Sorry, I Gotta

But I promise this is the last time I'll write about Chalk River and/or Afghan detainees. Maybe.

You recall that allegations of abuse of prisoners and detainees in Afghanistan surfaced about a year ago. These detainees were captured by NATO forces and transferred into the custody of the new, Taliban-free Afghan army. Canadian forces weren't alleged to be abusing detainees (unlike the situation in Abu Ghraib)--it was the local army that was accused of abuse and torture.

The allegations were apparently confirmed in May. At some time in the fall, the Canadian military started processing detainees in a different way to prevent such abuses and torture.

The subject of torture and a new process for handling detainees came up in early January. At that time, the Prime Minister's office, through its communications director Sandra Buckler, said that the military had not informed the Prime Minister's office or the Minister of Defence of any change in the handling of detainees.

Liberal (and opposition) leader Stephane Dion immediately announced that he had been briefed about the new policy by the military in December. Although he had wanted to make that information public at that time--because the topic of abuse and torture of detainees had been discussed, if briefly, in the public realm and Canadian citizens might want to know--he had agreed to keep the information private. Dion spoke up when he did because he knew that the Prime Minister's office was lying about what it knew, let alone when it knew it.

The military considers its process for handling detainees to be an operational matter, and they say that discussing it publicly to confirm details of the process could jeopardize the lives of military personnel. Presumably, discussing operational details also jeopardizes the lives of the detainees, though those are of course "less important" than the lives of "our own," but I went over all that on Monday.

I think that the Canadian public might be happy to hear that the Canadian military is doing the right thing by working on this process to ensure that it meets international standards. The allegations were public and were confirmed publicly. Acknowledging that you're addressing problems, even though you've vehemently denied these allegations in the past, shows responsible behavio(u)r. It might even reassure those who are basically against the war in Afghanistan that at least Canada and her soldiers are conducting themselves in a way that the Canadian public can be proud of.

But that's a side issue. The main issue is that the communications director created a lie in a situation that didn't require it. She could simply have said that the Prime Minister and other ministers don't discuss operational details. It would have been frustrating to the press and to the public, but it would have kept the discussion on the right topic: what the Canadian military is doing about detainees in Afghanistan.

Instead, her lie forces people to wonder whether the military is conducting a rogue operation in Afghanistan without at least informing proper officials about what's happening. Which is apparently not the case.

Sandra Buckler said on Monday that she "misspoke." That's not true. She didn't make a mistake; this was no slip of the tongue. She deliberately created a lie that made the situation worse than before. I'd fire her in a heartbeat, but she need not worry. The hero of the previous blog post, Peter Van Horn, said Monday that she shouldn't fear for her job. According to him, if every person who misspoke got fired, there'd be nobody left in Parliament.

The thing is, Linda Keen got fired, and she didn't even have to "misspeak" to do so. She also didn't lie. She was simply doing her job. She made a decision to protect the safety of the Canadian public. Her decision irritated the Prime Minister, a fact that she properly ignored when reaching her decision.

Parliament overrode her decision--which, by the way, is what is supposed to happen; people elect government officials to make difficult tradeoffs like the one the MPs made when they granted a 120-day licence to the Chalk River plant to get it back online producing medical isotopes. Nevertheless, in spite of the system working exactly as it was supposed to work, Linda Keen got the axe--for doing exactly what she was hired to do. Wha?

Of course, apparently Sandra Buckler also did exactly what she was hired to do--obfuscate in an effort to somehow "protect" the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, her lie made the Prime Minister seem AT BEST out of touch with the military operations in Afghanistan. It actually shows that the Prime Minister is so paranoid about the Canadian public's ability to handle mixed news that he and his minions can no longer judge when telling the truth is in their best interests.

It's been said that you can't go broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public. You'd think that Canadian politicians trust the intelligence of their own citizens more than that. But this Conservative government apparently doesn't.

Don't Go There

You may have your primaries and caucuses and State-of-the-Union addresses south of the border--well, we got politics up here, too. The House of Commons is coming back into session today, and this session will be ugly on a couple of fronts.

One of the main stories is the economy. Not that there's much to say. The U.S. economy is sneezing; expect a cold up here in spite of the Conservative government's self-advertised fiscal responsibility. Pff.

The other main story relates to Afghanistan. Now there's a Gordian knot of issues that would be difficult to untangle (safely) in a single blog post. So today I will stick to one main issue. And if you're lucky, I'll be too sick of thinking about the rest of it to continue to write about it.

In any case, here's today's lesson on politics in Canada. In the past week, one newsworthy story from Afghanistan has been the process used to handle prisoners captured by Canadian and other NATO forces. The standard process has been that prisoners were handed over to the local Afghan forces for processing and holding. This process is part of the training of those forces to make them ready, eventually, to take over military operations of their own home territories.

About a year ago, allegations surfaced that these prisoners were being tortured--and I suppose I have to add that they are being tortured in ways that aren't "accepted" as being "okay," though the mind boggles at having even to say such a thing.

Anyway. Back then, the Prime Minister cast aspersions at the patriotism of politicians who questioned the actions of the noble Canadian and Afghan forces. That rhetoric was reported briefly but mostly dismissed. It probably colo(u)red some of the debate up here, but the media didn't pick up that rhetorical strategy and run with it. Whew.

Keep in mind that soldiers pick up lots of locals during their operations. Some are anti-NATO fighters; some are Taliban sympathizers or operatives. Some, however, are innocent of anything except living in their own country, which is now under foreign occupation. Not that it matters--conventions regarding humane treatment of ALL prisoners have been in place for decades. I'll say it again: those conventions apply to ALL prisoners. (Yes, this will be on the test.)

The U.S. and Canada have vilified regimes that abused these basic human rights for detainees and prisoners. However, unless you make a concerted effort to ignore all news, everyone now knows that the U.S. has a less-than-sterling record for its treatment of those it has detained and captured since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. One must assume that U.S. soldiers captured by hostile forces don't expect to be treated according to accepted standards for fair treatment.

In May of 2007, independent observers corroborated signs of torture of prisoners in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister didn't issue any apology for his previous rhetoric or allegations about patriotism. Again, the story died.

At the end of last week, a new kerfluffle about the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan emerged as the main story. I was going to write about it today until I saw the House Leader Peter Van Loan on Canada AM.

In Canada, the House Leader is the "point man" in each party for that party's day-to-day agenda. Every opposition party has one. They normally debate points of order and make sure the party's agenda moves forward and that kind of thing.

On the most recent Afghanistan prisoner issue, the Prime Minister has been largely silent so far. In his stead, he's sent his director of communications and his house leader to speak. The director of communications might be tomorrow's blog. But the house leader trumped her this morning.

So let's review what happened this morning. Today on Canada AM, Van Loan characterized the opposition parties' concern about torture of prisoners in Afghanistan as "their favourite subject," "concern for Taliban prisoners." In contrast, he characterizes the Conservative priority as the "safety and security" of Canadian forces. In other words, the Conservatives are patriotic, and the opposition parties care more about the enemy than about "our own."

Canada AM of course put these highly quotable quotes on their web site. However--thankfully--the interviewers didn't otherwise take the bait. They didn't follow up with Van Loan to "clarify" his statement about patriotism, and they didn't ask NDP Chair Jack Layton about it when they interviewed him. So far, they haven't fueled the fire, as Bill O'Reilly and Wolf Blitzer and similar "reporters" in the U.S. would have done.

It's entirely possible that Canada AM, largely a morning entertainment show, is considered an inappropriate forum for those types of questions and that type of debate. It's possible that the hosts, who spend a lot of time interviewing experts in fitness, recipes, and robots, don't get to ask their own questions or didn't think to follow up. Had those statements been made to Peter Mansbridge on CBC, Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert and others on the At Issue panel might have had a field day with them. (It could still happen.) Still. Nobody this morning reacted much. Whew.

Unfortunately, the lack of reaction also means that no one--at least no one in the Canadian media--seems to be calling the Conservative government on this rhetorical strategy, a strategy that even I, the bystander of all bystanders in this debate, find insulting. It's difficult to know whether ignoring this rhetorical strategy--if you disagree with me, you're not patriotic--is smarter than responding with the outrage it deserves.

The absolute MOST patriotic action any person or party can take is to debate a public issue fairly and clearly, and the treatment of prisoners is certainly a debatable issue. Quashing that debate, as Bush/Rove/Cheney did in the U.S. immediately post-9/11 using a similarly offensive rhetorical strategy, leads you to wantonly invade countries simply because you want to show up Daddy.

In the U.S., politicians--including all of those now running for the Democratic nomination as well as John McCain, the likely Republican nominee and a POW--did NOT address these allegations of lack of patriotism. (Let's also remember that these allegations were made by a president who at best bought his way out of military service and who is directing those allegations at people who did their service. The sheer nerve of this attack really boggles the mind.)

Still, none of the politicians responded with outrage when the "media" in the U.S. forced the question. Instead, they accepted the way the president framed the debate--"you're fur us or agin' us." Because they accepted it instead of recasting the debate as "you're a lying idiot and we're not," they approved a highly irresponsible military action. Authorizing the war has left them apparently feeling that they have no choice but to continue irresponsibly throwing money and lives after it.

So, class, what can we learn from what happened south of the border? A couple of things.

First, it's fairly obvious that ignoring allegations of "you care more about the enemy than about our own," when the media forces the issue into the open, doesn't lead to good things.

Second, if that's true, then Canada is avoiding this antagonistic rhetoric largely because the media either refuses to force the issue or isn't smart enough to force the issue. We have to believe it's the former; the latter is too depressing.

And finally: the absolute BEST way to protect the safety and security of "our own" is to ensure that ALL prisoners and political detainees EVERYWHERE are treated according to conventions. As I said above, U.S. soldiers who are captured can't hope to be treated more fairly than their own country treats it prisoners.

And one of the BEST ways to ensure that countries, including Canada and Afghanistan, treat prisoners according to conventions is fair and honest debate.

Nothing jeopardizes the safety and security of "our own" more than hiding behind a curtain of silence, decorated with paintings of moving fingers writing "I'm more patriotic than you are."

Are you listening, Prime Minister?

Class dismissed.

File it under "Perspective"

This morning, I went to check the thermometer. It was 20F. Above zero. While humming "We're havin' a heat wave," I went to tell my husband that it was "damn near freezing!"

He said, "You mean it's near melting?"

Well, yeah. Just depends on how you approach it, I guess.

The Long Reach of Retribution

Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, through his Natural Resources Minister, pulled off some cloak-and-dagger shenanigans that are very troubling.

It's a bit of a complicated story, but it's important to understand.

In late November, Canada's nuclear plant at Chalk River had a scheduled routine shutdown for maintenance. The shutdown was extended because of safety concerns at the plant. The decision to extend the shutdown was made by the Nuclear Safety Commission. This Commission is a government entity that ensures the safety of the nation's nuclear operations. It operates at arm's length from the day-to-day shifting political windbags. Er, winds.

The shutdown was expensive and embarrassing for some Canadians, because Chalk River is the world's largest supplier of isotopes used in nuclear medicine. Without those isotopes, many diagnostic procedures can't be performed. Canada sold those isotopes around the world, and the lack of available isotopes (which can't be stockpiled; they have a limited shelf life) could have seriously affected global public health.

As would an unsafe nuclear reactor, with extensive and known safety problems that required a better fix than engineers could make from chewing gum and tinfoil. But that's another story, and apparently less important to the health and safety of Canadians, because in December, Parliament forced the Chalk River plant to reopen.

Basically, the Canadian government overruled its own scientific and technical expertise. Unanimously, too--the opposition parties voted right along with the party in power to do this.

Curious. Why even have scientists--experts--responsible for public safety if you're going to ignore them? Has Canada been paying attention to its neighbour to the south, whose leading scientists have been leaving important regulatory agencies--such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (responsible for the debacle in the aftermath of Katrina)--in droves?

Here's some more background. The Chalk River facility is operated by a Crown Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. A Crown Corporation is one of those public-yet-not-public entities that is operated like a business and is open to external investment yet also has some funding and oversight by the Canadian government. Canada Post, another federal Crown Corporation, is simply a federal delivery service. In mid-December, the head of Atomic Energy of Canada resigned (appropriately) as a result of criticism of his management of the Chalk River facility.

And now, back to the cloak-and-dagger shenanigans. The Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for the safe operation of Canada's nuclear facilities. The President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission during this time, and thus one of the people responsible for extending the Chalk River shutdown in November, was named Linda Keen.

I say "was" not because she changed her name, but because she is no longer President of the Nuclear Safety Commission. She was fired by the Natural Resources Minister in a 10 p.m. phone call the night before she was scheduled to testify before a committee of the House of Commons. Because she was fired, she didn't appear the next day, although the press release announcing her firing indicates she at first intended to.

So much for operating at "arm's length." That's a mighty long reach.

Although the Harper government alleges she was "incompetent," and therefore should be fired, they allowed her to stay on the Board. Huh? AND, although they say that she, as President of the Nuclear Safety Commission, was responsible for ensuring the long-term safe supply of isotopes, the government is only now amending the language about the Nuclear Safety Commission to make it clear that they consider that entity to be responsible. I guess she was just supposed to divine her responsibilities somehow. Curiouser and curiouser.

Not only that, but the Nuclear Safety Commission doesn't have money. They can't give Atomic Energy of Canada any cash to fix the safety problems at Chalk River. The government in power--which currently has enough money to cut the federal sales tax and give out tax freebies like candies--is responsible for allocating those funds. Safety problems don't crop up overnight. Where has the attention of this government--and the previous Liberal government--been while equipment has been failing?

Although it's true that I'm a bit of an idealist, I long ago gave up the illusion that the scientists and engineers in public policy positions don't have to "be political." In fact, scientists and engineers in public policy positions are supposed to "be political," and it's the area of their job that they fail at, resoundingly and spectacularly.

Scientists and engineers in public policy circles may have PhDs and know a lot, but as a group, they stink at showing lawmakers the inevitability of scientific fact and the limitations of technology--nuclear facilities deteriorate, safety is always an issue, and you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Of course, politicians must also be intelligent enough to understand that science does have absolute laws and that technology really does have those limits mentioned above--for example, nuclear facilities deteriorate. However, it seems to be the trend in politics today to consider science to be made up of "theories," and therefore no more valid than other "theories," or wishes, or hopes and dreams, like maybe if we ignore safety problems at a nuclear reactor, they'll go away. Technically, I suppose safety problems could simply disappear--but Chernobyl-like, in a mushroom cloud, along with many of the rest of us.

And if Stephen Harper or one of his minions wants to call Linda Keen in the middle of the night to debate evolution vs. creationism, more power to him. I'd advise her to get caller I.D. and let the machine pick up, but whatever.

But please, politicians, stop the shenanigans, hang up your cloaks, and put away your daggers. Listen to your scientists, our scientists, even when you don't like what they have to say. Our lives, and those of our children, depend on it.

Marion, Meet (in) January

It's been a week in which I have meeting after meeting after meeting, followed by meetings after meetings. Nearly every group with which I am affiliated has met this week for a serious working session, after meeting two weeks ago as well.

These are all groups I choose to be affiliated with, mind, and I am honestly not complaining--just pointing it out. But January is so very full of meetings. I think it's because groups are trying to make up for losing the entire month of December. I also suspect activity in a few of these groups is revved up because of the new year and resolutions.

Is it this way south of the border? I don't remember. Probably--at least it seems so to those who live it, whatever side of the border you happen to be on.

And really, working meetings are fine. Just hectic. And it's still shockingly cold. To the point that even new skis may not be enough incentive to brave nipped toes and ears and fingers.

No, Really, THIS is Cold

So you may recall that we tried skiing on Friday and it was very unpleasant because the temperature was low--some -2F or -4F. Ha. Little did I know how low it could go! That thermometer says -18F. That's 18 BELOW 0. Fahrenheit.

Yesterday I had the car plugged in for two hours before I drove it. It started OK, albeit reluctantly. It even warmed up for several minutes because scraping the ice from the windshield and windows took while. However, it was still incredibly difficult to make a simple turn--for about a half hour. By the time I got to town, the poor thing was running about normally.

Clear, cold weather is normal for this time of year. If the larger bay--beyond our end of it, all the way down to the city of Thunder Bay--is going to freeze, now is the time. It's the kind of cold people, on both sides of the border, warned me about before I moved here. It's the kind of cold that locals love to complain about.

And on Saturday night, after dark on a very cold day, I saw the unmistakeable lights of snowmobiles on the lake. They weren't out far and they weren't taking chances, but I couldn't imagine anyone sitting relatively still on a machine and staying any kind of warm.

Today is "warmer"--about -12F. But I learned my lesson on Friday--I ain't skiing.

Amazing Grasp of the Obvious

Zero degrees Fahrenheit is really cold. You'd think I'd know that by now, but sometimes I'm slow. (Those are our ski tracks and the gate into one of our family camps, left.)

(It's recently come to my attention that I live in the country. You'd think the well and the septic tank, not to mention the amount of time it takes to drive into town, would have clued me in a bit earlier. However, that's another topic.)

While growing up in Oklahoma, I had only a slight sense of the term "cold." Anything around 32F was in the frightening zone because that's when rain became the ice that caused accidents and froze trees and made life difficult. Sometimes they closed school, which was a bonus. Sometimes it snowed, but not often. So I didn't really know much about winter. Or at least about cold winters.

I still carry that mindset, a bit, even after 5 years in New Mexico, about 10 years in Colorado, and a couple of winters here. Around freezing = cold. Anything below that = also cold. But the temperature rarely got down into the single digits, so I didn't really learn any distinction among degrees of cold.

In the past couple of years, I've noticed that 32F is actually significantly warmer than 2F. It makes sense that that's the case; it's just not something I have thought that much about. I know that if the temperature is near freezing, I can toss on my down jacket and mitts and pop out to to the car without having plugged it in the night before.

But when it's 20 degrees (Fahrenheit degrees, that is--they're smaller than Celsius degrees) colder, I really have to plug in the car. It helps to wear a scarf. My warmest mittens and my heaviest coat are absolutely essential. As is zipping up the coat.

Today, we went skiing at about 4:20. It was about -2F this morning and stayed there all day. By the time we got outside, it was about -4 F. Yeah, that's cold. So cold it hurts. So cold that skiing, though pleasant in some ways, was unpleasant in many more ways, and therefore we didn't stay out long.

And next time, if I feel absolutely so restless that I MUST ski on a very cold day, I'll try to go when the sun is at the highest point. It really does make a difference. Relatively speaking.

I Didn't Mean YOU

You know what really makes your friends--or, say, allies, or, you know, wife--mad? It's when you hand them a mess that YOU made, expect them to fix it, and then criticize how they do it.

And some of them get madder when you say you're SORRY they got mad--you're not sorry that you were critical or had unrealistic expectations; you're just sorry that they got MAD about the criticism--and hey, you're only telling the truth, so deal with it.

Some people, or countries, get really pissed off about that kind of thing.

Although, if you're Robert Gates, it makes only some of your allies mad--the British and Dutch. They'll call you up and holler awhile. On the other hand, all the Canadians are sure that it's just a big misunderstanding.

Here's what happened. Yesterday morning, Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense, was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying that the U.S. is sending some 3500 Marines into Afghanistan because NATO doesn't know how to handle a guerilla insurgency.

OK, first, NATO wasn't really supposed to be handling an insurgency. It's supposed to be in the peacekeeping phase at this point, some 6 years after the Taliban was hypothetically routed and Osama bin Laden...hey, whatever happened to him? And yeah, tell all that to the 77th Canadian to die in Afghanistan, this week. But I digress.

So yesterday the British and the Dutch called the U.S. ambassadors in their countries to find out what the hell he meant by that, given that a few countries (cough, Canada, cough) have been bearing more than their share of the problems that the U.S. created in Afghanistan. However, Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay didn't call U.S. Ambassador Wilkins asking similar questions. Instead, MacKay went in front of the TV cameras and said "it's all a misunderstanding."

And now, ladies and gentlemen...a tap dance. Yesterday afternoon, Gates called all the leaders in private to say, in effect, "C'mon, you know I wasn't talking about YOU or YOUR TROOPS when I said that NATO forces are underprepared." Tippity tap, tippity tap, ta-daaahhh!! Nothing to see over there!

Meanwhile, his spokesmodel to the Canadian media said something on the order of this: "Although the Defense Minister has the utmost respect for individual Canadian soldiers and their military leaders and recognizes that it's unpopular politically back home, the fact remains that when a conflict is unpopular back home, the tendency is to be risk-averse, and as a result, Afghanistan is unstable and we have to send in the Marines."

And then, of course, the U.S. is actually sending in Marines. One might be forgiven for wondering whether they might be needed elsewhere (hint: Iraq). However, the U.S. is tops in military strategy, right? Uh-huh. Tippity-tap, tippity-tap.

Today, Gates clarified further that he never meant to make anybody mad. They're not at all dissatisfied with the work that NATO forces have been doing since 2001, when Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion as retribution for the terrorist attacks on the U.S. World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And at the same time, they're STILL sending in 3500 or whatever Marines. Because there are still problems in Afghanistan and nobody can do it like the Marines.

But, gee, Gates didn't mean that anybody is doing a bad job or needs reinforcements. Just that it's necessary to send in Marines.

And today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper just smirked, because of course the whole hoopla was all just a misunderstanding. Robert Gates said so. The U.S. loves its friends, especially Canada! Tippity-tap, tippity-tap.

With friends like these...argh. It makes you want to clench your fist, doesn't it, Abe?

Not a Train

One of the big differences between the political calendar in the U.S. and that of Canada is the regularity of elections. In the U.S., we know when they're coming. Even in the midst of electoral madness and the darkness of bad governance, get out your calendar: there's a light at the end of the tunnel up ahead, a measurable distance away. Up here, not so much.

Knowing when elections fall is, of course, a mixed blessing. For example, members of the U.S. House of Representatives are campaigning pretty much all the time. Their two-year cycle means they're either making promises or paying back their supporters. Senators have six years between campaigns. That's enough time to forget how grueling and problematic campaigning (like childbirth) is, so they do it again.

When you're not a big fan of the sitting president, which is a fairly common malady south of the border (a recent CBS poll puts dissatisfaction with the present course of the U.S. at 75%), the deadline is also a mixed blessing. On one hand, you know the length of time you must be prepared to endure before you get to hire someone else. On the other, even one year can seem like an awfully long time.

However, in one week, we'll be able to start the countdown--one year to the next inauguration of a U.S. president. Inauguration Day will be a banner day for my family.

You see, all I wanted for my 2004 birthday--which fell on election day that year--was a new president. I didn't get what I wanted. (Actually, I said I really wanted the one we'd originally elected in 2000 to be able to take office. I didn't get that either, but he's having a better career anyway.) After the 2004 election, my father set as a goal to outlive the current president. He didn't quite make it, but he lived long enough to happily support nearly the entire current crop of Democratic candidates.

It will be nice to see both of those dreams realized, if not quite on the timetable we would have preferred. And even if the U.S. elects another Republican, I will still say this: that light I can see, the one at the end of the tunnel? No way is it a train. I am confident of that.

Canada's Woodward/Bernstein?

I've written before about former Prime Minister Mulroney, who is alleged to have received money in exchange for awarding lucrative contracts to German manufacturers. The story doesn't seem to be going away.

In a recent Maclean's, National Editor Andrew Coyne again dissects the issues at stake. He again points to Watergate as a time when democracy worked in the U.S., largely thanks to journalists but also due in large part to the interest of the American public in what happened. My father (who spent much of the 1970s making dire statements about Nixon during evening news broadcasts) would have disagreed that John. Q. American Voter did right in the 1972 election, thanks to Woodward and Bernstein. However, the break-in and cover-up were investigated; Nixon eventually did resign. "Evildoers" were sent to prison.

Coyne's piece might serve as an effective warning to journalists and an equally effective scolding to the politicians (mostly the current Prime Minister) who have the power to decide just how far the investigation into former Prime Minister Mulroney will go. But it's really too early to tell. Coyne may yet be seen as an idealistic windmill-tilter.

I'm rooting for him. I hope that politicians, who assuredly read Macleans (or at least what their staff members mark for them), acknowledge the legitimacy of his criticism of their performance to date. I hope that journalists, who may profess to find the length of his piece the most impressive thing about it, get beyond jealousy and accept the challenge to dig a little deeper into the matter.

Mostly, I hope that John Q. Canadian listens to this:

...[T]he public interest in ethical government has no statute of limitations. We need to know if we were played for suckers, and if we are still being played for suckers. That’s not just a challenge for the inquiry, but for all of us reading about it and watching at home. This is a test of our democracy—this is our job—and we need to be up to it. It’s long and boring and hard to follow? Tough. Do your job.

If Canadian politicians, journalists, and citizens all accept Coyne's challenge, they will not only serve their own interests and protect their own democracy. They will also serve as the best sort of example to their neighbors to the south, where 300 million people (including politicians and journalists) have been played for suckers since 2003 and have known about it for almost that long--yet no one seems to be even a bit miffed. To those in the U.S. today, "evildoers" are shadowy figures who live in other places--not those walking among us as elected officials and cabinet members.

Coyne is right. It is the job of the citizens of a democracy to help protect that democracy. And what a great job it is, too.

Today's Head-Scratcher

This morning on Canada A.M. (the clever name for Canada's morning news/features show), they interviewed a political analyst about last night's New Hampshire primaries. (That's a chipmunk eating out of my sister's hand--a photo from a summer up here about 20 years ago.)

Note to CTV and Canada A.M. staff: get a better analyst. This guy, whose name I do remember but don't want to say aloud because I don't want to promote him in any way, said some pretty strange things. (I'm setting aside the fact that he sat with one shoulder forward like a sportscaster, gesticulated a lot, and had oddly big hair.)

For one thing, he said that Jesse Jackson had been the first African-American candidate with a real shot at the White House. Not true. Maybe it looked like it from where this guy was sitting. Maybe it should have been true. But it was never true. The fact that Jackson lasted any time at all in the race was ground-breaking. Then he became something of a kingmaker--that was amazing. Jackson's Rainbow Coalition represented wonderful things and was a real force in politics for several years twenty years ago. All true. Just not the "real shot at the White House" part.

This analyst also said that the Republican race is "just like the Democratic race." That's my head-scratcher for the day. Yes, in both races, people are running for their party's nomination for President of the U.S. And there, my friends, the similarities end.

The Republican race pits the fiscal conservative/war hero stereotype against the Christian coalition social conservative stereotype. The spoiler is a guy named after sports equipment who might win just because he's trying to position himself as an religious-yet-not-scary fiscal conservative, a real plastic compromise candidate. The race pretty fairly represents the largest policy factions within the Republican party.

The Democratic race is about emotion, the "vision thing," the "leadership thing." Senator Clinton had the opportunity to try to shift the race to her strengths--policies and track record--on Sunday. That would make it look somewhat more like the Republican race. She was right that change doesn't come from talking but from hammering out policies and legislation. Whether you agree or disagree (as I do) with her decisions, fact remains: she's got more of them on the record than Senator Obama. What are Senator Obama's long-term key policy issues, other than Change? How are they different from Senator Clinton's or former Senator Edwards's?

In the Democratic race, the correct answer is "Who cares?" Senator Obama is fighting this race on "Bushes and Clintons since 1988; how many more years?" and he's gaining ground. This race isn't about policies. It's about who "feels" the most Presidential.

And a side note to all of those clamoring for Change, for an Outsider President who's not beholden to insider interest groups. If elected, this person will have to govern with all those disdained insiders. Any "Change" legislation has to get through the House and Senate. Sure, they lay down for Bush and his political machine, but the terrorist attack made them afraid. Circumstances are different now. They may see a new President as a chance to develop that spine they've been searching for since 2001.

But about the coverage: I'm not impressed with Canada A.M.'s morning today (though to be fair, I wasn't watching during the early "more serious news" hour). At this point in the race, why not just get spots with campaign staffers? You'd be getting the spin straight from the camp that way. And if you can't get time from the campaigns, because this is Canada, after all, and Canadians don't get to vote in primaries--well, then, maybe covering Canadian politics (what's that Harper guy up to these days?) or even economic news would be an option.

Passion vs. Petulance

After the New Hampshire debates this weekend, some have described Senator Clinton's response to competitors' attacks as "shrill."

Why? Why not "impassioned"? She can't help the fact that her voice is higher in pitch than Senator Obama's or Mr. Edwards's. (Imagine the flack she'd receive if it weren't, *cough* Janet Reno *cough*.) What is she supposed to do when she gets passionate about something?

And even if she's "shrill," so what. The U.S. has tolerated more than 8 years, counting campaigns, of "leadership" from a man whose every response to a legitimate question sounds like a delinquent teenager called into the principal's office.

President Bush shares this arrogant petulance with the Canadian Prime Minister. Canadians, and the Canadian press, have largely accepted this insolence as a suitable way for leaders to communicate, though I think often they miss the sarcasm and defensiveness when Mr. Harper shifts the discussion to the opinions of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

But back to the U.S.--again, I'm not an apologist for Senator Clinton, who certainly needs none. Furthermore, it's not true that "anything would be better than what we have." We shouldn't measure this group of candidates with a bar set that low.

Instead, we should expect--and welcome--passion from our leaders and potential leaders. And we should stop tolerating petulance. These people lead because we asked them to. We entrust them to make decisions on our behalf. They answer to us. Therefore, asking questions is our right (and duty) and answering them is their job. We deserve better than the attitude from our leaders that we're getting--on both sides of the border.

Impassioned, thoughtful leadership should be the focus of the campaigns--both the one underway in the U.S. and the one everyone expects up here this spring.

"Shrill." Pff. Give me passionate answers over petulant defensiveness any day.

Eye-Oh-Yawn

I try to keep up, in general, with news from the U.S. (though not by listening to Fireside Chats, as at left, from the new FDR memorial in Washington, DC). However, I'm trying hard to not pay too much attention to the Iowa caucuses or any of the myriad other upcoming primaries, because I don't have an opportunity to participate. At the same time, I'm also trying hard not to ignore them completely. It's a tricky balance.

When I lived in the U.S., I firmly believed I could influence the political process. I voted, I wrote letters, I talked and debated and changed my mind (occasionally). Sometimes I held onto that belief blindly, as a hedge against despair. Now that I live up here, I can't cling to that belief anymore. I don't live in a specific U.S. state. I don't get to participate in the process of selecting a Presidential candidate, which is managed by the political parties, because it's based on residence. Once the vote between the official candidates happens, I can vote. I think. (Note to self: find out how to get that ballot.)

Not being able to participate is a bit frustrating, but it's mostly a relief. I can save mental energy for other things on my to-do list--although none of them is as alluring as the thing I can't do, which is always the case. Continuing to focus on the tasks that will take me toward a future, political, professional, and personal, in which I do participate will require discipline, so welcome to January and resolutions and all that.

Still, I take comfort in this: it's far too late in the process for a dark horse. Therefore, I know the name of the person I'll eventually have the opportunity to vote for. I just don't know which one it will be.

The ultimate in frustration, however, would be if the opposition parties bring down the Canadian federal government this spring and force an election. Then everybody on both sides of the border would have election fever, and I'd still be sitting on the sidelines. That will be my opportunity to learn about disenfranchisement, I suppose.

This Morning

Today, January 1, represents the ultimate in invisible-yet-not-imaginary lines. When I woke up this morning, it was snowing, just as it was last night. (That's snow from January, 2006, at left.) The morning chores have been the same today as they were yesterday. Morning TV is still on its holiday (meaning fluffy) schedule, just like yesterday and the previous two weeks. Aside from turning a new calendar page, an activity that actually happens at least twelve times a year, today isn't all that different from yesterday.

But it's also completely different. We've crossed an invisible line. For me, the "new year" in January is a mental construct. Yes, it approximates a new season, the switch from gathering winter darkness to the approaching light of spring. But autumn, with its release from the heat and humidity of Oklahoma summers and its new academic year, has always been the real "new year" for me. The solstice has less meaning in my personal history than the equinox, so it's harder to adopt as an emotional new year.

But this year may be different. This year, the change from 2007 to 2008 has more meaning. Last year was excellent for me in many ways (wedding) and hellish in others (father's death and dissolution of the family home). Of course, I'm not alone in having good moments and bad ones in 2007--it's been a difficult year for many soldiers' families, for example, and for families in occupied territories, and even for some families in Thunder Bay. My own highs and lows in 2007 were perhaps more extreme than those I've experienced in previous years, but each year has them. It's unreasonable to expect that 2008 will be radically different from the norm--say, 2006 or 2002 or even 2009.

Unreasonable or not, though, turning over the page of my calendar to one that says January 2008 creates in me a new sense of optimism. At last the 2007 Dickensian year, with its estates and its deaths and its improbable happiness in the face of it all, is finished. A new year is beginning. And in 2008, as in 2007 and every year, the deepest shadows and most blinding flashes of brightness both bring rewards, even when I forget to look for them.