The opportunity to prevent Iran from getting nukes has passed, they are set to become the next nuclear power. Iran successfully played the Europeans as fools and bought the time they needed to get past the point of no return.

Here's the story of a man named harper,
who was busy with his cronies behind closed doors.
All of them had dreams of gold, like their leader.
The hottest one was cold!

So they met up with some dudes from corporations,
who plainly spelt out "HOW IT'S GONNA BE!!"
Then they passed a bunch of evil legislation,
to bring us to our knees!

The harper bunch, the harper bunch,
this is how they fcuked us up, the harper bunch!

So one-day harper went to meet this fellow,
a funny little troll from 'lonestar state'.
Except this dude, he wasn't really funny,
just full of LIES and HATE!

So the two guys went and had their little meeting,
a fancy gig with children served on toast,
and when they finished we were fcuked up for forever,
from coast to coast to coast!!!!

The harper bunch, the harper bunch,
this is how they fcuked us up, the harper bunch!!

You were truly inspired today jesterjogger. A Swift-ian reference and proper treatment of our new national motto in the same verse.

Too bad I always hated that tune...

someones channeling johnathan swift after reading this ?

i think old johnny boy would be proud.

not enough of Swift's Common Sense around anymore and it's small wonder the Bushite Clones are reproducing exponentialy.

so where are these Yahoo's meeting again ?
Cancun ? going to make it look like a safe place for the middle class again ?

Yahoos on the loose !

Was this survey taken in California with 99% of the respondents residing in San Francisco.

There is no way that the majority of these polls are correct.

Really mabel? What do you think is wrong with these polls? Problems with the survey instrument? Poorly defined contructs? Validity Issues? Or is it that you just don't like the results?

"The time has come", Steve Harper said, to speak of many things,
"Of ethics, troops, Afghanistan,and if MP Dave Emerson
indeed posseses wings."
(Excuse me, but the Swiftian reference brought Lewis Carroll to my mind as well, and having listened to Harper and Emerson's disdainful discounting of the ethics comissioner's missive I couldn't help but hear "The Walrus and the Carpenter". The following three stanzas fit the voters in Van/Kingsway to a tee:

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html

Misleading stats in my opinion. For instance:

So 53% are against a constitutional ban means what? That slightly fewer than half of Americans believe in the most dramatic and absolute route to stop homosexual marriage. It does not indicate whether the 53% that oppose the "constitutional ban" support same sex marriage. They just know they can ban it using other methods. That versus Canadian polls that show the majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage legislation. I'd say the two countries are way very different on that issue and that the stats quoted aren't really applicable.

As to health care, I'm sure the majority of the world would support free health care! (as long as you can defend it from accusations of socialism). Anyway, may as well ask if Americans like ice cream.

The rest I don't have a problem with, but I don't think the sum of the article supports its implicit conclusion about our supposedly parallel viewpoints.

tommymoore U can be sech a kard...yuk...yuk...yuk

The polls, the polls. Horsehockey. Hornswoggle. Pure unadulterated biosolids. Here are some real poll results:

Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments

Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.”

18 percent of American children live in poverty.

Just listened to the mass-murderer/war profiteer dick cheney threatening Iran on the air with "meaningful consequences"!!
(better watch out Iran this guy doesn't fcuk around. Some people say he's so evil that he'd shoot his own friend in the face with a shot-gun for no reason!!)
Also last night corporate media/whitehouse mouth-piece ABC "news" reported a timely interception of anti-personnel bombs from Iran crossing into Iraq.
Hmmmm
I wonder if they've decided to produce bin-laden before the November elections or if they'll hang on to him instead.
Care to comment mr. rove?

god helps those that help themselves .

i guess that's why so many have GUNS in the UNITED MISTAKES...they iz all helpin themselves!

and no one knows who ta shoot anymore,cause they iz all complicit in the crimes agin each udder.

wow! everybuddies got guns and the rich got guns and lawyers...boy, some stage...some actors ,
whose the real victim ?

i gotta read the program agin , whers my readin glasses ?

I'm just suggesting that certain entities seem to ratcheting up the public pysche for something and it all seems vaguely familiar!
I know!!...perhaps there will be a resolution amongst all of those who hold power to attain a new golden age for mankind!!
Yes, all men and women will be as brothers and sisters, all wars will end, there will be no more poverty and pollution. The trillions currently being spent on WMD and the pursuit of further profit will be henchforth channelled to address the critical problems that face us: cleaning up our polluted environment, preservation of remaining ecosystems and cultures everywhere they remain, ensuring a truly sustainable world where none want and the natural world which preserves us all, our Mother, will receive the love and care that has allowed our very existence.
Surely this is what any benevolent god, who has chosen to curse and bless us with self-awareness, would have intended?

If TheTyee doesn't stop publishing stories like this, another great Canadian Myth is going to go up in smoke: Canadian Exceptionalism.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the term: Canadian Exceptionalism (henceforth CE) is a lot like American Exceptionalism, except in our version, we're nothing like Americans. With CE, we are superior to everyone, but if we have to compare ourselves, we are a lot like the Europeans (who are good) and different from the Americans (who are bad).

The myth of CE has persisted for generations;

despite the fact that a huge number of us are descendants of American immigrants,

despite the fact that both Americans and Canadians have a very similar national and ethnic makeup (perhaps substituting Hispanic for Asian)

despite the fact that Canadians have a hugely disproportionate role in American Culture,

despite the fact that Canadians live every day immersed in American culture, and are largely shaped by it.

despite the fact that Canadian and American populations are distinct principally in the 1:10 size ratio

despite the fact that it is only America's greater spread across the bell curve that is required to account for the presence of conspicuous populations there that are very small or absent here.

Most of the anomalous distinctions (and these are significant, but not nearly so much as proponents and holders of the CE myth would have it) between the two populations can be readily explained by reference to relative geography and constitutional history.

OK. I suppose I'll be branded as Not A Real Canadian, but, Oh well, Flame On!.

Harpo IS the USA in this country. And he is the mouthpiece for the main US Party in this country.

Regardless of the lamentations and Yankee bootlick propensities of the Neocon tcahills, we are Canadian, not Amerikan like these Benedict Arnolds.

And the Amerikans at the time of their rising against British Imperialism, were much themselves British in very many ways, including language, sensibilities and culture. But they were also different such that it mattered not a jit their "similarities" in the end, and wished it to be so, and masters in their own house, and did in the end evolve differently. As hopefully shall we continue to evolve differently and recover our own social model from these Neocon Yankee Wannabes who are currently running roughshod as traitors over this country-, and who are themselves, in one of those strange twists of history and fate, in the position now in this country, that the Empire Loyalists were in Revolutionary United States of America. (Or the Vietnamese who served the US invader, and had to flee their own country at the end of the Vietnam War.)

Time to put these Neocon folks in proper perspective, as a US Empire influence manifestation in this country, and shut them out of our national political life.

Can you imagine the reaction of US citizens, to those amongst their number who would dare to advocate the "giving up" of their national dream to become Canadian? The disdainful reaction would be palpable.

On the other hand, maybe the Blue Staters might consider joining with Canada and becoming Canadians more sympathetically than I might realize? Hmmmmm. :-D (We'd surround the Neocon Red Staters, into the lower middle of the continent. Then we could declare an embargoe and starve them into submission, or threaten to invade them and disarm them of their Weapons of Mass Destruction.)

Luckily for Canada, intolerant reactionary threatening thugs hiding behind web pseudonyms don't really represent a significant part of our 'True North, strong and free' either.

Your conduct is Shameful, Coyote. Down south, in CE legend, you might have been able to drum up a lynch mob. Gentle readers, see above the very epitome of a scoundrel taking refuge in patriotism.

Our Battle Cry could be, "Bringing Democracy to the USA!"

Coyote: I will gladly and humbly retract refering to you as a scoundrel if you will retract refering to my alleged

and ficticious

lable.

we only have to listen to the BLOCK QUEBECOIS to mirror our arguments agaist the amerikan influence here in canada.

when my cousin comes up from the states we talk the same,we dress similarly,we drink beverages that are not disimilar,our houses and possesions are similar and that's where it ends.

we ARE different and it's no myth,it's called the thought process....quebecers are different from canadians and canadians are different from amerikans

then you have WANNABE's like HARPER and his ilk.

The Alberta compradors ..with their wealth.. hold disproportionate power in this country now..who knows how much damage they will be allowed to do.

they want the tarpits....they want the water..they`ve got the wood..
Coyote...whats your whiskey?
I never got a taste for Scotch...always preferred Rye..
Crown Royal....straight...no chaser.

It is a pretty thin version of patriotism that holds some CE sense of superiority to a neighbour as a

. It is an extreme insecurity that must lash out viciously when illusions of superiority are pointed out.

bob the cat,

My favourite single malt, which I can really only afford on special occassions, is one called Oban, a twelve year old. And of the Glenmorangies are also an excellent Scotch. Though a quite reasonably priced Scotch, as they go, from one of the Scottish islands, the Whiskey called Scapa, also a twelve year old, which I have tried just recently is excellent and may replace Oban as my favourite. Typically, especially as my tummy has gotten more sensitive as I've gotten older, I like my Scotch with a little water-, it even seems to help draw out some the more subtle vanilla, honey, salty, petey taste of the ocean spray kind of Scotch snob subtlties. 8-D

Generally though, I have a bottle of Grants blended Scotch around the house-, cheap, a working class affordable scotch, and I think as good as some of the higher priced "blends". (If I have the really good single malts around all the time, I find they keep calling my name from the liquor cabinet. Being as not too many "exciting" women call my name anymore. :-)

Though a Canadian Whiskey even getting quite good reviews in Scotland, which you may want to try, is one called Forty Creek Barrel Select, available in most well stocked liquor stores, much cheaper than a Scotch, and I think while not quite as good as the best, shows serious promise. :-)

I presume you talking about your Amerikan friends, not.

For actually, I quite like most people of the US, and would certainly want good and friendly relations with them, once it is clear that we, like they, wish to be masters in our own house. Then once that issue is clear and established, and they get over this notion that we somehow are their "resource pantry" to have, to own and milk dry like their cow in the north 40, and that respect established, we can move on to just being good and respectful neighbours. You know, the kind that good fences allow for.

Mostly it's their ruling class elite and State apparatus politicos that are the problem-, even for a great many US citizens I appreciate.

And you can call me a "scoundrel" as much as you please, sir. :-)

Crown Royal is indeed a good rye, about on a level I think, maybe even a tad better than Grants scotch, and because of the taxes on Scotch, a whole bunch cheaper.

My Mrs. prefers a rye on occassion, and I got her a Crown Royal last Winter Solstice (Xmas), which I had to try, of course. I was impressed.

"illusions of superiority"

regardless of race or religion the homo sapien has that illusion of superiority when he/she has any power over another.

Nietzsche tried to explain it with the example of the UBERMENSCH...HOMO SUPERIOR...

read Also Sprach Zarathustra and you will find that it is very pertinent to these times of religiousity and warmongers.

after you read it i am sure superiority will flow through your being...it is called enlightenment...epiphany...and to most...old news

i know something you don't,ergo:i am superior

it is in our genes,we are superior beings,that's why we rule this planet...and whatever we can conquer...out there.

Grants..hmm don`t recall Grants..
we keep a single malt around (Glenlivet) just in case Prince Philip or someone important like that (Dick Cheney?) happen to drop in. Just goin` through some bottles here and I see the little woman has picked up a Vodka from Finland..never tried that before..worth investigating..Finnish Vodka..
Spent some time in the ole Soviet Union back in
, early `70`s (Merchant seaman)... they down that stuff ( Vodka) in a gulp..and yes they really do toss the glass into the fire sometimes! It was Mayday...a german guy , shipmate.. got pretty snapped up and was busted for ripping down the Red flags from the lamp posts.. hurling insults and carrying on...when he got back to our ship the next day..he said his cell was like a hotel room...clean linen, pyjamas..private washroom..good food...in the morning when he was released the magistrate had him sign a confession....that he hadn`t been "brainwashed"
or "tortured" or abused in any way..
I guess I`m starting to sway off topic here..I`ll let ya know how the finnish vodka experience goes

bob

According to some people there are things that each of us do not know about the other which would indicate that we are NOT the same.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060307.wmyths0307/BNStory/Technology/home

Although the website will likely be of more interest to the expats than the USAmericans.

Obviously, the inverse of the old Deutsche "Untermenschen", nicht wahr?

Thanks for the interesting link, brother/sister.

Obviously we and US citizens are NOT the same, except in the "Wannabe" mind of our own US Empire Loyalist, quisling Neocons. They then assume that because they "wannabe" part of the US Empire, to look, walk, talk and act like them, and parrot their culture and sensibilities, that the rest of us must be likewise. It is one of those measures of the degree to which they are out of touch with their own nation and culture, and in their sense of the inadequacy of their own national culture, seek to absorb a perceived "more powerful" others. Quite pathetic really. They are like lost souls in a biblical Hell.

(We are all "Americans" by the by, us, them, Mexicans and Latinos, in the context of being "North" and "South" Americans. It's a bit like as if Germans, for example, claimed for themselves to be "The Europeans". Which is the same context in which we are all North and South, "Americans". But then, of course, perhaps US citizens think they are the only real "Americans" that count, as Germans have similarly been deluded on occassion-, like they can't really see the larger context, or that we are all even here, or "the continent" is really all theirs anyway. Which would really be quite like them, wouldn't it.

We have a problem with the US Empire much like, certainly not "unlike" the rest of the world does, and we really do need to get to dealing with it-, however similar or different we might be-, not simply to be cranky, but to resolve the dollars and cents and "other issues of this all sorted out and on a basis that will allow us to feel less threatened. And in order to build the prerequisite foundation of respect along our fenceline, that will allow us to become truly good AND equal neighbours.

small wonder the QUEBECOIS rant and rave when they hear Canadians mouthing arguments like those wannabe Amerikans.

thomas49 pointed out the SUPERMAN ideal...those who lord it over us...the only thing the Right forgets is that we all have the need to a self...we all need identities and the wannabes are the weaker thans...they need assimilation to attain power!

the true self always relies on the id and comfort and support comes from others we chose out of love...not necessity

long live the self! only in our own confidence can we move forward.

and Canadians do have self worth first on their agenda...not self importance like the Amerikans .

Quebecers rant and rave because it’s their national hobby. As a culture they are generally isolationist and navel gazers. As individuals, they can vary from totally ignorant to extermly dedicated to International causes. However their education system is strongly bent to promoting the “Quebec view”. I lived with a French Canadian school teacher and when talking about European history, she said: “I don’t care about English History It has nothing to do with Quebec” I just stared at her in disbelief that she could not see how Europe shaped Canada.

Indeed Jim, I can't think of a single thing to likely strengthen our relationship with the Quebecois, who are terrified of being swallowed up in a great Anglo-Amerikan sea. Part of the reason they continue to cling to us Anglo-Canadians, and I think it is clear they would prefer not to separate if we will give them but cultural room, for reasons which include not only the fact of our shared history, as tentative as that may be, but is also in the hope that in the end we can work it out between ourselves, us and them, and resist the great "melting pot" rising US tide.

It is my hope as well. And with our original Aboriginal peoples. If we can but find a national form and content that meets the needs of our three main national groups.

And therein alone would be/is a major "difference" between ourselves and "them".

A very succinct and excellent piece, brother.

Complete and utter national chauvanist tripe Colin, typical of Neocon thinking. You obviously lived with the French Canadian school teacher and didn't learn dicky-doo.

A toilet paper piece of analysis, Colin. And not surprising.

People everywhere, as a general rule, are pretty good complainers, and much self-focussed. I see nothing strange in her reaction, for one hears it here in Anglo-Canada all the time vis a vis even Quebec, this discrediting and downplaying of their role in Canada.

Other than she was with you, there is little I see strange about her attitude or thinking at all. :-)

Now, I must do some work. Hopefully we have driven the righwingnutters into at least a temporary retreat, and sent "most" of them scurrying back into their little burrow Wingnut World.

Catch ya's all later brothers and sisters. 8-X

I'm resuming work on my hunting bow. The tree wood I cut it from at the start of last winter now seems cured enough to begin work on.

Never got to dicky-doo, we were to busy making components for the next school project, I did certainly learn to admire teachers for dedication. She was a proud separatist who had not bothered to consider how the aboriginals or non French speaking immigrants would fit into the mix.

The Quebecers amaze me because they think they would be better off separate, yet they have as a group, no idea how well they have benefited from being part of Canada. A sovereign Quebec is doomed to failure.

Perhaps my opinion of Francophones is twisted by how much time, money and effort is spent in the federal government bending over backwards for them, while totally ignoring other groups that need more interaction. I will say that they throw great parties.

Colin, your relationships with the opposite sex seem to be the instigator of a lot of your beliefs :-)

On welfare etc you reference a woman you slung beer for :-)

My road to here was paved by my girlfriend of 8 years being a right-wing economist. Fun girl but in arguments she eventually circled the wagons, stuck her fingers in her ears and chanted the marketplace mantra.

Good times

First, you don't know whether this is actually true anymore than I do. Just more wingnutter speculation, and transference of their own Wannabe USA kiss-ass/beholden sense of superiority over to looking down on Quebecers. (Though as Canadians you certainly display a classic "inferiority" complex, in the twisted way these things seem to work.) Still, there always has to be somebody lower down in the scheme of things than oneself, for you Neocon Nutters. No surprise here either, coming from yourself Colin. You've been there, if a tad more intelligently, as long as you've been hanging around here, though you are likewise a little better at obscuring it-, until it just slips out that is.

You folks have the same view of this country vis a vis the US Empire; we would apparently fall into some kind of pit without them there to hold our hands as well. Only most of us at least, or growing numbers of us anyway, don't buy that bullshite.

I on the other hand work on a more positive and respectful attitude towards Quebecers, and rather than constantly putting them down, prefer to look for what we have in common, in a bid to "work out" our differences, and find the common basis such as held us together between the Plains of Abraham to here.

The relationship between men and women is constantly being negotiated and re-negotiated as well, and difficult as it is, we shouldn't be surprised that a similar process goes on in our relationship with the other two main national groups which form Canada; Quebecois and Native. (And that is not to say Quebecers don't have their own problems in relations not only to us, but Natives as well, no bloody doubt. But where we have to start from is mutual respect, not this constant belittling derision to which you neoconservatives are prone, as part of your strategy to drive deeper divisions between us, so as the better to feed us in more digestible pieces to The Masah of you US Empire Loyalists.)

Ain't nobody perfect out there, not you, not the Yanks, not Quebecers, and sure as hell not us. We Lefties just seem so alongside you arseholes. :-) Which actually turns out to be easy.

Colin:

Her ignorance was truly sad. However, it is a fact that the social studies curricula in our schools are wrongly skewed to the study of things British, to the detriment of things European.

There's a huge cultural divide amongst francophone Quebeckers themselves, which is often obscured by the language debate. Separatism's core appeal is (generally) among lesser educated suburban & rural Quebeckers who have seldom (if ever) been outside their province, let alone overseas. Federalist Quebeckers tend to be more global in their perspective, more education, well-travelled and multi-lingual. The elites heading up both camps are generally well-educated opportunists (remember, Parizeau was a colonial pilgrim to Oxbridge, and one of the more educated provincial leaders in recent history in spite of his occasional bluntness).

Separatism in Quebec has always been a sibling war within the formidable Jesuit-sharpened intelligentsia of Quebec, often played out on the national stage. English Canada has had very little direct unfiltered exposure to the roots of this family feud, except perhaps in CBC's cloying reminiscences of telegenic clashes between Levesque and Trudeau. Quebecers have a much stronger sense of their own history than we bleeched-out culturally anti-septicized politically re-programmed Têtes Carrés.

The federalist Quebecers are absolutely correct when they refuse to sentimentalize their "bond" with English Canada, and argue that federalism is the means to preserve Quebec culture to the farthest extent possible. Separatists is mistaken when they point to Ireland's booming economy & cultural renaissance as a result of the European Union (which they hold up as an example of sovereignty association). Separation will marginalize and kill Quebec culture in the long run.

coyote:

Here's where I part company with your analysis: the phrase "the other two main national groups".

OK, I get who those groups are from your analysis: the First Nations and the French Quebecois. But who/what is the third group in your analysis (the so-called "rest of Canada")? Where do recent (let's say last 50 years) European immigrants fit? How about recent immigrants from South Asia? Or those from China?

I'm not sure I want to advocate an American-style "melting pot", but the provision of special rights to the three "main national groups" makes me very nervous. I'm nervous because I don't know where I fit into that equation. I'm neither Pur Laine nor aboriginal. Neither am I "Anglo".

I'm of the opinion (and I suspect it's an opinion shared by an ever-increasing population of immigrants) that the sooner we all see ourselves as Canadians, all sharing the same rights and obligations, the sooner we'll be a happy country.

Frank
There is some truth in that, I have met some interesting people both in a good and bad way.

Coyote

It’s simple

Quebec separates, it will galvanize a F*** Y** response from the rest of Canada, interest in French immersion will die instantly, the backlash will include motions to remove the bilingual requirements, it may not be logical, more emotional. Any Federal government will know that giving to much to the new state will piss off the remaining Canadians. I would also feel sorry for any francophones outside of Quebec as they will feel the hostility despite having little to do with it. Approx 25-35% of the Federal civil service is Francophone, as a employer that will be lost to Quebec. Quebec just does not have the Francophone population to maintain a stable state, they will have to bring in French speaking immigrants and other than France that mainly leaves third world countries with non-Caucasian populations with no connection to the present Quebec culture and we know how much the PQ loves immigrants.

There is also not enough of a market to force suppliers to provide items only in French and many producers simply won’t bother. Quebec only hope will be Hydro-electric power exports, but that means sort out who gets the disputed North-eastern portion that Labador claims. Then there are the FN’s. As much as they are pissed with Canada, they really have a hate on for the Quebec Government and all existing agreements are between the FN’s and the Queen, so Quebec will have negotiate with each band and you can be sure that the bands will hold the Quebecers nose to the grindstone, who may balk at their demands. Then there is the thorny issue of existing debts and who gets what share. Quebec separatists are great at demanding sovereignty, but I have yet to see a concise blueprint as to how they will do it.

Grub
Agreed that history taught in here is skewed to the English, but she lumped all of Europe together as one, very strange. Mind you the boat people who arrived here did not really consider themselves French, I believe that most came from Brittany which had been independent of France for periods of time. Interesting tidbits there is approx. 13 dialects of Quebec French.

Colin:

I think you see the problems as far too great. My simplistic analysis: if Norway can exist as an independent nation, why not Quebec?

Grub
It is an interesting point as googling puts Norway as having 4.5 million to Quebec’s 7.5 million.

However a few points. Norway has been a sovereign country for a long time (excepting the occupation in WWII) and is in the slow process of integrating into the a greater community (EU) and not moving away from it.

Quebec however is contemplating pulling out of a union, which has serious dynamics of it’s own. They would be in a position of having to create a significant level of administration and a create major expenditures and political upheaval. They will have to survive a underlying hostility from their previous countrymen and at best total indifference to their Southern neighbour, who will ignore the dispute as long as the electrons flow.
If Quebec were to survive it would not look like the Quebec that the sovereigntists envision and with a fertility rate of 1.5 their population will not be sustainable without immigration. Unless Quebec can offer something of interest they will not get immigrants with education and will as I mention above get immigrants that have little interests in the desires of the Quebec elites. As the immigration cause the decline in the power of the “boat people” there may be interest in reforming the union with Canada.

Colin:

I'm a huge EU fan; one of the great experiments fo the 20th century IMHO.

In light of the EU experience, I'd have no problem with "sovereignty association". I'd rather sovereignty association than constantly bribing and cajoling Quebec to "stay".

Colin, you seem to take great pleasure by going into deep, deep detail about the most tired of national issues.

Of course separation would be a taxing experience for Quebec and, despite your claims of disinterest from the rest of Canada, for all of us too.

I thought we were discussing polling that suggests the average American seems to want the same social benefits we have or at least strive for.

You know what, as far as public health care, it looks like everybody, Americans and Canadians, including a majority of Quebecers want it.

Just as a majority also want the U.S. to stop its Iran build-up. Perhaps that's the price for playing the Boy Calls 'Wolf' card on WMDs.

Now everything gets wrung through the bull-shit screen when that curiosity George speaks alarmingly.

Allan

The devil is always in the details and I don’t think I expressed anywhere that Canadians would be disinterested in the issue, polarized one way or the other is more likely.

As far as polling goes, the questions can manipulate the answers, so I always take polls, even ones with results I like with a large bag of salt. Those polls that asked people about Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, if they had also asked what does PRT stand for and what do they do, I can bet a large majority could not answer.

Of course I think the author of the article will call me a “armchair expert on polling”

Colin, no one other than policy wonks and military fanatics give a crap about what PRT stands for.

It's bodies man, not euphanisms, that count.

They certainly know our boys and girls are in Afghanistan and getting shot at and and blown up without one peep of political debate and are doing a job that is the responsibility of the true invaders of the country.

Don't give me any song and dance about pressing needs, security concerns or the need to stand with our neighbours. Canada has never declared war on Afghanistan or even the Taliban as far as I know.

The occasional comment I hear that our soldiers are over there to fight on behalf of those Canadians who died in NY City because of the 9-11 attacks, is so off the mark.

There are a whole host of villans we might attack over that disaster before we start blaming rural warloads in some backwater, deadend valley among the Afghan mountains.

Frankly successive US governments share most of the responsibility, in my eyes, with their efforts to control the world, to say nothing about the massive lapses in U.S. intelligence.

I'd encourage who ever paid to have the polling done by Reid etc. to make these comparisons more often.

It has just lifted my impression of the average American tremendously no matter what some of their wing-nut politicians might do.

There is hope after all.

this must be devastating to all you cliche-laden lefties. who will you hate if this is true?

Well Elliot, there is always you, eh?

Allan
So no one gives a damm about the Provincial Reconstruction Teams eh? The Taliban sure do, that’s why they burn down schools and execute teachers. They know this is where the battle will be won or lost. If the west cannot protect the rebuilding, then you can throw away Afghanistan and the hopes of everyone there. I am not naive enough to believe it will become a model democracy, it will hopefully become a stable semi-democratic state with a semi-competent central government that can prevent the country from being overrun by Islamic radicals. You can stand around blaming everyone or you can take part, I for one would rather take part in a multi-dimensional program that gives protection, rebuilding and a future for the Afghans. It’s also folly to sit back and wait for the Taliban to attack, read up your history on any successful counter –insurgency and a pro-active program is the key reason for success. There has been active progress on bringing Taliban insurgents back down from the mountains and they recently had a number of chieftains agree to lay down their arms and return to the villages.

Now if Pakistan and Iran can be encouraged to keep their fingers out of the pot, the country stands a chance to becoming somewhat normal.

Colin, yes it is good that Canada's peacekeepers are trying to rebuild infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and the like.

But their bedmates, the Taliban hunters, are making them targets by taking part in the US led war on the people who chased the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Yes, I know how ugly the situation is with rogue tribal leaders and all, but I don't think it is any more frightening for civilians
than what residents in say the Sudan go through on a daily basis.

Of course the US isn't interested in stepping into that quagmire and thus we loyal Canadians won't be backing them up on African soil any time soon despite the even more vicious tribal leaders there.

Canada's mission to rebuild Afghani instrastructeure is little more than PR for the moms and dads on the homefront, who apparently are becoming increasingly disllusioned about the death of their children.

Frankly, I'd lay a lot of the blame for that loss of trust on our top general who seems to think he was elected to make political comments and decisions, rather than serving his country as he is advised by Canada's (not US)leaders.

The main goal and I challenge anyone to refute this, is to continue chasing resistance fighters who remain opposed the the American-imposed government on behalf of the American military.

In my view it's because the politicians in Canada haven't the intestinal fortitude to tell the Americans to clean up their own shit.

Allan
The proper definition of a “Peacekeeper” is a UN sanctioned military force, placed between two warring parties (normally states) who both desire to have a peaceful settlement, but do not trust each other. The Peacekeeping force must be sanctioned by both sides and be allowed to operate to it’s mandate. It’s primary goal is to act as a “tripwire” to ensure neither side can launch a surprise attack and to allow the buildup of trust in order to gain a lasting peace. Either side can demand the withdrawal of the Peacekeeping force at any time. Two examples of this force can be found in Cyprus and I think the Erita/Ethiopian is still in place although I think one of the countries has threaten to kick it out.

None of the necessary conditions listed above exist in Afghanistan exist and the use of the term “peacekeepers” is entirely inaccurate. The purpose of the force there is to back the current government and extend it’s control throughout the country, while at the same time provide security for the PRT’s and hunt any active elements of the Taliban/foreign fighters who are not engaged in negotiations with the government.

says Colin.

Seems like there are a lot of foreign fighters in Afghanistan including Canadians.

And just why are they there again?

Did the Taliban declare war on Canada and what about all those "former" warlords who are now "government"?

Were they among the Afghani government leaders who stood up and called on Canada to intervene or did they simply pass the request for Canadian bodies through Washington?

I'm a bit confused on just why Canadians are killing Afghanis and or foreigners on foreign soil.

Next thing you know some foreigners will ID me as a terrorist and we'll have visitors too and hey, the precedent has been set, right.

How do you put a stop to all those possibilities other than by killing everyone?

Just a sidebar;
So the stated purpose of U.S./Western incursions into a variety of foreign venues is, at least publicly, to establish democratically elected governments.
Democracy is good, right?
Like Palestininan democracy?
Like Iranian democracy?
And if they democratically decide that a nuclear weapons program will bring them parity and security (Can you say MAD? Remember Mutual Assured Destruction?), then surely no other democracy should be able to intervene.
And if the Afghanis democratically decide that opium production is not only a great source of income but a wicked good tool for undermining the evil empire of the west, we can look forward to a guaranteed supply of good, clean, cheap heroin in the best tradition of democratic entrepreneurs the world over.
If we're there with guns and armoured vehicles, then we ain't acting as friends.
Friends don't let friends visit armed.

We are there because even Canadians realize that you cannot turn your back on a failed state, the rot will effect you. Canada has a long history of involving itself in the affairs of other countries using military, political and foreign aid or a combination thereof. The tactics against the Taliban are a combination of all three and the government has been offering them an alternative, which some have taken and some haven’t.

Everyone knew the warlords would be sitting at the table, without going into a total war scenario there was no other choice, Once the government is strong enough it will be able to tackle the worst and the rest will moderate their behaviour.

To give a better idea of our involvement, consider that our total force over there including support and admin staff is less than 1/3 rd the strength of the Toronto Police Force.

Gbingb

Don’t confuse democracy with voting, voting is only the tip of an iceberg that is democracy, many other elements must be in place for a democracy to exist, hence my term semi-democracy.

The Pals will be learning an interesting lesson as will Hamas, the only smart thing Fatah has done is distance itself from ruling with Hamas, let them stand or fall on their own rhetoric.

The Iranians democracy: You vote for all of the approved candidates listed here, otherwise we will torture you and imprison you.

The poppy fields are problem, my solution pay more for them the Taliban and have the farmers start planting more food crops again.

The 10 years being talked about is a conservative estimate to fix Afghanistan.

Gee, I let my friends into the house armed, I guess I trust my friends more than you trust yours.

Ian Brodie's [Harper's Chief of Staff] recent short publications can be accessed here, if anyone's interested. He seems particularly interested in the influence of 'special interests' in the courtroom:

http://publish.uwo.ca/~irbrodie/papers.html

...it's actually not bad. Here's an interesting argument. In a nutshell, he's saying the dynamic force for social change today is not the traditional 'proletariat' or the organized Left, but instead the dynamic progressive element is the more wealthy & educated segment society, which he calls the "oppositionist intelligentsia". Comments anyone?

yes
but haven`t the organized left and proletarian
intellectuals had a lot to do with this progression..Isn`t this "Neo-Marxism"?

I'm not familiar enough with either concept - postmaterialism or neo-Marxism - to say what interrelationship there is (if any).

Brodie's presenting an interesting argument in this paper [Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead in Canada? [url]http://publish.uwo.ca/~irbrodie/newman.pdf][/url].

He uses three examples of "have-not" litigation efforts [linguistic minority rights, women/feminist rights, and gay rights] to turn Galanter's thesis on its head (or rather to update it for the post-modern context, depending on how you see it.

He says the "have-not" special interests are increasingly the winners in the litigious rights revolution due to three complementary factors: the post-industrial value change among educated and wealthy elites; the "embedded state" phenomenon of interest group funding & politicized engagement inaugurated by Trudeau's Just Society programme; the Centre-Periphery dichotomy which allows special interests to move litigation out of hostile territory (i.e. local jurisdictions) to the more hospitable central (i.e. federal) arena.

I'm sure there are lots of caveats that could be inserted into the argument. But he makes an interesting statement about the interrelationship of the legal industry, the rights industry (the "rights revolution") and the drive to engage and expand new constituencies by liberal (i.e. Liberal) elites.

Colin, yes Canada got involved in Haiti for reasons like that too didn't they?

But please explain why our incursion and pre-incursion moves into that failed state wasn't publicy rationalized before the job was done if it was just all about bringing democracy.

Do you think that most Canadians might of said 'hey why is Canda helping out with another American coup, this time in Haiti'?

In fact, a lot are, but they are not getting anything that sounds like an honest answer back.

I'm a bit puzzled by your comments about the warlords and their presumed staledate too.

I'll give you odds that many of those old leathery guys will be so deeply entrenched within the Afghani heirarchy 10 years from now that some of them will be collecting American gifts under the table while still milking poppy growers back home.

That US puppet with the funny hat and penchant for shiny rings and who always looks overdressed beside his poorer countrymen, will be lucky to escape with his life by the time Canada gets its troops out.

nightbloom, I was all set to leap into Brodie's writings until I noticed they had been soiled by the presense of the Fraser Institute.

Any arguement that he could take forward to suggest that the 'have-nots' are ganging up on the 'haves' thanks to government largesse has been already balanced by the fact the Fraser Institute was set up to ensure the "haves" keep every cent they want.

Or did you think the Fraser Institute was a non-profit agency that helped the poor and downtrodden?

nightbloom cites:

Can you spell PUBLIC SECTOR employees (unions)? Nurses. Teachers. Professors. Technicians. Foresters.

Yup, there could be merit to this observation.

I don't mean to suggest that the groups I've mentioned constitute the entirety of this "well educated, wealthier strata of society", but they surely constitute the most organized variant of such a strata.

nightbloom: thanks for the link

http://publish.uwo.ca/~irbrodie/newman.pdf

From the article recommended by nightbloom:

Which raises the question: what chances are there for support for rights advocacy groups under a Harper regime?

Nil?

Allan I actually agree that most of those leathery warlords will be involved in the government in 10 years, what I was saying is that if the government becomes strong enough, it will be able to take on the worst of the bunch and destroy their power and the rest will behave enough to allow some of the infrastructure of a functioning state to develop. This is going to be a very long process and I expect that it will take 2, possibly 3 generations of sustained progress for Afghanistan to become fully stable.

For a state to develop you need a relatively honest judicial system and legal system, reliable land tenure system, education system and basic infrastructure, all of these are lacking. You have to see the warlords similar to the Feudal system in England, except this time the “Magna Carta” is being imposed upon them.

allan - yeah, I gotta confess that the Fraser Institute makes me laugh sometimes. Their service to vested interests gets a little too transparent, and the lack of generally accepted peer review process makes some of their research questionable.

Brodie's essay is interesting fodder for discussion though. It presents a different take on the style of citizens' engagement promoted by the putative "Just Society". It's not the "revolution from below" it's sometimes billed as.

As a supporter of EGALE (one of the special interest groups which Brodie uses as an example), I have no problem acknowledging that we've "gotten our way, all the way" on every major issue we've tackled over the last 15 years. But even I am ambivalent about some of the new activism projects that are being proposed (like opening up the public school curriculum to postmodernist ideologues and competing interest groups to ensure "representative" content....dangerous!).

Some of these government funded groups went totally out of control for a time. Remember Judy Rebick (president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women) during the Meech Lake hearings? It was unbelievable.

The federal government was right to trim back their budget (their public whining about it went on for years). These groups, if given too long a lead, can hijack democratic process at critical moments (like the constitutional hearings).

'Their service to vested interests gets a little too transparent, and the lack of generally accepted peer review process makes some of their research questionable.'
you mean egale? status of women committee? greenpeace? wcwc? suzuki foundation? bctf?

I should have been more precise - I responding to Allan's comments on the Fraser Institute.

These groups don't present themselves as academic think tanks. Everyone knows they're lobbyists. The Fraser Institute presents itself as an institute but doesn't have the same academic quality control mechanisms as, say, the Brookings Institute (or Hoover Institute, CD Howe, what have you).

I guess ever organization is going to inject their "spin" into their output....I was simply acknowledging that the Fraser Institute is just a little more brazen about it sometimes than is generally acceptable for a truly "academic" outfit.

Colin, the only problem with your optimism is that it flies in the face of reality, at least as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

You can't impose democracy any more than you can change history.

Of course you can install a group of people who support your cause and call them the nation's leadership, even have an election and try to justify it with words like fair and democratic.

But unless all are allowed to participate it's hardly democratic, and having foreign military hunting you down to kill you isn't exactly an invitation to put your name forward.

Now you can say the Taliban are the worst scum on the face of the earth and I might not disagree (although there is much scummy in the world these days), but they are Afghani.

Sure, they were on the losing side of an American invasion and just like when the Russians invaded they are too stubborn to give up.

Funny thing though, when these same people who were then called "freedom fighters" were taking on the Russians no one was saying 'hold on here guys, the Russians have the moral high ground.'

At least I didn't hear that from the Americans or very many Canadians for that matter.

All those things you wish for Afghanistan are noble, at least from a western point of view and, if I were an Afghani I too might desire them, but I am not.

It seems to me the one thing people in Afghanistan are willing to die for is to keep invaders out regardless of their intent.

History points that out clearly.

nightbloom, my point wsn't to say other groups, valid researchers or not, aren't trying to get the best deal they can for their members or those they represent.

I was merely pointing out that anything sponsored or funded by the Fraser Institute has to be looked at through a jaundiced eye.

And that is especially so when the author, who is funded by this group, dares to suggest others who happen to get government support have an unfair advantage.

The Fraser Institute and all it's corporate membership have been getting unfair advantages forever.

Remember, every cent donated to the Fraser Institute is tax deductable.

In effect, the government and all the little people, with no such heavy hitters behind them, are subsidizing these captains of industry and their very effective lobbying arm.

I realize you are not trying to defend the Fraser Institute, but trying to explain this to people like Elliot is simply wasted effort.

Agreed.

Although I should point out that Brodie is a well-established member of the University of Westn Ontario Political Science faculty. And he only produced a one-pager for the Fraser Inst. So he's hardly financially beholden to them, although one can assume the relationship is collegial, if not close. I think it's safe to say his opinions/analyses are genuinely his own.

I think a good point of attack on his argument would be the definition of "haves" and "have nots"...These aren't necessarily the people that Galanter had in mind when he devised his model.

Nevertheless there seems to be a consensus emerging that litigation by government-funded interest groups is (or rather was) getting out of hand. It is a form of patronage - for example the Liberal government would fund certain interest groups in return for endorsement of policy...at least the quid pro quo is implicit in this dynamic).

Nightbloom

A perfect example of that is the “Coalition for gun control” which received $400,000 to lobby the government to increase gun control. Apparently a bunch appears to have gone sideways to the Liberal party and the group is now being investigated by the RCMP.

Yes. And this particular form of government patronage (according to Brodie) is a Liberal invention. Although Mulroney made some use of it (not to much effect, evidently), he did try to reign it in by (for example) suspending the Court Challenges Program [if I'm not mistaken, he had to back down from this, and it was suspended only much later by Chretien during the Program Review period...but don't quote me on that].

It makes sense. Generally the groups to whom this kind of patronage is directed are groups which the Liberals have always tried to tap & mobilize (immigrants, women, gays, visible minorities, etc.). You could argue that it's simply a means of engaging & enfranchising these groups, but that invites a cynical reply...

It's also a means of creating new constituencies that would have found other avenues for engagement aside from their manufactured postmodern identities as members of collectivized groups with collective interests (rather than individual citizens of a democracy as originally envisioned by Enlightenment idealists (the former is the political side of true corporatism in its classic sense, to which the Left is just as susceptible as the extreme Right - collective interest moderation based on divisive identity politics).

nightbloom, reading your comments leave me with the impression you would include our First Nations, Inuit and Metis among those who get government largesse.

And please get off that "individual citizens of a democracy as originally envisioned by Enlightened idealists."

That individualism is a naive concept based on the myth that I or my neighbour have as much clout as the big mean guy down the street who has an army employed by him, to mentioned nothing about the politicians who are beholden to him.

The acceptance of a collective interest is simply a maturing of rational thought that certainly wasn't a popular concept to broadcast back when the guy with the bigger stick was in charge.

That's the problems when you guys start to wax on about philosophical concepts made popular before North America was seen as anything more than a potentially quicker route to India or that India was good for anything more than to be exploited.

And what's this about "divisive identity politics"?

Isn't anything political a divisive entity?

If it weren't it wouldn't be an issue, especially a political issue.

Now, as for the three groups I mentioned up top, let us remember that they have always been seen by outsiders, not as individuals but, as collectives.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even present day media continue that approach with the rare exception when an individual challenges a collective stance taken by such people.

Then, of course, individual rights are once more pushed out there as the sacred cow that can't be compromised for a mere majority.

Why?

Excuse my cynisism, but then our white-Euro ideals which still remind us that "we discovered" this continent, kick in.

Even today we hear that played out by the yahoos who counter anything with 'but we won', as though European settlers conquered any of the nations that existed in this land we now call Canada.

It's my take there remains a great unpaid debt owed to the groups I mentioned at the start, a debt I never hear anything about when the right-wingers complain about our mounting financial debts.

In fact, I would love some day when the annual budget speech is unleashed to actually hear a minister of finance say we are going to pay down that debt.

So I get back to the Fraser Institute, which is paying professors to pimp for their members. Of course these members, the elite of corporate Canada, know a good thing.

Contribute to the FI and it's tenured mouthpieces and get collective benefits, besides its a complete tax write off for each individual.

I tossed out the native groups because Fraser Institute talking head Gordon Gibson recently used the Globe&Mail for yet another attack on First Nations governence, in which he accused FN leadership of getting fat from the wealth they were individually compiling to the detriment of all those individual Indians.

This from a man who's silver spoon came through the success of his daddy at exploiting a hell of a lot of resources off of land that has yet to be conceded by anyone representing any First nations group or individual.

Allan
Nevertheless corruption, nepotism and fraud, will be playing a big part in the questions the next generation of natives kids are going to have for their current leaders. Everyone involved knows it is going on. The main argument is when and how to deal with it.

This is not a slur on them, but a result of taking groups of people, effectively destroying their culture and then in a attempt to reverse this, by having the government give millions of dollars without adequate accounting to people with little leadership skills, management training or accountability from their own people. It was and is a recipe for disaster.

hey allan; gordon gibson's daddy makes you look like about a half a pissant.

Elliot, that would mean I still tower over you guys who use your belly for locomotion.

Colin, yes there is a lot of corruption, nepotism and fraud with in the leadership, just like there are in most corporate circles including BC's resource industry.

Besides I was talking about the outstanding debt we owe for the land etc., not about how the non-Indians managed to get most of it.

Allan
Your first problem will be deciding which FN owns the land, as a fair chunk of it (approx. 30%) is disputed)

Allan - Brodie's article doesn't discuss First Nations, and he doesn't make that part of his argument.

It's debatable whether they fit into the dynamic he's talking about. They are not a constituency that has been "manufactured" by the Just Society programme (if we follow Brodie's line of argumentation).

I think everyone conceeds that they are a minority unlike any other due to historical circumstance and current predicament. However, I must agree with Colin that the government has made an awful situation much worse. It's hard to believe we might lose yet another generation of aboriginals (the largest and most fecund generation by far). I don't have a solution, although I know that some promising signs are starting to finally appear in the universities (like the University of Saskatchewan).

This is a great new feature, thank you.

I look forward to future stories in the series.