• New Arctic icebreaker to be named after Diefenbaker

The man who was singularly responsible for

• destroying any chance of Canada ever having a military jet fighter programme of its own,
• of caving in to political pressure of the United States at the expense of his own nation,
• of being petty enough to try to erase one of this nations most historic technical achievements - and all records of it because it caused him political inconvenience, and
• of being easily the most justly hated Prime Minister this nation has ever had....

...is being rewarded by having his name enshrined on one of our new icebreakers that will be responsible for ensuring Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters.  Adding this to a growing list of token outrages that the Conservative Party of Canada will have to account for - perhaps in the imminent election, or (more probably) at some later date.

In the meantime - there's only one word for such historical folly: shame!

• Whoops! Obama's VP text-messaging idea didn't work out so well | Politics and Law - CNET News

It was a gimmick aimed at the young.  And like Al Gore's infamous misuse of the phrase "open source"; this gimmick fizzled, albeit to a much lesser degree.  While the SMS message sent out by the Obama campaign missed 3 million recipients, most registrants got the message...eventually.  Of course, not before CNN was announcing Biden's appointment well ahead of the vast majority receiving the text message.

Of course, reading the CNN story you'd think Obama's campaign was irreparably derailed.  Dripping with right-wing, neocon bias, the CNN story was sure to mention that campaign staff also mentioned Biden's selection to a "friendly" reporter, implying that the campaign wasn't actually serious in its rhetoric about trying to reach out directly to the people Obama seeks to represent as President.

CNN's report sidelined the real story here - which is the limit of SMS infrastructure and whether mass-marketing of this kind or perhaps emergency messaging could leverage text messaging technology as it stands today.  And, as it turned out, it can't.

• Op-Ed Contributor - Russia Never Wanted a War - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Mikhail Gorbachev (Source: Wikipedia)

He's been out of power for years, but Gorbachev's perspective has always been an important consideration for me - because he has one thing a lot of other politicians lack; sincerity.  That goes for politicians of every stripe and in every country too - it's a rare gift in any political system it seems.  So imagine my surprise when Gorbachev, winner of the Nobel Peace Price and co-architect of 'Glasnost' up and contradicted my own opinion on recent events in Georgia.

Here I'd gone off thinking that Russia was just after a re-expansion of its "Evil Empire" following Putin's re-totalitarianization of Russian politics.  Well that, and to covet a near-monopoly on an oil pipeline to the west.  And while each of these motives need not be forgotten completely, there are many other issues at heart in the dispute which deserve equal consideration.  A letter the former leader of the USSR writes to the New York Times (linked above) highlights a few of these with his usual eloquence and welcome commentary on the west's own political hubris.  Ever the peace-maker, Gorbachev hits at the heart of causes of this conflict, laying it squarely in the lap of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Since the start of the conflict, I'd thought Saakashvili, himself, a little suspect of instigating it, but had come down favouring the Georgian side more because the conflict appeared to have been sparked by Russian-backed South Ossetian militants.  But Gorbachev seems to suggest that the Georgians may have over-reacted in rocket-bombing positions in South Ossetia initially - a possibility I'd considered.  Even so, that doesn't mean the Russian side needed to escalate things further by responding with invasion.  Nor is it immediately evident that Russia needs to install a permanent military presence (as it is clearly doing).  If Saakashvili was being reckless, as Gorbachev suggests, he's a good deal more likely to exercise caution now having seen Russia's response.  This is assuming that he wants to act in the best interests of his people.

In the end, Gorbachev didn't persuade me entirely that Russia was blameless (not that this was his aim) - nor even that it should escape sanction-free.  But he did persuade me that there's more here than the western media has been reporting.  And that Georgia shouldn't be treated as the innocent victim of the situation.  This isn't another Iraq-Kuwait type of dispute with a unilateral, unprovoked invasion.  Regardless, both sides will need to make efforts to ensure peace in the region - and that means going a lot further than either has to promote prolonged peace.  Even if Georgia over-reacted recklessly, imposing a permanent military occupation force in response is scarcely better than the imposition of the Treaty of Versaille on post-World War I Germany, which, as we all know, was a key instrument in the creation of World War II.  Georgia won independence from the Soviet Union legitimately and that means accepting that it might choose a destiny outside the parameters of what the Kremlin may prefer from time to time.  Having a pro-western government or even being a member of NATO needn't mean being anti-Russian.

Indeed, it still appears to me largely Russia that has been disposing itself toward a cooler relationship with NATO of late (particularly since Putin ascended the Presidency).  Rather needlessly, I might add.  (Some might even use the word "reckless".)  Gorbachev should know this better than anyone - he sought and achieved detente with the west consistently during his term in office.  Surely he realizes that the forces behind NATO expansion are a little more complex than simple expansionism at Russia's expense.  And does Russia seriously expect NATO to turn away nations interested in membership automatically because it doesn't approve when it's not even a member itself?

In the end, Gorbachev's thoughts should influence the response from Washington to be both careful and to consider both the whole story and likely long-term consequences to NATO-Russian relations.  And the media should reflect Georgia's role more objectively.  Russia may be a totalitarian state once again, but that doesn't automatically make it the "bad guy" when a diplomatic incident occurs.