Well, that was a bit of a firestorm

Well.

Who knew that suggesting sensible sercurity could set people off like that (see my post below).

First, the statement that I'm a "bigot" can be dealt with swiftly. That sort of response is typical of the PC set--the unintellectual, knee-jerk reaction that the instant you start characterizing anyone by anything other than the moniker "person," you're a racist. No facts. No logic. No attempt to refute anything. No attempt to explain why it makes sense to stop, say, orchestras from bringing their instruments on board (as reported on As It Happens last night) or to search wizzened grandmothers in wheelchairs. No--you just go for the jugular, the person is a bigot. Well, Ottawa Liberal, I breathlessly await an explanation.

And to Kris, who worries about the slippery slope effects, the answer is pretty straightforward: First, we reject slippery slope arguments all the time, notably that allowing gay marriage won't lead to fathers marrying their sons or women marrying their pet dogs. It's one thing entierly to say that in airport sercurity lines we'll be more attuned to risky classes of people. It's something quite entierly different to say we'll start rounding up anyone remotely middle-eastern looking in the streets and intern them.

And second, there's an even bigger hurdle: Constitutional issues. (I'm speaking from my understanding of American law). It is absolutely positively crystal clear that you cannot stop someone in the street just because he's black/gay/arab/muslim/purple. You cannot stop them without individualized reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and you cannot detain them without individualized probable cause. Race/religion/class do not provide for individualized probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Period. Sure, in specific cases reasonable suspicion can be manufactured, but not on a wholescale.

That is not the case at an airport. At an airport, all passengers consent to searches--they don't have to board the plane and they have no more right to get on a plane without a search than they do to get into my office without my consent: the condition of boarding is that you consent to a search. Constitutional issues are not implicated. Searching can then be tailored. They can give grannies and babies quick searches, and more thorough searches to those who potentially are greater risk.

I know it's not pretty. I know it's not an ideal situation. But to live in the absurd situation we have now, all in the guise of "anyone could be a terrorist," is nonsense.

It's not like the world's dialogue doesn't acknowledge the problem. We aren't fighting against "people who want to blow up planes, irrespective of their religion or nationality." No. To quote from Thomas Friedman (hardly a right-winger), "the biggest threat to open societies today[is] violent, radical Islam." The papers have been full of the phrase "Islamic fascism" or "radical Islam." The groups that keep trying to blow things up aren't called "Tea-cozy grannies" or "United Church Brotherhood" or "Torah Martyrs Brigade."

PC Hogwash

Okay. Heard on NPR today that certain police chiefs in the UK are saying that airport security needs to be targeted, but that some top Muslim cop says that would be a bad idea because it would alienate the people we need to help combat terrorism.

I'm sorry, but I'm just a little over this nonsense.

The 19 Sept. 11 highjackers: Muslim men.

The London bombers: Muslim men.

The London liquid bombers: Muslim men.

The Spanish bombers: Muslim men.

The USS Cole bombers: Muslim men.

The Bali bombers: Muslim men.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

But still at the airport we see the nonsense of old ladies having to take off their shoes, mothers with two babies having to take a sip of their baby formula, professional men and women not being permitted their laptops, teenagers being denied their iPods, all so we can maintain the fiction that everyone's a potential terrorist, not just the people who are.

The last time I saw someone blow up a plane in the name of the United Church of Canada, or some fanatic demanding strict adherence to the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith on pain of death (don't be celibate (article 32) or die!!!), or demanding that diapers be put on goats or the shepherd gets his throat cut was . . . well . . . NEVER (even though violating sheep is a real danger in Wales). Sure, during the Inquisition the Church did a lot of nasty things, but we're a bit beyond that in the 21st century now.

And every time some muslim blows something up or tries to blow something up, we get the usual PC hogwash--civic leaders saying it's important not to overreact, various muslim leaders equivocating ("Islam is a religion of peace, but we have to understand that . . ."), the police saying that no, there is no collective guilt.

Bullshit. Let's take some collective responsibility, folks. Next time, rather than ever Imam making some half-baked statement, let's get every last one standing up and saying "No." Let's get EVERY muslim civic leader not just condemning, but going out actively and doing something about it. Not the "Well, we have to understand that when a people are oppressed or degraded . . ."

The first thing it seems muslim leaders do is DISTANCE themselves from terrorists. How about the Germans? There's still a massive sense of collective guilt for things that their grandparents did. I went to high school in Germany and the faults of their forefathers are drilled into their heads, year after year. The Germans take responsibility for the horrors in which their ancestors were shareholders.

Not so the Muslim world. Bombers are always outcasts, they don't represent Islam, we aren't collectively responsible.

I say, no more. I'm over the fact that our governments spaces are now closed to the public because of a few MUSLIM terrorists. I'm over the fact that I have to submit to a ridiculous search at an airport, because of a few MUSLIM terrorists. I'm over the fact that our entire national dialogue has been hijacked by the right thanks to a few MUSLIM terrorists.

If Islam really is a religion of peace, let Muslims help themselves. And meanwhile, let's quit the fallacy that everyone is a possible terrorist. Because really, my 85-year old grandmother isn't. That 2 year old child isn't. The businessman and CEO isn't. My high-school principal mother isn't.

Let's drop the PCism and actually target those who are a real danger.

Bush doesn't understand cause and effect

Bush and his lackeys have always been one to go full steam ahead, damning the torpedoes. They make their grand pronouncements, piss off the world, and don't care. Until they have to. As the Times today in an editorial says (in re Freedom Fries):

The renaming also was the embodiment of President Bush’s my-way-or-the-highway diplomacy. A French Embassy spokeswoman gamely told The Associated Press at the time that “we are at a very serious moment dealing with very serious issues, and we are not focusing on the name you give to potatoes.” But “freedom fries” was intended to be, and was, a poke in France’s eye. Harassing the French is probably not the wisest course now that America may need their help negotiating a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Exactly. All the countries that Bush has pissed off have memories. Think of Canadians: We've seen how outrageously the US has flaunted NAFTA in regards to softwood lumber. You think we'll forget when it comes time to sign new trade deals?

So the US is stuck in Iraq. It's got new problems in the Middle East. At some point, it's going to need help. You think, given the abuse that all those who were not members of the coalition of the willing got, that the world's going to quickly forgive and forget and help dig the US out?

Fat chance.

Israeli Restraint

All this call for "proportional response" is making me damn sick.

What do you think the US would do if Canada were taken over by, say, Al-Qaida and people started firing rockets at the US from downtown Toronto or the Village or something? You think it wouldn't carpet-bomb Toronto into a sheet of glass, to the howls of praise of every last American?

And Israel, going after terrorists who are firing rockets NOT at military targets but at civilians, happens to kill a few civilians in doing so. Yes, that's tragic. But Israel, unlike Hezbollah, is not specifically targeting civilians. Has anyone stood up and said, "Excuse me, Hezbollah, would you please stop firing rockets at civilians?" No.

Has anyone said, "Excuse me, Hezbollah, would you mind not hanging out in densely populated civilian areas firing rockets at Israel, which you know will provoke a response and which you know will kill your own people?"

What on earth is Israel to do? Hang out while terrorists fire rockets behind human shields? What sovereign nation on earth would be expected to countenance that? The fact that civilians are being killed is because the terrorists specifically intend for them to be killed. If Hezbollah fired rockets from unpoluated areas, no civilians would be killed. Plain and simple.

No one is demanding "proportionality" from Hezbollah - no one is demanding that THEY stop risking civilian lives, that they stop targeting civilians.

Israel's a country surrounded on every side by enemies that take the form of state actors (Syria, Iran, Saudi) as well as nonstate actors (Hezbollah, Whatever-council-of-islamic-jihadi-whatever). It's surrounded by rabid anti-semites who think Jews eat children and drink blood and who believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, chapter and verse. And the people who attack it do so behind ramparts made not of defensive fortifications but of populated apartment blocks. And by our calls for "proportionality," we give them free rein to keep doing so.

Musical Praise

Recently I heard an NPR special on a Canadian group called The Duhks. I downloaded them but only this weekend spent any time listening, and to be honest, I'm a little hooked.

They're a nice combo of folksy-blue-grassy music, mixed with some celtic and french folk songs. As one review puts it,

the group manages to cut a wide swath through music history, one that incorporates everything from Irish reels to traditional gospel-blues concoctions while also touching upon the contemporary folk of The Mammals and the reggae-tinted pop of Sting.

They also take a hand at various spirituals, which are pretty cool.

I'd recommend both albums. The later album, Your Daughters and your Sons, is a little more folk-music laden than their debut album, The Duhks, but both equally cool.

So buy them. Tracks I'd recommend if you want to sample include Gene's Machine (Irish reels with an eastern undertone) and Dover Delaware (just nice), as well as the first minute or so of Guiliano's Tune.

More free, my arse--what about the beers?

As I'm sure our (four) regular readers have noticed, I'm not such a fan of the shibboleth of "America is the freest land ever!" Familiar readers (we do love you) will note that I've often pointed to various things which make others in other countries -- freedom to marry, freedom to not get sick, etc.

However, this past week, I was in London for my best mate's wedding (and my meditations on weddings soon) and one critical measure of freedom was suddenly drawn to my attention.

In the UK, you can walk down the street drinking a beer.

If that's not freedom, I don't know what is.

Lebanese evacuation

I'm tired of hearing about the Lebanese evacuation, and the 'failure' of the Canadian government. The media is having a field day, airing stories of inconvenience and incompetence and personal helI. t's not hard to find someone to bitch when they are stuck out in the sun and under a lot of stress. I really can't tell much difference between these people's stories and the usual sob stories the media love to publish about stranded travellers griping with Air Canada at Christmas. But try and find the story about the person who understands how difficult the situation is, and cuts the government and Foreign Affairs some slack.

Some opinion pieces are starting to trickle down, finally, defending the government's response, and asking who exactly these 40,000 Canadians are (among 500,000 others), and why they expect the Western governments to achieve overnight what 700 ships took over a week to accomplish at Dunkirk in WWII.

Margaret Wente takes a stab at it. And although he's a right-wing bastard, Terence Corcoran nails the issue in today's National Post.

There's a slightly uncomfortable tone to their commentary on the issue of who it is holding the Canadian passport, with a suggestion that dual citizenship is somehow of less quality than a single citizenship. But it is worth discussing the obligations of government to their citizens, especialling when citizenship is blurry.

Bush the Frat Boy

Well, Dubya was certainly on form at the G8 Summit.

From speaking in fratboy ("Yo, Blair!"), to his "It takes him 8 hours to get home. China's a big country. Russia's a big country" to groping the Chancellor of Germany(!!!!!!!!), what sort of statesman is Bush?

Can you imagine the shame that would be felt anywhere in the rest of the world if Tony Blair or Stephen Harper or Elizabeth II behaved like that? Calling leaders of other countries by their last names, as if it were a briefing document or newspaper article? Marvelling, like some astounded child, at how big the world is? Putting your hands on another head of state? I mean, we thought it was cool when Chretien throttled that protester, but that's a little different. Does anyone remember the humiliation of Mulroney singing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" with Reagan?

But here, oh no, we re-elect him!

Stupid Congress--Gay Marriage

Okay. I'm really, really, really over hearing how unelected activist judges are going to ruin the world and bring about gay marriage. Because they're not. What they mean, as Daliah Lithwick (who I'd switch for - Daliah, Marry me?) pointed out on NPR this morning, is "unelected activist judges from Massachusettes." Because really, in the last two weeks, we've lost in Tennessee, in Nebraska, in Georgia, and in NEW YORK. In New Bloody York! That really means the only place where there's any sort of chance of anything happening is here in California where, it should be pointed out, the Legislature PASSED a same-sex marriage bill and Schwartzenneger vetoed it.

Iraq is a mess. So is the entire Middle East. Iran's making nukes. DPRK is firing missiles. New Orleans is gone. The budget deficit is $300billion. Osama's hiding somewhere. Indonesia's drowning. Everyone hates us. 40% of the population has no healthcare. The minimum wage is below subsistence levels.

But no, the single most important thing to do is to amend the Constitution. Most Amendmends do good things, like letting women vote and abolishing slavery and protecting us from searches and seizures and giving free speech. That kind of good thing.

George Bush has the Answer

As I'm sure everyone knows, Dubya was picked up by his mic making the following Churchillian pronouncement on the Middle East:

See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

Well. There you have it.

First: the "irony"? What exactly is ironic about this situation? Moreover, even if there were something ironic in the whole thing, it certainly wouldn't be getting Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit.

Second: This little sentence perfectly encapsulates Dubya and his cabal's approach to diplomacy. Recall when Cheney said that the Iraqis would just have to start governing? Didn't Condi say the same thing: basically, if we tell them to just stop fighting and get along, they will.

Maybe it works for kids - you can tell them to take a time out and stop pulling each other's hair. That's not how governance works. Telling the Iraqis, with so much pent up sectarian hate that's been fanned for months now, to just "sit down and start getting along" is a pathetic approach to solving the world's problems.

What does Dubya think - if we just call up Syria, they're going to say, "okay, we'll just give Hezbollah a call and get them to stop, no problem, it's over"?

The Frat Boy President, who prior to his presidency had been to what, Mexico once for some cheap beer?, now purports to solve the worlds problems with simple solutions: "Just stop."

And didn't everyone love the moment when Bush lectured Putin on democracy being built in Iraq, and Putin told him that Iraqi-style democracy wasn't exactly a good idea for Russia? That was the best line ever.

O My!

Sitting with some friends yesterday sipping a bloody mary at Basix, we saw a bus go by with one of the new Snickers ads that are floating around the city. They all involve some play on words and peanuts and hunger of some sort. The one we saw:

Hungerectomy

Clearly this is trying to get across the idea that it gets rid of your hunger, like an appendectomy or something. However, clearly the person who approved this ad didn't have the dirty mind of a gay man, because we immediately saw:

Hung. Erect. O my!

(hat tip to toometa for the pic)

Carolyn vs. the Elephant

Liberal leadership candidate Carolyn Bennett writes in the Globe today, warning against 'the elephant in the room': shady membership recruitment

She's right of course. But it's not the membership recruitment process that is shady. It's the recruitment of members, period.  I never understood leadership races the way they are run now, signing up members to get the most delegates at the convention.

When a group needs to pick a leader, the existing members of the group pick one. They don't run out and grab as many extra people as possible to artificially inflate their power to pick the leader. It's rather bizarre.

Anyway, Bennett takes great pains not to name the elephant. It gets rather comical. But then she lets fly at the end...fun!

Changing the rules

Well, didn't we guess that this was going to happen? Supreme Court slaps down Bush. So Republicans want to just rubber stamp what Bush did and say, see, now it's legal! Awesome quote:

"This could be easy," said Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.), who proudly announced she has neither a law degree nor a college degree as she denounced the high court's 5 to 3 decision against the tribunals as "incredibly counterintuitive." "We could just ratify what the executive branch and the [Department of Defense] have done
and move on."

Right. A woman who probably knows nothing about the law says that the Supreme Court was wrong, because she thinks it's counterintuitive. I'm sure that by "counterintuitive" she means "isn't what I want."

But more importantly, what on earth are we saying to the world? "We signed the Geneva Conventions, and now we're going to back out of them." Or is it "we do what we want, how we want to."

Of course, I'm sure the other option is a signing statement by Bush to the Geneva conventions.

But it doesn't give us any moral highground any more. When Americans are tortured by insurgents or whomever, we have no standing to complain. When Americans are thrown into dark cells for months on end, we have no right to complain. Some people will say that there's a difference - we're Americans, they're terrorists, and we're doing it to terrorists and they to Americans, and thus it's different.

Nonsense. The salient thing is the act, not the person doing the act nor the object of the act.
Just because we're a democracy doesn't mean we can torture - if anything, it means we can do it less. Just because they're alleged terrorists doesn't mean anything. If the capacity to torture or the capacity to be tortured flows from a label, then it's all too easy to slap a label on someone and then do what you want.

The president is always right?

This is scary. Sen. Leahy questioning a DOJ lawyer on Bush:

LEAHY : Was the President right or was he wrong?
BRADBURY: The President is always right.

Of course he is. Always. (Hat tip: Green Knight.) Much better, I think, were the comments in the House by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Il)

"Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.

"Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?

"Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.

"Lesson 1: When the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State say you are going to war without enough troops, you're going to war without enough troops.

"Lesson 2: When 8.8 billion dollars of reconstruction funding disappears from Iraq, and 2 billion dollars disappears from Katrina relief, it's time to demand a little accountability.

"Lesson 3: When you've 'turned the corner' in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.

"Lesson 4: When the national weather service tells you a category 5 hurricane is heading for New Orleans, a category 5 hurricane is heading to New Orleans.

"I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'

"They must be the only people in Washington who get more vacation time than the President.

"Maybe the White House could consolidate these positions into a Director of Irony."

And the scary thing is, people still support him. This administration is a charicature of itself. If you wanted to design a regime of a cartoon state, this is the regime you'd design. The purported "best democracy" in the world has an administration that believes itself above the law, that believes it is never wrong, and that pumps out soviet-style newspeak propaganda (In response to the Supreme Court telling us to START following the Geneva conventions, responding with "we've always followed the Geneva conventions.).

(Hat tip: Americablog)

Music Update

Okay. I may have been just a touch hasty in my assessment of the Gorecki Harpsichord Concerto.

It's still not a concerto. It's just not. There's no solo in the first movement. There's no interaction between the "soloist" and the orchestra, except that, you know, they're playing the same piece. And the first movement ends on some silly major chord, when the entire movement has barely modulated at all within the minor keys. The final chord, which comes from nowhere, sounds like the noise my iMac makes when I turn it on.

And the last movement is strange - there is some "interaction" - the harpsichordist plays a glorified version of chopsticks, the orchestra responds - it sounds like a train motif would in some sort of Wagner-inspired silent movie accompanied by an orchestra - the "train leitmotif." The first movement is briefly hinted at it - maybe a half bar, one bar before the end. Dumb.

But the first movement, in hindsight, has some value. It has a certain urgency, an ominour brooding, a sense of gathering menace. That might be left over because I read it while reading about civilian life in East Prussia during the end of the Second World War, and maybe had I listened to it while sipping cocktails on the beach, things would have been different.

But it has something - some deeper emotion that maybe I didn't pick up on the first time. I sort of like it. I still visualize some sort of Goetterdaemerung Berlin-in-flames closing scene from a movie, but no matter.

Screwy Music

Okay. I'm a really, really big fan of Henryk Gorecki's 3d Symphony (well, the 1st movement is a bit boring, but the 2d and 3d are wonderful). I particularly recommend the 2d movement when you're stoned.

But I just downloaded his Harpsichord Concerto, and it's just plain silly.

First, it only has 2 movements, both fast.

The first movement is all power chords - the strings playing open fifths that changes notes. In the background, the harpsichord plays arpeggios. Ritornello form it is not. It does have some interest - particularly because I was listening to it while reading a book about the end of the Second World War and it seemed ominously appropriate. But it's just not a concerto.

The second movement is even sillier. Maybe my ear is lacking but I can't detect any thematic relationship between the two, apart from the fact that the harpsichordist is carrying on like a squirrell on speed.

It honestly sounds like a practice composition: "Write some chords and then write a series of arpeggios overtop of them to test your knowledge of harmony."

That's the price you pay when you impulse buy on iTunes after having a few drinks.

Well, DUH

"The president [Dubya] looked right at me and said, 'You know, your prime minister is a very direct man ... I like that because I know what he's saying. I don't like this nuance stuff,"' [Candian Ambassador to the US Michael] Wilson told CBC television on Sunday.

They finally got their man

The two gay mounties are finally married. This follows after the military allowed gay weddings on its bases. And look--nothing bad has happened. People in rural Nova Scotia don't give a damn.

Meanwhile, you can't be gay and a yankee scout, you can't be gay and serve in the yankee military, and you certainly can't get married anywhere other than Massachusettes.

As the Globe said it its Canada day editorial, the sun is truly shining on our beautiful little country. No deficit, vibrant politics, competent government, tolerance, justice, peace:

What a day that was. What a day this is. Just look around you, and marvel at what we have. Prosperous and free, well governed and well defended, open to the world and accepting of change, this country has found its place in the sun. Yes, we have troubles, plenty of them. Those are for other days. Today is the day to sit back and enjoy the sunshine streaming down on this blessed country, Canada.

When Pierre Trudeau became Liberal Leader and Prime Minister, he said in his acceptance speech (at around 2:00), "Canada must be unified! Canada must be one! Canada must be progressive! And Canada must be a just society!" And we are there. His final words as Liberal leader and Prime Minister: "Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong. And our dreams for this beautiful country will never die."

As the chaplancy of the Canadian Forces states, in its instructions that same-sex couples are to be treated equally: "The caring, compassionate response of Canadian Forces chaplains, based on genuine Love and the Grace of God may well be a prophetic voice both to the church in Canada and to the nation." Indeed. Is this not the true Christian message, rather than what you hear from nutcases?

Has there ever, anywhere, been a better place to be gay?

Globe's Canada Day Editorial

Stirring stuff. Stuff to make you proud.

Marvellous times for a lucky country
Have we ever had it so good? Taking a look around on this day of national celebration, it is hard not to be awed by how fortune shines on this country. By almost any measure, Canada in 2006 is in wonderful shape.

The economy is humming along and has been for several years, pushing the unemployment rate to its lowest in more than three decades. We just set a new record for the number of jobs created in a single month: 150,000. Just about everyone with some kind of skill can find work these days. Never in our 139 years has life been so good for so many.

Our economic growth is vying with that of the United States for bragging rights as first in the G8 group of industrialized nations. Even better news, the picture is bright right across the country.
***
Luck is part of the reason for the new prosperity, but good management plays a part too. It may surprise jaded voters, but Canada is remarkably well governed. Beginning last decade, Ottawa began getting its red-stained books in order, and today its finances are the envy of the world, with a falling debt ratio and surpluses as far as the eye can see. The provinces, too, have embraced fiscal responsibility. Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell tamed British Columbia's deficit and Quebec's Jean Charest produced his government's fourth consecutive balanced budget this spring. Those who still run deficits, like Ontario under Dalton McGuinty, make plans to wipe them out before they dare face the voters.
***
The provinces are reinvesting too: Alberta in schools and hospitals, Ontario in education and power generation, the Atlantic provinces in job training. In Toronto, with government and private help, a beautiful new opera house has just opened its doors, and the art gallery and museum are undergoing spectacular redesigns. In every major city, house prices are up -- sometimes scandalously -- and homeowners are renovating like mad.

But money isn't everything, and Canada is doing splendidly other ways too. Take politics. The unhealthy monopoly enjoyed by the Liberals thanks to a divided political right came to an end in January and we now have two solid national parties again, one to the left of centre, one to the right, with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to keep things interesting.
***
Multiculturalism, that great Canadian experiment, is thriving. The 17 Ontario men accused of plotting terrorist acts are a rare exception in a good-news story: the integration of millions of newcomers from around the world. No other country has managed mass immigration so well.

It may be tiresome to boast about our tolerance, but Canadians have also managed rapid social change with remarkable equanimity. Just look at the two Mounties, both men, who were married yesterday in the town of Yarmouth, N.S., taking their vows wearing that symbol of Canada, the RCMP red tunic. What's the big deal? they asked. Most Canadians seem to agree.

What a day that was. What a day this is. Just look around you, and marvel at what we have. Prosperous and free, well governed and well defended, open to the world and accepting of change, this country has found its place in the sun. Yes, we have troubles, plenty of them. Those are for other days. Today is the day to sit back and enjoy the sunshine streaming down on this blessed country, Canada.

America and Jesus

Honestly, more and more I think this country is becoming Jesusland.