Mission accomplished.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
It's Forty Below, Kevin Taft Don't Give a Fuck
He's got a heater in his truck,
And he's off to the Rodeo...
Alberta Liberal leader "Cowboy" Kevin Taft wants to pronounce Rodeo to be Alberta's official sport.
But he really isn't fooling anyone.
The fact that he could be so disingenuous really only underscores how incredibly clueless he really is.
(Although this particular gem -- pictured left -- could have extremely humorous implications, considering the number of partisan Liberals who like to pass around Stephen Harper's cowboy photos.)
And he's off to the Rodeo...
Alberta Liberal leader "Cowboy" Kevin Taft wants to pronounce Rodeo to be Alberta's official sport.But he really isn't fooling anyone.
The fact that he could be so disingenuous really only underscores how incredibly clueless he really is.
(Although this particular gem -- pictured left -- could have extremely humorous implications, considering the number of partisan Liberals who like to pass around Stephen Harper's cowboy photos.)
Thank You For Calling, Mr Sachs
We have a message for you
It's positively wondrous what a prestigious United Nations posting can do for a person.
It provides an immediate career boost, accompanied by a surge in self-esteem... and completely blinds one to the failures of their own policies. And turns them into a bit of a loudmouth.
Jeffrey Sachs, Special UN advisor to Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon and director of the Millennium Project, recently had some sharp words for Canada in regards to "global leadership".
"We've seen essentially no global leadership from Canada on poverty, hunger, disease, climate change and foreign assistance," Sachs insisted. "This has been a huge surprise for me as a lifelong admirer of Canada, that we don't see the ambition of the Canadian people manifested in Canada's policies right now."
Yet Sachs himself, for quite a considerable period of time, has been thrust into a position of global leadership, and given billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to make the goals of the Millenium project a reality. The results of Sachs' leadership have been less than inspiring.
Consider the case of Mosquito nets. To date, billions of dollars have been spent on insecticide treated mosquito nets. Intended to solve the preeminent (and spreading) problem of Malaria, these mosquito nets have often been diverted into the black market by the bureaucrats entrusted with their distribution.
William Easterly points out that Sachs efforts to distribute the mosquito nets -- although having more recent successes -- have failed on one key point: people have needs, more often than not know their needs, and will act to meet them if they have the resources.
The fact that Non-profit non governmental organizations that sell heavily subsidized mosquito nets have had considerably more success distributing them than the (often corrupt) local agencies given the nets demonstrates a glaring hole in Sach's prescription for ending poverty in the developing world.
Sachs has, in the course of his career as a would-be economic visionary relied almost exclusively on macroeconomics as a solution to poverty.
His previous catastrophic failures in post-Soviet Russia certainly hasn't dissuaded him from deploying his disastrous shock therapy technique into developing economies -- in particular, Africa.
And just as when his policies failed in Russia, what Sachs insists is necessary is a massive bailout from G8 nations, which is probably what is behind his insistence that Canada contribute 0.7% toward his all too often ill-fated aid programs.
Despite Sachs' criticisms, Canada's contribution of $167 million to the UN food program last year made it the third most prolific donor in the world. In 2005, Paul Martin's Liberal government even changed policy that required food contributed to the program to be purchased from Canadian producers to allow it to be purchased from sources closer to their destination -- a wise decision that hastened delivery of aid considerably, although unfortunately at the expense of Canadian producers.
Yet such initiatives don't seem enough for Sachs, who instead wants to play partisan politics in a country foreign to his own.
"Canada did not show leadership on critical issues, like agriculture, for example, where I was shocked by discussions I had in Ottawa," Sachs insists. "Then the [Martin] government fell, and this government has come in and it's been antagonistic, rhetorically and in policy. It's almost mocking, some times, with these objectives."
Of course, it would be remiss to pretend that Sachs has had no successes. In the few occasions in which he has "lowered" himself to dabbling in some microeconomics -- the approach clearly favoured by Easterly -- Sachs has managed to help do some good in Africa. Consider the Millenium villages project, in which $100 per resident is invested every five years, resulting in some truly fantastic growth.
But the problem with the Millenium village approach is that there hasn't been nearly enough of them, and far too much of the money being spent elsewhere is simply being wasted.
Even Sachs' insistence that investing in research and development in developing states -- while possessing a considerable amount of potential -- overlooks the fact that many of these countries don't have the infrastructure for such R&D in place to begin with.
What is needed in Africa isn't massive macroeconomic re-engineering as Sachs seems to insist. What is necessary, instead, is a rethinking of the basic economic principles at work in Africa, and a questioning of some of the assumption Sachs work is based upon.
For example, Sachs' model of Clinical Economics -- in which developing economies are treated as ailing patients and diagnosed and treated accordingly -- possesses tremendous potential. Unfortunately, too much of it relies on Sachs' so-called poverty trap: a concept that can be discarded after even a remedial economic analysis. (William Easterly demonstrates that the 50 poorest countries in the world today are not the poorest countries in the world as of 50 years ago -- obviously, lack of money is not the dominant factor in sustained poverty, although lack of economic development clearly is.)
What is needed in Africa is more microeconomic aid, on a wider scale, and designed as an incentive for the private sector to get involved in providing for the needs of otherwise destitute Africans. In particular, microloans have been very successful.
But these are successes that Sachs has taken advantage of only sparingly, if at all.
It's clearly time for Jeffrey Sachs to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate his own policies before engaging in finger pointing clearly designed to benefit those he considers his political allies.
Then again, that's yet another perk of being a UN appointee: incredible job security, regardless of whether or not one's track record warrants it or not.
It's positively wondrous what a prestigious United Nations posting can do for a person.
It provides an immediate career boost, accompanied by a surge in self-esteem... and completely blinds one to the failures of their own policies. And turns them into a bit of a loudmouth.
Jeffrey Sachs, Special UN advisor to Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon and director of the Millennium Project, recently had some sharp words for Canada in regards to "global leadership".
"We've seen essentially no global leadership from Canada on poverty, hunger, disease, climate change and foreign assistance," Sachs insisted. "This has been a huge surprise for me as a lifelong admirer of Canada, that we don't see the ambition of the Canadian people manifested in Canada's policies right now."
Yet Sachs himself, for quite a considerable period of time, has been thrust into a position of global leadership, and given billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to make the goals of the Millenium project a reality. The results of Sachs' leadership have been less than inspiring.
Consider the case of Mosquito nets. To date, billions of dollars have been spent on insecticide treated mosquito nets. Intended to solve the preeminent (and spreading) problem of Malaria, these mosquito nets have often been diverted into the black market by the bureaucrats entrusted with their distribution.
William Easterly points out that Sachs efforts to distribute the mosquito nets -- although having more recent successes -- have failed on one key point: people have needs, more often than not know their needs, and will act to meet them if they have the resources.
The fact that Non-profit non governmental organizations that sell heavily subsidized mosquito nets have had considerably more success distributing them than the (often corrupt) local agencies given the nets demonstrates a glaring hole in Sach's prescription for ending poverty in the developing world.
Sachs has, in the course of his career as a would-be economic visionary relied almost exclusively on macroeconomics as a solution to poverty.
His previous catastrophic failures in post-Soviet Russia certainly hasn't dissuaded him from deploying his disastrous shock therapy technique into developing economies -- in particular, Africa.
And just as when his policies failed in Russia, what Sachs insists is necessary is a massive bailout from G8 nations, which is probably what is behind his insistence that Canada contribute 0.7% toward his all too often ill-fated aid programs.
Despite Sachs' criticisms, Canada's contribution of $167 million to the UN food program last year made it the third most prolific donor in the world. In 2005, Paul Martin's Liberal government even changed policy that required food contributed to the program to be purchased from Canadian producers to allow it to be purchased from sources closer to their destination -- a wise decision that hastened delivery of aid considerably, although unfortunately at the expense of Canadian producers.
Yet such initiatives don't seem enough for Sachs, who instead wants to play partisan politics in a country foreign to his own.
"Canada did not show leadership on critical issues, like agriculture, for example, where I was shocked by discussions I had in Ottawa," Sachs insists. "Then the [Martin] government fell, and this government has come in and it's been antagonistic, rhetorically and in policy. It's almost mocking, some times, with these objectives."
Of course, it would be remiss to pretend that Sachs has had no successes. In the few occasions in which he has "lowered" himself to dabbling in some microeconomics -- the approach clearly favoured by Easterly -- Sachs has managed to help do some good in Africa. Consider the Millenium villages project, in which $100 per resident is invested every five years, resulting in some truly fantastic growth.
But the problem with the Millenium village approach is that there hasn't been nearly enough of them, and far too much of the money being spent elsewhere is simply being wasted.
Even Sachs' insistence that investing in research and development in developing states -- while possessing a considerable amount of potential -- overlooks the fact that many of these countries don't have the infrastructure for such R&D in place to begin with.
What is needed in Africa isn't massive macroeconomic re-engineering as Sachs seems to insist. What is necessary, instead, is a rethinking of the basic economic principles at work in Africa, and a questioning of some of the assumption Sachs work is based upon.
For example, Sachs' model of Clinical Economics -- in which developing economies are treated as ailing patients and diagnosed and treated accordingly -- possesses tremendous potential. Unfortunately, too much of it relies on Sachs' so-called poverty trap: a concept that can be discarded after even a remedial economic analysis. (William Easterly demonstrates that the 50 poorest countries in the world today are not the poorest countries in the world as of 50 years ago -- obviously, lack of money is not the dominant factor in sustained poverty, although lack of economic development clearly is.)
What is needed in Africa is more microeconomic aid, on a wider scale, and designed as an incentive for the private sector to get involved in providing for the needs of otherwise destitute Africans. In particular, microloans have been very successful.
But these are successes that Sachs has taken advantage of only sparingly, if at all.
It's clearly time for Jeffrey Sachs to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate his own policies before engaging in finger pointing clearly designed to benefit those he considers his political allies.
Then again, that's yet another perk of being a UN appointee: incredible job security, regardless of whether or not one's track record warrants it or not.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Dangers of Letting Our Demons Define Us
Movements, like people, make mistakes -- and no one is immune
When one takes count of some of the views held by the most extreme of the extreme, one thing becomes immediate apparent.
The most extreme individuals almost universally tend to have long, unforgiving memories. More importantly than that, they tend to hold grudges over the mistakes made by individuals and movements they deem to be their political opponents.
For a telling example, one really needs look little further than Lindsay Stewart (who blogs under the alias Pretty Shaved Ape) and his response to a recent discussion (or, rather, attempt at discussion) over whether or not churches are public goods:
It's unsurprising that a left-wing demagogue wannabe like Lindsay Stewart would produce something like this as a response to the revelation that churches are a public good.
In the minds of such individuals, all the good things that many churches provide to the community -- shelters for the homeless, recreation services for youths and a considerable volunteer pool for the community, as merely three examples -- certainly don't matter. Any little thing they can use to denounce religion -- their favourite target seems to be Christianity in particular -- is all that matters to them.
Few people will pretend that nothing bad has ever happened in the history of Christianity. The Inquisition and the treatment of women as second-class individuals and Canada's Residential Schools are merely a few examples among a myriad of charges that could be raised against Christianity.
The most predictable complaint for Stewart and his fellow wannabe demagogues at Canadian Cynic's Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink is the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church. That's what he's alluding to here.
Few Catholics, in particular deny that such abuses have taken place. Even Pope Benedict who has been accused of masterminding a cover-up of the abuses, has acknowledged the abuses.
Despite this, most Catholics refuse to allow these abuses to define them, or their religion. And with good cause.
The pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church is certainly a demon for Catholics -- in fact, for all Christians -- to confront. But demons are meant to be confronted. They aren't meant to define a person or movement's identity, no matter what the demagogues may demand.
The ironic thing is that the social movement that demagogues like Lindsay Stewart lay (illegitimate) claim to membership in -- the progressive movement -- has plenty of demons of its own to confront. Although the demagogues among them rage impotently whenever they're mentioned, these demons very much are real, and very much are theirs, despite their attempts to force them on others.
Consider, for example, one of the wannabe progressive movement's favourite arguing points against Alberta -- its Eugenics program.
Many so-called "progressives" have often been quick to blame Alberta's Eugenics program on the inherently conservative nature of its politics. Unfortunately for them, the historical record demonstrates that matters in regard to the Eugenics program -- the world's longest-running such program -- are a little more complex than that.
In Alberta, more than 2800 people were sterilized for a variety of reasons. Some of them were judged unfit to raise children. Others were sterilized due to various congenital conditions. Others were sterilized due to developmental deficiencies. Many were sterilized for what turned out to be largely arbitrary reasons.
What ensued was, unquestionably, a massive social injustice -- one that words can barely be describe.
But Alberta's Eugenics program -- as with most Eugenics programs in the world -- had a distinctly Utopian flavour to it; the idea being that by breeding the Albertan population as selectively as possible, the genetic conditions by which developmental deficiencies, genetic afflictions, and even childhood diseases could be virtually wiped out. Eugenics, it was argued, would improve the quality of life of all Albertans and, in turn, all Canadians.
Among those who supported Alberta's eugenics program were progressive icons like Nellie McClung, CCF founder JS Woodsworth, Emily Murphy and Tommy Douglas.
Some progressives have the courage to confront this particular demon of Canada's progressive movement. Some progressives have the courage to confront these demons of the progressive movement's past. Others, unfortunately, do not.
Interestingly, some times charges need be mere allegations that those making them won't, oddly enough, even allow to be investigated, as is the case with Stewart's envokation of recent mass grave allegations regarding Canada's shameful Residential School system.
Ironically, Residential Schools were also rooted in a Utopian vision that is so often the domain of progressive political thinkers. And again, the historical record shows, progressive activists with the best of attentions must share the blame for Canada's Residential School System and the horrors that therein occurred with the churches who ran the schools.
Of course, one would be holding their breath a long time before demagogues like Stewart acknowledged this historical truth. Better not to risk asphyxiation.
But those who choose to confront the demons of their movement's past are wise indeed when they refuse to let those demons define them. The risk of allowing progressives (be they feminist or socialist) to be permanently discredited by their mistakes are vast. Progressive values, after all, have often proven to be a force for positive and necessary social change.
Likewise, even while it remains necessary for Christians worldwide to confront the demons of their past, it would be utter folly to insist that those demons simply must define Christianity. It would ignore all the good that Christianity -- and those that take its true message to heart -- have done, especially in individual communities.
Although anti-Christians refuse to acknowledge it, churches have often been beneficiary to their communities. The Salvation Army Church provides countless man-hours and dollars worth of services to the needy in their communities. And Canada's vaunted progressive movement has enshrined the accomplishments of those who lived their lives -- personal and political -- according to the Protestant Social Gospel.
Of course, there is clearly a certain amount of frustration evident in the attitudes of anti-Christians like Lindsay Stewart that Christians simply will not relent and allow themselves to be permanently discredited for mistakes that many Christians will almost immediately acknowledge -- and it reeks of hypocrisy so long as so many in the progressive movement continue to hide from theirs.
Like those progressives who acknowledge the mistakes committed in the name of progressive Utopianism, Christians who acknowledge the mistakes made by the Church -- and they are legion -- are wise to refuse to allow these mistakes to define them, simply because no one -- individuals or movements -- ever learn from (or redeem) their mistakes if they choose to despair over them.
Not learning from our mistakes is the danger of letting our demons define us, just as it's the danger of refusing to acknowledge them.
When one takes count of some of the views held by the most extreme of the extreme, one thing becomes immediate apparent.
The most extreme individuals almost universally tend to have long, unforgiving memories. More importantly than that, they tend to hold grudges over the mistakes made by individuals and movements they deem to be their political opponents.
For a telling example, one really needs look little further than Lindsay Stewart (who blogs under the alias Pretty Shaved Ape) and his response to a recent discussion (or, rather, attempt at discussion) over whether or not churches are public goods:
"Organized pedophilia, cultural genocide, mass graves... good times, good times."
It's unsurprising that a left-wing demagogue wannabe like Lindsay Stewart would produce something like this as a response to the revelation that churches are a public good.
In the minds of such individuals, all the good things that many churches provide to the community -- shelters for the homeless, recreation services for youths and a considerable volunteer pool for the community, as merely three examples -- certainly don't matter. Any little thing they can use to denounce religion -- their favourite target seems to be Christianity in particular -- is all that matters to them.
Few people will pretend that nothing bad has ever happened in the history of Christianity. The Inquisition and the treatment of women as second-class individuals and Canada's Residential Schools are merely a few examples among a myriad of charges that could be raised against Christianity.
The most predictable complaint for Stewart and his fellow wannabe demagogues at Canadian Cynic's Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink is the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church. That's what he's alluding to here.
Few Catholics, in particular deny that such abuses have taken place. Even Pope Benedict who has been accused of masterminding a cover-up of the abuses, has acknowledged the abuses.
Despite this, most Catholics refuse to allow these abuses to define them, or their religion. And with good cause.
The pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church is certainly a demon for Catholics -- in fact, for all Christians -- to confront. But demons are meant to be confronted. They aren't meant to define a person or movement's identity, no matter what the demagogues may demand.
The ironic thing is that the social movement that demagogues like Lindsay Stewart lay (illegitimate) claim to membership in -- the progressive movement -- has plenty of demons of its own to confront. Although the demagogues among them rage impotently whenever they're mentioned, these demons very much are real, and very much are theirs, despite their attempts to force them on others.
Consider, for example, one of the wannabe progressive movement's favourite arguing points against Alberta -- its Eugenics program.
Many so-called "progressives" have often been quick to blame Alberta's Eugenics program on the inherently conservative nature of its politics. Unfortunately for them, the historical record demonstrates that matters in regard to the Eugenics program -- the world's longest-running such program -- are a little more complex than that.
In Alberta, more than 2800 people were sterilized for a variety of reasons. Some of them were judged unfit to raise children. Others were sterilized due to various congenital conditions. Others were sterilized due to developmental deficiencies. Many were sterilized for what turned out to be largely arbitrary reasons.
What ensued was, unquestionably, a massive social injustice -- one that words can barely be describe.
But Alberta's Eugenics program -- as with most Eugenics programs in the world -- had a distinctly Utopian flavour to it; the idea being that by breeding the Albertan population as selectively as possible, the genetic conditions by which developmental deficiencies, genetic afflictions, and even childhood diseases could be virtually wiped out. Eugenics, it was argued, would improve the quality of life of all Albertans and, in turn, all Canadians.
Among those who supported Alberta's eugenics program were progressive icons like Nellie McClung, CCF founder JS Woodsworth, Emily Murphy and Tommy Douglas.
Some progressives have the courage to confront this particular demon of Canada's progressive movement. Some progressives have the courage to confront these demons of the progressive movement's past. Others, unfortunately, do not.
Interestingly, some times charges need be mere allegations that those making them won't, oddly enough, even allow to be investigated, as is the case with Stewart's envokation of recent mass grave allegations regarding Canada's shameful Residential School system.
Ironically, Residential Schools were also rooted in a Utopian vision that is so often the domain of progressive political thinkers. And again, the historical record shows, progressive activists with the best of attentions must share the blame for Canada's Residential School System and the horrors that therein occurred with the churches who ran the schools.
Of course, one would be holding their breath a long time before demagogues like Stewart acknowledged this historical truth. Better not to risk asphyxiation.
But those who choose to confront the demons of their movement's past are wise indeed when they refuse to let those demons define them. The risk of allowing progressives (be they feminist or socialist) to be permanently discredited by their mistakes are vast. Progressive values, after all, have often proven to be a force for positive and necessary social change.
Likewise, even while it remains necessary for Christians worldwide to confront the demons of their past, it would be utter folly to insist that those demons simply must define Christianity. It would ignore all the good that Christianity -- and those that take its true message to heart -- have done, especially in individual communities.
Although anti-Christians refuse to acknowledge it, churches have often been beneficiary to their communities. The Salvation Army Church provides countless man-hours and dollars worth of services to the needy in their communities. And Canada's vaunted progressive movement has enshrined the accomplishments of those who lived their lives -- personal and political -- according to the Protestant Social Gospel.
Of course, there is clearly a certain amount of frustration evident in the attitudes of anti-Christians like Lindsay Stewart that Christians simply will not relent and allow themselves to be permanently discredited for mistakes that many Christians will almost immediately acknowledge -- and it reeks of hypocrisy so long as so many in the progressive movement continue to hide from theirs.
Like those progressives who acknowledge the mistakes committed in the name of progressive Utopianism, Christians who acknowledge the mistakes made by the Church -- and they are legion -- are wise to refuse to allow these mistakes to define them, simply because no one -- individuals or movements -- ever learn from (or redeem) their mistakes if they choose to despair over them.
Not learning from our mistakes is the danger of letting our demons define us, just as it's the danger of refusing to acknowledge them.
Lulu's Idea of a Fair Fight
Oh, brother
One almost has to feel sorry for Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink High Priestess Lulu -- someone so ridiculously stupid that she honestly believes that old news represents some sort of stunning new revelation.
Far from it.
But it really only makes one thank the good lord that the hateful little she-devil (She-devil? Who are you, Jim Ross? May as well just point out the fact that she's a bitch and get it over with -ed.) isn't a lawyer. Somehow, she believes that Nathan Richardson (the strapping young lad pictured left) has been deemed innocent because his charge of aggravated assault against octogenarian Ed Snell (pictured right) has been reduced to misdemeanor assault.
Far from it.
In fact, Richardson's reduction of the aggravated assault charge to misdemeanor assault and reckless endangerment charges is a commonly-used defence in the state of Pennsylvania. Such reductions are sought and obtained on the grounds that Pennsylvanian aggravated assault law demands that "extreme indifference to human life" be demonstrated.
Now, by that token alone, the judgment handed down by "Justice" Barbara Pianka is excessively poor. After all, if pushing a 69-year-old man off the roof of a car onto concrete -- an act he should full-well expect to kill the elderly man -- doesn't demonstrate "extreme indifference to human life", one has to wonder exactly what does.
Interestingly, the story in question says nothing about Pianka citing provocation -- as Lulu wants to insist the case must have been -- only that Richardson's lawyer argued that his intent wasn't to seriously harm the man (again, one wonders exactly what on Earth Richardson expected would be the outcome of that particular act).
Then again, considering her usual standard of political criticism, it isn't too hard to imagine Lulu as a wannabe hanger-on of her high school's football team captain, swooning while that all-man manly-man gives swirlies to the captain of the chess club.
And if the principal has anything to say about it? By golly, Melvin just shouldn't have said that Kirk is a better Captain than Picard. He had it coming.
Lulu's Hilarious Hypocrisy For Today
It's just awful to express a lack of sympathy for flood victims. Oh, that is unless a blogmate does it. Then, it's all hunky-dory.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Another Black Eye for the Human Rights Commission
Time for some accountability at the CHRC
A controversy quietly bubbling amongst denizens of the Canadian Blogosphere has finally exploded into the mainstream media, as the Globe and Mail yesterday reported on some of the shifty "covert ops" being carried out by investigators for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Last month, Dean Steacy testified that he signed up an account on Stormfront, a white supremacist website, under the alias "Jadewarr".
"It a short form for 'Jade Warrior' from a novel I read as a teenager," he explained.
Bell Canada was subpoenaed for the identity of the individual to whom the IP address was linked. It produced the name of Ottawa resident Nelle Hechme, and provided her phone number and home address at the hearing.
As it turns out, Hechme has had nothing to do with either Stormfront or Dean Steacy. Thus, the proverbial shit has hit the not-so-proverbial fan for the CHRC, raising some important questions about how these Commissions operate, and why there is so little accountability in the system.
Some may recognize the name Dean Steacy. He was the one who insisted "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
This despite the fact that "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" is Constitutionally entrenched via the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One would think that an investigator for the Human Rights Commission would be familiar with the fundamental document upon which these commissions are founded.
It seems that Steacy tapped Nelle Hechme's WiFi internet connection. Hechme lives a short distance from the CHRC office.
As such, not only did Mr Steacy violate Hechme's privacy and essentially engage in property theft, he also committed WiFi piracy -- yet another illegal act.
Of course, such liberal twisting of proper legal procedures -- to pose it euphemistically at best -- has turned out to be fairly typical of the CHRC. A document revealing that CHRC investigators were themselves registered on the site was reportedly removed from the official record, and an identical copy (with the notable alteration of the "welcome Jadewarr" removed).
All of this to get at Marc Lemire, an individual who almost certainly is guilty of disseminating hate speech, and should be dealt with. Unfortunately, the CHRC's own lack of accountability and we're-above-the-law attitude has utterly undermined their efforts and reputation.
Of course, some people are using what is -- quite frankly -- Nelle Hechme's victimization at the hands of unscrupulous Canadian Human Rights Commission Investigators as proof that these commissions need to be abolished.
Little could be further from the truth. The truth is that Canada's Human Rights Commissions serve a valuable purpose to Canadian Society.
But they simply cannot be allowed to continue as they have operated. It's time to divorce these organizations from the Star Chamber Rules by which they have operated, and make them operate according to modern legal principles -- including all applicable rules of evidence.
It's time to transform these institutions from convenient weapons in the hands of litigious witch hunters into proper legal commissions worthy of the name. The work they do is important, but it's time for Canadian society to stop sacrificing our legal principles in order to allow them to pervert the important purpose these commissions fulfill.
These commissions were never intended to become tools of censorship -- they were intended to be tools of redress for when Human Rights have actually been violated.
It's time to clean up the CHRC. Canadian society will be all the better off for it.
A controversy quietly bubbling amongst denizens of the Canadian Blogosphere has finally exploded into the mainstream media, as the Globe and Mail yesterday reported on some of the shifty "covert ops" being carried out by investigators for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Last month, Dean Steacy testified that he signed up an account on Stormfront, a white supremacist website, under the alias "Jadewarr".
"It a short form for 'Jade Warrior' from a novel I read as a teenager," he explained.
Bell Canada was subpoenaed for the identity of the individual to whom the IP address was linked. It produced the name of Ottawa resident Nelle Hechme, and provided her phone number and home address at the hearing.
As it turns out, Hechme has had nothing to do with either Stormfront or Dean Steacy. Thus, the proverbial shit has hit the not-so-proverbial fan for the CHRC, raising some important questions about how these Commissions operate, and why there is so little accountability in the system.
Some may recognize the name Dean Steacy. He was the one who insisted "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
This despite the fact that "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" is Constitutionally entrenched via the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One would think that an investigator for the Human Rights Commission would be familiar with the fundamental document upon which these commissions are founded.
It seems that Steacy tapped Nelle Hechme's WiFi internet connection. Hechme lives a short distance from the CHRC office.
As such, not only did Mr Steacy violate Hechme's privacy and essentially engage in property theft, he also committed WiFi piracy -- yet another illegal act.
Of course, such liberal twisting of proper legal procedures -- to pose it euphemistically at best -- has turned out to be fairly typical of the CHRC. A document revealing that CHRC investigators were themselves registered on the site was reportedly removed from the official record, and an identical copy (with the notable alteration of the "welcome Jadewarr" removed).
All of this to get at Marc Lemire, an individual who almost certainly is guilty of disseminating hate speech, and should be dealt with. Unfortunately, the CHRC's own lack of accountability and we're-above-the-law attitude has utterly undermined their efforts and reputation.Of course, some people are using what is -- quite frankly -- Nelle Hechme's victimization at the hands of unscrupulous Canadian Human Rights Commission Investigators as proof that these commissions need to be abolished.
Little could be further from the truth. The truth is that Canada's Human Rights Commissions serve a valuable purpose to Canadian Society.
But they simply cannot be allowed to continue as they have operated. It's time to divorce these organizations from the Star Chamber Rules by which they have operated, and make them operate according to modern legal principles -- including all applicable rules of evidence.
It's time to transform these institutions from convenient weapons in the hands of litigious witch hunters into proper legal commissions worthy of the name. The work they do is important, but it's time for Canadian society to stop sacrificing our legal principles in order to allow them to pervert the important purpose these commissions fulfill.
These commissions were never intended to become tools of censorship -- they were intended to be tools of redress for when Human Rights have actually been violated.
It's time to clean up the CHRC. Canadian society will be all the better off for it.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Democracy Not Irrelevant in Alberta
Just the opposition
Every so often, the editorial staff of the Toronto Star likes to toss a few stones westward, as was the case with an op/ed article, written by former Calgary Herald managing editor Gillian Steward, published today.
In the article, Steward -- oft-time writer and researcher for the Parkland institute and some-time compatriot of provincial Liberal leader Kevin Taft -- alleges that oil money has undermined democracy in Alberta. It starts by noting that, by golly, things are real good for the Alberta government:
Of course, one might have suspected that maybe, just maybe, the Star's editorial staff might have thought twice about where Steward is going with this. After all, Alberta isn't the only province that just endured a historically low voter turnout. In the 2008 Ontario provincial election, only 52.6% of eligible voters cast ballots.
Admittedly, it's a full 11 percent better than Alberta's turnout. But Ontario and Alberta aren't the only jurisdictions to experience declining voter turnout. The country, as a whole, has experienced a nine% decline in voter turnout since Confederation in 1867 -- although the 64.7% turnout in the 2006 federal election was a nearly 4% improvement over 2004's turnout.
In Ontario's particular case, however, the province doesn't have any oil money to blame for their decline. So one wonders what else could be responsible?
There is an answer to this. But first, back to Steward:
They insist their long history of defeat isn't due to their own failings. Among other things, they blame Alberta's first past the post voting system, allegedly unfair campaign laws that bilk them out of chump change, and oil money.
In fact, Albertans do turn out to the polls when there's an actual contest, as was the case during the 2006 federal election, when 55% of Albertans turned out to vote. Still not exactly numbers to be proud of (nor are the federal numbers), but more significant still.
Historically, whenever the Albertan government has been replaced, it's been done by either an entirely new party (as was the case with the United Farmers of Alberta and Social Credit party) or by a new incarnation of an old party (which was the case with the Progressive Conservatives).
One explanation for this is especially intriguing: that, as a party continues to try to defeat the government and, in successive elections, continues to fail, Albertans come to judge that particular party as unfit and unable to govern. As time draws on, the opposition parties become increasingly irrelevant, and often reinforce this themselves by offering platforms of policies that simply don't appeal to Albertans, and don't reflect Albertans' interests as viewed by them.
One thing can be said about Albertans' low voter turnout: the landslide victories it tends to produce certainly does suggest an implicit approval of the government and its policies. To assume this would be folly, but it's hard not to give the idea serious consideration.
Then there is, of course, the other elephant in this particular room: Ontarians, in the course of the very election that drew the lowest voter turnout in their history, voted down Mixed Member Proportional plurality in a referendum. Whatever the problems in Ontario -- that other province experiencing historically low turnout -- it clearly has little to do with the first past the post electoral system. Those Ontarians who do vote seem to like it just fine.
But Albertan politics have always had a distinctly conservative, small-government flavour -- not one that all of Alberta's governments have embodied them.
But Ralph Klein isn't alone in favouring small-government models wherein things largely run themselves and citizens govern themselves. In fact, such principles are at the very heart of "strong democracy" models that are at the basis of demands for things such as proportional representation -- a demand that Steward scarcely masks here.
Even those who support the government will quickly admit that, no, not everything in Alberta is perfect. But none of it is as bad as the province's minority left-wing opposition insists it is.
Democracy isn't what's irrelevant in Alberta -- the opposition is. The sooner that it recognizes this and adjusts in order to produce a relevant option for Albertans, the sooner its irrelevance will end.
Every so often, the editorial staff of the Toronto Star likes to toss a few stones westward, as was the case with an op/ed article, written by former Calgary Herald managing editor Gillian Steward, published today.
In the article, Steward -- oft-time writer and researcher for the Parkland institute and some-time compatriot of provincial Liberal leader Kevin Taft -- alleges that oil money has undermined democracy in Alberta. It starts by noting that, by golly, things are real good for the Alberta government:
"The Alberta government tabled a $37 billion budget last week that featured per capita spending three times the average level of other provinces.Alberta's (frankly) disgustingly low voter turnout is often pointed to as evidence that, galldurnnit (galldurnnit isn't a word - ed) Albertans just don't believe in democracy.
Not that many Albertans are likely to notice. After all, only 41 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the recent provincial election. If elections don't catch most people's attention, it's hard to imagine that the day-to-day dealings of the government will."
Of course, one might have suspected that maybe, just maybe, the Star's editorial staff might have thought twice about where Steward is going with this. After all, Alberta isn't the only province that just endured a historically low voter turnout. In the 2008 Ontario provincial election, only 52.6% of eligible voters cast ballots.
Admittedly, it's a full 11 percent better than Alberta's turnout. But Ontario and Alberta aren't the only jurisdictions to experience declining voter turnout. The country, as a whole, has experienced a nine% decline in voter turnout since Confederation in 1867 -- although the 64.7% turnout in the 2006 federal election was a nearly 4% improvement over 2004's turnout.
In Ontario's particular case, however, the province doesn't have any oil money to blame for their decline. So one wonders what else could be responsible?
There is an answer to this. But first, back to Steward:
"Premier Ed Stelmach's Conservatives won 72 of 83 seats, which left the opposition – nine Liberals and two New Democrats – reduced to a tiny island surrounded by a sea of gloating government members.They may not have much money, resources, or many people, but they certainly have plenty of excuses:
That the opposition is practically dead on its feet is no exaggeration. They have just endured a draining election campaign and are now expected to take on one of the most powerful governments in the country. They have so few people and resources, not to mention money, that they will barely be able to keep up with the government's agenda."
They insist their long history of defeat isn't due to their own failings. Among other things, they blame Alberta's first past the post voting system, allegedly unfair campaign laws that bilk them out of chump change, and oil money.
"This is not the first time there has been such a lopsided election result. In 1982, Peter Lougheed's Conservatives won 75 of 79 seats. In 2001, Ralph Klein won 74 of 83. But at least then most people turned out to vote. After this election, some are wondering if Alberta has become North America's first post-democratic state; a well-educated, wealthy jurisdiction where most people don't give a fig about democracy.Which of course, is musing a little on the hysterical side.
Peter McCormick, a political science professor at the University of Lethbridge, says Albertans seem to believe that democracy is obsolete and elections irrelevant. Another political-science prof told me that Alberta is proof that the Chinese are right: you can have capitalism without democracy. He was joking, but not entirely."
In fact, Albertans do turn out to the polls when there's an actual contest, as was the case during the 2006 federal election, when 55% of Albertans turned out to vote. Still not exactly numbers to be proud of (nor are the federal numbers), but more significant still.
"The drift from a one-party state to almost complete apathy has been going on for some time. But in the West this disaffection with democracy is purely an Alberta phenomenon. British Columbia had a 60 per cent turnout during its last provincial election and is also the first province to establish a working citizens' assembly to explore alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral system. In 2005, British Columbians were asked in a referendum if they wanted to change the way they elected their political representatives."If only the issue really were the issue in the decreasing voter turnout in Albertan elections and the increasing marginalization of what passes for an opposition here.
Historically, whenever the Albertan government has been replaced, it's been done by either an entirely new party (as was the case with the United Farmers of Alberta and Social Credit party) or by a new incarnation of an old party (which was the case with the Progressive Conservatives).
One explanation for this is especially intriguing: that, as a party continues to try to defeat the government and, in successive elections, continues to fail, Albertans come to judge that particular party as unfit and unable to govern. As time draws on, the opposition parties become increasingly irrelevant, and often reinforce this themselves by offering platforms of policies that simply don't appeal to Albertans, and don't reflect Albertans' interests as viewed by them.
One thing can be said about Albertans' low voter turnout: the landslide victories it tends to produce certainly does suggest an implicit approval of the government and its policies. To assume this would be folly, but it's hard not to give the idea serious consideration.
Then there is, of course, the other elephant in this particular room: Ontarians, in the course of the very election that drew the lowest voter turnout in their history, voted down Mixed Member Proportional plurality in a referendum. Whatever the problems in Ontario -- that other province experiencing historically low turnout -- it clearly has little to do with the first past the post electoral system. Those Ontarians who do vote seem to like it just fine.
"Saskatchewan residents are fiercely political. In the 2007 provincial election, which saw the NDP turfed in favour of the right-wing Saskatchewan party, 75 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot. Manitoba had a 57 per cent turnout in 2007."Of course, the prospect of electing a new government -- as Saskatchewan did in 2007, and Manitoba was expected to do (but didn't) -- may have had more than a little to do with the increased voter turnout.
"Stelmach said after the election that Albertans are "just happy with life, most of them." Could it be that with oil at almost $120 a barrel, more jobs than people to fill them, and relatively low taxes, Albertans believe there is nothing more for the government to do?If $120/barrel oil really is what Albertans think is "as good as it gets", it certainly wouldn't be out-of-line to be a little bit disappointed in the lack of political vision in the province.
That was certainly Klein's vision. He often talked about wanting "the province to be on autopilot ... capable of running itself." That brings to mind a well-oiled machine, which of course describes Alberta in more ways than one."
But Albertan politics have always had a distinctly conservative, small-government flavour -- not one that all of Alberta's governments have embodied them.
But Ralph Klein isn't alone in favouring small-government models wherein things largely run themselves and citizens govern themselves. In fact, such principles are at the very heart of "strong democracy" models that are at the basis of demands for things such as proportional representation -- a demand that Steward scarcely masks here.
"It's well-oiled because petroleum taxes, royalties, permits and land leases account for a third of all government revenues and all those multi-billion surpluses. With a source of income like that, the government doesn't need to worry so much about keeping voters, particularly taxpayers, on side."Except at election time. And of those voters who actually choose to cast ballots in Canada, the current government has been overwhelmingly chosen.
"So the money will flow, for the next year at least, and there will be very few objections. And why would the government listen anyway when it knows most Albertans are too busy, or too happy, to notice much of what it does?"Except that Albertans seem to be extremely happy with the siting government -- after all, they keep returning it with overwhelming landslides.
Even those who support the government will quickly admit that, no, not everything in Alberta is perfect. But none of it is as bad as the province's minority left-wing opposition insists it is.
Democracy isn't what's irrelevant in Alberta -- the opposition is. The sooner that it recognizes this and adjusts in order to produce a relevant option for Albertans, the sooner its irrelevance will end.
Huckabee for VP?
Mike Huckabee and John McCain looking awfully close on the campaign circuit
For the last several weeks, Senator (and presumptive Republican Presidential nominee) John McCain has been touring a number of the United States' economically depressed regions.
On Thursday, McCain was in New Orleans, where a Republican finally owed up to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina.
"We know we didn't have the right kind of leadership ...where government agencies were getting information from watching cable television rather than have a flow of information," McCain announced. "It was not only a perfect storm as far as its physical impact ... it was a perfect storm as far as the federal, state and local governments' inability."
On Friday, McCain was in Mike Huckabee's home state of Arkansas. Huckabee, the final contender vanquished by McCain, was there with him.
It's far from surprising. When withdrawing from the race on 4 March, Huckabee pledged his support for McCain. "I believe that Arkansas will not only support Sen. McCain but will help him to become the next president of the United States. And I certainly pledge my every effort to help do that," he announced.
Ever since McCain clinched the nomination, there's naturally been a good deal of talk regarding who will join McCain on the Republican ticket as Vice Presidential nominee.
McCain and Huckabee seemed very chummy, at one point mock-arguing over who would pay for sandwiches (for the record, Huckabee paid and McCain left the tip).
Reading between the lines suggests that there may be more to McCain/Huckabee than mere speculation.
One of the things Huckabee was taken to task for most was -- oddly enough -- his religion.
If Huckabee were named Vice Presidential nominee, Huckabee's religion problem would almost certainly become McCain's problem. McCain seemed to head some of that off at the pass when he addressed Barack Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright problem. He announced it would be "a little bit presumptuous to ever assume that just because the pastor says something on the pulpit that everyone in the pew agrees with it. That's rarely the case."
On an embarrassing appearance on WWE Monday Night Raw McCain noted that "to be the man you have to beat the man". Huckabee couldn't beat the man, but could still be the man for the job.
At the end of the day, however, one shouldn't ask McCain and Huckabee about it. They're not saying anything, leaving this a question that may not get answered until the Republican National Convention.
For the last several weeks, Senator (and presumptive Republican Presidential nominee) John McCain has been touring a number of the United States' economically depressed regions.
On Thursday, McCain was in New Orleans, where a Republican finally owed up to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina.
"We know we didn't have the right kind of leadership ...where government agencies were getting information from watching cable television rather than have a flow of information," McCain announced. "It was not only a perfect storm as far as its physical impact ... it was a perfect storm as far as the federal, state and local governments' inability."
On Friday, McCain was in Mike Huckabee's home state of Arkansas. Huckabee, the final contender vanquished by McCain, was there with him.It's far from surprising. When withdrawing from the race on 4 March, Huckabee pledged his support for McCain. "I believe that Arkansas will not only support Sen. McCain but will help him to become the next president of the United States. And I certainly pledge my every effort to help do that," he announced.
Ever since McCain clinched the nomination, there's naturally been a good deal of talk regarding who will join McCain on the Republican ticket as Vice Presidential nominee.
McCain and Huckabee seemed very chummy, at one point mock-arguing over who would pay for sandwiches (for the record, Huckabee paid and McCain left the tip).
Reading between the lines suggests that there may be more to McCain/Huckabee than mere speculation.
One of the things Huckabee was taken to task for most was -- oddly enough -- his religion.
If Huckabee were named Vice Presidential nominee, Huckabee's religion problem would almost certainly become McCain's problem. McCain seemed to head some of that off at the pass when he addressed Barack Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright problem. He announced it would be "a little bit presumptuous to ever assume that just because the pastor says something on the pulpit that everyone in the pew agrees with it. That's rarely the case."
On an embarrassing appearance on WWE Monday Night Raw McCain noted that "to be the man you have to beat the man". Huckabee couldn't beat the man, but could still be the man for the job.
At the end of the day, however, one shouldn't ask McCain and Huckabee about it. They're not saying anything, leaving this a question that may not get answered until the Republican National Convention.
When Third-Rate "Thinkers" Throw Temper Tantrums
Martin Rayner falls on his face... again
Anyone who's watched their fair share of James Bond movies knows that every villain worth his salt has at least one good henchman -- or sidekick, if you will.
The Canadian blogosphere's resident hatemonger extraordinaire is no different. Take the case of Martin Rayner, (who blogs under the pseudonym Red Tory, despite the fact that he demonstrably is not a red tory). Whenever Canadian Cynic sustains a really wicked ass-kicking -- as he absorbed three times in the past couple of days -- Rayner always tries to ride into the rescue with what he believes to be a devastating response -- only to get his ass handed to him in turn. (As is about to happen now.)
As it turns out, there's just something about the Nexus that makes Martin Rayner open his mouth before he's stopped to think. And whenever that happens, we've learned by now that something spectacularly stupid is about to come out.
Observe:
First off, Cynic never did say anything about the tax deductibility of donations to religious organizations in the original post. In all manners regarding debate, the onus is on the individual to make their point. No one is obligated to do it for them.
Beyond that, Rayner has just demonstrated his absolutely astonishing talent for missing the point.
The point was, after all, that there are numerous differences between production grants for pornographic films and tax-deductible donations to religious organizations. Just to reiterate before getting on to the new nonsense: donations to religious organizations are voluntary on behalf of the taxpayer. Production grants to pornographic films are not. Churches are non-profit organizations while pornographic films are for-profit enterprises. Furthermore, churches are public goods. Pornographic films are private goods, and thus a far less appropriate expenditure of public funds.
Simple enough. We already know that Martin will ignore these points, as they utterly rip the guts out of his entire argument to date. But let's now get to the real fun in terms of dealing with Rayner in this particular case -- the difference between "tax credits" and "production grants":
Now, to those eager to buy Martin Rayner's specious line of argument (and we've talked all about the word specious, Marty) one would see a world of difference -- and they'd actually be right, but in the wrong way.
In the end, there's little real difference between the use of public funds -- and they very much are uses of public funds -- except that in one case (the production grant) the use of public funds in support of a pornographic film could be nipped in the bud. In the other case (tax credits) it's even easier to skirt any kind of requirement that the film in question have cultural value before it's supported by public funds.
In other words, tax credits for films -- unless properly regulated -- could serve to further skirt accountability. It's in this vein that Bill C-10 actually closes what remains an open back door to pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- being supported with public tax dollars.
The equivalence in this particular case -- tax credits and production grants -- is far from false. In both spirit (supporting film production) and effect (doing so with public funds), they're identical. Both pose different problems, but the solution to the problems posed by each is the same: regulation, as would be provided by the government should Bill C-10 pass.
Of course Rayner doesn't want to stop with his ficticious world of difference between tax credits and production grants. Apparently, that Charles McVety would object to tax dollars being used -- in one form or another -- to support pornographic films makes him a hypocrite on account of his own organization receiving public support:
In order for McVety to be a hypocrite would have to be doing one of two things: "[putting] on a false appearance of virtue or religion" or "[acting] in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings".
In soliciting donations for the Canada Christian Coalition, McVety is inviting Canadians who share his cause to use their tax dollars in support of it. His base argument that tax dollars shouldn't be used to support films that the "vast majority of Canadians find offensive" is far from hypocritical in any regard: a choice to donate money to the CCC is a choice made by individual Canadians about a cause they want to support.
A tax credit for a pornographic film is a choice made by some government bureaucrat made for them. In this, the taxpayer has no choice at all.
Perhaps some Canadians are offended by McVety and his "Christian zealotry", as Rayner insists. But chose Canadians can choose not to support the CCC with their tax dollars, just as those who support it can choose to support it with theirs. They could even choose to support other organizations and causes wherever tax-deductible donations are applicable. They have that choice.
It's the lack of choice inherent in the robotic and unaccountable distribution of funds by bureaucrats that makes Cynic's argument a false equivalence.
Which is what the argument remains about: choice. It's not terribly surprising that Martin Rayner just can't seem to grasp this particular concept.
But, at the end of the day, even as we recognize that Rayner simply isn't as bright as he likes to pretend that he is, we learn that, well, he isn't all that creative, either.
We also know he's a Nexus reader. How do we know this? He's been stealing metaphors. In this case, the Charlie Brown metaphor.
Thanks for calling, Marty, and thanks for reading. Feel free to collect yourself a complementary icepack and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Also, tell Cynic he should start looking for a new sidekick. His current one is all worn out.
Anyone who's watched their fair share of James Bond movies knows that every villain worth his salt has at least one good henchman -- or sidekick, if you will.
The Canadian blogosphere's resident hatemonger extraordinaire is no different. Take the case of Martin Rayner, (who blogs under the pseudonym Red Tory, despite the fact that he demonstrably is not a red tory). Whenever Canadian Cynic sustains a really wicked ass-kicking -- as he absorbed three times in the past couple of days -- Rayner always tries to ride into the rescue with what he believes to be a devastating response -- only to get his ass handed to him in turn. (As is about to happen now.)
As it turns out, there's just something about the Nexus that makes Martin Rayner open his mouth before he's stopped to think. And whenever that happens, we've learned by now that something spectacularly stupid is about to come out.
Observe:
"In his latest attempt to prove how absolutely brilliant he is, he takes our friend Canadian Cynic to task for a snarky observation made in passing a while back about the hypocrisy of Charles McVety. First, he contends that CC “never said anything about the tax-deductibility of donations to religious organizations.” Well, considering this was completely obvious to everyone but Patrick and was reinforced by a graphic of McVety’s advertisement wherein it was stated “All donations are tax deductible” it hardly needed to be spelled out in order for the reader to get the point. And what was the point? It most certainly wasn’t, as Patrick seemed to have imagined for some reason, that “that McVety uses the internet to solicit donations for the Canada Christian Coalition.” No, it was simply pointing out the alleged “hypocrisy” of someone like McVety complaining about his tax dollars going to “subsidize porn” as he put it, while at the same time being “subsidized” by virtue of being a tax exempt religious organization."Well, so little should actually need to be said here, if only Rayner could make the effort to read what's already been said.
First off, Cynic never did say anything about the tax deductibility of donations to religious organizations in the original post. In all manners regarding debate, the onus is on the individual to make their point. No one is obligated to do it for them.
Beyond that, Rayner has just demonstrated his absolutely astonishing talent for missing the point.
The point was, after all, that there are numerous differences between production grants for pornographic films and tax-deductible donations to religious organizations. Just to reiterate before getting on to the new nonsense: donations to religious organizations are voluntary on behalf of the taxpayer. Production grants to pornographic films are not. Churches are non-profit organizations while pornographic films are for-profit enterprises. Furthermore, churches are public goods. Pornographic films are private goods, and thus a far less appropriate expenditure of public funds.
Simple enough. We already know that Martin will ignore these points, as they utterly rip the guts out of his entire argument to date. But let's now get to the real fun in terms of dealing with Rayner in this particular case -- the difference between "tax credits" and "production grants":
"This of course is an utterly specious argument because the issue at hand is the proposed amendment to Bill C-10, which is what McVety has been publicly crusading of late to change. Therefore, we’re not talking about “production grants” at all, but rather about “tax credits” — a big difference. The dispute over C-10 involves a proposed amendment to The Income Tax Act that would allow the Heritage Minister, or a government committee, to deny tax credits to productions deemed offensive and “contrary to public policy."One would almost be willing to say "fair enough". But then one looks at the definition of a "tax credit": a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxable income. In this case, one designed to offset the production costs of film production after the film is completed, as opposed to a production grant, wherein the government supports the production with a contribution of funds before production begins.
Now, to those eager to buy Martin Rayner's specious line of argument (and we've talked all about the word specious, Marty) one would see a world of difference -- and they'd actually be right, but in the wrong way.
In the end, there's little real difference between the use of public funds -- and they very much are uses of public funds -- except that in one case (the production grant) the use of public funds in support of a pornographic film could be nipped in the bud. In the other case (tax credits) it's even easier to skirt any kind of requirement that the film in question have cultural value before it's supported by public funds.
In other words, tax credits for films -- unless properly regulated -- could serve to further skirt accountability. It's in this vein that Bill C-10 actually closes what remains an open back door to pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- being supported with public tax dollars.
The equivalence in this particular case -- tax credits and production grants -- is far from false. In both spirit (supporting film production) and effect (doing so with public funds), they're identical. Both pose different problems, but the solution to the problems posed by each is the same: regulation, as would be provided by the government should Bill C-10 pass.
Of course Rayner doesn't want to stop with his ficticious world of difference between tax credits and production grants. Apparently, that Charles McVety would object to tax dollars being used -- in one form or another -- to support pornographic films makes him a hypocrite on account of his own organization receiving public support:
"Be that as it may, if McVety maintains that the current system of allowing tax credits to films that he deems as being “pornographic” constitutes a “subsidy” then logic dictates that he too is enjoying a “subsidy” at the taxpayer’s expense (including many people who may find his brand of Judeo-Christian zealotry offensive). Hence the hypocrisy. Now, had the discussion actually been about production grants (which the Calgary Herald article in question wasn’t), that’s another matter altogether."But as has already been established, there's a world of difference between the use of public funds to support religious organizations and the use of public funds to support films. As they've already been explained here, they won't be repeated.
In order for McVety to be a hypocrite would have to be doing one of two things: "[putting] on a false appearance of virtue or religion" or "[acting] in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings".
In soliciting donations for the Canada Christian Coalition, McVety is inviting Canadians who share his cause to use their tax dollars in support of it. His base argument that tax dollars shouldn't be used to support films that the "vast majority of Canadians find offensive" is far from hypocritical in any regard: a choice to donate money to the CCC is a choice made by individual Canadians about a cause they want to support.
A tax credit for a pornographic film is a choice made by some government bureaucrat made for them. In this, the taxpayer has no choice at all.
Perhaps some Canadians are offended by McVety and his "Christian zealotry", as Rayner insists. But chose Canadians can choose not to support the CCC with their tax dollars, just as those who support it can choose to support it with theirs. They could even choose to support other organizations and causes wherever tax-deductible donations are applicable. They have that choice.
It's the lack of choice inherent in the robotic and unaccountable distribution of funds by bureaucrats that makes Cynic's argument a false equivalence.
Which is what the argument remains about: choice. It's not terribly surprising that Martin Rayner just can't seem to grasp this particular concept.
But, at the end of the day, even as we recognize that Rayner simply isn't as bright as he likes to pretend that he is, we learn that, well, he isn't all that creative, either.
We also know he's a Nexus reader. How do we know this? He's been stealing metaphors. In this case, the Charlie Brown metaphor.
Thanks for calling, Marty, and thanks for reading. Feel free to collect yourself a complementary icepack and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Also, tell Cynic he should start looking for a new sidekick. His current one is all worn out.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Another Point for Canadian Cynic to Not Debate
Submitted for your approval: a third ass-kicking
Those paying attention to goings-on here at the Nexus of late probably recall an extremely ill-advised diatribe over at Canadian Cynic's Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink.
Some may also recall that there was inklings of a challenge to debate woven into the pitiful display of mewling jackassery -- one that, predictably, has gone unanswered once met.
But the ironically gun-crazed Mike at "Rational Reasons" unwittingly provided us with the ammunition to point out how these people are all kinds of stupid with this particular comment:
"Screw [McVety], tax the churches."
And one is certain they'd like to, as well.
Unfortunately for individuals like Cynic and Mike, taxing churches would actually bring up all sorts of conundrums, none of which the anti-religious crowd would be eager to face.
Before we get into that, however, let's take one more look at the comparison between the uses of tax dollars inherent in this comparison. In this particular case, whether it's individual tax payers choosing to use their tax dollars to support something (as is the case with churches) or a faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrat using tax dollars to support something in which tax payers have no choice (pornographic films like Bubbles Galore) will be largely immaterial.
Instead, let's take a close look at a church and a film, and see what the most apparent thing is that distinguishes the two in terms of public policy.
Both films and religion are cultural entities, so little distinction can be drawn there.
But the basic purpose of each distinguishes them in two important respects. First off, one of these two things -- the film -- is generally done as a for-profit enterprise; the other -- the church -- is not.
Secondly, one of these things -- the church -- is largely a public good; the other is -- the film -- not.
Let's start off with the distinction between a for-profit and non-profit enterprise.
In Canada, Non-Profit organizations are defined as follows:
In Canada, most non-profit organizations are exempt from all manners of taxation. Some exceptions are made in cases of organizations that accrue capital gain from revenue from recreational facilities.
Churches, however, are regarded as entirely non-taxable.
Films, on the other hand, are produced almost exclusively for profit -- for either the individual producers of the film, or for the company that produces it.
Unlike church operations, that are intended to break even and turn no profit, films, as an enterprise, are started with the intent of earning profit.
From the very start, there are important distinctions between the two examples being cited. But these are only the most fickle of the distinctions.
Now, we can move onto the real blood and guts of this particular argument -- the distinction between a public good and a private good.
In economic terms, a public good is generally considered to be any good or service that is produced in such a way that it benefits the public at large. It's non-rival and non-excludable. Even in cases were some amount of exclusion can be enforced, a public good can still be defined by how it provides a good deal of external benefit -- benefit accrued by those who are involved in neither of the production or direct consumption of the good. In economic terms, this is generally referred to as an externality (although the term has come to be used more to describe external costs).
In the particular example of churches, one must admit that some degree of exclusion does persist. For example, most churches still do not allow homosexuals amongst their congregations, and some of those that do don't allow them to participate as fully as other members.
However, churches do provide a tremendous amount of external benefit. Many churches operate services such as food banks, family counseling services, daycare services, and youth outreach programs.
The benefits of fewer hungry people in the community (less crime), fewer broken-home environments (healthier children), daycare services (helpful to single-parent or double-income families) and youth outreach programs (fewer youths wandering the streets at night, resulting in lower petty crime rates and greater safety for the youths in question) are enjoyed by the community at large.
Furthermore, because the public at large can't be excluded from these benefits, churches do experience a bit of a free-rider problem -- people who enjoy the benefits they provide, but don't pay into them.
Of course religious organizations tend to collect their donations based on the principle of belief. There aren't many churches that would insist on collecting donations from all Canadians regardless of their beliefs -- thus the tax-deductible model of public support, wherein individual taxpayers are offered the choice.
A film, meanwhile, is a private good. Not only can people who haven't paid for access to the film be easily excluded from watching it -- at least during a film's theatre run -- but it offers few (if any) external benefit to those who haven't consumed the product in question. (For the record, economics regards films and television as services.)
Providing production grants to films provides far less benefit to the public at large than tax-deductible donations to churches. Revoking the tax-deductibility of donations to churches would reduce the incentive for many people to donate to churches in the first place, cutting off a source of public benefit of inestimable value.
But even beyond that -- which one has to admit is entirely unlikely to sway the anti-religious crowd -- taxing churches has other implications that they would likely be reluctant to face.
For starters, taxing churches would redefine the relationship between Church and state.
As it stands right now, the state largely regards churches as organizations made up of citizens. Taxation of churches, however, would fundamentally alter the spirit of this arrangement. Taxation of churches would transform a church from a collection of citizens into a citizen in its own right.
Just as corporations, by virtue of their taxability, are regarded as corporate citizens, churches would, by necessity, be redefined as religious citizens. Along with the new obligations embodied by taxation, churches would also be entitled to the benefits of citizenship.
The concerns of churches -- newly tax-paying entities as imagined by the anti-religious crowd -- could in time give them as strong a voice in cultural policy as large corporations have come to enjoy in terms of trade policy.
Of course, this isn't quite what the anti-religious crowd has in mind for their glorious new regime under which churches would be taxable. They likely imagine something more along the lines of a slave relationship -- wherein taxes are collected from churches with no obligation owed from the state to churches.
That's unlikely to happen. A fundamental principle of democracy is the idea that taxation by the state has to be justified by services performed for the individual by the state -- services ranging from providing safety and security to the elaborate social safety nets that have become a hallmark of modern politics.
Separation of church and state has often been cited as a justification for criticizing any interaction between the church and the state.
Embarking on taxation-related flights of fancy that would actually drive the church and state will not serve that principle.
But one can't consider the anti-religious crowd -- like that found at Canadian Cynic's Temple of Sycophantic Group Think -- to realistically consider such prospects. They're too busy trying to figure out a new way to screw churches.
Those paying attention to goings-on here at the Nexus of late probably recall an extremely ill-advised diatribe over at Canadian Cynic's Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink.
Some may also recall that there was inklings of a challenge to debate woven into the pitiful display of mewling jackassery -- one that, predictably, has gone unanswered once met.
But the ironically gun-crazed Mike at "Rational Reasons" unwittingly provided us with the ammunition to point out how these people are all kinds of stupid with this particular comment:
"Screw [McVety], tax the churches."
And one is certain they'd like to, as well.
Unfortunately for individuals like Cynic and Mike, taxing churches would actually bring up all sorts of conundrums, none of which the anti-religious crowd would be eager to face.
Before we get into that, however, let's take one more look at the comparison between the uses of tax dollars inherent in this comparison. In this particular case, whether it's individual tax payers choosing to use their tax dollars to support something (as is the case with churches) or a faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrat using tax dollars to support something in which tax payers have no choice (pornographic films like Bubbles Galore) will be largely immaterial.
Instead, let's take a close look at a church and a film, and see what the most apparent thing is that distinguishes the two in terms of public policy.
Both films and religion are cultural entities, so little distinction can be drawn there.
But the basic purpose of each distinguishes them in two important respects. First off, one of these two things -- the film -- is generally done as a for-profit enterprise; the other -- the church -- is not.
Secondly, one of these things -- the church -- is largely a public good; the other is -- the film -- not.
Let's start off with the distinction between a for-profit and non-profit enterprise.
In Canada, Non-Profit organizations are defined as follows:
"A club, society, or association that's organized and operated solely for:In Canada, non-profit organizations qualify from various manners of tax exemptions. However, these exemptions are contingent on the organizations in question not accruing profit.
- social welfare
- civic improvement
- pleasure or recreation
- any other purpose except profit."
In Canada, most non-profit organizations are exempt from all manners of taxation. Some exceptions are made in cases of organizations that accrue capital gain from revenue from recreational facilities.
Churches, however, are regarded as entirely non-taxable.
Films, on the other hand, are produced almost exclusively for profit -- for either the individual producers of the film, or for the company that produces it.
Unlike church operations, that are intended to break even and turn no profit, films, as an enterprise, are started with the intent of earning profit.
From the very start, there are important distinctions between the two examples being cited. But these are only the most fickle of the distinctions.
Now, we can move onto the real blood and guts of this particular argument -- the distinction between a public good and a private good.
In economic terms, a public good is generally considered to be any good or service that is produced in such a way that it benefits the public at large. It's non-rival and non-excludable. Even in cases were some amount of exclusion can be enforced, a public good can still be defined by how it provides a good deal of external benefit -- benefit accrued by those who are involved in neither of the production or direct consumption of the good. In economic terms, this is generally referred to as an externality (although the term has come to be used more to describe external costs).
In the particular example of churches, one must admit that some degree of exclusion does persist. For example, most churches still do not allow homosexuals amongst their congregations, and some of those that do don't allow them to participate as fully as other members.
However, churches do provide a tremendous amount of external benefit. Many churches operate services such as food banks, family counseling services, daycare services, and youth outreach programs.
The benefits of fewer hungry people in the community (less crime), fewer broken-home environments (healthier children), daycare services (helpful to single-parent or double-income families) and youth outreach programs (fewer youths wandering the streets at night, resulting in lower petty crime rates and greater safety for the youths in question) are enjoyed by the community at large.
Furthermore, because the public at large can't be excluded from these benefits, churches do experience a bit of a free-rider problem -- people who enjoy the benefits they provide, but don't pay into them.
Of course religious organizations tend to collect their donations based on the principle of belief. There aren't many churches that would insist on collecting donations from all Canadians regardless of their beliefs -- thus the tax-deductible model of public support, wherein individual taxpayers are offered the choice.
A film, meanwhile, is a private good. Not only can people who haven't paid for access to the film be easily excluded from watching it -- at least during a film's theatre run -- but it offers few (if any) external benefit to those who haven't consumed the product in question. (For the record, economics regards films and television as services.)
Providing production grants to films provides far less benefit to the public at large than tax-deductible donations to churches. Revoking the tax-deductibility of donations to churches would reduce the incentive for many people to donate to churches in the first place, cutting off a source of public benefit of inestimable value.
But even beyond that -- which one has to admit is entirely unlikely to sway the anti-religious crowd -- taxing churches has other implications that they would likely be reluctant to face.
For starters, taxing churches would redefine the relationship between Church and state.
As it stands right now, the state largely regards churches as organizations made up of citizens. Taxation of churches, however, would fundamentally alter the spirit of this arrangement. Taxation of churches would transform a church from a collection of citizens into a citizen in its own right.
Just as corporations, by virtue of their taxability, are regarded as corporate citizens, churches would, by necessity, be redefined as religious citizens. Along with the new obligations embodied by taxation, churches would also be entitled to the benefits of citizenship.
The concerns of churches -- newly tax-paying entities as imagined by the anti-religious crowd -- could in time give them as strong a voice in cultural policy as large corporations have come to enjoy in terms of trade policy.
Of course, this isn't quite what the anti-religious crowd has in mind for their glorious new regime under which churches would be taxable. They likely imagine something more along the lines of a slave relationship -- wherein taxes are collected from churches with no obligation owed from the state to churches.
That's unlikely to happen. A fundamental principle of democracy is the idea that taxation by the state has to be justified by services performed for the individual by the state -- services ranging from providing safety and security to the elaborate social safety nets that have become a hallmark of modern politics.
Separation of church and state has often been cited as a justification for criticizing any interaction between the church and the state.
Embarking on taxation-related flights of fancy that would actually drive the church and state will not serve that principle.
But one can't consider the anti-religious crowd -- like that found at Canadian Cynic's Temple of Sycophantic Group Think -- to realistically consider such prospects. They're too busy trying to figure out a new way to screw churches.
Joyce Arthur and the Yellow Brick Road
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada head longs for the good ol' days in Oz
Over the past several months, one has heard the litany of complaints over Edmonton-Sherwood Park MP Ken Epp's private members' bill, Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victims of Crime bill.
According to Canada's pro-abortion lobby, the bill is an outrage -- nothing but a back-door "attack" on women's abortion rights.
Unfortunately for Joyce Arthur and the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, many opponents of the bill have reached this conclusion by intentional misreadings of the bill in question -- often refusing to acknowledge the existence of entire passages of the bill that don't fit the narrative they're so desperate to push.
Like many demagogues, Arthur has often pushed this particular narrative by promoting it in the places where it will receive the least possible scrutiny. What all too often emerges is a portrait of the pro-abortion lobby's fantasy version of the legislation, instead of the real deal.
"It’s very sneaky," says Arthur. "[Epp] is trying to rewrite the Criminal Code definition and allow a fetus to be treated as a person."
Which, of course, would be just awful -- that is, if you're a member of the pro-abortion lobby (more on this shortly).
When one examines the entirety of Arthur's complaints -- regarding both the bill and the government -- what quickly emerges is a portrait of an ideologically-constructed fantasy world in which Arthur, and those who share her opinions, are entitle to force their views on other people, often to the detriment of those she was supposed to be trying to help in the first place.
One particular point Arthur is stewing over deals with recent changes to Status of Women Canada -- transforming the organization from one that engages in lobbying, advocacy and research to one that provides funding to actual services for women in their community.
Arthur insists that the move was a blow to women's equality, and was intended as such -- despite the fact that the moves were largely managerial in nature. For example, the closing of a number of regional offices -- rendered less necessary by the access granted through the organization's website -- freed up $5 million for community-level services and support for women.
Arthur's objection to this really demonstrates a purely ideological view of how women's equality can be achieved, and what that represents.
To individuals like Joyce Arthur, women's equality demands that women be treated as equal in all respects, even in situations where they may not be. Certainly, women should be considered equal in all formal aspects -- and according to the letter of the law, they are.
But there's a difference between legal equality and practical equality. The test case for this always seems to be a hiring process wherein a man and a woman are competing for the same job. The principle of formal equality insists that, the two being equal in practical respects -- skills, capabilities and experience applicable to the job, the man should not be hired over the woman by simple virtue of being a man (nor should the woman be hired over the man by simple virtue of being a woman; this should go without saying, but all too often, is left unsaid).
However, if the man's skills, capabilities and experience exceeds the woman's, it should absolutely not be considered discriminatory to hire the man over the woman.
What ultimately emerges is a rather simple fact: legal equality is not necessarily practical equality.
The funding changes to the Status of Women that Joyce Arthur opposes, meanwhile, provide for many such things as job and skills training for women, to make them more competitive in the job market. If one favours practical equality between men and women, this is something they should certainly support.
If one favours legal equality over practical equality -- or believes that a woman's qualifications shouldn't have to match or exceed that of a man's in order to be hired over him -- than one would certainly oppose the changes. But it could be considered quite ironic that a group so preoccupied with equality would want to advance such a comparatively hollow definition of the concept.
They also seem to have a fairy-tale imagination for what such equality would mean for women -- that it would represent some sort of magical panacea for women, protecting them from all forms of violence so effectively that no further legislation would ever be necessary to help protect them.
"Ensuring women’s equality will go a long way to making them more safe," Arthur insists. "If the woman is safe, however we do that—through social supports or whatever—then the fetus is going to be safe too."
But Arthur reserves her finest vintage of rhetoric for espousing the threat that recognizing any fetal rights would allegedly pose to women's rights (actually a threat to Arthur's ideologically-driven world view).
"The bill basically gives fetuses a form of personhood," says Arthur. "It’s giving them a separate status apart from the mother, and the moment you do that, whatever else you say about that, you are setting a very dangerous precedent."
Dangerous for the pro-abortion lobby, perhaps. The distinct challenge posed by the concept that unborn children should have rights has been detailed elsewhere, but reiteration is necessary.
The recognition of the scientific fact that an unborn child -- or fetus, as preferred by the pro-abortion lobby -- very much is human life represents a devastating threat to the pro-abortion lobby's characterization as "nothing more than a clump of cells".
If one recognizes an unborn child as human life -- as more and more people are -- it becomes increasingly apparent that Canadian law needs to put measures in place to help protect it.
Furthermore, the implications of the pro-abortion lobby's attempts to dehumanize unborn children become more and more apparent, as the organization's own rhetoric begins to undermine it. The house of cards built on the fundamental principle that that unborn children are not human quickly collapses.
Of course, there are, as Arthur herself notes, portions of the criminal code that explicitly define an unborn child as "not a person". This is established both by Section 223 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, wherein it reads:
Unfortunately, Arthur does have some allies in her ideologically-driven quest to deny unborn children what is indisputably already theirs by virtue of simple biology.
"In my almost 40 years in the women’s movement," said former NDP leader Alexa McDonough. "I have never had a single woman, a single advocate, a single representative of a single organization or an individual family member come to me and say this is a law they would like to see implemented."
Of course, it's unlikely that McDonough would tolerate her staff allowing any woman who did favour such a move through the front door. The hostile treatment by left-wing women's groups of organizations such as REAL women, or of individuals such as Mary Talbot -- the mother of the slain Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Lane Talbot Jr, and supports Bill C-484 -- is evidence enough of that.
The more one examines Joyce Arthur, the more sorry one feels for what the so-called "women's movement" has become. All too often, an extremely exclusive club of like-minded individuals. As some individuals have noted, membership in the so-called "women's movement" has all too often become more about what politics one believes in than what gender they belong to.
But that's another story for another time.
The women's movement has foresworn its time-honoured legacy of resisting social injustice. The same lack of personhood that was once vehemently rejected as it regarded women is now equally vehemently embraced as it regards unborn children.
And all the while, Joyce Arthur clicks her ruby slippers together telling herself "there's no place like home, there's no place like home". Sadly, not even the Wizard of Oz can give individuals like Arthur the courage to face legitimate challenges to her ideology, the intelligence to recognize they need to do so -- in cooperation with of all the people who favour legalized abortion (this author included) -- or heart enough to care.
Better to live in an Oz-like fantasy world.
Over the past several months, one has heard the litany of complaints over Edmonton-Sherwood Park MP Ken Epp's private members' bill, Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victims of Crime bill.
According to Canada's pro-abortion lobby, the bill is an outrage -- nothing but a back-door "attack" on women's abortion rights.
Unfortunately for Joyce Arthur and the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, many opponents of the bill have reached this conclusion by intentional misreadings of the bill in question -- often refusing to acknowledge the existence of entire passages of the bill that don't fit the narrative they're so desperate to push.
Like many demagogues, Arthur has often pushed this particular narrative by promoting it in the places where it will receive the least possible scrutiny. What all too often emerges is a portrait of the pro-abortion lobby's fantasy version of the legislation, instead of the real deal.
"It’s very sneaky," says Arthur. "[Epp] is trying to rewrite the Criminal Code definition and allow a fetus to be treated as a person."
Which, of course, would be just awful -- that is, if you're a member of the pro-abortion lobby (more on this shortly).
When one examines the entirety of Arthur's complaints -- regarding both the bill and the government -- what quickly emerges is a portrait of an ideologically-constructed fantasy world in which Arthur, and those who share her opinions, are entitle to force their views on other people, often to the detriment of those she was supposed to be trying to help in the first place.
One particular point Arthur is stewing over deals with recent changes to Status of Women Canada -- transforming the organization from one that engages in lobbying, advocacy and research to one that provides funding to actual services for women in their community.
Arthur insists that the move was a blow to women's equality, and was intended as such -- despite the fact that the moves were largely managerial in nature. For example, the closing of a number of regional offices -- rendered less necessary by the access granted through the organization's website -- freed up $5 million for community-level services and support for women.
Arthur's objection to this really demonstrates a purely ideological view of how women's equality can be achieved, and what that represents.
To individuals like Joyce Arthur, women's equality demands that women be treated as equal in all respects, even in situations where they may not be. Certainly, women should be considered equal in all formal aspects -- and according to the letter of the law, they are.
But there's a difference between legal equality and practical equality. The test case for this always seems to be a hiring process wherein a man and a woman are competing for the same job. The principle of formal equality insists that, the two being equal in practical respects -- skills, capabilities and experience applicable to the job, the man should not be hired over the woman by simple virtue of being a man (nor should the woman be hired over the man by simple virtue of being a woman; this should go without saying, but all too often, is left unsaid).
However, if the man's skills, capabilities and experience exceeds the woman's, it should absolutely not be considered discriminatory to hire the man over the woman.
What ultimately emerges is a rather simple fact: legal equality is not necessarily practical equality.
The funding changes to the Status of Women that Joyce Arthur opposes, meanwhile, provide for many such things as job and skills training for women, to make them more competitive in the job market. If one favours practical equality between men and women, this is something they should certainly support.
If one favours legal equality over practical equality -- or believes that a woman's qualifications shouldn't have to match or exceed that of a man's in order to be hired over him -- than one would certainly oppose the changes. But it could be considered quite ironic that a group so preoccupied with equality would want to advance such a comparatively hollow definition of the concept.
They also seem to have a fairy-tale imagination for what such equality would mean for women -- that it would represent some sort of magical panacea for women, protecting them from all forms of violence so effectively that no further legislation would ever be necessary to help protect them.
"Ensuring women’s equality will go a long way to making them more safe," Arthur insists. "If the woman is safe, however we do that—through social supports or whatever—then the fetus is going to be safe too."
But Arthur reserves her finest vintage of rhetoric for espousing the threat that recognizing any fetal rights would allegedly pose to women's rights (actually a threat to Arthur's ideologically-driven world view).
"The bill basically gives fetuses a form of personhood," says Arthur. "It’s giving them a separate status apart from the mother, and the moment you do that, whatever else you say about that, you are setting a very dangerous precedent."
Dangerous for the pro-abortion lobby, perhaps. The distinct challenge posed by the concept that unborn children should have rights has been detailed elsewhere, but reiteration is necessary.
The recognition of the scientific fact that an unborn child -- or fetus, as preferred by the pro-abortion lobby -- very much is human life represents a devastating threat to the pro-abortion lobby's characterization as "nothing more than a clump of cells".
If one recognizes an unborn child as human life -- as more and more people are -- it becomes increasingly apparent that Canadian law needs to put measures in place to help protect it.
Furthermore, the implications of the pro-abortion lobby's attempts to dehumanize unborn children become more and more apparent, as the organization's own rhetoric begins to undermine it. The house of cards built on the fundamental principle that that unborn children are not human quickly collapses.
Of course, there are, as Arthur herself notes, portions of the criminal code that explicitly define an unborn child as "not a person". This is established both by Section 223 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, wherein it reads:
"When child becomes human beingThen again, Canadian law once failed to recognize women and ethnic minorities as people, too. The explicit and counter-scientific establishment of unborn children as not human beings is no less an injustice, but unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, it's an injustice they're interested in perpetuating, not resisting.
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed."
Unfortunately, Arthur does have some allies in her ideologically-driven quest to deny unborn children what is indisputably already theirs by virtue of simple biology.
"In my almost 40 years in the women’s movement," said former NDP leader Alexa McDonough. "I have never had a single woman, a single advocate, a single representative of a single organization or an individual family member come to me and say this is a law they would like to see implemented."
Of course, it's unlikely that McDonough would tolerate her staff allowing any woman who did favour such a move through the front door. The hostile treatment by left-wing women's groups of organizations such as REAL women, or of individuals such as Mary Talbot -- the mother of the slain Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Lane Talbot Jr, and supports Bill C-484 -- is evidence enough of that.
The more one examines Joyce Arthur, the more sorry one feels for what the so-called "women's movement" has become. All too often, an extremely exclusive club of like-minded individuals. As some individuals have noted, membership in the so-called "women's movement" has all too often become more about what politics one believes in than what gender they belong to.
But that's another story for another time.
The women's movement has foresworn its time-honoured legacy of resisting social injustice. The same lack of personhood that was once vehemently rejected as it regarded women is now equally vehemently embraced as it regards unborn children.
And all the while, Joyce Arthur clicks her ruby slippers together telling herself "there's no place like home, there's no place like home". Sadly, not even the Wizard of Oz can give individuals like Arthur the courage to face legitimate challenges to her ideology, the intelligence to recognize they need to do so -- in cooperation with of all the people who favour legalized abortion (this author included) -- or heart enough to care.
Better to live in an Oz-like fantasy world.
What the FLQ Has Been Reduced To
38 years of pouting turns ugly
Whatever one may think about Pierre Trudeau, one has to hand it to him: when a small band of Quebecois separatists crossed the line, he knew exactly what to do.
When Canada was facing a domestic terror threat, he battened down the hatches and dealt with it. While his evoking the War Measures Act has remained one of the great historical controversies in Canadian history -- some insist it was necessary to deal with the FLQ, others point to the number of innocent FLQ sympathizers summarily rounded up under the Act -- one almost has to feel sorry for what the FLQ has become.
Once, they were big, brave little men -- kidnapping British Trade Commissioner James Cross and kidnapping (and later killing) Quebec Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte.
Now, they're reduced to spray-painting "traitor" and "FLQ" on his grave.
Although they did allegedly circulate a letter threatening attacks in Montreal last year, those attacks never took place. It seems that vandalizing graves is as ambitious as the all-new, all-bitter FLQ gets these days.
Seems like this is one bogeyman of Canadian history that may not have gone quietly into the good night. But all the same, they've clearly seen better days.
Whatever one may think about Pierre Trudeau, one has to hand it to him: when a small band of Quebecois separatists crossed the line, he knew exactly what to do.
When Canada was facing a domestic terror threat, he battened down the hatches and dealt with it. While his evoking the War Measures Act has remained one of the great historical controversies in Canadian history -- some insist it was necessary to deal with the FLQ, others point to the number of innocent FLQ sympathizers summarily rounded up under the Act -- one almost has to feel sorry for what the FLQ has become.Once, they were big, brave little men -- kidnapping British Trade Commissioner James Cross and kidnapping (and later killing) Quebec Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte.Now, they're reduced to spray-painting "traitor" and "FLQ" on his grave.
Although they did allegedly circulate a letter threatening attacks in Montreal last year, those attacks never took place. It seems that vandalizing graves is as ambitious as the all-new, all-bitter FLQ gets these days.
Seems like this is one bogeyman of Canadian history that may not have gone quietly into the good night. But all the same, they've clearly seen better days.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Lost Art of Getting One's Point Across
Heh. What a douche.
Perhaps what is even more entertaining than when Canadian Cynic is indulging himself in being incredibly stupid is when he wildly flails to try and cover up those various occasions in which he gets his ass painfully and brutally kicked.
But this is one occasion in which he's even managed to outdo himself.
If Cynic were trying to make some other point with the post in question, one could probably be forgiven for wondering precisely what it was.
But we're in luck! He'll explain:
First off, the post in question (referenced again, just so we can be sure everyone actually reads it) never said anything about the tax-deductibility of donations to religious organizations.
Perhaps he assumes that people are simply supposed to fill in the blanks for him -- or better yet, use psychic powers and read his mind. But it's rather ironic that he would accuse someone of arguing in bad faith for "intentionally misunderstanding" a point he never made in the first place.
But even then, Cynic consciously chooses to intentionally misunderstand the point made here. Cynic's hypocrisy isn't found in the idea that McVety uses the internet to solicit donations for the Canada Christian Coalition. It still comes down to the issue of choice.
It's ironic that Cynic would make such a conscious effort to pretend to misunderstand the point, considering the hilarity that comes next:
In the case of tax-deductible donations, citizens are effectively offered a choice regarding what organizations and causes their tax dollars will support. This can be done with all manners of organizations and causes, from churches to cancer research.
Admittedly, it probably seems like a rather complex series of transfers to a mind as remedial as Cynic's: the citizen pays taxes to the government, makes a donation to the organization or cause of their choice, and is reimbursed, in turn, by the government.
The taxpayer in question has just decided what a portion of their particular share of the nation's tax dollars will support.
So, bringing things full circle to the issue of Bill C-10, the point still stands unscathed. Tax deductible donations to religious organizations provide individuals with a choice regarding what their tax dollars will support. Largely unaccountable production grants to, in particular, pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore, which received a $100,000 production grant -- offers the taxpayer no choice.
Instead of attempting to grasp this very simple concept, Cynic wants to try and wax pedagogical about debate technique:
Somehow, in Cynic's imagination, Cynic himself shouldn't be taken to task for the point he actually made -- whether or not he intended to make it or not. Instead, he expects that everyone else should use their psychic powers (which he assumes they have) to read his mind and understand the point he intended to make.
Certainly, the dismantling even of the point he intended to make -- it still stands as a false equivalence -- will be promptly ignored at Canadian Cynic's Sycophantic Temple of Groupthink.
But at least we can (probably) treat ourselves to another round of undignified flailing as Cynic and his groupies try to pretend that he didn't just get his ass kicked again.
One could feel sorry for him, but why? He just makes it too damn easy. He doesn't even pose a challenge.
Poor guy probably feels a lot like this poor kid (just with fewer visible black eyes):
One wonders if Cynic's mom will step in and try to defend him now that it's obvious he can't defend himself.
Of course, one can't underestimate how predictable Cynic and his cronies are, so a blog post will be written -- but not published just yet -- just in case they prove how predictable they really are.
Stay tuned.
Perhaps what is even more entertaining than when Canadian Cynic is indulging himself in being incredibly stupid is when he wildly flails to try and cover up those various occasions in which he gets his ass painfully and brutally kicked.
But this is one occasion in which he's even managed to outdo himself.
"Sadly, you can already see that poor Twatrick's argument is veering wildly off the rails since my diatribe was entirely unrelated to how McVety solicited donations. The fact that he happened to be doing it "using the internet" was entirely irrelevant to my argument, as most of you can see."No, we really don't see, but one presumes we might. (Just maybe.)
"And, not surprisingly, given that egregious misrepresentation by Twatrick, what follows is predictably nonsensical:It's almost an interesting theory. Now, if only it were that simple."Of course, there's a difference between using tax dollars -- the tax dollars paid by all Canadian citizens -- to subsidize pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- and asking people for a voluntary donation.And there you have it. Twatrick has taken what I thought was a fairly obvious example of hypocrisy and mangled it so that he could respond, not to the argument I made, but to the one he wishes I'd made, which is the only one he can actually refute."
The fact that the donor in question has a choice in one example (McVety) and no choice in the other (production grants)."
If Cynic were trying to make some other point with the post in question, one could probably be forgiven for wondering precisely what it was.
But we're in luck! He'll explain:
"My objection was, of course, not to McVety asking for voluntary donations. It was, rather, to the fact that those donations were tax-deductible, the consequence of which is that McVety's religious organization is partially funded by Canadian taxpayers. That is, you and me. That was obviously the point I was making, so how is it that Twatrick could go so wildly off track?"At this point, one would be tempted to say "fair enough". Except for two little details that Cynic still isn't owning up to here.
First off, the post in question (referenced again, just so we can be sure everyone actually reads it) never said anything about the tax-deductibility of donations to religious organizations.
Perhaps he assumes that people are simply supposed to fill in the blanks for him -- or better yet, use psychic powers and read his mind. But it's rather ironic that he would accuse someone of arguing in bad faith for "intentionally misunderstanding" a point he never made in the first place.
But even then, Cynic consciously chooses to intentionally misunderstand the point made here. Cynic's hypocrisy isn't found in the idea that McVety uses the internet to solicit donations for the Canada Christian Coalition. It still comes down to the issue of choice.
It's ironic that Cynic would make such a conscious effort to pretend to misunderstand the point, considering the hilarity that comes next:
"It would be tempting to just call Twatrick a moron and leave it at that, but that would let him off too easy. I don't think Twatrick was being an idiot here, oh no. Instead, I think he was arguing in bad faith. He knew exactly what my point was, but he chose to misrepresent it for the simple reason that he had no comeback to the argument I made, so he simply mangled what I wrote into an argument I didn't make that he could rebut. (It's like the old joke of the drunk who lost his keys a block away but insists on looking for them under a street lamp because the light's better there.)"No comeback, he says? Quite ironic. The comeback is essentially no different, and it brings us back to the second point that Cynic has neglected to address.
In the case of tax-deductible donations, citizens are effectively offered a choice regarding what organizations and causes their tax dollars will support. This can be done with all manners of organizations and causes, from churches to cancer research.
Admittedly, it probably seems like a rather complex series of transfers to a mind as remedial as Cynic's: the citizen pays taxes to the government, makes a donation to the organization or cause of their choice, and is reimbursed, in turn, by the government.
The taxpayer in question has just decided what a portion of their particular share of the nation's tax dollars will support.
So, bringing things full circle to the issue of Bill C-10, the point still stands unscathed. Tax deductible donations to religious organizations provide individuals with a choice regarding what their tax dollars will support. Largely unaccountable production grants to, in particular, pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore, which received a $100,000 production grant -- offers the taxpayer no choice.
Instead of attempting to grasp this very simple concept, Cynic wants to try and wax pedagogical about debate technique:
"And how can I prove that Twatrick was arguing in bad faith? Easy. Now that I've explained what I actually meant, someone who was genuinely interested in dialogue would acknowledge the flawed interpretation and proceed to address what I actually meant. On the other hand, someone who was arguing in bad faith would do no such thing, but would continue to dish up the same plate of dishonesty, despite having been corrected."See, apparently Cynic knows who is and isn't "arguing in bad faith" because he's a psychic. Well, unfortunately his crystal ball is on the blink: it failed to predict this particular post, and failed to reveal to him his own constant indulgences in bad faith arguments -- this ironically being one of them.
Somehow, in Cynic's imagination, Cynic himself shouldn't be taken to task for the point he actually made -- whether or not he intended to make it or not. Instead, he expects that everyone else should use their psychic powers (which he assumes they have) to read his mind and understand the point he intended to make.
Certainly, the dismantling even of the point he intended to make -- it still stands as a false equivalence -- will be promptly ignored at Canadian Cynic's Sycophantic Temple of Groupthink.
But at least we can (probably) treat ourselves to another round of undignified flailing as Cynic and his groupies try to pretend that he didn't just get his ass kicked again.
One could feel sorry for him, but why? He just makes it too damn easy. He doesn't even pose a challenge.
Poor guy probably feels a lot like this poor kid (just with fewer visible black eyes):
One wonders if Cynic's mom will step in and try to defend him now that it's obvious he can't defend himself.
Of course, one can't underestimate how predictable Cynic and his cronies are, so a blog post will be written -- but not published just yet -- just in case they prove how predictable they really are.
Stay tuned.
Shawn Brant Arrested -- Again -- In Standoff
Brant's history defies bail elligibility
For those who follow relations between Canada and its aboriginal communities even passingly, Sean Brant has become a household name.
Involved in organizing last June's Aboriginal Day of Action, Brant once again took aim at his favourite target, Deseronto, Ontario.
Today, Ontario Provincial Police Officers drew their weapons when they spotted a protester with a rifle. The protesters insist they had no weapons, but prior experience -- as it pertains to Brant -- would contradict that.
"We've made no secret that we have guns within this camp," Brant told reporters during his blockade during the National Aboriginal Day of Action. Although he would be let go with a warning during the Day of Action, he would later surrender to police to face charges stemming from violation of bail conditions applied during his previous arrest for blockading CN rail lines in April 2007.
He would initially be denied bail, although that decision would later be overturned.
Brant was arrested earlier in the day. Once again, he has violated his bail conditions. Some news outlets report two officers were assaulted during the course of the arrest.
This seems to be the story of Shawn Brant's life -- arrested during the course of often-violent activism, released on bail, then re-arrested once he violates the conditions of his bail, only to be granted bail once again.
One of the earliest incidents involving Brant seems to deal with a 2002 trial wherein Brant was blamed for some property damage that took place during a protest against the Eviction of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty from their offices (the space was due to be taken over by the Metro Toronto Housing Authority).
Brant would once again draw the attention of the law in 2002, when he and his fellow Mohawk tribes invoked a Tobacco controversy.
Originating in the Akwasasne tribal council, the scheme was eventually adopted by the Kanesatake community. When the RCMP finally decided to intervene in the case of what was clearly illegally-manufactured cigarettes, Brant got involved.
"We were involved in a government intervention into the sister community of Kanesatake," Brant told the CBC. "When we were done in Kanestake, what we decided was we would utilize that same opportunity that was given to the other communities and capitalize on the tobacco resource, in order to bring about a change in Tyendinaga and facilitate the development of some infrastructure here."
"That was at the end of April 2004, the government had planned to intervene and we had taken a number of men down to intervene," Brant continues. "May 3rd was the actual day of conflict in Kanesatake."
"We bought our first cigarettes in September of 2004 from a community south of Montreal, Kahnawake, and we got into the business after that," he added. "We borrowed a few dollars to start up and took it from there."
"We purchased 20 boxes of cigarettes, which we brought up to the community and actually sold them for the same amount that we bought them for. We spoke to a number of people that we felt could benefit by utilizing the resource and so we started from there; we created a label, a design, the market based upon that label, and then we just proceeded to expand from there."
The RCMP declined to intervene so long as the Mohawk Tobacco Products were sold only on the reserve. When the tribe began selling the tobacco to non-natives who came to the reserve -- then re-selling them off-reserve -- the RCMP was forced to step in.
"I know that the government of Canada takes a very particular position - and a very specific position - on the legality of the creation of tobacco products and their distribution certainly within the Canadian state," Brant says. "There is a framework of applications, processes and approvals that govern when and how a manufacturing company can exist, so I don’t disagree that the government assessment of what we do as being not legal. But that is not the same position that we’ve taken."
Naturally, the issue of poverty reduction in Mohawk communities was raised as the motive for the scheme.
"I think that when we look at the creation of, or the base of financial independence, there needs to be a look at what resources are available within particular communities, within particular First Nations. Some have timber, some have diamonds or ore that can be taken from the ground," Brant noted. "[Because of] where we are located geographically – in southern Ontario – we have a limit to the availability of that type of resource."
What they did have to work with was a largely unenforced border through the middle of the Akwesasne reservation -- a reserve that spans from Southern Ontario into the United States -- making it possible for them to buy cigarettes in the United States (where taxes are remarkably lower) and re-sell them in Canada.
The Mohawk's objection to any Canadian attempt to regulate their scheme came down to two things: their sovereignty, and the sacredness of tobacco -- although selling tobacco for profit to non-natives for non-ritual purposes probably violated that particular cultural tenet.
The sovereignty argument also evaporated when Mohawk-branded cigarettes began to trickle into the United States via smuggling rings.
Brant's involvement in the tobacco-scheme-cum-smuggling-ring eventually blossomed into a continual cycle of arrests, bail, and bail violations resulting in further arrests.
In the end, it's hard to deliver a verdict on Shawn Brant. If anything, his greatest crime (though one would hesitate to call it that) is frustration with methods that all too often don't garner results. The long history of dealings between the Canadian government and native bands is wrought with drawn-out disputes that would frustrate anyone -- particularly people living in poverty.
At the same time, Brant's tendency to resort to what often amounts to armed insurrection cannot be ignored, either. Eventually, Shawn Brant will have to go to jail to stay. His tendency to violate bail conditions demands that the revolving door of bail be closed and locked for good.
The issues that Shawn Brant is protesting need to be resolved, but Brant should not be granted bail this time around, protests by his supporters to the contrary.
For those who follow relations between Canada and its aboriginal communities even passingly, Sean Brant has become a household name.
Involved in organizing last June's Aboriginal Day of Action, Brant once again took aim at his favourite target, Deseronto, Ontario.
Today, Ontario Provincial Police Officers drew their weapons when they spotted a protester with a rifle. The protesters insist they had no weapons, but prior experience -- as it pertains to Brant -- would contradict that."We've made no secret that we have guns within this camp," Brant told reporters during his blockade during the National Aboriginal Day of Action. Although he would be let go with a warning during the Day of Action, he would later surrender to police to face charges stemming from violation of bail conditions applied during his previous arrest for blockading CN rail lines in April 2007.
He would initially be denied bail, although that decision would later be overturned.
Brant was arrested earlier in the day. Once again, he has violated his bail conditions. Some news outlets report two officers were assaulted during the course of the arrest.
This seems to be the story of Shawn Brant's life -- arrested during the course of often-violent activism, released on bail, then re-arrested once he violates the conditions of his bail, only to be granted bail once again.One of the earliest incidents involving Brant seems to deal with a 2002 trial wherein Brant was blamed for some property damage that took place during a protest against the Eviction of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty from their offices (the space was due to be taken over by the Metro Toronto Housing Authority).
Brant would once again draw the attention of the law in 2002, when he and his fellow Mohawk tribes invoked a Tobacco controversy.
Originating in the Akwasasne tribal council, the scheme was eventually adopted by the Kanesatake community. When the RCMP finally decided to intervene in the case of what was clearly illegally-manufactured cigarettes, Brant got involved.
"We were involved in a government intervention into the sister community of Kanesatake," Brant told the CBC. "When we were done in Kanestake, what we decided was we would utilize that same opportunity that was given to the other communities and capitalize on the tobacco resource, in order to bring about a change in Tyendinaga and facilitate the development of some infrastructure here."
"That was at the end of April 2004, the government had planned to intervene and we had taken a number of men down to intervene," Brant continues. "May 3rd was the actual day of conflict in Kanesatake."
"We bought our first cigarettes in September of 2004 from a community south of Montreal, Kahnawake, and we got into the business after that," he added. "We borrowed a few dollars to start up and took it from there."
"We purchased 20 boxes of cigarettes, which we brought up to the community and actually sold them for the same amount that we bought them for. We spoke to a number of people that we felt could benefit by utilizing the resource and so we started from there; we created a label, a design, the market based upon that label, and then we just proceeded to expand from there."
The RCMP declined to intervene so long as the Mohawk Tobacco Products were sold only on the reserve. When the tribe began selling the tobacco to non-natives who came to the reserve -- then re-selling them off-reserve -- the RCMP was forced to step in.
"I know that the government of Canada takes a very particular position - and a very specific position - on the legality of the creation of tobacco products and their distribution certainly within the Canadian state," Brant says. "There is a framework of applications, processes and approvals that govern when and how a manufacturing company can exist, so I don’t disagree that the government assessment of what we do as being not legal. But that is not the same position that we’ve taken."
Naturally, the issue of poverty reduction in Mohawk communities was raised as the motive for the scheme.
"I think that when we look at the creation of, or the base of financial independence, there needs to be a look at what resources are available within particular communities, within particular First Nations. Some have timber, some have diamonds or ore that can be taken from the ground," Brant noted. "[Because of] where we are located geographically – in southern Ontario – we have a limit to the availability of that type of resource."
What they did have to work with was a largely unenforced border through the middle of the Akwesasne reservation -- a reserve that spans from Southern Ontario into the United States -- making it possible for them to buy cigarettes in the United States (where taxes are remarkably lower) and re-sell them in Canada.
The Mohawk's objection to any Canadian attempt to regulate their scheme came down to two things: their sovereignty, and the sacredness of tobacco -- although selling tobacco for profit to non-natives for non-ritual purposes probably violated that particular cultural tenet.The sovereignty argument also evaporated when Mohawk-branded cigarettes began to trickle into the United States via smuggling rings.
Brant's involvement in the tobacco-scheme-cum-smuggling-ring eventually blossomed into a continual cycle of arrests, bail, and bail violations resulting in further arrests.
In the end, it's hard to deliver a verdict on Shawn Brant. If anything, his greatest crime (though one would hesitate to call it that) is frustration with methods that all too often don't garner results. The long history of dealings between the Canadian government and native bands is wrought with drawn-out disputes that would frustrate anyone -- particularly people living in poverty.
At the same time, Brant's tendency to resort to what often amounts to armed insurrection cannot be ignored, either. Eventually, Shawn Brant will have to go to jail to stay. His tendency to violate bail conditions demands that the revolving door of bail be closed and locked for good.
The issues that Shawn Brant is protesting need to be resolved, but Brant should not be granted bail this time around, protests by his supporters to the contrary.
Sudan: 60,000 Refugees Can't Be Wrong
Despite Khartoum's denials, carnage in Darfur very real
Despite denials by the Khartoum government regarding the breadth and depth of the atrocities being committed in Darfur, more and more details keep emerging about the crisis.
This past week, the Sudanese government insisted that only 10,000 have died during the past five years of fighting in Darfur.
United Nations humanitarian affairs disagrees. In a statement this past week, UN humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes estimated that 300,000 have died in the course of the conflict -- an increase of 50% since the last time a count was taken.
The Khartoum regime's recent denial is only the most recent in a long litany of denial.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, however, recently received something that should more or less force him to take the Sudanese ambassador's categorical denials with a grain of salt: a survey compiled from among 60,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad.
Among the varying atrocities being perpetrated in Darfur are the largely indiscriminates bombing of rebel areas by Sudanese Antonov bombers. The Sudanese army resumed using the bombers in February of this year.
Despite the presence of African Union peacekeepers in the region, the slaughter by government forces and janjaweed militia has continued. But some activists are looking to the sources of the conflict for opportunities to spread the word on an olympic scale -- via the Olympics.
Dream for Darfur has taken the 2008 Beijing Olympics as an opportunity to go after China for its investment in the Darfur oilfields by going after its sponsors, who organizer Mia Farrow insists "have been frozen into silence on Darfur."
"If the summer Games (in Beijing) go down in history as the 'Genocide Olympics,' it will be because of the Chinese government's support of the regime in Sudan, abetted by the moral cowardice of the sponsors who would not speak out publicly about the genocide in Darfur," Farrow ads.
Hopefully, the survey sent to Gordon Brown will give him a little extra incentive to bring up the Darfur issue with the Sudanese ambassador to Ottawa, while it spurs the Summer Olympics' sponsors to pressure the Chinese government to "deal with this whole Darfur thing".
If not, it may be time for the UN to finally send a peacekeeping mission into the region.
And although we may not necessarily trust them -- with incidents like Tienanmen Square permanently at the front of the international community's mind -- China certainly has the troops to make such a mission possible -- provided that they are willing to submit to foreign command (trusting a Chinese general would be a bit of a stretch).
The attention being directed toward them during the Olympics should certainly give them an incentive to be on their best behaviour -- and the possibility of 60,000 Sudanese refugees casting a pall over the proceedings should give them an incentive to get involved.
Despite denials by the Khartoum government regarding the breadth and depth of the atrocities being committed in Darfur, more and more details keep emerging about the crisis.
This past week, the Sudanese government insisted that only 10,000 have died during the past five years of fighting in Darfur.
United Nations humanitarian affairs disagrees. In a statement this past week, UN humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes estimated that 300,000 have died in the course of the conflict -- an increase of 50% since the last time a count was taken.
The Khartoum regime's recent denial is only the most recent in a long litany of denial.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, however, recently received something that should more or less force him to take the Sudanese ambassador's categorical denials with a grain of salt: a survey compiled from among 60,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad.
Among the varying atrocities being perpetrated in Darfur are the largely indiscriminates bombing of rebel areas by Sudanese Antonov bombers. The Sudanese army resumed using the bombers in February of this year.Despite the presence of African Union peacekeepers in the region, the slaughter by government forces and janjaweed militia has continued. But some activists are looking to the sources of the conflict for opportunities to spread the word on an olympic scale -- via the Olympics.
Dream for Darfur has taken the 2008 Beijing Olympics as an opportunity to go after China for its investment in the Darfur oilfields by going after its sponsors, who organizer Mia Farrow insists "have been frozen into silence on Darfur."
"If the summer Games (in Beijing) go down in history as the 'Genocide Olympics,' it will be because of the Chinese government's support of the regime in Sudan, abetted by the moral cowardice of the sponsors who would not speak out publicly about the genocide in Darfur," Farrow ads.
Hopefully, the survey sent to Gordon Brown will give him a little extra incentive to bring up the Darfur issue with the Sudanese ambassador to Ottawa, while it spurs the Summer Olympics' sponsors to pressure the Chinese government to "deal with this whole Darfur thing".
If not, it may be time for the UN to finally send a peacekeeping mission into the region.
And although we may not necessarily trust them -- with incidents like Tienanmen Square permanently at the front of the international community's mind -- China certainly has the troops to make such a mission possible -- provided that they are willing to submit to foreign command (trusting a Chinese general would be a bit of a stretch).
The attention being directed toward them during the Olympics should certainly give them an incentive to be on their best behaviour -- and the possibility of 60,000 Sudanese refugees casting a pall over the proceedings should give them an incentive to get involved.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Let's Talk "False Equivalence", Shall We?
The hypocrisy -- predictably -- is astounding
Good ol' Canadian Cynic. Whenever there's a slow news week, one can count on his unrepentant hypocrisy to provide something to blog about.
The predictable stupidity this week swirls around Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that has proven utterly offensive to those who think the Canadian government should be obligated to fund every Canadian film that asks for a tax credit. But before we can really address the hilarious stupidity, we have to take a little trip back in time -- more than a year back in time, in fact, where he rants about the concept of morale being used as a false equivalence to discourage criticism of the Afghanistan mission:
To criticizing the treatment of Canadian Afghan war vets -- or, more notably, their children.
Quite predictably, Cynic takes it upon himself to politicize what turned out to be a fairly petty disagreement between the (Liberal) Ontario government and (Conservative) federal government over who should pay for the mental health needs of servicepersons' families.
For the record, mental health services are typically the responsibility of provincial governments, although a federal share of the responsibility for mental health care of servicepeople's families is undeniable. Thus the disagreement.
Of course, he doesn't do this until after he insists that false equivalence is a favoured debate tactic among the "so-con/neo-con axis of weevils".
So then it could be considered oddly ironic that, just over a year later, he himself is resorting to a false equivalence to try and push his narrative regarding Bill C-10, when he compares Charles McVety's Calgary Herald article noting that tax dollars supported pornographic films to McVety using the internet to solicit donations for the Canadian Christian Coalition.
Of course, there's a difference between using tax dollars -- the tax dollars paid by all Canadian citizens -- to subsidize pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- and asking people for a voluntary donation.
The fact that the donor in question has a choice in one example (McVety) and no choice in the other (production grants).
Which would make this a false equivalence -- much more of a false equivalence than the equivalence of noting that it's no less acceptable for Canadian Cynic to wish harm on his political opponents than it is for them to wish harm on others.
One would think that an individual who claims to be a genius could comprehend something like this. But then one has to remember we're talking about Canadian Cynic -- a pathological liar who has granted himself infinite dispensation for his own hypocrisy.
Good ol' Canadian Cynic. Whenever there's a slow news week, one can count on his unrepentant hypocrisy to provide something to blog about.
The predictable stupidity this week swirls around Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that has proven utterly offensive to those who think the Canadian government should be obligated to fund every Canadian film that asks for a tax credit. But before we can really address the hilarious stupidity, we have to take a little trip back in time -- more than a year back in time, in fact, where he rants about the concept of morale being used as a false equivalence to discourage criticism of the Afghanistan mission:
"Thank goodness that nobody's questioning the validity of the mission in Afghanistan, that kind of talk effects the troops on the ground. That kind of talk hurts morale. Because criticism of the mission is like spitting on the faces of our brave soldiers. That's one of the talking points that the so-con/neo-con axis of weevils use to stem debate. This represents a trick of false equivalence that has become a signature of right wing evasion."The question of course, is this: questioning the validity of the Afghanistan mission is falsely equivalent to what?
To criticizing the treatment of Canadian Afghan war vets -- or, more notably, their children.
Quite predictably, Cynic takes it upon himself to politicize what turned out to be a fairly petty disagreement between the (Liberal) Ontario government and (Conservative) federal government over who should pay for the mental health needs of servicepersons' families.
For the record, mental health services are typically the responsibility of provincial governments, although a federal share of the responsibility for mental health care of servicepeople's families is undeniable. Thus the disagreement.
Of course, he doesn't do this until after he insists that false equivalence is a favoured debate tactic among the "so-con/neo-con axis of weevils".
So then it could be considered oddly ironic that, just over a year later, he himself is resorting to a false equivalence to try and push his narrative regarding Bill C-10, when he compares Charles McVety's Calgary Herald article noting that tax dollars supported pornographic films to McVety using the internet to solicit donations for the Canadian Christian Coalition.
Of course, there's a difference between using tax dollars -- the tax dollars paid by all Canadian citizens -- to subsidize pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- and asking people for a voluntary donation.
The fact that the donor in question has a choice in one example (McVety) and no choice in the other (production grants).
Which would make this a false equivalence -- much more of a false equivalence than the equivalence of noting that it's no less acceptable for Canadian Cynic to wish harm on his political opponents than it is for them to wish harm on others.
One would think that an individual who claims to be a genius could comprehend something like this. But then one has to remember we're talking about Canadian Cynic -- a pathological liar who has granted himself infinite dispensation for his own hypocrisy.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Will Martin's Release Finally End the Media Circus?
Or will the government's efforts be rebuked again?
If recent history has taught us anything, it's that Canadians in legal trouble can bail themselves out by attracting a large enough media circus.
Recent history has also shown us that they need not always be honest about their situation, either. Brenda Martin and her supporters politicized her predicament by claiming the government had "abandoned" her and not done enough to help her -- claims that were proven to be false.
Now, the Brenda Martin case has come to a sad conclusion a Mexican court has found her guilty of knowingly accepting fraudulently-obtained funds, despite an alleged lack of evidence (her lawyer, Guillermo Cruz, says as much).
Regardless of whether or not Martin is guilty of her alleged crime -- and given the equally-sad state of Mexican "justice", there's an excellent chance she is innocent, and merely being hung out to dry so the system can save face -- there is little question that she and the terminally dishonest Liberal party hacks who have been milking her story for all the political gain they can manage are guilty of concocting a media circus around false pretenses.
Now Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is riding off to Mexico to prod the release of Martin into the custody of the Canadian justice system along, and now another Canadian family has decided to try their luck at the media circus game, too.
This particular case swirls around Jimmy Chen Jian Yuan, who is currently imprisoned in China while being tried on a four-year-old $2 million fraud case.
Predictably, Chen's family is insisting that the government hasn't done enough to help him, despite the fact that, unlike Martin, he has been formally charged in China, has been tried, and is now awaiting a verdict.
Given the way in which details trickled out of the Martin case painfully slowly (and all too often were simply disregarded once it became apparent they didn't fit the standard politicized narrative), judgment will be reserved on the Chen case here.
Chen may be as innocent as his family insists, and as abandoned by the Canadian government. Or, as with Brenda Martin, there may be more to the story. Only time will reveal the details of this particular case.
However, one has yet to see if Brenda Martin's return to Canada -- and inevitably almost immediate release from Canadian custody -- will put an end to the partisan media circus that has surrounded the entire sorry affair.
One thing remains certain: only the in hands of a pack of unrepentantly dishonest Liberal spin doctors could the Conservative government -- which had done almost everything possible to ensure Martin's fair treatment -- be cast as the villain in this case over the irredeemably corrupt Mexican justice system.
Will Martin's return to Canada end the media circus? Only time will tell. But with the real masterminds of the media circus apparent -- Liberal MP Dan McTeague and former Prime Minister Paul Martin -- one has to suspect that will be rather unlikely.
If recent history has taught us anything, it's that Canadians in legal trouble can bail themselves out by attracting a large enough media circus.
Recent history has also shown us that they need not always be honest about their situation, either. Brenda Martin and her supporters politicized her predicament by claiming the government had "abandoned" her and not done enough to help her -- claims that were proven to be false.
Now, the Brenda Martin case has come to a sad conclusion a Mexican court has found her guilty of knowingly accepting fraudulently-obtained funds, despite an alleged lack of evidence (her lawyer, Guillermo Cruz, says as much).Regardless of whether or not Martin is guilty of her alleged crime -- and given the equally-sad state of Mexican "justice", there's an excellent chance she is innocent, and merely being hung out to dry so the system can save face -- there is little question that she and the terminally dishonest Liberal party hacks who have been milking her story for all the political gain they can manage are guilty of concocting a media circus around false pretenses.
Now Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is riding off to Mexico to prod the release of Martin into the custody of the Canadian justice system along, and now another Canadian family has decided to try their luck at the media circus game, too.
This particular case swirls around Jimmy Chen Jian Yuan, who is currently imprisoned in China while being tried on a four-year-old $2 million fraud case.
Predictably, Chen's family is insisting that the government hasn't done enough to help him, despite the fact that, unlike Martin, he has been formally charged in China, has been tried, and is now awaiting a verdict.
Given the way in which details trickled out of the Martin case painfully slowly (and all too often were simply disregarded once it became apparent they didn't fit the standard politicized narrative), judgment will be reserved on the Chen case here.
Chen may be as innocent as his family insists, and as abandoned by the Canadian government. Or, as with Brenda Martin, there may be more to the story. Only time will reveal the details of this particular case.
However, one has yet to see if Brenda Martin's return to Canada -- and inevitably almost immediate release from Canadian custody -- will put an end to the partisan media circus that has surrounded the entire sorry affair.
One thing remains certain: only the in hands of a pack of unrepentantly dishonest Liberal spin doctors could the Conservative government -- which had done almost everything possible to ensure Martin's fair treatment -- be cast as the villain in this case over the irredeemably corrupt Mexican justice system.Will Martin's return to Canada end the media circus? Only time will tell. But with the real masterminds of the media circus apparent -- Liberal MP Dan McTeague and former Prime Minister Paul Martin -- one has to suspect that will be rather unlikely.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hillary Clinton Stayin' Alive, Stayin' Alive
Race not over yet, Clinton declares
Going into today's Pennsylvania primaries, Hillary Clinton needed a margin of victory of 10% to justify staying in the race for the Democrat Presidential nomination.
As the last precincts in Pennsylvania report, it looks like she just might have gotten her wish, by virtue of a 55-45% win over rival Barack Obama.
"It's a long road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and it runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania," Clinton announced during her victory speech. "I'm in this race to fight for you ... You know you can count on me to stand up strong for you every single day in the White House."
Obama still leads in the Primary Election, but Clinton hopes her strong performance in Pennsylvania -- coupled with what she hopes will be strong performances in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina -- will help to sway enough superdelegates to lure the nomination away from Obama at the convention.
Intriguingly, however, word within the Democratic party is that they want to decide their nominee well in advance of the Democratic National Convention so that they may use the Convention as an opportunity to stage a dramatic rally around them.
With party brass clearly pulling the strings in the Democratic party, it will be interesting to see which way the party elite will push the nomination.
Clinton currently maintains a slim lead in superdelegate endorsements, although enough remain to still swing the Convention in favour of Obama -- that is, if the contest makes it that far.
So for now, Clinton is still alive in the Primary Election. But if the extremely undemocratic superdelegate process discards the democratically-expressed will of rank and file Democrat voters, whether or not the Democratic party survives her will be another story entirely.
Going into today's Pennsylvania primaries, Hillary Clinton needed a margin of victory of 10% to justify staying in the race for the Democrat Presidential nomination.
As the last precincts in Pennsylvania report, it looks like she just might have gotten her wish, by virtue of a 55-45% win over rival Barack Obama.
"It's a long road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and it runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania," Clinton announced during her victory speech. "I'm in this race to fight for you ... You know you can count on me to stand up strong for you every single day in the White House."Obama still leads in the Primary Election, but Clinton hopes her strong performance in Pennsylvania -- coupled with what she hopes will be strong performances in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina -- will help to sway enough superdelegates to lure the nomination away from Obama at the convention.
Intriguingly, however, word within the Democratic party is that they want to decide their nominee well in advance of the Democratic National Convention so that they may use the Convention as an opportunity to stage a dramatic rally around them.
With party brass clearly pulling the strings in the Democratic party, it will be interesting to see which way the party elite will push the nomination.
Clinton currently maintains a slim lead in superdelegate endorsements, although enough remain to still swing the Convention in favour of Obama -- that is, if the contest makes it that far.
So for now, Clinton is still alive in the Primary Election. But if the extremely undemocratic superdelegate process discards the democratically-expressed will of rank and file Democrat voters, whether or not the Democratic party survives her will be another story entirely.
Al Qaeda, Iran Fighting Over Who Gets Credit for 9/11
Al -Zawahri: Israel conspiracy theory meant to discredit Al Qaeda
In yet another turn of events that throws the allegedly indisputable relationship between Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, has accused Iran of trying to steal the credit for 9/11 from Al Qaeda and give it to Israel.
The conspiracy theory in question -- one of dozens on the subject -- insists that 9/11 was perpetrated by an Israeli spy ring intent on pushing the United States into war with Iraq.
The argument is that this was done to make Israel more secure -- although it ignores the fact that Iraq posed no credible threat to Israel at any point following the conclusion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Al-Zawahri accuses Iran of circulating the rumour through Hezbollah's Al-Manar television, which was acting as a proxy.
"The purpose of this lie is clear -- (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said. "Iran's aim here is also clear -- to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq."
(Of which it actually had none, just to underscore the fact that Al-Zawahri isn't exactly playing with a full deck of cards here.)
In all likelihood, this story should take the wind out of the sails of those who insist that Al Qaeda wasn't really responsible for 9/11 -- that they were merely scapegoats so the United States could flex its imperialistic muscles in the Middle East.
After all, if an individual like Ayman al-Zawahri is willing to fight over credit in the 9/11 attacks, that's a pretty explicit statement -- notably, an admission of guilt.
In yet another turn of events that throws the allegedly indisputable relationship between Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, has accused Iran of trying to steal the credit for 9/11 from Al Qaeda and give it to Israel.
The conspiracy theory in question -- one of dozens on the subject -- insists that 9/11 was perpetrated by an Israeli spy ring intent on pushing the United States into war with Iraq.
The argument is that this was done to make Israel more secure -- although it ignores the fact that Iraq posed no credible threat to Israel at any point following the conclusion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Al-Zawahri accuses Iran of circulating the rumour through Hezbollah's Al-Manar television, which was acting as a proxy.
"The purpose of this lie is clear -- (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said. "Iran's aim here is also clear -- to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq."
(Of which it actually had none, just to underscore the fact that Al-Zawahri isn't exactly playing with a full deck of cards here.)
In all likelihood, this story should take the wind out of the sails of those who insist that Al Qaeda wasn't really responsible for 9/11 -- that they were merely scapegoats so the United States could flex its imperialistic muscles in the Middle East.
After all, if an individual like Ayman al-Zawahri is willing to fight over credit in the 9/11 attacks, that's a pretty explicit statement -- notably, an admission of guilt.
Painful Pandering in Presidential Election
McCain, Clinton, Obama embarrass themselves on Monday Night Raw
In a historically unprecedented move, all three Presidential candidates appeared on Monday Night Raw last night.
Unfortunately, what transpired should properly be considered an agonizingly humiliating experience for all three candidates, as they took an opportunity to promote themselves to wrestling fans as an opportunity to shamelessly pander:
Which was followed by a parody wrestling match between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama impersonators. Unfortunately, these things are always pure death:
And one of those three individuals will be leader of the free world. It just makes a person feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?
In a historically unprecedented move, all three Presidential candidates appeared on Monday Night Raw last night.
Unfortunately, what transpired should properly be considered an agonizingly humiliating experience for all three candidates, as they took an opportunity to promote themselves to wrestling fans as an opportunity to shamelessly pander:
Which was followed by a parody wrestling match between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama impersonators. Unfortunately, these things are always pure death:
And one of those three individuals will be leader of the free world. It just makes a person feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Elections Canada More (and Less) Transparent Than it Would Like
Little substance to "in and out" scheme, and too many unanswered questions
As more and more details begin to emerge about the recent RCMP raid of the Conservative Party headquarters, the more and more it seems to be a simple rehashing of the same old story: another manufactured scandal with little or no substance behind it.
Logically, the charges by Elections Canada are actually fairly difficult to support. The claim is that the offending ads, paid for by the party which was then reimbursed by local candidates with funds provided by the party in the first place, were actually intended to support the party, as opposed to the candidates.
The ads in question were reportedly mostly identical to the federal party's ads, except with portions endorsing local candidates added to them.
While the back-and-forth transfer of funds -- hence the "in and out" label -- appears at its basest level to be rather suspicious, the charges thin out considerably once one realizes that the charges basically amount to the ads produced for local candidates being too similar to the federal party's ads. Given that the ads, in the end, supported the candidate, Elections Canada's complaints seem to have little substance to them at all.
Furthermore, Elections Canada seems to be overlooking a few intracies about Canadian politics: most importantly, creating an artificial distinction between supporting local candidates and supporting the parties they run for.
A simple fact regarding Canadian politics is that election campaigns tend to be very leader-centered, and thus party-centered. While local candidates inevitably benefit from such partisan consideration, it doesn't change the limited amount of influence many candidates have over their own election.
Certainly, some candidates do have the good fortune to overcome partisanship -- consider the cases of Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison, who have been elected as both Liberals and Conservatives. But the severe glut of so-called "stronghold ridings" where partisan is so entrenched as to ensure the election and reelection of candidates from certain parties suggests that these ridings are fewer and further between than we'd like to think.
Elections Canada's ruling may reflect what many Canadians could be argued to theoretically prefer politically, but preferences do not necessarily constitute reality.
For example, Elections Canada may prefer that local candidates produce their own advertising, in its entirety, but nothing in the law demands that they do this.
Elections Canada's own preferences don't necessarily constitute reality.
Of course, there may be more to Elections Canada's actions than their own publicity suggests. Whether more (or less) cynically-minded observers want to give the presence of Liberal party photographers at the site of the raid the attention it warrants or not, one also has to consider the fact that Elections Canada has, to date, declined to investigate an obvious example of the Ontario Liberal party (another organization awash in cash).
After all, there's little question that "No Gun, No Funeral", considering it's evident purpose, was as much a violation of Election law as anything the Conservative party has done.
The more details of this story emerge, the more one wonders whether or not this really isn't just some Elections Canada bureaucrats trying to enforce their own preferences on Canadian politics.
It is, however, interesting to see how selectively they're doing it.
As more and more details begin to emerge about the recent RCMP raid of the Conservative Party headquarters, the more and more it seems to be a simple rehashing of the same old story: another manufactured scandal with little or no substance behind it.
Logically, the charges by Elections Canada are actually fairly difficult to support. The claim is that the offending ads, paid for by the party which was then reimbursed by local candidates with funds provided by the party in the first place, were actually intended to support the party, as opposed to the candidates.
The ads in question were reportedly mostly identical to the federal party's ads, except with portions endorsing local candidates added to them.
While the back-and-forth transfer of funds -- hence the "in and out" label -- appears at its basest level to be rather suspicious, the charges thin out considerably once one realizes that the charges basically amount to the ads produced for local candidates being too similar to the federal party's ads. Given that the ads, in the end, supported the candidate, Elections Canada's complaints seem to have little substance to them at all.
Furthermore, Elections Canada seems to be overlooking a few intracies about Canadian politics: most importantly, creating an artificial distinction between supporting local candidates and supporting the parties they run for.
A simple fact regarding Canadian politics is that election campaigns tend to be very leader-centered, and thus party-centered. While local candidates inevitably benefit from such partisan consideration, it doesn't change the limited amount of influence many candidates have over their own election.
Certainly, some candidates do have the good fortune to overcome partisanship -- consider the cases of Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison, who have been elected as both Liberals and Conservatives. But the severe glut of so-called "stronghold ridings" where partisan is so entrenched as to ensure the election and reelection of candidates from certain parties suggests that these ridings are fewer and further between than we'd like to think.
Elections Canada's ruling may reflect what many Canadians could be argued to theoretically prefer politically, but preferences do not necessarily constitute reality.
For example, Elections Canada may prefer that local candidates produce their own advertising, in its entirety, but nothing in the law demands that they do this.
Elections Canada's own preferences don't necessarily constitute reality.
Of course, there may be more to Elections Canada's actions than their own publicity suggests. Whether more (or less) cynically-minded observers want to give the presence of Liberal party photographers at the site of the raid the attention it warrants or not, one also has to consider the fact that Elections Canada has, to date, declined to investigate an obvious example of the Ontario Liberal party (another organization awash in cash).
After all, there's little question that "No Gun, No Funeral", considering it's evident purpose, was as much a violation of Election law as anything the Conservative party has done.
The more details of this story emerge, the more one wonders whether or not this really isn't just some Elections Canada bureaucrats trying to enforce their own preferences on Canadian politics.
It is, however, interesting to see how selectively they're doing it.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Residential Schools: Canada's Holocaust?
Alleged mass graves raise uncomfortable questions for Canadians
There is little question that of the few blemishes to Canada's human rights record, the sad atrocity that was Residential Schooling is the most disfiguring.
The atrocities that took place there have long been recognized by Canadian law, although many surviving victims still wait for even the most basic recompense.
Recent events, however, have shed some additional light on those victims who didn't survive, some of whom were never accounted for.
In an announcement largely ignored by the mainstream media this past week, the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared, an organization dedicated to uncovering the truth regarding reportedly tens of thousands of Aboriginal children who disappeared from the schools. According to former United Church minister Kevin Annett, the number of unaccounted for ranges from 40,000-50,000.
The statement released by the organization alleges that many of those children can be accounted for in mass graves at 28 residential school sites.
While the allegations alone are unsettling enough, there seems to be some work yet undone on these claims that may have made an announcement more than a little premature.
To start off with, no physical evidence has been found to corroborate the claims.
However, it's well known that a significant number of children at the schools died tuburculosis -- at one particular school, up to 63% of the children are reported to have died (although none of the sources available seem to actually identify the school). All those dead children have to have gone somewhere, and their families have the right to know.
There are, however, some intracies in the story that stretch either the credulity of the claims, or the what remains of the credulity of, in particular, the Churches involved in Residential Schooling.
Consider, for example, Kevin Annett, a former Reverend ordained by the United Church of Canada, was defrocked by the United Church in 1996. He has become one of the leading figures demanding further investigation of Residential Schools. It's not hard to imagine that he could be conducting his crusade as a measure of seeking revenge against the Church.
However, he was defrocked to "inadequate pastoral skills", a charge vague enough to suggest that he may have been defrocked for asking too many questions about the Port Alberni Residential School.
The story would also seem to be contradicted by the stories told by individuals like Sylvester Greene, who, while working for a United Church-run residential school, was paid to dig a grave for a deceased five-year-old boy.
Greene, who worked at a St Albert-area residential school, was hired to dig only one grave, for only one child. According to Greene, a friend and cousin of his told him that they also buried one child apiece.
The St. Albert school -- now the Poundmaker's Lodge, an addiction treatment center -- is among the sites named by the oddly-named International Human Rights Tribunal into Genocide in Canada (oddly named because it doesn't seem to be an international panel at all, but rather an investigatory arm of the The Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared).
It would seem strange that the United Church would bother to dig individual graves if they were maintaining mass graves during the duration of the residential schooling.
One other issue undermining the credulity of the mass grave claims are some of the other claims made about Residential Schools in the past: namely, that Residential Schooling was a genocide. This particular claim confuses genocide, which -- whether they will admit this or not -- requires large-scale killing (although sterilization could actually do just as well), with ethnic cleansing, which only requires the destruction or removal of a particular ethnic culture.
(The rejection of Residential Schooling as an example ethnic cleansing in favour of the more spectacular claims of genocide and Holocaust actually makes little sense when one considers that ethnic cleansing is no less reprehensible than outright genocide.)
Likewise, it's not hard to believe that the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared could be making mass grave claims where unmarked grave claims would be more appropriate. (And likewise, unmarked graves are bad enough on their own.)
It will certainly remain difficult for the media to take the claims of mass graves seriously until physical evidence of them can be produced.
But frankly, the allegations alone are disturbing enough, and warrant investigation. This is a matter that should, nonetheless, be taken seriously by both the Federal Government and the RCMP.
Even if the only role served by investigating these allegations ends up being dispelling them, it will have been well worth the time, effort and funds expended to dispel this shadow of doubt upon the Canadian psyche.
But by the same token, if the claims of mass graves do turn out to be true, it will only demand that Canadians ask more uncomfortable questions of themselves, and of their history. But such questions would be necessary, and the result of an investigation that is equally necessary.
There is little question that of the few blemishes to Canada's human rights record, the sad atrocity that was Residential Schooling is the most disfiguring.
The atrocities that took place there have long been recognized by Canadian law, although many surviving victims still wait for even the most basic recompense.
Recent events, however, have shed some additional light on those victims who didn't survive, some of whom were never accounted for.
In an announcement largely ignored by the mainstream media this past week, the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared, an organization dedicated to uncovering the truth regarding reportedly tens of thousands of Aboriginal children who disappeared from the schools. According to former United Church minister Kevin Annett, the number of unaccounted for ranges from 40,000-50,000.
The statement released by the organization alleges that many of those children can be accounted for in mass graves at 28 residential school sites.
While the allegations alone are unsettling enough, there seems to be some work yet undone on these claims that may have made an announcement more than a little premature.
To start off with, no physical evidence has been found to corroborate the claims.
However, it's well known that a significant number of children at the schools died tuburculosis -- at one particular school, up to 63% of the children are reported to have died (although none of the sources available seem to actually identify the school). All those dead children have to have gone somewhere, and their families have the right to know.
There are, however, some intracies in the story that stretch either the credulity of the claims, or the what remains of the credulity of, in particular, the Churches involved in Residential Schooling.
Consider, for example, Kevin Annett, a former Reverend ordained by the United Church of Canada, was defrocked by the United Church in 1996. He has become one of the leading figures demanding further investigation of Residential Schools. It's not hard to imagine that he could be conducting his crusade as a measure of seeking revenge against the Church.
However, he was defrocked to "inadequate pastoral skills", a charge vague enough to suggest that he may have been defrocked for asking too many questions about the Port Alberni Residential School.
The story would also seem to be contradicted by the stories told by individuals like Sylvester Greene, who, while working for a United Church-run residential school, was paid to dig a grave for a deceased five-year-old boy.
Greene, who worked at a St Albert-area residential school, was hired to dig only one grave, for only one child. According to Greene, a friend and cousin of his told him that they also buried one child apiece.
The St. Albert school -- now the Poundmaker's Lodge, an addiction treatment center -- is among the sites named by the oddly-named International Human Rights Tribunal into Genocide in Canada (oddly named because it doesn't seem to be an international panel at all, but rather an investigatory arm of the The Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared).
It would seem strange that the United Church would bother to dig individual graves if they were maintaining mass graves during the duration of the residential schooling.
One other issue undermining the credulity of the mass grave claims are some of the other claims made about Residential Schools in the past: namely, that Residential Schooling was a genocide. This particular claim confuses genocide, which -- whether they will admit this or not -- requires large-scale killing (although sterilization could actually do just as well), with ethnic cleansing, which only requires the destruction or removal of a particular ethnic culture.
(The rejection of Residential Schooling as an example ethnic cleansing in favour of the more spectacular claims of genocide and Holocaust actually makes little sense when one considers that ethnic cleansing is no less reprehensible than outright genocide.)
Likewise, it's not hard to believe that the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared could be making mass grave claims where unmarked grave claims would be more appropriate. (And likewise, unmarked graves are bad enough on their own.)
It will certainly remain difficult for the media to take the claims of mass graves seriously until physical evidence of them can be produced.
But frankly, the allegations alone are disturbing enough, and warrant investigation. This is a matter that should, nonetheless, be taken seriously by both the Federal Government and the RCMP.
Even if the only role served by investigating these allegations ends up being dispelling them, it will have been well worth the time, effort and funds expended to dispel this shadow of doubt upon the Canadian psyche.
But by the same token, if the claims of mass graves do turn out to be true, it will only demand that Canadians ask more uncomfortable questions of themselves, and of their history. But such questions would be necessary, and the result of an investigation that is equally necessary.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Think Of It As An Incentive to Walk
Gas prices will continue to rise so long as customers continue to buy
Drivers everywhere in the country are getting mad as hell... and they're probably going to keep on taking it.
Fuel prices in Montreal hit 129.9 cents a litre -- an infantesimal amount short of $1.30 -- yesterday, and CIBC figures it's not going to come back down anytime soon.
"My feeling is that oil prices are probably going to rise for the foreseeable future. Generally speaking, gasoline prices are going to track oil prices higher," said CIBC World Markets economist Jeff Rubin. "People should get used to the idea of $1.50 a litre gas."
"The major factor is, of course, the cost of crude," says Roger McKnight, a senior anaylst at Oshawa, Ontario's En-Pro consulting. "A year ago, the cost of crude was about $65 a barrel. Today it's about $114 a barrel. If the price of your feedstock goes up close to 50 per cent, then the price coming out of the end of the pump ... would expect to reflect that increase."
"Right now gasoline is quite a bargain," McKnight said. "When you look at the differential in the crude costs - you haven't seen anything yet."
Of course, one of the biggest factors in crude oil pricing is demand. And so long as we continue to live in a society where we deem it acceptable to do things like drive to the 7 11 for a pack of cigarettes, we aren't doing ourselves any favours in terms of gas prices.
Gas prices -- generally considered to be price inelastic (which indicates that demand is largely unresponsive to price) -- will only continue to rise so long as a market willing to pay the price for it exists. And while many people certainly don't have the option of walking or busing everywhere, the exorbitant price of gasoline could be considered an incentive for those who can, and an incentive for those who need to commute to work to at least start fuelling more of their casual travelings with two feet and a hearbeat.
The point is that while most people don't have an immediately available substitute for gasoline to fuel their vehicles, they do have an immediately available substitute for their cars -- at least for short-distance travelling.
It could significantly reduce demand for gasoline, increase the price elasticity of that commodity, and provide producers with an incentive to keep the prices lower wherever possible (and considering that production costs remain largely static despite the higher market price of oil, an incentive is what's needed here).
Most importantly, walking a little more will also pay dividends in terms of local air quality and health.
So think of the higher fuel prices as an incentive to do something our society should have been doing for the last thirty years: namely, a lot more walking and biking.
Drivers everywhere in the country are getting mad as hell... and they're probably going to keep on taking it.
Fuel prices in Montreal hit 129.9 cents a litre -- an infantesimal amount short of $1.30 -- yesterday, and CIBC figures it's not going to come back down anytime soon.
"My feeling is that oil prices are probably going to rise for the foreseeable future. Generally speaking, gasoline prices are going to track oil prices higher," said CIBC World Markets economist Jeff Rubin. "People should get used to the idea of $1.50 a litre gas."
"The major factor is, of course, the cost of crude," says Roger McKnight, a senior anaylst at Oshawa, Ontario's En-Pro consulting. "A year ago, the cost of crude was about $65 a barrel. Today it's about $114 a barrel. If the price of your feedstock goes up close to 50 per cent, then the price coming out of the end of the pump ... would expect to reflect that increase."
"Right now gasoline is quite a bargain," McKnight said. "When you look at the differential in the crude costs - you haven't seen anything yet."
Of course, one of the biggest factors in crude oil pricing is demand. And so long as we continue to live in a society where we deem it acceptable to do things like drive to the 7 11 for a pack of cigarettes, we aren't doing ourselves any favours in terms of gas prices.
Gas prices -- generally considered to be price inelastic (which indicates that demand is largely unresponsive to price) -- will only continue to rise so long as a market willing to pay the price for it exists. And while many people certainly don't have the option of walking or busing everywhere, the exorbitant price of gasoline could be considered an incentive for those who can, and an incentive for those who need to commute to work to at least start fuelling more of their casual travelings with two feet and a hearbeat.
The point is that while most people don't have an immediately available substitute for gasoline to fuel their vehicles, they do have an immediately available substitute for their cars -- at least for short-distance travelling.
It could significantly reduce demand for gasoline, increase the price elasticity of that commodity, and provide producers with an incentive to keep the prices lower wherever possible (and considering that production costs remain largely static despite the higher market price of oil, an incentive is what's needed here).
Most importantly, walking a little more will also pay dividends in terms of local air quality and health.
So think of the higher fuel prices as an incentive to do something our society should have been doing for the last thirty years: namely, a lot more walking and biking.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
John McCain Too Old to Start His Jedi Training
Jack Murtha says so
At 75 years old, Rep. John Murtha thinks John McCain -- three years his junior -- is too old to be President.
"This one guy running is about as old as me," Murtha insisted. "And let me tell you something, it's not [an] old man's job. I mean the campaign, the stress, so forth."
Of course it's unsurprising that Murtha, a Democrat, would prefer a younger candidate to McCain. Then again, Hillary Clinton, whom Murtha reportedly supports, is 61. If Murtha really preferred a younger candidate, he should probably think about supporting Barack Obama, who is 47.
But at least we know Murtha's been watching the Colbert Report.
At 75 years old, Rep. John Murtha thinks John McCain -- three years his junior -- is too old to be President.
"This one guy running is about as old as me," Murtha insisted. "And let me tell you something, it's not [an] old man's job. I mean the campaign, the stress, so forth."Of course it's unsurprising that Murtha, a Democrat, would prefer a younger candidate to McCain. Then again, Hillary Clinton, whom Murtha reportedly supports, is 61. If Murtha really preferred a younger candidate, he should probably think about supporting Barack Obama, who is 47.
But at least we know Murtha's been watching the Colbert Report.
Gay Marriage Hardly "Canada's Biggest Mistake"
But it's not altogether unsurprising Michael Coren would think so
It hasn't taken Michael Coren very much effort to be one of Canada's most controversial media figures.
From managing to get blackballed by the CBC to suggsting we should drop a Nuclear weapon in Iran, Coren has proven to be a walking, talking controversy machine -- one only marginally more worrying than Peter Worthington.
As such, it's unsurprising that Coren would use the National Post's Canada's Biggest Mistake series to rock the boat on a very controversial topic: same-sex marriage.
Not-so-shockingly, he's not a fan. He does, however, have some lucid moments in the course of his ruminations:
Very recently, they represented a group that had largely been pushed to the margins of Canada's political discourse, and literally had to pull the rug out from under Canada's conservative elites in order to get their voices heard.
While Canada's social conservatives enjoy a more secure place in Canadian political discourse -- yet never quite as comfortable as they'd like -- the stigma remains, and that stigma has underscored the entire debate regarding same-sex marriage.
But one also remembers the Conservative party's controversial move to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage for debate in the House of Commons. One also remembers that Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself declared the issue closed, once the motion -- which was debated in the House -- was defeated. It had been both supported and opposed by members of both the Liberals and Conservatives.
Canadians have had plenty of opportunity to discuss same-sex marriage -- once while the same-sex marriage-supporting Liberals were in power, then again with the largely same-sex marriage-opposing Conservatives in power. And now, again in the pages of the National Post.
How much more discussion does Coren really want?
And while common law marriage certainly represented a milestone in the eventual legal recognition of same-sex marriage -- same-sex couples were recognized as entitled to the benefits of common law marriage in 1999 -- the argument is largely moot.
Common law marriage, like same-sex marriage was a legal reaction to the need for individuals under many emerging familial models to be legally recognized. It was a recognition of the evolving nature of the Canadian family.
Certainly social conservatives can't be expected to appreciate that -- certainly not with any enthusiasm -- but the fact is that social conservatives aren't the only ones with a stake in the matter.
It isn't the role of the state to rule which human relationships are legitimate and which ones aren't. Refusing to recognize common law or same-sex marriages is akin to precisely that.
Beyond that, any comeback for polygamy -- imagined, real, or otherwise -- has little to do with same-sex marriage. That is a recognition demand of an entirely different -- often religious -- nature.
But polygamy presents the dilemma of sexual abuse prevalent within many polygamist religious sects. Recent events in Texas only underscore this.
At least when domestic abuse arises within a same-sex relationship -- and often it's a good deal more brutal than within heterosexual relationships, according to sociological study -- it's between adults of consulting age. It's unlikely any eleven-year-olds will be forced to marry fifty-year-olds under Canada's same-sex marriage legislation.
Yet even in the case where physical abuse is being perpetrated between adult partners, the strongest remedy the law can legitimately -- or reasonably -- offer is the jailing of the offending partner.
The law has no ability to terminate a relationship against the wills of those within it. That should be deemed unacceptable to all Canadians -- social conservatives included -- on absolute terms.
On the flip side, it should be deemed unacceptable to all Canadians -- again, social conservatives included -- for the state to encourage (or coerce) legal marriage on anyone, as Coren seems to suggest. Again, this should be deemed unacceptable on absolute terms.
Our society has spent the last forty years fixing those mistakes. It was only a matter of time that we fixed the mistake -- made countless years ago -- of not recognizing homosexuals as full and equal members of our society.
And fortunately for Michael Coren, he's never lived with the consequences of those mistakes -- countless other people have.
Coren's objections aside, same-sex marriage is hardly "Canada's biggest mistake".
It hasn't taken Michael Coren very much effort to be one of Canada's most controversial media figures.
From managing to get blackballed by the CBC to suggsting we should drop a Nuclear weapon in Iran, Coren has proven to be a walking, talking controversy machine -- one only marginally more worrying than Peter Worthington.
As such, it's unsurprising that Coren would use the National Post's Canada's Biggest Mistake series to rock the boat on a very controversial topic: same-sex marriage.
Not-so-shockingly, he's not a fan. He does, however, have some lucid moments in the course of his ruminations:
"What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil."Social conservatives do indeed carry a demonstrable stigma. Labeled as selfish, uncaring and compassionless, social conservatives have often had to tiptoe around their own views.
Very recently, they represented a group that had largely been pushed to the margins of Canada's political discourse, and literally had to pull the rug out from under Canada's conservative elites in order to get their voices heard.
While Canada's social conservatives enjoy a more secure place in Canadian political discourse -- yet never quite as comfortable as they'd like -- the stigma remains, and that stigma has underscored the entire debate regarding same-sex marriage.
"The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them."Clearly, the discussion is not over. The fact that Coren is discussing the matter at all -- let alone under the heading of "Canada's biggest mistake" -- is evidence enough of that.
But one also remembers the Conservative party's controversial move to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage for debate in the House of Commons. One also remembers that Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself declared the issue closed, once the motion -- which was debated in the House -- was defeated. It had been both supported and opposed by members of both the Liberals and Conservatives.
Canadians have had plenty of opportunity to discuss same-sex marriage -- once while the same-sex marriage-supporting Liberals were in power, then again with the largely same-sex marriage-opposing Conservatives in power. And now, again in the pages of the National Post.
How much more discussion does Coren really want?
"It’s important to emphasize that this is not really about homosexuality at all, and has nothing to do with homosexual people living together. Opponents of same-sex marriage may have ethical and religious objections to homosexuality, but they are irrelevant to the central argument. Which is not about the rights of a sexual minority but the status and meaning of marriage.Perhaps so, but it was done long in advance of the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term "common-law marriage" said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered."
And while common law marriage certainly represented a milestone in the eventual legal recognition of same-sex marriage -- same-sex couples were recognized as entitled to the benefits of common law marriage in 1999 -- the argument is largely moot.
Common law marriage, like same-sex marriage was a legal reaction to the need for individuals under many emerging familial models to be legally recognized. It was a recognition of the evolving nature of the Canadian family.
Certainly social conservatives can't be expected to appreciate that -- certainly not with any enthusiasm -- but the fact is that social conservatives aren't the only ones with a stake in the matter.
"And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage; just as one has, for example, to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension, people who don’t serve in the armed forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not.Yet this doesn't change the number of people who live together under marriage-like conditions -- people who will continue to do so whether the law recognizes it or not.
The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation."
It isn't the role of the state to rule which human relationships are legitimate and which ones aren't. Refusing to recognize common law or same-sex marriages is akin to precisely that.
"As for polygamy, it’s making something of a comeback — and here begin the objections."In all reality, the nail-biting over polygamy in Canada is overrated. Then-Prime Minister Paul Martin commissioned a study into the legality of polygamy mere weeks after commissioning the study that culminated in the legalization of same-sex marriage, and polygamy hasn't been legalized yet.
Beyond that, any comeback for polygamy -- imagined, real, or otherwise -- has little to do with same-sex marriage. That is a recognition demand of an entirely different -- often religious -- nature.
"Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam — and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it.But it's also important to mention that same-sex marriage and polygamy each present different dilemmas to society. Same-sex marriage effectively separates marriage from sexuality -- there's nothing in legislation to suggest that bisexuals couldn't get hitched under a same-sex marriage, for example.
At the moment, the Muslim community is not sufficiently politically comfortable to pursue the issue; and the clearly deranged polygamous sects on the aesthetic as well as geographical fringes of Canadian society cloud any reasonable debate. But the argument will certainly come and the result is largely inevitable. If love is the only criterion for marriage who are we to judge the love between a man and his wives?
The state, though, should have a duty to judge and to do so based on its own interests. The most significant of which is its continued existence, meaning that we have to produce children. As procreation is the likely, if not essential, result of marriage between a man and a woman, it is in the interests of the state to encourage marriage."
But polygamy presents the dilemma of sexual abuse prevalent within many polygamist religious sects. Recent events in Texas only underscore this.
At least when domestic abuse arises within a same-sex relationship -- and often it's a good deal more brutal than within heterosexual relationships, according to sociological study -- it's between adults of consulting age. It's unlikely any eleven-year-olds will be forced to marry fifty-year-olds under Canada's same-sex marriage legislation.
Yet even in the case where physical abuse is being perpetrated between adult partners, the strongest remedy the law can legitimately -- or reasonably -- offer is the jailing of the offending partner.
The law has no ability to terminate a relationship against the wills of those within it. That should be deemed unacceptable to all Canadians -- social conservatives included -- on absolute terms.
On the flip side, it should be deemed unacceptable to all Canadians -- again, social conservatives included -- for the state to encourage (or coerce) legal marriage on anyone, as Coren seems to suggest. Again, this should be deemed unacceptable on absolute terms.
"Of course lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have an obliging friend have one for them, but this is hardly the norm and hardly going to guarantee the longevity of a stable society. Just as significant, it smashes the fundamental concept of a child being produced through an act of love. The donation of bodily fluid by an anonymous person, or that obliging friend again, is an act not of love but of lust, indifference, profit or a mere, well, helping hand."Yet plenty of children are already born as a result of acts of lust, not love, and ironically, it's unlikely that Coren would object to those parents getting married. As a matter of fact, he thinks the state should encourage it.
"For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering.Michael Coren is wrong. Our society made a terrible mistake when it outlawed interracial relationships (just think what repealing that has done for the porn industry -ed). Our society made a terrible mistake when it outlawed homosexuality. Our society has made plenty of mistakes in the name of social conservatism.
We made a terrible mistake, and may not appreciate the full consequences for a generation. We allowed emotion to obscure logic and belittled anyone who appeared out of step with the current fashion. To marry without good reason in regrettable, to divorce good reasoning from public policy is a disgrace."
Our society has spent the last forty years fixing those mistakes. It was only a matter of time that we fixed the mistake -- made countless years ago -- of not recognizing homosexuals as full and equal members of our society.
And fortunately for Michael Coren, he's never lived with the consequences of those mistakes -- countless other people have.
Coren's objections aside, same-sex marriage is hardly "Canada's biggest mistake".
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Find Some People Willing to Vote For You, George
Then we'll talk
Like many people, Green Party of Alberta leader George Read has a beef with the Alberta Elections Act.
Read seems to think that the Elections Act bilked his party out of $19,750 in non-refundable candidacy deposits. Money that otherwise could have been used to advertise and promote the party.
His issue revolves around the $500 deposit collected from candidates for provincial elections. $250 is refundable once the candidate files all the necessary paperwork to actually run. The remaining $250 is refundable only if the candidate wins, or if the candidate at least claims 50% of the winning candidate's votes.
"This is just a penalty against people who don't do well in the political process," Read insists. "Just because you didn't do well isn't a reason for someone to be penalized."
Of course not. In the Green party, they believe that not doing well in the political process is somehow still entitled to a seat. (But that's another story.)
But Read isn't just getting mad -- he wants to get even. He's written a letter to Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford threatening to launch a Constitutional challenge if the Elections act isn't amended to refund the entire deposit to candidates.
He's even set a deadline of September 10, 2008. And if the government doesn't amend the Elections act accordingly, they's-a-gonna-geddit.
In response to the letter, Redford has promised to review recommendations stemming from the past two provincial elections.
Read, being the leader of the Alberta Greens (a party infamously inept when comes down to actually campaigning), has naturally missed the point. The portions of Alberta's Elections Act that he wants to contest aren't meant to discourage or hinder candidates or their supporters from participating in the election. They're meant to cut back on a potential glut of single-issue candidates with little to no hope of winning an election (hey! That kind of sounds like the Green Party!).
Plenty of other parties, like the Communist party and Separation Party of Alberta, ran candidates with little to no hope of victory. But you don't hear them crying for an extra $250 for each of their defeated candidates.
Of course, being the leader of the Alberta Greens, Read has one other quality hindering his ability to accept political irrelevance: that is, delusions of relevance.
In a province where he already has to compete for a razor-thin pool of potential supporters with Brian Mason and the only marginally less politically irrelevant NDP (for the record, here Mason is pictured holding a press conference on what appears to be his front lawn), George Read at this point should be feeling more like Charlie Brown, unable to ever quite kick that damn football (good grief).
A more pragmatic leader would look at a situation like this and wonder "why bother? Maybe I'll just go ahead and join the NDP".
Not George Read. He looks at a situation in which his party simply doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning and figures he'll just sue the government. Somehow, that'll make everything all better.
But it won't. Even if the Alberta government changes the Elections Act to his liking and he gets his extra $20,000 next election, George Read will still face a nearly insurmountable challenge:
Finding some people who are willing to vote for him. Good luck with that one, George.
Like many people, Green Party of Alberta leader George Read has a beef with the Alberta Elections Act.
Read seems to think that the Elections Act bilked his party out of $19,750 in non-refundable candidacy deposits. Money that otherwise could have been used to advertise and promote the party.His issue revolves around the $500 deposit collected from candidates for provincial elections. $250 is refundable once the candidate files all the necessary paperwork to actually run. The remaining $250 is refundable only if the candidate wins, or if the candidate at least claims 50% of the winning candidate's votes.
"This is just a penalty against people who don't do well in the political process," Read insists. "Just because you didn't do well isn't a reason for someone to be penalized."
Of course not. In the Green party, they believe that not doing well in the political process is somehow still entitled to a seat. (But that's another story.)
But Read isn't just getting mad -- he wants to get even. He's written a letter to Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford threatening to launch a Constitutional challenge if the Elections act isn't amended to refund the entire deposit to candidates.
He's even set a deadline of September 10, 2008. And if the government doesn't amend the Elections act accordingly, they's-a-gonna-geddit.
In response to the letter, Redford has promised to review recommendations stemming from the past two provincial elections.
Read, being the leader of the Alberta Greens (a party infamously inept when comes down to actually campaigning), has naturally missed the point. The portions of Alberta's Elections Act that he wants to contest aren't meant to discourage or hinder candidates or their supporters from participating in the election. They're meant to cut back on a potential glut of single-issue candidates with little to no hope of winning an election (hey! That kind of sounds like the Green Party!).
Plenty of other parties, like the Communist party and Separation Party of Alberta, ran candidates with little to no hope of victory. But you don't hear them crying for an extra $250 for each of their defeated candidates.
Of course, being the leader of the Alberta Greens, Read has one other quality hindering his ability to accept political irrelevance: that is, delusions of relevance.
In a province where he already has to compete for a razor-thin pool of potential supporters with Brian Mason and the only marginally less politically irrelevant NDP (for the record, here Mason is pictured holding a press conference on what appears to be his front lawn), George Read at this point should be feeling more like Charlie Brown, unable to ever quite kick that damn football (good grief).A more pragmatic leader would look at a situation like this and wonder "why bother? Maybe I'll just go ahead and join the NDP".
Not George Read. He looks at a situation in which his party simply doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning and figures he'll just sue the government. Somehow, that'll make everything all better.
But it won't. Even if the Alberta government changes the Elections Act to his liking and he gets his extra $20,000 next election, George Read will still face a nearly insurmountable challenge:
Finding some people who are willing to vote for him. Good luck with that one, George.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Hey, Weren't Republicans Supposed to be the Religious Ones?
Just asking...
If one were to ask certain observers of American politics, they would probably be told that the American Republican party was at the forefront of mixing religion in politics.
Much has been made about George W Bush's religiosity. "Concerned parties" everywhere objected to Mike Huckabee and his belief in creationism. Some have even insisted that the combination of Christianity and conservative politics has put the United States on the road to fascism.
So if this is the case, and Republicans are so religious, and this is such a bad thing, why is it that the Republicans' presumptive presidential nominee barely mentioning religion at all, and the remaining nominees for the Democrat nomination battling it out on the topic of religion?
In fact Clinton and Obama made a direct appeal to religious voters at a weekend debate at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's Messiah College.
Meanwhile, John McCain has remained remarkably quiet about his religious beliefs (for the record, he's an Episcopalian-turned-Baptist), to the extent that the Evangelical community -- another target of "concerned parties" and traditionally a reliable source of support for Republicans -- is largely split over whether or not they'll support him.
Right now if religion is much of an issue for anyone in the 2008 Presidential campaign, it's the Democrats. Yet there seems to be remarkably little criticism of this particular religious turn, and the worst criticism seems to be directed at Clinton and Obama by one another.
One has to wonder where the "interested parties" are on this particular matter. But then again, one is hardly surprised, either.
...And One Other Thing...
Maybe the Conservatives aren't "the party of big business" after all
In the closest thing that passes for a shocking revelation over at the Toronto Star, their editorial board has reviewed recently-released financial records from the 2007 Ontario provincial election and realized that corporations and unions donated almost as much money to the incumbent Ontario Liberals as the provincial Progressive Conservatives collected in total.
Their great conclusion? By golly, those big corporations sure do like to stay on the government's good side.
But the unspoken, actually more logical conclusion would probably be that maybe the Conservative party aren't such corporate toadies -- or at least not just the only party made up of corporate toadies.
But that kind of non-partisan honesty would probably be too much to ask for from the Toronto Star.
In the closest thing that passes for a shocking revelation over at the Toronto Star, their editorial board has reviewed recently-released financial records from the 2007 Ontario provincial election and realized that corporations and unions donated almost as much money to the incumbent Ontario Liberals as the provincial Progressive Conservatives collected in total.
Their great conclusion? By golly, those big corporations sure do like to stay on the government's good side.
But the unspoken, actually more logical conclusion would probably be that maybe the Conservative party aren't such corporate toadies -- or at least not just the only party made up of corporate toadies.
But that kind of non-partisan honesty would probably be too much to ask for from the Toronto Star.
The Kids Are Alright
All the height of Jon Stewart and all the funny, too
Watch out Stephen Colbert, America has a pint-sized answer to you.
Calling themselves Swift Kids for Truth, these prepubescent pundits have taken aim at the art of negative campaigning, reminding us that some of the "sophisticated political messaging techniques" being pushed by political consultants these days were mastered on schoolyards everywhere long, long ago.
The ads mostly take aim at Hillary Clinton (who may have called this on herself with her "3AM" ads), and most importantly, they're funny as hell.
Hillary Clinton - Anti-cookie:
Rudolph Guiliani - Says "9/11" a lot, so it's important:
John Edwards - Metrosexual:
Hillary Clinton - "Holy shit! She's a dude!":
Barack Obama - His name is hard to say:
Hillary Clinton - Whitewater!:
And, a quick message from the Swift Nannies (for Truth!):
Of course, it would be facetious to suggest these kids hatched this entire idea on their own. All the more likely, the Swift Kids are the brainchildren of Larry Gibbard Jr and Terry Nathers. They probably have their own political agenda, but in the meantime, the comedy is fantastic.
Ironically, they've been around since at least December 2007. But CNN just caught on.
Watch out Stephen Colbert, America has a pint-sized answer to you.
Calling themselves Swift Kids for Truth, these prepubescent pundits have taken aim at the art of negative campaigning, reminding us that some of the "sophisticated political messaging techniques" being pushed by political consultants these days were mastered on schoolyards everywhere long, long ago.
The ads mostly take aim at Hillary Clinton (who may have called this on herself with her "3AM" ads), and most importantly, they're funny as hell.
Hillary Clinton - Anti-cookie:
Rudolph Guiliani - Says "9/11" a lot, so it's important:
John Edwards - Metrosexual:
Hillary Clinton - "Holy shit! She's a dude!":
Barack Obama - His name is hard to say:
Hillary Clinton - Whitewater!:
And, a quick message from the Swift Nannies (for Truth!):
Of course, it would be facetious to suggest these kids hatched this entire idea on their own. All the more likely, the Swift Kids are the brainchildren of Larry Gibbard Jr and Terry Nathers. They probably have their own political agenda, but in the meantime, the comedy is fantastic.
Ironically, they've been around since at least December 2007. But CNN just caught on.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
A Backward Way to Prosecute a War
Benchmarks needed before a withdrawal date set, not after
Canada's role in Afghanistan is important.
It's important to our country's national security -- preventing a regime known for harboring terrorists from returning to power. It's important to internationalism -- proving that organizations like NATO can still work. It's important to the Afghan people -- bring them an opportunity to truly embrace the freedoms offered by a democratic government.
As such, Canada's role in the Afghanistan war is worth doing. But anything worth doing is worth doing right.
During his current visit to Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier stressed the importance of setting benchmarks for what we expect Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan to accomplish before the mission can be considered to be a success.
"We have to go back in Canada and will have a discussion about the future of our mission, so we will have to set benchmarks on the training of the ANA, the training of the ANP," Bernier said. "It was important to have a meeting with the general and other officials to understand pretty well what is the challenges that we face concerning the training of the national army and the national police."
And he's right. It is important to understand the challenges Canada faces in Afghanistan and also to understand how we will meet them.
But that was even more important before the establishment of a withdrawal date, not after.
What seems to be at play in this situation is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a country can be successful in a mission like Afghanistan.
Leaving Afghanistan before Canada's mission there is accomplished is a recipe for disaster. The Taliban returning to Afghanistan would certainly not be the passive-aggressive Taliban of pre-2001, content to merely harbor terrorists like Osama Bin Laden within its borders. Upon reclaiming power in Kabul, the Taliban could be expected to become even more aggressive, likely supporting terrorism much more directly than before.
But accomplishing the mission means meeting the goals. So one clearly can't set a withdrawl date before one fully understands what these goals are, and what needs to be done in order to accomplish them.
In, frankly, going too far to accommodate Liberal inconsistency Maxime Bernier and the Conservative party have succeeded in making Barack Obama's Iraq dilemma our own Afghanistan dilemma.
In order to meet the artificial goal of Canadian withdrawal by 2011, we run the very real risk of not meeting the goals that will make peaceful withdrawal possible in the first place.
In particular, Afghanistan remains 20,000 soldiers short of the target of 80,000 troops by 2011.
That's an awfully big gap to have to close.
The successes in Afghanistan -- whether opponents to the war want to acknowledge them or not -- to date remind us that the war in Afghanistan can be won. But setting timetables for withdrawal that will make it more difficult to achieve our goals isn't doing anyone -- the troops who actually have to worry about achieving those goals -- any favours.
If Maxime Bernier and the Conservatives really wanted to make it possible for Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2011 they would have decided what the goals would be before setting that date.
To do otherwise -- as they have -- is a backward way to prosecute a war.
Canada's role in Afghanistan is important.
It's important to our country's national security -- preventing a regime known for harboring terrorists from returning to power. It's important to internationalism -- proving that organizations like NATO can still work. It's important to the Afghan people -- bring them an opportunity to truly embrace the freedoms offered by a democratic government.
As such, Canada's role in the Afghanistan war is worth doing. But anything worth doing is worth doing right.
During his current visit to Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier stressed the importance of setting benchmarks for what we expect Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan to accomplish before the mission can be considered to be a success."We have to go back in Canada and will have a discussion about the future of our mission, so we will have to set benchmarks on the training of the ANA, the training of the ANP," Bernier said. "It was important to have a meeting with the general and other officials to understand pretty well what is the challenges that we face concerning the training of the national army and the national police."
And he's right. It is important to understand the challenges Canada faces in Afghanistan and also to understand how we will meet them.
But that was even more important before the establishment of a withdrawal date, not after.
What seems to be at play in this situation is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a country can be successful in a mission like Afghanistan.
Leaving Afghanistan before Canada's mission there is accomplished is a recipe for disaster. The Taliban returning to Afghanistan would certainly not be the passive-aggressive Taliban of pre-2001, content to merely harbor terrorists like Osama Bin Laden within its borders. Upon reclaiming power in Kabul, the Taliban could be expected to become even more aggressive, likely supporting terrorism much more directly than before.
But accomplishing the mission means meeting the goals. So one clearly can't set a withdrawl date before one fully understands what these goals are, and what needs to be done in order to accomplish them.
In, frankly, going too far to accommodate Liberal inconsistency Maxime Bernier and the Conservative party have succeeded in making Barack Obama's Iraq dilemma our own Afghanistan dilemma.
In order to meet the artificial goal of Canadian withdrawal by 2011, we run the very real risk of not meeting the goals that will make peaceful withdrawal possible in the first place.
In particular, Afghanistan remains 20,000 soldiers short of the target of 80,000 troops by 2011.That's an awfully big gap to have to close.
The successes in Afghanistan -- whether opponents to the war want to acknowledge them or not -- to date remind us that the war in Afghanistan can be won. But setting timetables for withdrawal that will make it more difficult to achieve our goals isn't doing anyone -- the troops who actually have to worry about achieving those goals -- any favours.
If Maxime Bernier and the Conservatives really wanted to make it possible for Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2011 they would have decided what the goals would be before setting that date.
To do otherwise -- as they have -- is a backward way to prosecute a war.
Friday, April 11, 2008
More Dress-Up Fun With Marty Rayner
His mouth is writing even more cheques his brain can't cash
Martin Rayner's bizarre behaviour of late may turn out to have a more rational explanation than it would seem.
He may be experiencing something of an identity crisis.
Rayner recently took time out of his... eh, busy... schedule to respond to this particular comment, found on a post at Return of the Trusty Tory:
He's said nothing to suggest to anyone that he hates Canada.
The nonsense about Muslim Imams and the Communist party clearly indicates that the commenter is more than a little unbalanced.
But Rayner's own response indicates that the commenter has managed to strike a nerve:
Beneath the inane rantings, the commenter raises an important point: how is it that Mr Rayner can justify blogging under the pseudonym "Red Tory" when so much of his behaviour strongly indicates that he has little idea what a Red Tory actually is?
In order to understand why, one needs to direct their attention to an excellent definition of Red Toryism offered by the seemingly now-defunct Deep Red Tory:
To put it most simply, Red Tories prefer strong democracy -- built around a participatory model -- to thin democracy -- built around a corporatist, negotiatory model.
Building community is at the very heart of strong democracy. But one has to keep in mind precisely what is necessary to build a community in the first place, then make it strong enough for participatory democracy.
At the very core of participatory (strong) democracy is a social compact that acknowledges that all citizens have a stake in their community. As such, all the citizens of a community have a right -- and an obligation -- to participate in the political life of their community.
But one also has to consider what kind of conditions need to exist in order for all of a community's citizens to participate in that community's political life.
Recently a farce was intentionally made of the concept of civility, a farce that Rayner himself was obnoxiously dismissive of.
Certainly, the exercise was, as Rayner himself notes, "facetious". It was less an attempt to refine the conduct of the Canadian political blogosphere and more a slap in the face to the very concept of civility.
Now, in all fairness, it's important to note that the importance of civility should be imposed to nearly all of Canada's bloggers (myself here at the Nexus included).
But civility is necessary to build the kind of environment in which a participatory (strong) democracy can prosper. Strong democracy is built on the principle that all of a community's citizens are equal citizens.
It's safe to say that someone who believes he can dismiss 30% of his country's population as "retards" is not prepared to engage in a participatory democracy on the pretenses that those so-called "retards" are his equal. Equally so for someone like Rayner who consistently condones that kind of conduct.
In fact, it's safer to say that individual will do everything he can to avoid having to "dirty his hands" engaging with such people under the pretenses of equality, and will probably avoid that by making his community's political environment as toxic, discouraging and unwelcoming as possible.
A legitimate Red Tory would stand up and oppose the behaviour of individuals like this -- not act as an apologist (or, as he himself insists, "intemperate") for them.
A legitimate Red Tory may not like the ideas espoused by their fellow citizens, but is more interested in consensus building -- Barber's metaphor of building a communal menu that reflects community tastes -- rather than fostering corporatist factionalism between "interest groups" -- Barber's metaphor of fighting over whose individual tastes the communal menu will reflect.
A legitimate Red Tory should recognize that even those with whom they disagree can serve the purposes of Red Toryism. For an example we can turn to Deep Red Tory's four interrelated principles of Red Toryism:
The idea is to create a society wherein the bonds of citizenship and mutual obligation are so strong that efforts at accommodation are actually unnecessary.
This dissent can come from the left (typically, the engine although sometimes the brake) or the right (typically vice versa).
Of course, others argue that only the state can manage all of a community's needs, and that the unencumbered free market rarely provides for the needs of the underprivileged. This, more often than not, has turned out to be true.
The role of a Red Tory should be to build a consensus between the two -- not overwhelmingly side with one against the other, as many people seem to think Rayner has done.
The fact that Rayner would take time out of his day to respond to a half-baked admonition from a largely anonymous individual suggests in itself that he is a little conflicted about his professed beliefs.
Either he never really knew what a Red Tory is in the first place, or has simply lost his way.
One way or the other, he should actually find it harder to justify his insistence that he's a Red Tory than simply "well, Google says so". Whether or not he's capable of being honest enough with himself to realize it has yet to be seen.
Martin Rayner's bizarre behaviour of late may turn out to have a more rational explanation than it would seem.
He may be experiencing something of an identity crisis.
Rayner recently took time out of his... eh, busy... schedule to respond to this particular comment, found on a post at Return of the Trusty Tory:
"Red Tory, please, for the sake of clarity, remove Tory or any other symbol of Canada or Conservative from your name as you are nothing but a Canada hating, America bashing apologist. You would be best served in the mosque of a radical imam or the Communist party of Canada, which, it appears the Liberals have become."For the sake of fairness, it's necessary to point out that the commenter is a bit of a nut. Mr Rayner is perfectly entitled to take issue with being accused of hating Canada.
He's said nothing to suggest to anyone that he hates Canada.
The nonsense about Muslim Imams and the Communist party clearly indicates that the commenter is more than a little unbalanced.
But Rayner's own response indicates that the commenter has managed to strike a nerve:
"Look, as long as I have preeminent ranking on Google for the term “Red Tory” and in the absence of any truly compelling argument that I am in some respect unworthy of that estimable term, I’m keeping the name. In the meantime, allow me to draw your attention to what was said by many about one of my fondest personal heroes Oscar Wilde way back when…"Rayner's response seems to be best embodied in the insistence that "if Google says so, then it must be true". (The sad state of western society when allegedly educated individuals look to Google as the absolute arbiter of truth will remain uncommented on here -- for now.)
Beneath the inane rantings, the commenter raises an important point: how is it that Mr Rayner can justify blogging under the pseudonym "Red Tory" when so much of his behaviour strongly indicates that he has little idea what a Red Tory actually is?
In order to understand why, one needs to direct their attention to an excellent definition of Red Toryism offered by the seemingly now-defunct Deep Red Tory:
"A red tory is a compassionate conservative, driven by a concern for community over individualism, the collective well-being over personal self-interest, Burke over Mill, social responsibility over token rights, societal responsibility over state responsibility, fiscal responsibility over socialism, and responsible government over mob rule."In particular, attention needs to be paid to the concern for community over individualism -- it's become thematic for various commentators over the last twenty years in particular, from Benjamin Barber to John Ralston Saul.
To put it most simply, Red Tories prefer strong democracy -- built around a participatory model -- to thin democracy -- built around a corporatist, negotiatory model.
Building community is at the very heart of strong democracy. But one has to keep in mind precisely what is necessary to build a community in the first place, then make it strong enough for participatory democracy.
At the very core of participatory (strong) democracy is a social compact that acknowledges that all citizens have a stake in their community. As such, all the citizens of a community have a right -- and an obligation -- to participate in the political life of their community.
But one also has to consider what kind of conditions need to exist in order for all of a community's citizens to participate in that community's political life.
Recently a farce was intentionally made of the concept of civility, a farce that Rayner himself was obnoxiously dismissive of.
Certainly, the exercise was, as Rayner himself notes, "facetious". It was less an attempt to refine the conduct of the Canadian political blogosphere and more a slap in the face to the very concept of civility.
Now, in all fairness, it's important to note that the importance of civility should be imposed to nearly all of Canada's bloggers (myself here at the Nexus included).
But civility is necessary to build the kind of environment in which a participatory (strong) democracy can prosper. Strong democracy is built on the principle that all of a community's citizens are equal citizens.
It's safe to say that someone who believes he can dismiss 30% of his country's population as "retards" is not prepared to engage in a participatory democracy on the pretenses that those so-called "retards" are his equal. Equally so for someone like Rayner who consistently condones that kind of conduct.
In fact, it's safer to say that individual will do everything he can to avoid having to "dirty his hands" engaging with such people under the pretenses of equality, and will probably avoid that by making his community's political environment as toxic, discouraging and unwelcoming as possible.
A legitimate Red Tory would stand up and oppose the behaviour of individuals like this -- not act as an apologist (or, as he himself insists, "intemperate") for them.
A legitimate Red Tory may not like the ideas espoused by their fellow citizens, but is more interested in consensus building -- Barber's metaphor of building a communal menu that reflects community tastes -- rather than fostering corporatist factionalism between "interest groups" -- Barber's metaphor of fighting over whose individual tastes the communal menu will reflect.
A legitimate Red Tory should recognize that even those with whom they disagree can serve the purposes of Red Toryism. For an example we can turn to Deep Red Tory's four interrelated principles of Red Toryism:
"1. Tradition & Incrementalism: The tory philosophy is one in which society evolves gradually, remains stable but not static, and relies on tradition as a guide for the future."Most Red Tories don't favour social conservatism. But a committed Red Tory should recognize that, even as they personally favour progressive political values, social conservatives who would otherwise be viewed as political opponents can instead serve as a "brake" on those progressive values, preventing fast-and-hard Utopian societal upheaval, and all the instability that inevitably comes with it.
"2. Organicism & the Social Fabric: Core to the red tory ideology is the belief that society is more than a sum of its parts. It was Burke who invoked the term "social fabric" as a metaphor to describe society as a collection of individuals who, when woven together like threads, produce a much stronger and grander entity."But in order for such a "stronger and grander entity" to be created, one has to work with the parts that are available. A strong social fabric cannot be woven without all of its members. As such, even the political beliefs and ideologies with which one disagrees or one disapproves of must have a place -- most importantly, an equal place -- in that social fabric.
The idea is to create a society wherein the bonds of citizenship and mutual obligation are so strong that efforts at accommodation are actually unnecessary.
3. Ascription & Imperfection: The very essence of toryism is rooted in the Protestant belief in human imperfection, and the existence of a ‘natural hierarchy’ in society such that only the most capable should assume positions of authority. For red tories, while the social ladder exists, it is still accessible to those with lower social status, who may climb it gradually through their lifetimes and initiative, or over the course of several generations."Even the dissent of those who disagree with the direction in which a community serves a purpose. It reminds citizens of the imperfections in their society, and serves as the impetus for the continual -- incremental -- progressive improvement of that community.
This dissent can come from the left (typically, the engine although sometimes the brake) or the right (typically vice versa).
"4. Paternalism & Noblesse Oblige: In essence, then, toryism is a belief system that combines paternalism and collectivism through the concept of ‘noblesse oblige’. In the tory view of community, one discovers a sense of mutual obligation – of duties and privileges, rights and responsibilities – such that those in positions of privilege owe concern to those of lower social and political status, while the latter owe a certain degree of deference to elites. Labeled "tory democracy", this set of values may help to explain the ebbing of red toryism in an age of declining social and political deference."Of course, this fourth principle is a matter of some debate. There are those that argue that low taxes allow for more money left in the hands of those who earn it, allowing for more charity (although they themselves have to remember Irving Kristol's insistence that if the market wants to be predominant, then it must accept responsibility for eliminating poverty).
Of course, others argue that only the state can manage all of a community's needs, and that the unencumbered free market rarely provides for the needs of the underprivileged. This, more often than not, has turned out to be true.
The role of a Red Tory should be to build a consensus between the two -- not overwhelmingly side with one against the other, as many people seem to think Rayner has done.
The fact that Rayner would take time out of his day to respond to a half-baked admonition from a largely anonymous individual suggests in itself that he is a little conflicted about his professed beliefs.
Either he never really knew what a Red Tory is in the first place, or has simply lost his way.
One way or the other, he should actually find it harder to justify his insistence that he's a Red Tory than simply "well, Google says so". Whether or not he's capable of being honest enough with himself to realize it has yet to be seen.
The Final Refuge of the Intellectual Coward
Apparently, some denizens of the left-wing blogosphere have no idea what "lies and fabrications" are
Readers of the Nexus may recall what the first refuge of the intellectual coward is.
And today Martin Rayner has reminded us what the last refuge of the intellectual coward is: dismissing inconveniently factual points as "lies".
After all, Marty, if "you can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives" doesn't summarize your expressed beliefs, what else was the point of this particular spittle-feckled temper tantrum?
If you truly take exception to that interpretation of your impotent tirade, then feel free to elaborate on it.
We all know you have the attention span of an ADD-afflicted gnat, so we won't hold you to any serious debate on this matter. There's no reason to expect you to spontaneously conjure the cojones anyhow.
You've never had the guts before, and it's unlikely you ever will.
Readers of the Nexus may recall what the first refuge of the intellectual coward is.
And today Martin Rayner has reminded us what the last refuge of the intellectual coward is: dismissing inconveniently factual points as "lies".
After all, Marty, if "you can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives" doesn't summarize your expressed beliefs, what else was the point of this particular spittle-feckled temper tantrum?
If you truly take exception to that interpretation of your impotent tirade, then feel free to elaborate on it.
We all know you have the attention span of an ADD-afflicted gnat, so we won't hold you to any serious debate on this matter. There's no reason to expect you to spontaneously conjure the cojones anyhow.
You've never had the guts before, and it's unlikely you ever will.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
All the Fun Things You Can Be On Your Own Say-So
Martin Rayner misses the point -- again -- in spectacular fashion
Speaking of people who just don't get it, here's a classic example: Martin Rayner aka "Red Tory".
Some may recall Rayner's impotent sputtering in response to a recent post here at the Nexus that insisted that Canadian Cynic and his mindless coterie of sheep aren't progressives.
Rayner's response? "You can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives."
Well, unfortunate for mr Rayner, there are numerous ways of defining progressivism.
But the point really goes much deeper than this, and one is surprised that he just can't seem to grasp it. (No one is surprised that the demagogues over at Cynic's blog don't get it -- we've long ago realized they just aren't all that bright.)
The underlying question is: how does one justify a claim that they are part of an organization, institution or movement? By their own say-so? Or are there requirements?
For example: could one consider oneself a Jew merely by their own say so? Or do they have to possess the beliefs that characterize Judaism, live according to the philosophy of Judaism, or possess some formal relationship with a Synagogue?
It's no different than progressivism. If an individual can be demonstrated to not legitimately hold the beliefs that -- by any number of definitions -- characterize progressives, refuses to behave in a manner that characterizes a progressive philosophy, and possesses no formal relationship with the progressive movement (although the progressive movement is notably large enough that no one person could possess a formal relationship with it, unless indirectly) then that person can't call themselves a progressive.
Having accepted Mr Rayner's insistence (that one can claim to be something despite failing to meet the requirements), I've decided to indulge myself in the following things:
-I am now a citizen of Ireland. I've always wanted to be a formal citizen of Ireland. And despite the fact that I wasn't born there, and have no formal affiliation with the state of Ireland, I am now an Irish citizen. Because I said so.
-I've always thought it would be kind of cool to be a prince. Despite the fact that I wasn't born into the House of Windsor, and have never married into it, I now declare myself a member of the British Royal family. Because I said I am. Apparently, that's enough.
-I've always wanted to be part of a multi-platinum selling rock band as well. As such, I'm declaring myself to be a member of Metallica, despite the fact that I don't play any of the instruments the band uses, have never met any members of the band, never tried out, and never been formally affiliated with the band. But I'm now a member of Metallica because I say so. In Martin Rayner's dream world, this is enough.
To top it all off, I'm a member of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties. I don't share the beliefs of any of these parties and haven't paid a membership fee to any of them, but I'm a member of all four. Because I say so.
Marty's dream world may not quite be the real world, but it's much more fun than the real world. Still, it's not quite reality, is it?
(This is the kind of shit that really shouldn't have to be explained to people.)
Speaking of people who just don't get it, here's a classic example: Martin Rayner aka "Red Tory".
Some may recall Rayner's impotent sputtering in response to a recent post here at the Nexus that insisted that Canadian Cynic and his mindless coterie of sheep aren't progressives.
Rayner's response? "You can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives."
Well, unfortunate for mr Rayner, there are numerous ways of defining progressivism.
But the point really goes much deeper than this, and one is surprised that he just can't seem to grasp it. (No one is surprised that the demagogues over at Cynic's blog don't get it -- we've long ago realized they just aren't all that bright.)
The underlying question is: how does one justify a claim that they are part of an organization, institution or movement? By their own say-so? Or are there requirements?
For example: could one consider oneself a Jew merely by their own say so? Or do they have to possess the beliefs that characterize Judaism, live according to the philosophy of Judaism, or possess some formal relationship with a Synagogue?
It's no different than progressivism. If an individual can be demonstrated to not legitimately hold the beliefs that -- by any number of definitions -- characterize progressives, refuses to behave in a manner that characterizes a progressive philosophy, and possesses no formal relationship with the progressive movement (although the progressive movement is notably large enough that no one person could possess a formal relationship with it, unless indirectly) then that person can't call themselves a progressive.
Having accepted Mr Rayner's insistence (that one can claim to be something despite failing to meet the requirements), I've decided to indulge myself in the following things:
-I am now a citizen of Ireland. I've always wanted to be a formal citizen of Ireland. And despite the fact that I wasn't born there, and have no formal affiliation with the state of Ireland, I am now an Irish citizen. Because I said so.
-I've always thought it would be kind of cool to be a prince. Despite the fact that I wasn't born into the House of Windsor, and have never married into it, I now declare myself a member of the British Royal family. Because I said I am. Apparently, that's enough.
-I've always wanted to be part of a multi-platinum selling rock band as well. As such, I'm declaring myself to be a member of Metallica, despite the fact that I don't play any of the instruments the band uses, have never met any members of the band, never tried out, and never been formally affiliated with the band. But I'm now a member of Metallica because I say so. In Martin Rayner's dream world, this is enough.
To top it all off, I'm a member of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties. I don't share the beliefs of any of these parties and haven't paid a membership fee to any of them, but I'm a member of all four. Because I say so.
Marty's dream world may not quite be the real world, but it's much more fun than the real world. Still, it's not quite reality, is it?
(This is the kind of shit that really shouldn't have to be explained to people.)
Dear Wanks: Stephane Dion Has Your "Separation of Church and State" Right Here
Are anti-religious protesters equal-opportunity protesters?
It seems like a silly thing, but there were people in Canada who shit kittens the second Prime Minister Stephen Harper started saying "god bless Canada".
"Is it just me or does anyone else find it ominous that Harper says 'God bless Canada'?" asked Linda McQuaig in a column at Rabble.ca.
"Stephen Harper is a radical neocon theocrat [and] the media is too even-handed," insisted Jeff Monaghan, who would eventually be arrested for leaking confidential documents during his employment at Environment Canada.
"God Bless Canada is an obvious aping of American politicians finishing their speeches with 'Thank you. God bless America'," wrote one frantic (and unidentifiable) demagogue. "'God Bless Canada' does not mean 'I love Canada'. I am honestly please. At best, it means 'I love Alberta'. Harper hates Canada."
When Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory suggested the Ontario government should fund all religious schools, as opposed only to Catholic schools, Toronto Star readers sounded off repeatedly about the "separation of church and state".
Now, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has announced he'd like to provide a $75 million fund to help places of worship targeted for vandalism by varying bigots protect their property.
Which, although laudable, naturally makes a lot less sense than providing religious organizations with tax dollars in order to fund education.
The fact is that Dion's proposal is actually quite benign. As was John Tory's plan to fund faith-based schools, and as is Stephen Harper saying "god bless Canada".
Will those who protested Harper and Tory in the name of separation of church and state now protest Stephane Dion?
One severely doubts it, but only time will tell.
It seems like a silly thing, but there were people in Canada who shit kittens the second Prime Minister Stephen Harper started saying "god bless Canada".
"Is it just me or does anyone else find it ominous that Harper says 'God bless Canada'?" asked Linda McQuaig in a column at Rabble.ca.
"Stephen Harper is a radical neocon theocrat [and] the media is too even-handed," insisted Jeff Monaghan, who would eventually be arrested for leaking confidential documents during his employment at Environment Canada.
"God Bless Canada is an obvious aping of American politicians finishing their speeches with 'Thank you. God bless America'," wrote one frantic (and unidentifiable) demagogue. "'God Bless Canada' does not mean 'I love Canada'. I am honestly please. At best, it means 'I love Alberta'. Harper hates Canada."
When Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory suggested the Ontario government should fund all religious schools, as opposed only to Catholic schools, Toronto Star readers sounded off repeatedly about the "separation of church and state".
Now, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has announced he'd like to provide a $75 million fund to help places of worship targeted for vandalism by varying bigots protect their property.Which, although laudable, naturally makes a lot less sense than providing religious organizations with tax dollars in order to fund education.
The fact is that Dion's proposal is actually quite benign. As was John Tory's plan to fund faith-based schools, and as is Stephen Harper saying "god bless Canada".
Will those who protested Harper and Tory in the name of separation of church and state now protest Stephane Dion?
One severely doubts it, but only time will tell.
Lord Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do...
Naw. Fuck that. They've been told.
It's been said that refusal to debate is the first refuge of the intellectual coward.
When dealing with online hatemonger Canadian Cynic, would one expect any different? No? Didn't think so.
In his most recent attempt to mount what he, in his sheer idiocy, likely believes is a devastating attack, Cynic wants to take issue with this particular post, wherein its pointed out that he and his merry band of sycophants are not progressives, despite their insistence otherwise.
Predictable, sputtering outrage was raised elsewhere, only to have its utter impotency exposed.
Despite the cogency with which his claim to the progressive world view has been dismantled, Cynic has resorted to the intellectual coward's last refuge: derision, knowing that if he reduces the argument to a "dumbass quote" then his sycophants will insist it is, by golly, because he said it is.
But it's a shame that Cynic -- self-proclaimed genius -- is such an intellectual weakling as to cower from debate.
We here at the Nexus still have a well-stocked arsenal of legitimately progressive ideas that reveal this paper demagogue for what he really is: notably, anything but a "progressive".
But don't just take our word for it. Consider what many people consider to be the newest, best hope for progressive politics -- the Euston Manifesto.
The Euston Manifesto is, essentially, a blueprint forwarded by a group of British progressives for a renewal of progressive politics -- one that necessitated the progressive movement distancing itself from some inconsistencies that had proven, on numerous occasions, to be its Achilles' heel.
The Manifesto started out with -- an idea that will be truly shocking to Cynic's crazed sidekick Lulu, who conjured the temerity to ask "Why would Patrick even care about 'progressive politics'?" -- the admission that progressive politics need not be the exclusive domain of the political left:
Unfortunately for Cynic, he can't lay a legitimate claim to many of them.
Consider, just for starters, principle #1:
Then, there's principle #6 (this one is a real doozy):
Apparently, Cynic's progressive "politics with compassion" only applies to the Canadian poor. But wait -- there's more.
Consider principle #11:
How about the case of Andrew Meier, who was tasered for asking American Senator John Kerry what someone considered the wrong question?
Then, there's the whole "openness to the right" thing. How precisely do we expect an individual like Cynic to be open to people he universally brands as "retarded"?
The answer? Not really.
There is, most interestingly, the 13th tenet of the Manifesto, which reads as follows:
Where Cynic's real views on the freedom of ideas -- and the freedom to criticize -- are revealed is in how he handles criticism of himself:
Meanwhile, this is an individual whose idea of political discourse begins and ends with the word "retard" -- that doesn't exactly offer the kind of criticisms principle #13 would strive for, and certainly doesn't foster debate.
Sadly, what Canadian Cynic doesn't seem to understand is that his insistence that he is a progressive is nothing less than an insult to progressivism. And his contempt for those who hold different views -- like his contempt for those who dare criticize him -- only undermines the very idea of progressive politics: the construction of a progressive society.
A progressive society, of course, is one that democratically moves forward into the realm of social justice together.
But when Cynic goes out of his way -- as he does on a daily basis -- to insist that progressives and conservatives simply must be implacable enemies he threatens this key foundation of progressive politics.
Cynic's view on all conservatives is actually rather simple: "fuck 'em. We don't need them. We can move forward without them. They don't matter."
Cynic knowingly and willingly seeks to build unscalable walls between progressives and conservatives so that the alleged scourge of conservatism can be left behind. Of course those conservatives, who really are a part of Canadian society (whether Cynic likes it or not) can never really be left behind -- only marginalized.
But marginalization of dissenters is not a value espoused by those who legitimately favour social justice -- arguably the primary goal of progressive politics. It certainly isn't a value espoused by those who favour democracy -- another important goal of progressive politics.
A progressive society, by virtue of being democratic, belongs to its citizens -- all of them. Equally.
No one has the right to seek to banish entire groups of people simply because you don't like their ideas. Criticism is fair, but it also means you have to be willing to participate in debate -- not cower from it. It means you also have to be willing to accept criticism, not impotently sputter in the face of it.
Don't expect the criticism of Cynic's fallacious claim to progressivism to stop. Sadly, it seems the only progressive willing to stand up against Cynic's crusade against conservatism is a progressive conservative (the very distinction that Cynic's resident harpy fails to grasp).
It's been said that refusal to debate is the first refuge of the intellectual coward.
When dealing with online hatemonger Canadian Cynic, would one expect any different? No? Didn't think so.
In his most recent attempt to mount what he, in his sheer idiocy, likely believes is a devastating attack, Cynic wants to take issue with this particular post, wherein its pointed out that he and his merry band of sycophants are not progressives, despite their insistence otherwise.
Predictable, sputtering outrage was raised elsewhere, only to have its utter impotency exposed.
Despite the cogency with which his claim to the progressive world view has been dismantled, Cynic has resorted to the intellectual coward's last refuge: derision, knowing that if he reduces the argument to a "dumbass quote" then his sycophants will insist it is, by golly, because he said it is.
But it's a shame that Cynic -- self-proclaimed genius -- is such an intellectual weakling as to cower from debate.
We here at the Nexus still have a well-stocked arsenal of legitimately progressive ideas that reveal this paper demagogue for what he really is: notably, anything but a "progressive".
But don't just take our word for it. Consider what many people consider to be the newest, best hope for progressive politics -- the Euston Manifesto.
The Euston Manifesto is, essentially, a blueprint forwarded by a group of British progressives for a renewal of progressive politics -- one that necessitated the progressive movement distancing itself from some inconsistencies that had proven, on numerous occasions, to be its Achilles' heel.
The Manifesto started out with -- an idea that will be truly shocking to Cynic's crazed sidekick Lulu, who conjured the temerity to ask "Why would Patrick even care about 'progressive politics'?" -- the admission that progressive politics need not be the exclusive domain of the political left:
"Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not."According to the Manifesto, anyone who believes in democracy and is willing to lay claim to the beliefs contained in the Manifesto may call themselves progressive under its guise.
Unfortunately for Cynic, he can't lay a legitimate claim to many of them.
Consider, just for starters, principle #1:
"1 For democracy.Yet then one considers the outrage expressed when Members of Parliament fail to vote in the way Cynic and his cohorts think they should (this particular nugget comes courtesy of Cynic's equally-unprogressive co-blogger, Lindsay Stewart):
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures—freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold."
"The vote in question allowed Bill C-484 to pass into committee. Because you saw fit not to whip your party's vote, because it did not interest you sufficiently to attend, your leadership will now come under harsh scrutiny."Yep, god forbid that the Liberal caucus doesn't simply function as automatons voting in favour of Lindsay Stewart and his agenda. Anything less would be too democratic.
Then, there's principle #6 (this one is a real doozy):
"6 Opposing anti-Americanism.So what of, anti-Americanism, you ask? How about this anti-Americanism?
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people."
"Apparently, fellow progressive blogger Joe is all up in arms over my apparent lack of compassion for the good folks of the Gulf coast, given that Hurricane Katrina seems about ready to redesign their landscape big time. To which I can, with a perfectly clear conscience, say, when it comes to things American, I've pretty much run out of said sympathy, natural disasters or otherwise.Which certainly, yes, they could have. That is, those who had gas-guzzling land yachts. Those who didn't? Fuck 'em. They're Americans.
...
Is the Gulf Coast in for a pounding? By all accounts, you bet. But at least its citizens had the freedom to, way ahead of time, jump in their gaz-guzzling land yachts and head for higher/dryer ground."
Apparently, Cynic's progressive "politics with compassion" only applies to the Canadian poor. But wait -- there's more.
Consider principle #11:
"11 A critical openness.Let's talk anti-democratic for a few minutes.
Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress."
How about the case of Andrew Meier, who was tasered for asking American Senator John Kerry what someone considered the wrong question?
"A large portion of the blogosphere is outraged this morning over the Tasering of a student who was trying to ask Sen. John Kerry a question at a U of Florida campus forum. Let it hereby be known that I am not one of them.Yep, that freedom of speech is good and all, until you start being a prick about it. Then, it's time to bring on the tasers! That is a real good way to build a democratic society... you know, if you're into that sort of thing.
...
I've watched the YouTube clip of the incident here and, frankly, I have no sympathy for Mr. Meyer, who spent that entire time being a total dickhead. Does that mean he deserved getting Tasered? Possibly not but, under the circumstances, I'm simply not going to let him become a poster boy for the unfairness of excessive force."
Then, there's the whole "openness to the right" thing. How precisely do we expect an individual like Cynic to be open to people he universally brands as "retarded"?
The answer? Not really.
There is, most interestingly, the 13th tenet of the Manifesto, which reads as follows:
"13 Freedom of ideas.Now, some would suggest that the onus is on the critic to provide an actual criticism -- something Cynic constantly refuses to do, instead offering a steady stream of vile epithets in place of honest debate.
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas—even whole bodies of ideas—to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting."
Where Cynic's real views on the freedom of ideas -- and the freedom to criticize -- are revealed is in how he handles criticism of himself:
"Fuck you, Raphael. Seriously, fuck you in every possible way that can be done."Again here:
"With all due respect, SB, bite me."Some would suspect that criticisms offered should have been responded to a little more honestly. Most importantly, one would wonder what kind of honest answer Cynic would offer to the question asked of him: "if they're so bad, why do you behave in an identical manner? Then again, honesty isn't exactly a trait that many people equate with Canadian Cynic.
Meanwhile, this is an individual whose idea of political discourse begins and ends with the word "retard" -- that doesn't exactly offer the kind of criticisms principle #13 would strive for, and certainly doesn't foster debate.
Sadly, what Canadian Cynic doesn't seem to understand is that his insistence that he is a progressive is nothing less than an insult to progressivism. And his contempt for those who hold different views -- like his contempt for those who dare criticize him -- only undermines the very idea of progressive politics: the construction of a progressive society.
A progressive society, of course, is one that democratically moves forward into the realm of social justice together.
But when Cynic goes out of his way -- as he does on a daily basis -- to insist that progressives and conservatives simply must be implacable enemies he threatens this key foundation of progressive politics.
Cynic's view on all conservatives is actually rather simple: "fuck 'em. We don't need them. We can move forward without them. They don't matter."
Cynic knowingly and willingly seeks to build unscalable walls between progressives and conservatives so that the alleged scourge of conservatism can be left behind. Of course those conservatives, who really are a part of Canadian society (whether Cynic likes it or not) can never really be left behind -- only marginalized.
But marginalization of dissenters is not a value espoused by those who legitimately favour social justice -- arguably the primary goal of progressive politics. It certainly isn't a value espoused by those who favour democracy -- another important goal of progressive politics.
A progressive society, by virtue of being democratic, belongs to its citizens -- all of them. Equally.
No one has the right to seek to banish entire groups of people simply because you don't like their ideas. Criticism is fair, but it also means you have to be willing to participate in debate -- not cower from it. It means you also have to be willing to accept criticism, not impotently sputter in the face of it.
Don't expect the criticism of Cynic's fallacious claim to progressivism to stop. Sadly, it seems the only progressive willing to stand up against Cynic's crusade against conservatism is a progressive conservative (the very distinction that Cynic's resident harpy fails to grasp).
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Picking a Strange Hill to Die On
Richard Warman suing several bloggers, but how strong is his case?
In the latest news from the blogosphere, lawyer and alleged human rights profiteer Richard Warman has filed suit against several bloggers.
Claiming defamation and seeking $50,000, Warman is suing the National Post, Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Mark Fournier, his wife Constance Wilkins-Fournier, and FreeDominion.ca.
Naturally, numerous bloggers are pleased as punch about it.
Equally naturally, the paintiffs are not so pleased about it (You mean defendants, right, dummy? -ed).
A good deal of the alleged defamation seems to stem from the infamous "Anne Cools" post, wherein he allegedly wrote, under the guise of "90sAreOver":
Although there is clearly some reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was Warman who was actually using that IP address at the time.
Then again, that doubt may be a little less reasonable. If Warman had no history of doing what it's been suggested he's done, that would be one thing. But that isn't the case.
When himself put before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman himself hasn't always stood up to scrutiny, particularly on the topic of his internet dealings. Furthermore, he has done something that closely resembles lying under oath (which is perjury in a proper court of law).
Consider the following, taken from a transcript (via Levant) from a 1 February, 2007 hearing during the course of Levant v. Lemire:
Yet, it turns out that Warman did, in fact, sign up an account on the website in question, and was eventally forced to admit to it.
Among his other postings as "Lucie" was the following:
Charming stuff. But onward, where Warman admits that he, in fact, was "Lucie".
With this particular episode in mind, the allegations raised over the Anne Cools post is a strange hill for Richard Warman to choose to die on.
If Warman could produce concrete proof that he wasn't responsible for the post in question, that would be one thing. But whatever evidence has led Mark Fournier to believe Warman is the guilty party, along with his past -- confirmed -- episodes in so-called "covert posting", is enough for Levant, Fournier and company to legitimately argue that they believe Warman is responsible.
The legitimacy of such an opinion now established, the only thing Warman's lawsuit could really be about is libel chill -- dredging up fear of a libel suit in order to silence his detractors.
One certainly can't accept Warman's insistence that he didn't on his own say-so. Not based on past experience.
Unless he can conclusively prove that he didn't post under the name 90sAreOver, in which case the opinion that he did so would be clearly disproven. In the meantime, those opinions -- that he did so -- remain legitimate, and those who hold the opinions have the right to express them.
In the latest news from the blogosphere, lawyer and alleged human rights profiteer Richard Warman has filed suit against several bloggers.
Claiming defamation and seeking $50,000, Warman is suing the National Post, Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Mark Fournier, his wife Constance Wilkins-Fournier, and FreeDominion.ca.
Naturally, numerous bloggers are pleased as punch about it.
Equally naturally, the paintiffs are not so pleased about it (You mean defendants, right, dummy? -ed).
A good deal of the alleged defamation seems to stem from the infamous "Anne Cools" post, wherein he allegedly wrote, under the guise of "90sAreOver":
"“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place… And that place was NOT in public!"The comments have seemingly been traced back to Warman through the IP address from which they were posted.
Although there is clearly some reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was Warman who was actually using that IP address at the time.
Then again, that doubt may be a little less reasonable. If Warman had no history of doing what it's been suggested he's done, that would be one thing. But that isn't the case.
When himself put before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman himself hasn't always stood up to scrutiny, particularly on the topic of his internet dealings. Furthermore, he has done something that closely resembles lying under oath (which is perjury in a proper court of law).
Consider the following, taken from a transcript (via Levant) from a 1 February, 2007 hearing during the course of Levant v. Lemire:
"Kulaszka: Did you ever sign up a user account at the message board?
Warman: No, I don't believe I did.
Chairperson: I want to be clear I understand that. Did he sign up a user account?
Kulaszka: A user account at the message board.
Chairperson: That would enable you to participate in the messaging. Is that what that would do?
Warman: Yes. No, I didn't need to. I could access everything that I needed to as a guest.
Chairperson: So, as a guest, only to view. But you did not sign up in order to add material to it?
Warman: No, I did not."
Yet, it turns out that Warman did, in fact, sign up an account on the website in question, and was eventally forced to admit to it.
Among his other postings as "Lucie" was the following:
""Theres a reason it's called "White" Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement...""
Charming stuff. But onward, where Warman admits that he, in fact, was "Lucie".
"Kulaszka: If you could go to tab 3, the respondent's binder. Three pages from the back. Do you recognize this user account called "Lucie"?
Warman: Sorry, I stand corrected. Yes, I do. That is an e-mail address that I used.
Kulaszka: When did you use it?
Warman: It indicates on Saturday, November 15th, 2003 at 1:03 pm and on Saturday, November 15th, 2003 at 3:03 pm.
Kulaszka: You made two log-ins?
Warman: That's what it states here."
With this particular episode in mind, the allegations raised over the Anne Cools post is a strange hill for Richard Warman to choose to die on.
If Warman could produce concrete proof that he wasn't responsible for the post in question, that would be one thing. But whatever evidence has led Mark Fournier to believe Warman is the guilty party, along with his past -- confirmed -- episodes in so-called "covert posting", is enough for Levant, Fournier and company to legitimately argue that they believe Warman is responsible.
The legitimacy of such an opinion now established, the only thing Warman's lawsuit could really be about is libel chill -- dredging up fear of a libel suit in order to silence his detractors.
One certainly can't accept Warman's insistence that he didn't on his own say-so. Not based on past experience.
Unless he can conclusively prove that he didn't post under the name 90sAreOver, in which case the opinion that he did so would be clearly disproven. In the meantime, those opinions -- that he did so -- remain legitimate, and those who hold the opinions have the right to express them.
Currency Issue Getting Really Fucking Stupid
Get rid of the $5 bill? Are you fucking shitting me?
When Winnipeg NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin introduced legislation to abolish the penny, the response turned out to be a little mixed.
Some, recognizing the fact that hoarding issues make the penny fiscally more costly than beneficiary, supported the bill. Others, uncomfortable with the idea of rounding all the nation's economic transactions up (or down) to the nearest five cents, haven't.
Now, the economic "genuises" at Desjardins Economic Studies have suggested the Royal Canadian Mint do away with not only the penny, but also the nickel, quarter, and $5 bill.
So, not only does Desjardins think that all economic purchases in Canada should be rounded up or down to the nearest five cents, but should be rounded to the nearest ten cents.
At face value, it almost starts to make cents. (Fuck! That's not funny. Don't let it happen again - ed.)
"Canadians increasingly hoard low-denomination coins rather than use them to pay for their cash purchases," the report insists. "In fact, due to the resulting strong "artificial" demand, the RCM (Royal Canadian Mint) must produce more Canadian coins and cannot free up some of its production capacity to produce more lucrative foreign coins."
The report really demonstrates a near-complete ignorance on what the priorities of the Royal Canadian Mint should be. The priorities of the RCM should be to produce coins for Canada, not for other countries (although the export of coins for use in other countries does help to cover the cost of operating the RCM).
It also demonstrates an inability to see the bigger picture.
At first glance, it makes sense to abolish the penny when one considers the greater economic cost of producing the coins.
Desjardins issued a report last year which calculated that producing the penny costs Canadians $130 million per year -- approximately $4 per citizen.
Yet one also needs to consider the explicit costs of rounding product pricing up -- or down -- to the nearest five cents or, worse yet, to the nearest ten cents.
To start off, it's not terribly fucking likely that your local 7-11 will adjust the price of a Slurpee so that it can more effectively be rounded down. In all likelihood, they'll adjust prices so they have to be rounded up. It just isn't smart business to round prices down and incur an economic loss.
Even if they did, the firms that sell us the products we use on a day-to-day basis would likely incur staggering losses.
In either case, either the extra money -- in all likelihood adding up well in excess of $4 a year -- being coughed up by Canadian consumers or the losses incurred by those businesses that are altruistic (but ultimately foolish) enough to adjust their prices to be rounded down would represent a deadweight loss, which is always a social loss.
Money gone from your pocket with no return; money lost to business coffers, meaning less profit to distribute amongst shareholders -- most of whom are what Stephen Davis, Jon Lukomnik and David Pitt-Watson refer to as "citizen investors" (in other words, us).
Of course, there is the argument that the modern economy is largely electronic in nature, with most purchases being completed via debit or credit card. Thus, some would argue, the increased costs should only apply to those paying in cash, and that the extra expense is simply the cost of using cash.
The greatest impact, however, would be felt on purchases small enough that they would be costly to complete electronically (via credit or debit card) on a regular basis. Consider the cost of a large Tim Horton's coffee -- $1.38 a cup. When applicable taxes -- assuming one lives in a province with no Provincial Sales Tax -- are added, this coffee costs $1.42 a cup.
Rounding that cup of coffee up would cost -- assuming that the consumer in question only consumes one of these per day (not fucking likely in this country, they probably consume more) -- 1095 cents per year, or $10.95. (Duh - ed.) In the unlikely scenario that Tim Horton's agreed to round the price down, the firm would incur a loss of $7.30, compounded across all of their daily customers.
Remember that this is Canada we're talking about here. Tim Horton's coffee has become a staple of our culture.
The deadweight losses incurred are bad enough when only rounding to the nearest five cents. Imagine rounding that to the nearest ten.
Yep, this idea is that fucking stupid.
Of course, there are options that one can use to creep around these costs -- Tim Horton's, in particular, offers a new Quickpay Tim Card, and abolishing the penny would certainly give millions of people incentive to get one, pushing Canada's economy even further into the electronic realm.
Which would seem to take some of the bite out of the abolition of the penny, or (as the nearsighed dimwits at Desjardins favour) the dime.
But all this begs a question: why not just abolish all of Canada's bills and coins and really fuck over the people who prefer cash to debit and credit cards?
No question the banks would be in favour of that -- all of the interest they could charge to a new glut of credit transactions, and ATM and debit fees to beat the motherfuckin' band.
Which really makes you realize who the fine folks at Desjardins are really looking out for with this particular idea -- themselves, and their fellow bankers. Or, maybe even the six Jewish bankers who rule the world. (Not funny! - ed.)
So either the folks at Desjardins are really smart and think the rest of us are fucking stupid, or are really fucking stupid and just think they're being smart about this.
Readers should draw their own conclusions regarding that little riddle.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Earth to Jack Cafferty: No Shit
Hindsight is 20/20, especially when foresight tells you the same fucking thing
On his blog at CNN.com, Jack Cafferty seems to have unwittingly stumbled upon what will, in all likelihood, stand as the revelation of the year for clueless people.
Awarding the Summer Olympics to China was a big, biiiiiig mistake.
Of course, some people have only realized this as a result of recent events:
"Controversy sprinkled with violence and ill will is accompanying the Olympic torch as it makes it way across what is supposed to be a 23-city international tour designed to build interest and good will for the summer Olympics.Yep, nobody in the world could tell that awarding China -- a country with one of the world's worst human rights records -- was a bad idea until some people decided to start fucking with the Olympic Torch relay to extent that, at one point, it had to be transported by bus.
Stops in London and Paris produced large-scale demonstrations by people protesting China’s human rights record. The torch has now made its way to San Francisco, where the flame is being kept in an undisclosed location for security reasons. Possibly Dick Cheney’s house."
Yes, you read that right.
"Yesterday - protesters there scaled the Golden Gate Bridge and tied a Tibetan flag and two banners calling for a “free Tibet”. There’s a 6-mile relay planned in San Francisco tomorrow, but already one runner dropped out because of safety concerns.Now, if only it were that simple. While the Torch relay has proven to be an excellent opportunity for protesters to make their feelings about the Beijing games known, the fact remains that they will find ways to protest.
Meanwhile, the President of the International Olympic Committee tells the A.P. that the group’s board will discuss Friday whether to end the international part of the Beijing Olympic torch relay because of all these protests."
Not that Chinese officials care a whole lot about that. In fact, they've extended their typical Orwellian public relations tactics to dealings with the international media.
"Beijing organizers have said the month-long international relay won’t be stopped. In fact, the vice president of the Chinese organizing committee insisted the Olympic torch has been quote, “warmly welcomed by the local people” in each city. Communist China’s version of Baghdad Bob."Yep, and that warm welcome just so happened to include scaling San Francisco's Golden Gate bridge to hang a "free Tibet" sign and French protesters extinguishing the torch numerous times (the latter case being the exact polar opposite of a warm welcome).
But it was "warmly welcomed by the local people" because a Chinese spokesperson said so. Just like Tiananmen Square never happened because the Chinese media was largely forbidden to cover it, and forced to parrot the state's propaganda whenever it was mentioned.
"Here at home, there have been growing calls for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the games. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the only head of state to join with Mr. Bush and announce he’ll attend. Several world leaders have decided to skip the ceremony and many others remain undecided."Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also announced he won't be attending.
It's also been reported that Canada's federal cabinet is considering a full-out boycott of the games although Harper has doubts about the effectiveness of such a boycott.
Although it should be remembered that China, one of the world's worst polluters, also has smog problems that are making many athletes rethink participating in the first place.
"Of course, this whole scenario might have been prevented ages ago if the IOC had listened to those who argued against awarding the Olympic Games to China in the first place because of their human rights record.And here's your answer, Jack: fuck, yes they did. Oh, did they ever.
Here’s my question to you: Did the International Olympic Committee make a mistake awarding the summer games to China?"
Of course, it isn't as if they didn't have a choice. Bids from Paris, Osaka and Toronto were rejected in favour of the country that is currently the world's largest human rights abuser. (Istanbul, Turkey had also submitted a bid, but considering its own history in regards to its Armenian, Greek and Kurdish population it should have been rejected under the same principles that should have necessitated Beijing's rejection.)
It's truly amazing how quickly the International Olympic Committee was willing to toss aside the very principles they claim make it so important. On its website, the IOC insists "The Games have always brought people together in peace to respect universal moral principles."
Principles such as "it's wrong to torture your own citizens". Principles such as "it's wrong to oppress people for their religion". Principles such as "it's wrong to run your citizens over with tanks if they protest in favour of democracy".
You know, those universal moral principles. The very ones that then-IOC president Juan Samaranch deemed unimportant.
(He has since revealled that he hopes China will support Madrid's 2016 bid for the games -- a little quid pro quo, perhaps? Not much unlike the quid pro quo that cost Jamie Sale and David Pelletier their rightfully-earned Gold Medal in Salt Lake City?)So, yes. Awarding the Olympics to China was, to put it lightly, a massive fucking mistake. The tarnish it has left on the Olympic rings is one that Juan Samaranch, and those who voted with him, will ultimately have to answer for: if not before his colleagues at the IOC, then in the pages of history.
Of course, that's only the half of it. The protests are unsurprising. Anyone who knew about China's human rights record -- and we all know it came up during the selection process -- knew that these protests would happen.
If those protests alone, in hindsight, make it obvious the Olympics shouldn't have been elected to Beijing, then foresight had to say the same thing.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Not Quite the Voice of Reason
Prime Minister won't take further action on Lukiwski
It's unlikely that the scandal swirling around a Conservative MP and some homophobic comments he made on a video tape in 1991 will die a quiet death following a public apology and an announcement today that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be disciplining Lukiwski any further.
The tape -- as it has been played and re-played since being made public -- featured, among other things, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary Tom Lukiwski making some virulently homophobic comments (although, considering the party environment in which they were being made, can't quite be taken at full value, although they are nonetheless distressing).
"Let me put it to you this way -- there's As and Bs," Lukiwski explained. "The As are guys like me. The Bs are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases."
The tape, discovered by NDP staffers in their new offices in the Saskatchewan legislature, almost immediately made it public.
"Obviously I just found out in the last 30-40 minutes that some comments I made back in 1991 have been made public and I just want to publicly say I am truly, truly sorry," said Lukiwski. "I have the utmost respect, I have no prejudice against gay people whatsoever. Those comments do not reflect the type of person I am and I'm very, very sorry."
Of course, Lukiwski's professed "respect" for homosexuals is far from apparent in the comments he made on tape.
Naturally, Lukiwski's apology wasn't quite enough, even for those who demanded it in the first place. "Does the prime minister realize that his tepid response to these hateful remarks against gays and Canadians suffering from AIDS tells Canadians that hate, bigotry and prejudice are just fine in his Canada?" demanded Liberal MP (and former Progressive Conservative) Scott Brison.
"Does the prime minister not realize if he does not act on this matter, if he does nothing, then he owns it?" added Ralph Goodale.
Harper, on the other hand, wasn't buying any of that. "It is my view that when such an apology is sought, such an apology should be accepted," Harper announced.
Upon first consideration, it would seem that Harper is trying to be the voice of reason on this particular issue. But there are deeper considerations at hand; considerations which seem to escape him.
Of course, no one is suggesting that the Prime Minister should cave in every time the opposition attempts to make homophobia a partisan issue; especially considering the fact that it has afflicted all of Canada's major political parties.
But attitudes like Lukiwski's simply must be addressed. Continuing to count him among his government's inner circle after the public airing of such a tape is more than simply bad politics: it really does send the wrong message.
Unfortunately for Harper, his decision not to discipline Lukiwski any further does resemble tacit approval of the comments. Considering the increasingly fickle nature of modern politics, he needs to realize that the resemblance enough is sufficiently damning.
And while the increasingly unforgiving, partisan and bloodthirsty nature of the opposition -- demanding that he be sacked despite the fact that they already got what they claimed they really wanted in the first place -- cannot be discounted, sometimes discretion really is the better part of valour. This is one of those times.
While Stephen Harper would probably be among the first to consider himself the "voice of reason" on this topic, the fact is that he's fallen quite short of it on this occasion.
Lukiwski probably should be demoted in the wake of this scandal. It may only play into the hands of those who favour fickle politics, but it is politics nonetheless.
"The comments I made should not be tolerated in any society. They should not be tolerated today, they should not have been tolerated in 1991 and they should not have been tolerated in the years before that," Lukiwski himself announced.
While his apology may well have been perfectly sincere, actions speak louder than words -- a fact that Harper himself could stand to remember. If Harper won't remove him as Parliamentary Secretary, then Lukiwski should resign.
It's unlikely that the scandal swirling around a Conservative MP and some homophobic comments he made on a video tape in 1991 will die a quiet death following a public apology and an announcement today that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be disciplining Lukiwski any further.
The tape -- as it has been played and re-played since being made public -- featured, among other things, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary Tom Lukiwski making some virulently homophobic comments (although, considering the party environment in which they were being made, can't quite be taken at full value, although they are nonetheless distressing).
"Let me put it to you this way -- there's As and Bs," Lukiwski explained. "The As are guys like me. The Bs are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases."The tape, discovered by NDP staffers in their new offices in the Saskatchewan legislature, almost immediately made it public.
"Obviously I just found out in the last 30-40 minutes that some comments I made back in 1991 have been made public and I just want to publicly say I am truly, truly sorry," said Lukiwski. "I have the utmost respect, I have no prejudice against gay people whatsoever. Those comments do not reflect the type of person I am and I'm very, very sorry."
Of course, Lukiwski's professed "respect" for homosexuals is far from apparent in the comments he made on tape.
Naturally, Lukiwski's apology wasn't quite enough, even for those who demanded it in the first place. "Does the prime minister realize that his tepid response to these hateful remarks against gays and Canadians suffering from AIDS tells Canadians that hate, bigotry and prejudice are just fine in his Canada?" demanded Liberal MP (and former Progressive Conservative) Scott Brison."Does the prime minister not realize if he does not act on this matter, if he does nothing, then he owns it?" added Ralph Goodale.
Harper, on the other hand, wasn't buying any of that. "It is my view that when such an apology is sought, such an apology should be accepted," Harper announced.
Upon first consideration, it would seem that Harper is trying to be the voice of reason on this particular issue. But there are deeper considerations at hand; considerations which seem to escape him.
Of course, no one is suggesting that the Prime Minister should cave in every time the opposition attempts to make homophobia a partisan issue; especially considering the fact that it has afflicted all of Canada's major political parties.
But attitudes like Lukiwski's simply must be addressed. Continuing to count him among his government's inner circle after the public airing of such a tape is more than simply bad politics: it really does send the wrong message.
Unfortunately for Harper, his decision not to discipline Lukiwski any further does resemble tacit approval of the comments. Considering the increasingly fickle nature of modern politics, he needs to realize that the resemblance enough is sufficiently damning.
And while the increasingly unforgiving, partisan and bloodthirsty nature of the opposition -- demanding that he be sacked despite the fact that they already got what they claimed they really wanted in the first place -- cannot be discounted, sometimes discretion really is the better part of valour. This is one of those times.
While Stephen Harper would probably be among the first to consider himself the "voice of reason" on this topic, the fact is that he's fallen quite short of it on this occasion.
Lukiwski probably should be demoted in the wake of this scandal. It may only play into the hands of those who favour fickle politics, but it is politics nonetheless.
"The comments I made should not be tolerated in any society. They should not be tolerated today, they should not have been tolerated in 1991 and they should not have been tolerated in the years before that," Lukiwski himself announced.
While his apology may well have been perfectly sincere, actions speak louder than words -- a fact that Harper himself could stand to remember. If Harper won't remove him as Parliamentary Secretary, then Lukiwski should resign.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
As Close to a Boycott as We Should Get
Harper sitting Beijing Olympics out
With all the human rights-related protest in advance of this summer's Olympic games in China reaching a fever pitch, many continue to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.
Today, Canadians among them received news that Canada is going to get as close to that as it's going to get. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend the opening ceremonies.
"I would continue to urge China to respect human rights and peaceful protest, not just in Tibet but everywhere," Harper announced. "And I would also encourage the government of China to understand that its growing wealth, its growing profile in the world and of course the profile of the Olympics will put a greater and greater spotlight on its record in this regard."
"My strong advice would be to take these concerns seriously because I think they are likely to grow rather than diminish if we see a repetition of the current pattern."
Of course, it's a long way short of a full-out boycott, and many of those who have been calling for a boycott likely won't be satisfied by it.
But frankly those who are calling for the boycott just happen to be, conveniently, the people with the absolute least to lose from such a boycott. Put oneself in the shoes of an athlete who has been training their entire lifetime to pursue their Olympic dream, and it doesn't take long to figure out that denying these people their (likely) once in a lifetime opportunity simply wouldn't be right.
Harper sitting out the Beijing Olympics sends a message to China. Perhaps not as strong as message as many people would like, but a message nonetheless.
It's as close to a boycott as Canada is going to get, and those with a minimal personal investment in the Olympics should be satisfied with it. They likely won't be, but they should be.
With all the human rights-related protest in advance of this summer's Olympic games in China reaching a fever pitch, many continue to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.
Today, Canadians among them received news that Canada is going to get as close to that as it's going to get. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend the opening ceremonies.
"I would continue to urge China to respect human rights and peaceful protest, not just in Tibet but everywhere," Harper announced. "And I would also encourage the government of China to understand that its growing wealth, its growing profile in the world and of course the profile of the Olympics will put a greater and greater spotlight on its record in this regard."
"My strong advice would be to take these concerns seriously because I think they are likely to grow rather than diminish if we see a repetition of the current pattern."
Of course, it's a long way short of a full-out boycott, and many of those who have been calling for a boycott likely won't be satisfied by it.
But frankly those who are calling for the boycott just happen to be, conveniently, the people with the absolute least to lose from such a boycott. Put oneself in the shoes of an athlete who has been training their entire lifetime to pursue their Olympic dream, and it doesn't take long to figure out that denying these people their (likely) once in a lifetime opportunity simply wouldn't be right.
Harper sitting out the Beijing Olympics sends a message to China. Perhaps not as strong as message as many people would like, but a message nonetheless.
It's as close to a boycott as Canada is going to get, and those with a minimal personal investment in the Olympics should be satisfied with it. They likely won't be, but they should be.
More Found Documents: Captain Arsehole of the Blogosphere
Suddenly, it all makes sense
Now, suddenly over at the domain of Canada's most hateful douchebag, it's suddenly become unacceptable to make fun of people for how they look. (But only suddenly.)
One almost wonders why. Then, one remembers:
Yep. That's why.
He may now resume getting drunk and pissing himself.
Now, suddenly over at the domain of Canada's most hateful douchebag, it's suddenly become unacceptable to make fun of people for how they look. (But only suddenly.)
One almost wonders why. Then, one remembers:
Yep. That's why.
He may now resume getting drunk and pissing himself.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
No Joke: Air Farce to Make its Final Flight
Tarnished Canadian institution to be put out of its misery
When it was announced yesterday that the Royal Canadian Air Farce would be disbanding at the conclusion of an abbreviated 16th season, many people assumed it was nothing more than an April Fool's gag.
The date is now 2 April and it seems official: the Air Farce will dissolve following next season.
It seems someone in the CBC has finally resolved to put the show, a sad empty shell of its former self, out of its misery.
Believe it or not, there was a time when the Air Farce used to be funny. It used to be a weekly non-partisan send-up of our political leaders and Canadian culture in general.
Then guys like this guy got his hands on the show. Ever since then, the show has been on a not-so-gradual slide into gratuitous partisanship.
In the meantime, they did manage to find time to make fun of some Canadian culture they clearly never had time to get familiar with in the first place:
And go out of the way to malign our neighbors to the South:
(Ironically, the Canadian version of the show -- entitled Are You Smarter Than a Canadian Fifth Grader? -- is hosted by an Air Farce alumnus.)
It is sad to see the Air Farce going off the air. But considering the long, sad decline of the show, it might be for the best.
Those of us who loved the show back when it actually used to be good will try to remember the Air Farce the way it used to be: funny.
When it was announced yesterday that the Royal Canadian Air Farce would be disbanding at the conclusion of an abbreviated 16th season, many people assumed it was nothing more than an April Fool's gag.
The date is now 2 April and it seems official: the Air Farce will dissolve following next season.
It seems someone in the CBC has finally resolved to put the show, a sad empty shell of its former self, out of its misery.
Believe it or not, there was a time when the Air Farce used to be funny. It used to be a weekly non-partisan send-up of our political leaders and Canadian culture in general.
Then guys like this guy got his hands on the show. Ever since then, the show has been on a not-so-gradual slide into gratuitous partisanship.In the meantime, they did manage to find time to make fun of some Canadian culture they clearly never had time to get familiar with in the first place:
And go out of the way to malign our neighbors to the South:
(Ironically, the Canadian version of the show -- entitled Are You Smarter Than a Canadian Fifth Grader? -- is hosted by an Air Farce alumnus.)
It is sad to see the Air Farce going off the air. But considering the long, sad decline of the show, it might be for the best.
Those of us who loved the show back when it actually used to be good will try to remember the Air Farce the way it used to be: funny.
April 2008 Book Club Selection: The People's Machine, Joe Matthews
Arnold Schwarzenegger ushering in a new era of politicsArnold Schwarzenegger is, without a doubt, a marvel of modern politics. Moreover, he may be the first legitimate political pioneer politics has seen in decades.
Schwarzenegger's evolution in the public eye has been truly remarkable. From claiming the governorship of California with 48% of the popular vote (as one in a field of more than 100 candidates that also featured a porn star and a sumo wrestler) to inspiring public ridicule by calling on the people of California to be his "power lifters" to rebounding from a cataclysmic round of special initiative referendums to earn a glowing approval rating, Schwarzenegger has consistently shaken off low expectations to not only earn the respect of Democrats and Republicans alike, but defy stereotypes in such a way that he literally forced people worldwide to reimagine politics.
In The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Politics, Joe Matthews follows the governator's career from its humble beginnings as an Austrian bodybuilder/immigrant to one of the world's most famous people, to the defeat of his 2005 round of special elections.
In the meantime, Matthews provides those interested with a new blueprint for political success. What Theodore White's The Making of the President has been to the past thirty year's worth of would-be political visionaries The People's Machine will be to the next generation of political hopefuls.
Of course, not all of them will be able to actually use it.
As one would expect, Schwarzenegger's tale essentially begins during his reign as one of Hollywood's top draws -- although fame is a big part of it, it doesn't end there. Schwarzenegger's greatest asset, it turns out, is the revolutionary style in which he marketed his movies. It was during his time marketing such films as Terminator 2 and True Lies that Schwarzenegger stepped out from his rule as movie star and became the fully-fledged pitchman with the ability to sell himself to the entire state of California.
When Schwarzenegger finally made the decision to jump into politics, the skills he learned doing this time -- his skill with a deft soundbite and mastery of the art of spectacle -- served him well.
Those able to master the glitzy and polished salesmanship that has become Schwarzenegger's trademark and mix it with a candidate enjoying a considerable degree of fame will almost certainly have a good deal of success.
To prove that, one needs look no further than the success Warren Beatty and his closest counterpart, former Minnesota governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura for proof of that.
It's suggested over and over in the book that today's movie stars will be tomorrow's politicians. Whether or not this constitutes what one would consider a favorable state of affairs, one has to consider how politically active movie stars -- and celebrities in general -- have become and wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's true.
Should that happen, Schwarzenegger's governorship will almost certainly be looked to as a pivotal point in political history. Matthews' book will, in turn, be elevated to significant historical importance.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Dion Digging for the Wrong Dirt
Worse things than largely benign Reform policy afoot
In his naivete, Stephane Dion probably imagines he's finally hit that home run he's been itching for.
In debate over controversial new immigration rules contained, of all places, in the 2008 federal budget, Stephane Dion drug some old Reform party immigration policies back from history.
How far in history? About 20 years.
The document, written by Stephen Harper while he was still serving as the policy chief for the then-fledgling Reform party, outlined the party's immigration policy.
"[This] may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform party 20 years ago," Dion insisted.
Yet, then one has to look more closely at the "smoking gun" that Dion seems to think he's uncovered.
"Immigration should not be based on race or creed, as it has in the past; nor should it be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be," the document outlines.
The policy called for a number of changes to immigration policy, none of which are terribly malignant. It called for immigrants to have the necessary skills and training required by the job market. It insisted that immigration should serve an economic purpose. It suggested that family sponorships should be restricted to spouses and children under the age of 18 (parents, grandparents and extended family should be required to apply through regular channels). It also insisted that genuine refugees -- those who had legitimate cause to fear oppression -- be admitted to Canada.
The document also noted that the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution may have needed to be invoked in order to deal with illegal immigrants already landed in Canada -- something the government should be doing regardless.
The simple fact of the matter is that, whether supporters of the current government like to admit it or not, the current immigration bill is a failure of the big promise that the Conservative party campaigned on: accountability. More specifically, accountability's handmaiden, transparency.
One could not possibly argue that smuggling an immigration bill into a budget bill that anyone who's being paying attention over the past few months simply knew the Official Opposition wouldn't vote against represents anything even resembling transparency.
In all likelihood, one would have to expect the move was calculated in an attempt to avoid the criticism being directed at the party now.
It wasn't a wise decision. If anything, it only gives more ammunition to demagogues who want to insist the Conservative party has a hidden agenda. After all, it certainly looks that way.
It should be the lack of accountability and transparency that Dion is outraged about. Accusing a government that more than 400,000 foreigners into the country of having an anti-immigrant bias is simply too far off the mark.
In his naivete, Stephane Dion probably imagines he's finally hit that home run he's been itching for.
In debate over controversial new immigration rules contained, of all places, in the 2008 federal budget, Stephane Dion drug some old Reform party immigration policies back from history.
How far in history? About 20 years.
The document, written by Stephen Harper while he was still serving as the policy chief for the then-fledgling Reform party, outlined the party's immigration policy.
"[This] may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform party 20 years ago," Dion insisted.
Yet, then one has to look more closely at the "smoking gun" that Dion seems to think he's uncovered.
"Immigration should not be based on race or creed, as it has in the past; nor should it be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be," the document outlines.
The policy called for a number of changes to immigration policy, none of which are terribly malignant. It called for immigrants to have the necessary skills and training required by the job market. It insisted that immigration should serve an economic purpose. It suggested that family sponorships should be restricted to spouses and children under the age of 18 (parents, grandparents and extended family should be required to apply through regular channels). It also insisted that genuine refugees -- those who had legitimate cause to fear oppression -- be admitted to Canada.
The document also noted that the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution may have needed to be invoked in order to deal with illegal immigrants already landed in Canada -- something the government should be doing regardless.
The simple fact of the matter is that, whether supporters of the current government like to admit it or not, the current immigration bill is a failure of the big promise that the Conservative party campaigned on: accountability. More specifically, accountability's handmaiden, transparency.
One could not possibly argue that smuggling an immigration bill into a budget bill that anyone who's being paying attention over the past few months simply knew the Official Opposition wouldn't vote against represents anything even resembling transparency.
In all likelihood, one would have to expect the move was calculated in an attempt to avoid the criticism being directed at the party now.
It wasn't a wise decision. If anything, it only gives more ammunition to demagogues who want to insist the Conservative party has a hidden agenda. After all, it certainly looks that way.
It should be the lack of accountability and transparency that Dion is outraged about. Accusing a government that more than 400,000 foreigners into the country of having an anti-immigrant bias is simply too far off the mark.
And 'Lo and Behold: A Point Proven
Wow. They just. Don't. Get. It.
Some readers of the Nexus may recall yesterday's response to online hatemonger Canadian Cynic's "day of civility".
In the face of such a slap in the face to political discourse, it was necessary to point out that individuals like Canadian Cynic, who claim to be progressives, are not progressives.
Which, of course, drove good old Marty Rayner into a sputtering, incoherent rage. The truth really hurts, it would seem.
Considering the rebuking of his rage here at the Nexus, it's unsurprising that it would bubble over at his own blog, as henceforth:
Let's start with a "source" renouned for the content tampering that is known to occur.
This being noted, let's indulge Mr Rayner:
In other words, progressivism is meant to advance the interests of those who fall in between the economic elites and the revolutionary socialists and anarchists who insist on a complete overthrow of the system.
Sounds an awful lot like... what was that term, again? Oh, yeah. "Ordinary people".
Seems an awful lot like the very definition that I used. But in his simmering rage poor ol' Marty just isn't capable of reading between the lines.
Let's consider the comments of Eric Alterman, author of Why We're Liberals, who insisted "liberalism is the ideology, progressivism is the strategy."
Let's put Marty on a time out here for a couple of minutes so we can define "dynamic" for him:
Yes, that is much more descriptive than a politics that rejects elitism and acts in the interests of ordinary people. But the greatest hilarity is only yet to come:
But if Rayner wants to criticize people, then the onus is on him to be clear about what it is that he's actually criticizing. What he fails to understand is the greatest failures to this end vis a vis an ad hominem attack. Notably, that an "ad hominem attack is a fallacy:
In fact, in choosing to attack character instead of ideas, Rayner and Cynic actually offer a tacit admission that they can't. Ironically, the ideas they find so abhorrent come away from their criticisms stronger than before because of this, except in the minds of like-minded hatemongers.
So instead of debating ideas they settle for attacking character -- Rayner himself proves that in the course of his post. (One is also reminded about numerous challenges to debate the ideas instead of merely attacking the messenger, all of which went unanswered). In the process they clearly intend to exact such a personal toll on people whose ideas they abhor that these people will feel discouraged from expressing them.
In the end, Rayner just simply fails to comprehend the meaning of progress:
1. Whose goals should progressivism advance? Those of the largest number of people possible? Or merely his?
2. What kind of development or growth is fostered by a political discourse built upon the foundation of ad hominem attacks?
3. What kind of steady improvement of our society should we expect if entire groups of people are harassed out of participating in political discourse?
Well, there are some simple answers to be offered.
Certainly, progressivism could work toward only the goals of people like himself. Perhaps the development or growth would be something that he would be satisfied, but one has to consider the resentment that would bubble amongst the masses of people driven to the fringes and thus banished to permanent dissatisfaction with such development or growth. Could it really be considered a steady improvement if the society that Rayner envisions is built upon such a powderkeg?
One has to remember the thing about powderkegs: sparks tend to make them explode.
But then again, one also has to remember that the vicious and toxic discourse favoured by Marty and his compatriots would only lead our society to a place where only certain people -- the people with the so-called right ideas -- are allowed to participate in political debate.
This would not lead us toward a dynamic politics in which change is possible, but rather toward a stale politics in which change has been rendered impossible because the so-called wrong ideas have been forced out at the expense of intellectual pluralism.
This isn't progress. This is regression. Sadly, it's clearly the kind of politics that Martin Rayner envisions -- a world wherein political debate begins and ends with the word "retard" and there's little to no room for actual ideas.
But if Rayner wants to prove differently, the ball's in his court: start accepting the challenge to divest himself of ad hominem attacks and debate the ideas.
Unfortuantely, we know he won't. The ball may be in his court, but he's too scared to dribble it out.
He won't debate honestly. It's yet another reason why he isn't a progressive.
Some readers of the Nexus may recall yesterday's response to online hatemonger Canadian Cynic's "day of civility".
In the face of such a slap in the face to political discourse, it was necessary to point out that individuals like Canadian Cynic, who claim to be progressives, are not progressives.
Which, of course, drove good old Marty Rayner into a sputtering, incoherent rage. The truth really hurts, it would seem.
Considering the rebuking of his rage here at the Nexus, it's unsurprising that it would bubble over at his own blog, as henceforth:
"Doughy pantload and professional freeloader, oops, sorry… “sociology student”… Patrick Ross launches into yet another one of his painfully tiresome, windy and wholly ill-informed attacks on his nemesis and unrequited love-object, Canadian Cynic. This time he builds his ridiculous argument on the feeble contention that Cynic is not a “Progressive”…Oh, yes. Wikipedia. Sure, Marty. Let's start with a "source" that would net one a zero on any serious academic paper.
Oh dear, here we go again with semantic labels and ideological definitions. In this case, Patrick hangs his baseball cap on a short blurb from the obscure website of some undistinguished outfit called “The Progressive Living Foundation” that defines “progressivism” as follows:"…a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a phrase, progressivism champions government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’"Gee, could that be a little more vacuous or fluffy? One hardly thinks so. Let’s see if we can come up with something more edifying. Wikipedia is often a good place to start:"
Let's start with a "source" renouned for the content tampering that is known to occur.
This being noted, let's indulge Mr Rayner:
No duh, Marty, but let's not stop you from trying. After all, let's consider this further passage from the source originally cited:"…A general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers’ rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges."Of course “Progressivism” is a colossally broad, nebulous sort of term and therefore difficult to define with any precision."
"Economic elites emerge in every society and invariably seek to promote their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. By definition, economic elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain still greater wealth and influence."Hmmmm. So let's see, economic elites -- who also tend to be political and cultural elites -- impede progressive politics, which "represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents."
In other words, progressivism is meant to advance the interests of those who fall in between the economic elites and the revolutionary socialists and anarchists who insist on a complete overthrow of the system.
Sounds an awful lot like... what was that term, again? Oh, yeah. "Ordinary people".
Seems an awful lot like the very definition that I used. But in his simmering rage poor ol' Marty just isn't capable of reading between the lines.
"It’s interesting to note the vast array of disparate individuals deemed to be “progressives” in the Wikipedia entry; from Upton Sinclair to Thorstein Veblen, and Dennis Kucinich to Woodrow Wilson. But to put a somewhat finer point on matters, John Halpin, senior advisor at the Center for American Progress offers up this insight:Really, Marty? Do you really think so?“Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic.”Unfortunately, this sort of delicate attitudinal nuance is apparently incapable of penetrating Patrick’s fantastically dense mullet, resulting in him just moronically squawking the dimestore mantra that “Progressivism represents the interests of ordinary people.” Well, duh. What political movement doesn’t make similar claims?"
Let's consider the comments of Eric Alterman, author of Why We're Liberals, who insisted "liberalism is the ideology, progressivism is the strategy."
Let's put Marty on a time out here for a couple of minutes so we can define "dynamic" for him:
1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.According to this definition, which Rayner seems to favour, progressive politics "pertains to effective action" and "affects development or stability".
2. Physics.
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
4. of or pertaining to the range of volume of musical sound.
5. Computers. (of data storage, processing, or programming) affected by the passage of time or the presence or absence of power: Dynamic memory must be constantly refreshed to avoid losing data.
6. Grammar. nonstative.
–noun
7. a basic or dynamic force, esp. one that motivates, affects development or stability, etc.
Yes, that is much more descriptive than a politics that rejects elitism and acts in the interests of ordinary people. But the greatest hilarity is only yet to come:
"Following on from this stupendously dim revelation is a lot of cheap, utterly meaningless blather (over 800 words, all signifying nothing whatsoever) about “Cynic and his coterie of vicious hooligans” that don’t bear repeating or even skimming really, but behold this brilliant gem:The larger point that Marty seems to be missing is that no one is suggesting that he and his compatriots shouldn't be allowed to criticize individuals like Hilliard, McMillan, myself, or anyone else with whom they disagree."What either fail to recognize, or fail to admit, is that the freedom for those who disagree with them to express their views without fear of attack or harassment is part and parcel of a progressive social contract in which people -- each presumably as equal as the next -- are permitted to hold to hold their own opinions, recognize their own interests, organize in order to pursue their interests, and express their opinions in that regard."Yeah, well I’ll certainly keep that in mind when Frank Hilliard launches into his next spirited defense of the individual rights of people who choose to “pursue their interests” by driving whilst intoxicated or when he starts hysterically shrieking that Halal certification on certain lamb products is a sure sign that the imposition of Sharia Law by the treacherous Islamofascists in our midst is close at hand. Likewise, I’ll try to remind myself to be a little more sensitive to Kate McMillan the next time she endorses the “free speech” of a self-confessed “full time Nazi” who advocates the wholesale murder of homosexuals based on a commandment from Scripture."
But if Rayner wants to criticize people, then the onus is on him to be clear about what it is that he's actually criticizing. What he fails to understand is the greatest failures to this end vis a vis an ad hominem attack. Notably, that an "ad hominem attack is a fallacy:
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."If Martin Rayner and Canadian Cynic really find the ideas of Hilliard, MacMillan or myself so atrocious, then perhaps they could find it in themselves to dispute the ideas.
In fact, in choosing to attack character instead of ideas, Rayner and Cynic actually offer a tacit admission that they can't. Ironically, the ideas they find so abhorrent come away from their criticisms stronger than before because of this, except in the minds of like-minded hatemongers.
So instead of debating ideas they settle for attacking character -- Rayner himself proves that in the course of his post. (One is also reminded about numerous challenges to debate the ideas instead of merely attacking the messenger, all of which went unanswered). In the process they clearly intend to exact such a personal toll on people whose ideas they abhor that these people will feel discouraged from expressing them.
"Perhaps others can back me up on this, but the last time I glanced at my “Progressive” membership card, I don’t recall there being any requirement that I check my brains at the door and automatically subscribe to the ludicrous notion that all ideas and opinions are of equal merit."Certainly not. But one has to start with Martin Rayner and his "progressive membership card" -- he doesn't have one. He isn't a progressive.
"I forget the exact wording, but it may in fact even have suggested something to the contrary — that some ideas are catastrophically dumb and therefore quite deserving of being figuratively pilloried and mocked to death. Like say… much of the flatulent nonsense of Patrick Ross."Unsurprisingly, Rayner just doesn't get it. This shoudn't surprise anyone by now.
In the end, Rayner just simply fails to comprehend the meaning of progress:
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.It raises a number of questions vis a vis Martin Rayner:
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
1. Whose goals should progressivism advance? Those of the largest number of people possible? Or merely his?
2. What kind of development or growth is fostered by a political discourse built upon the foundation of ad hominem attacks?
3. What kind of steady improvement of our society should we expect if entire groups of people are harassed out of participating in political discourse?
Well, there are some simple answers to be offered.
Certainly, progressivism could work toward only the goals of people like himself. Perhaps the development or growth would be something that he would be satisfied, but one has to consider the resentment that would bubble amongst the masses of people driven to the fringes and thus banished to permanent dissatisfaction with such development or growth. Could it really be considered a steady improvement if the society that Rayner envisions is built upon such a powderkeg?
One has to remember the thing about powderkegs: sparks tend to make them explode.
But then again, one also has to remember that the vicious and toxic discourse favoured by Marty and his compatriots would only lead our society to a place where only certain people -- the people with the so-called right ideas -- are allowed to participate in political debate.
This would not lead us toward a dynamic politics in which change is possible, but rather toward a stale politics in which change has been rendered impossible because the so-called wrong ideas have been forced out at the expense of intellectual pluralism.
This isn't progress. This is regression. Sadly, it's clearly the kind of politics that Martin Rayner envisions -- a world wherein political debate begins and ends with the word "retard" and there's little to no room for actual ideas.
But if Rayner wants to prove differently, the ball's in his court: start accepting the challenge to divest himself of ad hominem attacks and debate the ideas.
Unfortuantely, we know he won't. The ball may be in his court, but he's too scared to dribble it out.
He won't debate honestly. It's yet another reason why he isn't a progressive.
FSIN: No Jews is Good Jews
Ahenakew, FSIN spared tough questions
If there's any big issue that faces Aboriginal Canadians today, it's probably still racism.
And so, this being the case, it's unsurprising today that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations today struck another blow against racism by reinstating David Akenahew to its senate.
Wait -- was that a blow against racism or a flow in favor of it? Oh, bother.
Akenahew, it turns out, is a known racist and anti-semite. In a December 2003 interview, Akenahew insisted that Hitler was "clean[ing] up the world" during the Holocaust when he "fried" millions of Jews, whom Akenahew referred to as a "disease".
FSIN Chief Lawrence Joseph insisted that every little thing's gonna be alright, as Akenahew apologized for the statements and allegedly never repeated them.
Except that he did.
During his 2005 trial, Akenahew continued to insist that Jews started the Second World War.
"So you still believe today, in 2005, that the Jewish people started the Second World War?" asked Crown Prosecutor Brent Klause.
"Yes," Akenahew agreed.
To make matters even more insulting, Doug Christie, Holocaust denier defender extraordinaire conjured the audacity to suggest that reporter James Parker should have been charged with a hate crime instead.
"Who distributed the allegedly hateful words?" Christie insisted. "If it had been Dr Ahenakew, no one else would have heard them other than him and Mr Parker. Mr Parker had a story that was the best he could hope for in his life."
In other words, don't blame his client for making the comments in the first place. Blame the tattle-tale. It's the classic bully's defence.
Christie argued that Ahenakew made the comments in the midst of a "private conversation", despite the fact that many of the reported comments were made during a press conference.
The Star Phoenix, meanwhile, has paid its own price for reporting the comments in the first place, as a reporter sent to cover the FSIN's press conference today was denied entrance.
"Having been forewarned about the possibility of being black-listed by the FSIN, I wasn't surprised at their decision to ban StarPhoenix reporter Betty Ann Adam from attending today's press conference," announced StarPhoenix editor Steve Gibb. "However, I was extremely disappointed that the FSIN would carry out such a petulant threat to shoot the messenger rather than simply having the fortitude to come clean and explain their highly questionable decision to reinstate David Ahenakew."
"First Nations people deserve better than to have their leaders respond like schoolyard bullies when asked to explain controversial actions taken behind closed doors without so much as any advance notice of their planned action," Gibb added.
One now has to wonder if all the condemnation of Akenahew's comments was merely feigned. The FSIN quickly accepted Akenahew's resignation. Now that Akenahew has had his conviction overturned, it seems they're all to eager to embrace him once again.
Today, the FSIN voted 43-3 in favour of reinstating Akenahew. To date only Chief Rowland Crowe, chairman of the FSIN Senate, has seen fit to resign.
"I think it's time right now that we need not the distractions but to deal with the real burning issues we have and we have a lot of them in our communities," he announced.
The FSIN has responded to all the criticism by insisting it has the right to run its organization as it sees fit. Apparently, it sees fit to count a known anti-semite amongst its leadership, and invite all the distraction that will entail.
In the process, they're blocking out the media, and refusing to answer the key questions that must be asked.
The Akenahew reinstatement is a farce, and leads one to wonder exactly how much of what has already transpired was, likewise, a farce.
If there's any big issue that faces Aboriginal Canadians today, it's probably still racism.
And so, this being the case, it's unsurprising today that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations today struck another blow against racism by reinstating David Akenahew to its senate.
Wait -- was that a blow against racism or a flow in favor of it? Oh, bother.
Akenahew, it turns out, is a known racist and anti-semite. In a December 2003 interview, Akenahew insisted that Hitler was "clean[ing] up the world" during the Holocaust when he "fried" millions of Jews, whom Akenahew referred to as a "disease".
"But ah, the Germans used to tell me, and I got to know them well because I played soccer against them and with them and so forth. But they used to tell me that you guys are blessed. What we know about the Indians in Canada. They are blessed. But that blessing is being destroyed by the, by your immigrants that are going over there. Especially the Jews, they say, you know. The Second World War was created by the Jews and the Third World War, whatever it is, right now that war ... that wages on Israel in the Arab countries. I was there too. But there’s gonna be a war because the Israelis and the “Bushies”, you know, the bully, the bully, the ah the bigot and so forth in the United States that tells you that if you’re not with me you are against me."In 2005 Akenahew was convicted of promoting hatred and was fined a whole $1000. In 2006 that conviction was overturned.
"The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. ... That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."
"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?"
FSIN Chief Lawrence Joseph insisted that every little thing's gonna be alright, as Akenahew apologized for the statements and allegedly never repeated them.
Except that he did.
During his 2005 trial, Akenahew continued to insist that Jews started the Second World War.
"So you still believe today, in 2005, that the Jewish people started the Second World War?" asked Crown Prosecutor Brent Klause.
"Yes," Akenahew agreed.
To make matters even more insulting, Doug Christie, Holocaust denier defender extraordinaire conjured the audacity to suggest that reporter James Parker should have been charged with a hate crime instead."Who distributed the allegedly hateful words?" Christie insisted. "If it had been Dr Ahenakew, no one else would have heard them other than him and Mr Parker. Mr Parker had a story that was the best he could hope for in his life."
In other words, don't blame his client for making the comments in the first place. Blame the tattle-tale. It's the classic bully's defence.
Christie argued that Ahenakew made the comments in the midst of a "private conversation", despite the fact that many of the reported comments were made during a press conference.
The Star Phoenix, meanwhile, has paid its own price for reporting the comments in the first place, as a reporter sent to cover the FSIN's press conference today was denied entrance.
"Having been forewarned about the possibility of being black-listed by the FSIN, I wasn't surprised at their decision to ban StarPhoenix reporter Betty Ann Adam from attending today's press conference," announced StarPhoenix editor Steve Gibb. "However, I was extremely disappointed that the FSIN would carry out such a petulant threat to shoot the messenger rather than simply having the fortitude to come clean and explain their highly questionable decision to reinstate David Ahenakew."
"First Nations people deserve better than to have their leaders respond like schoolyard bullies when asked to explain controversial actions taken behind closed doors without so much as any advance notice of their planned action," Gibb added.
One now has to wonder if all the condemnation of Akenahew's comments was merely feigned. The FSIN quickly accepted Akenahew's resignation. Now that Akenahew has had his conviction overturned, it seems they're all to eager to embrace him once again.
Today, the FSIN voted 43-3 in favour of reinstating Akenahew. To date only Chief Rowland Crowe, chairman of the FSIN Senate, has seen fit to resign.
"I think it's time right now that we need not the distractions but to deal with the real burning issues we have and we have a lot of them in our communities," he announced.
The FSIN has responded to all the criticism by insisting it has the right to run its organization as it sees fit. Apparently, it sees fit to count a known anti-semite amongst its leadership, and invite all the distraction that will entail.
In the process, they're blocking out the media, and refusing to answer the key questions that must be asked.
The Akenahew reinstatement is a farce, and leads one to wonder exactly how much of what has already transpired was, likewise, a farce.
My Lord But He's Stupid, Isn't He?
Canadian Cynic forgets the date, gloats prematurely
An amusing trend has emerged on the blogosphere today with various bloggers announcing retirement and other bloggers forgetting the date and engaging in some premature gloating.
Few of them, however, were more hilarious than Canadian Cynic, who managed to make a hypocrite of himself once again:
Cynic is referring to an episode in which Matthew, in the course of dealing with Garth Turner's outrage over Conservative MPs allegedly using their mailing budgets for partisan purposes when the Liberals were apparently doing the same thing.
During the course of that post, Matthew apparently made the error of stating, "thanks to a reader tip, we now know through Steve Janke’s work that Garth Turner is not only a hypocrite but a massive crook."
A statement which, when expressed as an alleged statement of fact (and not merely an opinion) does in fact border on libelous.
Now, on to the hypocrisy:
Consider this particular post, wherein he dismissed claims on behalf of Canadian officials that they had made either contact, or attempted to make contact, with Martin on approximately 100 occasions as "lies".
Unfortunately for Cynic these claims actually turned out to be true.
As such, his dismissal of those particular claims as "lies" would turn out to be libelous.
But we won't hold our breath waiting for a retraction on his part: that would seem an awful lot like honesty, and we all know he wouldn't want to develop that particular habit.
On more humourous fronts, however, it's now well passed noon and Matthew blogs on. Looks like not only are the reports of Matthew's demise exaggerated, but this particular joke's on Cynic.
Not unlike all the others.
An amusing trend has emerged on the blogosphere today with various bloggers announcing retirement and other bloggers forgetting the date and engaging in some premature gloating.
Few of them, however, were more hilarious than Canadian Cynic, who managed to make a hypocrite of himself once again:
"So long, Matthew. Don't forget to take the stupid with you when you go."
"I'm becoming perpetually amused by the fact that the very people who accuse me of profane intemperance are the same ones who can't seem to avoid legal grief for not knowing when to shut the fuck up."
Cynic is referring to an episode in which Matthew, in the course of dealing with Garth Turner's outrage over Conservative MPs allegedly using their mailing budgets for partisan purposes when the Liberals were apparently doing the same thing.
During the course of that post, Matthew apparently made the error of stating, "thanks to a reader tip, we now know through Steve Janke’s work that Garth Turner is not only a hypocrite but a massive crook."
A statement which, when expressed as an alleged statement of fact (and not merely an opinion) does in fact border on libelous.
Now, on to the hypocrisy:
Consider this particular post, wherein he dismissed claims on behalf of Canadian officials that they had made either contact, or attempted to make contact, with Martin on approximately 100 occasions as "lies".
Unfortunately for Cynic these claims actually turned out to be true.
As such, his dismissal of those particular claims as "lies" would turn out to be libelous.
But we won't hold our breath waiting for a retraction on his part: that would seem an awful lot like honesty, and we all know he wouldn't want to develop that particular habit.
On more humourous fronts, however, it's now well passed noon and Matthew blogs on. Looks like not only are the reports of Matthew's demise exaggerated, but this particular joke's on Cynic.
Not unlike all the others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
On Facebook
