Answering a scurrilous charge

RossK in 'Defusing The Google Bomb' resents anyone calling Canadians "gutless" (as some mixed-up BC politician apparently did recently). Ross says:

. . . calling us, the Canuckistani People, gutless is a scurrilous charge that cannot go unchallenged. To whit:
Was it gutless when we went to Afghanistan to fight the real terrorists?
Was it gutless when we did not go to Iraq to kill people that were not?
Was it gutless to say no to a thoroughly offensive missile defense program?
Was it gutless when we had the guts to pass a same sex marriage law?
Are we gutless because we still protect our pension funds?
Are we gutless because we can still go to any hospital in the country?
Are we gutless because we still have a social safety net?
Are we gutless because we still have (a few) public institutions that serve the public?

Right on, Ross! And I might add, are we gutless because we have the fearless Gazetteer posting truth to power?

Great line of the day

First it was Global War on Terror (GWOT)
Then it was Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE)
Then it was Global War on Terror (GWOT) again.
But now, Billmon has the best one yet:
"War of Heroic Action against Terrorism for the Future of a United Christian Kulture -- WHATtheFUCK"

Good Better Best

Good


Non Sequitur

Better


Ann Telnaes

Best


Cam Cardow

Is there a trend here?

It's 8 months into the second term, and the bloom is off the rose:
Denver Post: Nothing is ever the president's fault
Atlanta Constitution: America retreats from leadership in innovation
Pittsburg Post-Gazette: They have not the courage to face the mistake of the Iraq war
Roanoke [Virginia] Times: U.S. strips more freedom from citizens than terrorists ever could
Las Vegas Sun: Bush is no deficit hawk
Baltimore Sun: Hey, Mr. President: War is all about the brutality
Knight Rideer Washington Bureau: Bush's loyalty raises doubts about his political judgment
Associated Press: Opinion of Bush's handling of Iraq, honesty reaches low point in poll

Loyalty, going over the cliff

Over at Digby there's a discussion going on about whether Bush really is stupid, in response to Digby's post titled- 'Uhm no - he's just an idiot'. The discussion is about how come, if Bush is so dumb, that people keep voting for him. Commenter Farang writes something that seems true to me: " . . . the mental midgets, the struggling, never getting anywhere crowd sees [in Bush] a savior, someone that only values loyalty, not merit or ability, as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to advance. Imagine living a life where you always struggled with keeping up, then Bush comes along: You see yourself, and rejoice, all you need to do is join the . . . Republican party . . . "
But as the crowd continues to thunder forward, an feeling of uneasiness is growing. The people who were supposed to be leading this parade don't appear to be anywhere in sight, and there sure seems to be a lot of screaming going on up ahead there. There's so much dust they can't quite see what's happening, but people are yelling about some sort of cliff . . .

We should be opening the front door

The Canadian Council for Refugees has released its report on the "third country" agreement -- Closing the Front Door on Refugees: Report on the Safe Third Country Agreement (pdf) -- and the news is not good.
It was this agreement, I think, which forced Dr. Shazia Khalid to seek assylum in England rather than here -- a story I wrote about a few days ago.
The Council describes a number of problems with the system:

With the Canadian border largely closed, far fewer refugees are able to find protection in Canada: instead, some are detained and deported from the US; some are forced to live without status in the US, in fear of arrest; some turn to smugglers to help them find a way to safety. "It is no exaggeration to describe this Agreement as a silent killer," said Nick Summers, CCR President. "Out of sight of Canadians, asylum seekers are paying the price of Canada's 'Not in My Backyard' approach to refugee protection. The fact is that the US is not safe for all refugees and Canada is failing refugees who need our protection. We call on the Canadian Government to cancel the Agreement immediately." The report shows that the number of people who claimed refuge in Canada in 2005 is lower than at any time since the mid-1980s. The drop in claims made at the border is especially dramatic, with only 50% as many claims as last year. Colombians have been particularly badly affected, with claims down by 70% in 2005. Based on the much lower acceptance rates for Colombians in the US compared to Canada, the report calculates that in the first year of the Agreement alone, 916 Colombians will be left without protection in either country. The report also highlights anecdotal evidence that, as predicted, the Agreement is leading to an increase in smuggling at the US-Canada border.

Folks, Canada NEEDS these people.
As I have often said before, we need lots of young, eager, willing workers to pay the taxes that will cover the costs of mine and my husband's health care and pensions when we get old -- my own children certainly can't do it all by themselves.
But seriously, Canada shouldn't be creating an underground, secret economy, as the US has done, where people are exploited and brutalized because they have no hope of ever legalizing their status. Canada needs immigrants more than the US does. We need their energy and their ideas and their commitment and their heart. We need their willingness to work hard and create a life for themselves and their children. This country was built on the imagination and creativity of immigrants. So I say bring 'em on, the more the merrier.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me . . .

Fool Me Twice . . .

Juan Cole is one of the commentators* I have read in the last couple of days who is thinking that the US is getting ready to roll out its Lets-Have-A-War-With-Iran Plan.
In 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me--can't get fooled again', Cole writes about an NBC News story quoting the US military as saying Iran is sending bombs to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
Cole describes at length the obvious stupidity of such a story, but demonstrates its utility in the task of convincing Americans that Iran is actually to blame for all the US army and marine deaths of recent days.
"Be afraid when you begin to see US government agencies themselves handing out this highly suspect sort of information to major news networks. It means that the sting on the American people has moved from the smoke-filled back rooms to some higher operational level. Or maybe trial balloons are being floated to see how gullible we are."
*See also here, and here, and here.

Logic Deficit Disorder

This article by philosopher Allen Snyder describes Logic Deficit Disorder as epidemic among the regressive right. I think its something we all have to watch out for, left or right, though at this point in time, the righties do seem to be at greater risk.
Diagnosing LDD is straightforward -- if you see one or more of the following symptoms in any news story or opinion piece, you're being exposed to LDD: false dilemmas, straw men, ad hominem attacks, groupthink, or the slippery slope.
First, the false dilemma - ". . . presenting two positions on an issue as though they're the only two, exclusive of all others. It's wildly popular with one-dimensional non-thinkers who parse the world into neat, simple, and easily recognizable bits like 'all good stuff over here' and 'all evil stuff over there'."
Second, creating 'straw men' to make your opponent's position look ridiculous "A straw man is an inaccurate representation of an actual argument that, thanks to its new straw form, is much easier to destroy than the original . . . when Karl Rove says liberals wanted to coddle terrorists post-9/11, he attacks a straw man since he knows no liberal ever said such a thing. When regressives oppose evolution because 'humans didn't come from monkeys', they attack a straw man since no evolutionist has ever said such a ridiculous thing."
Third, the ad hominem attack. "This gem means 'against the man' and occurs when BushCo, instead of defending themselves against someone's accurate portrayal of some war crime or internal scandal they're involved in, smears the accuser instead. This happened with Paul O'Neill, Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson and many others. BushCo says they're all lunatic liars. Never mind they were right . . . This nonsense is then dressed in patriot garb and trumpeted across the land . . . they succeed in tarnishing the reputations of truly heroic public figures to cover their criminal asses. Why discuss facts and make cogent arguments when it's far easier to get the angry white pinheads out in hate-radio-land to froth at the mouth like Pavlovian dogs by feeding their obsessive hatred for things they don't understand and blaming evil left-wingers, gays, feminists, and anti-war peaceniks for all their troubles? Once that gang of nitwits are good and whipped up, the truth becomes irrelevant."
Fourth, promoting groupthink ". . . the robotic obedience and blind devotion of hoards of wannabe Nazis at those scary old rallies at Nuremburg. It is borne out of ethnocentrism, the universally erroneous notion that ways of life can be ranked on scales of moral superiority, and the belief in the infallibility of one's own nation, government, and all the actions taken in its name . . . the message that we're killing them (whoever 'they' may be) for their own good assuages many a troubled conscience."
Fifth, the smokescreen device, by which "the American public has been kept distracted by such nonsense as the 'runaway bride', Michael Jackson's trial, the second-by-second coverage of the Pope's death, and the latest hurricane or baseball 'scandal' . . . "
Sixth, the slippery slope argument -- "Can't legalize pot. Next thing you know, everyone's a junkie, or worse, hooked on pain pills. Can't legalize physician assisted euthanasia. Next thing you know, we'll be handing out morphine ODs to Grandma, the Crazy Guy on the Corner, and the helmet-wearing lunatic in the institution."
Snyder continues "Then there's the steepest slippery slope the regressive right has - that all progressives policies and all secular government will lead to the downfall and humiliation of the American Way Of Life. This one keeps the gullible and thoughtless nice and fearful so they won't notice what's happening right under their noses. How, by making corporations and the filthy rich pay their taxes, having national health care, feeding and housing the poor and hungry, returning religion to the privacy of homes and churches, butting out of others' affairs, supporting trade unions, and reducing our military spending the world will come to an end and America will cease to be is completely beyond me.
"But, then, I haven't been drinking my Kool-Aid."
As for LDD, I am not sure how contagious it is, but progressive Americans better not take any chances. Move to Canada before its too late!

Let's monitor the stupidity, too

So Peter Kent thinks the Toronto media are biased against the Conservatives -- The Globe and Mail: Former anchorman sees anti-Tory media bias.
Well, I wonder how he could ever have gotten this impression?
It's pretty hard to write bland stories about a federal party whose leader knows so little about Ontario that he has Niagara River flowing in the wrong direction. How could anyone write a 'balanced' story about a provincial party which describes its opponent as an "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet"?
If journalism schools are supposed to monitor the fairness of media coverage, maybe political science departments should be monitoring the stupidity of what the media is being asked to cover.

So who's for a Culture of Emasculation?

I said in a blog comment today over at The Next Hurrah that we should try to change the terminology of "Culture of Life" to be "Culture of Emasculation".
First, because this is actually what it is -- the so-called "pro-life" people are against anyone making their own personal moral choices. They want to take our decision-making autonomy away and that is emasculating us all. Second, I would love to use the term "emasculate" because its the scariest word in the English language for all these men who are running the Christian Right and anti-choice groups. They would just hate it.
So here's a news story that proves my point -- Masculinity Challenged, Men Prefer War and SUVs. A researcher at Cornell university study did a survey of undergraduates. "Participants were randomly assigned feedback that indicated their responses were either masculine or feminine. The women had no discernable reaction to either type of feedback in a follow-up survey. But the guys' reactions were "strongly affected," [researcher Robb Willer] said today. "I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Willer said. "There were no increases [in desire] for other types of cars." Those who had their masculinity threatened also said they felt more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than those whose masculinity was confirmed, he said."
So describing people who oppose choice of promoting a Culture of Emasculation might be a pretty noticeable way to shake these people up, and make them realize what they are really promoting.

Seeing the forest instead of the trees

One more comment on the Vancouver Three.
Some commenters on POGGE's good post -- Peace, order and good government, eh?: Turnabout is fair play -- as well as some of the other Emery posts around the blogosphere, as well as various editorials here and there are, in my opinion, getting all tangled up among the trees. People are arguing about how maybe Emery deserves it and whose laws were being broken anyway and how if we want the US to listen to us we have to respond to them, and how illegal is it really and maybe pot isn't so bad but after all...
Here is the forest:
For the sake of principle, morality and sovereignty, Canada should not be sending three of its own citizens, one of whom is a political leader, to spend a decade or more in a maximum security prison in the United States for breaking a law which Canada itself thinks is so trivial we cannot be bothered enforcing it.

Back to the future

Sort of pathetic, isn't it, how much things have changed in the US.
The President wants creationism taught in the schools.
The Vice-President doesn't want Congress to pass legislation banning torture of prisoners.
A US Senator talks about how the Supreme Court decision which legalized birth control was wrongly decided, because states should be able to pass whatever laws they want.
Most dangerous of all, Americans may well be on the verge of losing their right to privacy.
Today, John Roberts got nationwide publicity just because he isn't prejudiced against gay people. Is being prejudiced against some of your fellow citizens now considered a desireable trait in someone being considered for the Supreme Court? Maybe so.
But Liberal Oasis looks today at a more important qualification -- whether Roberts would overturn Supreme Court decisions giving people the right to privacy. I guess the argument against privacy goes that because their Bill of Rights doesn't specifically SAY that government should not intrude on personal decisions or private behaviour, therefore governments should be able to interfere with personal decisions any way they want -- make birth control illegal, arrest people for sodomy, prevent women from having abortions, deny people the right to die, and so on and so on.
LO writes

We already found out last week that John Roberts believes there are “judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade” and that Roe is an example of “unprincipled jurisprudence.” And now we just learned that Roberts refers to the constitutional right to privacy as the “so-called ‘right to privacy’.” Everyone knows what one intends to convey when one adds the “so-called” moniker: that whatever follows “so-called” is bunk.

These guys don't want to just go back to the 60s, before abortion was legal, or back to the 50s, when beating prisoners was OK -- they want to go back to the 1920s, when birth control was illegal and or back to the 1860s, before Darwin ever postulated evolution.
Back to those good old days before that awful Civil War, when everything was just so perfect.

There's no one like Raeside

One of the things we miss about Victoria is not seeing Raeside's cartoons every day.

The Sgt Schultz Defense

To my surprise, Arianna Huffington and the Huffington Post are rapidly becoming daily 'must reads' for me. The news judgment shown in the Post articles, and Huffington's own writing, are both pretty impressive.
Here's her latest -- The New Know-Nothings:

There's an old saying that when the facts are against you, argue the law. But the Bushies have gone one better: when the facts are against them, they argue the very existence of facts. As pretty much every fact has turned against the administration in Iraq, the fallback position has increasingly become: well, who can really know anything? Everything is so complex. You've got Sunnis, you've got Shiites, you've got Kurds...the truth is...well, the truth is that we can't know the truth...so how can we be held accountable when nothing is really knowable? . . . while Rumsfeld and his chums claim that nothing concrete is really knowable, they are -- somehow -- sure that we are winning. It's just that any fact or statistic that might disprove this assertion is dismissed as invalid in a complex, postmodern world. But if you set all facts aside, you will be totally certain that we're making progress. Looking back, it's fascinating how sure they were back when they were lying about WMD. Then it was all about solid facts, and aluminum tubes, and Tenet saying "slam dunk" and Cheney saying "no doubt." But now that all that has vanished, so too, it seems, has our ability to know anything about anything. Bush claims he's going back to his ranch after his presidency, but perhaps a Distinguished Chair in Postmodernist Theory at an Ivy League university might be more appropriate. Maybe it'll happen. Who can really know?

I hadn't realized it before, but she is absolutely correct -- this Sgt Schultz "we know nothing, NOTHING" defense is the new Bush administration talking-point party line spin about Iraq.
And of course the great thing about the Sgt Schultz Defense is that you can apply it to just about everything, from Karl Rove ("who can know if a law was really broken?") to creationism ("who can know if evolution is actually the right theory?") to the Supreme Court ("who can know what cases they might be asked to decide in the future?") They may have finally found the all-purpose defense they need for all the Bush administration screw-ups.

Great line of the day

The Poorman writes a brilliant post titled In reverse, which describes Bush's attempts to turn back the clock, and concludes with Bush's recent endorsement of teaching creationism instead of actual science. Poorman says "The silver lining is that school is going to be a lot less stressful when the answer to every question on the midterm is "because it is God's will." So there is that. "