NEWS ATTACKS!

It's been quite the day for news, so I'll get right to it, and try to cram an hour or two worth of writing into 30 minutes. CAN IT BE DONE? (answer: apparently not, as there was only a fraction of this posted yesternight)

Altruism?

A “former Afghan Warlord” has offered to drum up some 10,000 “seasoned” soldiers to fight the Taliban, taking the war across the Pakistani border if need be. Perhaps my opinion will change with more careful deliberation, but for the moment I think it would be in the country's best interest to accept this offer, for several reasons. If this warlord/general is interested in conquest, then there will be no way to avoid conflict. It is better to reap the tactical, financial, and morale gains now than to face him later and gain nothing.

Afghan fighters will know the terrain, and they will know their enemy. We know both, maybe even well...just not nearly AS well. The Taliban have leveraged this “home turf advantage” to deadly effect time and again to kill, maim, or wound Canadian soldiers. With these 10 000 soldiers on the ground, our forces can focus on doing what we do best: dishing out the (ranged, high-tech) HURT. Better still, if these new forces could be somehow integrated or partnered with coalition forces, we could mix our firepower with their knowledge (ideally). There would most likely be a language barrier, but those can be overcome far more easily than can the “loss of leg because you stepped on a landmine” barrier. Also, it would do well to know our (potential) enemy before we are forced to confront it. If we are forced to confront it.

I saw no mention of payment in the Citizen article, which would indicate to me that we have been offered 10 000 troops...for free. Granted, the possibility that their leader may have certain ambitions makes this a gift of dubious value, but as long as those troops fight the Taliban, and we aren't paying, that's our gain. More importantly, it is Afghanistan's gain, because the sooner the Taliban is weakened, crippled, or defeated, the sooner all the effort spent fighting them could be employed to rebuild. It wont be (we humans are always more apt to destroy than to create), but if even a fraction of it is, then there is a gain. This is about what Afghanistan gains, after all. Again, even if this general turns on the present government, he wouldn't be the Taliban. And secular despots are easier to pummel into submission, I should think.

Finally, there is the boost to morale, both here and overseas. We may just need more time to get over the myth that we're an exclusively peaceful country, but Canadians seem to be ok with having an army, but not when they do their job. In any case, 10 000 troops on the ground who know the terrain seems a better shot than putting Canadians on that line, some of whom will die. Politically, I'm saying “better them than us”, because public support is necessary to continue the campaign. I'm not a big fan of killing, but if we allow the Taliban tumour to re-grow, it will cripple Afghanistan again, and breed a whole new generation of terrorists, mysogenists, and illiterates. This may seem to fly in the face of my self-professed “left-wing stance”. A leftist who condemns this war, and would allow the Taliban to re-group, and destroy millions of lives is no better than a short-sighted rightist who refuses to act against global warming! Short-term thinking is lovely for selfish political jockeying, isn't it?

And speaking of political jockeying, I heard a funny interview on the radio the other day...

Speak Up, Dion!

CBC radio's “The Current” was interviewing Mr. Dion about his policies on climate change, specifically, why he hadn't implemented stronger measures during his stint as Environment Minister. His response was something to the effect of “because we understand the issue better now”, which is utter bullshit. What he SAID is, of course, entirely true; every year brings more studies, more reports. What's BS is that it wasn't the reason nothing was done when the Liberals were in power. A significant portion of the population didn't care enough then, and have only begun to do so now. Call it “politics”, and shake your head if you like, but is it not the duty of Parliament to reflect the will of the people? On this note, it occurs to me that I should not be angry at Dion for doing his job...I should be upset because he passed up an opportunity to deliver a wake-up call to the population of Canada: “If you do not wish to face the next Great Threat to our survival when it may even be too late”, he should have said “then speak out and demand that it be addressed earlier!”. Granted, no one likes to hear that they have been remiss in their duties, but it's what Canadians have to be told.

I hope they didn't fancy it clever...

A (now former) public servant, who may or may not have been the informant ever-so-originally dubbed “Green Throat” was apprehended and questioned by the R.C.M.P, leading this man to allege that the Conservative government aims to intimidate public servants into staying silent about government activities. It seems that no one involved was all that clever; the info was only 10 days' time from publication, and it would have been just as bad then as it is now that our Government does not plan to meet our Kyoto targets. The government's conduct is what one calls “another kettle of fish”, as it does support the hypothesis that their aim is to supress informants such as this one...In a liberal democracy. It is undoubtedly possible, but with a minority government already well-known for such strokes of brilliance as “putting a pretty face in the environment portfolio and hoping that Global Warming would just go away”, “recycling the Liberal plans to fight it when the public started to care”, and “revisiting an issue that didn't need revisiting (ie. Same-sex marriage)”... well, it just doesn't make much sense to take a gamble such as this. It's possible that the PR fallout will be nonexistent, but I should hope that this case will sway some “swing” voters that a democratic government which attempts to cloak itself, defend itself with “secrecy” is no friend to the people.

Closing Remarks

Summatives encroach! Panic time is NOW

'Drive' was a fucking good show. Fucking Fox network fucking over another show, adding to the fuckload of quality programs they have fucked up/over/left/right +A + B (= COMBO ATTACK +6 hit!!!). What yokel fucks in their infinite fuckicity are in charge of this fuckup of a TV station. Nathan Fillion needs jobs too!

REACH PROVINCIALS THIS WEEKEND. TIME FOR SLEEP. I'M OUT!

When I return, I will look at the recent criticism of our city, and why we shouldn't just sit here and whine about it.

Until then, you're on your own. Bonne chance, mes amis!

"I don't care how 'dope' his ride is!"

Will These Hands Never Be Clean?

As a society, we have blood on our hands. There are 5 women dead in Ipswitch, and there is one dead in Gatineau. These deaths come barely a week apart, and the victims are prostitutes, or in the case of Gatineau's murder, a suspected prostitute (her family denies the claim). With BC's Pickton case now coming to trial (I believe they have divided the victims into separate trials, there are so many), there are calls from Sex workers for better legislation in Canada, and elsewhere. It is damn near time the government smartened up on this score, in my opinion. If anyone is under the illusion that restrictive laws will make sex as a commodity disappear, let the record show that as an institution, prostitution is older than democracy. Like death, taxes, and really stupid people, prostitution is an inevitability.

From an economic point of view, the sex trade exists to satisfy a demand (as do all industries). And let's face it: the demand for sexual gratification is going nowhere fast. What is so offensive about prostitution? Is there a line somewhere that I am not seeing? Look at the tags on your shoes, and tell me that the conditions under which the poor Cambodians, or Vietnamese who made those shoes are any better than the streets of a wealthy nation. I dare you! Unless slaves or children are involved, why shouldn't a person be allowed to sell their body as they see fit? It is not a happy world where one may be forced to make such a decision to feed themselves, but would you rather these people starve? Before you raise the inevitable “prostitution degrades women” argument, consider that if proper legislation were put in place, the women involved could ensure their own terms and safety far better than they can presently.

The same problem exists with drugs: instead of saving bundles of money by simply promoting caution, safety, and responsibility, governments make a poorly informed decision to try and remove the offensive practices altogether. This creates the opportunity for lucrative black markets, a source of income for organized crime. Considering the cost of paying policemen, bringing offenders to trial, and paying for their incarceration, is it really cheaper to fight a war against drugs? No! By waging this war, we indirectly fund drive-by shootings, and gang wars. Of course, politicians are able to sweep these inconvenient facts under the rug come election day. Similarly, instead of helping pimps and gangs, by making them the only perceived recourse to some, allowing sex workers to set their own standards would take money away from the perpetrators of evil.

I do not buy sex, nor do I use drugs, but there will always be a demand for both. If we are willing to condemn hundreds to die by gang shooting, or serial murder, because we believe that making either available is 'Wrong', what does that say about us as a society? That we allow ethical conjecture to blind us to the logical truth? As a civilization which prides itself on being rational and enlightened, that seems a tad contradictory. Holland gets props here, because they've already realized the truth in what I am saying to you now. HUP HOLLAND!

Loosing Battle

A letter writer to the Citizen expressed contentment that the Church has refused to change with the times, saying that materialistic culture should be opposed by said institution. Of course, it becomes readily evident that I should not be angry at this writer's presumption that my distance from the church weighs upon my soul. Why? Because she has no mind of her own. “When the Catholic Church speaks”, she says “It is speaking truth”. I am sorry if this sounds heartless, but I only regard the very religious as true human beings if they are capable of entertaining dissent and discussion. If they cannot, or will not, how are they different from common herd animals? In fact, I would argue lower, since they have the capacity for rational inquiry, but choose to squander it. Luckily, recent campaigns by churches to spread the message that the church cares for your soul, and can help you find meaning, yada, yada...have me convinced that if the church is indeed fighting against current values, it is loosing ground that it desperately wants to hold.

If the message of love and tolerance from religion cannot be separated from the potent and arbitrary hate which is also part of Dogma, then I could not be happier about this. The world could very well be a better place when goodness comes from the desire to be good, not the need to go to heaven; When you love your neighbour, man or woman, straight, gay, bi, trans, white, black, or any shade in-between; when you question what you are told; when robes, crosses, and funny hats don't signify ultimate authority; when Al-Qaeda and its ilk are no more; when sex can be for fun, and masturbation isn't sinful. I could go on, but I think the existing list will suffice. Am I being too optimistic? Would a secular society fill itself with unguided abuse? If that is the price of being free from abuse disguised as the saving of souls, so be it. Also, our primate friends, Binobos, are known to be very peaceful (and bisexual, but I digress), and I doubt they have religion. By contrast, humans and chimpanzees are violent by nature. I know I am in danger of being repetitious in my denouncement of the church, but in the light of calls for social progress, it seemed fitting to throw a little vitriol towards the largest inhibitor thereof.

P'Tagh Revisited

Another letter writer praised Stéphane Dion as being open-minded, for his willingness to question our mission in Afghanistan. I've got news for this guy: It's not called open-mindedness, it's called demagoguery. Stéphane Dion, now leading the opposition wants to take every opportunity to gain votes, and that means making the Conservatives look bad. So what if it means taking a contradictory position to pre-defeat Liberals? People are quick to forget, and equally expedient in claiming that the man or woman who wants our troops out of harm's way is the champion of the people. This is all politics, and all bullshit. But then, what do you expect from these dry, conniving types? If sending you to your certain death for whatever reason would put either of these two ahead even 1% in the polls, they'd do it, and they would sleep well that night. Read 'The Prince' by Machiavelli sometime, if you haven't already. Then see just how much you trust people in power...

Only a little bit of work left to do before the holidays. Hopefully tonight will see the end of it, as I would like some free time to write a little more of my serial.

Braaaiiiiinnnnnssssssss.........

ZOMG Survival Guide

I received 'The Zombie Survival Guide' as a most excellent Christmas present from Gold today. If indeed the dead will one day walk the Earth, it is good to know that I will have the necessary knowledge to survive. You might be tempted to assume that a book - such as this one - filed under 'humour' would be unreliable at best. Well, insofar as Zombies are concerned, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information, but the tactics and survival methods discussed within are solid stuff, which is why this book is worth two ordinary survival guides: How many wilderness survival guides have detailed analyses of weaponry, both melée and ranged? Of course, fighting things which are not zombies requires vastly different tactics, but thanks to Gold, I have that covered with 'How to Survive a Robot Uprising'. For a complete set, though, someone needs to write a How-To on survival in warzones, because both of the volumes I currently own are pertinent only to non-human hostiles. I'm sure any military, secret service, or even terrorist training manual (the latter having the creepy, fanatical pages removed, in the interests of efficiency) would work just fine. You might be worried that these manuals are very good at instructing a person on how to kill, maim, and destroy the living, undead, and robotic alike. What you should be worried about is any situation where it would be necessary to do so.

Stéphane Dion is a P'Tagh

There can be no 'Honourable' withdrawal from Afghanistan for Canada. It's bad enough that Gilles Duceppe wants the current mission to refocus on re-construction over combat, now the Liberals are jumping on the bandwagon. Let it please the court that it was a previous Liberal government which sent Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan in the first place. Doubting the current mission is all well and good, but what makes these politicians think that the Taliban will just magically disappear if we conveniently decide to put our troops out of harm's way? I don't buy this as anything but concern for these politicians' own futures.

Afghanistan does not have to be another Iraq, we can be smarter than the US was. That will require a few things which are not currently in place. These are:

1) Defined goals (ie. Eliminate or severely reduce the Taliban's capacity to wage war upon the people of Afghanistan, Secure rights for citizens, establish self-sufficient nations/tribes/etc.)

2) A timeframe and predicted budget for said goals, in terms of money and lives.

3) A comparison of the costs to our government with the value of gains by the Afghanis. These should be very close together, if at all possible (of course, freedom is hard to put a number to, so this may be meaningless)

4) A strategy for eventually leaving the country in a state where it may function as a prosperous, or potentially prosperous country.

5) Strategies to eliminate or reduce Civilian Casualties.

The above are not listed in specific order of priority.

Without any of these, the current mission is doomed to become meaningless, which is something Canada cannot afford. We complain that Canadian troops are questioned in our own war museum (if you have read the Citizen of late, there has been a small shitstorm on the issue), but when they place their lives on the line for a cause that is relatively good and just, few speak up to defend what we are doing. Suppose we had asked for our troops to be pulled out of the Holland liberation effort, back in WWII. Today, the graves of Canadian soldiers are maintained by Dutch school children. The Tulip Festival in Ottawa is a yearly reminder of their gratitude to those who gave their lives that Holland might be free. That 60 years (and counting) of gratitude is a powerful reminder of how much freedom means to people. If Canadians want to be seen as a major player in the Global arena, what better way to do it than be seen as a generous, and noble country? What better way to do it than to give to others the same freedom we wish for ourselves?

Stéphane Dion, you are a P'tagh.

Old-School

Due to time being short, and writing on the computer being not entirely my style (I have a bizarre half-on-paper-then-finish-on-computer thing going most of the time), I think I'll serialize the sci-fi story I am writing, most likely on a weekly basis. This means I might actually have time to write properly sized chapters, and carry on an actual plot, rather than whatever happens to jump into my head.

I kinda like the idea of doing serialized writing. It seemed to work for...was it Dickens?

I think so.

Aright, that's all for now. Tune in sometime next week for the thrilling first real chapter of Alice's saga....and sooner for all the wack ramblings you know and love.