Idiot polls, idiot answers

From the latest CPAC-Nanos poll on Canadian political leadership:

Question: As you may know, Stephane Dion is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

(The numbers in parenthesis denotes the change from the previous Nanos Research survey completed in February 2008 (90 day change).)

The most trustworthy leader
Stephen Harper 31 (+1)
Stephane Dion 14 (NC)
Jack Layton 14 (-7)
Elizabeth May 5 (-3)
Gilles Duceppe 4 (-2)
None of them/Undecided 32 (+12)

The most competent leader
Stephen Harper 39 (NC)
Stephane Dion 12 (-4)
Jack Layton 11 (-4)
Gilles Duceppe 5 (-1)
Elizabeth May 1 (-2)
None of them/Undecided 32 (+10)

The leader with the best vision for Canada's future
Stephen Harper 31 (-1)
Stephane Dion 14 (-3)
Jack Layton 14 (-4)
Elizabeth May 4 (-2)
Gilles Duceppe 3 (NC)
None of them/Undecided 35 (+11)

This illustrates why I hate polls. Three completely different questions have been asked about the leaders, and yet, the answers essentially breakdown the same way for each! On the question of trustworthiness, did the person answering the question really think about their answer? What is trustworthiness? Trust in what? That they tell the truth? Recent polls on the Cadman affair and In-N-Out scandal have shown that a majority of Canadians don't believe Harper's version of events. But he's the most trustworthy. On competence, the Prime Minister, regardless of party, usually scores highest. We've never seen Layton or Dion or Duceppe in a position to run the country. Gilles Duceppe should obviously score low for his vision of Canada's future. But Elizabeth May only has 1 point higher? Do the people being polled even know what her vision is? I'd say it is just as clear to the public's as is Harper's vision (or lack thereof). What is most striking is that there is little to no variation in the answers, regardless of the question. Aside from Dion's score, the numbers appear to track national party standings.

It would seem that all this poll is asking is which leader Canadians like most. It doesn't matter what the question is, its just a popularity contest. Stupid politically unsophisticated media-illiterate Canadians apparently aren't capable of separating their dislike of a candidate from performing an objective appraisal of each leader's qualities.

And yet, these polls come out, time and time again, their value dubious at most, except as fodder for lazy journalists to do hit-and-run jobs on various politicians.

Idiot polling, idiot answers. It is any wonder that Canadian politics now tends towards pandering to the lowest common denominator in a policy-free race to the bottom?

SUCK IT, Charles de Gaulle

Sarko may have his issues, but at least "vive le Quebec libre" is being redeemed.

“You know we are very close to Quebec, but I'll tell you we also love Canada very much,” Mr. Sarkozy told Gov.-Gen. Michaëlle Jean as they paid homage to fallen Canadian soldiers from the Second World War.

“Our friendships and our loyalties do not oppose one another. We bring them together so each can understand what we have in common. We will turn toward the future so the future of Canada and France will be the future of two countries that are not only allies, but two friends.”

. . .

Mr. Sarkozy thanked Canada and the country's soldiers for making the “supreme sacrifice.”

“And those who died here, no one asked them from which region [of Canada] they came,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

“We knew from which country they came. We didn't even ask them which language they spoke.”

Please die, Hillary

Hillary's latest campaign trick seems to be "the rules will be whatever I want them to be." I almost had to stop driving yesterday and scream while I listened to her and some spokesminion on NPR.

First, NPR replayed the classic Hillary line of "If we had the Republican system, I would be the nominee already." That's so stupid I don't think it even merits a response.

Second, she then said "We have to look at who's more electable."

Well, if that were the case, why bother having primaries at all? Why not just have a committee that runs focus groups and says, okay, this is the nominee?

Then came her minion, who kept going with all sorts of different ways to win the nomination. Like seating Michigan and Florida. (Terri Gross shot him down nicely with the "well, that won't make a difference with the popular vote count, will it?")

Basically, Hillary wants the rules to mean whatever works to get her elected.

We've had 7 years of a president who doesn't believe the rules apply to him. I don't want any more of that.

Hey Jonathon

Why don't you ask the Iraqis if they're so happy about the "freedom" which they were "offered" by Dubya?

See his nonsensical rant here, wherein he compares Buddhists to Islamic terrorists (you need to look at this post to get the link), talks about how George Bush (personally) is the first to offer aid "and freedom" to people around the world (just ask the Sudanese), how Dubya's daughter is beautiful and "not a dyck (sic)" and how Dubya is a symbol of freedom and we should respect his wonderful family.

Res ipsa.

Yet another thoughtful

and intelligent comment from the cro-magnosphere.

I love this comment: Dubya is "the first to offer aid, whether to the Iraqi people and their freedom. . . ."

Oh yes, Jonathon, the junta in Myanmar is decidedly not muslim. Funny, not all brown-skinned people--or dictators--are.

Will someone please choke Dubya?

This morning on NPR (yes yes communist pinko lefty mouthpiece, because telling the truth is a sure sign of liberal bias), once again Dubya was at it. Talking about the recent cyclone in Burma, he offered U.S. aid, and then had to go off on some "but we know the Burmese people want to live in freedom."

Okay--before the right wing nut jobs blow a gasket, I acknowledge that a) giving aid is good, and b) yes, a country can condition aid on anything it likes.

But, let's see: The ruling junta of Burma (and no, I'm not calling it Myanmar. You have your freedom fries, I get my Burma) are notoriously paranoid about outside organizations coming into the country. George Bush is notoriously famous for meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. If Dubya really wanted to give aid, maybe he could just shut up about the "freedom freedom freedom" thing, for once.

Update--Laura's good at it too. From Dan Froomkin:

When a country run by a despotic and isolationist regime is laid low by a massive natural disaster, the diplomatic thing to do is to respond with a show of compassion. Not kick 'em when they're down.

More than 22,000 people have died in the staggering devastation caused by this weekend's cyclone in Burma. But when First Lady Laura Bush made her first-ever visit to the White House briefing room yesterday, to talk about what's going on in that country, it was not to deliver a message of goodwill.

Rather than announce the launch of a massive relief effort that could take advantage of a rare diplomatic opening, the first lady instead tossed insults at Burma's leaders, blamed them for the high death toll, and lashed out at their decision to move forward with a constitutional referendum scheduled for this Saturday.

Well done, Laura!

Amen

Finally, someone says it.

Just saying that something is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it's even remotely possible.

Happy Mission Accomplished Day

From Froomkin:

Much has happened in the five years since President Bush flew aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in "Top Gun" style, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" and proudly declared: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Five years ago, 139 American troops had died in Iraq. Now that number is 4,064. Five years ago, 542 American troops had been wounded in Iraq. Now that number is 29,395.

Five years ago, the national debt was $6.5 trillion. Now it's $9.3 trillion. Five years ago, your average gallon of gas cost $1.44. Now it costs $3.57. Five years ago, Bush's job-approval rating was at 70 percent. Now it's at 28.

Five years ago, Bush's appearance on the carrier was widely hailed as a brilliant PR move, imbuing the president with the aura of a conquering hero. Now, it's possibly the single most potent image of Bush's hubris.

One thing that's not so different: Five years ago, there were about 150,000 American troops in Iraq. Now there are slightly more.

Yes, Hillary, you really do understand the common people

but strangely working that convenience store coffee machine is pretty tough, isn't it?

Stupid Spinning by Hillary

Hillary Clinton, give me a break. Yesterday, you described Obama's opposition to the bone-headed plan to drop the federal gas tax for the summer as "My opponent doesn't want to give consumers a break." How about we call a spade a spade and say, "My opponent doesn't see the wisdom of lowering federal revenues a time of massive deficits and a war, when we are cutting budgets for everything remedial, and the economy is tanking."

Let's also do the math: My car has an 18 gallon tank. Federal tax is currently something like 19 cents/gallon. For me, that's a $3.42 saving per fill up. How about we just give everyone a free Starbucks latte instead?

And, I'm sorry--Americans already have the lowest gas prices in the world. What, Americans, do you think you have a god-given right to have cheap gas and drive huge fuel-inefficient cars for eternity? As far as I'm concerned, higher gas prices are a good thing, since if people finally start realizing that fuel efficiency and public transit are good things, we might actually see more of those (and we can take away the stupid campaign shills of "reduce our dependence on foreign oil.")

And also, how pathetic of you saying you're there for the working man? Listening to you try to empathize with some guy who lost his job, when you've never been laid off in your life? [Full disclosure, nor have I. But I don't hide my elitism.]

Cheney's Tyranny

This is horrifying.

Cheney is claiming that he is utterly immune from any sort of congressional oversight.

As sad as this evidence that we have become an autocracy, what is worse is that I think the administration and its gang can get away with the insanity (including Cheney's conflicting claims as to what part of government he is) because the American people are either too stupid or too apathetic to actually care about the descent into totalitarianism.

Cheney has refused to let anyone from his office testify as to the authorization of torture. To which Conyers replied:

Presumably, you believe that whatever actions you took were necessary and comported with the law; in such circumstances, I cannot imagine why you would decline to appear and set the record straight. The American people deserve no less.

The Republicans will burn in hell for letting Bush get away with this for 6 years, but the Democrats will be right behind them for having been such pussies for those 6 years.

Ridiculous

This entire nonsense just shows how stupid the American election has become. Some guy that Obama was vaguely associated with suddenly comes out with some complete hogwash and now because Obama once associated with him he's tarred by it and has to respond.

Come on.

Can we talk about food crises?

Can we talk about the appalling deficit that no one seems to care is going to sink the economy? (I recall back when Canada was running deficits the WSJ suggested we were on the bring of being 3d world. Um.)

Can we talk about Bush's stupid statement today that he has sent all sorts of proposals to Congress to fix the economy? And that he's claiming it's the Democrats' fault?

Can we talk about health care?

Can we talk about Iraq?

No. Bowling scores matter more than policy.

And that the masses seem to lap this shit up only speaks to their stupidity and that voting should be restricted to those who actually understand the issues.

Greenwald gets it right:

I think the most important thing to note about the Jeremiah Wright Story is that we're a Nation plagued by exceedingly few significant problems; blessed with a quite healthy political culture and very trusted political and media institutions; composed of a citizenry that is peacefully content with its Government and secure and confident about their future; endowed with a supremely sturdy economic foundation free of debt and other grave economic afflictions; vested with the ability to command great respect and admiration from the other nations of the world; emancipated by the burdens of war and intractable conflicts which have toppled and destroyed so many other great nations of the past; and, most of all, we're becoming freer and more prosperous by the minute.

. . .

So it isn't as though we really have anything else to talk about besides Jeremiah Wright. There are some countries in the world -- probably most -- which have so many big problems that they could ill-afford to devote much time and energy to a matter of this sort. Thankfully, the United States isn't one of them. I believe it's critical that we keep that in mind as we discuss him for the next seven months.

Oh the Joy!

How have I lived without this site?

Not quite as funny as Talking to Americans

But still pretty good.



Hat tip to Red Tory.

Heresy

I agree with Mike. Bring back the death penalty.

How Hillary can still win

Seriously, I have no faith in the Democratic party to get this election right. We couldn't win an election against Bush, who ranks among the worst presidents ever (something we knew in 2004). Against McCain, who lacks his baggage, with all the current infighting and the inevitable disillusionment that will result from the losing camp, I don't think we have a prayer.

The world, according to god

Hat tip to Red Tory, who is teh awesome.

Boston Legal and the Supreme Court

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Undoubtedly, more people now know something about the Supreme Court from having watched this, but really--this isn't how arguments go. Going on the attack on the Justices? Instead of arguing your case? Lord.

Chantal gets it wrong, again.

In today's Toronto Star, Chantal Hebert has the gall to turn the In-and-Out scandal around and blame Elections Canada for endangering their institutional reputation. Excuse me, but Elections Canada is simply following their mandate, investigating clear breaches of the Elections Act, you know, THE LAW.

It was the Conservatives who stood up in Parliament recklessly smeared the arbiter of our remarkably fair and trusted elections process, and suggested this was all part of a Liberal-RCMP-CBC-Elections Canada conspiracy. Just as the Conservatives have accused any and all respected institutions in this country who dare stand up to them (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for example) of being part of some vast left-wing conspiracy.

When she isn't writing yet another column bashing Dion, (a full chronicling of her obsession here), Hebert is either cynically dismissing Conservative scandals as inconsequential or shooting the messenger who first brought them to light.

Chantal, this blog's days of respecting your opinion are over. And let's not get started on your hair.

ZOMG HOT HOT HOT

ZOMG notwithstanding the fact that they're both scrummy on the eyes, this is teh awesome.

Are these the issues that matter?

From The Star's article on the PA Primary:

Conversely, should she [Clinton] win by 10 points or more, the race could fundamentally change at this late hour and the Illinois senator's inability to win another large state, which will loom large in the 2008 general election, will give Clinton an enormous boost for a final sprint.

This makes absolutely zero sense. It's not as bad as Clinton arguing that because she won California and New York, she should be the nominee (after all, I could run against the McCain in CA and NY and win--these two states are Democratic. Period), but it's up there. Because in case it hadn't occurred to anyone, the primary is a contest between two Democratic candidates--not against McCain. The issue is not whether Obama can beat Clinton in PA, but whether he (or she) can beat McCain. The "inability to win another large state" is meaningless when the only contestants are the same party.

Second:

Clinton leads among hunters, bowlers (after a stunningly bad bowling photo-op by Obama) and gun owners, the two are tied among beer drinkers (after Clinton's shot with a beer chaser in Indiana).

If this isn't an argument for restricting suffrage, I don't know what is. So Clinton suggests that she used to go hunting (really? I'm calling shenanigans on that one) and so people who hunt vote for her. And Obama has a bad day bowling and suddenly he'll make a worse president? To be honest, I would rather my president be very bad at bowling, because that suggests too much time spent in the bowling alley and not enough time doing things like, say, learning policy. The beer thing is nonsense.

We are in the current disaster that we are facing (i.e. 7 years of Dubya) precisely because people cared about these issues. Dubya was the guy who you could sit and have a beer with. He was "one of the guys" (which, of course, was demonstrably false: he was no more one of the guys than anyone else who'd lived off Daddy's money and going to private schools his whole life). He was in touch with "the common man." He hunted. He has a ranch. He was a dude.

Forget that he had almost no meaningful experience in government. Forget that my parents' dogs have been out of the country more times than he had. Forget that he was semi-literate and barely articulate. None of that mattered, because he was just a regular guy, and we all just want regular guys to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

Screw it. From now on, let's just randomly select the president. And no one with any sort of non-working-class background can be involved in the lottery.

UPDATE: An exceptional article from Andrew Cohen.

Some choice bits:

It's hard to get elected president if you're seen to be too smart. George W. Bush, who is the money and name of the elite, won twice when charm trumped intellect. He was reassuringly simple. Al Gore was seen as wooden and brainy. John Kerry spoke French, wore a field coat and rode a windsurfer. Both lost, and so did America.

snip

When the Roosevelts, Wilson, Kennedy and Clinton got into office, all were kinder to the poor than to the rich. On the other hand, the soothing Ronald Reagan and the brush-clearing Mr. Bush cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Neither was accused of championing the underclass.

The question, then, isn't who is a member of the elite and who is not, as measured by whom you'd prefer to have a beer with - the reason, it is said, that the amiable Mr. Bush was elected twice.

The president should come from among the elite - on the assumption that the people deserve the candidate with the most experience, the best judgment and the greatest ability to lead - none of which implies arrogance or aloofness.

C.V. Wedgwood--one of the greatest historians of the 20th Century who, sadly, isn't widely known--made this exact point in an essay (which I can't find online)--that we should want out leaders to be people we look up to. We should want truly exceptional people running our governments and our institutions.

Sadly, that seems to be forgotten in the US.

Fingerprinting foreigners

Now the United States has truly gone insane.

This is a wonderful, bumper-sticker faux solution that looks like it's doing something when it actually is not. Where on earth is the actual showing that finger printing every last visitor to the United States when they leave the country will do anything to make the country any safer? This is as bad as making us throw out water bottles or take our shoes off--measures that somehow make it look like the government is doing something, while not doing anything substantive. It makes housewives in Nebraska happy, but I can't see in any way what it will do.

Other than, of course, decrease tourism.

And the cost?

The overall economic impact on companies, passengers and the government is expected to exceed $3.5 billion, industry lobbyists said, at a time when carriers are struggling with safety concerns, high fuel costs and passenger complaints.

So we're concerned with our airlines going bankrupt, with rising costs, and the fact that domestic air travel is misery (paying for your drinks and your peanuts, paying extra for basically everything), and we're going to drop a $3.5 billion dollar surcharge on consumers?

Good thinking.

Riots?

Huh?

Muslims riot whenever anyone says anything bad about Mohammed.

Tibetans riot when they feel oppressed by the Chinese.

Montrealers riot . . . when they win?

Condi must go

Or be tried for war crimes, better still.

Don't Question the Stork Theory

So cool

2000 frames in one second:

Happy Proclamation of the Constitution Day!

Entire Country Goes Crazy

OMG. I seriously cannot believe that this is just show, or this is just people doing what they're "supposed" to be doing. Not when everything you read about North Koreans actually believing this shit that they get fed.

Example #2 of patheticness

Further to this post, Aaron Wherry again points out the absurd nonsequitor of the day (scroll down). Apparently the Tories can come up with nothing more substantive in their question period answers than "The Liberals are Bad." Even if the question has nothing to do with Liberal policy.

Onward:

Stephen Fletcher, taking a question on a safe-injection site in Vancouver. "As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, our government will review the research very carefully. No decision has been made. However, as I have the floor, I am reminded that the Liberal Party and its leader have no policy, no leadership and no vision for the country. That is why the people said no to a Liberal government."

And, for the record, the question was from Libby Davis--who isn't even a Liberal!

Examples of how pathetic the government is

All the Tories can seem to do these days is say "Well, the Liberal were bad when they were in government."

Witness this wonderful exchange between MHF and Jim Prentice.

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Why is the Conservative government doing nothing to stem the slow death of the 250,000 strong well-paying jobs we have in Ontario, jobs created by the up to now innovative and world leading auto sector?

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend to the House. To carry on dealing with things that were not dealt with, this government is taking care of infrastructure. My friend of course was not in the House, but at the time that there was a Liberal government in this country, we allowed a situation to develop. The Detroit-Windsor bridge crossing is a single bridge built before the Great Depression and carries more trade than the entire United States-Japanese trading relationship.

Yet, this bridge is beyond capacity. The former government did nothing about it. This government is addressing it. It is at the top of our priorities and we will fix that bridge situation.

Um. I don't seem to recall MHF asking about the bridge. As she herself noted:

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his generous welcome and I would like to point out that my question really did not have to do with bridges. It had to do with jobs.

Once again, the Conservative government, instead of finding solutions for the many families who are losing their livelihoods, is only blaming Ontario. It is time to stand up with Ontario. These Canadian families are asking, why are the Conservatives letting them down?

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if I can assist the hon. member in bridging from bridges to jobs, the truth of the matter is that this bridge is central to our automotive industry and to the competitiveness of our industry.

The former government did not appreciate that. That is why the bridge is jammed up. That is why there are 8,000 tractor trailer units a day using the bridge, sometimes taking up to eight hours. We cannot be competitive if we allow that to persist. The former government did not do anything about it. It relates to jobs. We are dealing with it.

Crazy. They all just have their talking points in the Government and no matter what the question, the talking point comes out.

Excuse me Olympic torch protesters?

But do you even know where Tibet is?

Can you name its capital?

Can you tell us when China occupied it?

When China occupied it, was it a thriving multi-cultural democracy, or a feudal backwater?

I know saying "Free Tibet" is all very trendy, but really, if you're protesting, it would be great if you actually knew what your issue was. Because it seems to me that so many of the "Free Tibet" types are a bit like pageant queens who always say they want "World Peace"--it's a mantra you can invoke to look like you're Cool and Caring and Sensitive.

********

None of this is to say that I think China's a good country or that it should have the Olympics. Far from it, as I said a while ago. Hairy Fish Nuts has a good point too. ("Learn the lesson tyrants and dictators, make the West some money and you can do whatever you like. Poor Saddam all he had to do was open some Nike factories and he'd be gassing Kurds to his black heart's content.")

But there are far more reasons to protest China getting them than simply the Tibetan issue.

You can also bet that if China weren't the place everyone needs money from and is a big-ass market, the fact it's not a democracy would have derailed it nicely. Honestly, if we actually cared about these things, the IOC would put forward criteria for being an Olympic host: Stable democracy, respect for the rule of law and human rights (Sorry, USA, you'd be out), etc etc etc.

Political Joy

U can ttly has it.

I don't get it

Back in high school, they always told us that the definition of a "state" was the entity that had the monopoly of power--police/military. I don't disagree with that as a definition. That is why states can act--because they set up laws and can thereby enforce them. And why companies--that may or may not have larger revenues than the governments of the state they are in--cannot.

So why on earth do we tolerate militias in Iraq?

I know the issue is far more complicated, but surely the only real way to stabilize Iraq is to ensure that the national government can project its power and enforce its laws. As it stands now, anyone who gets enough followers and enough guns can effectively defy the state. That doesn't really lead to stability, where any group can ignore laws as it sees fit (particularly when the groups are split along religious or ethnic lines.)

Europe in the 30s would be an instructive example. But then, our current leaders don't seem to care about learning from the past. Or from, say, fact.

Maybe he should strangle someone

Taking a break from making fun of the cro-magnons who trawl this space with semi-literate comments, made from the safe anonymity of their double-wides fresh from drinking a bottle of Jack and beating their wives, this column by Aaron Wherry is instructive, particularly for those who, like us, are Dion fans.

He takes Valpy to task for his column which basically suggests that Dion has to become more of a politician--i.e. to jettison his policy-based approach, jettison exactly the reason why he was selected in favour of a more-American style focus on sound bites and dashing images.

It speaks in most part for itself, but one exchange deserves to be singled out.

Valpy wrote this drivel:

But it's Mr. Dion's comportment that is considered the black hole of his problems. Environics' Michael Adams puts it bluntly: “This man has to be more masculine. He has to think about how to be more masculine" ... And it is Stephen Harper, not Stéphane Dion, who is seen as having carved out the territory of the archetypal male.

[WTF? More "masculine"? We're talking about Prime Ministers of Canada, not army generals or football commentators or something. Do we really care? And is chubby Stephen Harper, who probably can't even grow a beard and hasn't seen his own dick over his belly in years, really all that masculine? Is this how we should pick our PM--based on what kind of a jock he is? The Americans tried that one and look how they ended up.]

Wherry responds:

Michael Adams is probably a very smart man. But this is likely the most dispiriting assessment of politics in Canada this century. If leadership has been reduced to a question of manhood, then we are even more silly a society than previously imagined. For a good chuckle, turn the question around. How big of a man do we really think Mr. Harper to be? Does anyone believe him to have ever thrown a punch in his life? Perhaps to settle this we should demand our prospective political leaders proactively disclose their penis size.

Awesome.

[For our American readers, the "maybe he should strangle someone" is in reference to this.]

This is what we face

Here is a comment that was put by some "anonymous" reader to this post. I hesitated to publish it, not least because it's cloaked behind the veil of anonymity (i.e. cowardice), but at the same time, it's also vaguely worth posting to make it clear to however few straight readers we have (okay, however few readers we have, period) that this is this stuff we face, every day, even in 2008. So without further ado, our enlightened reader said:

Homosexuality is a perversion of sexuality no different from pedophilia. Homosexuals are obsessed with putting the genitals where they don't belong. It's a sin.

Right and wrong is NOT determined by public opinion nor personal opinion. Homosexuality is wrong and that's a universal, immutable, objective truth.

Well then. At least this guy can spell.

While I could take apart the comment, I'll let its stupidity stand for itself, save to say this: I knew I was gay not because of where I wanted to stick my dick (and trust me, that was very much the LAST thing I ever wanted to do back when I was 15), but because of who I became emotionally attracted to.

Sweden's nefarious master plan

Via LA Times and Wonkette.

When our long national nightmare is over

Look here for solutions. This should be required reading.

When did you choose to be straight?

Teh awesome:



I've always said that those who say it's a choice are those who've never had to make it.

More on Tory lunacy

Mike and an Anon commenter are not as alarmed as I am about Harper's plan to reopen the Constitution to play with Quebec nationalists and win over their votes.

However, the Globe today came out swinging, and I agree:

Even if the Conservatives wish only to string Quebeckers along with vague promises, they risk creating a national melee that would include aboriginals, provinces outside Quebec and various interest groups seeking new powers. It is hubris to think that any government or party can control the terms of this fraught debate. Out of former prime minister Brian Mulroney's failed Meech Lake Accord (1987) and his failed Charlottetown Accord (1992), came the 1995 Quebec referendum in which the sovereigntists fell just a few thousand votes short of a majority. More recently, when Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff inflamed nationalist passions not quite two years ago by setting out the elements of future constitutional reform, those emotions inexorably gathered force, a momentum not lost until the House of Commons recognized the "Québécois" as a nation within Canada.

Lawrence Martin is a little more pragmatic, observing (alas, subscription needed) that Quebec dominates political thinking far more than it should:

The PM's Quebec preoccupation is driven by politics, of course. Mr. Harper doesn't see many potential gains toward his majority in the West and so concentrates where he sees the most available seats.

The preoccupation is also driven by the media. Quebec still supplies many of the country's key commentators. The obsessive coverage of Liberal missteps in Quebec, a province that is no longer even close to being the party's bread and butter, is the most recent example. Ontario towers over Quebec as an electoral prize. British Columbia is big and fluid. But they rarely rate a mention.

And notes that this might help the other parties:

Although many in the media have wrongly been predicting the demise of the Bloc Québécois for the past decade, there is a larger possibility this time that it can be overtaken. To do so, Mr. Harper must have his party appear as sympathetic to Quebec nationalism as possible.

It's dangerous, though, pollster Nik Nanos was saying yesterday. It opens the door for the other parties to paint the Conservatives as pandering to separatists. One of these days, even Western Canadians, as docile as they've been, might get exercised over that kind of thing.

So perhaps there is a hidden silver lining. We shall see.

This is madness

This is lunacy. The first paragraph terrifies me. The second proves that the Tories will do anything to win a majority now, no matter what the future consequences.

OTTAWA — The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

I was a teenager during the Mulroney constitutional wars, and I remember just how divisive special status for Quebec was. I can't imagine it would be any better now.

Harper will bring the country to the verge of ruin just for 4 years with a majority.

Andrew Sullivan, again being brain dead

Our regular readers will know that I'm not a fan of Andrew Sullivan. Both his religious views (see the awesome smackdowns he repeatedly gets from Sam Harris here) and his fatuous "I don't think any of us could have foreseen how bad the Iraq war was or how bad Bush was or how maybe Bush was lying to get us to got war" are ridiculous.

But this little posting takes the cake:

One word on his [Merton] untimely death: he was electrocuted at the age of 53 when getting out of the bath. It seems awful, unseemly, almost humiliating at first. And yet what a merciful way to be brought back to God. No anxiety; no fear of death; no forewarning. Are there any moments you'd be less expecting to die than getting out of a bath? Merton was so close to God I doubt God needed any last confession or contrition from him. So He took him instantly.

What? Is he saying you need to be close to god before you can die? Or is he saying that all those little children and innocent people randomly smited by natural disasters are all so close to God that God decides, hey, they have full lives ahead of them but I'll take them?

Or that God pays attention to everyone individually that he just decides, okay, time's up, whether you're in the bathtub or walking down the street or at your desk?

Nice guy, this God dude.

Stupid comment of the day

In response to this post, commenter Jonathan writes:

Only on a Liberal website would you find an advertisement for homosexual dates.

Un-fucking real.

Don't forget to wear a rubber.

Well. Where to start.

Quite apart from the fact that, yes, Mike and I are indeed quite gay, there are a few fun propositions here.

Let's do the simple ones first, before pointing out that Johnathon sort of missed the entire point (that I was making fun of the stupid "be free of homosexuality by embracing Jesus" thing.)

"Only on a Liberal website." First I'll assume that the capital L is deliberate. So there are no gay Tories? Right. And if he is just cro magnon and American and meant liberal, well, there are plenty of conservative gays out there.

"Advertisement for homosexual dates." Well well. Does that bug you? Too bad. You name the web site and I'll point out the hundreds of links to match.com or jdate.com or fatsingles.com or whatever, all geared towards the breeders. (And if he thinks it was an actual personal ad, give me a break--Mah reading komprehenshun skillz, let me sho u them.)

But finally, and most importantly, it wasn't a freakin' ad for sex. It was a critique.

You see, if you click the link, you get to a web site for people who are trying to suppress being gay, and are being told that if they just pray hard enough, they'll turn into good little heteros and be "free" from being gay.

First: I don't feel particularly "un-free" for being gay. Nor does anyone I know that's well adjusted.

Second: It's false hope. Praying to the sky god isn't going to do anything, and even if it were, it would be treating the symptom and not the cause.. It would be suppressing something, not changing it.

Third: These things are the fast way to mental problems. The people who are religious enough to think Jesus can help them--and want to not be gay--are clearly coming from already repressive backgrounds. They don't want to be gay because they've been told it's a sin, they've been told it's icky and immoral and they'll go to hell. I.e. they're not coming from a tolerant place. And they're conflicted and tortured. And then they get told that yes, Jesus is right, you must stop being gay, it's a sin. It's a vicious circle of self-hate, religion, more self-hate, more religion, etc.

Fourth: It's incredibly damaging to young kids. When I was a kid I used to try to wish it away. I thought about hypnosis. I thought about medication. I thought about all sorts of things that I could make it go away. I once read, when I was 15, on a bathroom wall at Cinesphere (of all places) that "it's a fact that 25% of all men have homosexual thoughts for up to 3 years." And so I spent 3 years thinking, hey, I just have to wait it out.

And I think about how much happier I would have been in high school had I not believed in false hope (or believed it was bad or wrong or unnatural (and thank god I've never believed in god)) and accepted myself for who I am. 'Cos I'm pretty damn happy with it now.

The only people who have "success" with the ex-gay-through-Jesus moment are people who suppress it, who deep inside yearn for intimacy and love but feel that if they just love Jesus enough, they'll be okay. And yet every time they're around guys, they know what they want, and they have to pray that little bit more to control themselves.

And so, dumbass Johnathon, my point was that the whole city will be full of men desperately trying to be something other than who they are.

I have some pretty good-looking friends (Mike, for one, ain't bad on the eyes). And so the point of my suggestion was hey, let's go there, and make them all the more conflicted, and show the "pray away the gay" bullshit for what it really is: a joke.

For those on the West Coast

And who are looking to find hot (same sex) dates, this might be a great place to go.

A city packed with confused, tortured men and women trying desperately to control their desires and praying to Jesus must be such easy targets it's like dynamite in a fish farm.

Yet another reason to love the Queen

She likes the Wii.

Unlike that previous, useless, do-nothing government...

Why is it that when THE government issues a press release, they insist on using "This Government"? Of course, we all know that "This Government" is shorthand for "Unlike the previous government". I'm not sure how they do it, but when I read the release, my mind automatically added a Harper-esque sneer. And the capitalized 'G' on government is a nice touch. Memories of CNG. Really conveys that This Government is serious about Governing.

Get your hands off my bulbs!

Wonkette highlights some crazy Yankee legislator's attempt to restore freedom of choice . . . in lightbulbs.

(Amusingly, the woman is against abortion--so women can't decide what to do with their bodies, but can control what they do in aisle 4 . . . ).

While certainly phasing out the incandescent bulb makes sense, don't we have bigger environmental fish to fry (er, dry in the sun according to traditional native methods that don't involve any fossil fuels or carbon emissions)?

Commentator procrastinator has a good point:

How about we ban SUV's first?

"Anthropological" argument against SSM totally PWNED!!!11!!!

Here is an awesome takedown of purportedly "anthropological" arguments against same-sex marriage (i.e. the contention that everywhere in the world the natural state of marriage is one-man one-woman.)

Worth reading, not least because it really highlights the fact that people mustering arguments against SMM just plain make up the facts.

Sort of like Republicans do generally.

Closing lines:

As an addendum, I call upon Focus on the Family to acknowledge they deceived their readers when they recently said anthropologists agree with the so-called “traditional definition of marriage” and issue a public apology and correction. They must honestly inform their readers that the American Anthropological Association has previously and publicly condemned attempts to exclude homosexuals from marrying, declaring that marriage, as defined cross-culturally, is inclusive of same-sex marriages. A failure to do so simply reaffirms the view that Focus on the Family is more concerned about its political agenda than its Christian identity.

Kady & Wells, also tag-teaming

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

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

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

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

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

Breakfast

Saw this picture on icanhascheezburger and had to post it.

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

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

Perhaps one day

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

One day.

Amen

Sam Harris is so awesome.

And he's kinda cute too.

Good quotes:

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

and

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

and

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

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

Waitaminit.

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

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

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

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

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

Memo to the American Nation: You are pussies.

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

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

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

Fuck you.

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

Get some goddamn balls.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


If you think

More stupid religion

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

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

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

Arthur C. Clarke, RIP

This makes me incredibly sad.

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

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

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

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

We lost a great author and great man today.

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

That ought to shut them up

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

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

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

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

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

Well, we certainly attract some flies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally

The Jeanfather gets the honour he deserves.

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

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

As the Jeanfather always said, Vive le Canada!

And for good measure, God save the Queen.

Sullivan is an idiot

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a fucking break.

Kady O'Malley...

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

Specious Nonsense from Mukasey

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

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

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

Pilgrimage Bullshit

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

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

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

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

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

Pathetic, all of this.

I love Chris Dodd

Srlsy.



and

Amen

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

An outstanding documentary

Awesome Editorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q.E.D.

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

Some questions for our semi-literate commenter, Fred:

1) Quantify and source everything you've said.

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

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

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

On beating the drums of War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remembrance Day

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

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

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

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

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

Have cake. Will eat it too.

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

Not all lawyers are evil

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

Mad Christians

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

Still, this trailer looks worth watching:

To our dear Lord Black of Crossharbour...

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

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

Canary in the Mine

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

Leaking the news that the leak is intentional

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

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

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

Just slightly ridiculous.