Jaymeister's Jabberings

That Old Time Religion

2006-09-29T21:25:00.000-04:00

It's the High Holy Day season once again. It's a time for reflection, repentance and renewal. I spent a terrific Rosh Hashanah weekend in Indianapolis with my mother and extended family. And I went to synagogue both mornings, which is a rare occurrence for me. And, as usual, the service got me asking a lot of questions.

The Reconstructionist synagogue in Indianapolis is a different kind of experience for me. I went to a Reconstructionist synagogue growing up in Montreal, but it was nothing like this one. Ours was a much smaller congregation, and we didn't have anything like an organist and choir. And although I've been to the temple in Indy before, I still get the feeling that either I'm in a church, or the organist and choir were on loan from one. I also brought up with my mother the irony of not being able to blow the shofar on the Sabbath, but an electric organ being permissible. It just goes to show that when it comes to traditions, people can be very selective indeed.

Now, I'm not at all what you'd call a traditionalist when it comes to religion. Personally, I think organized religion is unnecessary. I'm not anti-religion per se, but a lot of it just doesn't wash with me intellectually. I think spirituality is a good thing, but most Western religions require a kind of fabricated pathos that any God worth believing in would just laugh off. Also, Judaism and Catholicism both borrow much from the ancient Pagans in their reverence for objects and symbols. That's a much longer discussion, but suffice it to say that my connection to my Jewishness is based on history and common experience. Jews could rely on the bunker mentality we've developed over the years, as well as our values regarding work and family and community, and we'll survive just fine. But it was religion that kept us together in earlier times, and most of our traditions stem from that.

I think Reconstructionism is the best movement in Judaism in terms of marrying the ancient traditions with modern thinking. On the other hand, it is also full of paradoxes, because while the traditional liturgy is recited during services, much of that text does not reflect Reconstructionist thought. Reconstructionism doesn't strictly require belief in any deity. So a lot of the prayers, while paying homage to the Jewish religious experience over the centuries, really ring hollow. Furthermore, people sing out certain prayers, in full voice, while simultaneously rejecting these words intellectually. The best example for this time of year is the Unetaneh Tokef which says:

On Rosh Hashanah it is inscribed, and on Yom Kippur it is sealed...But repentance, prayer and righteousness avert the severe decree.

Now, I'll bet that 90% of the people in the synagogue who recite those lines don't believe them. It is quite apparent to anybody who has lived in the real world that our spiritual actions have no bearing on our worldly fate for the coming year. Furthermore, I don't know that there is any kind of precedent documented in the Talmud of a single case where repentance, prayer and righteousness during the week between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur has caused somebody's fate to be changed before it was sealed.

Those lines I quoted above are the crux of the Unetaneh Tokef. But the stuff in between (where I put an ellipses) is almost Pythonesque. In Monty Python's Meaning Of Life there was a scene in the chapel of a boys' school where they recite the following prayer:

Oh Lord, please don't burn us/Don't grill or toast your flock/Don't put us on the barbecue/Or simmer us in stock/Don't braise or bake or boil us/Or stir-fry us in a wok/Oh please don't lightly poach us/Or baste us with hot fat/Don't fricassee or roast us/Or boil us in a vat/And please don't stick thy servants Lord/In a Rotiss-o-mat.

I really don't think that prayer is much more silly than these words from the Unetaneh Tokef:

Who shall perish by water and who by fire,
Who by sword and who by wild beast,
Who by famine and who by thirst,
Who by earthquake and who by plague,
Who by strangulation and who by stoning

Okay, maybe that isn't quite as silly as Python. But do the people who recite these words really believe that repentance, prayer and righteousness will save them from strangulation or wild beast? Because I have a serious problem with anybody who does truly believe that. I believe anyone's motivation for being righteous should be righteousness itself, not the threat of what might happen to them in this life (or afterward, in the case of other religions). As for prayer, I have still never gotten a satisfactory answer about how we can be judged for our actions because we have free will, and yet can pray for God to intervene in other people's actions. And repentance, like righteousness, is a good thing, but it should be about how you improve yourself to better serve others rather than how it reflects on you at annual evaluation time.

If I am wrong about all this, then this might be my last blog entry. If so, then I apologize for my blasphemy. Otherwise, I'll see you again soon. And may we all have a peaceful and prosperous year.

Five Years After

2006-09-11T19:27:00.000-04:00

It is now the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the day that was to change the world. It united a nation, brought goodwill from all over the planet toward the wounded superpower, and awoke all of us to some of the worst evils that lurk while exposing us to some of the best mankind has to offer. It was a day etched in our memories forever, when political stripe was insignificant and the petty things in life seemed to matter not. We were all vulnerable, but thankful for what we had.

Political discourse in North America had become poisoned by 2001, largely due to the advent of the internet and 24 hour news channels providing a platform for the "punditocracy", not to mention talk radio. Bill Clinton had been a divisive figure, even while still garnering large job approval ratings. And the 2000 presidential election really pushed things over the edge. But following 9/11 there was a hope that people would be able to get over political pettiness and look out for each other just as the uniformed and civilian New Yorkers did on that day. Sadly, that hope only lasted about a month.

It didn't take long for George W. Bush to become the most polarizing leader in memory. While some of his opposition is extreme to say the least, most of the current climate can be blamed on nobody except the man who claimed to be "a uniter, not a divider." It is a sad reality that 9/11 itself is a political tool, and Bush has been the master craftsman. He has conflated 9/11 and the war or terror with Iraq and other questionable decisions ever since. From the first time he said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" he made it a policy to demonize all opposition that shared the same goals. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, Donald Rumsfeld likened Iraq war critics to the appeasers of Nazi Germany. To the Bush crowd, "with us" doesn't mean wanting to defeat terrorists, but wanting to do it their way. And supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while the poorest fight the war. It's a non-customizable package deal.

Bush, of course, is not alone in playing the political game with 9/11. Take, for example, the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11. Democrats and supporters of Bill Clinton are all up in arms over the film because a few scenes were fabricated and make that administration look bad - they've even gone so far as to suggest that ABC not even show this film, a la The Reagans being pulled from CBS a few years ago under Republican pressure. I think it's ridiculous. I am quite aware of the fact that the movie was written and produced by conservative filmmakers, and that it has a bit of a hostile slant toward Clinton and his people. But I do not believe in censorship of this kind. I seriously doubt that anybody's opinion would be swayed by a made for TV movie, even one as ambitious as this. I find it laughable that pundits on the Right have embraced a TV film as the be all and end all expose of the much hated Clinton administration. And I find it somewhat dismaying that much of the Left blogosphere has made an issue out of defending Bill Clinton, who was by no means a liberal president, even if that mattered. The whole argument seems to come down to either "Clinton was better than Bush" or "Bush was better than Clinton", or that somehow the attacks on 9/11 wouldn't have happened with the right one of them in charge at the right time.

Bullshit. Terrorism would not have been a high enough priority for anybody in office to stop 9/11, if indeed it could have been stopped. Believe me, I'm no fan of Bush and will argue against most anything he has done as president, but I'm not about to let Clinton off the hook or get into a food fight based on nothing but irrational hatred of either of them. The U.S., like other countries, has flawed national policies that are ingrained in the system irrespective of the elected leaders. Whether the Right wants to acknowledge it or not, many of these policies over the last century have contributed to the current pickle we are in. And whether the far Left wants to acknowledge it or not, you can't just try to undo every mistake from the past and downplay the realities of the present. The best way to honour those who sacrificed everything five years ago is for thinking people to discuss a sensible future.

Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhh!!!!!!

2006-08-28T21:30:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend, I was having some difficulties with my network connection while logged into Blogger. And I was in the process of writing a lengthy post, which I thought I had properly saved. Apparently, that isn't the case. And while I have bits and pieces clipboarded away, it will take me more time to patch it all together than I wish to devote right now after a long day at work which included vacuuming up flood water. Don't ask. As you can imagine, my mood is a bit surly. But since I haven't posted something since last week, it's best that I check in with a few short takes.

As Gomer Pyle would say, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! Was there a single intelligent human being who thought this would turn out otherwise. Then again, some did believe that the mission was accomplished in Iraq. The cable news channels got to air a whole lot of fraudulent pontification on both. I didn't catch Nancy Grace tonight, but I'll bet she was crestfallen. Aren't all suspects supposed to be guilty? At least the DNA test wrapped up in time for CNN and Fox to turn their attention to showing boffo pictures of Ernesto.

I haven't yet written much about the Liberal leadership race. There are eleven candidates in the running, although maybe three or four have a legitimate chance to make some noise by the time their convention rolls around in December. I'll have more to say about it in the coming weeks because it should be interesting. The Liberal Party of Canada is one of the last true "big tent" parties in the Western word, perhaps along with the Labour Party in Britain. All other parties are now so on message and frown upon dissenting opinion. Having said that, the Liberals view themselves as the natural governing party and have so much rot in their core that a few decades in the wilderness might be required to clean it up, but the country would have to suffer through Tory rule. The frontrunner at this point (based on caucus endorsements) appears to be Michael Ignatieff, the erstwhile Harvard professor who has decided to return to his native land for maple syrup, skiing and a shot at power.

Ignatieff is probably the most hawkish of the candidates in terms of the war on terror. Ever since he announced his candidacy for Parliament before the last election, some compared him to our country's first neo-con prime minister. Trudeau was far from perfect, but somehow I can't imagine Stephen Harper having an impromptu give-and-take with reporters to defend a controversial decision. I actually think there is a great similarity between Trudeau and George W. Bush in that both of them were stubborn as hell and stuck with policies even when they were going to shit.

Finally, after a long day, a smile. Whenever you do something dumb, be heartened by the fact that there is always somebody out there stupider than you.

Felis Tigris Freakis

2006-08-21T22:05:00.000-04:00

There's a lot of bad stuff happening in the world, so this is a good time to step back and talk about one of the rare joys of our time which is watching Tiger Woods at the top of his game. To use the modern vernacular, the guy is sick. And I don't think I could find a better word to describe him.

Anybody who doesn't play golf has no idea what a freak of nature Tiger Woods is, because the game isn't as easy as he'd have you believe. And those who do play golf and watch him play wonder why we even bother. There are almost two different Tigers: the one who is not at his sharpest but can still do everything just well enough to beat you, and the one like we saw this past weekend who is firing on all cylinders and everyone else need not show up. Tiger shot 65 on Saturday, which tied the course record at Medinah. Mike Weir shot a 65 the same day, but there was a difference. Weir had a spectacular round, hitting shots to within a foot of the hole, or making long putts - the kind of special round that only happens once in a while. Woods made his round look as routine as walking the dog, not flashy but remarkably steady.

When the player with the most physical ability also happens to be the toughest mentally, it isn't a fair fight. Aside from being able to drive the ball a mile, hit shorter clubs when he needs to keep it straight of the tee, hit precision iron shots, make creative shots around the green, putt like nobody else and manage a course brilliantly, Tiger might be the only athlete I've ever seen who is choke-proof. There is never any doubt about him coming through in the clutch (as an individual - Ryder Cup is a whole other matter.) The scariest thing about him is that he is actually getting better, and despite the improving quality and depth of his competition he has returned to the level of dominance he experienced back in 2000-2001. In the PGA Championship he won by five strokes and posted 18 under par while barely breaking a sweat. And nobody doubts that if another player had gotten to that number, he'd have found another couple of birdies somewhere, just as he did at the British Open. He's like roadrunner who lets the coyote get close to him and then zoom! It was an awesome performance.

I have to also say a word about my favourite Canadian lefty golfer, Mike Weir. Weirsy has had a rough go of it the last couple of years, ever since losing the 2004 Canadian Open which he should have won. Injuries were a factor last year, but I don't think he has ever mentally recovered from letting that tournament slip away, seeing how important it was to him. He has never again been in contention to win a tournament coming down to the last few holes. Despite playing pretty good golf this year, he has had some very poor final rounds when he started out with a chance to win. To his credit, he held it together yesterday until Tiger pulled away, but then he seemed to lose his focus. I think he needs to realize that you can't always control what other players are going to do but you have to grind it out right to the end. While sixth place is a good result in a major, there was no reason for him not to have finished second yesterday. He really needs to try to finish as high as possible to earn world ranking points. With the President's Cup at Royal Montreal next year, it would be a shame if he didn't make the team or had to be a captain's pick. (He's currently 15th on the International team.) On the positive side, he performed well in the majors this year and his statistics are getting back to the same levels they were at in his brightest days. Hopefully it will all come together at the Canadian Open this year and all of those demons can be exorcised.

As for Tiger, I guess he'll wrap up a few more wins before the next major rolls around in Augusta next April. The question now is how many majors can he bag before he calls it a day. Barring injury, you'd have to think that he has, conservatively, another ten years of prime golf. It's not hard to see him averaging a major a year over the next ten years. In several of them he will likely win two or more, and he might have another "slump" or two along the way. Knowing the kind of shape he's in he could easily play much longer than that, but he might get bored or want to enter politics or something by then. And he'll probably want to walk away on top. It's hard to imagine who will finally take his number one spot and keep it. It will probably have to be someone who isn't on the scene yet, because everyone who's there now is completely psyched out. The man is sick.

Now I Can Breathe Again

2006-08-17T23:04:00.000-04:00

BREAKING NEWS: A suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case has been arrested in Thailand. I guess it's now safe to let kids roam the streets, and we can bring mouthwash onto airplanes again. Combatants of the world can lay down their arms, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". Apparently, all of the world's problems have been solved - or so it would seem if you rely on television news channels, because this is all they have been talking about. It's the latest non-story of the century.

John Karr is clearly a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and has a sick obsession with children. But I know I'm not the only one who thinks this whole arrest business stinks worse than day-old kippers. This schmuck gets picked up in Thailand, and we're to believe he's responsible for JonBenet's murder? The fragments of the story that he has told make no sense with regards to this case, and his ex-wife insists that he was with her in Alabama at the time of the murder (and she would remember because it was at Christmas time). He was obsessed with the Ramsey case, and it's not hard to see someone like him have delusions of physical involvement and then tell his story to the world because, in his twisted mind, he'd want recognition for earning that notch on his belt. Judging by the accuracy of his online resume, it seems that he has fantasized about his whole adult life. Furthermore, even with his love of child pornography and his teaching experiences close to young children, there haven't been any other accusations against him other than being "too affectionate" with the children, and it's rare for murderous pedophiles to stop at one. I could be wrong, but I'll be very surprised if any more compelling evidence comes out on this guy. Whether he is eventually convicted is another matter entirely.

Never in a million years would I have expected to blog on this subject. But since this latest development is so bizarre, I had to get that out of my system. My main point is how the media create importance out of things that should be much lower down the totem pole, particularly certain criminal cases that aren't really unique except for what the victim looks like. There are plenty of child abductions and rapes and murders in which the victim isn't beautiful and they get no attention, yet their parents grieve just as much. As sad as it is for the families, there is no way to argue that extensive national coverage of any of these cases is in the public interest or anything other than sick titillation. My first reaction to the new focus on the Ramsey case was that this was a flashback to the 90's and the frivolous, pre-9/11 days. Then, of course, I remembered that we never really left those days - there have been plenty of abduction cases, celebrity trials and runaway bride stories in the news in the last few years. In fact, the JonBenet headlines barely took attention away from the rumours about Vince and Jennifer. Ultimately, it's the public who is to blame for lapping this stuff up and not demanding something better.

I checked out the Yahoo!, CNN and Fox News home pages, and between the three of them I saw zero headlines about what is going on in Iraq, and just one about Lebanon. What should be the most important issues are now on the back burner, just as Afghanistan has been for about four years in the U.S. The Ramsey case isn't even the biggest legal story of the day. This would have taken the lead in the news on most other days. Coincidence? Maybe. But that's why people wear tin foil hats.

Potpourri For Two Cents, Alex

2006-08-13T20:50:00.000-04:00

A few random thoughts from the weekend that was:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a ceasefire. After all the blood and carnage, you have to wonder whether it was all worth it for this largely toothless document. There is already a delay on the part of the government of Lebanon to get its army in place. There is little to stop Hezbollah from just firing longer range rockets, as the rules of engagement for UNIFIL troops don't allow them to pursue Hezbollah aggressively. I imagine that things will be quiet for a time because Hezbollah, with their political influence in Lebanon, will not want to be seen as rocking the boat. But you can bet that any perceived "provocation" will get the rockets flying again. Meanwhile, the fact remains that after a month of a ground incursion and bombings, Israel didn't even slow down the rocket attacks. One would have to suspect that despite the daily assurances from the IDF that they were making great headway, they barely put a dent into Hezbollah - otherwise, the government of Israel would never have signed onto this ceasefire. The pacifist movement may be wrong about a lot of things, but they are dead accurate about the fact that you can't win the war on terror by try to go out and kill all the terrorists because the factory will just keep making more.

I caught Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I really would have liked to see Wallace conduct this interview at age 58 instead of 88. Mike tried hard, but I imagine a younger version of himself would have been more pushy (as much as you can be with a head of state in a hostile country) to get his questions answered and not allow Ahmadinejad to go off on his tangents. No amount of smiling and charm could get Ahmadinejad off the hook when it comes to explaining his prior statements about Israel and the Holocaust. Did he really think he could use this interview to win the PR game in the U.S.?

Speaking of the Holocaust... an interesting thought occurred to me. In much of Europe, Holocaust denial is a crime. Yet the West's biggest ally in the Islamic world is Turkey, whose government to this day still denies the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans in 1915.

Finally, here's something to make us feel even older. Kimberly Kim, 14, is the U.S. Women's Amateur champion. Michelle Wie is now washed up at 16, no longer the most accomplished golfing teenager from Hawaii. I might as well start practising bocci.

A New Manifesto

2006-08-09T20:58:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, during my blogging hiatus, The Euston Manifesto was created and published online. It was written by a group of intellectuals in the UK who, concerned with the direction the modern Left was taking, called for a "progressive realignment" and an establishment of the principles that should encompass the liberal left while maintaining ties with others who share the same values. The statement of principles is pretty wide ranging, including topics from affirmation of democracy to support for open source. While I believe the idea behind the manifesto to be a noble one, I cannot sign it in its present form. I will elaborate more on that in a future post. For now, I must address another item which relates to one of the principles in the EM, and it is also relates to something I brought up in my last post.

Here's an example of where the EM is on the mark:

The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.
[...]
"Anti-Zionism"has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups... We stand against all variants of such bigotry.

I don't really mean to harp on the topic, as I have addressed anti-Semitism in recent posts. Anybody who knows me can tell that I'm not one of those types who wears World's Most Persecuted People^TM on a t-shirt as a badge of honour, but this needs to be heard. I was sent an e-mail containing photos from a rally in Montreal that was organized as a protest for peace in Lebanon. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, this event attracted a number of Hezbollah supporters and plenty of anti-Israel (as well as blatantly anti-Semitic) signage and chants. (Photos can be seen here. I don't endorse everything on that site.) I've always maintained that racism and bigotry is its own ideology and cries out for a chance to be heard, and this was a great opportunity for this stuff to be aired. I've also stated that I believe opposition to Israel's actions in Lebanon can be taken reasonably. The problem is that the reasonable protesters are unwilling to confront the extremists, and partisans (whether in politics or on issues) get caught up in the quantity of support without regard to quality. The Montreal rally was organized by political parties and trade unions, yet I have not seen any denouncement by them of the Hezbollah supporters among them who were advocating violence against Israel at a rally for peace. This is where I think the Euston folks got it right. I believe the Left gets a lot of things wrong, but the Right gets even more wrong, and it's scenes like this that turn people off other good ideas. Guilt by association may be a logical fallacy, but that matters little in the real world. The "decent Left" really needs to step forward and disassociate itself from this crap.

Along the same lines, there's another theme in the document that is worthy of support:

No apology for tyranny. We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently 'understand', reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy - regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

That is just as crucial as condemning racism. The manifesto specifically mentions the Left's follies in the past of being apologists for oppressive Communist regimes, and that extends to today's embracing of "leftist" dictators and "resistance movements". Again, I don't believe these to be the majority of left-leaning people, but they are the ones who are the most vocal and are over-represented in the media because the media like a freak show. Terrorism and tyranny have no place in the discussion for the sensible Left. Leave that to the Right. Let them make excuses for all of the oppressive regimes they have embraced over the years and continue to embrace in the name of spreading democracy(!). Just as with racism, tyranny has no ideology, and let nobody be fooled. We should all stand for freedom and human rights. There is no socialism without humanism.

Feel free to read through the whole manifesto and, by all means, sign it if you like. I think it's a great idea to create a rallying point for those of us who share a certain way of thinking but dislike the reactionaries associated with it. However, I have a number of problems with its language as it is presently written. Stay tuned for my criticisms. (BTW, I won't be titling that post "Euston, we have a problem". Google will tell you that's been overused.)

With Friends Like This...

2006-08-05T22:08:00.000-04:00

What does it mean to support Israel? In the modern parlance, it has come to mean supporting the positions of the government in power there or, specifically any military or security measures taken. This seems to be an extension of rightist idea that hawkish=patriotic. But I would argue that to truly support a country is to be concerned about the security of its people. I know a number of people who aren't anti-Israel or anti-Semitic but have serious problems with the way the current situation in Lebanon is being handled. They feel that the Israeli people will not be safer as a result of this. In my opinion, that is a perfectly valid and arguable position, even if you think it's wrong. But such individuals will automatically be labeled as anti-Israel or pro-terrorist in some circles. (Unfortunately, because there are genuine anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist factions who have hijacked the peace movement and the left in general, rational arguments have been obscured. I'll have more on that in my next post when I discuss the Euston Manifesto.)

What about governments or political parties? Stephen Harper claims to support Israel, and his government has been clear in their statements that they are on Israel's side, eschewing the appearance of neutrality that other parties advocate. His commitment to have Canada vote against frivolous anti-Israel UN resolutions is a refreshing change from the previous government. But just like those resolutions are merely symbolic and have no pragmatic consequences, his support for Israel has, so far, been symbolic and without anything tangible. No military support. No increased financial aid. Just a few photo-ops in synagogues - but I'll grant him that he looks good in a yarmulke.

In the United States, it's harder to draw delineations between the two major parties where Israel is concerned. The Republicans claim to be more Israel-friendly, and they use that meme to try to attract more Jewish voters. But are they really? The Bush administration has certainly shown itself to be closer to the Israeli hawks, but both parties support the present incursion into Lebanon. Having said all that, the question has to be raised about how good Bush has been for Israel. Ronald Reagan asked the voters if they were better off than four years earlier, so it's fair to ask if Israel is better off now than it was when Bush came into office. In the previous administration, Bill Clinton tried to broker a peace deal. Yes, the process was flawed, and Yasser Arafat wasn't the ideal partner for peace, and there was a loss of momentum and mutual respect after the senseless murder of Yitzhak Rabin, but at least there was a good long time when there weren't any rockets flying or suicide bombings. Terrorism requires a lot of volunteers from the grassroots, and to carry out that type of dirty work you really need to be motivated. When there is hope, that motivation is diffused. For a time there was hope, because a huge effort was made to get the deal done. The effort failed, but not from neglect on the part of the U.S. On the other hand, Bush has taken a laissez-faire approach to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and the results have been disastrous by any measure. But I guess the road to Hell was paved with good intentions.

See Ya Mel, It's Been Swell

2006-08-02T22:59:00.000-04:00

Here's a good piece by Christopher Hitchens on Mel Gibson's recent faux pas. And it got me thinking about all the things that we're more likely to see than another Hollywood-financed Mel Gibson movie.

Middle East peace
a cure for the common cold
a non-leaking restaurant teapot
a commercially viable solar car
fat-burning chocolate eclairs
the invention of the orgasmatron
Ishtar II

Feel free to add your own to the list. I was going to include the Leafs winning the Stanley Cup, but that's a little farfetched.

Fun With FReepers Redux

2006-07-29T20:20:00.000-04:00

It was just too tempting, and I had to see what would happen.

About a year back I wrote about my experiences trying to engage in friendly banter on Free Republic. Those who are familiar with the site are well aware that they have a very low tolerance for people who disagree with their general "conservative" principles, and would rather see genocidal messages of the right posted than even the most reasoned and moderate liberal arguments. I don't often go there these days, but I was curious to see how they would be reacting to a totally non-political topic - Floyd Lanids's positive test.

First off there were the predictable lines like, "Of course Landis tested high in testosterone. The French don't have much." That was funny, but after about the dozenth different commenter posted basically the same joke, it got a bit old. Not to mention the fact that millions of women would probably beg to differ, but that's a discussion for another day. Once they got down to serious discussion on topic, it was pretty much as monolithic as one would expect from Free Republic. They all seem to think that the French are somehow out to get Landis or, at the very least, they buy his story that his high testosterone level is natural - despite the fact that it only showed itself to be naturally high on one particular day. (You can go to Free Republic and do a search under "Landis" if you want to read some of their nonsense.)

What's shocking is that these good ol' guilty-before-proof, hang-'em-without-any-appeals, law & order types were so willing to give Landis the benefit of the doubt. I can't blame them for that, because everyone deserves the presumption of innocence, but it seems so out of character for these folks. I don't think they were sticking up for defendants' rights when it came to O.J. Simpson or Scott Peterson or the prisoners in Guantanemo Bay. And experience teaches us that athletes who test positive always proclaim their innocence, but are usually full of shit. (Maybe they should test the B sample for shit instead of testosterone to confirm.) That being said, the Free Republic loyalists seem convinced that this is all a scam perpetrated by "the French" to discredit another American Tour de France champion like they tried to do with Lance Armstrong. There are a lot of problems with that hypothesis. First of all, the International Cycling Union is not just French. Secondly, unlike with Armstrong where there is just speculation and fuzziness regarding results of a test six years after the fact, they have an actual positive test from Landis. So "the French" aren't in the business of planting evidence on American cyclists - I don't recall Mark Fuhrman moving there (speaking of Simpson.)

So it turned into a flag-waving bunker in which the world was out to get successful Americans. I got myself a new login and posted two comments. The first one mentioned the fact that plenty of other riders weren't even allowed to start the race without ever testing positive, and a few of them have even been cleared since then. I also mentioned the name Michelle Smith (Irish gold medal winning swimmer) as an example of a non-American who constantly dogged drug suspicions without ever testing positive, so this wasn't a question of being out to get Americans. My other comment posed this question: If Oscar Perreiro had finished ahead of Landis and tested positive for testosterone, would you be defending him with the same vigour or gleefully proclaiming Landis as the champion?

Those were perfectly reasonable posts, don't you think? This is a non-political subject, and I don't think either side of the issue is partisan in any way. However, the FReepers seem to believe that to speak out against Landis is to speak out against America. I wasn't even speaking against him, just bringing up hypotheticals and illustrations. But I was guilty of questioning FReeper wisdom and, as we've all heard, you're either with them or against them. My comments were deleted, and my posting privileges revoked.

That's all I need to say. I report, you decide.

A Black Cloud

2006-07-27T21:02:00.000-04:00

I came across this article that every Canadian should be aware of:

U.S. doing better than Canada in cutting toxic pollution, says NAFTA report

While it might be buried down near the bottom of the news of the day, to me it sticks out like a sore thumb. So much for our being more environmentally enlightened than our neighbours to the south.

U.S. manufacturing facilities cut their releases of toxics by 21 per cent between 1998 and 2003, while Canadian manufacturers cut releases by 10 per cent.

This might be the most damning blemish on the sorry legacy of the Chretien/Martin Liberal government. Although they talked a good game about the environment and the importance of Kyoto and other pollution-reducing measures, they fiddled whilst Rome choked. And the situation won't likely improve under the Conservative government.

But there was a very interesting statement within the article:

[NAFTA Commission for Environmental Co-operation executive director William] Kennedy said U.S. pollution is generally subject to greater regulation while Canada relies more on voluntary actions by industry. "You have greater reductions when that control is there than when you don't."

The first sentence is counterintuitive based on what we believe about the two countries, but there it is. The second sentence is only counterintuitive to Milton Friedman and his disciples. It should be pointed out that this study covered the period from 1998 to 2003, when environmental policy put forward by the Clinton/Gore administration was mostly still in effect. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next five years after some relaxing of regulations by the current U.S. administration.

There are a couple of important things to be learned by this. First, we have more evidence that environmental improvements come about because of regulations, and not the corrections of the almighty free market. And secondly, standards can be put in place without destroying the economy. It remains to be seen if the facts will get in the way of a good Conservative "pro-business" platform. But with those myths put to bed, we can focus on the much larger issue - things are still bloody bad.

"The cocktail includes the smog-producing chemicals, but you've also got the carcinogens like lead and benzene, developmental toxins like mercury and lead, which are particularly worrisome because of their effects on children's health and their I.Q."

There's probably a joke in there about how this helps certain parties grab the next generation of voters, but this is serious business. When you add up the volume of pollutants here, and then consider all the places in the world where regulation is next to nil, you see that we are in big trouble if the tide doesn't turn.

Right Time, Wrong Place?

2006-07-25T22:25:00.000-04:00

It's a very scary time in many parts of the world, but the focus right now is on the Middle East. The Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon situation is getting the most attention, so much so that Iraq is being referred to in some circles as the "forgotten war". I'm not sure where that relegates the hostilities in Afghanistan and all of the other conflicts occurring now on our planet, but it's a sobering thought nonetheless.

Obviously, I take a special interest in what's going on in Israel. For my money, Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorist action and it's hard to fault them for carrying out this operation in Lebanon. If they did not do this, the populace would justifiably question how well they were being protected by their government and military. So I'm not going to say that they are wrong. But I think it's legitimate to ask whether this mission will achieve long term security from rocket attacks and other perils and, therefore, whether one can objectively justify the human cost.

This is not about moral equivalence. I think the Israelis and their leaders want to live in peace, whereas some of the other actors in that part of the world like Hamas and Hezbollah have no such interest. I think Israel is morally superior, and it is for that reason that I hold Israel to a higher standard than just saying "we're not as bad as they are."

I was speaking with my mother about the conflict the other day, and she said something that just isn't like her. When discussing how Hezbollah is really just fighting a proxy war for Iran and Syria to take the focus off Iran, my mom essentially expressed her desire to essentially wipe all of them out with nuclear weapons. Considering the despair of the situation and the seemingly endless prospects of eternal attacks on Israel from terrorists, that is a common emotional response. But even if that event did occur, would Israel actually achieve peace in the aftermath? Not likely. Even if your conscience allowed you to justify the means, you will still not have accomplished the desired end.

Ever since 9/11, we've been reminded again and again that the war on terror is unlike wars between sovereign nations, but Israel is executing the current operation as if it were at war with Lebanon. To their credit, they have tried to be measured and selective about their targets, but they are destroying civilian infrastructure that took years to build after civil war, and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have no beef with them. I can't say I'm totally comfortable with that, especially since I'm not convinced that this is all going to work. I'm sorry if I'm mixing metaphors here, but I see it this way: throwing out the baby with the bathwater while the pipes are still leaking sewage into the tub. This might put a temporary halt to rocket attacks from Lebanon, but we've seen enough in the last few years to know that nothing and nobody in the realm of terrorism is unexpendable.

In a way, Israel and its allies are weaselling a bit here. If they believe that the Lebanese government is complicit in the strength of Hezbollah in that country, then Israel should openly declare war on Lebanon. If not, then instead of bombing Lebanese infrastructure in order to halt supplies to Hezbollah, they should attack the supply lines at their source in Syria and/or Iran, and their allies in the West should step up and help them. But Israel decided to be halfway bold by fighting the easier fight, and its allies (including Canada and the U.S.) chose to practice strength through passivity. They are acting like the arresting officer who allows the rape victim's husband a few minutes in a locked room with the cuffed assailant.

To be clear again, I do not fault Israel for taking the fight to Hezbollah. It was a necessary thing to do. But with the way in which it is being fought, I suspect that Israeli citizens will not feel much safer a year from now, and the people in Lebanon will be wondering what the point was.

So, As I Was Saying...

2006-07-24T21:31:00.000-04:00

Hello again. It has been a good long while since I've posted in this space, although it seems like just six months ago. I feel kind of bad about not keeping up with my blogging, especially because I have a good handful of readers who have missed my drivel. After all, a day without Jaymeister's Jabberings is like a day without gnats. But I have returned to provide all of the pithy wisdom you'd expect to find here. (Then again, I've been doing that for the last six months as well.)

I guess I should explain my absence from actively blogging. At first it was mostly an issue of time. I moved into a new condominium, and the time spent on preparing for that was taken from the time I could use to write my blog and surf around for inspiration. Since moving into my condo, I've taken advantage of the fact that I have gym equipment and a swimming pool on the premises, so that takes up a chunk of my time on almost a daily basis. I also have a longer commute into work which cuts an additional 40-60 minutes out of my day, depending on traffic. Finally, I have made a concerted effort to get more sleep, since I would often stay up way too late to finish blogging. What all of this amounts to is that I can't devote the necessary time to do a daily blog in the way that I did before.

But there is more to it than that. As I have mentioned in this space before, I sometimes get discouraged by what I see in the blogosphere. The ideological/partisan battles that are being fought are more nasty and illogical than ever. But I was already in that bath and accustomed to the temperature. After getting away from reading blogs for the better part of two months, it was like trying to step back into a hot bath - very unpleasant and repellent. I was disgusted with political blogs, both Left and Right. I was sick of people being so certain of things, and so intolerant of other ideas even when presented in good faith. It seems that winning the argument is more important than finding the truth. The only thing that kept me from being permanently turned off was the ironic humour I saw in people exhibiting the same faults that they had called out on their ideological adversaries. What sticks in my craw the most is that political bloggers are completely devoid of two things - self-examination, and self-effacement. (But an ignoramus like me really shouldn't say things like that.)

Eventually I was able to stomach blogs enough to read them semi-regularly, and occasionally post a comment here or there as my alter ego Drago. But I made the determination not to get into a pissing match with anybody - i.e. if somebody either responds to me disrespectfully, or responds to their own straw man rather than what I actually posted, I just ignore them and let them stew. Actually, most of the comments I've posted have been about pointing out this type of thing rather than the topics themselves. Now that I am back to being an active blogger I will resume posting as Jaymeister.

The biggest issue for me now is what to do with this little corner of the virtual ether. For one thing, my posts won't likely be as frequent as before, but they will be regular, so you can return to checking this space every day and being disappointed when a new post appears. But then there's the matter of content. Having looked back on some of my earlier entries, it is clear that I'm guilty at times of trying to score points rather than advance truth. I think I've made an effort to be intellectually honest, but I can see occasions where that has slipped. So I would be a hypocrite to continue blogging as I have in the past. Therefore, I will attempt to limit my political links to items of a "positive" nature; that is, items that advocate an idea or position rather than attempting to discredit a differing idea or position, or take down an individual or group. (From a logical point of view, tearing the other guy down does nothing to build you up.) I will also get around to altering my sidebar links accordingly. That will be my tiny contribution in the name of civility. But for non-political content, all bets are off. That means Dr. Phil and Neil Diamond are fair game. Thank you for reading.

Another Brick in the Wall

2006-02-02T22:55:00.000-05:00

If you thought the Downing Street Memo was curious, get a load of the White House Memo as reported by Channel 4 in Great Britain. (If you click on "Watch the report" you'll get the televised report, but it buffers very slowly and produces choppy video unless you have a very fast computer. At least you'll get to hear it.) If the evidence is thin on WMD non-compliance, how about another Gulf of Tonkin incident to get the ball rolling? I wonder why this hasn't been seen on U.S. networks - or even the CBC.

Who Knew?

2006-02-01T23:38:00.000-05:00

Here is an article that should be required reading for everybody of a political bent. Any kind of observational analysis (reading of blogs, listening to water cooler conversation, etc.) would lead one to to this conclusion, but now there's scientific proof:

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.
And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

I think this is the key section of the article (italics mine):

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.
Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Could this be the origin of the term "political junkie"? This study indicates that partisans have an addiction to affirmation of their beliefs. And I would argue, as I have before, that partisan politics aren't healthy for the debate of ideas because the process of getting your candidate elected has overshadowed what that candidate stands for, if anything. And in our mass communications age, we are more interested in getting a message out than in achieving enlightenment, and there is very little forum or encouragement for a healthy discussion. Our court systems were based on the notion that the truth could be determined through confrontation and contradiction, but our political juries are perilously close to being permanently hung. For my part, all I can do is attempt to state my point of view and consider the facts while avoiding the talking points wherever possible. Feel free to call me out when I slip up. But allow me the occasional ad hominem attack - everyone's entitled to a little bit of fun.

Falling Way Behind

2006-01-31T23:10:00.000-05:00

I've been derelict in my upkeep of this space lately, and I apologize for that. With preparations for my upcoming move and catching up on things after the cruise, I haven't spent as much time on current events as I should, so I feel like a fish out of water.

Over the last day or so I've been reading through some blogs and sites that I used to check out regularly, to put my finger on the pulse of cyber-opinion. There is lots to talk about with the recent election victory of Hamas, the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Oscar nominations for Brokeback Mountain and Bush's SOTU address. And I may or may not get to discussing any or all of those over the next several days. But tonight I want to talk about the aftermath of the Conservative minority victory.

Surprisingly, conservative Canadians commenting on blogs haven't been celebrating the Harper win as much as they've been bellyaching over the fact that they didn't win more seats, particularly in the big three cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Talk about sore winners. While I sympathize with the sentiment that the Liberals didn't deserve the amount of support they got, some of the commentary has been downright mean. The fact that voters who selected the NDP or Greens are lumped in with those who voted Liberal is just plain ignorant. There has been much discussion about immigrants voting as a bloc for the Liberals, which brought to mind Jacques Parizeau's lament about "money and the ethnic vote" after the 1995 referendum. One of my favourite posts was from this intellectual giant. The best part was this nugget: "Generally, Ontario displayed a collective mindset that they no longer embrace an inclusive equitable democratic multi party state." Really? Three different parties won significant numbers of seats in Ontario. Meanwhile, in the author's beloved Alberta, the Conservatives ran the table in the federal election, and occupy three quarters of the seats in their provincial legislature. So which is the monolithic province again? I have a feeling that the most uncomfortable place in Canada to have a dissenting voice isn't Ontario.

That is the kind of stuff that gets the hamster wheel turning again. But there's a big blogosphere out there that deserves attention. And I'll try to highlight a post or site from time to time that isn't necessarily on my topic of discussion. Today, I urge you to visit Open Letter to Chris Matthews. That site will help dispel any myth that Matthews is a serious journalist, or worse yet, the myth that he's some kind of liberal Democrat because of his past ties to Democratic politicians. As the site proprietor stated, "Chris Matthews is as much a Democrat as Ronald Reagan. Both men were Democrats years ago, but that had no bearing on their politics since that time." (For more on Matthews, see here too.)

Meet the New Boss...

2006-01-23T23:36:00.000-05:00

The election results are rolling in, and we will have a new prime minister of Canada. Stephen Harper's Conservatives will have a minority government, although with a slimmer margin than recent polls might have indicated. This is about the result I foresaw a couple of months ago when the Liberals were leading in the polls and even Conservative commentators were fearing doom for their party (and the country), so I'd like to consider myself an official pundit now.

Above all, it was another great day in the exercise of democracy. It's always a thrill for me to cast a ballot, and not something I take for granted. I like our no-frills method of voting - take a paper ballot and a pencil, mark an X, fold the ballot and slip it in the box. No hanging chads, no computer glitches, no counting of ballots by secret programming code. I voted for my NDP candidate in Don Valley West, who finished a distant third, but I'm proud to have contributed that extra $1.45 in federal funding to the party for the next election.

So who were the winners and losers? That question is usually based on expectations. The Tories probably expected a stronger result, but at the end of the day they won the election and will form the new government, so they are big winners. The NDP look like they'll pick up about a dozen seats in Parliament - again, not as many as they would have hoped considering the collapsing Liberal support, but still a good result for a party that wants to consider itself on the rise. The Liberals lost, but weren't blown out of the water. Hopefully they'll soon have a new leader (UPDATE: Paul Martin has announced in his concession speech that he will be stepping down as Liberal leader), and won't be as far into the wilderness as their supporters feared. So the biggest loser of the night was the Bloc Quebecois, who only pulled in about 42% in Quebec and lost seats. The rise of the Tories in Quebec as another federalist alternative might have taken some steam out of the separatist engine, so that's one of the silver linings of this election.

Let us hope that the Conservatives' minority position will force them to govern in the centre and work with the progressive federalist opposition and not sell their souls to the Bloc. I wish our new prime minister well, as country must always trump party. I don't think the sky will fall because of this election result, but we must not take our eyes off the ball. And let us hope we can one day conduct elections based on values and ideas rather than ethics and corruption.

The Cruising Life

2006-01-22T22:30:00.000-05:00

I have just completed my first cruise experience aboard Royal Caribbean's Jewel of the Seas. As you might imagine, I'm feeling like a beached whale right now after eight days and nights of feast and indulgence. Because of various activities, I don't think I gained any significant weight. But I've already started my detoxification program, and a week without meat or sweets should get my blood fat and sugar levels back to their regular state. Well, maybe a little bit of meat. But no midnight crepes. What remains to be seen is how long it will take to stop feeling like I'm on a rocking ship.

There are many people who swear by cruises as the best possible vacation experience, and most of the people on board were multiple cruisers. Prior to the cruise I wasn't really sure how I would enjoy staying on a boat (sorry, a ship) for that long, but I've been won over. The ship has everything you could possibly want from a vacation resort, and what you don't find on the ship you'll get at the shore stops. There's nightly entertainment, planned activities all day, and plenty of facilities to use at your leisure. You never go hungry, and your room is always clean - with a chocolate on your pillow every night. And if, like me, you're not much of a drinker, it's really quite affordable. But if you need to wet your whistle to get prepped for those karaoke contests, be prepared to be sobered by the bill.

There was one part of the experience that left me uneasy. Maybe I'm overly modest about such things, but I didn't feel totally comfortable with the high level of service I received. This is a crazy thing to say, seeing how this kind of service is what draws people back to cruise ships time and time again - and what they are paying for. Perhaps the greatest appeal of cruising is that people who aren't particularly wealthy can afford to experience luxury and pampering. But I'm not a limousine liberal by nature, and the class separation between myself and the people serving me made me feel uncomfortable. I don't envision myself living in an "Upstairs, Downstairs" world, but that is, essentially, the cruise ship experience. For a lot of the people who work on cruise ships it's a tough life, living in the bowels of the vessel and working for months without a day off. As Nellie McKay put it, "I don't think Fritz Lang was a fantasist. Metropolis exists." Don't get me wrong - I realize that it's a choice, and that many of them are able to make a decent living over time, and a better living than working elsewhere. But I'd be lying if I told you I'm comfortable being treated like a master and being called sir all the time. Having said that, it's very easy to get spoiled by the service and the decadence. Fortunately, having only been on one cruise I haven't been spoiled by expectations.

Now my vacation is over, and it's back to work. And winter. And a diet. And an election tomorrow. You didn't think I'd be able to get through this post with bringing up the e-word, did you?

A Sinking Ship

2006-01-10T23:48:00.000-05:00

Tonight was a historical event in Canada. It was likely the last time we will have seen Paul Martin on national TV as Prime Minister, save for his concession speech on the 23rd. Tonight was the last debate, and the mighty PMPM went out like a lamb. To be fair, he performed about as well as could be expected, but his body language said it all. It was quite apparent that the balloon was leaking. (No reference to CPC ads intended.) He was also talking about what Stephen Harper "will" do as PM, rather than "might". It was a non-concession concession. In the post-debate media scrum, Harper was relaxed and smirking like the cat who swallowed the canary. The fat lady is done with her rehearsals. It will be a Conservative majority government, and probably by a fair margin. I know that thirteen days is an eternity in politics, but if I were to give odds on this right now I wouldn't get any takers.

As the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures. To this extent, Martin and the Liberals are following conventional wisdom. In my job, I am in a position to see the TV ads by the both the Liberal and Conservative parties before they air. Yesterday I saw twelve new Liberal ads attacking Stephen Harper that can only be described as desperate. At least one of them they finally decided not to air, although it was distributed to stations and posted online. Out of respect for my employer and our clients, I won't discuss or link to the content - there is plenty of buzz about these ads both in the MSM and the blogosphere. There isn't a hope in hell that these ads could do anything but backfire on the Liberals - and they were already in deep trouble. Of course, Martin also threw up the desperation flag with his surprise announcement about his new Notwithstanding Clause policy in Monday's English debate. Did the Liberal Party suddenly lose any sense of how to run campaigns? To paraphrase HL Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Canadian public. We've finally found an exception to that rule.

Still Wagging

2006-01-07T23:25:00.000-05:00

About a year or so ago, I borrowed Wag the Dog on DVD from a co-worker, and never got around to watching it. Now, as I am preparing to move and sorting through all of flotsam and jetsom in my apartment, I came across this DVD and decided that I better watch it and return it. So I checked it out today.

For those of you who have not seen this movie, the synopsis is quite simple. When the U.S. president finds himself in the middle of a sex scandal two weeks before election day, his spin team hires a Hollywood producer to create the perception of a war going on with Albania to distract media and the public from the scandal and to win re-election by creating a patriotic fervor. Hilarity ensues. Little did the people behind this movie realize that the real life president was about to be embroiled in a sex scandal, and that their film would be referred to when he launched attacks on Iraq and Sudan. No hilarity that time.

While the similarities with the Clinton administration are uncanny, the brilliance of the movie is that its themes are universal. The messages about power and manipulation, as well as the willingness of the press to unquestioningly run with a "good story", apply as much now as ever. The film's protagonists needed a hero, so they dragged out Old Shoe. They could just as easily have used Jessica Lynch. Ever since Vietnam, the images of war have been so tightly controlled by the military and administrations that it is almost impossible to verify them independently. Embedded journalists could only see what their unit would let them see. The ones who worked independently often ended up dead. But the media have also been willing partners in manufacturing the message of power over the years, from Hearst's creation of the Spanish-American War to Judith Miller's creation of WMD.

The lesson one can take from all of this is to not be gullible. As Ronald Reagan once said, "trust but verify" - and be careful about the trust part. The internet is terrific in that there are so many new sources of information available, but those have to be checked closely as well. It kind of works like a jury in our confrontational legal system: If you allow yourself to be bombarded by many different messages with many different agendas, maybe you can start to decipher some truth. Then again, O.J. Simpson got to walk. And I know that was the most important thing in the world, because I saw it on TV.

...And Tightens Some More

2006-01-04T22:36:00.000-05:00

The news appears to be getting better for the Conservatives. As the Liberal government is more and more exposed over the course of the campaign, the polls have definitely tilted in the other direction. The ominous number for the Liberals is that they only have a 3 point lead in Ontario - a statistical tie. That could spell big-time trouble for them on election day.

Here is how Ontarians would vote (percentage change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):
Liberals: 37 per cent (-10)
Conservatives: 34 per cent (+1)
NDP: 21 per cent (+5)
Greens: 8 per cent (+4)

As I said yesterday, it isn't Conservative support but rather NDP support that will do them in. Ontarians aren't buying the Tories as much as they are abandoning the Liberals for alternatives on the Left, as you can see by the gains for the NDP and Green Party. (The relatively strong support for the Greens in Ontario and BC is great news for the Tories, and a thorn in the NDP's side.)

Now that the campaign is really heating up, the parties are stepping up their dueling promises. None of them will tell you how they will pay for their initiatives, but why let details get in the way of a strong message? Because the ideas are great in principle. Both the Grits and Tories want to cut or eliminate the immigration landing fee. Who could argue with that? The Liberals want to invest more in making college and university accessible to all Canadians. I believe that should be a given, because that is the definition of "equality of opportunity". Nobody should be denied the realization of their full potential because they weren't born into the right family, or because they didn't want to endure a lifetime of debt. The NDP has proposed a new prescription drug subsidy plan, which might be a key carrot for their support of a minority government. And all parties want to put more money into health care to reduce waiting times. The question is how the bills will be paid. Even the best of Liberal plans have to be taken with a grain of salt, since they didn't bother to propose anything of the sort of the past twelve years in power and when they had the surpluses. Now they want to cut taxes and increase spending, so you do the math. But the Tories plan to do the same, although with different tax cuts and different spending, and it still doesn't add up.

I really believe that given the right kind of services, Canadians are willing to pay a fairly steep tax rate. But the parties are trying to have it both ways. I guess that's what makes them politicians. I think my abacus will be working overtime the next eighteen days.

The Noose Tightens

2006-01-03T23:18:00.000-05:00

After tuning out of the election campaign, for the most part, over the last couple of weeks, I'm now starting to get interested again. The plot has certainly thickened over the budding income trust scandal, and the subsequent tightening of the polls. As the calendar marches toward January 23, my initial prediction of a Conservative minority government is looking better and better.

I have mentioned before that I do not endorse the Conservative Party agenda, and will not be voting for them. I also believe that power corrupts, and any party that stays in power for an extended period of time will be plagued by scandal and corruption. But by Canadian standards, the Liberals of the last twelve years have just about taken the cake, to the point where their hubris has allowed them to perpetrate their monkey business in broad daylight - as if they thought the spiked income trust activity would go unnoticed. The Liberal government's overall legacy is a mixed bag, nowhere near as gloomy as Conservatives and their lackeys would tell you, but with much promise unfulfilled because of energies focused on self-serving ventures. Their boldest initiatives have only come under threat of defeat. I think the Canadian people are slowly wising up to this, and I think the rank-and-file Liberals are as well. The only way to straighten out the LPC is to give them a few years in the wilderness. And while I'm not prepared to call the Conservatives the lesser of two evils, I'd like to believe that the other evil can be exorcised.

The election will probably boil down to NDP support. If the NDP base and progressive voters who want to send the Liberals a message vote NDP, the Conservatives will win and the NDP will have a very strong presence in Ottawa. But if those who would vote NDP decide to vote Liberal just to keep the Conservatives out, all of us will end up losing. I don't fear the prospect of a Conservative minority. They can't govern too far to the Right and have any hope of getting opposition support, much less re-election. But if they can implement some of their "good government" plans, that would be a positive development. (Some Conservative politicians and bloggers would have you believe that the Liberals are the only party with corporate friends.) A Conservative majority would be a different story, because I really don't believe either the membership or leadership of that party is as moderate as their current platform. That eventuality, however unpalatable, is a risk that must be taken by progressives who want a cancer-free Liberal Party. Better a Conservative minority for the next few years than a Conservative majority for the next few decades.

New Year, Same Story

2006-01-02T20:13:00.000-05:00

I hope everybody had a great "holiday season", whatever holidays you celebrated. And all the best for the upcoming year to everybody. Because it was that time of the year, I decided to lay low from blogging, and enjoy the freedom of not having deadline pressures for the past week and a bit. Maybe that was a bit decadent of me, since I'll be on a boat for a week later this month and certainly not blogging, but the rest was nice. For now, I'm back to the grind.

Unfortunately, the year has started with more bad tidings from the city in which I reside. It didn't take long for the first gun murder of 2006, after an especially mean 2005. The year ended with the shooting death of a 15 year old girl, an innocent victim of gang shootings in the middle of a busy downtown street on Boxing Day. That was an incident that everyone in the city took to heart, and had everyone wondering when this would end.

My fear is that a culture of gangs and guns is like an infestation of cockroaches - you never totally get rid of it. There are no easy solutions. Stiffer sentences? We've seen from our friends to the south how that isn't a pancea. I have no problem with violent criminals getting tougher punishment, but that in itself won't reduce the frequency of gun violence, which is what we want to achieve, and could lead to increased racial tensions if not properly implemented. There has to be more than just that. Meanwhile the Liberal government wants to ban handguns, as if that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's time for them to work on real ideas rather than knee-jerk symbolism.

Despite what my political leanings might lead you to believe, I'm not a big gun control guy. If somebody wants to have a handgun or ten to protect themselves, that should be their right. It's the military-style assault weapons that ought to be controlled if anything, because nobody can claim that an AK-47 is an instrument of self-defence. But a ban on handguns will work about as well as prohibition of alcohol, and will create a new level of criminalization that will clog our already-congested law enforcement and legal infrastructures.

Really, this has little to do with guns and everything to do with gangs, who account for just about all of the increase in gun murder over the last couple of years. And while trying to crack a larger, organized crime structure higher up the food chain doesn't provide the same kind of instant gratification you get from cracking a few skulls on the street, it's the only way you can hope to get the gangs to disappear. In the meantime we'll deal with the individuals involved, and they will be replaced by others. (There are plenty of parallels with Islamist terrorism.) And the cesspool will continue to flourish. I sure hope I'm wrong about that.

The Master of My Domain

2005-12-23T13:23:00.000-05:00

I just gave myself an inexpensive Hanukkah present. For no real reason, I was curious to see what kind of site would turn up at the URL www.jaymeister.com. And you know what? It wasn't registered! I was shocked, because Jaymeister is often already taken when I try to register it as a login name at websites. I must have tried a dozen different variations of it to set up this Blogger account, before settling on a very random username. So I was quite happy to pay the nominal fee to register the domain name. Eventually I will have my own website at that address but, for now, jaymeister.com and www.jaymeister.com will forward you right here. I have a great sense of ownership now.

All this begs the question, "Why Jaymeister?" I wish I had an answer to that. At least three different people have called me that independently over the years - I guess the gets some kind of kick out of adding the suffix "-meister" to people's names. And since it's kind of catchy, and the most palatable of my nicknames, that is what I am. I have used the self-assigned "DiamondDog" at some sites where Jaymeister wasn't available, because it sounds cool and I really like the Bowie song. But no nickname is worthwhile if you give it to yourself, so Jaymeister it is. And now it's all mine.

Meet the Team

2005-12-22T23:02:00.000-05:00

I would be remiss if I didn't take some time to discuss the most heated topic in Canada right now. Naturally, I'm talking about the selection of the Canadian Olympic men's hockey team. The debating and whining has already begun in earnest, and will probably continue for several years - and that's just if they end up winning the gold medal.

When it comes to hockey powers, Canada is number one by a very large margin. The percentage of participation in the sport here ensures that no talent will slip through the cracks, and most of the top athletes get into the minor hockey system. That isn't to say that we will win every tournament we enter, because other hockey nations have top flight talent too. But we're the only country that could legitimately field two or three teams and have all of them be gold medal contenders. And because of the depth of hockey talent in our country, there are always controversies about omissions from a national team, whether at the junior or Olympic level. But this year there seems to be more controversy over certain inclusions rather than exclusions. And the name at the top of that list is Todd Bertuzzi.

Personally, I'm appalled to have Bertuzzi represent my country on an Olympic stage, and so soon after the incident that will forever mar his hockey career and define his public life. Yes, he has served his suspension and has been examined by the legal system, so he should be free to continue his life and career. But that doesn't mean that we have an obligation to have him represent our country on the Olympic stage. In much of the world where they don't follow professional hockey, or the NHL, many will recognize Bertuzzi's name and associate Canadian hockey with thuggery. We have enough good players that somebody else could have filled his role more than competently. And although his form has improved over the past several weeks, you could make a case that his play for this season as a whole has not warranted a spot on the Olympic roster.

When it comes to hockey, it's hard to argue about anything with Wayne Gretzky. But the makeup of this Olympic team puzzles me. He basically started with the roster he put together for last year's World Cup, and picked all the same players unless it was clear that they couldn't play anymore. Steve Yzerman and Mario Lemieux, who had no business being on this team, "voluntarily" withdrew their names. But other veteran players who are having sub-standard seasons have retained their roster spots when younger, brighter talent could have been picked. Eric Staal and Jason Spezza should be on the main roster, not the taxi squad. Shane Doan was a curious pick, and probably the clearest example of cronyism on Gretzky's part. Because he's now a coach, being so close to his team day in and day out, it's harder for him to pick a team without one of his own players because he wants to show that he's looking out for them. Maybe he's doing this to inspire Doan, his captain in Phoenix, who has not done much of anything this season. But the Olympic team should not be the place to serve the interests of individual club teams. If he wanted to pick one of his own players, Curtis Joseph should have been it - except that he and Pat Quinn have issues going back to the last Olympics.

I guess you can't really come down too hard on Gretzky while he deals with the death of his mother. But he will certainly be in the crosshairs once February rolls around if the public doesn't see perfection. Hockey is the one sport in which we demand that, and it's good to see other sports organizations in Canada starting to adopt that attitude as well. It is very possible that we may end up in the top three in the Winter Olympic medal haul in Torino. But if we don't win hockey gold, the country will view our performance as a failure. And when it comes to Canadian hockey, failure is not an option.

This Is Wire Tap

2005-12-20T23:57:00.000-05:00

This shouldn't come as a big surprise to anybody who pays attention, but George W. Bush has done a monumental flip-flop on the issue of wiretaps requiring a court order.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

Apparently, he was against breaking the law before he was for it.

I think, once again, opinion on this will divide along the lines of who trusts this president and his intentions, and who doesn't. For those who believe in him and his cause, no transgression of the law can be too great if it means achieving the ends that the White House propagandists spell out post facto. For those of us who are non-believers in the Almighty Bush, even the tiniest of improprieties is seen as another symptom of the virus that has infected the highest seat of power in the world. The evidence above says that Bush flat-out lied. Not about blowjobs, but about the power to circumvent the courts to monitor his citizens. This smells more of Nixon than of Clinton.

There is a certain arrogance that comes with power. It's everywhere. We know about it in Canada all too well, with the Liberal Party's "culture of entitlement" after lo these many decades in power. Patronage, cronyism, corruption, abuse of power - that seems to be par for the course. But the Bush White House has brought a new twist. Instead of denying wrongdoing, they put out campaigns to justify it in the name of 9/11. The PNAC crowd got their Pearl Harbor, and are milking it for everything it's worth and more. I'm not saying anything new here, but whenever something else comes up that brings the point home, it needs to be mentioned.

Too Little Time

2005-12-19T23:36:00.000-05:00

Can't write much tonight - I'm bogged down in a work issue. But I wanted to draw attention to a couple of items. First, proof that you can sometimes be just a wee bit too competitive. Second, the U.S. is engaging in the most egregious torture imaginable to humankind.

Potpourri for $1600, Alex

2005-12-18T23:28:00.000-05:00

A few random musings at the end of the weekend:

There's another case of conservative projection taking shape in Canadian politics. Many conservatives are complaining about anti-Americanism on the part of certain politicians and non-Right-thinking Canadians in general. But the kind of disdain they are attributing to others toward the U.S. is what they themselves feel toward Ontario and Toronto. Most of us who have questions about U.S. policy are not vindictive toward that country or its citizens, just critical of those who make policy. On the other hand, the Western conservatives in Canada truly despise their compatriots who are of a different political culture.

So, the U.S. government is now in the business of spying on its own citizens. That all seems to be par for the course when there is a president in charge who regards the U.S. constitution as " just a goddamned piece of paper." But what I find strange is that, in the same breath, Bush can talk about the necessity of the program, while criticizing those who made it publicly known. Huh? If it's justified, then why keep it a secret. Just telling your people that you're monitoring their phone and e-mails doesn't tell them who you're spying on specifically. But you'd have to be totally naive to think that every target of this NSA project is terrorism-related. For shame.

Yesterday I bought a computer desk from Ikea, and assembled it that day. And everything was great. Except that there was a little plastic piece missing. So I had to drive all the way back there again today just to take a number, wait to be called up to the desk, and ask for this little plastic piece. The gas to drive there probably cost over 100 times more than that little plastic piece. I have very little bad to say about Ikea - it's one of my favourite places to shop. (And the return trip allowed me to enjoy another 75 cent frozen yogurt cone, and have another whiff of those cinnamon buns.) But since they are in the business of selling unassembled furniture, they should include extra pieces of all the assembly hardware, to ensure that a good customer doesn't get shortchanged and have to make a long journey back to pick up a little plastic piece needed to complete the assembly. But I'm not bitter.

UPDATE: Hat tip to Mustard Man for providing this tidbit in the comments section. It appears that if there's real hatred, it isn't coming from our side of the border.

One Down, Three to Go

2005-12-15T22:50:00.000-05:00

Mid-December. Snow coming down. Coloured lights on every house. Seasonal music playing on the radio. It can only mean one thing: It's election debate time! I watched the French language debate tonight from Vancouver, and was actually impressed with what I saw, at least in terms of the format. The media questions to all the party leaders after the debate dwelled on whether the chosen debate format was too dry and boring for viewers, as if our electoral process should be turned into just another entertainment choice. But it seems to me that this debate in particular (and the one tomorrow night in English) was in just the right format, because the people who take the time to pay attention to such things in the middle of the Christmas season are interested in getting information. That is, the ones who are still undecided. The vast majority of people who are politically engaged have already made up their minds, and probably wouldn't mind a little bit of back-and-forth fireworks - the political equivalent to a hockey fight. Since I'm not party-committed, I enjoyed seeing each leader present his version of the straight goods.

This was a national debate but, for all practical purposes, it was directed at voters in Quebec. And Paul Martin didn't do himself any favours toward his ambition to retain his Quebec seats. He looked weak when responding to the question from the lady in Quebec who called his bluff on the Bloc=Separation rhetoric. Instead of stepping back and admitting his error, or laying in the bed he made and campaigning strongly on the point (either of which would have made him look more respectable), he resorted to weasel words. Despite his gyrations and inflections, Martin did not do anything to sway anybody in Quebec who had doubts about him or the Liberal Party. And Quebec could turn out to be Martin's Waterloo once all the seats are counted.

Stephen Harper spoke in credible French, but he still seemed uncomfortable expressing himself in that language. For a man who is cardboard at the best of times, he appeared almost straight-jacketed tonight. He was not able to convey his sharpness and passion as well as he will tomorrow night in English. But he effectively communicated his platform and standard talking points - as did Jack Layton. The problem that they both have is that there is very little they can accomplish in Quebec at this point in time, other than perhaps planting some seeds. While they both like to tell Quebec voters that the government scandals are all about the Liberal Party, Gilles Duceppe has ingeniously conflated AdScam with all of Quebec's other grievances with Ottawa over generations. So while Layton and Harper pile on Martin over the sponsorship scandal, they are unwittingly helping the Bloc. The fact is that none of the federalist leaders had any answers on the issue of how to bring Quebec into the constitutional family or providing long term stability to Quebec in confederation. This would have been a great opportunity for Harper to talk about a Conservative vision of renewed federalism with de-centralized powers, but he played it safe. (In fact, a lot of the platform presented by Harper goes contrary to hardline Western conservative values, and even what he himself has advocated in the past. Was that a compromise in the merger with the PC Party, or cloaking of a hidden agenda?) The Conservatives might not pick up seats in Quebec, but any Liberal loss is a gain for them. The NDP probably have more upside in Quebec down the road if the Liberals are deemed party non grata.

Tomorrow night the focus will shift to the rest of the country, and it will be interesting to see how the leaders play to a different audience. It will also be interesting to see if Martin is challenged to explain his asinine remark that a cut in the GST would be regressive. I'll be out tomorrow but I hope to catch a replay later on CPAC. Then we can forget all about this stuff until after the holidays.

P.S. If they are debating in a studio without an audience, and fielding questions from Candians that were recorded on tape, why do they have to be in Vancouver?

Silver Lining on a Dark Cloud

2005-12-14T22:36:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, the Iraqi people will head to the polls for their legislative elections. It is a momentous occasion in the history of that country, and we all hope that nobody is victimized in exercising their newly found democratic right. I don't expect there to be too many incidents of violence, and turnout should be pretty high. Let's face it, for people who have never had a choice before, this kind of election is pretty exciting stuff. I could go on and nitpick about the kind of choices they have, and how their constitution is rigged in favour of outside business interests and real world concerns like that. I have sincere doubts about whether the Iraqi system can hold together without an outside presence - and those of us on the Left believe it is being crafted that way by design, to ensure a permanent presence there. But I'll let that slide for now, because it's a time to celebrate democracy. We have plenty of shortfalls in our own democratic models.

This all brings us back to the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. As we hail the new democracy in Iraq, we must remind ourselves that the war was deemed necessary because of WMD. Bush is now finally taking responsibility for the "intelligence failures", but at a time when he can show the world a positive by-product of his actions. The successes should make people forget about the transgressions, and any questions about the legalities of the invasion. So do the ends justify the means? I made a comment on another blog that I am happy that the war has led to Iraqis experiencing democracy, but that I also ride on the rails that were laid down by slaves. I think most people will agree that slavery in the U.S. was a terrible thing, but those same people still reap the benefits of slavery every day. The United States could not have become the economic and military superpower it is now in such a relatively short period of time if not for the great wealth generated on the backs of slaves for hundreds of years. Consequently, they wouldn't have the power to go overthrow rogue dictators and create democracies. So does that mean that slavery should now be considered a good thing? Doesn't history show that it resulted in a greater good? Wouldn't we all be speaking Russian or German if not for slavery in America? Ponder that for a little while.

It may not be a perfect analogy, but it begs a philosophical question about whether actions should be judged by their ethics or by their results. I hope the Iraqi people find peace and stability, whether Bush really has their welfare in mind or not. Whatever happens, it doesn't take him off the hook.

Another Year None the Wiser

2005-12-13T22:31:00.000-05:00

It's my birthday and I'll rant if I want to.

I admit that my blogging lately has been a bit erratic. Over the last couple of weeks there have been a few days in which I did not post, and I feel guilty about that. Not that I have to answer to anyone except myself here, but I really wanted to commit to writing every day, even if I had nothing much to say, as an exercise in discipline and as a public diary of sorts. It isn't that my ambition to write has lost steam - far from it. But I must admit that in the last little while it has been a real chore to put something down in black and white, and I've found myself sometimes preferring to pursue other activities. I could write about those things, but they aren't conducive to analysis and discussion. At this point in time I would rather research decorating possibilities for my new condo than read news sites and political blogs. I've mentioned before how I sometimes run into blog fatigue, and I admire the people who can stick with the red meat day in and day out. But lately I've lost my taste for that kind of discourse, and my bullshit metre is pinning. There's a Canadian election coming up next month, and I'll be right into that, but just not yet. There's still a war going on but no meaningful dialogue, because the two sides of the domestic debate might as well be from Jupiter and Saturn. I'm getting a headache from the conflicting polls cited. I'm tiring of the mean-spiritedness and/or closed-mindedness on both sides of the coin. Like most blog participants on both sides, I'm disappointed in the ignorance of the general public. And I'm generally depressed about politics as a whole. I can't even bring myself to watch and ridicule Bill O'Reilly right now. But I'll get over it soon. There's an election to talk about - two actually, including Iraq. I'll have something to say about that soon enough. For now, I think I'll have a piece of cake. This rant is over. Back to the regularly scheduled dead air.

Tomorrow Never Knows

2005-12-11T22:26:00.000-05:00

A former colleague at my company passed away suddenly this week at the age of 47, apparently from a massive stroke. I went to the visitation earlier today. The news of Drew's passing came as a complete shock to everyone at work, as he was probably the last person that we would expect this to happen to. He was slim, active, and healthy by any measure. He left behind a wife and two university-age children. He just left our company about a year ago after being there for thirteen years. I did not work directly with Drew (except a little bit in my first couple of years with the company), but we had a number of golf outings over the years, and I got to meet his family several times at company events. I think you'll find a needle in a haystack before you'll find anybody who has a bad word to say about Drew. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word - warm, friendly, a consummate professional and a great family man.

I don't know how much stress played a role, or whether there were genetic factors involved, but it really doesn't matter to the people who cared about Drew. To lose a loved one any time is hard, but exponentially so when it happens without any conceivable expectation. I got to chat briefly with his wife today, and she said the suddenness was very hard on the family, but a relief that he didn't have any pain or suffering. She was putting up a brave face, but she was having a very hard time as one would expect under the circumstances. Drew had a very large family, and many friends and contacts through work, so the visitation line was quite long (and this was the third of four visitations). I hope that brought some comfort to the family, even if just for a while. The funeral will be tomorrow morning.

I suppose that this is just another wake-up call about how fleeting life can be. My boss has been in a stunned state ever since we got the news. He and Drew were both VP's in the company, and just a month apart in age. My boss also lost his mother-in-law recently, and yet another VP just lost her mother - it has been a very tough couple of weeks for our company's extended family. But Drew's passing has given all of us pause, realizing that this could have happened to any of us. No matter how much you take care of yourself and plan for a long and healthy life, there are no guarantees. Drew was an actuary's dream, and that didn't help him. Still, we have to remind ourselves that it happens far more often to those who don't take care of themselves. And that it happens to bad people as well as good, but we only take note of the ones who were good. We don't have much power to live longer, but we have a lot of power to live better. And that is our responsibility. Drew was a fine example for us all to follow.

A Very Short Trip

2005-12-09T22:33:00.000-05:00

This has been a week of troubling stories in the news. The most bizarre of them was this one about the poor schlemazel with bi-polar disorder who was killed by an air marshall after storming off the plane and allegedly threatening to detonate a bomb. Or was he? According to his fellow passengers, he never used the "B-word", nor threatened the airplane or passengers in any way. It seemed to be a case of a mentally ill patient freaking out over flying, and the air marshall over-reacting to the situation - a tragic error as a by-product of our post-9/11 existence. But neither the air marshall, nor his colleagues, nor the White House will ever concede that a mistake was made.

I have nothing but the utmost admiration for the people who protect us on an everyday basis. Law enforcement is difficult, dangerous, and without many personal rewards - much like military service. And I think that helps to explain the bunker mentality that is prevalent among law enforcement personnel. Their skin tends to be quite thin when it comes to examination and criticism. Whenever an incident is made public in which common sense says that a mistake was made by police, every policeman and their superiors immediately get their back up as if they feel that every one of them is under attack. The same type of thing happens in the military.

In a way, it is an admirable display of loyalty and unity. But it's also delusional. Just because somebody works in a heroic vocation, that doesn't mean that all accountability to the public they serve is waived. And nobody is perfect. There are people in every profession who are incompetent, or corrupt, or who make an occasional mistake. Wouldn't it be better for the overall morale of a law enforcement community (or military outfit) to deal with the individuals involved and their actions, rather than be gripped by paranoia and complain about the messengers who report the story? Or to believe that those who criticize the incident in question somehow don't appreciate the work they do as a whole?

The death of Rigoberto Alpizar was a tragedy. I expect that President Bush and his spokesman will refer to Alpizar as another casualty in the war on terror, which I suppose he was. But I'm not convinced that this death was unavoidable, and can only hope that all the facts eventually see the light of day. To err is human. To ignore error, or whitewash it, is negligent.

All Those Years Ago

2005-12-07T22:26:00.000-05:00

December 7 and 8 mark two days of infamy in the 20th century. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the murder of John Lennon. While one event was clearly more significant in its scope and consequences, the other left an indelible imprint on many people's lives. I can't do the Pearl Harbor experience justice, so I'll talk a bit about Lennon.

Among the four Beatles, I think of George Harrison as probably the most impressive as a human being, but John Lennon was, by far, the most interesting among them. He was also the most human in many ways. He was intensely thoughtful, but with childlike impishness. His life and music were both erratic, and yet produced more brilliance than anybody could aspire to in a full lifetime. He took a stand against the Vietnam War, and got a special file at Nixon's FBI. This was a man who was kicked out of the house by Yoko Ono and basically wandered the streets of New York for a year. Then they got back together, and he abandoned his music career for almost five years to be a stay-at-home dad. And in between it all, he produced some of the most memorable music ever. And that doesn't even include his years with the Beatles, when he was the one who pushed the envelope (am I the only person who likes Revolution 9?) and inspired the others to do the same.

Lennon was killed just before my 13th birthday. He had just released his first album in five years, so I have no recollections of him as a living performer and can't say that his death left any impression on me at the time. But many others regarded the event as cataclysmic, not just the violent death of a pop star. Some have opined that the reason the death of Lennon was taken so hard is that it marked an official end to the idealism of the 60's, and a wake-up call for the baby boomer generation. Instant karma hit them right in the face. I believe there's something to that. There's also the sad irony of somebody who sang bout the virtues of peace and love meeting a violent end. But a lot of it was people coming to grips with their own mortality. Those who grew up with the Beatles could feel young and invulnerable no more. Could it also have been John's prescient lyrics? "The way things are going, they're gonna crucify me." (The Ballad of John and Yoko) "Shoot me." (Come Together)

John Lennon was a fallible homo sapien who contributed mightily to the culture of his time, and whose work will surely be enjoyed for centuries. He wanted to help create a better world, and he did make many people's worlds a little bit richer. Maybe he has found his own peace as well. Imagine.

UPDATE: Here's a piece that expresses these thoughts much better than I could ever hope to.

Election Haiku

2005-12-06T22:52:00.000-05:00

Mr. Dithers says
Liberal Party's not corrupt
As his cheeks grow fat

Stephen Harper's coy
Smiles while we cannot see
Hidden agenda

Smiling Jack will use
Health card, not a credit card
But he'll have to wait

As for Gilles Duceppe
Nothing to say about him
Bloc-heads do not count

No-Diet Diet

2005-12-05T21:40:00.000-05:00

This is an item that's too good to resist. After recent good news stories about the virtues of caffeine and chocolate, we now have the No-Diet Diet. Any of us who have gone through the trials of losing weight like to think that there's a magic bullet out there. But a professor at Brigham Young University has discovered that the best way to deal with cravings is to satisfy them. Steven Hawks managed to keep 50 pounds off this way. He calls his approach "intuitive eating".

As part of intuitive eating, Hawks surrounds himself with unhealthy foods he especially craves. He says having an overabundance of what's taboo helps him lose his desire to gorge.
There is a catch to this no-diet diet, however: Intuitive eaters only eat when they're hungry and stop when they're full.
That means not eating a box of chocolates when you're feeling blue or digging into a big plate of nachos just because everyone else at the table is.
The trade-off is the opportunity to eat whatever your heart desires when you are actually hungry.

My own experience was quite the opposite. I'd avoid having junk food in my home at all costs, because I know that it would somehow make its way into my belly, either by osmosis or some other metaphysical phenomenon. Everybody has their own comfort level when it comes to self-discipline. For me it was being disciplined enough not to buy unhealthy foods at the store, or not stop at fast food places. We have vending machines at work that I walk by every day. Well, not every day - I'll have a treat once in a while, but not very often. The point is, I've made a lifestyle change, but it is a change in the kinds of foods that I eat and in my awareness of calories and fat counts and things like that. What Hawks has done is sharpen his awareness of his wants and needs - to go for what he wants, but only when he needs it. That is an exercise in self-control. I think it's a very healthy approach to anything in life (well, most things), and could be a recipe for success outside of the realm of weight-loss. Very interesting. Any guinea pigs out there?

More F's Than A's

2005-12-04T22:01:00.000-05:00

Members of the former 9/11 Commission are going to release a report on Monday in which they will assess how the commission's anti-terror recommendations have been implemented so far. Their initial evaluation is not good.

Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But it has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting
money so it goes to states based on risk level.

[...]

[Chairman Thomas] Kean and [vice chairman Lee] Hamilton urged Congress to pass spending bills that would allow police and fire to communicate across radio spectrums and to reallocate money so that Washington and New York, which have more people and symbolic landmarks, could receive more for terrorism defense. Both bills have stalled in Congress, in part over the level of spending and turf fights over which states should get the most dollars.

That seems like legislative business as usual. Aside from the structural and procedural recommendations by the 9/11 Commission, there are still well-documented concerns about security at ports, power plants and chemical plants. In other words, there are plenty of vulnerable targets should terrorists wish to strike again, and plenty of opportunity. So the obvious question is: why hasn't that happened yet?

I have a couple of theories. We know that Al Qaeda's M.O. is to orchestrate these elaborate, multi-front operations, and they always try to pull off something original. They seem to take more pride in their ability to execute a difficult plan than in its consequences. So in their hubris, they might feel that the next attack on America will have to be something even greater and more improbable than 9/11. The more complex a plan, the more likely it will be thwarted by loose lips or good intelligence (9/11 notwithstanding), so some new Al Qaeda schemes might have been quashed before they could get off the ground.

But I have a conflicting theory on why the U.S. has not been attacked again. A couple of weeks back I wrote about one of the men responsible for the Madrid bombings having detailed information about the Montreal Metro on his laptop, and my speculation as to why Montreal might be a terrorist target. I hypothesized that contrary to conventional opinion, the point of terrorist attacks are to get countries to join the war, not to stay out of it. ("Maybe it's the terrorists who are playing the 'flypaper' game.") Since the U.S. is full throttle in Iraq, there was no need to waste resources there. However, as chatter starts to increase about troop pullouts and disengagement, that is when America is more liable to be attacked. Then they will be more eager to redouble their efforts in the war, and allow the cycle to continue.

I don't know what the answer is, but nobody should make assumptions about their safety from terrorism. There is a war on terror to be fought out there, and it can be fought sensibly. But the sensible fight has been delayed by the Iraq diversion, and it's hard to tell how many years it will take to get back on track. In the meantime, watch your back.

Weekend Leftovers

2005-12-03T20:16:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a couple of days. I hit the Friday wall on Thursday night, and then last night I had all kinds of homework to do. So now I'm back to my regularly scheduled drivel.

A lot of times when I come across something that might be worth blogging about - a news story or someone else's blog entry - I'll save the URL in the Notepad section of Yahoo Mail and get around to writing about it later. But I am starting to get a backlog in there, so I wanted to address some of what I've accumulated over the last few weeks for your reading pleasure.

****

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

In a President's Daily Brief (PDB) on September 21, 2001, the president was told that the U.S. intelligence community had "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were presented as one of the public rationales for the war in Iraq. "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002. Despite repeated requests by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the White House has refused to turn over the September 21, 2001 PDB.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The article is lengthy, but very interesting in laying out some of the discrepancies between information gathered by the intelligence community and the public message put forward by the Bush Administration. This is an important point, because it show that the march to war was not simply based on "intelligence failures." There definitely were failures of intelligence, and even the contents of the mystery PDB's might be erroneous. But this is the information the administration had to work with, and they chose to present their case selectively. (More about that here.)

****

Facts vs Punditry; the Liberal-Conservative Debate

This is an elaboration of stuff I've talked about in the past, but written much more coherently. The reason the American MSM is seen to slant left is that facts and knowledge are liberal by definition.

The countermeasures that the Right demanded of the "mainstream" media, in outrage at the terrible liberality of a New York Times or Big Three network, is that factual journalism include conservative opinions about the story at hand, as "balance" to the presumed slant of each article. And they got it, in spades: there are few stories in today's press that don't include a conservative talking point from a conservative think-tank-based talking head to balance even a patently obvious and accepted fact. In the years of the Bush administration, much of factual "journalism" has positively devolved into a Monty Pythonesque Argument Sketch, with few scientific or other unambiguously factual stories that do not contain at least a token conservative figure to proclaim an unsupportable "No it isn't."

Conservatives like to point to studies about how many "negative" stories are on the news about Bush. But a story that reports bad news that actually occurred is just a reporting of facts. As Yogi would say, you can look it up. (Take note of the link within the link for an excellent expose of Michelle Malkin's dubious journalistic credentials.)

****

Whistleblower's Iraq claims to be investigated

A whistleblower's claims that reconstruction in Iraq has been rife with waste, fraud and abuse -- particularly in regard to a division of Halliburton -- will be turned over to the Justice Department, a U.S. senator said Friday.

We'll see what comes of this, if anything. The allegations of gouging and waste on the part of Halliburton subsidiary KBR aren't anything new, and the Republican Congress has not wanted anything to do with them. Having the Bush/Cheney Justice Department investigate this is like having the Liberal Justice Ministry investigating AdScam. In other words, this will likely be the last you read of this story.

(BTW, Canadian Conservative readers, fiascos surrounding fiscal mismanagement in Iraq make the Liberal scandals and mismanagement look like peanut shells. I'm not defending the Libranos in any way shape or form, but just putting things into proper perspective for you folks who look at the Bush administration as the Utopian model for our government to follow.)

****

I know I've left you with a large reading assignment today, but I had to catch up. Tomorrow I'll have something lighter. Or perhaps not.

Do As I Say...

2005-11-30T23:55:00.000-05:00

I apologize for re-visiting something relatively petty so soon after bringing it up the first time, but I couldn't resist because it's just priceless. There aren't many things I read online that make me literally laugh out loud, but tonight we had a winner. A few days ago I posted regarding Bill O'Reilly's war on the war on Christmas, his personal crusade against retailers who referred to Holidays instead of Christmas. Well, apparently he has to put his own employer on his target list. Look what we have here:

The Fox News online store is selling "holiday" ornaments! Three different ones, in fact, including a special O'Reilly Factor holiday ornament. "Put your holiday tree in 'The No Spin Zone' with this silver glass 'O'Reilly Factor' ornament." Holiday tree?!?!? ROFLMAO! You just can't make this stuff up! Who hates Christmas now? They can't blame the libs for this.

It's a good thing that Media Matters got a screen grab while they could. Not surprisingly, once the brainiacs at Fox caught wind of this (the power of the blogosphere strikes again) they made a few alterations to their catalogue, but they still couldn't get it quite right. Fox News now recognizes Christmas for ornaments, but you still have to put them on your holiday tree. It's all very silly, but it was O'Reilly who made such a major gedillah out of this, so he should have to answer for the copy associated with a product that bears his name. The most important thing about all this is that it made my day.

UPDATE: By the grace of God, they finally got it right.

____________________________________

Just so I can say I wrote about something more serious today, I offer this article about how the Bush administration's penchant for disguising propaganda as news has spread to the military and Iraqi newspapers. They are paying the newspapers to publish stories written by military personnel.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said.

In other words, these articles are "fake but accurate". This coming from the same people who condemned Dan Rather and Mary Mapes for allegedly engaging in that kind of reporting. Next thing you know, Armstrong Williams will be anchoring the 11 o'clock Baghdad news.

FRAnimals

2005-11-29T23:13:00.000-05:00

A few months back I wrote about my experience in trying to participate in a Free Republic forum. Well, lately I've been facing similar hostility on a Right Wing Canadian blog. And though I haven't been banished, it has certainly been made clear to me that very few of the regular posters there are looking to hear from anybody who doesn't toe their party line.

The site is Small Dead Animals, a very popular blog put together by an ultra-conservative artist from Saskatchewan. (Beware of conservative artists. Think of the commercial with the guy diving into the fountain to get back the coin his girlfriend tossed in to make a wish. "When it's all about the money...") I actually admire her work on that site, because it is a good source of information on all of the Librano dirt that is underreported in the MSM. Some of it is over-the-top, but I have no problems with the hacks getting their red meat. However, I get a kick out of anybody, Right or Left, who complains about the state of democracy while discouraging it within their own domain.

I'll give you a couple of examples. My favorite was this post, with an excerpt from Mark Helprin about how he sees liberals as being unsympathetic toward victims of terrorism, and universally opposed to the War on Terror. After the excerpt was the remark: "This is not an invitation to debate the premise - it's an opportunity for you to see yourselves as we do - and to understand why we fight tooth and nail to resist your ideology." She and her monolithic readers weren't even interested in hearing the argument that the premise was false to begin with.

The most recent exhibit is from Monday when I commented on an item regarding Michael Ignatieff's parachuting into Etobicoke-Lakeshore to run for the Liberals. I don't like it much either. The remark I posted was: "Pro-war. Pro-torture. I'd say he picked the wrong party to run for." Yes, it was a bit snarky, but it raised a legitimate point that Ignatieff's foreign policy opinions more closely resemble those of the Conservatives than those of the Liberals. The reply I got from another commenter was very heartwarming: "Farck off, Jay! Showing people scary cartoons is torture to people like you, so long as the Americans are doing it. You're not welcome here! (evilprinceweasel)" First off, what does "Farck off" mean? Is that some kind of politically correct euphemism that these folks usually abhor? Secondly, is this person qualified to say where I'm not welcome? This "evilprinceweasel" is a regular commenter at SDA, so I imagine he has a good read on what his fellow readers want to see in the comments section. Other "dissenting" voices have met with similar hostility. There has really been only one person with whom I've ever been able to have a meaningful exchange. (Not including North Bay Trapper, of course.)

I can understand why the proprietor and readership of SDA are so revved up right now. They are so close to having their party get into power that they can practically taste it. But it would be nice, once in a while, to see a word or two criticizing the Conservatives. One thing that sets the Canadian Right apart from the Canadian Left, and both the Left and Right in the U.S., is that they have no cynicism or beefs at all with their party. Stephen Harper and his henchmen apparently all walk on water. I guess I'm reading things that way because we've bascially been in campaign mode for a long time now. But there must be some warts there. Nobody's perfect, and you know what they say about things that seem too good to be true. Maybe if the Conservatives win the election, the honeymoon will subside and we'll see what the reasonable Righties really think of them. On the other hand, if the Liberals win again, that site will be a lot more fun.

Get Fitted For Snowshoes

2005-11-28T23:55:00.000-05:00

With tonight's non-confidence vote in the House of Commons, Canada's 38th Parliament is no more. The vote will go into the books as 171-133, and while expected, it is still historically significant. Paul Martin's government is the fifth in Canada to be defeated on a vote of no confidence, but the first on a motion presented by the opposition. Congratulations, Paul.

The whole spectacle was somewhat surreal. Procedurally, it was anti-climactic. After the opposition parties registered their Yea votes and the resolution had passed, we got to see the Liberals go through the motions of standing up to be counted for their Nays. And they tried to milk every second out of it, paying special tribute to their MP's who won't be running this time around. The loudest ovation was for Jean Augustine, the first black woman ever elected to the Canadian Parliament, who is stepping aside to allow Michael Ignatieff to run in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. (That's a curious move from the party of multi-culturalism, unless they consider it ethnically diverse to have American, anti-Ukranian, pro-torture war hawks in their caucus.) Then, after the vote, both of the major party leaders addressed their caucuses in scenes that resembled part post-election party, part Hitler Youth rally. (Relax, Tories. I'm referring to both parties.)

There will be lots of time to anticipate the election, analyze the campaign and ridicule the parties as they fall over each other to get an edge. But right now, I think it's important to note what happened immediately after tonight's vote in Parliament. Members of all parties crossed the floor to shake hands with their opponents. Even after all the harsh rhetoric leading up to this moment, and before it would continue as the campaign kicks off, there was still time for our politicians to recognize each others' humanity and commiserate over the tough campaign to come. Good night, Ralph. Good night, Sam. That should serve as a reminder of the kind of country we want, and of the minor miracle that it is.

Edmonton 38, Montreal 35 (OT)

2005-11-27T23:02:00.000-05:00

This one was painful.

One of the best Grey Cup games ever played is in the books, and my Alouettes have fallen just short. The Grey Cup has been played 93 times, and this was just the second to go to overtime. If ever a game could be called a "heartbreaker", this was it. Still, it was a joy to watch.

In a game like this, there are so many plays you can look back on that could have made a difference. The most glaring one, the play that ultimately cost the Als a chance to win, was Anthony Calvillo's brain cramp in overtime. He threw a pass that was blocked at the line, ended up back in his hands and, for some reason only known to him, he tried to pass the ball again - albeit to a wide open receiver. There is no excuse for him not to know the rules, and that penalty took the team out of field goal range. But I think the outcome of the game took shape at the end of the third quarter. Having just taken a 15-13 lead, and with all of the momentum on their side after a lacklustre first half, the Als recovered a fumble on the Eskimos' 12 yard line. A touchdown would have really given them control of the game, but they couldn't find the end zone and had to settle for a field goal. Edmonton then ran back the kickoff for a touchdown to regain the lead. The game stayed within one possession thereafter.

Despite the result, this was one hell of a football game. The Grey Cup rarely disappoints when it comes to competitiveness and entertainment. While the NFL has the star power and gambling allure, the CFL offers a better brand of football. And the league has enjoyed a resurgence of late. I really believe that some of it has to do with the recent work stoppage in the NHL, and the relationship between players and fans. There is something old school about the way fans can relate to players in the CFL, because there are no millionaires playing in the league. There are maybe a handful of players on each team earning six figures, and the vast majority probably make less than I do. Many need to hold a second job to make ends meet. Eric Lapointe, the Montreal running back who is just coming into his own, will likely retire now to go back to his financial planning job. Don't get me wrong - I don't begrudge anybody who makes as much money as somebody is willing to pay them. But there is something rare and special about the connection between working class fans and working class athletes, especially in a league that is still regarded as major and important in most of Canada.

Congratulations to the Edmonton Eskimos and their coach, Montreal boy Danny Maciocia. And congratulations to the Als for a great effort. Now it's time to concentrate on the getting the Habs turned around.

Happy Holidays

2005-11-26T23:28:00.000-05:00

What a beautiful day it was today. After a week of bitter cold and a fair dumping of snow for November, today was like a postcard. Just slightly below freezing, and gently falling snow. With the city already blanketed by the accumulation of snow, and the Christmas lights started to appear in earnest, it made for a perfect holiday scene. And though the temperature is supposed to rise over the next few days and all this snow will soon be gone, right now it looks a lot like Christmas.

Which bring me to one of the silliest manufactured "issues" that concerns dozens of people, particularly in the U.S. - the "War on Christmas". I confess that as a Jew, I'm not the most qualified to talk about people's sensitivities about this, but I think it's ridiculous. John Gibson, Fox News anchor, has written a book on the subject titled The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. (Fair & Balanced Faux News strikes again.) But he's not the loudest voice at Fox News on this topic. Bill O'Reilly is championing this cause. He is keeping track of all the major retailers who do not mention the word "Christmas" in their advertising, or who greet their customers with "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas".

Let's get real for a moment. I am not offended in the least when somebody wishes me a Merry Christmas. I realize that about 85% of North America is of Christian background, and it's part of the culture. I happen to like many aspects of the Christmas season, which were actually borrowed from various solstice celebrations pre-dating Jesus - it's the reason why Christmas is in December in the first place. (In some ways, it's unfortunate that they were usurped by Christmas and there isn't a secular Winter celebration, but that's a topic for another day.) I can't say I know of that many people who are greatly offended by Christmas greetings. But, honestly, how can anybody be offended by Happy Holidays? It might be bland and generic, but offensive? When there are trees and reindeer and Santas and red trim everywhere in a store, can you really say that they aren't recognizing Christmas or they're anti-Christian? I suppose there are a few people who won't shop at those stores. They'd rather shop where they are greeted by "Merry Christmas" and can buy goods that were made by 6-year-olds for ten cents a day.

There are some legitimate arguments about whether public displays of Christianity are suppressed where other religions are represented. I think that's wrong too, and have no problem with a nativity scene appearing alongside a Hannukah menorah. But to suggest a "War on Christmas", or that the holiday is somehow dying out, is more than a bit over the top. The fact that O'Reilly has taken up the cause is another indicator that it's a bogus issue. If anything, true Christians should be happy if retail stores don't exploit the word Christmas to encourage sales and commercialize the sacred holiday. I don't think there was anything capitalist about Jesus.

And They're Off

2005-11-24T22:28:00.000-05:00

The deed has finally been done. A real, honest-to-goodness non-confidence motion has been brought forward. It is believed to be the first such motion since 1963, although other governments have fallen over budgets. It is expected to be passed by the House of Commons on Monday. Let the holiday election season begin! The campaign is sure to have everything except peace on Earth and goodwill toward men. This will be one nasty campaign. The Swift Boat Mercenaries for Smear should sit by the phone and wait for the highest bidder, since they're not up to much these days.

All signs point to an election in mid-January, probably the 16th or 23rd. And if you listen to enough "expert" analysis, you really have no clue about how things will turn out. The recent polls show that the Liberals have bounced back a bit after taking an initial hit following the release of the Gomery Report. But you really have to wonder how solid their support is. When elections are close, it all comes down to turnout and motivation, and it remains to be seen how motivated the Liberal supporters will be to return them. There's no denying that the opposition is angry, and anger is a huge motivator come election time. That was true in the U.S. last year as well, but Karl Rove and the Republican machine were brilliant enough to make gay marriage a ballot issue in enough states to energize a deflated base. It remains to be seen if the Liberal strategists have a cause celebre up their sleeves to have the same effect.

We all know about Gomery and the issues of corruption and scandal. Many on the Right in this country are dismayed at the seeming lack of outrage from the general public, and on that point I am in agreement with them. But the Liberals ought to be highly concerned about a new poll that says a desire for change is a greater motivator than concern over scandals. And this is where the Conservatives have to tread carefully. Their campaign has to be the right balance between reminding Canadians about the ugliness of the Liberal government and enticing them with ideas for the future. If the polling data is to be believed, the majority of Canadians want to hear more of the latter. There is also great opportunity for the NDP to show that they are the right choice for the Left vote, because they are the party that truly represents "liberal" values.

How do I see this playing out? I have a feeling the Liberal support is too soft for them to hold onto power. While I am not a fan of the total Conservative agenda, I have resigned myself to the fact that their getting elected won't be the end of the world. Until the Liberals can purge themselves of all remnants of corruption and, indeed, the "culture of entitlement", they have worn out their welcome in power. Maybe a good ass-whipping is what they need, a la the 1993 Tories. If the Conservatives do win, I hope the NDP will pick up some seats and be a strong enough opposition to keep the government honest. The Conservatives might very well break through for some seats in 905 and gain a foothold in Ontario - but they will not be able to hold onto that foothold if they prove to be too extreme. Unless they govern from the centre, their power will be short-lived. A Conservative minority would probably be the best thing for their party, if not for the country. That's what I see happening, even if Ralph Klein doesn't. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them win a majority. But don't take that to the bank.

Red Zone: Montreal

2005-11-23T23:03:00.000-05:00

Here's a sobering story that will cause a lot of concern for people in my hometown:

Montreal police are scrambling to reassure commuters after a Spanish newspaper said a man arrested in the wake of the 2004 Madrid bombings had detailed information about the Quebec city's subway system.
El Pais daily newspaper reported Tuesday that Spanish police found information about the Montreal subway system as well as data on Spanish trains and a map of the London system on Abdelhak Chergui's personal laptop computer.

This is disturbing when you consider that trains in Spain and London have already been successfully attacked. Will Montreal complete the trifecta?

What's even more disturbing is the pitiful communication between law enforcement agencies on this. (Have we learned nothing?)

The information was apparently known to Spanish authorities six months ago, but both the RCMP and police forces in Montreal said they only found out about the information through the media on Wednesday. However, RCMP Insp. Tom O'Neill said Spanish authorities had passed the information on to RCMP liaison officers
in Europe.

Is that a joke or what? The RCMP didn't see fit to let their local force in on this tidbit? Or the Montreal police and the Surete du Quebec? And how could a Montreal police inspector insist that, "The information was analyzed and validated. There is no threat as we speak now." when they had only received the information that very day - through the media? That sounds like a PR statement if I ever heard one.

As we have seen from terrorists, any city in the free world is a potential target. But it's interesting to speculate on why Montreal would be on a par with Madrid and London, at least on Chergui's laptop. An attack on Montreal might dispel the idea that the Madrid bombing was to influence that country's Iraq war policy. The attack on London has already shattered the myth that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Could a Montreal attack be in response to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan? If Canada were attacked, I think that might result in more of a resolve among Canadians to be active on more fronts in the war on terror. There's a side of me that thinks that all of the conventional wisdom about recent terrorism is dead wrong. Could it be that all of these attacks weren't to discourage a fight, but to encourage it? I can't believe for a second that Al Qaeda actually believed the U.S. wouldn't fight back after 9/11. They might have wanted to embolden Spain and Britain. (Spain went the opposite way, but I think that's more complicated than the bombing itself.) Maybe if Canada were attacked, Canadians might want to engage the fight, and the Americans would have their will to fight reinforced. And other countries, out of fear they might be next, will join the fray. Maybe it's the terrorists who are playing the "flypaper" game. It's a theory worth considering. And if you follow along with that, we are in a dangerous time. Now that there's is serious political talk in the U.S. about timetables and re-deployments, this might be the time for terrorists to strike again and get everybody back in attack mode.

That's my bit of outside-the-box thinking for a Wednesday night. Or it's some kind of rationalization for Montreal being a terrorist target. Maybe it's because the bagels are too decadent. If only they could blow up the Olympic Stadium instead of the Metro.

November 22nd

2005-11-22T22:04:00.000-05:00

November 22nd is a monumental day in history, one of those days when those who were around remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when the even took place. It's the 25th anniversary of my Bar Mitzvah! All right, I don't mean to make light of the JFK assassination, but I couldn't resist patting myself on the back for all the studying and hard work that was put into one of the greatest Torah readings in modern history. Does that sound a bit hyperbolic and revisionist? Unfortunately, so is the image of President Kennedy.

It seems to be fashionable in some conservative circles these days to refer to JFK as the first Neo-Conservative president, and to draw parallels between him and George W. Bush. But, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Bush is no Jack Kennedy. The most cynical among us might claim that the only thing they have in common is that they both stole elections. Bush's speechwriters might have borrowed some of the thematic rhetoric from those of Kennedy, but his actions on those words have been quite different. Kennedy was a staunch anti-communist, just as Bush is purported to be the strong leader against terrorism (the heir to communism as the biggest enemy of the West.) But Kennedy recognized the importance of having allies and international partnerships, and bringing American goodwill throughout the world. He initiated the Alliance for Progress, established the Peace Corps and signed onto the first nuclear test ban treaty. The jewel in the Right's recent adoption of Kennedy as one of their own, tax cuts, doesn't hold water when one does a comparison of who benefited most. Another thing that distinguished JFK from GWB is the ability to take responsibility for a failure (Bay of Pigs). And it's curious how the new conservative fans, after years of admonishing Bill Clinton's indiscretions for how they tarnished the office, are willing to give Kennedy a pass for even more prolific philandering.

At the same time, the Left should not put Kennedy on too high a pedestal either. Whatever his personal beliefs, JFK was more a master of the political game than an ideologue, in much the same way that Clinton was later on. This was particularly true on Civil Rights. Even in 1960, before the Dixiecrats switched over to the Republican side, it was almost impossible for a northern Democrat to be elected president. So Kennedy hedged his official support for the movement. (It took a Nixon to go to China, and it took an LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed.) Plus, Kennedy helped get the ball rolling in Vietnam. Whether things would have escalated into the nightmare that ensued can only be speculation either way, despite what Oliver Stone might think.

History works in strange ways. I think JFK is rated high on the list of presidents because of his image and the sense of optimism he brought his country - contrasted with the years of turmoil that followed. On his own merits, he was probably a fair, moderate, middle-of-the-pack president. If George W. Bush could be that now, what a wonderful world it would be.

Willy Pete Goes To Fallujah

2005-11-21T23:17:00.000-05:00

Interesting piece in Think Progress about recent revelations that the U.S. military used white phosphorous (WP) against insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. Despite the persistent and counter-intuitive claims by the Pentagon that WP is not a chemical weapon, it is referred to as such in at least one de-classified document detailing the illegal use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. (See the links within the link.) The U.S. Army itself has acknowledged that they may be on shaky legal ground.

A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

I'm sure there will be explanations in legalese that will explain why there was nothing illegal about the American use of WP. That's almost beside the point. If you launch a pre-emptive war, and your reason is because you believe the enemy has chemical weapons and is willing to use them on you, you're not doing your cause any good by using chemical weapons yourself. If you are fighting a war to righteously lead the Middle East to a better future, you have to hold yourself up to a higher standard than just to say, "We're better than the guy who was here before." I've written before in this blog about how free democracies have to be held to a higher standard, because the people (theoretically) have the power to influence their leaders and hold them accountable. And in a war that's as much political as it is military, even the appearance of impropriety is a setback. Stories of the Americans using chemical weapons are all over the world, with only a weak rationalization put up.

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that the Bush administration would play fast and loose with international laws and conventions while, ostensibly, trying to enforce them on others.

Beatles Weekend

2005-11-20T23:15:00.000-05:00

I mentioned a few days back that I was under the weather, and this cold has been dogging me all week. Up until yesterday I could hardly even talk, but I braved it out at work and maintained an ironman streak of sorts. I haven't taken a sick day since working for my current employer, and that's over twelve years. (I guess it proves that we liberals aren't as lazy as the others would have you believe.) But I spent the whole weekend just hanging out at home so I'd be nice and healthy for the start of the week. With all this time on my hands, I hung out at a couple of right wing blogs that I don't normally frequent and tried to engage those good folks in rational debate. They weren't interested in civil discourse, and I quickly grew tired of them. So I decided to dig into my DVD collection, and watched the last four episodes of the Beatles Anthology series.

As you may have gathered by some of my earlier posts, I'm very much into music of the 60's and 70's, and also have a keen interest in music trivia. But I have to say that I've kind of taken the Beatles for granted all these years, and never really had a full appreciation for how great they really were. I always thought they were great, but in the same way that I thought ice cream was great. Their music has been ubiquitous for over forty years, and sometimes the things that are most familiar to you are the ones you forget to marvel at. They really laid the groundwork for what followed them.

The biggest, unsolvable mystery is whether the Anthology project would ever have been done if John Lennon were still alive at the time. He was quite an enigma. In all of his interviews in the last years of his life, he seemed to harbour great resentment over everything Beatles, but would turn around and exhibit pride in the next sentence. He used to contradict himself a lot. He'd certainly be the Beatle I'd most want to have dinner with. Luckily, Yoko allowed his footage to be used. I hadn't really had a great sense of the other Beatles' personalities before watching this. Paul seems like the Phil Mickelson of the Beatles - immensely talented and charismatic, but maybe more of an ego than he lets on for the cameras. Ringo is just laid back, friendly, and generally like his stage presence. The biggest revelation to me was George Harrison. He seemed the most cynical of the bunch , and yet he had a terrific sense of humour and humanity. He was taken far too soon. And yet, when you consider that he was just 26 when the Beatles recorded their last album, and with the great career he had afterward, he really had two or three lifetimes in his 58 years.

Having watched the documentary, I was very curious to hear the Anthology CD's. I think this kind of thing is unique to fans of Rock - the desire to hear studio outtakes and early versions of a song while it was still a work in progress. (I don't know of any opera fans who are scurrying for session tapes of the Three Tenors.) I listened to the second CD of Anthology 3, and it was incredible. It had gems from the recording sessions for the Let It Be and Abbey Road albums. I've got to say that for guys who weren't very happy and were about to break up the band, they seemed like they were still having fun in the studio. The highlight might have been during a take of "Oh Darling", when John started improvising lyrics about Yoko Ono's divorce being finalized. This CD also had tracks of a few songs that never made it onto Beatles albums. The saddest one to me was George doing an early version of "All Things Must Pass".

It isn't healthy to live in the past, but I enjoyed spending this time with the Beatles. For some people they defined their generation and helped shape the culture of the 60's, but to me it's all about the music. Do you think the day will come when there will be a Celine Dion Anthology or Limp Bizkit Anthology?

Have They No Sense Of Decency?

2005-11-19T22:24:00.000-05:00

In the past few days I've been using words like "projection" when talking about charges by conservatives that Democrats were shamefully politicizing the war in Iraq. Yesterday was the absolute worst kind of exploitation of the Iraq situation for political motives, and there is no doubting who is responsible.

Congressman John Murtha, a Democrat, a Marine of 37 years and decorated Vietnam War veteran who had previously supported the war in Iraq, has had a change of heart. If you want to call it a flip-flop, fine. The fact is that Mr. Murtha sees what is going on and feels that the situation for the troops in Iraq is untenable given the current direction of their mission. So he has proposed that they be re-deployed immediately, given six months for logistical preparation. This is not necessarily the course of action that the majority of Democrats subscribe to (sans timetables and objectives), but Murtha stood up for what he believes is right. And his credentials in supporting the military and the troops are unassailable.

So what do the Republicans do? They order an immediate vote on a ridiculous resolution calling for an "immediate withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. Not only did this resolution not in any way resemble Murtha's proposal, it also prescribed something that would be physically and logistically impossible. Not surprisingly, the resolution failed 403-3. So what was the point of voting on a resolution that had no chance of passing? The Republicans wanted to see if they could a. divide the Democrats on this resolution, which was a pipe dream (other than the three loonies), or b. claim that both parties are united in staying the course - and maybe bolster public opinion at a time when only 35% approve of the way Bush is handling the war. This is raising the Straw Man to new heights. Do they really think the American people are so dumb to believe that the issue comes down to this false choice of two extremes - stay the current course or pull out right now? If somebody can explain to me how the calling for this vote was anything but shameful politicking on the part of the Republicans, it would be greatly appreciated.

One thing that can be said about Mr. Murtha is that he is now in the good company of other war heroes who have been smeared by the Bush administration and their lackeys in Congress and the media. The words "surrender" and "abandonment" were bandied all about. Rep. Jean Schmidt even resorted to calling Murtha a coward in an indirect, weaselly way. Max Cleland, John Kerry, Paul Hackett and now John Murtha (and bet everything you have that Chuck Hagel will join the list shortly) have all now had their patriotism, commitment to the troops and/or war credentials shat upon by the Right Wing political machine - not to mention what the Bush campaign did to John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. Disgusting. It's a good thing he never ran against Dole or Eisenhower. Then again, his grandfather did all he could to defeat Ike in WWII. Yes, that's a cheap shot, but I'm upset about this. And I'm not sure Americans will be fooled again this time.

Give A Man A DISH...

2005-11-17T23:05:00.000-05:00

Here is a sure sign of the apocalypse: A town in Texas has changed its name to DISH in order to receive free satellite TV from its namesake service provider for 10 years. I could go on about what this kind of thing says about our collective values, but it's the end of a long week so I'll take it all in fun. And they get DVR's so I guess that makes it worthwhile.

At least these people are getting something tangible for the name change. The recent passing of Ralph Edwards reminded us about the town of Truth or Consequences, NM. They changed the name of the town in 1950 just so Ralph would broadcast the radio show from there. No free radios, not even a lousy copy of the home game. After the broadcast, the name change was of no consequence. And that's the truth.

If other companies are in the spirit of giving, and other towns are willing to sell their souls, I've come up with some ideas that people might find appealing: Exxon, AK. Trojan, NV. Old Milwaukee, WI. Parissa, CA. Geritol, AZ. Kevlar, NJ. Tim Hortons, ON. Prestone, MB. Hooked-On-Phonics, NL. Speedo, FL. (On second thought...maybe not) I'll try to come up with more.

They're No Orville & Wilbur

2005-11-16T22:03:00.000-05:00

Are you ready for some quality entertainment? Check this out! You can listen to a sneak preview of the latest release from The Right Brothers, called "Bush Was Right!" It's actually not that bad, when you get past thinking that they borrowed a bit from Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire". I think the part that goes "France...Wrong! Zell Miller...Right!" is kind of funny. If you go their official site and click on Promo, you will see a video with excerpts from some of their greatest "hits". After seeing that, I wonder if they send any royalties to Tim Robbins, because a couple of those songs sound like they could have been lifted right out of Bob Roberts. In fact, the title of one song ("I Want To Live") WAS a Bob Roberts song title. Robbins has said that he never released a soundtrack album from the movie because he was afraid songs would be played on radio out of their satirical context. It looks like The Right Brothers have appropriated much of the spirit of Bob.

Being the good, red-blooded American capitalists that they are, The Right Brothers will only allow you to hear a small sample - you have to pay for the full download. And therein lies the problem. While some musicians and other artists incorporate a political message into some of their work, I don't think they start out with the ambition of making an entire career out of it. And the ones who do generally have their niche audience and don't make it into the mainstream. Michael Moore might be an exception, but in his wildest dreams he could never have imagined the commercial success he'd have with his films. Maybe The Right Brothers will have some success, but I doubt it. I wish them the best, though. While I'm sure that many of their fans are stuck in a double-standard and have complained about liberal entertainers sticking their noses into politics, I think artists and performers have every right to put out whatever message they want, and I give The Right Brothers credit for at least being entertaining.

I'm still convinced that this is the most breathtakingly bad music video ever produced. ("Amer-uh-ca!") Come on, conservative readers. Even the patriotic-est and flag-wavingest of you have to admit that it's ridiculous. The biggest joke of all is the disclaimer that the artist is not responsible for any spoofs of that video, so "DO NOT BE FOOLED BY IMITATIONS!" I have yet to see one of these spoof videos, but I can't imagine them being any funnier than the original.

Monolithic Patriotism?

2005-11-15T21:12:00.000-05:00

As I started to say yesterday, it looks like we're going back to the future. Everywhere you look these days, there's a spirited effort by agents of the Right (including their media mouthpieces and blogosphere echo chamber) to bring up the old charges about those opposed to the war being unpatriotic or "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." From the quotes I included in my last entry, you have a good idea on what I think about that. Did I forget to mention the charges of treason? That's another gift that keeps on giving.

The whole charade of crying "unpatriotic" is always suspicious. The people making the charge doth protest too much, methinks. It's like something right out of The Manchurian Candidate (the original). It started out as a simple message - you have to back your president, his decision to go to war and his execution of the war, or else you hate your country. The problem with that message is that people have been reminded that it wasn't really heeded by Republicans (including Bush himself) during the Clinton years. They were also reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's words: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." So the message has been tweaked - healthy dissent of the war is okay (whatever that means), but those who claim that the administration lied or misrepresented intelligence in the leadup to the war are lying and politicizing the efforts of the brave fighting men and women. There's that projection thing again.

Look, there has been a lot of back and forth about what the Democrats who supported the war knew, and if they are going back on what they previously stated for political expediency - or maybe their original support for the war was for political expediency. I suspect that there are a few like that, and I hope Democrats hold them accountable. But the oft-repeated talking point that they "saw the same intelligence as the president" is sheer nonsense, as explained here and here. Plus, no matter what statements were made by Democratic politicians years ago, or what authority they gave the president to use force (for leverage), it was Bush's decision to actually go ahead and use that force. And it is on him if he misused intelligence, a charge for which there is ample evidence. I know people who supported the war and believe that the administration did indeed exaggerate the WMD threat, but that there were other good reasons to go to war and the ends justify the means. I suppose they also think that it's okay for police to plant evidence on their suspects in order to garner a conviction. I just don't buy any of that. As for the charge of politicizing the war, there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides, from the military and administration right to the Democrats. I'm not defending anybody who does it, but that seems to be the reality these days.

Since the deed has been done, it is vital to find the right way to complete the mission. I'm not a proponent of cut-and-run, but I do think that objectives need to be clearly defined. Sen. Russ Feingold had the right idea, in which you set those objectives in a timely manner. It seems to conform more with the respected Powell Doctrine than the chaos that is happening now. The point is, there is nothing unpatriotic or treasonous in saying that staying the current course in the war is wrong. And there's nothing unpatriotic or treasonous in questioning how the war was started. History might be the ultimate judge, but it will be too late for justice.

A Teaser

2005-11-14T22:48:00.000-05:00

I'm a little under the weather this evening (the onset of a cold) so I'll be brief. But I'm a bit peeved at the renewed campaign to attack the "patriotism" of those who express dissent at how the Bush administration went to war - or even how it is being executed. Some have been more clever and have tried to distinguish between "good" and "bad" dissent, but their purpose is still to discredit those with whom they disagree. When I have a bit more strength I'll write more about it. For now I'll leave you with two quotes to ponder:

As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that
criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of
democratic government ... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy ... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
- Sen. Robert Taft, R-Ohio (a.k.a. "Mr. Republican"), December 1941
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

Animal Tales

2005-11-13T23:45:00.000-05:00

Once in a while you need to be reminded that no matter how bad things seem, they could be worse:

Wanted: Mate for lovesick giraffe in Mexico park
MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) - Keepers of a small menagerie at a Mexican park are looking for a mate for a lovesick giraffe after the 15-foot-tall beast tried to make love to a tree and a garden shed.

The director of Central Park in Ciudad Juarez, south of the border from El Paso, Texas, said on Friday they have been looking since last month for a mate for the five-year-old giraffe, named Modesto.

"He's driving us crazy," Juan Aragones told Reuters in a telephone
interview. "He's mounted a tree, a fence and even a shed."

Aragones said Central Park had begun contacting animal dealers in
Mexico to find a mate for Modesto, who was born in captivity and has lived alone at the recreational park for three years. He has never had a sexual partner.

The park is home only to Modesto and a few ducks.

I can certainly empathize. But why use Lavalife when a shed will do?

And here's a story about a moose raising her offspring to be a delinquent:

Drunk Moose Invade Swedish Seniors Home
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - They rarely have problems with drunks or rowdy animals, but residents of a retirement home in southern Sweden had to deal with both: A pair of intoxicated moose invaded the premises.
The moose — a cow and her calf — had become drunk over the weekend by eating fermented apples they found outside the home in Sibbhult, said employee Anna Karlsson.
Police managed to scare them off once, but the tipsy mammals returned to get more of the tempting fruits. This time the moose were drunk and aggressive, forcing police to send for a hunter with a dog to make them leave.
Police did not pursue the culprits, but made sure all apples were picked up from the area, police chief Bengt Hallberg said. No one was hurt.

What kind of example is the mother setting for her calf? Getting drunk, and showing no respect to the elderly? No wonder the new generation of moose is full of drunken hedonists with no manners. It goes to show you, moose can only be effectively raised in a two parent, heterosexual family.

Four Months

2005-11-12T23:20:00.000-05:00

Today is my four month anniversary since the start of this blog. And despite all of my ambitions, I had no idea that I'd have enough ideas to keep this thing going on an almost daily basis for this long. I've certainly been helped along by events in the news, since this has been a tumultuous period. But I've had my good posts and weak posts (this one being among the latter), so I have great respect for those who are able to write something compelling each and every day.

When I started this I had pledged to post every day. This has evolved into a six day a week project, as I generally don't post on Friday nights. No, it's not because I'm observing Shabbat. I tend to hit the wall on Friday, and like to just crash (or is the modern word "chillax"?) if I'm not engaged in a leisure activity. My brain is half dead anyway, so I wouldn't have much to contribute. I usually write my posts late at night, so don't get a lot of sleep during the week. At first I would stay up until it was complete, whenever that was, but now I try to be reasonable and sometimes clean things up the next morning. Even still, I have sleep to catch up on Friday night. If anybody tells you that sleep doesn't work that way, I can vouch for the fact that it does.

While I've been writing here for four months, I had been reading the blogs of others for a few months prior to that. The mainstream media talks about blogs as hotbeds of political discussion, which indeed some are. But if you click on the "NEXT BLOG" button at the top of this page, and keep scrolling through other blogs, you'll see that most of them don't have to do with politics at all. You'll find blogs on everything from stamp collecting to relationship problems. That is why I encourage anybody with regular internet access to keep a blog, on whatever topic. I think that my blog's biggest strength, or biggest weakness, is that it has no theme. I've mentioned before that I have a great interest in politics, but I'm not a junkie. So I prefer to write about whatever I fancy on a particular day, and not get bogged down in the repetition that afflicts blogs that are strictly political. I hope I've been able to keep a civil tone here, and promise to continue the effort to be unbalanced but fair.

Thank you for reading, and I look forward to another four months of fun and frivolity, with the odd pithy insight. And by the end of the next four months, I'll have my links and blogroll up. I promise!

This And That

2005-11-10T22:14:00.000-05:00

First, a little housework from yesterday's post. Ha'aretz finally published a new report in which they acknowledge that they were the outlet of the erroneous report about Israelis having been evacuated from an Amman hotel prior to the suicide bombings. While the new story shed no light on who the sources of the bad information might have been, at least the author is claiming a degree of responsibility and acknowledging the previous false report, rather than covering it up. I can respect that, but the initial report is bound to cause a lot of damage. I've seen the wingnuts on all sides in the blogosphere, and they just eat this stuff up. Another day at the office, I suppose.

And now for something completely different. Here is a quintessential Canadian crime story. Ladies and gentlemen, there's a bankrobber on the loose, and he's...unarmed and polite. He's clean shaven, waits his turn in line, and presents his demands to the teller on a recipe card. I swear, even the creators of Dudley Do-Right couldn't come up with this stuff. It should be a source of pride that Canada produces a kinder, gentler type of criminal. We help little old ladies across the street before stealing their purses. We ladle out soup at the mission while embezzling its money. We advertise in Quebec for national unity before...well, you know the rest. Al Capone once said, "You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone." The Recipe Card Bandit has proven him wrong.

UPDATE: I got an e-mail from my sister that seems to fit right in with the theme of this post, so I'll include it here:

GOOD: An Alberta policeman had a perfect spot to watch for speeders, but wasn't getting many. Then he discovered the problem - a 12-year-old boy was standing up the road with a hand painted sign, which read "RADAR TRAP AHEAD". The officer then found a young accomplice down the road with a sign reading "TIPS" and a bucket full of money. (And we used to just sell lemonade!)
BETTER: A motorist was mailed a picture of his car speeding through an automated radar post in Edmonton, AB. A $40 speeding ticket was included. Being cute, he sent the police department a picture of $40. The police responded with another mailed photo of handcuffs.
BEST: A young woman was pulled over for speeding. As the Saskatchewan R.C.M.P.Officer walked to her car window, flipping open his ticket book, she said, "I bet you are going to sell me a ticket to the R.C.M.P. Ball." "He replied, "Ma'am, Saskatchewan R.C.M.P. don't have balls."There was a moment of silence while she smiled, and he realized what he'd just said. He then closed his book, got back in his patrol car and drove off. She was laughing too hard to start her car.

Just Do It Already!

2005-11-09T23:11:00.000-05:00

This is a very difficult blog entry for me to write. I've tried to start writing it several times, and have gotten nowhere. The reason is simple - I'm in a state of disbelief that's difficult to put into words. We finally have all three opposition parties on board to topple a corrupt government, with the full power to do so in Parliament, and they can't even get that right. Instead, they will present this half-assed scheme, proposed by the NDP to force a February election, which is neither a non-confidence motion nor constitutionally binding. Unreal!

Stephen Harper is the Opposition Leader and, therefore, should lead. The Conservatives have their Opposition Day on the 15th, and if they feel so strongly that the Liberal government must go down now, they should present a non-confidence motion. Period. If it means an election around Christmas, so be it - the exact date is up to Paul Martin to decide in any case. But Harper wants some wiggle room in case Jack Layton is making some kind of last minute deal. Even if that happened, a. there's a good chance the Liberals will still be a vote or two short, and b. there is no political downside for Harper. It will be Layton who will be seen as the villain for backing away from his declaration of non-support for the government. Harper just doesn't have the cojones to pull the trigger, to be seen as responsible for a Christmas election and as upsetting the first minister's meeting on aboriginals, or to vote against the budget estimates on December 8. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So what kind of a leader will he be for the country?

Layton will present his non-non-confidence motion on the 24th when the NDP has its Opposition Day. At some point in time, you have to decide whether you're going to shit or get off the pot. Layton said, "The NDP cannot and will not express confidence in a government that won't get things done on key issues." There are two glaring problems with the proposed motion. First, Parliament has no power to set the date of an election - only the Prime Minister and Governor General can settle that. And second, as I have emphasized several times, it is NOT a non-confidence motion. Between the date that this is voted on and the time of the proposed resignation of the government, Parliament will have passed a number of pieces of legislation, including the budget estimates on December 8 - in other words, Parliament will have expressed confidence in the government. This motion is constitutionally useless, and it remains to be seen if it has any political resonance. If Martin were smart, he'd quash all this by unilaterally announcing the government's resignation and calling an election on his own timetable. But I don't expect that to happen, because he's not so smart or courageous. Apparently none of them are.

_____________________________________

I want to touch briefly on the terrible bombings yesterday in Amman, and where conspiracy theories are born. There is a published report in Ha'aretz that Israelis staying at one of the targeted hotels in were evacuated by Jordanian security forces hours before the bombings. This is the type of thing that was rumoured online after 7/7, and my initial reaction was to write it off as some wild conspiracy theory by people with an anti-Israel agenda. But now it's there, published on the website of an Israeli newspaper. What is one to think about that?

UPDATE: I have checked this morning (Thursday), and Ha'aretz has changed its story. The link I provided above now leads to a story that says, "There is no truth to reports that Israelis staying at the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman on Wednesday were evacuated by Jordanian security forces before the bombing that took place there." This story is by Yoav Stern, the same author of the original report. It's curious that this is now presented as a story to refute "reports", when it was Ha'aretz itself that published said report. It's also curious that instead of writing a retraction and apology, they decided just to overwrite what they had before, as if their original story never existed. Aside from Ha'aretz abdicating its journalistic responsibility, it is yet another bit of fuel for conspiracy nuts. I'll try to find a link to a cache of the original page. (I give you my word that I'm not making this up.)

Initiative Blues

2005-11-08T23:28:00.000-05:00

There's a lot happening in Canadian politics, with Jack Layton now insisting he will no longer prop up the Liberal government. I'll have more to say on that, but I want to take some time tonight to talk about the elections going on in the U.S., particularly the initiatives in California. This is for my blogging friend Lores, my favorite conservative blogger, who lives in California. Lores has been very kind in her comments here, but will mostly disagree with my take on this.

The premise of holding this special election in California seems cynical. Gov. Schwarzenegger, lest we forget, was swept into power in a recall election that came about largely under false pretenses. It turned out that the energy crisis in California was not as much a result of government mismanagement as it was from gouging and other shenanigans by Enron and other suppliers. Nonetheless, Arnold is now the duly elected governor and, as such, it is his responsibility to lead. And because he didn't feel like he could get enough of his agenda passed by an opposition legislature, he decided to take some issues to the people. But why now? If he had waited a year, he could have had all of these initiatives on the ballot at the same time he was up for re-election. And then if he had won, he would have his mandate clearly defined by the results of the initiative voting. Better yet (for him and his supporters), he could have decided to spend the next year emphasizing the importance of his platform, and making the case to get more Republicans elected to the legislature in order to enact it. Time and time again I have seen people from both parties, but mostly Republicans, going on about the virtues of representative democracy and how it works so much better than a direct vote on issues. I guess everybody has the right to flip-flop when it suits the ends they wish to achieve. So, the Governator has tried to sneak through legislation at a time when most of the electorate is sleeping. I'm not really sure how this will affect the outcome. It could be that the people who support these initiatives will be the most motivated to get out there and vote, or maybe those who wish to see Arnold defeated will be energized. Whatever happens, the vote probably won't be a representative sampling of the state, which is a shame.

As for the initiatives themselves, I'll only talk about a couple of them. Prop 77 involves taking the responsibility of re-districting away from the legislature. I like the idea in principle, but the devil seems to be in the details. There has to be some level of accountability on those responsible for the re-districting, and hopefully a way of insuring political independence. Polls seem to indicate this will be defeated (although turnout will be the key.) If so, I hope this is tweaked and taken to the people again in the near future. This is one thing that the people need to vote on, because you can't expect the legislature to vote to relinquish power. Interestingly, Republicans support this initiative in California but oppose something similar in Ohio. See above regarding "when it suits the ends they wish to achieve." Prop 75 would require unions to get written consent from its members before using their dues for political activities or contributions. I can see why a lot of people would support this, and Lores wrote about her frustration with having to join a union to be a teacher and seeing her union dues being spent on political activity she didn't support. However, this initiative, on its face, seems to be there just to damage the Democratic Party in California. It should really be balanced with some similar provision for shareholders in corporations. That would level the playing field.

I'm not a Californian, so my opinions don't really mean squat. But I'll still take a consultant fee from anybody willing to pay it.

UPDATE: The results are in, and all of Arnold's initiatives have been defeated. It'll be interesting to see how many political obits will be written over the next few days.

The Greatest Gift

2005-11-07T22:14:00.000-05:00

In a world with much evil and darkness, it is important to sometimes focus attention on a ray of light that breaks through. I saw this incredible story about a Palestinian boy who was mistakenly killed by Israeli soldiers, and his parents' decision to donate his organs - to Israelis. This is the kind of thing you see once in a while that restores your faith in humanity. That a family can suffer such a cruel blow and still resist the harboring of bitterness - while ensconced in a culture that encourages such bitterness - is absolutely remarkable. I wish nothing but the best for that family, as well as those of the children they saved.

Another aspect of the story is how organs are in short supply in Israel, because of a lack of donors. According to Jewish law, the sanctity of the human body must be preserved upon death and burial - Nivul Hamet. If there is one aspect of Jewish law that I am vehemently opposed to, this is it. For one thing, I don't see how a Jewish God would hold somebody in lower judgment for having done a good deed. Also, it is in conflict with two other important aspects of Judaism. The first is Tzedakah (charity), which is fundamental to Judaism. I can't think of a higher form of Tzedakah than granting someone else life itself. Which leads to Pikuah Nefesh (to save a life), which dictates that exceptions can be made to almost any Jewish law in order to preserve life. If you have been stranded in the desert for two weeks, and the only potential food around is a wild boar, Halacha says, "Bon appetit." Jewish ethicists are hesitant on the subject of organ donation because of issues regarding when the organs are taken out (if the body isn't dead yet, is the doctor actually killing it with the procedure?), as well as if the donated organs are for a specific recipient (who represents the Pikuah Nefesh reason for the procedure) as opposed to just going to an organ bank. In my mind, organ donation is a no-brainer, regardless of what Halacha says.

But That's Not All...

2005-11-06T23:44:00.000-05:00

Ever watch those infomercials for Time Life Music's compilations? To show you how little of a life I have, I actually sat through two of them, back to back. The first show was about the 70's collection, hosted by Barry Williams (Greg Brady), and the next one was about the Country music collection with Kenny Rogers. They are surprisingly compelling, even though there's no way I'll actually pony up the money to buy their product. The funny part is that the copy is almost word for word in each infomercial save for the names of the artists and songs. You know how it goes: "You'd have to spend many hours and hundreds of dollars trying to put together a collection like this on your own..."

I'm not what you'd call a huge Country music fan, but the Country collection looked a whole lot better than the 70's. It might take an infomercial to remind people that there were a whole lot of bad songs on the charts in the 70's! I believe that the 70's was the greatest decade for Rock, with groups like The Who, and Zeppelin, and Floyd and the Stones all in their prime. But Pop? Not so much. There was probably a lot of good music on the charts in the 70's, but the producers of this infomercial chose to highlight a lot of songs that would best be forgotten. All-time classic like Jigsaw's "Sky High", The Raspberries' "Go All the Way", and "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves" (an awful song in its own right, but Cher performed it about as well as Sonny negotiated the tree line.) I'm sorry, but some of these songs should make people cringe in shame at the memory of having enjoyed them. Not to mention just about anything by Bobby Sherman or Tony Orlando & Dawn.

It's always fun to debate over which was the greatest decade for Rock/Pop. The 60's was a great Pop decade, but modern Rock (and Progressive Rock) was just in its infancy. 80's music was insidious like fast food. It was appetizing and very accessible, but homogeneous and lacking in nutritional or intellectual value. It was also a decade in which erstwhile great Rock bands were bitten by the synthesizer bug and went hopelessly commercial - the worst offender of all being the Moody Blues. That's why bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam were so timely when they came around, and helped bring Rock back to what it should be, so the 90's were excellent years for music. I'd love to stay and talk more about this, but I have to go and learn more about the Ronco Showtime and flavour injector.

When The Eye Was In Focus

2005-11-05T22:09:00.000-05:00

I saw the movie Good Night, and Good Luck today. It is the story of Edward R. Murrow's (and his producer, Fred Friendly's) reporting that helped discredit Sen. Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt against alleged communists in the U.S. Government in the 1950's. This is still a contentious issue to this day among some hardliners, although I think most on this side of Ann Coulter would agree that McCarthy was little more than a demagogue.

There will be an automatic assumption among many that since this film was directed by George Clooney, it will have a certain slant. Many on the Right regard Clooney with disdain because of his overt political positions. As a liberal, I'm obviously biased about this, but I believe that Clooney deserves more respect than that. Unlike many Hollywood types who practice drive-by politicking, Clooney actually puts his money where his mouth is and actively participates in the causes he talks about. I think that makes him worthy of respect (whether you agree with him or not), and he shouldn't be lumped in with the Barbra Streisands of the world.

I think that the film was written in a way that, in addition to covering its own material, tried to make it an allegory for modern times - the idea that disagreement and dissent gets you labeled as unpatriotic and dangerous. Other than that, it looked like a faithful representation of the period it covered. Joe McCarthy was not portrayed by an actor, just by his own archival footage from his appearance on CBS and from Congressional hearings. In fact, Clooney has said that he went out of his way to make sure not to show any clips of when McCarthy was under alcoholic influence and made to look worse than the damage caused him by his own words. Clooney was not out to do a character assassination of McCarthy, but to tell a story about Murrow and his reporting on the topic.

One theme that was prevalent throughout the film, and still is in real life today, was the charge of liberal bias against CBS News (and extended today to all mainstream media except Fox.) This is something liberals and conservatives can debate until the cows come home, and is more complex than a simple yes or no. But in the case of Murrow, I really believe that he was just interested in exposing an injustice. If somebody is conservative and does misdeeds, is it liberal bias to call him out for those misdeeds? I don't think so. But it took a lot of courage to do so, and Murrow and Friendly both paid a personal price. Corporate influences have stifled hard journalism right from the earliest days of television, and it has gone downhill from there.

We should all remember that nobody is perfect, and nobody has a perfect set of ideas. The quicker we accept where we have erred in our thoughts or judgments, the quicker we can move on and grow as people. Back in Murrow's day, the liberals were wrong about Alger Hiss and the conservatives were wrong about Joe McCarthy. And guess what: We're all wrong about things now too. The question is whether we have any more courageous journalists like Edward R. Murrow to set us straight, or any William Paleys to let them be heard when the heat is on. Good luck, indeed.

Alice Is Wonderland

2005-11-03T23:55:00.000-05:00

I was channel surfing tonight, which can be a dangerous thing to do. Like a moth drawn to light, I found myself stopping on Bill O'Reilly, and ridiculing him can be fodder on any night when I don't have a blog topic in mind. But there was only so much of his schtick I could take on this night, so I moved along. I stopped at CNN for about five minutes to check out the BS that they were spouting, and moved along again. Then, I landed on BBC World. First I heard the prim and proper newsreader giving a summary of the top stories. This was followed by an international weather report delivered by a guy named Matt Taylor, who looked and sounded like he couldn't be a day over 14. But after that came something truly worth the hunt: An interview with Alice Cooper.

I wouldn't classify myself as a huge Alice fan. I think his music is okay, although "Hello Hooray" is a favorite song of mine. I've never had the opportunity to see one of his live shows, which is really his bread and butter. But Alice is one of the most thoughtful and articulate people in the rock music industry, and listening to him speak is always compelling. He talked about how the Alice on stage is just a character he created, and how he is able to totally separate himself from the character except for those two hours when he's performing. He believes that people like Jim Morrison and Keith Moon and John Belushi died young because they felt they had to live up to their stage image all the time, and could not handle that kind of pressure 24/7. He also talked about his Christian faith. He said that he was raised a good Christian, and then got away from it for many years, but after doing anything and everything to be "the poster boy for sin", he thought there was "nothing left to do but commit suicide," so he went back to his roots.

I thought the most interesting thing he said was that he can't shock anybody anymore. Recall that this is a guy whose performances were banned in a number of cities back in the 70's because it was thought that he was promoting pure evil. Alice always considered his shows nothing more than high-tech burlesque, but a lot of community "elders" didn't understand the concept of performing art. Nonetheless, people were shocked and awed when he would have himself electrocuted and decapitated, or decapitate someone else. But Alice made the point that nowadays it is terrorists who cut people's heads off for real, and the video is shown on television, so what he and Marilyn Manson do should be put in their proper perspective as just theatre.

The interview got me thinking about how common perception changes over time. When the Beatles first came to America in 1964, they were considered threatening. If you look back at the footage of them from that time, playing innocent music stiffly and wearing suits, it's hard to imagine why they were seen as a bad influence on youth. Some things that are taken for granted one day are ridiculed generations later. Remember the old Rosie the Riveter documentaries from WWII that talked about women operating factory machines as if they were washing machines? Or all of those educational films from the 50's that are considered laughable today. ("Duck and cover!") We can laugh now, but there's no doubt that some of what we think is conventional wisdom now will be ridiculed in the future. And that's why we must always strive to move forward, and not fall back on dated ideas and prejudices.

As for Alice, it's too bad he didn't get to talk about golf during this interview, or at least in what was shown. He took up golf to do something to fill time on the road instead of drinking, and he has turned into an absolute nut. The guy apparently plays about 300 rounds a year. That places him very high in my books. Alice, if you're out there, how about a round some time? I'll even let your political leanings slide.

Release The Hounds

2005-11-02T22:42:00.000-05:00

The Gomery Report is now out for the world to see. Given all of the public testimony, there weren't any real surprises. Paul Martin has turned the report over to the RCMP, and hopefully this will lead to some criminal investigations. But aside from offering up Chuck Guite's head on a platter, there is a stunning absence of accountability coming from the past and present leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

With regards to the treatment of Paul Martin in this report, it has all of the trappings of a whitewash. It's hard to imagine that as Finance Minister and Vice President of the Treasury Board - not to mention a senior member of the Quebec caucus - he didn't have any kind of clue about where the money was going. No matter what is in the report ("Exonerated from any blame"), and no matter what Martin and his supporters say about him, he will forever be seen by most Canadians as tarnished by this scandal. He would do the best service to both his country and his party by resigning, but I realize that's not going to happen. The Liberals need to purge themselves of everybody, from Leader right down to janitor, who was anywhere within a sniff of this scandal when it was happening. Unless they do that, there is no chance that they can regain the trust of the people.

What I find most disgusting is the refusal of anybody to step up and say, "Yes, I share in the responsibility of what happened, and I apologize for my failings." Jean Chretien would rather take Gomery to court than admit that the very position he occupied requires him to concede that the buck stopped with him. All the golf balls in the world won't blind us to the fact that the main players in the scandal were his cronies. The in-fighting between the Chretien and Martin camps is a national joke that has ceased to be funny, and will continue to be a cancer on the government as the Gomery saga goes on.

I have to confess that I have flip-flopped on my opinion of Jack Layton and the NDP in the midst of all of this. (Mustard Man will probably claim credit for this.) While I abhor the fact that they are willing to prop up a corrupt government and shield it from the Canadian voters, I accept the fact that they really have no choice. The NDP will never be a governing party in this country, nor will they be anything more than a fourth party in Parliament for the foreseeable future. It is understandable that they are willing to be the kingmakers while the Liberals have a minority government, so that they may have some of their agenda advanced. That's good, hard politicking. They are exploiting the Liberals' weakness, controlling the guillotine cord, while trying to make themselves an attractive alternative to the Liberals for the Canadian Left. (Not that the Liberals really governed from the Left, but that's another discussion.)

The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to be on a hunt for power. They could just as easily cut a deal with the Liberals to pull the government to the Right, but instead chose to be confrontational to the end and align themselves with the Bloc Quebecois. They have every right to voice the fury that we all feel about what happened, but there's still a country to be run. To try to bring the nation's business to a halt in order to squeeze out an election a few months early is irresponsible. They will have their time to campaign pretty soon.

I've mentioned before that I feel like I'm a voter without a party to choose. The NDP are to the Left of me, but not pragmatic enough for my taste. The Conservatives are prohibitively to my Right. The Liberals, while to my Right, are close enough that I could tolerate them when clean of scandal. I haven't voted for them since 1997. Perpetual one party rule is killing us. If, by an unfortunate series of events, Stephen Harper were to step down as Conservative leader and be replaced by Peter McKay, I might consider writing my X in the CPC box. I can deal with a Red Tory - my first ever federal vote was for Brian Mulroney. That I should have fond memories of casting a vote for Mulroney tells you how bad things are now.

Gomery Tomorrow, Comedy Tonight

2005-11-01T23:42:00.000-05:00

The Gomery Report came out today, and I very much want to comment on that. But I didn't have time to absorb much about it today, I went to play basketball tonight, and I'm too exhausted to stay up reading and writing about it. I promise to give my take on it tomorrow. Let me just say that it won't be a glowing endorsement of the government.

For your viewing pleasure, I leave you with this card that you might want to pass along to family and friends for Thanksgiving. Enjoy. I'm off to bed.

Sloppy Seconds On Samhain

2005-10-31T22:16:00.000-05:00

Let the games begin! President Bush has selected Samuel Alito as his latest Supreme Court nominee, replacing Harriet Miers, and I'm really confused. I'm not confused about Alito himself - he's precisely the type of selection that most would have expected in the first place. But all of the reasons Bush gave for his selection of Miers seemed to fly out the window when he picked "Scalito". Coming on the heels of the Miers nomination, you have to wonder what forces were at play. It seems quite appropriate that Alito was born on April Fools Day and nominated on Hallowe'en.

I'm not a lawyer, and I get a chuckle out of similarly lay pundits and bloggers who put forward definitive opinions about legal issues. I would have to read up more on Alito to get a better sense of what kind of judge he has been. Although the initial reports indicate that he has written some opinions that I might have problems with (see "Controversial views" here), for the moment I will reserve judgment on the quality of this nominee. But what troubles me most is the fact that this seems to be all about political, rather than legal, considerations. It's hard to fathom Bush picking Miers ahead of Alito. There are only two explanations that I see, neither of which is flattering to the president. And since it's Hallowe'en, the options are Trick or Treat:

Trick: The Miers nomination was some kind of ploy that was intended to fail, to be followed up with a Battle Royal over a hardline conservative jurist with the full backing of the president's Right Wing base - and perhaps even timed around the expected indictments in the CIA leak investigation. This is a Rovian conspiracy theory being floated around the liberal blogosphere - and even in the Right Wing blogosphere, where it is seen as a brilliant tactic. If true, it was only partially successful in that the Democrats didn't take the bait over Miers. Their opposition was relatively muted, so they can still oppose the Alito nomination without fear of the "obstructionist" label. In any event, it's pretty sleazy for the president to be playing these kinds of political games and hiding behind the human shield of his old friend.

Treat: Bush really did think (foolishly) that Miers was the best person for the job, but bowed to the pressure of his Right Wing base and replaced her with a "Strict Constructionist". (Read my post from last Friday to see what I think about that label.) This is a meaty one. If true, it shows that Bush isn't the rock solid leader that he is reputed to be by his apologists. After all, if he truly thought that Miers was the right choice, he would have put up more of a fight for her. It shows that he is swayed by polls just like any other politician would be in his shoes, and he has lost control of the bully pulpit. When the Far Right put up a fight, he turned into Jell-O. If you don't believe these things about Bush, then your only alternative is Trick.

It should be an interesting confirmation process, and maybe a bloody one at that. It's only a matter of time before we start hearing the phrase "up or down vote" once again. It's funny that we never heard any clamoring for that when Miers was in line for the job. Sloppy seconds, anyone?

All In!

2005-10-30T02:38:00.000-05:00

Tonight we were blessed with an extra hour because of the adjustment back to Standard Time. And I spent that hour driving home after having my first live experience playing Texas Hold'Em poker. This is a very popular game, and seems to be on TV somewhere all the time if you look hard enough. The first few times that I saw it played, I recall thinking, "What's the big deal about this?" I can tell you that once you actually get into the game, you can understand why some people would find it addictive. The luck/skill ratio is skewed more toward the skill side in Texas Hold'Em than in any other type of poker. There are so many head games going on, and much of that you bring upon yourself. It was a really enjoyable experience.

Since I had never played the game before, I logged onto one of those online poker sites to try practicing. I had intended to play for about a half hour or so to get my feet wet, but ended up playing for nearly two hours. Crack cocaine has nothing on this. The ironic part of this experience was that I didn't really learn a whole lot. The problem was that there was one person playing who went in on every hand. This was bet-limited game, and she had somehow accumulated a whole lot of chips over time, so she would use them to call or raise at every opportunity. She ended up losing a ton of chips during the time I was playing. But because of the way she played, bluffing was impossible, so the betting was almost always based on who had the better cards. But I got comfortable with the mechanics of the game, and I felt ready to play in a live setting.

There were five of us in total for this game, and it was a friendly setting. We played with a $20 buy-in, in which everybody received 60 chips. There was unlimited betting with those chips, and we played until somebody ended up with them all and won the $100 pot. We played five games, and I won one of them, so I broke even on the night. I made it to the final pair in another game, but was done in by a serious chip count disadvantage and a bad break on a river card. In another game, I was out on the third hand. Overall, for a novice going against experienced players, I was satisfied with the result.

I'm not a big-time gambler, but I got a bit of a rush from this experience. I'm certainly not going to play every day or every week, but I can see why some people do. I think I'll stick to my day job - and blogging, of course. It's only a matter of time before you'll start seeing an organization called Bloggers Anonymous.

Back To The Drawing Board

2005-10-28T07:45:00.000-04:00

A quick, linkless entry this morning. I was having internet trouble at home last night.

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court. I have to say, first of all, I feel for her on a human level for the the ringer she has been put through. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so close to the brass ring, and have it yanked away from you. (Maybe Al Gore does.) I hope she realizes it isn't personal, but it doesn't help when people like Trent Lott spout out lines like, "In a month, nobody will remember the name Harriet Miers." Because of the type of person she appears to be, Miers elicits far more sympathy than Robert Bork, for instance. But this is why I thought all along she should never have accepted this nomination and have had to go through all of this. She should have known in her own mind that she did not have the right qualifications for the job. That isn't a slight on her. I have no doubt that she's a brilliant and accomplished attorney and a fine citizen, but the Constitution is not her area of expertise. I had thought that there was enough of a ruckus about her qualifications for the job coming from the Right (Ingraham, Krauthammer, etc.) for her confirmation to be rocky. But I would never have imagined that her nomination would be torpedoed, ultimately, by those who questioned her conservative credentials. Apart from a few token objections, the Dems stayed out of the fray for the most part, which will make it easier for them to raise objections to a more overtly conservative selection, which will undoubtedly come next.

I need to take a moment to question what conservatives really want in a Supreme Court justice. I'd say that most of them want someone who will have a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. But others have argued that they don't care if the justice is conservative or liberal, just as long as they interpret the Constitution as written - which will usually result in an opinion favorable to conservatives. Some have even opined that you don't even need a lawyer, just somebody with good reading comprehension skills. Really, I don't know how these folks define the term "Originalist" or "Strict Constructionist". I have seen very little in life that isn't open to some degree of interpretation. If every law were followed to the letter, there would be very few of us left who weren't either in jail or destitute from fines - and almost no cars left on the road. If that's all it took to be on the Supreme Court, computers could be employed as justices. If Jewish scholars can argue over the Talmud for two thousand years, people of good faith can have different interpretations of the more nuanced portions of the Constitution.

Everyone have a Merry Fitz-mas.

Go Go Sox!

2005-10-26T23:52:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to the Chicago White Sox on winning their first World Series championship since 1917. This must be a great day for all of the Sox fans who have spent years in the long shadow of the attention paid to their neighbours to the north. In actuality, I think the White Sox constituency is more representative of the city of Chicago than their Cubs counterparts - blue collar, ethnically diverse, and tough as nails. I'm sure the party will last for some time on the South Side.

As a lifelong fan of the dearly departed Expos, I have a bit of an affinity for this White Sox team. For one thing, there are a number of former Expos on the team. Their general manager, Kenny Williams, played briefly with the 'Spos at the end of his playing career. Their 1st base coach, Tim Raines, is a legend in Montreal. Carl Everett played part of last year in Montreal. Orlando Hernandez was an Expo in 2003 (although he never threw a pitch the whole season due to injury.) Dustin Hermanson and Chris Widger were both Expos for four years. And World Series hero Geoff Blum played three years in Montreal. But other than the personnel connections to the team, the White Sox remind me of the Expos in terms of the obscurity in which they have played for years. There hasn't been the same kind of notoriety surrounding the White Sox drought as has been attached to the Red Sox and Cubs, and I have an idea about the reason for that. The Red Sox, over the years, have usually fielded a contending team, but they often found spectacular ways to fall short that are the stuff of legend. The Cubs, apart from a few notable collapses, have usually been a brutal team, and that contributed to the affinity of their fans. But the White Sox have generally been not great and not awful - just somewhere in the mushy middle, out of the spotlight - the definition of mediocrity. That is what I can relate to as an Expos fan. So I consider White Sox fans kindreds, and I celebrate along with them.

And despite the brave face put on by many Cubs fans about how the White Sox success is great for Chicago, it all must be eating them alive. Now that the Red Sox and White Sox have won the World Series the last two years, the Cubs stand alone in baseball futility. 97 years and counting. Next in line are the Cleveland Indians, but it has only been a paltry 57 years for them. And unlike the Cubs, they have a very promising team that will make some noise over the next several years. The long Chicago winter be just a bit colder on the North Side.

The Sublime And The Ridiculous

2005-10-25T23:51:00.000-04:00

First the sublime: A brilliant Flash animation by the gubernatorial campaign of California State Treasurer Phil Angelides. I got this from, of all places, Free Republic! To the credit of the poster and most of the commenters there, they found it to be quite funny. It's very similar to those Jib Jab animations from last year's presidential election, but decidedly one-sided. Check it out if you want a good chuckle.

Now the ridiculous. During a break in the World Series game, I flipped past the Fox News Channel and saw Bill O'Reilly doing a tease for his upcoming segment about "left wing smear sites." I knew that he was referring to one of my favorite sites, Media Matters for America. O'Reilly has had a hate on for Media Matters for a while, but especially since MM named O'Reilly Misinformer of the Year for 2004. MM is a valuable resource for exposing misinformation in the media, and they usually have their facts well in order. Once in a while they miss the mark, but their record is pretty good. Now, I'll admit that MM is sometimes over the top when it comes to their reporting on O'Reilly - perhaps due to his reaction to them - but the vast majority of the time they are reporting on real misinformation on his part. (Sometimes on the right hand side of their page they include some of his more outrageous remarks that don't fall into the category of misinformation.) He just doesn't like being exposed for the fact that he sometimes spews out "information" that is either misleading or totally made up. Calling MM a "smear site" is right in line with that. I couldn't help but be sucked into seeing what he was going to say, so I tuned back into that segment, even though a crucial at-bat was going on in the ball game. What I am about to relay is based solely on my recollections of what I watched. I have no transcript available yet (I'm sure it'll be on MM tomorrow), but I'll give you the gist of it.

First, O'Reilly talked about how Media Matters and MoveOn.org are funded by "far left" billionaires, like George Soros and Peter Lewis. I really don't see that as relevant information unless you also consider that many Right Wing web sites, think tanks and publishing houses are funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and other wealthy contributors. Recall that Scaife was the benefactor of The Arkansas Project, whose sole purpose was to dig up dirt on President Clinton. Talk about smear merchants. So we can see the beginning of "independent" O'Reilly's Fair and Balanced reporting.

Then, he had two guests on, both conservative journalists. (More balance.) He proceeded to lob them leading questions for them to essentially repeat everything he had to say about the source of MM's funding, and how its objective is to smear their political opponents. He asked if there are similar "smear sites" on the conservative side, and his guests said no. They obviously have too high a regard for sites like NewsMax and hundreds of others to call them smear sites. And yes, there are lots of left wing smear sites as well, but Media Matters isn't one of them. To compare apples to apples, Media Research Center and Accuracy In Media are far closer to that description than MM. (As I've explained in earlier posts, what sets Media Matters apart from them is that MM reports on misinformation, where the other ones report "bias", which is subjective and always according to the perspective of the viewer.) O'Reilly agreed that there are no conservative smear sites, but for pseudo-fairness he added that there was some of that going on during the Clinton years. Thanks for the balance, Bill.

Finally, it is worth noting that despite his constant smearing of Media Matters (which is well documented on MM itself), he steadfastly refuses to have David Brock or another MM representative on his show to answer the charges he makes against them - presumably because he's afraid to be confronted by the truth and embarrassed in front of his audience. And yet, he finished this segment by saying that he will have someone from a conservative site on tomorrow night! Just like the motto of Faux News in Arnold's Neighborhood: We Decide. Then Report.

What a jerk. But the night isn't totally lost. I've finished venting about O'Reilly, and the ball game is still going on. I'll finally get to witness intelligent life on TV.

RP, R.I.P.

2005-10-24T23:12:00.000-04:00

Rosa Parks passed away this evening in Detroit at the age of 92. Mrs. Parks played a large part in causing a re-birth of the Civil Rights movement in the southern U.S., launching the career of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and starting the ball rolling toward the end of legal segregation in America.

There is a lot of mythology surrounding Mrs. Parks and what exactly happened on that bus in Montgomery, AL. The popular account is that Rosa courageously sat in the white section of the segregated bus, but that was not the case. In actual fact, she was sitting in the "colored" section in the back. However, she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger, which she was obligated to do when the "white" section was full. She defiantly refused, faced the legal consequences, and a new movement arose. But Mrs. Parks was not even the first African American to refuse to give up a seat on a Montgomery bus. For some time, the NAACP wanted to try a test case, but couldn't find a suitable candidate who could hold up under the spotlight of a high profile trial - much like Branch Rickey's attempt to break the colour barrier in baseball. Mrs. Parks, herself employed years earlier as a secretary with the NAACP and still an active member, was chosen for the test case, and the rest is history. As the face of the struggle, she was the personification of grace and class, and nobody could have handled that kind of pressure any better. But Rosa paid a personal price for her notoriety, losing her job and being compelled to move out of Alabama and north to Detroit. Happily, she ended up working for another true American hero, John Conyers.

1955 was just twelve years before I was born. It blows my mind that as recently as that, there was still segregation in America based on the colour of people's skin. (In fact, such segregation didn't really end until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.) It goes to show you that it's impossible to simply dismiss matters of race out of hand and state, triumphantly, that those days have long passed. If only it could be that simple. I have no great wisdom on the topic, just admiration for the woman who took a stand by remaining seated. In an age of chickenhawks and do-nothing naysayers, we should all remember somebody who made a real contribution to her country's betterment.

Nellie Watch Your Back

2005-10-23T23:25:00.000-04:00

I found out recently that I share a birthday with singer/songwriter extraordinaire Nellie McKay. I'm not one to develop any kind of attachment to or affection for the entertainers of the world, but if I were ever to fall in love with a showbiz type, it would be Nellie. I really dig this chick. I first became aware of Nellie when I was listening online one night to Air America and she was guesting. A couple of her recorded songs were played, and I was immediately taken in. It's rare for me to really get into a song or singer that I have never heard before, so I knew that she was something special. I downloaded the songs that had been played (shame on me), and eventually found and purchased her CD. It's titled Get Away From Me, an obvious jab at Norah Jones who had previously released Come Away With Me. Both McKay and Jones explore the more classic styles of American popular music, but the similarities end there. In my humble opinion, Norah couldn't hold Nellie's jockstrap - well, you know what I mean.

I'm not a music critic, and you can do a Google search and find plenty of reviews of Nellie and her CD. But I want to give you a sense of what her music is about. Critics have called her singing a combination of Doris Day/Billie Holiday/Eminem. They have called her songwriting part Cole Porter, part Randy Newman. And I would personally submit that one particular song, "Won't U Please B Nice" (incidentally, the first song she ever wrote) , is something that Tom Lehrer would be proud of. The fact is that Nellie has absorbed many influences, but she is a very unique artist. Her album has songs of many different styles - smooth jazz, bossa nova, easy listening, rap, dance, big band, etc. She plays a mean piano, as well as several other instruments on the album. The command with which she incoporates her lyrics into these styles is more than impressive. And what lyrics they are. They range from provocative, to funny, to downright dark. Some of her songs are politically charged, so she might not appeal to those of a different political persuasion, but there's no denying her talent. Oh yeah - did I mention that she was just 19 when this CD came out?

There are so many great songs on this CD, that it's hard to pick a favorite. I have a soft spot for songwriters who can marry light melodies with dark lyrics, and Nellie is right up there with the best of them on songs like "Ding Dong" and "Suitcase Song". Some critics don't like "It's a Pose", and the lyrics might be a little harsh on men, but you have to love the musical stylin'. I think Alanis Morissette should have a listen to that song to learn a thing or two about how to do angry chick music. My favorite track on the album is called "Work Song", which invokes images of commuting chattel. But I also think the album cover is really cool: There's Nellie looking angelic, wearing a red hooded jacket with her hands in the air, standing in front of a graffiti-laden wall, with a Parental Advisory logo in the corner. It's priceless. (There's a "clean" version of the CD available, but I wouldn't recommend it.) If ever there were a cross-generational album, this is it. I think I'm going to buy a copy for my mom.

McKay (pronounced Mak-eye) doesn't have a huge following yet, but she has talent to burn and could be a giant in a few years, and not just in music. She will have her Broadway debut in the spring as Polly Peachum in Wallace Shawn's new adaptation of The Threepenny Opera. She also has a couple of movies in the works. As she gets more stage and screen work, she will probably not tour very often in the future, so I am a bit disappointed that I didn't really become aware of her until after she last came to Toronto. (I've heard recordings of her live show, and it's great. Just Nellie and her piano, no backing band. Her album is actually a dual-disc, so you can see her in concert on the DVD side.) It wouldn't surprise me if she were to one day match Rita Moreno's accomplishment of winning an Oscar, Tony, Grammy and Emmy in her career. If that does come to pass, remember that you heard it here first. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to her second album that's coming out around Christmas.

Lights Out

2005-10-22T23:08:00.000-04:00

Even when you're accustomed to living in a world of constant change and technological advancement, once in a while you see or read something that makes you take pause. That happened to me when I came across this story today. The electric incandescent lightbulb, the mother of all modern inventions, is about to become obsolete. Because of an accidental discovery by a graduate student at Vanderbilt University, LEDs can now be used to emit white light in a similar hue to the standard light bulb. This is a revolutionary breakthrough on many levels.

LEDs produce twice as much light as a regular 60 watt bulb and burn for over 50,000 hours. The Department of Energy estimates LED lighting could reduce U.S. energy consumption for lighting by 29 percent by 2025. LEDs don't emit heat, so they're also more energy efficient. And they're much harder to break.

That's certainly good news for anybody who's ever burned their finger on a bulb - when trying to change it after a paltry 1000 hours of use. In any measurable sense, this is nothing but a positive development. But a world without traditional lightbulbs will seem very strange. This got me thinking about all the things that I grew up with but have either vanished or are hopelessly obsolete.

- Every medium for recorded music. Vinyl records, 8-track tapes and cassette tapes have all faded into the sunset. And MP3 devices have started compact discs on the road to extinction. (We can throw the VCR in that category, to be followed by the DVD.)

- Camera flash cubes/flash bars. Remember those? My retinae sure do. Talk about leaving an imprint.

- The rotary telephone. This was actually obsolete in the mid-60's, but it is what I had in my house growing up. In fact, my father still had one up to a couple of years ago. The telephone itself isn't going to disappear, but with the advent of cell phones and especially VoIP technology, the traditional phone service providers need to radically alter their business models.

- Typewriters. I have to tell, you, the typewriter is one thing that I don't miss at all. I can't imagine now writing with something that doesn't have a spell checker or easy editing features. And with ink stains from the ribbon.

- Answering machines. This is another thing I won't miss when they are extinct. So much trouble, and so unreliable. I practically had to nag one friend to get rid of hers. Three bucks a month for voice mail won't kill you, but missing an important message might.

- Telegrams. Actually, you can still send one in the U.S. for $14.99 with Western Union.

- Fax machines. With PDF files and e-mail, you no longer need a fax machine. It's ironic that the device creating so much obsolescence has, itself, become obsolete. And it's another reason for the phone companies to be afraid.

- Leaded Gasoline. Believe it or not, the scientist who developed the lead additive to gasoline is the same guy who invented chlorofluorocarbons. Ouch.

There are probably tons of others I'm forgetting about. And we adapt to each change, usually welcoming it. But there's something sacred about old Edison's lightbulb. Oh well. At least we still have Pong.

God Bless Slavery

2005-10-20T23:35:00.000-04:00

Here's another example of why religion and politics are not a good mix. Mychal Massie, a right wing pundit and African American, went on a radio talk show and started out with a frank discussion about the problems in the black community and, indeed, he made some salient points that are worthy of discussion. But then he jumped the shark with this gem:

The black people today who curse America are cursing God because if God had not permitted the Ashanti and Dahomey tribes of ancient Africa to trap other Africans and sell them to the Muslims, who sold them to the Europeans, we would not have what we have today.

I'm sorry, but that is the point at which I file someone under W - for Wingnut. To invoke God into a discussion of worldly matters is a futile proposition, because matters of faith aren't compatible with logic. I've talked about this issue before. What exactly is God's will? Which bad things that happen are part of His master plan ("God permitted"), and which are just the acts of evil people against His will ("they have succumbed")? Massie said, "Had Joseph not been kidnapped and sold into slavery, he would not have been in a position to help his family in their time of need." If I recall my bible study right, he wasn't kidnapped but sold out by his siblings. It just goes to show no evil deed shall go unrewarded, and where the logic in these types of arguments breaks down. It's like saying we should hail Osama bin Laden as a hero for making America stronger and forging a plan for democracy in the Middle East. Um, no.

If we push God aside, Massie's assertion that had there not been slavery then "we would not have what we have today" is actually quite accurate, if "we" means all of us who live in the Western society. If not for a slave labour force, Europe and America could not have generated vast wealth and become the economic powers that now exist. (Do the ends justify the means?) But it is likely that African nations would have prospered better under different market conditions, and blacks in Africa would have prospered more in the long run than the descendents of slaves in the West. So it is no certainty that African Americans are better off because of slavery - at least the point is arguable, and doesn't warrant a condemnation on religious grounds.

Like I said, some of Massie's other points merit discussion. He talked about the decline of both two-parent households and business ownership in the black community, which would be a good chicken-and-egg issue to examine. (In some ways, de-segregation hurt black enterprise because African Americans exercised their newly found freedoms to go where they couldn't before, but no whites were rushing into black businesses. So does that mean God didn't want de-segregation to happen?) Mind you, he also made an inane remark about today's gangster's not being as well dressed as the ones of yore. (How does he know that God doesn't like tank tops and bling?) It's unfortunate that Massie chose to incite rather than inspire.

One Small Step

2005-10-19T23:08:00.000-04:00

It's time to post a positive story. It appears that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is starting to reap dividends in the Arab and Muslim world. It will be a long and bumpy road to establish formal ties with important Muslim nations, but every long journey begins with a single step. Pakistan's decision to accept earthquake relief aid from Israel might be a giant leap.

The fact that the foreign ministers from Pakistan and Indonesia are talking with their Israeli counterpart, even informally at this point, is an encouraging sign. The Gaza pullout seems to have given the Muslim countries an excuse to inch away from their hard line toward Israel.

In Kuwait, a leading newspaper carried an opinion piece that encouraged Arab nations to follow Pakistan's lead.
"Israel is not a bogey, and the notion of a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates is no more than a scarecrow that the Arabs have used to justify their despotism, domestic injustice, and political, financial, and administrative corruption," wrote Yusuf Nasir Al Suwaydan, a Saudi.

However, there is still a long way to go when it comes to public opinion in the Arab world. The many years of vilifying Israel in the education system and media has apparently accomplished its purpose and will be hard to undo, even if it is to the benefit of those nations who perpetrated it.

The vehement opposition from the general public could make it difficult for leaders across the Middle East to go much farther in building ties with Israel until more progress is made with the Palestinians, said Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based senior analyst with the International Crisis Group.
"At the end of the day, these states and governments in principle don't have any objection to going farther than they have already gone, but are being held back by their public opinion which is opposed to such relations," Rabbani said.

There may never be "normal" relations between Israel and the Arab world, but maybe they have turned the corner toward beginning to demonstrate the futility of past hostilities, and the benefits peaceful co-operation. If this is what Ariel Sharon had in mind when he pushed for the Gaza withdrawal, then I apologize for doubting his motives.

Banged Up

2005-10-19T08:43:00.000-04:00

I try to blog every day if possible, but last night I couldn't. I was icing a painful charley horse sustained in my weekly basketball game. (I noticed that "charley horse" is usually preceded by "painful", and I now know why.) I'll be back tonight with a vengeance.

Dereliction Of Judy

2005-10-17T23:00:00.000-04:00

The whole Judith Miller/Valerie Plame/Karl Rove/Scooter Libby affair keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. I have written before on this subject, and stated that while outing a covert agent for political purposes is a reprehensible thing to do, this scandal is of little interest to me except in the way it ties into the whole deception of the case for war in Iraq. That's where the Judith Miller portion of this story comes in.

Arianna Huffington blogged about how Miller's colleagues have been suspicious of her journalistic style for at least five years. Craig Pyes, himself a Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote a December 2000 memo in which he stated that he no longer wished to collaborate with Miller. Among other things, Pyes wrote, "She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies." Apparently old habits die hard. We now know that the bulk of what Miller wrote about WMD in the run-up to the war was bogus. But the New York Times executives seemed to care little about that, since they could wear their paper's hawkish position as a badge of honour. "[Executive Editor] Howell Raines was thrilled with Judy's WMD coverage, however credulous, because it allowed the Times to slough off the liberal label and present themselves as born again tough hawks -- perfect for the post-9/11 zeitgeist."

The Plame leak investigation has exposed that Miller was quite cozy with several administration officials. But an ambiguity has arisen over the source of Plame's identity. Within Miller's notes of a meeting with Libby, the name "Valerie Flame" (sic) is written down. And yet, Miller claims that she did not get that name from Libby and, further, she does not remember who she got it from. Yeah, right. She's only a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so why should we be so picky about those small details? Don't we all go to jail over things we can't remember? But all of this falls into the pattern of the apparent symbiotic relationship between Miller and the Bush administration. She can report anything she feels will push the cause, and the administration can cite information published in the Paper of Record to legitimize their case. When the reporting turns out to be false, there is plausible deniability on the part of both the administration and Miller as to who was the original source of the flawed information. (Eric Alterman has an interesting take on all of this too. ) And this is what apparently happened with the Plame leak as well.

My hunch is that some deal will be struck, or some poor low level schlemazel will take the fall (a la Lynndie England) and everyone will wash their hands clean of this situation, without the big picture being exposed. Judy Miller will publish a book about her whole experience, and it will somehow find its way into the non-fiction section. And we will all live happily ever after, except for democracy and the integrity of the fourth estate.

Is That All There Is?

2005-10-16T22:52:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend I saw a fantastic old animated film by the NFB called "Cosmic Zoom". It starts out with a peaceful scene of a boy and his dog in a rowboat on a river. The "camera" then pulls back right to the outer reaches of the universe, and along the way you can see perspectives of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the sheer vastness of all existence. But then, the "camera" zooms back in toward the earth and the boat. It zooms in toward a mosquito bite, and continues to zoom right down to the tiniest sub-atomic particles. The film ends the way it began, back with the boy and his dog in a boat on the river. In about five minutes, the film explores both the infinite and infinitesimal.

Seeing something like that makes you wonder why you are here. We are completely out of touch with everything vast, and completely oblivious to everything tiny. And how does anything we do in our lives have any affect on the vast universe? All we are in touch with is our own planet, and even that isn't permanent. Our sun won't exist forever, and when the day comes that it doesn't, will any of our recorded history matter? The truth is that everything we know in life is just an illusion, like a house of mirrors. To say "perception is reality" isn't just a cliche, it's bang on.

I'm not trying to wax philosophical here, because I'm certainly not a great mind in that field. But it's just a bit depressing sometimes to realize that we are less than quarks in the universe, and all of our ambitions, hopes and accomplishments really don't amount to a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. In that sense, we are truly equal. And it makes all of our petty squabbles even more petty. But since we're here, we have to try to do our best not to suffer to much and not allow others to suffer too much. That's the best I can come up with right now.

Everybody Into the Pool

2005-10-15T23:49:00.000-04:00

It's a rite of autumn, back after last year's hiatus. Last night we held the draft for our annual NHL pool at work. And amid all the trash talking and preening and mocking of the way people mangled the pronunciations of some Eastern European names, all sixteen participants were in the same boat: We were totally winging it. I mean, after a year layoff and all the rule changes, who really knows what players will be the top performers this year? And just for added pressure, I drew the number 1 pick, which means that I had to essentially pick the year's scoring champion. Because our draft order reverses every other round, I wouldn't get my second pick until the 32nd overall, so drafting first isn't the best position to be in. I went for a safe pick, a proven performer who doesn't have a history of being prone to injury. Vancouver's Markus Naslund should be good for well over 100 points this year.

Everybody needed to draft nine forwards, three defencemen and two goalies (who get points for wins, OT/shootout losses and shutouts, as well as goals and assists). I'm California Dreamin' with my two goalies, Evgeni Nabokov in the Shark Tank and J-S Giguere on the Duck Pond.

I made an effort to avoid older players. Some of them might rack up a lot of points, but the risk of injury is too big. Plus, with the rule changes and tighter enforcement of hooking and holding, speed will be allowed to shine in the league once again. So I picked several rookies: Chicago's Pavel Vorobiev, Colorado's Marek Svatos, and New Jersey's Zach Parise, as well as Boston's sophomore star Patrice Bergeron. My oldest players are Naslund and the Islanders' Alexei Yahin and Jason Blake at 32, Nabokov and Nashville defenseman Kimmo Timonen at 30. I bet the guy who picked Brett Hull feels like a fool now. (He announced his retirement tonight.)

Rounding out my forwards are Daniel Briere (Buffalo) and Brian Gionta (New Jersey). My remaining defencemen are Zdeno Chara (Ottawa) and Ric Jackman (Pittsburgh). Heading into tonight's action I am in second place. Obviously there's a really long way to go (and my players aren't doing so well tonight from what I see), but it's nice to be off to a good start. Last time I was almost 100 points behind at Christmas, made a steady charge in the second half to briefly take the lead, and ended up in third place - which means I won my $40 back. It'll be $400 for the winner, and $180 for second place - with $20 going to Officepools.com for administration.

This is probably an extremely dull blog entry for most people, but I'm pretty excited about this NHL season. From what I've seen, the game looks great. They needed to do something about the clutching and hooking and open up the game, and that has certainly happened. If you haven't checked out a game in a few years, have another look. And Go Sharks! Go Ducks!

Down, Down, Down...

2005-10-13T22:47:00.000-04:00

President Bush's approval rating is at an all time low of 40%, and his disapproval rating is at 51%. But who conducted this poll? CNN? CBS News? No. Fox News. "This is a new low for the president's approval rating — though down only 1 point from last month's low of 41 percent approval." Well, I guess that makes it all better. Like when Ogilvie in The Bad News Bears said, "Well, we committed 24 errors, and their pitcher threw a no-hitter against us, but there is some good news! Two of our runners almost managed to get to first base, and we did hit 17 foul balls!" Other media outlets have reported similar presidential approval ratings, as low as 38%, and some conservative commentators have questioned their methodology and how they might have been skewed. The Fox poll makes it quite clear where the U.S. population stands.

I also heard from Fox News that Bush's teleconference with soldiers serving in Iraq was staged and that a number of people at the Pentagon were not happy about the troops once again being used as political props for the president. Carl Cameron, the Fox White House correspondent who's objectivity about Bush is highly questionable, looked almost crestfallen as he reported that some White House staffers are shaking their heads over this. (Check out the video on the Fox News site .)

Does this mean that even conservatives are starting to abandon the Good Ship Dubya? It's no secret that conservatives have been upset with Bush over spending and deficits, border/immigration issues and the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. But while Bush's approval from Republicans has slipped, it remains at 75% with only a 15% disapproval (vs. 11%/83% for Democrats). What should sound more of an alarm bell is the 34%/57% approval/disapproval rating from independents. A lot of those people held their noses to vote for Bush last November because of what they perceived to be a weak opponent, and they are suffering from buyer's remorse.

Despite what you may think, I get no perverse pleasure out of these developments. I'm no fan of Bush, but when a president (ANY president) is a miserable failure, the U.S. as a whole suffers. I'd rather have Bush govern in an acceptable way and get credit for it than what is happening now. I have argued since last year that people voted for Bush for a number of different reasons (security, war on terror, tax cuts, gay marriage, abortion, social security reform, etc.) but nobody voted for ALL of those reasons. There are people who support the global war on terror, but don't like the way Bush has exploited it to push an unacceptable domestic agenda. Or, they don't believe that the war in Iraq fits into the larger war on terror. Or, perhaps they do, but think Bush et al. have royally messed up the execution of that war. Or they don't want their social security or bankrupcy protection messed with. So Bush erroneously assumed he had a mandate for everything he ran on, and he's now paying the price for that assumption.

From what I've seen online, there's little chance for a true consensus on what's best for the country. But Bush is losing his grip on his ability to lead, and the American voters look like they will welcome a change in direction in upcoming elections. The Republicans in Congress might suffer a lot of casualties, but I'm not big on the Democrats either. It behooves people of all stripes to hold their elected representatives to a higher standard, and for the press to hold their feet to the fire. At least we know Fox News will do that if Democrats are in charge.

You Say Atonement, I Say Repentance

2005-10-12T23:25:00.000-04:00

This being Wednesday night, it is now Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This is the day when Jews reflect upon the previous year, and contemplate how they will be judged in the eyes of God. More importantly, it offers an opportunity for each individual to perform a self-evaluation. But what exactly does "atonement" mean? According to Merriam-Webster Online, the definitions are:

1 obsolete : RECONCILIATION

2 : the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

3 : reparation for an offense or injury : SATISFACTION

Several other dictionaries included both a Christian definition, and one related to reparations or compensation for a wrong. Obviously, in terms of Yom Kippur, we'll leave the Christian definition aside. But I find definition 3 above highly inadequate when it comes to Yom Kippur. When we think about the wrongs we commit, most cannot be compensated for in a tangible way. If you said something to a loved one you later regretted, or fell short on a promise, or committed any number of other such transgressions, the toothpaste is already out of the tube. You can't make reparations for what has happened, except the pledge to not allow it to happen in the future. In my mind, a more apt description of this day would be the Day of Repentance. The dictionary definition of teh verb "repent" is:

1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life

2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind

That makes a huge difference. Simply providing reparations or compensation, even where it is possible, does not cleanse one's soul. It's like a large corporation harming someone through irresponsibility, writing a cheque to the victim, and going about its business as usual. But taking the time to feel contrite for one's actions and their consequences (definition 2a) is what Yom Kippur is all about. And hopefully that will lead to making the effort to examine the condition that led to those symptoms, and working to improve it (definition 1).

Coming on the heels of Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, this is the true origin of the New Year's Resolution, except that is largely a spiritual resolution. Sadly, many people go through the customs, go to synagogue services and fast for Yom Kippur, but they either fail to grasp their personal responsibility on this day and for the coming year, or they lose interest in it faster than they do in their new gym membership after January 1st. I will try to do better this year. Thank you for bearing with me.

Giving Thanks

2005-10-11T22:36:00.000-04:00

Monday was Thanksgiving in Canada, and I paused to realize that I have a lot to be thankful for. Good health, (relative) prosperity, family and friends, living in a safe and secure country, and not having experienced natural disasters that have befallen much of humankind, especially over the last year. There but for the grace of God go I. Never forget that.

I want to make a point of talking briefly about the terrible earthquake that happened in South Asia over the weekend. Upon my return to town, I did the rounds of the usual blogs that I check out regularly, and I was extremely disappointed to see that nary a one brought up the earthquake. These are the kinds of moments that make me want to make this an anti-blog blog. Apparently politics has trumped humanity right now, and I am compelled to question the motivation behind a lot of the hurricane blogging. A disaster like the earthquake should put all others into perspective. As of this writing, there are 41,000 estimated deaths, and that number might rise. And the number of homeless people is in the millions. As a humanitarian disaster and crisis, this dwarfs Katrina, Rita, Stan and 9/11. It deserves at least as much attention as last year's tsunami. Mother Nature can sometimes be the worst terrorist of all, and we are helpless to do anything about her. I hope everybody still has a bit of generosity left.

I'll leave things at that while I shake away the cobwebs of a few days away from the writing routine. Tomorrow I'll likely be back to senseless opining while atoning.

Potpourri For $1000, Alex

2005-10-06T23:08:00.000-04:00

Because I'm heading off for the long weekend and won't be posting for a few days, I wanted to take my parting shots on a few items in the news.

It turns out that the "mystery disease" in a Toronto nursing home is probably Legionnaires' disease. Now that the mystery is over, I hope that we don't suffer the same overreaction from tourists that we had after the SARS episode. No, we've never walked around with masks here. (Nor do we live in igloos.)

Karl Rove is going to testify before the grand jury in the Plame leak case. I can't imagine him doing that unless he and the administration know that there is some high-profile hide on the line here, maybe his own. Does it say Libby-Libby-Libby on the indictment-dictment-dictment?

The Habs are now 2-0! Has Michael Ryder sewn up that MVP award yet? At this pace, he'll finish the season with 82 game winning goals. All that matters now is that the beat the Leafs into submission on Saturday. Leafs fans are just so annoying.

And President Bush gave a major speech to re-iterate the rationale for the war in Iraq. He did make some excellent points about the importance of keeping up the overall war on terror, but his analogies between terrorism and communism were tired and weak. Indeed, a lot of his speech (I read the transcript) was what would be referred to in a court of law as prejudicial rather than probative. He was very short on details, and long on recycled rhetoric. Maybe it played better verbally than in writing (knowing what a skilled orator the president is), but to me it read like a glorified cut-and-paste job. Most importantly, he has still left me unsatisfied with three aspects of the whole Iraq invasion: 1. He still talks about Iraq from the point of view of a revisionist, rather than in the same terms he used before the war started. Many of the reasons for needing to fight there now were not there in the beginning. 2. Even if you accept every reason for going into that war, he has not talked about the apparent lack of competence in the civilian leadership's execution of it, and 3. While he talks of sacrifice, there is still nobody making sacrifices for this war other than the members of the military and their families, and maybe some poor hurricane victims. The wealthiest people and corporations (with the most assets for the military to protect) have had their taxes cut and contributed nothing to the war effort. Finally, I found some irony in his description of Osama bin Laden as a "man who grew up in wealth and privilege" who says, "his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, 'what is good for them and what is not.'" (And I think some people might also find irony in his statement, "Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.")

I'm off to Montreal for Thanksgiving weekend, and likely won't post again until Monday. I wish everyone a happy turkey day in Canada, and a happy Columbus Day south of the 49th.

I'm Not Wild About Harriet

2005-10-05T23:47:00.000-04:00

What a night! The NHL is back! If the first night is any indication of what to look forward to for this season, I might have to start watching some hockey again. (And the best part of this night is that the Habs won and the Leafs lost!) But I'm going to take a moment out of the great Canadian re-awakening and say a few words about the nomination of Harriet Miers.

I'm not going to sugarcoat this. I see the Miers selection as a bit of a microcosm of what is wrong with the Bush presidency - it's a combination of cronyism and political manipulation. There isn't anybody I have heard or read who could make a case that Miers is the most qualified candidate for such an important position. There have been many other justices who had not had judicial experience, so that isn't the disqualifying factor in my opinion. But consider the following: She has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. She has not had an extensive history of published papers related to constitutional law. She has not practiced law that particularly pertains to the types of cases that the Supreme Court has to decide. This isn't a personal attack on her, but she doesn't seem to have ANY of the credentials one would normally associate with a Supreme Court Justice. All we know about her is that she's a very hard worker, a conservative and someone that Bush values very highly. In other words, if she had the same credentials but had never crossed paths with Bush, there's no way that she would have been considered for the job. If this isn't cronyism, I don't know what is. If Bush thought she had the goods, he could have nominated her for a federal circuit court a long time ago. Or, he could have nominated her before John Roberts for the O'Connor seat. The bottom line is that she was nominated now because Bush wanted to get another conservative on the Court with as little paper trail as possible, thus avoiding a protracted fight at a time when his party is politically vulnerable. In other words, he's trying to pull a fast one.

This appointment has caused more division in conservative opinion than I've seen in a long time. The people who have praised the Miers nomination have done so because they see it as a brilliant political manoeuvre to get another conservative vote on the Court. They seem to forget that there's more to being a Supreme Court justice than just mailing in a pre-determined vote. And, of course, there are plenty of Freeper types who object to the nomination because they fear that Miers will be another stealth appointee, like the much-maligned David Souter. I think it's safe to assume that this won't happen. (I'd be willing to wager that Miers will be a safer conservative vote than Roberts, who seems like a fair-minded chap to me.) But there are a good number of conservative objectors who have an honest take on it, like George Will, David Frum and even Michelle (Internment Camp) Malkin. They recognize the selection for the cronyism it is.

To me, whatever Harriet Miers does on the bench now is irrelevant. Suppose you were a good student who didn't quite have the marks to get into an Ivy League school, but your mother was an old friend of the Dean of Admissions at Harvard, and she could find a spot for you. Let's then suppose that you went on to garner straight A's at Harvard. Would the end result justify your admission, or was it wrong for you to take the place of someone better qualified? Would you feel at all guilty about taking the place of someone who earned their rightful admission? In this case, Miers herself was one of the deans of admissions, so she should have known that she was not the best candidate for the job. Maybe the fact that Miers even accepted this nomination tells us all we need to know about her character.

Shana Tova

2005-10-04T14:54:00.000-04:00

It is Rosh Hashana, and I want to wish all my Jewish family and friends a peaceful and prosperous new year.

Since it's a High Holy Day, I will use that as an excuse to be lazy and just refer you to this. It is a reminder to those who care about what is happening in Iraq to realize that a.) the issue isn't a straight stay-or-go proposition, and b.) the people "supporting the troops" aren't who you think they are.

May this be a year of more celebration and less suffering.

Heading Home

2005-10-02T23:24:00.000-04:00

The 2005 baseball regular season is finally over. This was a tough year for me, since it was my first without a real rooting interest. I could just never get myself to pull for the Washington Nationals, even though I like a lot of the players on that team. I took a little bit of comfort in the fact that they had a sufficient amount of turnover and increased payroll for me to consider them a totally different team. I never really rooted against them, but they are now just another team. And I still get an empty feeling reading through the National League scores and not seeing "Montreal" listed. So I'm looking to adopt a team, and I'm soliciting offers. My only real criterion is that it be a National League team, since I abhor the designated hitter rule.

(I posted on an MLB newsgroup shortly before the season started, asking people to make a case for why I should adopt their team. Alas, I turned a lot of people off when I made a joke about the team having to come from a blue state. People took it seriously! Man, you wouldn't believe the abuse I took for that throwaway line. Politically-charged people need to learn a little bit about the virtues of self-deprecation.)

One team that I was considering to adopt is the San Diego Padres, largely because they were the Expos' expansion cousins. And they have made me look good by winning the NL West like I had predicted they would. But they won the division at 82-80?!?!?!? They did, finally, finish above .500, but it's still ridiculous that a team can get into the post-season with that record. Washington was 81-81 and finished dead last in the East. This is what the six division alignment and wild card has wrought. And I hate it. (For the record, the Mets won the East in 1973 at 82-79 when it was four divisions and no wild card.) I also hate the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox finished tied, but they won't have a playoff to determine the division winner. I'm a bit of a purist in baseball, and liked it when ties were broken by playing a game rather than relying on a statistical formula like the other sports do. There is something sacrilegious about the fact that the Yanks and Sox won't settle their tie in a playoff because of what happened to a team in another division. I know that there are pragmatic reasons for this, but a division title is a great accomplishment over 162 games and a point of prestige, and the Red Sox shouldn't be denied the chance to win it just because they qualify as the wild card. It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not even a Red Sox fan.

Now that I got that off my chest...Congratulations to the Braves for winning their 14th straight division title. (I won't mention that the Expos were 6 games up on them in 1994 when the strike happened.) I don't think people really appreciate what an amazing thing it is to keep putting out a winning team year after year after year. Because they've only won one World Series, they don't get the credit they really deserve. Really, it's a lot more impressive to consistently win over 162 games than in a short series. That's a nice way of saying that I don't think they'll make it to the Series this year.

I guess I should make a pick, so here it is. The Cardinals have a great team, and should make it out of the National League. But I'm sticking with my pre-season prediction of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (don't get me started on that) to go all the way. If it turns out this way, I look forward to seeing a portion of your winnings. If not, Poison Pero will re-imburse your losses.

A Question For Believers

2005-10-01T23:20:00.000-04:00

One subject that I really don't like to touch online is religion. I was raised Jewish, but I'm very secular in my life right now. I'm not a fan of organized religion, for reasons that I won't get into. I guess you could best describe me as an agnostic. Some would say that an agnostic is just an atheist with an insurance policy, but in my case it is an extension of my logical nature. (I'm definitely more a thinker than a feeler.) Truth be told, I hope that there is a supreme deity and that there's some kind of existence to look forward to after this one, but I've not seen evidence yet. It is because of that hope that I maintain a degree of spiritual consciousness. However, I cannot pray. This is a story that I haven't told that many people, so consider this a Jaymeister secret revealed:

I grew up in the 70's and 80's, during the height of the cold war. Anybody my age will remember what a profound impact the TV movie The Day After had on us. What it portrayed was actually nowhere near as bad as what would happen after a real nuclear attack, but it was still horrifying. A few months earlier there had been another TV movie called Special Bulletin about nuclear terrorism (which, BTW, was way ahead of its time in its portrayal of the news media) that also scared the bejeezas out of me. So after watching The Day After, lying in bed sleepless, I had a silent conversation with God. I told Him that if He could prevent a nuclear war from breaking out, I would not ever again ask him for anything. So far, we've both held up our ends. But that's why I can never honestly tell someone that they are in my prayers.

I've seen exchanges between believers and non-believers online, and I don't want to touch them with a ten foot pole. While religion is just another subject of debate for me, for someone else it's the very core of their existence, and I'm sensitive to that fact. Sometimes I'll see something in a religious context that I find to be totally outrageous, and I'll bite my tongue (or my typing fingers.) But I realize that a number of conservatives with whom I have had good exchanges are devout Christians, and I have a pressing question about that regarding political discourse, so I hope one of them will be kind enough to indulge me with an answer.

Many on the Right refer to American protesters of U.S. foreign policy as the "Hate America" crowd, and believe their criticism necessarily equates a hate for the country and all it stands for. So my question is how do you, as a Christian, reconcile your condemnation of your political adversaries for "hating America" with the basic Christian tenet of loving the sinner while hating the sin? In other words, can somebody not hate an action taken by America without hating America? Does their criticism not prove that they, in fact, love America? I ask this not out of disrespect, but because it has been on my mind for a while and my curiosity sometimes gets the better of me. I thank you in advance for setting me straight, and will try to avoid any more such inquiries.

Patriotic Dissent

2005-09-29T23:09:00.000-04:00

"You can't be opposed to the war in Iraq and still claim to support the global war on terror."

"You can't support the troops without supporting the commander-in-chief."

The talking points have been repeated many times by Bush apologists in the media and in the blogosphere. They are the first two corollaries of Bush's Law which states that you are either with him or with the terrorists. And while it is a propaganda talking point created to garner support for the administration agenda, many people truly believe it. They are convinced that anybody who objects to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is anti-American and doesn't care about American servicemen. But now there is hard evidence that this notion is utterly false. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Pat Tillman.

You might recall that Tillman was a pro football player with the Arizona Cardinals. He was so moved by the attacks of September 11, 2001 that he turned down a multi-million dollar contract with the Cardinals to join the Army Rangers in 2002. He wanted to go to Afghanistan, fight al Qaeda and hopefully find Osama bin Laden. He was rightly hailed as a real American hero, and set the highest example of sacrifice and service to country. He did tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, he was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. He was just 27. You might also recall that initial reports put out in the media stated that Tillman had been killed by enemy fire, and a mythology abounded. It was shameful politicizing, similar to the mythology surrounding Jessica Lynch, but all the more tragic. It took weeks for the information to come out that his death was by fratricide, with his parents having been put through the ringer all along.

This article is kind of lengthy, but it talks about the Tillmans' struggle to discover the truth about Pat's death, and the stonewalling by the military. I could do a whole blog entry just on that. But for now, I'm interested in information revealed about Pat Tillman, the man, that many might not have realized. Aside from his superior intellect and generosity, which is described in the article, Pat had strong opinions about what his mission should be (emphasis mine):

Interviews also show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author.
[...]

Instead of going to Afghanistan, as the brothers expected, their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Tillmans saw combat several times on their way to Baghdad. In early 2004, they finally were assigned to Afghanistan.
[...]
He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman [Pat's mother] said a friend of Pat's even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan, a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.
[...]
[Spc. Russell] Baer, who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, told one anecdote that took place during the March 2003 invasion as the Rangers moved up through southern Iraq.
"I can see it like a movie screen," Baer said. "We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren't in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f— illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush."
Another soldier in the platoon, who asked not to be identified, said Pat urged him to vote for Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.
Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White a Navy SEAL who served with Pat and Kevin for four months in Iraq and was the only military member to speak at Tillman's memorial said Pat "wasn't very fired up about being in Iraq" and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I think this proves what many of us have been saying since the Iraq war started - opposition to Bush and his Iraq policy does not mean you are any less patriotic, less supportive of the troops, or less committed to protecting the U.S. from terrorism. I challenge anybody who subscribes to the quotes at the top of this post to tell me that they now think Pat Tillman any less a hero.

Justice DeLayed

2005-09-28T23:01:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay, the cantankerous House Majority Leader, was indicted today on one count of conspiracy to violate political fundraising laws, a felony. Because of Republican House rules, the indictment forced the former exterminator to resign his leadership position in the House. At the White House, Scott McClellan stated, "I think the president's view is that we need to let the legal process work." And you know what? The president is absolutely correct. I don't know enough about the specifics of the case to make an informed comment on substance, but I believe in the principle that DeLay is innocent until proven guilty, and hopefully justice will be served.

Having said that, the initial reaction from DeLay can be described as dubious. If I were in his position and believed in my innocence, I would have responded like this: "The charges against me are false. The facts are A, B and C, and the law clearly states X, Y and Z, which shows that there was no violation." But DeLay did not devote one word of his statement to any of the details of his case. Instead, he attacked the prosecutor, Austin district attorney Ronnie Earle. Earle is a Democrat, and that alone seems to qualify him, in DeLay's eyes, as "an unabashed partisan zealot". DeLay claims that this indictment is some kind of partisan vendetta.

The partisan argument is weak on two counts. First, Earle hs prosecuted 15 public corruption cases, and 12 of them have been against Democrats. The other point is that, while I'm no expert on Texas jurisprudence, I'm pretty sure that the D.A. can present a case, but only the grand jury can indict. So are all of the members of the grand jury partisan zealots? William Gibson, the grand jury foreman, said of DeLay, "He's probably doing a good job. I don't have anything against him. Just something happened." That doesn't sound to me like someone with a political agenda.

The charge of partisanship is reminiscent of Ken Starr's investigation into Whitewater and, ultimately, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. But the proof is in the pudding: After all the millions of dollars spent by Starr on his Reno-approved witchhunt and all the evidence gathered, the grand jury never saw fit to indict Bill Clinton on any charge. We can argue until the next millennium about what Congress should have done with the Starr Report as a political process. But in the court of law, the end result would lead one to conclude that Starr was either incompetent or on a wild goose chase. The fact that the grand jury in Austin saw enough evidence to warrant an indictment against DeLay means that there is at least a case there to be argued.

Time will tell what will happen in this case. It isn't the first charge of impropriety that DeLay has had to answer for. I can't sum this up any better than Arianna Huffington:

Delay, Frist, Abramoff, Safavian... Wasn't this the crowd that was going to "restore honor and integrity" to Washington? If this is what integrity looks like, let's bring back Oval Office blow jobs.

Would You Like Asparagus With That?

2005-09-27T23:38:00.000-04:00

James Carville was really on to something when he told the Clinton '92 campaign team, "It's the economy, stupid." Because when you get right down to it, that's the only thing that everybody can truly relate to. Except for an elite few, most of us don't really know jack about issues like war and peace, diplomacy, and even politics itself, so we have to decide which sources we trust to educate ourselves and form opinions that way - or make totally uninformed opinions in a lot of cases. But the economy and micro-economics are things that we live with on a day to day basis. In our daily lives we set priorities on how our money is to be allocated. And from that experience, many feel comfortable extrapolating their economic priorities on a national level. I think that's why the most civil discussions on blogs tend to be the ones about economic issues, especially regarding taxation and government spending. People on the left and right challenge each others' priorities, and it usually makes for a healthy debate. So I'd like to encourage some of that.

I came across this article about how the poorest in our society are most susceptible to obesity and all the related diseases, in part because foods that are healthy (fresh produce, lean meats and fish) tend to be more expensive than unhealthy foods. Another factor is that many people work multiple jobs and don't have the time to cook proper meals for their children, so the children grow up with poor eating habits and many fall into the obesity trap. The article also includes opinions on possible remedies to the problem in Washington state, including a tax on junk food that could raise revenue to subsidize the sale of vegetables.

I think this is a terrific point of debate. I know that conservatives and others will talk about personal responsibility, and how most obese people got that way because of poor choices they made and they have to live with the consequences, and how people who eat junk food responsibly shouldn't be penalized for the sins of others. But I actually see this as something worthy of consideration. First off, if the price of fresh produce goes down, everybody benefits from that. If it means that more people eat healthy, then there will be less diet-related illnesses to treat and less of a crunch on health insurance, which benefits everybody. If the children in poorer households are eating healthier, they will have better self-esteem and more of a chance to succeed in their educational pursuits. The only downside is that a Whopper or a bag of chips will cost a little bit more. Many will argue that's too high a price to pay.

There have been other ideas bandied about to make healthy eating more affordable. Obviously, no program will totally eradicate obesity. People have to decide for themselves what they are going to eat. But I see this as both an issue of public health and equality of opportunity. There is an argument being made that low economic status is a hindrance to leading a healthy lifestyle and raising children to be healthy. Acknowledging that a healthy lifestyle isn't recognized as a constitutional right, isn't it still in the interest of the greater good to consider public solutions? It's a good ideological debate.

The Sun Never Sets On The CBC

2005-09-26T22:31:00.000-04:00

Canadian Content Alert: American readers, feel free to check out the links if you'd like to learn a bit about our own madness up here.

On Tuesday, Michaëlle Jean will officially be installed as the 27th Governor General of Canada. As I wrote about in a previous post, I have my doubts about this woman being our de facto head of state. Among other things, I mentioned my discomfort with the thought of the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces being a dual citizen of France. I am happy to report that Jean has renounced her French citizenship, which was the right thing to do. I have no reason to doubt that the decision to take French citizenship in the first place was for family reasons, and it happened just last year. I only wish this had been addressed before she was designated as the next GG. My biggest concern about her remains the question surrounding her and (especially) her husband's ties to Quebec sovereignists and known FLQ terrorists. But I already had my rant about that.

I think Canadians have to seriously think about the role of the Governor General, and the future of the monarchy in Canada. The position of GG is largely ceremonial, although it holds real powers. One would think that the GG should be somebody with a background in politics, or diplomacy, or at least a background that would befit a statesman. And yet, our last two GG's have now been CBC broadcasters. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against the broadcasting profession. I admired Adrienne Clarkson's media work, and have great respect for Jean's life story and career. But I don't recall Parliament ever approving a viceregal training program at the CBC. Somebody was joking the other day about the ongoing lockout at the CBC, and how nobody should throw eggs at the picket line because they might hit a future Governor General. Since there's a tradition of alternating Anglophone and Francophone GG's, by my calculation it should be Rex Murphy's turn next. I just hope, after Clarkson's spendthrift ways, that the Governor General's office will have to adhere to as strict a budget as the CBC.

In all seriousness, what are we doing in the 21st century still adhering to the British Monarchy? Seeing that Britons themselves are questioning the usefulness of the monarchy in greater numbers, it might be time for Canadians to consider alternatives. There are plenty of traditionalists around, so this isn't something that will happen any time soon. But it's still surprising that there isn't a larger republican (small r!) movement in Canada. We could still have ties to the Commonwealth - after all, it was our own Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent that proposed the formula that allowed India to remain in the Commonwealth upon independence. Maybe the new republican constitutional deliberations would even offer another chance to iron out some issues with Quebec and the West. And there's no reason why Rex Murphy couldn't be our next head of state, but he'd have to be elected. Ahhh, to dream. A republic, and Turks & Caicos, if you can keep it.

A Modern-Day Solomon

2005-09-25T22:45:00.000-04:00

I admit that tonight's blog entry is cheap. But because I'm suffering from one of my occasional bouts with blog fatigue, I thought I'd fall back on a proven standby - Bushisms. I'm liberally (because I'm a liberal) borrowing from a few sites that collect such things, and listing some of the highlights here for your reading pleasure. I've left out some of Bush's more famous quotes, and stuck with the ones that were new to me. This is for comedic purposes only (mostly). Come back shortly for some classic Chretien/Martinisms.

"We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomorrow."

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way."

"We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge."

"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make — it would hope — put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see."

"It's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life."

"And so during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessings."

"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life."

"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"

"I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah."

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."

And my personal favourite:

"The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere."

Over and Over and Over...

2005-09-24T23:32:00.000-04:00

The spirit of Goebbels is alive and well. The Bush White House is employing an effective program called Friends & Allies. The way it works is the White House and RNC staff regularly prepare a list of talking points ("D.C. Talkers") and e-mail the list to pundits and journalists to get them out in print and over the airwaves. The idea is that if you provide the material to those who are friendly to your cause, they will air your message and help to define the terms of the issue. That is why you will find a lot of talking heads on television and radio spouting the same lines and ideas, propagating a very disciplined message. Not surprisingly, that message is often false or misleading. For example, just recently you had Rev. Joe Watkins, Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris all making similarly misleading claims about poverty trends in the Bush and Clinton administrations. It's almost impossible to imagine that both O'Reilly and Morris could come up on their own with the asinine argument that the poverty rate at the midway point of a presidency is some sort of meaningful indicator. (Although with O'Reilly, anything is possible.)

This is just one more method of propaganda delivery from the administration that brought you pundit payola (Armstrong Williams et al.) and fake news releases.

Bush once said, "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." Recall that this comes from a president who has introduced programs that accomplish just the opposite of their names. (See No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative.) In fact, it is the propaganda that is catapulting the truth. And I haven't even brought up the subject of Iraq.

Turning Japanese?

2005-09-22T23:19:00.000-04:00

I heard a radio commercial recently that was refreshingly honest. It was for a local Mitsubishi car dealer in Toronto. In the ad, a male character says, "I want to buy a Japanese car that is actually made in Japan!" And the announcer voice states that many of the models featured at this Mitsubishi dealer are assembled in Japan, so they are built with the quality you would expect. I can definitely relate to this ad. I worked at GM in Oshawa, Ontario as a co-op student for four months in 1990. I didn't work in the assembly plant, but in the plant where the machines stamp out parts. I often saw workers who didn't seem to do much except read a newspaper while the machines were stamping away. It was at that time that I decided I'd never buy a North American car. I'm a proud Corolla driver.

I should make the point that I'm not anti-union. Organized labour is largely responsible for creating a middle class in our society, and for forcing corporations into a degree of responsibility. I believe that it still has a role to play today, lest the corporatocracy become complacent. My biggest beef with some unions is that they overreach and create an environment in which workers are encouraged to be unco-operative toward both their employers and their co-workers. For example, if an employee wants to work through his break to complete a task, I don't think his colleagues should be dragging him away. Or if someone wants to help out in an area that is outside her job description and is prevented from doing so by union watchdogs, they are only hurting her personal development. Many union policies undermine pride in a job well done, which is a major component in work fulfillment and self-esteem. These are the kinds of things that give unions a bad name, and have caused a weakening of the labour movement in recent years.

In an era of corporate malfeasance, and with government not willing to provide oversight with teeth, unions need to be strong. They just need to re-define what it means to serve the best interests of their membership.

The Coast Isn't Clear

2005-09-21T23:34:00.000-04:00

The deadly hurricane season continues. Rita is on her way to the Gulf Coast, and will possibly hit Texas with an intensity more severe than even Katrina. Galveston, once the crown jewel of the South, is right in the crosshairs as it was in 1900. Large segments of Houston are being evacuated - including some of the displaced New Orleans residents. And Louisiana might be in for another hit as well.

The only good news about this is that the experience of Katrina opened a lot of people's eyes about the damage that can be done by this kind of storm, so there will be less resistance to evacuate. Even still, there are a few people who are stubbornly making the decision to ride out the storm in their homes. But the lessons learned from Katrina have also helped to prepare local, state and federal authorities to better facilitate the evacuation and respond to the aftermath of this latest storm.

In an ideal world, natural disasters would not be political. Katrina sparked a nasty wave of partisan grandstanding. To be sure, there was plenty of blame to go around for the inadequate preparation and response to that storm. But the discourse should never have come down to an "us vs. them" exchange between supporters of the two parties. Individuals should be held accountable for their failures, but not assigned or absolved of blame based solely on the parenthesized letter next to their names. I am hopeful, first off, that this storm won't hit as severly as predicted. Regardless, I hope that there will be minimal casualties from Rita, and that the people evacuated from the storm won't have to endure anything like the scenes at the Superdome or N.O. Convention Center. And Governor Perry, FEMA and local authorities should be praised if that happens. But I can also see the blogs brimming with Republicans gloating about how their leaders are better at handling these disasters, without considering the benefit of hindsight. There have been plenty of comparisons between how Ray Nagin and Rudy Giuliani handled their city's tragedies, even though there was no similarity whatsoever between the challenges each had to face. Politics will always be politics. The main thing is I hope those in charge will use the hindsight of Katrina and be successful in minimizing the human tragedy. And lets all dig deep once again and give what we can, because the effort won't be cheap and people will still need our help. That's something all sides can agree on.

Break 'Em Out!

2005-09-20T22:30:00.000-04:00

I haven't seen any TV news today, so I don't know how prominently this story has played, but to me it seemed underplayed on internet news sites. British forces in Basra conducted a jail break. Literally. They broke right through the wall. Does anyone else find this whole episode disturbing? It raises some serious questions, to say the least.

1. What constructive undercover operation were the two British troops conducting by firing on civilians and police? Is that a way to prove that you have the Iraqis' best interests at heart? Are bullets a suitable substitute for flowers and candy?

2. Under what "rule of law" is the armed invasion of an ally's civilian police station and jail acceptable? That's a fine example the British are setting for a fledgling democracy. I thought the coalition wasn't at war with the Iraqis. There is an agreement by which coalition troops detained in Iraqi police custody are to be turned over to coalition authorities - a new twist on diplomatic immunity. But according to the article, the jailbreak was ordered within three hours of the British command being informed of the arrest and detainment. Well, if it's okay to rush into an invasion of a country, then a rush to demolish a police facility is small potatoes. Never mind the fact that the arrestees were no longer at that facility when the cavalry arrived, and that information could have been found out BEFORE the demolition instead of afterward. (Hmm, there's a WMD analogy in there somewhere.) Meanwhile, that operation allowed hundreds of other potentially dangerous prisoners to go free. Brilliant.

3. Why were the detained troops handed over to Shiite militia? Is there some kind of collusion going on between Iraqi police and insurgent forces? Was this a case of betrayal, corruption or both? That's a little unsettling, don't you think?

4. Will the two undercover troops be brought to justice by their own military for their criminal activity? (Yeah right.)

This is a debacle, pure and simple. When you engage in the type of activity you wouldn't tolerate from anyone else, on foreign soil, you aren't going to make many friends. This will put a strain on Iraqi-British relations, and force the U.S. to pick a side, i.e. side with Britain, and further alienate the victims of this latest atrocity. That'll show those insurgents.

*****************************************************************

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the passing of Simon Wiesenthal earlier today in Vienna at the age of 96. It is impossible to overstate how important Mr. Wiesenthal was, and not just for the Jewish population. He exemplified justice and humanity like nobody else ever could. In spite of his horrific experiences in 12 different Nazi concentration camps, and the loss of 89 members of his family, his deeds were never motivated by anger or bitterness. "I am someone who seeks justice, not revenge," Wiesenthal said. "My work is a warning to the murderers of tomorrow, that they will never rest." Now it is he who may rest, but his work must not.

And For What? A Little Bit Of Water

2005-09-18T23:45:00.000-04:00

I'd like to write a little bit about a topic that is near and dear to most of our hearts: insurance. A lot of people like to dump on insurance companies, so someone needs to put their foot down and say something positive. And that foot is me. The insurance industry should be commended for being a renegade in the business world, where everybody else places paramount importance on customer service. If you can manage to piss off your customers while making a handsome profit, you must be doing something right. What has been happening since Katrina is a perfect illustration.

The Attorney General of Mississippi is suing five insurance companies in order to get them to pay out claims for water damage, which are excluded from coverage in most policies. The insurers are correct to claim that flood insurance is sold by the federal government, and is supplemental to policies with private insurers. After all, the flooding that happened recently across the Gulf Coast just came out of the blue, right? You can't really prove that it was a result of the storm surge that came about because of Katrina and her high winds, can you? I hope I will have this kind of ingenuity, when on trial for murder after pushing someone off a tall building, to argue that it was the impact with the ground that caused the death and not my shove.

A number of insurance companies were also thoughtful enough to issue cheques for living expenses to their policyholders who were affected by Katrina. All they asked in return was for the policyholders to sign a document to acknowledge that the damage to their homes was caused by flooding and not wind, thus absolving the insurers of claims. It didn't matter whether the homes were thoroughly inspected to assess what the actually cause of damage was, or that the policyholders were under great duress when signing the document. The insurers were there to be Jacob to the victims' Esau. Vince McMahon is still trying to line up an angel for them.

Even if the lawsuit in Mississippi is successful and the insurers have to pay out claims for flood damage, they won't be losing any money. They will recover the funds by upping the premiums for all of their policyholders. You have to love insurance companies. They are the only businesses in the world who can reap large profits without assuming any risk. They have my utmost admiration.

Tune in next week when I wax poetic on garden snakes.

Bleu, Blanc, Rouge...et Orange

2005-09-16T23:46:00.000-04:00

Today I read a piece of news that I found to be bittersweet. Youppi!, the longtime mascot of the Montreal Expos before their departure to Washington, is coming back as mascot of the Montreal Canadiens hockey club. It might seem silly for a 37 year old man to be moved by something like this, but I have my reasons.

I was born and raised in Montreal and was a huge sports fan, particularly in my youth. When I was growing up in the 70's, the Canadiens were a juggernaut, winning the Stanley Cup almost every year. And yet, my favorite team in all of sports was the Expos. Until the advent of cable sports channels in the mid-80's, there was only one Expos game on TV each week, maybe two, so it was always must-viewing. I'd regularly listen to games on the radio, along with my dad who has always been a huge baseball fan. And, of course, I'd go to a fair number of ball games each year at the Olympic Stadium (and at Jarry Park before that as a young child). Contrary to the myths that have become common belief among baseball fans these days, the Expos were not a dreadful team that finished last year after year. From 1979 onward they finished at .500 or higher more often than not. Sadly, they never made it to the World Series, but they had some really competitive years in which they contended right to the end of the season. They always seemed to have a star-crossed quality to them. I continued to follow them closely after moving to Toronto in 1993 - the day before the Blue Jays won their second World Series on Joe Carter's homerun. (And just a few months after celebrating the Habs' last Cup win over Gretzky's Kings. I got to see some of the looting firsthand.)

I could probably write a week's worth of blogs explaining why the Expos franchise failed in Montreal. But the short answer is that there were a number of factors happening in a short time frame that created a perfect storm. First, there was a prolonged recession in Quebec in the late 80's and 90's, and that province's recovery came much later than the rest of North America. Then Charles Bronfman decided to sell the team in 1991, and the franchise never again had solid, committed ownership. Then there was the issue of the devalued Canadian dollar throughout the 90's. And there was the last place finish in 1991, combined with a chunk of the stadium falling off - forcing the team to play its entire last month on the road. That was when attendance started to drop-off, and the player payroll became restrictive. Despite the low payroll, they were able to produce contending teams in 92 and 93 because of their strong farm system, and attendance got a bit of a boost. Then came 1994, the greatest team they ever had, great attendance numbers, and the strike killed everything. Players were sold off, the on-field performance suffered, and the fans became as apathetic as the team owners. It became just a matter of time before the team would move out of town. And yet, when it was finally made official, I was moved to tears. It felt like losing a friend. It hit me harder than I was expecting. Washington Nationals? Whatever. I think I'm going to adopt the Cubs as my team. Why end the suffering?

The only thing that still exists in Montreal that is linked to the Expos, other than a dilapidated concrete money pit, is Youppi!. I have to admit that I always had a soft spot for Youppi!, even while others found him annoying. There was always something about that big furball. At least he should get credit for breaking baseball's orange colour barrier. He certainly is popular all throughout Quebec with children, and has made a lot of charity appearances over the years. Now he's making history again, becoming the first major sports mascot to change leagues. So I'm happy to see Youppi! back on the Montreal sports scene and in the community. But he also looms like a lingering ghost of my dearly departed ball team. I hope ghosts can skate. (Maybe the Habs can find a job for Souki too.)

Blissfully Ignorant

2005-09-15T23:14:00.000-04:00

Well, I missed Bush's speech tonight. And I haven't read anything about it yet. So I'm not going to comment on it. And I don't even need to read any blogs, because I already know what they are saying. Those that like Bush will talk about what a wonderful speech it was and how he has things well under control and is doing great things to get the Gulf Coast back to its former glory. And those who don't like Bush will say that he's full of shit. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and if I had heard his speech I'd probably have serious doubts about his sincerity. I don't generally judge what I haven't seen, but some things are predictable. I was telling a friend the other day that if you look a blogs on the Left and Right, you'll see exactly the same message on both: a) The mainstream media sucks and doesn't tell the real truth. b) The other party is too extreme and our party lacks backbone. c) The courts are out of control. The only contrast is d) Bush is the second coming of Jesus OR Bush is the anti-Christ. I don't have a hate on for the man, just serious questions.

BTW, check this out for some confirmation hearing humour. And written by the Frumster's wife, no less. I think I've used up my quota of links to that family's work. There's nothing more insidious than a charming hack.

All-American Mom

2005-09-14T21:44:00.000-04:00

Thursday is a momentous day for my mother. She will be in Orlando, FL to be sworn in as a new citizen of the United States of America. She has lived down in Florida for about six years now, and previously wintered there for a number of years. Now she can be called an American.

How she came to this occasion is a real modern-day love story. She met her husband on the internet. She was living in Montreal, and had just purchased a beautiful condominium. She put lot of renovation work into that condo, from paint to flooring, furniture to storage management solutions. It was a stunning home. And around that time, she met Irv online. Irv was a product of the streets of Chicago, living in Indianapolis. Mom and Irv connected at first largely because they were both members of Reconstructionist synagogues, which is one of the smaller Jewish constituencies. And Mom was charmed by his online handle, Big Zaidie. They came to realize they had a lot more in common, one thing led to another, and soon they moved together to South Florida. And Mom sold her beautifully furnished condominium. At a profit. Who says you have to choose between love and money?

My mom is (and will continue to be) a proud Canadian, but never cared for the cold winters. In a way, that's like saying, "Jamaica is wonderful, but those beaches have to go." And maybe all of this would not have happened if Canada had ever been able to close the deal with Turks & Caicos. But Mom has embraced her new country, and I have a feeling that citizenship will eventually have special meaning for her. If it helps my sister in her quest for a Green Card, all the better. Most importantly, it means another much-needed vote for the Democrats in Florida! In Palm Beach County no less. I hope the citizenship test includes balloting instructions.

My mother, sister, and most of my extended family live in the U.S. And while I disagree with the actions of the American power elite (and not just under Dubya), I have an affinity for the American people. That is one of the reasons why I take great interest in the American political process. Now that my mom is a citizen, I hope the country does her proud. Congratulations, Mom.

Bush: I'm A Culpa

2005-09-13T23:02:00.000-04:00

In a refreshing development that many thought they would never see, President Bush claimed responsibility for the failings of the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina. I'd like to take a moment to praise Mr. Bush for doing so, because it was the right thing to do. Granted, it was also the politically expedient thing to do, because it temporarily diffuses the heat surrounding him. It is well known that the Bush-Rove strategy has always been to never admit error because the admission might be used by the opposition to open the floodgates (no pun intended) to other criticism and posturing. So Bush's grudging claim of responsibility was certainly newsworthy.

Then again, it really was kind of a half-baked claim, wasn't it? "[T]o the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." What exactly is he taking responsibility for? This is like saying, "I don't know what I did wrong, but I'm sorry." The folks on Free Republic are upset that he even allowed for that much - they think the federal response has gone swimmingly from the beginning. But, in truth, it was Michael Brown who took the fall. Remember back in the Bush-Kerry debates (and previously in a televised news conference) when Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes as president? After hemming and hawing, he would only concede that he had made mistakes in some of his political appointments. I think that selecting a failed horse show commissioner to head the nation's emergency management agency would qualify as one of those mistakes. But you're not likely to hear Bush tell you any more about how he might be "responsible" for what went wrong, be it his policies, his priorities with regards to emergency response to natural disasters vs. terrorism, or the decision to put FEMA under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security and at an additional arm's length from the White House. All you'll get out of him is that he appointed the wrong man. So Bush's claim of "responsibility" is really nothing new, and nothing for either the Left or Right to get excited about.

E.J. Dionne (who, curiously, is the only non-Rightie listed on the links page of Ann Coulter's website - she must have slept with him) wrote a column titled "End of the Bush Era". It has to be recognized that Bush still has over three years left in his term, which is an eternity in politics, so it might be perilous for Dionne to engage in the business of writing political obituaries. But there is no doubt that the Bush presidency has been weakened, and the Right can't blame the MSM for that. Even people who are in total agreement with Bush's agenda must admit that his execution has often been lacking. That is a question of competence. And Bush boldly claimed in 2000 that he is "a uniter, not a divider". He had unity on 9/11 and squandered it. That is a question of leadership.

In blogs on the Left, you'll often see comments from Rightie visitors that go something like this: "Instead of bitching, why don't you come up with some ideas and actually win an election?" Or: "Maybe if you stop getting highjacked by your extremists you might win some elections." I find it curious how so many Republicans want to offer advice to Democrats about how to win an election. But it occurred to me that maybe it's possible that these Repubs actually DO want the Dems to win some, to keep a healthy balance of power, because they don't like the direction in which America is going under the current one party rule. I really get the sense that there has been some kind of tipping point in public opinion. Whether the Dems are capable of seizing the opportunity is to be determined. I see them as much a part of the problem as the Republicans - but that's for another time in another post.