Some may recall the witch hunt that ensued even after Canadian Minister of State for Science Gary Goodyear affirmed his belief in evolution.
Various ridiculous excuses have been offered for the continuing witch hunt well after such hysteria may have been warranted. Some attempted to argue that because Goodyear spoke about adaptation he wasn't talking about evolution -- some of those individuals ahve been forced to eat their words after admitting that not only is adaptation central to the process of evolution, but that the specific examples cited by Goodyear fit squarely within that context.
Another, particularly insipid, argument is that Goodyear merely accepts adaptation but not the common ancestry of species. This argument basically amounts to the argument that, because Goodyear didn't speak about common ancestry, he's a secret creationist.
But the most humourous argument raised was put forth by Wingnutterer and general Sycophantic Groupthink worshipper Zorpheous:
"One does not believe in Evolution, one either accepts it as the a Scientific fact, or at least as the best Scientific theory, or you don't. 'belief' is for the sky fairies.
I do not believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, I accept them as being fact and true (with in a Newtonian frame of reference). I accept The Laws of Thermodynamics as fact, no belief is required.
Also Goodyear's clarification demonstrates that he doesn't have a freaking clue about macro and micro evolution, and most like doesn't even under either and their place in complete Evolutionary Model.
In short, Goodyear only confirmed his ignorance."
The overwhelming stupidity of Zorpheous' argument is apparent almost immediately, the instant that one considers the meaning of the word believe.
It's amusing to hear someone who devotes so much of his time trying to label the entire conservative wing of the blogosphere as stupid insisting that one cannot "have confidence or faith in the truth" of a fact, or that one cannot accept a fact as "true or real".
Writing in an op/ed article in today's Globe and Mail Lawrence Martin has some poignant words about the Harper government's foreign policy.
He doesn't like it.
In Martin's opinion the Harper government's foreign policy has been much too confrontational, not committed enough to environmental issues, and too grounded in the present:
"Stephen Harper has been taking a lot of flack from his right-wing base. The red-meat eaters say he's a lousy excuse for a conservative. But, on this one, the base is off-base. On fiscal matters, the Prime Minister may have demonstrated a liberal side. In these tottering times, most every leader is doing that.
But look at the other indicators. Check the law-and-order fixation, the leisurely approach to the green file. And look at the record on foreign policy – Mr Harper has surely earned his hard-line stripes. Previous Conservative governments showed some progressive strains abroad. Not these Regressive Conservatives. With Russia, with China, in the Middle East, they harbour old confrontational attitudes. There's no new outreach as there is in Washington, no new thinking for new times."
Interestingly enough, as one continues to trudge their way through Martin's column one quickly notices how much Martin's new thinking is like the old thinking of Martin's beloved Chretien-era Liberal party.
"A month ago, there was that soft-sounding summit with President Barack Obama. It was barely over before the Conservatives tried to get Cold War juices flowing, accusing Moscow of encroaching on Canadian airspace with their bombers. Since the flights were in international airspace, the anti-Red rhetoric fizzled.
Mr Obama is trying a more reasoned approach with Moscow, as he is with Tehran. In Iran's case, he has opened the doors to dialogue and diplomacy. Not so Team Harper."
This, naturally, would depend on how one defines "reasoned".
One may ask Martin how "reasoned" it is to allow Russian bombers to skirt Canadian airspace, or how "reasoned" it is to allow Iranian prison guards to rape and beat Canadian citizens to death without so much as a hiccup in diplomatic relations between the two countries (the latter of the two propositions appears to be a core belief of the Michael Byers school of international relations).
For any country that values its national sovereignty, or expects foreign countries to respect its passports, neither of these propositions comes even remotely close to qualifying as a "reasoned" foreign policy.
"With regard to the hellhole at Guantanamo, Washington is moving to shut its doors. Conservatives in Canada – witness the case of Omar Khadr – have hardly had a bad word to say about the place."
Martin could perhaps also be troubled to note how few Conservatives have anything positive to say about Guantanamo Bay.
Beyond that, Martin should also keep in mind that the United States has some serious national security issues at stake in the trial of various detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
The Harper government has been waiting for the Obama administration to decide how it wants to proceed on the matter of these detainees, and waiting for the Obama administration to ask it to take Khadr off of their hands.
If anything, Obama has been dragging its feet on the Khadr case -- which will ultimately decide whether or not individuals like Khadr should be treated as child soldiers are terrorists -- Martin's complaint rings hollow in the echo of his high words for Obama.
"Traditionally, Canadian governments pursue disarmament. A good question is whether there's ever been such silence on nuclear proliferation and arms stockpiling as we've had from Team Harper. It's like it's not a problem."
Meanwhile, Martin may want to take note of the fact that the Cold War -- and the looming threat of nuclear holocaust -- is over. And it was Martin's favoured Liberal party that was in charge while Pakistan and India were developing and testing nuclear weapons.
"Much has been written about our exceedingly slow boat to China. The PM can't seem to shake off old attitudes. He has yet to even visit the Middle Kingdom, despite its gigantic stature in the world economy."
While Harper's to-date failure to visit China is absolutely free game for criticism, one also has to remember that Harper's approach to China has proven superior than that of his predecessors, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.
Harper hasn't allowed economic concerns to dissuade him from addressing China's atrocious human rights record. Chretien was notorious for being unable to even utter the words "human rights" in regards to China.
"In the Middle East, Ottawa has often taken a commendable pro-Israeli tilt. But our government has never been entirely one-sided. The Harper Conservatives have ended that tradition, becoming practically more pro-Israeli than Israel. They make no effort to bridge the Middle East divide. In the House of Commons this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon sneered at Liberal critic Bob Rae for making a stopover in Syria on a recent trip. Mr Rae, a supporter of Israel, was trying to gain an understanding of other points of view. Mr Cannon should try it some time. Couldn't hurt."
At the same time, however, if one is looking for fresh perspective on Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians, one may want to look somewhere other than Syria, with its own incredibly questionable record regarding the treatment of Palestinians.
"In their most recent Jurassic Park vignette, the government barred George Galloway, the gadfly British MP, from entering Canada. This move found even some of the PM's most ardent supporters opposed. It followed an entry ban in January issued against William Ayers, an American advocate of violence in the 1960s who has since become a distinguished professor of education sought after by dissertation committees at Canadian universities. The Harper government continues to deport American conscientious objectors to the Iraq war."
George Galloway is a strange hill for any left-wing thinker to choose to die on.
Does he really want someone who accepts money from Saddam Hussein admitted to Canada? How about someone who donates money to Hamas? In the casea of Bill Ayers, how about someone who plots terrorist activities against his own government -- a government that is, by the way, Canada's most important ally.
Martin may also want to keep in mind that the conscientious objectors being deported back to the United States are not draftees, as was the case during the Vietnam war, and that many of them enlisted after the Iraq war began. Last but not least, current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has already ruled out supporting American war resisters in their bid to remain in Canada.
"On Afghanistan, the PM is showing some well-advised flexibility, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay has earned some plaudits. But, by and large, Ottawa is ignoring causes for which it would usually be engaged. Africa is largely forgotten. In Darfur, the International Criminal Court is pursuing a sitting head of state in connection with genocide. But as former justice minister Irwin Cotler points out, Canada – a force in creating the ICC – has shown little interest. The same, he says, is the case in Rwanda, where our foreign assistance for the indemnification of the horrors of 15 years ago has been cut."
The Sudan is an important situation for Canada to address.
But at the same time, Canada cannot be everywhere at once. Canada's foreign policy must focus on places where it has concrete interests -- be it security, economic or otherwise -- at stake. With few of those interests at play in Darfur and Canada fully engaged in Afghanistan, Canada has very few resources to devote.
"The Conservatives are in the midst of slashing the foreign affairs budget by $639-million from 2007 levels, while increasing spending on the military by $2.4-billion. If their creed is that guns trump diplomacy, it is being well-heeded."
Diplomacy remains as important as it ever was.
But Martin needs to remember that there are many things that diplomacy simply cannot accomplish. Whether he likes it or not, guns are sometimes very necessary.
"Criticism comes not only from opposition parties but from the likes of a former Conservative foreign minister, David Emerson, who cites our failures to appreciate and exploit Canada's place in the world. While other Conservative governments, particularly that of Brian Mulroney, showed a more open-minded side, today's government keeps its eyes wide shut.
On fiscal matters, it may be that our PM has become more moderate. But as for world affairs, there's clearly no need for his party's hard-liners to be rolling over in their caves."
Lawrence Martin has evidently chosen to take a very limited view to Canada's foreign policy, it's international interests, and how best to achieve them.
More than simply a monster merger in the energy industry, the merger also marks the final closure on a long chapter of Canadian history.
Petro-Canada was founded in 1975 as part of Pierre Trudeau's scheme to partially nationalize the Canadian oil industry. It was founded in 1973 as a response to the quadrupling of world oil prices. Working in close cooperation with the NDP -- who actually tabled the bill to create the company -- the Liberals created the company, and placed more stringent controls on it than was usual for a crown corporation. The goal was to use the company as a policy tool.
The company was also the beneficiary of a surcharge at all the country's gas pumps, which was used to finance Petro-Canada buyouts of foreign-owned oil companies.
When Joe Clark arrived in office in 1979, his first goal was to eliminate this surcharge -- a goal he attempted to achieve in his ill-fated first budget. However, Clark also proposed an 18% tax on gasoline as a deficit-fighting measure. The Liberal party officially insisted that they defeated Clark's government over this fuel tax hike.
But Trudeau had also warned Clark against dismantling Petro-Canada. His proposed elimination of the Petro-Canada surcharge seemed to be a prelude to dismantling the company.
When Trudeau, returned to government, introduced the National Energy Program in 1980, Petro-Canada was used to administer it, making the company even more unpopular in Western Canada -- particularly in Alberta.
In 1991 Brian Mulroney finally began to privatize the company. Now, only a regulatory approval by Stephen Harper's government stands between Petro-Canada and its absorption into Suncor.
It's taken 20 years and the efforts of three different Prime Ministers to finally ferry Petro-Canada into the turning pages of history, but the task has finally been finished.
As controversy surrounding the Winston Blackmore case continues it heat up, it seems that the governing Conservative party may envoke the notwithstanding clause in order to maintain polygamy as a criminal offense in Canada.
Blackmore's lawyer has publicly announced that he'll cite the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and through it the constitution -- in order to defend Blackmore and his co-accused, Jim Oler.
Memos obtained through the Access to Information Act suggest that the Tories will not allow this to happen.
"Canadians of all backgrounds share some basic values, like a belief in human dignity, equality between men and women and the rule of law. It is these values that unite us as Canadians," states one of the memos prepared for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. "The practice of polygamy represents a clear challenge to those unifying values."
Ironically, many were fearful that the Conservative party would envoke the notwithstanding clause to outlaw same-sex marriage. They didn't. But Blackwell's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, actually envoked same-sex marriage as a reason for polygamy's acceptability.
"It's pretty hard to justify why gay marriage is OK and polygamy's not," Suffredine mused.
And while many social conservatives will point to Suffredine's rationale as evidence that same-sex marriage does indeed undermine traditional marriage in Canada, the hysteria is at lest partially just that: hysteria.
Frankly, there's nothing wrong with polygamy when it's practiced between consenting adults. Polygamy itself isn't the problem.
The state really doesn't have much business intervening in polygamist marriages unless either of these two conditions is present.
In focusing on polygamy itself, the Conservatives have missed the real problem. Unless a polygamist man's wives are underage or not consensually married to him, cracking down on polygamists very much is religious intolerance.
There's certainly something ironic about being told the Conservative party "is not your grandfather's party" by someone old enough to be almost anyone's grandfather.
Yet that was the scene at a recent Conservative party fundraiser in Wendover, Ontario when Conservative Senator Mike Duffy promoted his party as the party of the future.
“The Conservative Party is not your grandfather’s party, it is the party that will take Canada into the future," Duffy announced. "You have many achievements to be proud of.”
Duffy alluded to a few specifically: Canada's first Muslim MP, Canada's first black MP, Canada's first female Cabinet Minister, and the first French-Canadian Governor General.
It's true that the Conservative party has accomplished far more than it tends to get credit for. Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker eliminated racial criteria from Canadian immigration policies. Fellow Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was instrumental in leading the international charge against South African apartheid.
Yet Duffy's insistence that the Conservatives are the party of tomorrow falls fairly hollow when one considers that the party doesn't have a youth wing.
It does have various campus organizations at Universities across the country, but there's little question that the party is neglecting to develop the talents of its youngest members and supporters.
Certainly Preston Manning's Manning Centre for Building Democracy does a lot of valuable work in this regard for Canadian conservatism in general. Furthermore, the Tories do have a number of rising young stars in their caucus, both in the House of Commons and the Senate.
But if the Conservative party wants to be the party of tomorrow, it needs to start building for tomorrow today. A national organization would allow young Conservatives to gain valuable experience in the party and begin the arduous climb up the party ranks.
The Liberal party and NDP both have youth organizations to build for the future. In not having such an organization the Tories have placed themselves at a distinct disadvantage.
If the Conservative party wants to escape the fate of being the Grandfather's party of Canada it needs to start incorporating its grandsons and granddaughters into its organizations.
The establishment of a youth wing would be a pivotal start.
If there's anything everyone knows about Fox News personalities, it's that they know how to keep things classy.
When they aren't berating their guests and cutting off their microphones, they tend to indulge themselves in the kinds of shit shows seen on Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye recently, wherein Gutfeld and his guests mocked the Canadiam armed forces.
While Canadians mourned the loss of another four soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Gutfeld and his guests took to poking fun at the idea that the Canadian forces may need to take an operation sabbatical from the region.
"Once their Afghan mission winds down sometime in 2011, certain members of the Canadian military are looking to take a much-deserved break. And by certain members I mean all of them," Gutfeld said. "Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants."
North of the border, no one has found Gutfeld and his ignorant cohorts funny. And rightfully so.
"It's crass, it's insensitive, it's in fact disgusting given the timing where Canada is just receiving back four fallen heroes here at CFB Trenton," MacKay fumed. "There should be an apology -- to the families in particular, and to the Canadian Forces and to Canada generally -- given the sacrifice and the commitment that we've demonstrated in Afghanistan."
"What could anybody with common sense say about his kind of trash? It's ignorant, it's inappropriate, it's insulting," added Conservative strategist Geoff Norquay. "It's insulting to the 116 Canadian troops who have given their lives and paid the supreme sacrifice while we've been in Afghanistan."
Gutfeld has responded by issuing a less-than-heartfelt apology.
"I realize that my words may have been misunderstood," he wrote in a statement. "It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize. Red Eye is a satirical take on the news, in which all topics are addressed in a lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner."
This follows an earlier twitter in which Gutfeld mused "My apologies to the Canadian military, they probably could at least beat the Belgians."
Gutfeld's apology has gotten a lukewarm response from some Canadians.
"I think it's very nice and all that they did apologize. It just goes to show you that they were just a bit reckless, I guess," said Jim Davis, the father of slain soldier Corporal Paul Davis, and a man who has worked tirelessly to help drum up support for the mission.
"It's a very solemn moment," Davis said of the arrival of Canada's most recent fallen. "When you look at the seriousness of that moment, and you look at the foolishness of those comedians, well, what a difference."
"It was total ignorance, poor taste and wasn't funny at all," Davis said about the comments themselves.
Getting an apology -- even a rather disengenuous one -- out of a Fox News personality is no short order. Canadians should feel at least some measure of satisfaction, although it's only a matter of time until some other idiot at Fox opens their mouth and says something stupid again.
Instead, it seems that the move may have been a prelude to some smaller reforms.
Among some of the reforms being considered include a proposal to abolish the $4,000 property ownership requirement, as suggested by Liberal Senator Tommy Banks. Conservative Senator Hugh Segal believes Senate proceedings should be televised. Bert Brown and David Oliver are suggesting reforms to the Senate committee system and possibly even abolishing question period in the Senate (certainly a questionable move).
With 18 new Senators in the ranks, however, Harper and the Conservatives certainly have renewed strength in the Senate to help push through their reform agenda.
But if renewing efforts to institute Senate elections and term limits isn't on the Harper government's immediate agenda, they'd better get on with it.
Alberta's senators in waiting Link Byfield and Betty Unger have been touring the country urging provincial leaders to choose their recommendations for future Senators before any future appointments can be made -- or before the Tories lose office.
Being suspended from the Canadian Senate has proven to be quite lucrative for formerly Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne.
Over the last two years Lavigne, who was expelled from the Liberal caucus over accusations of using Senate resources for personal gain and later placed on a pseudo-suspension after being charged by the RCMP, has collected his his total salary of $130,400 a year.
The charges stem from an incident in which Lavigne was accused of using a Senate staffer to cut down trees on his property in Lakefield, Quebec.
Since then Lavigne has been under an informal suspension. He was asked to not report for work in the Senate. His absences have been credited as "public business" (which one presumes involves mowing his own damned lawn), and as such is attendance record in the Senate is actually being treated as perfect.
If the proper penalty for his absence were applied a penalty of $250 per day would have been applied after 21 days of absence. (Interestingly, if non-sitting days were counted, a full year's absence would still leave Lavigne collecting nearly $40,000 per annum.)
"This guy is a disgrace," said Canadian Taxpayers Federation federal director Kevin Gaudet. "[He] is a poster child of the need for elected senators and accountability in politics."
Liberal Senataor Joan Fraser disagrees. "In this country you are presumed innocent until proven otherwise," she explains, objecting that it wouldn't have been fair to deny pay to a Senator not yet convicted of a criminal offence.
What Fraser is seemingly forgetting is that a June 2006 Senate committee determined that Lavigne had, indeed, misused Senate resources, and ordered him to repay $23,666. The committee itself referred the matter to the RCMP for further investigation.
If the Senate was able to determine that evidence was sufficient enough to order Lavigne to repay the funds it doesn't take a significant leap of the imagination to consider that Lavigne should have been suspended outright for his actions and denied his pay.
Raymond Lavigne should have been outright suspended from the Senate when the RCMP pressed crominal charges against him. If the rules regarding the suspension of Senators was prohibitive, as Conservative Senator Consiglio Di Nino suggests, then these rules are simply another example of the reform so desperately needed in the upper chamber.
Warning: the following post contains significant spoilers about the film The Watchmen. Those still interested in seeing this film should consider themselves forewarned.
As time passes since the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons have drifted further and further from the human imagination.
Since the prospect of nuclear holocaust has become a thing of the past the perceived relevance of nuclear weapons to international affairs has diminished.
The recent release of The Watchmen -- originally written by Alan Moore during the Cold War -- may inspire the reemergence of nuclear weapons back into the human imagination.
The ticking of the doomsday clock hangs heavily over The Watchmen. Woven immaculately in with the film's plot against the hunt for a hero killer is a plot about an alternate history Cold War in which the fate of the world hangs over jockeying between the United States and the Soviet Union over Afghanistan.
In this history, Richard Nixon has been elected President for three consecutive terms -- despite the unconstitutionality of the proposition -- the United States won the war in Vietnam, and Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup) keeps a protective vigil over the world, wielding powers that conceivably allow him to avert a nuclear war.
Dr Manhattan essentially represents the ultimate Doomsday weapon. Throughout the film, he is credited with preventing the Soviet Union from carrying out the full extent of its ambitions for fear of the United States launching a nuclear reprisal with near impunity.
To emulate the language used in Dr Strangelove -- and reiterated by Freeman Dyson in Weapons and Hope -- Dr Manhattan presents both a doomsday gap and a superhuman gap which the Soviet Union cannot fill. The United States even uses him to win the Vietnam war -- many of the Viet Cong insist on surrendering to him personally, believing him to be a god.
This sentiment is echoed by a nuclear scientist in the film who insists that "...'God exists and he's American'."
However, he takes that sentiment to a logical conclusion when he adds, "If that statement starts to chill you after a couple of moments' consideration, then don't be alarmed. A feeling of intense and crushing religious terror at the concept indicates only that you are still sane."
In many ways, the existence of an interventionist God could -- and maybe even should -- terrify even the most faithful religious believer. The notion of God as a citizen or even partisan of any particular country should be considered even more terrifying.
The film presents Dr Manhattan as humanity's only hope -- the one thing that prevents the two most powerful forces on the planet from unleashing nuclear armageddon upon the planet. Dr Manhattan replaces the doctrine of MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction -- with a doctrine of Unilaterally Assured Protection.
Yet the principle of Unilaterally Assured Protection does nothing to avert nuclear proliferation. If anything, UAP encourages further proliferation. As a fictional version of Eleanor Clift notes at the start of the film the idea that Dr Manhattan will prevent nuclear holocaust provides both Cold War beligerents with the motivation to make an open-ended commitment to nuclear proliferation.
The United States can do so secure in the notion that, if a nuclear war were to occur, they could expect Dr Manhattan to protect them first. The Soviet Union can be expected to do so out of fear -- hoping that they can build enough bombs to overwhelm Manhattan and the United States in a preemptive strike and destroy the entire American nuclear arsenal before it can be launched in retaliation.
(Although it's imporant to note that the nuclear doctrine of each country -- Soviet doctrine allowing for first strike but not first use of nuclear weapons and American doctrine allowing for first use of nuclear weapons but not first strike -- could have been expected to prevent such an outcome, provided they do not change.)
Even under Manhattan's protection, as Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) notes, there are no guarantees. Even if Dr Manhattan stops 99% of the bombs, the remaining 1% would still kill every living thing on Earth.
It's worth noting that Dr Manhattan's promise of Unilaterally Assured Protection renders him akin to the Strategic Defense Initative -- the United States' proposed anti-nuclear missile shield. Freeman Dyson noted that techologies such as SDI led to three possible futures: an arms control future, a technical follies future, and a "live and let live" future.
In the real world, American commitment to the SDI led to enhanced tensions between the United States and Soviet Union that led to renewed commitment to anti-proliferation and arms reduction treaties.
In Watchmen, however, Dr Manhattan -- the god-like missile shield in human form -- upsets the delicate balance of power maintained in the real-world Cold War. Yet what emerges isn't an arms control future, a technical follies future (the extent of Dr Manhattan's power renders him immune to technical folly) nor a "live and let live" future.
Instead, Dr Manhattan's existence leads to a desperate future in which each side measures their ability to sneak enough atom bombs through the protective shield to annhiliate the other side.
The existence of the ultimate deterrent -- Unilaterally Assured Protection -- does nothing to reduce tensions.
But protection which is unilaterally assured can also be unilaterally withdrawn. Resultingly, humanity would be faced by a continuing need to ensure that Dr Manhattan continues to care about humanity. But there is no guarantee that anything that powerful would continue to care. It most certainly wouldn't need to.
When Dr Manhattan and Silk Spectre (Malin Ackerman) split up, Manhattan retreats to Mars where he indulges himself in the watch building exploits of his past.
With his last human link to the world severed, Dr Manhattan seems to feel no more motivation to protect the world. The protection he once unilaterally assured is now unilaterally withdrawn.
In the absence of the ultimate deterrent, the Soviet Union makes their move on Afghanistan. In response Nixon sets a two-day deadline for Dr Manhattan's return -- something considered akin to setting a deadline for God's intervention -- after which Nixon will give the order to launch a nuclear barrage of the Soviet Union.
In the end, Adrian Veidt seems to conclude that the only way out of the dilemma is to convince both sides to become united in their terror of Dr Manhattan -- something akin to uniting rival believers in terror of God. Oddly enough, Dr Manhattan reaches agreement with him. One could only wonder if an interventionist God would be so generous.
It seems that members of Canada's "peace" movement attending Monday's Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar conference in Toronto will be disappointed. One of their star speakers, British RESPECT unity coalition MP George Galloway won't be admitted into Canada for the event.
According to Immigration and Citizenship Canada -- the department headed by Jason Kenney -- Galloway has been ruled inadmissable due to his sympathy for the Taliban and for financially supporting Hamas, which appears on Canada's black list of terrorist organizations.
Clearly, the latter issue is of much greater import than his sympathies for the Taliban. While his financial support of a terrorist organization does and should give one pause, it's also believed by a vast majority of Canadians that our country stopped holding one's sympathies against them when the Cold War passed into the pages of history.
If he has any reservations about what the Taliban did when they were in control of Afghanistan -- oppressing women, ethnically cleansing portions of the country and destroying other culture's religious iconography -- or the things they would do if allowed to return to power, he's certainly kept them to himself.
But in Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms supports one's right to freedom of conscience and belief. Our government is expected not to bar people from entering the country based on their beliefs unless it poses a threat to the country.
Galloway has donated thousands of British pounds to Hamas. This makes barring him from the country more palatable on legal grounds, but it really doesn't make him much of a threat.
"This decision, gazetted in Rupert Murdoch's Sun, is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved – a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending," Galloway insisted. "This has further vindicated the anti-war movement's contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are."
"This may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over," he continued. "All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision."
Many Canadians will certainly oppose this decision, and they won't be wrong to do so.
Then again, there are some who will argue that someone who financially supports terrorists should be barred from entering the Country.
That being said, Galloway doesn't pose much of a threat to Canada. While barring him sends a strong message to those who financially support terrorism, it does little to make Canada more or less secure.
George Galloway is not much of a threat to Canada.
Of all the conservative leaders staring down the barrel of a deepening economic crisis, few have more reason to sweat than California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
When Schwarzenegger won the 2003 recall election replacing then-incumbent Governor Gray Davis he did so with widespread public support for two ballot propositions. One, Proposition 57, authorized the government to borrow $15 billion to pay off operating deficits. The other, Proposition 58, required the government of California to run balanced budgets.
Schwarzenegger has already had to address significant challenges in his tenure. Perhaps the most threatening was a confrontation with California teachers wherein circumstances forced him to abandon a deal he had struck with teacher's unions.
The deal allowed Schwarzenegger to cut $2 billion from the state's education budget in order to make up for shortfalls in state revenues related to an economic downturn. In exchange, Schwarzenegger promised not to challenge a law guaranteeing annually increasing funding for kindergarten through grade 12 and to restore the money in the next year's budget.
California's economy failed to improve, forcing him to abandon his promise under peril of running a deeper deficit.
The episode led to confrontations with nurses' and firefighters' unions and halved Schwarzenegger's approval ratings.
Schwarzenegger found his political capital depleted and was unable to successfully front several other ballot measures, although he still managed to get reelected with a greater portion of the popular vote in 2006 (it helped that he didn't have to compete against another Republican).
Now, Schwarzenegger is pushing six ballot initiatives that would help him deal with California's deficit. Among other things, the initiatives would cap state spending based on the state's revenue between 1998 and 2008, institute a new rainy-day fund, and borrow against various state programs, including state lottery earnings.
Schwarzenegger is facing opposition from state legislators who worry that his measures would handcuff the state of California in addressing future needs. They also worry about the risk inherent in borrowing against future lottery earnings, considering that there are no guarantees that lottery earnings will match Schwarzenegger's borrowing.
Schwarzenegger is pushing the initiatives as part of a broad approach to balancing the budget.
"Those who say we could have balanced the budget through spending cuts alone are guilty of political cynicism at its worst. Those are not serious people," Schwarzenegger recently said. "Those who say we could balance the budget through tax increases alone reveal their total economic ignorance and lack of math skills. Their grasp of economics must come from living on a hippie commune or something like that".
Schwarzenegger's approach to balancing his state budget is a delicate balancing act, but one that keeps in mind that economic health depends on long-term balanced budgets, even if that has to be accomplished at the expense of short-term deficits.
Schwarzenegger has always proven to be a flexible conservative, carefully bridging pragmatic fiscal policies with socially liberal policies such as support for stem cell research.
Schwarzenegger feels optimistic about his opportunities for success.
"Sacramento may be an immovable object, but together we can be an irresistible force," Schwarzenegger mused. "With this reform, we can regain control over our budget."
If Schwarzenegger can indeed get a handle on California's economic situation he could supplant Ronald Regan as North America's model conservative, and conservatism would be the better for it.
"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Goodyear explained.
"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. I think we need to recognize that we don't know," Goodyear later added -- a comment that some individuals have jumped upon as apparent proof that Goodyear believes in creationism.
"I didn't answer the question because it's not relevant to the portfolio, it's not relevant to what we have to do, [to] what Canadians are worried about," Goodyear explained on CTV. "It's unfortunate a reporter has chosen to take this as something of interest when in fact the focus should be on ...creating jobs and securing our economic future."
"The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong," Goodyear added.
When asked in that interview whether or not he believes in evolution, Goodyear confirmed his belief.
"Of course, I do," he said. "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun ...or to the effects of walking on concrete. Of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant."
Many of the most intellectually dishonest among those who are out for Goodyear's head are insisting that Goodyear's latter comments reflect an understanding of adaptation, not evolution.
Unshockingly, theusualsuspects think they have a real winner on their hands.
As usual, they'll ignore facts -- and apparently even bastardize the theory of evolution -- in order to enjoy a hollow triumph.
Canadians who aren't indulging themselves in willful ignorance will recognize Goodyear's comments for precisely what they are: affirmation of his belief in evolution.
With a provincial election just around the corner, the Canadian Office and Professional Employees union is gearing up to take a serious run at Liberal BC Premier Gordon Campbell.
Their message for BCers is actually a simple one: Gordon Campbell may possibly hate you.
In an ad recently uploaded to YouTube, COPE seems to poke fun at some of bombastic messages of amateur political ads. An obnoxiously-loud voice asks "did you know", then lists off a litany of imaginary Campbell offenses -- trying to "kill your grandma", "is fighting a secret war against wild salmon and river otters", and "eats children" while a more moderate and evidently skeptical voice questions the assertions, although noting that Campbell has closed down hospitals, approved hydro-electric development and ignored child poverty.
A myriad of poorly-photoshopped images flash by on the screen, including one of Campell firing a gun off into the air while flames engulf fish and otters.
Yet at the end of the ad, the one assertion that seems reasonable is that "Gordon Campbell hates you".
"Hmmmm," the narrator's seemingly-more moderate foil muses. "That actually seems reasonable, based on everything he's done so far."
"Maybe everyone should be asking 'does Gordon Campbell hate you?'" he concludes.
While it clearly has an amusing edge to it, the ad's conclusion clearly falls well short of its evident goal of parodying childish political rhetoric. When the ad concludes that all BCers should wonder if Campbell hates them, the ad's attempt to counter-brand Gordon Campbell as antithetical to the ads' evident targets values instead embraces that childish rhetoric.
The ad is reminiscent of the Albertans for change ads -- which were bankrolled by Alberta unions -- in which some "ordinary Albertans" were shown professing distrust for Premier Ed Stelmach with smiles on their faces.
The ads were a flop, as Stelmach was reelected with a dominant majority government.
COPE's ironically petulant anti-Campbell ad could turn out having the same effect. This, along with CUPE's recent anti-Israel debacles and then-CAW President Buzz Hargrove's 2006 self-humiliation, is just another reason why labour unions should leave political campaigning to those who know how to do it.
Hilarious addendum - It's amazing what can turn up in the "related videos" section:
As Canadians look ahead to the 2011 withdrawal from Aghanistan, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal is looking ahead to a potential influx of Afghan immigrants to Canada.
Segal is calling on the government of Canada -- whoever that may be in 2011 -- to give Afghans who have helped Canadian forces preferential treatment when considering applications for immmigration.
"It is important for us to signal as a country ...that we understand that a lot of Afghans have taken a lot of risks to help our forces," Segal mused. "It's very important they know we have no intention of leaving them behind."
Segal is reportedly preparing a motion calling on the government to "develop and implement a program to facilitate the settlement in Canada of Afghan nationals who have helped Canada during our engagement in Afghanistan."
Which isn't a bad idea, but it does have two problems with it.
First off, 2011 remains two years off. If a purported American surge in Afghanistan has the same overall positive effects as it had in Iraq, Canada may yet be able to leave a stable Afghanistan behind when if leaves, with little need to absorb a mass of refugees.
Secondly, it's well known that there are, indeed, unsavoury elements in the Afghan government. Afghans who have been involved with former warlords could attempt to use such policies in order to enter Canada. Any Afghans who've been deeply involved with the Afghan heroin trade, for one thing, should certainly be refused entry to Canada under any circumstances.
But for those law-abiding Afghans who've helped Canadian forces and wish to come to Canada at any point in the near future -- not merely post-2011 -- preferential immigration policies aren't merely a good idea, but they're very much in order.
Such policies could even encourage other Afghans to support Canadian efforts in Afghanistan.
So when Iran's Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie recently suggested that Canada's role in Afghanistan is hurting its international reputation, one could be forgiven for not taking him seriously.
Ironically, Mashaie offered the sentiment during an unofficial visit to Ottawa meant to improve relations between the two countries.
Indeed, Canada is in Afghanistan refusing to allow the Taliban to return to power so it can oppress women, ethnically cleanse and harbour terrorists. And that hurts our international reputation.
Right.
"It's good news that Canada is leaving in 2011 and we welcome that," Mashaie noted.
Given the amount of material support Iran has provided the Taliban with, there's little question that Iran would prefer that Canada leave the country. Little more question that they would rather have an Islamic fundamentalist government in power in Afghanistan than a democratic regime friendly (or at the very least not hostile) to the west.
For his own part, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon notes the internationalism of the mission, and how it reflects on Canada's positive role in that country. "Our engagement has earned the praise of international partners, most recently from [U.S.] President [Barack] Obama," Cannon notes. "The people of Iran stand to benefit greatly from a secure and stable Afghanistan. We will continue to encourage the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to play a constructive role in the affairs of neighbouring countries. Canada has urged the government of Iran to take appropriate measures to ensure that no support is provided to any insurgent group in Afghanistan."
Mashaie also complained about some comments that Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently made about Iran.
"It concerns me that we have a regime ]in Tehran] with an ideology that is obviously evil," Harper mused. "My government is a very strong supporter of the state of Israel and considers the Iranian threats to be absolutely unacceptable and beyond the pale."
"Anti-Semitism is a pernicious evil that must be exposed, that must be confronted, that must be repudiated, whenever and wherever it appears," Harper continued. "Under our government, Canada will remain an unyielding defender of Jewish religious freedom, a forceful opponent of anti-Semitism in all of its forms and a staunch supporter of a secure and democratic state of Israel."
Mashaie complained that Harper's suggestion that Iran's government is "evil" were evidence of "weakness".
While Harper's comments certainly exaggerate the Iranian state's comparative malevolence, who could possibly think a country that beats and rapes the citizens of a foreign country to death, brutally whips homosexuals (then denies their very existence), and sends police to brutalize womens' rights protesters could possibly be evil?
One can only wonder if the Iranian administration actually wonders why no one takes them seriously.
One of the best ways to deal with hatemongers effectively is to refuse to take them seriously.
That was the scene at the University of Chicago this past week, as protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church were met not with the usual derision and outrage, but rather with revelry.
Among their reception at the University of Chicago was a bake sale raising funds for a GLBT charity, and members of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity, who danced in their underwhere to "I'm Coming Out" by Diana Ross while flying a "no tolerance for intolerance" banner from their house.
Ever the faux-optimist, Shirley Phelps Roper tried to put the best face on their reception. "It is so awesome when you juxtapose this little group of servants of God with this restless mob of humanity. The little girly boys up there with their clothes half off gyrating around--they might as well flip off their God."
First off, the Westboro Baptist Church aren't servants of God -- they're slaves to their own hatred.
But secondly, when a college fraternity -- organizations that have a reputation for homophobic behaviour -- has the moral wherewithal to oppose Phelps and the WBC's promotion of intolerance, one knows that times are changing.
To those familiar with college fraternities this is far less surprising. The homophobic stereotype of fraternities is one that has slowly ceased to fit, as fraternities have quietly been initiating gay men into their ranks for years.
It must be disappointing for Roper to find that an organization she must have expected to be a natural ally for her and her hate cult instead opposes her so vociferously.
As one continues to assess the current state of the American Republican Party, one can't help but think that some honest, heart-felt criticism is certainly in order.
The Republicans have lost the White House and lost control of both Congressional houses. To make matters worse, far-right ideologue Rush Limbaugh seems to have seized control of the party's public image.
At a time like this, when times are so dark for the Republican party, Justified Right's Tommy de Seno wants to drive some of the party's most concerned supporters out.
John and Meghan McCain are in de Seno's sights. Their unforgivable sin is purported to be criticizing the American conservative movement and working with the enemy.
"I grew tired of McCain fighting our agenda, voting against tax cuts, bowing to global warming loons, insulting Christian leaders, ganging against us with his liberal 'Gang of 14' and passing useless laws with liberals like Senator Russ Feingold. — Not to mention snubbing CPAC," de Seno writes.
"The press rewarded McCain’s behavior by labelling him a “maverick” for bashing the Republican Party (if a Democrat bucks his party, like Lieberman, the press paints him as a traitor, not a maverick)," he continues.
De Seno then goes on to address Meghan McCain, who recently took on Ann Coulter in the press.
"Now comes his daughter Meghan McCain, proving the old adage that the poop doesn’t fall far from the pig’s rear end, Meghan has joined her father in the Republican bashing business," de Seno writes.
"Writing on The Daily Beast, an Internet blog, she takes on author Ann Coulter," he continues. "She says she 'straight up doesn’t understand' Coulter (probably all those big words Ann uses). She labels Ann’s followers part of a 'cult' (Meghan must be reading the papers — that’s how media refers to our whole party!). She takes a swing at CPAC, too (chip off the old block, that Meghan)."
"It’s painfully clear she has crossed the threshold of her half life," Moore writes. "Her mantra that liberals are pitiable, conniving, traitorous losers and that conservatives are valorous, patriotic administrative geniuses plays poorly against the backdrop of the hand-over from George W Bush to Barack Obama. Imagine penning a panegyric to dirigible travel while crossing the Atlantic on the Hindenburg."
Yet de Seno seems to think that criticizing Coulter -- who, along with Limbaugh, currently remains one of the best reasons not to support the GOP -- should be considered off-limits for Republicans.
Quite the contrary. What the Republican party needs more than anything is a critical voice from within the party to remind it that people such as Limbaugh, Coulter and de Seno are leading the Republican party too far into the political fringes for it to even possibly remain viable.
In the world of politics, some times one's worst critic is their best friend. Sadly, individuals like Tommy de Seno are all to eager to push any critical voice out of the Republican party.
Shooting the messengers will not solve the Republican party's problems. Unfortunately, individuals such as de Seno are afflicted with itchy trigger fingers.
