Taking down the Drapeau

Retired colonel and full-time defence talking-head for CTV Michel Drapeau came out with his latest ruling on national defence issues. I'm sure he makes a great lawyer... But the L.T. is going to have to pull the Drapeau down to half-mast and do some debunking.

Drapeau:
For quite a while now, I have been bothered by the increasingly substantive political role taken by Gen. Hillier to present to the electorate his own "vision" on defence issues.

L.T.
Gen. Hillier presented his vision to the Prime Minister in January 2005. The Prime Minister endorsed it and nominated then Chief of Land Staff, LGen Hillier to become the new Chief of Defence Staff. The Defence Policy Statement, which was a government-developed and approved policy at the military and political level, endorses that vision and declares that the CF will transform itself.

The CDS addresses most of his comments to defence constituencies, at speaking events. Saying that he is addressing the "electorate" is misleading and manipulative.

Drapeau:
This demands that he be present in Ottawa, not in Afghanistan -- and not giving speeches to develop a personality cult.

L.T.:
To suggest that Gen Hillier is trying to develop a personality cult says a lot more about the person making the accusation than Gen Hillier, who has spent his career serving Canada. If a retired logistics colonel can comment on government policy, I think the Chief of Defence Staff can probably do it also.

Drapeau:
I am troubled by the fact that, less than two days before the new Harper government was sworn in, on his own authority and without debate inside or outside the Defence Department, Gen. Hillier implemented, with much fanfare and considerable costs, the most significant reorganization of the Defence establishment since Paul Hellyer's unification of the air, land and naval forces.

L.T.:
Perhaps you didn't read the Defence Policy Statement of April 2005? It's almost like what General Hillier did was mandated by the federal cabinet, and planned well in advance. It is false that the reorganization was solely done on the authority of the CDS, although he has the authority to do it. It was mandated by federal policy. It is also false that transformation is being done without the opportunity for debate. Since July of 2005, transformation information has been publicly available at the following internet site: CF Transformation.

Drapeau:
What if Hillier's very own and unique vision of the universe proves to be wrong?

L.T.:
Then we all go down to the mess and have a beer. There are risks in taking bold policy moves. However, with the CF, the greater risk is not acting. All serious commentators agree that serious remediation in defence policy was needed. Hillier's vision is much less risky than the status quo, which has us using equipment from the Cuban missile crisis in organizations that are too complex to put on flow charts.

Thank you for participating in this one-way debunking of your disgruntled confusion. I know you are already retired... But I was wondering if maybe you could retire a bit more?

E-Parliament

Notez le début d'un nouveau projet blogue: eparliament.blogspot.com. Franck, French Lily, et tous, vous-êtes les bienvenus à ce projet. J'ai surtout besoin de côtoyer une participation bilingue et diversifiée. Pour y participer comme membre, SVP m'envoyez un courriel à ecopol@hotmail.com, sujet E-Parlement.

Please note the début of a new project, eparliament.blogspot.com.

Anyone can join, just email me. The Eparliament is specifically for those of you who like proposing ideas on international policy or any policy for that matter. Other topics can be discussed as well. Take the time to check it out. Email me at ecopol@hotmail.com, subject E-Parliament, to participate.

Gas Tax

I love hearing complaints about high gas prices. I think we could easily pass a unanimous motion calling 60c/L gas a fundamental human right. Everybody would be on board. We could have a big nerd party and create a commission and write really long sexy reports that nobody would bother to read.

Why is the NDP (via Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP finance critic on CTV's Question Period) calling for a reduction on the gas tax? Shouldn't we hike the tax and fund public transit? Shouldn't we discourage trucking and encourage train shipping? I'm not a fully patched social-democrat, but I wonder why the NDP is calling for lower gas taxes. No wonder the working poor don't even support the party (because they often don't even vote). The NDP is still vying for the leftist bourgeois vote with centrist pseudo-ideology.

As someone who pays for gas every week to fill my gas-guzzling Honda Civic, I'm allowed to say that gas prices should follow the normal process of supply and demand. Especially if this process will eventually cause us to reduce consumption, drive slower, ship things more efficiently, reduce smog, congestion, traffic accidents, road deterioration et cetera. Maybe a higher gas tax could fund a programme to teach Québec City residents how to drive...

Why in the name of all that is good and progressive is the NDP not making this point? Maybe this is why more people voted Green in the last election than ever before.

Here's a question for maybe my dad or some other qualified sustainable infrastructure research nerd... At what gas price will it become more efficient to ship goods by train rather than truck? I'm not suggesting that I don't like sharing the 401 with 50,000 tractor trailers. I'm just curious.

The Discipline to Debate

Said in Parliament 10 April:

Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):
At present, there is a command of 250 soldiers in Kandahar. There is also a team in the provinces where the economy and diplomacy have to be restored and the government has to be supported. So we need more than soldiers. However, in Kandahar, we need many more soldiers because it is the most unstable place. It would be idealistic to think that diplomats—we have already lost one—could go there or that CIDA could do development work there, knowing that the climate is unstable. There must first be a military force there to stabilize the situation.
There are 1,000 soldiers on a combat mission. Of course, stability must be ensured and the Taliban must be pursued. However, if we leave, either the international community will come to our rescue when we are no longer there or the Taliban will resume their old ways of doing things.
Has there been any progress in this area? To my mind, we have made some progress. Presidential and legislative elections have taken place. At present, 2,000 schools have been built or restored. Over 5 million children have gone back to school, one third of whom are girls who did not have the right to go to school before.
I believe that if Canadians and Quebeckers knew the real story, support for the troops would be much stronger. That is why I appreciate the debate. It is wrong to say that we should leave now. We cannot invite the Taliban to burn the 2,000 schools we have just built or restored. We cannot tell the Taliban to return to having only men in power. We cannot tell the women they have no right to schooling and no place in the country's political structures. That is not acceptable. That is why the Taliban commander made me smile when he said that we were afraid and we were showing indecision.
As I see it, we are showing no indecision here, this evening. We will not let the Taliban return to power and tell 5 million children there are no more schools, tell girls they have no right to go to school. We will not allow the growing of poppies and the manufacture of heroin to continue. Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world's production of opium and heroin. That has to change, and that is the task of CIDA. It is the task of the RCMP to train the state police and military so they can be given more and more responsibility.
We cannot permit a recurrence of scenes such as we saw in Rwanda. It is wrong to think that Quebeckers and Canadians sitting in their living rooms are going to watch massacres and say, “No way are we going to send our soldiers: it’s too dangerous”. I do not believe that people think like that. On the contrary, when they are well informed about the mission of our Canadian Forces, the people will be in agreement, and that will provide us with more support. So let us continue. We will assess the situation.
I could also talk about prisoners, but I will probably do that in question format. Finally, we have the international effort. The effort of the Canadian Forces is recognized worldwide. I believe that we are in the process of getting a country on its feet again. The feeling of solidarity in Canadians and Quebeckers will ensure that they support their Canadian Forces and restore Afghanistan to a more decent life.

Said by L.T. Smash (Québec, non-partisan, non-député):
I think the Bloc may have a clearer foreign policy than the NDP.

Clarity (II)

Said in Parliament:

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Chair, I wonder if the hon. member basically supports our effort in Afghanistan or not, because it is not clear to me. That is the party that opposed our being in NATO until a few years ago. I do not want to go back to World War II and that history. That party does not want the military involved in anything.
Does that party support our effort in Afghanistan or not? That is what I want to know.

Hon. Jack Layton: Mr. Chair, I do not know what these broad sweep characterizations are all about. I do not know why the minister would go back to World War II and start drawing on the debates that happened at the time. Our party's history on those matters is very clear.

Perhaps the hon. member did not have an opportunity to watch the tribute paid to our former leader, Tommy Douglas, which highlighted the fact that he sought the opportunity to go and fight for this country against the Fascists. I make no apology for that act of courage.
Perhaps the hon. member does not know that my grandfather resigned from his seat as a cabinet minister in the Quebec legislature because at the time, the government of Quebec would not support going to war against the Fascists. I make no apology for our position on these issues.
Those who would try to portray that asking questions about a mission and asking about issues like exit strategies, terms of engagement, the rules under which the mission will be conducted, the objectives and how they will be measured and reported back, is somehow indicating that there is a lack of support for our service personnel who are risking their lives, are frankly not doing a good service to this country's democratic system.
I took good care to quote the very questions that were asked by the Minister of National Defence when he was in opposition, the exact questions. I would have thought that the defence minister might have dug out that speech prior to making his address to us today and made a point of answering the very questions he said any government should answer if it is sending its Canadian soldiers into harm's way.

Said by L.T. Smash (not a member of Parliament):
Mr. Layton poses some good questions. However, he avoids answering the fundamental one: Does the NDP support Canada's effort in Afghanistan?

Generally Speaking

The National Post says that Mr. Harper needs to loosen the leash on General Hillier, and let the man speak his mind.

Consider:

1) The Senate committee on National Defence has severely criticized Canada's generals for given vague and politically neutral answers when appearing before the committee.

2) The decline of Canada's armed forces was presided over by generals who did not inform the public of the risks involved in such a collapse of capacity.

3) The public is largely ignorant of things military, and this can only be remedied by officers at all levels explaining the military fact in Canada.

4) General Hillier is not only a Cabinet appointee. He is an officer appointed by commission from HM the Queen, which means that his loyalty goes beyond loyalty to the Prime Minister. His loyalty is to Canada and its national interest, through the Crown. While General Hilliers' pronouncements have political implications, they are conceived to provide the Canadian public and government with information and advice for the betterment of the armed forces. He is also aware the the military is under civilian control, and his expert opinion is intended to convince civilians of the needs faced by a military that is being demanded much by its government.

Generally speaking, we need speaking generals.

Easter Weekend

As many Canadians died on this past Easter weekend on the highways of Québec as have died in Afghanistan since 2002.

I don't want to shove conclusions down your throat, so draw your own. But here are a few questions; food for thought.

Should the fear of loss of life keep us from pursuing otherwise rational and laudable objectives?

Is risk a fundamental element of a normal and healthy life, where death is always the end result for every single person?

Will a debate on the state of Québec roads, driving regulations and law enforcement be demanded by politicians and political writers in Ottawa?

Will Canadians risk their lives to go to the cottage, but not to deliver security to unstable countries?

Why does the Vietnam syndrome apply to foreign military actions, but not to the common slaughter experienced on our highways on nearly every long weekend?

Those are some loaded questions. I'm looking for loaded answers.

War on Error

The war on error is a just war. Since the appearance of errors all throughout the world, we have had to respond with overwhelming force to combat the errorists where they live, eat and play poker.

The war on error is an asymmetric war. Error is everywhere, and yet so hard to pin down. Errorists could be hiding in caves... they could be hiding in the pages of your most cherished daily newspaper.

The errorists have found ways to propagate their agenda by manipulating new technologies, such as the internet, to achieve their malicious ways. They often get on buses, in the middle of busy downtown plazas, with weapons of error hidden in their briefcase. They often use unsuspecting third parties to advance their agenda, and appropriate seemingly innocent media to spread error throughout the world.

The war on error will be a long war. It will require sacrifice, and will require us to root out error in all sorts of remote places. We must export the fight, to keep error from our front doorsteps. We must take the fight to the erroneous, fixing and striking them in their natural habitat.

In fighting the war on error, it is primordial that we never succumb to error within our ranks. Our methods must be error-free, and we must attack using tactics and strategies that are ingeniously, deviously, above reproach. We must not fight error with error, or the war will be lost.

If we do not act with determination and purpose, the errorists will win.

Make no mistak (II)

Make no mistake. Make no mistake. This phrase is of common usage in George Bush's speeches, was used by Paul Martin, and has become pervasive in polemic speech. I have no doubt that it is sometimes useful in speeches. But the use of "make no mistake" in written articles (such as Jim Travers article in the Star) is pure bunk. Those guys get paid by the word. I expect better than "make no mistake".

Rest assured, I am not in the habit of making mistakes. What some people call mistakes, I call unforeseen innovations. The construction "make no mistake" is a space filler. It is the equivalent of putting three exclamation marks in a row to get the reader's attention.

Writers who use this construction had better not be paid by the word, because those words are not worth anything.

Do readers read "make no mistake", and say to themselves; "oh, whew, I almost made a mistake there.... Good thing he warned me not to make a mistake." I don't think so. "Make no mistake" is another George Bush speech writer construction that the world can do without.

You could probably replace the phrase with "Make no Iraq".

Must be a mistak

Eastern Ontario is often called the Land-o-lakes, because you can't walk a straight line without finding a lake every 10 kilometres or so. The roads must be driven cautiously. If not cautiously, you must keep your elbow on the horn to warn drivers around the bend. Along the cottage roads, every intersection is peppered with signs of family names. Poor old oak trees suffer from rows of signs nailed into them to indicate to visitors the turn-off for the family cottage.

As my grandfather and I were rounding another bend on the way back from picking up some firewood, I noticed one of the names: Mistak. It sure is. So I can just imagine the conversations with the teacher on the first day of school for the Mistak children.

They must deal with people always mistaking the spelling of their name. They must always correcting the mistaks of others.

You've got to respect the integrity of the name. Not only is it a mistak, but it appears to be a mistake.

I have to stop now, because the corny corner of my mind has no end of stupid jokes to make with that name.

To continue ridiculing that perfectly normal name would be a terrible mistak.

Para (III)

Every jumper remembers the day they got their wings. Yet for over 60 years, this woman who jumped from 300 ft into France during WWII as a resistance fighter was refused her parachute wings. Pearl Witherington was refused her wings on the grounds that she had only made 4 jumps, instead of the standard 5 to pass the para course. The men who trained with her were given an extra training jump so that they could get their wings.

I think its pretty obvious that anyone who jumps from 300 ft into an operational theatre of war as a resistance fighter is entitled to wear their parachute wings. If she can't wear wings, who can? Every rule has exceptions, right? Vive la guerrière.

Arrogance

L.T. Smash says:

I'm not as arrogant as I should be, I'll have you know.

Payton says:

Neither am I.

L.T. Smash says:

I guess we all have our faults.

Small Canada (III)

Ok. Ok. I know I'm overposting today. I know this will lead to writer's block for approximately a week. But I have to follow up my last post on the whole Ignatieff thing, and the scandal that he hasn't lived in Canada very much.

In the Style section of the Globe, Heather McLaren takes an informative and somewhat fawning look at Ignatieff's career and prospects. Ok, back to the commentary section. Jeff Simpson accuses Ignatieff of not having lived in Canada very much in the last couple of decades.

Apparently, Style is replacing Commentary as the Globe's most serious forum for political info.

Momentous Occasion

I googled my name today, and finally my blog came up as the third site listed. This is a momentous occasion.

Googling is going places. The expansion of blogs and the remarkable amount of personal information that people are willing to share about themselves and others is going to revolutionize privacy. Just today, I read some guys story about meeting some girl. So he writes out her full name, and in theory for the rest of time, anybody who googles her name will read about that night in the bar where she met this guy and what he thought about her.

I don't pretend to know where this is going. Yet I do know that soon enough, many people's biographies will be able to be researched rapidly through the internet. Identity theft will become easier. I personally don't mind if people borrow my identity for short periods of time. I only ask that they return it in as good or better condition as they took it. Is that too much to ask?

Really, someone borrowing my identity could be rather economical. I could probably get a lot more done without actually having to do it myself. So, I will now be accepting applications for an identity loan (no credit cards attached).

Ignatieff, Rae, and Simpson

Liberal Leadership Hopefuls

As pol freaks know, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae were roomies at the U of T in the 1950s. Childhood friends, and both children of diplomats they have gone on to write important books (Ignatieff more than Rae) and participate actively in public life (Rae more than Ignatieff).

I like the ancient Roman practice of appointing two consuls to govern the republic. How could this work in the Canadian political realm? Well, they could do a Martin-Chretien double-team action. But that doesn't quite meet the test.

Jeffrey Simpson elucidates his unenlightened opinion in the Globe yesterday, arguing that Ignatieff's AWOL in England and America is proof that he is not a serious potential leader. I guess he knows just how cool it is to live in the same city for most of your life and stare at your belly-button.

Canadians are international citizens. Canadians are Canadians in Geneva, Prague, Afghanistan, London, and Boston. Exporting our talent and values is possibly the proudest thing we do. We should take pride in the success of men like Ignatieff abroad and, for example, Louise Arbour. Arbour has made her most significant contributions to the res publica while at The Hague. I would take her as my leader any day over some trial lawyer from Toronto who's been rubbing elbows with Canadian money all his career and calling it public service (a hypothetical reference, I assure you). A person's address has no bearing on his suitability for public office. Let's judge a man by the quality of his acts, his contributions, his opinions, and his potential. Surely that's a better point de départ than his former addresses (which incidentally make for a kick-ass CV).

The Liberals can pick any leader they want. The stay-at-home bodies should take their heads out of the sand.

Due

There is nothing quite like having a book due at the library in 12 hours to motivate me to complete my assignment. It's as though I need the drama of the race against the clock in my life.

Yvan eht nioj

It occured to me that some people don't watch The Simpsons. The significance of my blog's name would be lost.

So here is a little tutorial.

On a classic Simpson episode (yes, I realize that they are all classic), Bart and his friends get recruited into a boy band, of N'Synch quality. The band manager is a man named L.T. Smash who appears to be a cool rock'n'roll dude. Little do they know, this new boy band is a new recruiting tool for the US Navy. The songs they record, lip-synch and gyrate to are subliminal recruitment campaings. L.T. Smash is really a Navy Lieutenant, cleverly hiding his rank by not hiding it at all.

Last summer, while volunteering at a kids camp in Ontario, I had my campers always asking me about my job and what it was like. My kids got so excited about my job, that I jokingly told my co-counsellors that I was L.T. Smash, doing a subliminal recruitment campaign. However, keep in mind that these ADHD kids were easily excitable, and that I am actually not a subliminal recruiter for any armed service.

Yvan eht nioj. Yvan eht nioj.

Cover-Up

Today, while researching a paper, I couldn't find my copy of Somalia Cover-Up by Peter Desbarats. Immediately, I knew that it was being suppressed by a conspiracy.

Then I cleaned my room, and realized it was being suppressed by my government-issue backpack, which was placed there deliberately by a government official. Then I remembered that the government official was me. So, how did they get me into the conspiracy, you ask?

I can't tell you that over the internet.

Clarity

George Bush's most heinous contribution to the English language is the popularization of the phrase: Let's be clear. This is a phrase is pervasive in polemical speech, and has become a sort of way to catch the reader or listener's attention to focus them on some particular phrase of obvious clarity. There are not enough bits in cyberspace to list the number of political leaders, columnists and other polemicists who have resorted to relying on this construction to pepper their otherwise unclear thoughts.

If you have to tell the reader that the time has come to be "clear", then perhaps what you have already said was unclear. In speech, it is normal that you might say something that is not entirely understandable. So instead of saying "lets be clear", just clear your throat and say exactly what it is that you want to be heard. In writing, the construction "let's be clear" is fundamentally flawed. The written word allows us to pause long enough to reflect upon what it is we want to be understood. Instead of wasting my time as a reader telling me that you are about to be clear, just be clear. It is entirely undertandable that some will want to write convoluted texts, and more power to those people. Yet those who wish to be understood clearly have simply to express themselves clearly, without insulting our intelligence by telling "us" that is time to be "clear".

As somebody who did all-nighters when the Clarity Act was passed by Parliament in 2000, I respect clarity. I also respect people who did cartwheels, like Floyd, in the House lobby in the middle of the night. I digress. Clarity speaks for itself.

Now, if you want to catch somebody's attention, why don't you say: Let's be ambiguously vague. In the case of most politicians, it would be pretty accurate.