli military in its tracks- although of course it was unable to stop the air massacre.

What people have to recognize, before they start with their labels of "anti-Israel" and "pro-Hezbollah", is that if we are going to only recognize the rights of certain select groups of people, like Israeli Jews, then we should at least not kid ourselves into thinking that we are being humanists or bravely resisting anti-Semitism. In fact, we are being racist. Israeli Jews have the right to live in peace with political rights but then so does everybody else. If it's just us and our friends, then we are the oppressors.

A War in the Mind

The war in American hearts and minds Andrew Stroehlein 11 - 9 - 2006

Andrew Stroehlein, an American-born journalist who has worked in war zones around the world, returns to his homeland to find that the "conflict mentality" he has encountered in other global regions has taken root in the United States too.

Very telling. A couple of caveats: Stroehlein talks as though the media is merely giving the people what they want rather than manipulating people's fears. Surely it does both- the fear and the media manipulation of that fear are mutually reinforcing. The media also tends to very willingly convey government propoganda, believing that basing an article on a government press release is more "objective" than to talk to those opposed to or harmed government policies. Political manipulation has been more deliberate- the media have a commercial interest in stoking fear, but the government has a political interest. Of course they have already existing anxiety to work with- but this is what political demagogy does. A demagogue can’t manufacture fears or resentments out of thin air- he manipulates what’s already there, amplifying it- taking advantage of the mass media to engage in political manipulation.

Then there’s this quote: “US foreign policy has hardly been squeaky clean in the past, but even its greatest critics would admit it is very rare for the American public to silently sanction the deployment of hundreds of thousands of its young men and women to invade a country that did not attack first - and to continue that support despite heavy casualties, scandalous abuses and the extended deployments of its soldiers, which have put enormous stress on countless families.”

Well, it’s rarely been necessary to send hundreds of thousands of American troops anywhere since World War II , but none of the countries invaded by the U.S. attacked the U.S. first. As for Vietnam, it definitely did not attack the U.S. before hundreds of thousands of American troops came to call. Initially there was little public opposition to the Vietnam War, although by 1968 it had become significant enough to end Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. On the other hand, even then, a higher proportion of Americans supported that war than now support the war in Iraq. Even in 1972, Richard Nixon routed anti-war candidate George McGovern in the presidential election because Americans were afraid of “America” appearing weak and defeated on the world stage.

The difference, though, is that while large numbers of Americans were willing to march in the streets against the Vietnam War, and large numbers were even willing to do so before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, now that the Americans are apparently committed to be there, few people are actually standing up and shouting that they must leave.

Civilization Through War

The war on terror is no less than the "struggle for civilization," U.S. President George W. Bush said Monday night on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over, and so do I," Bush said. "But the war is not over - and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious."

One question: What would it mean to "emerge victorious" in this "war"? Unless there is an answer, what this "war" really is is a blank cheque for Bush and co.- an open-ended license for them to do anything they like in the name of "fighting the war on terror."

Throughout history, the people who've talked about spreading and safeguarding "civilization" have tended to be imperialists. Bush is therefore part of a long tradition- his discourse is nothing new, although the incompetence and sheer corruption of his administration is something to behold.

In the late afternoon of an earlier empire, Indian nationalist activist Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of western civilization. "I think it would be a good idea", he replied.

Terror Takes On Many Forms

After 9-11, the Bush Administration declared a "war on terror". Since terror comes in many forms and is in many places, this is perhaps the most open-ended war in human history. Well, in theory, anyway. For this is not a war on any old terror- this is a war on so-called "Islamic" terror. The idea is, there's all these rabid extremist Muslims out there who hate "our freedoms", and so we must fight them.

However, a recent poll of Canadians suggests that many Canadians have at least an inkling of the truth. However deplorable their ideologies may be, the Muslim "extremists" have been resisting foreign domination, and this is why they have popular support in many countries. 9-11 was clearly a response to American interference in the Middle East.

We followed the Americans into Afghanistan not long after the Twin Towers fell, and we said that we would help rebuild Afghanistan following the toppling of the Taliban. A few years later, there seems to have been little rebuilding, and we are now focused on fighting a war of counterinsurgency. The Taliban were a nasty lot to be sure. Few would mourn the demise of that regime. But a few years later, they're the resisters of foreign occupation, and it's looking like there's no way to defeat them by force of arms. We seem to have stumbled into the same trap as the Soviets did, and the British before them.

The NDP have called for our troops to withdraw from Afghanistan. I have mixed feelings about that. I certainly don't want to leave Afghanistan to chaos and/or rule by the Taliban. On the other hand, the Soviets could have argued the same thing, and they had a point- after they left, Afghanistan was left to chaos, then to Taliban rule. But they could hardly continue fighting local resistance forces ("Muslim extremists", don't you know) indefinately. At a certain point, they had to give up and go home. If we cannot defeat the Taliban militarily, then the only thing that remains is to determine the conditions under which we will withdraw. Will Afghanistan be better off if we withdraw later rather than sooner? I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect that if we carry on there like we have been, things will just be worse when we at last decide to leave.

Peter MacKay said that we can't be neutral in the fight against Muslim extremism. No doubt he thinks that this is a very principled position. Yet in the name of standing against Muslim extremism, it seems that many other forms of iniquity are to be permitted. I remember the statement he made when Israel started attacking Lebanon. This statement went through a number of twists, turns and spins to avoid mentioning what it was in reaction to- Israel's attack. Instead, it held Hezbollah responsible for the humanitarian crisis which would result from the situation- who or what would cause this crisis was not mentioned. Israel was not mentioned once. It was one of the most torturous, intellectually dishonest statements I have ever had the misfortune to hear from our government.

It is rather conveniant to equate "terror" with fanatical Muslims. It is also wrong. I end with a statement British journalist Robert Fisk made from Lebanon, during that war, when President Bush was fulminating against "Islamic fascism":

So I sat on the carpet in my living room and watched all these heavily armed chaps at Heathrow protecting the British people from annihilation and then on came President George Bush to tell us that we were all fighting "Islamic fascism". There were more thumps in the darkness across Beirut where an awful lot of people are suffering from terror - although I can assure George W that while the pilots of the aircraft dropping bombs across the city in which I have lived for 30 years may or may not be fascists, they are definitely not Islamic.

The West's Generosity to the Palestinians

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Sunday said the world should restore contacts with the Palestinians if the ruling Hamas group agrees to form a unity government, but only if the coalition accepts Western demands to renounce violence and recognize Israel."

To understand the context in which Mr. Blair is making this statement, have a look at these articles in the British paper The Independent.

'Gaza is a jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1372026.ece

'West Bank fragmented by occupation' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1372012.ece

So Blair is generously suggesting that the noose can now be loosened, provided that the one being strangled recognize the executioner's right to live in peace and security.

I mean, I don't like Hamas, but they were democratically elected. True, so were the Nazis. But in this situation, to talking about the people being oppressed as potential oppressors seems grotesque, to say the least. While people prattle on about Hamas being a threat to Israel, what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, with our assistance- right now, as you read these lines- goes way beyond "threat".

As for "renouncing violence" and "recognizing Israel", such obligations ought to be reciprocal. But of course they aren't. After all, Israel has the right to defend itself, right? And the Palestinians don't have the right to defend themselves? Evidently not. There is indeed racism afoot here- and I'm not talking of anti-semitism.

The Bush Administration's "Top 10 Proofs That We Are Winning the War"

1) Attacks by insurgents have gone down

2) Attacks by insurgents have gone up (the "last gasp" of the insurgency)

3) Saddam Hussein, mastermind of the insurgency, is in jail

4) al-Zarquawi, mastermind of the insurgency, is dead

5) There is an elected Iraqi government

6) There is an Iraqi army

7) The benefits the spread of democracy has brought to the Palestinians and the Lebanese

8) Acts of terrorism are taking place en masse in Iraq, not in the U.S.

9) Iraqis are now more focused on killing each other than they are on killing our troops

10)There are still parts of Iraq that are relatively peaceful. Why don't the media report on that? Why don't they report on where there aren't daily suicide bombings and death squad massacres? Because they've got it in for us, that's why. So there.