Monday, January 31, 2005
Conscientious objection to the conscientious objectors. I really hate to admit it, but while editing my latest venom towards him, I realized that I -- gasp! -- agree with Bill O'Reilly on something: the U.S. military deserters who fled to Canada and are claiming refugee status here, however many of them there are by now, should be returned home. (That despite the pinhead threatening Canada with a boycott over them nine months ago.) Of course, O'Reilly and many Americans would prefer that we put them on a southbound plane, train, or automobile forthwith -- and that future deserters take heed -- instead of giving them a fair and impartial hearing first, as required by Canadian law.
What is indisputable is the fact that they are not draftees or conscripts (no matter how much Michael Moore argues that, socioeconomically, they are) -- they are professional soldiers in the world's most well-to-do volunteer army, and the only thing they're dodging is duty. They signed contracts in the form of enlistment papers -- or, more telling, reenlistment papers -- in good faith, knowing full-well what they were getting into, what joining up could involve. Ignorance is not a defense: they cannot claim that they honestly thought theirs of all countries would not deploy them overseas in offensive operations at some point or another. What were they expecting, the Peace Corps in camouflage? Did they think their hawkish commander-in-chief was looking for dovish GIs?
Whatever was on their minds when they joined up, obviously Iraq wasn't, and now they want to live here. While that's gratifying to Canada, and vindicates our opposition to the war, it doesn't change the fact that they're not refugees -- they're recalcitrant employees facing disciplinary action. The Immigration and Refugee Board's Refugee Protection Division may disagree with me, but I think they have no business coming to Canada and applying for refugee status when their lives are only in as much danger as their brave comrades in Iraq, and the only persecution they face is military justice -- a court martial followed by, at worst, some time in Leavenworth -- and the sort of scorn that ineffectual Democrats and antiwar protesters have to put up with these days. (When, say, their families have been hacked to pieces with machetes and they're dodging death squads intent on ethnic cleansing, then, by all means, they should flee to Canada as refugees.)
If America wants them back, it should have them; it's time for these two deserters to own up to their responsibilities as soldiers and citizens of that country. Afterwards, they're welcome to immigrate to Canada. The refugee board may not say anything of the sort in its rulings, but it should definitely deny their applications.
Follow-up: The board's ruling with regards to Jeremy Hinzman was the correct one: the first of the deserters to have his case heard was denied refugee status in March. Of course, with the appeals process, he won't be heading home anytime soon. (Given the Terri Schiavo fiasco in the U.S., no one there has the right to complain about claimants here exhausting their appeals.)
What I didn't realize at the time I wrote this post was that when Hinzman enlisted in the army three years ago, he joined the storied 82nd Airborne Division. What exactly did he think that paratroopers in the "largest parachute force in the free world" do for a living? When I heard what he chose to do in the army, I lost even more respect for him: of all the options available, he picked one that's a whole lot more armed, dangerous, and just plain gung ho than others in order to pay for college (or whatever his reason was for enlisting other than wanting an army career). It's one thing to desert your unit when you're about to deploy to Iraq; it's another thing to feign ignorance about that unit's raison d'être after you've volunteered for it. It's like someone joining the fire department and then objecting -- two years after the fact -- to being exposed to flames outside of training. Sheesh. (I have the sneaking suspicion that Hinzman saw Band of Brothers and thought that it would be cool to jump out of planes onto the field of battle, but then found out that it's only cool in peacetime, when the battles aren't real.)
Oh, and thanks to his rally appearances and media interviews, he's turned an application for refugee status into a cause célèbre for the antiwar/anti-Bush movement, one that isn't endearing us to the U.S. Given the awkward position he and other deserters are putting Canada in, they should do us all the favor of being grateful that they're not in Iraq -- for now -- and shutting the hell up.
posted by media_dystopia @ 16:34 [ link | top | home ]
Saturday, January 29, 2005
No, you disgust the hell out of them, Bill -- and they're not alone. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly spouts the worst kind of right-wing claptrap with impunity, and when someone has the audacity to question its journalistic value -- in this case, CBC's The Fifth Estate ("Sticks and Stones," January 26) -- he slams them on the air, calling it an "attack." (Keep in mind that he refused to be interviewed for the documentary.) By blaming the Canadian government, O'Reilly has shown how little he knows about our public broadcaster; if he wasn't so ignorant, he'd realize that CBC is expected to bite the legislative hand that feeds it. (Remember the Somalia Affair? Following the sponsorship scandal these days? Think of these examples -- two of the many -- and ask yourself whether CBC is really in bed with the government, especially the Liberals, who lost their majority not too long after Adscam broke.) The Canadian public demands that its broadcaster be independent of the government and ruling party; of course, being a shill for the Republican party, Christian right, and neocon movement, O'Reilly wouldn't know anything about journalistic independence. Or balance. Or proportion. Or accuracy. Or integrity. Or accountability. Or any of the craft's other essential elements which CBC has in abundance but which Fox News finds itself sadly lacking -- call it journalistic penis envy. Go ahead, Canada, review your broadcaster's journalistic standards and practices, and ask yourself whether the American network measures up -- it doesn't; allowing someone as puerile, bombastic, and just plain biased as O'Reilly to be its standard-bearer proves as much. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fox News has no business broadcasting in Canada; why we're rewarding its constant excoriation of our country, people, and institutions by allowing it to is beyond me. (Oh, and adding Fox News to your digital-cable lineup, Rogers -- that's strike two.)
Follow-up: Oh, I forgot to mention what I thought of The Fifth Estate's documentary. Three things came to mind, starting with the urge to vomit: being subjected to those conservative blowhards and their ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy, misinformation (lies, lies, and more lies), and hatemongering literally made me sick to my stomach -- it was that disgusting. (Just about as nauseating as those traitors at CBCWatch.ca, who feed Bill O'Reilly's hatred of the broadcaster -- and all things liberal-Canadian -- and who think he's above reproach, no matter how many times he denigrates Canada.) Second, the documentary was a whole hell of a lot more fair and balanced than Fox News could ever hope to be; praise be that CBC has the aforementioned standards and practices. And, finally, homegrown right-winger Rachel Marsden clearly belongs on the other side of the border; why she lives here when she obviously hates what Canada stands for is perplexing. (Gee, and I thought David Frum was a scout for Fox News.)
Follow-up: I grew up with CBC Radio and Television. No matter where we lived, no matter which province, it was always there, like a security blanket. The kitchen radio was always tuned to CBC during the day. My morning cereal, before school, was always eaten with World Report. Family dinners meant The World at Six, As it Happens, and, on Sundays, Cross Country Checkup. We brunched with Quirks & Quarks on Saturdays and Royal Canadian Air Farce on Sundays (although, I always preferred enjoying it as an aural dessert, afterwards, in the living room). My parents capped off their weeknight television-viewing with The National and its then counterpart, The Journal. To this day, when I think of Peter Gzowski and Morningside, I think of days off school -- that's the only time I heard his show in full. His and other now-silent CBC voices, like AiH's Barbara Frum (mother of David) and Alan Maitland, will always be a comfort to me. CBC Radio One may not figure much in my life these days, but it's still an integral part of my life's soundtrack, and I'm damn glad my tax dollars help pay for it and the rest of my broadcaster's offerings. (Hell, on the basis of its quality journalism, alone, I'm willing to fund CBC.)
So, when Bill O'Reilly hurled his latest insults at CBC and, therefore, those of us who believe in it wholeheartedly, he inspired me to do something I have never done before: write the CRTC and CBC; the former to chastise it for letting Fox News broadcast here (the reasons being self-evident) and the latter to say "thank you for being you" (I'm paraphrasing). To safeguard my privacy, I won't quote my exact words -- there's always the chance that they could be used publicly by the recipients. Let's just say that I made my opinions known and will continue to do so from now on; actually, I have to: Fox News and its windbags are a blight upon journalism, and I must contribute my words -- and real name, which I rarely do -- to the fight against the disease in Canada.
Follow-up: This question may be too much of an afterthought to belong in this post; nevertheless, I'm going to ask it here: Does Bill O'Reilly also accuse the British of being socialists -- yes, in his mind, that's derogatory -- or does he prefer to maintain a double standard for America's closest friend and ally? ("Sticks and Stones" reminded me that, while pooh-poohing a Globe and Mail reporter and her reaction to his threatened boycott of Canada, he suggested that she was a socialist -- and for shame: the interview and its accusatory tone resulted in threats against the Canadian journalist, some racially motivated.) Apparently, it's okay for the U.K. to be led by the Labour Party, the self-described "democratic, socialist party," but it's not okay for Canada to be led by the Liberal Party, which the Royal Canadian Air Farce's Don Ferguson described as a cross between Ralph Nader and The Wall Street Journal. As far as I understand it, the L-word ("liberal") and S-word ("socialist") are both used as insults by American right-wingers, but if you're the latter, or have been accused of being one, it's overlooked when you help invade a sovereign country and, more importantly, help maintain the invasion's facade of legitimacy. Have I got that straight, you hypocrites? (Apparently, the irony of a journalistic crypto-fascist like O'Reilly attacking socialists, real or perceived, is lost on them.)
Follow-up: It's time for all those Canadian right-wingers and CBC-haters flocking to the now-broadcasting-in-Canada Fox News to decide where their allegiances lie. If they're subscribing to the channel to have access to an alternate, albeit questionable, source of information and to add another point of view, jingoistically American though it may be, to the national discourse, then so be it; if, however, they want to join O'Reilly and crew's chorus of Canada-bashing, then I have a serious problem with that. My patience is wearing razor thin when it comes to Canadians -- in name only -- who don't have the balls to stand up for their country; it especially bothers me when these pussies need the opinions of Americans and other foreigners to validate or bolster their low Canadian self-esteem. The fact is, Canada is not the U.S.; if these people cannot accept that, and are hoping that Fox News' denigration of our country will help bend and shape it into the 51st state or, worse, remake it in the image of Bush's America, then it's time for them to turn in their passports and emigrate south, leaving the rest of us to live the way we want and be Canadian as we please. (Don't let the Maple Leaf hit you on the way out, folks.) And before I'm dismissed as just another outraged liberal, let me point out that I also object to the media in Quebec, that liberal-minded though Liberal-hating province, being used to promote separatism -- the breakup of Canada. Would it be appropriate, in that scenario, for a news network from France to broadcast in Canada when it has adopted "Vive the Québec libre!" -- Charles de Gaulle's infamous call to arms -- as its mantra? And how would federalist Canadians feel when the CRTC approves the network's broadcast license over their objections and then Quebecers flock to it? To me, there's no difference between that and the Fox News situation.
Follow-up: Speaking of running out of patience, I'm close to calling Rogers to complain about it advertising its Fox News digital channel. This is a company that gets more of my money every month than any other, so why should I be subjected to the sickening image of Bill O'Reilly and other Canada-bashers? (When I'm trying to eat, no less!) Just like I have the choice not to watch a show that offends me, I have the choice not to subscribe to Fox News; I don't, however, have a choice when Rogers inserts one of its own ads during a commercial break on its cable network -- the one, again, I pay good money for. Rogers has reported and I've decided: I don't want to be reminded of Fox News polluting Canadian airwaves. If the company is not willing to listen to my concerns, then perhaps it's time for me to find another Internet provider; that would cut in half the amount of money it gets from me, and there would be great satisfaction in that. (Two birds with one stone: I'll also be getting Rogers back for taking XFM away.)
posted by media_dystopia @ 19:47 [ link | top | home ]
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Still no VCR, but at least I know where to get one. Today's shopping foray to Future Best Shop Buy -- my new moniker for Merivale Road's fake competitors -- not only garnered me my first DVD player (yes, I know, welcome to the 21st century), but some education: Best Buy is far superior to its sibling, Future Shop. I should point out that at no time while complaining about the latter's ongoing corporate deception did I not think that its American parent company's namesake wasn't a quality big-box store and that having the two side by side wasn't beneficial to consumers. (Park once, shop twice!) You'd think that sharing a corporate master would lend itself to comparable levels of service -- apparently, not: there are discrepancies between the two stores, and today's comparison shopping brought them to the fore.
Not only did Future Shop's staff ignore me -- don't they work on commission? -- but the model I was looking wasn't stocked (despite being listed on the Web page), price and information tags were missing here and there, and the six-month-old store appeared, for lack of a better word, disheveled. Meanwhile, at Best Buy -- the older location of the two -- everything is bright, shiny, and in order, not to mention well-stocked. I gladly admit to being seduced by its corporate slickness -- it's a welcome relief after shopping next door. What's more, in the short time I was in the store before making my purchase, four clerks had greeted me in passing, and one, noticing my confusion, had stopped to ask if I had any questions.
Best Buy's price-match guarantee had me covered in case its counterpart was selling the DVD player for less (according to its Web page, it was). Still, I felt willing to pay extra for that better shopping experience, if anything, to say "you snooze, you lose" to Future Shop. Obviously, the money goes to same place, but it's a good way to tell the parent company which division is better: Best Buy. (No wonder Future Shop has to rely on falsely calling itself "proudly Canadian.")
posted by media_dystopia @ 18:52 [ link | top | home ]
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Saying "no" to the bullies of the arrogant empire. Remember Bush's state visit to Canada? Remember that closed-door bilateral meeting with the president and his then national security advisor? Remember him publicly pressuring us on Ballistic Missile Defense? Remember the back-room bullying in which signing on to BMD was linked to America's future defense of Canada? Oh, sorry, the join-or-else part of the discussion wasn't reported -- until now. It's been a while since I've quoted -- read, for that matter -- a U.S. newspaper, but after hearing about today's Washington Post article ("Bush Doctrine Is Expected to Get Chilly Reception," by Peter Baker) on CTV News tonight, and feeling my blood boil as a result, I was compelled to:
When President Bush flew to Canada in his first international trip following his reelection, the White House portrayed it as the beginning of a fence-mending tour to bring allies back into the fold after a tense first term. But after Bush left, the Canadians were more furious than before.
They were stunned when Bush leaned across a table in a private meeting and lectured Prime Minister Paul Martin about opposing the U.S. missile defense system. And they were later taken aback by a speech filled with what they considered the same "old Bush" foreign policy pronouncements that opened the divide with the allies in the first place.
"If he's going to take that speech to Europe," said a top Canadian official who attended the meeting between Bush and Martin, "he's not going to get a good reception."
Oh, it gets better later in the piece:
The Canada trip offered a case study in the tension between Bush's ideals and allies' expectations. When Bush agreed to go to Ottawa after the November election, the gesture was seen in Canada as a long-overdue olive branch. Like France and Germany, Canada broke from the United States over the Iraq war and felt alienated from Washington. Martin, the new prime minister, was eager to smooth the waters.
To avoid any unpleasantries, Martin sacked a shrill critic of Bush from his governing party, and Bush aides steered the president away from speaking to Parliament, where he might have been heckled. Canadian officials said their U.S. counterparts assured them that Bush would not put Martin on the spot on his refusal to join the U.S. missile defense system.
But Bush did confront Martin and used the sort of language that sets Canadians on edge. "He leaned across the table and said, 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, 'Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " said the senior Canadian official who was in the room and noted that he had been assured by Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell personally that Bush would avoid the subject.
"Most of our side was trying to explain the politics, how it was difficult to do," the official said. But Bush "waved his hands and said, 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defense of Canada it wouldn't be accepted?' "
The next day Bush gave a speech in Halifax that to the Canadians sounded as tough and uncompromising as ever. "We were all looking at each other and saying this is a speech for somebody else. It certainly wasn't for Canadians."
A month and a half later, Condoleezza Rice said at her confirmation hearing that "the time for diplomacy is now." Days after that, her boss used his inaugural address to say: "And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help." So, either America's chief diplomat-designate is a two-faced liar, or its commander-in-chief is an arrogant hypocrite (or both); either way, we should tell these Washington bullies, and their bully-in-residence, Paul Cellucci, that what Bush did to Martin -- privately lecturing him, then publicly sandbagging him; on our soil, no less -- now tops our list of reasons not to join BMD, on principle. We should also remind them that they're insultingly perverting the words "diplomacy" and "friendship" -- or would they prefer to hear that from Europe?
Gee, and the U.S. news media wondered why there were anti-Bush protests in Ottawa.
Follow-up: America's bullying doctrine exposed: the next day, CBC News not only mentioned the article, but quoted the revealing observations of the Canadian official. (Yes, Washington, that means it's been nationally reported.)
Follow-up: The Iraq war was obvious, contrived, and over-marketed; we knew full-well what we were not getting involved with. Ballistic Missile Defense, on the other hand, is nebulous, befogged, and under-marketed; the program is literally and figuratively in the ether. For Canadians, the questions are many: Does it work? Is it beneficial to Canada? Does it diminish our sovereignty? Do the pros outweigh the cons? (Keeping in mind that we must view this from an international perspective, not just a parochial one.) And, most telling of all, why is the U.S. threatening us instead of convincing us? We're expected to accept on faith something which, by all accounts, is a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle, pork barrel, or both. Iraq was shoved down our throats and, thankfully, we gagged; now we're being fed voodoo defense and expected to swallow -- or choke on the consequences. (No Canadian would be foolish enough to think that there aren't linkages, which makes any pressuring in person uncalled-for -- we already have the post-Iraq cloud of reprisal hanging over us.)
Follow-up: The American Assembly's bi-national conference on Canada-U.S. relations is recommending, for the most part, that Canada join BMD. Most of the attendees of the February 3-6 gathering, succinctly titled "U.S.-Canada Relations," also think that the program has been misunderstood. In other words, they and the "national, non-partisan public affairs forum illuminating issues of public policy" want Canada to take a leap of faith: the issue of BMD is decidedly unilluminated, on both sides of the border. (The fact that this is the third such conference since 1964 doesn't help matters.) I can understand why the Liberal minority government (the want-to-stay-elected) and Conservative government-in-waiting (the want-to-be-elected) here are relatively mum on the unpopular subject, but why Bush and his crew are pressuring us -- how much depends on who you talk to; some folks are clinging to the notion that they aren't -- without elucidating is beyond me. With all due respect to the government officials, academics, and diplomats who attended the "elite assembly on cross-border issues," as the CBC put it, Canada saying "yes" to BMD at this point would be like running headlong into a pitch-black room.
Follow-up: Also reported after the fact, and probably the most ironic part of this whole, was that even Stephen Harper, a fellow right-winger, wasn't exempt from Bush's pressure tactics in Ottawa: the leader of the Opposition -- our opposition -- was privately chided for his silence on BMD, and warned not to play partisan politics with it. In other words, Bush did an end run, the equivalent of the prime minister going to Washington D.C. and plotting with the Democrats. This is yet another reason not to kowtow to the Americans on missile defense.
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:43 [ link | top | home ]
Sunday, January 16, 2005
His diocese is in Alberta -- imagine that. Pierre Trudeau said it all in December, 1967: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." In light of Bishop Frederick Henry's latest attack on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, however, Trudeau's 37-year-old aphorism needs updating: there's no place for Catholicism -- and its hatemongering -- in the legislatures of the nation. Keep in mind that, if not from the pulpit, this homophobic enmity would be considered hate propaganda under the Criminal Code. (Then again, a few years of prison showers might be the only way for the clergy to cozy up to the same-sex lifestyle.)
Follow-up: Add Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic to the Catholic crusade against same-sex marriage. According to Toronto's archbishop, it's perfectly acceptable to use the notwithstanding clause to curtail the rights of gays and lesbians. Perhaps he would feel differently if it were his rights, and those of his religion, that were being denied under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, I think any curtailment of the one should be balanced by an equal curtailment of the other; joining the two groups at the hip rights-wise might be the only way to get the Church to think twice about denying others the rights it uses so freely.
Follow-up: Less than a week later, with the Conservative Party's ad campaign against same-sex marriage underway, Stephen Harper warned of the slippery slope towards...polygamy? Huh? These people will clearly stop at nothing -- and say anything -- to deny Canadians equality; that's why I hope, no, pray that they never form the government. It doesn't mean I carry the Liberal Party banner -- I just refuse to compromise on certain fundamental principles: those the Conservatives would piss on, given the chance. If the prime minister carries out his threat to go to the polls over same-sex marriage, I will do everything in my power to make sure the voice of equality, of human rights, isn't drowned out by conservative nonsense, be it from the Church or the Party. Polygamy...sheesh.
Follow-up: And from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the archbishop of Quebec and primate of Canada, warnings of cultural upheaval if the government's same-sex marriage bill passes. I'll be sure to visit the eight jurisdictions where it's already legal and ask the 87 percent of the Canadian population that lives there whether it's experiencing cultural upheaval as a result of gays and lesbians marrying. Oh, wait, I live in one of those jurisdictions -- let me check: nope, no cultural upheaval in Ontario. (With the exception of the NHL lockout, of course.) I'd like to thank the Catholic doomsayer for his fallacious prophesying; clearly, the battle for the remaining five jurisdictions and 13 percent of the population is no place for rational predictions.
Follow-up: A week and a half later, the Conservatives and Liberals are at their caucus retreats debating, among other things, same-sex marriage. It's going to be a rare Tory that votes in favor of the same-sex legislation; I just wish the opposite were true for the Grits: an increasing number plan to oppose the bill. If I could communicate anything to those MPs, as well as to the zealous defenders of traditional marriage across the aisle in the House of Commons, it would be that denying Canadians equality under the Charter, with or without the use of the notwithstanding clause, is just plain wrong; furthermore, to do so because some vocal constituents have threatened to unseat them come next election is the height of cowardice.
Follow-up: Originally, the preceding follow-up posed the following question: "How can you deny Canadians equality under the Charter and still look at yourself in the mirror?" It didn't take me long to see how obvious the answer was: "Easily." I re-wrote everything after the first sentence once I realized that, when it comes to gays and lesbians -- the "unnatural"; the "deranged"; the "perverted" -- conservatives can justify, in their minds, anything they say or do to them, and have no absolutely no problem looking themselves in the mirror afterwards. Silly me; what was I thinking?
Follow-up: The day after the debate in the House of Commons began in earnest, Canada's Hutterites, who once fled religious persecution in Europe and have kept a low profile ever since, warned that the result of same-sex marriage would be Canada becoming a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, let me check outside in this, one of the eight jurisdictions where it's legal, for the fire and brimstone from on high -- nope, none. Same-sex marriage in Canada: invoking the wrath of God since June, 2003; the Almighty's just a little slow, is all. (So-called "rational" arguments in religion: bolstering atheism since...forever.)
Follow-up: The Pope in his latest book, Memory and Identity: "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man." No, he's not talking about the Roman Catholic Church; although, if you didn't know who the author was, you might very well think that. No, the pontiff is talking about same-sex marriage. So, gays and lesbians, loving couples, getting hitched is evil. And where, exactly, would same-sex marriage fall on the scale of evil ideologies? Below genocide? Above terrorism? On par with plain, old murder? I'm not trying to be sardonic -- I just want know how two people in love, who want to make it official, stack up to the rest of the world's evil, is all. Call me curious. (Whatever would we do without the Holy See and its asinine hyperbole?)
posted by media_dystopia @ 14:59 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, January 13, 2005
What's literarily next? Now that I've finished Paul Di Filippo's aptly named Ribofunk I'm going to move on to...actually, I'm not sure. I have a 35-book-long reading queue at the moment; which one now jumps to the head of the line is a bit of mystery (the choice, not the genre). It's hard to know how to follow up Di Filippo's biogenetically psychotic short stories and their insane lingo. Although, given how much I have Jeff Noon's Vurt on the brain these days, I'm leaning towards either Pollen or Nymphomation.
Follow-up: I'm enjoying Pollen, but it didn't take long reading it to remember that Jeff Noon irritatingly uses semicolons in lieu of colons and dashes. How can a British man of letters do that to the Queen's English? I may be a linguistic colonial, but even I end up clawing at my face when explanatory clauses are introduced by semicolons. Now I'm wondering whether Nymphomation will produce the same reaction.
posted by media_dystopia @ 13:54 [ link | top | home ]
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
BSE versus BMD. I realize that the last ten days have seen two confirmed cases of mad cow disease in Canada, but if the Americans want us to even consider joining Ballistic Missile Defense, the quid pro quo has got to be fully reopening the border to our beef and cattle, irrespective of what Japan has to say about it. That, and resolving the other cross-border issues that are causing costly headaches for Canada, the settlement of the perennial softwood lumber dispute -- how many billions in illegal U.S. duties are we owed? -- being a good start. Why should we even be at the continental-defense discussion table when this part of the continent is living under the thumb of seemingly vindictive protectionism?
Then, when all that is out of the way and we're not getting screwed as much, we should deliver Washington a loud and resounding "No!": we have much better things to spend our money on, we don't want U.S. missiles and their uniformed keepers on our soil (or anything else to diminish our sovereignty), we don't want missile debris and radioactive fallout raining on us, we're against the weaponization of space, we don't want to help start a new arms race, we're not sure the system even works (no one is), and, last but not least, we're not the target anyway -- and even if we turn out to be, and some rogue nation's missile slams into Canada, the U.S. is perfectly welcome to say "We told you so!"; in the meantime, we should take our chances.
It's ironic that Canada proving that its BSE science works -- more testing done, more cases caught -- results in American politicians and lobbyists demanding that the border remain closed, but the U.S. not being able to prove that its BMD system works still means we're expected to sign on, no questions asked -- or else. (With the U.S. these days, everything is followed with an "or else," as we found out with the war in Iraq -- far be it for me to suggest that the ongoing border closure is some sort of punitive measure.) And if mad cow and SARS share anything, it's irony: the disease is in Canada -- three cases (four including the Alberta-born cow found in Washington), none of which made it to the food supply -- but the fear of infected beef is outside our borders (courtesy, no doubt, of journalistic efforts there).
Speaking of irony, in the year since my public self-flagellation over it, I've found myself keenly aware of what is and isn't ironic. Thanks to the news media, examples of irony are plentiful; however, I have a few archetypal favorites: Irony is when the U.S., the self-proclaimed "land of the free," complains that our civil-libertarian society's protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms impede the war on terrorism. Irony is when American government, press, and public -- notably, the right-wing elements of the three -- have little or no respect for Canada, and yet, U.S. citizens pretend to be Canadians while traveling abroad, in order to save themselves the trouble of being razzed by locals and other travelers who have issues with said Americana. Irony is when Americans, people who wear their patriotism on their sleeves and live in a country that gives new meaning to the word "jingoism," object to Canadians proudly displaying the Maple Leaf on their suitcases and travel wear.
I could go on; suffice it to say, the Canada-U.S. relationship is an irony-filled one -- sometimes to our detriment.
posted by media_dystopia @ 22:18 [ link | top | home ]
Monday, January 10, 2005
At least they aren't concealing their number. I told the dogged folks at 1-800-831-9519, in no uncertain terms, to add my number to their do-not-call list. Until their incessant calling began sometime in the last few weeks, I had been lucky enough to escape the scourge of telemarketers. Before that, the worse it got was automated messages left on my voice mail -- ones innocuously peddling time-share resorts and vacation packages. Now, though, I have an idiotic call center harassing me several times a day. No, really, they're idiots: they don't leave messages, only those irritating and time-wasting hang-ups ("click"), and there's no one on the line, even after several seconds -- the dreaded telemarketer delay -- when I do bother to pick up. So far, only one "Hello?...Hello?" has been met with a "Sir, may we have a moment of your time?" (I promptly hung up, preferring to take out my annoyance on the company instead of some schmuck trying to make a living.) Now I'm waiting to see whether their promise to remove my number from their call list within 48 hours holds true.
Follow-up: Telemarketer does good: the calls stopped immediately.
Follow-up: Tag-team telemarketing: within a week, I had the folks at 1-866-283-6600 harassing me at all hours of the day. Once again, I phoned the offending call center and asked to be added its do-not-call list; however, this time, that will only occur within 30 days -- as specified by the CRTC's current telemarketing rules -- instead of 48 hours. So begins the wait... (With thanks to my fellow victims on the Discover Vancouver Forum -- which I found by Googling the toll-free number -- for the information and commiseration.)
Follow-up: The good news is that they beat the 30-day deadline by three weeks; the bad news is that they were quickly replaced by the folks at 1-866-559-1027. I'm not usually one for conspiracies, but the fact that the companies aren't overlapping really does lend credence to the analogy of tag-team telemarketing. One's do-not-call list becomes another's call list, perhaps? (For a fee, of course; business is business.)
Follow-up: After two calls Saturday morning within the span of 15 minutes, I decided to call 1-866-559-1027 in hopes of adding my name to the company's do-not-call list; unfortunately, ICT Group, whose euphemism for "telemarketing" is "outsourced customer management solutions," doesn't work that way: you have to write to them, by snail mail, at their Newtown, Pennsylvania, address. Wait a minute, I have to waste my time and money because of near-daily, unsolicited harassment from across the border? What a gyp! (Gee, and I thought having to clear their endless hang-ups from my voice mail was a time-waster.) And speaking of the border, how do the CRTC rules apply when a global company isn't using its Canadian division or subsidiary -- in this case, ICT Canada Marketing Inc., based in Moncton, New Brunswick -- to call Canadian "customers," but rather is doing it across international lines?
posted by media_dystopia @ 20:34 [ link | top | home ]
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Ottawa radio sucks ass. Driving home from New Year's celebrations, I was reminded just how much of a truism that has become since the city was robbed of XFM a year ago. When you cycle through the stations over and over, desperately searching for something, anything worth listening to, knowing that the six presets used during trips to Toronto provide a veritable cornucopia of new and classic rock -- not to mention one hell of a rockin' vibe -- it's hard not to get depressed about the capital's blah airwaves. Finding a decent song on the radio at any given moment has become a search for the lesser of the dial's evils. Sigh.
Follow-up: What are the chances that two radio stations in Ottawa play Bonnie Tyler's "Total Eclipse of the Heart" at the same time? A second after mentally noting that I hadn't heard the 1983 song in ages, I found it playing on another station. Variety takes a real hit (pardon the pun) when that kind of lame coincidence occurs. At least, I hope it was a coincidence; the cynic in me pictures the Rogers-owned station monitoring CHUM Limited one, waiting for the right moment to copy its playlist.
posted by media_dystopia @ 02:53 [ link | top | home ]