"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: