Is Dear Leader Trending Downward?

I certainly hope so:

Digital Peeping Toms: They Don't Even Bother To Hide Anymore

That is certainly the conclusion I drew after reading this morning's latest Star revelation about our overlords in Ottawa. Entitled Ottawa is ‘creeping’ your Facebook, the article by Alex Boutilier reveals yet more unwholesome intrusions into our privacy being conducted by the Harper regime.

In a January report to Parliament, interim privacy commissioner Chantal Bernier raised concerns about accountability in data sweeps of the Internet. She has now expressed those concerns directly in a letter to Treasury Chair Tony Clement:

An "increasing number” of government institutions are collecting publicly available personal information from sites like Facebook and Twitter “without any direct relation to a program or activity.”

“We are seeing evidence that personal information is being collected by government institutions from social media sites without regard for accuracy, currency and accountability,” ...

“Should information culled from these sites be used to make administrative decisions about individuals, it is incumbent upon government institutions to ensure the accuracy of this information; it is not at all clear that this obligation is being, or could be, met.”

Of course, the federal government had a tool for the culling of accurate information. It was called the mandatory long-form census, dismissed by the regime as 'too intrusive.'

So what was Mr. Clement's cavalier responce to these concerns?

“Canadians willingly put onto social media all sorts of information, so it should not be a surprise that corporations, individuals, good guys, bad guys, and governments are collecting the freely available information they put on social media sites,” ...

“This is all publicly available information. People freely make that choice.”

Stepping up his brazen tone, he is quick to reassure us that the regime is quite aware that some of the data they obtain in their digital peeping-tom mode may not be accurate, declaring that

... the government takes into account the unreliability of the data.

“We’re aware of that, so you have to take it with a grain of salt depending on what the information is used for”.

When asked what that use might be, he could offer no concrete examples.

In a belated attempt at damage control, Orwell's Clement's office sent the following to The Star:

“The government of Canada takes the privacy of Canadians very seriously. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is looking into this issue, in collaboration with the office of the privacy commissioner,” spokesperson Heather Domereckyj said in an email.

Doublespeak. Government Surveillance. Enemies of the State. All is in place, and in the twisted ethos of the Harper cabal, all is well. Everyone may now return to their workstations, and please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

UPDATED: Unfit To Govern

I have to admit that even though I am now in my sixties, I have never before witnessed the kind of behaviour on the part of a Canadian government as I have of the Harper regime. Contemptuous of opposing views, ready to vilify opponents at every turn, the regime has taken even me, an inveterate cynic, by surprise in its latest salvo. In a word, Harper's the attack on the Supreme Court is unprecedented in a healthy democracy.

To say that Stephen Harper is mentally unhealthy is to state the obvious. To say that his twisted psyche sees enemies everywhere is not news. What may not be so obvious to the casual observer is the contempt he holds for Canada itself, given his most recent attack on Beverley McLachlin. As other observers have already noted, to call into question, out of mere spite, the probity of the Supreme Court's Chief Justice is to undermine Canadian's faith in our judiciary.

And of course, this follows a long Harper pattern of sowing doubt and disaffection among Canadians toward so many of our country's institutional underpinnings. Harper's disdain for Parliament is legendary, from his marginalizing the opposition to proroguing the House to avoid defeat. The robocall scandal attests to how much the notion of fair elections offends him. The 'Fair' Elections Act is itself a giant middle finger directed at democracy.

In his latest column entitled PM’s enemies list? Here comes the judge, The Globe's Lawrence Martin reflects on the strangeness of Harper's Supreme Court attack:

This is Stephen Harper’s court. He appointed a majority of the justices on it. He named five of the eight, with one more pending. Another, Beverley McLachlin, was named to the court by Tory Brian Mulroney. The Harper appointments, as could be expected, have been more conservative in their orientation than liberal.

Yet these facts have not prevented the Prime Minister from his full frontal assault on the court.

Says Martin:

The Prime Minister’s enemies list, which includes Mr. Cotler and so many others, keeps growing – and reaching higher levels. Must everyone submit to Mr. Harper’s will or face retaliation? Do we have, as his former adviser Tom Flanagan maintains, a predator as prime minister? Does he not think there will be a reckoning?

Harper's much vaunted and exaggerated strategic 'genius' does not seem to be the motivating force here, either. Martin recalls,

... interviewing David Emerson, who had a unique perspective because he served in both the cabinets of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. There were things he preferred about the Harper operation. But one difference that alarmed Mr. Emerson was the degree of visceral contempt he saw from Mr. Harper and his top lieutenants toward those opposed to their beliefs. He’d never seen anything like it. How could they harbour, he wondered, so much venom?

What goes on in the Prime Minister's head is not realy my concern. All I know is that Stephen Harper and all of his acolytes have betrayed what should have been a sacred trust, the leadership of our country. The country I know and love cannot survive another term of his hateful, divisive and destructive rule.

UPDATE: It would seem that even Conservatives are beginning to see the truth about Mr. Harper:

Can I Get Back To You On That?

Maybe I am just angry because a progressive budget was dismissed by an allegedly progressive party.

Maybe I am fearful that an NDP-induced Ontario election could see the ascension to power of young Tim Hudak ('I've got a plan to create one million jobs!'), who clearly will never be ready for prime-time politics, fixated as he is on recreating the disastrous Harris era that he played a key role in.

Or maybe I am a bit contemptuous that even though she is the one responsible for this election, Andrea Horwath is still indulging in a meteorological assessment (aka testing the political winds) before she takes a stand on issues.

Maybe it is all three, but what set me off this morning was an article Richard Benzie, Rob Ferguson and Richard J. Brennan wrote for this morning's Star. Entitled Ontario election campaign shows lack of readiness, it makes sport of the fact that young Tim chose the wrong venue for his first official appearance, MetalWorks sound studio, where the owner, Gil Moore, avowed his support for a Liberal $45-million funding initiative introduced last year to help the music industry. It is an initiative that Tim, opposed to any such government support for industry ('Lower taxes and they will come!' avers the toothy-grinned young man), voted against.

But from my perspective, the most telling aspects of unreadiness that may or may not reflect on the leadership of Ms. Horwath, are the following:

- the New Democrats still have to appoint candidates in 39 ridings,

- they don’t have a bus for reporters covering them, as is standard

- they don’t yet have a fully formed campaign platform.

It is the latter, however, that I find most vexing and also most emblematic of the party's troubled leadership.

While visiting a Brampton convenience store, Horwath was asked the following:

Will she match the Liberals’ pledge to give $4 hourly raises to personal support workers?

Will her party set up a pension plan for the roughly 65 per cent of workers who don’t have one in the workplace?

Her non-answer essentially amounted to, "I'll have to get back to you on those issues." Refusing to answer, she promised that a full list of NDP campaign promises will emerge as the election unfolds.

Ms Horwath is adamant that the Wynne Liberals cannot be trusted with their promises; by refusing to answer direct questions, I guess the NDP leader is making sure the same cannot be said about her.

Don't Let A Culture Of Defeat Hold You Back

That's right, folks. There are untold opportunities to enhance both your gross domestic product and your wallets through the scourge gift of oil spills, as oil pipeline company Kinder Morgan recently explained. But of course, that 'leftie' Rachel Maddow looks a gift horse in the mouth as she continues to spread her dangerous ideas:

Well-Said

While I may write something of my own later today, the letters in this morning's Star are both incisive and damning of the Harper regime's penchant for insinuating itself into our lives by bribing telecoms and social media to turn over our private date at the rrate of $1 to $3 each. Enjoy:

They are watching you, April 30

Alex Boutilier makes it clear why the telcom companies are so willing, indeed delighted, to cooperate with government spy agencies and deliver up, for just the asking, our private communications for scrutiny. They get paid for it. This is part of their business model, and they profit well from it.

George Orwell, author of “1984” (in 1934), would be so smiling today.

Edward A. Collis, Burlington


You don’t suppose that the bulk of these searches are for information on people who posted Liberal or NDP signs on their lawns during the past federal election? A certain Canadian political party having nothing but an address might want to know the names and telephone numbers of these “enemies of the people” that they might be directed to the wrong polls by the famous “Demon Dialer” during the next vote.

Richard Gibbons, Hamilton


Big Brother's busy friends, Editorial May 1

I thank the Star for highlighting this latest, crucial breach of public trust, and I couldn’t agree more with your editorial. I’ve never felt so hopping mad as I do on learning of this latest, sickeningly brazen violation of the sanctity of private information.

The scale and scope of it is a clarion call to all Canadians, that if we sleep walk through this outrage, we’ll almost certainly have passed the point of no return. We will spiral ever faster downwards into a police and surveillance state, something unthinkable a generation ago. Mr. Harper is either with us or with the dictators and despots. Which is it?

If I were the Leader of the federal Opposition, I would putting this question to the Prime Minister: “Mr. Speaker, there are those among today’s conservatives who feel that if you’ve nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind the state invading your privacy. By that token, I call on the Prime Minister to cooperate with the federal privacy commissioner and disclose what information on private citizens has been given up by the media companies — and why, and which agencies are now in possession of it — and why. If he and his government have done no wrong, then they’ll also have nothing to hide.”

Ted Nasmith, Bradford


Is it not ironic that a government that claims to be honest, transparent and accountable would lie to us, hide information from us and consistently block the release of information requested in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act?

Is it not ironic to have a majority government that was opposed by 60 per cent of the voters? Is it not ironic that this government’s “fair elections act” completely ignores the current system’s failure to represent the will of the “majority” of citizens?

Is it not ironic that a government so obsessed with its own secrecy and privacy is so anxious to violate the privacy of the public it supposedly serves? Is it not ironic to have the leader of this government present himself as a committed defender of Ukraine’s democracy?

Why would Ukrainians deserve democracy more than us?

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

Guest Essay From The Mound Of Sound: From Star Wars Back to Verdun

I've been updating my warfare knowledge base lately with a load of independent reading and an online course from the war studies department of King's College, London.

For those who wonder if the 21st century could be as bloody as the 20th was, what with WWI and WWII and all, here's something to ponder. When WWII was over and the dust had settled and we were embarking on Middle Class bliss, the world's population was about 2.5-billion. Today we're already at 7+ billion and steamrollering toward 9-billion or more. Think we haven't got a load of dying to do? Think again.

Foreign Policy magazine has been running a contest you'll only find in magazines like that. Contestants submit essays on "The Future of War" and readers get to vote for their favourites out of the 25-best entries. Here are a few highlights.



US Marine Capt. Jesse Sloman writes that, should America get into another major war, it'll be "lights out." Sloman says an adversary (okay, China) would go straight for America's vaunted but ridiculously vulnerable "full spectrum electronic dominance."

"...on a conventional 21st century battlefield, senior officers will have to re-learn how to conduct operations with communications and intelligence capabilities reminiscent of wars fought a half-century ago. Drones will go blind and crash as their satellite links are severed. Aircraft and ships will get lost when their Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers go dead (and their crews struggle to remember the map and compass skills they were briefly exposed to in basic training). Leaders will struggle to communicate with their subordinate units, leaving perplexed junior officers alone and exposed, with no links to higher command, facing the enemy the way their forefathers did at Belleau Wood, Bastogne, or Hagaru-ri."



Actuary Matt Wilson, author of "A System Collapse Framework for Societies" argues that, from an actuarial standpoint, we're long overdue for a major power (i.e. nuclear) war.

"The future heavily builds on the past -- a positive feedback loop process. All positive feedback processes that are stabilized (not allowed to crash) will experience a very large crash at some point in time. And if a very large crash is still suppressed, then the system (society or earth) will get stuck in the middle of a phase change. When the system finally undergoes a phase change, then everything will get wiped out. What happens when you put out every forest fire? Forests follow the same positive feedback loop process too. In the meantime, the system will sit at the edge of a cliff, unable to move forward very well. This explains Japan's economy and now the U.S. economy too. It also explains the future of war: the large crash.

Time of stability is the biggest factor in determining when a system is nearing a crash state. After a long period of stability, a big problem in one area implies that big problems are lurking elsewhere. The 9/11 shock in 2001 was our first sign of trouble. The 2008 financial crisis pushed the United States into a pre-collapse state that is being suppressed. Like Japan, the United States will not be able to get going again until it allows another great depression. The next shoe to drop could be a great-power nuclear war. Look at the connection between financial crisis and war:


1. The 1907 U.S. financial crisis was followed by World War I in 1914.
2. The 1929 U.S. financial crisis was followed by World War II in 1939.
3. The 2008 U.S. financial crisis was followed by World War III in 2015-2018?

The same build-up of problems that caused a financial crisis also positioned societies for war. Those problems are a build-up of bad ideas, bad decisions, and corruption. They build up within all sectors of society at about the same rate. So the fact that the financial sector is mostly independent of the military sector is irrelevant. A big crisis in one area just tells us that time is up.

You and everyone else you know think that a great-power nuclear war is just about impossible. In fact, it just might be the future of war."



US Air Force Lt. Col. Don Manning sees future American warfighting shaped by the fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people and the country's coalition allies have had their fill. In future, America will either go very small (drone warfare) or very, very big.

In the future, U.S. policymakers will continue to feel a responsibility to respond to threats, even if they cannot convincingly articulate those threats to the American people. As a result, policymakers will continue to pursue very small, very limited military interventions where possible. Drone strikes are among the smallest of these interventions, but small footprint, low press interventions such as those currently ongoing in Djibouti, Mali, and the Central African Republic will continue to be palatable.

On the other side of the coin, America could be presented with a threat so obvious and ominous that it cannot be ignored. It is impossible to out-think the irrational, but it is plausible that miscalculation or a mistake might lead to a country like North Korea taking an action sufficiently threatening American interests in the Pacific and forcing a major U.S. response. With nuclear weapons in the mix, you can bet America's most advanced weapon systems will be put to use along with thousands of troops.

America, however, will shun interventions that are neither very small nor very large as policymakers find themselves unable to convince neither the war-weary American public nor its war-weary coalition partners to take on another fight. Any intervention requiring nation- or state-building or without a direct impact on the lives of Americans will be dead on arrival.



Iraq war vet and Yale man, Adrian Bonenberger, believes America will fall victim to its own obsession with big bucks, high-tech weaponry, just like other countries that followed that same path in the past.

We've already fought the war-after-next, and lost. Called "The Millennium Challenge 2002," it was a simulated war game designed to showcase a high-tech, integrated U.S. Navy's ability to crush smaller, less sophisticated foes (widely assumed to be Iran) in the Strait of Hormuz. What happened instead was a simulated disaster: Overwhelmed by hundreds of small groups operating according to pre-established, decentralized directives and empowered to think for themselves, the U.S. side quickly lost an entire aircraft carrier support group, as well as numerous aircraft. The notional enemies used basic radar, primitive cruise missiles, rockets, motorcycle couriers, and strategic initiative to achieve total surprise, following up their initial advantage with another wave of de facto missiles -- explosives-laden motorboats that were too numerous and speedy for the lumbering Navy ships to engage effectively.

Future planners have spent a great deal of time and energy justifying platforms like the F-22, the F-35, and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), claiming that they are necessary to win the next war -- but they've actually been developed to fight some version of World War II.

...According to Lockheed Martin, the company that produces the F-22 Raptor, 195 planes were produced for the Air Force, of which eight were test planes, for a total of 187 operational aircraft. Each plane cost an estimated $150 million. Air Force planners seem confident that these planes can deliver air dominance at "the decisive point" in an air conflict with an enemy of equal or slightly greater strength.

But what if this hypothetical enemy -- China, Russia, some unforeseen alliance from the Middle East or Africa, united under one brutal Hitler or Napoleon's fist -- is planning on sending up 20 inferior planes for each F-22, and 20 inferior tanks to each Abrams? What if we find ourselves in a position of geographical and political isolation, bereft of allies, and facing an alliance of enemies bent on our destruction? Why wouldn't they take this approach -- the very approach we used on the ground against a technologically superior Nazi Germany, sending 15 Sherman tanks against each Tiger they fielded. Why would our future-future enemy face us on equal terms when we're apparently very vulnerable to asymmetrical, low-tech attack?


Major Daniel Sukman writes that America must prepare for warfare conducted in the homeland, something the US hasn't really experienced since the War of 1812. The major sees the need not for the military to become involved in domestic law enforcement but for the law enforcement community to become more militarized.

The U.S. military must form partnerships and work with law enforcement agencies within the United States in the area of protection. This is not a future in which the United States abandons the principle of Posse Comitatus, rather it is a future where law enforcement has a larger and more proactive role in America's conflicts.

War in the homeland is a scary thought. Outside of major terrorist attacks, for the most part the homeland has been secure since the War of 1812. Although we continue to fight the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on the Middle Class, and the War on Christmas in the homeland, the American Way of War is to play 'away games' against other nations. If we are not careful in the way we pursue unmanned and autonomous systems, that piece of the American Way of War may change forever.



Former Australian diplomat and soldier turned security consultant, Dr. David Kilcullen, foresees a future of zombie wars - wars that we think we have ended that keep returning to life, again and again.

Irregular conflicts tend to be "zombie wars" which keep coming back to life just as we think they're over. Iraq is a case in point: By late 2009, through urban counterinsurgency, partnership with communities, and intensive reconciliation efforts, U.S. forces had severely damaged al Qaeda and brought civilian deaths to the lowest level in years: Only 89 civilians were killed across all of Iraq in December 2009, down from over 1,000 per month in mid-2008, and a shocking 3,000 per week in late 2006. But rapid and complete U.S. withdrawal in 2010 -- combined with sectarian politics and the reinvigoration of al Qaeda through the Syrian war -- pulled the rug from under local communities, reviving a conflict that a succession of U.S. leaders, on both sides of politics, have been incorrectly claiming was over ever since May of 2003. Likewise, in places like Afghanistan, Colombia, Somalia, Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, and Sudan, current outbreaks are not new -- rather, they're revivals of generations-old conflicts that keep coming back. Colombia's FARC rebel movement, for example, turns 60 in 2014.

...as America and its allies pass -- thankfully -- away from an era of large-scale intervention in overseas counterinsurgencies, it's tempting to think that each year's crop of new irregular wars is just so much background noise that we can afford to ignore. Unfortunately, that's not true anymore, if it ever was: In an increasingly urbanized, massively connected world, where empowered individuals and non-state groups will access communications and weapons technology that used to be the preserve of nation-states and future conflicts will leap international boundaries, we ignore these conflicts at our peril.

One crystal clear lesson for future war emerges from the last decade. This is that unilateral intervention in other people's wars is not the way to go -- and neither is large-scale counterinsurgency which, though doable, is extraordinarily difficult, and far from desirable in humanitarian, financial, or political terms. Interventions, particularly counterinsurgencies, must be an absolute last resort. But ignoring future conflicts doesn't work either -- urban, zombie, irregular crime-wars, that leap national boundaries and feature non-state groups with technology and connectivity only states used to have, will spread rapidly, sucking in surrounding regions, as Syria is doing now, and as Afghanistan did before 9/11.



Finally, doctoral student and former US Army officer, Christopher Davis, says there won't be a future war for the United States, just a perpetual continuation of the war already underway.

Already, the United States has exploited these [autonmous technology] advantages to wage a war without apparent end from the sky against Islamic militants around the globe. No clear end-state can be discerned from the campaign, nor is there any official measurement of the war's progress except abstract statements about successful strikes. International borders are freely ignored and secret agreements are made with "host" governments to minimize their obstruction. These seismic changes were felt with the first generation of drones and robots. What will future generations bring?

The introduction of these weapons on a wider scale is forthcoming. Air Force enthusiasts speaking about the sixth generation of fighter aircraft speculate that it will be pilotless. Special Operations Command is pushing aggressively for new technologies to radically improve the capabilities of its operators. Combined with the insulation of the military from the general public, the relatively free hand of the president in directing foreign policy, the increasing costs of maintaining an all-volunteer military in an age of austerity, and the proliferation of threats in a globalizing multipolar world, AFMs offer the only way forward to answer the national security problems of the future.

Instead of thinking about strategy, we should be thinking about the continuation of the American way of war. This can be addressed through examining the legal and ethical implications of armies constituted in large part by autonomous fighting machines. Does shooting down a drone constitute an act of war? What about crashing it into the ground through a cyberattack? If a semi- or fully autonomous war machine commits a war crime, who is at fault? If the defined operating parameters of an AFM could lead to a war crime, is it a lawful order to program the AFM with those parameters? These questions and more touch the fundamental human component of warfare -- a feature that is increasingly distant from the battlefield.

America has already entered its last war. This war, the war unending, will be fought with ever advancing machines of all kinds. These machines will be increasingly autonomous and they will take commands from insulated bureaucracies with limited public oversight. Policymakers will be less timid about their employment. The foundations for this war have already been set in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. As the last Islamist terrorist draws his final breath, against whom will these machines be pointed next?