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.

Separatist Bullshit

So here's a little gem from Duceppe:

"If there was a motion on Kyoto before the budget and Mr. Harper made it a confidence motion and the national assembly – which is the government of Quebec – expressed itself and said it is unacceptable, he will have to be held accountable.["]

Yes. It's the government of the Province of Quebec. But it has nothing at all to do with the Federal Parliament. Imagine the chaos if a Provincial legislature could "express itself" and thus bind all its federal MPs to vote that way?

Regular readers will know my contempt for provincial governments. These nonsensical little baronetcies, with less regard for Canada than their own electoral promises, do nothing more than rip us apart. The "Council of the Federation" is anything but. It should be called the "Council devoted to advancing the parochial interests of its members to the expense of the Federation and of each other."

Case in point: Danny Williams' little temper tantrums. Demanding the Flag be lowered until the Federal Government grant some concession (which the failure Martin gave).

The provinces should be put in their place. Canada is the unifying power in our state, not some idiot little province. Perhaps I'm just a good Ontarian--someone who believes that our Country comes first, and any sacrifice we make that hurts our province is fine because the country as a whole benefits.

And then you have Klein, Williams, and those idiots Boisclair and Duceppe. Small minded, foolish, and, in the end, treacherous.

Honestly, the Crown should start to exercise some control: The loyalty of any head of any provincial government should always be to Canada first. That should be the overriding test, because, as the Separation Reference points out, all provinces have obligations to the others.

Our national motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"--"From Sea to Sea." It isn't "From the border of the east end of my province to the west end."

A long way of saying I'm over provincial politicians forgetting Canada.

Thousands dead in victory

The Onion got it spot on this time. The heading and very first sentence tells the whole story, from how we're not winning a thing, to the Bush admin's Orwellian gift for perverting language. Enjoy:

Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory
America marks three and a half years of winning in Iraq,

and nearly 3,000 victory deaths

Statistics released by the Department Of Defense estimated that 2,937 U.S. troops and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the ongoing American military victory in Iraq.

Dion and Iggy

So apparently Dion has named Ignatieff as his deputy leader.

Interesting. Of course, it's sort of a play taken from Chretien's book, who made Paul Martin his de facto number two by making him Finance Minister after defeating him for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

I had sort of thought that Kennedy would be deputy leader, but given he doesn't have a seat in the Commons, that doesn't make much sense.

But now the question will be how much of the Opposition leadership is given to former leadership candidates, at the expense of some of the very talented current MPs? Carolyn Bennett comes to mind (though she had been a candidate), David McGuinty is a good guy to have around (not least to keep relations with Queen's Park good), and of course Bill Graham and Lucienne Robillard did a good job of holding down the fort. What about Irwin Cotler, Ralph Goodale? Mark Holland? Etc. Etc.

I think that he can leave the bottom four out as a matter of course (or give them critic positions)--they don't have legions of followers who could conspire in the manner of Paul Martin to bring Dion down. That said, Martha is a rising star and should be given something, not least because of her staying in the race so tenaciously. Giving Rae an important role would also help him shed the image of having a recent conversion to the Liberal party. The better roles need to go to people who have seats.

So exciting.

Some hon members: Oh! Oh!

Those that actually spend their time reading the Hansard (as opposed to, say, having a life) know that MPs, when not speaking, say one of two things: Either "Oh! Oh!" or "Hear! Hear!" which is apparently what the cat calls and cheers get distilled to by the stenographer.

But things must have gotten a little rowdy last week. For your pleasure:


Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minority government continues to display false transparency. First, the Conservatives cut $1 billion from programs for Canadians without ever assessing the effectiveness or pertinence of these cuts and without assessing the programs. Now they are making further cuts, which the government tried to slip under the radar in the recently tabled economic and financial update, without saying a word about it.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why he hid the truth from all Canadians?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Calm down, you fools!

The US as a Christian Nation

Writing in the Post, Cal Thomas makes the following point:

Declaring America as special, or uniquely Christian, or more favored by God than, say, Canada, or Mexico, or even Iran, is a form of idolatry.

It also reflects an unbiblical view that God's Kingdom and the United States have a kind of "special relationship," the theological equivalent of the "special relationship" that has existed between the U.S. and Britain. A lot of Scripture has to be twisted to reach such a conclusion.

Only individuals can be Christian, not countries, and those who think otherwise are in danger of breaking the Commandment, "Thou shalt not have no [sic] other gods before me."

No kidding. I mean, the religious part of his argument notwithstanding ('cos it's bullshit), nothing drives me more crazy than people who intone that clearly, God has smiled upon the US and blessed it as God's Chosen Nation. (As a corrolary is the nonsense about how muslim congresman Keith Ellison swearing his oath on the Koran will undermine American civilization. Puh-lease.)

And if someone religious could inform me as to the objective facts that point to God favouring the US above all other nations, I'd be really happy.

Pundit Hair Watch aka Ok, Maybe Chantal's Not So Bad

Ok, so we've been harsh on Chantal, I won't speak for Dean, but my beefs have largely been because she's not agreeing with me on Dion, or the 'nation' debate, or on anything else coming out of Quebec. I think I've fallen into the trap of confusing 'separatist' with 'nationalist'. Chantal is the latter. Is that wrong? I don't know. Depends on how much I've had to drink. But to hear her on the CBC's At Issue panel last night, it's quite clear she's not a separatist. Her insights into the Quebec situation partially rehabilited her in my mind. Her hair is still not doing anything for me, but it's light years ahead of the disaster that is Andrew Coyne's. Don't get me started on his suit.

Chantal's points:
She used to think Boisclair was under-rated. Not anymore. Calling snowflake for the flake he is always gets points in my book.
Joining him in the over-rated camp? Duceppe. He grossly miscalculated in his 'nation' gambit, and his musings about confidence votes on the Afghan mission were loudly rejected by the Quebec punditry (but we know how much weight their opinions carry here!)

As for the latest poll out of Quebec, she pointed out that the Tories didn't so much lose support to the Liberals. They lost it to the Greens. If this trend exists outside of Quebec, the NDP is in big trouble.

Which brings us to what will likely be the least reported story of the day: News that the Liberals and Greens may work together in the next election. The Greens want a seat, any seat. The Liberals want to split the NDP vote, and regain lost seats. Seems like an odd fit, but consider the NDP and their lifeline to the Conservatives on the clean air bill. If Layton gives further backing to Harper, ala Budget of 2005, then we're faced with two clear choices: A Conservative environmental plan with NDP backing, or a Liberal-Green alternative. The Conservative plan is a joke, and by supporting it with marginal changes, the NDP have only tarnished themselves. The Liberals and Greens have the momentum and the advantage. Having dropped the environment ball in favour of an anti-war platform (that will, as Duceppe is about to realize, fail to energize voters), the NDP is going to hurt in the next election. I'm not entirely sad to see this happen. The NDP had so much potential to claim the spotlight in this House, and they have blown it.

So sorry Olivia, but I'd have to add your husband to the 'over-rated' list too.

Following God's Law in NJ, not THE Law

Apparently there are some who still have the belief that what's in the Bible trumps what the law says.

In NJ, the Legislature just passed a bill permitting civil unions granting all the same rights as marriage, after the NJ Supreme Court told the Legislature that it had to do something to grant same-sex couples the same rights as opposite couples, though it could call them marriage or civil union or whatever.

Well, that was a little much for one Republican, Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, who voted against the bill, and said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that “this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”

I'm sure no one checked if he was wearing mixed fabric or had eaten shrimp or had asked if he was into stoning adulterers, as the Bible also requires.

Don't get me wrong, I think that only marriage is enough and that separate-but-equal sucks, but then, given the rabid homophobia that distinguishes this apparently-great Republic from the rest of the civilized world (gay marriage is banned in what, 45 or so states?), I'll take what we can get.

But this little Republican shows what's wrong with politics. What the Supreme Court says is the law is the law. It isn't the job of some mad Christian (or Muslim or Jew) to say that, no, God trumps that.

I believe that legislators take a vow to defend the Constitution. Well, he just broke it.

And we'll all feel gay when Johnny (Reb) comes marching home

Who knew that the South was a hotbed for being gay? LIsten carefully to the chorus.

Quebec's pundits are WRONG

I'm sorry. I'm tired of Quebec pundits. Because, really, they get it wrong.

Paul Wells (blessed be his name) gets it right today. He writes:

But why is it that, on the very existential questions that cut closest to the distinctive hearts of Quebecers, Quebec's homegrown pundit class is so consistently wildly wrong about the reactions of ordinary Quebecers?

No kidding. As my brother Mike pointed out, certain pundits have been making a ponderous although somewhat zig-zagging evasive maneuver.

And, as our beloved Paul once earlier observed, the elites are wrong. The Quebec pundits (Chantal . . . .) are wrong.

The Liberal party is back as the Federalist option in Quebec. The Tories, given their behaviour this last year, are out. Dion is a good standard bearer.

We will triumph, the chattering nabobs of Quebec notwithstanding.

A Devil Food is Turning Our Kids into Homosexuals

I'm not kidding. This is the actual title of a column by some right winger. Apparently, "when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens." He continues:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!)

Who knew?! I used to think that tofu was bland, flavourless, had a tendency to break up in my stirfrys, and was sort of rubbery and icky.

Now--well, let's make sure everyone eats more soy, particularly pregnant mothers!

Get Rid of the Bad Liberals

Canadian Cynic makes a good point:

Case in point: the recent national vote on same-sex marriage, during which (despite that vote being an utter waste of time and doomed to failure) 13 Liberals actually voted to re-open the debate. . . . [T]here comes a point when progressives should be getting really freakin' tired of strategically having to support Liberal candidates who act like right-wing wankers.In cases like that, I think it's incumbent on progressives to send a message -- there's a limit to our patience and accommodation. If closet conservatives are caught hanging out in the Liberal party, they should be outed and punished, even if it means some short-term pain.

I agree. The Liberal party is a big tent, but there should be a limit. There should be some basic ideological standards that we require our candidates and MPs to adhere to.

The Liberal Party is the party that brough universal health care and equalization, that decriminalized homosexuality, that brought in the Charter which led to the glorious renaissance in our equality laws, that stopped the Tory attempt to ban abortion, which brought in SSM, the Clarity Act, and which has stood strong against separatism. It is the party of MacKenzie King, of Pearson, of Trudeau.

There simply is no place in the party for people who don't adhere to some basic concepts of social justice and of national unity.

There are plenty of loathesome people currently in the party: Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague spring quickly to mind. Read their speeches on Same Sex Marriage--they sound like Tories. Well, time for them to put their money where their ideas are: Dion should refuse to sign the nomination papers for anyone who does not buy into the Charter and to the Liberal idea of the Just Society. Dion says he wants more women candidates. This will give him a good excuse to install some more.

Sure, the vote last week was one of conscience: but sometimes following your conscience has consequences. This should be one of them.

Happily, in other good news, the Hill Times reports:

Liberal MP Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Que.), however, told The Toronto Star last week that he would not run again.

What the Court decided

One person, in response to this post, made the rather incorrect comment that

In other words, the court refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples in the Charter. So stop claiming otherwise.

Such wonderful semantic nonsense. First, the court no more "refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples" than it "refused to find a right to make ill-informed comments based on a complete failure to understand the issues," or than it "refused to find a right to eat cabbage in the comfort of one's own home."

The Court declined to answer the question. To wit:

The government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage by introducing legislation regardless of our opinion on this question. The parties to previous litigation have relied upon the finality of their judgments and have acquired rights which in our view are entitled to protection. Finally, an answer to Question 4 would not only fail to ensure uniformity of the law, but might undermine it. These circumstances, weighed against the hypothetical benefit Parliament might derive from an answer, convince the Court that it should exercise its discretion not to answer Question 4.

Read the opinion. Courts refuse to answer questions all the time. When the Supreme Court of Canada or of the US doesn't take a case for review, it's not denying it or however you want to phrase it. It's not answering the question one way or the other.

But let's put it this way: As the law stands, the Courts of Appeal for Ontario, BC, and Quebec--the highest courts in those provinces--have declared that gay marriage is required by the Charter. The trial courts in every province and territory but NWT, Nunavut, PEI, and Alberta have said the same, and the Government did not appeal. Until the Government appeals those to the Supreme Court, the law is crystal clear and those decisions stand. Many, many provincial Courts of Appeal decide cases that set precedent that never get appealed; just b/c the Supreme Court hasn't spoken on the issue doesn't make it any less binding.

And please, does anyone who's not smoking tar sands in Red Deer actually think that the Supreme Court, if faced with the question, would not affirm Ontario, BC, and Quebec?

Note to those who are publishing comments anonymously

We're not fans, but also realize that some people don't have Blogger accounts. A lot of the comments haven't been bad, so for the most part, we let them through. But: could you do something to distinguish yourselves? Because some of the anonymous posters seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, and decent people. And some appear to be right wing conservatives who don't understand the law or the constitution and probably have never met a minority, but are happy to comment away in their vapid inability to comprehend anything.

So, I dunno--could you at least give yourselves initials or something at the bottom, so we can tell who's who?

Some comic relief

Greetings from Utah, where I'm bringing Liberal Homo Foreign Athiest Heathenism to the Mormons (and skiing!)

Since we've been a little serious, we thought you might appreciate this little humourous interlude (hat tip to my sister):

Harper's claim to fame

Chantal writes today:

With same-sex marriage on the books since 2005, the debate had moved on to a more fundamental terrain: This week, Harper became the first post-war Prime
Minister to ask the Commons to consider taking away the rights of a Canadian minority.

That he failed to garner sufficient support to press on with the plan does not mitigate the fact that he was willing to ask.

No kidding. I hope the Tories are proud today.

123 to 175

MOTION DEFEATED!

A few Tories--Cabinet level Tories--went against the motion. A few Liberals--and not many--went for the motion.

Now, let us pray that this is the end of it--both the general debate about our rights, and also the use of minority rights as a political football to score points with one's "base."

Same Sex Question Period

The Government has lost it.

Stronach: "Can the Government articulate the harm to Canadian society of gay marriage?"

Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."

Stronach: "Will this be the last time?"

Government: "We're having a free vote."

Hedy Fry (who, suddenly, I respsect): "Given the government has no problem breaking its promises on income trusts, on appointed senators, on crossing the floor, why is it bringing this motion which clearly violates the Charter?"

Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."

Hedy Fry: "Given the minister of public works has said he sees no societal harm in gay marriage, could the PM please share with the minister and this House what these harms are?"

Government: "We're having a free vote."

First: It's sort of pleasing that at least the Government (though not some backbenchers, who were embarassing in their speeches) isn't falling back on the old "it hurts families." Because, of course, it doesn't. Asked every day by Stronach to articulate the harm, the Government hasn't. That, at least, is a good thing.

But: They can't answer whether this is it. They can't say that they won't try again. We abuse the Bloc for playing the "If at first you don't win a referrendum, try, try again." Doesn't the same thing happen here?

At the end of the day, I'm not worried. It's going to fail. Even if it passes, it's so patently unconstitutional, on so many levels, that the Supreme Court won't tolerate it for an instant.

And Harper knows exactly what will happen if he uses the Notwithstanding Clause. He would basically be turning the Mace over to Dion to get beaten over the head with.

At the same time, it's still a little depressing to hear one's value to society being debated in any sort of serious manner.

Same Sex Marriage

Why is it that it's the old, white men who are anti-gay marriage?

Josee Verner--awesome speech, defying her party and opposing. Bravo Bill Graham--excellent speech, same with Real Menard.

And who is this tool, Rob Bruinooge, who's saying that the whipping of the BQ and the NDP violates the Charter? Oh, yes, because disallowing gay marriage is such a protected Charter value. But come on--the Liberals are not whipping, and does anyone think that any but one or two BQ and NDP MPs would vote for the motion.

Mike texted me earlier today that we should pass a law banning the use of one's familiarity or friendship with gays against a charge of bigotry. I agree. I also think there should be a law against those who preach family and christianity. Tired, tedious, and unproven arguments.

And, Dean Del Mastro, stop with the stupid slippery slope arguments. Those are boring. And childish.

Lazy Republican Excuses

As we know, the current Congress sat for fewer days than the "Do Nothing Congress" of 1948--a full 7 days less. The Democrats have served notice that this is going to change--that Congress will actually sit enough to get things done--supply bills passed, oversight, etc.

This, of course, doesn't suit the lazy Republicans one bit. But here's the excuse they offer:

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

What a load of nonsense. This lazy GOP from Georgia (hardly a long flight) pretends he can be a congressman with one full day in Washington? And the Democrats are doing this because they don't care about families?

First: When Kingston signed up to be a Congressman, he knew the deal and knew it would mean a lot of time in Washington. If he wants to spend more time in Georgia, he should have been a Georgia State Sentaor or peach picker or something.

Second, and more importantly: Do you want to talk about hard on families, Mr. Republican? How about families without health insurance? How about families who are paid at that pathetic minimum wage that the GOP refused to raise? How about families with kids in that useless war which they didn't bother to exercise any oversight whatsoever? How about the tens of thousands of gay families they refuse to help?

Don't whine, Mr. Congressman, that working hard hurts your family, because your party has done nothing to help families, anywhere.

SS Conventional Wisdom

In the face of a new Leger polling showing a 9% rise in Liberal support among Quebecers, Paul Wells comments:

A few columnists today (no names, no names) began trying to turn around the ocean liners of their pensée. Better speed up!..

He won't name names, but we will. Witness the good ship Chantal making a ponderous although somewhat zig-zagging evasive maneuver

Brokeback Steve

Awesome. From Canadian Cynic.

Globe comments by idiots

Sometimes reading the comments to the Globe made by readers makes me despair. Take, on SSM, this wonderful gem:

Bob McDonald from Canada writes: 12,000 Canadian gays have married. That's 24,000 people OR 0.0008 % of the population. WHO CARES!!!!!

I'm going to just let that one lie. Because he's 1/30 millionth of the population--who care what happens to him?

But sometimes it's depressing to see just how many morons (who can't spell) are out there. I always think of the Globe as highbrow enough to leave the stupid reading the Sun.

Cynical on Same Sex Marriage

This is even worse. Apparently they're going to limit debate to a few hours, to "get it over with" so that they can move on, according to the Tory House Leader. Not only, then, do they know that the motion is going to fail, but the want to make it fail as quietly as possible.

And they wrap themselves in the "we made a promise" excuse. Stronach attacked them today: "Does the Prime Minister believe that same-sex marriage has in any way had a negative impact on our society or on traditional marriage, and if so, could he explain how?" The only response was "We made a promise." (They made promises about income trusts, too.)

It's ridiculous. A quick, prefunctory debate on fundamental rights just so that the Tories can throw a bone to their hard right supporters and say they kept a promise.

Does anyone think the right-wingers are that stupid? They all know that the Gov isn't really serious about SSM; they know that they're making this motion reluctantly.

We saw down here the disillusionment of evangelicals who realized that deep down, the Republicans think they're stupid. Harper's making the same mistake here.

That said, of course, where else will they go? All American politians have to talk about religion and how they love Jesus, so an evangelical can in some good conscience vote Democrat. Not so in Canada. The only party full of nutjobs (not that the Libs don't have a few) is the Tories.

Layton's a graceless jerk

Everyone else was gracious to Dion when he arrived in the Commons:

Harper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the new Leader of the Opposition on his election as leader of his party, a victory that I thought was well earned. I have been a resident of Stornoway myself. I hope he enjoys Stornoway and I hope he is happy there for a very long time. [Incidentally, that was the way Chretien used to welcome new Leaders of the Opposition.]

Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party, who won a decisive victory on the weekend after running a good campaign. Our visions differ as to the future of Quebec, but the debate will only be clearer as a result.

Duceppe is particularly astonishing to me, given just how opposed they are.

And then Layton comes along.

Layton: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have learned to expect only one thing from ministers of the environment, whether they be current or former, and that is betrayal, because no matter which of them were in power, pollution continued to go up.

What a jerk--especially given he's praised Dion in the past.

The best part is, of course, he promptly made a fool of himself with his big ass comment. Which is exactly what he is.

The stupid NDP can spend their lives bitching about everything and sitting atop the moral highground because they never have to govern. They'll never be faced with the difficulty of having to impliment policies, of having to balance priorities. They, and the Bloc with them, can promise perfect justice, perfect environment, low taxes, strong military, and a balanced budget, and a pony for every Canadian to boot--because all they'll ever be are promises that they'll never have to impliment.

The Pundits are wrong--again

What was all that nonsense about the Liberals not being able to win with Dion?

Already, those that claim that are being proven wrong. The Liberals got a jump in the polls from Dion--of six points! And on the Quebec front:

And in a reaction that defies the conventional wisdom of Quebec pundits, 62 per cent of respondents in the province said that Mr. Dion was a good choice for the Liberals, with only 29 per cent saying he was a bad choice. The approval of the Liberals' pick was higher in Quebec than in the rest of the country, where 55 per cent liked the choice.

We'll never have the separatist vote, so why worry about it? What we want to do is get all the federalist vote on our side and not on the Tories. Having a strong federalist is the key to doing that. And that's going to sell well in the rest of the country--no one can ever accuse Dion of pandering to Quebec.

NDP environmental policy

"No more subsidies for Big Ass!"

-The Member for Toronto-Danforth

"Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it"
-The Rt. Hon. Prime Minister

anti-Dion hysteria

While expected, the negative talk coming out of the other parties is ridiculous.

The Bloc is actually arguing that the Liberals picked a francophone leader from Quebec on purpose, so as to beat up the province while claiming it's not anti-Quebecois.

The NDP is raising the complaint that Dion didn't actually get much done on Kyoto while he was minister of the environment. A valid point, one I've often wondered about as well. But I'd suggest that a simple answer to that critique is to remember who was at the head of the cabinet table when Kyoto obligations were being neglected. If I had to pick between Dion doing nothing, or Dion arguing in favour of meeting Kyoto targets, and Martin ignoring him for fear of losing votes or a simple inability to make a decision, I'd bet on Martin's dithering any day. But the NDP's general line of attack seems to be that they can place all past Liberal failings on Dion's lap, simply because he was at the cabinet table. It's a fine strategy, but with Dion, I don't think that's going to find much resonance with the public.

Finally, fears are being raised by disaffected Liberals, saying that Dion will lead the Liberals to devastation in Alberta and Quebec. Firstly, the Clarity Act was enormously popular in Alberta, and Dion's arguable #2, Kennedy, has developed a significant network there, as evidenced by his delegate votes. It's not hopeless for them. Hey, if Harper can achieve a breakthrough in Quebec, I think Dion can pull off the reverse with Alberta. As for Quebec, well, Dion was re-elected easily in his own riding during the last election, and after the Clarity Act was passed, the Liberals got their highest vote in years, reducing the Bloc to near insignificance (no coincidence that Bouchard retired from politics shortly afterwards). Preliminary polls coming out of Quebec seem to support the notion that Dion as leader is far from being a slap at Quebec, but quite the opposite.

Conventional wisdom was wrong. Conventional wisdom will continue to be wrong.

And don't get me started on the 'pundits'. That's for a whole other post.

The new Rat Pack

Does anyone else think it's damn fantastic that we have the possibility of a new Rat Pack?

The three candidates who campaigned on ideas: Dion, Kennedy, and Findlay.

Imagine them as the centre of of the opposition? Breathtaking. The centre of the Government? Oh my.

Much like you heard it here first on Dion, you heard about the new Rat Pack here.

Dionistas rejoice!

To paraphrase our original posting back in January, why is nobody talking about how we were first to talk about Dion?

It was our first post to be noticed by our blog idol, Paul Wells and he credited us as the original Dionistas, and Andrew Coyne noted that the original blogs to endorse Dion were him, Wells, Colby Cosh, and us, so it's so exciting to see your candidate move from fourth to the final ballot. Ok, so maybe we're bragging just a bit.

Thrilling convention, absolutely thrilling, as candidates crossed the floor (Martha, we love you), and the delegates debated. We would vote against a one member/one vote system just for this reason. The CBC's coverage was great too. To see Boolinda in Black, John Manley, Rex Murphy and Rick Mercer talking in panel, with Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert on remote was enough to make these politics junkies absolute ecstatic.

And Chretien's speech was fantastic. The man can still stump. He connected all previous leaders into a Liberal continuum, pointed out their landmark achievements, including the No to the Iraq war (sorry Iggy). The olive branches to Paul Martin were remarkable. First was Chretien's comment that he was a delegate at Pearson's convention, but voted for Paul Martin Sr. Next, he credited Martin Jr. with the deficit slaying. His partisan attacks on Harper were classic Chretien, street fighter who takes no prisoner. As John Manley remarked, had he given that speech on Friday night, he would be voted leader today.

Anyway, an absolutely thrilling race. It's not over yet (10 min), but the final result is all over the Ignatieff camp's faces.

Some days, the man who fights the good fight, and does the hard thankless work, in the face of doubts, dismissals and enormous competition,...some days, like today, that man wins.

It's a good day, for Liberals and for Canada.

Three-tier marriage??

What nonsense are the Tories up to? Paul Wells reports:

Notice of government motion:

“That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”

Now--I thought that the motion was going to be to reopen debate on the issue. Not one to open up debate to create not one, not two, but three levels of marriage.

What he's suggesting is we have these three levels: First, there's normal, opposite-sex marriage. First tier. Then, there will be the left-over legacy gay marriages. Second tier. And then the Third Tier: All those homos who couldn't get through the door fast enough in the narrow window offered by the Liberals and slammed shut by the Tories. The ones who can have a civil union, but not marriage.

In what universe do the Tories think that that would be constitutional? I mean, unequal treatment is bad enough, but doing it in two different ways? The mind boggles.

It's going to fail, but this shows you how great the Tories' understanding of the Constitution is.

A study in contrasts

Who sould you rather have representing you? One is at home, the other perfectly awkward. . .

Woah Woah Woah!

What is this heresy? Apparently, before the National Assembly of Mali, the GG made this little pronouncement:

Good morning and thank you for the honour you do me in allowing me the opportunity to speak to the National Assembly of Mali.

I am especially touched knowing that Nelson Mandela is the only other head of State having been given the privilege of addressing this august assembly.

I'm sorry. I adore the GG--the person and the office. But claiming she is head of state is slightly intolerable. She isn't. She's the Sovereign's representative. We are still a monarchy.

Don't get me wrong--I would love for us to sever the ties to the Windsors, provided that our monarchy is maintained. Make it on an elective or appointive basis--simply replace the current Sovereign with the GG.

We are one of the oldest continually sovereign countries in the world, and part of our stability is the Crown. I would prefer the Crown of Canada be worn by a Canadian.

Ok, so now what?

The politics geek in me is thrilled. Parliamentary maneuvering, cunning parries, surprise statements, dominoes rippling as the shockwaves emanate and alter all political calculations. And then there's the shocked headlines and pundits galore, weighing in on every angle. Heaven!
Harper has improved his position in Quebec, cut off the Bloc, bought himself breathing room in the House, and given the federal Liberals a huge break ahead of the leadership convention.

But then the reality sinks in. He said what? Harper may have avoided an awkward moment in the House, but he has just created a far larger problem to be dealt with in the future. The precedent has been set, the door has been opened, the nation has been recognized, and Canada is lesser as a result. Maybe it always was this way, and he has finally just called it for what it is. Call me idealistic (and certainly call me cynical now), but I figured we could try a little bit harder before we gave it all away and packed it in.

Tactical victory, strategic defeat.

Update:
Warren Kinsella quite eloquently answers the question in this posting's title. Of note is the "economy takes a shit-kicking". Hadn't thought of that. But thinking ahead doesn't seem to be the name of the game these days.

Bloc and a Hard Place (again)

This from Paul Wells is going to cause a problem. Apparently the Bloc is going to introduce a motion: "Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation." --That this House recognize that the women and men of Quebec form a nation.

These sorts of things are purely political ploys--because now, if the motion passes, it will be announced that yes, as a Nation, Quebec can leave Canada, and if it fails, well, the Bloc will have all sorts of ammo against Canada.

My suggestion, though: The other parties have enough votes to amend the resolution (as far as I understand procedure). Amend the resolution to read:

Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois, ensemble avec les gens de tous les autres provinces, forment une nation.

Trans: That this House recognize that the women and men of Quebec, together the people of all the other provinces, form a nation.

Also, can I propose we have a change in the rules of the House? To stop these stupid symbolic things, the only resolutions or motions or whatever that should be allowed are those that involve:

1. The expenditure or raising or other use of money.

2. The modification, passing, or repeal of any law, regulation, schedule (or anything similar) or the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.

3. The declaration of a state of war, emergency, or peace.

4. The granting of honourary citizenship to someone.

What should categorically not be allowed is the wasting of everyone's time with motions like "Quebec is a nation" or "Canada condemns the _____ that happened ____ years ago in Outer Kraplakistan." [The latter not because the thing is not condemnation-worth, but simply that the House declaring something is meaningless, and, worse, interfere with the Cabinet's conduct of foreign relations.]