Crossroads

Non-Sequitur

Aha! So now we know who to blame!

Several months ago, Digby wrote a post about how the rightwingnuts would launch mean and hysterical personal attacks as they saw people turning away from their point of view and had no rational argument to persuade them.
And here it all comes.
Nicholas Berg's father said about Zarqawi's death:

. . . I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that . . . Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

Well, what an outrageously Christian thing to say -- rightwinger Ace of Spades says:

The moral vanity of these people is disgusting. Attempting to remake themselves into Holy Angels, they instead make themselves into monsters. Does this asshole really think it's an enlightened human response to feel as bad for the death of your son's butcher as for your son's? He thinks that attitude makes him better than other people? I think it makes him less than human, personally. When he dies (which he will, of course, as we all will; no death threat intended), I hope his son slaps this stupid fuck right in the face.

The Jersey Girls say:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens . . . we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer . . . there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day. It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11 . . . We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings. . .

Well, how dare they talk about issues instead of dishing out gratitous personal insults in response to what the Bottle Blond Harpy said about them:

These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process . . . These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.

And Cindy Sheehan? Well, SHE said:

The Camp Casey experience has given so many of us back our hope. Veterans who fought in Vietnam and in Iraq said that coming to Camp Casey restored their hopes of living a near normal life. Families who, like mine, tragically have had a loved one killed in war found hope in the fact that so many Americans cared about our sons and daughters and were willing to sacrifice something to come out and show solidarity in our struggle to ask: "What Noble Cause?"

So of course Opinion Journal editor James Taranto has no option except to describe her as a "fascist fishwife".
And Al Gore says:

. . . the highest and best use of my skills and experience is to try to change the minds of people in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world about this planetary emergency that we simply have to confront . . . I hope to get the message about the climate crisis to more people in a shorter period of time. I've been trying to tell this story for 30 years, and the debate in the science community is over. And my single objective is to try to move our country, and to the extent I can play a role in it people elsewhere, past a tipping point beyond which the politicians in both parties will feel compelled to start competing by offering genuinely meaningful solutions to the crisis . . . This is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. . .

So Tucker Carlson describes Gore this way: "He's a wild-eyed religious nut. And his religion is the environment." while big-oil shill Sterling Burnett dishes out the Nazi analogy, saying the film is "propaganda" and adds "You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't want to go see Al Gore's film to see the truth about global warming.
And lets not even mention how Michael Moore is toppling the very foundations of the free world by playing a piece of film showing Dear Leader doing nothing, NOTHING, for at least five whole minutes after being told that the United States was being attacked.
Hmmm -- reminds me of something ... somebody spoke and I went into a dream .... The Editors describe right-wing dreaming:

I think it feels like sleeping in late. I think it feels like you are having a really wonderful dream, the kind where everything just kind of makes sense like you always thought it should, and you feel very warm and protected and special and safe. And the only problem is that, every nine minutes or so, the damn alarm clock goes off again, and the dream starts to break up, and you start remember about reality, and how it’s not like your bed, how it’s often cold and hard, uncomfortable and confusing. So you lash out, still half-asleep, reaching for that snooze bar, and your hand lands in a half-empty cup of last night’s sleepytime tea, lurches away, knocking the teacup and the lamp off the bedside table with a crash, and you slap blindly a few times until you hit that big fat snooze bar, and it’s quiet again. And in an instant the broken lamp and the broken cup and the tea soaking into the carpet are forgotten, along with the stresses and disappointments and commitments of the real waking world, and you are once again fast asleep and dreaming, in a warm, soft, safe and special dream where everything really makes sense, just like you always knew it should. For about, oh, nine minutes.

The light at the end ot the tunnel?

Any hope that Zarqawi's death in Iraq represents progress toward peace in Iraq seems to be mistaken. That light at the end of the tunnel is actually just an oncoming train. At The Washington Note, Nir Rosen analyzes the impact of Zarqawi's death:

. . . in death Zarqawi struck one final blow for his cause. He had come to Iraq to fight the infidels and become a martyr, gaining entry to paradise. And so he did, the infidels finally killed him and his supporters now believe he is in paradise. This only proves that Iraq is the place to go to if you want to gain entry to paradise, kill infidels, and become a martyr. More will flock to replace him and avenge him. Expect to see a new group, naming itself after Zarqawi, claiming responsibility for attacks targeting Shia leaders or Shia shrines in Iraq, but also in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, where tensions between Sunnis and Shias have been simmering since the war in Iraq.
We in the media are often pilloried for only reporting "the bad news" in Iraq. But there is no good news. Its too dangerous to even tell you how bad things really are, but they are worse than what you see on the media, not better. The insurgency is passe, Iraq is about the civil war, chaos, anarchy, random and deliberate violence everywhere. And it is spreading throughout the region. Instead of stabilizing the Middle East, the US war in Iraq is tearing it apart, destabilizing it, reviving radical Islam and jihadism and giving a bad name to reform and democracy.

Great lines of the day

Thanks to Galloping Beaver for the reference to Allison's post at Creekside, called So how are we all doing then?:

. . . just last week the 101st Fightin' Keyboarders, Canadian Division, were all happy about Harper and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus of course they still have the one in Iran to look forward to. But now, at the first whiff of fertilizer, suddenly it's as if they've just realized the abyss can see them in their jammies.

Emphasis mine.

The last angry man

Keith Olbermann at MSNBC doesn't mince around -- occasionally he just gets angry, and he shows it, and rightfully so. See Olbermann's take on right-wing harpy Ann Coulter's egotistical, jealous, self-aggrandizing, venomous, insane claptrap at Crooks and Liars.

Great line of the day

At The Galloping Beaver, Dave writes about how Canadians need to rise above fear:

. . . So the terrorist threat, against which we felt our identity alone as Canadians would protect us, is as real as it always was. Nothing has really changed, except that this time the possible act of violence was thwarted. No act of terrorism occured. And if a new part of the Canadian identity is to live in fear that one might happen, well, we all might as well turn in our multi-coloured money, our touques and our passion for winter sports for a multi-coloured threat level system, kevlar helmets and unwarranted paranoia.

Emphasis mine.

Those were the days

Does anyone remember the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec)?
I do.
With all the stories recently about the Mississauga terrorist wanna-be's, I thought I would look up the FLQ again. Maybe its because I was in my teens when they were most active, but I remember the FLQ as pretty scary.
Talk about your "home-grown terrorists", for my generation, this means the FLQ. They were the real thing.


1963 Westmount bomb


Quebec student rally in support of the FLQ


Police cordon at the surrender of Liberation cell, December 1970.


Wanted poster.


FLQ Manifesto

[Formed in 1963,] the group's declarations called for a Marxist insurrection, the overthrow of the Quebec government, the independence of Quebec from Canada and the establishment of a workers' society . . . Some of the members were organized and trained by Schoeters, a Belgian revolutionary and alleged KGB agent, whose hero was Che Guevara . . . At least two of the FLQ members had also received guerrilla training in selective assassination from Palestinian commandos in Jordan.
Various cells emerged over time: The Viger Cell, the Dieppe Cell, the Louis Riel Cell, the Nelson Cell, The Saint-Denis Cell, the Liberation Cell and the Chénier Cell . . . In 1966 a secret eight-page document titled Revolutionary Strategy and the Role of the Avant-Garde was prepared by the FLQ outlining its long term strategy of successive waves of robberies, violence, bombings and kidnappings, culminating in insurrection and revolution . . .
From 1963 to 1970, the FLQ committed over 200 violent political actions, including bombings, bank hold-ups and at least three deaths by FLQ bombs and two deaths by gunfire. In 1963, Gabriel Hudon and Raymond Villeneuve were sentenced to 12 years in prison for crimes against the state after their bomb killed Sgt. O'Neill, a watchman at Montreal's Canadian Army Recruitment Centre. By 1970, twenty-three members of the FLQ were in jail, including four convicted murderers, and one member had been killed by his own bomb. Targets included English owned businesses, banks, McGill University, Loyola College, and the homes of prominent English speakers in the wealthy Westmount area of the city. On February 13, 1969 the Front de libération du Québec set off a powerful bomb that ripped through the Montreal Stock Exchange causing massive destruction and seriously injuring twenty-seven people. . .

And here are some of the events of the October Crisis:

On October 5, 1970, members of the FLQ's Liberation cell kidnapped James Richard Cross, the British Trade Commissioner as he was leaving his home for work. Shortly afterwards, on October 10, the Chénier Cell kidnapped the Minister of Labour and Vice-Premier of Quebec, Pierre Laporte, while he was playing football with his family on his front lawn. On October 17, callers to a radio station announced that Laporte had been murdered and divulged the location of the map which led to the discovery of his body . . . Early in December 1970, police discovered the location of the kidnappers holding James Cross. His release was negotiated and on December 3, 1970, five of the terrorists were granted their request for safe passage to Cuba by the Government of Canada after approval by Fidel Castro.
In July 1980, police arrested and charged a sixth person in connection with the Cross kidnapping. Nigel Barry Hamer, a British radical socialist and FLQ sympathizer, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months in jail.
In late December, four weeks after the kidnappers of James Cross were found, Paul Rose and the kidnappers and murderers of Pierre Laporte were located in the corner of a country farmhouse basement. They were tried and convicted for kidnapping and murder.

And I hadn't remembered these much more recent events:

. . . terrorist activities continue to occur at the hands of isolated members of the organization. In 2001, Rhéal Mathieu, a member who in 1967 was sentenced to 9 years in prison for terrorist activities including murder, was convicted of the attempted firebombing of three Second Cup coffee shops in Montreal. Mathieu targeted Canada's largest specialty coffee retailer because of the company's use of its incorporated English name Second Cup. For this offence, a judge sentenced Rhéal Mathieu to one month in jail in addition to the nine months he had already been held. He was also given a six-month sentence to be served concurrently for illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun and a .38-calibre revolver. Shortly thereafter, seven McDonald's restaurants were firebombed. According to a spokesman for the company, the bombings resulted in customers being afraid to go to Second Cup coffee shops, resulting in a substantial loss of business. The company changed their signs to Les cafés Second Cup.

Great line of the day

Dawg writes about the happiness of the right-wing bloggers that Canada finally has its very own treehouse of horror:

Seeping through every crack in the foundation of our polity is the presumption of guilt, unfettered paranoia, vengefulness, opportunist attacks on more-accessible-than-ever targets of the far Right, and a pure unadulterated hateful raving that beggars description. Add to this unsavoury ooze a call for the return of capital punishment, and bizarre pre-emptive attacks on the defenders of an open society, and we have it all wrapped up in a ball. It's Them versus Us. Darkness versus Light. Pure Evil versus All That We Hold Dear.

Emphasis mine.

The one-L Philip is a prince...

Now here's a book I want to read -- The Duke of Hazard: Wit and Wisdom of Prince Philip. Some examples:

"I am truly fed up with the opening and closing ceremonies [of the Olympics]. They are a pain in the neck," Philip told the newspaper . . . "Opening and closing ceremonies ought to be banned. Absolute bloody nuisances" . . . The 100-page book includes details of an infamous gaffe in Beijing, China, in 1986, when the prince told British students 'if you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed.'
It also recounts an occasion in Cardiff, Wales, when he addressed young members of the British Deaf Association who were standing close to a band playing steel drums.
'Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf,' the prince told them.
In Hungary, the prince is said to have told a British man he must have only arrived recently as he hadn't 'got a pot belly' and in Scotland, asked a driving instructor how he managed to 'keep the natives off the booze long enough' to pass their driving test.

I met Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth on the Royal Yacht Britannia, along with a hundred other people, during a royal visit to Victoria when I was a reporter. What impressed me about both of them was their ability to make charming small talk to total strangers who were all totally awe-struck and thus tongued-tied. And Philip didn't say anything outrageous at all, darn it -- as I recall, the conversation was mostly about the weather, ho hum, but somehow it sounded more interesting when they were talking about it.
(By the way, only Ogden Nash fans will understand the title to this piece...)

Why did they do this?

I hope we find out more about the Ontario terrorism plot soon, because here's something already that I don't understand.
From the Globe and Mail photo gallery, here is a photo from Saturday's press conference:


Globe and Mail cutline: Items are shown on display during a press conference in Toronto. The bag of fertilizer, top, was not seized during the raid and was there for display purposes only.

Emphasis mine.
So apparently someone from the police department went out and bought a bag of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to put on display at the press conference?
Why would they do this? So that reporters would know what fertilizer looks like? Because someone thought that all the guns and electronic gear and cell phones didn't tell enough of a story?
One of the Toronto Star stories talks about the importance of the case to Canadian law enforcement:

The case is critical for Canada's international reputation and will be scrutinized worldwide as it works its way through the courts.
There has been cause for skepticism concerning the ability of Canada's intelligence and police services to prosecute security cases. Since 9/11, the majority of high-profile security investigations have ended in international embarrassment, such as the acquittal of suspects in the Air India bombing case and the Maher Arar affair which raised questions about international information sharing, exposed an inexperienced federal police force and left an Ottawa man broken after his deportation, detention and torture in Syria.
Then there was Project Thread, a 2003 joint immigration-RCMP case touted as the dismantling of an Al Qaeda cell, but ending in a routine immigration case that sent Pakistani students home branded terrorists.

So please, folks, if you have confidence in your case, you don't need to be buying a bag of fertilizer to try to make it scarier.

Four out of ten

Hmmm...this is interesting.
From the way the Tories talk, you would think more people supported their policies. But Decima Research's new poll finds that only four out of ten Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan, while even fewer, only three out of ten, would say it is OK to abandon Kyoto.

Great line of the day

James Wolcott flags two posters from The Corner annoyed by inadvertantly encounting 'liberal' moments during their vacations -- like, Disneyland signs in Spanish, and a Scottish performer playing Lennon's Imagine.
I guess when these people stay at home, they organize their day to keep themselves safe from such horrific experiences.
Anyway, Wolcott writes:

. . . this is what the world is like now, get used to it. You're going to hear messages in Spanish, and discover that other countries aren't going to break out their nationalistic colors just because you arrive at the airport with your tourist fantasies intact. For conservatives, the cultural comfort zone is shrinking, and will probably continue shrinking until it's no bigger than a choke collar. It's probably only a matter of time before Krikorian attends a NASCAR race and complains that one of the concessionaires seemed kinda gay.

Emphasis mine.

Three Oklahoma Citys

I snarked a few days ago that if we actually had "home-grown terrorists" now living in Canada, why didn't we arrest them.
Well, it looks like we did. And recovered enough fertilizer to cause the equivalent of three Oklahoma City bombings.

What's that smell?

To me, bitterness is the under-arm odor of wishful weakness. It is the graceless acknowledgment of defeat.
Anthropologist Zora Neale Hurston.

Canadians will be plenty bitter if the US gets everything it is asking for in the softwood lumber deal.
The Gazetteer has the story.
Canada should know better by now -- we can never be nice to the United States, they just see it as a sign of weakness. Being natural born bullies themselves, combativeness is what they respect.
Ross flags a Vancouver Sun report that the US wants to have everything their own way in the softwood lumber deal -- if I understand the situation correctly, they don't want BC producers to be able to cut prices on their pine-beetle infested timber, while they also want Canadian manufacturers to continue paying extra tax on finished lumber products.
BC Forests minister Rich Coleman says don't panic -- yet:

"Everybody knows we are not going to sign a final deal that does not meet our expectations. If it was presented as a fait accompli in the final deal, yeah, I would have some concerns on some of these issues. But I don't have that in front of me right now, so I am not going to try to inflate any type of emotions around the table over the next week or so as we try to get to where we can get common language."

The story also notes, however, that forest companies are still filing their own lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade "to protect their interests should the deal collapse."

Harper's war on gay people: I know which side I'm on.

Harper has declared war on gay people. Again. And once again, this is not a fight Canadians wanted. But fight we will.
Dave over at Galloping Beaver lets us know that petulant little Stevie is blinded by the right -- he is pandering to the wingnuts by announcing a vote about gay marriage in the fall.

[The] religious right . . . wanted a vote delayed long enough to mount an intensive campaign and to lobby, threaten or otherwise secure the votes of MPs . . . This is nothing more than proof that the religious right commands a priviledged position in the Conservative Party and that we can expect their homophobic, anti-abortion, bigoted perspective to be advanced at any opportunity.

So now we all get to listen to a whole summer of "well, of course I'm not prejudiced against gay people but I really do believe that civil unions are good enough for the likes of them!" Subtext: you should be glad we let you ride on our bus at all, so just sit at the back and be grateful!
And so to anyone who dishes out the "I'm not prejudiced" argument, I repeat what I said back in January:

We don't get to choose the battle. We only get to choose our side.
I have been thinking lately about how to reply to the apparently-reasonable-sounding argument that I hear from Conservatives and religious people that a person can support gay rights without supporting gay marriage.
But you can't. Not anymore.
We don't get to choose the battle.
No one decided that the second world war would start in defense of Poland. But once Germany invaded, no one could just sit back any longer and say "Sorry, boys, can't fight now because we just aren't organized well enough quite yet. Let's put this off until something else outrageous happens."
No one decided that the right to have an abortion should define the women's movement. But this issue came to symbolize the most basic right, for women to control their own bodies, and therefore people who do not support a woman's right to choose are not feminists and cannot claim to be.
No one decided that the black civil rights movement would make its bones through a bus boycott in Montgomery. But once this boycott began, the black people of Montgomery had to keep on walking no matter how tired they were and how violent things became. The people couldn't say "Sorry, boys, this is really inconvenient for everybody, so can you please take your cause to some other city?" No, Montgomery became a battle that had to be won.
And so it is now with gay marriage. The battle is real and immediate and personal to many gay people, but its has also become symbolic. The Christian Right hysteria against gay marriage is one of the factors that has made this battle so important, because the core of their opposition to gay marriage is bigotry and hate against gay people, which cannot be allowed to win.
When someone says "I don't support gay marriage but this doesn't mean I am a bigot", this simply isn't true. Not anymore. The battle lines have been drawn.
The choice is which side you are on.
You ARE a bigot if you don't support gay marriage.