When the flooding hit Calgary, some of the first responders to the scene from outside the city were soldiers from Edmonton. There were several jokes on Twitter about the war of words between the two cities, and a few “invasion” hints, but for those of us outside Alberta local politics, we just didn’t know:
I think we have a new meme.
My weekly Guild Wars 2 community round-up at GuildMag is now online. The Sky Pirates of Tyria update went live this week along with a large number of trait changes for the professions. There’s also the usual assortment of blog posts, videos, podcasts, and fan fiction from around the GW2 community.
An interesting post at the Laurier Centre for Military, Strategic, and Disarmament Studies looks at the real reasons the Royal Canadian Navy has had such a rough time with the current class of submarines:
Submarines are perhaps the most misunderstood weapon system in the Canadian Forces. Few Canadians, even those well-versed in military matters, understand their role in Canada’s defence. Worse, the technical issues that have afflicted the Victoria class submarines have dominated the media narrative for a decade, convincing many that they really are a set of lemons put upon us by the crafty British. In actuality, the navy had relatively few options to replace its aging Oberons in the 1990s. It was the decisions made then, rather than any inherent technical shortcomings, which created many of the problems experienced after these vessels entered active service. Yet, the choices for the navy were stark. Faced with a government that was essentially hostile to the idea of submarines, and limited in what it could spend, the used, but highly modern Upholders were the only option open to the RCN: it was either that or the end of the Submarine Service.
[. . .]
However, submarines were politically unpopular within the Chretien government. The former foreign minister called them “un-Canadian” in nature, and Chretien himself dithered on the decision. Sensing that the window was about to slam shut, the navy lobbied hard for their acquisition in what was called the deal of a century – four slightly used subs for $750 million. The old supply vessel HMCS Provider would be paid off early and planned refits for the O-boats foregone.
But the navy had to live within the tight limits that had been established by that $750 million figure. As such, much of the spare parts the RN had warehoused for the submarines were not purchased, nor was some of the technical information concerning the engineering of the submarine’ systems acquired from VSEL (later BAE Systems). In addition, a series of technical problems were discovered in the submarines as they began to be reactivated by the Royal Navy. Many of these were fixed before the boats were delivered to Canada, but several expensive fixes remained after they were acquired. The heavy demands made on the navy at the beginning of the War on Terror in 2003, just as the submarines were arriving in Halifax, also limited the ability to move quickly in resolving these issues.
In many ways, the problems experienced by the subs represent an “own goal” on the part of the navy. The decisions that were made at the time in order to get the boat were to come back to haunt the navy years later. The failure to acquire sufficient spares or establish supplier relationships resulted in many of the significant delays in making the subs operational as the navy worked to create its own network of industrial relationships to manufacture the specialized equipment found on no other naval system. It is this fallout from the procurement process, rather than the frequent argument that the subs were poorly constructed, that is responsible for the delays and technical setbacks in the programme. Given the constraints under which the navy had to operate in the mid-1990s there really were no other alternatives if the service was to be preserved. Despite the problems that came with the boats, it really was the deal of the century!
I guess the BBC is doing a fair job of agitating the powers-that-be, at least in Turkey:
Selin Gerit, a London-based presenter for BBC’s Turkish service, was until last week relatively unknown in her home country. However, that changed when Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told parliament she was guilty of treason over her coverage of the anti-government protests sweeping the nation.
The prime minister’s condemnation has triggered concerns among fellow journalists, who believe Erdoğan — who accuses the media of fanning the demonstrations — is attempting to stifle dissent.
The campaign against Girit was launched last weekend when the mayor of Ankara, Melih Gökçek, posted a series of angry tweets. The BBC criticised what it called government intimidation. The corporation’s comments triggered Erdoğan to claim in parliament the following day that Girit was “part of a conspiracy against her own country”.
Turkish journalists see the focus on Girit as a warning to them all — an example to cow the rest of them into submission. Serdar Korucu, editor of a major domestic news outlet, said: “The prime minister is telling us, ‘Be careful what you say and do, or you can easily be next’.”
The mainstream media have ignored much of the unrest, with CNNTürk airing a documentary on penguins while the central square in Istanbul became the scene of street protests unprecedented in Erdoğan’s 10-year rule. The public was outraged, and protests were staged outside local news outlets.
Many journalists, however, were not surprised. Fatma Demirelli, managing editor of Today’s Zaman, the English-language daily, said self-censorship had long become the norm in newsrooms. “Journalists now have a sort of split brain: on the one hand you see what the news is, but on the other you immediately try to gauge how to report it without stepping on anyone’s foot,” she said. “Self-censorship has become an automatic reflex.”
This is either political grandstanding for foreign audiences or a shrewd attempt to gain some positive domestic points:
One of the points that many people have made concerning most countries in the world is that they’re loathe to challenge the US on many things, even when they’re in the right, because they’re so reliant on the US for trade. The US regularly lords this fact over countries in seeking to get its way. In fact, US officials had been very strongly suggesting to Ecuador that if it decides to take in Ed Snowden and grant him asylum, that there could be consequences for trade under the Andean Trade Preference Act that both countries are signed to, but which needs to be renewed next month. Specifically, US politicians suggested that they might not allow the renewal if Ecuador granted asylum.
In response, Ecuador has taken a stand: saying that it’s breaking the trade agreement upfront as it doesn’t appreciate the attempt by the US to blackmail it in this matter.
[. . .]
As the article notes, some of this is surely political. It is a bit of a populist move by the government, and many suspected that the trade agreement was unlikely to be renewed anyway by the US, so in some ways this is an attempt to get out in front of that story and pull something of a “you can’t fire me, I quit!” move. Still, it highlights, once again, the way the US bullies smaller countries, and how that can backfire.
Powered by WordPress