Me think he doth protest too much

Once again, Sullivan's pretending he's the guy who was right all along.

Here he is, raging against all the anti-gay forces out there in the US.

Well, guess what, Andrew? You helped these people get to power. You defended Bush and the Bushites. You constantly take swipes at the Democratic party.

Oh, sure, maybe suddenly you've had some sort of conversion on the road to Provincetown, but that's too little, too late.

The Republican party's hostility to gay people is not a new thing. It isn't something that suddenly leaked out. The Republicans have been playing footsie with the religious right for a long time.

Sure, the Democrats aren't great, but compare to the Republican party, they're fantastic.

And I'm sorry, I won't be buying any nonsense about how you agree with some Republican policies and therefore you can forgive them for their homophobia. That's like a Jew saying that while he doesn't quite like the Nazi party's program when it comes to Jews, he likes the Nazi emphasis on the family and on physical fitness, not to mention job creation (going to war, hm...), so he'll vote NSDAP anyway.

Don't give me that "never again" nonsense. We are where we are thanks to people like you - who looked at the enemy and embraced him, your wheedling excuses notwithstanding ("closet tolerants" my ass - Bush is lobbying for the amendment). The only political party in the US which has done anything for gays is the Democratic party. The only party with institutionalized discrimination against gays is the Republicans.

Maybe I'm just a one-issue voter. I think that's okay. One-issue voting is silly when it's for something minor. But when one party is staunchly, implacably opposed to your civil rights, I think it's prefectly acceptable - and even necessary - to stand up and vote for your right to be considered a full-fledged, equal member of society whose love is just as good as that of anyone else.

Unbelievable

Joe Volpe's comments on the youth donations scandal:

Mr. Volpe, who was attending a leadership fundraiser at an East Side Mario's restaurant in Edmonton last night, said the donations are legal, but he gave the money back because he "wanted to set a different standard."

He said he didn't know about the donation until recently and since the story broke in The Globe he has spoken to the Shechtman children and their mother, Mary.

"Apparently, I had seen the kids when I went to their school and gave a talk during the [federal election] campaign. They went back home and said 'that's a guy we want to help, we want to support.' The parents told them there would be a good time to do that and here is the time. So, I gather they thought about it as a family and they did what they did," he said.

"You might say that's a lot of money for kids. It's not a family that's unaccustomed to having those resources.

"[Now] they feel sorry for me, because someone has made something negative about their interest in being engaged."

Christian Violence Hypocricy

I'm sure we've all heard about mad Christians lamenting that there's too much violence on television, in the movies, etc. They think it's bad for our kids. They don't like violence (or smut, of course) anywhere.

Except, of course, when it's against non-Christians. The "Left Behind" series now has a game. Recall that the Left Behind series deals with the end of the world and the anti-christ taking over the world.

So, in the game, marketed to kids, you can play the role of a true believer and blow away all those enemies of Christ: specifically, the UN, gays, muslims, hindus - you name it. Apparently as you kill them, you say "Praise the Lord." Oh and I hear that in the game, possibly also the movie, the Anti-Christ was made from the genetic material of two gay people, pleasingly tarring us with fathering Satan.

Heady stuff.

Is this, then, acceptable to Christians: Preach love and Christ, but then think it's totally okay to send out games for kids where they can blow up basically anyone who's not an evangellical Christian? Teach these kids that it's a-okay to shoot jews, muslims, homos, lesbians, and (presumably given the anti-UN sland), foreigners?

Great - well done Christians. Another step forward to making the world a better place.

God, apparently, doesn't answer prayers

This from Sploid: Apparently some mad Southen woman was praying for her relatives, and as she said, "Amen," her house exploded.

So let's see: Every time something good happens after a mad Christian prays, it's God doing a good thing.

But when God does not-so-good things, well, it's just chance/fate/natural.

Uh hun.

Um, the civil war is over

This article is nuts.

It's a story of those running for the Alabama Supreme Court (aside: this is why judges should never be elected.) Recall that Alabama is also the home of Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore, whose smackdown by the 11th Circuit ("If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail.") still gets me hard.

Anyway. He's running for governor, but scarier are those running for the Court. Four of the candidates have this crazy idea that the Alabama Supreme Court (and, indeed, any state court) should not be obligated to follow the Federal Supreme Court when it doesn't want to (in their words, when the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong).

Recall, of course, that this is what the southern savages tried during desegregation - saying that the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown was wrong and that they didn't have to follow it.

Um. I don't think there's a serious legal mind in the country who actually thinks that this view is correct. I did a quick poll here at work, and while of course I work for an ultra-liberal law firm's ultra-liberal office in an ultra-liberal city (well, as ultra-liberal as you can be while representing major oil companies), I didn't find a single person who didn't burst out laughing. Comments ranged from "um, didn't we settle this in the civil war?" to "if Alabama elects them and they turn the state back to the dark ages, who cares?"

The Supreme Court is law - and even though we may not like the decisions, we obey them.

But the message here is very Moore-esque: If you don't like the law, you don't have to follow it.

Okay, this is very not cool.

This is really scary. That this passes for a reasonable political ad is quite beyond me.

But the closing line is the catch: "Traditional American Values." Apparently if you're not religious, if you're gay, if you are pro-choice (as he phrases it, you want to "kill a million babies a year,") - you don't have "Traditional American Values."

This, my friends, is the Republican Party:

OK, this is cool

The message in this video about two gay mounties who are getting hitched is that no one cares, Harper's gag order notwithstanding. Where's there any backlash? Where do we hear anyone complaining? As Gerald Keddy said, no one is upset: "Not a word. Not a whimper. Not an e-mail, not a phone call, nothing. It’s a non-issue." (Contrast this to the fight, 25 years ago, to let Sikhs wear turbans.)

This is precisely what those opposed to gay marriage don't want - they don't want people to see that really, the sky doesn't fall, the world doesn't end.

And what could be more gay than a Mountie uniform? God, I hope they take pictures.

O'Connor goes shopping

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is rumoured to have a nice big list of goodies for the Canadian Forces.

I've followed the Forces and their declining state of equipment for some time, and for those concerned with what our uniformed men and women work with, this is all good news. But nothing good comes for free and the C-17s are going to be somewhat controversial, as few nations our size can afford them. Even the UK had to lease theirs. However, Australia recently purchased 4 , so it can be done, especially now that Boeing is desperate for customers. The big advantage of the C-17 is that we no longer have to rely on US air transport, or rented aircraft, to get our Forces to where we want them to be. Theoretically, this means we can enact a somewhat independent foreign/defence policy. Not that this government seems likely to do so. But let's keep our eyes on the big picture (ie. the post-Conservative future).

The other sleeper in the wish list is the three transport/resupply vessels for the Navy. The ships as planned by DND seem to be a bit over the top, throwing every mission capability into the design requirements, resulting in a ship that can perform every role badly, instead of one role well. This critical angle will only appeal to defence analysts. For political purposes, the more important issue will be if the ships will (and, given the state of our shipbuilding industries, still can) be built in Canada. BC and the Maritimes will certainly hope so.

Estimated price tag for all of this is $8 billion. How will it be paid for? To quote the Post:

"Some Conservative policies have also been put on hold, including plans to buy icebreakers for the navy and station rapid reaction army units at remote bases across the country, such as Goose Bay, Labrador."

ie. the exact defence policies that Harper campaigned on.

Chretien used the EH101 helicopter deal to great advantage during his election campaign. This current shopping list should provide some fodder for the Liberal leadership hopefuls. Except for Ignatieff the hawk, of course. Should be interesting...

On the image of your country

After last night's irritation with that ridiculous woman, I skimmed the testimony before the Senate on gay marriage. One comment by Senator Mitchell really struck me. In talking about the wearing of turbans in the RCMP, he stated:

Senator Mitchell: I would like to add a comment, and I thank you for raising that point. I was actively involved in that issue as an elected politician in Alberta and I feel strongly about it. One thing that debate hinged on was the sense of how to define the RCMP visually because a Canadian RCMP wears the traditional hat and uniform. My argument was that I do not see that image of Canada. My image of Canada is of an accepting, understanding, pluralistic society that takes people for what they are. Senator Joyal said in the house, in the context of language, that in Canada people can really be themselves. That is a powerful thought. All of you brought that out today, and I appreciate it greatly.

Heady stuff. And this is exactly right - there is not "image" of Canada and the Canadian people that can be put down on a mug or a photo. There's not "As American as apple pie" in Canada, save for "As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances." How much better to have your identity shaped by shared values, rather than some sort of shared image or identity? That is the message we send to the world: Come to our beautiful country. Keep your traditions, keep your faith, keep your culture, but join us by sharing our values of respect and tolerance. You can be who you want to be, so long as you tolerate those around you being who they want to be.

Canada cannot fail. As I have said before, it is the shining example to the world of a peaceful, tolerant (and somewhat boring) country. It is the sharp rebuke to all those in the world who say that different ethnic groups or linguistic communities or religions cannot live side-by-side. It is the rebuke to those who think that cities should be ghettoized (like my own city, Los Angeles, is). If Canada fails - if it self-destructs because of short sighted premiers or politicians who put their parochial interests above the common good - if our great and wonderful experiment fails, then to me there is no real hope for humanity.

Jesus loves you, just not what you do.

I was accosted today by an angel of Christian mercy. Wonderful.

Let me set the stage (writing this with a red haze of anger). It's a beautiful evening in LA. I had dinner with two of the boys whose company and friendship make living here worthwhile. We went for a drink, and ran into other good people. We want a quiet night, so leave early. I'm walking home, basking in the glow of a pleasant, chill night with people I care about, enjoying the cool, pretty night.

And then I run into this fat, scruffy, hippy-esque woman, who's passing out flyers or posting them or something. I assume it's for Topanga crafts fair (painted rocks) or the latest in chakra healing crystals or something.

Oh no.

Apparently, she's a messenger from God. Now, when I look at the lutin Benedict, with his fabulous clothing (um, and he doesn't like gays why?), and I hear he's God's messenger, and I contrast it with this woman, who also claims that, I get confused.

Before I go further, let me also say that I don't just not believe in God, I believe there is no God. I have two degrees in First World War history. I don't see how you can be a serious student of history - the study of human misery and the unlimited capacity of human beings to be cruel - and not believe there is no God. Any God that is all-powerful, but does not stop the suffering of humanity, from the trenches to the Holocaust to the poverty in Africa to the misery of the slums here, is a God worthy only of contempt, not adoration. Any God that cannot stop it is not omnipotent and not a God.

I digress.

She walks past me, and says "Jesus loves you, just not what you do."

I stop. I turn around. She smiles sheepishly, "He doesn't love everything I do, either." (Like judge?). (Aside: How did she know I'm a 'mo? I mean, granted, I was wearing a pink Abercrombie polo, and have short hair, and am in shape, but seriously, my hips weren't swaying that much as I walked!)

I confront her: "Is this some crazy Christian anti-Gay thing?"

She says yes, and explains that she knows this. I ask her how it is that she, out of the six or so billion people in the world, is personally favoured with divine wisdom (as opposed to, for example, the wisdom of the Moderator of the Church I was baptized in, that has absolutely no problem with gay marriage and testified before the Senate of Canada that not allowing gay marriage was religious discrimination against them). She explains that Jesus speaks to her, and that the Bible tells her that. I don't mention the Bible also bans wearing two kinds of cloth, and she's clearly wearing polyesther along with unbleached cotton.

When I start to substantively challenge her, she walks away. Of course. That's the Christian tactic - quote the Bible (unauthenticated hearsay) and then walk away. You can't argue - they win by saying, "Jesus says." See my earlier posts on "National Security."

At the end of the day, I don't get it: if I'm going to hell, let me go. Why should she care? Let her live in her self-righteous bubble, believing that God speaks to her. If I'm wrong, I'll burn in hell forever. Why should she care?

Conclusions on this later, when I'm not seething.

OMG So funny

Listen to this - to the tune of "Fever." Hysterical. Here's the opening verse:

With elections round the corner
When the voters start to care
About the mess we have created
We give you issues that aren't even there

We give you Homosexual marriage
Gonna wreck your family's life
Gay men want your husbands
Lesbians will steal your wife

Religous Right using Mary Cheney

Americablog is reporting that the nutcases on the right are now using Mary Cheney for fundrasing. Great quote:

We have our work cut out for us as you know. In the past few weeks, the media have been filled with appearances by Mary Cheney and others who are working to undercut the importance of marriage to our survival as a society.The media have delighted in the fact that Vice President Cheney's daughter publicly opposes the very convictions that brought her father's political party into the White House.

Well, isn't that just peachey. But let's remember: When Kerry and Edwards brought it up in the election, she threw a hissy fit, as did all the Republicans. It was a-okay for them to demonize us homos, pass amendments, talk about how we were destroying families and turning us all into heathens, but it wasn't okay to say, um, some of you who say this have gay family.

Will the Cheneys come out, along with Dubya, Laura, and the whole GOP with the same comment: that her sexuality is private, her own business, go away?

I doubt it. We'll get the "we can't control fundraisers" or some nonsense like that.

This got me all teary

I've never, ever, ever been to a sporting event here in the US (and I've been to a lot) where the audience belts out the anthem like this. A few lines in, the singer stops and lets the audience take over. I may be a cheese ball, but wow.

More use of Terror

As I mentioned before, the fact that you can shut down debate, or get what you want, by playing the "terrorist threat" or "national security" card is really ridiculous.

This morning, NPR was talking about the new immigration "crisis" we're facing. And I heard some southern congressman drawling away about how this would let in one to two hundred million Mexicans (huh?).

Let me say from the outset I think that the anti-Mexican-immigration thing is nothing more than racism, pure and simple. I live in Southern California and, as a group, the latino immigrants to this area are some of the hardest working people I know. I complain about my hours, but they're not half as bad, and I get paid a ton of money more. These are decent hard working people trying to make their lives better (which, I had thought, was the whole point of the USA). The announced motives to exlude them are, to be honest, horses*it. They aren't taking jobs from Americans? How many white southern Californians do you see clamouring for gardening or cleaning or busboy jobs? And the unemployment rate certainly doesn't reflect any sort of theft of jobs from "Americans."

No, the only reason I can see that all these Republican nutjobs want to get rid of them is that they're dark skinned and don't speak English as their first language.

But what a gift Sept. 11 gave to racists everywhere. We don't need to show our colours and say we don't like them because they're different. We can say that they're threats!

Now, I don't know about you, but I haven't seen all that many terrorist luchadores troups or Mariachi bands. Can anyone tell me the last time a terrorist snuck across the border from Mexico? Or from Canada? I seem to recall that terrorists entered the US lawfully via an airport. Any danger from terrorism comes from nutjob islamic extremists, not hard working Mexicans who want nothing more than a step up.

But in this present climate, National Security always works. Don't like immigrants? National security's your ticket. Don't like garbage? It's that dangerous terrorist garbage! Don't like abortion? Remember, every dead foetus helps the terrorists! Journalists reporting on government abuses? Giving comfort to the enemy.

What a great country we've become.

Coasting

In an interview with Macleans, Liberal leadership hopeful Maurizio Bevilacqua mentions his extensive travels from coast to coast in Canada. Coast to coast? Um, excuse me, only two coasts? He failed to include the popularized-by-Martin-and-now-mandatory 'coast to coast to coast' ! And this man wants to lead the Liberal Party? The party of inclusion? He's finished, I tell you, finished!

We need a leader who represents change! Generational change! Renewal and national unity! Coast to coast may have sufficed in the past, but in the new modern productive Canada of the 21st century, ready to compete on equal terms with Chindia, our leaders and aspiring leaders must recognize that we are a nation stretching from coast to coast to coast. Including the coast of Hudson Bay, because it's still ocean, and all the coasts around the Arctic islands that are now coasts, because of, you know, the global warming and icepack thawing and all that. And the Great Lakes coasts. Because they are borders. Kinda.

On a more serious note...he makes interesting comments about his rather surprising exclusion from cabinet. He seems to blame it all on the with-us-or-against us Martinites, but then turns around and lays it all on Martin's feet.

Perhaps Martin preferred three-coasters in his cabinet.

Just a hunch.

More thoughts on using the law

As I drove home last night, and watched horse races today (losing twice as much as I won, huzzah), I was thinking more about why it is that here in the US there's such an effort to conscript people to living a certain way, and why in Canada there is not.

I think it comes down to history.

Now - I certainly hate the fact that Canadians generally don't know that much about our history. But, at the end of the day, Canadian history, our outstanding military achievement notwithstanding, is pretty dull, particularly in contrast to the United States.

And perhaps the greatest achievement of multiculturalism has been the creation of an idea of Canadian-ness that has nothing to do with race, or religion, or apple pie. Who's ever heard of "all-Canadian looks"? Being Canadian just means subscribing to a certain set of values - tolerance, kindness, the Charter - and once you do that, you can do what you want. As a result, Canada is the shining beacon to the world, the rebuke to the rest of the planet saying that it is possible for different enthnic groups to live side by side, for different languages to co-exist together, that you can become propserous and wealthy as a poly-ethnic, multi-cultural, bilingual state. But - if you had to draw an architypal Canadian, Bob and Doug McKenzie notwithstanding - what would you draw or describe?

Contrast that with the US. Here, I think there's a very clear idea of "American." And as such, it's easy to see what is not "American." And because there is a national idea (which I would say is a myth) of what it is to be "American," it becomes easy to demand that others conform. "If you want to be American, you must do this, and behave like this, and speak like this."

The problem is, of course, that no one stands up to defend Canadian nationalism, because it's vague and amorphous. Canada might expire simply because, as Trudeau said, "We peer so suspiciously at each other that we cannot see that we Canadians are standing on the mountaintop of human wealth, freedom and privilege."

The US - Where law is used to divide

Sometimes it makes me sad, seeing what passes for politics here. For all the talk of freedom that gets bandied about here, the whole country is rife with people - conservatives, generally - who want you to live your life the way they live theirs.

First, there's the gay marriage amendment, which, incidentally, has also been passed in 19 states.

Now, there's a bill to make English the "national language."

Prayer in schools, teaching creationism, pledges of allegiance, gay scouts, flag burning - it's all about one group trying to get another to behave like it.

Why don't we have these problems in Canada? (I realize I'm using we both as Canadians and Americans. Sorry.) We've had gay marriage for a few years, and there's no big problem. The sky hasn't fallen. Straight marriage hasn't gone away.

We function just fine with two languages - and even in a third (Inuktitut - notice this pic of the GG with the earpiece for translation). Parliament works fine in two languages. The court systems work fine. The federal civil service functions just fine. I recall once being at a friend's place watching TV - nothing was on the English stations, so we watched a French one. No big deal. No one, apart from of course a few nutcases (oh yeah, and the Gov of Quebec) want to force kids to speak one language or the other.

We have gay scouts (the US top scouting rank is eagle scout. In Canada, it's a Queen's Scout. Go figure). My mom is a high school principal (was in Canada, is in the US) and she one said to me, "We used to say the lord's prayer every morning (this is in the 90s). And then we said, hm, we probably shouldn't be doing this any more. So we stopped." And no one kicked up a fuss, no one talked about war on christianity. No one cares if you burn a Canadian flag - happens all the time in Alberta and Quebec (and in Danny Williams' backyard, no doubt).

The Lutin really is quite scary

Okay. For one, I'm really glad we have a hot head of state. But Benedict is just a little terrifying. He looks like he belongs under a bridge somewhere.

The nation relies on law students?

I was listening to NPR's coverage of the Michael Hayden confirmation hearings. Sen. Feinstein (D-Cal.) asked him about the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement. To which he responded that he'd spoken to relatives - who were in law school - about the subject. Not that he'd consulted with proper lawyers, or judges, or law professors - but with relatives (I assume a niece or something) who were in law school.

Now. I took four criminal procedure classes in law school. My clerkship was all criminal law. I've worked on a major white collar criminal case. I'm a practicing attorney. And in spite of all that, I would not feel comfortable giving advice to the head of a government agency about the full contours of the Fourth Amendment. When I look back at just how absolutely clueless I was in law school (and I had good grades) compared to how I am now as an attorney, it terrifies me that we have heads of agencies turning to law students for advice on just how that agency can and cannot violate the constitutional rights of citizens.

Border Madness

The whole plan by Dubya to put national guard on the Mexican border is nonsense which, as the Post points out, is geared more for cameras than for reality.

But then, this is the Bush administration's MO: High, lofty rhetoric, with no results. No Child Left Behind: sounded good, great sound bites, but underfunded. Rebuilding in New Orleans - um. Uniter - right. This is the same thing - Bush is desperate to be seen to be doing something about the border "crisis" and he thinks a speech and a meaningless if expensive solution will present that image.

It also goes to my point about national security, below. There's no crisis. Nothing is any different than it was years ago. And those Mexicans coming across really aren't smuggling any weapons of mass destruction. But now all the white red-state rednecks, who hate the idea of anyone not-white and non-english speaking in the country (except when they're cleaning their back yards) don't have to seem racist - they can just say "National Security."

The idea that somehow we have to fix the border with Canada and Mexico to prevent terrorist attacks is hogwash and completely ignores the fact that it was the Americans who gave the 9-11 attackers visas and let them into the country lawfully.

Harper moves against one of the Ks

Lawrence Martin put forward the four Ks as Harper's weak points (or as Chantal Hebert would have it, his four Achilles' Heels):

Kyoto, Kandahar, Kelowna and Kids.

With It-Girl at the climate change conference this week, Harper seems to be managing the country's abandonment of K1, Kyoto, with a minimum of fuss.

Now he's moving against K2, Kandahar, with some very clever politics. Harper has managed to outmanoever the Bloc and Liberals and place them in a very tricky spot.

K3 will be the next test. Just a thought, but I suspect Ignatieff will use federal-aboriginal relations and the abandonment of the Kelowna accord in his leadership campaign. First, he can't use the Afghan mission, he's vocally in support of it. Second, he's all about rights. And third, David Peterson is McGuinty's envoy to the current land-claim dispute in Caledonia. In an interview, he was quite adamant that the whole mess was the fault of the federal government. Hmm...David Peterson is also Ignatieff's campaign chair...

Money for war, not to help

Kudos to Stephen Lewis, the UN AIDS guy, who recently said

"I would like to throttle...those who've waited so unendurably long to act, those who can find infinite resources for war but never sufficient resources to ameliorate the human condition."

Exactly. Somehow random African dictatorships can always find the cash for war. Somehow Western Democracies can cut welfare or medicade or taxes, but have no problem financing armed conflict. That isn't to say that sometimes armed conflict needs to be paid for, but the fact it's effortless to find money for a new aircraft carrier or fighter jet and yet to make sure there are fewer poor people is a Herculanean struggle is sad. One day, schools will all have books and enough teachers and libraries, and the government will have a bake sale to buy a new tank.

Is terrorism the answer to everything?

It seems these days that the instant you want to make debate go in your favour, you somehow cloak your argument with "national security" or "fighting terrorism" and voila, you win!

Take, for example, a recent CNN piece on garbage from Toronto going to Michigan. Now, some senator from Michigan is getting all hysterical about the garbage coming over the border. Now, he's been up in arms about this forever. Only now - he can invoke the magic "national security" talismanic words, and suddenly it's a serious issue.

Apparenlty, there's some huge danger that trucks carrying Canadian garbage might instead be carrying a weapon of mass destruction.

[Aside: one could make the argument that guns could be smuggled. However, that argument defeats itself - why would someone import guns from Canada, where they're highly controlled and hard to get, when you can just buy an AK-47 at any of a thousand stores and gun shows?]

So, let's see. Last I checked, the only land border Canada has is with the US, unless the Danes have finished that land bridge from Denmark to Iceland to Greenland to Hans Island to Ellesmere Island to Nunavut. This means that either a) someone is building weapons of mass destruction somewhere in Canada - you know, from all the abandoned nuclear warheads - or b) someone is smuggling weapons of mass destruction into Canada and then taking them across the border via a garbage truck coming from Canada's true capital largest city.

Let's look at the more likely - option b.

First, how are the smuggling said weapon in? Assuming port secutiry is the same in both countries, why not just go direct, if you're going to use a port? If you're going to ship it across yourself, last I checked, not that many zodiacs are capable of making the trip from, say, Ishfahan across the northern Pacific to the BC mainland.

And then - as opposed to the thousands of kilometres of land with no border or guards, or the great lakes that are essentially unpatrolled - no - we want to risk a land crossing over a guarded and inspected border.

I.e., it's all nonsense.

But the amazing thing is, people take him seriously, this senator. At least one Toronto City Council member had the sense to point out that most young men killing other young men with guns are doing so with guns bought legally in the US and brought illegally into Canada.

However, the next time I'm arguing with anyone about anything, I'm going to invoke national security. Because once you invoke that, anyone who questions you clearly is helping the terrorists win. ("You don't want sushi tonight? You're helping the terrorists. Why do you hate freedom?")

Oh please

He's doing it again. Andrew Sullivan, the moralizing expat who will give Bush the benefit of the doubt on virtually everything ("he's a closet tolerant! really! Even though he's called for a federal marriage amendment countless times, he really genuinely likes gay people!"), but never gives the left or any other country the same treatment - now he has another reason to hate the UK. Oh yes.

So he's mad that they might try to regulate how fast food is sold. That, to me, does not a nanny state make. And, more importantly, let's remember that this alleged nanny state happens to be a democracy. The people choose to have broader social protection. I once had an argument with some Republican nutjob who said that the US was the most free place in the world. I asked about, say, Canada, or Netherlands, or you know, all those countries in Western Europe. He said we were more free in the US because we had lower taxes. Um. Those countries elect their governments (and they even do so legitimately, pace Katherine Harris) and they choose to exercise their freedom that way.

So Sullivan thinks it's apostacy to have a "nanny state" and have the government regulate the selling of fast food, but never seems to wax apoplectic about the transgressions of Republicans in the same way.

And really, these alleged nanny states do things like regulate health, and education. They don't try to force prayer in schools, say, or fight over text books, or try to ban the teaching of certain branches of science. You want to talk about overregulated, Andrew? Look no further than the US, whever every nutcase right wing legislator has some pet project to improve morality that he wants to ram down other peoples' throats.

The Four Ks

Lawrence Martin writes about poor Peter Mackay in today's Globe&Mail and suggests he was placed there on purpose, so as to frustrate his leadership ambitions. He compares Mackay and Harper to Clark and Mulroney, but warns that Mackay's ability to bounce back is remarkable.

Aside from the near-mocking tone levelled at Mackay, which is somewhat fun, I think the column is most notable for the expression "the four Ks" on which the government is vulnerable. Kandahar, Kelowna, Kyoto and Kids. We'll see if it catches on.

Bush III

This would be the most horrific thing ever. (Hat tip: David O.)

Please. Bush I was bad enough. And we thought, oh, hey, let's go for Bush II. And we know how great that is. So when Bush I and Dubya are singing the praises of Jeb, you know he's just got to be good.

Note to Chantal

Dear Chantal Hebert,

As you'll see below, Harper has run out of heels.

April 19, 2006 Charest: Harper's Achilles Heel

May 10,2006 Harper's Achilles Heel

Perhaps you should talk to your headline writer.

Sincerely,

Mike&Dean

Sullivan the apologist

I'm really over Andrew Sullivan's constant willingness to see the good in the Republican party.

For years, he defended the Bush administration, and then came up with this belated semi-mea culpa which still sounds like he loves the Bushies.

And so he's happy - Condoleeza Rice was nice, once, to a transgendered person. Dick Cheney, in spite of his party's record on gay rights (ahem, Marriage Amendments), is nice to his daughter and hasn't disowned her. Bush has some gay friends.

Great. Well done. So we'll ignore the fact that the Republican party happily wants to pass anti-gay laws, brings up the gay card every single election, and we'll forgive Bush and Cheney and Rice for not taking a leading role in their parties - all because they were all sweet and gave someone a pat on the head. It's like someone who announces he things minorities should be kicked out of the country, but then says, "Oh, but some of my best friends are black."

Give it up, Sullivan. Every time you open your mouth to say abusive things about Democrats, and to find some hidden silver lining in Republican policy, you get more delusional. You hearken back to the "old Republican party" - which you claim is the party of freedom or some other nonsense. So what are you looking back at? Ronald "Ignore AIDS" Reagan?

Keep you head in the sand, buddy. It's worked all this time for you.

The Budget and Students

As a graduate student who receives a scholarship from the government, and then gets wacked at tax time when the government claws a big chunk of it back, this is the single best news for students I've yet heard in a budget as far as I can remember.

-Elimination of current $3,000 limit on amount of scholarship, bursary and fellowship income a post-secondary student can get without paying federal income tax

The limit made sense when tuition was $750, and a $3000 scholarship satisfied most of a student's needs. Nowadays, tuition exceeds $6000 on average, and scholarships have increased to compensate.

Martin was hounded on this issue by the Canadian Federation of Students, he said he supported the idea as Finance Minister but never acted on it, and when he became PM? Lost amid the bajillion priorities that were The Most Significant in a Generation.

So amid the bad tax cuts and the dumb tax cuts, I'm quite pleased with this little jewel.

RIP Kyoto

Flaherty: "we will present a made-in-Canada solution crafted by our very own Minister of the Environment"

So...it will give $1,200 to parents so they can make their own emissions reductions?

The Budget and the Bloc

Layton won't 'vote' for it.
Graham won't 'support' it.

We haven't yet heard from the Bloc.

But they are terrified of an election.

Let the accusations of 'unholy alliance' begin...

In Praise Of

Now, this corner has been accused of being a bit negative these days, but really, with the Apocalypse upon us (I predict bombs falling on Iran in late September or early October), it's hard to find many things to be hugely happy with.

However, this weekend, while fat and happy from Mexican food and on the way to a party, we stopped by Virgin Records and there was this awesome music playing. A middle-eastern group called Niyaz. Very interesting melodies, amazing rhythms, cool vocals - a great listen. I'm particularly fond of the track Dilruba, which is intensely rhythmic and dynamic. You can find them on iTunes, and I suggest downloading that one track - it's with the $0.99.

From the web site:

Their first joint album weaves together ten beautiful, mystical poems written by some of the greatest Sufi poets of all time, with music accessible to a contemporary audience. Azam, who was born in Iran but largely raised in India, sings in both Farsi (the Persian language) as well as in Urdu, a language widely spoken in India and in Pakistan. The music, too, represents cultural blendings of the highest order, crossing back and forth over centuries of musical expression to combine ancient instruments, rhythms, and tonalities with brand new sounds. Mingling the textures of traditional acoustic music with new electronica, Niyaz represents a finely-tuned balance that ushers in a new era of artistic possibilities for Iranian music.

I've been playing it in my car - a convertible - and certainly getting some very interesting looks as the drums and bass thump out across Santa Monica Boulevard.

Update: I was also quite struck by how interesting it is to listen to music in a language that you don't understand at all. Most music I listen to - modern or classical - will be sung in English or Spanish (modern) and French or German or Latin (classical). My French, German, and English are all pretty good, and listening to Spanish or Latin, you get a lot of cognates from French, so there is still meaning. But listening to music sung in Farsi or Urdu is something completely different. I was quite struck by how rhythmic the language is, and how they use the rhythm of the language to compliment the music.

But then, maybe that's also the case in other music, it's just that when you know the meaning, the mind focuses on the meaning and not the sound, if that makes any sense. Maybe not. I was listening recently to Tchaikovsky's Vespers Service (also beautiful and a good purchase - infinitely more accessible than Rachmaninov's similar service), sung all in Russian, and it lacks the same sense of rhythm. But that could be a function of the liturgical nature of the music.

Basically I'm saying that I've realized it's very cool to listen to singing you don't understand, because it allows you to focus exclusively on the music and completely ignore the words.

Soldiers in Afghanistan

This is an old article from the Telegraph in London, but today, when four Canadians killed in Afghanistan are returned to Canada, it seems somewhat relevant.

LONDON - Until the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed by a U.S. warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region.

And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does. It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.

That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: It seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved. Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10% of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.

Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British."

The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third-largest navy and the fourth-largest air force in the world.

The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated -- a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.

So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality -- unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer, British. It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves -- and are unheard by anyone else -that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth -- in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular non-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of-control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace -- a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit. So who today in the United States knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun.

It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost. This week, four more grieving Canadian families knew that cost all too tragically well.

Free speech

This is nonsense.

So - the US is prosecuting a woman who stood up to protest Hu Jintao.

The Post makes excuses, but let's get one thing straight - apparently in the US, leaders don't need to face hostile criticism (see my earlier post about how in Parliamentary systems, the Government, PM, and Cabinet have to answer to the Opposition without a Scott McC) - whether they be foreign or domestic.

But - recall - this is the President who wouldn't speak in our Parliament during his State Visit to Canada - for fear of hecklers.

The woman I'd switch for

I've not read her article, but I'd marry Dalia Lithwick.

Poor Scott

Ana Marie Cox does a great job of dissecting Scott McClellan here. (Total aside: she's the original Wonkette, and we love Wonkette.)

But. This corner has never flinched in its belief that Parliamentary democracy, whereby the Prime Minister and the Government have to stand up every day to defend themselves, without "spokesmen," is the better system.

And this is proof.

Let's get something straight

Everyone was all happy happy isn't it great that Harper headed off to Afghanistan to pay attention to our troops.

Tedious, political ploy.

The person who should get the real props for visiting our soldiers in Afghanistan in Dec. 2003 is The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, who at the time happened to be Governor-General and Commander in Chief of Canada.

This is the same Governor General who went to Kosovo, spent New Year's Eve with the troops (in the junior mess, no less) in Afghanistan, spent Christmas Eve and Day with the Navy, who was there to commemorate the Liberation of the Netherlands, created a new military decoration, constantly reached out to veterans, was always present at ceremonies and Rememberance Day commemorations.

Any time a politician does it, to me it's just getting votes ("Mission accomplished," anyone?).

The ones you should pay attention to are the ones who have no votes to get - the Governor-General, the Queen, etc. They do it out of a real sense of devotion - because they know that they are the heads of the state that these people are defending.

More importantly, they can represent the state in a nonpartisan way. If you look at the rapturous reception the Queen is getting for her 80th, and you compare it to elected heads' of state popularity (ahem, Bush) - you see the advantage.

With Clarkson, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean, the Queen - there are people who can stand up and speak for Canada and for Britain and speak for everyone. They can thank our soldiers not on behalf of the people who elected them, but on all of our behalf.

And when you see Clarkson, Jean, or the Queen's face light up in smile when she shakes the hand of a veteran or of a current soldier, you can trust that the emotion behind it is real and is for the veteran or soldier, not just for the camera.

PM Ambrose?

In today's Star, Chantal Hebert writes a memo to Harper , explaining that the path to a majority lies in embracing a green agenda. It silences his critics, and instead of preaching to the converted by acting on standard Conservative policy items, if Harper moves on the environment, he will likely convert voters reluctant to fully embrace him.

Hebert also points out that in the case of several prominent politicians (Mulroney, Bouchard, Charest, Dion), the green card was the ticket to bigger and better things. So who's the current Minister of the Environment? That's right, the It Girl ....

Cameras in the courts

I actually really don't get it. Why are Americans - and the courts - so happy to have cameras in trial courts, but not in the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court?

The courts cite all these worries - security is a big one. But honestly, if I wanted to see what Justice Kennedy looked like, it wouldn't be too hard on Google (that picture was the second listing on my search).

And the strange thing is, as usual, no one ever looks at the Canadian model.

In Canada, proceedings of the 13 provincial and territorial Courts of Appeal are televised, as also with the Supreme Court. Trial courts are subject to strict media bans. The exact opposite of the US (everyone remembers Judge Ito?)

This makes enormous sense. In trial courts, the issues are between the litigants, or the Crown and the accused. Other than mere entertainment, the public has no real interest (given most constitutional cases are decided without trial).

Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, are different. They don't decide fact - they decide law. The law affects us all. So sure - an issue from a trial court goes up, but the law decided could conceivably affect us all, not just the litigants.

It makes enormous sense to televise higher courts' proceedings, and none at all to televise lower courts'.

Well, duh. Y'all.

Surely the answer is because there's nothing else to DO in the South but sing other people's music.

And take government handouts.

And complain about losing the Civil War.

UPDATE: I sure am glad I originally linked this to my personal email. I hope you found nothing particularly salacious. ;-)

Babylon, destroyed

This story is depressing. Not only did we fail to plan for post-war Iraq (other than getting ready to hand out flags for all the happy Iraqis to wave), but when we got there, we didn't really care about all them old thangs that might get broked in the process.

Somehow, this seems to me to be the constant theme of this Administration: we can break it, but we can't build it. We have great destructive power, but no creative power.

We can bomb Iraq back into the stone age, but can't create a stable society there.

We talk of bombing Iran, but our diplomacy there is moribund.

So - whenever you hear some jingo going on about how America is the strongest country in the world, ask what he means. To me, the ability to ruin something is not power. It may be strength, but it is not power.

To paraphrase Trudeau (only cos I can't find the quote), a nation can be great by the strenth of its heart and the breadth of its mind.

But the wanton, thoughtless destruction of humanity's heritage is not greatness, and neither is it power.

"Exactly what's needed"

Good god, is there no end to this Administrations complete inability to think it has made a single mistake? An increasingly-large chorus of retired generals with on the ground experience in Iraq have all said that Rumsfeld is a liability, and yet Dubya dismisses them as irrelevant and wrong.

Does any other country run itself this way? Major cities lost, spending through the roof, revenues through the floor, inteligence falsified, information illegally leaked, lies lies lies lies and yet the administration carries on in some strange Pollyanna-meets-Ostrich-Defence approach, perpetually insisting the sky is blue with its head in the sand not noticing the thunderheads.

This, at least, also shows that the parliamentary system that the Americans abandoned and that we kept has some sense. Although the Official Opposition is subject to many of the Government's whims, it is not completely emasculated here. The Dems have no power to do anything - to call hearings, to force the Government to answer questions, &c.

If Dubya and his robber baron cabinet had to stand up for an hour, every day, to be grilled by the opposition, to defend policies, to explain itself without the chance to prepare spin, without the ability to stage-manage the questions and the scene - do you think that we'd be where we are now?

We even saw in Canada a rejection of the tactic that worked so well here. Harper tried to paint people opposed to Afghanistan as unpatriotic or "not supporting our troops" - and it backfired on him.

But in the US, where opposition has no real platform to speak from, and the Administration controls when and where and how messages get out, there is no real debate.

A government whose feet are not held to the fire by an opposition is an autocracy, not matter how democratically elected.

Good god, we're ruined

It seems totally strange to me that the Government is after Enron for its alleged accounting wrongdoing, when it's doing the same thing itself. As David Broder explains:

For years, the federal budget has been stated in cash terms, not the accrual accounting method, which Cooper said has been in use for five centuries and is now mandated for all private corporations. The difference, as he explained it, is this:

If you go to Target and buy an item for cash, it's felt in your wallet immediately. If you buy the same item on a credit card, unless you are using accrual accounting, it is disguised until the bill arrives.

The U.S. government has been running up bills -- notably the promises of pensions and health-care benefits for military veterans and millions of other retirees -- without putting the obligations on the books.

That is what is really scary about the financial report. It contains page after page of graphs showing the probable future course of income and expenditures for Social Security and Medicare. In each chart, the dotted line for spending climbs far faster than the solid line for revenue. Beginning a decade from now, the shortfalls explode in what Cooper calls "a perfect storm" of fiscal ruin.

Hi - is anyone else a little frightened? The Government is using shady accounting that will become evident ten years from now - when Dubya and his Amoklaeufer are out of office.

In the meantime, we're ruined.

God Fearing v Godless

This map is pretty cool:

What I'd really like to see, however, is the same map with Canada also included. It would be very interesting to see if, straight across the border, the numbers are the same.

More of those maps of the US can be found here.

Why are people STILL drinking the Kool Aid?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

More valuable lives?

I confess that victim impact statements like these really infuriate me.

The theory of them is, on a very superficial level, very appealing: let the jury (or the person setting the sentence) see the consequences of the criminal's actions: Not only did he steal, in stealing, he made the victim's babies go hungry. Not only did she kill, in killing, she ruined the life of the victim's wife.

But therein lies the problem. Because the moment we allow the sentence to depend, in any part, on the impact on the victim, we start to judge people's lives and their worth relative to others' (appealing, perhaps, to Republicans and those who think that some lives are simply more valuable than others).

For example: A murderer kills a father of two, happily married, a pillar of his community, a teacher and basketball coach. The kids show up and say how devestated they are, the basketball team shows up and says that he was their mentor, community members stand up and talk about how the local Glee Club just won't be the same.

But another murderer kills a homeless man. No one shows up. No one is really even sure of the homeless man's name; the prosecutors only know he went by the nickname "Shorty." He's cremated and ashes scattered outside the city morgue.

Do these two murderers deserve a different sentence? I don't believe they do. The punishment should depend on the thing you do - kill - rather than two whom you do it. It shouldn't make a difference whether you kill a rich man or a poor man - it should matter that you kill.

And then think about the other consequences. The father, murdered above. All this great testimony about how great he was. And then a witness for the defence comes forward: this "pillar of the community" secretly had a drug habit. Oh, and he mollested young boys. And was engaged in shady tax deals. Does his sentence now change?

What if, say, Pol Pot were living in retirement here in the US, and someone killed him?

The point, to me, is this: life is life. A crime is a crime. You can set objective measures: Stealing goods of a certain value, or the level of intent in a killing. But to make things depend on the subjective measure of how many mourners you have turns sentencing into a popularity contest.

Why on earth was an unofficial flag flying?

I don't get it. Today, at the opening of Parliament, Michaelle Jean arrived to the front of the Centre Block, where both our Flag and also the "Canadian Unity Flag" were flying.

This makes no sense. First, it's not an official flag, and has no place whatsoever at the opening of Parliament.

Second, it incorporates a design specifically rejected during the flag debates, that the flag should suggest that there are two peoples of Canada - the French and the English.

Mike suggested that maybe Jean asked for it - but if she's so keen on "briser les solitudes," why would she fly a flag that highlights them?

I don't like it. It smacks too much to me of eroding ancient traditions through folsky populism.

Pundit Hair Watch

At long last, the At Issue panel returns, and so does this corner's critical analysis of the media's most defining attribute: their hair. Onwards...

Andrew Coyne, David Whathisname, and our dear Chantal Hebert. So let's get to the main issue at stake: Chantal's hair. Verdict: If it's raining in Montreal like it is in Toronto...well...the humidity has not been kind.

The panel talked about the new government, it being the first day back for Parliament. Andrew Coyne said that this government's mantra will be substance over style, stick to the agenda, don't let the opposition take it over.

Chantal countered that it isn't throne speeches that define governments, it is crises. She said the government can't be judged until then.

David Whoeverheis said that at this piont, Harper's government has dealt with crises (admittedly minor) far better than Martin's ever did, citing various foreign policy issues.

Next question from Mansbridge was on who to watch. Coyne said Flaherty in Finance, Maxime Bernier and the evolution of federalism in Quebec, and Jim Prentice, the latter being on a lot of committees.

Chantal said the Opposition will be after the weak points. Translation: Stockwell Day, and Emerson with his liabilities. She also said that a lot of journalists on the Hill are looking to see how Rona Ambrose fares, the new It-Girl of Canadian Politics. Perhaps Mackay will date her....

On the life of the government:
David Forgothisname said it will last so long as the Liberals are looking for a leader. And that when it falls, it will be by Harper's doing.

Coyne agreed, giving the government 2 years at least.

Chantal pointed out that Quebec and Ontario are approaching provincial elections. There won't be a federal election anywhere near those dates.

Good thing, because if we're going to be seeing more of Chantal, she needs to invest in some industrial frizz control.

Final Conclusion: I'll give David Missedhisname the nod, if only because he wore a leather jacket on air.

So apparently the Dubya administration, attempting to somehow further excuse its ineptitude in losing a city and then in not being able to help it recover, thinks that it might take 25 years to recover in New Orleans.

Twenty-five years? Excuse me?

This from the Administration that can't stop blathering on about America being the land of opportunity, that thinks we can put a man on Mars, that talks about prosperity and the ability of Americans to do great things.

I'm sorry. Berlin was 89% flat at the end of the Second World War. With regard to Nuremberg, in the words of William Shirer, "Nuremberg is gone!" Dresden, Leipzig, Coventry, huge swathes of London. Yet somehow it didn't take 25 years for people to get back and get moving in these cities. What about the destruction of Halifax? You didn't hear Borden saying, "Oh yeah, it's going to be a quarter century before we can use this city again."

What sort of can't-do government is the Bush admin?

ps the Borden link is really worth clicking on.

God isn't watching us?

Apparently praying for people doesn't actually do any good.

Well, duh.

It always amazes me that people can intone their belief that praying for someone will help them, and expect to be taken seriously, but when someone says "oh, well I believe in unicorns" that same person will think the unicorn believer is crazy.

No doubt the religious-minded will find a way to spin away these results. After all, empiric evidnece is always open to differing interpretations.

What I also love is how you can make up a "foundation" or "institute" with a fancy name, and it gives you credibility:

I would hate to have premature closure based on a handful of studies," said Marilyn J. Schlitz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, Calif. "We just don't know enough about this to close the door."

What the hell is Noetic Sciences?

Any suggestions for what Mike and I can name our institute? A prize to the best name that will allow us to say "Mike and Dean, of the Institute for XXX, say that . . . . "

What is up with the baseball cap?

Okay, this picture is just ridiculous. I mean, here Abramoff is, going to court, and getting lucky and getting the minimum sentence, and he thinks that the suit-with-baseball cap look is styling?

We saw his mafioso pic and he looked pretty lame in that. But really, trying to dress like a 20s Mafia don is infinitely preferable to a double-breasted suit (bad) with an orange, pink and purple tie (worse), a bad knot for such a wide collar, and a plain beige baseball cap (ultimate sin).

Republicans really just suck. I mean, not only are they busy bankrupting us, engaging us in random wars for no real reason, making the world more unsafe through breaking the NPT treaty, losing major cities to hurricanes and things (side note: you thought the response in red-state Louisiana was bad - imagine what would happen if The Big One hit LA?), kicking out Mexicans (but who will clean their houses?) - they're also promoting bad fashion.

Can someone tell Abramoff that really, the 20-year old frat boy look isn't really appropriate, even for skeezy criminal lobbyists?

Thanks.

Karen Hughes is a moron

I heard an interview with Karen Hughes - Dubya's "Make America's Image Better" envoy - on NPR this morning.

Wow. If we're relying on her to make America a little less-hated, we're in serious trouble.

Her big plan, which she made seem as if it were the sole cause of all the dislike of the US and its policies these days, was to make airports more welcoming.

I'm not kidding.

She talked about "welcome signs" in airports, with "vidoes explaining our way of life," presumably running in the long lines foreigners face when arriving back. She thought that airports "weren't very welcoming," in part because there's one line for non-US citizens and another for citizens/green card holders (which I like very much - getting stuck behind a plane from Seoul is seoul-destroying).

She dodged questions about torture ("we have to take it for what it is - a crime." Well, yes. However, punishing the crime might be a good first step), and said that the decline in America's image has been going on for "decades" - thus, of course, implicitly absolving Dubya of any responsibility.

So let's see: the US is off invading Iraq, dropping out of the Nonproliferation Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Geneva Convention, threatening to break its treaty obligations with Canada and drill for oil in the Arctic, preaching free trade while not practicing it, torturing arabs, keeping them locked away beyond the reach of due process - and making a few "Welcome To America!" signs is going to help?

I want my leader to be as obnoxious as I am

Selected quotes from Joan Bryden via Paul Wells on the Liberal leadership race:

 

Not all Liberals, however, relish the thought of settling for a compromise candidate.

"That's how Dalton McGuinty won," huffs Milton Chan, policy vice-president of the Young Liberals.

Although McGuinty improved over time and eventually won the premier's job, Chan says he was seen in 1996 as "the epitome of mediocrity."

"The reason he was elected is because no one had a goddamn clue who he was. Personally, I don't want my leader to be the bland, inoffensive guy. I want my leader to stand for something."

Chan supports acclaimed Harvard academic and rookie Toronto MP Michael Ignatieff, who is among the so-called first tier of putative candidates - including glamorous Tory defector Belinda Stronach and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae - deemed to have the highest profiles, most money and best campaign machines.

But each has liabilities that could limit their ability to grow beyond the first ballot: Johnny-come-lately status in the party, inexperience, or, in Rae's case, a dismal record as premier.

 

(or obnoxious supporters who's leadership campaign role models are evidently the Martinites)

 

Note to Chan: sometimes the outwardly mediocre are the right people for the job. If they aren't touring the lecture circuit or endlessly talking about their vision (or lack thereof),  they just might actually do the job they were elected to do, that is, leading.

Savages

Absolute barbarians.

And I'm not talking about terrorists (though they are too).

I'm talking about Americans. This link will take you to Salon.com, which has published some 200+ photos from Abu Ghraib. (VERY VERY DISTURBING)

Now, we know that Bush blames it on his underlings. And those underlings, ignoring the principles of command responsibility, blame it on their underlings. Et cetera.

Meanwhile, the American public yawns. So what. They were terrorists? They're foreigners. They wanted to hurt the USA. They aren't Christian.

The existence, and the toleration, of Abu Ghraib is a blot on America. If the nation rose up in anger, if the people who tortured, and every single person up the chain of command were also held to count for this, it would be one thing.

But America's complete apathy, the lack of any punishment, is a damning indictment not only of American government but also of the American people.

Seal Pups

I'm really over this Pop-Star hysteria over the seal hunt.

People lament the killing of these cute, cuddly little seals. This particular writer in the star complains that the seals killed are all under two years of age.

And? They aren't toddlers. It isn't the tragic story of lives cut short, of prosaic days of seal-y lounging on the beach, looking cute and fluffy, with Sam the Seal cavorting with his oceanic friends, going on adventurs with Shamu and Bob the Polar Bear.

Come on. They're animals. The problem is they're so damn cute and fluffy (of course, they aren't killed when they're whitecoats, but people seem to forget that.)

No one objects to the daily slaughter of cows, pigs, and sheep. No one really complains that my yummy steak was from a 2-year old cow. God, last week I ate 20 chicken wings with a few pints of beer. 10 chickens died to make my snack (and I thank them for their sacrifice). How many protestors are out there picketing the French Embassy in communion with the countless slimy frogs and snails that go into French snacking?

My roommate in college studied genetics, and used to perform all sorts of unspeakable mutations on fruit flies - you know, eyes growing on their legs, wings growing out of their butts, that sort of thing - but never did you see Paul McCartney protesting that!

Either you are against the hunting/killing/mutating of animals, or you are not. You can't pick and choose just because a seal pup is a hell of a lot cuter than a lungfish.

O'Connor's Warning - that no one is listening to!

Why is this story not getting much more press?

I mean, when Scalia stands up and says that America is going to hell in a handcart and if we just stuck to the Constitution as it was in 1789, all would be well, his remarks are plastered over every paper in the country.

But when O'Connor says that the Republicans are driving us to dictatorship, no one listens? Not a surprise, of course, when the media gives Dubya and his cronies a free ride. But still.

Andrew Sullivan . . .

. . . is really starting to piss me off. He completely exemplifies that whole stream of conservativism which manages to admit it's wrong but somehow blame it on liberals and make us seem worse.

Here, he publishes his mea culpa that maybe the war in Iraq is a mess. And yet manages to turn it into some sort of neo-con plea by stating that his biggest mistake was "To overestimate the competence of government."

Such conservative nonsense. Conservatives have this idea that everything is done better by the private sector, and that everything the government touches is ruined. He's mistaken.

In Canada, and in Europe, and even in states like California and New York, there are a whole host of government provided services which work well.

What Sullivan really means is that he overestimated the competence of the Bush government, as much as he tries to spin Bush's failings to be inherent to the act of governance, rather than the act of the governor. If his thesis were correct, we would have seen such similar rank incompetence in the Clinton administration, and we would see it in countries like Canada, the UK, and Scandinavia, which have activist and strong governments.

Strangely, though, on their watches, those countries haven't lost any major cities (with the exception perhaps of Halifax, but that can be quite handily blamed on the French and Belgians).

They haven't entered into ill-prepared wars.

They haven't seen massive expansion of government debt.

They haven't seen a widening of the gap between rich and poor.

You get the point. Bush has demonstrated not that government cannot get it right, but that he cannot. Perhaps this is his goal - to make government so useless that people will start to believe the Kool Aid that Sullivan has clearly been sipping and equate government generally with Bush specifically.

That would be Bush's greatest triumph, and America's biggest disaster.

South Dakota's new state logo

Can be found here.

Gay Parenting

This is another example of just why Daliah Lithwick is the woman I'd switch for. She argues that the whole point of family law is to take the best interest of the child to heart, and that allowing gay adoption does exactly that.

The final quote is the best:

Rules rooted in sweeping moral judgments don't generally work in family law for the same reason they don't work for families: Kids love and need the parents they have, not necessarily the parents we love.

What amazes me is that so many states are moving to ban gay adoption. As Lithwick notes, is it better for a child do languish in state custody or bounce from foster home to foster home, than to be adopted by gay parents?

And really, they'll be much better dressed, too.

The GG is my queen

I have always thought Canada is best served as a monarchy. We have an apolitical head of state, someone who isn't loathed by over half the population, who doesn't need to pander to a base or anything nonsensical like that, who has no real power but stands there as the living embodiment of the Canadian state. I believe in the oath of allegiance, I believe in the Crown, and most importantly, I LOVE our last two Governors General.

This editorial, which I copy in full below, from today's Globe, is an example of why. When Dubya goes and "emotes," it's cynical at best, shallow and fake at worst. It always has a political goal. Same, to be honest, with our PM, and with any elected official. But when Her Excellency speaks, you can believe in what she's saying. Read on:

'It happens to so many families, we have to realize. And being silent about it is not a good thing to do. I think part of the solution is to speak out . . . about it, and make it known."

The speaker was Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, talking this week of domestic abuse and the need to let those who are suffering it know they are not alone. She went further. She told of her own experience as "a little girl who saw her father strike her mother. My younger sister and I lived with the anguish that all children feel when the family unit breaks down."

In her case, the husband left and the smaller family unit went through hardship. But Ms. Jean's very presence showed that triumph can come from adversity, and she had a further message: that her violent father had eventually renounced his violence. Those who have suffered in silence with abuse have been reminded that this is not some anomaly they must live with -- that the problem cuts through all layers of society, and that those who are abused should not hesitate to seek help. The Governor-General has been there, and has borne public witness.

Can we ever let go of "National Security"?

Some days, the extent to which the "debate" about "national security" paralyzes the country overwhelms me.

Since 9/11, all we've heard from the government is constant invocations of "national security" and "the war on terror." It's gotten to the point now where completely sensible, rational deals get turned into some critical issue of security. It's nonsense - but now the mood of the country is such that all you can do is talk about security. I'm sure congressmen know that really, the Dubai ports thing is not at all a bid deal, but because the public expects the government to be putting national security first, it's a way to score points, no matter how stupid they are.

After all, if the Democrats had stepped back and said, hey, national security is important, but this deal has nothing to do with it - the Republicans would have argued that they're soft on terror.

What horrifies me is how "national security" overpowers everything. So we have terrible health care, crumbling social services, increasing poor, crime, we're missing a city, a national debt spiralling out of control - we don't have time to discuss those things.

Let's get it straight. The US is arguably one of the safest countries in the world. There aren't bombs going off every day here. There have been exactly ZERO attacks on the US since 9/11 - and Bush may claim he's "thwarted" others but the absence of detail is just a touch suspicious. But here, it overpowers us, unlike other places.

I lived in the UK when Canary Wharf was bombed and when Heathrow Airport was shelled by the IRA. Still, "national security" was never the overwhelming debate. There was still bandwidth to talk about healthcare, about the environment, about the economy. Not here.

But then, it's amazing how Americans are encouraged to be afraid. You can't turn on the TV that there isn't some breathless newsreader discussing how to protect yourself from natural disasters, theft, terrorists, earthquakes, credit card fraud, identity theft, restless-leg-syndrome. Heck, even children are being told they need to be constantly vigilant. You recall those stories of people in nowheresville who asphyxiated themselves by covering their windows in plastic?

So what sort of surprise is it that Americans are a people living in constant fear of something, that they can't discuss other priorities?

And so, while the country hurtles towards bankruptcy, makes ridiculous investment decisions, makes enemies of the world, watches its rich get richer and its poor get poorer, all we do is obsess over national security in its countless meaningless invocations.

In bemusement . . .

. . . of LA Drivers.

Okay. Los Angeles is all about its cars. I had resolved, on moving here, never to buy into the LA car culture. How wrong I was. Now, I look at people's cars, and if the car is dirty, I think, "I'll bet they keep their house like that too."

Part of this is because after you've lived here long enough, you start to get a little Zen about your car. In a lot of ways, my 30-minute/3-mile drive is my "me" time - the time to zone out (while paying attention, of course), listen to my music, and have a think. There are plenty of times when I'm going somewhere that the getting there is more pleasuable than being there.

But LA drivers really exemplify this town - a lot of people who think they're important, that really, what they want to do is what matters, and that they're under no obligation to think of anyone else.

For example, I have to turn left from Santa Monica onto Avenue of the Stars. This left turn is normally easy, but they've shut the street right before it (Century Park East), so it has twice the traffic. I found myself not able to get into the lane, having overshot the end of it. I thought okay, and drove to the next street and did a ewie. However, I've seen plenty of LA drivers simply stop, put their blinker on and wait for a space to open, completely blocking all traffic behind them. No thought about what this does for others.

Today, a woman on a cell phone in a Porsche, yakking away while the light went green and she went nowhere.

It's the symptom of this town - a lot of people trying to get ahead, tought through what is alleged to be "Self Empowerment" to actually just be self-absorbed and thoughtless. It's not malicious, just an utter inability to consider that getting what you want might negatively impact others. It's not like I haven't dated a few of those.

I've always believed that Los Angelenos should be sent to the UK for a year, where you quickly learn that you can't always have things exactly the way you want. No, you can't have the chicken grilled and not sauteed, and they don't have low-fat-Atkins-friendly ranch dressing, and no, it comes with fries, not a salad. Sometimes things just don't work. Sometimes it gets a bit drafty. Laundry takes a long time. If your friend buys you a drink, you must buy him one (the number of times I've bankrupted myself doing that - assuming that I've just bought 8 drinks, so I'm set for the night, when the recipients are assuming I'm just being nice . . .).

But I did see a strange one today - a Red Civic with a sticker of California in the gay rainbow colours. But the license plate: JAG ESQ. The ESQ shows he was a lawyer. JAG? Judge Advocate General? Combine that with the gay thing and you can colour me confused.

Ut incipit sic fidelis non permanet

What is Dalton McGuinty smoking?

Abolish the Senate, because it doesn't adequately reflect Ontario's population?

This is heresy. Of the first order. For two reasons.

First, the whole point of the Senate is that it doesn't reflect population, but rather regions. Twenty-four seats for Ontario, for Quebec, for the Atlantic, and for the West. Six for the Newfies, and one for each territory. It means, of course, the Atlantic is horrendously overrepresented in terms of population and Ontario, as McGuinty notes, is underrepresented.

Again, though, that's the point. The "rep by pop" thing is in the House. It mirrors, in a way, the US system, where California, population some 30 million, gets as many senators as Wyoming, population some 500,000 - i.e. one sixtieth of California (I can look out my office and probably look over more people than live in Wyoming).

Forget, though, that McGuinty is actually calling for two redundant houses (as he himself notes), which would be a complete nightmare. The second, more important point, is that McGuinty is suddenly buying in to the sort of politics of regional grievances that every other province (ahem, Quebec, Alberta, and Danny Williams' little flag spat) that Ontario always avoids.

I've always been proud of Ontario as the fixer of the federation, the Ontario that realizes, okay, it's the big brother of the country, and because of that exercises a little more responsibility than the upstart children that make up the other provinces. The Ontario that accepts it has to get less than its fare share, so that things work. Other legislatures might be treated by their premiers as provincial baronetcys, putting their own interests first, but Ontario would always remain above it.

Sure, this comes at some cost - a sort of Ontario hubris that thinks of Canada as nothing more than Toronto writ-large (We always hear about how "multicultural" Canada is - get 10km outside a city and it's pretty damn white).

But when McGuinty, in order to get votes, stirs up some sort of regional sense of grievance that hitherto has not existed in Ontario, you know things are bad in the federation. If McGuinty starts playing this 40% card at every meeting, we're going to have trouble.

Alito, servant of the Christian Right

So apparently Alito sent James "Only I Can Define Marriage" Dobson, of Focus on the Family, a thank you letter for Dobson's help in securing his nomination.

The full text is below. Anyone who ever doubted that Alito would be a servant of the Christian right can go to sleep with their doubts assuaged. We are all doomed.

Dear Dr. Dobson:

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months.I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period. As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me. I hope that we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future. In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have done.

Bush Did Know

So apparently Bush's claims that he didn't know the scale of the potential catastrophe in New Orleans is nonsense.

According to a confidential video secured by the AP, Bush was briefed in very great detail about the potential disaster. According to the AP:

In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage. Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

So hugely typical of Bush. "We're ready." "It's all going to be okay." "Trust me."

He said, "Mission accomplished!" And look where Iraq is.

He said, "My tax cuts will make everyone better," and look at the deficit.

Now we know he said "We are fully prepared." And how gravely we weren't.

Is this lie number 2? Bush said that no one had anticipated the levees breaking. Apparently, people had told him. He said that he wasn't aware of the problem. But apparently he was.

How the American people put up with this - lie after lie, buck-pass after buck-pass, incompetence explained or justified away - is beyond me.

Brian Mulroney, not a tenth as incompetent as Bush, was down at 11% in his final years. Here, Bush still can find some 40% of the population approving of what he's doing, in spite of losing a city, lying his way into war, letting Osama escape, during a huge surplus into a huge deficit, torturing detainees, and lying about spying on Americans.

It's almost a more damning indictment of the American people than it is of Bush.