I’ve been hearing all about some technique called “shaqinaw” for the past two days on television. I assumed it was some technical term, perhaps coined by General Shaqinaw of the Cavalry, to describe a way of attacking the enemy.

It wasn’t until I read it in print that I realized the term is “shock and awe,” which is described as:

…necessary effects arising from application of military power… aimed at destroying the will of an adversary to resist.

That, apparently, is what the Big Bombs will be used to inflict on the people of Iraq.

I take back what I said about the CBC’s war coverage earlier today: I’ve just watched The National, and they had some of their best reporting ever, and certainly the best reporting on The War I’ve seen anywhere. I could still do without Mansbridge, and the talking “retired military officer” heads, but reporters like Adrienne Arsenault are doing a fine job.

Just for the record, the last company on earth I would ever purchase a subscription anti-virus service from is Aliant. They are currently spamming their High Speed Internet customers with a subscription offer. Why would I trust a company that can’t calculate my cell phone bill properly with the security of my computer?

Reporters at the CBC in Montreal are blogging the campaign trail.

Now that we’re almost 24 hours into The War, here are some thoughts about how it’s being covered on television:

ABC — The only major network to omit the annoying “crawl” from the bottom of the screen, and thus the only source I can watch with any regularity and not get dizzy. Peter Jennings is smart and well-spoken. Correspondents are the weakest, with the exception of Ted Koppel, who is excellent.

CBS — Can anyone take the corn-ball Dan Rather seriously? Completely unwatchable. The big green LIVE blob in the top-right of the screen is very annoying, especially when combined with the ever-present “crawl” at the bottom.

NBC — Best correspondents. I can take or leave Brokaw. Same “crawl” problem. Good alternative is CNBC, which uses the intelligent and insightful Forest Sawyer as host during the evening.

FOX — Like watching an SCTV imitation of real news.

CBC — Seems like second generation news: I get the impression that people at CBC are watching the pool feeds from afar, and reporting what others are reporting. Correspondents seem remote from the war, and experts seem to neither be expert nor particularly informed. And there’s the usual “Mansbridge as automaton” problem.

CNN — Very full of themselves, but arguably the best coverage going. Smart, well-informed experts; correspondents all over the place (including Nic Robertson, who’s taking his life in his own hands by staying in Baghdad). Aaron Brown is very annoying — almost as much as Dan Rather — other hosts less so.

PBS — Charlie Rose has the best commentary with the best guests.

Apparently Tom Dressen (who guest-hosted the Late Show tonight ) is “Corporate America’s Favorite Entertainer.” Is that a good thing?

It had to happen: swearing Cows.

George Kells is Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Prince Edward Island. He’s been raked over the coals of late for speaking his mind in a Guardian opinion piece about the War Against Iraq.

There is no doubting the Mr. Kells is a strong-willed man who sees the war through a particularly aggressive black-and-white set of glasses. A quote from the CBC story about the issue:

He [Kells] says in issues such as a military conflicts you have to pick one side, and his “Friends of Saddam” comment was not out of line.”Some of them must be. Surely it boils down to you’re a friend of George Bush or a friend of Saddam’s. That’s the only two sides you could be on, isn’t it?”

Surely it’s not unusual for a man who spent 37 years in the military to see the world of war as a binary system; there’s little room for shades of grey on the battlefield, and this is the culture from which he comes.

The question at hand — at least the one raised by Leo Broderick of the Council of Canadians — is whether Kells’ comments should disqualify him from serving on the Human Rights Commission. Again from the CBC:

Some of the people who were at the meeting want Kells to leave the Human Rights Commission. A group called the Council of Canadians says Kells should have chosen other words to describe the crowd.

Kells, obviously, thinks not:

“I have no intention of resigning. I think if I were to resign I would be giving in to the people who are trying to squash freedom of speech, so I have no intention of doing that.”

And I support him in this regard.

The Human Rights Commission doesn’t exist to ensure that everybody thinks happy thoughts, it exists specifically to prevent “the unequal, stereotypical and prejudicial treatment of persons.”

The arenas within, and grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited are very clearly laid out by <a href=”the Commission.

And they don’t include “calling people names.”

If George Kells, private citizen, calls a group of people “The Friends of Saddam”, “America Haters,” and “Peace-at-any-Price Appeasers,” he is simply exercising his right to free speech. He’s not discriminating against anyone. Indeed he’s not suggesting that those who hold other opinions should have less right to speak than he does.

If Mr. Kells made his comments in an official capacity, and suggested they reflected the policy of the Commission, or if he suggested that those against the war, say, weren’t worthy of employment, housing, or a right to be heard, well that would be one thing. But he didn’t.

Free speech is hard. Sometimes it’s uncomfortable. Sometimes it means people are going to call you things you would rather they didn’t. But it’s way, way better than the alternatives.

Go George. Go Leo. Onwards and upwards into the court of ideas.