Smug

At the core of the Conservative thought process is the notion of voter apathy. Decisions are made with an almost dismissive view, there is no fear of true consequence because we are dealing with a short attention span, passive electorate. This latest prorogue move REEKS of arrogance, and yet it remains to be seen whether the Conservatives are correct. Clearly, the calculation has been made that the government can weather any short term criticism, the issue will fade to irrelevance, nobody really cares.

When Tom Flanagan was asked about proroguing a couple weeks ago, he described it as a "win/win" for the government. There was no downside, there was a smugness that denoted people governing with impunity. Obviously, as the Conservatives debated this decision, they recognized the potential pitfalls. The optics of avoiding accountability, trashing their own legislation they once trumpeted as essential, MP's sitting idle, unilateral arrogance, none of its flattering. Despite this potential, the Conservatives moved forward, because history has shown there really is little accountability. Canadians are completely and utterly disengaged, this issue, like supposedly "important" affronts before, will simply fade into oblivion. It's not like this is the first brazen move by this government, and given their current standing, one can justify their apathy theory as current law.

This prorogue is the great test. If there is no recourse, then the Conservative view of Canadians is cemented, and really its success only perpetuates the future reality. There is no real rationale to prorogue Parliament, the Conservative justifications bordering on insult. There are many fundamental reasons why this prorogue should bring fury, it speaks to a host of intellectual democratic considerations. This decision should matter, and yet a learned calculation suggests it probably won't. It's actually a sad statement on how Harper has fundamentally altered our political landscape, the new "norm" represents a new low.

Harper is acting like a KING. Harper has trashed every single tenet that his old movement supposedly stood for, he has become the antithesis. This move represents the height of arrogance, it stomps all over our democracy, it should give Canadians pause. Maybe this time.....

What About "Credibility" Nik?

A new Nanos poll seems to conclude that, to date, the torture issue isn't hurting the Conservatives. A picture of confusion on the issue, and a propensity to believe the military. None of that is surprising, but I must quibble with the Nanos conclusion. If you look at the results, there is actually a significant difference between the principle parties on the "credibility" front, and I'm surprised this findings goes unnoticed.

When voters are asked to rate the credibility of the parties on the torture question, one numbers stands out. The Conservatives score 43.3% "low credibility", only 18.6% "high credibility". When you contrast that with the Liberals, you see a noticeable gap, Libs 31.1% low, 17.8%. This means that far more people don't see the government as credible, relative to the Liberals, or other opposition parties for that matter. If it's basically a wash, as the Nanos thesis presents, you wouldn't see this sort of sizeable difference, basically all parties should be in line. The fact they're not is noteworthy, and provides an underlying concern for the government. Last time I checked, if people don't think you're credible on an issue, you have a potential problem.

And What Of This Poor Bastard Mr. Hawn?

"The Christmas and Holiday Season is a time to spend with family, friends and loved ones". The words of a wise man, Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, explaining why the government members of the Afghan Committee wouldn't be attending today's meetings. I concur, a special time, nobody should be holed up in Ottawa (even the ever perky and delightful Rosie Barton was downright whiny today about her assignment) conducting meetings. Go home, be with your family, celebrate the blessed time, yes, yes Mr. Hawn, torture issues can wait.

With the festive spirit in mind, I expect a scathing letter from Mr. Hawn in the coming hours. Word of a poor Conservative staffer, forced to stay away from "family, friends and loved ones", so he can tape an event with a room full of lefties. Here is the young staffer, exiting the den of taliban sympathizers(imagine), missing cider, hugs from mom, his three legged dog Pierre:



Just remember Mr. Hawn, when you return to Ottawa next summer, that tape you are watching was the by-product of a Christmas gone wrong for one young man. Get home, little poor PMO staffer, get home.

Overwhelming Rejection Of Conservatives

A very one sided finding, with overwhelming "disapproval" of the government's position on climate change. Maybe more alarming, the poll was commissioned by Canwest, which has done its best over the past few weeks to run cover for the Conservatives. Dreadful numbers for the Conservatives, approval stuck in the TEENS:

The survey, conducted last week by the Innovative Research Group for Canwest News Service, found that a total of 60 per cent of respondents were familiar with Canada's position at the conference and that 49 per cent disapproved of the government's approach...

But only 19 per cent of respondents in the poll said they approved of the government's position.

49-19%, disapproval/approval amongst those that expressed an opinion. Extrapolated out with the same margins means 72% disapprove, only 28% approve. It's these type of numbers that explain why pollsters like Gregg see this issue as a real achilles heel for the government. The Conservatives can't even manage BASE support, which means their rivals could capitalize on the large remaining pool.

On the question of voter intention:

The new survey also found that 43 per cent of Canadians said they would be less likely to vote for the Conservatives because of the government's position, while 13 per cent said it would make them more likely to vote for the party.

Over 3 to 1 say our embarrassing performance on this file makes them less likely to vote Conservative. Where this could come into play, if another party, namely the Liberals, is able to successfully marry the future economy to the environment. Then, you address voters chief concern, while taking advantage of another issue which still ranks in the top three amongst voters.

It's somewhat positive to see Canadians aren't buying these nonsensical arguments from the Conservatives, it's just excuses, not conviction. Wear it well, it's entirely deserved and warranted.

"National Security" Me This

Andrew Coyne takes a break from playing serial contrarian, to pen an excellent piece on what's at stake over this Afghan detainee question. I'd like to highlight one portion, which shows a redacted passage, compared to full disclosure:

“We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over, to ensure that if the ANP did assault him, as has happened in the past, we would have a visual record of his condition.” (Emphasis added.) In the version released to the MPCC, the same document reads: “We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over [redacted].”

I would love for someone to explain how this editing took place, under the guise of "national security"? From about all I can discern, the only reason this portion was censored, it clearly shows a history of abuse, it's POLITICALLY damaging to the government. Somebody is trying to coverup past knowledge of abuse, there's no other plausible explanation. And, someone, somewhere, has documentation of what "happened in the past".

He's Seen A Thing Or Two

You never know what will show up on You Tube:

Help Me Understand

I keep hearing all these pundits tell me that the Afghan detainee issue doesn't resonate beyond Ottawa and the political class. Assuming that is true, why do the VERY SAME people cite the Afghan detainee issue as a primary positive reason for Harper to prorogue? So nobody cares, but proroguing would help Harper avoid the persistent problem that nobody cares about. Harper is able to nullify a damaging issue, that doesn't have the capacity to do him any harm. Hmmm. You're to smart for me Tom Flanagan, and all your pundit "class" friends, because I can't grasp the logic.

Copouthagen

An unmitigated failure. A non-binding agreement, with voluntarily contributions, means there is no agreement, there is no target, there is nothing except pretty words that give politicians something to latch onto, as though significant. About the only "success" one could point towards, the trillion dollar fund to help developing countries deal with international inaction. It all congeals into a global submission, more dealing with the after effects, than managing the source.

The news is worse for Canada. Not only did we fail to actively engage in Copenhagen, but we've gone a step further, ceding our national sovereignty, as well as fostering national disunity. In the absence of a national plan, this vacuum has been filled by provinces, creating a disjointed, friction filled environment that threatens to harm the federation. Premiers can snipe back and forth, but the responsibility for disccord rests with the federal Conservatives, who have failed to provide the most basic leadership, who have laid the foundation for fractured federalism. The situation stands to worsen, with our new policy of waiting for Washington, while we do essentially nothing. I suspect certain regions will plow ahead unilaterally, which means the chasm becomes that much more pronounced, as the years march on.

Step back and think about what Harper is saying. Canada will sit on the sidelines and wait for Washington to tell us our policy. Astounding. Maybe more amazing, the Conservatives seem to think that is entirely acceptable and "shrewd". Canada has no international role, it is merely a mirror of American policy, a policy nobody knows what form it will take or WHEN it will be delivered. At the earliest, it's a couple more years of nothingness, it's a complete unknown. Conservatives love to wave the flag, they strangely seize patriotism as their sole domain, yet they will now remain utterly silent in the face of this glaring contradiction.

Harper was right to point out that our abscence from the table in Copenhagen was over-stated, we had "strategic partners" protecting our interests. There was no need for him to negotiate, because we have nothing to offer, the Americans speak for Canada- it's that simple, admitted and actually said with bravado.

Internally, Harper is endorsing further erosion on the federalism front. Externally, he is ceding our national standing, as a way to neutralize an issue he's never wanted to deal with. Harper is essentially undermining Canada at home and abroad. The legacy this position will leave, could possibly be a historical watershed, it's not just about the environment, this inaction has secondary ramifications.

The world did squat, but somehow Canada managed to do worse. Quite a feat.

Leading The World

After snagging an impressive ten Fossil Of The Day awards, Canada has managed to attain the prestigious "Colossal Fossil" designation in Copenhagen. Canada wins Fossil of the Year, for the second year in a row.:

Naming Canada as “Colossal Fossil” at the boldest, most audacious Fossil Award ceremony to date, tuxedo-clad Ben Wikler of Avaaz.org said:

“Fossil of the Year goes to CANADA, for bringing a totally unacceptable position into Copenhagen and refusing to strengthen it one bit. Canada’s 2020 target is among the worst in the industrialized world, and leaked cabinet documents revealed that the governments is contemplating a cap-and-trade plan so weak that it would put even that target out of reach.

“Canada has made zero progress here on financing, offering nothing for the short term or the long term beyond vague platitudes. And in last night’s high-level segment, Canada’s environment minister gave a speech so lame that it didn’t include a single target, number or reference to the science.

“Canada’s performance here in Copenhagen builds on two years of delay, obstruction and total inaction. This government thinks there’s a choice between environment and economy, and for them, tar sands beats climate every time. Canada’s emissions are headed nowhere but up. For all this and more, we name Canada the Colossal Fossil.”

Maybe more impressive, Canada has built on last year's tally. We shared first place with George Bush, which was a marked improvement in its own right. This year however, we're the clear leader, we have no peer, the Harper government cementing itself as the worst environmental government in Canadian history(quite a feat, considering others apparently did "absolutely nothing"- less than nothing, defying mathematics too, congrats!!)

In all seriousness, this performance in Copenhagen, represents a watershed moment for Canada, our international standing NEVER lower. By all accounts, Canada was "polite" behind the scenes, but offered nothing of substance, a non-factor throughout. Harper in hiding, nobody attending the Prentice speech, Obama not even bothering, the public embarrassment, a complete and telling picture of a BIT PLAYER, USELESS to the proceedings.

Canada has ceded any influence at the United Nations, on a host of issues. Canada has mangled international relations. Canada hasn't shown LEADERSHIP on any issue, Harper has reduced us to an afterthought. The Harper agenda here, try and get out alive, with the least possible political fallout.

It is so entirely disappointing, witnessing my country voluntarily reducing itself to the margins. We are doing lasting damage, our role as active participant is tarnished, we appear a FARCE, don't kid yourself apologists.

I'd Probably Prorogue Too

What a read. Political interference, willful negligence, unexplainable delay, secrecy, attempts to kill the paper trail, basically a buffet of disturbing facts. Some of what Colvin says is objectively startling, I've highlighted a few areas that caught my eye:

"Instead, embassy staffers were told that they should not report information, however accurate, that conflicted with the government’s public messaging."

Again, the spectre is raised that there was a concerted effort to stifle any information that undermined the desired political presentation of the government. This statement reinforces what we've heard earlier this week from the likes of Jim Travers. I would submit, it is this particular line of inquiry that raises this discussion to "scandal" terrority.

Colvin provides examples, active censoring:

For example, Ambassador Lalani instructed that we not report that the security situation was deteriorating. This followed an embassy report to Ottawa in which we noted that the Afghan Minister of Defence judged security to be getting worse ‐‐ a view shared by our allies, and corroborated by violence trends and other metrics. Nevertheless, Mr. Mulroney sent instructions via Ambassador Lalani that we should either not mention the security situation at all, or to assert that it was getting better. The ambassador accordingly sent a report in which he said security was improving.

In September 2007, an embassy staffer, in response to a written request from DFAIT’s Afghanistan Taskforce to contribute to a security assessment by one of our NATO allies, sent a report that security in Kandahar had got worse and was likely to further deteriorate. Mr. Mulroney severely rebuked the officer in writing.

Specific instance of Mulroney and others managing the information to prevent any admissions which didn't support the government spin. The significance of the above can't be overstated. Keeping the timeline in mind, our elected representatives were sold a dishonest picture of the situation in Afghanistan. It is fair to wonder how these revelations would have impacted the Manley report and/or the extension debate. Our representatives were only privy to what was deemed acceptable, while counter information was WILLFULLY suppressed.

We also learn, that language was sanitized to eliminate any potential problems. This was done in concert with a "tightened" circle of information, as less people were allowed to see reports from the field:

After the embassy sent out its annual 2006 human‐rights report for Afghanistan, which repeatedly used the word “torture,” Mr. Mulroney told us in person that we should be “very careful” about what we put in future reports. In the context, we interpreted this as an attempt to discourage us from sing the word “torture” in future such reports.

The inference is clear. This sanitization and self censoring comes with a push to eliminate any paper trail on this file. The request for phone calls only, can only be read as a deliberate attempt to lessen the chance of "discovery". Officials were actively trying to bury any information that conflicted with the propaganda:

Her message to me was that I should use the phone instead of writing.

Colvin refers to this as an "intervention". We also see the move from censoring and message control, to downright deletion from the record:

in the April 30 message (KBGR‐0267) that the embassy sent to Ottawa, what Ambassador Lalani deleted was the most important information in the report, directly related to our detainee concerns, and from a highly credible source. I was so surprised by this decision that I filed the draft as well as he final, approved report.

In the approved version of the report, Ambassador Lalani reduced the distribution list from roughly 5 to about five addressees. Short distribution lists became the norm for messages on detainees.

A web of secrecy:

The result was to concentrate information in the hands of a very small number of officials. Any onward distribution was strictly at their discretion. The change also eliminated any record of who had actually seen a iven report, beyond the five initial recipients.

..."The NDS tortures people, that’s what they do, and if we don’t want our detainees tortured, we shouldn’t give them to the NDS.” (The NDS, or National Directorate of Security, is Afghanistan’s intelligence service.) The response from the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM) note taker was to stop writing and put down her pen.

Colvin also reinforces the allegations that the Canadian government intervened to keep the Governor of Kandahar in his post, despite rampant knowledge of torture and other abuses:

The PRT, and subsequently the embassy in Kabul, recommended both in writing and orally that he be replaced. However, senior Canadian officers intervened twice to keep him in place..
i

This despite the Afghan government being "receptive" to his removal.

Colvin also takes issue with the Generals claim of ignorance. He lays out considerable evidence to support the notion that everybody in the international community was well aware. Colvin uses the most careful language:

"It is implausible that they would not have known how Afghans treat their prisoners."

As you follow the dates closely, you see that when the government was finally forced to develop a new detainee policy, in the face of controversy, it still didn't act with any urgency:

Even after the new MOU was signed, Ottawa for the first five months did not send a dedicated DFAIT monitor to conduct the monitoring. Monitoring in Kandahar was implemented by a rotating pool of officers, some on very short deployments. As a result, Canadian detainees in NDS custody in Kandahar remained at risk of torture. When a dedicated monitor was finally sent out in late October 2007, he quickly found conclusive evidence of continued torture. This finally triggered a Canadian decision to stop transfers.

Interesting, that when the government finally acted, the first visit found conclusive evidence and this demanded a stop of transfers. This means, that after the government crafted a new transfer agreement, it did nothing for five months. This fact, despite acknowledging the torture concern with the new arrangement. The argument that the government offers, hiding behind this new agreement, evaporates, when we learn that no implementation took place, people remained at risk. Colvin actually details what he found during this period, relating to four detainees. Colvin's team uncovered credible evidence of torture, some horrifying detail. On the "not credible" front:

embassy monitoring team included the head of the consular section, who had been trained in recognizing signs of torture

Trained? And, his conclusion was what?

There's more, but the whole rebuttal presents a devastating case against this government, their actions and inaction. How anyone can argue against an inquiry now requires leave of your senses, or partisan koolaid so strong, as to render the brain useless.

Backfire

I'm not sure the Conservatives have thought this one out. First off, the incredibly poor optics of Con MP's AWOL from Committee- reduced to arguing that Christmas parties in their cozy ridings are more important than torture- does them no favors on the "hiding" front. Secondly, in their haste to obstruct, the Conservatives failed to look at the calendar, because now they've given Richard Colvin a free pass today (assuming Con MP's don't suddenly show up, as they realize their lack of foresight). The meeting today is set to be a "softball" affair, as opposition MP's allow Colvin to rebut all the attacks, without the Con spin coloring the water. As a matter of fact, it might just be one of the more constructive and substantive sessions to date:

Colvin will address the claims, both in testimony and in public statements, made by three cabinet ministers, three generals and former top civil servants involved in overseeing the mission in Afghanistan. The source said the statements include: "nobody told us there was a problem"; the claim that as soon as the government was informed they fixed the problems; and that there were no credible allegations of the torture of Afghan detainees until late 2007.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but if I were the Conservatives, I wouldn't be to comfortable allowing Colvin to have the stage to himself. Great strategy, you look like your hiding AND you allow you chief foe a free reign.

Canadians React To "Climate Gate" With Collective Yawn

The latest Angus Reid poll, shows that the so called "climate gate" issue is having no impact, apart from the pre-disposed, ejaculating knuckle dragger crowd:

A majority of Canadians (56%) believe global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. One-in-five (21%) think global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by natural changes, while 17 per cent state that global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven.

For contrast, an identical poll in July found the exact same results.

Further proof that conservatives are GENERALLY uniquely small minded and ignorant, and I mean that with the sincerest conviction, based on years of careful observation:

While more than 60 per cent of respondents who support the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party believe global warming is a fact and is caused by man made emissions, only 39 per cent of Conservative Party voters agree.

An embarrassing testament to the mentality of the Conservative base.

On this massive scandal that is rocking the entire climate world, nobody cares. A full 57% of voters aren't even following the story, those that are aren't altering their views.

Canadians put their faith in scientists, a full 73% believe what they say. By comparison, 16% believe what the federal government thinks.

Climate gate, fodder for the denier crowd, but not resonating in the least with mainstream society.

Dispense With The Niceties

They've got their talking points, but it would be nice if the passive acceptance of Conservative arguments, as though legitimate fodder, was finally challenged. The latest release, which reveals the Conservative HOAX on climate change, deserves some pointed conclusions:

The Conservative government has considered abandoning some of the greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in its 2007 green plan...

The draft proposal suggests Canada should set new targets that would be lower than what was originally proposed by the Conservatives.

For example, the proposal suggests that the oil and gas industry would have to cut 15 megatonnes of emissions, rather than 48 megatonnes under its Turning the Corner plan.

It also says projected growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands in northern Alberta will be 165 per cent by 2020 and proposes to cut that growth — not emissions — by 10 per cent.

Stephen Harper doesn't believe in global warming, and it's about high time he's pressed on his true opinion. Instead of debating the spin for cover, a little common sense tells the true story. A couple of weeks ago, longtime Conservative activist and a man with Harper's ear, Rick Anderson made a startling admission. When pressed about the debate over global warming, he argued that you didn't have to believe in it. Anderson said there is an economic component, doubters can look to increased efficiency as a reason to get behind this bogus claim of global warming. In a nutshell, the Conservative argument to placate their DENIER base and still appear to do something on the climate change file. If you actually look at the way the Conservatives have approached this issue, the above link a great example, you see that what Anderson suggests is THE approach.

The 2007 Turning The Corner plan was an unmitigated JOKE, that nobody took seriously. The fact that this government was openly discussing a decidedly weaker regime (if that is even possible), just prior to Copenhagen, speaks volumes about this shell game the Conservatives are playing. Harper simply DOESN'T believe in global warming, simply interested in putting something forth to take the heat off, but endorsing things so weak that they're useless. In essence, it's a HOAX and the question then becomes- will we be duped?

Instead of sitting around the little roundtables, and arguing whether the government's arguments have validity, maybe we could delve a little deeper than a birdbath for a change. We are being presented with a fraud. Proceed with that knowledge in mind, and dispense with the niceties. Repeat after me STEPHEN HARPER DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. Period.

Angus Reid: Conservative Lead Cut In Half

The lastest Angus Reid poll shows a pretty sizeable change over three weeks, as a 15% Con lead is reduced to 7%. Angus Reid mirrors others, with a gradual erosion in Conservative support, but it also provides a different dynamic, Liberal support up considerably. The national numbers (Nov 14-16 in brackets):

Cons 36% (38%)
Libs 29% (23%)
NDP 16% (17%)
Greens 6% (10%)

Still a healthy lead, but more of the fragile 2006 minority range, rather than the majority findings we've seen since September. Part of this I attribute to a return to normalcy, part of it recent events.

Regional breakdowns:

In a trend that was consistent throughout the year, a majority of decided voters in Alberta (55%) and Manitoba and Saskatchewan (54%) voice support for the Tories. In British Columbia, the governing party remains on top (42%), with the NDP (26%) barely ahead of the Liberals (23%).

In Ontario, 41 per cent of decided voters would vote for the Conservatives, but the Liberals (34%) have narrowed the gap from 14 points in mid-November to seven points this time around. In Quebec, the Bloc is steady at the top (42%) but the Liberals (25%) are now leading the Tories (17%)

Still leading in Ontario, but the gap is noticeably changed.

Again, in both the HST provinces, no evidence whatsoever that the federal NDP is capitalizing with their stance, numbers static.

Another piece of evidence, that speaks to recent problems for the Conservatives. Harper's approval/disapproval numbers show a 7 point swing on the negative side (5% more disapprove, 2% less approve). Ignatieff's numbers are still bad, but he gains, relative to the bottom.

Some of the other polls have shown a similar gentle fall over time, for the Conservatives. However, this is the first one that shows the Liberals with any momentum, so that is clearly a positive.

Defending "Climate Gate"

One of the more amusing things about the climate change deniers, the way they seize on marginal developments with fanatical zeal, while simultaneously and CONVENIENTLY ignoring swaths and swaths of legitimate information. It's actually pathetic in one sense, the selective hearing and the manipulations to support a pre-determined bias, rather than an objective view of the facts at hand. As a matter of fact, the reaction of the denial camp to these emails, highlights why these emails probably exist in the first place. I'm here to defend "climate gate", and send out a heartfelt yawn to all the knuckledraggers who've found their holy grail.

At this very moment, there is a legal request being made to have NASA publicly release all of their climate related data. Fair enough on one level, if the theory is correct, the science will speak to it. Scientists should never be afraid of critical inquiry or dissent, that's actually part of the model that cements theories. But, here's the rub on the legal demand- it's EXXON that is making the request. If you look over the past few years, you'll find much of the counter global warming arguments have some tie to vested self interests. On top of that, the denial "industry" and their rabid followers SCOUR the global for any counter opinion, and then ELEVATE said dissent, so much so that it warps the discussion. One paper is waved in the face of global warming supporters, you'll see it everywhere, and yet hundreds of others that disagree are basically given equal billing. Never a fair argument, but because of the vested interest pushing, the attempt to confuse and undermine is underway.

I have news for people (or maybe not), we are at WAR on global warming. The scientific community is under siege by a small rogue subset, and their input is having an impact. I've actually heard commercials on a Hamilton radio station, telling people that global warming is a hoax, they need to educate themselves and resist the propaganda. Shocking that this crap gets aired, but really a testament to what we're up against- a CO-ORDINATED attempt to muddy the scientific waters and erode public support.

In one sense, you can't defend some aspects of this "climate gate" story. Any suppression of evidence is offensive, it's simply wrong and can't be tolerated. But, as far as the sentiment of the scientists goes, I completely and utterly understand the mentality. These scientists are a symptom of the war at play, a realization that people are trying to undermine scientific inquiry. If I knew that certain geologists, with big oil ties, where demanding this and that, I'd resist too, because their MOTIVES aren't pure, it's not the normal honest scrutiny, it's really people that want to bastardize information to support their own self interest. Can't say I blame the lack of openness, considering how this debate has evolved.

This story is a PERFECT example of this entire debate. How many times have you heard the "sun spot" argument from the denial camp? The more sophisticated will site this rogue study or that, and it becomes a sheltered bay to avoid all the other information bombarding the validity. I guarantee you, that the link above will never be acknowledged or cited by a denialist. It will be ignored, and people will cling to the DEBUNKED theory, because they refuse to cease. The denialist camp isn't interested in scientific inquiry, or open discussion, they only want to hear what satisfies their pre-determined point of view, or in the larger sense, JUNK that validates their toxic ways. About all you can criticize this small group of "climate gate" scientists, is for acting in a similar manner to THEIR ACCUSERS. So, get off the soapbox anti-intellectuals, you're actually pointing to behavior you endorse EVERY WAKING HOUR, OF EVERY DAY. This is your modus operandi. You could give these emailers pointers.

I'm all for scientific debate, and I think there is plenty of room for revision, as we learn more about a complicated circumstance. It isn't about suppression, it's a question of motive and BALANCE. If people want to debate, with the TOTALITY of the information available, have at it. If people want to ignore 97% of the data, and focus on 3%, as though a formidable empirical counter, I say tell them to pound salt when they ask for co-operation, because it's clearly a one way consideration. We're at war with a concoction of industry interests, politically motivated pushback, simpletons who lack the basic intellectual capacity, cranks and agitators. However, do not compromise the science, or ignore evidence, don't do what denialists routinely do.

The Plot Thickens

In what could be one of the more startling development to date, I just heard James Travers say that there is some pushback on the "redaction" front. Travers didn't name names, but he said public servants were upset that some information had been blacked out, NOT for national security reasons, but because it was embarrassing POLITICALLY for the government. If proven true, this could well be radioactive for the Conservatives.

The above seems entirely reasonable, and I would submit the government's own behavior supports the notion. It is entirely maddening, trying to figure just how the government thinks hiding information, going to the insane lengths of defying Parliament, will play out positively for their side. However, it does make sense if the government has concern that full disclosure now would show a coverup did take place, all their rationale evaporating in the face of naked political self interest. If the dynamic Travers suggests does in fact exist, this issue moves to full blown scandal and that reaches the "kitchen table".

Stay tuned...

UPDATE

Here we GO:

As recent media reports have confirmed, a comparison of redacted and unredacted versions of the same document have shown that the Conservative government censored information that contradicted their claim to be ignorant of abuse and torture rather than out of concern for national security.

“Here we had two versions of the same document written by an unidentified sergeant – but the version redacted by the Conservatives scrubbed out the critical piece of information that Afghan National Police were known to have assaulted detainees ‘in the past,’” said Mr. Dosanjh.

Wow, That's A First

Valour, honor, heroic contributions aside, one thing Rick Hillier loves is the sound of his own voice (I call it Lou Mackenzie syndrome). Hillier is the most opinionated military leader in recent times, which makes his "not following" bull today all the more striking:

Hillier mum on abuse

Rick Hillier, formerly Canada’s top soldier, isn’t commenting about the recent revelations that Canadian-captured prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities were later tortured.

"I haven’t followed it," Mr. Hillier said Friday in Halifax.

"I’m really not even in the mood or the ability to comment upon it, at this point, because I have not followed it in detail."

Really? You mean you haven't followed revelations that show torture actually did occur under your watch, when you were in command? I suppose that could be true, but once again a dash of common sense would suggest you've followed these "revelations". All of sudden a bit camera shy? That's a first.

The fact that Hillier has nothing to say is quite a contrast from his chest thumping routine of a few weeks ago. This new disposition is further evidence that things haven't transpired as first hoped for the "circle the wagons" crowd. It's so unflattering, you've actually turned Hillier into a recluse. Who knew.

Spin Vs Substance

The common assumption, two parties will spin facts and figures, in the same way, for their own benefit. Because of the spin factor, many substantive claims are dismissed within the noise of point/counter-point. People naturally assume that when one party claims the ceiling, the other the bottom, chances are the non-partisan truth lies somewhere in the middle. In fairness, this is a learned response.

I have to give the Liberals kudos for their presentation on the stimulus funding issue. As far as I can tell, all of the "partisan" releases, facts and figures, that the Liberals have presented, have found independent validation. By contrast, the Conservative counters look like sheer propaganda, nobody able to replicate their wild claims of success. On this issue, it would appear the Liberals are letting the numbers lead them, rather than manipulating the data, to put forth the worst possible indictment of the government.

A few weeks ago, Kennedy and other Liberals argued that only 12% of the stimulus money had been delivered, a terrific chasm compared to the almost complete allocation the government argued. Well, after dumping off boxes of information to Kevin Page, in the most inmature of manners, he has completed his analysis of the stimulus spending. One caution, Page still doesn't have all the information he wants from the government(notice a trend??), but he concludes the following:

In the report, Page says that as far as he can tell, as of the end of September, only $512 million of the government's $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund has been actually handed over.

That's about 12.8 per cent of the total -remarkably close to the 12 per cent estimated by Liberal critics who were quickly dismissed as misinformed by the federal Tories.

"This shows a very minimal accomplishment. It's fair evidence of a failed job creation program," said Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy.

The numbers are even lower when measuring completed work. The stimulus program had spawned work worth about $245.5 million as of the end of September, the report says.

In other words, just four per cent of the federal, provincial and municipal money that has been announced has actually created economic activity

Actually amazing in this day and age, when you think about it, the Liberals have consistently put out objective truth, without any padding or partisan consideration. I suppose, with such a dreadful performance, one doesn't have to exaggerate. But, the fact that every one of the Liberal assertions over time have found outside verification is something that should be applauded, it denotes a certain credibility.

Once again blowhard Baird has been shown to be just that, while the people he attacks are shown to live in the factual world.

How People With Something To Hide Act

Goodness. Defying the will of Parliament, and in so doing offering the most flimsy of rationale, it all reads like a government desperate to HIDE information. I suppose the political argument, in going to the courts the government has a long reprieve (I'm sure we'll see every request for delay and obstruction imaginable). However, by presenting a long legal fight, the government willingly leaves the impression that there is more to this story, than they are willing to divulge. These optics hardly work in the government favor, because without all information on the table, the opposition is free to speculate and a cloud hangs over the Conservatives. In other words, the Conservatives might be able to delay release with this tactic, but they will lose the public relations battle. The appearance of HIDING, a lack of transparency, is never a net positive.

The government arguments for not releasing uncensored documents, borders on the absurd:

"We are not going to make information available just readily, about friend and foe alike, about specific items, about a security operation that could imperil our own troops and could imperil the citizens," Day said.

Information about when and how Canadian officials visit particular prisons, for instance, "would be of great value to the insurgents, and to the terrorists," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

An affront to common sense. We are not talking about current operations or procedures, we are asking for outdated information, revolving around a process the government now brags, has been replaced by an entirely different regime. Explain to me how it benefits the "terrorists", if they knew what we did in 2006? Poppycock.

I particularly love this "imperiling our troops" nonsense, as the Conservatives try to put themselves up as the noble buffer protecting our brave men and women. The "security operation" Day mentions no longer exists, or else we are still engaged in the same process that had everybody so "alarmed". You can't have it both ways. You can't argue about all the strides you made, and in the same breathe offer up ancient news as though of crucial importance TODAY. Frankly, the government argument is embarrassing and shallow. It's even more amusing, when you consider that military brass has also recommended full disclosure. So, generals endorse a release which could undermine the whole mission, and cost people their lives? Exactly.

"No Evidence That There Is Any Access Blocked To The Prisons"

The above quote, from the Prime Minster on April 25/07. I found an old video of among others, Stephen Harper, denying what now appears to be a "mistruth":



An interesting view, on many levels. Note the same defence lines, the indignant denials.

I've highlighted some comments from Harper and O'Connor:

Gordon O'Connor April 25

"Our people have been in CONSTANT contact with the Human Rights Commission, and they have asked them if there are any problems"


Stephen Harper April 25


"No evidence that there is any access blocked to the prisons" 3:34

"baseless accusations" 4:13

"made allegations that we could not get access, that nobody could get access to the prisons in Afghanistan, that's FALSE, rather than repeat it, he should withdraw it" 5:39

"this allegation that there is no access to Afghan prisons, turns out to be completely false" 7:31

Harper chastizes the opposition for their "baseless accusations" that there was limited access to the prisons in which detainees were held. Harper goes so far as to characterize any claim of denied access as FALSE, and he demands that opposition withdraw any suggestion.

Here is a Toronto Star article from last week, that deals with this same time period:

Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) had little or no access to the Kandahar detention facility run by Afghanistan's intelligence service...

As a result, the commission is unable to monitor the condition of the detainees, as per their agreements with the Canadians, Dutch and others," a commissioner of the Afghan monitoring agency told Colvin.

AIHRC was so alarmed at its lack of access that officials complained to President Hamid Karzai a week and a half earlier.

Astounding. The Prime Minister tells Parliament that no access was denied, even mentions the Human Rights Commission, and yet, we now know that the SAME AIHRC was simultaneously expressing ALARM at having NO ACCESS, effectively shut out of the Kandahar prison. The situation was so bad, the AIHRC complained to the Afghan PRESIDENT. O'Connor tells us that the government was in "constant contact" with the AIHRC, but claim no knowledge of any access problems. According to the timeline, and the facts at hand, this is complete BULLSHIT. It is fair to ask- did the Prime Minister knowingly mislead Parliament?

Maybe more offensive, you see the same tactics employed in 2007, such zeal and self righteous indignation, even though we know now that the only thing that was "baseless", the cheap RHETORIC coming from the government benches.

I believe the AIHRC complaints, echoed by Colvin, classify as the "evidence" Harper insisted didn't exist. In fact, Harper waved the AIHRC in front of any accusers, to counter claims, even though they were providing the "evidence", they were actually the ONLY source available (Harper volunteers the agency which actually contradicts his claim). I believe the Prime Minister has been caught in a "mis-speak" if you will ;)