WE WON--THEY'RE US:

Missions Incredible: South Korea sends more missionaries than any country but the U.S. And it won't be long before it's number one (Rob Moll, 02/24/2006, Christianity Today)

Samuel Kang was God's improbable choice to be a leader in the world's fastest-growing missionary movement. Kang was born in Japan when the Japanese empire was forcing alien Shinto beliefs down Korean throats.

At the end of World War II, the Kang family returned to Korea and grew deeply fervent in their Christian faith. The Kangs dedicated Samuel to God, and they told him, "You will become a pastor."

Kang rebelled. "I did not want to accept my parents' dedication of me to God without my consent," he says. For years, he resisted God's call. But by the time he was 20, Samuel's heart softened, and he felt compelled to give himself to God. "No one can escape from his sovereign call," Kang says.

It took another 20 years of discipling and discernment before Kang set foot on a mission field. At age 39, Kang and his wife, Sarah (who had discovered her own call to missions work), left South Korea for Nigeria. When they departed in 1980, there were only 93 Korean missionaries worldwide.

During the next 11 years, Samuel and Sarah Kang raised a family, planted Nigerian churches, and started a Bible college for Nigerian pastors. Kang's eyes sparkle as he recalls his days in Africa. "The Lord gave me this wonderful opportunity to serve him," he says. "If God gives me another life, may I give it to him as a missionary."

Kang doesn't look backward very often. Now 64 years old, with silvery hair and a gentle smile, he is leading an ambitious 25-year plan to help South Korea send out more missionaries than any other country.

Kang is chief executive director of the Korean World Mission Association and dean of the Graduate School of World Mission at Seoul's influential Chongshin University. He has helped move South Korean missions into a place never before imagined: South Korea today sends out more missionaries than any other country except the United States. In terms of missionaries per congregation, Korea sends one missionary for every 4.2 congregations, which places it 11th in the world. (The U.S. does not rank in the top 10.)

But more than that, mission scholars agree that Koreans are a potent vanguard for an emerging missionary movement that is about to eclipse centuries of Western-dominated Protestant missions. They call it the "majority-world" mission movement. They say this new term—"majority world"—is necessary to replace the aging terms "third world" and "developing world." The radical change in Protestant missions is forcing scholars and missionaries to create new ways of talking about the global scene.

The global majority (5.2 billion people) live in less developed nations. Of the world's 6.4 billion people, less than 18 percent live in developed nations. Scholars say the church's future in large measure rests in the hands of the global majority.

"The day of Western missionary dominance is over, not because Western missionaries have died off," says Scott Moreau, chair of intercultural studies at Wheaton College (Illinois), "but because the rest of the world has caught the vision and is engaged and energized."

---

DIMMESVILLE:

'Let the prisoners pick the fruits' (AP, 3/31/06)

"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of more than a dozen Republicans who took turns condemning a Senate bill that offers an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship.

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter 'A,'" said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, referring to a guest worker provision in the Senate measure.

You can't make these guys look as stupid as they are.

---

AND MURKIER:

Insurgents Justify Release of Jill Carroll in Web Tape (ABC News, March 30, 2006)

ABC News has found a video on an insurgent Web site showing U.S. reporter Jill Carroll before she was released by her captors in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding the video are unclear and it is equally unclear whether Carroll was under duress during the taping.

The tape appears to have been made earlier today, before Carroll's captors released her, but the time of the taping has not yet been confirmed by ABC News. [...]

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn't care about his own people.

He doesn't care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he's done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He's dangerous for Iraq. He's dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

Voice: Do you think the Mujahedeen will win against the American Army?

Carroll: Oh definitely. Things are very clear to see even now they're already winning. Everyday there are soldiers killed. Everyday humvees are blown up. Helicopters are shot down from the skies. Everyday, it's very clear that the Mujahedeen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight that'll make them ensure that they will win.

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't [...not clear...] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

It's easy enough to believe she was subjected to coercion in the making of the tape, but hard to square with her statements that she was surprised to be released and was treated well, no?

---

SHUT YOUR EYES AND TRY TO IMAGINE A WORLD WHERE GEORGE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE BEFORE SADDAM...:

Bush Wanted War (Richard Cohen, March 30, 2006, Washington Post)

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war.

Was Mr. Cohen living in the United States in 2000? If so, how could he have not known that a President Bush, or a President Gore for that matter, was going to remove Saddam sooner or later?
Bush/Gore on S. Hussein/Iraq/Sanctions (2nd Presidential Debate-11 Oct 00)

MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could
handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know --
there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after -- I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it, but that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three where they notified, and they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to.

| Comments (6)

---

THE ONLY WORTHWILE LITERARY LAUREATE SINCE LAXNESS:

Nobel Laureate Rips Ernest Hemingway And Henry James (NY Sun, March 30, 2006)

The 2001 Nobel laureate for literature, Sir V.S. Naipaul, 73, has launched an extraordinary assault upon his fellow writers, including some literary giants Americans hold dear, the BBC reported. [...]

[S]ir V.S. saves the title "the worst writer in the world" for the seemingly innocuous Henry James.

He's oddly wrong about Austen, but the rest is bang on.

MORE:
Naipaul targets literary icons (Hasan Suroor, 08/03/01, The Hindu)

On the eve of the publication of his new novel Half a Life, he has torn into E.M. Forster, Somerset Maugham, Charles Dickens and James Joyce besides lashing out at the doyen of 20th century economists John Maynard Keynes.

Even R.K. Narayan gets a gentle ticking-off for believing that India is ``eternal'' while the fact, according to Mr. Naipaul, is that it is ``a ruin.'' His most acerbic remarks however are targetted at Forster who, he says, wrote ``rubbish'' and had no idea of India.

In an interview in the latest issue of Literary Review, Mr. Naipaul attacks the author of A Passage to India both for his literary ``pretence'' and his homosexuality. Forster's sole interest in India, he suggests, was to ``seduce'' garden boys.

``He was somebody who didn't know Indian people. He just knew the (royal) court and a few middle-class Indians and the garden boys whom he wished to seduce,'' he tells the interviewer, Mr. Farrukh Dhondy.

A Passage to India, he declares, was ``utter rubbish'' and Forster's views on India's three religions were a mere ``pretence''. ``It's false. It's a pretence. It's utter rubbish,'' he says rubbishing Forster's sentimental impressions of India. He was simply a homosexual who had ``his time in India, exploiting poor people...'' And his friend Keynes was no better, Mr. Naipaul alleges.

``Keynes didn't exploit poor people; he exploited people in the university; he sodomised them and they were too frightened to do anything about it,'' he says accusing Forster and Keynes of setting their work against a background of ``mystery and lies''. [...]

Mr. Naipaul also ridiculed Maugham saying he was now ``part of the dust, part of the imperial dust''. And Dickens ``died from self-parody''.

As for Joyce and Ulysses, he didn't make sense. ``I can't read it...he is not interested in the world''.

---

IT'S A LIVING, JUST NOT ONE MY SON IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE...:

Help Wanted as Immigration Faces Overhaul: Congress Considers New Rules, and Businesses Worry About Finding Workers (S. Mitra Kalita and Krissah Williams, March 27, 2006, Washington Post)

Year after year, Professional Grounds Inc. runs a help-wanted ad to find landscapers and groundskeepers. Starting wage: $7.74 per hour.

In a good year, three people call. Most years, no one does.

So the Springfield company relies on imported labor -- seasonal guest workers allowed to immigrate under the federal guest-worker program -- to keep itself running. For 10 months this year, 23 men from Mexico and Central America will spend their days mulching and mowing, seeding and sodding for Professional Grounds.

You know how the Left and far Right alway cite that number about how only one congressmnan has a child currently fighting in Iraq or wherever? How about asking all these nativist congressmen how many of them have kids who mow lawns or slaughter cattle?

---

HE SURE LOOKS LIKE HE WAS JUST HAVING FUN:

---

WE'RE ALL PAYING THE PRICE FOR HIM BEING BEAT UP ALOT IN SCHOOL:

Tuning In to Anger on Immigration: Rep. Tancredo's Profile Grows With Push to Secure U.S. Borders (Shailagh Murray and T.R. Reid, March 31, 2006, Washington Post)

The first time Rep. Tom Tancredo got really angry about immigration, the year was 1975, and he was a junior high school social studies teacher in Denver. [....]

A year later, Tancredo launched a political career animated by his obsession to stem the tide of immigration from Mexico and Central America that he feared would change the character and security of the country. [...]

Tancredo is particularly riled at the business community, which he says has become "addicted to cheap labor." Employers are a driving force behind the guest-worker program and other Senate provisions that amount to "nearly universal amnesty" for the 12 million people currently living in the United States illegally, Tancredo says.

---

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHY NO ONE BOTHERED FIXING THEM BEFORE KATRINA:

Levee Repair Costs Triple: New Orleans May Lack Full Protection (Peter Whoriskey and Spencer S. Hsu, March 31, 2006, Washington Post )

The Bush administration said yesterday that the cost of rebuilding New Orleans's levees to federal standards has nearly tripled to $10 billion and that there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.

Donald E. Powell, the administration's rebuilding coordinator, said some areas may be left without the protection of levees strong enough to meet requirements of the national flood insurance program. Those areas probably would face enormous obstacles in attracting home buyers and investors willing to build there.

Why not just divvy the money up among residents and forget rebuilding it as a residential city?

---

HOW YA GONNA KEEP 'EM IN THE WELFARE LINE, ONCE THEY READ INSTAPUNDIT?:

Blacks Turn to Internet Highway, and Digital Divide Starts to Close (MICHEL MARRIOTT, 3/31/06, NY Times)

African-Americans are steadily gaining access to and ease with the Internet, signaling a remarkable closing of the "digital divide" that many experts had worried would be a crippling disadvantage in achieving success.

Civil rights leaders, educators and national policy makers warned for years that the Internet was bypassing blacks and some Hispanics as whites and Asian-Americans were rapidly increasing their use of it.

But the falling price of laptops, more computers in public schools and libraries and the newest generation of cellphones and hand-held devices that connect to the Internet have all contributed to closing the divide, Internet experts say.

Another powerful influence in attracting blacks and other minorities to the Internet has been the explosive evolution of the Internet itself, once mostly a tool used by researchers, which has become a cultural crossroad of work, play and social interaction.

Studies and mounting anecdotal evidence now suggest that blacks, even some of those at the lower end of the economic scale, are making significant gains.

---

REALITY IS A BITCH:

Tough task awaits Hamas finance chief (Roger Hearing, 3/31/06, BBC)

Dr Omar Abdel Razeq has the least enviable job in the new Palestinian government.

As minister of finance, this tall, bearded, 46-year-old US-educated economist is faced with squaring a nightmare circle of ever-growing debts and ever-diminishing income. [...]

His idea is that by dealing effectively with the corruption and incompetence that characterised the old Fatah administration and was so dramatically rejected by Palestinian voters last January, Hamas will eventually be able to win round the doubters in the international community.

"What they care about in the West is the way we handle public funds," he says.

Dr Razeq may be right in the end.

However, many in the West Bank and Gaza fear the economy has reached such a dire position that it cannot endure the loss of most international financial help while it waits for the west to make up its mind about Hamas.

They can only grow their economy by becoming more like we require them to be.

---

HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE'S SPEAKING FRENCH?:

French job law 'constitutional' (BBC, 3/31/06)

France's top constitutional body has ruled that a youth employment law which has sparked weeks of protest is legal.

The Constitutional Council move clears the way for the bill to be signed into law by President Jacques Chirac.

His prime minister has championed the law - aimed at tackling high levels of youth unemployment.

Mr Chirac will be making one of the trickiest decision of his long political career, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

Mr Chirac is loath to lose Dominique de Villepin as Prime Minister - he remains his political son and chosen heir for the presidency, our correspondent says.

Chirac to back job law on TV (Reutuers, Mar 31, 2006)

Intense speculation swirled around Chirac's intentions but parliamentary sources said they expected the president to announce he would sign the measure into law before explaining his decision on television at 1800 GMT (12 p.m. EST).

Aides told the Le Parisien newspaper the 73-year-old leader had opted to sign the law rather than lose conservative Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who is widely reported to have threatened to quit if Chirac backed down over the measure. [...]

Unions and students have vowed to continue their protests if the government presses on with the CPE, which aims to encourage firms to hire workers by allowing them to fire employees aged under 26 without stating a reason during a 2-year trial period.

"The president knows the trade unions' attitude. He knows the frustrations of many youths," opposition Socialist party leader Francois Hollande told RTL radio.

Making clear he thought Chirac would sign the law, he said: "Do you think the many students and workers who have been fighting against this text for months ... will understand the president's decision? Do you think that will be a factor of appeasement, a solution for the country?"

They refer to appeasement as a solution.

---

THE WAYWARD LAMB RETURNS TO THE FOLD:

PM, Bush mend fences (SUSAN DELACOURT, 3/31/06, Toronto Star)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is headed to Washington this spring to seal a growing friendship with President George W. Bush and to build on today's expected kick-start to resuming talks on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute.

"The Prime Minister made an emphatic case for softwood lumber and I appreciate his steely resolve," Bush said yesterday, after sitting down privately with Harper at the "three amigos" summit with Mexican President Vicente Fox in the resort city of Cancun. [...]

During their talks yesterday afternoon, Bush invited Harper to Washington and Harper accepted, so now it's left to officials only to work out when it will happen.

It's not stated outright, but the two men are trying to correct what is widely viewed as the more toxic atmosphere that prevailed at the end of Paul Martin's tenure, and the anti-U.S. posture of much of the Liberal rhetoric in the recent election.

The U.S. decision to ignore a panel ruling in Canada's favour on softwood in the North American Free Trade Agreement had stirred much tough talk from Martin and his ministers, who said there could be no new negotiations until the U.S. demonstrated an embrace of the principles underlying trade between the two nations.

Harper noted that if talks can't be started, Canada would not hesitate to keep fighting through the more confrontational route of litigation.

Still, the bonhomie between Harper and Bush was evident yesterday in the many glowing ways the president talked about the new prime minister and the country. He spoke of Canada's commitment in Afghanistan and about the $500 billion in trade between the two countries.

"There's a lot of people in my country who respect Canada and have great relationships with Canadians and we intend to keep it that way," Bush said.

Harper was mutually admiring, saying there is great resolve in his government to work with the U.S. on issues such as building security and trade, and seeing where they can find common cause on the environment.

"Canada and the United States share very important common values — values like freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law," Harper said. "We may disagree how we get there, but that's the objective that we share."

MORE:
While the Canadian Left gets its own Third Way option,
Text of Ignatieff speech: The following is the full text of the speech titled "Canada and the World" delivered by Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff at the University of Ottawa on March 30, 2006 (Globe and Mail)

Ever since I entered Parliament in January, people have been asking me: Why have you gone into politics? As in: “ Are you nuts?”

No, I’m not nuts.

This is my country, after all.

As a child, I played in the barns of my uncle’s dairy farm in Richmond, Quebec; I swam off the rocks at my aunt’s place in Georgian Bay; when I was a young teacher out in British Columbia, I remember sailing up Howe Sound and watching the sun burn the mist off the ocean; as a father, I rocketed down the Kicking Horse River in a raft with my children; as a husband, I stood with my wife among the graves of the Hungarian pioneers — her people — who settled the country near Esterhazy, Saskatchewan.

This is my Canada. These are the memories that made me who I am. This is the river that runs through me, as it runs through you. This is the place that defined my political allegiances. This is the place I call home.

My father came off a boat in Montreal harbor in 1928, a refugee from Russia. He became an ambassador for his country. Canada made him who he was, and he repaid his debt with a life of public service.

Now it’s my turn.

My family taught me to think of Canadians as a serious people.

Steadfast, tough, courageous.

During World War II, my mother worked in London with the French Resistance. One of her closest friends was a young Canadian who parachuted into France in 1943 to fight fascism. His name was Frank Pickersgill. He was captured by the Nazis and died under torture in Buchenwald. He died so that other men and women could live in freedom.

At our best, we are that kind of people.

Today, we are concerned about our soldiers in Afghanistan. So we should be. But service in Afghanistan is in the best traditions of our people. From Vimy Ridge to Juneau Beach, from Rwanda to Bosnia, we have earned our place in the world of nations by service and sacrifice.

I’ve been to Afghanistan, once when the Taliban were in power and once since then. I’ve got
faith in the Afghans who are pushing their country out of the ditch. It’s good that Canadians are putting their shoulders to the wheel to help them.

Critics say I’ve been out of the country a long time. They seem to miss the years spent teaching at UBC, at the Banff Center for the Fine Arts, the documentary series I made for the CBC, the television shows I hosted for TV Ontario, the Massey Lectures I gave on CBC radio, the books and articles I’ve devoted to Canadian problems. I don’t feel I’ve been away at all.

But yes, I’ve also been a war reporter, human rights teacher, journalist and I’ve seen a lot of the world.

Sometimes you only see your country clearly from far away.

I saw it clearly in eastern Croatia in 1992. I had just crossed a UN check point and had been taken prisoner by a half a dozen armed men high on alcohol and ethnic nationalism. A young UN peacekeeper arrived, as I was being bundled away. He cocked his M-16 and said: ‘We’ll do this my way.’ And they did.

That young soldier was from Moncton, New Brunswick.

I saw my country clearly watching a policewoman escort frightened families to and fro across a mined no-man’s land in another part of Yugoslavia. When I asked her why she was doing dangerous work in a foreign country she said, with a smile: ‘It beats writing traffic tickets in Saskatoon.’

I saw my country clearly in the young Canadians who took my classes at Harvard. I saw how eager they were to test themselves against the best the world has to offer.

So this is my Canada and these are my Canadians. We are serious people.

I’ve tried to be a serious person. Being serious means sticking to your convictions. I went to Iraq in 1992 and saw what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia. I decided then and there that I’d stand with them whatever happened. I’ve stuck with them ever since. Whatever mistakes the Americans have made, one day Iraqis will create a decent society. When that day comes, Canadians should be there to help because their struggle is ours too.

I’ve always believed that Canada should fight for a world in which force is never used except in a just cause.

I’m proud that Lloyd Axworthy named me to the International Commission on Sovereignty and Intervention. It reported to Kofi Annan on the rules that ought to define when it is right to use force in international affairs. Our report said that countries like Canada have a "responsibility to protect" people when they are faced with genocidal massacre or ethnic cleansing.

Canada can only discharge this responsibility when the cause has the support of the people of Canada; when it has the support of the UN or a coalition of free peoples; and when the cause furthers international and Canadian security.

I’m in politics to speak up for a Canada that takes risks, that stands up for what’s right. A Canada that leads.

We are a serious people.

For a long time, however, we haven’t taken ourselves seriously enough.

We need to ask more of ourselves.

For the first time in history ,we now have a real claim to being able to solve problems that have dogged human life for millennia: hunger, disease and environmental destruction. We have the science. We have the money. What we lack is focus and determination.

Forty years ago, a Canadian Prime Minister set the standard for international citizenship at 0.7 percent of GDP in overseas aid to developing nations. Forty years later, we still have not met Mike Pearson’s targets.

The time for excuses is over. We need to fulfill our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals before 2015. We need to meet this target, but we need to do more. We need to focus development aid to those who can really use it. Let’s stop spending money supporting regimes that abuse their people. Let’s find development partners who govern in the interests of their people. Let’s remember that Canadians are the people of "peace, order and good government." The single thing the developing world needs most is good government. We should be the country that leads the world in governance, in helping governments in the developing world to govern more justly.

We need to bring the same leadership to the environment.

The old excuses—the science isn’t clear, action will undermine our economy, our problems are really our neighbors’ fault— are just excuses.

Let’s stop blaming others. Let’s get our own house in order.

We take pride in our support of Kyoto, but Canada’s performance on greenhouse gases is dismal, ranking 27th of the 29 OECD countries in per-capita emissions.

We possess vast amounts of the world’s water supply, but we are poor stewards of this vital asset.

So let’s get serious. Let’s move the environment from the margins of public policy to the centre. Let’s clean up our lakes and rivers. In my riding of Etobicoke Lakeshore, we take pride in the national treasure of Lake Ontario, but the water isn’t clean enough for kids to swim in. This isn’t good enough. We need a federal initiative to clean up the entire Great Lakes watershed from Lake Superior to the Grand Banks. Fairness to the generations of Canadians that follow us mandates a new approach. Let’s make the case for why environmental action is smart business.

Let’s follow Stephan Dion’s leadership and do what we have to, right away, to meet our Kyoto commitments.

Let’s be the very best in the world at making cleaner cars, cleaner trucks and world class public transportation system.

Let’s work with the provinces to invest in public transit and rail before our great cities are completely gridlocked.

The Canadian Arctic is a crucial piece of the global refrigeration system. This system is breaking down. The science is clear. Global warming is happening. Working with other nations in the Arctic Council, we must take leadership in stabilizing the global climate system.

In understanding Canada’s place in the world, we need to think of ourselves not just as defenders of our own sovereignty, but as stewards of the global commons.

From “the responsibility to protect” to “human security”, Canada has been a leader in putting good ideas into circulation and then getting them accepted into practice. Without us, there wouldn’t be an International Criminal Court, and without us, no Land Mines Ban.

But to lead with ideas, we have to know where we are. We leveraged our influence in the 20th Century by tying our fortunes to the United States.

But if the 20th Century belonged to the United States, it’s possible that the 21st will belong to China and India. Canada will have to adapt: reducing our economic dependence on the United States, increasing our trade with the new giants of the international system, working to create stability in a world where old forces are weakening, and new forces are rising.

The 21st Century will be convulsed by vast global flows of labour and capital. As a result, all societies are becoming multicultural. All societies are opening to the world. All societies are struggling with the challenge of maintaining stable and democratic political orders among peoples from different faiths, ethnicities and national origins.

Canada is uniquely placed to show the world how to do this better.

Since 1867 we have been demonstrating that three founding traditions — aboriginal, French and English — can share the land together and create a democratic system in which citizens are both free and equal, in which minorities receive the same respect as the majority.

It is not easy trying to maintain common bonds of citizenship in a nation split into five regions, two language groups, ten provinces and three territories.

This is a formidable task, but we have never succumbed to the demons of division.

We have survived two referenda on separation. We will win a third were it to be forced upon us. Sovereignists want to oblige Quebeckers to choose between parts of their very souls and to choose Canada or Quebec. Quebeckers have always refused this choice.

Quebeckers will remain Canadians because our country respects their right to be Quebeckers and Canadians, in whatever order they choose. Canada has never imposed a unitary patriotic creed on its citizens. We’ve built Canada on respect for the freedom that we enjoy — within the limits of the law — to decide what being Canadian means to each of us.

So Canada will prevail whatever separatists have in store. But that does not mean all is in order in the Canadian house.

Quebec did not give its assent to our constitution, and until it does so, our union remains on an uncertain foundation. We must create the conditions of goodwill that will enable us to build a constitutional foundation with the full-hearted assent of all the partners in our federation.

To create these conditions of goodwill, tomorrow , we need to practice the federalism of recognition and respect today.

The federal government must respect the legitimate jurisdictions of the provinces, the cities and the aboriginal orders of government. Federal authority should have the confidence to move beyond frantic displays of its relevance by constant intrusion into other partners’ jurisdictions. It should concentrate on being a competent manager of its own jurisdiction. Who can say, for example, that the federal government is a competent manager of its responsibilities towards aboriginal peoples?

Recognition means understanding that all provinces are not the same, but all are equal.

Quebec is entitled to practical recognition of the distinctiveness of its language, culture, civil law and its history. It is entitled to be master of its own house within the Canadian federation.

Quebec is also entitled to play its part in international negotiations where its provincial jurisdictions are involved.

But respect is a two-way street. All provinces should respect the legitimate jurisdiction of the federal government.

It is charged with the defense of the country, the protection of its borders , the development of national infrastructure and a national economic market, as well as safeguarding the rights of citizenship. That all Canadians hold in common. Without respect for these federal domains, we cannot have a country.

The federal government does not possess a monopoly in foreign affairs but it is appropriate for it to coordinate Canada’s external presence to work together with provinces to ensure that Canada speaks with one voice, even if the voice that speaks for Canada comes from a province.

Respect and recognition also imply clarity. Mr. Harper’s strategy of calculated ambiguity towards Quebec’s international aspirations is a dangerous game. Already Mr. Duceppe salutes Mr. Harper’s gambit on UNESCO as the first petit pas towards an independent foreign policy for Quebec.

This game has to stop.

In dialogue together, Canada and Quebec must demarcate who does what in international relations so that Quebec’s aspirations for a voice in international domains can be reconciled with the right of Canada to co-ordinate our nation’s presence in the world. If we display our jurisdictional quarrels to the world, we will reduce Canada’s standing , but Quebec’s too.

In promoting a politics of recognition and respect within the federation, we need to change the way we think about national unity. For too long, we have equated national unity with the challenge of Quebec.

If we remember the immense role that Quebeckers since Laurier have played in the making of our nation, if we recall the continual tradition of political innovation that has flowed from Quebec and inspired the rest of Canada, from the Quiet Revolution onwards, it is clear that Quebec has never been the Canadian problem. Quebeckers have always been part of the solution.

Today, we need to re-think the question of national unity. We are divided by much more than language. We are divided by race, religion, class and ethnicity. We are divided into town and country, rural and urban, eastern and western, northern and southern regions. As population concentrates in our cities, our regions and small towns feel left behind.

Canadians long to be more united. They know that we are more than 10 provinces and territories strung together like a string of beads along the 49th parallel.

Unity does not mean a domineering Ottawa. It does not mean a federalist steamroller. Instead of thinking that unity must require a domineering federal government, we need to understand that unity means a strong federation in which orders of government take responsibility, display
accountability, and respect each other’s domains.

We are far from that ideal.

Some provinces are running up huge surpluses while others are struggling to balance their books. This horizontal imbalance in the federation threatens to weaken Canada’s capacity to maintain roughly equal conditions of citizenship for each of our people, regardless of the province in which they live.

The right way to fix this is not to rob Peter to pay Paul, not to confiscate the wealth of rich provinces with new energy taxes, but to create a 10-province equalization standard that counts all of the fiscal capacity of the provinces and then uses federal tax dollars to equalize the condition of those provinces still behind.

There is also a vertical imbalance between a federal government that runs up surpluses, while several provinces struggle to fund their ever-rising costs in education and health care.

There is a right way and a wrong way to fix this problem. Permanent transfer of tax power to the provinces would damage the national unity of our country. Gutting Ottawa’s power to collect taxes won’t make the country stronger.

A federalism of respect and recognition points to another solution: just as we need to negotiate a 10-province standard for equalization, we need to negotiate a new 10-province standard for transfers to help provinces meet their spending needs in education and health. These need to be comprehensive, multi-year agreements between orders of government so that each can plan and budget and neither feels subject to blackmail on the one hand and lawless whim on the other.

Behind the issue of fiscal imbalance, we need to address a deeper question: what is the federal government for? What is its essential purpose in the federation?

I believe that the federal government has one core function: to maintain the national unity of our country by sustaining the indivisibility of Canadian citizenship. It is the only order of government with this specific task.

Equality of opportunity means that all Canadian citizens enjoy roughly comparable rights, responsibilities and services.

The chief threat to our country is the weakening of the bonds of common citizenship.

It is good for provinces to experiment with new ways to deliver health care and contain costs. But we have fought for 50 years so that health outcomes do not depend on income. We do not want them to depend on the accident of location either. Defending the basic principles of the Canada Health Act is vital to maintaining the equality of our citizenship.

The federal government is charged with maintaining a national economic space. Do we truly possess one if Quebec workers are barred from working in Ontario and vice versa? If professional credentials recognized in one province are turned down in another? If students from one jurisdiction have to pay more to study in another province? If there is not one national securities market but 10, with separate regulators for each?

We cannot promote equality of opportunity without a national strategy to improve our productivity and our capacity for innovation.

Such a strategy doesn’t mean more government intervention. Indeed it may mean less: cutting through red tape that hampers exporters; breaking down inter provincial barriers to the free movement of labour and capital; cutting back on the cozy rules that protect our banks, insurance and telecommunications companies from needed foreign competition.

A national productivity strategy implies a productive government: one that uses tax dollars frugally, that eliminates waste, that cuts taxes whenever it can be done without endangering common services.

Besides making government itself more productive, a national productivity strategy has to invest in infrastructure — to build the national gateways in Halifax and Vancouver for global export traffic and the national links to move goods, energy supplies, people and information in between.

A national productivity strategy invests in people. A productive future requires sustained, multigenerational investment by government, corporations and people themselves, in post-secondary education, science and technology research.

I have spent a lot of my life in higher education. When I was in the classroom, I always knew I was not just in the business of teaching a subject. I was teaching hope and self-belief, the key engines of productivity.

A national productivity strategy is an opportunity strategy.

We cannot be productive unless all Canadians participate.

Our society lives by the promise of opportunity equally distributed to all.

We know how far short we fall. Aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities new to our country, and the working poor lack opportunity, security and skills. We are wasting our seed corn.

The federal government has long been charged with providing income security for Canadians. We must take steps to enhance the equality of life chances for the working poor. Canadians working 35 hours a week earning minimum wage are making less than $15,000 a year. These hard-working Canadians are now under-represented in our income security regime. We need to make certain that our system provides the incentives for them to remain or return to the labour market, work hard, while removing the fear and insecurity that blights their potential.

Let us commit ourselves to a Canada where no one goes hungry at night, where no one is denied a world-class education because of their race or ancestry; where we bet the future of our country on the proposition that if we can unlock the hidden talent of every citizen, we will always pay our way in the world.

We cannot afford to waste the productive talents of new immigrants. If we fail to recognize credentials, if we fail to invest in language training and re-settlement assistance, we risk creating new citizens who feel betrayed by their Canadian home.

We need to recast our immigration policies as a crucial element of a national productivity strategy. The federal government should increase its investment in programs that re-train immigrants, that top up their credentials, that apprentice them in Canadian companies so that they can gain Canadian experience. If they can’t get recognition of their credentials in one province, the federal government should assist them to move to provinces that will recognize their skills.

In a globalized economy being open to new experience is the key to success, being provincial a sure way to be left behind. If you ask a representative group of young Canadians how many of them have actually lived outside their own province, studied in another jurisdiction or worked outside of their region, you would be dismayed by how few have done so.

We cannot be a country unless we know each other, unless we have lived with each other, unless a Canadian from Chicoutimi has been to Banff, and a citizen of Whitehorse has had the opportunity to study in Halifax.

Innovative federal policy has helped to deepen our national experience. The Canada Council, the CBC, the research councils in the social sciences and humanities have all helped to deepen and extend the networks of knowledge and connection that tie us together as Canadians.

An essential deepening of our common experience has been the promotion of bilingualism: increasing the numbers of English speaking children who grew up in French immersion, as well as the number of francophones who learn English in order to advance in the global economy.

But the federal government can do more to promote a national experience: by offering bursaries, internships and tax credits to help young Canadians to study and work in other provinces and to serve overseas in humanitarian and development work.

To build a country, we must create citizens, and to create citizens, we must create shared national experience. We need to make it easier for Canadians to get about their country and begin to feel a love for it in their bones.

My Canada is held together by a spine of citizenship, common rights, responsibilities and common knowledge so that we truly feel we are one people. This is not just an important priority of political leadership at the federal level. It is, in my view, the only priority.

This is a different view of Canada from the one offered by Stephen Harper. He stands for a decentralized, re-provincialized Canada, with growing differentials between the regions and provinces, with growing differences between rich and poor regions, and rich and poor individuals. It is a sauve qui peut Canada. His is also an idea of politics which sees government as the problem, when it is often the solution. When Canadians are presented with the choice between the slow provincialization of our country and a Liberal vision that seeks to use government to sustain the equality of our citizenship, I know how they will chose.

I believe in Canadians. I believe in you. As I said at the beginning, we are a serious people.

---

THE YEAR OF LIVING DEMOCRATICALLY:

Indonesia back on the world stage (Michael Vatikiotis, 3/30/06, Asia Times)

Welcome to the brave new world of Indonesian foreign policy. The international community has only just started to focus on Indonesia's successful democratic transition, the economy is only just recovering from nearly a decade of malaise and crisis, and the business community is waiting with genuine expectation for the government's "war on corruption" to be won. But President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is an impatient man - he wants Indonesia to make its mark on the world now.

"We are the fourth-most-populous nation in the world. We are home to the world's largest Muslim population. We are the world's third-largest democracy. We are also a country where democracy, Islam and modernity go hand in hand," Yudhoyono declared last May in his first major foreign-policy speech. "And our heart is always with the developing world, to which we belong. These are the things that define who we are and what we do in the community of nations."

In fact, what Yudhoyono aims to do is pretty ambitious. Bringing democracy to Myanmar comes high up the list. So, too, does helping Palestinians win their statehood from Israel. Then there is North Korea: the president wants to visit Pyongyang and has already sent an envoy to the hermit state to try to restart stalled security talks between the two Koreas. And if dealing with one end of the "axis of evil" isn't risky enough, Indonesia has also flagged its intention to help reconcile Iran with the West, exemplified by Wirajuda's visit to Tehran last month, and thereafter by at least two high-level visits by Iranian officials to Jakarta.

Talk to many Indonesians about Yudhoyono's foreign-policy objectives and they will argue that the country simply isn't ready to take on the world. There are too many priorities at home: sorting out the economy, combating corruption, resolving internal conflicts and curbing Islamic militancy, to name just a few. Realists and pragmatists such as former foreign minister Ali Alatas argue that Indonesia is weak and has no clout in the international community. "Who would listen?" Alatas asks, though he recently served as a special envoy to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Fortunately for Yudhoyono, the United States is listening. Indonesia's democratic and moderate Islamic credentials appeal to Washington, which is also on the lookout for a strategic counterbalance to China in the region.

"Your challenge now is to expand the peace, the opportunity and the freedom that we see in much of Southeast Asia to all of Southeast Asia," Rice said in a speech to an Indonesian international-relations forum during her mid-March visit to Jakarta. "The United States is eager to work with ASEAN through our new enhanced partnership, and we look to Indonesia ... to play a leadership role in Southeast Asia and in the dynamic changing East Asia."

Indonesia has clout precisely because they're joining the Axis of Good and volunteering to do heavy-lifting.

---

GIVE THEM A FENCE TO PLAY WITH AND YOU CAN DISTRACT THEM FOR YEARS (via Pepys):

How the GOP can survive the immigration debate (Dick Morris, 3/.29/06, The Hill)

One must separately consider the three key elements of immigration reform under discussion: The border fence, the guest-worker program and the criminalization of illegal aliens and those who employ them.

The GOP base wants a fence. It is vital to the entire concept of whether or not we can control our borders. All efforts to beef up manpower on the border have failed to stem the daily flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. A fence is the only way to do it. By backing a fence and demonstrably taking control of our southern border, the Republican Party will appease the demands of its base.

But to prevent disaster among Latino voters, it must accompany the fence with a more liberal policy on guest workers and criminalization.

Simply put, the fence must have a gate that swings open for immigrants we want and need. To avoid permanently antagonizing our southern neighbors and to keep the labor supply on which so much of American business and prosperity depend, we need a guest-worker program.

The GOP base, happy with the fence, will probably go along with it. Whatever the Congress needs to do to differentiate the guest-worker program from amnesty it should do, but it must pass a generous guest-worker program. (If it is necessary for those here illegally to return to Mexico and reenter as registered and enrolled guest workers, to convince the right that a guest-worker program is not amnesty, so be it).

With a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, we will be slitting our own throats by denying our economy access to Mexican workers. We just need to make them legal, not illegal. With a border fence to enforce the difference, a guest-worker program will work politically.

Bingo!

---

OUGHTN'T THE THEOCRATS BE THE ISOLATIONIST, PROTECTIONIST, NATIVISTS?:

The Erring Republican Authority: Kevin Phillips is wrong about everything. Why is he taken so seriously? (Jacob Weisberg, March 29, 2006, , Slate)

Phillips' declinism relies on fatuous anti-market prejudices familiar from his earlier work: that a healthy economy must be based in manufacturing, that free trade and globalization impoverish us, that foreign ownership is treacherous, that industrial policy works, and that a robust financial sector means trouble.

The hostility to Wall Street implicit in the last notion is part and parcel of a condescending, aristo-populism that recalls Gore Vidal without the twinkle. In the Phillips worldview, plutocrats exploit the American proletariat, which supports the policies that keep it miserable out of false consciousness—the poor hicks actually believe Christ is coming to save them. But any potential Marxist rigor swiftly dissipates into a haze of Syriana—paranoia about the Bush dynasty and the CIA, Skull and Bones, the House of Saud, and the discredited October Surprise conspiracy. Have I mentioned that Phillips is an appalling writer? His prose is cliché-ridden, self-referential, maddeningly repetitive, and dull enough to kill weeds.

Once upon a time, Kevin Phillips crunched a lot of numbers to give shrewd, if cynical, political advice to Republicans about capitalizing on white fear of black people. Since switching sides, he has proposed various ways for the liberals to knock down the conservative majority he helped to build. Democrats would be wise to beware of geeks bearing such gifts.

Holy Colgate alumnus, Batman! Why didn't we see it before? Mr. Philiips was the first Rovebot, programmed to give Democrats really awful advice about adopting Pat Buchanan's politics.

---

DREAMING OF A BROWN CHRISTMAS:

Blair will be gone by Christmas, say friends (Toby Helm, 31/03/2006, Daily Telegraph)

Tony Blair is to announce his resignation by Christmas, members of his inner circle believe.

The Prime Minister's closest aides feel that, following a series of damaging rows over education and "sleaze", he will quit within nine months.

The disclosure comes as John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, agreed to try to broker an agreement between Mr Blair and back-bench MPs over the succession after being warned that uncertainty about the leadership is having a disastrous effect on Labour morale.

---

THE USUAL SUSPECTS:

US regains top ranking for technology (Frances Williams, March 28 2006, Financial Times)

The US has regained top position in the 2005 information technology rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum after slipping to fifth place in 2004.

Releasing its latest Global Information Technology Report, Geneva-based WEF said the US lead reflected its excellent physical infrastructure, a supportive market environment and high levels of business and government usage of the latest technologies.

Singapore, first in 2004, came second and Denmark third. Four Nordic countries – the others being Iceland, Finland and Sweden – are in the top 10 alongside Canada, Taiwan and Switzerland.

The UK, in 10th place, is the top-ranked of the European Union’s large economies, followed some way behind by Germany (17), France (22) and Italy (42).

---

SLUSH FUND BABY:

Reiner Quits First 5 Panel: The move comes amid accusations that the state commission founded by the producer was using tax money to aid his preschool initiative. (Dan Morain, March 30, 2006, LA Times)

Hollywood producer Rob Reiner resigned Wednesday as chairman of a state commission he founded seven years ago to aid children, amid accusations that the commission used tax money to boost his new political campaign.

---

SHRINKING THE TENT ISN'T WINNING:

G.O.P. Risking Hispanic Votes on Immigration (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 3/30/06, NY Times)

Over the last three national elections, persistent appeals by Mr. Bush and other Republican leaders have helped double their party's share of the Hispanic vote, to more than 40 percent in 2004 from about 20 percent in 1996. As a result, Democrats can no longer rely on the country's 42 million Hispanic residents as a natural part of their base.

In a lunch meeting of Senate Republicans this week, Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, the only Hispanic Republican in the Senate, gave his colleagues a stern warning. "This is the first issue that, in my mind, has absolutely galvanized the Latino community in America like no other," Mr. Martinez said he told them.

The anger among Hispanics has continued even as the Senate Judiciary Committee proposed a bill this week that would allow illegal immigrants a way to become citizens. The backlash was aggravated, Mr. Martinez said in an interview, by a Republican plan to crack down on illegal immigrants that the House approved last year.

The outcome remains to be seen. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said on Wednesday that he recognized the need for a guest-worker program, opening the door to a possible compromise on fiercely debated immigration legislation.

Democrats see an opportunity to "show Hispanics who their real friends are," as Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, put it.

But the issue is a delicate matter for Democrats as well. Polls show large majorities of the public both support tighter borders as a matter of national security, and oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Many working-class Democrats resent what they see as a continuing influx of cheap labor.

The stakes are enormous because Hispanics now account for one of every eight United States residents, and for about half the recent growth in the country's population. Although Hispanics cast just 6 percent of the votes in the 2004 elections, birth rates promise an imminent explosion in the number of eligible voters.

"There is a big demographic wave of Hispanic kids who are native born who will be turning 18 in even greater numbers over the next three, four and five election cycles," Roberto Suro, director of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, said.

It's prototypical of the parties' extremes that they insist on such purity on an issue that in achieving it they cost themselves power and therefore lose on the issue in the long run.

---

SOUL FOOD FOR CRACKERS (via Mike Daley):

Cook a beef brisket to calm the soul, ease tension (TOMMY C. SIMMONS, March 20, 2006, AP)

If you have had one of those weeks with problems at work, fatigue at home, too much traffic and family making demands, you need a big dose of comfort food. What better to calm the soul than a good beef brisket?

It's inexpensive, wholesome, versatile - and so delicious.

Beef brisket is a boneless cut of meat from the breast section, the underside of the cow's forequarter. A whole beef brisket weighs from 8 to 10 pounds, with each pound serving two to three people. [....]

Brisket Braised in Beer

4 slices bacon

One 3-pound brisket

Salt and pepper

3 thinly sliced onions

Four 12-ounce bottles of beer (not dark)

1 large, peeled rutabaga, cut into 1/2-inch pieces

6 carrots, cut crosswise into 1 1/2-inch pieces

6 potatoes, cut into 1-inch pieces

2 tablespoons unsalted butter, softened but not melted

2 tablespoons all-purpose flour

1/2 cup minced fresh parsley

Preheat oven to 350 F.

Cook bacon in a Dutch oven over medium heat, stirring, until crisp. Transfer to paper towels and drain. Crumble bacon. Pour off all but 2 tablespoons of fat from bacon.

Pat brisket dry and season with salt and pepper.

Heat the bacon fat over medium-high heat until it is hot but not smoking. Add the brisket to the Dutch oven and brown on all sides. Transfer brisket to a platter. Add onions to Dutch oven and saute until golden. Add bacon, brisket and beer. Bring beer to a boil. Cover and braise in oven for 2 hours. Stir in rutabaga, carrots and potatoes, and braise for 45 minutes more, or until vegetables are tender. Transfer brisket and vegetables to plate. Cover and keep warm.

Blend butter and flour and set aside. Bring braising liquid to a boil and reduce to about 3 cups. Gradually whisk in flour-butter mixture. Simmer for 3 minutes.

Slice brisket and put on plate with vegetables. Pour some sauce over dish. Sprinkle with parsley.

Makes 6 to 8 servings.

(Recipe from http://www.eHow.com)

---

The Carnival of Homeschooling (Henry and Janine Cate)

---

WORKING THE RIM:

Blair in Indonesia terror accord (BBC, 3/30/06)

Prime Minister Tony Blair has promised to work closely in the fight against terrorism with Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population.

Mr Blair was speaking after meeting President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for an hour in the capital, Jakarta. [...]

After the meeting between the two heads of state, Mr Blair described Indonesia as a "crucial partner" in ensuring greater understanding of people of different faiths. [...]

Mr Blair's visit is the first by a British prime minister to Indonesia in two decades.

The country, which has a population of about 225 million, has developed close business ties with Britain and the US.

The BBC's correspondent in Jakarta, Tim Johnston, says Indonesia is increasingly being seen as a vital bridge between Western and Islamic nations.

---

THE UNSERIOUS ALTERNATIVE:

Democrats Detail Security Policy: Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues (Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz, March 30, 2006, Washington Post)

Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.

Bin Laden is likely dead, but what focussing on arresting "him" and any al Qaeda remnants would require is re-deploying all those troops currently in Iraq to Eastern Afghanistan/Western Pakistan and depopulating the region as you check every person there, then establishing state structure powerful enough to establish the rule of law and police the population permanently. They aren't going to do that -- even if it made sense to do so, which it doesn't -- so such chatter isn't to be taken seriously.

---

DID SHE HAVE A DENTIST'S APPOINTMENT SHE NEEDED TO GET TO?:

Journalist Jill Carroll Released in Iraq (Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer, 3/30/06, Washington Post )

American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted in early January by gunmen in Baghdad, was released to a Sunni Arab political party in the capital Thursday morning after 82 days in captivity.

"I was never hurt, ever hit," she told a Washington Post reporter. "I was kept in a safe place and treated very well."

May as well just come right out and say she was a willing participant.

Like Susanne Osthoff and Giuliana Sgrena.

MORE:
Questions About Carroll's Captivity (Howard Kurtz, March 31, 2006, Washington Post)

Reporters for big news organizations, after all, generally travel with security details, while Carroll is a 28-year-old freelancer who went to Baghdad on her own, became a stringer for the Christian Science Monitor and clearly was bent on understanding Iraqi culture.

This is a courageous young woman.

I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.

Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?

Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.

As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon.

Insurgents Justify Release of Jill Carroll in Web Tape (ABC News, March 30, 2006)

ABC News has found a video on an insurgent Web site showing U.S. reporter Jill Carroll before she was released by her captors in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding the video are unclear and it is equally unclear whether Carroll was under duress during the taping.

The tape appears to have been made earlier today, before Carroll's captors released her, but the time of the taping has not yet been confirmed by ABC News. [...]

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn't care about his own people.

He doesn't care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he's done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He's dangerous for Iraq. He's dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

Voice: Do you think the Mujahedeen will win against the American Army?

Carroll: Oh definitely. Things are very clear to see even now they're already winning. Everyday there are soldiers killed. Everyday humvees are blown up. Helicopters are shot down from the skies. Everyday, it's very clear that the Mujahedeen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight that'll make them ensure that they will win.

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't [...not clear...] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

It's easy enough to believe she was subjected to coercion in the making of the tape, but hard to square with her statements that she was surprised to be released and was treated well, no? Let's hope she can explain all the inconsistencies.

UPDATE:
Exclusive: Jill Carroll Middle Man Says Kidnappers Demanded $8 Million (ABC News, April 12, 2006)

The man behind Jill Carroll's release tells ABC News in an exclusive interview that kidnapping the American journalist was a mistake. Sheikh Sattam al-Gaaod reveals what it took to free her — and why he supports the resistance.

Al-Gaaod was one of three people specifically thanked by Carroll's family after her release.

"They are defending their country," he said in an interview at his summer house outside Amman, Jordan. "They are an honest resistance. And sometimes they do mistakes."

One mistake, he said, was kidnapping Carroll. Al-Gaaod said he used his influence to help free her... [...]

Al-Gaaod said he believes attacks on U.S. troops are justifiable because the Americans are occupiers, but he calls attacks on civilians criminal.

The editor of the Christian Science Monitor said today he was unaware of any ransom payment paid by anyone.

Contrary to the hysteria of some folks, you can be glad that she was released without being so naive as to believe the official story. Given the series of examples, it wouldn't seem that controversial to observe that if you support the ends of the Sunni terrorists and facilitate a transfer payment to their cause you're more likely to be released unharmed than if you work for the reconstruction effort.

MORE:
Kidnapped Reporter Had Unlikely Friend (The Boston Channel, April 13, 2006)

We're learning more about the road to freedom for kidnapped reporter Jill Carroll, who was released two weeks ago.

It turns out the former hostage from Massachusetts had an unlikely friend behind enemy lines.

NewsCenter 5's Mary Saladna reported that there were three people Carroll's family specifically thanked for her safe return when she was released from her captors, one of them a sheik who was once one of Saddam Hussein's closest business associates. He says he's now one of the proud leaders of the Iraqi insurgents.

"They are defending their country and they are honest resistancy and sometimes they do mistakes," he said.

Unlikely?

---

GETTING THE HANG OF THIS ANGLOSPHERE THING:

Tories cut Palestinian aid: Canada first to join Israeli-led boycott (MITCH POTTER AND GRAHAM FRASER, 3/30/06, Toronto Star)

A senior minister in the new Hamas government last night accused Canada of "double standards" for deciding to freeze funding for the Palestinian Authority.

Khaled Abu Arafa, who learned of Ottawa's decision just hours after he was sworn in as Palestinian Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, told the Toronto Star he was "dismayed by a ruling that doesn't give us a chance."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay announced yesterday Canada has cut off contact and funding to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority but will be maintaining its aid to Palestinians through non-governmental organizations and international agencies.

This means a suspension of $7.3 million in Canadian funding, almost one-third of the $25 million a year that Canada spends in aid in the West Bank and Gaza. Canada became the first nation aside from Israel to cut off financial assistance to the authority since Hamas won the legislative elections in January.

MacKay announced that because the Hamas-led government has not renounced violence, recognized Israel or accepted the "road map" for peace, Canada is responding by cutting aid.

No chance? All Mr. Arafa and company have to do is recognize Isr5ael and accept statehood and they'll be showered with money.

---

JUST GIMME MINE:

McCabe folds on pensions (PETER MACMAHON, 3/30/06, The Scotsman)

MINISTERS are preparing to back down on public sector pension reform in the face of the threat of a new wave of strike action by local authority staff.

The Scottish Executive had previously insisted there could be no movement on plans to raise the age at which hundreds of thousands of public sector workers could retire without any financial penalty, from 60 to 65.

But just a day after 200,000 local government workers took nationwide industrial action over the issue, Tom McCabe, the finance minister, has signalled a change of heart.

---

ON THE MARCH:

President Discusses Democracy in Iraq with Freedom House (George W. Bush, Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., 3/29/06)

We meet at a time of war, but also at a moment of great hope. In our world, and due in part to our efforts, freedom is taking root in places where liberty was unimaginable a couple of years ago. Just 25 years ago, at the start of the 1980s, there were only 45 democracies on the face of the Earth. Today, Freedom House reports there are 122 democracies, and more people now live in liberty than ever before.

The advance of freedom is the story of our time, and we're seeing new chapters written before our eyes. Since the beginning of 2005, we've witnessed remarkable democratic changes across the globe. The people of Afghanistan have elected their first democratic parliament in more than a generation. The people of Lebanon have recovered their independence and chosen their leaders in free elections. The people of Kyrgyzstan have driven a corrupt regime from power and voted for democratic change. The people of Liberia have overcome decades of violence and are now led by the first woman elected as a head of state in any African nation. And the courageous people of Iraq have gone to the polls not once, not twice, but three times, choosing a transitional government, a democratic constitution, and a new government under that constitution.

Each of these countries still faces enormous challenges that will take patience and the support of the international community to overcome. Yet, Freedom House has declared the year 2005 was one of the most successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began measuring world freedom more than 30 years ago. From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut and beyond, freedom's tide is rising, and we should not rest, and we must not rest, until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation.

In our history, most democratic progress has come with the end of a war. After the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the collapse of communism in the Cold War, scores of nations cleared away the rubble of tyranny and laid the foundations of freedom and democracy.

Today, the situation is very different. Liberty is advancing not in a time of peace, but in the midst of a war, at a moment when a global movement of great brutality and ambition is fighting freedom's progress with all the hateful violence they can muster. In this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element of our strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace for generations to come. We're fighting the terrorists across the world because we know that if America were not fighting this enemy in other lands, we'd be facing them here in our own land.

On September the 11th, 2001, we saw the violence and the hatred of a vicious enemy, and the future that they intend for us. That day I made a decision: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront this mortal danger. We will stay on the offensive. America will defend our freedom.

We're pursuing the terrorists on many battlefronts. Today, the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. This month I've given a series of speeches on recent events in Iraq and how we're adapting our approach to deal with the events on the ground. At George Washington University I reported on the progress we have made in training the Iraqi security forces, the growing number of Iraqi units that are taking the lead in the fight, the territory we're handing over to them, and the performance they turned in after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

Last week in Cleveland, I told the American people about the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, which was once a key base of operations for al Qaeda and is now a free city that gives us reason to hope for a free Iraq. I explained how the story of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our strategy, because in that city we see the outlines of the Iraq we've been fighting for, a free and secure people who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in government and civic life, and are becoming allies in the fight against the terrorists.

Today, I'm going to discuss the stakes in Iraq and our efforts to help the Iraqi people overcome past divisions and form a lasting democracy, and why it is vital to the security of the American people that we help them succeed.

In the wake of recent violence in Iraq, many Americans are asking legitimate questions: Why are Iraqis so divided? And did America cause the instability by removing Saddam Hussein from power? They ask, after three elections, why are the Iraqi people having such a hard time coming together? And can a country with so many divisions ever build a stable democracy? They ask why we can't bring our troops home now and let the Iraqis sort out their differences on their own.

These are fair questions, and today, I'll do my best to answer them. I'll discuss some of the reasons for the instability we're seeing in Iraq, why democracy is the only force that can overcome these divisions, why I believe the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in freedom and peace, and why the security of our nation depends on the success of a free Iraq.

Today, some Americans ask whether removing Saddam caused the divisions and instability we're now seeing. In fact, much of the animosity and violence we now see is the legacy of Saddam Hussein. He is a tyrant who exacerbated sectarian divisions to keep himself in power. Iraq is a nation with many ethnic and religious and sectarian and regional and tribal divisions. Before Saddam Hussein, Iraqis from different communities managed to live together. Even today, many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shia branches. And in many small towns with mixed populations, there's often only one mosque where Sunni and Shia worship together. Intermarriage is also common with mixed families that include Arabs and Kurds and Sunnis and Shia and Turkmen, Assyrians, and Chaldeans.

To prevent these different groups from coming to challenge his regime, Saddam Hussein undertook a deliberate strategy of maintaining control by dividing the Iraqi people. He stayed on top by brutally repressing different Iraqi communities and pitting them one against the other. He forced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of their homes using expulsion as a weapon to subdue and punish any group that resisted his rule. By displacing Iraqi communities and dividing the Iraqi people, he sought to establish himself as the only force that could hold the country together.

In Saddam's campaign of repression and division, no Iraqi group was spared. In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein unleashed a brutal ethnic cleansing operation against Kurds in northern Iraq. Kurdish towns and villages were destroyed. Tens of thousands of Kurds disappeared or were killed. In his effort to terrorize the Kurds into submission, Saddam dropped chemical weapons on scores of Kurdish villages. In one village alone, a town called Halabja, his regime killed thousands of innocent men and women and children, using mustard gas and nerve agents. Saddam also forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their homes, and then he moved Arabs into those homes and onto the properties of the people who were forced to leave. As a result of this strategy deep tensions persist to this day.

Saddam also waged a brutal campaign of suppression and genocide against the Shia in the south of Iraq. He targeted prominent Shia clerics for assassination. He destroyed Shia mosques and holy sites. He killed thousands of innocent men, women and children. He piled their bodies into mass graves. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saddam brutally crushed a Shia uprising. Many Shia fled to the marshes of southern Iraq. They hid in the wetlands that could not be easily reached by Saddam's army.

The wetlands, by the way, were also home to the Marsh Arabs, an ancient civilization that traces its roots back 5,000 years. So Saddam destroyed the Marsh Arabs, and those who hid in the marshes, by draining the marshes where they lived. In less than a decade, the majority of these lush wetlands were turned into barren desert, and most of the Marsh Arabs were driven from their ancestral home. It is no wonder that deep divisions and scars exist in much of the Shia population.

Saddam also oppressed his fellow Sunnis. One of the great misperceptions about Iraq is that every Sunni enjoyed a privileged status under Saddam's regime. In truth, Saddam trusted few outside his family and his tribe. He installed his sons and his brothers and his cousins in key positions. Almost everyone was considered suspect, and often those suspicions led to brutal violence.

In one instance, Saddam's security services tortured to death a pilot from a prominent Sunni tribe, and then dumped his headless body in front of his family's house. It caused riots that he then brutally suppressed. In the mid-1990s, Saddam rounded up scores of prominent Sunni economists and lawyers and retired army officers and former government officials. Many were never heard from again.

It is hard to overstate the effects of Saddam's brutality on the Iraqi nation. Here's what one Marine recalls when he was on the streets of the Iraqi capital. He said, quote, "I had an Iraqi citizen come up to me. She opened her mouth and she had no tongue. She was pointing at the statue. There were people with no fingers waving at the statue of Saddam, telling us he tortured them. People were showing us scars on their back." Iraq is a nation that is physically and emotionally scarred by three decades of Saddam's tyranny, and these wounds will take time to heal. As one Marsh Arab put it, "Saddam did everything he could to kill us. You cannot recover from that right away."

These are the kinds of tensions Iraqis are dealing with today. They are the divisions that Saddam aggravated through deliberate policies of ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence. As one Middle East scholar has put it, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "a society slowly and systematically poisoned by political terror. The toxic atmosphere in today's Iraq bears witness to his terrible handiwork."

The argument that Iraq was stable under Saddam and that stability is now in danger because we removed him is wrong. While liberation has brought its own set of challenges, Saddam Hussein's removal from power was the necessary first step in restoring stability and freedom to the people of Iraq.

Today some Americans are asking why the Iraqi people are having such a hard time building a democracy. The reason is that the terrorists and former regime elements are exploiting the wounds inflicted under Saddam's tyranny. The enemies of a free Iraq are employing the same tactics Saddam used -- killing and terrorizing the Iraqi people in an effort to foment sectarian division.

For the Saddamists, provoking sectarian strife is business as usual. And we know from the terrorists' own words that they're using the same tactics with the goal of inciting a civil war. Two years ago, we intercepted a letter to Osama bin Laden from the terrorist Zarqawi, in which he explains his plan to stop the advance of democracy in Iraq. Zarqawi wrote: "If we succeed in dragging the Shia into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to waken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger. The only solution is for us to strike the religious and military and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow."

The terrorists and Saddamists have been brutal in the pursuit of this strategy. They target innocent civilians; they blow up police officers; they attack mosques; and they commit other acts of horrific violence for the cameras. Their objective is to stop Iraq's democratic progress. They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They tried to stop millions of Iraqis from voting in the January 2005 elections. They tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October referendum on the constitution. And they tried to stop millions from voting in the December elections to form a government under that constitution.

And in each case, they failed. With every election, participation was larger and broader than the one that came before. And in December, almost 12 million people -- more than 75 percent of eligible voters -- defied the terrorists to cast their ballots. With their votes, the Iraqi people have spoken and ma