Good news, finally

Great news from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has been the centre of a decade long struggle for resources and vengeance ever since the Rwandan Genocide:

ENTEBBE, Uganda — Gen. Laurent Nkunda, the fearsome Congolese rebel leader whose national ambitions and brutal tactics threatened to destabilize eastern Congo, was arrested Thursday night along the Congolese-Rwandan border, United Nations officials said on Friday.

The arrest could be a turning point for Congo, which has been mired in rebellion and bloodshed for much of the past decade. It was also a stunning turn of events because Rwanda had recently been accused of supporting General Nkunda, who was widely considered to be an agent for Rwandan business and security interests in eastern Congo.

Poet who knows it

Watching the inaugural poem – if that is what it’s called – makes me think that this is sort of the World Cup of poetry. If you hear one poem every four years then this is probably it. But maybe this is because poetry isn’t well appreciated in a Warsaw pub after two or three beers.

On Ignatieff

Several years ago, in my last year of university I took a political science course, the main topic of which was foreign intervention and the different theories revolving around when it should be employed.

One of the texts we read was written by Michael Ignatieff who, before he turned to Canadian party politics (or at least, before he turned back to politics) was an influential Harvard academic and sometimes-journalist who wrote about when foreign intervention was necessary.

I found it hard to recall Ignatieff’s precise doctrine before reading his wikipedia entry. This sentence from that entry, though, meshes with what I recall learning three years ago in that class:

Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he says that there should be more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world. His position has come to define modern liberal humanitarian interventionism; Ignatieff distinguishes his approach from Neo-conservativism because the motives of the foreign engagement he advocates are essentially altruistic rather than selfserving.^[13]

The next sentence, it bears keeping in mind, points out that this view led him to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Whether for political or academic reasons, Ignatieff has since repudiated his support, but it goes to show that his foreign affairs views can lead to negative results. Still, the fact that Ignatieff has the potential to become Prime Minister of Canada is reassuring after reading this story about a massacre in the Congo, where war has taken millions of lives over the past decade.

In little more than 24 hours, at least 150 people would be dead, most of them young men, summarily executed by the rebels last month as they tightened their grip over parts of eastern Congo, according to witnesses and human-rights investigators.

And yet, as the killings took place, a contingent of about 100 United Nations peacekeepers was less than a mile away, struggling to understand what was happening outside the gates of its base. The peacekeepers were short of equipment and men, United Nations officials said, and they were focusing on evacuating frightened aid workers and searching for a foreign journalist who had been kidnapped. Already overwhelmed, officials said, they had nointelligence capabilities or even an interpreter who could speak the necessary languages.

The story illustrates the need for an overhaul of how the United Nations, and the world, tries to protect civillians and end conflict in war-ravaged countries. Ignatieff, were he to become Prime Minister, would be uniquely positioned to play a large part in turning the United Nations into a more effective peace-keeping institution. Of course, it may be impossible to do so and, even if he were to head an overhaul of the UN, the results may not be particularly desirable. But something needs to be done and Ignatieff would at least be internally motivated and interested in playing an active role in foreign affairs.

Given that many politicians come to power by focusing on local issues first and foremost, the emergence of a politician with real foreign policy credentials both in academia and, on the ground, as a journalist could do some real good.

And this coming from someone who was glad to see the Liberals defeat him at their leadership conference two years ago.

The last prorogue perogy post

Since people continue to search for perogies in the hope of finding out some information on Parliament being prorogued (notice the difference between the words), I might as well actually say something to my misguided audience.

One, as I said elsewhere, go to a real news source and get your information there. Blogs are where people with too much time on their hands and no training or pretence of fairness spread misheard rumours, false accusations and wild conspiracy theories to gullible people. (Yes, I know there are some good blogs out there – I read a couple myself – but there is no doubt in my mind at least that blogs do a substantial amount of harm to public knowledge.)

Still, the fact that Stephen Harper wildly accused the leaders of the three opposition parties of signing their document without a Canadian flag present when, in fact, there were three Canadian flags visible behind the leaders shows that maybe it’s not just blogs contributing to confusion.

No matter. If you are still reading and really want my take on this, here it is: Stephen Harper finally really showed his creepy Mr. Burns side and paid the price when the opposition leaders grew some cojones and stood up to him. Then he backed down somewhat and the Liberals, not realizing they are creating problems for themselves, didn’t take the opportunity to stand back, cast a gloating grin and say “we told you so.” Instead they kept pushing and now who knows what’s going to happen. Thankfully Dion will be gone soon and King Harper may be feeling some heat from his caucus.

Either way, we won’t have an election in the next few months – if the government falls the coalition will take over – so Canadians don’t need to make up their minds about who deserves the blame. We should just watch it with a sad smile, cast a pox on both their houses and hope the marketplace of votes brings some sense to Canadian politics.

The best blog out there is that of Adam Radwanski at the Globe and Mail.

Proroguing the perogy debate (an update)

Since yesterday, when I wrote about how my blog seems to be attracting a suspicious amount of people looking for information on Stephen Harper’s efforts to prorogue Parliament, I’ve had a few more visitors. It seems some Canadians don’t anything about prorogues and can’t spell. Now I can sympathise with the first point. Before our government blew itself to smithereens, I can’t remember ever hearing the word “prorogue” either. I certainly had never wrote it.

Still, I can spell the word because, instead of randomly searching the internet looking for anyone with anything to say about the events on Parliament Hill, I checked the websites of actual news organizations. You know, those who get paid to write about this sort of stuff. Places like the Globe and Mail, Maclean’s and, yes, even the National Post so, by the time I got done forming a real opinion, I knew that the word is prorogue not perogy.

How times change

The Americans voted in Obama, who vows to get rid of the partisan bickering in his nation’s capital.

Canadians voted in Harper who, as economies crumble, tries to pull the chair out from under the other politicians while stating that the government will wait months to do anything that might help our economy.

The Americans have voted (we’ll see what actually happens) for less political bickering. Canadians seem to have voted for more. Of course Canadians can say, ‘look at our options,’ but if political change was what they were looking for. If they wanted to send a message, it seems pretty clear now that voting Harper back in wasn’t the way to do it. In fact, it seems like the message he got from Canadians was directly opposite from the message Americans sent to Washington.

Paul Wells:

So the real outrage of yesterday’s economic “update” is not that it seeks to impose on most parliamentarians a change to funding rules that most of them would never ordinarily accept; it’s that it accomplishes nothing else. It’s that in the most dangerous economic times Canada has faced in 20 years if not far longer, this prime minister can’t wipe the smirk off his face and grow up a little.

Aaron Wherry:

In the thirty minutes preceding, Flaherty had explained, in the most ominous of adjectives, the depth and breadth of the crisis that now faces us. Unprecedented. Sudden. Devastating. Historic. “Canada,” he said, “has not faced such severe challenges in a generation.”

Perhaps hoping to assist those of us who traffic in symbolism, an infant wailed from the gallery.

The Finance Minister’s response was simple enough. “We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts,” he said, “without looking in the mirror.”

The United States has committed $1.5-trillon to its wobbly economy. China, $600-billion. Britain, $418-billion. Japan, $275-billion. Germany, $213-billion. Canada’s government has looked in the mirror and decided to do away with the subsidy that sees political parties receive a couple dollars for each vote it receives. By our government’s count, doing away with this subsidy will save the national treasury approximately $30-million. A bit more than 89-cents for every Canadian man, woman and child.

There might yet be more. The government promises to get back to us. Perhaps next spring.

A green government?

It seems that a North American country may yet speak up and do something about climate change. No, not Canada, silly. Stephen Harper is cold on climate change and only uses the word turtle in front of neck (I realise the poke isn’t entirely appropriate given that turtles are not intrinsically associated with the environmental movement. But they’re a cute little animal that could be impacted and the joke is the best I can come up with on a breakfast of Honey Nut Cheerios). Rather the Americans seem to be coming around to dealing with climate change. Yes those Americans that live south of Canada! The same America where George W. Bush kindly said to the world, “Burn baby burn” for eight years.

As I write, the top story on the Globe and Mail website is about how going green may help the faltering economy.

Saving the economy and saving the planet at the same time were once considered two mutually incompatible goals. But not any longer.

A chorus of proposals from liberal-leaning think tanks and conservation organizations is suggesting that the best way to revive the faltering economy would be to finance solutions to pressing environmental problems.

Supporters are calling the idea “green stimulus.” They argue that directing new government expenditures to wind farms, solar panels, gas-sipping cars and mass-transit infrastructure, among other items, would give a far bigger boost to the economy than tax cuts or government rebates.

The environmental funding would have the side benefit of helping solve such problems as global warming by spurring the development of less-polluting energy sources and increased energy efficiency.

Meanwhile, a story leading the New York Times has the following tidbit tucked within:

In his only public appearance on Tuesday, Mr. Obama indicated that he intended to move rapidly on one of the most ambitious items on his agenda, tackling climate change. Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors by video, the president-elect said that despite the weakening economy, he had no intention of softening or delaying his ambitious goals for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet.

“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

Of course whether Obama’s able to actually do something while being pressured to prop up automakers and the entire global economy is another thing. But one idea I’ve read about is the potential to tie an auto-bailout to provisions that will force the major manufacturers to start building electric cars and the like. So in that sense, it’s very possible that the bad economy may help green standards, rather than green standards helping the struggling economy.

Some insight

First, this handy graphic from some artist and Andrew Sullivan:

And this fun story from Dave Barry on how his parents negotiated politics:

What was their secret? Gin. On any given Saturday night they consumed enough martinis to fuel an assault helicopter. But also they were capable of understanding a concept that we seem to have lost, which is that people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid. My parents and their friends took it for granted that most people were fundamentally decent and wanted the best for the country. So they argued by sincerely (if loudly) trying to persuade each other. They did not argue by calling each other names, which is pointless and childish, and which constitutes I would estimate 97 percent of what passes for political debate today.

Fine lines

David Sedaris writing about undecided voters:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

And A.J. Jacobs writing about a couple of New York academics:

If The Chronicle of Higher Education had paparazzi, a few of them would be camped outside this office right now.

Funny…

I don’t miss much about Canadian, I mean, American TV, but I miss the Daily Show.

<embed FlashVars=”videoId=188638″ src=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml’ quality=’high’ bgcolor=’#cccccc’ width=’332′ height=’316′ name=’comedy_central_player’ align=’middle’ allowScriptAccess=’always’ allownetworking=’external’ type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’ pluginspage=’http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’></embed>

If a Wasillan mayor can be vice-president of the U.S., the mayors of Spallumcheen or Armstrong would be overqualified for the job.