Kady & Wells, also tag-teaming

We are big fans of tag-teaming, of course, but when the full power of our two favourite columnists gets applied to the Tories, we are truly smitten.

Much Paul and Kady, we think the whole attack by Flaherty on the Ontario budget to be a little bizarre. I mean, what can they hope to accomplish if they're trying to break into the Ontario electoral market? Although we Ontarians (even those of us who live in LA) aren't really very nationalist and don't ever see ourselves as Ontarians before Canadians (ut incipit sic fidelis permanet and whatnot), surely this will drive Tory sympathizers to the Liberals?

The only real rationale we could think of is that it's for consumption outside Ontario; i.e. "Look at those Liberals in Ontario, screwing everything up. That's why you should vote for us. Also, we're going to bat for you, because, Alberta, once Ontario becomes a have-not province, all your oil money will be going to support the pinko-latte-sipping-homo-commies in Toronto. And then it's only one step further to a new NEP."

But that just doesn't make any sense. Because the Liberal brand is pretty moribund in Alberta anyway.

Some might say it's just more of Harper's brand of corrosive, divide-and-destroy politics.

Breakfast

Saw this picture on icanhascheezburger and had to post it.

Of course, it originally was addressed to Dick Cheney, and while I don't doubt that Darth Cheney eats kittens and puppies for all three meals, it seemed a little more appropriate for the Premier of Ontario.

For our stumped American readers, here's some background.

Perhaps one day

The world will look back and wonder why the freest, most stable country in the world, one of the oldest continuous democracies, one of the tiny minority of states without civil war, that has never flirted with totalitarianism (or endorsed terrorism) was not given the Olympics, to be hosted in the most multicultural city on the planet.

One day.

Amen

Sam Harris is so awesome.

And he's kinda cute too.

Good quotes:

Might the Senator from Illinois be unsure whether the Creator of the universe brought forth his only Son from the womb of a Galilean virgin, taught him the carpenter's trade, and then had him crucified for our benefit? Few suspicions could be more damaging in American politics today.

and

Like every candidate, Obama must appeal to millions of voters who believe that without religion, most of us would spend our days raping and killing our neighbors and stealing their pornography. Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever.

and

Obama's candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?

Mike and I were talking to a Yankee Friend ("YF") of ours re Canada having Good Friday off and the US not. Our YF suggested this was because the US was more secular.

Waitaminit.

I grant, 100%, that Canada and the UK are more officially religious. Our Queen's title, in both countries, includes "Defender of the Faith." Ever last coin ever minted in Canada includes "Elizabeth II D.G. Regina," which means "Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, Queen." Our second anthem (and Britain's first) is God Save the Queen. And, though I'm atheist, were I Governor-General, I would end every Throne Speech with the traditional invocation (more common in the Provinces) of "God Save the Queen" (or "May divine providence guide you in your deliberations.") Our constitution--easily the most enlightened on the planet--begins with placing god on the same plain as the rule of law.

But if a candidate for high office stood up and bragged about his faith, he'd be laughed down. Think of Stockwell Day (to which the response was "no, the Flinstones was not a documentary"). Simply put, in Canada, in the UK, in the rest of the Commonwealth and the EU, religion and politics are separate, notwithstanding "established religion."

This country (the US) is fucked up. In no other reasonable western country would a contender for the country's highest office (er, I should qualify that with, for constitutional monarchies, the phrase "head of government," because, of course, our head of state is not elected) have to say how much they love Jesus and how much superstition guides their world view. And yet here we are forced to endure--to the rapturous applause of the masses--how so-and–so's pastor and so-and-so's priest are important figures, and how great Jesus is, and whether Obama really is Christian blah blah blah.

America: Not only are you a pathetic nation of pussies who fall over in terror the minute bin Laden or whomever suggests he is looking at you, you're also a pathetic nation of superstition.

And I end this with a very secular statement: God Save the Queen.

Memo to the American Nation: You are pussies.

I'm sorry, America. You are fucking pathetic.

In 1939-45, we faced down the greatest threat to freedom that has ever existed. A force with real armies, a force that took over countries and destroyed cities and enslaved nations. And we fought them back--the combined power of the West and the USSR. And we (the West) did it without spying on our people, without torture, without forgetting who we were.

And now, some dude in a cave makes a pronouncement, and you fall all over yourselves, shitting your pants and cowering, duct-taping your houses, bowing down to your leaders, all-too-happy to surrender your freedoms, to turn on your neighbours, to give in to fear.

Fuck you.

You never faced what the world faced in the 40s. And I'll bet if you did now, you'd all die of fucking heart attacks.

Get some goddamn balls.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


If you think

More stupid religion

NPR today did a story on some dude in Israel who wants to help people who can't physically get to various "holy" sites nevertheless pray there. Basically you call in, record your prayer, and then it gets broadcast over speakers to whatever particular "holy" place you choose.

Right. Let me see if I have this straight. What really apparently matters is that the sound of you intoning whatever mumbo jumbo you think will curry god's (or gods') favour hitting the "holy" place, not the act of your saying it or the intentions behind it.

What a cool god(s): Up until now, all those people who could never make it to Jerusalem/Mecca/etc had less-effective prayers--so for centuries god's basically been discriminating against the poor or the sick or the immobile. Great. Well done, god. All that "help the poor" and "blessed are the meek" shit really doesn't matter--your prayers are far better if you say the in the right place at the right time.

Arthur C. Clarke, RIP

This makes me incredibly sad.

I have always, always loved Arthur C. Clarke's science fiction, mostly because it is so categorically different from other Sci-Fi writers. Whereas others focus on action and adventure, Clarke's works always struck me more as ways in which he could project his different visions of the future, and of society. The story was simply the vehicle to convey the message--much as Tolkein's works started out as a way for him to use the new languages he had created. In reading his books, I always loved simply puzzling out the sort of society he had projected.

Similarly, his books The Trigger and The Light of Other Days explore how a single invention could change society: in The Trigger, there is an invention that causes explosives to detonate within a certain range, which almost instantly ends the scourge of handguns (with differing reactions in different parts of the world), and in The Light of Other Days, a way is found to project a sort of worm-hole to look at any place in the world at any time in history: the invention aside, his point was to explore what would happen in the world if privacy instantly vanished and everything you ever did could be looked at by anyone, any time now or in the future.

There was also something timeless about his stories. Even reading the works written long before the present, there are themes and ideas that resonate. So much Sci-Fi written in the 50s and 60s--and even in the 70s and 80s--can seem incredibly dated, relying too much on then-fantastical technology that to us now seems mundane. But you can read his stories and connect with them--much like Shakespeare and Mozart's operas are enjoyable and meaningful to audiences hundreds of years later.

I have not read everything of Clarke's, and so much of it is sadly out of print. Here's hoping that with his death, some of this older novels will be republished.

We lost a great author and great man today.

(Final aside: In all of his books that created future societies (instead of being set in the present), there was one constant: total acceptance and toleration of homosexuality. And in his Rama series, there is a direct parallel and deep compassion for HIV/AIDS and criticism of those who would quarantine those afflicted by it.)

That ought to shut them up

I'm still torn on which Democratic candidate for President I'd favour, but I have to admit, all this NAFTA bashing from both of them is very irritating indeed. Bash Chindia, if you want to target the real job loss boogie man.

Well here comes our Minister of Trade, David Emerson with a 'friendly' warning that re-opening NAFTA is a two-way street.

Its an odd day indeed when I support a Conservative cabinet minister's sharp words to US Democrats.

Its also astonishing that a Conservative (albeit, a former Liberal) would play the oil card. Recall it was instant recrimination and hellfire from Ralph Klein and his Alliance proxies whenever Chretien even joked about using oil as leverage.

But that was a long time ago, and these ain't your father's Conservatives no more.

Well, we certainly attract some flies

I'm vaguely astonished that after such a long hiatus we have people who still read us.

That said, I'm also astonished by the rank stupidity of some of our readers. Check out the comments.

First off: The "liberal" supreme court of Canada in fact had nothing to do with anything. It was the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the Chief Judge of which (and who wrote the opinion) incidentally happens to have been a TORY appointee and unless I'm mistaken, was also the Attorney General of Ontario under a TORY government), followed by the Courts of Appeal for every other province save for barbarian Alberta, that pointed out the constitutional flaw.

Second: Give me a fucking break with the "no input from the people" bullshit. Our constitution is crystal clear that the rights of minorities aren't subject to the whims of the people. Otherwise we'd have idiots like Jonathon and Trevor--mouth breathing slack jawed cro magnons--deciding that no, only white Brit-descended men can vote.

Third: Mike is abso-fucking-lutly right that the Jeanfather had to be dragged to the altar. And to his everlasting credit, he acknowledged that even he is subject to the rule of law (something that the US president would to well to recognize, pace extraordinary rendition and whatnot).

And lastly: Anyone (Trevor) who thinks that the Liberal government was the "most corrupt government in history" has a deeply shaky view/understanding of history and probably should read a little more. But then, if your only source of knowledge is Fox News, of fucking course you might have such a weak understanding of anything. Still, for these people, I suspect they don't make enough big-print simple-english books.

We will be vindicated of all of this. The Chretien years represent the flowering of our society. Canada sits on the pinnacle of human achievement, and though of course everything also rests upon our great predecessors and hundreds of years of work as a society (need I point out we are one of the oldest democracies going?), the ten years of the Jeanfather will rank as ten of the greatest we have ever had.

I am an unreconstructed devout Chretienite. I would have had another 10 years of him as Prime Minister. He stood up to the Yankees, he kept us from Iraq, he throttled that anti-Canadian protester, he introduced the Clarity Act and was responsible for the Separation Reference. Unlike Muldoon, he didn't open up the Constitution.

Our federation is immeasurably better because of him, particularly in light of the two small minded men who came after him. It may have been bland government, but god save us from visionaries. The MacKenzie King and Borden governments may have been the same, but those too were some of our greatest years.

And the small minded fools who think otherwise--likely former Alliance voters--can go back to their caves, club their wives, shoot the homos/blacks/asians/immigrants/Quebecois. But you are against the tide of history and one day we will be rid of you all. You have 10 years, and then finally the children who grew up in these glory days of Canadian society will be of age--the children who don't give a shit about race/language/colour/religion. You old guard are doomed, and maybe Alberta--the rural areas--will hold out as some old guard, but the rest of the country, particularly Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver, will be striding forward and will leave you in the dust.

Finally

The Jeanfather gets the honour he deserves.

When the history books are written, people will look back on the Chretien years, and they will say that maybe we didn't have the most flamboyant leader, maybe we didn't have an orator, we didn't have a flashy leader, but we were well governed, we had a Prime Minister who steered us well.

Jean Chretien ushered in our current renaissance, the golden age that we are currently experiencing. And for homos, like me, the Jeanfather's courage in bringing forward same sex marriage catapults him into sainthood. The list of his quiet, untrumpeted achievements--and those of the Liberal government--is proof that we are truly blessed (not that there's a god to bless but you get the point.)

As the Jeanfather always said, Vive le Canada!

And for good measure, God save the Queen.

Sullivan is an idiot

This post, by Sullivan, is bullshit on so many levels, and perfectly illustrates both a) how pathological he is in his anti-Hillary obsession, and b) how pathetic American politics are that we have to dig up things from like 25 years ago.

Give me a fucking break. She was a 27 year old public defender. She attacked the credibility of a witness.

First: Of course she fucking did. I'm not thinking too hard about it but I think it would be borderline mal-fucking-practice not to.

Second: She was a PUBLIC FUCKING DEFENDER. These are people who get paid jack shit, who have to defend people who are most of the time guilty people who will lie to their attorneys, and who are basically looked down upon by the rest of the profession.

Rather than attack her for doing her job, Sullivan should be COMMENDING her. Because how many fucking Republican bastards ever did anything like shittily-paid public service working for low life scum because they believed that no matter what, everyone deserves a fucking defence attorney? (And I'll point out that when I clerked for a judge with a criminal docket, the government kept cutting back money to public defenders and CJA attorneys, meaning there were fewer of them who had to take on more cases.)

Give me a fucking break.

Kady O'Malley...

...is the new Paul Wells. I'm kinda over him, actually, since he moved to France to lob the occasional pithy comment on Canadian politics over the ocean . But she'll do just fine as his replacement. In addition to being the mistress of liveblogging, check out her nice summary of the buried outrage that is the Paille Report. It really serves to convince me that the Conservatives are out of ideas, never had any good ideas, have no interest in living up to all their talk while in opposition, and simply don't have the brains or talent to understand what drives a modern economy. More of this, and Dion will be PM by the end of the year.

Specious Nonsense from Mukasey

So Mukasey (the AG) is before Congress urging passage of the FISA bill. And he came up with some line to the effect of "back during the Second World War industry was not on the sidelines"--equating, essentially, the mobilization of Western industry to fight the war with complicity by telecoms to help Bush break the law by spying without a warrant.

For all those who thought that Mukasey would be a change and would be defending the rule of law, it turns out he's no better than Gonzo. What he's saying is that when the administration asks a company to do something--even if it's illegal--they should do it. He's saying that the invocation of that mantra, "national security," should be enough to justify any illegal conduct.
(And it's not like the lawyers for the telecoms wouldn't have known this. We're not talking about some fly-by-night institution with clueless general counsels.)

That is not the rule of law. That is tyranny.

Pilgrimage Bullshit

So, from someone who recently undertook the Hajj, we have this gem:

The next day, having finished umrah and changed back into regular clothes, the Hajjalis seemed a little deflated. After traveling all this distance to perform what Ellen Hajjali believed was her ultimate religious duty, it simply didn't feel like she thought it would.

"I was expecting this immediate and powerful spiritual experience," she said. Instead, all she felt was overwhelmed and anxious -- desperately trying to stay upright and to keep track of which number rotation she was completing.

Well, no shit. All you fucking did was walk around a rock seven (eight? six?) times, pointing at one corner. When did God come down to chat? How many damn times have there been tragedies at the Hajj? Let's see--God tells them that this is the most important duty, that it's really important and special--and then decides to wipe out a few of the people who happened to obey? (I'd love a demographic study of those who die during the Hajj. I'll bet that there are among them people who've spent their life savings to attend. Nice, God, nice.)

Oh, and in case we have any Christians or Jews here thinking, oh yes, Islam sucks: you're no better. How about the Pope, who consistently claims that the Virgin Mary turned the assassin's bullet at the last instant, saving him? So let's see--she let him get close, she let him fire, she let the bullet pierce the Pope (likely hurting him fairly significantly), but chose at the last instant to save him? I'm sure someone will say it was to test him or something, but that's even better. What a capricious, sadistic God.

Pathetic, all of this.

I love Chris Dodd

Srlsy.



and

Amen

AMEN to this. If the rule of law means anything, Latimer should never get patrol. There are no extenuating circumstances for murder. None.

An outstanding documentary

Awesome Editorial

From 1914, The Toronto Star, at the outbreak of War. Keep in mind, you who don't understand irony, that it's entirely sarcastic, save for the last paragraph:

The curious fact is that Emperor William can stand up before members of the Reichstag, as he did yesterday, and show to the satisfaction of its members and to that of Germans all over the world, that the war is not of his making, but that Russia, ignoring overtures for a peaceable adjustment, began to take such war measures as left Germany no alternative but to begin action.

It is curious that the Kaiser can do that, because the Czar can do it, too. He can prove to the entire satisfaction of every loyal subject that Russia did not want war, but that Germany, being all ready, caused Austria to attack Serbia, so that Russia must stand by and see a Slav country conquered, or must accept the challenge and make ready.

The President of France, too, can tell the Chamber of Deputies that ... (he) sought peace up to the last moment — used the utmost patience, and only accepted war when her territory had been invaded and war against her declared by Germany.

Great Britain, as British subjects all over the world know, has held back to the very last, refusing to admit that the possibilities of peace had been exhausted.

Nowhere is there a people who admit, or whose rulers admit, that they caused this war and chose to precipitate it. Even Austrians will argue that their country made no demands on Serbia but those that were justified and ought to have been accepted. They will claim that but for the meddling of Russia there would have been no trouble with Serbia.

On one side it is claimed that Russia has been seeking this trouble for years, and that France, ever since she has felt British support behind her, has been trying to tease Germany into action. On the other side, it is claimed that Germany, having for years been organizing for war as if it were a great national business undertaking, in which each detail had to be worked out in advance, now gives the signal for "Der Tag" to Austria, and the war is on.

And the most curious and humanly interesting fact of all is that in Germany and Austria, in Russia and France, in Britain and Belgium, wherever people are sharpening their swords or loading their muskets, pious persons are addressing prayers in their various languages to the same throne of heaven, asking for aid in their warfare and for success to their arms in the struggle that has been unjustly forced upon them by their enemies.

Q.E.D.

The first comment to this post proves the point I was making exactly.

Some questions for our semi-literate commenter, Fred:

1) Quantify and source everything you've said.

2) Explain how you're any different from any jingo about rah rah war.

3) You beat the drums of war. Have you enlisted? Why not?

4) By what metrics, other than rhetoric, is the US the greatest country in the world? By what do you mean "greatest"?

On beating the drums of War

One of the reasons I think there is so little meaningful opposition to war in this country is because it lacks an ancestral memory of it, and is ruled by a class that's never had any experience in war.

It is Veterans Day here in the US, and apart from a few official activities, I can't really see any evidence that anyone cares, apart from Veterans' Day sales at the mall. This in marked contrast to the Commonwealth.

To Americans, war is something theoretical. War has not touched American soil this century. The American memory of war is one of Victory--the saviours of the World in the Second and First World Wars (forget they stood on the side for years while the youth of Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain died). Viet Nam is an exception, but I would suggest that the cultural impact of it sweeps away the military memory.

Yet as a kid in Canada, I was always aware of the War. I can remember being a kid in a mall and the PA announcing that there would be two minutes' silence. Every day at the great doors of my high school, I walked past two plaques with the names of the dead from my high school in the two Wars. We had a long Remembrance Day ceremony every year, and in my last year I played The Last Post and Reville. When I got to Cambridge, in my college boathouse was a plaque commemorating the hundreds who died in the war. The same with our college chapel.

And I think the ancestral memory for Canadians, and far more for the English, French, Germans, etc., is that war is cataclysm. War is massive personal loss on a titanic, universal scale. War is sacrifice. Canada sent 1 million soldiers to the First World War, out of a population of 7 million. England, France, and Germany saw their cities destroyed. The little countries of Europe can remember occupation. The city of Halifax was destroyed.

The United States exited the Second War as the greatest power on earth. France, Britain, the Empire were bankrupt. German was in ruins.

This, to the war-cheering classes here in the United States, seems to be forgotten. It is easy for Cheney or Bush to send other peoples' kids to die. It plays into Americans' self-confidence, their self-assuredness, and their memory of war--the US coming to save the day.

That crowd might do better to read Wilfred Owen's poem, Dulce et Decorum Est:

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hootsOf tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!–An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Remembrance Day

Just watched the ceremony at the National War Memorial, and now killing time at work watching a rebroadcast of the Vimy Ridge Memorial rededication. Always on Nov 11, I think of my grandfather.

My grandfather was a bomber during the Second World War. He served mostly in Asia--in Burma. He speaks very little of the War, and the stories he does tell are mostly about his friends or about things they did when they weren't fighting. He rarely ever mentions bombing, and rarer still speaks of friends that were killed.

He enlisted when he was 18. There's a picture of him and his crew, a few years into the war, and the faces are all young. That always strikes me: That was asked a generation of young men from all over our young country to fight and die for others, and they answered (my grandfather volunteered). At 18, my grandfather was serving in the RCAF. He was watching friends die, fighting for people he had never met, in countries he likely knew little about.

Yet he would never call himself a hero. It was duty, it was what had to be done. The loud noise we hear now about how everyone who fought in the War, and in any subsequent war, being a hero isn't him and I don't think he would embrace it. He is what he always has been: a kind, gentle, caring man. He speaks at schools about the War, he attends Remembrance Day ceremonies every year, but there is never bluster.

And so I always think of him on this day when we commemorate the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians, like him, who stood up and put their lives on the line for others. Our little country sent the flower of its youth to die on the fields of Europe and in the skies of Asia, and today is the day to remember them.

Have cake. Will eat it too.

How is it that Quebec can demand to be consulted for Senate reform, and insist that it requires a constitutional amendment with Quebec's consent, while at the same time moaning about how it's excluded from the Constitution and bitch about how it was patriated without Quebec's consent?

Not all lawyers are evil

I'm impressed that it's lawyers in Pakistan who are standing up for the rule of law.

And part of me thinks that if Bush tried the same thing, there would be plenty of lawyers who'd sit back and cheer him on. After all, we have John Yoo, who penned the infamous torture memo, John Ashcroft (who today is defending warantless wiretapping), Al Gonzales (um, where to start)--lawyers all, all of whom seem to have forgotten that the constitution exists.

Early in my (still short) career, I was at a cooking class with my mom. One of the women in our group asked me what I did, I said I was an attorney, and she went on about how she hoped I was Republican because "we need more Republican lawyers!" Another person in our group--also an attorney--leaned over and said that she didn't know how someone could stay loyal to their Bar oath and still be Republican. I agreed.

But apparently others see no problem at all. The Anonymous Liberal has this excellent post on the subject. He concludes

When future generations look back on this era of American history, I'm increasingly convinced that the harshest verdicts will be saved for the lawyers, people like David Addington, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales. These were the people who were supposed to be the brakes, not the gas. They're the people who were supposed to speak up for the law and for the Constitution, the people whose job it was to ensure that we are governed by laws and not men. And not only did they abdicate this responsibility, they chose to use their power of interpretation to make a mockery of the law.

Exactly.

Mad Christians

No matter how many times I see those mad Christians, be it on TV, film, or in person, I always shudder. I'm simultaneously scared, contemptuous, outraged, and a little amused. I mean, if I'm going to hell, what do you care? More manna and virgins to go around for you.

Still, this trailer looks worth watching:

To our dear Lord Black of Crossharbour...

...obvious sycophancy isn't going to get you your citizenship back either.

But, it's a glorious sentiment, brilliantly written, and the royal We quite agree.

Canary in the Mine

When the Tories announce funding for Via Rail(!), it is no longer possible to pretend an election isn't imminent.

Leaking the news that the leak is intentional

"The sources also said that Mr. Finley may actually want the news of the phone call to be leaked in an effort to create momentum for an election that the Tories want to happen."

So let's get this straight. Un-named sources in the Conservative Party (I'm betting Finley himself, but I digress) tell the Globe&Mail about a conference call from party brass and, shocker, leak the news that party brass actually want those details leaked!

And the Globe&Mail reports all this without a touch of self-consciousness.

Just slightly ridiculous.

The National Past

This ridiculous National Post editorial starts out describing the brave struggle for equality rights in Arkansas, then turns around and uses it as an argument against the 'trivial' human rights struggle we engage in today (gay marriage, islamophobia). Yes, that's right. The struggle for human rights ended in the 50s and 60s. Everything since then has been liberal degeneracy, identity politics and left-wing censorship.

It is truly amazing how a group of old white straight men of privilege can criticize their predecessors' backwardness and yet be so blind to the fact that they are identical in their attitudes.

The man sounds like your typical right-wing idiot

"Ahmadinejad also rejected criticism of human rights in his country, notably persecution of homosexuals: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he said, sparking loud laughter from the audience. "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you we have it."

An Open Letter

To The Hon. Stéphane Dion, P.C., B.A., M.A., Ph.D, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition

Resume your damn Open Letters.

They were gold, and they made you a household name.
You are intelligent, principled, and viciously logical and this will come through.
We'll know what you stand for.

And all without anybody being able to mock your accent.

Yours,
Mike&Dean

Why should God bless america?

God. I hate this sort of nonsense. Apparently God shouldn't bless America because of all the bad things going on ("Just because they made it law doesn't mean they can change God's command" or some nonsense like that.)

Good stuff.

Canada's New-ish Government

This petition is awesome. The fact that the Tories keep calling themselves "Canada's New Government" is really tiresome. Sign it.

I love this recital in particular:

AND WHEREAS, due to all of the foregoing reasons and to basic common everyday sense and common understanding of the meaning of the word "new", it is petty, partisan, asinine, childish, juvenile and silly (not to mention completely embarrassing for all of us) for the Conservative Party of Canada to continue referring to the Government of Canada and to itself, interchangeably, as "Canada's New Government";

Why can't they leave us all alone?

The thing that gets me about "family values" nutjobs is that they seem to be incredibly obsessed with the lives of others. Think what you want about the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision permitting a lesbian couple and the natural father to be listed as parents for a child, the AG of Ontario and the Parents aren't appealing.

But, of course, along comes the "Alliance for Marriage and Family" (because, of course, the lesbian couple and the child aren't a family) and asks to substitute in as the AG of Ontario to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Here's the Supreme Court's smackdown:

This Court’s procedure is flexible, but that flexibility has its limits. What the applicant is attempting to do is to substitute itself for the Attorney General in order to bring important legal questions relating to the development and application of the law before this Court. As we have seen, neither the Attorney General nor the immediate parties intend, for reasons of their own, to contest the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The applicant is certainly concerned about the impact of that judgment. Nevertheless, it was merely an intervener in the Court of Appeal, there to defend its view of the development of family law, but it had no specific interest in the outcome of the litigation.

This Court has never allowed a private applicant under Rule 18(5) to revive litigation in which it had no personal interest.

* * *

In addition, the applicant does not explain in its application how it meets the test for public interest standing from Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236. It merely states that the judgment will be otherwise “unappealable”.

Amen. I think the Court is being slightly snarky in the last two sentences. Because, of course, even though these nutjob organizations always say that the world will end when teh gays are allowed to marry/have kids/have lives, they never explain why. Because they can't.

They sky hasn't fallen, the world hasn't ended, society isn't falling apart, just because Tom and Steve can get married and have kids.

Pundit Hair Watch for the Masses

Finally, the At Issue panel returned to the National after the summer break. Hoping, praying for a new style from Chantal, but instead, the same old do appeared. She did have an interesting new necklace though.

The panel discussed the upcoming throne speech and the state of the various parties. All of them denounced Mulroney's attack on Trudeau. It was called pathetic, out of character, and the product of an insecure, vain and jealous man. Allan Gregg said that Mulroney's accomplishments speak for themselves, but he doesn't seem to realize this and wants recognition for more. Chantal Hebert pointed out that Mulroney's attacks on Trudeau (and Bouchard, although less reported) are against two men with vastly higher respect in English and French Canada than he ever had. And after this, likely will ever have.

The biggest news out of the segment came at the end when Peter Mansbridge announced that the At Issue panel, easily Canada's most comprehensive, engaging and entertaining political panel, would be available for download as a video or audio podcast! Very exciting indeed.

So go do your own pundit hair watch. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Aussie-Rules Senate Reform

According to PMO spokesperson Sandra Buckler, one of PM Harper's other goals at the APEC summit this week is to pump Australian PM Howard for advice on Senate reform.

Buckler was quoted as saying: "Australia, like Canada, is a large modern diverse and urbanized federation with the Westminster model and if the Australians can have an accountable and democratic Senate, I'm not sure why Canada can't."

The Australian senate has equal numbers from each state, and no less than 6. The total number of senators is supposed to be approximately half that of the lower house of representatives. They also use a the Single Transferable Vote system.

The big criticism of their system is that small states like Tasmania have equal numbers of senators as big states like New South Wales, disproportionately distributing their representation. We've heard that before in Canada, where tiny provinces hit far about their weight in terms of per-capita voting power.

Will senate reform be the 'big vision thing' that Harper puts in his throne speech? Likely not. Its a battle the PM doesn't need to fight right now, and the plebs don't give two hoots for senate reform. There's a referendum on proportional representation in Ontario, arguably the most important potential change to Ontario politics since, well, there were Ontario politics, and nobody even cares. But a proposal for a long weekend in February? Oh wow, that got them talking....

Senate reform is going to keep on bubbling on the backburner, until some completely daft senator pulls a completely outrageous stunt to galvanize the public or piss off the PM into really taking them on.

Nobody expects trouble from Canada

11 crew from the Australian television show The Chaser were detained after staging a fake motorcade through Sydney prior to the APEC conference. They managed to get past two checkpoints in Sydney's APEC security "red" zone by outfitting their vehicles with Canadian flags and stickers.

"No particular reason we chose Canada," Taylor said.

"We just thought they'd be a country who the cops wouldn't scrutinise too closely, and who feasibly would only have three cars in their motorcade - as opposed to the 20 or so gas guzzlers that Bush has brought with him."

Who on earth (or in heaven) is running Tory's campaign?

Tory wants equal time for creationism in those publicly-funding religious schools he's a big fan of. You know, those publicly-funded religious schools that he insists are not a threat to society, because they will still have to teach the official Ontario curriculum and employ professionally-certified teachers.

Except the official Ontario curriculum doesn't included creationism, and the Ontario professional teachers body has advised rejecting equal-opportunity teaching of creationism.

Also, a note to John Tory and his daffy campaign staff: The hip kids call it "intelligent design" these days.

Calling Bullshit on Bush

This I simply cannot believe. Thus spake Bush:

"I tell people—I read an interesting book by [Richard] Carwardine—I'm on my eighty-seventh book this year." With rueful admiration, he added, "Rove's on, like, a hundred two.

(From Bob Draper's new book, Dead Certain.)

No way. And if it is true, Bush should be impeached, now. We've had around 245 days this year. That's a book around every 2.8 days. Unless he's reading kids' books, there is simply no way he could do that.

I work hard. Not as hard as I hope he works. I can read fast, and I love reading, and I would get fired if I were reading a book every 3 days because I wouldn't be getting much work done. I suppose if I left work every day at 6:00 (hahaha!), got home at 6:30 and read until 11:00, never stopping to do anything else, not going out with friends or doing anything social, I might be able to keep up with that schedule. But not if I were, say, running a country and a government, doing the campaign circuit, meet and greets, etc.

So I'm calling bullshit. But then, the man lies and no one seems to mind, so this one will just get swept under the table. . .

How Larry Craig would apologize, if he were British

Larry Craig

I swear, the fun never stops.

I have to say . . .

. . . that being stuck at your desk on a holiday weekend when it's beautiful out totally bites. And my office looks out over the swimming pool of a nearby hotel. And I can see the ocean. So evil.

The War Museum

I'm sure our Canadian readers have head how some vets are all up in arms about the fact that the Canadian War Museum mentions that the effectiveness of the bombing campaigns in Europe is still contested, because apparently even mentioning the controversy dishonours the troops.

A Globe and Mail reader offers this completely awesome suggestion, very much in line with my suggestion that we rename the dollar the "Hero Token":

RUDRA P. SARKAR
August 30, 2007
Edmonton -- Let's just rename the museum, which now has the horrendous three-letter word "war" displayed so prominently. I suggest the more modern "Support Our Troops" and redesigning the building as a massive yellow ribbon.

Delicious Hypocrisy

So, Bill Clinton's a "nasty, naughty boy," is he?



Yes, because consensual sex in private with someone who's not your wife is so much worse than getting arrested for soliciting an in-the-stall blowjob from someone who's not your wife.

Vitter v. Craig

Why is it that Larry "Tap Tap" Craig is being forced from all his posts by the Republicans, but, strangely, nothing happened to David "Marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman" Vitter (who also broke the law by hiring prostitutes)?

Couldn't have anything to do with Teh Gays, could it?

Because really, cheating on your wife by hiring some tramp is so much less reprehensible than tapping your foot a few times and reaching under the stall (I'm not defending Craig, but it would seem that in one instance a penis got inserted somewhere and in another, there wasn't.)

(For the lolcat clueless out there, the "Teh" is deliberate.)

More on honouring our vets

Some comments need special attention. In response to this posting, commentator Canadian Tar Heel make the following point:

While I appreciate the debate over the name "Highway of Heroes" as opposed to something like "Veterans Highway", I find this post overly caustic to make a cheap point. Remembering and valuing the work of our armed forces is hardly "trite", even if you feel that displays of such appreciation (eg, yellow ribbons) are "facile".

The vexed problem with this is that it makes any proposal to "honour" our soldieras prima facie valid, and makes any criticism on any basis (i.e. it's a stupid idea) tantamount to not "supporting" the troops. Ridiculous. This equates meaningful gestures (sending aid packages, letters, volunteering to help veterans or disabled soldiers) with ridiculous proposals (renaming entire cities or sections of freeway) and with emtpy gestures (yellow ribbons.)

Let's take this premise to its logical conclusion. I propose the following: The dollar be renamed "The Hero Token" (with its new abbreviation HT--i.e. "On sale for HT4.99!") and while we are at war, instead of "hello," the customary salutation between two individuals be "Honoured are our soldiers," to which the response must be "Let them be honoured."

And anyone who says this is foolishness--well, you just don't support the troops, do you? Why do you hate freedom?

Making excuses for stupidity

Okay. The Today Show brought that stupid girl from South Carolina on today to excuse her idiot performance. She was "nervous" and "overwhelmed" and she "only heard a few words of the question." And the hosts are being all nice, "oh we say dumb things too" and "aren't you great for coming on to laugh at yourself."

BULL-SHIT.



First, if you didn't hear the question, you could have just asked to have it repeated.

And I don't care how damn nervous you are--you can still cobble together some kind of coherent response, instead of standing up there "like, such as, like, such as, and so forth, with the Iraq."

Every word out of her bimbo mouth dripped stupidity and vapidness.

Sometimes, people are just stupid. Plain and simple. Dumb. A waste of space. Fit for menial labour. And that's it. We shouldn't be falling over ourselves to make excuses for their braindeadness.

Nervous, my ass. She won Ms. Teen South Carolina. She clearly had a coach who told her "make sure you mention Iraq and make sure you mention helping the world." Had she been asked "what is your favourite colour" we probably would have gotten the same sort of answer.

And nervousness doesn't even begin to excuse the obvious dumbness--like "some people don't have maps" and "the Iraq."

Stupid. Blonde. Vacuous. And that's it.

Ugh...Larry Craig...

Okay. I have no problem with Larry Craig getting busted. And I'll leave for others to comment on just how hypocritical the GOP is, particularly Craig who did whatever he could to make gays' lives unpleasant.

But really, boys, can we all STOP getting busted doing things like this? I mean, how many people read that story and thought, "God, aren't those gays icky? Having sex in bathrooms? Why on earth should we treat them well?"

I mean, if you want anonymous sex, jesus, go to Craigslist.

That said, the cop that busted him is pretty cute. I might be tempted.

I personally believe . .. .

No wonder South Carolina voted for Bush.



I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because uh some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future....

Renaming the 401

Apparently McGuinty has come up with the air-headed idea to rename the 401 (the MacDonald-Cartier freeway) "Highway of Heroes." (h/t to Red Tory.)

Such foolishness. Quite apart from the fact that the freeway already has a name--and a good one--the idea that we need to do more to "support the troops" by renaming a freeway is facile and (red tory's words) trite.

First, I really doubt that most veterans consider themselves "heroes." My grandfather, who fought in the Second World War, lost most of his friends in the process, and served in the military for over a decade afterwards, would never think of himself as a hero.

Second, and more importantly, this is all part of that idiot idea that by naming things after "heroes" and by wearing yellow ribbons to "support the troops," we're actually doing something meaningful. It's a way for people to feel good about sending other people's kids to die.

So--all you who think that this is "doing something" to "support the troops," please provide the following:

• The names of any soldier who in any way feels that this is "supporting" him or her--not some unverifiable "oh it does make the soldiers feel better" based on speculation.
• What you SPECIFICALLY have done to support the troops, and by that I mean things like donated money/time to a veterans' organisation, sending money to charities for soldiers, sent care packages, donated money to any other organization, or in any way altered your behaviour/spending/consumption for their benefit.

Because otherwise it's all just nonsense.

LolCats, LolJean, Racism, and Stupidity

Okay. Some anonymous commenter has accused us of being racist because we posted these pictures about Michaelle Jean.

Of course, if this person (persons?) had actually read the post fully, s/he would have seen this link, which goes to the very fun explanation concerning lolcats at Slate.com. Or even these links here, here, here, and here. That's what we were doing--making a lolcat about Jean. (Well, to be fair, my much-funner-than-me colleague did.) (The commenter also said s/he/it wasn't going to follow our links. Yes, because educating yourself would have undermined your point. It's always best to knowingly refuse to learn the facts before taking a hard line position on something you know nothing about. Works in my legal practice all the time.)

And anyone who's ever read this Blog (all 5 of you (thank you!)) must be fully aware of just how much we revere Jean. And Clarkson. But not Harper (the white dude.)

But this obscures the broader issue: Posting something humourous about a black person/minority isn't always racism. What, you can never make fun of a minority because it's automatically racism? Only white people are fair targets? (Incidentally, whiteboys get targeted too. For example, lolpresident.com.)

This reminds me of my last year in law school. I taught legal research to first year students, and one of my students was friends with a bunch of southern black baptist girls. She sent them that joke email to Dr. Laura (should I stone my neighbour, etc.) and cc'd me. One of them responded something to the effect of homosexuality is wrong immoral evil because God says so, which is simply not something I would let lie. I replied, basically calling her stupid and saying it was a good thing we had lots of people like her in the law school to take up the bottom half of the grade curve.

Well. Suddenly I'm racist. Huh? Here's a girl who invokes scripture instead of any kind of rational argument, and when she's called stupid (which, incidentally, I think of anyone who invokes the Sky God as justification for anything) she pulls the racist card?! Please. There's no limit to stupidity--black people, white people, asians, homos, breeders. Indeed, I think we're on record too for saying that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are pretty brain dead.

So, anonymous commenter: Since you flew off the handle, accused us of being racist WITHOUT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INVESTIGATION, consideration, thought, or question--You're probably pretty stupid too.

And, Mr. Anonymous, if you'd like to explain, NOW, after you've hopefully clicked those links above to see exactly what lolcats are, how it's at all racist, please, go ahead.

We are neither racist, stupid, or AT ALL into making fun of the Governor-General. In fact, we worship her.

Anonymous commenters with ill-informed outrage should get a grip.

LolJean

My colleague (American, btw) put these together. Awesome.

(For those who are confused, here's an explanation. And here's the best site ever.)

What are the Yankees wearing??

This is just wrong. He and his Ambassador show up for a meeting with our Viceroy, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Canada, personal representative of the Queen in Canada, and our de facto head of state, and they're dressed like they went in grey flannels and a shirt to a fancy restaurant and the maitre'd told them they needed a jacket and a tie and took them to the side room where they keep a collection of mismatched and ill-fitted jackets handy for those who don't actually know the first thing about protocol.

Of course, this is also from the guy who winked at the Queen, greeted Tony Blair with "Yo, Blair," and gave Angela Merkel a backrub.

One's Hurricane Namesake

I do find it absolutely delicious that Hurricane Dean recently smote Jamaica. And on that note I'll post Dan Savage's post in its entirety:

So. Jamaica.

Jamaica is one of the most anti-gay places on earth. Gays and lesbians are routinely set upon by mobs and lynched. Wiki says…

In the Caribbean, Jamaica is by far the most dangerous place for sexual minorities, with frequent and often fatal attacks against gay men fostered by a popular culture that idolizes reggae and dancehall singers whose lyrics call for burning and killing gay men.

And now a category 4 hurricane is headed straight for Jamaica.

So… what will the assholes that said the 2004 Asian Tsunami was God’s way of letting Sweden know that He hates Swedes for tolerating homosexuals, and that Hurricane Katrina was God’s way of expressing his displeasure with abortion, say now?

What they tell us if God has sent a hurricane to wipe one of the most homophobic countries in the world off the face of the earth?

Gee, maybe God hates reggae.

Right Wing Nuts

This video is awesome. Details how the British ruined everything.


But let's see:

1. Churchill was pals with Hitler. Um? The truth, of course, is that Britain and the Empire stood alone against the Germans/Italians while the US sat on the side for 3 years. Twice.

2. Queen Elizabeth invested in the slave trade. No. Unless I'm really clueless, the slave trade wasn't all that large in the late 16th century. (Of course, they don't mention that it's Elizabeth I, to confuse people.) And: Britain banned slavery--and actively suppressed it--decades before the United States did. And did so without a civil war. And didn't have segregation into the 1960s.

3. Britain worships kings while the US is a democracy. Quite apart from having a President installed by a Court, that ignore the fact that the monarchy is symbolic and Britain has a far more vibrant democracy than the US (i.e. hated prime ministers don't stick around long.)

I could go on. But better to let you pick the holes in it yourself, fair reader.

Hat tip to Red Tory.

Stupid PCism

Okay. This is ridiculous. Apparently the Danish Culture Minster has apologized for the Vikings.

That's right. The culture minister from a civilized and perfectly decent little country, a country which defied the Nazis and rose up to rescue almost the entire Jewish population, has apologized for something which happened over 1200 years ago.

Ridiculous. That's the height of PC bullshit. And there is not a single country in the world that hasn't oppressed its neighbours, at some point, and then probably been oppressed by them in return.

It maybe--and only maybe--is okay to apologize for things that have happened in recent memory. (That said, I refuse the collective guilt. It is not my fault that 100 years ago the Government wasn't nice to Chinese immigrants/natives/etc. And I question the idea of 'closure'--your ancestors did something bad to my ancestors but apologizing will 'heal me' and bring 'closure' is idiotic pop-psychology Maury idiocy.)

But for something like that? Jesus. What's next? Italy apologizing to Tunisa for destroying Carthage? Egypt apologizing to Sudan for killing Nubians 2000 years BCE? Turkey apologizing to Austria for laying siege to Vienna?

And: Think of the Mongolians. Even though Genghis Kahn was a nasty guy and his invading armies not so nice, they are proud of his legacy.

H/T to Red Tory. Whose blog you should read too.

An old letter to the NYT

Alas never published but I like it still. Should be self explanatory:

July 10, 2007

Re: A Nominee's Abnormal Views

To the Editor:

I was taken aback to see in your otherwise-good editorial that you refer to gay men and women as "practicing homosexuals."

I no more "practice" my "homosexuality" than I "practice" being male, blue-eyed, and short. I can't change those things, nor can I (or would I) change my sexual orientation. I can change the things that I do "practice," such as being an attorney, piano playing, and cooking (and I practice them with the hopes of getting better!)

Your reference to "practicing homosexuals" unfortunately hearkens back to the dark past, where it was thought that being gay was a choice, something that could be turned on or off or stopped at will, rather than something inherent to who we are.

The funny thing is, the people who call it a choice are the ones who've never had to make it.

Yours,

[Dean P]

Paul Wells on the Cabinet

This must be the best posting on the cabinet shuffle all day. In full:

Secretary Rice's Briefing Note

TREAT AS SECRET-- SecState eyes only --

BEGINS

The new guy from Canada may even be hotter than the last one.

ENDS

Give me a break

Seriously, these two need to get a life. Two lesbians wanted to use a church to have their NJ wedding. The Church said no. They sued.

Now: if they had applied to use a public property and been told no, that would be one thing. But the Church is the Church and it's private and they can do what they want.

First, it's stupid--because no doubt these two will be the poster girls to say, "Look, they want more than civil marriages, they want to force churches to recognize their marriages too." People like this do far more harm than good.

Second, it's more stupid--because if we force churches to let us in, then we have to let crazy religious nutjobs into our private spaces. Your center for gay youth now has to let christians come in and "convert" (extreme example, granted.)

Seriously, these two women should just get a uhaul and go down to the local Home Depot and get married in the parking lot and not make the rest of us look bad.

Sullivan's dishonesty continues

Andrew Sullivan is at it again. He mildly disapproves of Barak Obama's stance on gay marriage, but then has to get a dig in at Hillary.

Give me a freakin' break, Sullivan. Don't pretend that Gay Marriage is now some sort of litmus test whereby candidates should be judged. And don't speculate that Clinton will "play politics" when you have no evidence of that.

But most importantly, try and be a little more honest. The minute a Republican comes along who promises smaller government and lower taxes, you'll get on your knees and suck his dick, no matter what his stance on gay marriage is. You're a life-long Republican, and happily supported Bush the first time around, even though anyone with half a brain could see where he was going. You sold us out every time singing Republican hosannas.

Sit back, Sullivan, and shut up while those of us who've always been Democrats actually fix things.

Republican Mediocrity

What is up with everyone important in the Republican party being academic failures? First, we hear that some hundred attorneys in the Dubya White House are graduates of Regent Law School--a place that not even mediocre law firms would ever consider hiring from?

And now--and this is a surprise to me--we hear that Rove--the "Boy Genius" didn't even graduate from college.

Bush--a failed businessman; a C student. Monica Goodling. Karl Rove.

Good lord, let's even contrast Harriet Meirs credentials with those of, say, Beverly McLachlin.

Mediocrity. Incompetence. But connected. Well done.

Big Black Buck defence

This video is awesome. I'm sure we've all heard that Florida state senator Bob Allen (R) was busted for offering a cop $20 to give him a blowjob. The fun part is a) Allen had introduced a bill calling for tougher penalties for soliciting sex, and b) Allen now says he was intimidated by the big scary black guy and went along with it.

What is up with Republicans trying to ban something with one hand while they're giving someone else a reacharound with the other? Foley, Haggard, Allen all denouncing homos while sucking dick in their spare time, and then all the Family Friendly straights who cheat on their spouses or have multiple divorces or whatnot?

Well, if I could do it I'd test the theory--I'd take Allen out to Compton and stick him on the street corner and see if he just was so scared he got down on his knees and opened up his mouth.

Yet more on Abortion

Commentator Cerberus makes a comment that is worth posting in full. Read on:

Excellent point Dean. To anyone who claims that a fetus is a full human life deserving of all of the same treatment as a born human, we should be asking them if they really truly mean that.If they believe that, would they:

- want to convict the mother and the physician with homicide with no chance of parole for 25 years (or, given that most pro-lifers are conservative, no parole at all or even execution). (If the analogy to homicide is to be carried through properly (showing how ridiculous the whole notion is), the woman is not merely consenting to the homicide but hiring a contract killer.)

- when a miscarriage occurs, should there be a full coroners enquiry and report at taxpayers expense?

- if it turned out that the mother's actions may have had some contribution to a miscarriage, should she be convicted with homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment?

- I have a cousin who went past term, went into the doctor on a Friday who said let's wait the weekend and schedule an induced delivery for Monday. The fetus was lifeless on Monday. Should the doctor be charged with a criminal offense (rather than just be investigated or sued for malpractice)?

Put the question this way, and you will find the little support for criminalizing abortion evaporate very quickly.

Is Ontario coming back?

This is very interesting. Harper and Quebec are getting cozy about formal limits to the federal spending power. McGuinty responds: "I'm proud of Ontario, proud to lead this province, but I'm a Canadian first. At the end of the day, we need a strong federal government that reminds us that we're all in this together."

How long has it been since we've had this sort of statement from Ontario? I've always been proud to be Ontarian--in the sense that we could count on Ontario to do what was right for Canada, not just for Ontario. I don't think we've seen much of that in the last few years (see, e.g., that idiot "Council of the Federation" which is a club to get together to bash Ottawa), but perhaps McGuinty, with an election breathing down his neck, is realizing that most Ontarians do actually like the idea of Ontario being the strong helpful fixer in the federation.

After all, my experience is that most Ontarians don't really have a sense of an "Ontario identity" (cynical view: that's because Ontarians think of Canada and Ontario as one in the same and of Canada as Ontario writ large). Everyone likes the idea of their province having more powers, sure, but I think Ontarians are confident enough that they can step back and realize that a weak federal government is bad.

Of course, I write this as an unreconstructed Trudeauvian centrist . . .

Noone Mourns The Wicked*

Well, well, well, Karl Rove is stepping down. To "spend more time with his family." (I don't buy that one--how many politicians/executives/wankers who find themselves in bad positions or falling out of favour suddenly realize they want to see their kids more?")

There is, behind all of Rove's nasty horribleness, behind his demonizing of democrats/gays/war opponents, behind his divisive and toxic tactics, one little glimmer of goodness: Rather than making a permanent Republican majority, he may have turned voters away from Republicans for a long, long time. We shouldn't have had to stack the Supreme Court, shred the constitution, bankrupt the country, enter into a pointless war, lose a major city, etc etc etc to get there, of course.

I'll also leave to those more versed in American politics than me to speculate on reasons and timing. Though given that there was speculation Libby fell on his sword and then was pardoned in order to protect Rove, I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

And, of course, Rove will still be safe from Congress (see, e.g., Harriet Meirs' invocation of executive privilege.)

*hat tip to David for the title

Update: Hindsight is so 20/20, Sullivan.

Abortion idiots

So here we have people demonstrating against abortion and insisting that it be illegal, and yet not a single one of them--despite having been protesting for years--can think of what the penalty should be for a woman who's had an abortion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

(Can't embed--it was disabled).

Hat tip to David in DC.

UPDATE: Mike and David are musing about how fun it would be to ask all those presidential candidates who are against abortion the same question. For example:

Mr. Romney, you have consistently gone on the record stating that you believe abortion should be illegal, and that it is the equivalent of murder [ref needed]. What forms of punishment for such murder would you think acceptable, and would you consider the mother a murderer or co-conspirator in the committing of murderer?

More on the draft

So some others are discussing the possible consequences of having a draft. Riots in the streets, eh?

Well, I should hope so. But it shows how pathetic people are. No riots in the streets when other people's children were at risk--and, indeed, those of us who were against the war from day 1 were labeled traitors and unpatriotic and accused of wanting to let the "terrorists" win--but then when there's a chance that our own children (or even we ourselves) might get sent to war, well, then we'd have riots.

People suck.

Back to the Draft

To be honest, I have no problem with the suggestion we should consider moving back to a draft.

Too much of the problem with this idiot war and the idiot public that supports it is that it has no consequences for anyone. Right now the Republicans pretend that we can have a war, and tax cuts, and send other people's kids to die and still all be happy (while banning gay marriage.) And they can get away with saying "my sons haven't enlisted but they serve the country by helping me get elected." Or people can spend a buck ninety-nine for a yellow sticker saying "I support the troops" which they can stick on the back of their SUVs and consume and not make the slightest sacrifice.

But if it were the case that when you vote for some war monger, your own kids might go to war, or you might have to ration or pay higher taxes, people might cheer a little less loudly.

This is the corollary to the Starship Troopers idea that only people who have served can vote. You should only be allowed to say "I support the troops" unless you've served, or you've kids who's served. Otherwise it's a meaningless phrase, the invocation of which shouldn't be used to get you off the hook and make others seem unpatriotic.

There is no flag large enough

Submitted Without Comment

Privilege my ass

This is nonsense. This White House flunky says basically he a) can't talk about what he told the President; b) he can't talk about whether he talked to the President; and c) he can't talk about what his job is.



That's BULL-SHIT. Let's assume, only for the sake of argument, that there really is such a thing as the executive privilege and it insulates this minion from having to disclose the substance of his conversation. Fine. That might be valid.

But the other two, b) and c), are simply not. Privilege protects the substance of a conversation, not its fact. You don't have to talk about what you say to your doctor or your lawyer, but you can't hide the fact you saw your lawyer or you went to the doctor covered in blood.

And you certainly can't claim privilege for a job description!

This is the state we're in--autocracy. We're at a point where the administration stands up and says, in the face of every question, "I don't recall," or "I can't answer."

Do we really live in a modern democracy? I feel like this is how Soviet Russia must have felt: Any time it wants to do something, the government says "national security." And then when it gets called on it, it says "We can't talk about it. National security."

Who knew democracy could be destroyed in 6 short years?

Hat tip to CC.

Words Fail Me

The great problem it seems to me here in the US is that you can get away with saying anything and no one will call you on your shit. Particularly, for example, Dubya, who can make all sorts of pronouncements (that get yelled at by the NY and LAT and that's about it), and people buy it.

But this one takes the cake. Universal health care leads to terrorism? Huh?

War Breeds Only War

This passage, from one of my favourite books, meant something years ago, and means something now:

As there was no compulsion towards a conflict which, in despite of the apparent bitterness of the parties, took so long to engage and needed so much assiduous blowing to fan the flame, so no right was vindicated by its ragged end. The war solved no problem. Its effects, both immediate and indirect, were either negative or disastrous. Morally subversive, economically destructive, socially degrading, confused in its causes, devious in its course, futile in its result, it is the outstanding example in European history of meaningless conflict. The overwhelming majority . . . . wanted no war; powerless and voiceless, there was no need to even persuade them that they did. The decision was made without thought of them. Yet of those who, one by one, let themselves be drawn into the conflict, few were irresponsible and nearly all were genuinely anxious for an ultimate and better peace. Almost all . . . were actuated by fear rather than by lust of conquest or passion of faith.

They wanted peace and they fought for thirty years to be sure of it. They did not learn then, and have not since, that war breeds only war.

C. V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War, London, 1938.

We're screwed

So anyone paying attention to the recent spate of US Supreme Court rulings might be a little dismayed over the results. For example, Brown has been largely surplanted, likewise McCain-Fingold eviscerated, taxpayer standing on separation grounds is gone, there was that meanspirited decision on the guy who missed a filing date because a judge gave him the wrong date, etc etc etc. Andrew Cohen has a nice summary.

And now, we're faced with probably 30 or so years of conservative hegemony on the court. There is no mandatory retirement for Justices. And look at the age of the conservatives:

Roberts--52
Alito--57
Thomas--59
Scalia--71

Kennedy--70

Breyer--68
Stephens--87
Ginsburg--74
Souter--67

So the three most conservative members (Roberts, Alito, Thomas) have easily 20 years left in them, if not more. Scalia has a good 10 or 15, likewise Kennedy.

Stephens will be the next to go.

Assume Stephens goes next while we have a democratic president. Another liberal gets appointed. But the conservatives are going to be there for a long, long time. And god fobid Stephens croaks before Bush gets turfed out.

Since I became aware of the world, there have been exactly two changes to the Court: Alito and Roberts. The previous change was Breyer and Ginsburg in 93 and 94--almost 15 years ago!

Contrast this with the Supreme Court of Canada. In the last few years, it's totally changed, with Abela, Fish, Charron, Dechamps, LeBel and Rothstein being appointed in the last few years (and remember that Arbour left the Court.) This because the Court has a mandatory retirement of 75, and is also less ideological and thus there's less need to hang on.

But it's a sad state of affairs now with the US court, where all that now matters is getting Kennedy on side. Things aren't decided on merit, they're decided on ideology, and now the composition of the court means more than the merits of the case.

And nothing is going to change, any time in the future.