Monday, March 31, 2003

Further to yesterday's post: CTV News also reported that there's a photograph of a Canadian protester making the rounds of the American news media. The man, seen at a pro-war/pro-U.S. rally somewhere in Canada, is pulling at his neck with a noose while wearing a Jean Chrétien mask.

That's that kind of news tidbit which makes me smile.

posted by medys @ 23:35 < link | top | home >

Further to the earlier post: And the winner is...

They cheered and applauded during "God Bless America"! Yay! (Insert huge sigh of relief here.) I really wasn't expecting that to happen -- and I'm bloody grateful for being proven wrong. A big thank-you to the Blue Jays fans in Toronto for their neighborly display of solidarity. Not only did they show a lot of respect for the U.S., but they helped Canada dodge a big bullet.

I didn't watch the game -- I hate baseball -- so I had to wait with bated breath for CTV News to tell me what happened. The fact that it was the last item of the newscast should have been an indication, but still, I was really worried. All I could think was, "Who cares who won the damn game, just tell me whether the fans booed the damn song!"

In conclusion, let me say: whew.

posted by medys @ 23:30 < link | top | home >

News item: Geraldo Rivera kicked out of Iraq. Or not.

Confusion surrounds the apparent expulsion of Fox News blowhard Geraldo Rivera from Iraq. It has been reported that the U.S. military kicked the bombastic reporter out of the country for violating embedded journalist rules by providing crucial details of a future military operation -- he literally sketched it out the plans in the sand -- during a live broadcast.

However, both Fox News and Rivera deny it, the latter saying that his rivals from NBC -- "some rats at my former network" -- are spreading rumors about him and stabbing him in the back, but that "quality journalism wins out." (I'm sorry, I just gagged.) "MSNBC is so pathetic a cable news network that they have to do anything they can to attract attention," said Rivera. "You can rest assured that whatever they're saying is a pack of lies."

Later in the day, CENTCOM added to the confusion when a spokesman could not confirm whether the newsman would be forced out. Meanwhile, another official said, "He is being pulled. He just doesn't know it yet. He has not gotten the word."

Whether or not he was expelled, that "journalist" -- I use that word in its broadest sense -- makes my skin crawl. He is an affront to every noble principle of the profession.

posted by medys @ 22:49 < link | top | home >

The Baltimore Sun's Rona Kobell on news consumers seeking alternative war coverage from blogs: "Weblogs cover the war without mainstream restraints." (Via Corante: Internet News.)

posted by medys @ 18:54 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Paul Godfrey, president and CEO of the Toronto Blue Jays, on "God Bless America" putting the team in a difficult position tonight:

"It's probably a no-win situation. If you play it, there's always a chance that some people will boo. I think that's the wrong thing to do. It shows lack of respect. At the same time if you don't play it, I think it could be interpreted as we're snubbing the U.S. and I don't think we want to do that again."

I am so incredibly pissed off at Major League Baseball for setting Canada up like this. Could its timing have been any worse?

posted by medys @ 15:58 < link | top | home >

News item: Canadians split on support of war.

Léger Marketing's March 31 poll, "Canadians' Attitude toward the Conflict in Iraq" (161 KB PDF), includes the following question: "Do you think the United States and their allies (Great Britain and Spain) are justified in declaring war on Iraq?" Results:

Yes - 33%
No - 48%
Do Not Know / Refusal - 19%

That was to be expected. Just keep in mind that there's a difference between thinking a war isn't justified and offering moral support to an ally.

posted by medys @ 15:41 < link | top | home >

News item: Reporter Peter Arnett fired.

NBC, MSNBC, and National Geographic have given the veteran journalist his pink slip after he gave state-run Iraqi television an interview in which he stated that the U.S.-led coalition's initial war plan had failed and that reports from Baghdad about civilian casualties had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration's strategy.

"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state controlled Iraqi TV -- especially at a time of war -- and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview," said NBC News President Neal Shapiro. "Therefore, Peter Arnett will no longer be reporting for NBC News and MSNBC."

Is there such a thing as a Darwin Award for careers?

posted by medys @ 15:16 < link | top | home >

The Globe and Mail's John Allemang on Gulf War II doing for blogs what Gulf War I did for CNN: "Where everybody is a war reporter." (Via Blogroots: Blognews.)

posted by medys @ 03:50 < link | top | home >

Sunday, March 30, 2003

Further to the March 28 post: I would like to take this opportunity to thank Major League Baseball for making teams play "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch of their home openers, in honor of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq. Tomorrow's Blue Jays game in Toronto is going to be one more nail in the coffin of the Canada-U.S. relationship because of a decision that is tantamount to extortion.

You can't possibly expect Canadians to have a positive reaction to being ordered to play a jingoistic American song -- other than the national anthem -- on our soil when we know full-well that a similar Canadian composition in the U.S. would never make it out of the parking lot, let alone into the stadium. You are forcing us into a situation where we are expected to abandon our national pride and participate in something we don't believe in, in exchange for Americans not hating us more than they already do. That's like forcing an atheist to say a prayer in order to appease his Christian friends.

(Keep in mind that we don't even appreciate the singing of "God Save the Queen" -- and that's something that actually applies to us.)

So thank you in advance for the inevitable Canadian booing and American backlash. Thank you for blackmailing us into proffering goodwill. Thank you for setting us up for a fall during a delicate time in Canada-U.S. relations. Thank you for putting us in a no-win situation. It is so very much appreciated. (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

posted by medys @ 23:50 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: For the second time in as many days, Calgary held a rally in support of the U.S. and the war in Iraq, one of several staged across the country this weekend. Six hundred people waved U.S. flags and pro-American signs. "When allies stand together strong as they have in the past, they will overcome," said Alberta Alliance MP Myron Thompson, whose 29-year-old son Dennis is a U.S. soldier in Iraq. "Let's not turn our backs on them today."

Here's hoping demonstrations like these are noticed south of the border.

posted by medys @ 23:22 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: CBC's Venture discussed the effects of the rough patch in Canada-U.S. relations and the American focus on security since 9-11 on the million-dollar-a-minute cross-border trade. The show also spoke to famous Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith. The 94-year-old former Presidential advisor downplayed the lasting effects of the rift between the U.S. and Canada, saying that they will only last a few weeks or months after the end of the war. He also said that it's easy to make a lot of noise about insignificant issues and to see things only in the short-term -- something I'm guilty of.

posted by medys @ 23:07 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 22 post: Just a reminder to Google to include the words "stenoblogging", "stenoblog", and "stenoblogger." (They vanished from the index sometime last week.)

posted by medys @ 21:04 < link | top | home >

BlogShares is a "fantasy stock market for weblogs." (Via go fish.)

Eventually I'll claim my own blog and invest my fictional $500. Now, if only there was a Nortel blog so that I could blow all my cash on it. That would be a very Ottawa thing to do.

posted by medys @ 15:12 < link | top | home >

Would you trust a news organization which displayed the following messages to antiwar protesters? (Via MetaFilter.)

War protester auditions here today...thanks for coming!
Who won your right to show up here today? Protesters or soldiers?
How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them.
Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street.

More importantly, why take ethics in journalism school if you're just going to end up working for someone even remotely similar to Fox News? If your employer's ethics are negotiable -- as the network proved with the protesters -- then what's the point?

Said Los Angeles Times television critic Howard Rosenberg: "Fox is so blatantly one-sided, it is appalling. Every time I turn it on, someone is saying something evil about the protesters or being pro-Bush."

It's times like these that I'm very grateful for the newsrooms of CBC, CTV, and other Canadian media outlets.

posted by medys @ 02:41 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Who me?

Got another hater post at Media Dystopia. Apparently I've pissed off some liberal Canadians. Oh well. Probably one of the types that booed the national anthem at hockey games. (Via The-Blacklist.)

Hater post? Pissed off? Booed the national anthem?

I hate to say it, but you took the bait and, as expected, responded with knee-jerk flaming. If you had bothered to read my blog, you would know that: I'm a big fan of the U.S., I have nothing against the war, I support the coalition forces, I'm upset with Canadian hockey fans booing the American anthem (and vice versa), and I'm sickened by what's happening to the Canada-U.S. relationship as a result of the words and actions of the Liberal government. (Sorry, but I won't link to any of these posts; I don't want to make it any easier for you.)

I am, however, the first to admit that I dislike President Bush and the Republican administration -- but then again, so does a whole hell of a lot of the U.S. That doesn't make me anti-American, just like my skepticism towards my own government doesn't make me anti-Canadian.

As for being pissed off: far from it. If anything, I'm amused. It entertains me when Americans denigrate free speech in their own country. I don't have to live with the consequences, do I?

posted by medys @ 01:32 < link | top | home >

Saturday, March 29, 2003

Further to the previous post: In retrospect, the prime minister should have said the following, or something similar, at the outset of the war:

"Canada's long-standing belief in multilateralism and the UN precludes its involvement in a military coalition in Iraq without a new Security Council resolution authorizing force. That being said, the majority of the House of Commons, representing all political parties and the majority of Canadian citizens, offers its moral support to Canada's closest friend and ally in its time of need. We pray for the success and safe return of all coalition forces, and hope that the loss of life and suffering of the Iraqi people is minimized."

Then again, I'm no speech writer.

posted by medys @ 23:58 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: A brief stay of execution for the Canada-U.S. relationship today when 4,000 people braved the rain in Ottawa to rally in support of the U.S. and its troops in Iraq. The marchers, who outnumbered antiwar protesters 10 to one, waved American and Canadian flags and chanted "U.S.A." They wanted Canada's closest friend and ally to know that a "silent majority" supports the war in Iraq, and that the government of Canada has betrayed it. One sign read, "Thank you Liberal Party of Canada for shaming our country."

That lightens my mood somewhat. With a grassroots campaign against what the government is allowing to happen to the Canada-U.S. relationship, we might be able to turn this thing around.

posted by medys @ 23:49 < link | top | home >

A nice distraction from everything going on in the world: The Core in the theatre followed by Maid in Manhattan and Jackass: The Movie on DVD. That last one had me pissing myself laughing.

posted by medys @ 23:33 < link | top | home >

If A&E is going to air Napoleon, a movie about a Frenchman who wanted to rule the world, then I think it's only fair that a French network air a movie about an American who wanted to do the same (whoever that might be). Just a thought.

posted by medys @ 04:03 < link | top | home >

Shame on you Mad Mitch for upsetting those fine, patriotic fellows at The-Blacklist. (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

posted by medys @ 03:52 < link | top | home >

You know, all this blogging about the demise of the Canada-U.S. relationship is really becoming a drag. Why am I doing it again?

posted by medys @ 01:27 < link | top | home >

Friday, March 28, 2003

Further to yesterday's post: Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham confirmed that some Canadian troops are in Iraq -- he didn't say what they are doing -- and that Canadian ships involved with the war on terror may enter Iraqi waters. Ambassador Cellucci thought that was strange: "It's kind of an odd situation," he said, "when your neighbor and best friend is helping but not supporting you. It's just kind of an odd situation."

Meanwhile, the leader of the official Opposition, Stephen Harper, and his foreign affairs critic, Stockwell Day, are using the U.S. displeasure with Canada to attack the Liberal government; they have written to The Wall Street Journal to say that Ottawa should have joined the U.S.-led coalition. "Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance, will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds we will be with our allies," they wrote.

Also, the prime minister is canceling his trip to Washington next month, where he was to receive a conservation award. His office said that he doesn't feel comfortable receiving a personal honor when U.S. troops are at war, although Conservative Leader Joe Clark suggested that Washington had asked him not to come. In addition, it has also been confirmed that President Bush's state visit to Canada in May is "uncertain" and that the country's stance on Iraq is a "factor."

And for the cherry on top, all Major League Baseball teams have been instructed to play "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch of their home openers. That includes Monday's Blue Jays game in Toronto against the New York Yankees. (Because we just haven't had enough booing at sports games recently. Sigh.)

That's today's update on the demise of the Canada-U.S. relationship. Stay tuned for the sounds of nails being pounded into the coffin, sponsored by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Follow-up: Now ask me how the families of those Canadian soldiers -- officers included -- were treated back in the U.S. while their husbands and fathers were over in Iraq risking their lives for the Americans. The shunning, alone, will make you sick to your stomach. The "not supporting" Cellucci spoke of? It went both ways. And although close to two years have passed since the launch of the invasion, my revulsion has not dulled. Shame on the U.S. military.

Follow-up: What I alluded to in the preceding follow-up wasn't reported by the news media (to my knowledge). I don't usually write about what I hear through the grapevine, but seeing as though the people I heard it from are in the know, and seeing as though it left me disgusted to the core, I felt the need to mention it. (Post-gossip catharsis, if you will.) I hope that I'm wrong about it, though, I really do.

posted by medys @ 23:30 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. Publishing is very sluggish. Downtime is increasing in frequency. Posting glitches have resulted in lost writing. Blog*Spot is painfully slow.

If only Pyra Labs/Blogger had a big company behind it to enhance its capacities. Wait a minute...

posted by medys @ 12:50 < link | top | home >

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Further to yesterday's post: Just to add to people's fears about Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, the World Health Organization has recommended new measures to "prevent travel-related spread of SARS" which include the "screening of air passengers departing from a small number of affected areas on flights to another country." As a result, Canada will start screening people for symptoms at the Vancouver and Toronto airports.

One more reason Darth Ridge and his boys won't want Canadians crossing the border. Sigh.

posted by medys @ 21:01 < link | top | home >

News item: Prime minister says "it's possible" Canadian soldiers are in Iraq.

However, he continues to deny that any of the 31 soldiers on exchange with American and British units are in combat roles or directly involved with the fighting -- even though a British officer has said that some of them are on the front line and therefore at risk.

Defence Minister John McCallum insisted that the "Department of National Defence said they were in auxiliary units and weren't combatants and they have received instructions from the army to the effect that they could only use their weapons in self-defence." The minister has come under fire for refusing to divulge the soldiers' whereabouts and other details, and for initially denying that they were involved.

Not bad for a country against the war.

posted by medys @ 20:17 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: The U.S. Department of State confirmed that Ambassador Cellucci was delivering a message on behalf of the White House. In today's Daily Press Briefing, spokesman Richard Boucher said that his remarks "were an accurate reflection of our disappointment at recent Canadian actions, particularly the decision not to support the coalition to liberate Iraq."

There is also talk of Canada recalling its ambassador in response to Cellucci's rebuke, and of President Bush canceling his state visit to Canada in May in response to the country's position on Iraq. Today, the ambassador said that the U.S. isn't just bothered by that position, but by comments from Herb Dhaliwal and Carolyn Parrish, by Canadian hockey fans booing the American anthem, and by other perceived slights.

Meanwhile, in an effort to boost his leadership bid, Minister of Finance John Manley distanced himself from the Liberal caucus by saying that now is not to time to take shots at the U.S. "It's not our time to say that we disagree with the United States, while their young men and women are offering themselves in service of their country for a cause they believe in," he said.

Too little, too late, Mr. Manley; the damage is already done. Your efforts notwithstanding, I need my Tylenol and bucket again.

posted by medys @ 20:08 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Just when Al-Jazeera thought it couldn't get any worse for its new English-language site, American hackers hijacked it and replaced it with a U.S. flag and the message "Let Freedom Ring."

posted by medys @ 18:06 < link | top | home >

For the troops: Something which is a given for me (which is why I forgot to mention it until now) is my support for the members of the coalition forces and my hope that they return home safely. Irrespective of the tone and content of my blog, my heart goes out to the families, friends, and comrades of any nation's soldiers killed, wounded, or captured in "Operation Iraqi Freedom." It's important that the troops know that they have our backing despite the controversial and divisive nature of Gulf War II.

posted by medys @ 17:34 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 25 post: One of the eBay sellers refusing to ship to Canada because of its antiwar stance is CompAtlanta. Far be it for me to suggest a reverse boycott, but if you felt an overwhelming urge to have nothing to do with that company, or eBay itself, I wouldn't object.

posted by medys @ 04:10 < link | top | home >

When it comes to certain issues, blogging can be like sticking your finger in a light socket.

posted by medys @ 03:19 < link | top | home >

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Further to yesterday's post: Ambassador Cellucci's public rebuke has fueled the political storm over Canada's position on Iraq. The opposition stepped up its attacks against the Liberal government, accusing it of causing the rift between the U.S. and Canada. Meanwhile, thousands of letters have been sent to media outlets in response to Canada's antiwar stance and the ambassador's negative comments.

Not only do I feel sick to my stomach, but my head is pounding. I can handle the war just fine. What I can't handle is what's happening to the Canada-U.S. relationship. I want this bullshit to stop. I can't take it anymore. And I think I speak for a lot of Canadians. A lot of angry, voting Canadians.

Are you listening Jean Chrétien? (He who waffles. Or not.) Are you listening Paul Martin? (The heir apparent.) Are you listening John Manley? (The alternative heir apparent) Are you listening Liberal caucus? (Those who don't know what "Shut the fuck up!" means.)

Are any of you doing anything about this disgusting state of affairs between Canada and the U.S. besides making it worse with your cross-border mudslinging?

posted by medys @ 23:56 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Not content to only say "you're either with us or against us," Americans are now putting their war mantra where their mouths are with boycotts. CTV News' Roger Smith reported tonight that a "Trade Winds" survey says that "49% of Americans will try a substitute for Canadian products" in an economic backlash against the non-coalition-member. (NOTE: The related news story links to the Roger Smith video.)

Part of me wants to say, with much nationalistic anger and economic naïveté, "Fine. Give back the oil, natural gas, electricity, water, timber, wheat, fish, minerals, metals, cars, car parts, and every other product and natural resource we ship across the border. Except Céline Dion; you can keep her."

The rest of me just wants to puke my guts out -- my body's reaction to the sheer exasperation and powerlessness I feel watching the demise of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

Follow-up: This references the Fleishman-Hillard survey released March 31: "American Consumers Delaying Major Purchases, Negative Toward Products from Countries Opposed to U.S. Actions in Iraq; First "Trade Winds" Survey Reveals International Companies Risk Loss of Reputation, Sales."

posted by medys @ 23:40 < link | top | home >

News item: Ontario declares province-wide SARS health emergency.

The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome is getting worse. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Toronto Public Health are quarantining those possibly exposed to the virus and closing hospitals to contain the outbreak.

This must be a tad scary for people in Ontario. Unfortunately, that includes me. Yikes!

posted by medys @ 23:26 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 25 post: Al-Jazeera managed to piss off American hackers as well. Its Web sites, including its new English-language site, were hit by a massive denial-of-service attack. (Both sites are still inaccessible at this hour.)

posted by medys @ 07:41 < link | top | home >

The Command Post: "A Warblog Collective." (Via Blogdex.)

Because I'm a lemming. A slow one at that.

posted by medys @ 07:23 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 21 post: I'm having a love-hate relationship with videophones at the moment.

On the one hand: They're seemingly omnipresent in the embedded coverage, beaming live feeds of military operations from anywhere in Iraq to my television screen.

On the other hand: What the hell am I looking at? I'm squinting. I'm tilting my head. I'm leaning forward. Nope, still pixelated. Oh wait, that's the reporter's head. I hope CNN throws it to Wolf Blitzer soon because I'm going cross-eyed.

Hopefully, the technology will be perfected in time for Gulf War III.

posted by medys @ 03:47 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Watching the war on CNN is fun; it's like 1991, but with embedded journalists and videophones and live feeds of "shock and awe." Problem is, you're always one report away from being reminding that Canada is staying on the sidelines. I've always feared for the health of the Canada-U.S. relationship. Now it feels like I'm being asked to attend its funeral. No wonder I have a headache.

posted by medys @ 02:23 < link | top | home >

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

News item: Prime minister waffles on Iraq. Or doesn't. Or does. Or...

Jean Chrétien says that he wants the U.S., not Iraq, to prevail, but that regime change is wrong. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham says that Ottawa supports the U.S. plan to oust Saddam. The prime minister says that regime change is against the UN charter. Another minister says...

Not that it will stop the U.S. from thinking we're backstabbing assholes, but you guys should get together and figure out what the party line is.

posted by medys @ 23:55 < link | top | home >

C-SPAN, the U.S. cable public affairs channel, is supplementing its war coverage by broadcasting CBC's The National. It did the same right after 9-11, so I'm getting the impression that a segment of the U.S. population likes being offended by Canadian journalism -- damn its liberal-yet-balanced, non-jingoistic, high-quality coverage! -- during crises. Remember The National's public forums in the days following the terrorist attacks, and the resulting backlash in the U.S. because of participants' anti-American sentiments? There has to be a reason why they subject themselves to that kind of thing.

posted by medys @ 23:42 < link | top | home >

Note to Canadian eBay users: Be sure to find out where the person or company is on the backlash scale before you bid on their items. As reported on CTV News tonight, some American sellers on eBay are refusing to ship items to antiwar countries, including France, Germany, Mexico, and Canada. Unfortunately, you may only find out after winning the bid.

posted by medys @ 23:36 < link | top | home >

News item: France seeks big role in post-war Iraq.

Hit by a blinding glimpse of the obvious, Paris is worried that French companies will be penalized and lose lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts because the American administration in Iraq will favor companies from the U.S. and other pro-war countries.

Not to be too obvious about it, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Houston-based oil field services giant formerly led by now-Vice President Dick Cheney, has been awarded, without bidding, the contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq (a job it had done in 1991).

posted by medys @ 21:20 < link | top | home >

The Guardian's George Monbiot on the U.S. prisoners of war: "One rule for them; Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay?" (Via linkfilter.net.)

The U.S. says that the Gitmo detainees are "unlawful combatants" not subject to Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949). Others, including the writer of the article, argue that they're prisoners of war as specified by Article 4 of the convention -- and therefore, given their treatment, the U.S. has no right to complain about its PoWs in Iraq.

What it comes down to is a legal interpretation that people are going to bitch and whine about ad nauseam, giving me a massive headache and turning me off writing about it.

What I will say is that my view -- keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar -- hasn't changed since the Gitmo detainees became an issue over a year ago: if you can't adhere to the laws of war -- like, say, 9-11 -- and the conditions set out in Article 4, then you can't claim protection under Convention III. Being a prisoner of war is a privilege of soldiers, not a right of terrorists and other "unlawful combatants."

(By the way, does Saddam respect the Geneva Conventions when he captures opposition forces? Just wondering.)

posted by medys @ 15:23 < link | top | home >

Every time I hear a flushing sound in relation to the Canada-U.S. relationship, I get a splitting headache. (For the most part, the war itself doesn't make me reach for the Tylenol.)

posted by medys @ 14:21 < link | top | home >

News item: U.S. ambassador decries Canadian policy and politicians. (Transcript: CBC.)

In the biggest public rebuke by a U.S. diplomat since the Trudeau era, Paul Cellucci told The Economic Club of Toronto -- a subtle hint of implications in and of itself -- that "a lot of people in Washington are upset" with Canada's decision not to back the war.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family," he said. "That is why so many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now."

He also said that Washington is bothered by Ottawa not reigning in Liberals critical of the U.S. and the president, while scolding others who support them.

"When (Premier) Klein issues strong support for the United States, the Canadian government comes down hard on him," said Cellucci. "When (Natural Resources Minister) Dhaliwal makes totally inappropriate remarks about the president of the United States, they totally ignore it."

Now that the elephant and the mouse are sleeping in separate rooms, it's time to carve the tombstone:

Canada-U.S. relationship. 1867-2003. R.I.P.

posted by medys @ 13:18 < link | top | home >

In case Mad Mitch meanders by and sees this: I've added a follow-up to the post you referenced on March 24. Many thanks for pointing it out, and for the linkage.

posted by medys @ 04:47 < link | top | home >

I changed the page's color from pea soup (666600) to crimson (660000). The former was getting a little hard to read. Plus I wanted a change.

posted by medys @ 02:59 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Al-Jazeera is taking a lot of flak (pardon the pun) for airing video of American dead and captured. Its U.S. (and Canadian) counterparts had wrestled with the issue before deciding to only air small video segments of the prisoners of war, and stills "with no identifiable features" of the bodies.

No one should be surprised by the Qatar-based network's editorial decisions given that it uses sensationalism, jingoism, bias, and dubious journalism to make a name for itself, boost its ratings, and make money.

Wait a minute, doesn't that make Al-Jazeera the Fox News Channel of the Middle East? (Does it have a Geraldo Rivera, too?)

posted by medys @ 00:58 < link | top | home >

Monday, March 24, 2003

I've been surfing through my links and blogroll while watching CNN, CBC's The National, and CTV News (in that order) -- and yet, I'm still staring at a blank "edit your blog" screen. Nothing is really jumping out at me at the moment. My inspiration is running on empty. I think I have the warblog blues.

Therefore, it's time to play Battlefield 1942.

posted by medys @ 23:03 < link | top | home >

Paul Boutin on the young man (supposedly) blogging from the Iraqi capital: "Q: Is the Baghdad Blogger for real? A: Probably." (Via evhead.)

Pardon my skepticism, but I'll believe Dear Raed's Salam Pax is for real when he does the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows after the war -- assuming he survives "shock and awe."

posted by medys @ 20:32 < link | top | home >

"How Soon Is Now?" by The Smiths.

That's the mystery song that's been torturing me for years. Not because I dislike it -- quite the contrary -- but because I could never identify it when I heard it on the radio. Somehow, I managed to miss every DJ's introduction. Today, I finally remembered to look it up on the Internet. What a relief!

posted by medys @ 15:58 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Some people are questioning whether the U.S. is adhering to the Geneva Conventions with regard to Iraqi prisoners of war, given the treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

Even if you argue that those detainees aren't being treated as humanely as specified in Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949), according to the convention, they aren't prisoners of war. Article 4 says that PoWs must be persons belonging to one of several categories, including:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Which of those conditions apply to the Gitmo detainees?

Follow-up: The last sentence originally read "Which of those conditions apply to terrorists?" but Mad Mitch's March 24 post (no link available) reminded me that it contained a nasty syllogism which needed correcting. The whole point of the post is to say that the detainees are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions because they don't meet the conditions, not because they're terrorists (a very subjective and non-legal description). Detainees with fundamental human rights -- yes; prisoners of war -- no. (Then again, I'm no lawyer or legal scholar.)

posted by medys @ 13:26 < link | top | home >

Is fictition a fiction? Is "fictition" in The Oxford English Dictionary? I don't mean that as a criticism of Michael Moore -- he used it in his Oscar acceptance speech -- it's just that I can't find it in Merriam-Webster OnLine or any other dictionary, so I'm wondering if it's been classed as obsolete by the OED. (After the Fred Durst "agreeance" incident during the Grammies, you just never know.)

That or it isn't a real word. It's easy to fumble one's language during an acceptance speech, especially one in front of such a large television audience. Besides, it makes sense that a nervous speaker would use the word "fictition" after using "fictitious" in the same context. Whether intentional or not, the meaning was there and that's what was important at the time.

That being said, I still want to know if the word is in the OED. It's going to mess with my karma until I go to a library -- gasp! -- and look it up. This is the price I pay for being anal.

posted by medys @ 02:24 < link | top | home >

Sunday, March 23, 2003

And the Oscar goes to... Aside from host Steve Martin's hilarious monologue and introductions, tonight's 75th Annual Academy Awards broadcast was rather low-key and lackluster. (Starting without the glitz and glamour of the red carpet didn't help.) It just ended and I've already started to forget who won. Not that it really matters; I wasn't rooting for anyone.

The show wasn't as wacky as I thought it would be, although The Pianist's Roman Polanski winning the Oscar for Directing certainly was. It must be the first time in the history of the Academy Awards that a winner can't set foot on U.S. soil without being arrested and thrown in jail. In his case, for raping a 13-year-old girl and fleeing the country before serving his sentence. In my opinion, the Academy should say, "You want it? Come get it," and then hold the statuette in escrow until time-served.

As expected, the war was in the air. Thankfully, the actors, whether presenters or winners, were calm and tasteful when broaching the subject. Some wore special pins on their lapels and gowns. Some flashed V-signs with their fingers. Some used their words to call for peace and a swift resolution to the conflict; to show respect and support for the troops; or to remind viewers of the importance of free speech and democracy. I also noticed that a few scripted presentations contained subtle double entendres. Surprisingly, none of this bothered me.

And then there was Michael Moore. After his Bowling for Columbine won the Oscar for Documentary Feature, the poster boy for radical liberalism launched into a caustic verbal assault:

Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.

Hey asshole, we didn't tune in to the broadcast to hear your politics. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but there's a time and a place for everything -- and tonight you failed on both counts. I don't like President Bush, either -- hell, I may even agree with you -- but your pretentious, self-serving speech was repugnant and inappropriate, and I'm glad that you were booed by a portion of the audience in the Kodak Theatre. Don't like the way things are? Go make another documentary about it, you pompous prick, and spare us having to listen to your personal "shock and awe" attack on live television.

posted by medys @ 23:59 < link | top | home >

The U.S. military is less than impressed that Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite network, is airing video of dead American soldiers. During the latest CENTCOM briefing, Lieutenant-General John Abizaid berated one of the network's reporters for it. (CNN, meanwhile, has made an editorial decision to show only a single still image "with no identifiable features.")

posted by medys @ 14:37 < link | top | home >

Prisoners of war. Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) has come into focus now that the Iraqi government is parading captured U.S. military personnel on state television. In addition, video was released today of Iraqi soldiers running around a river bank firing blindly into the water where they thought a U.S. pilot had landed after bailing out of his plane.

The ICRC's interpretation of the "rules relating to the conduct of combatants and the protection of prisoners of war" is that "the enemy who is hors de combat, who has surrendered or who shows his intention of surrendering, or who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall not be the object of attack." Meanwhile, Convention III (256 KB PDF) itself says that "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity" and prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

CENTCOM's deputy commander, Lieutenant-General John Abizaid, said that the Iraqi military's search and rescue techniques "leave a lot to be desired," and that the broadcast and interrogation of PoWs were clear violations of the convention. He also said that those responsible would be held accountable under international law.

posted by medys @ 14:09 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 15 post: Tonight's 75th Annual Academy Awards are going to be wacky. Just plain wacky.

posted by medys @ 12:51 < link | top | home >

So, how exactly am I supposed to go back to "reality TV" after watching embedded journalists reporting live from the front?

posted by medys @ 12:14 < link | top | home >

Support UNICEF: "A Project of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)."

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): "How You Can Help."

Because someone has to clean up the mess.

posted by medys @ 00:51 < link | top | home >

Saturday, March 22, 2003

News item: Antiwar protesters burn American flag in front of U.S. Embassy in Ottawa.

Hopefully they'll burn their passports next because I'm ashamed these people are Canadian. There's free speech, and then there's utter disrespect to make a point. They have the right to do it; it's just disgusting and unbecoming citizens of this country. What's next? Yelling "Yankee go home!"?

posted by medys @ 23:35 < link | top | home >

Just when I thought that the Canada-U.S. relationship couldn't possibly get any worse, hockey fans engaged in some tit-for-tat anthem-booing before games. On March 20, the U.S. anthem was booed in Montreal before the Canadiens-New York Islanders game. The next day, the Canadian anthem was booed in Atlanta before the Thrashers-Ottawa Senators game.

The president of the Montreal Canadiens released a statement apologizing for the fans' conduct. The Atlanta Thrashers did the same (even though the Senators trounced them 5-1). The NHL said that despite the incidents, it will continue to play the American and Canadian anthems before games.

The Iraq debate also crept into Coach's Corner on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. Ron McLean said that Canada's stance was correct, while Don Cherry said that we abandoned our closest friend in a time of need. Sigh.

posted by medys @ 23:19 < link | top | home >

A section of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

King Arthur (Graham Chapman): "Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine."
Black Knight (John Cleese): "Oh, had enough, eh?"
King Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left."
Black Knight: "Yes I have!"
King Arthur: "Look!"
Black Knight: "Just a flesh wound."

Remind you of anything?

posted by medys @ 15:54 < link | top | home >

Many thanks to existential dishwasher for the linkage (times two).

It must be a real headache being a journalism student right now. I can only imagine the mental tug-of-war and peer pressure -- pro-war versus antiwar -- and the effect they have on journalistic bias.

posted by medys @ 13:51 < link | top | home >

CNN.com now has television-style screen crawl in a red "Special Coverage: War On Iraq" box at the top of its home page. I suppose that was inevitable.

posted by medys @ 13:14 < link | top | home >

Nic Robertson and the rest of CNN team are now in Jordan after being expelled from Baghdad. Iraqi officials didn't like having American network news reporters there once the "shock and awe" began. Gee, I wonder why. "Yes, we can now confirm that Saddam is getting his ass thoroughly kicked. Back to you, Atlanta."

posted by medys @ 12:59 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: General "Timid" Tommy Franks, the architect of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," has finally given a press briefing. (Transcript: CENTCOM.) Sure enough, I missed it.

posted by medys @ 11:49 < link | top | home >

I think that CNN's military analysts are excellent. Retired generals Don Sheppard and Wesley Clark, for instance, are erudite, articulate, and level-headed. (Of course, it doesn't hurt that Clark is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe who orchestrated the Kosovo campaign. That tends to lend to one's credibility.)

I shudder to think what the analysts on overtly conservative and jingoistic -- "patriotic" as they would say -- networks in the U.S. like Fox News Channel are like. For that matter, I shudder to think what the reporters are like. (Has Geraldo Rivera armed himself? Is he offering to put a bullet in Saddam's head?) I get chills up and down my spine just thinking about it.

posted by medys @ 11:43 < link | top | home >

Further to the yesterday's post: I was able to Google the word "stenoblogging" and find my blog within a day of posting the (hopefully) newly coined word. I'm impressed. Question is, is Google's speed in indexing it a result of owning Pyra Labs/Blogger, or is it that fast with every site?

As an additional test, I'm going to include the words "stenoblog" and "stenoblogger" in this post. (I think their definitions are fairly obvious.)

posted by medys @ 11:36 < link | top | home >

Who said that embedding journalists with the military was a bad idea? I think it's the best thing to happen to the military-media relationship.

posted by medys @ 11:28 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. The latest news from Status.Blogger.Com:

As expected, people have been blogging and reading blogs a lot more in the past few days. We're adding more machines to BlogSpot to deal with the increased load. Until those machines are online, we apologize for the sluggishness you may encounter.

No shit.

posted by medys @ 04:47 < link | top | home >

Dinner with friends. Old School. A cool bar. No CNN.

It was good to take a break. Now I'm ready for more "shock and awe."

posted by medys @ 01:38 < link | top | home >

Friday, March 21, 2003

White House briefing. Ari Fleischer answered reporters' questions. (Transcript: White House.)

Helen Thomas is a dingbat. No, really, she is. Today, for instance, she asked whether Iraq is the end goal, given that "some of the President's advisors have said they thought it would be good to go on to other countries in the region, to democratize or liberate." Fleischer politely denied it and moved on to the next reporter. However, it's obvious that his patience for her is wearing thin and that eventually he's going to lose it and say, "Are you nuts? What's wrong with you?"

I know that she's the maven of the White House press corps, having covered eight presidents. I know that she's intelligent, perceptive, and articulate. It's just that she can be very biased -- "This is the worst president ever. He is the worst president in all of American history." -- and very kooky. I've been stunned by some of the things she's asked Ari Fleischer, to the point of thinking that she's senile.

Follow-up: Helen Thomas may have been right.

posted by medys @ 14:36 < link | top | home >

Pentagon briefing. Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers read statements and discussed the air and ground campaigns. (Transcript: DefenseLINK.)

As usual, Rumsfeld took offense to the media, saying that their comparisons to World War II's bombing campaigns are "unfortunate and inaccurate." He also warned that the "slices of the war" shown by the embedded reporters are limited to their perspectives and do not accurately represent the "totality" of the conflict.

posted by medys @ 13:37 < link | top | home >

There's a lull in the "shock and awe."

posted by medys @ 13:34 < link | top | home >

Yes, "shock and awe" is definitely underway. It's rather impressive, as is CNN's coverage. It's one thing to watch the massive explosions live on television; it's another thing altogether to hear the cruise missiles before they hit. Welcome to the 21st century.

posted by medys @ 13:11 < link | top | home >

Holy shit. Get to a TV. Fast.

posted by medys @ 13:02 < link | top | home >

Oops. Please disregard the previous post. That's a lot of explosions.

posted by medys @ 13:01 < link | top | home >

The little boy who cried "shock and awe." CNN is reporting that the "shock and awe" campaign has begun, and that Pentagon officials are calling this is A-Day. Sure. I believe you. No, really, I do.

So far "shock and awe" has been anything but. The most anti-climactic of military strategies. The military equivalent of ringing Iraq's doorbell and hiding, over and over. No offense, but until I see it happening in those live images from Baghdad -- CNN has divided the screen into four live feeds -- I'm going to assume that this is some sort of elaborate bluff to rattle the remaining Iraqi leadership.

posted by medys @ 12:25 < link | top | home >

Remember General "Stormin'" Norman Schwartzkopf? Remember his now-famous press briefings? (His postwar "mother of all press briefings" had the military and government drooling with delight.) With his lack thereof, CENTCOM's General "Timid" Tommy Franks is being called the "anti-Schwartzkopf."

On the one hand, a general busy fighting a war shouldn't have to stop to deal with journalists, especially when the unprecedented live images from embedded reporters speak for themselves.

On the other hand, the "winning of hearts and minds" via the media is absolutely essential to the success of any war. You would figure that Franks, a Vietnam veteran -- who was wounded there, no less -- would understand that. Schwartzkopf certainly did; media relations were part of his battle plans from the start.

posted by medys @ 11:35 < link | top | home >

Safety Boss Inc.: "The Canadian Blowout Company." Because Saddam likes to play with matches around hydrocarbons.

posted by medys @ 04:47 < link | top | home >

CNN's Walter Rodgers is embedded with the U.S. army's 3-7th Cavalry.

He's sending back live videophone feeds from atop one of the many armored vehicles as they roll north through the Iraqi desert. Aaron Brown was amazed by the unique live coverage -- and rightfully so. The embedding has given journalists, and therefore the public, unprecedented access to operational military units in time of war. They're on the move and we're right there with them.

That being said, the image quality of the videophones leaves a lot to be desired. There's a lot of digital pixelation, for lack of a better word, particularly when the lens is moving. In fact, it's painful to watch at times. The technology isn't quite there yet.

posted by medys @ 02:46 < link | top | home >

I've found that stenoblogging -- posting about live events minute-by-minute or comprehensively summarizing the news -- is rather tedious. I prefer to stand back from the minutiae and look at the issue from a broader perspective. It's not always easy with something like Gulf War II, mind you.

By the way, I ran the word "stenoblogging" through Google and didn't get any hits. Can I coin it?

posted by medys @ 02:28 < link | top | home >

Even though I'm a news junkie, there are only so many hours of continuous war coverage I can handle before I need to tune out with some mindless entertainment. At the moment, it's a rather good episode of Star Trek: Voyager.

posted by medys @ 02:28 < link | top | home >

"Choosing a tampon isn't about gimmicks. It's about wearing comfort."

Just a reminder that life goes on even when CNN has 24 hours a day of war coverage.

posted by medys @ 02:01 < link | top | home >

Thursday, March 20, 2003

News item: Prime minister downplays minister's "anti-American" comment.

Yesterday, the opposition attacked Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal for saying, "The world expects someone who's the president of a superpower to be a statesman. I think he's let not only Americans, but the world, down by not being a statesman."

"History will have a look at this," he added. "I just think that President Bush, to me, didn't seem committed to the UN process and when he felt he wasn't going to win, he decided to leave it."

Why is he getting in trouble for saying that? Now that the Canadian government has officially opposed the war, doesn't his opinion reflect that position? Keep in mind that I'm the one who has knee-jerk reactions to Canadians' anti-American comments -- just look at the "moron" and "bastards" incidents -- and yet, I'm not having one now.

Besides, there's not much anyone could say at this point, least of all the truth, that would make the Canada-U.S. relationship any chillier than it already is. When you're already circling the bowl, what's a few more turds?

posted by medys @ 23:40 < link | top | home >

News item: Investigating officer recommends friendly fire pilots not face court-martial.

Nice timing there, assholes. Could you have been any more obvious about wanting to drown out this announcement? Have I got this straight? Your pilots kill four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan after disregarding an order to hold fire, and then get to say "fuck you" to the families and to Canada? And then you wonder why we don't want to send our troops to Iraq?

I'm sorry, but this sort of American contempt for Canada is nauseating. Without it, I may have been convinced to say "shit happens" and dismiss the friendly fire incident as an unfortunate byproduct of the fog of war. Instead, I see the U.S. military reinforcing the "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy. What's the incentive to hold fire and confirm the presence of allies if bombing them isn't a court-martial offense?

posted by medys @ 23:30 < link | top | home >

Live via CNN videophone: the U.S. army's 3-7th Cavalry rolling through southern Iraq. Embedded reporter Walter Rodgers is giving the play-by-play.

posted by medys @ 23:05 < link | top | home >

The "shock and awe" phase of the war has been postponed. Fine. I'll go out to dinner instead.

posted by medys @ 17:35 < link | top | home >

There's nothing like the pixelated videophone image of an embedded reporter -- a dark, faceless figure against a green light-amplified backdrop -- to shed light on a situation. (CNN says that the shadow-man was Walter Rodgers with the U.S. army's 3-7th Cavalry.)

posted by medys @ 17:34 < link | top | home >

Where the hell is the "shock and awe"? So far, this war hasn't lived up to its advertising. I'm not getting much entertainment out of it. I'm disappointed.

posted by medys @ 15:37 < link | top | home >

There are now explosions and fires in Baghdad. Is this a burp or a hiccup? No one seems to be able to say whether this is the start of the larger air campaign. White House and Pentagon officials are tight-lipped. Confusion is abound. No matter; I've got places to go, people to see, things to do.

posted by medys @ 13:12 < link | top | home >

CNN's Nic Robertson is describing anti-aircraft fire in Baghdad. The live images and their "flashes in the sky" still don't compare to Gulf War I's, though.

posted by medys @ 13:05 < link | top | home >

CNN report: "U.S. Marines have clashed with Iraqi troops, and a heavy artillery barrage has begun along the border between Iraq and Kuwait, New York Times reporter John Kifner reported Thursday."

posted by medys @ 12:55 < link | top | home >

White House briefing. The ever-charming Ari Fleischer responded to reporters' questions. That guy can be such a condescending prick. I'm really glad that he was robbed last night when his Marlon Fitzwater moment -- "The disarmament of Iraq has begun." -- only signaled the start of a small-scale missile attack.

posted by medys @ 12:45 < link | top | home >

Pentagon briefing. A very solemn Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers delivered prepared statements about the war before taking a handful of questions about last night's strikes against a "senior Iraqi leadership compound." (Transcript: DefenseLINK.)

posted by medys @ 11:06 < link | top | home >

Reports are coming in about oil wells on fire in southern Iraq. The start of Saddam's "scorched earth" policy perhaps?

posted by medys @ 11:01 < link | top | home >

It's at times like these that it becomes readily apparent that CNN's Judy Woodruff is a fucking idiot.

posted by medys @ 10:59 < link | top | home >

As far as wars go, this one has been pretty sedate so far. Aside from a small number of missiles intercepted in Kuwait, not much is going on. Unlike last night, only the 24-hour news channels are covering it at the moment. CNN is reporting that the start of the war had been accelerated by up to 48 hours on the basis of CIA information regarding "targets of opportunity." So what we're seeing now is just the weak leading edge of the storm.

posted by medys @ 10:22 < link | top | home >

The big issue at the moment is Saddam's television appearance nine hours ago. Image experts are poring over split-screens -- comparing ear lobes, birthmarks, jowls, you name it -- trying to determine whether it was actually the Iraqi leader or one of his many doppelgangers. (They want to know if last night's strikes nailed the bastard.)

posted by medys @ 10:00 < link | top | home >

CNN has confirmed that last night's "decapitation strikes" have destroyed all of Iraq's Starbucks franchises. Said White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer: "Saddam's days of Espresso Frappuccinos are over."

No, not really.

posted by medys @ 09:44 < link | top | home >

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on the start of Gulf War II: "New York, 20 March 2003 - Statement by the Secretary-General on Iraq."

posted by medys @ 09:23 < link | top | home >

I'm flipping between CNN and M*A*S*H reruns now.

posted by medys @ 01:21 < link | top | home >

A taped speech of Saddam is being broadcast to the Iraqi people. If it was recorded after tonight's attacks, then he must have ducked. Either that or he has one of his many surgically altered doubles spouting rhetoric in his place.

posted by medys @ 00:32 < link | top | home >

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

MetaFilter and FARK.com on the start of Gulf War II.

posted by medys @ 23:45 < link | top | home >

Gulf War II has begun. And sure enough, I was away from my computer. I had to write notes and then blog about it after the fact. Here's a summary of the start of "Operation Iraqi Freedom":

Shortly after 9:30 p.m. EST, journalists like CNN's Nic Robertson reported anti-aircraft fire in Baghdad -- although the live feeds from the city were fairly uneventful. (Gulf War I's opening images blew these away, pardon the pun.)

At 9:45, White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer delivered a terse statement: "The disarmament of Iraq has begun." It was so similar in content and style to Marlon Fitzwater's famous "the liberation of Kuwait has begun" statement of January 17, 1991, that one CNN reporter kept misquoting Fleischer, saying "the liberation of Iraq has begun."

From 9:45 to 10:15, the media -- I alternated between CNN and CBC -- engaged in rampant speculation. Off-camera sources confirmed to reporters that it was a cruise missile and stealth fighter "decapitation strike" against "targets of opportunity" -- namely, elements of the Iraqi leadership, including Saddam himself. CNN's Aaron Brown and CBC's Peter Mansbridge filled the air as best they could in the absence of concrete information.

At 10:15, President Bush addressed the nation. "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...." (Transcript: White House.)

By 10:20, the speculation was continuing unabated. Eventually, the media settled into a holding pattern while waiting to hear how many, if any, of the 40-plus missiles actually hit anyone of importance.

By 11:30, the news was so "breaking" that CBC spent several minutes reviewing all the planes in the U.S. arsenal. Yawn.

posted by medys @ 22:59 < link | top | home >

Saddam's 48 hours are up.

posted by medys @ 20:00 < link | top | home >

One hour to the deadline. What will Saddam do?

posted by medys @ 19:00 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 4 post: NBC scheduled two back-to-back repeats of Law & Order tonight, but no episode of The West Wing. Interesting.

posted by medys @ 18:15 < link | top | home >

Daily Planet's Shannon Bentley (aka Gadget Grrrl) on Hitachi's AirSho 40" On-Glass Projection System: "Holoscreen could become the mannequin of the 21st Century."

Now that's cool! There's something very Gibsonian about that sort of projection of media. I find it very appealing.

By the way, Gadget Grrrl is hot. (Sorry, I had to stay in character there.)

posted by medys @ 12:37 < link | top | home >

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria on the rise of anti-Americanism: "The Arrogant Empire." (Via Blogdex.)

I bookmarked this a few days ago, but only got around to reading it today. I thought the article was very informative and a must-read for all Americans. Although it didn't mention Canada -- most likely because our relationship with the U.S. has such a unique dynamic -- I do think that the following excerpt explains how we feel:

“Most officials in Latin American countries today are not anti-American types,” says Jorge Castaneda, the reformist foreign minister of Mexico, who resigned two months ago. “We have studied in the United States or worked there. We like and understand America. But we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt.”

Amen to that. You would figure that a church-going president would understand the adage "You reap what you sow."

posted by medys @ 11:48 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Does anyone else get the impression that if the Canada-U.S. relationship got any worse, we'd be next in line after Iraq? Sigh.

posted by medys @ 10:29 < link | top | home >

If you're concerned about terrorist attacks, you can add either an Ashcroft or a Muppet to your Web page to spread the panic.

posted by medys @ 08:03 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 15 post: Ménage à trois?

returnthestatueofliberty.tk: "We the undersigned believe that the Statue of Liberty should now be returned to France in the spirit in which it was originally presented to us. We believe that France has great need of the reminder that liberty comes at a price. It is a price we will pay, if we must, alone." (Via Attu sees all.)

GiveItBack.net: "Located in New York Harbor, the Statue of Liberty was a gift of international friendship from the people of France to the people of the United States and is one of the most universal symbols of political freedom and democracy... Now it is time to give it back! They can have their damn Statue!" (Via linkfilter.net.)

Send Back the Statue of Liberty: "The SBL organization is group of US patriots dedicated to having the Statue of Liberty sent back to the French. We believe that the French Government has effectively betrayed the safety of the United States of America by refusing to accept the fact that Saddam Hussein is a danger to every freedom-loving nation and by blocking any UN resolution to oust Saddam from power." (Via MetaFilter.)

No comment.

posted by medys @ 07:49 < link | top | home >

Emergency Management Ontario, of the Ministry of Public Safety and Security, has raised the province's security alert to Level Two (of four). Time to stockpile high-fiber cereal and sugarless gum. (Please note that the latter and not the former is for your wait at the border.)

posted by medys @ 07:21 < link | top | home >

News item: Oscars go on despite war but with scaled-back red carpet.

What's wrong with discussing your Vera Wang dress and Harry Winston jewels while soldiers lie dead or dying in the streets of Baghdad? What's wrong with posing for pictures and promoting yourself while standing on a carpet the same color as the blood spilled in Iraq?

"I loved your movie! You look spectacular! Who are you wearing?"

"Fuck you, Joan."

"Thanks! Back to you, Melissa."

On behalf of viewers everywhere, I would like to thank the Academy for leaving mother and daughter Rivers on the cutting room floor this year. Here's hoping the trend lasts.

posted by medys @ 01:17 < link | top | home >

When did my blog become a warblog?

Exhibit A: I started it on September 6, 2002.

Exhibit B: My first Saddam and Iraq references were on September 12, 2002, when President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly.

Shit. It's been a warblog all along.

posted by medys @ 00:58 < link | top | home >

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Darth Ridge announces "Operation Liberty Shield."

Canada responds with "Operation Bored Shitless at the Border While Waiting to be Harassed."

posted by medys @ 23:36 < link | top | home >

Further to the previous post: For those Americans who are getting pissy about Canada not being part of the 30-nation coalition (nor one of the 15 offering private support), here are some things to think about:

1) The Canadian prime minister, unlike Britain's, was true to his word: Canada would not support military action against Iraq without a new Security Council resolution. Who's fault was it that there wasn't one? Not ours.

This position is in line with Canadian opinion; a majority oppose American military action outside of the UN.

As for the "we're allies" argument: "If your friends jumped off a bridge..."

2) Given Canada's commitment to Afghanistan and the war on terror, and our lack of military resources in general, any Canadian military contribution would have been symbolic and, for lack of a better description, militarily insignificant. With over 250,000 coalition forces armed with high-tech weapons poised to attack Iraq, what could a few thousand -- assuming we could muster that much -- Canadians with outdated non-desert-proof equipment do to help? (My apologies to the Canadian Forces. I feel for your size and budget.)

In addition, the war's accelerated timetable would make it logistically difficult, if not impossible, for Canada to join at this point.

Then again, I'm no military expert. Feel free to ignore me.

posted by medys @ 22:03 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: The prime minister has restated Canada's opposition to the war with Iraq. Adding to his statement yesterday, Jean Chrétien said that diplomacy was working and would have succeeded in disarming Iraq if given more time. He also said that forcing regime change is undesirable and that only local people have that right. "If we change every government we don't like in the world where do we start? Who is next?" he asked.

He also said that the decision, although disappointing to the U.S., would not damage relations between the two countries. "We always said that we were not to go if there is not to be support from the UN. And they knew it since a long time," he said. "I am sure they are disappointed. I knew that. But we had to make a decision based on the convictions of the Canadian people and the Canadian government."

Perhaps Finance Minister John Manley put it best: "My gosh, we're a sovereign country. We have to be able to take a position on issues that are important that may be different from the United States. Otherwise we may as well just sign on as the 51st state."

I agree. However, the decision should have been made by way of a free vote in the House of Commons. That would have allowed our allies to see where the elected representatives of the Canadian people stood on joining the war without a new resolution. Otherwise, it sounds like the will of one man -- just like the war in the first place.

posted by medys @ 20:37 < link | top | home >

"Virginia is for Lovers." Luckily, Canadians enjoy sex.

According to the ads produced by the Virginia Tourism Corporation, Virginia is "Canada's best vacation destination," only one day's drive away. (You do like driving all 24 hours, don't you?) If that's not enticement enough, Canadians are being offered "Loonie Savers" coupon books packed with discounts.

So, when I face Darth Ridge and his boys at the border, can I refer to these ads and be exempt from harassment? Screw coupons; offer hassle-free border crossings instead.

posted by medys @ 02:18 < link | top | home >

Monday, March 17, 2003

Further to the November 20 post: Another Anna Bocci sighting, this time in EarthLink's "I feel complete" commercial. Her sightings are getting infrequent. She needs a better agent.

posted by medys @ 23:23 < link | top | home >

Saddam laughs like Jabba the Hutt. Just an observation.

posted by medys @ 23:18 < link | top | home >

Many reporters are bugging out of Iraq, while others are staying. Would it be morbid and downright sick of me to start a journalist dead pool? Just wondering.

Relax, I'm joking. If you can't laugh at dead reporters, what can you laugh at?

Sorry. I'll stop now.

posted by medys @ 23:16 < link | top | home >

As President Bush addressed the nation, the Homeland Security Advisory was raised to High/Orange: "High Risk of Terrorist Attacks." The Department of Homeland Security anticipates a terrorist response to military action in Iraq. Even worse, an influx of Canadians with French names taking advantage of a strong Canadian dollar. Just because their families have been in the New World since the 1500s doesn't mean they aren't diplomatic saboteurs like their French ancestors. Please treat them accordingly. Thank you for your attention loyal citizens. (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

posted by medys @ 23:08 < link | top | home >

Presidential Address. The "Moment of Truth" speech with its historical ultimatum to Saddam and his sons, giving them 48 hours to leave Iraq or be removed by force. (Transcript: White House.)

However much I dislike the man and his administration, I think President Bush delivered an excellent speech tonight. It was direct, succinct, and probably the best marketing of the Iraq issue since the president put his country on the path to war with his September 12, 2002, address to the UN General Assembly.

After hearing the speech, I started asking myself some questions:

1) Is Saddam now filling his suitcases with cash and getting ready to fly to France to live in exile? Is he planning to martyr himself? What happens if he does get out of Dodge before the 48 hours are up?

Irrespective of the answers, the speech made it crystal clear that Saddam's regime is coming to an abrupt end in the near future, something I have no problem with.

2) With no new Security Council resolution, is the war legal? Is military action already sanctioned by existing UN resolutions, including 1441's "serious consequences"?

I have no idea; ask a legal scholar. Those who are pro-war will perceive it as legal and just; those who are antiwar will perceive it as illegal and unjust. Personally, I don't know what to think. I'm doubting whether it qualifies as a big "fuck you" to the UN -- as per the March 12 post -- given that a new resolution authorizing force was vetoed before it was even written. One thing I do know for sure is that the U.S. is going into it without allies such as Canada because of the lack of said resolution.

3) What are the political ramifications?

We'll find out come election time. If all goes well, there will be regime change in the U.S. and Britain. In the meantime, all we can do is sit back and watch the fireworks.

posted by medys @ 22:25 < link | top | home >

Many thanks to go fish for the linkage. I'm always pleasantly surprised when that happens. (I was also a little shocked when the Technorati: Link Cosmos thingamabob worked.)

posted by medys @ 17:24 < link | top | home >

Canada is sitting this one out. The prime minister has announced that Canada will not participate in the war with Iraq because there was no new resolution authorizing force -- something he has been making clear to President Bush all along. (Transcript: PMO.)

This confirms Canada's belief that resolution 1441's "serious consequences" do not include military action. However, members of the Canadian Forces on exchange with the U.S. military and those participating in anti-terrorism operations in the region will continue their work.

This was announced on CNN, with the comment that Jean Chrétien's statement to the House of Commons triggered rousing applause. The news item also included a few minutes of the live broadcast of question period. However, it neglected to mention that because of Canada's commitment to Afghanistan -- remember the war on terror? -- we are embarrassingly incapable of deploying troops to Iraq, even if we wanted to.

Nor did the report make it clear that we would have supported the "coalition of the willing" had the UN Security Council voted to authorize military action with a new resolution -- but it didn't, and that's not Canada's fault, is it?

posted by medys @ 14:41 < link | top | home >

The end of diplomacy. The U.S., Britain, and Spain chose not to put their resolution authorizing force to a vote, blaming France for the lack of consensus. The secretary general is pulling all UN personnel out of Iraq. There is an exodus of reporters, diplomats, humanitarian workers, and other foreigners from the region. Prime Minister Blair's leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, has resigned from cabinet. The Pentagon believes that Iraq is planning to use chemical munitions. President Bush addresses the nation tonight at 8 p.m. to deliver a final ultimatum to Saddam.

Where's my Tylenol?

posted by medys @ 13:27 < link | top | home >

What do you get when you combine Human Resources Development Canada and the Petroleum Services Association of Canada? You get www.careersinoilandgas.com, "a virtual career fair," and an ad campaign marketing it to young people. I keep seeing the commercials, featuring happy-go-lucky roughnecks in oil-stained orange coveralls, on Muchmusic and during movie theater previews.

Interesting timing, wouldn't you say?

posted by medys @ 12:42 < link | top | home >

Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, here's the apology Nathalie Maines should have made. (Via linkfilter.net.)

posted by medys @ 12:33 < link | top | home >

It's sad that today's e-mail question on CNN Headline News is "Are you boycotting the Dixie Chicks?"

posted by medys @ 12:26 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 15 post: Nathalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks has apologized for her anti-Bush remark, and yet country music stations in the U.S. continue to drop the band from their playlists. In a capitalist society, hitting people in their wallets is an effective form of protest. However, blackmailing artists because of their antiwar or anti-Bush views only lends credence to the president's "you're either with us or against us" philosophy, and adds to the chill on free speech in the U.S.

"In Bush we trust; all others are traitors." Has that become America's motto?

posted by medys @ 04:07 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. Blogger is acting up again. First of all, it keeps forgetting that I've logged in. Then to add insult to injury, if I work on a bit of text for too long, it gives me an error message -- "Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'" and some other gobbledegook -- when I try to post it, sending it to oblivion instead. I only managed to get this post published by copying and pasting it repeatedly.

Apparently, Google's ample resources haven't accelerated the pace of the code-fixing. In fact, in the one month since the Pyra Labs purchase, things have actually gotten worse. (I can't explain it, either.) I'm seriously considering assembling an army of Ottawa geeks and deploying them to California to fix the code by force. "Bonjour! We're here to fix the code, eh? We brought Timbits."

posted by medys @ 03:21 < link | top | home >

I'm watching Close Encounters of the Third Kind on TBS Superstation -- an ironic programming choice by the network given that the movie features Franco-American co-operation in a covert UN-sanctioned project.

posted by medys @ 02:15 < link | top | home >

Sunday, March 16, 2003

The Azores Summit. Live news conference on CNN. President Bush: "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world." Apparently, March 17 is the last day for diplomacy. (Transcript: White House.)

According to Security Council resolution 1441 ("The situation between Iraq and Kuwait"; November 8, 2002): "...the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." The resolution also states that the council is "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations," the chapter addressing "action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."

In other words, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are correct in saying -- as they did during the news conference today -- that resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" for non-compliance. However, I can't figure out whether that means that force is authorized as is, or whether another resolution is required to attack Iraq. The language is so damn vague and subjective and open to interpretation that only diplomats with law degrees can make sense of it. Frankly, I'm stumped.

Best part of the news conference: Watching the icicles form on Bush's podium when he mentioned France. What's Texan for "seething contempt"?

Worst part of the news conference: Hearing President Bush use Rwanda as an example of the UN not doing its job. As I recall, the U.S. also stood by and did fuck-all while tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children were hacked to death with machetes. It also did a pretty good job of ignoring the UN commander, a Canadian major-general, who was begging the world to do something. Perhaps Bush is suggesting that a Republican president would have acted. Yeah, right.

posted by medys @ 13:31 < link | top | home >

Further to yesterday's post: Sure enough, the "Apology to America" was posted on MetaFilter. Two weeks after the fact, mind you. Even I beat them to it.

posted by medys @ 13:07 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 11 post: Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has sent a diplomatic note to the prime minister requesting, on behalf of President Bush, that the Canadian government support its closest ally by referring to Canada's francophone population as "Freedom-Canadians."

No, not really. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

posted by medys @ 02:19 < link | top | home >

Another sign of the coming apocalypse: Barbie has a blog. (Via MetaFilter.)

The Blogosphere is the plains of Asia. Corporate America is the Mongol hoards. Run for your lives.

posted by medys @ 01:51 < link | top | home >

Saturday, March 15, 2003

Further to the March 5 post: I had an inkling that I was incorrect in saying that Rick Mercer had delivered the public apology to the U.S. on CBC's This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Sure enough, it was actually performed by Colin Mochrie, as reporter Anthony St. George. At the time, it seemed odd to me that Mercer -- who quit the show and was replaced by Mochrie -- would return as a guest performer to do this bit. I should have listened to my instincts. Oh well.

The segment, taped in front of famous Washington, D.C., landmarks, is called "Apology to America." The video clip (Real Media, streaming) has been added to the show's video archive. I listened to it several times and wrote a complete and accurate transcript (unlike the one in the March 5 post):

Hello. I'm Anthony St. George, here in Washington.

On behalf of Canadians everywhere, I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. It would be like if, well, say you have ten times the television audience we do, and you flood our market with great shows, cheaper than we could produce. I know you'd never do that.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. As way of apology, please accept all of our Canadian NHL teams -- which, one-by-one, are going out of business and moving to your fine country.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler -- but that was different: everyone knew he had weapons.

I'm sorry we burned down your white house during the War of 1812. I see you've rebuilt it. It's very nice.

I'm sorry for Alan Thicke. Shania Twain. Céline Dion. Loverboy. That song from Sheriff that ends with the really high-pitch long note. Your beer. I know we have nothing to do with your beer, but we feel your pain.

And finally, on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this, because we've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

For 22 Minutes, I'm Anthony St. George, and I'm sorry.

Now that linkfilter.net has posted the link to the video clip, the apology will probably start making the rounds again.

posted by medys @ 22:11 < link | top | home >

I'd like to thank the people of Iraq... The 75th Annual Academy Awards will be broadcast on March 23. As usual, I've only seen a fraction of the nominated films. Not that it matters, given that I don't really care who wins or loses (however much I play along during the show). I just want to see what happens during the live broadcast of the most extravagant American cultural event, the entertainment industry's equivalent of the Super Bowl.

Hollywood's antiwar sentiment will make this year's show particularly interesting. I'm eager to see who's going to forego acceptance speeches or scripted presentations in favor of antiwar preaching. Not that I really want to hear it, mind you. However much I believe in free speech, I don't think that an awards show is an appropriate venue for political statements. Imagine a male presenter ignoring the TelePrompTer and attacking women's rights instead. Picture your favorite actress praising the president's anti-abortion efforts instead of thanking the Academy. Would it be appropriate in those instances? It's the same with an antiwar statement.

Besides, people watch the Oscars for the same reason they watch movies in the first place: for entertainment and an escape from the world's troubles. Why drag them right back into it with some statement that would be best delivered at an antiwar rally or during a press conference?

posted by medys @ 14:11 < link | top | home >

Freedom of censorship? No offense to my American friends, but given the growing McCarthyistic, even Orwellian, chill on free speech in the U.S. these days, I'm wondering about Google's policy on blog censorship (now that the company owns Pyra Labs/Blogger).

What happens when there's a backlash against Google as a result of users expressing unpopular antiwar or anti-Bush views? My words are published and hosted in the U.S., not in Canada -- where, thankfully, this sort of bullshit isn't going on -- so what protections do I have as a foreign user of Blogger if I say something that the "patriotic" American public disagrees with? If I'm guaranteed the same sort of rights, or lack thereof, that the Department of Homeland Security grants Canadians crossing the border, then I will cancel my account and find publishing and hosting services located on Canadian soil.

(According to the Fundamental Freedoms section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone in Canada has "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.")

However much I disagree with antiwar protesters and celebrities who preach from high atop their soap boxes, I appreciate the fact that they're exercising freedom of speech. Unfortunately, given what happened to the Dixie Chicks -- just to cite the latest example of this sad trend -- I'm getting really worried about the fate awaiting bloggers such as myself.

I'm even worried that Darth Ridge and his boys will require Google to hand over the names of bloggers. Eventually, my words could be used against me at the U.S. border, either to to deny me entry (temporarily or permanently), or to detain me as a "threat." "On March 1, 2003, you referred to President Bush as 'that Texan twit.' Explain yourself, Canuck -- but first, empty your pockets."

I really hope that this is just paranoia on my part. Unfortunately, given what I've seen and heard lately, paranoia is giving way to legitimate concern. It scares the bejesus out of me that I even have to raise this issue in the first place.

posted by medys @ 03:01 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 10 post: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," said Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks. The London concert-goers appreciated the remark, but country stations across the U.S. didn't, so much so that they pulled the band from their playlists. Irate listeners had called the stations to decry the singer's "unpatriotic" criticism of the president. Maines has now issued an apology to President Bush.

Forget zany; things are just plain fucked-up in the U.S. these days.

posted by medys @ 01:48 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 11 post: The "Stewart for America" petition, asking actor French Stewart to change his name to Freedom Stewart. (Via MetaFilter.)

No comment.

posted by medys @ 01:42 < link | top | home >

Friday, March 14, 2003

Here's what the latest Ipsos-Reid poll says about Canada and the Iraq crisis:

Majority (52% versus 43%) of Canadians say United Nations should now authorise military action against Iraq; six in ten (59%) oppose American military action outside of UN; country split as to American attack (48%) next week or more time (49%) in offing due to UN pressure.

Apparently, we're starting to get hawkish on Iraq. That's what happens when one news story is rammed down our throats 24 hours a day. (Think it's bad now? Just imagine what it will be like when we get Al-Jazeera on cable.)

posted by medys @ 23:13 < link | top | home >

It's 11 p.m. Do you know where your war with Iraq is?

President Bush's foreign policy exhibited its own form of Brownian motion today with the announcement of a hastily organized "summit of the willing" -- between the leaders of the U.S., Britain, and Spain -- to be held on Sunday in the Azores. This was in addition to the president's announcement of an impending roadmap for peace in the Middle East.

Just when you think Dubya's going to zig, he zags -- not that that's a positive character trait in his case.

posted by medys @ 23:00 < link | top | home >

I'm incredibly turned-on by bookworm-turned-cheerleader Leslie Townsend on tonight's episode of TLC's Faking It. Oh, sorry, did I say that out loud?

posted by medys @ 22:37 < link | top | home >

Evan Williams listens to The Tragically Hip. Is he a closet Canadian?

posted by medys @ 21:29 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 7 post: The controversial cum-on-the-leg Puma ads are a hoax; the company denies having anything to do with them. (Via MetaFilter.)

I don't care that it's a meme-hack or a viral-marketing scam -- don't you just love these wonderful new phrases? -- and that the company has plausible deniability. Unless Puma is being boycotted or picketed by its target audience, it's still selling a lot of shoes as a result of this. Therefore, bloggers should still get kick-backs for contributing to the viral marketing, whether or not a hoax.

Personally, I still think that Puma is involved somehow.

posted by medys @ 11:18 < link | top | home >

BladeZone: "The Online Blade Runner Fan Club and Museum."

Because you can never have enough Blade Runner in your life.

posted by medys @ 04:46 < link | top | home >

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Further to the January 19 post: Guinness is still asking people to vote to make St. Patrick's Day a national holiday. Shouldn't having a population four times smaller than Canada's be reason enough for the Irish to vote to make some Canadian day involving copious amounts of Labatt drinking -- Beaver Appreciation Day perhaps -- a national holiday on the Emerald Isle? Otherwise, where's the quid pro quo?

posted by medys @ 22:20 < link | top | home >

Jennifer Garner of ABC's Alias is the Derek Zoolander of TV actresses: she's got one look. (One that annoys me, which probably explains why I don't watch the show.)

posted by medys @ 22:07 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. The "Powered by Blogger Pro" icon seems to be working again. For the first time, an issue I've reported to BloggerControl has gotten a response, albeit an automated one: "Your issue has been linked with a known bug or item in the big Blogger 'to-do list.' Your issue will be updated, and you will be notified, when this dependency is updated...."

posted by medys @ 19:03 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. They're done working on Blogger Pro. Sadly, nothing has changed. Even the "Powered by Blogger Pro" icon is still broken. I've reported the issue. Sigh.

posted by medys @ 17:01 < link | top | home >

I added The Word Spy to my permanent links.

posted by medys @ 16:33 < link | top | home >

Hated.com: "Directory of sites most hated by conservatives."

Just because I'm in an anti-autocrat, anti-theocrat, anti-Big Brother kind of mood today.

posted by medys @ 16:26 < link | top | home >

News item: Ambassador calls Canada-U.S. relationship "excellent."

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said that the relationship between the two countries is too important to let disagreements come between them, and that differences in opinions -- these days on how to disarm Iraq -- won't have any long-term effects on the historically strong relationship. "We share common values," he said. "We have a long history of working together and there is no one issue that would never for any period of time upset this excellent relationship."

Has anyone told President Bush this? I've heard that he has a long memory when he's been slighted.

posted by medys @ 12:00 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 11 post: The national news media is now reporting on Scott Taylor's expulsion from Iraq for allegedly spying for Israel. It was reported in the Ottawa press two days ago -- and I've been snickering ever since.

posted by medys @ 11:42 < link | top | home >

Rex Murphy on Canada facing a morality test on Iraq:

If the war is right, and necessary, we must join it. If it is neither right nor necessary, we must stay out. This is not a decision to put out to franchise. We must make it and the prime minister must explain it. Is war with Iraq right or wrong? The question is plain, profound and inescapable. And it deserves the very clearest of answers.

Isn't it expecting a lot from a politician to speak the truth on such an important issue?

posted by medys @ 02:35 < link | top | home >

I'm really glad that Canada is not currently on the UN Security Council. The U.S. may call its attempts to sway the hold-outs on the Iraq vote "diplomatic initiatives," but it's really arm-twisting, bribery, and outright extortion. (Nothing out of the ordinary for UN diplomacy, mind you.)

I just shudder to think what Canada would be threatened with. "We will slap obscene tariffs on every product crossing the border. Oh, and we'll give every Canadian tourist such a thorough anal-probing that they won't be able to walk straight for their entire visit. So, are you going to vote for our resolution?"

posted by medys @ 02:15 < link | top | home >

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Further to the January 23 post: The winners of the Third Annual Weblog Awards (the 2003 Bloggies) have been announced. Congratulations to Blogsnob for winning "best weblog webring," blogrolling.com for winning "best weblog directory or update monitor," FARK.com for winning "best weblog about politics" -- I'm not sure I get that one -- and MetaFilter for winning "best group or community weblog."

posted by medys @ 09:26 < link | top | home >

While Citytv's Breakfast Television was announcing the assassination of Serbia and Montenegro's prime minister, right off the wire, both CNN and CNN Headline News were on commercial breaks. Interesting.

posted by medys @ 09:03 < link | top | home >

Microcontent News' John Hiler on Google's appreciation for weblogs: "Google Loves Blogs. How Weblogs Influence A Billion Google Searches A Week."

This year-old (February 26, 2002) article helps explain the rationale behind the search engine's purchase of Blogger last month.

posted by medys @ 08:46 < link | top | home >

Like Manifesto Multilinko, I'm a fan of The Box, the long-since defunct French-Canadian rock band. I love 1984's "L'Affaire Dumoutier (Say To Me)," a detective's lament about a schizophrenic murderer, and its B-side -- remember vinyl? -- single "Remnants," the singer's reminiscence of the French children's story Le Petit Prince.

posted by medys @ 08:17 < link | top | home >

Even George Bush Sr. is warning his son against unilateral military action in Iraq, saying that hopes for peace in the Middle East would be dashed by a war lacking the UN's multilateral support. Meanwhile, according to a CNN report: "Some White House aides said (President) Bush is so frustrated with the United Nations that it is likely to have long-term ramifications."

What, like the U.S. not paying its UN dues? Oh, that's right, it has consistently been the world body's biggest debtor, constantly in arrears. If the president is so damn pissed with the UN, then he is free to resign his country's Security Council seat or terminate its UN membership altogether. That way the rest of the world doesn't have to listen to its constant whining about the UN being the bogeyman and the root of all evil.

If he ignores both his father's advice and a no vote or veto in the Security Council and acts unilaterally, then I suggest that the following section of the Charter of the United Nations be invoked:

Chapter 2, Article 6: "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

I'm sure that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief would be happy to wage war unfettered.

You see, I don't mind Saddam getting his ass kicked, but I do mind the U.S. giving a big "fuck you" to the UN.

posted by medys @ 06:11 < link | top | home >

CNN on blogs: "Blogging goes mainstream. Success of Web journals heralds an even bigger future." (Via Scripting News.)

posted by medys @ 05:37 < link | top | home >

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Further to the February 9 post: As reported by CJOH News tonight, Scott Taylor, who has been reporting from Iraq for the Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Sun, was kicked out of the country after being accused of working for the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. What? The Iraqi government has expelled an annoying, biased, pro-military, Western "journalist"? How dare they show common sense! (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

I'm trying hard not to laugh. Really, I am.

posted by medys @ 23:38 < link | top | home >

News item: Canada floats new compromise on Iraq.

This time, we're suggesting a three-week ultimatum for Iraq to meet UN disarmament demands. Canada's position is a little clearer these days: we're not against having a war per se -- we don't think one is necessary, mind you -- but we're pushing that if there is one, it be sanctioned by the Security Council. In lieu of having a vote on the council, we're playing the role of honest broker. Lucky for us, other countries are listening -- especially now that Britain's prime minister is facing a huge backlash for a war without UN support.

Although, given the "cautious ambiguity" of our wily leader, any position on Iraq should come with the disclaimer "Subject to change without notice."

posted by medys @ 23:27 < link | top | home >

News item: British prime minister faces huge backlash over Iraq.

If President Bush and Prime Minister Blair demand regime change in Iraq, then it's only fair that American and British citizens demand regime change in their own countries. It has already started in Britain, what with popular opinion against the war and a revolt in Blair's own party. Maybe we'll get a two-for in November, 2004, when Bush tries for a second term.

This sort of karmic revenge makes me smile; it's as if fate is saying, "War? No problem, you can have a war -- but it will cost you your job. So, how bad do you want one?"

posted by medys @ 23:13 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 2 post: Not only is the NSA eavesdropping on Security Council members who have key votes, but it has requested the assistance of British, Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian intelligence agencies -- something a source in the intelligence community described as "routine" to CBC's The National. Confirmation came when an employee of a British intelligence agency was arrested for leaking the NSA memo cited by the press last week.

It's kind of redundant to say that allies are assisting the NSA with Security Council surveillance given that their intelligence agencies, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, already actively assist it with its Echelon global communications surveillance system. Diplomatic espionage in New York would be an extension of that, wouldn't it?

Eavesdropper or eavesdropped, I doubt Canada minds either role. Hell, we'd feel proud that the U.S. cared enough to spy on us! It's even nicer to be asked to help.

posted by medys @ 22:32 < link | top | home >

Got propaganda? A gallery of CENTCOM's leaflet drops in Iraq. (Via MetaFilter.)

They don't put much effort into the graphics, do they? Some of those leaflets are damn ugly.

posted by medys @ 22:19 < link | top | home >

News item: House cafeterias rename "french fries" and "french toast" to rebuke France's position on Iraq.

Would you like some sour grapes on your "freedom fries" and "freedom toast"?

In a related move, the Senate's cafeterias have started serving poutine to kill overweight Democrats.

(Strangely, unlike other restaurants, IHOP is flogging its french toast -- specifically, its Stuffed French Toast -- on television these days. Shouldn't someone in the U.S. be launching an anti-IHOP campaign right about now?)

posted by medys @ 16:56 < link | top | home >

Further to the November 15 post: Michel Jalbert, the Quebec man who was jailed last October after crossing into the U.S. to buy cheap gas plead guilty to a felony and was sentenced to time served. More accurately, the man who crossed the border without telling U.S. authorities, and who just happened to have a hunting rifle in his truck -- around the time of the sniper crisis, no less -- had his plea agreement accepted by a Maine judge. I have no sympathy for this idiot.

posted by medys @ 11:27 < link | top | home >

In a February 28 interview, quoted by the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fl.) told the Toronto Star that Canada is not a haven for terrorists and that its border poses no special threat to the U.S.

"Canada is much beloved, a very fine neighbor and a great friend to the United States," said Goss, who is Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. "We have a very good, professional, working relationship. We get good co-operation from Canadian authorities. Canada makes sure nothing slips through their net."

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), said that most members of Congress see the Canadian border as a wide-open gateway for terrorists. "Canadian immigration is looser than in the U.S. and more porous and represents a vulnerability," she said. "It is what most American policymakers truly believe."

I think these two Republicans should get together to get their stories straight.

posted by medys @ 03:57 < link | top | home >

News item: Canadian Space Agency has marketing problems.

Léger Marketing's March 10 poll, "Space Research" (34 KB PDF), includes the following question: "What is the name of the Canadian organisation in charge of our country's space program?" Results:

Canadian Space Agency - 16%
Don't know (or other answer) - 83%
Refusal - 1%

Sadly, the agency is a "PR black hole." (Don't you just love journalists and their puns?) The folks at FARK.com also had some colorful descriptions for it.

posted by medys @ 03:29 < link | top | home >

Did you know that Canadian military officers cannot be guarantors on passport applications? (They used to be, but not anymore.) What this means is that a police officer a month out of the academy can sign a passport application on someone's behalf, but not a general in a command position. Sometimes my government makes absolutely no sense to me.

posted by medys @ 02:51 < link | top | home >

Monday, March 10, 2003

I had to mute actress Jessica Lange on the Late Show with David Letterman (with guest host Whoopi Goldberg). Just because I don't think the way you do about war with Iraq doesn't mean I'm a sheep, Ms. Lange. Stop insulting my intelligence.

posted by medys @ 23:57 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 6 post: The media is making a big deal about President Bush calling on reporters during his Presidential News Conference using a prepared list, "snubbing" certain journalists including columnist Helen Thomas (who is traditionally called on first). Some even called it a gaffe when he let slip during the live broadcast that it was scripted.

So what? Having a list of reporters in front of him made perfect sense to me. It was a whole lot better than watching the man scan around the room looking for a reporter who's name he could remember. If the journalists were so concerned about the prepared list, perhaps they should have scrapped their own questions when they realized what was going on and asked the ones their snubbed peers would have asked.

As for Helen Thomas, I've heard some the questions she's thrown at White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and it is very clear to me that this woman is not only poster girl for bias in journalism, but senile. I would have stopped calling on her a long time ago just to avoid having to overdose on Tylenol before every news conference.

posted by medys @ 23:29 < link | top | home >

Why exactly is Canada being blamed for Michigan landfill owners courting Toronto's trash? Perhaps those profiting from the deal, who approached the city in the first place, should be blamed. And isn't it ironic that our refuse can make it through the border unscathed, but decent, upstanding Canadian citizens who want to travel and spend money in the U.S. are hassled ad nauseam by Darth Ridge and his boys? (Via MetaFilter.)

posted by medys @ 22:04 < link | top | home >

I'm watching The Patriot, the Mel Gibson movie about the U.S. War of Independence where the British are the enemy and the French are the ally. Ironic.

posted by medys @ 21:16 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 6 post: Boycott Hollywood: "For all the Celebrity Pundits out there who use and abuse their status and wealth in order to get their point across in this country, we are here to tell you that you do not speak for us. You are not OUR voice."

Did I mention that it's getting zany in the U.S. these days?

posted by medys @ 06:43 < link | top | home >

Sunday, March 09, 2003

News item: Prime minister says Saddam no longer a threat.

Jean Chrétien was interviewed on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and said that there is no need for war because President Bush has "already won" against the boxed-in Iraqi leader. "(Bush) has created a situation where Saddam cannot do anything anymore. He has troops at the door and inspectors on the ground. Planes flying over, and he cannot do anything," he said. He also said that he is uncomfortable with regime change. (Transcript: PMO.)

The Americans and British disagree, of course. In fact, they're rather upset that Hans Blix neglected to mention Iraq's undeclared unmanned drone in Friday's speech. They're hoping that Blix hiding a "smoking gun" will sway undecided Security Council members.

posted by medys @ 23:34 < link | top | home >

Someone is marketing "I am not American" T-shirts to Canadians who travel. (Via MetaFilter.)

Talk about stupid. Osama bin Laden always directs his hate speech towards "America and her allies" and has even mentioned Canada by name. Terrorists don't mind killing you so long as look, think, or act like Americans, and your country supports the U.S. Also, travel organizations have been suggesting that Americans wear Canadian flags while abroad, thus tarnishing (for lack of a better word) our flags. You might as well not wear one and leave it ambiguous.

That's a whole lot better than wearing an ugly, insulting T-shirt which proves your inability to say nice things about your closest neighbor -- always a good message to send while traveling. "Don't piss me off or I'll wear a rude shirt about your country, too!"

If you had any balls, your chest would read, "Will stop a bomb blast for my American friends."

posted by medys @ 23:04 < link | top | home >

Does anyone else gag when they see those late-night telephone dating commercials hosted by David Bronstein, the "Prince of Love"? (Prince of Schlock, maybe.) The "comedian" -- that's being generous -- introduces female club-goers who are looking for men to call them. Call now! Talk live! Free Call! (Yeah, right.) I'm getting nauseated just thinking about it.

posted by medys @ 04:32 < link | top | home >

The Sharper Image is flogging its Ionic Breeze Quadra silent air purifier with late-night infomercials. I'm hate to admit it, but I'm very tempted. I'm so ashamed.

posted by medys @ 03:40 < link | top | home >

Contrary to what Sharon Osbourne said on CNN's Larry King Live last week (and repeated tonight), her family's "reality TV" show, The Osbournes, is not bleeped out in Canada. CTV shows the series 99 percent unedited. Only certain, rarely used, particularly offensive curse words are bleeped out (although I can't remember which ones).

posted by medys @ 03:19 < link | top | home >

I just saw a television ad for Asheville, North Carolina, with the motto "Altitude affects attitude." If you live there, you can rest assured that the people of Ottawa know about your hometown. We are also very familiar with Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Kissimmee-St. Cloud, Florida. If you live in those cities, call your local tourism boards and tell them that their ad campaigns are reaching their target audiences -- namely, people freezing their asses off in snow drifts.

posted by medys @ 02:50 < link | top | home >

Those of you who use BlogSnob may be aware of SnobJumping, a game where you jump from blog to blog using BlogSnob ads. Jumps of six or more sites are called traversals and can be recorded in the forums. However much I have tried, I have never been able to complete a full traversal. I keep running into broken sites or ones which have removed the BlogSnob code. I'm feeling...unfulfilled.

posted by medys @ 01:32 < link | top | home >

Saturday, March 08, 2003

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. They're still working on Blogger Pro. I don't know what they're doing with it. I'm worried.

posted by medys @ 23:06 < link | top | home >

Has Gulf War II started yet? (Said with a whiney "Are we there yet?" voice from the back seat.)

posted by medys @ 06:07 < link | top | home >

Why I'm a good Canadian:

I don't like President Bush and his right-wing cabal. With the exception of Colin Powell and a few others, I don't trust or respect the current occupants of the West Wing. Bush's poor marketing of the Iraq issue has caused rampant anti-Americanism. I'm hoping that between the war and the economy, his popularity dwindles more than it already has and he suffers the same fate as his father come election day.

I recognize the importance of the UN Security Council, international law (including the sovereignty of nations), and the need for multilateral support for military action. Going it alone in spite of a no vote or a veto would render the Security Council pointless and set a bad precedent. (After Iraq, who's next?)

Why I'm a bad Canadian:

I have no problem with Gulf War II. I have no moral issues with removing from power a man who has a history of war, invasion, and genocide. A despot who has flaunted the will of the international community since losing Gulf War I. A megalomaniacal tyrant who wouldn't hesitate to kill his enemies -- military or civilian; man, woman, or child -- if given the opportunity. Enough is enough. He lost. We won. His time is up. Adios, Saddam. Don't the door hit you on the way out.

We'll secure the oil reserves and introduce his people to democracy while we're at it. Can you imagine a newspaper not owned by one of Saddam's sons or friends? Can you imagine not being forced to vote, and for one candidate? Can you imagine power-sharing between religious sects and oppressed minorities? Can you imagine the availability of food and medicine? Holy shit! How can we do that to those poor people?

Why complain about a U.S.-led attack? They're paying for it. It's their soldiers on the front line. It's their president who faces an election a year and a half after body bags are flown to Dover Air Force Base. They're volunteering for a job that no one else, save Britain, wants. What's the problem?

Maybe I'm demented, but modern, televised conflict is rather entertaining. CNN made its bones during Gulf War I. It was a watershed event for the military-media relationship. Gulf War II will feature journalists embedded in military units. I'm eager to see what happens with the media coverage.

The result:

The Iraq crisis is causing a rift in my psyche. My opinions are clashing with others around me. It's like I have to apologize, or at the very least feel a sense of shame, for not opposing the war. It's becoming a drag on my blogging. If the U.S. doesn't get on with this thing soon I'm going to lose my mind.

There. I've said my opinions, right or wrong. Now get on with the damn war.

posted by medys @ 04:32 < link | top | home >

Friday, March 07, 2003

Further to the March 1 post: Today's dose of irony is that I went to see Tears of the Sun -- and liked it.

posted by medys @ 23:34 < link | top | home >

Blix or blitz? Security Council members responded to the weapons reports. There was much diplomatic rancor as pro-war and antiwar representatives squared off. Britain suggested a March 17 deadline for Iraq's full compliance. Therefore, Gulf War II will begin March 18, unless France, China, or Russia calls the Anglo-American bluff and vetoes the resolution, in which case it could begin as early as next week.

Come hell or high water, there will be war with Iraq. So to answer the question: it's blitz, not Blix.

posted by medys @ 15:48 < link | top | home >

Blix or blitz? There's no black and white to these weapons reports; it's all shades of gray. Iraq has complied but it hasn't complied. The only thing you can say for sure is that Blix and ElBaradei want more time for inspections. (Transcripts: UNMOVIC; IAEA.)

posted by medys @ 15:25 < link | top | home >

Blix or blitz? Dr. Hans Blix, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA, are about to present more Iraq weapons reports to the much-divided UN Security Council. I'm going to go pop some Tylenol before the diplo-speak drains my will to live.

posted by medys @ 10:14 < link | top | home >

Manifesto Multilinko says I give good lovin'. That's odd, my high school guidance counselor said the same thing. I'm not sure what he meant by that.

posted by medys @ 09:12 < link | top | home >

"I went to the Puma store and all I have to show for it is some cum on my leg." (Via Manifesto Multilinko.)

I think Puma owes me some money. I blogged about their controversial ads, didn't I? My blog has added to their virulent marketing, hasn't it? I've done my part, now pay me you cheap bastards! What, not even a free pair of shoes?

Now that companies have discovered the power of the Blogosphere, I think that bloggers should be compensated for exposing their products to a wider audience. Companies pay for their exposure in other media, don't they? Even if the ads are fake or being floated by the company as a trial balloon, bloggers should still be compensated because we're contributing to the Puma brand name by expanding on the controversy.

posted by medys @ 01:39 < link | top | home >

Thursday, March 06, 2003

Further the March 4 post: Celiberal, home of the Celebrity Liberal Blacklist, "is one of the most unique and desperately needed sites on the internet. Here at Celiberal, we proudly bash all those Hollywood celebrity liberals (hence, celiberal) that have nothing better to do than complain about America and the brave men and women defending our way of life."

It's getting zany in the U.S. these days.

posted by medys @ 23:32 < link | top | home >

News item: Paul Martin finally enters Liberal leadership race.

Canadian democracy is so efficient that the next prime minister is selected on our behalf well before the current one leaves office. No federal election necessary. Sigh.

posted by medys @ 23:16 < link | top | home >

Presidential News Conference. If you're antiwar, then you hated what he had to say. If you're pro-war, then you liked what he had to say. Personally, I'm not thrilled with Bush, but I think he did a very good job tonight. Calling Saddam a "cancer" was a nice touch. I'll leave the detailed analysis to the media, though. I'm maxed out on the Iraq thing at the moment. (Transcripts: CNN; White House.)

posted by medys @ 21:10 < link | top | home >

Presidential News Conference. Live on every channel. President Bush is tackling questions on Iraq, North Korea, and terrorism.

posted by medys @ 20:30 < link | top | home >

Nabob, a Kraft-owned brand of coffee in Canada, has a television commercial featuring a suspect in a police interrogation. The exasperated crook keeps confessing but the coffee-obsessed detectives want none of it. Instead, they continue the interview, even tag-teaming, so that they can drink more Nabob coffee. Cute commercial. Point being, when applied to international affairs, the cops are the U.S. and Britain, the suspect is North Korea, and the coffee is Iraq.

posted by medys @ 07:06 < link | top | home >

This is the schism in my head:

Dr. Jekyll says: War with Iraq is a last resort requiring multilateral support from the UN Security Council.

Mr. Hyde says: GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!

No wonder I'm losing my mind.

posted by medys @ 01:10 < link | top | home >

Imagine President Bush having an epiphany:

I woke the same as any other day
Except a voice was in my head
It said seize the day, pull the trigger, drop the blade
And watch the rolling heads
(from Soundgarden's "The Day I Tried To Live")

And then he'll put Saddam's head on a pike in front of the White House.

posted by medys @ 00:49 < link | top | home >

Wednesday, March 05, 2003

Not to sound obtuse, but is the antiwar movement against all war or just the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq? War is a pretty common occurrence on this planet, so wouldn't protesting against it be a full-time job? It's not like peace is going break out worldwide when the Iraq thing is over. And yet, I suspect the antiwar movement will dwindle soon after, as if to say that only conflicts the U.S. is involved with are wrong or evil. Isn't it hypocritical to only protest against war when you get to hurl insults at the American government?

Just some food for thought.

posted by medys @ 23:27 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 15 post: University, college, and high school students around the world participated in The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition's one-day "Books Not Bombs!" strike today to protest against war with Iraq.

As I've said before, Gulf War II has become the New Coke of international affairs, and Bush's poor marketing is to blame.

posted by medys @ 22:15 < link | top | home >

News item: House Democrat backs away from Iraq vote.

Last October, Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffel (D-Pa.) voted to let the president use military force in Iraq. Yesterday, his statement to the House of Representatives included the following: "What is the problem here? We are facing an isolated country with a fourth-rate military, led by a murderous tyrant that nobody likes, yet the Security Council is split. Why? I believe it is due to the inept, bungled, cowboy diplomacy of President Bush and his senior advisors."

You mean there's actually an opposition party in the U.S.? Did it only set its alarm clock for March? (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

posted by medys @ 20:33 < link | top | home >

Further to the March 2 post: Raging Cow is a new drink from Dr Pepper. (When I hear the words "raging" and "cow" in the same sentence, I picture an irate Holstein with infected udders -- but I digress...) To market it, the company has launched Raging Cow: Pasteurize This!, a faux blog. Just what the Blogosphere needed. Sigh. (Visit filchyboy | chronotope for more information about this unusual ad campaign.)

posted by medys @ 07:47 < link | top | home >

An American's Guide to Canada: "Most Americans know next to nothing about their neighbo(u)r to the north, except that Canadians play a lot of hockey, drink beer, and end sentences with 'eh?'"

posted by medys @ 06:11 < link | top | home >

Further to the November 22 post: Canadian satirist Rick Mercer, formerly of CBC's This Hour Has 22 Minutes, has gone and poked fun at our southern neighbors again, this time in the form of an apology to the U.S. (yes, I know I'm going to Canada-U.S. relations hell for quoting it):

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defence I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

Thank you.

Note: Although this has been going around a bunch of Canadian blogs and discussion boards -- including sonic_thought, jenandtonic, and CWD: Online -- I did not personally see or hear Rick Mercer say it. As such, I cannot make any claim as to its veracity. However, it does sound like something he would say. Plus it's funny no matter who said it.

Follow-up: It wasn't Rick Mercer; it was Colin Mochrie, as reporter Anthony St. George. I listened to the video clip (Real Media, streaming) and wrote a complete and accurate transcript in the March 15 post. Whoever transcribed the one above shouldn't go into journalism. My bad for quoting it without confirmation.

posted by medys @ 06:00 < link | top | home >

USA TODAY's Marco R. della Cava on visitors bearing the brunt of European frustration: "Ugly sentiments sting American tourists." (Via Manifesto Multilinko.)

Europeans are taking out their anti-Bush and antiwar sentiments on American travelers. Even celebrities are finding themselves on the defensive. Actor Vince Vaughn describes one particularly stinging incident:

"Man, it was bad," says the Rat Pack-y star of Swingers. "These girls saw us and were kind of flirting, and they kept asking us if we were American. Finally we said, 'Yes,' and they just took off.

"One girl turns and says, 'We were hoping you were Canadian.' Canadian? Since when was it cooler to be Canadian?"

If you're Canadian, his anecdote is quite amusing. If you're American, however, it's rather insulting -- especially if you've been fed a steady diet of verbal excrement from the likes of Pat "Soviet Canuckistan" Buchanan, Jonah "Bomb Canada" Goldberg, Robert "Wienies" Novak, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, and other right-wing dingbats. If you want proof of how poor an image America has these days, look no further. Sadly, President Bush seems to be pissing away whatever goodwill other nations' had towards the U.S. following 9-11.

posted by medys @ 01:27 < link | top | home >

Tuesday, March 04, 2003

Further to yesterday's post: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is also supportive of the Canadian compromise on Iraq. Now I'm really shocked.

posted by medys @ 23:35 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 27 post: Did I mention that they don't have a spare Sea King? Define "embarrassing." Sigh.

posted by medys @ 23:28 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 26 post: Have I got this straight? The human shields are leaving Baghdad because Saddam wanted them to be...human shields? Huh?

Welcome to the semantics of peace activism. They wanted to be "human shields" -- shields protecting humans. Saddam wanted them to be "human shields" -- shields which happen to be human. The latter wasn't acceptable. To them, there's a distinction between being hit by a cruise missile in front of a hospital and being hit by one in front of a military installation. To me, you're dead either way. A martyr is a martyr, right?

posted by medys @ 22:56 < link | top | home >

Canada's National Citizen's Coalition, a non-profit corporation supporting "free enterprise, individual freedom and personal responsibility under limited government," placed full-page ads in Toronto and Ottawa newspapers today in response to MP Carolyn Parrish's "bastards" comment. The ads feature an American and Canadian flag flying side-by-side, with the headlines "Together For Freedom" and "You Don't Speak for Canadians, Carolyn!!" (sic).

"Most Canadians reject the kind of anti-American bigotry that Ms. Parrish displayed," says coalition vice-president Gerry Nicholls. "They recognize that the United States is our best friend, closest ally, and largest trading partner."

Amen to that.

posted by medys @ 22:21 < link | top | home >

The Christian Science Monitor's Stacey Smith on students covering terrorist attacks: "It's your chance to be a 'hero' journalist -- then again, maybe not." (Via Romenesko.)

The dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism sent an e-mail to students saying, "no student or member of the faculty is to approach the site of a possible terrorist act," and "please do not attempt to become a journalism 'hero' in dangerous situations; we don't want you to become a journalism victim."

In other words, learn to be a journalist but don't actually be a journalist. I wonder how much they're paying a prestigious journalism school to tell them not to do their job.

posted by medys @ 21:32 < link | top | home >

News item: Pro-war movement attempting to impeach television president.

Martin Sheen, who plays President Bartlet on NBC's The West Wing, has been spearheading Hollywood's antiwar movement. He has incurred the wrath of citizens and conservative talk show hosts who think that he's a traitor, to the point of receiving thousands of hate e-mails and being accosted on the street. Sites like Citizens Against Celebrity "Pundits" are attacking Sheen and other "wealthy Hollywood celebrities abusing their status to speak for us," accusing them of interfering with the defense of the country.

As a result, pressure is mounting on NBC to fire him or face boycotts and loss of advertisers. In response, the Screen Actors Guild released a statement on free speech, warning against blacklists and McCarthyism because of members' antiwar views.

And I thought America was the land of the free.

posted by medys @ 21:01 < link | top | home >

You're at the Canada-U.S. border. Your car is sitting in a bay being stripped down to the bolts. Your carefully packed underwear is being inspected by a dog with a slobber issue. You're waiting in a poorly ventilated government office. You're trying to get comfortable on a non-ergonomic chair (and failing miserably). A uniformed officer looks up occasionally from his mound of paperwork to sneer at you. It's been six hours since you saw the "Bridge to U.S.A." sign on the highway.

At that point, do you really care what the logo of the Department of Homeland Security looks like and whether or not it speaks of respect, patriotism, and notoriety? (Via MetaFilter.)

posted by medys @ 04:24 < link | top | home >

Parrish the thought. I don't usually watch CTV's Open Mike with Mike Bullard, but I had to catch MP Carolyn Parrish's comedic damage control of her "bastards" comment. Tonight, wearing American and Canadian flag pins, she was all smiles as she addressed the controversy surrounding her statement. Here's a summary:

She conceded that what she did was rude and wrong given that her position demands diplomacy, especially at a time when the prime minister is engaged in delicate negotiations. She insisted that her apology was for the statement's rudeness rather than its factual content. She confirmed that she believes what she said, that she is not impressed with U.S. "shenanigans," and that her comments were in no way taken out of context. She was upfront about having stuck her foot in her mouth and "wiggled her toes in there" but denies having been scolded by the prime minister, saying, in fact, that he supported her.

She said that next time -- yes, she will continue to speak her mind -- she will be far more detailed, naming specific people (eight or nine U.S. officials, including the president). So far, she has received 4,000 e-mails, themselves rude to both her and to Canada in general. She applauded Bullard when he said that he didn't appreciate the nasty things being said about Canada, particularly regarding cowardice and an unwillingness to commit forces -- comments which fly in the face of history.

My reaction to her blatant public relations stunt? I'm not impressed. There's nothing funny about a poorly timed quip which has had serious repercussions for Canada-U.S. relations. To make matters worse, she is clearly unrepentant, unapologetic, and intent on recidivism. If she wants to be an anti-American rabble-rouser, perhaps she should resign her seat and join the ranks of media pundits instead of purporting to represent Canadians in Parliament.

posted by medys @ 00:11 < link | top | home >

Monday, March 03, 2003

Did I mention that it hit -42 C (-43.6 F) with wind chill in Ottawa this morning? My testicles are still cowering under a fleece blanket in the corner. (My apologies for the bizarre visual.)

posted by medys @ 23:12 < link | top | home >

News item: American and British warplanes bomb Iraqi targets in no-fly zones.

Pre-Gulf War II: fluffing Iraq before the money shot.

posted by medys @ 22:23 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 26 post: It looks like some Security Council members have resurrected the Canadian compromise on Iraq. We've been invited to their meetings, too. I'm shocked.

posted by medys @ 22:14 < link | top | home >

Certain television commercials capture my attention because one "moment" -- a bit of dialogue, section of background music, visual element, or something else -- messes with my karma. Unfortunately, given my personality type, that one "moment" is enough to distract me from the computer and force me to stare at the TV screen.

For instance, that slick Chrysler commercial describing all the wonderful things the company is doing. Just after one of the characters says, "we're not stopping there," another shakes his head no with a quirky look on his face -- that's a "moment." Actually, that's the second "moment"; the first is when one of the characters, the same actor who packs the Dell computers in front of the interns, says, "with passion." (Most commercials only have one "moment" though.)

Does any of this make sense?

posted by medys @ 21:54 < link | top | home >

Does anyone else get the impression that NBC's Fear Factor has a minimum breast size?

posted by medys @ 20:47 < link | top | home >

Traveling? Visit hotels.com for "The best prices at the best places. Guaranteed." Looking for the stupidest characters in television commercials? Ditto. My personal favorite is the groom who's bragging to the bellboy about how much of a cheap-ass he is while his bride calls her mom to say how wonderfully expensive the room is. Who the hell does that kind of thing? It doesn't speak well for an ad campaign when every commercial makes you doubt the human gene pool.

posted by medys @ 19:29 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 27 post: Now that the furor over MP Carolyn Parrish's "bastards" comment has died down, I hope the U.S. will go back to hating France (or Germany, or Turkey, or...) and ignoring Canada. Things were going so well for us below the radar until Parrish opened her big fat mouth.

posted by medys @ 15:54 < link | top | home >

With the capture of al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- who, by the way, looks like a cross between porn star Ron Jeremy and the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld -- CNN Headline News asks: "Is torture an acceptable interrogation technique for suspected terrorists?" That depends. Does 24 hours a day of boy bands count as torture? He'd snap like a twig after three days straight of 'N Sync and Backstreet Boys.

posted by medys @ 15:41 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. "We're working on this site. Please try back later." That message has been greeting Blogger Pro users for days. It fills me with a mixture of anticipation and dread. A small part of me thinks that they're busy creating a new and improved version of Blogger Pro. Most of me, however, thinks that something important broke and that once they get around to fixing it, the same old site will be displayed. Where has all my hope gone?

posted by medys @ 04:57 < link | top | home >

People in Ontario are being subjected to a fair bit of Ernie Eves propaganda these days. The premier has launched a television campaign to introduce himself to voters while extolling his many virtues. Personally, I've never been a fan of his hair. Other than that I have no comment.

posted by medys @ 02:04 < link | top | home >

Sunday, March 02, 2003

Reuters' Eric Auchard on the popularity of weblogs: "Blog Publishers Stealing Web Limelight." (Via I Want Media.)

If you're not a blogger, this is news. If you are, this is a rehash of the obvious.

posted by medys @ 23:58 < link | top | home >

MSNBC's Steven Levy on Dr Pepper using weblogs to promote a new drink: "Marketing: Flogging on a Blog." (Via I Want Media.)

On the one hand, anything is better than the Garth Brooks ads with the scary old man in the orange jumpsuit.

On the other hand, I'm not too impressed with a corporation saving money by preying on young, immature bloggers and others easily dazzled by free swag. (Hey, kids, it's a huge company with lots of money; it can afford real advertising.) They call it grass roots; I call it manipulation. I hope this marketing technique, which is nothing more than blogger-bribing, backfires and those who participate lose credibility.

posted by medys @ 23:58 < link | top | home >

Congratulations to Canadian company Alias|Wavefront for winning an Academy Award of Merit for scientific and technical achievement. The Oscar is in recognition of its 3-D animation software Maya, used in such movies as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Spider-Man, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, Ice Age, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet, and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron -- all Academy Award nominees themselves.

posted by medys @ 23:44 < link | top | home >

It's not broken -- it's Googlelized. I just realized that I've posted comments about my missing and mislabeled archives (in the left sidebar) to BloggerControl each of the last four months. And to think, when I originally posted about it in late December, I actually apologized to the Blogger staff for giving them extra "crap" to read when they got back from holiday. Sigh.

posted by medys @ 21:16 < link | top | home >

The 2003 Nokia Brier -- the Canadian Men's Curling Championships -- is underway. Hurry hard!

posted by medys @ 21:07 < link | top | home >

The Observer's Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumonton on U.S. diplomatic surveillance: "Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war." (Via Blogdex.)

The NSA listens in on foreign missions in New York? No, really? I'm shocked! (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

Note: I had originally listed another "via" site, but switched to Blogdex when the original site's comments included what they thought to be the home address of the NSA official mentioned in the article. Whether or not this is a hoax, it's inappropriate to post someone's home address, especially in relation to such a divisive issue.

posted by medys @ 11:40 < link | top | home >

I'm watching Barely Cooking on Citytv, a cooking show where the hosts are "clad only in 'strategically placed' aprons" while "exploring the relationship between sex and food." I'm cringing at the sight of a bare-chested man shaking a pan full of sizzling fat.

posted by medys @ 00:21 < link | top | home >

Saturday, March 01, 2003

Paul Gutman's "Did You Just Say that?: Blogging and Employment Law in Conflict" (115 KB PDF). (Via Circadian Shift.)

For privacy and security reasons, I don't blog anything personal except non-job-related opinions. I don't even use my name or the names of friends. Gutman's essay only reinforces my paranoid tendencies.

It's scary when employers can use personal information against you, whether or not blog-related. "The CEO doesn't want any former bed-wetters on staff. He thinks it will reflect badly on the company." Eventually you'll have to squeak when you walk just to get past the job interview, not to mention the daily polygraph, breathalyzer, blood sample, urine sample, DNA test, fingerprinting, and bright lamp.

That being said, it makes sense that people lose their jobs for airing dirty laundry in public, especially when they're engaging in character assassination. There's not much difference between blogging your grievances and standing on a busy street corner with a megaphone. Employers tend not to like that sort of thing.

posted by medys @ 22:05 < link | top | home >

British television has become the farm team for its American counterpart. TLC, for example, is launching Faking It on March 8. Not only is it a copy of a British show, but it will air on basic cable (at least in Canada) at the same time as the original. (I watch the British version on Life Network all the time.) It's a great concept, by the way, which explains why it's being emulated on this side of the Atlantic.

posted by medys @ 21:18 < link | top | home >

Does anyone know how Blogdex works? I added my site to the weblog diffusion index a while ago, but it has yet to appear in citation lists for sites I've linked to. Weird.

posted by medys @ 21:07 < link | top | home >

Further to the January 31 post: The reign of the Department of Homeland Security -- to be referred to as the "dark times" -- has begun. Darth Ridge reminds you that Canadians are part of the rebellion against the empire. Thank you for your attention loyal citizens. (Warning: sarcasm alert.)

posted by medys @ 17:44 < link | top | home >

MSN Slate's June Thomas on MP Carolyn Parrish's "bastards" comment: "The Ugly Canadian." (Via Circadian Shift.)

The article reminded me of something Parrish said to journalists at the time which rivaled her lame anti-American remark: "If you guys want to keep the privilege of working in that area without being held back, I would be very careful with this one." She must have overdosed on stupid pills that day if she thought that threatening the fourth estate on Parliament Hill would have resulted in anything but wide-spread coverage of what she said about the U.S.

Perhaps she should pay attention to what Parliament itself says about the press: "The interaction of Members with the media is an essential aspect of the functioning of the House of Commons. Canadians understand that the media play a key role in maintaining the transparency and accountability of their democratic institutions."

posted by medys @ 16:46 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 6 post: If you think I'm wound up too tight on certain issues -- Canada-U.S. relations, Blogger errors, and annoying commercials, to name but a few -- check out the PETA folks and their The Holocaust on your Plate campaign. Its motto, "To animals, all people are Nazis," fills me with a tingling sensation. What is that? Oh, that's right, that's the "these assholes will never have my respect or a get cent in donations from me" vibe.

posted by medys @ 06:58 < link | top | home >

I think the U.S. would do itself a world of good in the image department if voters made that Texan twit a one-term president, just like daddy. I realized this when I was trying to explain Canada's viewpoint to an American friend. Contrary to what many in the U.S. might think -- thank you Carolyn Parrish, you dolt -- we like America and Americans. We're so damn close that we're siblings. (We certainly bitch and whine at each other like brothers and sisters.) We have so much in common that we're often mistaken for twins. (Whatever would we do without American media and consumer goods?) So yeah, we think the U.S. is a great country filled with great people.

The U.S. government on the other hand...

George W. and his band of Christian conservative ideologues -- and those like-minded media blowhards (you know who you are) -- worry us, as they do other countries. When Dubya speaks, we cringe -- and not just because he invents his own words. The president and his Republican cabal have been unable to market the war with Iraq -- something, as I've said before, I have no objection to -- making an already bad situation worse. Bush and his hawkish friends end up looking like warmongers, and when the most powerful country appears to be at the helm of a steamroller, the rest of the world tends to object.

posted by medys @ 04:31 < link | top | home >

Further to the February 10 post: The CBC has confirmed that it will not be embedding journalists in American military units in Iraq. "Our view, which I think is the view of most Canadians, is that there are many aspects to this war, not only the American military dimension to it, and we have got to make a very calculated decision as to where we put our resources," said Tony Burman, Editor in Chief of News and Current Affairs for CBC Radio and CBC Television. My view is that it's impossible to assess the wisdom of this decision without the benefit of hindsight. Let me watch the war first.

posted by medys @ 01:47 < link | top | home >

USA TODAY's Al Neuharth on slanted news: "If you understand the philosophy, policy and style of your news dispensers, it helps you balance the baffle and B.S. with the right stuff." Amen to that.

posted by medys @ 01:35 < link | top | home >

Why doesn't the U.S. send those eight SEALs from the Bruce Willis movie Tears of the Sun to Iraq? Judging from the trailers, they could take on the entire Republican Guard. (Perfect timing for yet another steaming pile from Hollywood.)

posted by medys @ 00:30 < link | top | home >