Could The West Be Ignoring the Next Major Threat?

In the pages of Playboy magazine, Gary Kasparov muses about Vladimir Putin

When Russians go to the polls on 2 March, 2008, Other Russia party leader and former Chess World Champion Gary Kasparov won't be on the ballot.

Neither will current Russian president Vladimir Putin, although (depending upon whom you ask) he will have a proxy on the ballot.

Yet, in the course of his Playboy interview, Kasparov raises a number of serious concerns about Putin, and hints that US President George W Bush just might be ignoring the next major threat to global security, just as he initially ignored Al Qaida.

Among the failures of Bush's foreign policy toward Putin's Russia, in Kasparov's view, is the failure to support Russian democracy. Furthermore, Kasparov surmises that Bush's undermining of democracy in his own country has helped to further the undermining of democracy abroad, and advanced the spread of cynicism.

"[Bush's] arrogant actions in the past few years convinced [Putin] that... the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the Halliburton story, torture -- they prove all these [democratic] values are a cover-up," Kasparov says. "They prove to Putin and his people that the West doesn't really care about them, either. It's a big joke."

"Bush talks about promoting democracy in Iraq, but in Russia we see he doesn't really care about democracy," Kasparov declares. "He undermines it, betrays it. So it's easy for people in Russia to be cynical. 'Yes, we're as democratic as you are' -- Russians say it with a wink."

"I'm not a big fan of President Bush, as you can guess," Kasparov admits. "But it's not only him. Look at Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi -- unlike Bush and Tony Blair, they were Putin's business partners. They all supported him. But Bush and the others turn a blind eye, and meanwhile this strongman has thrived."

"[Bush] says nothing about most of the assaults on democracy in Russia. He says nothing to Putin and continues to do business with him," Kasparov adds. "Putin is allowed to come to the G8. It should be renamed the G7+1. Again and again no one says anything against Putin."

"Putin is immune unless he hears a firm reaction from the top man," Kasparov insists. "He doesn't care about clerks, even Condoleezza Rice. Only a message from the top counts. Everything else is a game. When Putin made some of the statements that implied he could stay in office for a third term, he didn't hear anything from Bush. President Bush, you stuck up for him; you looked into his eyes. Why are you silent now? Instead, what does Putin hear? Condoleezza Rice says, "we'd rather have him inside than outside the tent."

"This philosophy has never worked before," he continues. "Churchill said 'no matter how beautiful the strategy, occasionally you must check the results.' For seven years, with engagement by the West and with the influx of capitalism, Putin destroyed all democratic institutions in Russia. So we all remember that Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes. Putin looked into Bush's eyes as well. He saw he could push Bush's limits. Every time he pushes he tests the waters. He pushes and Bush does nothing."

"Putin is a psychologist," Kasparov -- a man himself familiar with psychology -- notes.

Of course, a foreign policy realist would note that the state of democratic health within Russia is actually of little consequence to American (or Canadian) foreign policy.

"[Putin] is on all sides," Kasparov says, "The West and Iran and Hezbollah."

Kasparov goes so far as to suggest that Putin is willfully sowing tension in the Middle East, and is doing so by supporting regimes and organizations that have declared themselves to be implacable enemies of the west.

"Putin needs high oil prices," Kasparov insists. "If oil goes down, his regime collapses. It's why he sells weapons to Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas."

"This past year Putin seemed to increase his ties to the US and the West," Kasparov notes, then continues with an unspoken "but", "He has bee supplying Hamas in Palestine and selling military equipment to Sudan, Myanmar and Venezuala, and missile technology to North Korea. Why?"

Kasparov answers his own question.

"It's two ways of making profit," he continues. "One is cash. These industries are all controlled by his guys, so there's lots of cash."

"But he also backs these regimes to create tension in oil-rich regions," Kasparov adds. "The more tension, the higher the oil prices. He needs tension because it muddies the waters, and he thrives in muddy waters."

"If you look at the places of instability around the world, you'll always find Putin's traces," Kasparov insists. "Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Hugo Chavez -- they keep the Middle East boiling. It's a very rational policy if you need high oil prices."

"Putin is a KGB guy," Kasparov says. "He looks at your eyes and smells whether he can move further or if he should go back. Now, he thinks, we have so much money, we can dictate our terms. For his attacks on the values of the West and democracy, he has been rewarded with polite commitments and now the Sochi Olympics. It's the triumph of Russian corruption over international institutions."

Kasparov notes that particularly problematic, in his view, is the difference between the two men. "See, Putin is a psychologist," Kasparov reiterates, "and much smarter than Bush. Putin realized all these big guys were not as strong, not as smart -- he could easily outplay them. Basically he does what he wants, manipulates them and does more of what he wants. He keeps oil prices high, keeps tension in the Middle East, becomes a necessary ally but on his own terms."

But, as Kasparov notes, Putin is particularly vulnerable to rebukes from world leaders.

"Putin's biggest disappointments were in October of last year, a day or two after [Anna] Politkovskaya was murdered. He was in Germany and offered a big deal to German Chancellor Angela Merkel: Russia has gas, and Germany would be the distributor," Kasparov says. "Responding to the murder, Merkel said no. Putin was devastated. Next there was a meeting in Finland, and the European countries turned down a similar proposal. He was stunned because he believes that everything and everyone has a price. The EU's Organization for Security and Cooperation refused to come to Russia to monitor this past December's parliamentary elections because Putin was not cooperation with visas and they would have been restricted. This shocked Putin."

"These are very good signs," Putin declares. "Finally some of the Western leadership is showing they have reached their limits and won't play his game."

Putin's supply of weapons to some of the most turbulent regions in the world has clear implications for foreign policy -- even among those who consider themselves realists. And given that Putin is using the proceeds of these funds, both directly and indirectly, to fund his continuing stranglehold on Russian democracy, the state of Russian democracy is an issue that should be addressed in the foreign policy of all Western states.

Putin may well be pliable to the influence of world leaders. But the limits of this pliability have yet to be tested. If we in the West are truly interested in pacifying the Middle East, the Sudan, Myanmar and other global trouble spots, it's clearly time for western leaders to turn the tables on Vladimir Putin, and see how far he can be pushed until he mends his ways -- both domestically and internationally.

Why We Fight

Because the Taliban clearly don't give a shit about the people of Afghanistan

The war on terror is largely about winning the hearts and minds of people in terrorist hot spots around the world.

But as Raphael Alexander points out, the Taliban in Afghanistan need to win hearts and minds too -- although they're going about it in an entirely different manner.

Today, the Taliban targeted a convoy of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan with a car bomb. While wounding several Canadian soldiers, they killed 38 Afghan civilians.

This attack comes one day after a Taliban suicide bomber killed 80 when he detonated himself at a dog fight just outside of Kandahar city.

While today's attack seems to uncover a lack of cooperation between NATO forces and Afghan security operating in the area -- Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid claims that he warned NATO about the known suicide bomb plot and asked them to steer clear of the area -- one thing becomes immediately apparent.

The Taliban doesn't give a flying fuck about the people of Afghanistan. The startling regularity with which they attack their own people is only one more reason to remain in Afghanistan and ensure they don't return to power.

An Islamic extremist's belief that cavorting with Westerners is spiritual pain worse than death is one thing entirely: but if the Taliban cared about the people of Afghanistan, they wouldn't put them at risk unnecessarily, and sure as hell wouldn't attack them directly.

The two attacks -- claiming 118 civilian lives between the two of them -- does underscore a key difference in the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan: our NATO forces have to win their respect and loyalty. The Taliban will settle for fear.

The Taliban don't merely harbour terrorists when they're in power -- they are terrorists when they aren't. It's one of the most important reasons why they must be defeated.

It's another reason why we fight.

Top Ten Jerks in the Known Universe -- Nexus Style

Counting down the top ten not according to Warren Kinsella

In a recent post on his blog, Warren Kinsella outlines his "top ten jerks in the known universe". It turned out to be a very predictably partisan list.

Well, we at the Nexus (of Assholery) would probably be remiss if we didn't compile our own list of the top ten jerks in the universe. After all, considering the blog's name, we should know a thing or two about that topic.

Unsurprisingly, Kinsella makes the list (he's number five). More interestingly, positions one through three proved to be very closely packed. Who managed to take #1? Read on and find out.


10. John Rocker - Just when you thought this washed-up former Major League Baseball pitcher had disappeared off the face of the earth, he drags his racist, homophobic, sexist carcass out of the grave just long enough to savour some sour grapes by helping to bring down Major League Baseball as we know it.

Well, OK. So maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. And maybe Bud Selig himself only barely dodged making this particular list himself. But Rocker apparently isn't content to have ruined his own career with his public embarrassment of his sport and mediocre play. He just might bring his sport down with him.

9. Gordon Laird - So far as Canadian political analysis goes, Gordon Laird tends to writes really good fiction.

Laird actually makes this list almost exclusively for his 1998 book Slumming It At the Rodeo, in which he takes various swings at former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and former Leader of the Opposition Preston Manning, and the rather astounding lengths which he goes to invest practically any issue with undertones of racism.

In perhaps the most amusing section of his book, Laird relates the story of a Reform party barbecue held during the Calgary Stampede. While himself clearly being an individual who would not be in attendance at the event, Laird suggests that Rahim Jaffer was the subject of various racial jokes which suddenly stopped when he showed up.

Except that Laird wasn't there. And that's a story that would be considered unlikely to be told by those in attendance at that event even if it did happen in the first place. So how is one to treat this alleged episode other than as complete fiction?

The idea that Laird would try to pass it off as fact, despite the episode remaining largely unsubstantiated, speaks volumes about him.

Alberta Politics Uncovered author Marc Lisac would duplicate that very same feat in what basically amounted to an ad hominem attack on former Alberta premier Ralph Klein in the course of his book. Not only is Laird easily dismissed as a jerk for perpetuating that fiction in the first place, but he clearly set a very bad example for other would-be authors.

8. Scott Reid - Mr "beer and popcorn" himself. When he isn't demonstrating his complete contempt for the Canadian electorate or musing about nefarious Conservative party conspiracies while sparring with Tim Powers on Mike Duffy Live, one can imagine he's hunkering somewhere in the basement of the Toronto Star trying to figure out how to do these things even better.

Perhaps what really solidifies his status as one of the top ten jerks in the known universe is the fact that Reid represents everything that is wrong with the federal Liberal party -- he's obnoxious enough to say absolutely anything he thinks his party will get a quick political charge out of, and arrogant enough to think he can do so and be entitled to a free pass.

Why the Liberal party continues to put this guy on TV is anyone's guess, but this guy's more a boon to the Conservative party than an asset to the Liberals.

7. Robert Spencer - Robert Spencer's website, Jihad Watch, has one overwhelming theme: "be afraid of Islam. Very afraid. Oh, and by the way, buy my book."

Of course, Spencer isn't alone in the post-9/11-booming industry of Islamophobia profiteering. But he is the industry leader in cherry-picked examples of the violence he alleges to be inherent in Islam, and in offhandedly dismissing any evidence that suggests otherwise.

He promotes himself as one of the world's top experts on Islam, and that certainly must help to inflate his book sales. However, he's never studied Islam -- his Master's Degree is in the study of early Christianity.

Last but certainly not least, Spencer's work is parroted by thousands of those leading the Islamophobic post-9/11 charge. Not only is he a massive jerk in his own right, but he also enables other jerks to be even jerkier.

Just what the world needs.

6. Sean Avery - Considered by many in the hockey world to be a synonym for "creep", Sean Avery has refined being a jerk to a fine art.

Whether it's cracking racial slurs at Georges Laraque, mocking Jason Blake for his leukemia, or generally running his mouth while refusing to drop the gloves -- unless he holds a serious advantage over his opponent -- Avery is a hockey pest that gives all hockey pests a bad name.

5. Warren Kinsella - It should be far from surprising that the man who inspired this list should make it. While he's been at the forefront of one particular very important social battle -- the fight against racism -- he's also proven to be one of the anti-racist movement's biggest liabilities, as he constantly bends over backward to find any excuse to label his political opponents as racist.

Kinsella is a leading factor in the ficklization of racism as a social issue. While his book Web of Hate reminds us all who the enemy is in terms of the battle against racial extremists, he's proven to be extremely content to undermine that entire battle whenever it might benefit him politically.

But where Kinsella really takes a turn for the irredeemably obnoxious is in the closing pages of Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics wherein he grades the Canadian media of the day -- and indulges his inner political warhorse by giving passing grades to those who support his beloved Liberal party, and failing grades to those who oppose them.

When Alan Fotheringham -- the "wicked wit of the west" and a political journalist whose boots Kinsella is unfit to so much as lick -- rates a mere "is he still alive?", it becomes immediately apparent that Kinsella is barking up the wrong tree.

4. Anonymous - If you were to believe Anonymous in its recently-declared War on Scientology, they're merely a band of would-be online superheroes trying to balance the scales in the name of justice and truth.

But Anonymous has been on the proverbial radar screen far before their recent crusade against Scientology. One particular news story proved to be particularly damning:



Long before Anonymous turned its online sights against Scientology, at the very least, various members were making asses of themselves harassing people who were more or less innocent, and doing it just for kicks.

Meanwhile, their war on Scientology has, even not purposefully, stirred up some predictable religious bigotry against the church. While some members of Anonymous probably legitimately feel very strongly about some of the church's practices, sometimes even the most well-intentioned campaigns can gather some flies.

3. Rush Limbaugh - Rush Limbaugh is only barely not #1 on this list. Limbaugh is an individual who has proven to be so despicable that even those who had decided that they maybe -- just maybe -- like him enough to marry him have changed their minds and thought "hmmmm. Maybe I don't like this guy very much."

His most recent episode suggesting that Michael J Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms has provided more than enough impetus to write this guy off as one of the most reprehensible people on the planet today.

He's an individual who will do or say almost anything to benefit his political allies. Unlike Canadian blowhard Scott Reid, however, Limbaugh has never been blessed with the good sense to apologize when he crosses the line -- or even admit he was wrong.

2. Canadian Cynic - By all accounts, this guy could also very well have been number one. He's only barely number two. Like the Nexus' #1 biggest jerk in the known universe, he's a hateful demagogue propped up by an equally vicious and hateful flock of sheep (but more on this later).

Cynic first managed to pop up on the Nexus' radar back in July when he indulged himself in telling Wanda Watkins, the mother of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan "fuck you and your grief". She had the nerve to suggest that the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan wanted Canadians to support the mission.

Cynic has, under the guise of being "progressive", plied his trade as a blogger by viciously attacking his political opponents, often resorting to ad hominem attacks in order to do so. His blogmates, Lulu and Lindsay Stewart (aka Pretty Shaved Ape) are disturbing in their own right in that they share his hatred of anyone who disagrees with them and his inability to contribute anything of any value to any kind of debate. But they're really just small potatoes.

The seemingly endless ability of Cynic's coterie of fellow hateful demagogues to defend him no mater how many lines he crosses only serves to underscore precisely how powerful a gospel hate can be -- and, sadly, Canadian Cynic preaches it well.

1. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church - There really is only one person in all existence who could justify pulling down number one on this list. While Canadian Cynic may find himself a little disappointed that he didn't manage to pull in that ignominious honour, at least he can take comfort that it was claimed by someone with whom he shares a lot in common.

Like Cynic, Fred Phelps hates virtually anyone and everyone. And like Cynic, Phelps does absolutely everything he can to convince anyone he can reach out and touch (so to speak) to hate them as well.

In particular, there's each individuals' stance on dead soldiers. Cynic's Wanda Watkins episode has been well-documented across the blogosphere (and within this very post). Phelps, on the other hand, protests at the funerals of dead soldiers. Both encourage hatred of soldiers and their families, but Cynic settles for doing it for political reasons. Sadly, this is what we've come to expect from the most hateful political actors. Phelps, meanwhile, does it for religious reasons, and perverts the meaning of his very own religion in order to do it.

For that, he edges Cynic out (if only slightly).

Then, there's Phelps' congregation. Like Cynic's merry band of sycophants, these are some of the sickest people one could ever encounter. At least Phelps' congregation has a decent excuse should they ever decide to make use of it: most of them are related to Phelps, and as such, their hatefulness and craziness could at least be argued to be genetic.

They're the group of people responsible for this particular artistic "masterpiece":



(On a personal note, I much prefer this:)



Of course, giving Phelps and his flock any attention whatsoever is almost certainly affording them more credibility than they deserve. By the same token, it is important to remind people that: yes, there are people in the world who are so hateful that virtually everyone should be more than a little bit concerned.

February 2008 Book Club Selection: Dream Land, Roy Rempel

Roy Rempel reflects on previous governments' foreign non-policy

With the Manley report reenergizing debate over Canada's foreign policy (particular as it regards the war in Afghanistan), the time for another book club selection dealing with foreign policy seems to be ripe.

In Dreamland, Roy Rempel dismantles the foreign policy of previous Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments, noting how realism has consistently taken a back seat to ideology. In particular, a public addiction to the concept of Pearsonian peacekeeping has led to a military under equipped for key missions when they arise.

Rempels work comes directly out of the national interest (realist) perspective on foreign policy, and his book reflects that.

He essentially argues that Canada's inability to pursue its interests abroad has not only undermined Canadian credibility in the international community, but also Canadian sovereignty as a whole.

While Rempel's analysis could be seen to recommend an over-emphasis on developing our relationship with the United States -- this is important, but other writers would remind us that other global actors are important, too -- Rempel is right where it really matters: Canadian needs to be more active in pursuing its interests in the international community.

The "bulked-up capabilities" as recommended by Michael Ignatieff are a key part of that -- Rempel reminds us why.

Poliitcs of Fear Continue to Predominate

Some "progressive" bloggers want you to be afraid -- very afraid

Ever since the 2004 US presidential election, the politics of fear has been a hot topic in North American politics.

Progressives from both sides of the 49th parallel decried the blatant fear mongering of the Bush reelection campaign. At one point it was even suggested that terrorists had pledged themselves to attack any US state that voted for Kerry.

Meanwhile, that same year, a similar fear campaign was being waged north of the 49th parallel, as the Liberal party, beset by scandle, scrambled to make Canadians afraid of the Conservative party.

The campaign culminated with this infamous ad:



It all more or less revolves around the rhetorical bomb that was the hidden agenda -- the idea that, while putting on a benign face for the purpose of courting voters, the Conservative party actually carried a much more malignant plan which was essentially to dismantle Canada "as we know it".

Despite this so-called hidden agenda remaining nowhere to be seen during the past two years of Conservative party government, politically-motivated faux-Progressives are getting ready to launch another fear-based assault on Canadian democracy.

This time the attack revolves around Lloydminster-Battleford MP and Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz, whose frustration in trying to implement the government's democratically-approved agenda for the Canadian Wheat Board has apparently begun to bubble over.

This past week, the CWB continued to rebuff the democratically-expressed will of prairie grain producers when they terminated talks with the federal government regarding the ending of the board's monopoly on Barley.

"To say that I'm extremely disappointed to hear that the Canadian Wheat Board is unwilling to discuss change for western Canadian producers would be an understatement," Ritz announced.

The government will be introducing legislation into the House of Commons -- expected to be opposed by the Liberals and NDP -- to end the single-desk marketing system for Barley and move to an open market. This, in one way or another, is favoured by 62.2% of prairie grain farmers.

But the Wheat Board isn't playing ball with the farmers whose interests they're supposed to represent -- or with the government whose wheat board agenda certainly was a factor in helping them sweep Canada's prairie breadbasket during the most recent federal election.

"The board has sufficiently stalled things long enough that they'll survive until after the election," he added. "When we come back with a majority, then all bets are off."

Various faux-progressives have essentially been jumping for joy since Ritz went so far as to suggest that, if (or, in his view, when) the Conservative party is reelected with a majority that they might... you know, implement their agenda. You know... the not-so-hidden one.

One can almost sense the glee in the faux-progressive corner of the blogosphere as they anticipate maybe... just maybe... being able to peddle fear to the Canadian electorate again.

Of course, that is what makes them faux-progressives as opposed to legitimate progressives. Legitimate progressives recognize that fear-mongering is inherently regressive, no matter what kind of left-wing agenda it's used to implement. Fear undermines the crucial bonds of trust that make democracy truly work, and lead to a more cynical, less democratic, society.

Of course, to Lindsay Stewart and her ilk, this isn't an issue about "progress" or "democracy". It's simply an issue about getting their way, on every issue, regardless of whether or not they have a stake in a particular issue (it's intriguing to see how many Ontario farmers -- who voted to abolish their Wheat Board long ago -- seem to be opposed to the same thing happening on the prairies).

Legitimate progressives, meanwhile, swore off fear mongering long, long ago. They did this in the name of fostering healthy democracies, not unhealthy demagogracies.

That's what makes them progressives. Now, if only demagogues like Lindsay Stewart knew the difference.

Canada's Election Clock Moves Closer to Midnight

Liberals, Conservatives both expect 2008 election

According to CTV, the governing Conservative party has turned the ignition key on their campaign machinery as Liberal leader prepares to defeat the government over the upcoming budget, whether party brass wants to go to the polls or not.

"All the senior people, including the people who run the campaign ... they don't want an election right now. They do not want an election because they do not believe the party is ready to go into an election," said CTV Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are already in the process of staffing their election headquarters. "They're getting their planes booked," says Fife. "The campaign workers have been told to get ready for an election campaign."

Among those who don't want an election? Reportedly, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Ralph Goodale.

Dion should probably be listening to them. When Ralph Goodale, in particular, isn't ready to ride off on a glorious crusade against the dark spectre of neoconservatism one knows the time isn't right for an election -- at least not for the Liberal party.

In the long and short of things, it seems like the Liberal party could use an election as an opportunity to reevaluate its leadership, and perhaps replace Dion as leader. "One senior member of parliament said to me, either we're going to get [Dion] to change his mind or maybe we're going to have to push him off the ledge," Fife said.

One thing is for certain: for the Conservative party, taking to threatening elections lately in order to help push their agenda through, this may turn out to be a case of wanting something badly enough that they just might get it.

Prospects for their reelection as the government may not be all that different now than in two more years.

An election now may be just as good as an election in the future. Now, it's only a matter of whether the election clock strikes midnight or not.

Liberals Still Out to Lunch on Afghanistan

Liberals can choose between non-combat and Kandahar -- but can't have it both ways

There's been a lot of talk in Canada over the past few weeks about Afghanistan.

In particular, the governing Conservative party and opposition Liberal party have both been touting their plans for Afghanistan. The Conservatives have recently announced that they're willing to extend the combat mission to 2011 -- and put their government on the line doing it -- if NATO can drum up an additional 1,000 troops for Kandahar.

NATO has already proven quite amicable to this idea -- France has already pledged an additional 700 paratroopers for the volatile region.

The Liberal position, meanwhile, has been less than clear. It's basically been outlined as "remain in Afghanistan, but shift away from combat".

"Our position is very clear and we're very united around this position. I'm just saying that maybe we weren't clear enough in communicating it, so we should be clear," Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez admitted.

And so the Liberals have taken it upon themselves to make their alternative mission crystal clear.

Lo and behold, it turns out that the Liberal alternative to the mission they themselves initiated is almost entirely unfeasible.

Basically, the Liberals' alternative plan works out into three basic points:

"• NATO must secure troops to rotate into Kandahar to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities training and reconstruction;

• The government must secure medium helicopter lift and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; and

• The Government of Canada must immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011 and as of that date, the deployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011."

"The Liberal amendment also stipulates that after February 2009, Canada’s mission in Afghanistan should consist of training the Afghan National Security Forces, providing security for reconstruction and development projects in Kandahar, and continuing Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team," the Liberal party press release continues.

It's in regards to this last particular passage that the Liberal plan -- at least the third and seemingly most important principle of it -- falls entirely to pieces.

Helicopters and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles would actually be extremely valuable resources for Canadian troops in Afghanistan to have -- the Liberals should be applauded for recognizing this. Also, a Canadian shift away from combat toward reconstruction and training the Afghan army would require NATO produce troops to replace them.

This being said, the Liberal party plan falls apart as soon as one takes into consideration that the Canadian mission in Kandahar, so long as it continues, will be a combat mission.

The plan is also entirely unfeasible in setting 2011 as an end date for the Kandahar mission. While Canada certainly needs an exit strategy in Kandahar in particular and Afghanistan as a whole, the simple fact of the matter is that a time-oriented exit strategy is a recipe for failure.

What is needed is a task-oriented exit strategy. And while a time frame should certainly be set outlining the period of time in which we plan to achieve these goals, we cannot allow that time frame to dictate the rest of the mission to us.

Most of all, the Liberals are trying to sell Canadians a choice that simply doesn't exist. We can either choose a non-combat mission, or we can choose to continue the vital mission in Kandahar. We cannot have it both ways, and this all comes back to a point of fact that the Liberals simply don't seem to comprehend:

The Talibian is active in Kandahar, and they won't lay down their arms simply because we're training the Afghan army and building civil infrastructure. If we go on the defensive, the Taliban will simply go on the offensive. And they will not relent.

As such, so long as Canadian troops are in Kandahar, neither should we.

The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board, and we as Canadians need to keep sending them back to the drawing board until they understand the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.

Time to Face The Facts

We can't arm our troops with daisies and candy

For decades, Canadians have been proud of the peacekeeping tradition Lester Person has been credited with innovating -- and rightfully so.

Yet recent revelations by a Canadian soldier returning from Afghanistan dropped a bombshell yesterday by noting that the equipment being provided to Canadian troops in Afghanistan are better suited to peacekeeping than combat missions.

Among other issues, Corporal Danniel Beaulieu noted that vests issued to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are only equipped with pockets for four extra ammunition magazines. In a combat mission such as in Kandahar, troops should be equipped with 10-15 extra magazines.

According to Corporal Beaulieu, troops in Afghanistan aren't being issued enough extra ammunition for their sidearms (pistols), or proper boots for the conditions.

Naturally, the Canadian Forces have refuted Beaulieu's claims.

"We have to field 2,500 soldiers, so the equipment, by default, is generic a bit. It's not entirely specific to one soldier. Is it perfect? No. Does it satisfy the vast majority of soldiers? Yes," insisted Colonel Jean-Marc Lanthier, the Canadian Forces' director of land requirements.

Poor choice of equipment for the mission has long been identified as a cause of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. In particular, armored personnel carriers equipped to detect and disarm roadside bombs are only being deployed by Canadians in Afghanistan this year.

And while we have both the sitting Conservative government and preceding Liberal government to hold to task for this unacceptable failure, there is one other culprit to finger: that is a decades-long institutional preference for peacekeeping missions, and a lack of preparation for combat missions.

In a recent speech at the University of Alberta, Liberal party deputy leader Michael Ignatieff spoke, in particular, to some of the shortcomings of the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping, and how it's effected our preparation for the unfortunate eventualities that we may -- as we find ourselves now -- have to fight a war. Sometimes, it's even affected our ability to peacekeep effectively:

"One of the things I have learned in 15 years out there in the killing fields of Africa and the Balkans, is that you can't protect human beings with blue berets and a sidearm," Ignatieff said. "I'm fiercely proud of our peacekeeping tradition. Where peacekeeping of the traditional Pearsonian sort can be practiced we must practice it. But in a lot of cases now, in situations where you want to protect human beings, you want to prevent them from being ethnically cleansed or massacred because of their race, religion or ethnicity, you've got to have bulked up capabilities. You gotta go in there with flak jackets, you've got to have armour, you've gotta protect them."

When we examine the current situation on the ground in Afghanistan -- wherein Canadians seem ill-equipped to do the job they've been trained for in the first place, we clearly need to reevaluate our priorities in terms of our military.

As JL Granatstein notes in Who Killed the Canadian Military?, Canada's peacekeeping tradition -- while a proud tradition, and rightfully so -- has led to a devaluation of our military's ability to fight a war if need be. Apparently, the Canadian Forces have become so bogged down in peacekeeping-related institutional enthropy that we're sending troops out on combat missions equipped as if they're going to be peacekeeping.

In fact, if anything, the opposite should be true: we should be sending troops out on peacekeeping missions as if they were combat missions.

Especially since so many peacekeeping missions in the future will be combat missions (just as Somalia actually was and Rwanda should have been).

The denials of Colonel Lanthier aside, so long as our troops remain engaged in combat in Afghanistan, it's the duty of every single Canadian to pressure the government to ensure that our troops on the ground are properly equipped for the job.

Whether or not a historical military culture of peacekeeping has impeded this is immaterial. We owe our fighting men and women this solemn responsibility.

Well, So Much for That...

Star readers snuff out the light at the end of the tunnel

Conservative Toronto Star watchers were probably positively dumbfounded by this op/ed piece, written by Tony Gizzie, which appeared in the flagrantly anti-conservative paper yesterday:

"In the current U.S. presidential race, Canadians overwhelmingly support the Democratic party over the Republicans by a ratio of four to one.

It is no surprise that Canadians feel this way. One reason may be the negative perception of the Bush administration. Another may be that for the first time the Democratic candidate will be either a woman or an African-American.

But look at one Democrat-versus-Republican issue that relates to Canada – trade. The Democrats are protectionist and anti-free trade. The Republicans tend to be free traders.

Based on their comments, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would love to renegotiate the current Free Trade Agreement to get a better deal for their country. They know it's about jobs, American jobs. So obviously a Democratic administration backed by a Democratic Congress would be bad news for Canadian exporters.

But beyond any specific issue, support for Democrats or Republicans is more than a choice between political parties; it is a choice of political inclinations.

In Canada, as in the States, the divide between left and right continues to grow. I find this fascinating. Why are those on the left so sensitive when their support for politically correct, humanistic, big government is questioned?

If I tell someone I respect George W. Bush's actions in Iraq, I must be prepared to be called a redneck, bigoted, fundamentalist Christian. Now, I'm a Christian, but I'm far from a redneck bigot.

Why are Canadians so fearful of the right? Since when are fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and less government in our lives bad things? One could argue that the times when government stepped in to control the economy, such as Pierre Trudeau's wage and price controls of the mid-1970s, the results were disastrous.

If I had a choice between tax-and-spend policies that tend to run up deficits, versus greater accountability on how our tax dollars are spent and a balanced budget, I would gladly take the latter.

The current opposition parties also are to blame for this negative perception of the right. They continue to demonize our Prime Minister because he is a real small-c "conservative."

No doubt, the next federal election campaign will see the opposition rise up to rant about Stephen Harper's fanaticism, his hidden agenda and his contempt for the parliamentary process. Harper may be a lot of things but a reactionary fundamentalist he is not.

I don't believe the Toronto electorate gives the right a fair shake. This is short-sighted and unfortunate. Toronto proudly votes for the Grits in every federal election and the citizens then wonder why a former card-carrying NDP member, Mayor David Miller, can't get his 1 per cent of the GST.

We in the GTA should begin to see conservative politicians in a positive light. To have the federal Liberals run the show indefinitely is not healthy for the state of democracy.

Yes, Paul Martin did a great job as finance minister, but he served in a period of economic boom and prosperity, and he enacted fiscally responsible and, dare I say, conservative measures, which were to reduce the debt and ease our tax burden. He would have been a good fit in Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Conservatives believe that Canadians are intelligent enough to do the right thing for themselves. They do not need to be taxed at a punitive level. They should ask themselves who can better spend their hard-earned money, an Ottawa bureaucrat, or themselves?

Socialist policies are expensive and they restrict the economy. Besides, the only Marx that was ever worth paying attention to was Groucho."

Some may have thought the column in question was was essentially a light at the end of the tunnel, a ray of hope that the Conservative party just might find some positive press coverage in Canada's alleged centre of the universe outside of the Toronto Sun.

Today, they're probably wondering who turned out the lights, as the readership of the Star has apparently struck back, starting with Adam Quinan:

"Tony Gizzie's defence of right-wing governments made this astonishing statement: "If I had a choice between tax-and-spend policies that tend to run up deficits, versus greater accountability on how our tax dollars are spent and a balanced budget, I would gladly take the latter." By that reasoning, he should oppose the Conservatives and Republicans and support the Liberals and Democrats.

It was a Liberal government under Jean Chrétien that set Canada's finances straight after the debt ballooned. When he was U.S. president, Democrat Bill Clinton brought the deficit under control and created the greatest surplus the country ever had. It is President George W. Bush who squandered that legacy, and it is Prime Minister Stephen Harper who is being warned that his policies are leading Canada back into deficits.

The great myth of the right is that it is prudent with public finances, but the right is as profligate as any other ideology, and less likely than parties of the left to actually try and control public finances."

It's a cute theory, and in regards to the Republicans, certainly true.

Yet he seems to overlook the fact that then-Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin only moved to decisively eliminate the deficit after a number of scathing op/ed articles by writers such as Andrew Coyne about that very same subject. Furthermore, mr Quinan seems to be forgetting the extreme wastefulness of Liberal expenditure of Canadian tax funds following this decisive wrangling of the deficit, particularly Jane Stewart's billion dollar HRDC boondoggle.

If Canadian conservatives proved any less responsible with taxpayer funds, one would be willing to grant Quinan a point.

Up next, Daniel Heisler has a rather predictable bone to pick:

"Brian Mulroney ran up the biggest debt in Canadian history. Ronald Reagan spent billions on Star Wars, while cutting the taxes he needed to pay for it. Ditto George W. Bush. The war in Iraq has cost Americans billions of dollars and, along with cuts in taxes, run up the biggest debt and deficit in U.S. history.

Bush lied to get his war in Iraq. Remember weapons of mass destruction and the link to Osama bin Laden? And Reagan either knew about Iran-Contra or was too dumb to read his own briefing papers.

Mike Harris sold valuable assets to get his tax cuts. Highway 407 could be offsetting Ontario's debt today. He was also less than candid about Ipperwash. Stephen Harper has given us a GST cut that we barely notice, with no measurable economic value, and has cost the treasury billions when the country's infrastructure is falling apart.

And, oh yeah, there's Watergate.

Why fear the right? Intelligent self-interest."

Funny that in response to an article that doesn't even mention Iraq -- or even George W Bush -- that Heilser would find it so necessary to beat that particular dead horse.

And certainly, Brian Mulroney did double the national debt. But he did that by continuing to expend Trudeau-level funding on public services during a time of economic recession and (if you ask the NDP) high interest rates.

And if Heisler wants to parade out the tired old litany of Republican abuses of American politics, John Diefenbaker, if he were still alive, could probably educate him all about the "indiscretions" of Liberal James Gardiner who, during prohibition, was known to plant whiskey bottles on his opponents then call the Mounties.

Then, there's John Gulland:

"I'll tell Tony Gizzie what's so scary about the right. Its policies don't work in the long run and it uses poisonous tactics to dupe a gullible public into supporting them. Gizzie asks, "Since when are fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and less government in our lives bad things?" They are bad when these oft-repeated phrases are code for the starvation of public services, tax cuts for the wealthy and support of creeping corporate dominance.

Right-wing politicians lack any awareness of how to build a healthy society, much less a great nation. They base success entirely on the rate of economic growth, which is a faulty measure of progress and virtually assures the continued destruction of the environment.

Yes, the right is scary, but what is more scary is its success in convincing voters that a couple of hundred dollars in tax cuts that can be spent at the local big-box store is the way to achieve a better life."

One wonders if mr Gulland understand that, a scant 10 years ago, many global observers were wondering if Canada would survive the '90s on account of the debt accrued building the "great nation" that individuals like Gulland envisioned.

One wonders if mr Gulland remembers that, consistently over the past several decades, the Liberal party has continually opposed any efforts to end corporate welfare in Canada while ratcheting individual income tax rates to a level that rivals nearly anywhere in the world?

Probably not. Neither, apparently, does Steve Andrews:

"Simply stated, those on the right put profits ahead of people. The "lower taxes and less government" that Tony Gizzie attributes to the right disproportionately benefit corporations and well-off individuals, while the cost of tax cuts is the reduction of services that benefit and protect everyone – services like food inspection, education, health care and policing. And, as the Walkerton tragedy so clearly illustrated, service cuts can kill.

Why do we fear the right? Because the society it envisions would be less equal, less just and less safe."

Of course, this all depends upon how one defines things such as "just" and (most importantly) "safe".

The fact is that Liberal criminal justice policies undermined justice in Canada for decades, particularly in the decades following Pierre Trudeau's reign. Furthermore, the most recent omnibus bill introduced by the Conservatives would actually make Canadians safer by putting dangerous offenders behind bars -- where they belong.

Too bad the Liberal-dominated senate has yet to vote on it.

Perhaps most disturbing thing about today's burst of letters is the seeming lack of tolerance for any other view point within the pages of the "hallowed" Toronto Star.

One thing that we can be certain of is that the letters printed were likely only the least vitriolic of those recieved, even if they are laden with the same old predictable rhetoric as always.

Conservatives in Toronto may be waiting a long time yet for that light at the end of the tunnel. Even so, that the Star would print the column at all suggests that things there are at least moving in a better direction.

Who's Up Next? Why, That Would Be Romeo Dallaire

I plan to shake hands with the man who shook hands with the Devil

On Feburary 21, 2008, Lieutenant-General and current Senator Romeo Dallaire will be delivering a keynote address to the University of Alberta's Global Voices conference.

As was the case with Michael Ignatieff's recent visit to the U of A campus, I'll be there to hear what he has to say, and ask him some very important questions.

Among them:

-Do you agree that the nature of peacekeeping has changed over the past decade, and do you think the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping remains one that Canada should remain committed to?

-What kind of commitment should Canada make to halting the atrocities currently occuring in Darfur?

-Do you believe the War on Terror can be altered to enhance peacekeeping initiatives, or do you believe it is detrimental to such efforts?

Once again, I fully expect that General Dallaire will have some interesting -- and enlightening -- things to say.

Actually, Rush, That May Be a Fair Assessment

McCain probably better off without Limbaugh endorsement

Rush Limbaugh is an asshole.

Even though they may loathe to admit it, a lot of dyed-in-the-wool American conservatives probably recognize this too.

Whether it's labelling Canada "Soviet Canuckistan", taking disgusting cheap shots at Chelsea Clinton (then lying about it afterwards) or making fun of Michael J Fox's Parkinson's disease, Rush Limbaugh tends to be an embarrassment for both American conservatives and for himself.

He also tends to be one of the most divisive figures in America when it comes down to fickle politics.

Limbaugh insists he's a mouthpiece for American conservatism, so many American conservatives feel obligated to defend him even if he says things that any proper-thinking individual can clearly tell crosses the line. (Of course, we have our own equivalents north of the border, from both the right and left.)

So, if one were to find oneself in the position of being a Republican presidential candidate who needs to woo significant numbers of soft Democrat voters, an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh may well be the last thing one would want.

At least, Limbaugh himself seems to think so.

"If I really wanted to torpedo [John] McCain, I would endorse him," Limbaugh recently announced on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything."

And with good reason.

Whether this is Limbaugh being unusually sincere or merely trying to justify raging against the best chance the Republican machine has to win the 2008 presidential election is entirely uncertain. The one thing that is certain is that Limbaugh -- shudder to say -- just may be right.

"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."

"Couldn't it be said, if somebody wanted to…that I am secretly supporting McCain, because I secretly do want him to win, but I know full well that if I come out and endorse him, he's cooked?" Limbaugh asked. "Who may be in this whole kit and caboodle, this who shebang, the most valuable asset McCain has?"

"Me."

Well, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe McCain's most valuable asset is Limbaugh's silence. If not McCain's most valuable asset, then it is certainly so for the rest of us.

Really Not Funny

South Park Conservativism run tastelessly amok

So, one may wonder what this particular post is about.

It turns out that Kate McMillan managed to pull one over on Warren Kinsella recently, as she managed to convince Kinsella to display a cleverly-doctored photograph on his blog.

Presumably, it was of a numbered tattoo on the arm of a Holocaust survivor. Instead, it turned out to be the serial number off the engine block of McMillan's motorcycle photoshopped onto a photo of someone's arm.

At first glimpse, it almost seems like an amusing prank.

But the Holocaust isn't something people should be making light of. Six million human lives snuffed out in the name of mere hatred: it's not a laughing matter.

Kinsella asked for permission to post the photo on his blog, as it would encourage others to "fight the good fight".

Well, as someone who has fought the good fight, I find it necessary to take exception.

McMillan's prank is juvenile, and at first glance, seems like it should be written off as such. Then one remembers what is at stake.

When the historical memory of travesties such as the Holocaust begin to fade, we put ourselves at risk of allowing such atrocities to reoccur. It all relates to one of western society's most basic proverbs: history, forgotten, repeats itself.

Ridiculing such episodes has the precise same effect. McMillan really ought to be ashamed of herself. Whether this was meant as a joke or not, it simply isn't funny. As a matter of fact, it's the exact polar opposite from funny.

Bob Rae Needs a Lesson in "Realism"

Liberal foreign affairs critic continues to peddle non-combat fantasies

The Liberal party's unelected foreign policy critic sounded off on Afghanistan today, demonsrating that even when it comes down to basic concepts of foreign policy, he simply doesn't get it.

"What we want to do is change the focus so the focus is really on training, so the focus is really on the reconstruction of the country, and it has to be on realism," Rae said.

"I think our position has been very consistent and that is to say we believe Canada's overall engagement in Afghanistan has to stay," Rae insisted. "We have to remain committed to the Afghan compact which goes to 2011, but we think the focus on counterinsurgency for Canada as the focus to stay there, is wrong."

While the Liberal party's suggestion that a set rotation be established for who assumes front-line duties and when actually remains perfectly reasonable, the idea that a shift toward the northern regions of the country will forego any combat during that time is, frankly, a fantasy.

Most of all, however, Rae's analysis of the mission fails to embody one key word: realism.

Realism requires that foreign policy creators recognize the harsh realities at work in various areas, and formulate a policy that measures and balances the various competing interests at play.

In Afghanistan's case -- and one wonders if Rae is entirely clear on this -- it's in Canada's best interests to ensure the Taliban does not return to power. It's in the Kabul government's best interests to ensure that the Taliban does not maintain a foothold in Kandahar and Helmand provinces.

Of course, it's in the Taliban's interests to gain control of the southern region of the country so they have a secure foothold from which they can launch attacks on the rest of the country, and eventually gain control of it. Considering that this is entirely adverse to the interests of Canada and our allies in Afghanistan, realism demands that Canada do everything it can to prevent that.

While Bob Rae spreads the fantasy that Canadian troops wouldn't face risks or have to occasionally engage the enemy while serving in the northern region of the country -- or even send reinforcements into the south in emergency situations, or for major offensives -- the sad fact of the matter is that all too many Canadians may not know any better.

As Michael Ignatieff (ironically, the top foreign policy expert in today's Liberal party somehow is not the foreign affairs critic) himself notes, Canadians still cling to the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping -- a model that has never been applied successfully in a failed state (or, in Afghanistan's case, non-state) scenario. As Ignatieff himself recently noted, modern peacekeeping missions are combat missions.

The idea that Canada can somehow practice traditional peacekeeping if we can somehow just get out of Kandahar is, sadly, an utter farce. While the Pearsonian peacekeeping model is proud Canadian tradition, the rest of the world rarely goes out of its way to adhere to Canadian traditions. We must be able to adapt, or watch our foreign policy flounder.

Rae clearly is not adaptable enough to recognize this reality.

As Defense Minister Peter MacKay notes, it is indeed irresponsible for Bob Rae to disseminate this fantasy policy, especially under the guise of "realism". And while some of the key concepts of the Liberal Afghanistan policy are indeed sound (once again, the aforementioned "rotation" policy), the lack of solid details (for example, when would Canada return to front-line duty? If ever?) make it less a coherent, realistic policy, and more a series of platitudes thrown together in the name of idealism.

In other words, typical Liberal foreign policy.

Which, as anyone who's paid attention over the past 13 years knows, is far from realistic.

Someone please tell Bob Rae.

Future of NATO at Stake in Afghanistan

NATO unlikely to survive a defeat in Afghanistan

According to US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, NATO's viability as an alliance is very much at stake in Afghansitan.

"We must not -- we cannot -- become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not," he said at the Munich Conference on Security Policy. "Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance."

These remarks come as NATO scrambles to meet Canada's demands for increased support in Kandahar, as outlined in the Manley report. Even France has offered to step up to the plate, offering up to 700 additional paratroopers (in addition to Mirage fighter jets currently stationed in the region).

Naturally, this has left Defense Minister Peter MacKay feeling very confident about NATO's ability to support Canada properly in Kandahar.

"We believe the French responded quite positively and we're awaiting a further decision," announced MacKay, who recently has been discussing logistics with French defense staff.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already announced Canada will not extend its Kandahar mission beyond 2009 unless 1,000 additional troops are committed. Clearly, the French commitment would go a long way toward meeting that demand, even if they arrive shortly after April 2009.

But there is still much more to do, and still more members of NATO who haven't done enough of it.

"In NATO, some allies ought not have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations, forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and the dying," Gates insisted.

"The threat posed by violent Islamic extremism is real -- and it is not going to go away," he added, reiterating the stakes of the mission. "It raises the question: What would happen if the false success they proclaim became real success? If they triumphed in Iraq or Afghanistan, or managed to topple the government of Pakistan? Or a major Middle Eastern government?"

"Aside from the chaos that would instantly be sown in the region, success there would beget success on many other fronts as the cancer metastasized further and more rapidly than it already has," Gates added.

Gates' remarks are really indicative of some of Michael Ignatieff's comments last week: "We don't know what success looks like in Afghanistan but we sure know what failure looks like."

"Victory is not clear. But losing this is pretty clear to me, and I don't think we want to lose."

Certainly not. Because if NATO is defeated in Afghanistan, it simply may not survive -- at least not in its present form. If Canada, the United States, Britain (and now France) are left alone in the lurch, there's no question that NATO's usefulness as an alliance will be called into question. If NATO is defeated in Afghanistan, there simply may be no reason for it to continue to exist.

Certainly, politicians like NDP leader Jack Layton -- whose party has repeatedly, throughout history, advocated for the dismantling of NATO -- certainly must be rubbing their hands in anticipation at this very thought.

NATO's credibility -- and future -- is very much at stake in Afghanistan. A success will prove the model works. A failure will be used by those who want to split the alliance apart as evidence that keeping it alive is simply a waste of effort.

If NATO's resident social loafers (hello, Germany) want to continue to enjoy the enhanced security they benefit from as a virtue of their NATO membership, they need to step up to the plate, accept their share of the burden, and make NATO work -- and they need to do it now.

Otherwise, NATO may become a thing of the past -- and that very enhanced security right along with it.

This Week in Political Irrelevance...

Canadian Communist Party apparently still exists

It's been said that old communists don't die, they just fantasize about a communist future.

Such was the case with the Communist Party of Canada this past week, as they met on the University of Alberta campus "to discuss a communist future".

Apparently, the fact that communism has no future has been entirely lost on them.

"[The Alberta election] will be an important testing ground," said Communist party leader Miguel Figeuroa. "Defeating the Tories in Alberta would go a long way to defeating them across the country, which would be in the best interest of the vast majority."

It seems that the historical tradition of the leaders of parties supported by the vast minority claiming to represent the vast majority remain intact.

He declined to comment on whether or not he'll be holding his breath until such a defeat occurs (although one can certainly hope he will).

"The re-election of the Harper Tories, especially if they get a majority, would be extremely detrimental to the future of our country, for our sovereignty, for preservation of the environment," Figueroa announced. "They’re representing the interests of Big Oil and Big Capital, not the long term interests of our country or our globe."

Figueroa also failed to comment on the Communist Party's links to big hammer and big sickle.

It all turns out to be fairly heady stuff. Just listening to Figueroa, one would think that communism wasn't a momentous disaster in virtually every country in which it was imposed, and that some of the most egregious violations of human rights weren't perpetrated by communist regimes.

Then, one remembers that they were.

Of course, old communists like Figueroa like to try and soften their message by speaking about their brand of "social democracy". Then, they say things like this: "You can’t have genuine political democracy when the economy is profoundly undemocratic. Capitalism runs rampant; globalization is increasing disparities between the rich and poor. ... Rights working people had fought for decades to win—trade union rights, social programs like healthcare and education—are all coming under attack."

"The idea of counter-posing the individual to the needs of the community as a whole has been brought to its zenith under capitalism," he continued. "You get ahead at the expense of others; it’s a cutthroat society, law of the jungle. Is humanity doomed always to have such attitudes? We don’t think so. But of course, it’s not going to happen overnight."

At the end of the day, individuals like Figueroa are still talking about communism, while pretending that a miraculous transformation of human nature will somehow make this glorious wonderland possible, and indulging in the fantasy that, by golly, if only they could get Mixed Member Plurality voting in place, maybe they could even get their foot in the political door.

Meanwhile, Figueroa, elected as Communist Party glorious leader in 1992, has continually been reelected to the position. Whether one should consider this a statement on the health of the communist movement in Canada, or a lack of aforementioned democracy within the Communist Party (gee, who'd've thunk that?), one may judge for oneself.

When people like Figueroa simply refuse to accept their irrelevance (although it's hardly as if their acceptance of this fact matters), one thing is for certain: at least they keep things interesting -- even if it's only by making amusing spectacles of themselves.

Then again, considering that Figueroa and his so-called "round table" discussion barely managed to warrant mention in a University newspaper, it seems the Canadian Communist Party isn't even relevant enough to do that properly.

Harper to Opposition: "Go Ahead, Punk. Make My Day"

Tories daring opposition to bring government down

With Liberal Leader of the Opposition rattling the election sabre consistently over the past year-and-a-half and the Conservative government now forging into unknown territory as the longest-serving Conservative minority government in the nation's history, it seems Stephen Harper is taking some pages out of "Dirty" Harry Callahan's play book.

Today, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that if Bill C-2 -- the government's omnibus bill dealing with violent crime, dangerous offenders and the age of sexual consent -- is not passed promptly, the government will move the bill as a confidence motion.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced that he'll also extend a confidence motion on extending the government's Afghanistan mandate.

The latter motion could come before the house as early as next week.

With an election expected at any time during the coming year, it seems that Harper may have given up on trying to eke a few extra months out of this parliament and instead is perfectly content to play chicken with the opposition leaders.

For Stephane Dion, only one question remains to ask himself: "Do I feel lucky?"

Well? Do ya, punk?

(Okay, that last one may have been a little much. Just have fun with it.)

After all, on which issue would Dion like to defeat the government? A crime bill containing measures that will actually help protect Canadians from violent and dangerous offenders? Or the Afghanistan mission that his own party initiated -- while he himself was in cabinet, no less?

Dion has already announced he'll be seeking amendments to the Afghanistan motion.

"You need to be prepared to fight but the combat role is when you are proactively seeking the engagement with the enemy. It's something I have said that we will interrupt in February 2009," Dion has announced. (Apparently, Dion would prefer an "easy" mission despite recent admission by his own deputy leader that there are no "easy" missions in the 21st century).

As far as Afghanistan goes, it may just be the perfect issue for Harper to challenge Dion. Liberal MP David Cullen is rumored to be prepared to vote in favour of the mission on a whipped vote. At least three more Liberal MPs are apparently prepared to do the same. With Michael Ignatieff possibly very eager to make another run at the Liberal leadership, one can't rule out the very real possibility that he, himself, may vote in favour of the mission again.

On violent crime and dangerous offenders, it's unlikely that Dion would win that particular battle in the public eye. Considering that the issues that defeat a minority government tend to frame the coming election, this really is a no-brainer.

Then one considers what other issues the Liberals may want to defeat the government on? Climate change? Their prior abysmal performance -- with Dion as minister of the environment, no less -- would make them easy pickings. Nuclear safety? Nuh-uh. The Liberals ignored the mess for the better part of a decade-and-a-half.

With his prospects of finding an issue on which he can defeat the government and find an advantage, Dion will need to feel very lucky to force the election that he so desperately wants.

With the Conservatives still nursing a lead in the polls, that just may make Stephen Harper's day.

Canadians Not All That Ignorant, Ignatieff

After all, I know plenty about China—I could probably even locate it on a map

Victor Vargas is a compatriot and close friend of mine who attended Michael Ignatieff's speech with me. Here's what he had to say about Ignatieff's comments regarding China, as published in the University of Alberta Gateway:

"It seems that Michael Ignatieff, deputy leader of the federal Liberal party, believes that Canadians don’t know much about India or China. During his address last Friday, he implied that Canadians are still stuck in the Cold War and are too Eurocentric, but in fact, Mr Ignatieff would be surprised to know that Canadians are smarter then he thinks.

As Canadians, we above all others pride ourselves on our vast knowledge of the world around us—Rick Mercer proves this on a weekly basis. Granted, defeating the United States in world trivia is about as great a triumph as beating a blind man at Pictionary, but at least we go out of our way to demonstrate our superiority—after all, I don’t see anybody putting out a Talking to Canadians show.

And while Mr Ignatieff may believe that it’s important for Canadians to know about the emerging Asian Tigers, I believe that Canadians not only know enough about these rising powers but have no need to fear China and India’s place in the world.

All Canadians know that everything, from our flags to our pencils, is manufactured in China. This is because ever since the Chinese accepted the teachings of Communism, the world saw them transform from kung-fu-fighting wise men to business-suit-wearing buddhas that are completely consumed in the quest for the holy dollar.

Some people would argue that such economic power in the hands of leaders who, in many cases, have shown little regard for business ethics might be a bit worrisome. But fortunately, Canadians are smart enough to judge nations by their actions, and through action, China has demonstrated its understanding of international needs. Just this past weekend, in fact, the Chinese showed their generosity by starting up a campaign to divert water from drought-stricken areas just to make sure the world will have a splendid time at the Olympics in Beijing this summer. Clearly any nation willing to do that is a place Canadians should be doing business with.

As for India, great movies, like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom have taught us a great deal about Indian culture and history. For example, I learned that a long time ago India was part of the immense and evil British Empire, but one day, a man named Gandhi rose up and freed India from Imperialism after Lord Irwin tossed the Emperor into the CANDU reactor.

And while some would worry that India is a nuclear power currently in a cold war with an unstable Pakistan, they clearly don’t understand Indian politics. Since India is a democratic nation, it surley will have the sense not to start anything, say over Kashmir, which could lead to a major nuclear war. If something were to happen in Pakistan, India would take things in stride and make calm, rational decisions—after all, every Canadian knows that democracies always do the right thing.

So take ease, Canada, despite what Ignatieff may think, because you already know everything there is to know about those pesky international issues concerning China and India. And other things like arctic sovereignty and Darfur are issues that will simply resolve themselves. I mean, we live in a world where all free nations are governed well and their leaders make logical and rational decisions. Anyone that would say differently is paranoid and should be tuned out."

McCain Wins Big on Super Tuesday

The F-word (front runner) may finally fit

Mike Huckabee gave John McCain a little help today, wooing an additional 79 delegates to the Republican National Convention to his side.

McCain helped himself a lot by winning 364 in the 2008 Super Tuesday primary. American voters didn't help Mitt Romney at all, as he claimed only 57 delegates, good for a distant (475-151) second place.

McCain's victory was doubly padded by winning California, good for a whopping 170 delegates. This, added to victories in Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Delaware and (predictably) Arizona, made for a very, very good day for McCain, who now finds himself in the driver's seat.

For McCain, the test from here on out will be in winning over conservative elites. With James Dobson and chronic blowhard Rush Limbaugh aligned firmly against him, McCain will have his work cut out for him. It's said that as goes talk radio so go American conservatives, and Mitt Romney certainly holds the loyalty of talk radio.

Then there's Mike Huckabee. He's back in third place, but not far enough back to justify dropping out of the race. If he decides to stop playing nice with the McCain campaign and start playing to win, Romney may have a lot to gain from that.

Then again, with McCain already having claimed more than a third of the delegates necessary to win, he may simply be too difficult to catch.

The coming days will give us a better picture of where the Republican nomination truly stands. In the meantime, however, McCain is certainly entitled to bask in the glow of the huge victory he's won today.

Super Tuesday Could Tell the Tale

At least for Republicans

Months of nail-biting speculation may finally come to a close tonight as 24 American states vote in the 2008 Presidential primaries -- at least for Republicans.

1,023 delegates to the 2008 Republican Convention are up for grabs as John McCain and Mitt Romney -- with the Colbert/Stewart/O'Brien-made Mike Huckabee trailing in the distance -- duke it out for Republican supremacy.

1,191 will be necessary to win the Republican nomination. McCain currently has 111 delegates, while Romney has won 94. A sweeping victory for either man today (although the polls clearly favour McCain, even if conservative Republicans don't) could easily put him within jogging distance of victory.

Following a huge victory in Florida and a landslide of endorsements -- including the most recent one from former Republican nominee Bob Dole -- McCain clearly holds the momentum in this race, and recently announced that he expects to close out the Republican contest tonight -- or at least position himself with a stranglehold on it -- tonight.

However, we won't know if that's happened or not until the polls close tonight.

In the meantime, Romney's knives have come out, as they predictably do after high-profile endorsements. While needling McCain over Dole's support, announcing "Well, it's probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me," Romney has also released a new attack ad:



Appealing to self-declared conservatives could actually turn out to be a very potent tactic for Romney, according to David Frum. "He is at his strongest in the states where the rules allow independents to vote in the party primary of their choice," said Frum. "Where the primaries are closed, he doesn't do so well."

McCain's unwillingness to pander to the Republican party's conservative base could still prove his undoing. But with Democrat and independent swing votes being absolutely crucial to winning come November, McCain may still win based on the compulsive Republican desire for victory alone.

Super Tuesday, for Republicans, at least, will certainly clarify the picture.

Meanwhile, the Democratic race is expected to be anything but clear. With 1,681 deligates up for grabs, with 2,025 necessary to win, most Democrats expect Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be contesting the Democratic nomination right up to the Democratic National Convention.

Obama, for one, is expecting a split decision today, which could actually turn out to play into the Democrat's corner, as the captivating Clinton/Obama duel continues to hog the headlines, even away from a largely-decided Republican candidate.

With Democrats claiming the lion's share of attention, the Republican nominee -- even if it is every Democrat's favourite Republican, John McCain -- could find himself fighting an uphill battle.

One way or the other, Super Tuesday could dictate the course of the presidential election, even if it doesn't produce a pair of acclaimable candidates.

Stelmach Rolls the Dice

Albertans to return to the polls on March 3

The alarm may finally have rung on Alberta's election watch, as the Edmonton Journal has reported that Premier Ed "Stalemate" Stelmach is planning to call an election for 3 March 2008.

The move comes amidst a rather intense media campaign by Albertans for Change, who have run an impressive number of anti-Stelmach ads on television, and increased jockeying between the provincial Liberals and NDP, as well as a merger of the further right-wing Alberta Alliance and Wildrose parties.

Although facing these particular challenges, the overall position of the governing Progressive Conservatives remains strong. So long as the NDP and Liberals duel it out with one another, they'll make little way winning over enough rural and urban Calgary seats to defeat the Tories. Perhaps the most legitimate threat to Stelmach and his team, the Wildrose Alliance, also took a hit today as Rob James, the party president, quit, citing concerns over the merger that recently created the party.

Historically, when a government in Alberta is defeated, it has been by an entirely new party, as the electorate begins to view older parties (such as the Liberals and NDP) as unable to govern.

The media campaign by Albertans for Change, self-described as "a coalition of the Alberta Building Trades Council and the Alberta Federation of Labour, which together represent nearly 200,000 working Albertans", will certainly appeal to many of those who want to see the kinds of policies the ads seem to advocate (rent control, for one).

But those people weren't likely to vote for the PCs in the first place.

However the first post-Ralph Klein election in Alberta shapes up, there's little question that Ed Stelmach is taking a tremendous risk. He could have waited as late as November 2009 to call an election. In the meantime, the cash-strapped Liberals and NDP could have exhausted their modest war chests on a false-start election.

Instead, they'll go into the election with the advantage of having spent a solid couple of weeks messaging in advance of an election.

Of course, to be fair, this is an advantage that Liberal leader Kevin Taft and NDP leader Brian Mason both desperately need.

It also would have given Stelmach -- with a commanding majority in the Legislature -- an opportunity to build a record he can sell to Albertans. To date, his list of accomplishments as Premier of Alberta has been less than stellar.

On this note, however, this may all be for the better. While it's unlikely that Albertans will be looking forward to a new government after all the polls are closed and votes counted, it's very safe to say they could be looking forward to a stronger opposition. This, naturally, is a start.

But, then again, one has to consider the increasingly real possibility that Stelmach may lose.

For better or worse, Stelmach is gambling with the future of his government, and considering the closest governing alternatives -- the permanently irrelevant Brian Mason or Kevin "if you can't beat 'em write mean things about 'em" Taft -- he may be gambling with the province's future as well.