Canada Day 2014

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Happy Birthday, Canada!!!

We're 147 years old today.

Born in 1867...

To all my Canadian friends and family, have a safe and happy day. And to everyone else, to all of you from around the world, take a bit of time today to think of us. This is a pretty wonderful country. 

(And to my American friends, enjoy the soccer game against Belgium later. I'm actually not sure whom I'm rooting for. I rarely root for the U.S. in international sports, but soccer is occasionally the exception. But Belgium is also a lovely country, not least with the beer, chocolate, waffles, moules, and frites, and it's hard not to like its team, however trendy a pick. Regardless, however much we love American football, it's fun being part of a truly international competition, with a real world champion, isn't it?)

To help celebrate, here's the great Roger Doucet singing our anthem before a game of the 1978 World Junior Ice Hockey Championship, held from December 22, 1977 to January 3, 1978 in Montreal and Quebec City. This particular game was played at the old Montreal Forum, as you can tell from the Canadiens logo at center ice. (The Soviet Union won the tournament, but the leading scorer was a young kid by the name of Wayne Gretzky.) 

As a hockey-crazed kid in Montreal in the '70s, I grew up with Doucet, as I did with Lafleur, Dryden, Robinson, and the other players on those incredible Canadiens teams. Going to games at the Forum with my dad (including the Stanley Cup clincher against the Rangers on May 21, 1979, when I saw the Habs carry the Cup around the ice, their fourth-straight championship) or watching Hockey Night in Canada with my family on CBC on Saturdays, it was always Doucet's magnificent voice that set the tone. To all of us who are from Montreal, to all of us who love the Habs, there was no one like Doucet, no one who could sing an anthem quite like he could.

Upstart Finland squad crushes globally hegemonic American Empire at obscure Russian outpost called Sochi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, it was a thorough drubbing, 5-0, with the Finns led by veteran future Hall of Famer Teemu Selanne, who had two goals, and goalie Tuukka Rask, one of the best around, who recorded the shutout.

Thanks for coming out, America. Some effort might have been nice.

Teemu Selanne and the Finns win the bronze medal game against the U.S.

Actually, the Finns were solid all tournament, taking Canada to overtime in the preliminary round (making few mistakes and playing a great defensive game) before losing 2-1, beating Russia 3-1 in the quarterfinals, and losing 2-1 to Sweden in a close semifinal match (though they didn't play all that well) before today's blowout of the U.S. (And, yes, that's two straight shutouts for the U.S.)

They're a good team that was under the radar heading into Sochi and they might have done even better had it not been for injuries to some key forwards, like center Mikko Koivu.

Indeed, given their inability to generate much offence against Canada and Sweden, putting up five goals against the Americans was quite something, even if the fast-paced, free-wheeling style of the U.S. tends to allow lots of goals by the opposition when the goaltending isn't in absolute top form, and of course the U.S. performance was rather lackluster in any event following yesterday's loss to Canada in the semis.

Anyway, well done, Finland.

Sorry America, the world was against you

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You really are "exceptional," though.

Sorry America, you keep Justin Bieber

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Canada 1, United States 0.

But, really, it should have been 3-0 or 4-1. At least. It was a dominant performance by Crosby & Co. for the Canadians.

By the way, this is a real billboard in Skokie, Illinois. Be careful what you ask for, dear Americans. Because we don't want him back.

The Canadian men's Olympic team advances to the gold medal game

By Richard K. Barry

The Canadian men's hockey team beat the United States today 1-0 to advance to the gold medal game against Sweden on Sunday. The U.S. will play for the bronze Saturday against Finland, which lost to the Swedes 2-1 in the other semifinal.

Yesterday the Canadian women's hockey team beat their U.S. counterparts 3-2 to win gold in Sochi. They did it by pulling even the with Americans with 55 seconds remaining in the 3rd period before winning with a goal at 8:10 in overtime. 

We do love our hockey here in the Great White North. And though I don't pay a great deal of attention to the Olympics, hockey is so important to Canadians that I'm glad to see them do well. 

I do apologize (sort of) to my American friends for the picture, but it's making the rounds and it's pretty funny, you'll admit. Viva la photoshop.

The glorious Fourth and the meaning of America

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Mustang Bobby

MJWS:

We're posting this a day late -- though I did wish everyone a Happy Fourth yesterday -- but it's well worth it. I have a few things to say about my attachment to America, but it is Mustang Bobby's post, below, that is such a moving, and such a deeply personal, expression of what America means and of the love he has for his country. I encourage you to read it in full. (I also encourage you to check out Frank's July Fourth post over at his place.)
_____

Unlike Mustang Bobby, and most of our contributors here, I'm not American, at least by citizenship, though I do have a lot of American in me.

One of my grandfathers, in fact, was from Alabama, injured on the beaches of France in World War II and later a sportscaster, and back through him I can even trace my lineage, by marriage, to one Davy Crockett (specifically through his first wife, Polly Finley). And it is a direct ancestor of mine, John Finley, who encouraged one Daniel Boone to venture into Kentucky, with Boone later taking settlers through the Cumberland Gap.

Like Mustang Bobby, though, I love America "not for what it is but for what it could be." America is a great country, to be sure, but it is the promise of America that truly inspires. And it is that promise, I think, that should be the driving spirit of all those who care to work for the country's betterment. And I count myself, even as a non-citizen, as one of them.

**********

MB:

When I was a kid I was very outgoing in putting up displays for the holidays — Memorial Day, Christmas, the Fourth of July — I liked the flags, the lights, the stuff. It was cool to make a big splash. But as I grew up I grew out of it, and today I don't go much for things like that. I don't have a flag to fly on national holidays, and the most I'll do for Christmas is a wreath on the door because it has good memories and the scent of pine is rare in subtropical Florida.

I suppose it has something to do with my Quaker notions of shunning iconography — outward symbols can't show how you truly feel about something on the inside — and more often than not they are used to make up for the lack of a true belief. This is also true of patriotism: waving the flag — or wrapping yourself in it — is a poor and false measure of how you truly feel about your country.

Read more »

The gathering storm

By Carl

As all the world's eyes are focused on America and its elections, a very frightening piece of news is developing in China:

In the initial weeks of the global financial crisis, Chinese officials resolutely declared that they were not significantly affected. But now, as factory closings, dire corporate earnings reports and stock market losses continue to mount, the Communist Party's confidence has changed to another feeling entirely: fear.

For the first time in the 30 years since China began its capitalist transformation, there is a perception that the economy is in real trouble.

And for the Communist Party, the crisis is not just an economic one, but a political one. The government's response offers a glimpse into its still ambiguous relationship with capitalism -- relatively hands-off in good times, but quick to intervene directly at the first signs of a downturn in order to prevent popular unrest.

Normally, you might think to take this in stride, but here's the problem: the American economic system, including our own governmental operations, are inexorably linked to the Chinese system, indeed, to the government itself.

Should the Chinese government fail to stem the economic tide within its own borders, should the absolute worst happen and the Chinese government itself go belly-up (like Iceland almost did) in financing a bailout of its banks, then the Chinese government will do one of two things:

The lesser of the two evils is to stop buying American bonds, you know, those things we've been financing the deficit with. This will create a hyperinflative environment with both skyrocketing prices AND skyrocketing itnerest rates, the economic perfect storm of stagflation I predicted three years ago.

The worse of the two evils is that China will liquidate its outstanding investments, meaning they will dump our T-bills and notes and bonds onto the open market. This will cause the value of the dollar to crash, and trigger a depression that will most definitely not be called "great". It will be nothing less than a catastrophe. War would be the most likely outcome of such a radical move, war on a global scale.

There's small comfort to be had here, and we should all be crossing our fingers or praying really hard right now. China is a relative rookie in free market capitalism, and the mistakes we made up to now have been pretty horrific.

And we continue to perfect our mistakes. China doesn't have the benefit of our past experience, even. It won't take much, just a minor panic attack and things could topple quickly.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Why I (sometimes) hate the U.N.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Because both Russia and China can use their veto power as permanent members of the Security Council to block anything and everything.

And they've both vetoed U.S.- and U.K.-backed sanctions on Mugabe's illegitimate regime in Zimbabwe.

And why did they do that? Because China, for one, does business with Mugabe, and because neither Russia nor China wants the U.N. to challenge undemocratic regimes. Here's how the Russian ambassador put it: "This draft is nothing but the council’s attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a member state."

But then what's the point of the U.N. if it can't organize international action as required? And, to be sure, what is happening in Zimbabwe, with Mugabe and his thugs turning an election into a sham and brutalizing the people, as they have done for many years now, requires international action.

U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad -- a Bush appointee who, on this issue, is quite right -- put it well: "China and Russia have stood with Mugabe against the people of Zimbabwe. This resolution would have supported the courageous efforts of the Zimbabwean people to change their lives peacefully through elections."

So much for that. So much for peace and democracy in Zimbabwe, or anywhere else for that matter, if Russia and China can help it.

What to say when the words won't come?

By Carol Gee

In the United States today is Memorial Day, 2008, and our military, whose dead we honor today, are still in harm's way in Iraq. I have opposed the invasion of Iraq since before it happened, and and yet I have unqualified feelings of respect for those who fight the war in good faith, despite the bad faith of their leaders. It is because of this ambivalence that I have very few words every year on Memorial Day. Today is no exception. In place of what I cannot say, I borrow from others, who also have had trouble with words this weekend.

I begin with this photo that whispered something about the war to me the moment I saw it. My hat is tipped to my blog friend, Margaret, who comes from Lebanon, Glued Blue Glass, aka Margaret's Wanderings, who posted "Exhaustion" with a number of wonderful photographs that she recently took of the flood waters in her area. I have included one of them to illustrate this post. I regret to say it is without her permission ahead of time, because she does not have an e-mail address through which I can ask. I do not think she will mind, however, because of this quote at the top of her blog under, "Words I Live By." I quote :

Those of us who grow in war are like clay pots fired in an oven that is over hot. Confusingly shaped like the rest of humanity, we nevertheless contain fatal cracks that we spend the rest of our lives itching to fill.
-Alexandra Fuller

"BlogIraq Murdered in Baghdad" is the cryptic headline of Saturday's post from my blog friend Fayrouz in Dallas. Her few words say it all about the war in Iraq:

Sometimes, Iraqi bloggers stop writing because the situation in Iraq is futile.

This time it's different; BlogIraq was murdered while investigating corruption in Iraq. It's a sad reminder that the situation in Iraq is far from being stable.

Echoes of the Vietman war are background behind a discussion thread at Forum Lucidity in recent days. PseudoCyAnts poignantly posted the video and lyrics to "Warhead"- Otep. The last verse speaks it for me:

The elephants march to war
Concede
Conform
Concede
Conform
Deny the big lie
My tribe
Join me
An alliance of defiance, in the warhead
An alliance of defiance
All are welcome here
Give me your tired, give me your sick, give me your indulgence and decadence
He lied, they died, keep the peasants terrified
This is a catastrophe
You must lead if they get me
On my command
Break free

Just a little bit says a lot -- "La Popessa" at Make it Stop! Make it Stop! had to break her post up into smaller parts on successive days, each containing the minimum word requirement: Heading Towards Memorial Day - Part 1 on female veterans difficulties; Heading Towards Memorial Day - Part 2 on the military casualty figures; and Heading Towards Memorial Day - Part 3 on the associated other casualties of the wars.

To conclude -- This newly bookmarked website, Alternate Brain, has a great Memorial Day post that talks about the war. It begins with this:

Memorial Day is a time to reflect on the people who sacrificed their lives so you can live the life you do in this country.

And The Sirens Chronicles' Memorial Day, looks at what it is about and what it's not about, in a couple of good posts.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

November's Child

By Carol Gee

The compassionate among us take in the TV images coming from Burma (Michael's preferred word for Myanmar) and feel saddened by the children, in particular. Compassion must be shared, however, with the children in our own hemisphere who sometimes have it very rough. Today's post presents a few of the facts of childhood poverty in the U.S and Canada, currently and in the fairly near past.

Child Poverty in United States -- (November 2007 Report) "Who are America's Poor Children?" To quote NCCP:

. . . How many children in America are officially poor? Rates of official child poverty vary tremendously across the states.

Child poverty rates across the states, 2006:

* Nationwide, 17% of children live in families that are officially considered poor (13 million children).

* Across the states, child poverty rates range from 6% in New Hampshire to 29% in Mississippi.

Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,650 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by 11 percent between 2000 and 2006. There are 1.2 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000.

Not only are these numbers troubling, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story—it is widely viewed as a flawed metric of economic hardship (see box). Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level—for 2006, about $41,000 for a family of four—are referred to as low income. Thirty-nine percent of the nation’s children—more than 28 million in 2006—live in low-income families.

Child poverty in Canada -- (November 26, 2007): "Child poverty rates unchanged in nearly 2 decades: report." To quote CBC News:

The rate of child poverty in Canada is the same as it was in 1989, despite numerous attempts by the federal government to tackle the issue, an advocacy group reported Monday.

. . . The report says that, in 1989, the House of Commons unanimously voted to end child poverty. Eighteen years later, despite a 50 per cent increase in the size of the economy, the child poverty rate remains unchanged at 11.7 per cent, according to the report.

One in eight children in Canada — about 788,000 — live in poverty when income is measured after taxes, the report says, citing Statistics Canada data. When income was measured before taxes, the number rose to one in six children.

Child Poverty in United States -- Over Time: (November 1995 Report). To quote the National Research Council, Board on Children and Families:

• Poverty among U.S. children reached its highest level in 30 years in 1993. Cansus data for 1994 shows that 15.7 million children, or 22.7 percent, were classified as poor.


• Children in families continuously on welfare from 1986 to 1990 were 1.6 times more likely to have significant behavioral problems than those never on welfare or poor. Children in families that left the welfare system but remained poor also were likely to have behavioral problems.


• Home environments of children whose families stopped receiving welfare but remained poor did not differ significantly from those families still on welfare.


• Inflexible hours at child care centers frequently caused problems for working parents with low incomes, nonstandard working hours or more than one job.
  

The fallout from the current administration's economic and social policies dusts on the heads of November's Children as well as their parents and grandparents. And this time the debris does not come from a cyclone, but from the blind eyes of greedy or corrupt officials.

From an earlier post I conclude with this beloved nursery rhyme --

Monday's Child

Author: Unknown

Monday's child is fair of face,
Tuesday's child is full of grace,
Wednesday's child is full of woe,
Thursday's child has far to go,
Friday's child is loving and giving,
Saturday's child must work for a living,
But the child that's born on the Sabbath day,
Is fair and wise and good and gay

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Happy holidays, or something equally banal

By jeffaclitus

Greetings, all. I know it's been some time since I posted anything (some of you may not recognize or remember my byline at all), but I thought I'd pop in briefly to spread some holiday cheer, specifically by sharing this with you.



Are you not amused? If nothing else, it should take you back to that special time a few years ago when you couldn't step outside for more than three minutes without hearing that song somewhere (best pop song of the past ten years?).

And this simply brilliant review of a book by Garrison Keillor. I can't begin to do it justice; just trust me and read it.

Meanwhile, hope you're all well and enjoying the holiday season.

US rendition not just for terrorists

By Libby Spencer

I didn't think it was possible to be more stunned by the hubris of this White House than I have been up to now. I was wrong. This development leaves me almost speechless. Our government has now claimed the right to kidnap any citizen, of any country, from anywhere in the world if Washington suspects them of commiting a crime. No point in wasting time with treaties and 'quaint' conventions like legal extradition, when they can cut out the middleman and just snatch their designated bad person off the street.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it. [...]

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate. [...]

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”

Oh good, the turn back civilization to the days of the 'wild West' rationale. I suppose they would like to bring back the genocide of native Americans, lynchings and using duels as accepted manner to settle differences too.

Cernig has reaction from the UK and Heretik adds his inimitable commentary along with the usual brilliant photoshop. Meanwhile, Radley reminds us that this is already happening.

I realize the first thing people think of with extraordinary rendition is terrorism, and getting terror suspects out of countries with unfriendly governments. But don’t forget, this is the same administration that’s snatching up the foreign executives of online gambling companies at airports, then trying and imprisoning them, despite the fact that online gambling is perfectly legal in the countries where they operate, and where they are citizens.

Seems to be the only difference between this policy and terrorist kidnappings in Iraq is that the administration hasn't found a way to justify beheadings as an appropriate 'alternative punishment' -- yet.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

An un-"holy" alliance

By Carl


WTF?:

The diplomatic chess game around Iran's nuclear program includes an unlikely bishop. According to several well-placed Rome sources, Iranian officials are quietly laying the groundwork necessary to turn to Pope Benedict XVI and top Vatican diplomats for mediation if the showdown with the United States should escalate toward a military intervention. The 80-year-old Pope has thus far steered clear of any strong public comments about either Iran's failure to fully comply with U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors or the drumbeat of war coming from some corners in Washington. But Iran, which has had diplomatic relations with the Holy See for 53 years, may be trying to line up Benedict as an ace in the hole for staving off a potential attack in the coming months. "The Vatican seems to be part of their strategy," a senior Western diplomat in Rome said of the Iranian leadership. "They'll have an idea of when the 11th hour is coming. And they know an intervention of the Vatican is the most open and amenable route to Western public opinion. It could buy them time."

Did someone say Ahmadinejad is crazy?

Not so much, it appears. One had to wonder at the alternating hot and cold rhetoric he was spewing, and now we have a big clue as to how he felt he could get away with it.

Not only would a Papal intervention make Americans sit up and take notice, it would immediately bring to bear pressure from all of Europe, South America, and much of Russia. Knowing that, to risk an invasion of Iran, Bush would have to carefully calculate whom he could count on to defy the Pope (not many European nations would dare do that).

How much influence does Benedict XVI wield?:

Last April's release of 15 British sailors held by Iran — a decision that Ahmadinejad called "an Easter gift" — came just a day after the Pope had sent a private letter asking for their liberation. "There was respect for the request of the Pope," said [Iranian Vice-Ambassador to the Vatican Ahmad] Fahima

Wow. That is stroke. If Bush or Blair had made that request, and I'm sure they did, it would probably have been laughed at.

Believe it or not, Iran has the second largest ambassadorial presence to the Vatican in the world. Only the Dominican Republic has a larger embassy staff.

How likely is the Vatican to side with Iran in any confrontation that might blow up into war?:

Though Vatican officials say they are concerned about Iran's development of nuclear arms, the pontiff is both doctrinally bound and personally inclined to pursue a negotiated settlement at almost any cost. In 2003, then serving as a senior Vatican Cardinal, the current Pope was firmly behind John Paul II's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Indeed, many in Rome cite parallels between the current push from American hardliners to confront Iran and the walkup to the war in Iraq. "The Holy See hasn't forgotten what happened in Iraq," says one Vatican insider. "Seeing how that situation has developed, there is great, great prudence on the part of the Holy See. The judgment shown on Iraq weighs on the Iran situation."

So the Pope is a defeatist Democrat!

A difficult and complex situation has just taken a very interesting turn. Not only will America inflame the Muslim world with any invasion of Iran, that same invasion not only would spike oil prices and make Europe and China angry, it would also force the Pope to come out strongly against America, and Benedict is not particularly known for his soft diplomatic language.

You could almost say he was the Catholic Bush...

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

The mystery of the sub-continent

By Carl


We're all fairly aware of the troubles in Pakistan: suspension of civil rights, a madman desperately holding onto power by playing the terror card, a woman poised to reclaimer family's rule, a nation deeply torn by radical political views... yes, I'm still talking about Pakistan... so as I pondered these things this week, I wondered about something.

Pakistan and India have long had enmity and conflict with each other. At one point, in 1998, they each showed the other its dick by testing nuclear weapons and missile systems.

So why has India kept so quiet over a turmoil in its neighbor's house? There seems to be an answer and it's the horns of the dilemma India finds itself on:

Delhi has a very high stake in the political and security situation in Pakistan stabilising as soon as possible. The future of a tentative peace process that has been under way for nearly four years depends on this.

But increasingly, it is alarmed at the intensity of the confrontation between the Pakistani military and militants in the volatile tribal areas.

Historically some of the militant groups in Pakistan have had links with militants fighting Indian forces in Indian-administered Kashmir.

In the past few years the level of violence in Kashmir has come down and India is keen to keep a lid on it.


India fears a worsening of the situation in disputed Kashmir

But there's a growing perception here that the militants are gaining some ground in Pakistan, a situation which has huge potential consequences for India.

So we see this: India has kept to the sidelines because Musharraf has cracked down on the militants, which means Kashmir has been much more peaceful, while on the other hand, it sees the very same militant groups that it is battling in Kashmir positioning themselves to take power (and the Pakistani nukes).

In other words, as it stands down, it simultaneously has had to stay alert.

Another dilemma: by their silence, India has supported Musharraf. Now that Benazir Bhutto is back, there's a conflict: do you back the dictator who's power structure is shaky, or the former president who is not a guarantee of peace in Pakistan, and is not officially backed by the United States, so not even guaranteed a seat at the table?

The US has remained fairly neutral throughout the history of the India-Pakistan conflicts, with a small lean towards India (world's largest democracy, after all, and a great place to outsource jobs to), until September 11, when the US made a strategic decision to hop under the covers with Musharraf. That couldn't have made India happy, although I'm sure it understood the need.

What you may not be aware of, however, is that shortly after that new approach to Pakistan by the US, the conflict in Kashmir intensified, including a bombing in the Indian parliament. By 2002, Musharraf promised hsi crackdown on the Kashmir militants, and by 2003, things had started to settle down.

A very difficult, complicated puzzle is in place, but then, India invented chess. One would imagine they have some experience in these.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)