Economics: Canada: Analyzing features of the Federal Budget in relation to paying down the debt

Taking up the responsiblities that refWrite's general editor, Owlb, has shouldered hitherto, may I introduce myself as the new reporter-commentator for economics and business concerns here.

Owlb has instructed both Politicarp (on politics) and myself (EconoMix on economics) to keep analyzing the current fed Canadian govt's budget, each from our own particular specialities; and, additionally now, also the new budget brawt down by the majority Liberal got of Ontario. The two budgets have some similarities, tho in the first case a pre-election budget introduced by the fed Conserve minority govt and in the second case another pre-election budget that will figure in the October election called by the Lib govt of the province of Ontario.

Both budgets have provisions for Child Benefits, an issue regarding which the reformational-founded now ecumenical Christian lobby group in Canada, Citizens for Public Justice, has campaigned for nearly two decades. CPJ's valuable analysis provides these thawts:

The past two budgets [Conservative] have reintroduced unnecessary complexity to Canada’s child benefit system. Budget 2006 created the Universal Child Care Benefit, a flat-rate taxable benefit for families with children under the age of seven. Budget 2007 creates a non-refundable credit that helps middle and higher income families but excludes those still struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table.

On the positive side, this new tax credit builds within the tax system greater recognition of the cost of parenting for all families. However, the same goal could be reached by creating a universal flat-rate child benefit that is non-taxable. A straight $310 refundable credit for all children under 18 could achieve tax recognition of the cost of parenting in a way that includes all parents. It would also help low income families get closer to exiting poverty. It is an unfortunate that the credit proposed in Budget 2007 excludes poor families. In that respect, it is a step backwards in Canadian social policy.

I won't quote further what the Christian lobby group goes on to treat in its Fed budget analysis under "Child Care," because that section introduces presuppositions and policy that bear a longer discussion--as it now adopts the vast expensive institutionalization that many people see CPJ/s stance as a programmatic ideological takeover of child care by other than parents. It seems to me that one must make a distinction between Quebec's child-care system which is motivated by exposing even the youngest kids to the French language, and more pluralistic systems where majaority-language-perservation is not a provincial motive of the utmost priority. While there is language differentiation, as far as I know there is no room for faith and values differentiation as these mite be freely chosen by different segments of the population--if they had a choice. But that takes us away from the Fed Budget 2007.

What I missed in CPJ's analysis and appreciation of the Budget-as-is centers on a feature that affects the ability of any future govt to improve child-care for all in a non-uniformitarian way, a feature that affects families now and in future generations (including future immigrant families who are not even yet members of our Canadian society): the Conservs made the move in this budget to pay down a significant portion of the Federal Debt of Cdn$ 619,701 millions. This is the Gross Federal Debt figure; I haven't found the Net figure, but I did find this passage on the peak of the

The federal debt

	See also...
	Inflation
	The Consumer Price Index
	The Canadian dollar
	The federal debt

By 1995, the federal government had been spending more than it collected in revenues for 25 consecutive years. The deficit (the amount by which government spending exceeds revenues in any given year) was $37.5 billion on a public accounts basis. As a result of persistent deficit financing, Canada's total debt load (the accumulation of all past deficits and surpluses since Confederation) had grown from $20 billion in 1971 to over $545 billion in 1995. By 1994/95, covering the interest costs alone was costing Canadians $42 billion—more than the annual deficit and some 26% of the entire federal budget. By March 1997, the net federal debt reached an all time high of $588 billion.

While CPJ offers many valuable thawts and horizons in its Budget analysis, it doesn't even notice that a chunk of debt has been paid down that benefits everyone. Now, this money for debt-reduction in the Budget doesn't come from the poor, those on Disability and Welfare, who don't work and don't pay Income Taxes (altho if they do file, they usually do get small refunds). And the poor do pay GST and PST sales taxes. But, again, not Income Taxes.

Rather, this money toward debt-reduction comes precisley from the middle-class. That's why the middle-class is selected out for certain family rebates on their Income Taxes, this round. Why can't CPJ graciously acknowledge this instead of pitting income-classes against one another in its analysis?

Now, Fed Debt-reduction does benefit the poor longterm, it does benefit children and youth who will have less national debt on their shoulders when they become adult income-earners of the middle-class and responsible for the accounts of the body body politic, and it does benefit both immigrants and families immigrating to Canada in the future.
Fed Debt-reduction helps those currently in poverty now, only obliquely, because many of them may never join the middle-class, become wage-earners, and thus shoulder the debt thru Income Taxes. But many of them will climb the ladder some, and enter the middle-class. Upon doing so, those poor-become-middle-level income-earners will then shoulder whatever Fed-Debt remains. But as long as they remain poor, they don't pay down thru Income Taxes, only a bit thru GST (sales tax) part of which is reduced thru rebates from the very Income Tax system to which they don't pay.

An economy of care must care about the poor, the middle class, and the paying down of the debt.

Surpluses both achieved and anticipated have allowed the government to direct more money toward paying off the accumulated debt. As a result, the cost of paying interest on the debt has dropped from a high of 33 cents of every dollar of revenue collected by the federal government in 1995/96 to 19 cents in 2001/02. Another promising sign is the decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio, which gives a picture of the size of a nation's debt in relation to the size of its economy. Though still high by historical and international standards, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen from 69% in 1995/1996 to 46% in 2001/02.

CPJ's analysis of the Conservative minority govt's budget 2008 has at least one major serious blindspot, a blindspot that leads to a skewered analysis and an unfortunate level of incoherence in the analysis that then is attributed to the budget itself. This projection of its own incoherence onto the budget is lamentable.

Politics: Military USA: Iraq War quite necessary, well justified, not ignoble, not a ruse

Evangelical Outpost. Joe Carter's stimulating and intelligent blog tackles "10 things we've forgotten about the Iraq War" (Mar20,2k7). This is a must read; there are some 80 replies from all over the poiitical spectrum, and more than enuff material to launch your own historiographical expedition into many facets of the origins and conduct of the War. But Joe's account is not in line with the doctrinaire voices of the anti-war Lefties, to be sure.

1. Most people have forgotten--or never knew--all the reasons we went to war. -- H.J.RES.114 is the Congressional resolution that authorized the President to use force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. Most Americans--probably including the 136 Congressional Representatives and 16 Senators who co-sponsored the resolution--have never bothered to read the text and instead parrot nonsense about "why we really went to war." This law, however, provides the complete list of justifications for why we went to war with Iraq. This law establishes the criteria that the American people--through their elected representatives--agreed were sufficient reasons for using force in Iraq. The list includes:

Continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability (false); actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability (true); supporting and harboring terrorist organizations (true); continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population (true); refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq (true); failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait (true); demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people (true); attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush (true); firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces (true); harbored members of al-Qaeda (true); continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations (true).

Critics of the war who deny or downplay these reasons for going to war are either ignorant or dishonest. They are either unaware of the real reasons provided to the American people by their legislature or do know and are intentionally being deceptive.

The above is verbatim the 1st of Joe's ten reasons why we've forgotten. I urge refWrite readers to click-up and engage with Joe's thinking in regard to the further 9 of his reasons. His blog-entry is a veritable manual for a thawtful beginner's education on why the USA continued the conflict in Iraq, that never stopped after what is now called the Gulf War I. The US in the north and the British in the south flew war planes over Iraq (except for the central section where Baghdad is situationed, and those planes were shot at almost daily by Saddam's defeated army on the ground (it couldn't get its own planes up). Bush, after 9/11, only escalated the armed conflict. The legalities of the Allies war against the genocidal regim of Iraq are impeccable. That factoid by no means resolves every issue, but it is important in any overall evaluation.

Politics: Canada: Libs expel former Cabinet Member from party, will sit as Independent in House of Commons

Today, CBC carried the news that Stephan Dion, Liberal Party leader in Canada's House of Commons has expelled a longtime member of the Lib Party caucus. Joe Comuzzi announced his intention to vote in favour of the Conservative govt's 2007 Budget.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has expelled former cabinet minister Joe Comuzzi from the party's caucus because he plans to support the Conservative government's budget.

"He's not anymore part of the caucus," Dion said Wednesday after a caucus meeting. He said he had spoken with the Thunder Bay, Ont., MP who confirmed he would vote for the budget.

Dion said it was parliamentary tradition for MPs to follow party line on confidence votes such as budgets.

"A vote on the budget, like a vote on a throne speech, is a vote of confidence. You cannot vote against the caucus on it."

"He's well aware, after 19 years in the House, of the consequences of what he's doing," Dion said.

Comuzzi had already demonstrated how much a person and legislator of principle is, in opposing his party when he was a Lib cabinet member, yet voted against the govt on its proposal to redefine "marrriage," to introduce gmarriage (generic marriage) to afford Lesbian intimate unions and male-to-male intimate unions not their own recognitions as distinctive kinds of intimate unions, but to dismantle the distincitiveness in law of the trad definition of marriage entirely. Because the Lib Party insisted that all Cabinet Ministers opposed to the brain-dead legislation, had to leave cabinet, Comuzzi had to resign from his position as Minister of State. He had continued in the Liberal Parlimanetary caucus.

Regarding his whithdrawal from the Lib causus today, Comuzzi explained that the new Conserv budget specifies "funding for a molecular cancer research centre that employs 300 people in his riding." The riding contains the city of Thunder Bay, in the otherwise rural and tourism riding of the same name, in northern Ontario. The riding has been subject to Lib indifference in recent times. The Conservs' explicit provision of funds for the facility was probably the tipping factor among several that seem to have left Comuzzi more and more disillusioned with the direction of his former Party; the new budget of Finance Minister, Flaherty, and Prime Minister, Stephen Harper allows Comuzzi to explain himself with great clarity to his own constituents. Being an Independent now, Comuzzi is not obligated to support the Conservative Party govt in all respects, if any. At the same time, he could at some point join in the Opposition to bringd down the govt on some other issue. Conceivably, this could lead to his reinstatement in the Lib caucus, were he to be elected.

Economics: Canada: Fed Budget provides Child Benefits for each of a family's kids, help low-income workers, seniors

"This budget's going to be a very easy sell in Canada," says a Global TV news commentator.

I'm looking at the Conservative's "easy sell" budget briefly here, looking at it from the standpoint of how it affects individuals. In fact, it affects individuals differently, not across the board. For most single wage-earners, no major change. But for families and the very-low-income working poor, including single wage-earners who are sole parent, there's a $310 sum alloted for the benefit of each child. The child benefit is perhaps the key provision for most families, and the preponderance of these will be members of the middle-class, including both those where one parent stays home and those with two parents who work.

As mentioned, aside from the mainly-middleclass families, there are special provisions to l+ten the load for working persons who are in the lowest-income category, where they would lose money working for low wages compared to going on the public purse altogether. This provision applies to lowest-income couples where both are working, and to singles in the same income category. They get this provision plus the $310 for each child.

Also, there's some relief for seniors (this provision would affect me directly).

All told, this budget is, from a family's perspective, a progressive conservative and mainstream budget with govt spending to give help for the poorest, the aged, and the middle-class. There's an emphasis on families with children.

Also of great relevance to family finances in relation to the goverment's overall ecological program is the govt's move to reduce air-pollutants by discouraging the buying of dirty-fuelled cars (there's a penalty of up $4,000 on the purchase of these, due to this budget) and at the same time by encouraging the purchase of cleaner-fuelled hybrid cars (yes, there's a $2,000 tax-break for going green when buying a new car).

Further, there's a matter of value to many families in the budget's relief for university students, to help reduce their debt load--a hefty sum which many begin to repay immediately upon entering their first job after graduation.

I'll update this post with specific figures over the next few days.

Tomorrow, however, Politicarp will hopefully provide a political analysis of the Budget.

Politics: Canada: Cheri Au calls Elizabeth May (Greens) 'gutsy,' but Jane Taber asks May, 'Are you crazy?'

Mainsonneuve the email newsletter that often annoys me, carries an item by Ceri Au, about Elizabeth May's notorious move, "May bets the House as Harper counts his chips" (Mar19,2k7).

...On the federal political stage, both the biggest player in the game, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the newest kid on the block, Green Party leader Elizabeth May, are constantly flexing their strategic political muscles, ensuring they are ready to take their parties to the next level. ...[Conservative] election preparedness is a smoke-and-mirrors action plan to stall the drop of the writ until polling numbers can [better] predict a Harper majority with more certainty.

On the flip side of cautious calculation is the gutsy decision by Green Party leader Elizabeth May to challenge Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in the Tory stronghold riding of Central Nova. “Are you crazy?” Jane Taber inquired, after May acknowledged yesterday on CTV’s lunch time political program Question Period her intentions to run against the cabinet minister. Dismissing lunacy as a driving force behind her decision, May let out a hearty chuckle and insisted she looks forward to the immense challenge ahead. “I think that Peter MacKay is, no question, a popular local constituency MP. He’s a very nice guy. I’m fond of him but he represents Harper government policies.” Nonetheless, for many political observers, challenging MacKay is not seemingly the quickest path to Parliament, especially for the leader of a party still hungry for their first seat in the Commons. Yet, as David Akin on CTV News reported, for Green party members who have seen their political stock rise in recent years (4.5 percent of the vote in 2006), there is only one credo of worth: “In Elizabeth we trust.” May recognizes the uphill battle she faces in what promises to be one of the most-watched races in the country in the next election...."

Politics: Canada: Green leader to challenge Conserv's Foreign Minister Peter MacKay

Snappy li'l rotund and self-r+teous Green leader, American-born Elizabeth May, has announced her plan to run against Peter MacKay. He is tall, athletic, and old-stock Canadian. Unlike May, Mackay has held political office, also having himself been a party leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (which merged with Steven Harper's former party, the Canadian Alliance, to launch the new Conservative Party which now constitutes the official minority federal govt). MacKay presently serves as Minister of Foreign Affairs. MacKay and his father before him have represented the Central Nova (Nova Scotia) riding well; Peter MacKay for ten years, following his father's twenty years. So, it's doubtful May will, or even can, win.

But she wisely chose a target upon whose coat-tails she can command a lot of national publicity (a Saul Alinsky tactic, like the tactics guiding Hillary Clinton in targetting Sen Barak Obama in the USA). Additionally, May has a "non-arrangement" arrangement with the federal Liberal Party. Both sides deny it according to Canadian Press via CJAD radio from Antonish, Nova Scotia. Strangely, the report doesn't mention at all the New Democrats in Central Nova riding where May is inserting herself. No mention either regarding the most recent past vote there which put Mackay in Parliament again, nor any mention of the NDP Central Nova warm-up in the current pre-election flood of press statements.

Antigonish, Nova Scotia (CP) - Green Leader Elizabeth May hopes to take down a heavyweight [wrong metaphor--May is fat like me, MacKay is lean--P] of the Harper cabinet in the next federal election by running against him in his Nova Scotia riding.

May announced plans Sunday to seek the Green party nomination in Central Nova -- the seat held for a decade by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Unlike the CJAD version, the Toronto Star version includes this CP factoid: "May placed second with 26 per cent support in a federal by-election last fall in the Ontario riding of London North-Centre. After losing to Liberal Glen Pearson, she said she would run in a Cape Breton riding in the next general election. Central Nova is in mainland Nova Scotia next to Cape Breton." Unfortunately, like CJAD, TS's wording does not star either; in this case, the problem is precise wording of the geographic relation, wording that is misleading: Cape Breton is not in mainland Nova Scotia. But TS Makes more clear that Mdme. May broke her word to the Cape Breton electorate and, presumably, did so because she figured out that she couldn't win there in her home riding. So, now she indulges in outr+t carpet-bagging, info that CJAD nearly excised from the CP syndicated dispatch, an excision replaced by a less-disclosive sentence, resulting in a massaged re-write which demonstrates subtly an ideological bias that corrupts CJAD's journalism. We'll meet that sentence further along in the text.

She said that out of respect for the party grassroots she will hold an open nomination vote at a meeting in the riding on April 10.

"It's going to be a very, very interesting race," May told supporters at an Antigonish cafe.

"I'm committed in this election to changing Canadian politics, to winning a seat for the Green Party of Canada." [A h+ly dubious remark. And certainly, we may conclude, she does not actually plan to win a seat for herself, but meanwhile she does plan to inflict as much damage upon MacKay and his party as she possibly can by hurloing epithets (the Alinskian practice of "demonization"). What she clearly can't and won't even try to do is win for herself the seat in Parliament that represents her own riding in Cape Breton.--P]

May conceded the riding won't be the easiest for her to win. [So, winning a seat, any old seat that is as close to a sure thing as she can manage for the Greens--that is not her priority. Just as keeping her word to Cape Bretonians is not her priority.--P]

MacKay held the riding by a margin of 3,300 votes in the last federal election and his father, Elmer, held it from the early 1970s to the early '90s.

But May, who lived in nearby Cape Breton after moving from Connecticut with her family as a teenager, said she has strong roots in the area [but does not have strong roots in the specific riding where she's set herself to smearing MacKay by out-hollering the indigenous NDP and Liberal candidates already lining up against him, thus lessening their propspects in Central Nova too. So, May's use of the term "the area" is quite disingenuous.--P], unlike B.C. or Ontario where poll numbers suggest she'd have a better chance. [Or, Cape Breton--would she have a better chance there?, if not as good a chance as she mite have somewhere in Ontario or BC.--P.]

May made a strong showing - finishing second with 26 per cent of the vote - in a byelection last November in the Ontario riding of London North Centre.

Even more important than her own roots, she added, is a chance to take on a high-profile member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. [Here she let's the cat out of her carpetbag--P]

"In any of the other ridings I was considering, I wasn't running against a member of Mr. Harper's cabinet," May said in an interview following her announcement.

"The policies of the Harper Conservatives represent a particularly anti-environmental, socially regressive kind of politics [here's the demonization, entirely malapropos because the Conservs are actively in transition regarding their environmental package--which will be revealed further in Monday's Budget Speech, and more fully in the new Environment Minister's legislation package sometime afterward-P] that I think is going to be a theme in our campaign."

May's party, which doesn't hold a seat in Parliament, has been bolstered by recent polls that have suggested its support is tied with, or just slightly behind, the New Democrats.

After her byelection defeat, May said she would run in a Cape Breton riding in the next federal election, although Central Nova sits on mainland Nova Scotia. [Here's the trimmed sentence, referred to earlier by me; nevertheless, it's a more geographically-explantory sentence than what we found in the TS version. Still, looking at a map will help readers outside Atlantic Canada to understand what the sentence actually signifies. -- P]

Political insiders suggest the Liberals -- who would be all too happy to see MacKay unseated -- might stand aside and avoid challenging May too stringently in the riding.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion denied a deal with the Green party leader but was full of praise for her.

"I have a lot of admiration for Madame May. Canada needs to be more sustainable, and she has a lot to offer," he said.

"But we Liberals intend to win an election, if an election is coming. . . . There is no decision made of this kind."

May also denied a deal with the Liberals, and said she would be upfront if a formal arrangement was reached.

She said she has talked informally with local Liberals who seem eager to help.

"Some of the Liberals who attended my press conference said, 'Our main goal is to unseat Peter MacKay,'" said May. "And if they think I'm the best way to do that, they could well be supportive."

There has been speculation a campaign could begin soon after Monday's federal budget, though it remains unclear whether the Conservative government or the opposition parties would be willing to force an election.

In the January 2006 election, the Greens picked up 4.5 per cent of popular support, giving the party valuable federal funding.

May, a longtime environmental activist, was elected leader of the Green party last August, with more than 65 per cent [of delegates'] support. The party was launched in 1983 and has run full slates in the past two federal elections.

As stated many times before on refWrite, I do think the Greens should be represented in Parliament; but under a proportional system of representation. At the same time, the goal of denying the rest of Canada a Foreign Minister of the calibre of MacKay, should the electorate re-elect the Conservs to power, either as a minority or majority govt, is quite duplicitous on the part of May's personal campaign plan, in my view. Carpet-bagging from riding to riding, election by election, seems to be the only option Mdme. May considers--but she could run in the riding in which she actually lives, but doesn't seem much to want to do so. We can only suspect that she would expect to lose in Cape Breton, and not even pick up the press coverage she clearly covets, by bitching against MacKay as her main "theme." And the law allows her to take on the role of the Mother of All Carpetbaggers. Shame!

Politics: France: Sarkozy makes important tactical win, but will it backfire?

France will have an election for President on April 22, and with recent developments that vote will be the first round involving what at the moment appears to include 12 candidates. Instead of knocking one out of three candidates from the list, now 10 will be deleted for the second-round vote on May6,2k7. The wider range of choice for the first round will make a large difference to the outcome of the second, apparently.

The foregoing important news regarding the upcoming French election is reported by Belfast Telegraph's John Lichfield, "Twelve to contest French presidential race" (Mar17,2k7). Most significantly, the leading candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, presently France's Minister of the Interior, would stand to hold the votes of his own supporters, placing him first in their preferences for President. These are, by and large, members of his party, Union for a Popular Movement (UMP, using the French word order) which is described as "center r+t."

But if there were only three parties' candidates on the ballot, both the far left and the far r+t would be unable to participate in the election (a real source of greivance and resentment in itself), but also Sarkozy's opponent for the second round could possibly be the winner, particularly the woman representing the Socialists, Mdme. Segolene Royal. The scenario painted to explain that potential eventuality is one in which all the far left particles call their supporters to back her, while the far r+t voters simply fail to participate in the vote of the second round.

Lichfield doesn't indulge in the speculation I tried to summarize, but he gives the factual backround for it.

French electors voting on 22 April will have a choice between 12 presidential candidates, including three "mainstream" figures, two representatives of the far right, one green, an "official" Communist and three Trotskyists.

Few countries in the world offer their electors such a wide range of candidates, especially so many marginally differing flavours of the far left. When the deadline for submitting formal applications expired last night, a dozen candidates - eight men and four women - appeared to have met the formal entry requirements. A final list will be announced next week.

Three or possibly four of the candidates have a serious hope of qualifying for the second round. Only the two leading vote-winners in the first round go forward to a run-off on 6 May.

To reach the ballot paper, a candidate must produce 500 endorsements from elected local or national politicians - a hurdle which has proved harder to jump this year. In the last presidential election in 2002, there were 16 candidates in the first round. Large parties have made a concerted effort to fence out the smaller candidates this time.

Only two weeks ago, the far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen raised doubts about his ability to produce 500 signed endorsement forms. He made it on Wednesday, two days early, with some help from the candidate of the centre-right governing party, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Last week, M. Sarkozy urged non-affiliated village and small-town mayors of the centre right to endorse M. Le Pen - as well as far-left candidates - to prove that the system was "open and democratic".

M. Sarkozy, who leads in the opinion polls, also had tactical considerations.

If M. Le Pen had been absent from the ballot, his vote - 12 to 13 per cent according to the opinion polls, but probably higher - might have been denied to M. Sarkozy in the second round. The other candidate of the far " nationalist" right, Philippe de Villiers, assembled his 500 signatures easily but is given, at most, 2 per cent of the national vote.

The crowd of candidates on the far left reflects tribal divisions, ideological nuances and personal hatreds, more than genuine electoral support. One of the mysteries of the opinion polls this year is the apparent "collapse" of the potential vote of the wider left. Even the candidate of the once-powerful French Communist Party, Marie-George Buffet, is forecast to take only about 2 per cent of the national vote. The veteran Trotskyist candidate, Arlette Laguiller (of Lutte Ouvriere), on her sixth and final campaign, is given only just over 2 per cent in most polls.

Olivier Besancenot, the young postman representing the other main Trotskyist faction, Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, has about the same level of support. The third Trotskyist, Gérard Schivardi of the Workers Party, is likely to score less than 1 per cent. Efforts to agree a single candidate of the far left fell apart months ago.

The quest for the top two places in the run-off has developed into a three-way race between M. Sarkozy (with 27-29 per cent in the latest polls), the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal (with 23-25 per cent) and the surging centrist candidate, François Bayrou (with 21-23 per cent).

But pollsters warn M. Le Pen, who shocked France and the world by reaching the second round in 2002, should not be discounted.

A fourway 1st round could possibly produce, as "Sarko"'s solo opponent either the centrist Union for French Democracy (UDF)'s canddidate Francois Bayrou. Or the far r+t, anti-immigrant National Front's Le Pen. Neither the combined far and near Left, it is assumed, would allow Sarko go down to the Far R+t, but the Left could shift massively to support Bayrou against Sarko. Add to that a certain margin of the Le Pen vote who conceivably would support a centrist just to give Sarko and the UMP a good whack, and voila!, Bayrou's the new President of France. But who would Bayrou appoint as Prime Minister to form a cabinet? Sego? Sarko?

Politics: Military: Iran's Revolutionary Guard

In a lengthy article in the Jewish magazine Forward, Mohsen Sazegara, a co-founder and former official of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran, writes a historical summary on "What was once a Revolutionary Guard is now a mafia" (Mar16,2k67). This excerpt focuses elsewhere than on the article's overall point about the Mafia-likeness itself, of RG). I selected the more-than-analogical reference to the Nazi Brownshirts (Gen. Rohm's SocialWorkers Army) and the succeeding passage that explains RG's cells thru-out much of the Arab MidEast. refWrite readers are urged to read the entire article.

" During the Iran-Iraq War, the Revolutionary Guard’s commander, Rezai, stated that the Revolutionary Guard must develop units specifically tasked with confronting opposition to the regime. I met shortly afterward with the head of Iran’s Judiciary Branch and asked him not to pursue Rezai’s plan. The only possible outcome from such an act, I warned, would be the creation of a force very much resembling the Nazi Brownshirts.

The head of the Judiciary Branch laughingly disregarded my suggestion. I should not bad-mouth the Nazis, he told me; at least they had some educated people among them. In the end, Rezai had his way, and so were created the “White Shirts” and other civilian groups entrusted with the task of intimidating and brutalizing any hint of opposition, a practice that still takes place today.

The Revolutionary Guard was no longer a people’s army, just another coercive force at the service of the ruling establishment. To solidify their hold on power, the same clique that has been running the Revolutionary Guard all these years prematurely removed a number of senior and able commanders, among them Davoud Karimi, the commander in Tehran.

The Revolutionary Guard also expanded beyond the air, ground and naval components approved by Khomeini in 1985. The Basij force, which had been created as a volunteer militia to help fight the war with Iraq, was transformed into a unit with paid elements who were tasked with confronting domestic opposition. And in order to carry out the Revolutionary Guard’s bidding in areas outside the country — Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan and, most importantly, Iraq — the Quds Force was created.

I once heard Hassan Abbasi, who was a member of the Revolutionary Guard’s strategic planning department, boast to students at Khajeh Nasir University that the Revolutionary Guard was making good use of the Hezbollah cells it had created in Lebanon and elsewhere. And the current president of the Islamic Republic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, served with the Ramazan Unit of the Quds Force, participating in Iraq-related operations during the during the Iran-Iraq War. There should be no doubt about the Quds Force’s role in what transpired last summer in Lebanon, or in what is happening on a daily basis between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq."

More Info on Iran--Latest Developments:

World's major powers agree on Iran sanctions package

Iran Is Playing a Growing Role in Iraq Economy

UN: Ahmadinejad can speak before nations' sanctions vote

Politics: UK: Basic stats on Northern Ireland election results

The Mar7,2k7 election results for Stormont (the parliament of Northern Ireland), I found a bit difficult to track down. Also, some snaggle may be continuing, as I haven't heard in the press to which I had resort that Dr Ian Paisley has become chief minister, which would follow logically from the results. With the intent of checking out more particulars, nevertheless I hurry (a week later) to supply refWriters readers with the most important stats. Here they are:

Party.........Seats.......Vote share........Full name of the parties

DUP...........36.....30.1%......Democratic Unionist Party
UUP...........18.....14.9%......Ulster Unionist Party
Alliance.......7.......5.2%......Alliance Party
Others.........3.......8.0%
SDLP..........16.....15.2%......Social Democratic Labour Party
Sinn Fein.....28.....26.2%......Related to Irish Republican Army

Europe > UK > Northern Ireland

Regarding the vote, UK newspaper Guardian says in an article on Tony Blair's and Ian Paisley's Christian religious dialogue with one another,

The charm offensive appeared to be paying off yesterday. Mr Blair's new ally gave his most positive statement yet that a power-sharing deal might be achieved with Sinn Féin.

"I'm not confident until it's done," Mr Paisley said. "I think we have made a bit of progress. I think we are getting down to the real issues at last. The rest was shadow-boxing."

Mr Paisley added that his success in last week's assembly elections - the DUP won 36 of the 108 seats - had given him room to manoeuvre. "I can afford now to go a bit further because I am confident the people are with me.

*The chart and map are from Elections: Northern Ireland Elections website.

Politics: MidEast: End the Incitement of Palestinian kids against Israel, a Kirschen cartoon

"End the Incitement" is an original cartoon by Yaakov Kirschner(c)March 14, 2007
Digitally republished with the permission of the artist.,

Enviro: UK: Govt's new draft bill seeks transition to low-carbon economy

The Left-Anarchist Christian news source, Ekklesia reports on important developments in the United Kingdom regarding the environment. Recent govt initiatives, coming a month after the evangelical missionary organization, Christian Aid published a full-scale environmental report for the UK, will be accompanied by separate legislative proposals by the UK Conservatives and also the UK Liberal Democrats. Meanwhile. all British proposals suffer the same Achilles Heel as do the current and earlier Canadian ones: the UK and Canada are both signatories to the Kyoto Protocols on the environment which treaty gives Communist China a carte blanche on accelerating carbon emmissions to the extent of immediately eating up and surpassing the planned British restraints, considered from a global perspective.

[UK]'s Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Miliband’s draft Climate Change Bill, published on 12 March, which aims to enforce a 60 per cent cut in UK CO2 emissions by 2050, is a significant step in the right direction – but will require many amendments as it goes through consultation and Parliament, Christian Aid said today.

Christian Aid’s senior climate policy officer, Andrew Pendleton, acknowledged that the very act of publishing the bill makes the UK the first country to bring forward a legal framework for a transition to a low-carbon economy. "Mr Miliband is to be congratulated for publishing the bill and he is right to be proud of it – he and the government are an example to the rest of the G8," Mr Pendleton said.

"But if the final legislation is not significantly stronger, the process would represent a massive lost opportunity. It is the first step on a long journey rather than the destination itself."

Christian Aid is campaigning for a climate change bill that includes cuts of at least 80 per cent by 2050 with annual carbon budgeting ‘milestones’ rather than five year budgets – there is too much flexibility and wriggle room in a five-year cycle.

It also wants mandatory reporting of CO2 emissions by companies trading in the UK according to DEFRA’s own, currently voluntary standards.

Campaigners say that the world’s poorest people are already suffering the impact of climate change and stand to lose livelihoods and lives if the situation deteriorates.

But, of course, the situation is deteriorating, as China's emissions have already reached and are rapidly surpassing those of the entire European Union, to the effect that rapid depeening of the worldwide crisis from that source (on the same environmental reasoning) ensures that "the world's poorest people ... stand to lose livellihoods and lives" because "the situation is" indeed "deteriorating."

Even a two degree rise is likely to have massive, negative consequences; anything exceeding this would be an unmitigated disaster.

The Bill has four main pillars: it will set a UK carbon budget every five years; it will set up a committee of experts on climate change to advise the government on the economic impact of carbon; it will set up a system of annual reporting to Parliament on government progress towards each budget and will include enabling powers to set up carbon trading schemes through secondary legislation – which may even eventually mean individuals will have their own carbon budgets.

Mr Pendleton said: "A UK cut of 60 per cent of CO2 emissions is not enough. The ambition at the heart of this bill must be to cut CO2 emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, with as steep a decline as possible as soon as possible, which means 40 per cent cuts by 2020. With the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both developing proposals of their own there’ll be everything to play for as this bill passes through Parliament.

We should congratulate UK and EU for these efforts (whatever flaws they may yet habour), and we should urge Canada and US to move forward with the best they/we have got to date. But a united diplomatic effort, using all the powers of trade and world propaganda, is called for, especially as the 2008 Olympic Games in China draw closer. Else China will definitely secure for itself by then the Lead Prize as the world's worst polluter.

The struggle for a better and less carbon-incresive environment in Europe, UK, Canada, and USA will involve each responsible person politically and personally; but a united international front to curb China's pollution, while yet encouraging its industrial development and raising the standard of living of its population, is mandated by world conditions today. May the Lord have mercy on us all for the damage done to the good Creation.

Politics: USA: Bush's Latin American diplomacy becomes platform for his last campaign--a guestworker program + shutting out illiegal immigrants

Associated Press' Deb Riechmann reports from Merida, Mexico "Bush seeks better ties in Latin America" (Mar14,2k7) via Houston Chronicle. Riechmann stresses that the US President's tour of diplomacy to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico would climax in the Yucatan Penninsula. There, Bush also sent a related message to the American Congress.

President Bush sent a long-distance message to Congress from the southeast tip of Mexico: The future of U.S. relations south of the border hinges on immigration reform.

"I'm going to keep repeating it while I'm here in Mexico — that I know our country must have comprehensive immigration reform," said Bush, who returns to Washington on Wednesday after a second day of meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Bush is to speak on the Yucatan Peninsula to the Mexican people and the newly elected Calderon before leaving, but he hopes his words will be heard 1,400 miles away on Capitol Hill where his immigration proposal has been blocked. ...

The president could not promise Mexico that Congress will pass his guest worker program. He could only promise to work hard to make it law.

"President Calderon holds deep convictions on the matter of migration, and so do I," Bush said Tuesday night in a toast to Calderon on the breezy verandah of a manicured hacienda where the two dined on fresh shrimp ceviche and duck.

"Our nations share a 2,000-mile border, and that should be a source of unity, not division," Bush said. "So we're working together to keep both sides of the border open to tourism and trade, and closed to criminals and drug dealers and smugglers and terrorists and gun runners."

With those words, Bush closed a warm, sunny day of meetings, hacienda hopping and sightseeing at Mayan ruins with Calderon, who heralded the meeting as a "new stage in bilateral relations."

Just before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush stressed the importance of the U.S. relationship with Mexico. The war in Iraq, which Mexico did not support, and Afghanistan shifted Bush's focus to the Middle East and Mexicans felt neglected. ...

Bush worked to allay their concerns, saying the barrier and stepped up enforcement along the border were only the first steps in a comprehensive immigration law overhaul that he hoped would include a guest worker program. ...

Besides shoring up relations in Latin America, Bush's trip could help reach Hispanics, who make up the fastest-growing minority group in the United States. And it helps Bush, who has waning political clout, push his immigration agenda through Congress.

Mexico, which for years has been urging changes in U.S. immigration policy, plans to begin an aggressive lobbying effort to get a deal. With the clock ticking on Bush's presidency, Bush said he hoped legislation would be completed by August.

Bush's proposed a guest worker program, which Congress has not embraced, would allow Mexicans to seek temporary work visas to work in the United States. ...

I'm hopeful but doubtful that Bush's plan for a strong border with a close-off of most illiegal migration plus a guest worker process for illegals presently in the USA, will succeed. I don't see anything else around that is more workable. Neither on the R+t, nor the Left.

Politics: Canada: Leader of Quebec's smallest party outshines the two main parties in election debate

In a free translation by refWrite's publisher Albert Gedraitis, Quebec daily Le Soleil in a French-language report by Jean-François Cliche says the audience at the Leaders Debate in the up-coming provincial election preferred Mario Dumont over the leaders of the two dominant parties.

The Leader of Democratic Action of Quebec, Mario Dumont, offered the best performance during the debate last nite, if one judges by the results of a poll by [three Quebec news organizations] CROP—La Presse—Le Soleil taken at the end of the evening.

In effect, 42% of those polled said the performance of Dumont was "excellent" or "very good," compared to 29% for the outgoinjg Prime Minister, Jewan Charest, and 27% for the Leader of the separatist Parti Quebecois. Andre Boisclair.

One francophone voice that always impresses me, disagrees with the polls. The blogger Jacques Hamel gives his analysis and concludes that the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Jean Charest, the present Prime Minister, won the debate.

Somewhere in my reading today I came upon the estimate that 50% of the ADQ members are separatists who don't want to vote for the separatist Parti Quebecois (PQ) in its present incarnation; and that the other 50% are federalists with many conservative tendencies.

Juridics: Fed Canada: Canadian Judicial Council pouts its way to acceptance of reforms in Judicial Advisory Committees

The effort of the Conservative minority govt of Canada to reform the existing Judicial Advisory Committees has been poutingly accepted by the main national body of Federal judges, the Canadian Judicial Council. At least, as I read CJC's rather arch Overview of the judicial appointment process (released Feb20,2k7), the CJC has now accepted the reforms suggested by the government.

The Canadian Judicial Council accepts, despite these changes to the Advisory Committees, that judges can continue to participate in the deliberations of the Advisory Committees,...

The remainder of the sentence continues the whining quality of the document's overall tone, crystallizing it into an unabashed full pout:

...but only if the principle of judicial independence is respected and judicial candidates are recommended strictly on the basis of merit.

Of course, this is a signal that the CJC still doesn't want to face the consequences of the reform, which seeks to protect the judiciary from the kind of stacking hitherto practised by Canada's Liberal govts of the last 40 years. In part, we may expect that in this latter subordinate clause the CJC is trying to position itself for future quarrels it hopes to provoke and to lay a basis for obstruction.

The two buzzwords that the CJC constantly invokes are "independence" and "merit." Both these terms need a law-philosophical analysis in conjunction with the fact that different definitions prevail from law philosophy to law philosophy. Nowhere is it mentioned that a plurality of las philosophies must be represented in the judiciary, since no single law philosophy can give us judicial independence. The monoculture of a single law philosophy would make the judiciary dependent on that sole philosophy, without the benifit of other philosophies competent to call its fiats into question, to open other avenues of deliberation, to ensure an indepth dialogue among the law phliosophies in order to reach judgements and render sentences that are more fair, and hence more meritorious. Is "merit" a matter of formal degrees from the "best" law schools, as ranked by the graduates of those very over-represented schools? Is "merit" itself an absolutely neutral concept? A technical concept only?

I find the CJC's statement to be very shallow from the standpoint of legal philosophy, and very astute politically from the standpoint of keeping a closed guild closed.

The full text of CJC"s Overview follows below, with the above key passage in bold.

Canada's system of government comprises three branches: the Legislative Branch (Parliament), the Executive Branch (the government) and the Judicial Branch (the judiciary). Under Canada's Constitution, each Branch has important responsibilities that are distinct from one another.

Superior Court judges are appointed by the federal government. Under Canada's constitution, and established law, the status of judges is recognized as fully independent. Once appointed, a judge can serve until age 75 and cannot be removed from office except by joint address of both Houses of Parliament.

Judicial independence is of fundamental importance in a democracy. Those who interpret the laws must do so without fear or favour, and without regard to whether their decisions are popular. This is a cornerstone of the rule of law.

In that context, the most important goal in appointing a judge is that only those of highest merit and legal qualifications are selected, independent of any political or ideological considerations.

Creation of the Judicial Advisory Committees

The Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs) were created in 1988 following recommendations of the legal community, and others, that an independent process should be followed to assess the qualifications of candidates for appointment to the Bench. The model adopted by the government was the result of more than two years of consultations and enquiries with Canadians, including judges, lawyers and scholars. The key element in the adopted model was the creation of advisory committees independent of the appointing government. These committees were intended to screen all candidates for competence, to ensure that merit would govern the selection process.

At the time, the Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn, Minister of Justice, wrote "The concept of merit is central to the new appointments process. I firmly believe that no government can afford to approach the issue of appointments to the bench without a commitment to selecting the best person available, determined by objective criteria. The stakes for our Canadian society are too high to settle for anything less."

Since then, successive governments have adopted this independent advisory committee model, making occasional changes. Each time, the legal community was fully involved in consultations regarding proposed changes. In late 2006 however, the government unilaterally announced changes to the composition of the committees and the manner of their deliberations.

Composition and functioning of the Advisory Committees until 2006

Judicial Advisory Committees, since they were created, maintained their independence of the appointing government, while including representation from the federal government, the provincial government, the provincial law society, the Canadian Bar Association and the judiciary.

At their creation in 1988, committees were asked to assess if candidates were "qualified" or "not qualified." In 1991, further to a government review of the process, the committees were asked to use new categories: "recommended," "highly recommended" or "unable to recommend." The change was made in recognition of the fact that some candidates are much more qualified than others.

The size of the committees was increased from five to seven members in 1994, giving the federal government three members, instead of just one who represented the Minister. The two additional members were to be a lawyer and a lay person. The Minister of Justice at the time said that the new structure would "facilitate the appointment of committees that more fully reflect the diversity of society in each jurisdiction and, in the case of lawyer members, of the legal community." At the same time, it was understood that the majority of members would not be appointed by the government.

Recent changes to the Advisory Committees

One change recently made to the functioning of the Advisory Committees is to eliminate the distinction between "recommended" and "highly recommended" for the assessment of candidates. This raises questions about whether the most qualified individuals will continue to be identified for appointment.

The qualifications needed to be a judge are extensive. In addition to a number of personal qualities and competencies, candidates for judges must demonstrate proficiency in various areas of the law.

This is particularly important because Canada's Superior Courts hear cases in many areas that affect Canadians in their day to day lives: family law, commercial law, torts and liability law, administrative law and criminal law. Most cases heard by Canada's Superior Courts have nothing to do with criminal law. Many non-criminal cases also involve disputes between citizens and their government.

Another change made was in the number of members who serve on the Advisory Committees. The government is now appointing a fourth member to serve on each Committee. A related change is to remove the right to vote for the representative of the judiciary, except in the event of a tie. This means that there are seven members who are ordinarily entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice.

Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge. Judicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians [footnote 1]. As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated, "Litigants who engage our judicial system should be in no doubt that they are before a judge who is demonstrably independent and is motivated only by a search for a just and principled result. [2]"

The Canadian Judicial Council accepts, despite these changes to the Advisory Committees, that judges can continue to participate in the deliberations of the Advisory Committees, but only if the principle of judicial independence is respected and judicial candidates are recommended strictly on the basis of merit.

Choosing the best judges for Canadians

The responsibility of appointing Superior Court judges rests with the Governor-in-Council. It is the government that has the authority and mandate to select and appoint judges.

That responsibility, however, must be exercised with due regard to the responsibilities and authority of the other two branches of government. The fundamental importance of appointing only the most meritorious candidates, irrespective of political or ideological conviction, should guide all three branches of government in working together to serve the interests of all Canadians.

The Canadian Judicial Council will continue to work toward the fundamental goal of maintaining an independent judiciary in Canada.

-----------

1 Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Principles for Judges.

2 Provincial Court Judges' Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice); Ontario Judges' Assn. v. Ontario (Management Board); Bodner v. Alberta; Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General); Minc v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 2 S.C.R 286, 2005 SCC 44.

The reform of the Canadian judicial mind and the jurisprudence it begets can only be in its infancy, but the Conservative minority govt will not and can not be more than a fine-tuner of existing arrangements. The real work belongs to the field of scholarship in legal philosophy. And that will require at least a generation of work by gifted and civically-minded persons who see thru the Liberal facade that can not see beyond its own limited philosophical horizons--where it has stacked not only the judges of the courts but words like "equality," "independence," and "merit."

Juridics: USA: Law prof Bainbridge muses on what's behind "the US Attorney mess" that has Dems calling for ousting of Attorney General Gonzales

Prof. Stephen Bainbridge's blog entry for Mar13,2k7 reflects on what's being called "the mess," an apparent fiasco which elicited an apology from the head of the US Department of Justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales today. Now Hillary Clinton has joined the fray, calling for the resignation of the Bush Administrations' Attorney General; she was foiled in her duplicitous effort by the re-emergence of her own involvement of the Clinton Admin's firing of all 93 Federal Prosecutors in 1994.

[Clinton's Attorney General, Janet] Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary's former law partner in Little Rock and Bill's man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis. -- "Justice denied: as President Clinton has time after time made a mockery of his oath of office, his attorney general has followed suit - Janet Reno," by Robert Bork (Sep1,1998) National Review,

On the apology, Tony Czuczka reports on the M&C (Mar 13, 2k7):

Washington - Faced with allegations that the Bush administration fired US federal prosecutors for political reasons, the top US justice official Tuesday acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' but rejected opposition calls for him to resign.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sought to portray last year's dismissal of eight prosecutors as driven by the White House and his own former chief of staff Kyle Sampson, who resigned Monday.

'I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility,' Gonzales told reporters.

But he insisted he was not informed of all details of the process. 'I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,' he said.

But Bainbridges' remarks, while they do not render the former chief of staff innocent, they do supply space for questioning why the staffer and the White House may have wanted to get rid of the Attorney. Easily, in this speculative realm, the Attorneys may have been pursuing their own agendas, setting their own priorities, politically-motivated contrary to the directions set by Gonzales. Here's Bainbridge:

...[T]here is big difference between putting political constraints on a prosecutor's general exercise of his or her prosecutorial discretion and allowing political calculations to factor into specific decisions. For example, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the President and Attorney General to set law enforcement priorities. Say, the Attorney General says pornography is a priority. US Attorneys who fail to enforce that priority appropriately can be fired. Contra what some in the blogosphere seem to believe, US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President and may be terminated either with our without cause at any time.

In contrast, investigations and prosecutions aimed at furthering a prosecutor's own career or those that are aimed at individuals or entities because of their political status are improper. Robert H. Jackson warned about the dangers that political considerations posed to the reputation of federal prosecutors as "dispassionate, reasonable and just." Accordingly, both the ABA's Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice and the Department of Justice's United States Attorneys' Manual declare that political considerations are inappropriate factors in a decision to investigate and charge a specific person. If the US Attorneys in question were fired because they refused to bring voter fraud cases against Democrats or because they tried to bring voter fraud cases against Republicans, for example, we have a serious problem.

Two things for sure: neither the fired attorneys nor the Dems are to be trusted. This looks very much like the pattern already established to bring the present Administration absolutely to its knees.

Economics: USA: Several signs of stock market recovery from Shanghai Pox, but home-loan defaults forebode recession possibliity

Bloomberg's Nick Baker, "U.S. Stocks Climb on Acquisitions, Oil Decline; Intel Surges" (Mar12,2k7).

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks extended a week of gains, buoyed by $31.7 billion of acquisitions, falling oil prices and an analyst's prediction that demand for mobile-phone chips will grow.

Dollar General Corp. rose the most ever and led the Standard & Poor's 500 Index to its third gain in three days after it agreed be acquired by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. Intel Corp. drove technology shares to their highest level this month, lifting the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq Composite Index.

Today's takeovers gave investors another reason to buy stocks after last week's unexpected drop in February unemployment and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's reassurances that the economy will avoid recession. The S&P 500 now has recovered almost half its losses since the global rout in equities Feb. 27.

``People like to see deals,'' said Edgar Peters, who oversees $22 billion as chief investment officer at PanAgora Asset Management in Boston. ``They like to see the stocks they own may be undervalued and could be bought out.''

The S&P 500 added 3.75, or 0.3 percent, to 1406.60. The Dow industrials rose 42.30, or 0.3 percent, to 12,318.62, while the Nasdaq climbed 14.74, or 0.6 percent, to 2402.29. The gains came even as shares in most financial companies fell on mounting concern that home-loan defaults are rising.

Stocks advanced last week, rebounding from the largest weekly loss in four years. Last year, takeovers amounted to a record $3.68 trillion worldwide, and investors have said a rally in 2007 hinges in part on a continuation of that pace.

For details, click the live-linked headline for Nick Baker's full article.

Economics: Canada: Tax collection delayed by computer-system failure; Nortel execs charged

A computer glitch has resulted in a shutdown of the Internal Revenue Canada's computer system. All this at the heit of tax-filers' use of it, to meet the year's deadline for filing tax returns. Nearly 12.5 million used the govt's computerized system last year, half of the total 25 million filers.

Toronto Star's Curtis Rush and Richard Brennan, besides listing the Fed Canadian computer snaggles and boondoggles under the Liberals, outline the most recent difficulties, beginning March 6, now in its 6th day, and believed to be solvable by March 15:

Rick Broadhead, a computer expert and technology consultant from Toronto, said the latest glitch at the Canada Revenue Agency is a public relations nightmare.

Broadhead said the biggest problem the Canada Revenue Agency faces is having people doubt whether their personal tax information is secure now.

"Canada Revenue" is an umbrella term that covers both internal taxation (including income tax) and those that apply externally to imports, exports (both commercial), and to individual customs charges.

"Revenue Canada has to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected and that people's privacy is not at risk, security is not at risk. But even if they say that, people are still going to question them because there have been too many examples in the past where organizations have messed up," Broadhead said.

"This is not a good situation at all. It couldn't happen at a worse time."

Canadian Revenue Agency CEO Michel Dorais said in a statement posted on the agency's website last week that he ordered the suspension of Efile, Telefile and Netfile services to safeguard existing systems and to safeguard CRA's taxpayer information.

About 25 million Canadians file income tax returns and about half them do it electronically now, either by themselves or through a tax preparer.

Jacqueline Couture, national spokesperson for the Canada Revenue Agency, told the Star the online service would not be available for several days because of problems resulting from software maintenance conducted last Sunday.

"We have identified the problem ... we are saying over the next several days we will have everything back up," Couture said, emphasizing that security and integrity of the information was not compromised.

The agency has said that there is no indication the glitch was caused by a virus or hackers.

The last factoid mentioned is surely something of a relief, but incompetence in the technocracy's responsible for the Federal government's computers is incompetency. Technoratic heads should roll, about 20 of them, down to the level of the supergeek programmers who simply didn't do their job well. We can't know for sure, I guess, whether the problem was exactly incompetence only, perhaps it's the result of sabotage by political enemies of the present govt who imagine they are untouchably entrenched in jobs for life.

Conspiracy or no in the govt tax-files fiasco, Canadians were hit with a double-whammy when one of its prestige corporations lost its good name today with charges against 4 of its former executives:

The battered reputation of Nortel Networks Corp. has received another dent as U.S. securities officials filed civil fraud charges against ex-CEO Frank Dunn and three other former executives.

“Each of the defendants betrayed Nortel’s investors and their misconduct gave rise to billions of dollars in shareholder losses,” the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged in filings today in New York.

Also today, the Ontario Securities Commission announced a hearing into allegations of financial misconduct and negligence against Dunn and two of the three others named in the SEC filing.

Observers said the regulatory actions came as no surprise but raise the prospect that criminal charges may be next, arising from ongoing probes by both American authorities and the RCMP.

Nortel (TSX:NY) still has strong products and spends $1 billion a year on research and development but cannot help but be “tainted” by the allegations against its former management regime, commented Lawrence Surtees, a vice-president at technology consultancy IDC Canada Ltd.

Criminal charges? It sounds like they should be criminal conspiracy charges! In the US, could the anti-Mafia Act be invoked against this bunch of executive no-goodniks?, one wonders.

Enviro: Canada: Why did Libs (Chretien, Martin, Stewart, Dion) not demand equal carbon-fuel constraints on China?

The irrepressible publisher of the China e-Lobby's email newsletter, JD Maguire offers some astute remarks on Communist China's now-leading role in worldwide pollution.

Whatever one may think of the Kyoto agreement, the fact that it exempts Communist China, has long been a chief argument of its critics against the deal. Proponents have argued that Communist China's emission levels wouldn't challenge America's for years to come.

Well, that line of argument has passed its best-by date, literally. New figures from the Communists themselves (of all people) have revealed that the United States will fall behind Communist China in carbon-dioxide emissions as early as this year. In fact, emissions from Communist China have nearly doubled since 2001 (San Francisco Chronicle). Or, to put it another way, "China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together."

Even those who fervently believe in man-made global warming must now agree that Kyoto is useless without including what will soon be the largest carbon emitter on the planet. All it will do is allow the Communists to continue to rapidly overdevelop, destroy its ecology, build up its military, and arm or otherwise aid terrorists without any qualms while the free world geopolitically handicaps itself.

I checked out the live-links with which Maquire documents his remarks. In the SanFransisco Chronicle, Robert Collier, "A Warming World: China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases" (Mar6,2k7).

Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.

"The magnitude of what's happening in China threatens to wipe out what's happening internationally," said David Fridley, leader of the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

"Today's global warming problem has been caused mainly by us in the West, with the cumulative (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, but China is contributing to the global warming problem of tomorrow."

New statistics released in Beijing on Wednesday by China's National Bureau of Statistics show that China's consumption of fossil fuels rose in 2006 by 9.3 percent, about the same rate as in previous years -- and about eight times higher than the U.S. increase of 1.2 percent.

While China's total greenhouse gas emissions were only 42 percent of the U.S. level in 2001, they had soared to an estimated 97 percent of the American level by 2006.

Maguire also puts us on to a telltale graph accompanying Collier's article but on another page. The graph makes clear that China has well-surpassed Europe, has rapidly risen to American levels, and is now a rapid projectile that is moving without check either to protect its people, air, water, and cities; but is becoming a menace to the whole world.

Meantime, Japan has reached equilibrium and is, for the good of the whole world, manufacturing hybrid-fuelled battery-driven cars that are slowly gaining increased public favour there. While that be true, India which was close behind Japan in the production of carbon-increasive fuel emissions, now without equilibrium it has surpassed Japan on India's upward climb on the chart. But this should be clear, neither Japan nor India come near to producing what Europe, USA, and most/worst of all China are doing. The pace and time factors of China's climb threaten the world's air and water--even if all the other countries mentioned manage to reduce their carbon-incresive emissions to Zero!

Now, Canada doesn't even appear on the lists. However, while Canada under the Liberal Party govts of the last 40 years has slaveringly touted among its own entrepreneurs and abroad thru "trade missions" sponsored mass siginings of Canada/China business deals and investments, became signatory to the Kyoto Protocols without requiring its dubious trade partner China to undergo the same restrictions required of all signers to reduce carbon-increasive emissions. China should have had its feet held to the fire with all the rest of the signers. Instead, Canada was complicit in China's carte blance, free pass, whatever you may wish to call it. This lack of analysis and fores+t regarding China, was the result of extremely poor plannning on the part of the Liberal government, its prime ministers Chretien and Martin, and its environment ministers Stewart and Dion (who is now leader of the Fed Libs). In truth, Dion never cared for the environment and he never cared about either China's or Canada's meeting the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. Allowing China to go scot-free was a kind of Munich that his party's China boosterism foisted on the Canadian people thru short-term thinking. It was a most astounding betrayal of environment.

Dion now talks grandiosely about his commitment to longterm planning, but he's all along been part of unleashing China's rapid-increase worldwide lead in destroying the global human heritage of air and water. He was a cabinet minister of a govt which signed on to giving China a free hand, because he and his party had no longterm plan; now China is repaying Canada by making our own signing of Kyoto irrelevant to the world's sink into deep environmental sickness.

Whether Stephen Harper's minority Conservative govt will make a really positive difference for environmental concerns in Canada longterm (given that any plan from Harper will have to be effective in the huge quintupling of the Alberta oil fields and refining of tar and other impurities out the carbon-increasive oil products, consequently thereby increasing the longevity of carbon emissions from traditional autos [etc]) on Canada's roads--all that remains to be seen.

But Stephane Dion has had his chance. He has proved a lousy steward of the environment, now that the Liberal past is exposed for lack of longterm planning inherent in its signing on to Kyoto while exempting China, all to the world's longterm extreme damage. Dion should not be rewarded for this perfidy by being elected Prime Minister.

Environment: Canada: Former minister explains why Lib Party and present party leader Dion did nothing for 13 years to backup Kyoto signature

Reporter for Toronto's Globe & Mail Bill Curry supplies an ins+t into the gap prevailing hitehrto in the public's understanding of why the Liberal govt did nothing for 13 years to backup its signing Canada onto the Kyoto Protocol on the environment. "Dion did not support Kyoto efforts, former environment minister says" (Mar8,2k7).

OTTAWA — Christine Stewart, who was the Liberal environment minister when Canada signed the Kyoto agreement in 1997, said none of her cabinet colleagues -- including current party leader Stéphane Dion -- supported her efforts to put a real plan in place to meet its ambitious targets.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail yesterday, Ms. Stewart said she told her colleagues that Kyoto would require tough action from the provinces because they control the main sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and natural resources. But the provinces objected and their opposition was reflected in cabinet by Mr. Dion, who was then intergovernmental affairs minister, she said.

"Stéphane Dion was the minister of intergovernmental affairs and the whole issue [of Kyoto] was creating horrible consternation among the provinces," she recalled. "Frankly, the environment wasn't an intergovernmental topic that our government wanted to expend their opportunity on. They had to worry more about getting a health agreement with the provinces or financial issues and we couldn't get [the provinces] angry and all upset about the environment.

"That was [Mr. Dion's] role. 'Let's let this one lay low.' It was never said in so many words. I think what I am saying is he wasn't against [Kyoto], but he was not a champion. But then he wasn't unique. If you can find a champion [in that Liberal cabinet], let me know," she said.

Ms. Stewart was environment minister from 1997 to 1999 and has kept a low profile since retiring from public life before the 2000 election.

Her comments are similar to those expressed recently by Eddie Goldenberg, who was the senior adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien. In a speech, Mr. Goldenberg said neither the public nor the government was ready for the tough measures Kyoto required.

Mr. Dion has made the Kyoto Protocol a central part of his political persona, naming his dog Kyoto and supporting a controversial private member's bill that would enforce the accord's targets on the Conservative government.

In an interview, Mr. Dion said he was not surprised by Ms. Stewart's comments because there is always a natural tension between environment ministers and their cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Dion said he was working hard to find a climate change plan that could be supported by the provinces and Ms. Stewart was likely frustrated by the time it took to find consensus. He said he ultimately got the provinces to agree to a joint climate fund to pay for climate-change projects. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is simply reannouncing the result of that work in the Liberal cabinet, Mr. Dion said.

"I was trying to find a way to keep [the provinces] in the tent and to work with them," he said. "I needed them to find a way to help Christine, and after, David [Anderson], to succeed in working with the provinces."

Environment Minister John Baird said there is a pattern of key Liberals saying there was a lack of commitment when the Liberals signed Kyoto.

"Dion has a huge credibility gap and he has created it himself," Mr. Baird said in a telephone interview. "If we had started back in 1997, do you know how easy it would have been to make Kyoto? The amount of megatonne reductions compared to what we're dealing with today? I mean, it's astounding."

Ms. Stewart is aware her comments will likely be used by Conservatives for political advantage, but she is no fan of the current government. Ms. Stewart said she is happy that her Liberal Party eventually made climate change a priority. She also fumes at comments from Conservatives, such as Mr. Baird, who say Canada's Kyoto targets are impossibly out of reach.

"It drives me crazy to hear that kind of language," she said. "The emphasis is always on what we can't do and the high cost and all the negatives, rather than, 'This is a serious issue. The costs and risks of not doing something about this issue are immense.' "

Stephane Dion begins to look more and more duplicitous, down to his dog he named "Kyoto." I hope he's picking up the canine poop better than he pooped around and neglected to scoop on the Protocols, which have become his priority only lately, some 13 years after the event.

While I'm at it, I want to mention a set of mp3 downloads from the McLaurin Institute's recent Conference on Christianity and the environment. Go to Steve Bishop's excellent blog An Accidental Blog and navigate from there.

EU meets to forge new green policy (Mar8,2k7) CNN. Germany's Christian Democratic Chancellor, Angela Merkel, plans to pressure the USA to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Canada has already done so, but will still be targetted in the German campaign which will try to get all members of the G-8 Summit on board, when it meets in June.

Politics: Palestine: Incitement and the Peace Process, a Kirschen cartoon

Incitement and the Peace Process is an original cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen(c)March 7, 2007
Digitally republished with permission of the artist.

Juridics: Fed Canada: Libs politicize ameliorative improvements of Advisory Commissions for the appointment of judges

At last the minority Harper govt of Canada has brawt in proposed legislation to improve the process of appointing Federal Judges. The predecessor Lib govt had tried to dodge the patronage and stacking system that had long left Canada with a single-party judiciary on the Fed level, but it's dodge had proved dodgey, in that the then-Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, arranged for two new justices to be appointed under the guise of democratic scrutiny, while failing to allow the justice critics of the other three parties in parliament to question and probe the nominees in public.

My colleague Politicarp carried forward a discussion of the situation that prevails in Canadian legal philosophy, jurisprudence, and practice down to the particulars of such matters as the sentencing of criminals and the attentive regard for their victims. Since his most recent post on Feb23,2k7, he analyzed the slanted law-journalism that typifies the law industry in Canada.

A recent Liberal Party press release (Feb12, 2k7) gives the impression that there's a level playing field in Canada's law schools, lawyers guilds, and jurisprudence. But this disingenuous self-portrait is h+ly selective in examining Liberal practice over the last 40 years, as to its impact on the content and trends of jurisprudence as judgments are actually handed out. The main facts are the facts about Liberal law-making and Liberal law-judging cumulatively, not a few counter-practices since a Conservative minority govt has sawt to exercize its responsibilities alternatively.

Stacking the Courts threateans Judicial Independence

By attempting to stack the courts with ideologically-based nominations, the Conservative minority government is putting the independence of Canada’s judicial system at risk, the Liberal Opposition said today.

“Our courts are recognized around the world for their competence, fairness and independence, but today Canadians are expressing grave concerns about the Prime Minister’s obvious maneuvers to drastically change the composition of the committees that select our judges,” said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

“Canadians want our judges to continue being selected without political or ideological interference. Will the Prime Minister stop his shameless attempts to stack the committee with his ideologue friends?”

This is Dion's effort to mask over the monophilosophical system established by the Libs, in order to create ideological uniformity in the courts and , thus, to prevent law-philosophy to law-philosophy dialogue intrinisic to the pluralist approach that Canadians would want and have a r+t to, if only they knew it could exist.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made it no secret that they wish to appoint judges who are more favourable to the social conservative viewpoint in the future.

Again, Dion's poisonous selectivity. He neglects to acknowledge that among the several conservative philosophies (for instance, those of well-trained jurists who could be labelled "socially conservative") will enrich the overall jurisprudential dialogue by interacting with other well-trained jurists some of whom would continue to be labelled "Liberal," while others of whom also appointed thru the new system of Judicial Advisory Commissions proposed by Harper would lead to a very positive deeply-pluralist sytem of adjudication more strenuously fair to all Canadians. Dion's publicists continue their artless dodgery:

During the last election campaign Prime Minister Harper told reporters:

"The reality is that we will have for some time to come a Liberal senate, a Liberal civil service, at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals, and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals. So these are obviously checks on the power of a Conservative government." (CPAC, January 17, 2006)

What should Harper do? Lay down contented with the distortions introduced into Canadian jurisprudence by 4 decades of Liberal hegemony over the courts and the way they think and judge? -- indeed, how they collectively view "merit" in the profession?

Rather, he realistically points to the checks and balances that are already overabundantly in place to preserve that very Liberal hegemony over the courts, checks and balances (often unfair) that Conservs of all stripes must take as the condition of existence in addressing the country's legal needs for some time yet to come. Wheareas the Liberals themselves have not had to face any such checks and balances for all that time of their overlordship. And were they catapulted back into power they could steam ahead with their already-entrenched court-control system and their established mono-minded anti-dialogical preferred jurisprudence.

There's nothing wrong with Harper's statement, despite the self-serving twists of the Lib publicists who want at all costs to smother his ins+t into that very establishment of a Leftist Liberal jurisprudence that has made a shambles of the professions of law-teaching, law-journalism, and jurisprudence of judges in our courts.

Liberal Deputy House Leader Marlene Jennings pointed out the Conservative government has since made quick work to appoint their ideological counterparts to the courts system and rectify this so-called “Liberal check.”

“Within months of taking office, the Conservatives began stacking the bench with their friends: the former President of their party in Quebec, the Conservative Co-Chair from New Brunswick, a Conservative fundraiser from Alberta and even someone who back-stopped a legal defence fund for the Public Safety Minister,” said Ms. Jennings.

What?--only 4 Conservs to stand against the cross-country Liberal horde in the country's judgeships? Is that all Marlene can come up with? It's obvious that she simply has no case. But even in citing this paltry dilution of the wall-to-wall Liberal jurisprudence, Marlene (a television character) catches herself in her own faux pas, realizing that this is not the dominant Conserve trend because the Harper govt had to finish its research and preparations to develop the Lib-initiated Judicial Advisory Commissions, precisely in order to ameliorate the JACs' deficiencies and make them structurally more responsive to the norm of public dialogical justice. Something Marlene and Stephane seem incapable of fathoming.

Again, precisely to that end, Harper slowed down the filling of vacancies until a more just structure could be developed for the Lib's jerry-rigged JACs that were slapped together in the spirit of Paul Martin's appointments to the Supreme Court without any honest public questioning and probing of the nominees--a doubleheader, two new judges who were stacked into the Court most shamelessly. Without even acknowledging the shameful Lib judicial legacy, Marlene prattles on:

“This government allows more and more judge positions to remain vacant and all the while they are looking at the list of defeated candidates to fill their positions [she assumes that none of these would have sufficient "merit" to become judges] while turning up their noses at qualified applicants [she assumes that only her kind could possibly be qualified]. In other words, it should be a conservative or no one.”

Bull! This simply doesn't follow from her premises, even before they're decoded of her doublespeak. Marlene's plop should not cow us.

Not only does this new process introduce partisanship into our court system, it also has created a huge backlog of judicial appointments waiting to be filled, resulting in delays and, at worst, the denial of justice for Canadians in our court system.

Not a bull now, not a cow now, but a Chicken Licken screeching that the sky is falling.

“The public wants independent voices, voices beyond politics,” said Liberal MP Ken Dryden. “The Prime Minister clearly doesn't trust independent voices. Doesn't he have the confidence that he can win the day if there are voices beyond his influence?”

I think he does, and what's patently clear is that this advancement of independent voices in the judiciary has never been the intent of the Libs in establishing their mono-minded anti-dialogical system of appointsments to the courts, without believable nominations and without public scrutiny and examination before finalizing apppoinments. Even Ken Dryden's brain is not so dry as to miss the lack of independence in the Lib legacy of law, judging, and sentencing.

Canada’s Constitution calls for a clear separation of powers between Parliament, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary. As Liberals we believe that judges should be selected based on the over-riding principle of merit and not on the political leanings of the government of the day.

Mono-mindedness and anti-dialogue, enshrining one law-philosophy so that its judges never have to share thawts with the fine minds of alternative jurisprudential orientations, case by case, is not a principle of merit--no matter how much doublespeak Ken amasses to make his passes.

By stacking judicial nomination committees [JACs] and benches based on candidates’ ideological views, the Harper government risks transforming the courts into arenas where political battles are fought, rather than justice is pursued.

No matter how much the Libs try to hide their dubious record, fewer and fewer Canadians are conned by their legacy of self-serving abuse of the judiciary over most of 40 years.

The live-linked article (accessible by clicking our headline) contains numerous valuable facts, and far more balance, than the propaganda put out by the Liberal Party and the Law Times cited earlier by Politicarp's blog-entry. An actual glimmer of common fairness shines thru the headline-linked article here, by Cristin Schmitz, "Conservatives aim to replace judicial 'Charterphiles' with 'Charterphobes'," (Mar9,2k7) Lawyers Weekly; nevertheless, as the just-mentioned epithets prove, a hateful bias is still present and even brawt to the forefront by the latter publication's headline writer. The Charter can be loved in toto by those jurists who can not conscientiously read into it the distortion of the meaning of marriage (the meaning as intended by the Charter writers--unless, God forbid!, the whole text were a sham from the beginning and thus would be quite worthy of being hated): the distortion of the meaning of marriage such as we have seen in the massed ranks of Liberal antipluralist antidialogical judges, on all levels of the Canadian court system. May the imbalance that results from their inflated numbers recede, may judges adhering to alternative law-philosophies increase on the basis of merit, so that a fairer and more honest system may result.

Politics: USA: State primaries bunch-up on calendar, at Feb 5, 2008, for the Nov 2008 presidential election

More than a majority of delegates to both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions will be chosen on a single day in 2008, February 5. The Conventions will be held later, with the formal election campaign launching from their choices. The vote itself will take place in November 2008. This updates our more complete schedule of all the state primaries posted in our Feb23,2k7 blog-entry.

The Mar6 update to our Feb23,2k7 blog-entry also includes a correction to an absurd mistake in the headline!

Politics: USA: Republican & Democrat candidates' list and events constantly updated

For the present, refWrite frontpage is updating regularly its original list of the candidates seeking the nomination of either major American political party. We are seeking to keep track of campaigin events, comparisons of candidates, dropouts, polls. We will be adding some details on 3rd party candidates, nominees, and events as well. Click up our already much-updated Feb15,2k7 blog-entry.

Politics: Fiji: Is Russia keen on establishing foothold in SouthWest Pacific?

Radio Australia's website reports that Europe has taken quite seriously the renegade military coup d'etat, tho the ruinous militarism was far off in the SouthWest Pacific.

The European Union has told the military authorities in Fiji that it will stop development aid if it doesn't see enough progress on a return to democracy, human rights and media freedom.

Lee Duffield reports from Brussels the European Commission has put conditions on Fiji, that it needs to get back to democratic government and fully restore human rights.

Its spokesperson Amadeu Altafaj said that was a condition, for Fiji to receive assistance.

"If the responses are not satisfactory of course we will have to take measures in terms of suspending partially or totally our aid," Amadeu Altafaj says.

Strictly humanitarian aid is not affected.

Meanwhile, serendipity itself is reconsidering its role in the Pacific, where Fiji has become the most pressing problem of New Zealand's foreign relations.

SouthWest Pacific > Republic of Fiji

Other foreign sources, as well, have indicated Fiji's development aid may be cut-off if the failed Republic doesn't check its military (which means the military itself must backtrack, as there's no other internal force that can oust it). That is, Fiji's military must backtrack to its barracks -- unless it wants to exacerbate to the level of a major disaster the already-weakened economic situation that has descended on Fijians since the coup.

And, while the military's interim Foreign Minister is off to India, guess who's showed up for the financial presentation of the military's interim Economics Minister? None other than Russia! Perhaps it wants to buy an island, perhaps establish its own offshore Crimean Paradise, a series of beachfront skyscraper hotels for all those big spenders from Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Stalingrad.

More Info:

Special Feature on Military Coup in Fiji Today (Mar4,2k7)

Politics: Military coup: More on the troubles of the Republic of Fiji in the southwest Pacific (Feb21,2k7)

Politics: Coup: SouthWest Pacific island-state of Fiji undergoes coup, dismissing constitutional government (Dec6,2k6)