"One of the most able public servants I've ever known"

So, no surprise, the White House thinks Wolfowitz should stay. After all, it's merely an ethics violation.

On NPR they reported that Cheney said (on Fox, surprise surprise) that Wolfie was "one of the most able public servants I've ever know." Well, duh. That's probably not a tough bar, if you think about the current figures in government or who've just left, say, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Brown, Meiers, Gonzo, on, and the latest, McNulty. More on Wolfie's mismanagement here.

So, helping your girlfriend get a job isn't a firing offence. Well, what the hell is with this administration? A bungled war? An incompetent attorney general? A lost major city and a destroyed coast (I promise my big post on that is coming)? The list is so long of sins and so short on actual accountability (yes yes, the Republicans always line up and say "I apologize, I take responsibility, yada yada." Big deal--intoning the words of remorse and responsibility is meaningless without action.)

Has this administration fired a single person for incompetence? Not at all. In any normal government, so much of the cabinet would have been sacked for less (one need think only of Rhona Ambrose as an example.)

When the story of this administration is written, it will go down as the most inept, incompetent, and corrupt administration in the last century.

And no doubt Andrew Sullivan and Republican moderates will say they'd always said that was the case and if the administration had just acted a little more like Reagan we'd all be in paradise. Cf. Artur Seyss-Inquart at Nuremberg: "I can not today cry 'crucify him' where yesterday I cried 'Hosanna.'"

What was that . . .

about wildly popular viceroys? She really is awesome. Her speech to the troops in New Brunswick here. Notice, no swipes at an opposing party. No "stay the course" rhetoric. No politics. Simply her fulfilling her role as Commander in Chief of Canada. As she says in her speech, "I am here to listen to you, and I will share your concerns and hopes with the entire country."

Indeed.

To the guy who hit my car

It's a really dumb idea to hit someone and then take off, when a) the car is parked in a lot with valet; b) the valet guys are there to, say, get your license plate and a description of who's inside; and c) there's a nice cafe owner watching who snaps a picture of you and your truck.

Really not a good idea.

What're your kids doing?

"My grandson is going to fight in Iraq. What are your kids doing for the war?"

(By the way, apologies for lack of posts. I just got back from a week in Mississippi doing legal work to help Katrina survivors. A big update on that soon.)

Get over the nonsense

Okay. Some people objected to my post concerning Andrew Sullivan's nonsense of it being time for vigils and prayers in the wake of the shootings at V Tech.

My response: Give me a fucking break.

First: I loathe the whole weak 21st century culture of shared "grief" and "empathy." Every time something bad happens, to random strangers on the other side of the country, we have to go through these paroxisms and rituals of showing just how affected we are, and those who don't show it are clearly screwed up. So then we have to have a "vigil" or a prayer meeting or a moment of silence to "remember" those people.

Such goddamn nonsense. These stupid rituals are far more about the individuals participating in them than they are about the people for whom the ritual is intended. It's about showing just how sensitive, how caring, how I'm-so-in-touch-with-my-emotions-and-those-people-and-isn't-it-just-tragic we are. I bet you this: stick any one of the people now intoning "oh it's just so awful we need time to reflect rather than discuss the issues which led to the shootings" on a desert island, with no one watching them, and I bet you they wouldn't be passionately stating the shibboleths of grief. Who in this country bats a single tear-laden eyelash when, oh, say, over 100 people are killed in Baghdad?

So to all those who say no, we shouldn't be talking about guns and why on earth it is that the US lets people have them because it's just not the time and we should be sensitive: nonsense. This is exactly the time. It's right when it makes headlines that we should talk about why on earth it is we allow people to have guns and why on earth we're hostage to the fucking NRA and Texas.

And to all those people who are "grieving" and feeling sad and rending their clothes about the tragedy, even though they don't know a single freakin' person involved: grow the fuck up. Get a spine. People like you have made us a generation of pussies. Our grandparents got through the damn WAR without collapsing into a generation of bloody housewives from Nebraska who are personally affected by every tragedy in the country.

Broken-Record/Cliched/Dead-Horse Beating/Statistically Ignorant Media Who Cried Wolf

Yet another poll claiming a percentage change represents a "narrowing of the lead" or "precipitous drop" or "dramatic fall" or whatever in some party's fortunes, with attendant implications for the mythical spring election, and all of it, ALL OF IT, within the statistical margin of error.

At least no 'unnamed long-time Liberal insiders close to the PMO' were quoted.

Give me a break, Sullivan

Quit with your Christian bullshit, Andrew Sullivan. Apparently, in re the horrific events at Virginia Tech, he has this to say:

"Vigil" seems the right response right now. Praying and watching. Blogging later.

Prayer? What, Sullivan--God's paying attention, and we should pray to him, because, really, even though he's omnipotent, and could have stopped those shootings, he didn't, hosanna?

But better yet: Let's keep in mind that the most steadfast opponents of gun control are Republicans. And let's also keep in mind your rabid support for Republicans.

Yes yes. I know you'll come back with some nonsense of real Republicanism. Nonsense. I don't buy your selfrighteous cafeteria Republicanism. It's dishonest. If you advocate for a party, you can't hold your nose up at portions of their platform. If that were allowed, then we would all be principled, and we no doubt would do so.

But for such the believer you were, and the advocate for them you were, you're guilty of all of their policies, not just the ones that you like.

Stop whining

Okay. About this Imus thing. I completely agree that what he said was awful. Bad. Yes.

But. The girls at Rutgers need to stop whining and being so goddamn sensitive. This whole bullshit culture of "I'm wounded" and "What you said hurt me in my heart" and "I feel demeaned" is just a little too much. What, some shock jock said something awful? Big freakin' deal. You need counseling because of it? You likely need a hell of a lot more, if that sort of thing demeans you.

And please. If every time someone said something bad about gay people, or, say, the leader of the country did, or politicians, or someone tried to pass yet another law banning gay rights, or, say, said that gay people are like suicide bombers destroying society, or that our happiness will lead to bestiality, or major Democratic candidates stopped short of repudiating the head of the army's comments that gay sex is immoral--if every time that happened, I said I was "wounded" and needed to meet with the perp and that I was hurt, well, I'd be a gibbering wreck of sobbing.

Get over it. Grow up. Get a spine. Stop being a fucking victim and start being a leader.

The dog ate my homework

Okay. This whole "we lost all our emails" thing from the White House is just ridiculous. In my practice, we deal with electronic documents all the time. And let me tell you, if we told the company suing us, "We just don't have all the emails that talk about the conduct for which you're suing us because we destroyed and lost them," we would find ourselves in an incredible universe of trouble. The hammer of an issue-preclusive sanction would come swinging down on us and it would take a minor--nay, a major--miracle to escape it. We would find that issue decided against us, no question.

The same standard should be held to the Bushies. They used secret email accounts to do government work and now they can't find the documents. There is an outright presumption of wrongdoing here--their inability to prove otherwise should be held completely against them.

And if they did it for this one issue, who doubts that they've been emailing on the sly for other things too?

Pomp and Circumstance

I really hope we never lose that leftover part of our Imperial legacy that manifests itself in all our national ceremonies and institutions. While I'm a big fan of leaving a lot of history where it belongs--firmly in the past--there are some rituals whose continuity, and whose difference from our day to day life, is wonderful. Perhaps it's the romantic in me.

Just some examples: The ritual of the Governor General disolving, calling elections, and summoning Parliament in the name of the Queen, the idea that lawsuits are always by "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of . . ." (leading to the fun situation of the Queen suing herself, such as H.M. The Queen i/r/o Canada v. H.M. The Queen i/r/o Ontario), calling Judges "My Lord" or "My Lady." "God Save the Queen" at the end of proclamations, even though no one really thinks that. Our wonderful gothic parliament. Our red ceremonial colours. The Mace, which can't be touched. Our solemn military ceremonies. I could go on and on.

In an era where we increasingly try to make things more accessible and politicians try for the common touch, a slightly mysterious hold-over to the past is comforting.

Confession

I have a total crush on Sam Harris. Only he's not as cute in that picture. I saw an interview of him in the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," and he was, well, scrummy.

And that he thinks that religion is just plain stupid is just the icing on the cake.

What's good for the goose. . .

I really can't wait to hear the gnashing of teeth from everyone in the West about how bad it is that those British sailors were blindfolded, kept in solitary confinement, and subjected to psychological pressures.

I call bullshit to any complaints. For years, the US and it's UK lackey have kept secret prisons, subjected detainees to all sorts of mental and physical tortures (sleep deprivation, humiliation, waterboarding come to mind), kept individuals in isolation (the Aussie Hicks, for example), and kept them blindfolded and earmuffed (how about that Jose Padilla, eh?)--and maintained the entire time that what they were doing was legitimate and permissible.

I'm sure some wacko will say, well, we're doing it to terrorists, they did it to innocent sailors, but let's get something straight: the objection is to the method, not the target. A way of treating someone is legitimate and permissible (and, er, legal), or it isn't.

So for anyone--any single person who at any point has thought that any of the outrageous and obscene things that have been done in the West's name was permissible--anyone who now stands up and berates Iran for its treatment of the Brits, I say to you: this is what you've wrought. Five years of disregard of international norms and common human decency give you no ground to stand on. Your conduct and support legitimized Iran's conduct (not that I'm defending it, of course.)

Oh, and in case any moron is reading this and thinks these are pictures of what the Iranians did to the Brits, get a fucking life.

Most shocking line in a brief, ever

It astonishes me that people with seven years of post-secondary education can end up being, well, stupid. Stupid is the wrong word, because there are plenty of really bad lawyers out there. However, it takes an entierly new depth of moron-ness to write the following, which I saw in a brief today:

"Homosexuals are like suidice bombers, destroying themselves while they murder others."

And no, this isn't a case about the intentional transmission of HIV, or about gay demonstraters, or gay suicide bombers in Kraplakistan. It's a sad case involving persecution and outrageous cruelty. And yet, the usual battalion of organizations are lined up against us, all named "American society for constitutional liberty" or "American Foundation for the protection of civil rights" or "Foundation for liberty and justice." Right.

What group of people do you think would sit at a table and say "Oh yes, let's put that line in their. After all, it will be very persuasive to the judges; after all with the war on terror, it will surely resonate."

Danny Williams

Will you please just shut the fuck up?

Honestly, grow the fuck up. You're like some pathetic little child, throwing tantrums and throwing your toys around the moment you think someone did something wrong.

Get over it and grow up. You're the premier of a province with fewer people than most Toronto suburbs. This really highlights the whole silliness of the pathetic lip service we all have to pay that Canada is made up of 10 provinces of equal status all of whose opinions are of equal weight and deserve equal time.

God really isn't watching

I'm not sure why I'm on such an anti-God thing, but I am.

Why is it that when people get subjected to a really horrible illness or experience, they thank god for getting them through it. I just read a story about someone who survived the flesh-eating bacteria (won't link to it), and while I'm enormously sympathetic to that person, and indeed, it's terrible, but really, to say "We are so thankful to God that [he] survived this deadly disease! It's been an amazing faith journey -- I can tell you most assuredly that even in the darkest days, we had faith that God was in control."

So, wait. God's in control. God's watching. You're thanking god for the good result that he survived, but, um, what about the fact that god gave him the infection to begin with?

Thank the lord we survived the earthquake! How about cursing him for sending it?

Why

is there a woman doing this protest?

Why do we care??

Why does this make the news? If the headline were "Woman thanks green space aliens for recovery from cancer," we would laugh and expect to see it on the News of the World or some similar sort of tabloid.

And, you'll notice the article is completely devoid of any kind of substantiation.

I agree with Dan Savage (this is a vague nonsequitor): How come so many people ignore the pope when he goes on about blowjobs and abortion and what not, but then fall over and genuflect when he speaks about gay rights? As Savage says,

Unless straight people are prepared to limit their sexual rights, freedoms, and expression and live in as the Pope would like you to—no birth control, no blowjobs, no pre-marital sex, no yoga—then straight people should stop making an elaborate show of deference and respect for the Pope’s delicate feelings when it comes to my sexual rights, freedoms, and expression. Ignore the Pope or not. But don’t ignore him when he has something to say about your sexual conduct and then prick up your ears when he’s got something to say about mine.

No kidding. Wine turns to blood, or it doesn't. It doesn't do so in Rome but not in Canterbury.

It amazes me that we tolerate such nonsense because it's religion, when really, if you took the pronouncements of the religious and said that they came from The Blue Egg faith, or the Church of the Holy Block of Cheese, those same people would look at you like you were a lunatic.

Freedom of religion for Pastafarians

This is patently outrageous. A kid is claiming he follows the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion and that his religion requires him to wear a pirate suit. He was suspended for being disruptive.

Outrageous. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, he does genuinely hold the belief (in my mind, believing in a spaghetti monster in the sky is no more or less rational than believing in a mad jealous god who smites people if they don't believe in him, or in a guy being born from a virgin and coming back to life and ascending into heaven and turning wine into blood (I like my wine as it is, thank you very much)). Anyway, I digress.

I'm sure the religious wackos would come down against this guy, agreeing that yes, his costume was disruptive.

The problem is, they come down on exactly the opposite side when it comes to mad Christians being disruptive. For example, they're strange bedfellows with the kid in the Bong Hits for Jesus case (recall that the kid, outside the school, had a poster saying that jesus likes pot or something similar and was suspended for being disruptive). They're on his side, because they want to be able to put up signs outside schools saying "Jesus thinks that being gay is bad" or "don't kill your foetus." They also routinely intervene in cases where kids wear t-shirts that say "the Bible says homosexuality is bad."

Of course, this is somewhat apples and nectarines. If the kid truly believes his religion and that it requires a certain dress, he should be allowed it. That's like a nutjob Christian needing to wear a crucifix (a macabre ornament if there ever were one).

That's entierly different from allowing a kid to be disruptive by saying "because of my religion, I believe that homosexuals are evil, and I should be allowed to say so." That's disruptive and not required by the religion.

Similarly, if the kid walked around saying "Arrrrrrrrrrr me hearties!" I'd be all for suspending him too.

Sanjaya Must Be Stopped

I completely agree with this blogger. While it is completely unlikely that we'll manage to stop the hoards of teenage girls (and Dan Savage) who love him and think he's the hottest thing since, well, god knows, Jon Swift makes a great point:

Intervention by the Supreme Court. They should step in immediately to stop the
voting and kick Sanjaya off the show. There is, of course, precedent for the Court's taking action when votes seem to be going the wrong way: the landmark Bush v. Gore decision.

One note, of course: The Bush v. Gore decision specifically stated it couldn't be used for other cases. I'm sure that was to stop godless liberal heathens from using it, but my, the consequences. Had they only known that seven years later, their intervention would desperately be needed . . .

Messages

Sometimes, when people aren't returning my calls or emails, I want to send them this:

Reason number 232 why we love having a GG

This is yet another example of why it's better to be a monarchy.

When Dubya shows up with soliders/children/aircraft carriers as backdrops, it's blatantly partisan. He has no real interest in them, just in their political value.

In contrast, when the GG does things with children, there is no political purpose. She's there for the children--in her official capacity, to be sure--but still there as an expression of caring.

How much better to have a head of state that can represent your country without having a political motive behind it?

God save the Queen.

The Fifth Amendment? You must be kidding.

Dan Froomkin is exactly right about this Monica character, who's invoking her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and refusing to testify before Congress:

For one, it's not at all clear what she's trying to say. Undeniably, if she chose to lie to the panel, she could face perjury charges. Her recourse, therefore, would appear to be to tell the truth. So is she saying that if she told the truth, she would have to admit a crime? What crime? Or is she saying something else: That she'd have to admit someone else's criminal behavior? Well, that's not something you can take the Fifth to avoid. Sorry. Or is she just afraid of being grilled by an antagonistic bunch of congressmen? Well, that's not something you can take the Fifth to avoid either.

Exactly. As my future wife Dahlia Lithwick pointed out today, if you can invoke the Fifth any time you have to take the stand because you're afraid that sometime down the road you might get charged with either purjury or obstruction of justice, then people could refuse to testify any time they wanted.

This is so vintage Bush. Invoke the constitution when it suits your needs, but do it wrong.

The sad part is most of the country is too apathetic and stupid to care.

UPDATE: The best part is she's a frickin' Christian. She did her undergrad at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit." And then her law degree from Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, which says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."

First off, I'm not going to say much about the fact that it's depressing that someone with a law degree that's not on the radar of any firm or real government agency can get a senior job in the White House.

But more importantly: She's invoking the 5th, which (in this case) carries a certain implication of criminal conduct.

Which blows the whole "Christians are more moral" than everyone else claim that Republicans always make out of the water.

PLQ and the Tories

I hope tonight's election results come as a rebuke to Harper's big "new federalism plans."

After all, it seems the ROC did whatever it can to make sure that a federalist was elected in Quebec. So we give Quebec all sorts of special treats, like $700m more in equalization (that is promptly used not to "equalize" services, but instead to give a nice fat tax cut), etc etc etc (I'm sure some Tory or Albertan can provide a comprehensive list).

Harper's been sucking up to Quebec as much as he could, with the hope of boosting federalist fortunes, and what do we get? Charest personally defeated, the federalists reduced to a minority, just ahead of the "autonomist" ADQ. Great. The balance of power is held by a party that doesn't necessarily want separation, but separation if necessary (in all but name.)

I say it would have been better to put the PQ in the driver's seat of the minority. The ADQ was against a referrendum, and then the Feds could take the Chretienite position of not having to bow and scrape at every PQ demand, rather than feeling like every time Charest put out his hand, we had to give him something.

Well, Duh

And they needed a study for this?

How on earth is this constitutional?

Okay. How can it be that the person who drafted legislation is now able to rule on its constitutionality?

Thta's a little Bush-esque, really.

Abortion Stupidity

I have to say I agree 100% with Canadian Cynic. In response to the suggestion that women be forced to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, CC writes:

Using that same logic, I could suggest that legislators pushing for additional
funding for military action should first spend a few seconds contemplating, on
their desktops, the remains of a broken, dismembered child killed by heavy artillery.

I agree. Actually, I'd go even further. Before someone can stand up and talk about "supporting the troops," they should a) have served in the military or b) have a child/parent/spouse in the military. I'm really over hearing Republicans and Tories talking about "supporting the troops" when that's a meaningless phrase with no consequences. "Stay the course" as long as it's someone else's son/daughter that's doing the dying.

Thank god for a boring culture

There are many days I'm glad I'm western, I'm Canadian, I consider myself absolutely Canadian, my family has no knowledge whatsoever where we came from. I'm glad I'm boring. We have no cultural grudges. I don't see people from some ancient ancestral enemy ethnic group. This article is proof why I'm glad.

And I believe, to the depth of my heart, that the point of coming to Canada is giving up those things. It is not becoming the same as everyone else. But it is giving ancient hatreds. It is giving up customs that need to yield to the Charter (e.g. women in Burkhas, etc). We have a few basic values in Canada, and becoming Canadian means accepting them.

But I say this: If we find our glorious, wonderful, improbable country becomes a battleground whereby different warring groups bring their battles here, I say throw them all out.

A mari usque ad mare.

More God and Gays

Good for the Episcopals to stand up to Nigerian bullies regarding gays and same sex marriages.

I thought it was nonsense for the Communion generally to ask the American (and by extension Canadian) churches to sit out and become junior members, in the interest of preventing a schism.

Though I'm not Anglican, I say fuck 'em. It's like saying, "To prevent us from disagreeing with you, please make all your women wear burkhas." Actually, that's what a lot of supposedly tolerant people want--"Oh, we might offend some nutjobs by doing what is normal for us, so let's cave."

But the communique is remarkably strident.

First, they slam the fact that Mr. Nigeria is appointing bishops in the US:

Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to
our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention.

Then, the brave statement:

We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision.

Finally, perhaps, there is a group--an unexpected group, to be sure--that is standing up for us.

I say bravo to the Episcopal Church.

Update: Our fair friend Seething Mom provides excellent analysis here.

God and Gays

From today's Post, Harold Meyerson makes some good points.

First, further to yesterday's post about no politician wanting to stand up for us, he relays this:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, when first asked if homosexuality was immoral, answered that it was for "others to conclude," before righting herself to say that she didn't think being gay was immoral. Sen. Barack Obama, according to Newsweek, avoided a direct answer three times before coming to his senses and disagreeing with Pace. The spokesperson for Sen. John "Straight-Talk Express" McCain said that "the senator thinks such questions are a matter of conscience and faith for people to decide for themselves." Such political and moral contortions are hardly confined to presidential candidates.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Hillary Clinton, saying it was for "others to conclude" that being gay is or is not immoral? First, that's typical Hillary bullshit, wanting to be all things to all people. Any nonrepublican nonasshole should have absofuckinglutely no hesitation in saying "That's hogwash." I can't even see Stephen Harper hesitating there. Maybe Vic Toews, but that's it.

He also makes the great point that clearly religion isn't working too well with regard to homos. After all, if it becomes clear there is at least some biological basis for homosexuality, then you have the contradiction that God is churning out homos, meaning he must at least intend to make them, but then condemning them to hellfire. Good stuff. Clear intelligent design.

Which brings me to the amazing Dan Savage. I love the man. In his recent column, he points out that women and men aren't really all that compatible, since women tend to want chocolate and love and men want to fuck (with exceptions). Clearly, that's not intelligent design:

Hey, intelligent design idjits? If God really wants us to have heterosexual sex only, and then only within the bounds of holy matrimony, and if adultery offends Him so much—it's a stoning offense, right up there with gay sex—how come He designed men and women to be sexually incompatible?

Well, I should say that He designed straight men and straight women to be sexually incompatible. Lesbian couples, with their bags of Doritos, and gay couples, with our mutually insatiable sexual appetites, seem pretty intelligently designed. Thank you, Jesus!

Indeed, thank you Jesus!

In the meantime, God thumpers, I can't wait for you to square the circle that if God makes us gay, whe the hell is he automatically damning us to hell?

Why do straights hate the gays?

First, apologies for the lack of posts. Mike and I were skiing in Mammoth with many hundreds of our closest homo skiing friends. We managed to survive, no injuries, and let me tell you, spring skiing in California is amazing. We were in tshirts, I'm sunburned, and a fantastic time was had by all, save for a few horrified straight people.

But, on to my point. This article appeared today in the LA Times. And I agree with it. No doubt there will be many who say that no, not all straights hate the homos, and that is certainly true, at least for those of us who cling to the Coasts or the Canadian border and live in big cities.

The problem is, those people are drowned out by the people who hate us. Think Peter Pace. Sure, he was sort of vaguely condemned by politicians, but imagine if he'd said what he'd said about blacks or jews or something. He'd be fired instantly. Where are the calls for his resignation from nongay organizations?

Where are the straight politicians who actually will stand up for us? Where are they who would cry out against the anti-gay-marriage amendments that the electorate love? Where are they who stand up and say that looking out for our equal rights is the good thing to do?

They aren't there. We're the first group jettisoned by any politician on the left, and the first group attacked by any politician on the right. We're supposed to feel grateful when we get half equality--when we're given domestic partnerships, instead of full marriage equality. We're supposed to feel okay when there's don't-ask-don't-tell, because that's better than not being allowed to serve at all, but who stands up and says that equality should be the goal?

No one.

Jean in Afghanistan

Recall back in January, the Commons Defence Committee made a visit to Afghanistan. They were quite upset and vocally so, when they realized that they would be restricted to main base . They wanted to go abroad and see what our troops were up to in the field, their living conditions, and the status of reconstruction projects. The local commander had received instructions, obstensibly from the PMO, that they were not allowed to leave. The argument went that they were 'a high value target', resources were not available to transport and defend them, and it was safer to remain on the base.

So we have now, Governor-General Michaelle Jean in Afghanistan, and in addition to visiting the main base, she is visiting forward operating bases, inspecting troops in the field, meeting local Afghan leaders and seeing the results of reconstruction efforts.

The PMO didn't see any need to stop her. And if Jean, our Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces is not a 'high value target', then I don't know what is.

Which means the excuse the PMO offered for restricting the Defence Committee from going abroad is complete bunk.

An alternative explanation is that the PMO tried to stop her, and she told them where to stick it.

I'd much prefer to run with the latter.

Showpiece for how Conservatives are just plain dumb

I'm sure you've heard of the new Conservapedia, the "unbiased" alternative to Wikipedia.

Many reams of virtual paper have been spent on just how silly it is, for example here, here, and here (the first link is awesome. Did you know that Kangaroos made it to Australia from the Middle East after the Great Flood, but it's unclear whether they got there while Australia was still joined to the Eurasian landmass (which sort of disproves the whole 6000 year old earth thing), or drifted there on the receeding floodwaters?)

And for our Canadian readers, here's their entry on Canada:

Canada is the second largest country in the world for it's considerable amount of land. It was named Canada because when an explorer came to a Canadian Indian
village he asked what this place was called, and they told him "Kanada", which means village in their Indian language. It borders the United States, and most of it's population is in The more southern provinces of Canada.

The person writing has the writing skills of perhaps a 4 year old, and has some serious problems with possessives and contractions . . .

Happily, though, there was nothing about Canadians being godless pot-smoking homo-loving liberals. On the other hand, the entry about Democrats is a little silly.

According to leading conservative thinkers, no good Christian would ever be a Democrat. Catholics identify as Democrats more than Republican, but the opposite
is true for Evangelicas. The major tenets of the modern Democrat platform include cowering to terrorism, cocaine presidents, corporate profits, and establishment of an aristocratic, faux-religious state. However, contempt for all the founding principles of America is not yet an official prerequisite for entry into the Democrat party.

Though last I checked, Bush was the smack addict. The spelling on all these entries is original.

And clearly Vandals are at work. The apparently conservative entry on Bill Clinton reads as follows:

Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.

Good heavens

Is the Flag on Government buildings ever not at half mast?

Stupid People

Okay. First off, I'm very pro-choice. i won't even get into that.

But some woman suing because the doctor didn't tell her that the 5-week old fetus in her was a human being, and that this caused her great distress, is complete nonsense.

In 2004, the plaintiff sued her doctor for medical malpractice, arguing that abortion providers have a duty to tell their patients that the fetus or embryo they are carrying is "a complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" and that the "abortion did not prevent a human being from coming into existence but actually killed an existing human being."

I'm sorry, but people should have no right to profit out of their own stupidity. As one of the NJ Supreme's Justices pointed out, didn't she know that if she did nothing, in 8 months there would be a baby? Apparently, her lawyer responded, "she didn't know biology."

I can't decide what to say. Part of me thinks that if you don't have the intelligence to realize that yes, if you don't get an abortion, eventually a baby will happen, then you damn well shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion. But you shouldn't be allowed to be out in public or drive a car or anything either, unless we force you out into public and hope that Darwin takes care of you.

And the other part of me thinks that this constant shielding of people from their own stupidity has to stop. We do everything for the lowest common denominator. All signs and instructions in public places cater to idiots. How many warning labels do you see these days that say things like "do not iron clothing while wearing it" or something equally silly? We coddle people and allow them to not think by providing instructions and warnings for everything, paying ridiculous attention to safety (see Andrew Coyne's recent rants about those concerned with the dangers of tobogganning and playing hockey).

Really, we could solve so many of our overcrowding issus if we would just let people act on their own stupidity.

Flag Day

Happy Flag Day, everyone! (For our American visitors, we didn't really have a flag until 1965. Read the story here.)

Before you vote for the escalation, Senators

You should look at these pictures. And these ones here. Not for the faint hearted.

My entire master's thesis was devoted to the idea that politicians have no concept of what they order soldiers to do, and that they make decisions to escalate or to attack or to invade with no real sense of what the human consequences are.

That's exactly what's going on here. First, unlike during the First and Second Wars, there are no consequences at home for declaring war or for expanding war: no rationing, no cut backs, no tax increases. And only a tiny, tiny fraction of the population is impacted: there is no draft, few politicians (or those beating the drums of war) have children in the military or have served (ahem, Dubya). It is not like the Second World War, where, for example, the Soviet Union suffered the equivalent of 9/11 ever 6 hours for 5 years. Most people simply don't know anyone who's died or even served.

And so they think of the war as yet another policy choice. It's a computer game. It's just a day to day decision, like shall we regulate the price of flax or what will we do about this particular regulation: the personal consequences are exactly the same. Zero.

Until you see these pictures. And then you realize that there is a titanic human component to the war (well, some of us see it in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. But I suspect most politicians, and indeed most americans who support the war, think that the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis is either a necessary cost of the goal of the war, or not a real problem, since people who don't speak english who live on the other side of the world that you only see through a TV Screen aren't really people.)

I'm all for a constitutional amendment requiring a personal stake before any politician can vote for war.

Religion v Faith

One of our readers makes the following point:

I think it is important to differentiate between religions (the organizations) and faith (the personal beliefs). Faith is not wrong, nor do I believe that the Christian faith is dangerous. . . . So, while organizations/religion may be bad, the beliefs are not necessarily.

Nonsense. This is love the sinner/hate the sin, hate homosexual acts/love homosexuals. Religion is fundamentally irrational. Faith is wrong, because it puts you in the position of believing something as absolutely true (based on no evidence) and that those who don't believe it are wrong.

Likewise, the claim of speaking for god being bad but personal faith is good is also a false distinction. Many of the people who profess faith as the basis for their politics or social belief don't claim to be speaking on God's behalf. They simply believe that gays shouldn't marry, or there should be no adoption, or that Shias/Jews/Atheists are bad. The organized religion v. personal faith line is blurry. When Shia muslims hit their heads with daggers, is that not an expression of personal faith? When women "choose" to not go to school and wear burkhas, is that really personal faith? And even if deciding Jesus hates your homosexuality and thus you need to repress it is a purely personal choice (though, of course, the "fact" of Jesus hating fags comes from the organizers of religion; doctrine requires organization), is that not incredibly damaging?

I'm sure I'll get some harrangue about religion providing spiritual comfort. Big deal. I get "spiritual" comfort from music. From my friends. From reading. From the majesty of the law (when I can see it past all the annoyance of working). The fact that you believe in some man sitting on a cloud caring for you doesn't make faith inherently good, else I could claim the fact that the Great Potato in The Sky comforts me, and you would have to nod and agree with me.

And finally, there are those who say good works are done because of faith. Yes. Many good works are done without faith. And really, what's better: I help people because I believe I'll be rewarded in the hereafter and it makes God happy, or I help people because I inherently believe it is a good thing to do in the present? And for every good deed done for faith, I will point you to fifty bad things.

Further to the islamic world needing a reality check

I really had no idea so many people died because of The Satanic Verses. It's a freaking book, people.

Here's the reverse logic: Any time any muslim does anything islamic that offends the West, we get to do whatever we want to anyone who's a muslim. Next time some idiot blows himself up in Jerusalem, we get to burn kebab stores in Calgary. We get to riot and burn down embassies. We get to call for the execution of everyone in that person's family.

Really, Sam Harris is right: All religions are bad. Islam is worse.

I'm sure we'll get some PC person saying how no, Islam is a religion of peace. Right. Just like during the Crusades, and during the Inquisition, and the Marian Terror, it was tenable to say that Christianity was a religion of peace.

Hurry up please and have a Reformation and an Enlightenment. And lose the chip on your shoulder. Big boys can handle an insult. Children throw tantrums.

David Attenborough

Is really an amazing man. Blue Planet, Life in the Undergrowth, The Life of Mammals--they all give me such pleasure to watch. He's so thoughtful, nonsensationalist while not pulling punches. And not a creationist. Here's what he says when people talk to him about Creation:

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.'

No kidding.

Musical Thoughts

My parents turned me on to this duo this weekend. Rodrigo y Gabriela--they're a guitar duo, and the music is very cool. Apparently they lived in Spain and Ireland, and the music shows a bit of a cross between the two. The first track on the album is fantastic--cool melodies, harmonies, rhythms. Worth the $0.99 to try it.

California Republic

I really don't know why all you people suffer on the East Coast. I mean, it's warm and sunny, the sky is clear, and everyone on the East is digging out from how many feet of snow? And those muggy summers? And all those Southerners so close by? I just don't get it.

A mari usque ad mare

Something about Parliament Hill at night is moving.

Celebrating Discrimination.

This clip from Boston Legal on gayness is awesome. Hits so many points perfectly.

"Only in America, only in a country that overtly and notoriously celebrates its prejudice against a class of people by proposing constitutional amendments."

Well. No kidding. For how long did Americans brag to the world about slavery, and embrace it, even long after it was abolished throughout the Empire? For how long did Americans embrace segregation, long after the rest of the world ditched it (or never had it in the first place)? Let's not talk about torture.

And for how much longer with Americans proudly debate banning gays from marriage, while the rest of the world moves on?

Land of the free, my fucking ass. Americans brag about how they're the freest country on earth. Get real. The US never has been, except for rich, straight, white men. They've had it good. Watch the clip.

Why do we care about Anna Nicole Smith

Honestly. Are people so absolutely pathetic that the goings on of a barely literate ex stripper matter?

I love, from the California Federal Court opinion, this about her:

Vickie dreamed of becoming the personification of her idol, Marilyn Monroe. Both became international superstars, traveling far from home under assumed names. Norma Jean's fame thrust her into the arms of an American baseball icon and a dashing young politician, while Vickie Lynn found herself in the company of a Texas oil baron. But her notoriety never reached the same heights or longevity. Her life is best described as that of a person who was rescued by her wealthy pursuer and taught to spend money at a breathtaking pace that most Americans cannot fathom. While she detested being thought of as a gold-digger, her actions leave little doubt that money was the central facet of her relationship with J. Howard. Her appetite for money, once developed, was incessant and outlandish by everyday standards.

Vickie appeared before the Court to testify for three days. Her communication skills were poor as she frequently had trouble engaging counsel. Her illiteracy is striking. Examples are too numerous to chronicle but include writing " 25.00" meaning 2,500 and "4500,00" meaning $4,500--she testified that she has trouble with zeros. In fact, she has only recently started learning to pay her own bills after years of managers and relatives managing her money. Vickie also finds herself in difficult times and is being treated for depression.

In re Marshall, 275 B.R. 5, 19 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

And my favourite was from CNN saying it was an "unexpected and tragic development" for her. Well, no shit.

Would the muslim world please grow up?

I'm sorry. What the hell is it about the islamic world that thinks it's a-okay to blow up in anger and in violence at the slightest provocation?

First, we had the whole tortured story about those cartoons.

I won't even get into the fact that Shias and Sunnis are busy torturing each other to death.

There are those stories about thinking that jews caused 9-11 and believing the protocols of the elders of zion.

But this sort of takes the cake. Israel is repairing the bridge that leads to the Dome of the Rock. And they're rioting! I don't get it. If Israel left the damn bridge or ramp in disrepair, I'm sure there would be riots about how they were doing bad things to stop muslims from praying. Someone would get into a fervour and fall and die and then we'd have riots.

But what's is up with the conspiracy!? They think Israel's going to damage the mosque? Do they think Israel is fucking STUPID? Yes, in plain daylight, they're going to bulldoze the damn thing down. Israel can't even sneeze without muslims rioting and Tehran threatening to blow it up; you think they'd even chip the paint on a tile of the damn Dome of the Rock?

Honestly, though I think the tar sands are really a bad idea, it would be great to be independent of oil from the middle east. That way, we can build a nice big wall around it (leaving out Israel), and say, look, when you fucking grow up and start behaving like adults and not fly off the handle and blow each other and other people up whenever someone "insults" you, you can come out. Until then, keep on chanting that God is Great or Moktada! Moktada! Moktada! while you slit each other's throats and riot and torture each other to death, all while saying Islam is a religion of peace.

"Intelligence Failures"?

NPR was reporting that there is new information on the "intelligence failures" that led to the war in Iraq.

I'm sorry. There was no bloody intelligence "failure." A thousand bishops could have sworn on stacks of Bibles to Dubya that Iraq had no WMD, and it wouldn't have made a difference.

The only "intelligence" failure wasn't "intelligence" in the classic sense: it was a failure of Dubya's intelligence, for being brain dead and wanting to fight the war; and a failure of the intelligence of the American people and a compliant press who allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into a war and who bought Cheney's connection between Iraq and Al Qaida.

You scratch my back...

So, Charest has cancelled his party's convention for late March. With Andre "Snowflake" Boisclair floundering, it is expected that Charest will announce an election for March 26th.

Finance Minister Flaherty is expected to table a budget on March 20th, widely expected to deliver the 'fiscal imbalance correction' that Quebec seeks, thus setting up Charest for a nice little boost in the final week of the campaign.

This presumes that the timing of these events is not a coincidence. I think that's a safe bet.

So if Harper and Charest are co-ordinating their schedules so nicely to ensure a federalist victory in Quebec, what is Harper getting out of the deal, other than the gratitude of Quebec federalists? Is Charest (informally) giving him his campaign machine for a federal election? Does Harper already have access to this?

Idle speculation. What, you expect facts from a blog?

You scratch my back...

So, Charest has cancelled his party's convention for late March. With Andre "Snowflake" Boisclair floundering, it is expected that Charest will announce an election for March 26th.

Finance Minister Flaherty is expected to table a budget on March 20th, widely expected to deliver the 'fiscal imbalance correction' that Quebec seeks, thus setting up Charest for a nice little boost in the final week of the campaign.

This presumes that the timing of these events is not a coincidence. I think that's a safe bet.

So if Harper and Charest are co-ordinating their schedules so nicely to ensure a federalist victory in Quebec, what is Harper getting out of the deal, other than the gratitude of Quebec federalists? Will this translate into more Conservative votes in the next federal election? Is Charest (informally) giving him his campaign machine for a federal election? Does Harper already have access to this?

Idle speculation. What, you expect facts from a blog?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Ut incipit sic fidelis permanet

According to Ian Urquhart, "For whatever reason, MPs from this province [Ontario] adopt a pan-Canadian view once they arrive in Ottawa and seem vaguely embarrassed by parochial issues."

Well, thank god. That's what the Federal Parliament is for. It's the National Parliament, not the Council of the Federation. Not some regional assembly where the vultures from the provinces come to pick over the carcass of the Federation. Let the Premiers speak for the provinces.

But every man and woman that comes to Ottawa should always put Canada over their province. The governance of Canada isn't achieved by individuals coming to fight only for their province. It's achieved by people putting aside the need for better treatment for minions in Medicine Hat and thinking about what makes the country better.

Ontario has always been that way, and she should always remain that way. Loyal, always, to Canada.

Of course, the fact that Ontario considers Canada merely an extension of Ontario is probably the reason for that.

4th Circuit brouhaha

I love Daliah Lithwick.

Religion is not a reason to kill your child

I have absolutely no problem with BC seizing three of those sextuplets and requiring transfusions, over the objections of their parents.

Now, don't get me wrong. Once you're 18, or even, say, 16, and you want to refuse medical treatment in the name of your religion, or you want to do strange things to yourself, no problem. If you're stupid enough to let yourself die because you believe that some dude sitting up on a cloud actually gives a shit whether you have a transfusion or not, or whether you ate the cracker that--poof!--became the body of Christ while you chewed on it, fine. No problem. We don't need stupid people like you cluttering up the gene pool anyway.

But you have absolutely no right to make that decision for anyone. Anyone. Especially not month-old babies who haven't had the chance to decide whether or not their parents' religion is crap. You may think your daughter is being "violated" (as the father said), but that doesn't give you the right to decide whether she would think that. And anyway--if God's gonna send you to hell because you were a month old and had a transfusion to save your life, well, what a fucking nasty god.

So much shit gets done to kids in the name of religion: genital mutilation comes to mind, honour killings, refusing treatments. Kids can't consent. Adults can. Adults can decide whatever shit they want, but imposing it on their kids is criminal.

These idiot parents should be locked up for trying to refuse treatment for their kids, and anyone who goes on about freedom of religion should see how much they like it if someone else were to decide that god wants them to die rather than have a fucking asprin.

More on the lovely Donnie Davis

I'm really quite intrigued as to whether the guy's a homo taking the piss (note to american readers: I mean by that that he's making a joke, not that he's urinating), or whether he's actually serious. I mean, his introductory video -- when he takes his coat off, does anyone else think it's about the gayest thing ever?

I mean, he talks about his "powerful new program" CHOPS (Changing Homosexuals into Ordinary People), but there aren't that many details (parenthetically, of course, I prefer not to be "ordinary.") Of course, he does invoke the "god hates fags" thing:

I know how horrible and rough that road can be. I have been called a "Faggot". You are not alone and guess what, God Loves You even if he hates your Homosexuality. You just can't stay that way. Let me help you love yourself. Follow me and together we'll C.H.O.P.S away the Gay.

Huh. There's also a contradiction: His music video says "God Hates Fags," but he says that he loves you even if he hates the homosexuality. He's taking two positions: Either you can not be gay and it's something you can change, or it's innate 'cos God hates Fags (not people who engage in homosexual conduct).

I mean, it's SO simplistic and stupid, it's either the product of a moron, or it's a joke. Likewise, the usual odious "same sex attraction (homosexuality) can be hard to spot until it is too late" and also the linking being a homo to being a sexual predator. And the gay bands section is just a little too funny to be serious.

So: Either he's making a very elaborate parody, which might be true, or he's just a fat dumb Christian from the south who wants to not be gay 'cos he never got a good enough blow job, and living a life of self-denial while claiming the love of an absentee god (who, if He loved him, wouldn't have made him a homo in the first place, if you accept the logic that god hates fags), instead of a meaningful, good, healthy relationship with another man.

And: He calls Andrew Sullivan a great christian! Um. And he talks about his weight, and talks about "urges"--huh? And he thanks the homosexual community. What?

And I reiterate what Candian Cynic said: If you can't tell whether something is farce or not, your religion's pretty pathetic.

WTF?

Can anyone hazard a guess as to whether this is just a joke? This appears to be the singer's website, and this the organization's. Canadian Cynic makes the point that when you can't actually tell, your religion is pretty fucked up.

Fuck Off, Mr. Ambassador

So the Yankee Ambassador is up in arms that Canada might have some concern why one of its citizens is on their no-fly list.

I'm sorry. You take one of our citizens, whisk him off to Syria ("They gave us assurances" even though "we can't ask them to help in Iraq 'cos we can't trust a word they say"), let him be tortured for a year, and then chuck him on your no-fly list, and you get upset when we ask a few questions?

Welcome to the new America, folks. Don't question us. Don't ask us why we do these things to your citizens. Don't raise your voice in defence of your own people. If we decide to do something, you can go cry in the corner, we don't care.

And Americans wonder why the world hates them.

Gag me with a fork, Tony Snow

Can you believe this? Dan Froomkin, in the Post, has something from a Tony Snow chat. Regarding tonight's State of the Union, this line is so risible that I forgot to laugh:

Q What's the best part?
MR. SNOW: You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds.

I'm sorry. This is like the North Korean government reporting that Kim Jong Il's first ever golf shot was a hole-in-one, that he's written hundreds of books, that he's composed a hundred operas. This sort of veneration from Bush minions is preposterous. Here's some more, from Froomkin:

"The President is exuberant and determined. When George W. Bush attacks something like the State of the Union address, it's with an eye toward action. . . ."

"The president is going to address those and also address another question Americans have, which is: Can these people in Washington work together? Can members of Congress work with the president or is there simply going to be partisan exchanges important the next two years?" [Because, of course, Dubya was never partisan, oh no.]

"You know what, you've got him confused with somebody that indulges in self-pity." [You'd have to think you were doing something wrong for that.]

Richardson?

So, Bill Richardson is gonna run for Prez. Great--I think he'd be a great candidate.

But, minor problem. We now have Hillary (woman), Obama (half black, middle name Hussein, first name awfully like Osama, as Fox never hesitates to point out), and Richardson (hispanic).

In Canada, we'd be fine. I just don't have faith that Americans are in a place where a woman or minority could get elected president.

Shut Up, Little Sisters

I completely agree with this decision. Little Sisters' Book Emporium or whatever it's called is really irritating. They keep going to court, complaining that their porn gets censored.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with them complaining that gay porn gets censored at customs and straight porn doesn't. Porn should be treated equally: whether it's a female or male midget getting shagged in a bunny suit, the same standard should apply. No problem.

But what pisses me off about them is that they claim to speak for all homos. They make the claim that somehow our porn should be treated differently, because it's a part of our "culture." That sort of stuff makes me damn sick.

I suspect that porn fills the exact same role in my life as it does any 30 year old straight guy--a handy think to have around when you're home alone and need a few minutes with your right or left hand man.

But for that store to argue that somehow homo porn is elevated to some sort of constitutionally protected "expression" of our culture and sexuality is nauseating. Are we debasing ourselves: the peak of gay cultural expression is a few shaved beefcakes doing each other? That our identity is summed up by some fat hairy bear doing a barely-legal twink and calling him "boy"?

No thanks, Sisters. You might be pathetic and that's your form of "cultural expression" but it sure ain't mine. Porn is porn, be it gay, straight, bi, animal, vegetable, whatever. The same standards should apply. And it's not culture, it's just something to jack off to (or get ideas for new positions or whatever). When I want culture, I'll read a book or go to the theatre or something, not pop in the latest Falcon video.

Though Marcus Iron really is quite dreamy.

No shit, Ben

So Bernanke is now warning that, because of the deficit, the US faces a fiscal crisis.

Well no fucking shit, Ben. For all Bush and his Republican buddies' claims that cutting taxes would drive revenues through the ceiling, we now have a little problem.

Of course, some might have harkened back to the early 90s, when Canada faced bankruptcy because of its deficit and debt and was considered an economic basketcases.

But--here's the delicious logic of the Bush campaign to get rid of government. First, because you know you can't make the case when there's a surplus to cut medicaid, social security, etc., you starve the government of revenue with massive tax cuts to the wealthy.

Then, claim, oh no, there's a deficit, but we're fighting a war, so where can we make cuts?

Cut the programs.

Rinse. Repeat as necessary.

It's just like with Katrina: Screw it up through massive incompetence, and then use your own screw up as justification for why government isn't effective at solving problems. How terribly convenient.

The country is fucked, thanks to 6 years of Bush and 12 of republicans.

Totally unrelated: To the reckless woman who hit my good friend with her car because she couldn't be bothered to pay attention to her driving and put him in the hospital for almost a week: YOU SUCK. Seriously. One minimizes the dangers of drinking and driving in this town: taking cabs, walking, and then some idiot decides to run you over, probably yakking on her cellphone or doing her makeup. I hope they sue the fucking daylights out of you and you lose your bloody license that you likely didn't deserve anyway and you find yourself reduced to living in a goddamn trailer park in West Virginia because that's all you can fucking afford, drinking moonshine to dull the pain of your own stupidity.

California Republic, II

Yesterday I got up at 5am and got in my car and drove 2 hours to Big Bear to ski. It's not the best resort in the world, but it's not bad at all, for a day trip. The view is spectacular. The snow was good. It wasn't too crowded. And it was the most beautiful day--sunny, crisp, not a cloud in the sky. These two pics from my camera phone don't do it justice.

And driving home, again, I really said to myself, California's a great place. I even was okay, watching the Golden Globes. I'm not into Hollywood, I don't have a TV and never go to movies, and I don't give a &*%! who's shagging whom or dating whom. We have great weather, we can drive 2 hours to the slopes and be on the beach in the afternoon, we have beautiful mountains and deserts and the ocean. We just need independence :)

Wii, PS3, XBox 360--please advise

I've had a hell week. I've not been home since Thursday 9am. I think I clearly deserve a present. Only, which one to buy?

Constitutional Outrage Number 4734

Congress must declare war. It must. That's the Constitution. Yet, today, Condi Rice "refused to promise that Bush would seek permission from Congress before attacking either country [Syria and Iran]."

Are we going to war with Iran? We can scrounge up 20,000 troops, and everyone on the planet says the military is stretched too thin--and we're about to go to war with one or two more countries?

What sort of lunatics are running the country?

Show the world the letters I gave you. Let the world read them. Let the world know the agony of the detainees in Cuba.

A letter from a detainee in Guantanamo. The moving ending:

I would rather die than stay here forever, and I have tried to commit suicide many times. The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed. I am hopeless because our voices are not heard from the depths of the detention center.

If I die, please remember that there was a human being named Jumah at Guantanamo whose beliefs, dignity and humanity were abused. Please remember that there are hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo suffering the same misfortune. They have not been charged with any crimes. They have not been accused of taking any action against the United States.

Show the world the letters I gave you. Let the world read them. Let the world know the agony of the detainees in Cuba.

And of course I'm sure we'll get some right winger who will say either a) better a few hundred ay-rabs rot than one terrorist go free, or b) these people want to destroy our country.

Those kinds of comment aren't worthy of a response.

California Republic

Thank God I live out here in civilization. For the intellectual bankruptcy of our current administration and its 12-year do-nothing Congress, there's an answer out here in California.

In the last few days, the Governator (a Republican!) has come forward with vision and with ideas. And he knows that California, the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, with 37 million people, can be a leader and shape the national agenda.

The things he's proposed:

• More schools.
• Healthcare for all Californians--including illegal immigrants.
• New dams.
• New infrastructure.
• Reducing carbon emissions.
• Fixing electoral boundaries ("The Hapsburg monarchy had more turnover than the California legislature" was a witty line).

Etc. etc. etc. Quothe the Governor:

Not only can we lead California into the future, we can show the nation and the world how to get there. We can do this because we have the economic strength, we have the population and the technological force of a nation-state.

Exactly. I was not a fan of Arnie, mostly because he claims he's a Republican (though reaction to his proposals is far warmer from Democrats than from Republicans here in California). But I'm starting to be proud of him. And some of his rhetoric is good for us out here, so routinely ignored or denigrated by Washington. As the LA Times wrote on Monday:

"What a prosperous, peaceful, golden state in which we live and work and raise our families," he said. "We should never forget the joys and blessings of being Californians." Around the world, he said, people "ache to have what we so often take for granted."

California has its problems. None of us can deny that. But we're working to fix them. We're progressive and dynamic. We can ski in the morning and sun in the afternoon (I've done that). We have San Fran and San Diego, two of the nicest cities in the country. We have LA which, for all its stucco, sprawl, traffic, and smoke, is a dynamic and diverse city that goes far beyond the Hollywood stereotype. We have our beach cities, we have our northern cities. We have mountains and deserts.

And it seems now like we might be getting some vision to go along with all our blessings.

"Support our Troops

You've got to love the draft dodgers like Cheney and Bush who so passionately argue that we need to support our troops and that we should sacrifice.

Canadian Cynic points out that young Republicans are the same. When asked at the Young Republicans' national convention whether they'd enlist, the responses were across the board. The best:

"I physically probably couldn't do a whole lot" in Iraq, said Tiffanee Hokel, 18, of Webster City, Iowa, who called the war a moral imperative. She knows people posted in Iraq, but she didn't flinch when asked why she wouldn't go."I think I could do more here," Hokel said, adding that she's focusing on political action that supports the war and the troops."We don't have to be there physically to fight it," she said.

"Support our Troops" and "Surge" while not actually doing anything yourself. "Sacrifice" with tax cuts.

I increasingly see the value of a draft, and one without generous deferments for the wealthy. Right now, the cost of any foreign policy decision falls on a very small minority of people. Their lives are played with because politicians know there simply are few consequences to their actions.

If it was the case that when a politician voted for war, or for a surge or a sacrifice, there was a very significant chance that his or her son or daughter, or the son or daughter of his or her constitutents would be sent into harms way, if every time they voted for war they knew the decision would impact the full range of society, I would bet that our creative foreign policy adventures would dramatically decline.

Natural Selection

This is one for the Darwin Awards:

A would-be copper thief was killed over the weekend while trying to steal wire from a Hydro-Québec tower in Montreal. Police said the man climbed the tower in the city's north end Saturday night carrying the tools he would need to cut a length of copper wire.

But he touched a 65,000-volt high-tension line and fell 10 metres to the ground, they said.

Duh. Let's hope this happened before he had the chance to reproduce.

Harper on Hockey

There really is something sort of cool about the PM having a talk about hockey with a cute TSN announcer. I remember the Jeanfather talking on CBC when we won the 4x100 relay (Atlanta?), calling from a wedding, clearly tipsy. I like that too.

Could you imagine Dubya doing the same?

Lunatic Christians

This sort of picture is frightening (hat tip to Andrew Sullivan, the johnny-come-lately to realizing Bush is a disaster. We saw the light before it was cool, Andy.).

Honestly. What sort of blinkered, head-in-the-sand, never-thought-for-myself person would actually think that this picture was in any way good? Why is it, confronted with the litany of Bush's myriad sins, his outrages to the Constitution, his screwing up of the economy, his losing a major city, his constant cronyism, his failure to listen to anyone about anything, people see the hand of god? They believe he's the next Prophet, that God speaks personally to him, that God chose him?

If God picked Bush, then God is either cruel or has a very sick sense of humour.

"Hopelessly Sectarian."

Charles Krauthammer makes the following point:

The whole sorry affair [of Saddam's execution] illustrates not just incompetence but also the ingrained intolerance and sectarianism of the Maliki government. It stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else.

Duh. DUH. Lord, why do politicians not talk to historians. Of course Iraq and its government is hopelessly sectarian.

Human history is the story of oppression. Given the chance, one group (generally the majority) will always oppress another. It's the universal constant of humanity. Tutsis will oppress/kill Hutus (or vice versa). Serbs will oppress Bosnians. Germans will oppress Jews. Americans enslaved blacks for centuries. In almost every modern state and certainly in almost every state until the 20th century, the majority ethnic, religious, linguistic, whatever group has beaten up, oppressed, granted fewer rights to, or otherwise beat up on the minority and denied them access to civic life.

The natural human state is not to empower the minority. For all Dubya's "let freedom bloom" the natural human state is not for different ethnic groups to get along and function happily in a wonderful bi-partisan polyglot happy state. It takes only a cursory reading of history to know that. I mean, the US isn't even there: look at the constant efforts to make foreigners assimilate, the "english only" movement, the "don't let mexicans become citizens." Can I remind everyone when segregation ended?

In the ONE place I can think of where the minority participates fully in civic life and is given the tools to do so, it's still a struggle and many people are against it. Lord Durham was prescient. Canada makes it work, and the Quebecois do participate: 1/3 of the Supreme Court and House of Commons, 1/4 of the Senate. Quebecois can thrive in government, in the armed forces.

And look how much people hate that (ladies and gentlemen, I present the Reform party.) how often do you hear about people (from Alberta, generally) who talk about how they hate the French, how French is rammed down their throats, how we shouldn't give them special status, etc. It is to our eternal credit that we hold fast against them.

So, my point: People of different races/languages/religions don't naturally get along. The like to oppress each other. Given the chance, and the civic tools, they will.

If Dubya--or anyone--thought that Iraq would turn into a wonderful multicultural bi-religious federation where everyone gets along and shares power, he was nuts. Because, other than Canada (happy to hear of others--maybe Belgium?), no such federation exists or has ever existed.

Bush's latest constitutional outrage

You think your mail is safe? Even when there's a statute saying that your mail can't be opened without a warrant?

Wrong. Think again.

Dubya's decided, with a little signing statement, that he can open your mail any time he wants to, in any circumstance that he, the Decider, decides is enough of an emergency:

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

I would rant, but this is so shocking I think it speaks for itself. Some good commentary here.

Balanced Budget MY ASS

So Dubya wants to balance the budget. Great. Well done. Um, before you were President, Mr. Decider, we had a balanced budget.

But here's the kicker: Rather than get rid of his tax cuts, which are responsible for so much of the loss of revenue, he wants to keep them:

In a statement in the White House Rose Garden after a Cabinet meeting, Bush said his budget proposal would "address urgent needs" -- such as winning the war on terrorism and maintaining a strong national defense -- while also making his tax cuts permanent. To do so, he said, would "keep this economy growing."

So his budget is all about military and tax cuts. How's he going to balance it then?

Get rid of medicaid, social security, funding for roads, schools, hospitals? Axe the EPA, the EEOC, and the entire federal judiciary?

And does anyone find it funny he's waiting till the Dems control Congress to ask that earmarks be cut? He had NO problem with them while he was President. In fact, can anyone think of a single bill he vetoed for containing earmarks (or anything else, for that matter)?

With him refusing a course change in Iraq, and his ludicrous budget, let me say this: We are well and truly fucked.

Pat Robertson and Terrorists

On my way up the elevator today, the little news screen told me that Pat Robertson says that God told him there'd be a terrorist attack in 2007 that would result in a massive loss of life.

This is the bullshit of believing in god. What on earth is the use of a deity who sits up in the skies, talks to the occasional person (always a white southern man, it seems), tells him what's going to happen, and can't do anything about it? Or won't do anything about it?

If God's sitting up there being all-powerful but doing nothing to help people, he's a tyrant and shouldn't be worshiped. If he's not able to do anything, then he's no deity and not worthy of worship.

Wonkette puts it nicely: Dictator-coddling scumbag Pat Robertson told his shrinking audience of mouth-breathing trailer trash that God appeared in a dream and said a major terrorist attack is coming this year, probably nuclear in nature, but who knows for sure. (God is no longer omnipotent and all-knowing, but He still has some connections and hears a lot of gossip. And unlike U.S. intelligence agents, He is fluent in Arabic.)

To be quite honest, I'll stick with the book of Apollo, myself. Greek gods are much cooler, and there's as much proof that they exist as that the christian god does.

Fragile Communications

It might not have made news over there, but things in Asia here are breaking down because of the undersea cables cut by the recent earthquake in Taiwan. I can access Google-based sites fun (surprise surprise) but any purely North American site is painfully slow. Businesses are apparently hurting here because they just can't communicate.

So for all the wonders of technology, it shows how dependent we are on just a few links. Cut those, and everything comes crashing down. . . .

Christmas Day, Hong Kong

Hong Kong continues to astound. Today is Christmas day. We woke up and went down for breakfast, where we were wished "Merry Christmas" by everyone. Indeed, this town does Christmas like nowhere I've ever seen. Every night they have fireworks. Everywhere you go people are singing Christmas Carols. Yesterday we saw a bagpipe troop, in full kilts, all Chinese, playing bagpipe Christmas music. There was a street party last night in Kowloon, and I've never seen so many people in my entire life in one place. Ever. EVER.

Every building is done up in Christmas lights. It's wonderful. Now, I don't buy in to the "war on Christmas" nonsense, and I think some sensitivity is good, but here, no one is afraid to say it.

However, I don't think the religious right would like it much. Christmas here is far more about Santa and far less about Baby Jesus (cf. Taladega Nights). It's just a fun festival that everyone can take part in. It's nice--there's such a sense of celebration in Hong Kong today and all this week.

But perhaps it's worth ending today's post on a more somber note. My sister and I visited the Stanley War Cemetery, where Canadians who died defending Hong Kong are buried. So many of them were 18, 19, 21. I leave you with this picture, of a young man who died, 65 years ago today, fighting to defend a people he likely never knew, nor never knew him.

Hong Kong

Wow. I'm in love love love with Hong Kong.

This picture is the view from just outside my hotel room (my room has the same view but there's glare from the window). Insane.

As the cab took us from the airport, my sister said, "I feel like I'm in the future somewhere. What on earth do asian tourists come to LA for?"

I've been here less than 24 hours and I'm already stunned by the city. First, it feels like an asian London to me--the street signs are the same as in the UK, the layout of the streets, the general infrastructure (save here it's modern, there it's sort of decrepit). The one difference? We searched for a good half hour for a place to sit and have a beer, to no avail. That is not a problem one ever has in the UK.

And then the mix--ultra modern luxury, side by side with cramped markets selling cheap trinkets and "copy watchy!" (as the knock-off Rolex guy called them). Glorious skyscrapers beside horrible 1950s dingy dirty squalid apartment blocks.

And boy, one sure feels like a minority here.

To all our readers: Happy Christmas to you and your families!

Browbeating Iranians

Last night on NPR, I briefly listened to a discussion between two individuals on Iran and their response to the US.

One commentator, obviously a right-wingnut, said that the average Iranian was thinking "why is our money going to fund extremists, to buy nuclear missiles, and to support our crazy leader, rather than help us on the street?"

What outright nonsense. (What the other guy said in a second). That is exactly how the American right thinks: Everyone in the world is by nature American, and thus react to the same stimuli in the same way. Ergo, if we invade, take out their leaders, they'll spontaneously rise up and create America, just with a different language and maybe eating [insert ethnic dish] rather than burgers.

The other, who was a former Ambassador (not sure to where), made the point: Think of it like an Iranian. This bully, with a different language, different culture, different religion, and with a history of undermining governments it doesn't like, is saying you have no right to high technology. You have no right to defend yourself, even though you have nuclear-armed and crazy Pakistan on one side, and 100,000 American troops on the other. You're an axis of evil, in cahoots with your old enemy Iraq and that wierdo nutjob Kim Jong Il over in DPRK. You aren't allowed to be a regional power.

What would your response be?

Come on. At the slightest slight by the Americans, we Canadians fly off the handle. And we are more or less the same, cuturally, religiously, linguistically. Same with Europeans.

American foreign policy is so often (under Bush): "Just behave like we think you should, remember you're inferior to us."

Not exactly the way to win over hearts and minds, is it?

Stupid Questions

Clearly the study of science--nay, not even the study of science, simply the acceptance of reality--is something people hate. Two recent gems:

First off, there are those people who were sentenced to death for spreading HIV in Libya, even though a study of the strains of HIV showed that the children were infected long before the nurses arrived in Libya.

And then, even better, from Slate magazine. Daniel Engber, who does Slate's "Explainer," is going through questions that he didn't answer. This one is wonderful:

Why do humans die so young? In biblical times, people lived for several hundred years; now living to 100 is considered a long life. What happened?

RIGHT. Cue Warren Kinsella, "The Flinstones is not a documentary." The Bible, that wonderful respository of fact. Honestly, anyone who believes the Bible is factual has no more rational basis for saying so than I have for saying that the Greek stories of Zeus or the Oddessy are actual factual accounts.

UPDATE: Going through the Slate article, there are even a lot of better, more stupid posts:

• Could you tell me if there's been any kind of medical discovery in the last 30 years besides DNA.
• Hi. How did the horse in the movie about dreams make it to not only survive but to win again? Was this movie true?
• Are UFOs confirmed to be from other Alien Planets?
• Working in my yard yesterday, I killed a gnat in my ear canal, where it had flown. I couldn't remove the body as my finger was too fat. What happens to it now?
• yea i have my own 620 gang and i dont know how to run it to make not look like a little bitch gang joke it is just me and my friend how do i run it?

All I can say is: Wow.

Dumb People at Airport

This is beyond stupid. Apparently some woman at the airport put her baby in the x-ray machine.

She should be thrown in jail and her kid taken away not for child endangerment but simply because she's freakin' brain dead. (Aside: stupid people like her are allowed to marry and have kids; I'm not.)

Apparently she was an "inexperienced traveller."

I don't care if you've never been on a bloody airplane in your life--what kind of moron is so oblivious to the universe that it would make sense to put a baby in an XRAY machine?

The stupidity of people at airports, though, knows no bounds. How many times have you been stuck behind some fool who stands in line for security, and then, at the last second, realizes s/he has to take everything off and out of the pockets and then stands there flailing for ten minutes? And how many times have you been in line behind some woman who's covered in jewelry and accessories and fancy belts? (LA is particularly bad for that; there must be more accessories here per capita than any place on earth). I mean, who on earth doesn't understand airport security?

Honestly, people should have security passports. Once you've had fifteen stamps, earned when you pass through security quickly and without setting off the detector, you should get a special line.

And idiots who put their babies through security or don't realize that metal sets off the metal detector should never be allowed to fly again.