Stephen Harper gets it half right

Stephen Harper has announced that he will allow (oh thank you, master) a debate in the House of Commons on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This is good news for many of us that have suggested its necessity, but is it all good? Like, what’s with this?

“It will not be a votable debate, in other words they will not vote on Canadian participation,” CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife told CTV Newsnet. “This will be an opportunity for members of Parliament from all sides of the house to debate and discuss Canada’s mission in Afghanistan and, of course, the concerns of some MPs about the growing list of casualties.”

So instead of a debate that means something, we get an opportunity for every MP to stand up wearing a Canadian flag lapel pin and somberly intone how much he or she honours the troops and hopes no one else gets hurt? Why not allow a vote? Does Harper actually think that he would lose a vote on the mission, or is he scared of setting some sort of awkward democratic precedent? What is the purpose of a debate that doesn’t result in a decision? That’s just a conversation. Why would parliamentarians bother showing up other than for their sound bite for the next election campaign ad? If he wants to simply tell the Canadian people about the mission, why not just go on TV for an hour some night during prime time and lay it out.

In my own squeaky little voice, I have called for a debate in Parliament on this issue several times in previous posts and in comments and conversations with other bloggers, but I have always maintained that we need to have a vote on the mission in order for the discussion to mean anything. If Stephen Harper is too afraid to “bring it” (as all the kids are saying these days , then why does he expect our armed forces to do so? If he wants Canadians to back the mission, then let us say go or no.

In rejecting a debate only recently, he said that “To do so would not only be not in the best interests of Canada’s international reputation… it would be a betrayal of the brave men and women we have in the field who are in danger”. This is tripe – to send them without consulting Parliament is anti-democratic and to hide behind their sense of duty is cowardice. If Stephen Harper actually believes the mission is important, as I do, he will have a full vote in the House of Commons, one that I’m sure would win near if not absolute unanimous approval.

I am aware that Stephen Harper inherited the Afghanistan mission from a Liberal government that did not consult Parliament and I’m also aware that the NDP were not nearly loud enough in requesting a debate either when the mission began in 2001 or when it was expanded later. The opposition has handed Harper a golden opportunity to right a wrong.

Or he could just use it as a cynical attempt to ameliorate the NDP request for a real debate and then move on to the Big Five.

The delicious taste of needless strife

It’s getting absolutely crazy south of the border. Apparently related to the heated debate over immigration “reform”, we have schools not letting kids wear clothing that “express patriotism”, and we have kids that actually say stuff like:

“It upsets me that we cannot support our troops — the military,” said Kirsten Golgart, an eighth grader who was told she’d be suspended if she didn’t change her clothes. “We can’t support our country. If we’re American, I think we should be proud to be an American.”

As if supporting your troops is a necessary pre-requisite for being proud of your country.

This kind of polarization is a natural result of the conscious decision of the Republican policy of winning elections by using wedge issues to tear apart the electorate. How it works is simple – take an issue that can be used to divide people, make the division wider by appealing to patriotism, religion, family, whatever, and then start the name-calling on either side. The fact that 24-hour news networks love shit like this makes it easier, because it provides a steady stream of broadcast material and the illusion of news. Or, to rephrase Jon Sterwart: the delicious taste of needless strife.

Injecting religion into the argument is especially useful in making the wedges self-propagating. If you do it right, and belive me, Karl Rove can do it right, you don’t even need to kickstart new wedges – you can ride in on a white horse at the eleventh hour and try to save the day, like the pathetic Terri Schiavo affair a year ago.

That it works is obvious – the Republicans have dominated both houses and all presidential elections since about 1996.

And don’t think that the Canadian politics is immune to this kind of politicking.

Times are good for those for whom times are good

Ah, to be an American millionaire! Could there be a better time to be one? Not if this reported analysis of IRS data is any indication. On average, Bush’s 2003 tax investment tax cuts produced tax savings of $500,000 for those with an income greater than $10,000,000. And what’s more, those with incomes of $26 million paid the same share of their income to taxes as those making $200,000 – it’s almost the flat-tax nirvana the conservatives dweebs like the NCC have been stroking themselves dreaming about for years.

What’s more, as the article goes on to state:

even the merely well-off, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, are falling behind the very wealthiest, particularly because another levy, the alternative minimum tax, now costs many of them thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year in lost deductions.

Wow, even the merely rich aren’t doing so hot!

So, are we seeing the true shredding of the middle class in the US? The middle class that is necessary for a functioning democracy?

Has a decision been made?

Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran’s air defence systems at the nuclear installations.
That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.

This is the possible scenario that the US and Great Britain are preparing for if Iran does not agree to concessions on their nuclear program. A British Foreign Office source in the same article says (emphasis mine):

If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis.

An end to the crisis, huh? Is this the same kind of thinking that produced the a conclusion that a lightning-quick shock-and-awe attack to Bagdhad would be enough to win a war in Iraq?

Hold onto your hats, kids, it’s about to start raining cats and fools…