LolJean

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

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

What are the Yankees wearing??

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

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

One's Hurricane Namesake

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

So. Jamaica.

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

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

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

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

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

Gee, maybe God hates reggae.

Right Wing Nuts

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


But let's see:

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to Red Tory.

Stupid PCism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An old letter to the NYT

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

July 10, 2007

Re: A Nominee's Abnormal Views

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

Yours,

[Dean P]

Paul Wells on the Cabinet

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

Secretary Rice's Briefing Note

TREAT AS SECRET-- SecState eyes only --

BEGINS

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

ENDS

Give me a break

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

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

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

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

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

Sullivan's dishonesty continues

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

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

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

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

Republican Mediocrity

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

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

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

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

Mediocrity. Incompetence. But connected. Well done.

Big Black Buck defence

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

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

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

Yet more on Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Ontario coming back?

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

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

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

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

Noone Mourns The Wicked*

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

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

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

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

*hat tip to David for the title

Update: Hindsight is so 20/20, Sullivan.

Abortion idiots

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

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

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

Hat tip to David in DC.

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

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

More on the draft

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

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

People suck.

Back to the Draft

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

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

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

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

There is no flag large enough

Submitted Without Comment

Privilege my ass

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



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

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

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

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

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

Who knew democracy could be destroyed in 6 short years?

Hat tip to CC.

Words Fail Me

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

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

War Breeds Only War

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

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

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

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

We're screwed

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

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

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

Kennedy--70

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

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

Stephens will be the next to go.

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

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

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

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

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

Coulter Shootdown

This is better than sex. Well, not really, but pretty good.



But what always astonishes me is how the media, and people generally, let the right get away with being counterfactual. I mean, Cheney is the worst--he simply says false things and asserts their truth. But it flows through everything that the right does here. The astonishing nonsense of the immigration debate here (e.g. immigrants bring leprosy!), the fact that Dubya can keep asserting an al Qaida-Iraq link--and the media, like trained seals, just roll over and accept it.

Snow Patrol

I'm in love. How have I gone so many years without hearing them?!?!

Open Your Eyes lyrics

Awesome picture

And an aweseome result.

Craigslist weddings

This is really sweet. Lesbian couple from Philly came up to Canada and posted an ad looking for some people to come as witnesses.

Of course, their marriage doesn't really mean anything, back in the US. But it does mean something for them, and I think it's really sweet how they had some complete strangers come to their wedding and celebrate it with them.

CBC nonsense

So apparently the CBC had their "Seven Wonders of Canada" competition. What fucking PC nonsense. Igloos! Canoes! The Mountains! The Praries! Jesus, if we were designing something to appeal to every region, the government couldn't do it better.

Sure. Our northern/prarie/western/maritime life is grand. And beautiful. But fucking WONDERS?

Not at all.

Where, pray, on that entire list is Toronto? Toronto itself should be a wonder. Toronto is one of the supreme human achievements, one of the few places on the planet without hate and without ethnic violence and a place where, for all its differences, a multi-ethnic polylingual society exists. It is the crushing--the brutal, crushing rebuke to the planet: to those who say that different cultures can't live side by side, to those savages in the US who rile against bilingualism, and to all those who think that a city must be monocultural and monolingual or at best have a minority or two to be tolerate.

But.

Wonders. What would mine be?

In no order:

1. The Charter.

2. The CN Tower

3. Parliament's Centre Block

4. The Citadelle of Quebec

5. The National Gallery

And two more. But christ, we're not talking as wonders about concepts vetted by a committee. We're talking about concrete things that mean something. We're talking about things that we as a people have achieved--not some bullshit "the Prarie Sky" that was here before us and here after us. Fine--we're extraordinarily blessed with land a geography. But what matters is what WE did--what over 140 years of confederation and the 400 years of our history we as a people (not as an ethinicity or a nation or whatever) we did.

But screw this bullshit of a "wonder" being selected by a goddamn committee and balancing the various regional interests. That's not a wonder. That's geographical correctness.

Moron Republicans

During the most recent Republican debate, some one of those nutjobs or another (I can't be bothered to look) made the statement that America's an English-speaking country, and that "bilingual countries don't work."

Huh?

Let's think about this. First off, the premise is fundamentally flawed. The issue of bilingual education is to help kids whose first language is spanish actually learn something else while learning english? In what universe--other than in the Republican "we make our own reality" one--does it make sense to put kids who don't speak English into English-only schools and expect them to a) learn what everyone else is learning and b) learn English? The point is that they have some education in spanish so that they can keep up with their maths and sciences, etc., while they get better.

And then, of course, is the usual idiot Republican habit of just saying things that sound good (If we don't fight them there) that actually have no meaning whatsoever. Bilingual countries don't work? Um. Let's see. Oh, there's that big cold one to the north. And Belgium. And Switzerland.

It's the shades of the resistance to official bilingualism in Canada--they're going to ram French down our throats--but the scale of what's suggested isn't even remotely the scale of what happened in Canada. In Canada, we decided that every single Canadians should be able to get essential federal government services in French or English. That's HUGE. It's not "Let's make sure that immigrant kids and immigrants generally can get access to local services in Spanish." But by how the Republicans shriek, you'd think that the proposal was to make everyone speak Spanish.

Christ, some people in this country can't even speak English (Dubya) . . .

Credibility Gaps

More and more, I'm amazed at how anyone on the Right thinks they can be taken seriously, or even worse, I marvel at how people must be so stupid that they actually do get taken seriously when they open their mouths and say things. For example:

• When Dubya stands up and tells "Vladimir"* that the missile shield isn't targeted at Russia, he expects to be believed. This after the yellowcake uranium, the WMD, the "we're winning," the "mission accomplished," the almost weekly invocations that the insurgency is in its "last throes" and they're just "desperate"--i.e. the complete disconnect from reality that Bush's public pronouncements.
• Andrew Sullivan's crusade against Hillary Clinton. What, from the man who for years sung the praises of George Bush, and who got down basically on his Catholic knees to worship at the altar of the Republican Party (or maybe just Karl Rove's dick)--after his wonderful judgement on how great someone will be as President, we're supposed to actually give a flying fuck what he thinks now? (This commentator makes a good point.)
• And while we're on Sullivan, how about his bitching about how the Republican Party is now "christianist"? And on how bad they are for gays? (Side note: with his insufferable ego, I'll bet he takes credit for inventing this term). Give me a fucking break. This from a man who goes on nonstop about how fucking great religion is, and who said oh well, on balance the Republicans are better for homos? Get off your fucking road to Damascus.

I could go on. But seriously, every time a Republican opens his or her mouth, they utter lies. Why should we believe anything they say now?

* Note on the Vladimir thing. How fucking insulting. Bush's "I'm jus' a regyoolar guy" think might work among the mouth breathing slack jawed masses that are his base, who seem to think it's better to be led by "one of us" than by someone you can respect and look up to, but to anyone else in the world it's just insulting. Of course, he did his "Steve" thing to Harper (and was corrected by Harper's mother who said that he never goes by Steve), and I shudder to think of what he called the Queen. Chretien, who appointed Adrienne Clarkson as Governor General, even though when she wasn't in office probably called her Adrienne, ALWAYS referred to her as "Governor" when they spoke, and she to him as Prime Minister (not that idiot yankee construction of Mr. Prime Minister). At some level, formality IS important, and given the reaction in Canada to the pejorative of calling Harper "Steve," one can only wonder about what Russians are thinking now.

I'm never complaining about LA traffic again

Okay this is dumb

This web page is really foolish. Why on earth would you create a page extolling the virtues of learning English--in English?

Hockey Nationalism

Okay. I was at Game 1 of the Stanely Cup finals in Anaheim (it cost a small fortune, but totally worth it). One of the best sporting experiences of my life--lots of energy, very fun, fans into it, and even good hockey (with the Senators being totally out-shot, out-skated, and out-played by the Ducks.)

However. The Anthems. First, my stepdad and I joined the other 20 or so Ottawa fans in belting out Oh Canada.

And then came the Star Spangled Banner. People put their hands on their heart, but only a few people sang. Nothing like this:



If anyone ever says that Canadians are less patriotic than Americans, or that people across the country, in the face of idiot provincial parochialism by the likes of Harris and Klien, are not at all committed to the continued existence of Canada, take them to a hockey game.

Not everything in black and white makes sense

If we don't fight them there . . .

I hate Bush's idiot argument that if we don't fight them there, they'll follow us home. It's bullshit, and today, Fred Kaplan knocks it out of the park:

• First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They're combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.
• Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.
• Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don't have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover? Or will they seek out a less blatantly selfish protector?

The second point is the best. The argument presupposes that Iraq is the only place where there are people who want to kill americans. Ridiculous. Exactly how many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq? Zero. Where do we know there are al Qaida minions? Pakistan. Saudi. Probably Yemen. And a host of other places.

Yet the uncritical mainstream media never calls him on his bullshit.

God isn't listening

Some anonymous commentor made a comment in response to this post:

Osiris seems to get blamed for a whole lot of things that He's not responsible for. He's not responsible for sickness and disease but he does offer solutions to people are looking for them. Osiris is not one to force himself on anyone, but anyone who genuinely looks for Him will always find Him. It is unfortunate that the people who have previously posted comments don't know Osiris because if they new Him they wouldn't slander Him the way they do. He's not the subject of a circular debate, He's not some crutch to retreat to, nor is He the result of religious poisoning, He is the author of all the potential good and creative things that he has placed in every human being. Its not that Osiris is not watching, it is that we are not listening.

Only, of course, the commentor said "God" instead of "Osiris." The one is, in the minds of mad Christians, perfectly true and reasonable, the other is utterly false. In the mind of an ancient Egyptian, the converse would be true.

And out of all of the gods that have ever been dreamed up, how can this person be so incredibly sure that this God is the One?

But, subject this to any sort of proof analysis, and it fails completely. "Anyone who looks for him will find him." Well, yes--because they'll convince themselves of his existence. As a child, I was utterly convinced of the existence of Santa Clause. That didn't make him real. I had an imaginary friend that I believed really existed. Same point.

"He is the author of all the potential good and creative things that he has placed in every human being." Is then the converse not true? If he is the author of all good, then what about all bad? He's not responsible for disease and sickness but is responsible for all good? Huh?

And please: give me some actual proof. Dawkins made a great point when asked "What would make you believe in God." His one word answer: "Evidence."

Monica Goodling is an idiot

Recall that Goodling--a minion responsible for White House/DOJ liaison--pleaded the Fifth regarding her role in the US Attorney scandal. Well, in her testimony today, she explained she took it because she was worried that others had misled her.

What?

Monica needs to bone up on her Fifth Amendment law. How is it that criminal liability would attach to her for the fact that someone else had said something untrue? I can't really even conceive how she'd be in jeopardy for that.

But then, I imagine that at Regent Law School, that paragon of academic achievement, there's a little less emphasis on the rule of law and a lot on the Word of God.

Saving Civilization

I'm sure that everyone by now knows that during the recent Repulican debate, 9 out of the 10 fell over themselves trying to prove how gung-ho-macho they are and how they would do anything--i.e. torture--to save Western civilization. Only McCain made the point that no, torture doesn't work.

[Side note: People, particularly Presidential candidates, need to stop getting their policy from Hollywood. Just how often will the "ticking time bomb" scenario actually take place? It's not 24, it's the real world, and just how many of the people we have tortured have been in that scenario? Exactly zero.]

Rosa Brooks makes the following point, in response to that idiot Tancredo brushing off theoretical objections to torture (i.e. it doesn't get information, and hurts American standing):

Western civilization isn't about speaking English, or flags, or football or borders. If Western ivilization is about anything at all, it's about the arduous, centuries-long struggle to nurture an idea of human dignity that's not dependent on nationality or power. As Petraeus put it, there are some "values and standards that make us who we are."

Tancredo's right about one thing though. If we embrace the use of torture, we won't need to worry that extremist Islamic terrorists might destroy Western civilization. We'll have killed it off ourselves.

Now, forgive this little corner from saying "we told you so," but we have consistently taken the position that by rushing to embrace restrictions on our freedom, and agreeing that yes, torture is good and habeas is bad and giving people rights is bad--that all this is a far greater threat to western values than anything any terrorist could do. Bombing a building isn't going to destroy the rule of law--far from it--but saying that we don't have to follow the law certainly will.

And now, whenever we complain about the illegal actions of a foreign government, we should remember Samuel Johnson's comment re the American Revolution, "How is it that we always hear the loudest yelps for liberty amongst the drivers of negroes?"

Republicans Sucking Falwell's Dick

For one, I am absolutely overjoyed that Falwell is dead. Americablog has a good list of Falwell's sins, for example, blaming 9/11 on the gays, god doesn't hear the prayers of Jews (which I have to accept as true, given my nonbelief in god), AIDS is the wrath of God, the antiChrist will be a Jew, and, oh, that Tinky Winky is gay. Huffingtonpost has some great stuff he's said here too.

If I believed in God, Hell, the afterlife, demons, and unicorns, I'd be also quite thrilled that Jerry's probably down in hell getting sodomized with a barbed acid dripping serrated dildo by a bunch of pot smoking leather-clad contraception-providing demons wearing leather attire.

But, aside. The best part is that the GOP is now falling over itself to talk about what a good man he was. For example, John "Flip Flop" McCain, who once called him an agent of intolerance, is now happily sayign that Falwell was "a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."

Screw that. This is a man who used his pulpit to the unimaginable detriment of millions of people, happily and pompously passing judgment and whipping the masses into a frenzy. Timothy Noah's response to McCain: "Nonsense. He was a bigot, a reactionary, a liar, and a fool." Exactly.

But the Republican kowtowing shows what the GOP is beholden to. If one person had stood up recently from the GOP and said that Falwell was a bad man, I would applaud that person.

Instead, they fall over themselves to say how good a man he was. Which means that, in the GOP, it's okay to hate the gays, the blacks, and the Jews.

Paris "too traumatized" to testify in court

Apparently Paris Hilton is so traumatized by the fact she has to spend 45 days in the big house that she can't testify in a case against her.

Bullshit. All the more reason for her to go.

Let's see: A prissy little heiress, who's never done a day of actual labour in her life, whose entire existence has been one of privilege, luxury, and ease, now has to spend 45 days in prison, and that's so traumatic that she can't testify? Hogwash.

My first job out of law school was as a law clerk for a judge who had criminal cases, only. You want to talk about trauma in life? How about:

• The 23 year old kid whose dad was in jail, who dropped out of school when he was 11, had been dealing drugs since he was 12, and whose 10 siblings were in jail?
• The 45 year old woman, meth addict, clearly HIV positive, had had 5 children taken away from her (men using her for sex, not using protection, giving her drugs in exchange), begging and pleading to be allowed to keep her sixth baby?
• The legions of poor, inner city kids with no education, no role models, living in poverty, before us on petty charges, caught up in circumstances beyond their control?

What chances did they ever have, Paris? Did they have everything put onto a platter? No. Did they live their lives without the slightest worry? No. Do you think they all might have wanted better, might have wanted greater chances in their lives? Hell yeah. But what bloody chance did they ever have? Yet we had to send them to jail--mandatory minimums--for a hell of a lot longer than you.

So don't turn around and wail that you're so upset you can't function and that you're horrified of the idea of jail. You were warned three times that you were in violation of your probation. Guess what, honey? Actions have consequences, and sometimes you have to take responsibility for what you do (not in the Bush way, of course).

All the kids that get thrown into jail who never had a chance, never had a role model, never had money--we make them take responsibility for their actions.

You deserve no less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was that . . .

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

Indeed.

To the guy who hit my car

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

Really not a good idea.

What're your kids doing?

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

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

Get over the nonsense

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

My response: Give me a fucking break.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a break, Sullivan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop whining

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

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

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

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

The dog ate my homework

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

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

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

Pomp and Circumstance

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

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

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

Confession

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

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

What's good for the goose. . .

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

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

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

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

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

Most shocking line in a brief, ever

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

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

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

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

Danny Williams

Will you please just shut the fuck up?

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

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

God really isn't watching

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

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

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

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

Why

is there a woman doing this protest?

Why do we care??

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion for Pastafarians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanjaya Must Be Stopped

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

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

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

Messages

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

Reason number 232 why we love having a GG

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

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

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

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

God save the Queen.

The Fifth Amendment? You must be kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLQ and the Tories

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

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

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

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

Well, Duh

And they needed a study for this?

How on earth is this constitutional?

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

Thta's a little Bush-esque, really.

Abortion Stupidity

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

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

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

Thank god for a boring culture

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

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

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

A mari usque ad mare.

More God and Gays

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

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

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

But the communique is remarkably strident.

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

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

Then, the brave statement:

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

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

I say bravo to the Episcopal Church.

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

God and Gays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, thank you Jesus!

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

Why do straights hate the gays?

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

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

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

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

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

No one.

Jean in Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

I'd much prefer to run with the latter.

Showpiece for how Conservatives are just plain dumb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good heavens

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

Stupid People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flag Day

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