How Not to Report the News

Here's a video some people I know on facebook have been passing around and commenting on.  Note that they just passed on the video, no story, so what was in the video was the only information they were discussing.  The video is actually about a year and a half old, but it seems to have just been rediscovered.

Please note that there are some pretty disturbing images in here.



The story deals with an "increasing number" of babies in Falllujah born with deformities "since the war." 

According to the report, the deformity rates are so high, women are afraid to have babies anymore.  They talk about how there's no explanation for this, only suspicions on the part of the parents that it has something to do with chemicals used during the war.  The only chemical mentioned is white phosphorus, and the only users mentioned is the US.  They then show a series of pictures of babies born "within the last 8 months."  With the date of the video, that would make it though early 2009.

A doctor is interviewed, who tells us they don't actually know how many births like this there are, as "there isn't a specialist centre to register deformities."  He then goes on to say how he and other doctors have "noticed that the number of deformities has gone up in comparison to last year."  That would be 2008.  They then show a man holding his healthy young boy, noting that it took him 8 years to have a child, with the reporter telling us "doctors told him problems conceiving may also be the result of weapons used during the war."

Here we have a story with a tremendous human interest aspect.  The topic is heartbreaking and well worth reporting on and having investigated.

Why, then, did they do such a shoddy job of it?

First off, it's incredibly vague.  It tells us there's a huge increase in these deformities since "the end of the war."  This was in 2009, yet the war in Iraq was not officially declared ended by Obama until Aug. 31, 2010, almost a year after this report was made.  Perhaps they mean since Feb. 2009, when Obama began an 18 month withdrawal of combat troops?  It's unclear, yet this date would put it in the 8 month range mentioned in the video.  That, however, makes little sense.  They would be comparing births of children conceived in the last few months of the war to children conceived and born in the year previous, before the war ended.  When was the last known time any chemicals (I think we're supposed to assume these were chemical weapons) were used?  Who used them?  How much?  What were they?

The only chemical mentioned is white phosphorus.  What is white phosphorus?  They don't tell us, but we're to assume it's something that can cause deformities.  Well, let's look it up. 

It turns out white phosphorus is a substance that smells like garlic, looks like wax, and ignites when exposed to oxygen.

White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets. 

Hmmm... nothing about possible birth defects here, and it's apparently been used for a very long time.  From the same source as above, we have:

The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

Wait... the last fire mission was in Nov. of 2004?  The story above says this dramatic increase has been since the war ended, in 2009. Why are birth defects now being blamed on something that happened 5 years previously?  How are the parents still being exposed?

We still don't know how this stuff can lead to birth defects.  Reading more at the above link, we find out WP is some nastya$$ $hit that causes severe burns.  It's also used in...

Toothpaste?!?

It turns out WP is used in all sorts of non-military ways, including soft drinks, fertilizers, food additives and cleaners, special glasses, fine china, steel production and baking powder.  Oh, lovely... it's also an ingredient in Meth.

We also learn that, while it's never found free in nature, it's found combined with other minerals all over the world.

Finally, at the end, we look at health effects (other than the whole burning and pain thing).  The list of adverse effects is rather long.  They include:

• for "systemic intoxication" one can develop abdominal pain, jaundice and garlic breath
• "prolonged exposure" can lead to anemia, cachexia and necrosis of the bone
• "prolonged absorption" can lead to necrosis of the bone
• "overexposed workers" have complained of toothache, loose teeth, pain and swelling of the jaw and excess salivation

When it comes to necrosis of the bone, it mentions 10 cases with an exposure range between 10 months (2 cases) to 18 years.  More information and symptoms are mentioned.

Nothing about infertility or birth defects.

Looking around some more, we discover that phosphorus (in its various forms) is essential to our health, particularly in the formation of our skeletal and nervous systems, and that a lack of dietary phosphorous disrupts our muscle and blood cells, and leads to muscle and neurological disruption.

Clearly one of those things where the dose makes the poison!

So, in the video report, we have doctors saying they don't know what's causing these deaths and deformities.  Parents suspect "chemicals, such as white phosphorus, used by the Americans during the war."

Why did the reporter move from the generic term "chemicals" to the specific chemical, "white phosphorus?"  What other chemicals were used?  How?  When?  We have nothing.  Why are only the Americans specified?  Did no one else use white phosphorus?

A quick look at the history of military use of WP, we see it goes back to WWI.  Bombs, shells, rockets and grenades have been used by the British, the US, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Russia, Iraq (by Saddam Hussein), and "the Commonwealth" (individual Commonwealth countries were not named).  Though it's not on the lists I've seen, I know the Canadian military has used it since well before becoming involved in Afghanistan. While contact with WP, which has a tendency to stick to the skin, results in extremely painful, severe burns and significant damage, its primary use is for its smoke and light.  Its use is legal, and it is not classified as a chemical weapon.

In searching for this, there are plenty of articles about the use of WP as a weapon in Afghanistan, Iraq and, specifically, Fallujah.  This is not what the story is about.  These parents, as far as I can tell, were not victims of (alleged, suspected, or verified) chemical weapons attacks.  Such attacks aren't even mentioned.  Just a vague 'use of chemicals' comment.  This implies exposure, not contact.  Which means they are most likely to have been exposed to the smoke.  Smoke of all kinds can cause damage and, potentially, death, though there are no confirmed cases of anyone dying of WP smoke.

With WP being used by so many countries for so long, you would think there would be evidence of deformities and infertility connected to its use that goes back at least a couple of generations, and specifically among people people in, say, Vietnam, Chechnya and Iran, as well as among the Kurds in Iraq.  Is there any evidence of this?  Since there is apparently a rise in these deformities noted only during the Iraq war, one is lead to believe there isn't any.  From this story, these deformities seem to be an isolated explosion of cases in Fallujah.  If exposure to WP does lead to birth defects and/or infertility, this should be showing up among the people who trained with WP, as well as those who used it in combat.  Is it?  We're not told.  For all its dangers, birth defects and infertility are simply not mentioned anywhere I've seen.

So if it's not WP that's causing these deformities, what is?  This is a huge issue that deserves better handling than what this video gives us, which is little more than suspicions and insinuations.  A horrible disservice to such an important topic.

If you have taken the time to view the video on youtube, however, you'll find a link with a bit more information.  It's a "letter to the United Nations," also dated in 2009.

Here we're given some actual numbers.

In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed.

This can be compared with data from the month of August in 2002 where there were 530 new born babies of whom six were dead within the first seven days and only one birth defect was reported.

Then there's brief mention of premature births and surviving babies developing "severe disabilities at a later stage."  No data to back it up, however.

For the above quoted portion, we've got striking dissimilarities between the two sets of numbers.  (I also don't understand why they used percentages with one, while using actual case numbers in the other.)

In a single month before the war in Iraq started, this one hospital saw 530 births.  Six of those (1.13%) died within 7 days, and of those, 1 (16.666% of the 1.13%) was a baby born with a defect.  No word on how severe the birth defect was, or if it actually caused the death.  Jump forward 7 years, and the same hospital has only 170 births in one month.  Of those, 24% (or 40.8 babies) died within the first week, and of the ones that died, 75% (30.6 babies) "were classified as deformed."  Again, nothing on the relationship between the deformities and the deaths.

At first glance, these numbers prove an incredible leap in deformities, but again, what we're lead to believe is so is actually extremely vague and inconclusive.  For all we know, someone cherry picked a single month before the war with the highest number of births and lowest number of deaths, then cherry picked a single month after the war with the lowest number of births and highest number of deaths.  We have no other information; particularly about what happened in the 7 years in between.  We have a major drop in the number of births at that hospital, coupled with a major increase in deaths and deformities, but the lack of data means we actually know nothing at all.  We're just guessing. Why did this particular hospital see such a change in numbers of births?  Are these parents locals, or do we have an influx of people from outlying areas with little or no medical care available?  What range of possible causes have been explored?

Unfortunately, what we've got to work with is largely anecdotal evidence - such as one grave digger in one cemetery who claims to be burying 4-5 babies a day, and his claim that most of these babies are deformed.  Something worth exploring more.

This letter, at least, does mention more than just WP.  It calls for "an independent committee to conduct a full investigation into the problem of the increased number of birth defects and cancer," then goes on to assume they already know the causes, namely WP and depleted uranium.  Once again, we're not given any information.  What, specifically, is depleted uranium?  How is it used?  Why and where?  By whom?  We have nothing.  Instead, the letter talks of "toxic materials used by the occupying forces including depleted uranium and white phosphorus" and the need to "prevent children and adults entering contaminated areas." 

So what is depleted uranium?  How and why is it used?

It's uranium that has about 40-60% (depending on your source) less radiation than natural uranium (military specifications for depleted uranium actually has less of the radioactive isotopes by weight). Natural uranium exists in small amounts pretty much everywhere.  We eat, breath and drink it every day.  Now, before we start freaking out about radiation levels, let's take a moment to examine the realities of radiation.  Lots of things are naturally radioactive, including food.  Like bananas and Brazil nuts.  We are all surrounded by radiation, and some geographical locations naturally have higher levels of radiation than others.  (Interestingly, many people living in these areas tend to have longer average life spans and lower levels of cancer than in other areas.  We don't know why.)

As for depleted uranium (DU), it is extremely dense.  This makes it ideal for use in things like armor plating on tanks and armor-piercing projectiles.  In the civilian world, it's used by the airline industry as counterweights, in medical radiation therapy, industrial radiography equipment and in containers radioactive materials are shipped in.

Who uses DU?  It's quite a list.  Military use includes the US, the UK, France, Canada, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Pakistan and the Gulf monarchies.  That's just a partial list and doesn't even count its civilian uses, both industrial/commercial and medical.  It's even used in false teeth!

Studies on cultured cells and rodents show possible negative effects ranging from neurological effects to cancers.  There are contradictory reports about the effects of exposure to DU by humans. 

If DU is a cause of these defects, given that it's used in armour plating (among other things), you'd think that soldiers surrounded by it day after day, year after year, would be showing signs of infertility and have deformed offspring as well.  Likewise, civilians exposed to it on a regular basis should also show similar signs.  Do they?  We don't know.  The letter doesn't explore the notion at all.  If it is a cause, however, the health problems attributed to exposure to DU should be showing up in the parents of these babies - yet the parents shown and interviewed seem to be healthy.  Of course, we can't judge a person's health just by looking at them, but given the nature of the claims, you'd expect at least someone to mention if the parents themselves have unusually high levels of cancer and other illnesses typically attributed to high exposure rates to DU.  One would have to assume that the parents have been exposed to these conditions for the duration of the war. If exposure to DU and WP are the cause of these defects, why are they not also causing health problems in the parents? 

There are so many possible causes for these defects that aren't being examined.  We don't even have the most basic of data to be able to understand just how widespread and serious the issue is.

What we have are an awful lot of questions, and no answers.

Going back the the video report, we have an utter failure in dealing with a major topic.  We have a heartbreaking situation that deserves to be treated with urgency and seriousness.  Though the letter gives slightly more information, it is little better. 

What the news report should have done was asked more questions.  If no answers were forthcoming (due to lack of data, for example) there should be screaming for the rooftops to find the answers, so that solutions can be found.

Instead, we have suspicions and blamecasting.

A story that should have been hard hitting on facts and questions, while sensitive to the human interest side, was instead used to find something else to blame on the US.

This does nothing to help these poor children and their families.  Worse, jumping to conclusions and playing the blame game delays finding the actual cause of these deformities, which in turn delays finding a solution, compounding the tragedy even more.

Which tells me that, once again, it's more about getting ratings by attacking popular targets (the US and the use of specific chemicals) and not about finding the truth.

My confusion about "don't ask, don't tell."

For many years, I've had confusion about why people were so upset about the US military's "Don't ask, don't tell," policy.  This confusion grew in the last few years as more people fought to repeal the policy, which seems to be reaching a fever pitch these days.

Let me explain.

As I understood it, "don't ask, don't tell," simply meant "we don't care what your sexuality is, as long as you can do the job."  It seemed to mean that a person's sexuality was irrelevant - no one wanted to know, no one cared to know, it's your own business.  Isn't this a good thing?  Isn't this ensuring equality?

So when people argued to repeal the policy, it seemed to me that what they were saying is that a person's sexuality did matter, and that everyone should know or care what each individual's sexuality was.  Considering the sort of homophobia my husband witnessed in the military, this just didn't seem like a good idea.

I finally mentioned my confusion to my husband who explained to me that, in the US, it's actually illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military.  "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented as a way for gays to serve in the military, so long as no one knew they were gay.  Once it became known, because it was illegal, the military would then be forced to boot them out.  What a bizarre concept!

So this leads me to a new confusion.  People are calling for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."  Don't they really mean that they want it to no longer be illegal for gays to serve in the military?  Shouldn't they be protesting the law, not the policy that allowed for a loophole around the law?

I think in the end, it's a matter or semantics.  The protesters really are wanting to repeal the law, but the policy is so connected to the law, they're viewed by pretty much everyone as one and the same.

Personally, while I think it's ridiculous to bar people from serving in the military simply for being gay, I still think my original interpretation of "don't ask, don't tell" is a good thing; unless that person's sexuality is somehow causing them to not be able to do their job (and I really can't think of how that would be), who cares?  Sure, it might come up socially, but that's a different issue.

In the end, as long as the person can perform their military duties, who gives a rip what their sexuality is?

I remember

I'm not even going to try to say something more succinct than this.

A matter of offense

This seems to be a crazy time of year, doesn't it?  The same things seem to get rehashed every year, too.

I did see a new variation go by.  Immediately after Halloween, one of my "gamer friends" on facebook (people I've gotten to know through the one online game I play there) put up one of those "if you agree with this, change your status, too!" things.  Most of them, I ignore.  Especially the ones that say "97% won't have the courage to put this on their facebook," or some similar phrasing attempting to shame people into cutting and pasting the blurb into their own facebook status.  Once in a while I will share a status on my own, but as soon as I see that "challenge" at the end, I reject it immediately, even if I do agree with the original statement.  It's like those emails people share with this wonderful, inspiring story, only to find a paragraph at the end telling people to forward it to X number of friends and their wish will come true or, worse, admonitions of how, if you really believe in God, Jesus, or a particular cause, you will share it with everyone in your address book, but it you don't, you're just an awful, heartless beast.

For me, that's the fastest way to get something trashed.

This particular status update was saying no to Christmas decorations and sales displays before Remembrance Day out of respect for our veterans, because Christmas is all about commercialism and materialism and it is therefore offensive to our vets.  It ended with saying something along the lines of  "I refuse to shop anywhere that has a Christmas display before Remembrance Day."

They're not going to get much shopping done in the next while.  I suppose they never go to craft supply stores at all, either, since those have year round Christmas displays.

Aside from the fact that Christmas displays started coming up at about the same time as the Halloween ones, whoever came up with this particular meme is displaying a few revealing things.  First, the idea that Christmas is all about commercialization and materialism.  Now, I happen to agree that there's too much commercialization surrounding Christmas, but that's secular Christmas.  As we celebrate religious Christmas, we simply ignore the crassness of it all and do our own thing.  That's a matter of choice.  Don't like the commercialism of Christmas?  Don't buy into it.  On the other hand, as weird as it is to see the displays coming out so early, I actually kind of like them.  It's cheering.  Plus, as a crafter, I'm always looking for inspiration and materials for all those hand-made gifts and decorations I make every year, and it can take weeks, if not months, to complete these.

But this call for activism wasn't about Christmas, exactly.  It was about Remembrance Day.  Whoever made this up is claiming that these displays are offensive to our veterans.  Which is ridiculous.  Has any vet ever said they found it offensive?  Even if they did, what vet would go so far as to tell retailers what they should sell and when?  They wouldn't, and they don't.  Someone, ticked at seeing Christmas displays so early in the year, is using Remembrance Day and veterans to push their anti-commercialism.

It's not the early Christmas displays that's offensive to veterans.  It's this person using the vets to push their own snark. 

I never saw this particular status meme show up again, thankfully.

evening update: after posting this, I remembered another repeated attempt to use veterans and Remembrance Day under the guise of not offending them.  There have been calls to have Nov. 11 turned into a statutory holiday because everyone going to work like normal is somehow offensive to veterans.  This seems to come up every year, even though veterans have repeatedly said they are not offended by this, and don't want to have Nov. 11 made into a statutory holiday.

Nov. 10 update:  Link

Another controversy that seems to come up every now and then has reared its head.  In this case, someone I know was defending the white poppy and was rather upset with the Legion, as quoted in this article. She was actually offended by the quote from the Legion representative.

I admit from the start that the white poppy issue is a sore spot with me, and her comments and those of her readers exemplified to me just why that is.

Like so many of their ilk, the first thing they do is misrepresent what the red poppy represents.  There's a lot of talk about how the red poppy is a symbol of war, and that they and other Remembrance Day ceremonies "celebrate" and "romanticize" war, which is, to be blunt, pure bullshit.  The red poppy represents peace, and the price paid to achieve it.  Remembrance Day reminds us of the horrors of war, and shows gratitude to those who were willing to fight and die, giving us the peace and freedom we have since enjoyed.  "Lest We Forget" is a call to vigilance, in hopes of preventing the rise of another Hitler.  White poppy supporters reject this notion.  Their white poppy, we're told, represents peace, while the red celebrates violence and advocates war.  Their twisting of the meaning of the red poppy is offensive all on its own.

While I would never try to stop someone from wearing the white poppy, I do not hesitate to tell people that I find it offensive and why.  These "pacifists" tell me that they are against war (as if wearing the red poppy and Remembrance Day were somehow in favour of war) and that there is no justification for war, ever.  What they are telling me is that I should not exist.  Were it not for people willing to go to war, my parents would never have survived, never have met and I would never have been born.  The same it true for a great many others.  

I pointed this out to the white poppy supporters, then asked if they really thought sitting around and talking would have stopped Hitler and his Nazis from trying to wipe out Jews, Poles and Roma, or the Japanese Imperialists from torturing and killing their prisoners, sometimes in the name of "science."  How many millions more would have been killed?  Not wanting war is laudible, but the reality is that the world produces madmen, and sometimes those madmen want nothing more than to destroy their percieved enemies.  How is talking to them going to stop them? 

About the closest thing to an answer I got was someone sharing a link to an article about non-violence.  The article did make some good points - in fact, it gave a real world example that was exactly the sort of victim to victor scenario I'd written about before.  Ironically, the advice it gave for ways to deflect potential violence is right in line with what is taught by any good martial arts teacher.  It drew some rather strange correlations to Nazi Germany and the Khmer Rouge that made no sense to me.  It actually seemed to imply that, if ordinary people had just stood up and said something at the early stages, these regimes would never have reached the heights of power they did.  It was a bizarre sort of "blame the victim" twist that was not only illogical but showed a complete ignorance of history. 

Part of what irritates me about supporters of the white poppy is their claim to pacifism and non-violence (and the moral superiority that comes with it).  I actually don't have a problem with pacifists.  Aside from my usual live and let live philosophy, I have a great deal of respect for some pacifists.  Let me give you a few examples.

The Quakers are a pacifist group.  They hold to their beliefs with remarkable strength, even through imprisonment, torture and death.  In the US, the Quakers played a significant role in running the Underground Railway, helping blacks escape slavery, at great personal risk.  Whether or not one agrees with their views, there is much to respect about them and their great courage.

During WWII, conscientious objectors who refused to take up arms, instead took part in the Ancel Keys starvation study.  As their physical health deteriorated, they were given the option of stopping, but they refused, knowing that the knowledge gathered would be used to help thousands.  Decades later, the surviving participants still say they would do it again.

Another example is from a story told by a Vietnam vet.  While many draft dodgers fled to Canada, some chose instead to serve in non-violent ways.  Some who refused to fight worked as medics.  The vet recounted how, on the battlefield, these pacifists who wouldn't even touch a gun would risk their lives, crawling onto the battlefield under live fire to get to a wounded soldier, then drag him back to where he could be treated.  In recounting what he saw, the vet spoke of how much he admired these men.

Being a pacifist isn't for cowards!

Which is why I don't like hearing these white poppy supporters call themselves pacifists.  These are the kind of people who, living their soft, privileged lives, will go out with signs and shout slogans, pen caustic and insulting articles attacking those who don't agree, then go back to their safe warm houses and jobs and lives, after insulting the very people who gave them the ability to have those lives in the first place.

Because, unlike the facebook status meme I mentioned earlier, vets have said outright that they find the white poppy insulting.  Supporters of the white poppy, however, are not only okay with that, but are offended by their offense!

In a PC culture where people are told not to say "Merry Christmas" and schools are having "Winter Festivals" instead of "Christmas concerts" because of the risk of offending other religions (who, by the way, have stated they aren't offended and think it's ridiculous to make these changes), here we have a "pacifist" group that has been told outright that they are being offensive, yet refusing to change.  They could choose another flower.  They could choose another date.  There are many ways they could show their beliefs without offending veterans.  They refuse to.

There's a reason for this, of course.  If it weren't for Veterans and Remembrance Days, they would have nothing.  Their activism is a direct attack on Remembrance Day, and on veterans.  Their offense is intentional.

They are also rather ignorant, not only of the true meaning of the red poppy and what Remembrance and Veterans Day is all about, but of their own symbol.

Red poppies were chosen because of how they would suddenly appear over battlefields.  Where no poppies grew before, suddenly there were fields of them.  Over the years, these fields of poppies have gone away, and they have gone back to their previous scarcity.

The white poppy, however, is the Asian Opium Poppy.  There are fields of them, all right, but they are grown for the heroin trade.  A rather poor choice to symbolize "peace."  Better, perhaps, to represent the violence of the drug wars and the pain of addiction.

Then there's the use of white.  Historically the colour white symbolized purity in death.  This goes back to ancient Greece, but white flowers are still traditionally used for funerals.  Hence the white lily associated with Easter and the death of Christ.  There are still cultures today that find our use of white for brides rather strange and morbid because of the colour's association with death and funeral garb.

Hmmm... perhaps their use of white is more appropriate than they think.

Looking back

I was digging through a storage bin we'd brought home from inter-provincial storage the other day, looking for an old manuscript I'll be blowing the dust off of and finishing.  In the process, I found a couple of old journals I'd kept, ages ago.  I spent yesterday evening reading through them.

Wow.  Pretty intense stuff in there!

There wasn't actually a lot in them.  They were both written in those plain blank books you find in office supply shops, and neither of them was finished.  One referred to the book I'd just finished, and I now wonder, what happened to it?  There is a huge gap of time between the two of them I found (another one was a book of old poems and songs I'd written.  I gave that one to me kids to read. :-D ).  In one, my husband was about to go to the Persian Gulf, in the other, I'm writing about the final months of my pregancy with Eldest.

It's interesting to look back over the things that happened back then.  Most of it will never see the light of day, but here's an excerpt from an entry dated Jan. 16, 1991.  We were living in Victoria, BC, at the time.  Dh was posted to the HMCS Kootenay.  Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was busily destroying it, and Canada was preparing it's response, along with many other countries.  Kootenay was originally slated to go, and another ship was already gone.  I wrote (names left out for privacy):

Well, I'm back.  Worked 'til 7:00pm last night.  While at work I heard over the radio about a support group that was going to the candelight vigil, so I went.  They're called the "Servicemen Support Alliance" (SSA).  They'd made up a bunch of signs and even brought extra candles.

The peacemongers, as I've started to think of them, were gathering at the memorial statue at the legislature grounds.  We gathered across from them by the carillon.  The organizers - P.  & A. - were terrified (I spoke to A. later).  They told us not to talk to the other group and not to answer media questions today.  Our goal was just to have a peaceful demonstration in support of our people out there. 

...

I've heard some interesting news.  Some of the women - 3 at the demo last night - have been getting phone calls.  One story is that some one posing as a Lieutenant Colonel says "Your husband is dead."  One woman got a all from someone saying "your husband is a killer."

The peacemongers started at UVic about noon, made their way downtown with a couple of stops, were at the legislature buildings for the candlelight vigil, then ended up at DND.  I heard that while downtown, one woman who wasn't for or against, had her car attacked because she wouldn't honk for peace!

After we got together by the carillon, we crossed the street and made our way to the statue of Queen Victoria.  We had to go right past them.  They seem to think we're the enemy!  There were some shouts, but I couldn't hear what they were saying.  Once there, we sang O Canada.  Then at five to 9, we sang again, then said the Our Father.  Then we left.

 One of the things I remember that I hadn't written here was conversations with some of the other wives.  A few had come home to messages from the "peacemongers" with vile and threatening comments.  The recordings were given to the police, but I don't think anything came of that.  The military had to let all the spouses know what the proceedures were for notification if something had happened, so that they wouldn't be frightened by the calls claiming our loved ones were dead (the military doesn't pass on that sort of thing over the phone!).

The next day, I wrote this:

Just got off the phone with D. - her husband is a SLt. with [Dh] on the Kootenay.  She was worried.  She and two of her neighbours - all in PMQs - got calls from a life insurance co.  I found the company in the book - Confederation Life - but they were worried maybe they were peacemongers.  D. said she's terrified to speak to anyone she doesn't know.  She's worried that if they find out she's got a navy husband, she's (sic) be attacked.  Her neighbours are worried, too.  D.  even got a call from her mom in Toronto warning her not to tell anyone her name or mention G. 's in the navy.

She spoke to G. last night.  Some peace demonstrators tried to get to the ship but, of course, couldn't. Security's too tight.  Instead, they threw trash can lids and anything else they could get their hands on.  Real peaceful people.

When I read that part out to my family, Dh piped up that he remember that night.  He was the security officer at the time. Of course, he couldn't tell me much (security reasons - the joy of being married into the military!), but I know things were pretty intense.

Reading all this, and looking at what's going on now, things haven't really changed much.  If anything, the "peacemongers" are more dangrous now than they were almost 20 years ago.

Worth a read.

I just wanted to pass on a link to the Ottawa Sun piece by Earl McRae, Freedom 'Worth fighting for.'

He pauses. "I can't say enough about our young soldiers. The men, and the women. They are so good. They are so dedicated to the mission. Think about it. They are mostly in their early 20s, and they chose the military. Putting their young lives at risk, fighting for freedom. They could have chosen a civilian life, doing what kids their ages do with friends, going to parties, having fun, but they didn't."

His eyes moisten. "They've seen more in six months than the average person sees in a lifetime." A smile. "Because I was far older than they were, they'd take the mickey out of me. They called me Old Balls."

Several times Jed Stone and his buddies engaged the Taliban in firefights. "It's strange, but in a firefight, you don't feel fear. You don't have time. It's all adrenaline and training and resolve. Canadian soldiers are the best in the world. Soldiers there from other countries, and that includes the Americans and the Brits, look up to us. They have the highest respect for our training, ability, and character. They'd often ask us for advice."

Stone's unit, The Wolfpack, took some prisoners. "One Taliban guy we caught, he cried like a baby begging for mercy. Yet the same bastard would cut your head off if he had the chance. They don't value human life at all."

Stone knew personally some of the Canadian soldiers recently killed by exploding IEDs. "One of them, just a kid, we all loved him. He was always upbeat and funny. Some of the guys, they'd sat down to rest against a wall. One of them, when he went to get up, he put his hand on the ground and the landmine underneath exploded.

"Our Afghan interpreter got killed, too. He'd be with us in the villages when we were talking to the people, trying to win their trust. Giving chocolate bars to the kids. He was a great, young guy. We loved him. He was educated and he loved the Canadians. He was glad what we were doing for his country. We took up a collection and gave the money to his family. He didn't tell them what his job was. If the Taliban had found out, they'd be murdered."

Read the rest here.

Stunning ignorance: updated

If anyone has any doubt why so many Canadians are anti-American, here is a prime example.



If it weren't for the fact that I have some dear friends in the US that *aren't* arrogant assholes, I know I'd most likely be stereotyping Americans because of this.

Disgusting.

Update: Well, the fall out to this has been pretty interesting. There's been an apology, of sorts.

"However, I realize that my words may have been misunderstood," Gutfeld said in a statement released by Fox News.

"It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize.

"Red Eye is a satirical take on the news, in which all topics are addressed in a lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner."

Misunderstood? Just how stupid does this guy think people are? What they said was pretty clear.

And yes, we all know it was supposed to be a joke, but guess what? It didn't work. This went well beyond the bounds of "lighthearted" satire. It was rude, crude and insulting. Excusing it as a joke doesn't change that. They screwed up, and any "apology" that tries to justify itself by saying things "may have been misunderstood," is no apology at all.

Canadians aren't the only ones who found it offensive, so I while I was unsurprised to read this story, I was also very appreciative.

"I don't need to remind Canadians of the actual facts, but Canadians are fighting extremely hard in perhaps the most dangerous part of Afghanistan," said Michael O'Hanlon, a specialist on U.S. national security policy and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

"And in addition to having suffered such severe losses, they are also to my mind the No. 1 ally most admired by American commanders when I hear them speak off the record about counter-insurgency application, military heroism and general combat skills."

Based on stories I've heard elsewhere, our US allies often appreciate our soldiers more than our own government does.

Another update: As insulting as this segment was, I have to say I'm disappointed in some of the reactions to this show. I certainly understand people feeling angry, and I have no issues with people vocally expressing why they're upset, but there's no excuse for threats. None. The one guy that actually gave a genuine apology had to cancel a performance in Edmonton because of the threats he was recieving. This is completely unacceptable.