Loose Lips...

"I don't see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation."

With these words the U.S. Secretary of Defense assured the Russian government that, so long as it was ready to absorb whatever international criticism might come its way, and put up with assorted diplomatic sanctions, it can do as it pleases in Georgia.

The reality is that Robert Gates was almost definitely stating the obvious. The odds of any American military intervention were considered long from the beginning of the crisis. But in diplomacy, as in any other form of competitive relations, even the most unlikely of possibilities will play a role in any decision making. What this means is, until Mr. Gates' statement, the Russian government of Vladimir Putin had to consider its moves carefully, lest it make a move that would be considered over the line by the United States. They knew that US intervention was a remote possibility to say the least, but it could not be ignored.

It is now much easier to ignore. Essentially, Mr. Gates is saying to the Russians, "Stop, or I will say stop again", as the old comedy line goes. So long as Russia sees its position in organizations such as the G8 as being of great importance, this will be of little consequence. Russia is also seeking World Trade Organization membership, which the US and other western nations could block, providing another diplomatic stick and carrot. But if Mr. Putin is willing to sacrifice these, and this is not entirely out of the question, then Mr. Gates' words may be a significant danger to the continued existence of democracy in Georgia.

Mr. Gates might better consider his words more carefully in the future.

The All-Star Game

Hey, how'd ya like the baseball All-Star Game last night?

You didn't watch it? Forgot it was on? Don't give a flying fig regardless?

Join the club.

While I can't quote any statistics, and indeed this may be all in my mind, it seems that this is a game that is becoming more irrelevant by the year, if not less. Don't forget, a few years back this thing ended due to lack of interest - and relief players. So Bud Selig (anyone who was at the Expos' last game will remember the chant going around - "f#$% you Selig!), in his infinite wisdom decided the game would henceforth decide who had home field advantage in the world serious, er, series (not like it's becoming any more popular itself).

I don't know if it's working.

But I know I haven't watched the game since I can't remember when. And I don't miss it.

Sure, I enjoy reading about Canadians doing well (take a bow home run king Justin Morneau, not to mention Ryan Dempster and Russ Martin), or Blue Jays (a scoreless inning for Roy Halliday). But aside from that I don't care. I really can't, not since Selig, Jeffrey Loria and company stuck their knives in the back of the Expos (et tu, Bud?).

So now I sometimes check the scores, see what's in the sports section of the paper or on one of the sports networks. I like to see the Jays do well, and think it's great to have Cito back. I want J.P. Ricciardi to go away, and take his copy of Moneyball with him. I may go see a game or two this season (Belleville is two hours from Toronto).

But the reality is, when I check my feeds from TSN and Sportsnet, I'm looking forward to hockey and football news.

Why we shouldn't accept US army deserters as refugees

U.S. war deserter loses last bid to stay in Canada

Source: www.nationalpost.com

VANCOUVER -- A federal court judge has ordered the removal of a U.S. Army deserter from Canada, a decision that signals this country is no longer a safe haven for American soldiers who decide to evade military service at home and abroad.

I posted this article, along with the following comment on Facebook.

My reasons for supporting this court decision I could not adequately explain here. If you're curious, please ask.

Since I was asked, here's my response:

I believe it makes sense for a few reasons. First, the man had joined the US Army voluntarily. He at no point expressed concern as a concientious objector, at least until he was to go to Iraq. While soldiers are free to hold whatever beliefs they wish on the nature and validity of various conflicts, enlistment means they have agreed to go where the government orders when, whether you are talking about the US, Canadian or British armies, to mention just a few all volunteer forces. It is all well and good to excuse such actions based on public attitude regarding this conflict, but to allow it would be to allow soldiers to pick and choose when they fight, and that is a job reserved in our system for the democratically elected government. Effectively, the choice to fight or not is made when the soldier enlists, and at no other time. For this reason, under US or Canadian law, the man is a deserter and, if he believes that strongly in his position, should be willing to stand in the shoes of Socrates and accept such punishment as the state has deemed appropriate, as opposed to fleeing.

Secondly, in regards to the specific court decision, to claim refugee status when fleeing from a dictatorship or other non-democratic government which ignores basic human rights is entirely reasonable. But the US, contrary to the silliness being spouted by some, is a democratic nation which strongly adheres to a Bill of Rights. No one forced this man to enlist, no threat has been made. He is seeking, rather, to avoid the lawful punishment merited by his breaking of the law in the United States. If he is allowed to stay to protect him from whatever punishment the US legal system may administer, precedent would be set to allow any person fleeing punishment for breaking the law to claim refugee status, and even if they were to eventually fail (no guarantees there, as precedent would be set, for any defense lawyer willing to use it), the process would be a waste for an immigration system which has precious little free time to deal with legitimate refugees.

Those are my basic reasons, if that answers the question.