Missing the chance

Anglican bishops call moratorium on same-sex blessings
This is sad news -- the Canadian Anglican bishops have missed an opportunity for leadership.
And of course, while slapping gay people in the face, they also include the meaningless pat on the back -- the article ends with a sentence about how the bishops "affirmed the place of gays and lesbians in the church, offering thanks for their contribution to its life and witness."
Oh really -- how Christian of them.
The bishops have made it very clear that the place of gays in the Anglican church is out in the hallway, where they are welcome to put a few dollars into the collection plate but cannot actually come into the santuary and sit with all the "real" Anglicans.

What the people think

Voices: PM's deal with the NDP
Here's the Toronto Star article quoting letters about the Liberal/NDP deal -- and Harper had better watch his mouth and quell the rhetoric, because the public is not amused:
"Only last week Stephen Harper was complaining that the minority government was behaving like it was a majority. Now that they are behaving like a minority - taking the policies of the other parties on board, Harper complains its a disgrace and a "deal with the devil". He can't have it both ways, and to call the NDP the Devil is simply inappropriate behaviour for any politician who thinks he's Prime Minister material. "
"Stephan Harper threatens to bring down the government over their deal with the NDP. The arrogance of the man is breathtaking."
". . . if the Conservatives think that a very large proportion of the Canadian voting public are devils, then it sounds like they're the ones with the problem.
"I didn't realize the "devil" was the working class, students, and the environment. "
"This deal is political genius on behalf of Layton and Martin. When Harper pulls the plug, he will effectively begin the campaign as the champion of corporate tax breaks."
"I voted NDP . . . Why would I . . . find it a bad thing for Layton to gain a little ground?"
and finally, this one:
"Having spent the past four months in the USA, I would elect the devil incarnate before I would risk letting a group of religious extremists, market economy fanatics, gun nuts, and warmongers take over in Ottawa."

I read the news today oh boy

Here's a batch of recent "news" stories from Iraq which I simply do not believe:
Iraq Leader Says Cabinet Is Ready After Long Delay - well, almost, maybe. Juan Cole said that if the interim government in Iraq actually gives up power to an elected government, then democracy will have happened in Iraq in spite of all the problems. Well, it hasn't happened yet.
UPDATE -- it just did -- hooray!
Politics threaten end of road for Iraq's shock troops - oh, sure, they're going to send 12,000 Iraqi troops home because they aren't Shiites. Yeah, and they'll go quietly, too, I'm sure
Official: Zarqawi Eluded U.S. in Feb. Raid -- about every six months, there's another news story about how they almost got him this time.
Myers: Insurgency same as year ago - what, but I thought things were so much better? Actually, of course, it is worse -- the resistance is now mounting substantial attacks directly on American bases.
Pentagon: Soldiers not at fault in Italian's death - the Italians won't forgive and forget this one.
Top Army Officers Are Cleared in Abuse Cases -- and in relation to this last one, Phil Carter writes in Intel Dump:

Based on the evidence contained in the Taguba report, Schlesinger report, Fay-Jones report, and the Church report, as well as the volume of documents obtained by the ACLU's FOIA litigation, I believe there to be sufficient evidence . . .that these senior officers committed criminal failures of leadership. One of the worst scandals in American military history happened on their watch, under their direction, at least partly due to conditions under their control and yet, the highest-ranking individual to see prosecution so far for these abuses is a Staff Sergeant. . . . In wartime, the military must send a better message to the troops, that it will hold their leaders accountable for everything their units do or fail to do.

Thanks to Today in Iraq for most of these links.

Donald, where's your troosers?

In Michelle Malkin is making sense, the Poorman raises the veil on a risky immigration problem for America, one that could affect the very future of both Canada and the United States. No more skirting the issue -- the root of the problem is not those hairy-chested Mexicans, says Poorman. No, its much more low-down than that -- "I could write whole treatises on how these degenerate potato-people are working ceaselessly to take over America, under the upturned noses of our open borders capitulationist and stability fetishist elites"
And here's their hidden "agenda", revealed at last:

Let the wind blow high and the wind blow low
Through the streets in my kilt I go
All the lassies cry, "Hello!
Donald, where's your troosers?"

Well, personally, I'll be in no position to care

Cemetery to Begin Vertical Burials: "Some people will think it's great but other people might prefer a traditional burial."

Hey, Frogsdong --

Have you seen this?Exploding toads in a Hamburg pond baffle scientists
Well, all I can conclude is that maybe NOW we know what happened to the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

52% to 42%

Harper vows to topple Liberals: This story quotes Harper as saying "I will be asking our caucus to put this government out of its misery at the earliest possible opportunity" and it says Harper "reserved an especially aggressive attack for Layton's willingness to prop up the government in exchange for a revised budget that would divert billions of dollars in tax cuts into social programs such as child care and the environment. The NDP, he suggested, had prostituted its values . . ." In desribing the budget deal, Harper is quoted as saying "What the Liberals don't steal, the NDP gets to spend."
I think Harper needs to remember one thing before he lets rip with any more heated hyperbole -- less than a year ago, the Liberals and the NDP between them got 52 per cent of the Canadian vote, while the Conservatives and the Bloc together got 42 per cent.

That's the way a minority government governs

The Globe and Mail: Harper blasts NDP-Liberal deal
The Globe is editorializing its outrage because Martin gave up the corporate tax cuts to sign the budget deal with Layton.
What part of "minority government" doesn't the Globe understand?
Boys, those tax cuts were toast anyway -- and this was Harper's choice, not Martins. Since Martin could no longer count on Harper to pass the budget, he had to turn to Layton.
At least Martin saved the rest of it -- the extra money for cities and the military. And I like the changes that Layton made. At least our freeway overpass construction won't have to come to a grinding halt because the budget didn't get approved.
And now Martin has said these corporate tax cuts will be coming to the Commons anyway, in a separate bill -- which Harper can vote against, if he wants. So if he wants to defeat the government, he'll still have his chance.
Now Harper says he's "flabbergasted". In his eagerness to rush to the polls, he fails to comprehend is that a majority of Canadians WANT THE BUDGET TO PASS and DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION NOW.
So Martin is just trying to do what Canadians want.
You didn't think Martin was this tricky, did you?

What do they think they have to prove?

How stupid is the Bush administration? Having nominated a yahoo like John Bolton to the UN, now Bush and Cheney are allowing his confirmation to turn into a do-or-die moment for their whole administration -- Senate Panel Is Widening Its Review on Nominee to U.N.
Has anyone else noticed that the Bush administration and the UN are like the Sherrif of Nottingham in a swordfight with Robin Hood? The US says 'Touche, you bandit -- I've got you on the run now!' and the UN replies 'You spoke too soon, Sherrif. Watch me turn the tables on you!'
The Bush administration seems to keep thinking it has the UN on the ropes, when actually it is US influence which is weakening around the world. The US thought the Security Council would be broken when it went to war against Iraq without a second resolution, and then later they had to get a resolution before they could export Iraq's oil. They thought they could get rid of ElBaradei at the IAEA, and Kofi Annan over the oil-for-food investigation, but the rest of the world didn't get behind them. The next battle will be over the continued refusal of the Security Council to pass a resolution sanctioning Iran's nuclear ambitions, because the Council doesn't want to give the US another excuse to start a war. Yes, I'm sure that John Bolton will be able to convince them!

Torture is on the march

Human Rights Watch has released a new summary about how the Bush Administration is torturing people not just in Iraq and Guantanamo, but around the globeU.S.: Abu Ghraib Only the "Tip of the Iceberg"
In fact, one could say that torture is on the march. This is the legacy that the world will remember about the Bush administration.

Do what we say, not what we do

US admits Iraq insurgency undiminished:
"Mr Rumsfeld reiterated warnings that efforts to develop Iraqi security forces could be set back if Iraq's new leaders make changes based not on competence but political considerations. "
Yeah -- and he oughta know!

Test your gag reflex

I just finished watching Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook on our History channel.
I wonder if there is an American network which would dare to broadcast this show.
It made me sick.
This show was one of a series produced by Britain's Channel 4. It showed seven British volunteers who tried to withstand 48 hours with ex-Army interrogators giving them the kind of treatment that the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo have been subjected to for the last three years.
Four of the "prisoners" actually lasted for the full two days. One older man, 49 years old, was pulled out after 10 hours by a doctor because his body temperature was dropping too low. Two others asked to get out early -- they just couldn't stand it.
Here is what happened to them:
At the beginning of the show, when the volunteers showed up at the studio thinking they were just supposed to fill out some forms, the Army people grabbed them, hooded, stipped and shackled them, and took them to the cells. The Army interrogators had been told that one of the prisoners actually did have some terrorist connections, and their goal was to find out which one it was. So they were pretty motivated.
The "officially approved" tortures they used were all of these --

Environmental manipulation: Subjecting prisoners to extremes of hot and cold.
Sensory deprivation: Depriving prisoners of both sight and hearing, for example, by hooding combined with white noise.
Sleep adjustment: Repeatedly interrupting a prisoner’s sleep, while allowing them inadequate sleep overall.
Stress positions: Position which a prisoner is ordered to maintain, causing discomfort or pain without physical contact.
Forced grooming: Forcible shaving. Deeply humiliating for some Muslims. (in the show, they shaved the hair from a non-Muslim "prisoner", but with the Muslim "prisoners" watching)
Pride and ego down: Label for techniques used to undermine prisoners’ self-esteem and dignity.

They did not use "waterboarding" (in which the victim is smothered with a wet cloth, creating the sensation of drowning) nor "TheVietnam" (in which electrodes (real or fake) are attached to the victim's body.)
But seeing what they did do made me sick. Not only was it upsetting to watch these men being treated this way, it was the look of despair in their eyes that was most disturbing. Its not surprising that the real Guantanamo prisoners have attempted suicide in substantial numbers.
Or, at least, it used to be called suicide.
There is a frighteningly Orwellian approach to language here. I've been reading recently about how the Bush administration is now using the term "constitutional option" instead of "nuclear option" to describe the Republican attempt to end the judicial fillibuster, just like they tried to change the term "private" accounts to "personal" accounts to describe Bush's attempt to destroy Social Security. And I was thinking that all this arguing over terminology wasn't really very important.
But as this show pointed out, the Pentagon has a new name for it when a prisoner attempts suicide. It is now called "manipulative self-injurious behaviour". And after they started using this terminology, they could report that the number of "suicide" attempts had declined substantially.
Is there a euphemism for "totally disgusting"?

Only semi-tough

Do you know what's really stupid about the Bolton nomination? Its the idea that Bolton "has a tough-talking style that will help achieve needed reforms at the United Nations."
Oh, yes, those wimps at the UN will sure be intimidated by this guy.
Like, the ambassadors from China and Russia and France and Britain and the rest of the Security Council will say "how high" when a disrespectful, uncultured, lamebrain like Bolton says "jump" -- or else, I guess, he'll chase them through the halls like a madman and shove threatening letters under their doors.

This explains it

I guess this type of thing may explain why Microsoft pulled its support from Washington State's gay rights bill: TIME.com: Any Kerry Supporters On The Line? The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers
Absolutely everything with these guys seems to be "you're either for us or against us". Everything is political -- they seem to be incapable of seeing anything at all in non-partisan terms. And they always have to win.
So I wonder what kind of pressure was put on Microsoft to make sure they would not support a gay rights bill?
Nice little company you've got here, Billy-boy. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. You wouldn't want the Justice department anti-trust action to continue would you?
And what scares me is this -- if Harper and his boys get in, will they adopt the same attitudes? We already have the same self-pitying tone along with manufactured conspiracies and scandals.

Mad as hell

Wow -- the Washington Post declares war against the Christian Right. Colbert King: Hijacking Christianity . . .:

Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn. It means challenging them when they say -- of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia -- that they are not legitimate members of the flock. Where do those on the religious right get off thinking they have the right to decide who is in and who is out? Who appointed them sole promoters and defenders of the faith? What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us? They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross. They should be resisted, not pandered to by politicians . . . if Frist shows up on TV and passes on the opportunity to place his party on the side of tolerance and goodwill, then his performance will be Exhibit A in the case to be made against his presidential quest. The Bergen Record in Hackensack, N.J., editorialized that the attempt by the Christian right to dominate all three branches of government "has to frighten anyone who is not a Christian conservative. It should frighten us all." Baloney. It should make us mad. Fighting mad.