Does CTV think "friendly fire" IS friendly?

Some media outlets do it right. They use quotation marks to clarify the unfitting euphemism "friendly fire" that has been adopted by the military for these type of deaths.

Not CTV. They don't seem to care about these things.

They don't see that there's nothing "friendly" about getting shot by your own side. It's as deadly as enemy fire, and, to be quite franky, pretty stupid. Why not change it to "stupid fire"?

Anyways, the U.S. seems to have a "friendly" report on "friendly fire".
Here are some, not so friendly, numbers, representing percentages of deaths through "friendy fire" (source: Wikipedia)
* World War II: 21,000 (16%)
* Vietnam war: 8,000 (14%)
* Gulf War: 35 (23%)
* Invasion of Afghanistan (2002): 4 (13%) **

Read also What the hell is friendly fire? by Scout.

**note: fatalities were Canadian Soldiers, not American. Caused when a US fighter pilot dropped a 500 lb (228 kg) bomb while Canadian soldiers were performing a live fire exercise on April 17, 2002 [1]

InSite: Attacking Harper's "New Fascist" ideology works!

Harper's idea about InSite, Vancouver's safe-injection site? Close it down.

There's plenty of reason to believe that the program to save the lives of addicted drug addicts is working, yet Harper does not want to fully support it, yet. Or, should I say, it doesn't fit the Conservative ideology?

Margaret Somerville (McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law) said it well:

"It can't be simply, 'We have a political platform and our platform is nobody is going to be helped in any way in terms of drug addiction behaviour or illness.' That would be wrong in my view."

And in my view too. Drug addicts are people too, only weakened by their addiction. Killing the weak is a fascist idea, practised by Nazi Germany to purify their own people. With the slogan "Volksgenosse, das ist auch Dein Geld" (Fellow Germans, this is your money too) the Nazis pointed out the financial benefit of killing the weak.

These days we're dealing with the New Fascism, which comes with a smile. The New Fascism doesn't kill the weak and disabled, at least not in the old way, thank God! But it doesn't help them either: ideology and message are very similar.

This message delivered by Harper is a good example (campaign statement December 2005):

"We as a government will not use taxpayers' money to fund drug use"

And the new ideology is not all that different either: Conservatives have no intention to help the weak and the poor. Lowering taxes is supposed to be the one and all "gift" to all people; social programs are a waste of money and can therefore be cut.

Are the Conservatives the New Fascists? Do the Conservatives really wish to see all drug addicts dying from overdosis or infected needles, rather sooner than later?

The InSite program works: it saves lives. And that message is hard to beat. Reason CAN overcome backwards ideology. Halleluhia! But it takes pressure, a lot of pressure. Are we up to it?

PS Doesn't the German doctor in the white jacket look a lot like Stephen Harper? The resemblance is frightening!

Afghanistan's opium harvest at highest levels; so who's in control?

Can anyone tell me what Canada is doing in Afghanistan? Obviously nobody is "in control" given the latest NY Times news:

Afghanistan'’s opium harvest this year has reached the highest levels ever recorded, showing an increase of almost 50 percent from last year, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said Saturday in Kabul. (whole story)

Maybe good news for a neo-puppet like George Bush, being able to fight two wars with one rock. But not so good when you consider that most of the money of these cocaine operations is used for, exactly, supporting terrorism (February 2005):

Doug Wankel, Counter Narcotics Coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, said the opium industry in Afghanistan is financing terrorism in an interview with USA Today. "It's financing subversive activities. It's financing warlordism. ... And if it's a threat to the government of Afghanistan, it's a direct threat to the national security interests of the United States."

We fought the war for almost 5 years; about 10,000 people died sofar and, given the latest news, no real solution is in sight soon. Highest levels of opium harvest translates in highest financial gains for terrorism. This can fuel the renewed Taliban insurgency for a long time to come.

Jack is right, it's time to do something about it.
We have to change our strategy.
Normalize (remember the effect of Ostpolitik?) the situation with the Taliban (yes, start talking, duh).
And bring our troops home.
We owe them.

Does the Taliban have telephone?

What's wrong with Jack Layton? Has he gone mad?

Canada should withdraw its troops from the current mission in southern Afghanistan and invite Taliban fighters to peace talks, NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday.

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.

Finally Layton got it right, for once: killing time is over, it's time for a solution.

Sure, we can stay in Afghanistan until the last Taliban is killed (or we run out of troops, whatever comes first). But that time is not going to come soon.

And the so-called "nation building" while still under attack is pure propaganda talk. Nobody in military circles will advice you to start nation-building (building schools, etc.) while troops and civilian are still daily under attack.

In short, we are now at stage we need to do something; and that's CHANGING TACTICS.

The "fun" is over; negotiate, and normalize the situation. It's about time.

I've never voted NDP in my life, but this unexpected quantum leap is about to change my mind! Jack, Bravo!

NB Does the Taliban have telephone?

Freedom of expression: film of fictional Bush assassination

Freedom of expression meets George W. Bush. I'll be looking out for this one. I'm wondering when Pick-a-Flick (Victoria) will have it.

"British television channel More4 plans to broadcast a dramatic film, documentary-style, about a fictional assassination of U.S. President George W. Bush, the network's head said Thursday.

The program uses actors and digital manipulation of real footage to show a fictional account of Bush being gunned down after delivering a speech in Chicago, Peter Dale, the head of More4, told a news conference."

See the WHOLE STORY

AIDS - Clinton and Gates care, Harper does not.

What's wrong with Stephen Harper?

Bill Clinton can do it. Bill Gates can do it. Bush can't do it, and neither can Harper.

Both Clinton and Gates have shown to feel compasionate about fighting the AIDS pandemic. The New York Times has a great article great article on Clinton, showing a caring Clinton, a stark contrast with Bush and "Steve" Harper.

“George Bush has actually delivered more resources, but Clinton is ten times more popular in Africa,” said Princeton Lyman, who was American ambassador to South Africa under Mr. Clinton. “That’s because, just like he does everywhere, he portrays that sense that he cares.”

Harper obviously does not present that sense, hence the "missing in action" on the International AIDS conference:

"We are dismayed that the prime minister of Canada, Mr. Stephen Harper, is not here this evening," Wainberg said Sunday.

"The role of prime minister includes the responsibility to show leadership on the world stage. Your absence sends the message that you do not consider HIV/AIDS as a critical priority, and clearly all of us here disagree with you," he said.

Many in the audience stood up to cheer.

While Harper declined to attend the event, Health Minister Tony Clement was present to deliver a speech. But as he addressed the crowd, a group near the stage stood up and chanted "Where is Harper?"

The whole world knows there's something really wrong with George Bush. But what's wrong with Stephen Harper?

Der Fall "IslamoFascist": Welcome to Neo-Fascism 101

Getting worried about fascism after hearing G.W. Bush's speech? You should be! Although maybe still in it's embryonic form, some think it's a lot closer to home than you might think.

Read: Welcome to Neo-Fascism 101

Jason Kenney, Stockwell Day and ties to PMOI/MEK

Cerberus has the following conclusions to the Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day ties to the "terrorist organisation" PMOI/MEK.






His bottom line:

• It is extremely unlikely that Jason Kenney did not know that he was attending a rally organized by a listed terrorist group.
  

• Our Minister of Public Safety has a close personal relationship with members of a terrorist organization and has lobbied the government on their behalf.

Read the whole story: Jason Kenney, Stockwell Day and ties to PMOI/MEK

Are ALL Conservatives Hypocrites?

Yes, the Conservatives "caught" the MSM photoshopping images. Although nothing new, I thought it was a fair remark, until they were caught doing it themselves.

Then there is Jason Kenney. He's the Conservative who accuses opposition MPs from talking to groups similar to Nazi's, while later on, doing it himself.

Are all Conservatives hypocrites? Why are "the good Conservatives" not standing up and saying; this cannot be, Jason has to resign." Why is the photoshopped image still on their website?

PS1: I emailed the following message to the "contact us" address:
"I would like to respond to the homepage. The image of Kennedy that has been used for days now has been photoshopped. By leaving the beer bottles and Kennedy in focus, while leaving the rest out of focus, you make Kennedy look like some kind of alcoholic. I don't think anyone is served by this representation, or is there? "

PS2: Other Conservatives already have a contest going.

PS3; What's with this post?; did Harper "encouraged Hezbollah to come to the negotiating table?" Isn't Harper supposed to oppose any contact with a terrorist organisation?

The use of cluster bombs can be illegal; no exception should be made for Israel

Many groups (including the Red Cross and the UN) hotly oppose the use of cluster bombs, since these weapons are a major threat to innocent civilians. Now the US is investigating whether Israel has broken secret agreements with Washington with its use of cluster bombs in the Lebanon conflict.

According to a UN spokeswoman, "there are about 285 locations across southern Lebanon [where cluster bombs have been found] , and our teams are finding 30 new ones every day" a UN spokeswoman said. "A lot of them are in civilian areas."

Of course, Israel sees no problem at all. An army spokesman said that Israel has done nothing wrong, since the weapons used in the war were legal under international law.

As a matter of fact, the army spokesman is right that these weapons in itself are legal, so to speak. But at the same time, the weapons can be "used" illegally.

Here's a simple analogy;
It's legal, once you have obtained your drivers license, to go for a nice ride, even drive about 80 km/hour on some parts of the highway. But a drivers license does not give you the right to drive 80 km/hour in a school zone (don't try this!). People who do are likely to be punished (when caught) since it's considered irresponsible to drive that fast in a schoolzone; it is considered too dangerous to drive this fast, because innocent people, in this case children, are too likely to be hit.

You might think that this analogy sucks since the context of war is more likely to bring about death than driving a car. Think again.

We've somehow accepted that a certain amount of people die in traffic accidents every year; it's part of participating in traffic. Sure we could limit the number of deaths occurred by traffic accidents dramatically, for example, by changing the speed limit to 15 km/hour everywhere. We choose not to and therefore accept the negative consequences (accidents) of driving 80 km/hour at some "safer" parts of our road system.

Israel is indeed granted, under international law, to use cluster bombs. But not everywhere.

It is illegal to use cluster bombs in civilian areas. And that's for everyone, including Israel.

Bush sometimes happy about Iraq War; Fair

Ever wondered if Bush is happy about the Iraq war? Well, he is! He told reporters that he's "sometimes happy", but CBS and NBS watchers never got to see this since they "cleaned up" the happy talk:

Bush's unedited comment was as follows:

Q: But are you frustrated, sir?

BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that."

But the viewers of CBS News saw a different edited version:

Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times. And they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that.

WHOLE STORY

Harper's Pollution Strategy May Delay Emissions Cuts to 2025

The so-called "environmental strategy" by Stephen Harper and friends (Conservatives) may push targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions back to more than 20 years.

WHOLE STORY

When the press does their job right, things can get ugly; military recruiting in the US

The Associated Press has done a 6 month nvestigation into the recruiting practises in at the US Military. They found that "more than 80 military recruiters were disciplined last year for sexual misconduct with potential enlistees".

More than 100 young women who expressed interest in joining the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their recruiters. Women were raped on recruiting office couches, assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance exams.

Read the whole story: Military recruiters cited for misconduct

We must demand electoral reform; Toronto Star

People seem to get tired of a PM who doesn't listen to the people of the land. Richard Gere told everyone at the AIDS conference:

"If ( Stephen Harper) doesn't change, don't re-elect him"

Stuart Rogers from Toronto recognizes the problem with this statement; -- we DIDN't elect Harper, the electoral system did.

It's not Harper we have to change, it's our outmoded, perverse electoral system that handed power to a party that almost 65 per cent of voters "opposed." Wake up, Canada! If you don't want your country represented — and embarrassed — by people you didn't vote for, you must demand electoral reform. Write your MP, join Fair Vote Canada, raise your voice. We must replace this crazy system that consistently turns our democratic will on its head.

WHOLE STORY

War and money: Leaders blamed for war failings; theage.com.au

Leaders blamed for war failings - World - theage.com.au:

"While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised to take personal responsibility for the shortcomings of the military campaign, the public's attention also turned this week to the conduct of defence chief of staff Dan Halutz, after reports he told his stockbroker to sell tens of thousands of dollars worth of shares on the way to advise the Government to go to war."

So far Halutz has resisted to resign.

In an editorial headlined "First Halutz Must Go", the Israeli newspaper Haaretz yesterday called for his immediate resignation. "No failure can occur without someone taking responsibility, and no failure can be disguised as a victory with empty words," it said.

WHOLE STORY

PM should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Bill and Melinda Gates, former president Clinton; Toronto Star

Harper missing in the fight against AIDS (2)

For the life of me, I cannot understand how Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government fail to understand and appreciate the significance of the International AIDS Conference currently happening in Toronto. Canada has been given the international spotlight for a moment and, with it, the opportunity to boldly affirm its dedication to helping eradicate this disease that has taken 25 million lives, and is currently infecting 65 million more.

WHOLE STORY

Fox producers resign in protest of network's coverage; Democracy Now!

When slanted news reporting becomes too slanted:

Two weeks ago, two producers working for Fox News in Amman, Jordan resigned in protest of the network's coverage. In their resignation letter, Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadsheh wrote "We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that." We go to Amman to speak with producer Serene Sabbagh.

WHOLE STORY - VIDEO

Missing in the fight against AIDS: Stephen Harper

Activists decry Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper's refusal to attend the opening ceremonies of the Sixteenth International AIDS Conference during a rally in support of women's and children's rights as part of the global battle against HIV/AIDS in Toronto August 14, 2006.

[..]

Wainberg said he believes Harper was afraid of being booed over his opposition to same-sex marriage by the gay-friendly AIDS research and activist community.

"Mr. Harper, for better or for worse, is perceived as being a right-wing fellow who is not a mainstream politician," [Wainberg, head of the McGill University Centre for AIDS and the conference co-chair] said.

WHOLE STORY

Stephen Harper, ignorant or afraid?

Many are wondering why PM Stephen Harper will not appear at the International Aids Conference in Toronto. Some say he's afraid of being booed, others complain about Harper's ignorance when it comes to Aids (read the whole article: Harper chooses Arctic over AIDS).

"I think part of the problem is that he's ignorant about the issue," said Laurie Edmiston, executive director of the Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange. "I wanted him to have a presence here so he could listen and learn."

Lewis has been trying to find a better explanation for why Harper won't show, calling contacts on Parliament Hill. But the New Democrat, who was Canada's ambassador to the UN in the '80s, said he hasn't received a satisfactory explanation.

"I've asked time and again why he isn't coming, and the answer I keep getting is that he doesn't want to be booed," he said.

Unannounced pay increase far from transparent

So much for transparancy by Canada's Conservatives.

The Harper government has quietly pushed through pay increases for senior government officials, sparking criticisms that it is failing to live up to its pledge for disclosure and accountability.

Senior executives, which include deputy ministers, have been given a 2.5 per cent raise on their base salary, while heads of Crown corporations will receive increases of 3 per cent.

The government executives will also get a boost of 1.1 per cent to their bonus packages -- money known as "at-risk" pay that is due to them should they meet a series of goals and objectives.

WHOLE STORY