So quit already!

Federal Minister threatens to quit over gay marriage bill - so quit already and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Considering that everyone has known this legislation was coming for the last two years, its taken him a remarkably long time to make up his mind. "'I'm not going to say publicly what I'm going to do,' Mr. Efford told the CBC. 'I first owe it to the church leaders to meet with them and then I owe it to the Prime Minister to meet with him before I make any public statement.'" I guess talking to the CBC isn't "a public statement"?

Perfect timing

Isn't it nice that the Scott Peterson circus is over, so the media can now cover the Bernie Kerik circus -- The Missteps Cited in Kerik Vetting by White House. But don't worry, Bernie - something outrageous will happen later this week to send the flash crowds somewhere else.

Tampon tax? To the barricades!

My initial reaction to this story - MP takes on tampon tax - is: doesn't the NDP have more important things to worry about? What about those homeless people dying in Jack Layton's riding of whom we heard so much during the campaign? What about Aboriginal housing in the north? Or, come to think of it, in Winnipeg itself (Wasylycia-Leis' riding)?
I know the NDP are on top of social issues, but is THIS the burning social issue of the day? And if taxing women's products is discriminatory, well what about toys -- after all, they're used only by children! And wouldn't parents love it, particularly at this time of year, if there were no taxes on toys. And what about Mennen - used only by men, most likely! And Grecian Formula! And what about Centrum Silver, taken only by people over 55, so that makes this tax discriminatory, too. In fact, now that I am 55, I would like a law that exempts everything I buy from taxes -- yes, pass that one, Judy, and the NDP have got MY vote for sure!

The wrong side of history.

Klein pushes for same-sex plebiscite Ahh, Ralph -- marching firmly toward the wrong side of history.
The stupid thing about the referendum idea is that this ship has already sailed -- the courts have already ruled that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and that gay people have the right to marry. So it doesn't matter what a referundum says, rights are rights, period.
Might as well try to have a vote on banning chinooks, Ralph.

True patriot love

Oh, Canada, I am so proud of you. The same-sex marriage legislation will be a shining moment in our history. The Toronto Star notes in What's traditional about marriage? Change that "Acceptance of homosexuality among Canadians has increased exponentially over the past 15 years, says Environics Research Group vice-president Keith Neuman. "Back in 1987, only 10 per cent of Canadians generally approved of homosexuality. It's now up to almost 50 per cent," says Neuman, whose group has conducted extensive polling on the issue. "We've seen a real sea change over the last 15 years towards something that was really stigmatized ... to something that most people are saying they're fine with." And this growing acceptance of gays and lesbians has translated into a majority opinion in favour of same-sex marriages, Neuman says. About 57 per cent of Canadians support the right of same-sex couples to marry, according to Environic's latest poll on the issue."
And all in just 15 years. PFLAG says that the best way to end discrimination against gays is when someone knows a person who is gay. So this is also a credit, and a tribute, to the Canadians who have 'come out' over the last 15 years, so that hundreds of thousands of Canadians will know someone who is gay. I think, also, that the Gay Pride Parades have made a difference -- the first such parade in Saskatchewan a few years ago was banned, as I recall. Now, politicians from all sides of the House march in them and everyone is proud of the Saskatchewan parade. They've been held alternate years between Regina and Saskatoon, but sometime soon I'm sure that both cities will have them every year.
Gay or straight, everyone is welcome -- our family marches in the Gay Pride parade every year, and my 90-year-old aunt waves from her balcony.

We wanna war!

IAEA Leader's Phone Tapped notes that the phone taps "show ElBaradei lacks impartiality because he tried to help Iran navigate a diplomatic crisis over its nuclear programs." Well, of course we can't have THAT, a peaceful solution, can we? Got to fire that guy.
The Bush administration is like the family with the bratty kids in the mall --
"We wanna war, Mom!"
"But you already HAVE a war, in Afghanistan. Remember?"
"Yes, but there isn't anything there, really. Its not much fun. We wanna 'nother one, a bigger one."
"Be quiet now, children, we really can't afford it just now."
"But Mom -- just one more, just Iraq, it won't last very long and it won't cost hardly anything, and Iraq is really scary, Mom. We HAFTA have a war with them. And Winston had one, and Franklin had one, so we want one too, wanna, wanna, wanna, wanna..."
"Oh, allright, allright, go ahead -- anything to keep you quiet. "
"Mom?"
"What is it NOW?"
"Just one more, ple-e-e-ease, pretty please? This is the last one, really, we'll never ask you again, but we really ne-e-e-ed another war again."
"Now look, you kids, I've just about had it with you. You're already had two wars and they're costing me a fortune, and now you want another one? Aren't you ever going to be satisfied? Well, enough is enough, I'm really putting my foot down this time, the answer is NO!"
"But Mom -- those guys in Iran are going to beat us up if we don't go to war first!"
"But you said Iraq was scary, too, and . . ."
"But Mom, this is different. Iran is REALLY REALLY scary and none of us can even TRY to be friends with them."
"Now kids, is that true? Has anyone tried?"
"Sure we have, Mom, but they just pretend to listen, they don't really like us Mom. So we gotta have a war and you can't say no, you just can't! We gotta go to war, Mom, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta . . . "
"Well, I guess . . . as long as it keeps you busy. But this is absolutely the LAST time, and I MEAN it . . ."

And we'll have fun, fun, fun 'til FCC takes blogging away

The press consistently demonstrated both mystification and resentment of blogs and bloggers throughout the American election campaign, but this Blogs: New Medium, Old Politics takes the cake.
CBS 'chief political writer' David Paul Kuhn smears bloggers generally and Atrios in particular as "unethical" because they have both political opinions and day jobs. Then in passing he notes "Beginning next year, the F.E.C. will institute new rules on the restricted uses of the Internet as it relates to political speech. "
Well, I TOLD YOU SO -- welcome to China, everybody.
Atrios himself points out the inaccuracies and errors in this story. This reporter should be embarassed to have made so many mistakes. But he won't be. He has a larger agenda, you see, which is to put bloggers out of business.
He sets up a straw man, claiming that bloggers pretend to be neutral but are actually partisan. Well, excuse me, but the most popular bloggers, from Atrios to Kos to Instapundit to Powerline have NEVER been "neutral" -- large or small, we're all partisan from the get-go, and unashamed of it. Why blog at all, unless we have a point of view to promote?
But this, of course, cannot be allowed -- why, people might start thinking that freedom is on the march!
The US right wing has succeeded so well in cowing the mainstream media (except for Keith Obermann) that they frequently adopt pathetic circumlocutions and patently false equivalencies just to avoid any accusation of "being partisan" (read, Democrat). Remember how hard it was for any reporter during the American election campaign to ever state plainly that Republicans were actually lying in their election ads?
But the dreadful "partisan" accusation hadn't managed to stop the bloggers -- who are still doing outrageous things like questioning the Florida and Ohio votes. So now its the bloggers' turn -- and the press, which should be supporting both free speech and the freedom of the Internet, is going along with it. No doubt reporters are tired of getting hammered by both the right wing and left wing blogs for their cowardice and inadequate research, as well as being envious of how powerful some bloggers, like Atrios, have become in affecting American public opinion. And it was bloggers, after all, who not only succeeded in bringing down Dan Rather but also in stopping Clear Channel's Kerry-bashing broadcast.
So of course, bloggers must be stopped. It's only fair, really -- why should we have all that fun?

Buying themselves credibility

"Buying yourself a job" used to be something that was noted somewhat critically. If no business would actually hire you to work for them and no university would actually associate itself with your project and no organization would actually elect you to lead them and no denomination would actually call you to their pulpit -- if instead you just created your own high-sounding "institute/centre/council/church" and picked your own title as "the CEO/president/director/pastor" and rented a place and printed up your own letterhead and created your own website -- well, it used to mean that you didn't really have much credibility.
But I have noticed lately that a number of the "Christian Right" spokespeople in the US appear to have bought themselves their own jobs -- check out the Medical Institute for Sexual Health which is running the inaccurate abstinence programs that are being criticized now, and the Media Research Centre, Parents Television Council and Conservative Communications Centre which has auto-generated thousands of indecency complaints to the FCC, and the Grace Christian Church which recently published its anti-gay magazine in the Washington Post. Self-employment projects, every one.
They seem to be pretty well financed. And they don't seem to have any problem with credibility any more -- they speak before Congress, and get lots of media interviews, and no one asks them any questions about self-employment.

Living in a dream world

Kos points us to the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, published without any media notice in September.
Its content is pretty devastating -- it is filled with statements like "messages should seek to reduce, not increase, perceptions of arrogance, opportunism, and double standards" and "U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself" and "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy".
Now that this report has reached the blogs, we can expect the NYT and Wash Post to pick it up and trumpet it, and its going to be difficult for the usual suspects -- talk show hosts, Christian rightists and Republican politicians -- to 'partisanize' and discredit this report.
But in the end, the report is really pretty pointless. It concludes: "Strategic communication . . . must be transformed with a strength of purpose that matches our commitment to diplomacy, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security. Presidential leadership and the bipartisan political will of Congress are essential."
Well, and what are the chances of THAT? Fugedaboudit -- ain't gonna happen!

I think we can now conclude

that there is already a civil war going on in Iraq, between the "insurgents" and the "collaborators". It just hasn't been officially announced yet.
Today in Iraq and Juan Cole report on the dozens of Iraqis killed by insurgent bombs in the last 24 hours.
Cole also notes the destruction of several Iraq cities by American bombing. This will result in hundreds of thousands of refugees wandering the countryside without resources - there aren't any aid organizations left in Iraq now who can help them.
So maybe those Pentagon plans for a humanitarian crisis will come in handy by Christmas, after all.
And yes, I often speak cynically in this blog about Iraq -- but in reality what is going on over there now makes me feel sick at heart -- not only what the poor Iraqi people are suffering but also what the American soldiers are going through. It just has to stop! Though America must continue to pour money into Iraq, they must get their soldiers out. There is no hope of peace there as long as the Americans stay.

Trashing the UN

So according to Google News, there are now 500 news stories about how awful the UN is and how Kofi Annan should resign - like this one Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Annan is a symptom of UN's sickness...
So what provoked this sudden outburst of indignation at the UN -- from a press which has given the Bush administration a free pass on everything from the Saudi-911 connection to Abu Gharib to Halliburton?
Well, I think there are three reasons:
First, Kofi Annan dissed Bush when he described the Iraq war as illegal, and Bush will never forgive such a remark.
Second, the Iraq elections, if they are even held at all, are going to be a disaster. There will be so many problems with the vote that the UN will have a hard time accepting Iraq's newly "elected" leader as legitimate -- if it is, for example, our old pal Chalabis. So trashing the UN now will reduce its credibility in questioning of the Iraq "vote".
Third, and likely most important, the Bush administration is gearing up for war with Iran in 2005 or 2006. The Security Council is so far refusing to get suckered in to any sanction resolutions which the US could later use as justification for another preemptive war. So discrediting the UN becomes an important opening salvo in the PR campaign to convince the American public to go along with the new Iran war.
Depressing, isn't it.

Techno-ghosts

This was in Yahoo News Technology section - Woman Auctions Father's Ghost on eBay
Well, I guess you could describe EBay as "technology" but I had never thought of "ghosts" in that category! Maybe there really are Ghosts in the Machines now. And if you believe this one, how about a grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the Virgin Mary? Naah, no one would ever believe that!

Wear the rainbow

MSNBC - Gay Americans see trouble ahead
It's time to show it. Anyone and everyone, gay or straight, who supports gay rights must show this now. Wear the rainbow!

Canadians still feel dissed

The fence-mending tour is over -- its interesting to realize that, for Canada, this was seen as Bush's attempt to mend fences (it wasn't), while the American media seemed surprised that there are any fences to mendhere.
Humourist Rick Mercer and U of T professor Mark Kingwell were interviewed about the Bush visit on PBS's NewsHour: President Bush Visits Canada and both made some good points about why Canadians don't trust George Bush and the Bush administration. Basically, we don't like being dissed.
Mercer noted: ". . . one of the big sticking points between Canada and the United States is that Bush never came here. . . and his ambassador would roll back and forth across the country for the last four years telling Canadians what to do and telling us, you know, what we were doing wrong and how we should run our country and what laws we should pass and should not pass. And, as a result, there has been an incredible amount of animosity building between the two nations and not just over trade, which is obviously very big, but this feeling that there is this attitude coming from Washington that Canada is, you know, is a state, essentially someone who should do just what they're told when they're told. And, you know, Canadians didn't buy into that. And, as a result, that's why you see George Bush being phenomenally unpopular in this country."
Kingwell was even stronger: ". . . there are fundamental rifts on what kind of liberalism each country is pursuing. And the reasoned objection to an unjust war, the legitimate claims of cultural independence in these trade disputes where we are simply protecting the interests of our farmers and ranchers and loggers have highlighted those differences. So I would say probably it hasn't been this bad for a long time . . . I think many Alberta ranchers are not going to be particularly pleased with the mockery that the president offered on the issue. This has been a serious hit to the economy of the prairies. . . many Canadians are wondering not just why Bush is here now, but why it took him three years to thank us for what happened after 9/11. This was a significant breach of diplomatic protocol when there was no forthcoming thanks at the time. And I think that was part of what made the relationship deteriorate, part of a general loss of faith in the American attitude after 9/11 . . . I also think that his defense of his actions in Iraq as being in accordance with the United Nations Security Council is disingenuous. The Bush administration has consistently failed to cooperate with the United Nations; something that Canadians have been urging all along as the real basis of any kind of legitimate international action. He has also refused to cooperate with the international criminal court with various measures which Canadian diplomats and thinkers have been spearheading to try to give a legitimate basis to international law so that we don't see the kind of rogue action that we have seen in Iraq."
This was also portrayed as a dry run for a Bush trip to Europe in the winter -- oh, that's going to be fun, isn't it?

Actual innocence

POGGE writes a great piece about Arar and the RCMP -- To serve and protect. Our reputation, that is.
In the comments section, someone posted "As for Arar, I do not know the full story and I doubt that we ever will, inquiry or not. You can be sure that there is some info about Arar that CSIS has that it will never share."
And that's exactly the problem now.
Being a law-abiding, tax-paying, white, middle-class person, I, too, used to believe in the police and the justice system -- I thought that, as a general rule, that police would NEVER finger someone as a suspect nor would prosecutors EVER bring charges against anyone unless they had GOOD reason to think the person was ACTUALLY GUILTY of a crime.
But over the last five years, there's just been too much bullshit going on in provincial justice systems across the country for me to believe this anymore. Not to mention the "guilty of being Aboriginal" bias which has thrown so many Aboriginal people in jail over the years that there is likely not a single Aboriginal person in the country who hasn't had at least one relative serving time -- certainly in Saskatchewan, that is the case.
Examples? Saskatoon's very own "Starlight tours" and the Stonechild inquiry and the Klassen case. Then there is Driskell, Phillion, Sophonow, Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Truscott, and all the other cases referenced on Injusticebusters as well as all the Innocence Projects around the world.
So actually, no, I don't have any particular problem believing that Arar could be guilty only of being Muslim after 9/11.
First they came for the Aboriginals
and I did not speak out
because I was not Aboriginal.
Then they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not gay.
Then they came for the pro-choicers
and I did not speak out
because I was not pro-choice.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
(with apologies to author Pastor Martin Niemöller )