First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy.  Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail.  I am not sanguine.  People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot.  We’ll see. 

But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through.  Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at  Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her.  She is indomitable.  I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats.  Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.  

Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it.  Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.   

Read the rest of this entry »

Now as President Bush prepares to leave office and the ‘Three Amigos’ have said their last goodbyes, Mexican columnists have begun to weigh in on the success of their final NAFTA Summit.

While NAFTA has become increasingly unpopular in the United States, the same can be said in Mexico - but for far different reasons.

There, the dissatisfaction stems from the feebleness of NAFTA’s mechanisms for enforcing its decisions on the three federal governments, and the perceived lack of respect given Mexico in relation to its two other North American Read the rest of this entry »

The repercussions of a recent New York Times article about how the Pentagon manipulated the American media have begun to be felt in the foreign press.

Serge Truffaut writes for Montreal’s Le Devoir,

“The old adage that “the first casualty of war is truth” is one to which the Pentagon has stuck to with unheard of will, strength, and consistency. Thanks to the Benedictine work a journalist from The New York Times - and there is no better word to describe it- we now know that the U.S. executive has applied itself to building a propaganda machine so powerful, that it highlights the disdain that Bush and company feed on with respect Read the rest of this entry »

A new poll conducted here in Canada shows that Obama is well ahead of both Clinton and McCain in terms of support among Canadians. Clinton was ahead of Obama by 11 points in January, but he is now ahead of her by 9 points. More:

Obama’s popularity was highest in Ontario and especially in Alberta, where he held a 23-point lead over Clinton.

He also led among all age groups, but his support was double that of Clinton’s among respondents under age 25 — 54 per cent to 27 per cent.

Obama had a huge lead among male respondents — 44 per cent to 25 per cent — but also held a one-point lead among women. Only four per cent of Canadian women support McCain, the poll suggests.

Obama also led with self-declared Conservative voters — 36 per cent of whom expressed support for him, while 31 per cent supported Clinton and 19 per cent supported McCain.

Does it matter? Maybe not to most Americans — after all, most Americans don’t care about what Canadians think generally — but certainly to us, we who live right next to the U.S., we who are so deeply connected to the U.S. in so many ways — socially, politically, culturally, economically.

Yes, it matters to us who the next president is. And, it seems, we really want it to be Obama. Young and old, men and women, liberals and conservatives, all across this great country: our preference is clear. Americans may not care about what we think, and it may make no difference to them what we think, but we pay extremely close attention to political developments south of the border, and, overall, our views on American politics are well-informed, perceptive, and, while often critical, generally good-spirited. Most of us, I would say, only want the best for our American friends.

I’m Michael Stickings — and I’m a Canadian (and an Ontarian) for Obama.

The name of Eliot Ness, that iconic crime fighter if the early 20th century - has reverberated down through history as the definition of justice and incorruptibility. In writing about his namesake Eliot Spitzer, Serge Truffaut of Canada’s French-language Le Devior writes in part, ‘You cannot make this up. … The first name of Governor Spitzer of New York is Eliot. The same as that other Eliot - Eliot Ness - the patron saint of the incorruptible who hunt down criminals, both white collar and blue … This image - fashioned with his [Spitzer’s] own bare hands on a canvas of moral rectitude - evaporated instantly at the end of an act of contrition … the spectacle was appalling.’

By Serge Truffaut

Translated By Kate Davis

March 12, 2008

Canada - Le Devior - Original Article (French)

You cannot make this up. The first name of Governor Spitzer of New York is Eliot. The same as that other Eliot - Eliot Ness - the patron saint of the incorruptible who hunt down criminals, both white collar and blue. It is in making life harder for fashionable crooks in neck-ties on the floor of the stock exchange that he built a reputation for himself as a “new incorruptible,” or even a “tireless crusader,” to borrow nicknames that the media gave him during scandals at WorldCom, Tyco, Enron and others we have forgotten. He proclaimed himself the “Sheriff of Wall Street.”

This image - fashioned with his own bare hands on a canvas of moral rectitude - evaporated instantly at the end of an act of contrition by the former New York Attorney General WATCH . This sheriff acknowledged paying a heavy price for his history of peccadilloes. He spent more than $4,000 to enjoy the favors of strumpets in chic hotels of the capital city. QED [It has been demonstrated - quod erat demonstrandum]: This prostitution network procured the services of the so-called call girls especially for high-flying politicians.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

Aside from any moral judgment, this affair is particularly distressing since it seriously cripples the work of the current attorney general and his staff - notably the investigations initiated while Spitzer was still the boss of the patrons of justice. One this is certain; when the news hit the presses, traders on Wall Street… Applauded!

Because this man, when he was hunting down crooked millionaires, had opted at all times and in his words - for a strategy of “aggressiveness.” He was at times so hard and his methods so brutal that even people in his camp now say that they considered Spitzer reckless or irresponsible. This inclination, or rather his certainty that he was always right - led him to demolish without proof, individuals who appeared on his prosecutor’s radar screen. An example? He started a rumor that the secretary of New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso had been Grasso’s mistress. In short, he brandished a little poison, even if only an allegation, to reduce the reputation of another to a briny bouillon.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with many other translated foreign-press reactions to Spitzer’s downfall.

The see-saw narrative continues in Canada with possible continued implications to the political campaign here: the Canadian Prime Minister’s office now insists the Clinton campaign didn’t give any private assurances on NAFTA, and it only came from the Obama camp:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama’s campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

“The answer is no, they did not,” said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.

The so-called NAFTA-gate affair took a bizarre twist this week that threatened to ensnare Ms. Clinton after having already damaged Mr. Obama at a critical phase of the U.S. election.

We ran THIS POST that detailed reports of comments from one of the Prime Minister’s top aides that in reality it had been the Clinton campaign that had given the assurances. So now there’s the PM’s aide versus the PM’s spokesman.

And each camp — Obama and Clinton — can now pick the version to believe, according to their political bias.

David Kurtz writes at TPM Election Central:

I’m starting to think that covering American politics is far easier than covering Canadian politics. But trying to cover the interplay between them both? A challenge of an entirely different magnitude. This NAFTA story offers no easy answers, no obvious heroes, and a passel of possible villains pointing their fingers at each other.

But one thing is certain: the timing of the report — coming right before the Ohio primary — seemed a bit smelly.

One of the late breaking issues that hurt Democratic Senator Barack Obama in recent Texas and Ohio primaries involved allegations that his campaign gave winking private assurances to Canada not to worry about his anti-Nafta campaign rhetoric — a controversy the Clinton camp used to it’s advantage. But now it turns out that the allegation focused more on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Yet, the pre-Ohio primary stories only focused on the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign — which used it against Obama in Ohio. The Globe and Mail reports:
Read the rest of this entry »

In Ohio on Tuesday, Barack Obama told a debate-audience that he favors opting out of NAFTA if the agreement isn’t re-negotiated so as to help more Americans keep their jobs.  Wednesday, CTV reported:

"Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA….

"The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."

Thursday, one Canadian official denied that the conversation took place. Another Canadian official seems to disagree. Today, CTV reports:

Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s note: A controversy raged yesterday in the blogosophere (but not as much in the mainstream news media) over a Canadian news report involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, his position on NAFTA and what his camp might or might have not privately told the Canadian government. Weblogs in many cases took predictable partisan positions. In this Guest Post blogger Kathy Kattenburg looks at the new media/political furor surrounding the story. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

Obama, NAFTA, Canada And The Blogosphere

by Kathy Kattenburg

Yesterday, a new controversy blew up over a report by Canadian CTV alleging that an Obama campaign staffer had contacted the Canadian embassy and told an official there that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA is “just campaign rhetoric.”

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.”

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

“Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,” the spokesperson said.

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

During Tuesday’s debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA “unless we renegotiate it.”

Despite the fact that (a) the Obama “campaign staffer” was not named, and that (b) the allegations in the story were blindly sourced — meaning that the article does not state how they got this information, who told them about the campaign staffer, who they interviewed for the story — Clinton supporters jumped on the charges without hesitation:

… The above should be even more alarming to the Obama campaign than the other video being circulated. A report out of Canada says Obama’s promise on NAFTA is just words. …

When contacted, an Obama aide basically delivers a non-denial denial, as you can see in the video. Obama keeps his promises? What kind of blathering is that? When you think about Obama’s moves on Exelon, rewriting legislation for them, juxtaposed against him telling Iowa voters tougher legislation had passed, instead of the truth, I’ve done enough research on the guy to know when smoke is being blown for votes. Obama’s team is not denying the conversation CTV is reporting and it’s quite plausible the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value, and to add, because Obama has no intention of doing what he’s campaigning on with regards to NAFTA. Obama welshing on his pledge to take public financing for the general election also comes to mind. It’s not like Obama hasn’t said one thing then done another before.

Over the screaming headline Shocker: Obama Reveals Fake Stand on NAFTA, Larry Johnson writes:

A Canadian medical professional (no more to protect anonymity) reports to me: “This story made headlines tonight in Canada in all major Canadian news networks. Barack Obama has been caught lying. Spread this as much as you can because it is true and factually supported. I think the people of Ohio as well as the rest of America, deserve to know this.”

(Original) Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Canadian media reveal Obama’s posture on NAFTA is solely “campaign rhetoric.” …
[snip]
Oh, that bamboozler. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re the head of state or diplomatic corps, or one of the chief politicians or government officials, for the hundreds of nations across the world. Wouldn’t you read this article and wonder WHICH OBAMA you’ll be dealing with, and IF he means anything he says?

The blogosphere has been buzzing about this story since early yesterday morning. Unfortunately, even bloggers who are not dedicated Clinton partisans — even some who like Obama – kinda lost their critical faculties on this one and accepted it at face value, despite the red flags all over it.
Read the rest of this entry »

William F. Buckley, one of the seminal figures of modern American conservatism, died at his desk this morning at the age of 82. WORLDMEETS.US is scouring the global press for reaction to his death. According to the Times of London, ‘William F. Buckley was a progenitor, and the best-known proponent, of modern American conservatism. … Buckley’s personality, even more than his thinking or his writing, gave impetus, shape and color to the whole movement.’ Former news magnate Conrad Black writes in Canada’s National Post that before Buckley, ‘American conservatism was a detritus of paleo-isolationists and xenophobes.’

We need an International Afghanistan Study Group, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, but with representatives from Europe and Asia as well.

To save the NATO mission in Afghanistan, we have to conduct a thorough, frank and honest evaluation of all our political and military strategies in Central Asia. We have to debate fresh and controversial policy alternatives, which include negotiations with the Taliban, the replacement of the Karzai government, military incursions into Pakistan, the involvement of Iran and Russia as well as complete NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan. Every option has to be put on the table and discussed on its merits.

So far the Afghanistan debate seems to be focused on how many troops European and American nations deploy to southern Afghanistan. The United States and Canada are angry that Germany and some other European countries do not share the burden of the heavy fighting. These concerns are important, but we have to discuss strategy as well. Not just the implementation of the current US led policy. Europeans will be more likely to send troops into harms way, if they are convinced that NATO has a promising strategy in Afghanistan.

While the United States (and Canada) are pushing strongly for more European troops, the Afghan government has different priorities: President Karzai has “repeatedly urged Western allies to provide more funds and resources to the Afghan security forces, rather than send more troops,” writes Sayed Salahuddin for Reuters. He adds that a government-run daily newspaper accused Karzai of being “under the influence of foreign powers and troops led by NATO” and that “the U.S. must set a firm date for their departure from Afghanistan.” Then again, Karzai has not been a great president for his country so far. Karzai also rejected Paddy Ashdown as the United Nations special envoy for Afghanistan, although he might have contributed to better coordination among various international agencies in Afghanistan.

Therefore, North American and European governments, parliaments and think tanks need to evaluate all current Afghanistan policies and suggest bold proposals that go beyond calls for more troops. We need an Afghanistan Study Group, that takes the Baker-Hamilton commission on Iraq as a model, but includes Europeans and even Iranians, Pakistani, and Russians.

My own blog Atlantic Review has covered the transatlantic controversies on Afghanistan.

Major hattip to TMV co-blogger, Holly in Cincinnati/Holly Robinson for the heads up that someone’s persuaded Canada that the U.S. and Israel are not countries that might potentially torture or abuse prisoners. The original TMV post on the topic is here.

From Ha’aretz:

Canada’s foreign ministry, responding to pressure from close allies, said on Saturday it would remove the United States and Israel from a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured.

Both nations expressed unhappiness after it emerged that they had been listed in a document that formed part of a training course manual on torture awareness given to Canadian diplomats.

Of course, the factual questions still remain: what methods of interrogation are used and do they or don’t they constitute torture or abuse? As most people know, in regard to pretty much anything - poverty, education, quality of life - being on a list often has no real meaning beyond the very specific methodologies used by the list-maker.

Do you agree with the inclusion or the exclusion of the U.S. and/or Israel from the Canadian Foreign Ministry’s torture awareness manual?

Maybe Canada just wants the U.S. to know how it feels to be on one of the less desirable lists.

But is the implication in the statement in the title - that the US may torture or abuse prisoners - true or false? And if it’s true…

That’s what I started to think about after I read this New York Times’ article, “Canadian Manual has U.S. on Torture List.”

A training manual for Canadian diplomats lists the United States among countries that potentially torture or abuse prisoners.

The manual is an internal document of the Department of Foreign Affairs. A spokesman for the foreign minister confirmed the contents of the manual after news reports about it circulated on Thursday.

[snip]

The manual, in the form of a PowerPoint presentation, is used for training diplomats in how to protect Canadians detained by foreign governments from torture and how to handle suspicions that inmates are abused.

Any guesses on how long it will be before the PowerPoint slides make it onto the Internet?

According to the Times, other countries on the list include Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and China. Strange bedfellows.

So - should we or shouldn’t we be on such a list? Well, according to this BBC report, the document includes, “forced nudity, isolation, sleep deprivation and the blindfolding of prisoners under the ‘definition of torture.’”

While I can chide and say that, as an overachieving multi-tasker, I don’t see isolation as torture for me, in the context of how one country treats its POWs? I’m sure we’re not talking the same kind of isolation offered or achieved.

Where do we draw the line? Are we allowed to be hypocrites in the name of security?

Here’s more context as to why the Canadian Foreign Ministry felt compelled to produce the manual and training in the first place.

A French Canadian, writing in Le Devoir isn’t convinced about the Iranian motorboat story and sees that Bush is going about the Iranian situation in exactly the wrong way… and offers a suggestion or two…

It seems that George Bush has not yet understood that we will never solve the great problems of the world through threats and force of arms. The only possible and effective way to establish peace is fierce determination to make a friend out of an enemy and act accordingly.

H/T WatchingAmerica.com

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to call for more European contributions to Afghanistan at the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in the Netherlands today and tomorrow. His message to Europeans is according to an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that they should “fulfill the commitments that their leaders made in Riga [at the NATO summit in November 2006].”

Not surprisingly, the NY Sun gets already the first sentence of its article on the NATO Defense Ministers meeting wrong:

The threatened withdrawal of European troops from Afghanistan puts at risk NATO’s mission to eradicate the Taliban.

The term “eradicate” raises quite a few eyebrows to German readers like myself, but that is due to historical connotations of that term. Let’s ignore the fact that there is no such entity as “the Taliban” that could be eradicated. The mistake I am referring to is that it is Canada, not Europe that threatened to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. As The Canadian Press points out:

With wavering European allies showing signs of sticking it out in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay will be in an uncomfortable position Wednesday as he meets with NATO counterparts. (…)
Canada, with its commitment to review the mission under the auspices of an independent panel, could end up being the odd man out if former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley’s group recommends something other than the status quo of continuing the mission. Canada has about 2,500 troops serving with NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, ISAF. Most of them are in Kandahar province, a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan.

I would not blame the Canadians for pulling out due to the lack of solidarity from Germany and many other Western European countries. Has Austria ever increased its contribution of 4 soldiers in Afghanistan?

Moving US troops from Kosovo to Afghanistan? Okay, the NY Sun is not the most reliable news source, but even if the following statement is true, it is not going to sound like a threat to European governments. We rather take over the Kosovo mission than sending more troops to Afghanistan:

Unless European countries can commit more forces and equipment without delay, America will begin to withdraw troops from Kosovo, the troubled province of Serbia, and transfer them to Afghanistan, Mr. Gates will announce.

Besides, the United States appears to be much more invested in Kosovo’s independence than the EU countries are. I doubt that the US would move its troops from Kosovo to Afghanistan.

The NY Sun does, however, present an excellent quote by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, which I consider believable:

I am not satisfied that an alliance with members who have over 2 million soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen cannot find the modest additional resources that have been committed for Afghanistan.

That’s a very polite way of putting it and typical for high-ranking government officials.

Let’s do a little contest: Please suggest an alternative for the phrase “not satisfied.” How would you translate Secretary Gates’ diplomatic speech into plain English? Surely, Secretary Gates and many Americans must be very frustrated by the insufficient support from France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Afghanistan was supposed to be “the good war” with a lot of European support because of the 9/11 attacks.

Joerg Wolf is a new co-blogger at The Moderate Voice. Together with another German Fulbrighter, he has been blogging at Atlantic Review about transatlantic issues since 2005. Afghanistan has been a frequent topic.

(This is my first ‘pointer post’, at least I think that’s what it is. Going into my 7th month of blogging, I haven’t yet got all the tools and details down pat and under control yet…but here goes…)

…It’s a beautiful starry night tonight, no gusty winds, the magic carpet newly cleaned and brushed. We’ll just criss-cross the world for a little bit, just go wherever we see a shower of sparks below. Here, take the good seat. That’s right. Just hold on. Visibility is pretty good tonight. We’ll just taxi up to the carpet que. Oh!, we just got clearance. Hold on, hold on… we’re rolling, hold on, we’re up… up… and awaaaaaay….

Dont mind the birds, just duck if they fly too close. Look! Look down, we’re over Southeast Asia. They still have pirates. Yes! for reallies. And they also have the usual criminals and terrorists, everyone else has worldwide. But in all gravitas now, like the 2000 mile border between Canada and the US, and between the US and Mexico, there are thousands of miles of ocean without walls and without oversight there in the Asian Pacific… this allows the nefarious to go about their bad deeds… This from SouthEast Asia news:

When it comes to post-September 11 Asia-Pacific maritime security, the Strait of Malacca gets the lion’s share of attention. Lesser known, but teeming with transnational criminals, including terrorists, is the woefully porous “triborder sea” area between the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Maritime security cooperation between the three is limited, and only Malaysia has anything resembling an effective naval force. Unless outside funds can bring them all up to speed, the scenario for disaster can only get worse.

Read more here by Ian Storey at Asia Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IJ18Ae01.html

On to Burma now. Observers there have an interesting take. You know, in the US, we sometimes think of Canada as the shoulders of the North American continent, and we tend to think of traveling cross country as a several weeks long journey. But in other parts of the world where relatively small nations have huge frontages on oceans and seas, they think not so much about traveling across terrain, but rather, negotiating across big water. While some ‘across the sea’ are calling George Bush’s interest in Burma by the code name, The Saffron Robe Revolution, …and regardless whether President Bush knows saffron yellow from sunflower yellow… apparently some in Asia think his only interest in Burma comes from wanting to have access to and control over the shipping lanes from the Persian Gulf to the China Sea. This article has an interesting plaint about the US ‘cooking up new democracies by color notation,” and puts President Bush and George Soros in the same bed together, which… no doubt would startle both men to find they are being scorned for much the same reasons.

The Myanmar military junta is on the hit list of the Bush administration for its repressive ways, we are told. Or does Washington have a more opaque agenda? Some not-so-publicized facts indicate that behind the latest US-orchestrated, color-coordinated effort at regime change (this one is called the “Saffron Revolution”, after the marching monks’ robes), a battle of major geopolitical consequence is under way.

See the article by F William Engdahl here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IJ17Ae01.html


Flying over the countryside now that once used to be called Arabia, down there is a Christian woman telling about how something surely is wrong when the unholiest of aggressions and vigilante redresses of grievances occurs during the holiest month. She is speaking about a stepping up of persecution and murder of Christians in Gaza, and she is filled with passion: See that little box there on the corner of our magic carpet? Just open it and empty it over the side; it’s filled with strongest prayer for those who suffer so.

[I was] Shocked to see what is coming off the printing press is the photo of the recent tragic death announcement of 30-year-old Rami Ayyad in Gaza, a son, a husband, a father of two preschool sons and minority Christian worker in Gaza for the Bible Society. Kidnapped at 4 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at his Bible Society office called “The Teacher Book Shop” he was returned dead early Sunday morning with a bullet to his head and shoulder, four knife wounds, and a deep slash to his forehead with what might have been a heavy duty wooden object which apparently tortured Rami prior to his death.

You can read what Mary Khoury wrote about this, here, in the Arabic Media Network:
http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=42724&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3

We’re going to bank and head toward South America now. It is generally good to know that all across the world, others are dealing with core values and not monkeying around with mere intellectual frou-frou, as in Chile. Look down and you’ll see that there is a serious investigation going on about substandard fertilizer. And all this time we’ve been thinking ‘S happens’… exactly the same everywhere. But, oh no. No no no. Apparently not. It must have something to do with chronically malnourished cows or something. I wonder if there’s a market for Wheaties For Bovines. There’s got to be a cartoon in here somewhere: cows sitting around in their rockers discussing the quality of that day’s, um, waste materials…

“This is not an excuse either. We must improve the quality of our fertilizers, period,” the executive said.

You can read about what is actually a serious Ag issue, here at Business News from Santiago Chile:

http://www.bnamericas.com/story.jsp?sector=12&noticia=410445&idioma=I

And now, on to the Bay of Plenty, which as elsewhere, you can’t get any peace it seems, for there’s a terrorist under every set of bedsprings apparently, even in the most remote corners of Earth. The Maori, the aboriginal tribal group of New Zealand whose elders often still have acres of body tattoos in the ancient styles… are protesting being thought terrorists themselves. Their homes and camps have been raided by the military elite, and poignantly, one of the plaints which perhaps only tribal and deeply ethnic people would understand as a point of huge intrusion and shame to the soul of the community… is this: “He said heavily armed officers had searched school buses and arrested men in front of their children.” You can see a stark contrast too as we fly over, that the Maori are often poor and raggedly clothed people in contrast to the helmeted, sharply suited, armored and Kevlar vested military men who arrest them.

Police said yesterday that they had neutralised a militant group running secret military-style, weapons-training camps in rugged North Island bush. Media reports said that two hunters had alerted police to the presence of armed men in camouflage in the Ureweras after stumbling into their camp.More than 300 police stormed several camps and homes, making at least 15 arrests, including prominent campaigners from Maori sovereignty and environmental groups. The operation was continuing last night.

You can read more about their story here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4238903a8153.html

Ah, now, we fly over a land that takes a long time to fly over, for so huge is its terrain. And in one tiny corner of that land, well, look down, see? The Tawainese are saying that their president has boldly rejected China’s “conditional peace proposal,” rather baldly calling it ‘China’s idea not of peace, but of Taiwan’s surrender.’ Pretty stand up idea for such a tiny used-to-be sovereignty. China has pushed ‘the one China’ idea, whether it be Taiwan or Tibet. One of the best quotes by a Taiwanese about the Chinese negotiator: “”Hu is like a smiling tiger, hiding a dagger in a smile, with honey in his mouth but a sword at his stomach….”

You can read more here: http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=91894&ctNode=45

Well, it took some time to get to hovering over Ghana, but look… God bless Mrs. Anna. In Ghana, Mrs. Anna (Nyamekye) who is Deputy Minister of Food and Agriculture has said everyone must go back to the era of “Operation Feed Yourself”… meaning a time when most every householder kept a backyard garden to grow nourishment for the famly. I love this quote: “Mrs Nyamekye was addressing community members of Kpone Bawaleshie in the Greater Accra Region.” And we thought it was hard to say AF of L & CIO, without stumbling. Looking at the world from an aerial view, we see that Western junk food is not the only concern in Ghana: “…we are moving away from our local diets that provided adequate nutrition to foreign ones that are posing as health threats …such as the sugary foods, fried rice and the like.” And then there’s Mr. Theophilus Osei Owusu, Municipal Director of Agriculture. What mellifluous names. You can read more about the warrioress, Mrs. Anna, here:

https://nii.com.gh/gh/index.html

And onward to Europe now. Maybe a “Dutch Only” amendment to the constitution, or perhaps bilingual education has come to call in Holland nowadays. Interestingly, The Netherlands and Ireland too, have experienced many Polish and other eastern European immigrants in the past many years. Sometimes you wonder if the entire world isn’t playing a horrible game of musical chairs; when the music stops, one country disappears… and an entire hoard of new refugees is turned loose… Immigrants might be refugees, but many migrating across Europe are presently fleeing social conditions rather than wars.

“Employers should teach Polish Staff Dutch: Integration minister Ella Vogelaar is to talk to employers about how they can help Polish and other eastern European staff learn Dutch. The increasing number of eastern European children at Dutch schools are performing badly because they have not learned Dutch, Vogelaar said. But she told MPs it was impossible to force eastern Europeans to take compulsory language lessons or parental guidance classes because they are EU citizens.”

As we travel the world, from our aerial port we can see that most everyone struggles with their own variations of the same challenges. Down there, in Papua New Guinea, they are establishing a school especially for drop outs. The report says; many have proposed this before but they have rarely been brought to fruition. There is an op ed that takes issue with the idea that government ought subsidize this process, saying bluntly: “…many governments have proved to be signally incompetent at running businesses. It’s equally true that business should not attempt to take over the role of government. …We don’t think it is simplistic to suggest that governments should govern while businesses do business.” The writer obviously could be an able commenter at TMV and fit right in.

You can read the entire opinion piece here: http://www.thenational.com.pg/101907/Editorial.htm

And now, as we fly on, Dateline: Turkey. And infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, what did I tell you? As here in the US, also in Turkey, one disposes of the old ways at one’s own peril, for the new is often not as well built. “While modern suspension bridges built with state-of-the-art technology are not holding up as well as expected, many stone bridges built centuries ago have endured, challenging both nature and time… The earliest bridges consisted mainly of logs, cable ropes and stones. Bridges made of timber usually were built in forests and rope bridges in tropical regions. ” Except there’s a difference between Turkey’s bridges old and new, and those in the US. We cant quite attribute such august comments to our potholes and cracking pediments: “The collapse of Roman Empire caused stagnation in bridge construction.”

Ah, I see that our air time is up and we are nearing home once again. Hold on tight now, you’re safe with me, no foreseen turbulence ahead…it will be a gentle landing I believe. It was good to have you aboard; you flew like an angel, and I hope we will fly over the world together another time… because

Well, you don’t know what we can find
Why don’t you come with me little girl
On a magic carpet ride
You don’t know what we can see
Why don’t you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free
Close your eyes girl
Look inside girl
Let the sound take you away…

Steppenwolf

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

The Canadian dollar briefly reached parity with the American dollar last week, before pulling back slightly. But yesterday — well, it felt awfully good:

The Canadian dollar has closed above parity with U.S. dollar for first time since November, 1976, closing up two-thirds of a cent at $1.0052 (U.S.).

The Canadian dollar vaulted back above parity early Friday and held on to its gains throughout the afternoon as commodity prices rallied and the U.S. currency continued to struggle.

The Canadian currency reached parity with its U.S. counterpart for the first time in 31 years on Sept. 20. Since then, it has risen above par during intraday trading a number of times but has failed to close above that level.

The generally weak American dollar has helped, of course, but another reason for the rise of the loonie (the nickname of our dollar) is oil: “‘Among the G-10 nation currencies, the Canadian dollar is used more than any other as a proxy for oil,’ Rebecca Paterson, global currency strategist at J.P. Morgan in New York, said in an interview. ‘So when oil prices rise, anyone that wants to bet on oil and does not want to play the commodity market turns to the Canadian dollar.’” With the price of oil on the rise, almost reaching its record high today, the dollar has become a currency of choice for investors.

Why does it feel so good? Because, to some extent, national (and personal, insofar as the national is personal) self-identity is connected to the value of one’s currency. If your currency is strong, you generally feel good about your country. It makes no sense, given the intricacies and inanities of the international currency market, but buying power matters — the understanding that x amount of your currency buys y amount of another. It may not matter all that much whether the Canadian dollar is worth 70 U.S. cents, or 90, or a full dollar, or, as is currently the case, a tiny bit more than a full dollar. What does such “value,” or worth, even mean?
Read the rest of this entry »

The unpleasant latest: “The dangers of Afghanistan were driven further Wednesday night with news that two Canadian soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were killed and another soldier and two Radio-Canada television journalists were injured.”

The Canadian death toll in Afghanistan since 2002 now stands at 68, including a diplomat. Yes, far fewer than the number of Afghans killed, and far few than the number of Americans killed in Iraq, but still deeply troubling for this country.

**********

I tend to support Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan, in some form or another, more than most other Canadians, but my support is wavering, uncertain.

Canadian troops — who are doing a “fabulous job,” said Bush at the recent summit in Quebec — are scheduled to come home in February 2009. “Canada has performed brilliantly,” echoed Harper.

They are both right, regardless of whether or not the troops should be there at all.

The troops make us proud, regardless of the mission.

**********

And should they be there? Let’s see how 2008 goes. It is much easier to support a NATO-led action than a U.S.-led one, but my support would be more robust, I suspect, if the U.S. hadn’t turned away from Afghanistan to wage irresponsible war in Iraq.

The Afghans need us, the Taliban is totalitarian, and the cause may be just.

But the mission must be clear.

And the cost? Every life lost hurts dearly.

Barack Obama believes that NAFTA should be amended. If he were president, he said, he would call the president of Mexico and the president of Canada, “to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now.”

The only problem?

Canada does not have a president.

As David Frum points out, this is “the kind of misstep that would cost a Republican candidate for president dearly.” When, however, this misstep is made by a Democratic candidate for president, the situation seems to be different. Yes, he is criticized by some on the right, but somehow it does not get the media attention it deserves.

It deserves, you ask? Yes, this type of error should get a lot of attention. To some, this might be a minor error. I disagree with that. Foreign policy is never minor and a candidate should know whether a country is ruled by a president or a prime minister, especially if the country involved is a close ally.

Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant