Monday, February 28, 2005
Let the petty vindictiveness begin. Four days after Ottawa's muddled decision not to join Ballistic Missile Defense, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spitefully postponed her first trip to Canada. (Not a speed record for retaliation, but fast nonetheless.) I'm not happy with how the prime minister handled the issue either, but I think it's the height of hypocrisy for Bush and his cronies to be upset with Paul Martin's so-called "double-talk" and "sandbagging" when the president did exactly that during his state visit: agreeing not to raise the issue of BMD, then turning around and privately admonishing Martin on it before publicly putting him on the spot about the country's participation. (And Bush decrying anyone else's lack of leadership is just plain laughable -- irony at its finest.) Also hypocritical are the American analysts and experts on Canada-U.S. relations who fail to mention how poorly their own government handled the cross-border issue: no quid pro quo, just an "or else." (These are the same people who are suggesting that Frank McKenna, our new ambassador to the U.S., should be blunt and play hardball with the politicians down there. Yeah, as if that would go over well.) To my way of thinking, the ultimate double-talk and sandbagging is when you repeatedly tell a country that it's free to choose, then retaliate when it does. It makes Canadians wonder, myself included, why our country should be at the table with the U.S., discussing anything, when there's always a gun pointed to its head. Irrespective of the matter at hand, we can always be guaranteed of one thing: a puerile, knee-jerk reaction when the Americans don't get their way -- a diplomatic snub, the president refusing to take the prime minister's calls, and other passive-aggressive bullshit, for instance. Admittedly, Paul Martin's way of handling missile defense was to dither endlessly before making a seemingly unilateral decision; at least we're up front about it, unlike Bush and his chief diplomat, who won't acknowledge that they're throwing a hissy fit and vindictively punishing Canada -- again. Oh, and thank you to both of them for once again presenting us with a no-win situation, and for setting us up for yet another fall. Much appreciated. Jerks.
Follow-up: If, as the Americans are arguing, we're only hurting ourselves -- or, as His Rudeness is keen to put it, we're giving up our sovereignty -- by not joining BMD, then why isn't it being left at that? Why are we being punished by the U.S. anyway? Aren't we supposed to make a bad decision, get hurt, and then come crawling back with our tail between our legs, just in time for a "told you so"? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? America's concept of "lessons learned" seems to be that of the world's worst parent: warning a child not to, say, touch a hot element or they'll get burned; the child, ignoring the warning, touches the element and gets burned; the parent then beats the shit out of the child. Like that child -- for that is how the U.S. treats Canada -- we're facing both the consequences and their consequences. Gee, and they wonder why Canadians aren't sympathetic to their way of thinking.
Follow-up: Less than a week after the BMD decision, a judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction against reopening the border to Canadian cattle; this in response to a lawsuit filed by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America. That's either another example of the U.S. government allowing trade irritants to fester by standing idly by as powerful lobbies have their way, or someone's attempt at retribution; either way, Canada is suffering for it. Given that a lone judge -- the same one, incidentally, who granted the same complainants an injunction last year against a decision to allow additional cuts of meat from Canada -- is deciding the fate of an entire industry here, I think some questions are in order: Is the judge a Republican? Was he appointed? (Yes, it was a man; I'm not being sexist.) If so, by whom? If not, who elected him? The constituency wouldn't be made up of ranchers -- say, members of R-CALF USA -- would it? Hmm... So, as it stands, the border remains closed to our beef and cattle (at first because of mad cow disease, now because of court-sanctioned protectionism), the softwood lumber dispute continues unabated, and other ongoing trade irritants aren't going anywhere. What's the difference between how the U.S. is handling -- or not -- those issues and how Canada handled BMD? What's the difference between the U.S. giving in to regional lobbies and Canada giving in to regional interests? What's the difference between the U.S. wanting Canada to join BMD and Canada wanting the U.S. to reopen its border to Canadian beef and cattle? It seems to me that America's idea of quid pro quo is having Montana cattlemen stand outside a courthouse in their ugly-ass cowboy hats, all smiles, arms raised in celebration, cheering the pain and suffering of their Canadian brethren that has lined their pockets since May, 2003. (There's an image I won't soon forget; for me, it captures of the essence of the Canada-U.S. relationship.) On this, the day Frank McKenna began his new job in Washington D.C. Interestingly, I think our new ambassador might be paying heed to the analysts and experts: he's now suggesting that BMD would have been handled differently had trade irritants been -- had the political climate been conducive to do so. (Had Canadians not been so upset by the prolonged beef ban and illegal softwood lumber tariffs, for instance.) Good on him! Now for our point man to take on R-CALF USA and other lobbies...
Follow-up: Did I say, "standing idly by"? Did I say, "Republican"? Ha! The next day, one week to the day after the BMD decision, the U.S. Senate, including Democrats, quashed the plan to reopen the border to Canadian cattle. That's either blatant protectionism, or indirect retaliation -- take your pick. (I'm leaning towards both, myself.) Whatever it is, it reinforces Frank McKenna's assertion that festering trade irritants were behind the BMD decision; more to the point, that public opinion of the one affected that of the other. (Watching an entire industry go down the drain made me want to support missile defense.) Perhaps The West Wing, that flight of fancy about U.S. politics, should be casting a critical eye on America's protectionist and retaliatory tendencies instead of casting aspersions on Canada. CBC Newsworld's clips today of the show, picked for how they mirror the current state of affairs between the two countries, reminded why I stopped watching it at the end of last season; at that time, the lecturing about Middle East politics was getting a tad annoying. Although, its portrayal of a novice and Mr. Magoo-like Canadian ambassador certainly doesn't reflect reality, especially since yesterday: McKenna -- one of my former premiers, by the way -- may be a neophyte diplomat, but as a political operative, he's savvy, intelligent, and very experienced; in short, he's deserving of respect, grudging though it may end up being from the Americans. I hope, no, pray that his tough talk goes over well -- that I'm wrong, in other words -- and that it gets results for Canada. Just remember: there's a difference between talking tough and being disrespectful; McKenna can ask His Rudeness about that. (Fifteen days and counting, Cellucci.)
Follow-up: Bush was "personally offended" by Martin himself not informing him about the BMD decision? Yes, because, as we saw with the president during his trip to Ottawa, if you're going to be a prick -- say, by privately lecturing someone about, then publicly raising, an issue that was specifically not on the agenda -- it's best to do it yourself. Has it ever occurred to Bush that maybe, just maybe, Martin was personally offended by his approach to BMD, by him casting a shadow over a fence-mending state visit with it, by the way he put him -- and Canada itself -- in an awkward position over it? What a fucking hypocrite.
Follow-up: His Rudeness said that the U.S. was led to believe that Canada would be joining BMD. Yeah, well, we were led to believe that the U.S. border would be reopening to our cattle tomorrow. Looks like we both have to learn to deal with disappointment, eh? (Except, in our case, it's costing us billions.)
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:10 [ link | top | home ]
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Words, words, and more words. I've written approximately 153,000 of them in my blog's 1,553 posts (excluding this one), up 43,000 from last count just over a year ago. That number is minus date headers, "posted by" lines, and anything in the template, as well as about 12,000 words of quoted material (up 2,000 -- I'm guessing -- from last time). Also, that's 153,000 edited words: all extraneousness, or as much as possible, has been eliminated, leaving the essence of the writing. I mean, I could blather on and on, endlessly repeating myself; instead, I try to make the writing as pithy as possible. I haven't done any precise calculations on this, but it seems to me that there's a 10:1 ratio between editing and writing: for every unit of time it takes me to write something, it takes 10 units to edit it. Actually, that's being generous -- I suspect the actual ratio is much larger. Point being, the editing is an attempt to not only produce grammatically correct writing, but make it as focused as possible. I don't always (often?) succeed on either count, but at least I try.
posted by media_dystopia @ 15:34 [ link | top | home ]
At least there won't be any hobbits this year. It's time for that perennial question: Am I going to watch the 77th Annual Academy Awards tonight? Well, considering that I've seen a grand total of four nominees, none of which are in any of the major categories -- a new low, even for me -- it seems rather pointless. Besides, there's a full episode of Dalziel and Pascoe on TVO tonight, followed by a new episode of Mythbusters on Discovery Channel. Even on Oscar night, one must have priorities.
Follow-up: Nope, didn't watch. The Oscars, that is -- Dalziel and Pascoe and Mythbusters were great. I haven't skipped the awards show in years. I guess I just don't care about Hollywood these days.
posted by media_dystopia @ 06:56 [ link | top | home ]
Saturday, February 26, 2005
As oblivious as ever. Up until a few moments ago, I had no clue that The SF Site's editorial address was in Ottawa. Hell, I drove past it last week! I've really got to start paying attention. Sigh.
posted by media_dystopia @ 04:43 [ link | top | home ]
Friday, February 25, 2005
Hurry hard! Every year around this time my love returns: The Scott Tournament of Hearts. This year's, hosted by St. John's, Newfoundland, certainly hasn't disappointed. Congratulations to Team Ontario, representing the Ottawa Curling Club, for not only making it to the semifinals, but contributing to Colleen Jones and Team Canada's unexpected elimination. I'm becoming increasing enamored with Ontario skip Jenn Hanna and, especially, third Pascale Letendre, although Manitoba skip Jennifer Jones is giving them a run for their money in the beauty -- I mean, skills department.
Follow-up: Hanna's rink made it to the final against Manitoba. Woohoo!
Follow-up: Sadly, Team Manitoba defeated Team Ontario. In true nail-biting fashion, Jennifer Jones came from behind to score four friggin' points with her last, bloody stone. Sigh. Thanks to her team's comeback win, I've pulled all my hair out. Don't worry, I'm sure it will grow back in time for next year's Scott. Hopefully, Jenn Hanna, Pascale Letendre, Dawn Askin, and Steph Hanna will be there and will defeat the -- grumble, grumble -- newly crowned Team Canada. For now, give yourselves a pat on the back, ladies -- you've earned it.
posted by media_dystopia @ 21:39 [ link | top | home ]
And now for something completely different. My reading has been slow of late, so I only finished Jeff Noon's Pollen today. I may have gone with the book because I was in a Vurt frame of mind, but it's no Vurt. Of his debut novel, Noon said: "Basically, I was trying to import William Gibson into Manchester." Even before reading that, I thought of Vurt as having the subtlety and understatement of Gibson's early cyberpunk. Pollen, on the other hand, does not. In it, Vurt's mystery is explained away; heretofore enigmatic concepts like the Shadow and the Vurt are laid bare. Now, while I appreciate the understanding that the elucidation brought, I found that it, well, deVurted Pollen, for lack of a better description. It did, however, prove once and for all that no book in the Vurt universe ever belongs in the general fiction and/or literature section of any bookstore. On its own, the nebulous Vurt could be mistaken, incorrectly, by some as plain, old fiction; not so with demystifier Pollen on the scene. Next time I spot the error, I'm going to mention it to the manager or owner: "Have you read Pollen? No? You do so, and then ask yourself whether that non-SF&F shelf over there is the right place for that book."
So, another Noon novel next? More proof of incorrect categorization? A voyage further into the dream? Nah. It's time for some good, old-fashioned space opera: Robert J. Sawyer's Golden Fleece.
posted by media_dystopia @ 06:34 [ link | top | home ]
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Federal Budget 2005. Granted, there's always the chance that the opposition parties force an election over it, but putting that aside, the budget's bright spot for me is the $12.8 billion over five years for the military -- the biggest increase in defense spending in two decades. That being said, it's only a start, and a slow one at that. I suppose saying "More, more, more!" and "Faster, Ralph Goodale! Spend! Spend!" (with apologies to Russ Meyer) in regards to the Canadian Forces would make me a fiscal conservative. Then again, I'm not one for tax cuts; I'd rather give the Canada Revenue Agency -- is that what they're calling themselves these days? -- more of my hard-earned money if it means the government spending more on essentials like the military.
posted by media_dystopia @ 22:02 [ link | top | home ]
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A confusing day. Hopeful, but confusing. Frank McKenna, our new ambassador to the U.S., said that we're already part of Ballistic Missile Defense, in light of having amended the NORAD agreement last year to (logically) share information about missile threats, and that, therefore, we've largely given the Americans what they want. In response to the opposition's inevitable -- and fiery -- barrage about this during question period, Defence Minister Bill Graham said that it's not a done deal, that we haven't decided yet, and that we will only decide when the time is right and if it's in Canada's best interests. (I also understood him to say that the House of Commons would be debating it -- as demanded by the BMD-friendly Conservatives -- but I could be wrong.) Meanwhile, the news media is reporting that the prime minister has already told Bush at the NATO summit that we won't be joining the program -- at least, the offense part (no pun intended); helping detect the missiles is one thing, but helping shoot them down is another -- and that he will be announcing his decision in the House on Thursday. Um...one question: What the fuck is going on?
Follow-up: I don't know about you, but I feel as though a weight has been lifted: if Paul Martin's "no" is confirmed, it would mean the end of the uncertainty of BMD; additionally, it would remind the Americans, His Rudeness in particular, that bullies don't always get their way, especially when there's no quid pro quo.
Follow-up: The next day, the State Department said it wouldn't comment without an official statement from Canada. That, of course, didn't stop His Rudeness from shaking his head at us for the supposed decision. "We don't get it," said the ambassador. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest." I think the basic assumption here is that, if a missile is heading towards Canada, and we haven't joined BMD, the U.S. will let it hit us, if anything, to teach us a lesson and to say, "We told you so!" (After the impact, they're welcome to say that, of course.) You know, I have yet to meet a Canadian who is worried about missiles being aimed, much less fired, at us. Hell, we often joke that the country most likely to attack Canada...is America. Iran, Syria, North Korea, Canada -- what's the difference to the Republican hawks?
Follow-up: There are those who argue, on both sides of the border, that Canada is ceding its sovereignty by not joining BMD. But doesn't making decisions in response to one's domestic politics fall under the purview of one's sovereignty? It seems to me, judging from the Americans' reaction to any hint of us not going along with them on this, that Bush can make decisions based on domestic considerations, no matter how it affects Canada and the rest of the world, but Martin cannot, even when it doesn't affect the U.S.: missile defense doesn't require us; it's going ahead, with or without our participation. Unlike his Canadian counterpart, the president isn't challenged by an effective opposition, doesn't have any more elections to face, and, therefore, needn't worry about committing political suicide. His Rudeness is keenly aware of those differences and the rest of our considerations -- the majority of Canadians, especially Quebec, urban, and female voters, being opposed to BMD, and even more thinking that it's an election issue; the NDP and Bloc Québécois being dead set against it, and the Conservatives silently wavering on it; the Liberals being on the verge of an internal revolt against it -- but he won't acknowledge them, or the fact that Martin faces a Hobson's choice because of Canada's political reality, not the least of which being the fact that he has a minority government; instead, Paul Cellucci chastises and berates us, making it sound as though we're being offered a great deal but are too obstinate or stupid (or both) to go for it. Even Stephen Harper understands the dilemma, which explains why he and his colleagues have been quietly calling for a parliamentary debate on missile defense instead of loudly demanding that we (blindly) sign on. (It certainly makes for good optics in Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and other parts of the country where the party has few, if any, seats.) Besides, it seems to me that Canada cedes more sovereignty by giving in to U.S. pressure and joining BMD, than by taking into account domestic politics, including national unity -- something the U.S. doesn't have to deal with, and cares nothing that we do -- and not joining. If, as the news media are reporting, Martin has spoken to Bush and the CDS has contacted his opposite number at the Pentagon, both to pass on a firm "no," all that remains is the inevitable: retaliation by Washington -- I'm taking bets on how long the border will remain closed to our cattle and how much softwood lumber tariffs will increase...for starters -- and gratuitous attacks by America's right-wing press. Of course, I doubt either will point out the president's double standard: mending fences with France, Germany, and other European countries over something he oversold (Iraq), while breaking them with Canada over something he undersold (BMD).
Follow-up: As promised, the prime minister -- or, should I say, the erstwhile "Mr. Dithers" -- made it official on Thursday, February 24: "We are announcing today that Canada will not take part in the proposed ballistic missile defense system." My reaction? Given that BMD was never actually explained to us, by either the Americans or our own representatives, it's hard to say whether participation would have been the right course of action. I know, politically and domestically, it's the right decision for the minority government; in terms of defense, though, I don't know. Instinctively, the program has "bad news" written all over it; pragmatically...who knows. Again, any informed decision by the Canadian public was rendered moot by the lack of edification. Perhaps a debate in the House of Commons would have shone some light on it -- but we'll never know, will we? I actually agree with the Conservatives that there should have been one -- not just to explain it to Canadians, but to negate any resemblance to the preceding prime minister's decision almost two years ago; as it stands, it's shades of Iraq, and a debate would have illuminating. In addition, there should have been a free vote, same with Iraq, so that party divisions could have been exposed to all concerned, and the will of the Canadian people, through their representatives, could have been made clear to the Americans; they'd still dismiss any negative outcome, of course -- our will is, after all, irrelevant to them -- but at least they wouldn't be able to pin the decision on the Liberal Party's inner circle. At the very least, there should have been public hearings with expert testimony, perhaps under the auspices of a Commons committee; from an optics point of view, it would have improved the situation considerably: the prime minister and his cabinet deciding on facts, not just politics. On blame stand-by in Ottawa is His Rudeness, of course, who has so far called the decision "confusing." (Dang it, we've gone and baffled him again!) Well, as far as the ambassador is concerned, the reason we're not joining BMD is because he has been, and continues to be, a fucking prick towards us. Don't like it, Cellucci? I guess you shouldn't have been a jerk for four years, eh? Speaking of jerks, I honestly hope that Bush is sitting in the Oval Office, asking himself, "Did I misunderestimate lecturing what's his name and that other fellow on BMD?"
Follow-up: Further reaction from His Rudeness: "We simply cannot understand why Canada would, in effect, give up its sovereignty -- its seat at the table -- to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada." and "We will deploy. We will defend North America." After hearing all this talk of sovereignty and seeing the ambassador all aghast -- an Oscar-winning performance, to be sure -- it dawned on me why the U.S. is so eager to have us join BMD: they intend to fire missiles over Canadian soil, with or without our say-so. (Paul Martin may expect Canada to be consulted despite his decision, but it's simply not going to happen -- this is America we're dealing with.) By having us on board, they could have done that legally; by us not signing on, though, they can't do that without violating bilateral treaties and international law, and committing an act of war. Therefore, Paul Cellucci is doing his best to paint the decision as Canada ceding its sovereignty, so that the U.S. can justify its inevitable violation of our airspace. In other words, it is Iraq all over again: the U.S. government about to commit a fraud, and ours saying "no" to it without Parliament. Well, with the exception of the whole undermarketing, underselling thing -- Iraq couldn't be any further from BMD on that. (I don't know about you, but March 18 cannot possibly come any sooner for me; although, given his role as Washington's chief retaliation coordinator in Canada, I imagine the last three weeks of Cellucci's tenure at Fortress America will be the most arduous so far for Canadians.)
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:26 [ link | top | home ]
You show him a majority, and he'll show you leadership. "The uncertain leadership of Canada's Paul Martin"; "'Mr Dithers' and his distracting 'fiscal cafeteria'"; "The prime minister will probably survive a sleaze inquiry. Will that allow the old Paul Martin to stand up?" -- The Economist, February 17. This in response to his "faltering leadership" and, well, dithering during his 15 months in office so far. When I first heard the line "Mr. Dithers" (I'll add the stylistically correct period) a few days ago, in response to the article -- it's not as commonplace as The Economist seems to think it is -- I didn't know how to feel about the potential epithet, then I realized that it's not an insult -- it's reality: a tenuous minority government with an (actual) opposition party close on its heels; an ongoing political scandal courtesy of the former PM and acting like a festering wound, especially in the political minefield that is Quebec; highly controversial and divisive issues to be dealt with my said minority government, including same-sex marriage (currently) and Ballistic Missile Defense (eventually); Canada's perennial and tiresome federal-provincial bickering, backstabbing, and just plain whining; Canada-U.S. relations at an all-time low and the delicate footwork required to mend fences without losing, again, said minority government; a good financial situation which could easily become a bad financial situation without great diligence; the worst-case scenario of another nasty election -- and someone being punished for it -- hanging over Parliament like a storm cloud... I'm not trying to be an apologist, but the sad reality right now is one of a minority government and all the trepidation that comes with it. Hell, the Liberals get worried when ministers go on trips lest they're not around when a snap vote is triggered by the opposition. And, as the article mentioned, they just lost a vote on a piece of legislation last week. In that context, the dithering makes perfect sense; I don't like it, but I understand it. Do Canadians expect more from Paul Martin? Absolutely. Do want him to show more leadership? Of course. Would we give the same answers if someone else were in power? Well, yeah. That being said, perhaps the article will be just the sort of kick in the arse Martin needs to nix the moniker. That, or it will be bolstered by the political tightrope-walking necessitated by any -- you guessed it -- minority government. (Someone explain the concept to the Americans -- oh, wait, they want the Liberal government to fall, don't they?) Besides, better to be a man of inaction for the right reasons, than a man of action for the wrong reasons, like a certain world "leader" we know and loathe.
posted by media_dystopia @ 11:48 [ link | top | home ]
Monday, February 21, 2005
I was hoping for an Itchy and Scratchy wedding, myself. I didn't catch The Simpsons last night -- actually, I haven't watched the show since last century -- so I missed its take on same-sex marriage; however, I did see enough clips on the news to know that a correction is in order: Homer mentioning "Massachusetts, Vermont, maybe Canada" as places where the gay couple he was marrying would be lawfully married doesn't exactly take into account the eight of the 13 Canadian jurisdictions -- a fraction over 61.5 percent -- where it's legal and will continue to be whether or not the Civil Marriage Act passes. Something like "...and the majority of Canada" or "...and seven Canadian provinces, plus one territory" or "...and most, but not all, of Canada" would be much more apt; the only maybe about it is when and how the five remaining jurisdictions will legalize same-sex marriage, and whether conservative politicians will use the notwithstanding clause to override the Constitution. And given that Homer advised the same-sex newlyweds to "stay out of Texas," Canada should have its own warning: "stay out of Alberta." (Texas is, after all, known as the Alberta of the U.S.) Hypersensitivity on my part? A semantic argument? Perhaps. Either way, the show having the audacity to show people of the same sex not only kissing, but marrying (minus any last-minute plot twists, Simpsons-style), certainly has both countries' family-values zealots up in arms. I'm not sure which is more comical: the satirical cartoon itself, or the reaction these groups have to it. Our CFACers were particularly outraged by the corporate irresponsibility of airing the controversial episode at 8 pm, when children might be watching. (Better to use that time of night to indoctrinate kids into religious intolerance and human rights double standards, eh?) Or could it be because the show was aired the day -- a Sunday, no less -- before that most sacred of provincial holidays, Alberta Family Day? No matter what, I seriously doubt that they would have appeciated the titular feline-rodent nuptials: same-sex, cross-species, and bloody as all hell.
posted by media_dystopia @ 11:31 [ link | top | home ]
Stephen Harper's marital aide. According to Conservative MP and deputy House leader Jason Kenney, who seems to be doing a lot of interviews on behalf of the party these days, "marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman," and while it is not an "exclusively procreative" arrangement, "that's the core of it." The ideal -- and preferred -- marriage for Kenney: opposite sexes and procreation (of heterosexual sons and daughters, of course). This begs some questions: What about opposite-sex couples who don't want to have children? And what about those who, like same-sex couples, albeit for different reasons, are physically incapable of having children? If it's okay for opposite-sex couples to marry for love and not have kids, whatever the reason, then why isn't it for same-sex couples? Besides, since when is procreation a condition of a provincial marriage license, marriage act, or solemnization ceremony? When offspring are taken out of the equation, civil marriages are the same, except for the lack of an opposite sex in one and a same sex in the other. Of course, it's still a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and Kenney and his right-wing cohorts don't want that to be called "marriage" lest it affect the oh-so-sacred traditional kind -- the one involving a high rate of divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse, and just plain misery. Oh, no, you wouldn't want gays and lesbians to poison the institution of marriage with their loving, committed, long-term relationships. Damn their homosexual insidiousness! (Speaking of traditional, didn't some other traditions include slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, to name but a few?) I really think the MP for Calgary Southeast -- not just Alberta, but the same city as the CFACers -- needs some one-on-one time with the MP for Newmarket-Aurora, Belinda Stronach, one of the few members of the Conservative caucus to have the courage of her convictions and support same-sex marriage. The rest, as well as the other parties' naysayers, fear religious reprisal at the ballot box, being the cowards that they are. "Sorry you're still second-class citizens, but dammit, I have a cushy job to keep!"
posted by media_dystopia @ 02:54 [ link | top | home ]
Saturday, February 19, 2005
With family values like these, who needs enemies? Not just a consumer boycott, but death threats, abusive phone calls, threatening e-mails, and the like -- that's what Famous Players and its employees got for having the audacity to run a couple movie-theater ads paid for by a company executive and sponsored by Canadians for Equal Marriage; ads saying such abominations as "'I do' means the same thing, whether you're straight or gay" and "marriage is a fundamental human right, whether you're straight or gay," and both ending unconscionably with "let your MP know you support our Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The horror! How dare they! Using facts, no less! All sarcasm aside, I would like to thank conservative groups like the Calgary-based (no surprise there) Canadian Family Action Coalition and its equally militant wing, the defendMARRIAGE Coalition, for their reactionary response to the ads; it was very...Christian of them. Lucky for the devout, the commandment doesn't read, "Thou shalt not make death threats." (And to think, these were text ads -- no icky gays and lesbians in sight.)
That being said, I agree with Famous Players' decision to put an end to issue-driven advertising in general (although, I would have run the ads a little while longer, for free, just to spite the boycotters); after paying good money for entertainment, an escape from the real world, moviegoers don't want to sit through a big-screen television commercial, much less an ad representing one side of a divisive issue, irrespective of their beliefs. Personally, a similar ad against same-sex marriage -- which the CFACers are still boycotting Famous Players to have put in theaters -- would have me out of my seat and demanding a refund pretty damn quick; there's no way I could enjoy the movie after being subjected to that kind of right-wing drivel. That, or I'd politely complain to the manager after the movie, if it's one that I had been really looking forward to seeing. You may think of that as hypocrisy, given what I've said, but I certainly wouldn't debase myself by resorting to threats and abuse to get my point across. I'll save that kind of reprehensible behavior for the pious and others who wallow in the muck.
The Famous Players controversy is further proof that opponents of same-sex marriage and its most recent incarnation, the Civil Marriage Act, will stop at nothing in their fight against equality. And that's what this is all about: equality. It's a human rights issue, pure and simple. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The superior or appeal courts of seven provinces and one territory, representing 87 percent of the population of Canada, have ruled in favor of it. (And the other provincial and territorial courts will eventually, whether or not the Civil Marriage Act is passed.) It's been determined, at both levels of government, to be consistent with the Canadian Charter and Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, it's the job of Parliament -- which, unfortunately, includes MPs like Jason Kenney -- to apply legislation, nationwide, to what is now a patchwork of equal marriage; in short, to harmonize it: to fill the gap of the five remaining jurisdictions and 13 percent of Canadians who live where they can't legally marry someone of the same sex (or have their same-sex marriage recognized). This is not for a referendum to decide, no matter how much conservative voters think it is. This is not for an election to decide, no matter how much the right-wing electorate complains about having it "rammed down our throats" (pardon the pun). Nor is it for Canada's increasingly vocal multicultural communities to decide, either; these immigrants, émigrés, and refugees should be grateful that they've come to a country where rights are added, (hopefully) not taken away, and where they do not face the sort of persecution that they, ironically, are subjecting gays and lesbians to. The rights of minorities cannot and should not be decided by popularity contests; that's for boycotting movie theaters, not for deciding who has equality under the Charter in provinces and territories where the courts haven't spoken yet. Your time is coming, Alberta; you, your bombastic premier, and your family-values groups like CFAC will just have deal with it.
posted by media_dystopia @ 13:29 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, February 17, 2005
A perfect sell, or passive-aggressive bullshit? I notice that the radio ads for Keanu Reeves' latest movie, Constantine, end with the line, "featuring A Perfect Circle's new single, 'Passive.'" (The television ads also feature it, but trailers are notorious for playing music that isn't in the film. James Horner's climactic Aliens score has been used how many times?) The kick-ass song is one of the two new ones on eMOTIVe, which I dutifully bought the day Bush was reelected. (Suffice it to say, I will never forget when the album was released.) But will the song convince me see the film? Um, no. It doesn't work that way with me -- but thanks anyway for boosting APC's profile and royalty statement, and for giving the song its due. Besides, these days, I have a craven attitude when it comes to Hollywood movies; in Constantine's case, I expect "Passive" to be the only thing that doesn't disappoint me about it...when they finally get around to playing the song during the end credits.
Follow-up: I'm getting the impression that "Passive" might actually be played in the body of the movie: APC did a video for the song, available for download on the movie's Web page, which features scenes from the film. The plot thickens...
posted by media_dystopia @ 18:54 [ link | top | home ]
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
NHL R.I.P. As expected, the 2004-2005 hockey season has been cancelled, and both the league and the players' association are to blame. I know little or nothing about the collective bargaining agreement and the business of hockey in general, but I do know one thing: businesses that screw their customers, lose their customers. The real losers, of course, are the game, the fans, and the businesses that depend on it; more to the point, Canada's game, Canadian fans, and our businesses, including sports broadcasters like TSN and the CBC, who are losing millions. (And pity the poor hockey commentators and their waning incomes!) That's why I say it's time to reclaim Lord Stanley's Cup and create an all-Canadian league to play our game for it. No offense to Vancouver, but if your climate does not allow for the natural creation of ice, if your arena is the coldest place you've got, then you have no business having an NHL franchise. That's certainly one place where the league went wrong: selling ice hockey to cities where the game cannot possibly be played outside, where the closest the residents get to snow is whatever's dumped by the Zamboni; that after having taken franchises away from snowbound cities like Winnipeg and Quebec City. Whether you like the game or not, whether you care about the season being cancelled or not, no matter how frustrated or indifferent you are, you cannot deny the fact that hockey has great cultural significance to Canada, and not just because it's our national winter sport. (The near-daily national news coverage of the lockout, alone, is proof positive of that.)
To be honest, these days, I don't watch hockey games until the playoffs, and even then, I have no problem missing individual best-of-seven games for fear that my team will lose. (I'm weird, I know.) Given that I've only been to one Senators game -- when the ticket was given to me -- it's doubtful that I'd ever attend games regularly, even if I could afford the tickets. I can't even remember half the names of Ottawa's players, let alone those of other teams. League stats -- forget about it. And yet, I have many cherished hockey memories: watching CBC's Hockey Night in Canada, eagerly anticipating Don Cherry and Coach's Corner; having Roch Carrier's The Hockey Sweater/Le chandail de hockey read to me in Grade 5; collecting Topps hockey cards (which I still have 25 years later); writing Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky for an autographed picture in Grade 2 (long gone, I'm afraid); translating the French hockey game on the radio for my uncle who snuck out of a dry wedding reception to drink beer in the car; attending a Nordiques home game -- before the team's ignoble death -- against Darryl Sittler and the Leafs; having Grecian Formula pitched to me by Maurice "The Rocket" Richard; flipping through the Bobby Orr book I got from Scholastic...
Even without these and other fond recollections, hockey would still mean something to me because it means something to Canada -- it's in our blood; it's part of our psyche; the fabric of our land is woven with skate laces and patched with hockey tape (pick your metaphor). (How else would Cherry and Gretzky find themselves alongside prime ministers and other historical figures on the list of Top 10 Greatest Canadians?) It's time to take the game away from the sunny beaches and hot deserts and bring it home, back to its frozen roots, back to where it has meaning, and build a new league, one with a Canadian soul. The NHL is dead; bury it and move on.
posted by media_dystopia @ 13:25 [ link | top | home ]
Great against carbon dioxide; stymied by hot air. No offense to Rick Mercer, but why am I being asked to take The One-Tonne Challenge when the Canadian government, a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol -- which entered into force today -- hasn't spelled out its emission-reduction plan, and, in fact, has scaled back greenhouse-gas targets for large industrial emitters? Then again, when you live next to the world's largest polluter, a country that won't ratify the global-warming treaty, does it really matter what you and your leaders do or don't do? It seems to me that, thanks to the U.S., stopping climate change is like ending war: laudable, but futile.
Follow-up: And how come all those companies that shove untold amounts of wasteful and unwanted junk mail into my mailbox don't have to take The One-Tonne Challenge? If and when I want a new credit card, I'll apply for one through my bank, thank you very much. I no longer eat at McDonald's and no amount of coupons will convince me to again. Just how many pizza menus do I need when I'm on a low-fat diet? My stack of menus, alone, is two-and-a-half inches tall; I've started using them to wrap people's gifts, just so they serve some purpose before getting tossed. Most junk mail, however, spends about three seconds in my possession while I transfer it to the blue box. Just how much energy is wasted in the production of this crap? Just how much pollution is generated? And I'm expected to take the government's challenge?
posted by media_dystopia @ 12:13 [ link | top | home ]
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
A very special National Flag of Canada Day. The Maple Leaf flag turns 40 today. Being younger than Canada's glorious red-and-white symbol, I've known no other. (I've been subjected to others, mind you; the Fleur-de-lis comes to mind.) My pride in the Maple Leaf is such that I plan on eventually getting tattooed with it, encircled with "Proudly Canadian" -- just to spite that faker, Future Shop -- or "Made in Canada" or "100% Canadian" or "No, I'm not one of those Yanks pretending to be a Canuck -- I'm the real thing, eh?" or some other patriotic slogan. In the meantime, happy birthday!
posted by media_dystopia @ 12:00 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, February 10, 2005
In other news, the end is nigh. Today, Paul Martin appeared before the Gomery Inquiry, the first sitting prime minister to testify publicly at one since Sir John A. Macdonald, 130 years ago. The PM's appearance, his personal attempt to quell the politically devastating sponsorship scandal, was not only history in the making, but potentially of great consequence to the Liberal minority government and, therefore, to Canada. It follows, then, that CTV News' lead story tonight, one rating both a report from a correspondent and an interview conducted by the man himself, Lloyd Robertson, would be Prince Charles' engagement to long-time companion Camilla Parker Bowles. Sigh.
The United Empire Loyalists will never forgive me for saying this, but when it comes to the British Monarchy, my only concern is which member's ugly mug will be adorning Canada's currency. Why Americans are fascinated with the Royal Family is beyond me; not being part of the Commonwealth, they will never have to be subjected to a bat-eared royal highness -- or worse -- by their coins and bills (no offense to commoners with protruding ears). Over the years, the Queen has gone from fetching to distinguished-looking (despite the hats); the Prince of Wales, not so much (and the kilts really don't help). Now, if the order of succession to the throne were to skip a generation and go straight to the heir apparent's son, Prince William, it would go a long way towards beautifying our money; even Quebec separatists would ogle the handsome lad when they go to pay for their cigarettes and beer. (A gross generalization, of course; besides, they're probably out buying poutine and 6/49 tickets. Relax, I'm being facetious.) It's quite a feat of genetics to end up with William after all those centuries of inbreeding -- but I digress...
Point being, CTV's news staff screwed the pooch tonight (the newscast, not the betrothed). (With apologies to the network for singling it out on this; I imagine other news organizations made the same silly editorial decision.)
Follow-up: Just because I and many other Canadians roll our eyes at the Royal Family and its...eccentricities, doesn't mean there's an Australian-style republican movement afoot here, even in separatist-minded Quebec. Getting rid of the monarchy, whether by referendum -- like in Australia, albeit unsuccessfully -- or some other means, is a non-issue in Canada; in fact, if were any more below the radar, it would be buried in the ground. Besides, the word "referendum" conjures up an entirely different -- and visceral -- meaning here, one that will occupy more of our time, energy, and concern than the monarchy could ever hope to. (As for those most likely to hold one, there isn't much point in the Québécois fretting over an outdated tattoo when they're planning on amputating the whole arm.) Our history, especially that of Canada's most-populous province, is linked inexorably to the Crown; when that pesky revolt took place in the colonies to the south of us, those loyal to the British Empire fled to what is now Ontario, hence its motto: "Ut incepit Fidelis sic permanet" -- "Loyal she began, loyal she remains." The nascent U.S. then went one way, minus England and its monarchy, and pre-Confederation Canada went another, with both along for the roller-coaster ride. However, just because the ceremonial role it and its representative, the Governor General -- picked, thankfully, by our government -- play in Canada is both historically symbolic and culturally significant, not to mention constitutionally important (albeit completely innocuous nowadays), doesn't mean that that freak show of a family back in the U.K. isn't above ridicule. Hell, why go to the circus when you can watch the royals? Prince Charles riding in a taxi for the first time; Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform at a party; Prince William looking devilishly cute as he manhandles a sheep; the Queen's dog pooping, piddling, or, tragically, being mauled to death by Princess Anne's dog; Prince Philip opening his mouth -- you can't buy that kind of incredulity-inspiring entertainment!
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:17 [ link | top | home ]
Sometimes my mind wanders. I'm thinking of creating a bubble bath called "Osama Pear Linden," featuring "aggressive bubble action." Think it will sell?
posted by media_dystopia @ 02:09 [ link | top | home ]
Sunday, February 06, 2005
It's that time of year again. If the CRTC can guarantee Canadians anything, it's that the Super Bowl will be commercially dismal for them. I only caught the first half hour of Super Bowl XXXIX, but it was enough to confirm that this year's commercial breaks would be as disappointing as its predecessors (which I ranted about in 2003 and 2004). The way I see it, Super Bowl Sunday is the one day of the year the commission's simulcasting rules aren't of much benefit to Canadians. (With the possible exception of not having to miss any of the game while getting more food, taking a piss, having a quickie, whatever -- our commercial breaks can actually be used as breaks.) The other 364 days of the year, American ads can be as annoying as they are useless by promoting not-so-local businesses, quoting prices in U.S. dollars, raising issues that are irrelevant to Canadians, and otherwise disaffecting us. Inserting Canadian commercials into Canadian simulcasts makes perfect sense, and doesn't go unappreciated -- except that one day of the year when American ads become high art, monetarily and culturally speaking. So, instead of being able to watch the much-hyped Super Bowl ads in all their glory, we're subjected to the same damn ones the Canadian network -- whoever has the broadcast rights here; Global, in this case -- has been airing lately, interspersed with the few new ones American companies are willing to pay extra to have included in the simulcast. (Although, occasionally, a kick-ass Canadian commercial is premiered during the game; last year's "Kiss and Make-Up" comes to mind.) For football fans here, the game better be good -- the ads generally aren't. And so ends my annual rant; see you again in 2006.
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:20 [ link | top | home ]
Friday, February 04, 2005
Six weeks and counting. I know of only two kinds of Canadians: those who don't know who Paul Cellucci is, and those who've had it up to here with him. Those of you in the latter category who, like me, are eager for the glowering diplomat and his oft-wagging finger to leave Canada once and for all will want to circle March 18 on your calendars: the U.S. ambassador's much-anticipated departure date has been confirmed. That should give everyone enough time to get the munchies, (Canadian) beer, party hats, and "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!" banners ready for the big send-off. Now, while I grudgingly agree with his latest sermon about Canada needing to beef up its military -- something long overdue after years of Liberal decimation; our sovereignty and violations thereof in the North, alone, demand it -- I think four years of his undiplomatic admonitions and backhanded compliments are quite enough, thank you. Hopefully, his replacement won't be under the same delusion that bullies, and rude people in general, make for constructive critics.
Follow-up: According to Cellucci, our response to the tsunami was too slow. Whatever are we going to do after March 18, when His Rudeness is no longer around to point out the obvious to us? You know, after four years, I finally have the ambassador pegged: he's like one of those people who comments on your weight every time you see them -- except when you've shed some pounds. (On the outside, you grin and bear it -- slapping the person wouldn't be polite -- but on the inside, a little voice in your head is screaming "I know! I'm working on it! Shut up and leave me alone you inconsiderate jerk!")
Follow-up: He's critical of our defense spending. He's critical of us not having (yet) joined Ballistic Missile Defense. He's critical of this. He's critical of that. The closer he gets to leaving, the more critical -- and vocal -- he is. Has it ever occurred to him that maybe that's why polls in Canada are showing increasing opposition to BMD, for instance? (Sir Isaac Newton thanks him from the grave for proving that his Third Law of Motion -- "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." -- applies to diplomacy and politics.) Amazingly, Cellucci disagrees with those who say that Canada-U.S. relations have soured on his watch. (Perhaps we should add "delusional" to our list of complaints against him.) I think that in five weeks, on March 18, moments after his plane has cleared our airspace, the Canadian government should act upon all those things he's bitched and whined about for four years, just to spite him.
Follow-up: This is as good a time as any to mention that, shortly before the U.S. election, I asked friends from Boston about Cellucci, their former governor (1997-2001). Before I had the chance to give a litany of examples of his tactless behavior in Canada, they were apologizing to all Canadians on behalf of the people of Massachusetts. Now, admittedly, these are staunch Democrats, and he's a Republican; mind you, the sympathy crossed political lines: they were critical of the man, not his party affiliation or even his friendship with the president (hence the plum position north of the border, for which he resigned his governorship). Having had the displeasure themselves, they were genuinely sorry for us. It was all quite gratifying to hear, I must say.
posted by media_dystopia @ 13:26 [ link | top | home ]
Thursday, February 03, 2005
What's Jeffrey Combs going to do now? Star Trek: Enterprise's cancellation today, although hardly unexpected, was unfortunate. The UPN show -- aired in Canada by Citytv, SPACE: The Imagination Station, and others -- had a good four-season run. Well, minus the third. (If I ever hear the word "Xindi" again, I'm going to puke.) Nevertheless, the show will be missed, and fans will be left with the thought of what could have been. (Personally, I was enjoying the exploration of the early human-Vulcan relationship.) As far as first-run space operas go, Battlestar Galactica will have to take up the slack. If you like that dark, edgy, non-gold-lamé version of the '70s classic -- I do, a lot -- the blow of Enterprise's demise will be softened. Of course, knowing that the Star Trek franchise will be in syndication in perpetuity doesn't hurt, either. Although, when it comes to re-runs, Earth 2 -- another great sci-fi series cut short -- has me captivated once again, ten years after its lone season aired.
posted by media_dystopia @ 22:57 [ link | top | home ]
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Let the acrimony over matrimony begin. Now that Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, a man who is fast becoming a hero of mine, has tabled the Civil Marriage Act -- aka Bill C-38, "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes" -- the fight for same-sex marriage moves to the House of Commons, that bastion of civil discourse (said tongue in cheek, of course). As suggested by Canadians for Equal Marriage, I contacted my MP today to tell him that I support the legislation, and ask that he do the same. I've already used my words to challenge, albeit ineffectually, the claims of some of the more closed-minded -- and irrational -- opponents of same-sex marriage; now, on this landmark day, I must add something else to my rhetoric against these people: a reminder that, someday, they may be the minority in need of protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, some of today's protected minorities have short memories: Sikhs, for instance, fought for the right to wear turbans in uniform and elsewhere; now they're (supposed to be) opposing same-sex marriage because of an edict from their high priest in India. (If it's not the Vatican, it's the Golden Temple...) Another irony of this debate is that the bill's foes are relying on the Charter's fundamental freedoms -- "freedom of conscience and religion"; "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" -- to oppose gays and lesbians' equality under it. This has become a human rights issue through and through: those who being are denied them, and those who are using theirs to do the denying.
Follow-up: Oh, and America, stay out of our same-sex marriage debate -- it's an internal Canadian matter; it doesn't affect you; it's none of your business. (Would you like it if we went to Washington D.C. and lobbied your politicians on social security? Would it even make sense?) You're welcome to legislate against same-sex marriage at the state level, push for a constitutional ban against it federally, and otherwise relegate your gays and lesbians to second-class citizenship, reprehensible though it may be; just keep your well-funded Christian groups -- and their money -- family-values zealots, homophobic protesters, and others who have absolutely no business here to yourself. (Opponents in Canada who are getting any support other than moral from these foreign brethren take heed: sedition is a crime in this country.) Hell hath no fury like a Canadian scorned by inappropriate American lobbying; in fact, if I come across any of your citizens in Ottawa who are here for something other than tourism -- Winterlude is starting this weekend, after all -- or legitimate business, something nefarious, I'm going to give them a good tongue-lashing, preferably within earshot of Fortress America (lest its Republican masters have any involvement in the supposedly grassroots opposition). The rights of Canadians are the exclusive purview of Canada's constitution, courts, citizens, and, now that the bill's been introduced, Parliamentarians. You may share faith or sentiment with people here who are opposed to same-sex marriage, but you don't share their standing in the Civil Marriage Act debate. My reaction to your impertinent meddling, in a nutshell: Yankee, go home!
Follow-up: I'm not sure which is more sickening: Americans funding campaigns against same-sex marriage in Canada, or them pressuring our MPs to vote against our legislation; either way, it's revolting, and would be even if we were on the same side of the issue. I've gotten out of the habit of linking to news stories, but I should mention CBC's online story; up until I read it, I had been (stupidly) clinging to the hope that our neighbors would stay out of something so obviously not their business. (A week and a half later, CTV News had a similar report, which had me fuming as much as CBC's.) I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or insolence (or both) that makes them think, incorrectly, that not being Canadian citizens, taxpayers, voters, residents, or even people protected by the Charter -- do they even know what it is? -- somehow gives them the right to impertinently participate in our political process. Their sense of entitlement would make sense if it were their rights being debated -- but it isn't, and yet, here they are, impudently extending their tendrils into the heart of our democracy. If the roles were reversed, and it were the rights of Americans under the Bill of Rights at stake, what do you think they would be doing right now, besides going apeshit? Well-funded Canadian groups donating to American campaigns; Canadian citizens flooding Senators and Representatives with e-mails, phone calls, and faxes; the Canadian government involving itself to some degree, at the very least giving tacit approval to the aforementioned activities -- we'd be crucified in the U.S., even by the Christian right, and many there would perceive our interference as an act of war. And the reaction would be just as negative if we tried to legislate against their involvement here. (We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.) My only suggestion would be to shine the brightest possible light on these American meddlers, especially those acting surreptitiously: their names, contact information, and interferences -- contribution amounts, communication logs (including which Parliamentarians were contacted), border crossings, and other activities -- should be made public, so that Canadians can respond in kind, starting with the words "Fuck the hell off!" (First on the list: the Knights of Columbus, which supplied its Canadian brethren with postcards with which to deluge MPs.) And despite what those Canadians grateful for American assistance are saying, any lobbying and protesting we do in the U.S. is clearly not the same as what they're doing here: attempting to defeat Supreme Court-vetted same-sex marriage legislation and, therefore, deny our citizens rights under our secular-liberal constitution, based on their Christian-conservative values and beliefs. (Comparing our, say, participation in antiwar/anti-Bush protests there to their bigoted, anti-equality activism here is like comparing apples and oranges.)
Follow-up: Now what? So far, I've e-mailed my MP, the prime minister, and the minister of justice to say that I support the Civil Marriage Act and same-sex marriage in general. The good news is that they agree with me; the bad news is that they agree with me: I was preaching to the converted -- there was no fight to be had, no convincing to be done. Therefore, aside from futilely blogging about gays and lesbians' struggle for equality, my words mere drops in the ocean that is the Internet, I'm left twiddling my thumbs and worrying about the fate of same-sex marriage in this country; meanwhile, the bill's opponents are using their deep-pockets, bulwarks of faith, and impertinent American allies -- and their pockets and bulwarks -- to wage an all-out propaganda war against it. Because I feel that it is not my place to go outside of my constituency, as it were, I can only encourage like-minded friends to contact and/or visit their own representatives, perhaps going so far as to provide them with contact information (but hands off other than that); meanwhile, the Civil Marriage Act's foes are zealously blitzkrieging Parliamentarians left, right, and center, irrespective of whose MP or even whose country it is. So, I ask again: Now what?
Follow-up: On February 16, the same-sex marriage debate in the House of Commons began in earnest with the prime minister delivering an address on the Civil Marriage Act. His words, bolstered by those of the NDP's Bill Siksay and -- gasp! -- the Bloq Québécois's Gilles Duceppe (who even delivered his in English), encapsulated my feelings on the matter. (Stephen Harper also addressed the bill, but his kind of right-wing tripe isn't worth mentioning.) And so begins the descent into parliamentary anarchy...
posted by media_dystopia @ 23:08 [ link | top | home ]