Media Dystopia

Sigh.

2011-05-03T01:02:00.000-04:00

We're fucked.

The bitch is back.

2010-03-24T18:36:00.020-04:00

Normally, I put separatists above conservatives on the scale of scum, but Anne Coulter is a notable exception. When it comes to the poster girl of American right-wing hatemongering, I'd sooner join the BQ, PQ, hell, even FLQ, than listen to anything she has to say. And I certainly don't want to see her set one arrogant foot on Canadian soil. Frankly, I'm shocked that a university in the country she's heaped so much scorn on, much less one in its capital, would invite her to speak. (What was her presentation titled, "Getting Away With Hypocrisy"?) Thanks, University of Ottawa; thanks for playing right into her hands and giving her the publicity she so craves and puts to such good use in the world.

You know, Stephen Harper once said, "...your country [U.S.], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." I hope to God that Anne Coulter isn't one of his lights or inspirations.

I'm stunned.

2009-05-13T18:28:00.008-04:00

Canada is in the throes of the worst recession in decades, if not since the Great Depression, and the Conservatives are running attack ads against Michael Ignatieff? Are you fucking kidding me? I don't care that the Liberal leader is "just visiting" or that he loves the U.S. like a citizen -- drop the puerile character assassination and get on with doing what's right for Canadians, you supercilious pricks. You're the government, for Christ's sake!

Jason Kenney: from marital aide to hypocrite extraordinaire.

2009-05-04T02:14:00.006-04:00

First of all, that the biggest bigot in the country is the minister of immigration, shaping Canada's multiculturalism -- that's just plain disturbing. Second, that he's going around saying there will be a backlash against the Liberals if they trigger an election, when his party was responsible for the last two -- that's just plain bold-faced hypocrisy.

New administration, same old delusion.

2009-04-26T02:30:00.011-04:00

Just how long do your politicians (e.g., John McCain) and so-called "journalists" (e.g., Fox News) get to propagate the myth that the 9/11 terrorists came from or through Canada? Had they bothered to do even the most cursory search through The 9/11 Commission Report, they would know that it doesn't make that claim whatsoever. It does, however, talk about the future hijackers being issued U.S. visas -- just how is that our fault? -- and being allowed to fly into the U.S. from countries other than Canada. Funny how none of this gets mentioned in your media.

Dear CRTC: Please ban Fox News.

2009-03-23T18:22:00.021-04:00

Instead of having to watch another somber procession of flag-draped coffins -- numbers 113, 114, 115, and 116 from Afghanistan, courtesy of the U.S.-led War on Terror -- at CFB Trenton today, I would have liked to have seen four caskets plastered with the Fox News logo, one for the shit-for-brains host of Red Eye and three for his equally dimwitted panelists, who together saw fit to denigrate the Canadian Forces and Canadians at large on the day our fallen heroes were being repatriated. Day? Hell, while the plane carrying the soldiers' bodies was still in the air! I'm sure every citizen of this country can come up with an inventive way for those insensitive fuckwits to die. (Improvised explosive devices would seem apropos, don't you think?) And then we could piss all over them and their loved ones. But, hey, that's just me being...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, right, the one the program's host used to excuse his contemptible crassness: "satirical."

Thank God it's over. (You're next, Harper.)

2009-01-20T02:01:00.012-05:00

On this, your last day in office, George W. Bush, I'm listening to Gowan's "A Criminal Mind," a song that I will forever associate with you and the eight years of [insert synonym for "stupidity" here, courtesy of Merriam-Webster: "brainlessness, denseness, density, doltishness, dopiness, dullness (also dulness), dumbness, fatuity, foolishness, mindlessness, oafishness, obtuseness, senselessness, simpleness, slowness, stupidness, vacuity, witlessness"; and let's not forget related words: "absurdity, asininity, balminess, craziness, daftness, folly, idiocy, inanity, insanity, lunacy, madness, nonsensicalness, nuttiness, preposterousness, silliness, simplicity, wackiness, zaniness; fallacy, irrationality, unreasonableness"] you gave us. I think I speak for the majority of Canadians when I say good riddance to one hell of a bad president.

CTV can kiss my ass, too.

2009-01-10T21:21:00.007-05:00

The network purchased the Canadian rights to the NFL playoffs, and if today's two HD simulcasts are any indication, viewers are going to be subjected to same old (read: Canadian) commercials and promos ad nauseam -- literally; I've seen the CSI: Miami promo so many times today I want to throw up -- for the remainder of the postseason, including the Super Bowl. (Yes, CTV, that's "Super Bowl" -- two words, not the one-word abomination you've been splashing on the screen at every opportunity. Idiots.) For a while there, the Canadian HD stations hadn't caught up to their American counterparts, creating the loophole that allowed us to enjoy the multi-million-dollar Super Bowl ads in their full glory. Now that they have caught up, we're back to having advertising leftovers shoved down our throats. Well, I have a word -- initialism, to be precise -- for CTV and its advertisers: DVR. From now on, I'm delaying my football viewing long enough to fast-forward through the commercial breaks; I'm done being shown the same tired and tiresome ads over and over...and over.

Conservative dissonance.

2008-12-22T23:42:00.005-05:00

That being said (in the previous post), stacking the Senate would lead to Conservative majority in two years' time, and that comes with it one huge benefit: finally being rid of that most trite and derisory of phrases, "Liberal-dominated Senate." The Tories would be forced to edit their propaganda playbook for the first time since crossing out the Republican authors' names. I'm all for anything that denies these people language for use in their propaganda, especially their asinine attack ads. (They can't use "Stéphane Dion is [insert puerile insult here]" anymore, can they.)

Then there would be the sheer enjoyment of seeing the look on the face of every Canadian gullible enough to accept Stephen Harper's Senate-reform doctrine on faith, when the realization dawns that the only thing forthcoming about Senate reform is yet more finger-pointing. By then, the blame will have shifted to the provinces -- that is to say, the ones with left-leaning governments -- the now-Conservative-dominated Senate having neatly absolved itself of any responsibility for its own fate.

Who says Stephen Harper is Scrooge?

Helping the economy, 18 party faithful at a time.

2008-12-22T19:01:00.033-05:00

Many Canadians are going to lose their jobs and their savings during this recession -- if they haven't already. In response, our so-called "leader," already in full fiddling-emperor mode, is stacking the Senate. Stephen Harper promised reform, eventually leading to an elected upper house, and then not only reneged, but poured the bucket of reward slop into the trough from a greater height, and with more gusto, than his predecessors. That, I can accept; after all, this prime minister has elevated hypocrisy to high art. Type out what he does and why he does it, make it look pretty, and hang it in the National Gallery of Canada, for Christ's sake. (Do it quick, though, before the Conservatives strip the National Capital Region of yet another national cultural institution.) Problem is, I live in arguably the hardest-hit province -- in the same town as these high-priced hogs, as it turns out -- and I have lost my job and my savings. So, on behalf of myself and other Canadians in similar circumstances, go fuck yourself, Mr. Harper.

Harper has got to go -- now.

2008-12-06T23:12:00.051-05:00

Dear Conservative caucus member:

Your party's leader, the head of a minority government during a deepening economic crisis, obstinately refuses to compromise and work with the other political parties -- parties representing the majority of the voting public, including many hard-hit Ontarians. The prime minister's blind arrogance, warlike partisanship, and single-minded determination to eradicate all opposition, both within and without Parliament (no prorogation pun intended), is simply tearing the country apart. The events of the last few weeks are proof positive of that. Tonight, for instance, I had to hear a Conservative supporter on Parliament Hill call some of my political kin "left-wing trash" on national television -- just for speaking out against your leader. That is, without a doubt, as blindingly infuriating as it is painfully demoralizing, and, frankly, times are hard enough without the prime minister stirring those kind of emotions. If you really and truly believe in Canada, you will recognize the need for, if not downright necessity of, your leader's ouster, before Stephen Harper, acting every bit the despot, stresses this country and its worried citizens to the breaking point.

Sincerely,
One scared voter

P.S. Please delete all but the last sentence, replace "Stephen Harper" with "Stéphane Dion," cross out everything after "ouster," and forward it to members of the official Opposition. Thanks!

Election 2008; or, why Harper shouldn't get his majority.

2008-09-25T22:33:00.014-04:00

I'd rather castrate myself with a hedge trimmer than vote Conservative. Before this blatant -- and bloody expensive -- power-grab by our fear-mongering prime minister, my preference would have been to gouge out my eyeballs with a rusty spoon. I'd say my hatred of Stephen Harper has evolved, matured even, during his interminable reign, don't you?

Stephen Harper is an asshole.

2008-02-07T04:15:00.000-05:00

With the drums of electoral war beating in Ottawa, I thought it prudent to remind people of the painfully obvious.

A Conservative majority: definitely not worth the risk.

2007-11-07T00:46:00.000-05:00

Their propaganda says that the Liberals have no priorities, that they aren't worth the risk, that their leader is anything but; and yet, the Tories' priority is to flood the airwaves with attack ads when there isn't an election and the prime minister and chief bully, himself, says he doesn't want one. If this is how a sitting Conservative government behaves, how it leads, when it has a minority...no, I don't want to finish that nightmarish thought. I've said it before: when it comes to arrogance and hypocrisy, the Tories make the Liberals looks like dilettantes; now I need to add belligerence to the list. Yes, when it comes to being shameless pricks, red doesn't hold a candle to blue. (For any Americans reading this, it's reversed in your country.) Suffice it to say, Stephen Harper has brought his "A" game to Canadian politics -- "A" for "asshole." Speaking of the hypocrite in charge, he's notoriously standoffish with, if not downright hostile to, the press, but has no qualms about bribing the media, including news networks -- shame on you, CTV -- to run his party's attack ads. Funny thing, that.

We're lucky Ottawa wasn't obliterated.

2007-10-29T23:17:00.000-04:00

The Dalai Lama meeting Jason Kenney or any other Tory of the hard-core-social-conservative persuasion is like matter meeting antimatter.

Give us more! No, wait, more's not enough!

2007-10-24T07:04:00.000-04:00

Ontario would play the world's smallest violin for oil-rich and power-hungry Alberta, except the violin factory closed and all the workers were laid off.

Keep it to your own riding, pal.

2007-10-15T23:22:00.000-04:00

Why is Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre polluting with the Ottawa airwaves with self-aggrandizing campaign ads before an election has been triggered? (And by "triggered," I mean his boss, the prime minister, engineering the fall of his own government.) That's the aural equivalent of stuffing every mailbox within a 100-kilometer radius with Tory propaganda. I'm trying to listen to music on my commute and this self-serving asshole is busy telling me and a million other non-constituents what a swell guy he is. (Why let a little thing like the majority of listeners not being able to do anything about it at the polls get in the way of one's radio réclame?) And just in case furiously jabbing at station presets in a desperate attempt to put an end to the sound of his pre-election drivel isn't enough to send me off the road, there he is smirking down at me from a billboard, the size of which is matched only by his ego. Talk about poster boy for the Conservative Party.

What do you call a Tory without a seat?

2007-10-10T23:23:00.000-04:00

John.

Stop making me grit my teeth, Grits.

2007-10-01T04:04:00.003-04:00

Dear Liberal Party of Canada:

Just how stupid can you get? First it was Chrétien versus Martin, now it's Dion versus Ignatieff, and in between you were thrown out of office -- which, silly me, I thought would have been lesson enough. Do you seriously not get that there will be plenty of time -- four years, at least -- for your puerile infighting after you hand the right-wingers a majority? You know what, we should just start calling Stephen Harper's minority government a dictatorship-in-waiting; after all, you're doing everything in your power to rid the country of effective opposition. Christ, you're stupid.

Sincerely,
One pissed-off voter

Three blinding glimpses of the obvious for the U.S. government:

2007-09-28T03:26:00.000-04:00

Your border is your responsibility.
None of the 9/11 terrorists came from or through Canada.
Your ignorance is as embarrassing as your finger-pointing is insulting.

(And this is how you treat us when we have a Conservative government?)

Ontario goes to the polls; or, watch out for the flying mud.

2007-09-20T06:35:00.001-04:00

I'm not sure whether to call the leader of the Progressive Conservatives -- an oxymoron if ever there was one -- Tory the Tory, Tory Squared (as he's known to his peeps), or Harper Lite. Regardless, he and his band of Queen's Park right-wingers aren't getting my vote.

Demark, Russia, and the U.S.: the axis of territorial violation.

2007-08-13T02:14:00.000-04:00

Why are Canadian soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan when our sovereignty is being threatened, if not outright violated, in the Arctic? Isn't that why we have a military? (Say, if we were to plant flags in these countries' embassies downtown, could Canada then claim them? Or what if we were declare their courtyards or backyards to be international territory, could we then traipse through them? Just wondering.)

Follow-up: It seems to me that climate-change denial becomes moot in a country which is being actively invaded as a direct result of that which is being denied. (The irony here being that the invader from the south is home to the most pernicious denialists.)

I'd take a liberal elite over a secretive one any day.

2007-08-01T20:39:00.000-04:00

Why ever should reporters have access to our elected representatives? That could only lead to, um, what's that word I'm looking for? Oh, right: accountability. You know, that thing that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives campaigned on. I'd ask these people if they know -- or care -- what hypocrisy is, except that, as a measly voter and taxpayer, I'm hindered; after all, those who ask those sorts of questions on my behalf, some of whom work for the public broadcaster, are treated like pariahs by the Tories. Stand up for Canada...across the street, out of microphone range, you insolent journalists, or we'll sic the Mounties on you again. (Speaking of the RCMP officers "protecting" the Tory caucus from the media, were they wearing jackboots? Just wondering.)

It set the mailbox-to-recycle-bin speed record.

2007-06-19T00:54:00.000-04:00

Why is my riding's Conservative candidate stuffing my mailbox with party propaganda before an election is called? Does this person know something about the timing of the campaign that the Canadian public doesn't? Is this individual showing off the Tory environmental plan, starting with the resources wasted on, and carbon footprint left by, the slick pamphlet? Or is it just more of the same in-you-face arrogance that has become the hallmark of the Conservative Party of Canada and its ever-deep pockets? I say all of the above.

Oh, and since all candidate Web pages and communications are routed through Big Tory Brother -- is this disconcerting to anyone else? -- so that everyone is on the same page when it comes to self-aggrandizing and Liberal-bashing, Googling this electoral false-starter reminded me that I had an idea for one of the Conservatives' fatuous television ads: "Is Stéphane Dion enough of an asshole to be prime minister?" Given how astonishingly high Stephen Harper has set the bar on that count, the Tories would be able to brag to their cold hearts' content.

Can this guy be any more of a prick?

2007-06-03T22:21:00.001-04:00

Someone really needs to tell Stephen Harper that a prime minister who incessantly runs attack ads outside of an election campaign is, to use his party's tired rhetoric, not a leader. He does, however, have what it takes to be a complete and utter asshole. Every time I see one of those childish Tory ads, I feel ashamed of my government. (Once I'm done hurling insults at the television screen and jabbing at the remote control, that is.) And I'm using the word "government" in its broadest sense -- the Conservatives are too busy blaming the Liberals, crafting attack ads (what name shall we call Stéphane Dion this week?), and being jumped-up little demagogues to govern. You know, federal politicians on the campaign trail are given a minimum of 36 days during which they have free reign to insult the intelligence of Canadians; I really have the question the integrity of those -- of any political stripe, but especially those in power -- who choose to do it the rest of the time.

Bold-faced hypocrisy, taken to new heights.

2007-03-23T22:58:00.000-04:00

Given that Stephen Harper is willing to sell out his own party's core principles and beliefs, to betray its Reform Party and Canadian Alliance roots -- I'm not complaining, mind you -- how can he be trusted with a majority?

The better half, brought down to the lower half.

2007-02-16T20:11:00.000-05:00

Judging from the female MPs making the media rounds these days, I can safely say that women have broken the political glass ceiling in this country. They have truly achieved equality with their male counterparts. By all means, run more women candidates; fill the cabinet and caucuses and back benches and committees with them. By encouraging women's participation in our political process, we can get them into Parliament where they belong. Because if I'm going to have to be subjected to yet another obfuscating, finger-pointing asshole on TV, I'd like to at least have the chance of being physically attracted to the person. Maybe then I can raise something besides my middle finger.

If the Tories can make wild inferences, so can I.

2007-02-15T22:17:00.000-05:00

The RCMP has cleared the Liberals in the income trust investigation; nevertheless, some people made a lot of money on the markets ahead of their decision, whether by leak or by luck. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have a seemingly unlimited ad budget with which to smear their opponents on prime-time television. Hmm...

Say hello to the unfriendly dictator.

2007-02-14T22:32:00.000-05:00

So the House of Commons passes a bill, inevitably to become law, requiring Canada to meet its Kyoto targets, and the Tories say they're going to disregard it -- for the country's good, of course. This on the same that day that the prime minister admits that he's ideologically appointing judges, thus thumbing his nose at the impartiality of the judiciary. Is it just me, or has Stephen Harper just proven that holding an election, whether by his call or the opposition's non-confidence, is now pointless? His minority is already governing with the arrogance and impunity of a majority, so why bother?

Good thing we don't have Smell-O-Vision.

2007-02-13T22:19:00.000-05:00

Two weeks later and the Conservatives are still subjecting Canadians to their insulting attack ads. You can't swing a pin-stuck Stephen Harper-shaped voodoo doll, much less a burning effigy of the man -- and I'm using that word in its broadest sense; there's nothing manly about what he's doing -- without hitting one of his party's Stéphane Dion/Liberal-bashing spots. On the eve of Valentine's Day, that's the only red I see! And now the French versions have started up! I swear, if they're still running at Easter, in either official language, I'm going egging -- and guess who's residence is getting pelted first!

I'm sorry, but how can a prime minister who unbecomingly impugns the character of the opposition leader, hypocritically questions his priority making and leadership, and just plain childishly throws mud at him, all using our airwaves, at a time when he himself says we don't want an election possibly expect the majority of Canadians -- that's right, Harper, most of us didn't vote for you a year ago, and thank God for it -- to trust him, his party, or anyone advising either of them? Do these people seriously think they're standing up for Canada, that they're being accountable to Canadians, when this is how they govern? I'm not even a Liberal voter, and even I'm offended by their malodorous tripe. What's more, I'm embarrassed. I mean, what's the use of teaching children to respect others when this is how our highest elected officials behave?

And, no, I'm not going to egg anyone; something that puerile falls under the purview of "Canada's new government."

Today's Tory is brought to you by the word "disingenuous."

2007-02-07T18:23:00.000-05:00

Is anyone else sick and tired of the Conservatives' blame-the-Liberals mantra? It's not just the hypocrisy of pointing the finger on climate change -- something that they cared nothing about, even denied, in the past, and would be doing even less about now if they had a majority -- they accept no responsibility for anything they said and did while in opposition all those years. Never mind denying global warming and the human causes thereof, they deny their own stance on, well, anything. They won't even fess up to their complete lack of contrition! Instead, they pass the buck: it was the Liberals, always the Liberals, the Liberals were to blame then, the Liberals are to blame now, the Liberals, the Liberals, the Liberals. (With "Liberals" alternated with "former government" for variety.) They're following the George W. Bush/Republican handbook to the letter: if you say it enough times -- say, by flooding Canada's airwaves with non-election attack ads -- people will believe it. To my mind, that means the Tories are either being childish, or they're treating us like children; either way, enough is enough!

Question of the Groundhog Day.

2007-02-02T18:36:00.000-05:00

Asked by the media today: "What sacrifices are you willing to make for the environment?" Simple: I'm willing -- and eager -- to throw the Conservatives out of office. (Even the smallest sacrifice can make a huge difference.) Speaking of rodents, what happens if the Tories see their shadows today? Oh, right, blame the Liberals for climate change. Silly me. For the moment there I thought "Canada's new government" would take responsibility for its own actions -- for once.

They have whiplash from the about-face.

2007-01-31T18:37:00.000-05:00

Is it just me, or is our new minister of the environment, the belligerent -- oh, sorry, "pugnacious" (thank you, CBC) -- in-your-face loudmouth John Baird, one of the single largest contributors of greenhouse gases in Canada? His predecessor, Rona Ambrose, was bad enough; the only thing she accomplished on the environment was to show the Tories' true colors, none of them green, and prove that there's no time limit on blaming the last guy, even after scrapping his environmental programs. (From obstinate denial to disingenuous finger-pointing in less than a year -- you've come a long way on climate change, baby.)

But Baird -- not only has he angrily picked up where she left off, but he's a walking, talking, quarreling carbon footprint. I can see the plume rising from Parliament Hill whenever that blowhard is there, yammering away in scrums, pointing fingers in Question Period, being an all-around bigger jackass than he was in the Ontario Legislature. (We threw those right-wing bastards out of office in 2003, but, sadly, Baird kept his seat.) Thanks to his political potty mouth, I no longer have a view of Canada's seat of government -- which, given the bile that rises in my throat when I see it these days, probably isn't a bad thing.

The stench of his -- and his party's -- poll-inspired born-again greenness, however...let's just say, I thought the manure at the Experimental Farm smelled bad. In 2002, his boss, our prime minister, was fighting against the Kyoto Accord, describing it as, among other things, "a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations"; now Harper and his merry band of hypocrites have recanted their environmental atheism and are kneeling at the alter of Mother Earth. (Nice try, assholes; renouncing your Catholicism while burning at the stake doesn't make you Protestants.)

And just to make matters worse, Baird is an Ottawa MP, which means our lovely city has to suffer the most from his polluting presence. Our only reprieve is when he's on the road selling the Conservatives' snake-oil environmentalism -- a bad enough notion; Christ, if he ever visits the Arctic, we'll never get the ice back!

So this is what they meant by "accountability."

2007-01-28T03:57:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, a brand new low: running attack ads against the opposition leader, outside of an election campaign, at a time when Canadians don't even want an election -- worse, during prime-time television, including the Super Bowl (as if not getting the good ads here wasn't bad enough) -- instead of running the country. Have I got this straight? The Conservatives are using our time, our entertainment, our football parties to point out someone else's shortcomings instead of addressing their own? The only way this could be more disgusting would be if our money was also used -- and, frankly, seeing all those political appointments they raced to make before the Accountability Act kicked in, I don't put it past them to find a public-funding loophole to subject us to this puerile mudslinging. If this is how "Canada's new government" does business, if this is its idea of leadership, if this is one of its priorities, then please, let's go back to the old one. And people thought the Liberals were sleazy and arrogant. Ha!

Follow-up: Corner Gas. CTV News. The hockey game. Since you've chosen to ruin my Monday-night entertainment with your pre-election drivel, Mr. Harper, can I splice together everything you've said in the past and make you watch it against your will? Turnaround is fair play, you know.

Follow-up: Every commercial break during CTV News? Are you kidding me? Well, since you're so damn insistent, let me answer your question, Mr. Harper:

One hell of a better leader than you.

Follow-up: Sorry, Mr. Harper, I watched the big game on CBS HD: all of the Super Bowl ads; none of your propaganda.

Life imitates art at the used bookstore.

2006-12-24T00:56:00.000-05:00

He spells his name with a "ph" -- unlike his buddy Bush -- and not much he does is either intelligent or entertaining, but other than that, it might as well be a biography of our current prime minister. (With apologies to author Steven Piziks. My sympathies for your choice of pseudonym, sir.)

Stephen Harper: vomit-inducing.

2006-12-20T22:49:00.000-05:00

Never mind embarrassing, how's about just plain insulting: letting our soldiers fight -- and die -- for human rights in Afghanistan, while the only finger he lifts for human rights in Canada is his middle one. And then, as if it couldn't get any worse, playing politics with that fight -- a fight he won't engage in at home -- doing his damnedest to gain politically from our soldiers' heroism. You make me sick, Stephen Harper.

What does the PM need the most?

2006-11-23T22:39:00.000-05:00

A slap upside the head.

Stephen Harper: hypocrite extraordinaire.

2006-11-19T23:11:00.000-05:00

The prime minister is willing to push human rights with China, but refuses to do the same at home. Back here, he won't even defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- our constitution! Imagine that: putting what the Chinese government does ahead of what's being done, what his government is doing, to gays and lesbians in Canada. A get-tough approach on human rights is fine, but wagging one's finger at the Chinese while giving the finger to certain Canadians -- that's unacceptable. Gee, and I thought the Conservatives' environmental policy was embarrassing.

Stephen Harper: prime miscreant of Canada.

2006-05-18T07:10:00.000-04:00

Next time you stand on those steps outside the House of Commons and talk down to reporters -- and all Canadians -- I hope you trip and fall, asshole. And should you deign to answer their important questions, questions asked on behalf of the citizens of this country, I hope you choke, and not just on your words. I can't wait to Kim Campbell your ass, you arrogant, insulting, disdainful, bigoted, secretive, hypocritical jerk.

How I survived the election.

2006-01-31T18:07:00.000-05:00

I let myself be seduced by the world of EverQuest:

The Spirit Realm (Forum) / Samanna's Reference Desk
EQSummoners.com - EverQuest I Summoners
   | The Magician's Tower (Forum)
Allakhazam's Magical Realm - Your EverQuest Community
   | Spells
   | Item Search
   | Quest Items
   | Illia's EverQuest Bestiary
   | Lucy
Casters Realm - EverQuest Realm
EQ Players
EverQuest Live Official Forums
EQShaman.com
   | Spell Listings [up to level 65]
Everlore: EverQuest I Community Server
EverQuest Vault
EQ Traders Corner
EQ Atlas
EQ Maps
VidiotMaps.com - EverQuest
Magelo
Mystical Lightfighters Board - Helpful Links and Info Thread

The drugs helped, too.

Nest this.

2006-01-30T23:20:00.000-05:00

I finally got around to converting my blog's table-heavy template to a CSS-only one. My blogging will continue to be sporadic, mind you, but at least I'll no longer be burdened by those pesky nested tables.

Witness the death of Canada's social progressiveness.

2006-01-23T23:47:00.000-05:00

Sacrificed today on the alter of Gomery with the blade of change. The electorate -- yet another deplorable amount of it, that is -- has spoken, and now it must reap what it has sown: some Canadians, perhaps more than people who voted for change today (by voting Conservative) realize, are going to lose their rights. Gays and lesbians, who finally achieved marriage equality -- most assuredly. (Never mind the fact that a clear majority of Canadians, way more than voted Conservative, don't want the debate reopened, let alone another vote.) Women in general, who have come to expect the right to choose -- possibly. Why? Because these newly empowered right-wingers, these bigots, don't like certain Canadians having certain rights; don't expect there to be any logical reasoning or legal basis to it whatsoever. What's sadder, perhaps, is the fact that most Canadians will sit idly by while this is done to their fellow citizens, while the Charter and courts are woefully disregarded, while the clock is shamefully turned back. (It certainly didn't get people to their polling stations, did it?) Me, I can't do that; I have to fight. To quote A Perfect Circle, from an album released on the day of another lamentable vote: "I'm sure of your ability to become my perfect enemy." Prime minister or no, you are my enemy, Stephen Harper, and while I'm grateful that you and your disgusting cohorts were held to a minority -- in fact, I've never been so grateful for one in my life -- I will be anything but passive when it comes to your government's repugnant social conservatism. I'm standing up for Canada, Mr. Harper; now it's time for you to live up to your party's motto and do the same, starting with the rights of Canadians: leave same-sex marriage alone!

Follow-up: Oh, and to answer one of the many questions in my rambling election post, a Harper win does not mean Alberta will shut up. Quite the opposite, in fact; it's like the rest of Canada, Ontario especially, has once again excluded them -- and the West -- by only giving "their boy" a minority. Would you like some Quebec cheese with that whine, Alberta? Here's some basic math for the bluest of provinces: 40 percent of Canadians live in Ontario, so when your favorite party cherry-picks rights, for instance, Ontarians pay the highest price for it. Get it? Probably not; you're too busy complaining about the rest of Canada not getting you -- which, judging from that blowhard Ralph Klein's perpetual self-righteousness, means abandoning all forward thinking when it comes to social issues. Uh, no thanks.

Hallelujah!

2006-01-10T19:56:00.000-05:00

No, Stephen Harper didn't resign in disgrace after being caught smoking pot with his gay lover at a Liberal ad agency. (Fingers crossed, though.) No, this good news has nothing to do with the election: Ottawa has a new radio station, LIVE 88.5, and -- praise be! -- it's filling the alt/new-rock void left by XFM. If there's any initial disappointment, though, it's that it has an edgeless feel to it, epitomized by its lifeless "live life large, live life live" motto. It's like a station in search of a cool character, temporarily settling on a bland brand -- but, hey, after two long years of jabbing radio presets looking for decent music, I'm not complaining. Plus, a week into listening to LIVE 88.5, I heard an honest-to-goodness Tool song! Any station that can give me those few minutes of true bliss on my way home from work deserves a hearty welcome to the capital's FM dial.

Are these the words of a potential prime minister?

2005-12-14T23:17:00.000-05:00

How can a political advisor who denigrates Canada -- in tone, if not substance -- to a roomful of foreigners, in this case like-minded and much-revered Americans, be trusted to lead it? What gives him the right to criticize the offhand "beer and popcorn" remark made by another party leader's advisor, when eight years ago these were his prepared remarks? (What's more, the former was about a single issue, daycare, while the latter was about our political system as a whole.) And most infuriatingly, why is this hypocrite, this backstabber, telling the rest of us to "stand up for Canada" when clearly he didn't then, and doesn't seem to now? From CTV.ca:

"The text from a speech made by Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank, and taken from the council's website:

Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.

I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.

Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of misimpressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.

While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.

This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.

Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.

Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario.

The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.

But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.

As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.

The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.

It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.''

I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.''

In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.

Second, the civics, Canada's civics.

On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.

However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.

Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.

And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.

So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.

What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.

What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.

In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.

But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.

If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.

Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.

We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances.

Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms.

Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.

This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.

Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.

The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical.

There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization.

The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time.

It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.

In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.

There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues.

Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive'' in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country.

But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.

In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.

At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.

The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute.

The Bloc Quebecois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation.

By and large, the Bloc Quebecois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element.

Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not.

The Reform party, although described by many of its members, and most of the media, as conservative, and conservative in the American sense, actually describes itself as populist. And that's the term its leader, Preston Manning, uses.

This term is not without significance. The Reform party does stand for direct democracy, which of course many American conservatives do, but also it sees itself as coming from a long tradition of populist parties of Western Canada, not all of which have been conservative.

It also is populist in the very real sense, if I can make American analogies to it -- populist in the sense that the term is sometimes used with Ross Perot.

The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party. It's much more a real party than Mr. Perot's party -- by the way, it existed before Mr. Perot's party. But it's very much leader-driven, very much organized as a personal political vehicle. Although it has much more of a real organization than Mr. Perot does.

But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that yet. Most of its members feel it should, and, in their minds, actually it does.

It also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party. So far, they haven't been that important, because Mr. Manning is, himself, a fairly orthodox economic conservative.

The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things.

So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.

It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.

The party is led by Preston Manning, who is a committed, evangelical Christian. And the party in recent years has made some reference to family values and to family priorities. It has some policies that are definitely social-conservative, but it's not explicitly so.

Many members are not, the party officially is not, and, frankly, the party has had a great deal of trouble when it's tried to tackle those issues.

Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that.

So the social conservative element exists. Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it.

That's the conventional analysis of the party system.

Let me turn to the non-conventional analysis, because frankly, it's impossible, with just left/right terminology to explain why we would have five parties, or why we would have four parties on the conventional spectrum. Why not just two?

The reason is regional division, which you'll see if you carefully look at a map. Let me draw the United States comparison, a comparison with your history.

The party system that is developing here in Canada is a party system that replicates the antebellum period, the pre-Civil War period of the United States.

That's not to say -- and I would never be quoted as saying -- we're headed to a civil war. But we do have a major secession crisis, obviously of a very different nature than the secession crisis you had in the 1860s. But the dynamics, the political and partisan dynamics of this, are remarkably similar.

The Bloc Quebecois is equivalent to your Southern secessionists, Southern Democrats, states rights activists. The Bloc Quebecois, its 44 seats, come entirely from the province of Quebec. But even more strikingly, they come from ridings, or election districts, almost entirely populated by the descendants of the original European French settlers.

The Liberal party has 26 seats in Quebec. Most of these come from areas where there are heavy concentrations of English, aboriginal or ethnic votes. So the Bloc Quebecois is very much an ethnic party, but it's also a secession party.

In the referendum two years ago, the secessionists won 49 per cent of the vote, 49.5 per cent. So this is a very real crisis. We're looking at another referendum before the turn of the century.

The Progressive Conservative party is very much comparable to the Whigs of the 1850s and 1860s. What is happening to them is very similar to the Whigs. A moderate conservative party, increasingly under stress because of the secession movement, on the one hand, and the reaction to that movement from harder line English Canadians on the other hand.

You may recall that the Whigs, in their dying days, went through a series of metamorphoses. They ended up as what was called the Unionist movement that won some of the border states in your 1860 election.

If you look at the surviving PC support, it's very much concentrated in Atlantic Canada, in the provinces to the east of Quebec. These are very much equivalent to the United States border states. They're weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates. These people want a solution at almost any cost. And some of the solutions they propose would be exactly that.

They also have a small percentage of seats in Quebec. These are French-speaking areas that are also more moderate and very concerned about what would happen in a secession crisis.

The Liberal party is very much your northern Democrat, or mainstream Democratic party, a party that is less concessionary to the secessionists than the PCs, but still somewhat concessionary. And they still occupy the mainstream of public opinion in Ontario, which is the big and powerful province, politically and economically, alongside Quebec.

The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level.

The goal of the secessionists is to transform our country into two nations, either into two explicitly sovereign countries, or in the case of weaker separatists, into some kind of federation of two equal partners.

The Reform party opposes this on all kinds of grounds, but most important, Reformers are highly resistant philosophically to the idea that we will have an open, modern, multi-ethnic society on one side of the line, and the other society will run on some set of ethnic-special-status principles. This is completely unacceptable, particularly to philosophical conservatives in the Reform party.

The Reform party's strength comes almost entirely from the West. It's become the dominant political force in Western Canada. And it is getting a substantial vote in Ontario. Twenty per cent of the vote in the last two elections. But it has not yet broken through in terms of the number of seats won in Ontario.

This is a very real political spectrum, lining up from the Bloc to reform. You may notice I didn't mention the New Democratic Party. The NDP obviously can't be compared to anything pre-Civil War. But the NDP is not an important player on this issue. Its views are somewhere between the liberals and conservatives. Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums. So it really doesn't fit in.

But I don't use this comparison of the pre-Civil War lightly. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform party has spent a lot of time reading about pre-Civil War politics. He compares the Reform party himself to the Republican party of that period. He is very well-read on Abraham Lincoln and a keen follower and admirer of Lincoln.

I know Mr. Manning very well. I would say that next to his own father, who is a prominent Western Canadian politician, Abraham Lincoln has probably had more effect on Mr. Manning's political philosophy than any individual politician.

Obviously, the issue here is not slavery, but the appeasement of ethnic nationalism. For years, we've had this Quebec separatist movement. For years, we elected Quebec prime ministers to deal with that, Quebec prime ministers who were committed federalists who would lead us out of the wilderness. For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier.

This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase. It began to hit the wall when what are called the soft separatists and the conventional political establishment got together to put in the constitution something called "a distinct society clause.'' Nobody really knows what it would mean, but it would give the Supreme Court, where Quebec would have a tremendous role in appointment, the power to interpret Quebec's special needs and powers, undefined elsewhere.

This has led to a firewall of resistance across the country. It fuelled the growth of the Reform party. I should even say that the early concessionary people, like Pierre Trudeau, have come out against this. So there's even now an element of the Quebec federalists themselves who will no longer accept this.

So you see the syndrome we're in. The separatists continue to make demands. They're a powerful force. They continue to have the bulk of the Canadian political establishment on their side. The two traditional parties, the Liberals and PCs, are both led by Quebecers who favour concessionary strategies. The Reform party is a bastion of resistance to this tendency.

To give you an idea of how divided the country is, not just in Quebec but how divided the country is outside Quebec on this, we had a phenomenon five years ago. This is a real phenomenon; I don't know how much you heard about it.

The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.

What was significant about this was that this constitutional proposal was supported by the entire Canadian political establishment. By all of the major media. By the three largest traditional parties, the PC, Liberal party and NDP. At the time, the Bloc and Reform were very small.

It was supported by big business, very vocally by all of the major CEOs of the country. The leading labour unions all supported it. Complete consensus. And most academics.

And it was defeated. It literally lost the national referendum against a rag-tag opposition consisting of a few dissident conservatives and a few dissident socialists.

This gives you some idea of the split that's taking place in the country.

Canada is, however, a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory.

You can walk around this country without running across very many of these political controversies.

I'll end there and take any of your questions. But let me conclude by saying, good luck in your own battles. Let me just remind you of something that's been talked about here. As long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools."

According to his party, it was a tongue-in-cheek speech by a then private citizen. Well, here are the not-so-tongue-in-cheek words of a private citizen who loves his country and isn't afraid to say it, a citizen who really does stand up for Canada, a citizen whose immigrant father came close to dying in uniform -- on several occasions, here and abroad -- while standing up for Canada and its values:

Fuck you, Harper. Go to hell. Resign, you Judas.

I had fully intended to confine my election comments to the post below, but I was so infuriated by his speech that I had to say something. The thought of my now-deceased father serving Canada and bringing honor to it as a decorated soldier while this prick was slandering it to a bunch of Americans...fuck, I'm so mad. You know, I didn't like Stephen Harper before; now I despise him.

Thanks for the Christmas election, assholes.

2005-11-28T19:06:00.000-05:00

Better a Liberal thief than a Conservative bigot.

Same as last time. This election, though, I plan to speak in aphorisms -- or try to; I'm not exactly known for my conciseness -- starting with the one above. If that one doesn't sit well with the aforementioned bigots and their supporters, here are a bunch more, written during the course of the campaign (but presented here in no particular order and with a great deal of reiteration):

"Stand up for Canada"...unless you're a same-sex couple who wants to get married. (The Conservatives' disingenuous motto is in desperate need of some fine print, including the phrase "some conditions apply"; the Canada they're claiming to stand up for certainly isn't mine.)
The Civil Marriage Act: not hurting anybody since July 20, 2005 (and neither has the sky fallen).
If you don't believe in equality, you shouldn't be first among equals.
I'm all for change, but the price of it should not be that some Canadians lose their rights.
The more Jason Kenney and Cheryl Gallant speak, the more I want to vote Liberal. (The same goes for David Frum.)
To be an Ontario voter is to be caught between the Scylla of conservatism and Charybdis of separatism. (Thank you, Alberta.)
If taking our money makes the Liberals arrogant and corrupt, then what does taking Canadians' rights make the Conservatives?
"You paid for it," say the Conservatives of the Sponsorship Program, and they're right; it's just too bad that gay and lesbian taxpayers -- for starters -- will have to pay twice. (Say the word "corruption" enough and the electorate will forget that...until it's too late.)
Harper's Law: any majority of Canadians that can be ignored will be ignored.
Sometimes you know to the core of your being that something is just plain wrong, and while these social conservatives can say the same, unlike them, I have the constitution, courts, and law of the land on my side when it comes to same-sex marriage.
Why same-sex marriage? Because it's the litmus test; when one minority can be denied its constitutional rights for no other reason than some people don't like "those people" having them, we are all at risk.
Canada has serious issues to deal with, issues that affect all of its citizens, and the Conservatives want to waste time and money -- I wonder how much the inevitable court challenges, alone, will cost us -- fighting same-sex marriage when two-thirds of Canadians say the issue is settled and want politicians to move on?
I'm deeply offended by separatists, but you don't see me pushing to have their rights taken away.
Of course the Tories believe in the Charter -- they're using Section 2 to deny Section 15, aren't they?
Accountability may come before ideology in the dictionary, but not in the Conservative policy book.
If you don't love Canada, or can't say that you do, you have no business running for, or being, prime minister.
The Conservatives stalwartly believe in the supremacy of Parliament...well, except when it passed the Civil Marriage Act; that one's a do-over.
It's ironic that the same people who object to human rights abuses abroad, even going so far as to morally justify the invasion in Iraq because of them, are willing to condone such a glaring one at home.
Perhaps those who disagree with our courts' interpretations of the Charter would prefer to live under the American constitution, instead; I hear their courts take a very...nonpartisan approach to it. (Rule of thumb: more guns, less gays.)
Another irony is that the conservative electorate of this country includes people who emigrated -- or fled outright -- from countries where they were legally denied freedom, religious or otherwise, only to turn around and fight to have people here illegally denied theirs.
The Conservatives putting bigoted ideology ahead of constitutional rights: how very...Republican of them.
Opponents of same-sex marriage, particularly those meddlesome American ones, need to be reminded that passing a law in support of Canadians' constitutional rights, especially when it follows numerous Charter-based court decisions, cannot ever be considered "corruption," Liberal or otherwise.
If you honestly believe that every Liberal is corrupt, then welcome to the garden path; I hope you enjoy being led down it, and by whom.
Standing up for Canada, indeed: one week you have equality and can marry, the next you don't and can't...because...they...don't...like...it. (More to the point, Alberta doesn't.)
For a party that's keen to point out, especially to Quebecers, that its campaign is being paid for with "clean" money, the Conservatives are rather mum on how much American money went into fighting same-sex marriage, money that -- tell me this connection can't be made -- is now going towards defeating incumbent MPs who voted in favor of it. (Hey, the Tories make all sorts of accusations with as little proof.)
Thought of in card terms, Stephen Harper wanting to hold a free vote on same-sex marriage following an election on corruption -- he made it so; you can't make it through a commercial break without hearing the word at least once -- is like shuffling the deck and re-dealing the hand to see if the outcome would be the same.
The price one pays for the protections afforded by the Charter -- say, freedom of religion -- is having other Canadians' rights protected, whether you agree with them or not.
It's one thing to run counter to the Charter when you're trying to protect citizens from suspected terrorists or convicted criminals; it's another thing altogether, and so very egregious, when you're trying to prevent some of those same citizens from -- gasp! -- marrying. (The Conservative Party of Canada: protecting Canadians from equality...because we can.)
Whenever I see Stephen Harper, one arm gives him the finger while the other twitches like Dr. Strangelove's. (They do legs, too: if you order the Harperciser in the next 56 days, Toryco will include Goose-stepping for Canadians at no extra cost.)
For a party that doesn't like judges and their decisions, the Conservatives sure do love Justice Gomery and his findings. (Too bad they didn't appoint him, eh?)
Stephen Harper's nebulous free vote on same-sex marriage is the ultimate example of his party's trust-us-now-details-later approach: one does not simply walk into the House of Commons and hold a vote -- you need something specific to vote on, and he wouldn't say what that would be. (A bill to repeal the Civil Marriage Act? An amendment to the Act? A new -- and invariably unconstitutional -- act to supersede it? What, exactly?)
The Tory version of federalism would see greater provincial autonomy...so long as their marriage licenses say "man" and "woman."
What business does Canada have decrying other countries' human rights violations when Canadians' equality can and will be rolled back at will? (Next time the government goes wagging its finger at another, that should be their response.)
Campaigning is to a Conservative what misdirection is to a magician. (Their campaign sleight of hand: insert the words "corruption" and "change" prominently into every speech, interview, and ad, and people will forget what they're really all about.)
Breaking the syllogism: the Conservatives "stand up for Canada"; the Charter is a fundamental part of Canada; therefore, Conservatives stand up for...um, no, it doesn't work that way with these people.
Revoking same-sex marriage is the proverbial slippery slope; if you can deny gays and lesbians equality after the repeated and consistent high-court decisions of Canadian jurisdictions -- nine out of 13 by the time the Civil Marriage Act passed; that's well over a majority, representing close to 90 percent of the population -- a unanimous Supreme Court reference, and federal legislation passed by the House of Commons (and Senate), then who knows whose rights are next.
Driving an automatic means you can flip those annoying blue and white lawn signs the bird without worrying about changing gears.
How exactly can rolling back Canadians' rights be considered standing up for Canada?
What's the point in having the Charter and courts when any bunch of yahoo politicians can dictate who has rights and who doesn't?
If the Conservatives can poke holes in Paul Martin's assertion that the Liberal Party isn't corrupt, then so can Canadians in Stephen Harper's that he won't use the notwithstanding clause when it comes to same-sex marriage. (Does anyone really believe that?)
I don't think that people who behave like children inside and outside of the House of Commons -- like, say, one MP calling another a "sleazebag" on camera -- should be the ones deciding which responsible adults don't get to share in their obvious freedom.
Trust me, I've spoken to friends, family, professionals, coworkers, and others during the campaign, and Stephen Harper isn't "for all of us." (Yet another motto misnomer from the Conservatives.)
Committed partners wanting to finally tie the knot and have what their heterosexual counterparts have had all along: gee, that just cries out for the notwithstanding clause.
Stephen Harper: don't like him; don't trust him; won't vote for him -- and that's before I read his 1997 speech. (Yes, I know our electoral system doesn't work that way; you get the picture, though.)
Don't me wrong, I agree with the Conservatives on certain issues, including military and defense; it's just that they have an Archie Bunker mentality (pun intended) when it comes to social policy.
Canadians should remember that God doesn't grant them their rights -- the Charter, supported by judicial decisions and federal legislation, does.
When the Conservatives point out bad things about their opponents, it's called "standing up for Canada" or "being accountable"; when the Liberals do it, it's called "running a negative campaign" or "resorting to attack ads." (Who says turnaround is fair play?)
When Stephen Harper stunningly admitted that "times have changed," did anyone else picture a caveman reluctantly lifting his knuckles off the ground? (Of course, he was referring more to himself holding Canada in such low esteem in the past than to the country's social progressiveness over the years.)
People saying "Nah, he won't do that..." is a prelude to voter's remorse.
The hits keep on coming: first, we get to have our pockets picked by an unscrupulous few in one party; then, as a result, we get to have our Charter rights cherry-picked by the zealous many in another.
The Conservative leader is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing, hoping against hope that everyone else really is a sheep. (Bleat now if you think your Charter rights are perfectly safe.)
Somewhere in Ottawa is the Conservative war room, and somewhere inside is a sign with big, bold lettering: "Don't be your right-wing selves until January 24 -- we have them fooled!" (That's just for the MPs; Stephen Harper has his own: "Act warm and fuzzy, wear a turtleneck, and maintain the appearance of centrism.")
I cannot and will not sacrifice the rights of my fellow citizens because one political party wants me to punish another.
Stephen Harper is indeed George W. Bush's dream candidate; trouble is, the Americans still won't like us no matter how much of a kowtowing lapdog he is (starting, perhaps, with gay rights).
When it comes to the rights of Canadians, you don't get to smirk, Mr. Harper.
Are the Conservatives actually claiming that every provincial, territorial, and federal judge who has ever ruled, and ever will, on same-sex marriage was appointed by the Liberals, and therefore that the courts have been "stacked" in it and the party's favor? (The gall of those insidious Liberals, appointing judges who actually believe in the Charter and Canadians' rights! How dare they!)
Like trust, distrust is earned, and thumbing one's nose at the country's fundamental legal document is a surefire way to earn mine.
When attempting to portray Stephen Harper as not part of the old guard, Conservative supporters always point out the fact that he, unlike so many other politicians, isn't a lawyer; however, given his stance on same-sex marriage and the Charter in general, I would strongly suggest that he go to law school. (Be sure to pay attention during Constitutional Law 101, Mr. Harper.)
Irony that makes me fall off my chair: when people deride the Bush administration, then crow about throwing "those Liberal bums" out of office...by voting Conservative.
The Conservatives claim that the judiciary is "stacked" with Liberal appointees, and yet, by all accounts, these judges are independent, so what does that say about the sort of judiciary that their party would prefer? (Here's a hint: look south.)
Enemies of the Conservative state: judges who put the Charter, in both letter and spirit, above ideology; worse, who use secular law to trump religious dogma.
Stephen Harper insists that he won't re-open the abortion debate, saying that the issue was settled at his party's convention and that "I have a lot on my plate"; and yet, despite that full plate, and despite it having been legally settled by the courts and Parliament, he will re-open the same-sex marriage debate. (Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to hypocrisy at its finest.)
During the course of the campaign, I've gone back to calling the Conservative leader "Herr Harper," except now I click my heels and stand at attention when I do it. (I still don't have the German accent down, though.)
First, ask yourself how same-sex marriage has been bad for Canada; then, for fun, ask your Conservative candidate -- especially one in Ontario, where it's been legal the longest, since 2003 -- the same question. (We can't have all those gay tourists putting money into our economy, dammit!)
The rights trade-off: they'll leave abortion alone, but you have to let them have their way with equal marriage. (Either way, someone's getting screwed -- but, hey, it's not you, so why would you care, right?)
Complaining about how long the Liberals have been in power -- "Twelve long years..." -- when you ignored the electorate and forced an election we didn't want; when you put us through yet another nasty roller-coaster ride of a campaign, the second in as many years; when you caused us to be subjected to a record 56-day campaign, one spanning the entire holiday season (minus any the goodwill); when you...well, suffice it to say, that doesn't impress me at all.
Stephen Harper assuaging people's fears by referring to the courts as part of his party's "checks and balances" is both disturbing and disingenuous; the latter for the simple fact that courts have already rendered legally binding decisions on same-sex marriage, therefore, to have his way, he's going to have to ignore them. (Him saying that of his social conservatism is like a wife-beater saying that of the restraining order against him.)
Seeing how well Paul Martin's campaign has been run, I think my initial aphorism needs updating -- replacing the word "thief" with "idiot," for instance.
Merriam-Webster defines fraud as the "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"; given what will happen to same-sex marriage and other rights in this country, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are guilty as sin. (I also think that if they're going to bandy about the word "corruption," they should look themselves in the mirror; again, for the same reason.)
Say what you will about George W. Bush, at least he's up front about his far-right-wing agenda.
Stephen Harper: putting the "con" in "Conservative." (This campaign has been the biggest I've ever seen; too bad so many have fallen for it.)
If I'm subjected to one more fucking election ad...

And, last but not least, some for January 23, which I have marked on my calendar as "doomsday" (if that's any indication of how I think things will go):

Election day in Canada being a week after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the U.S. seems somewhat appropriate; after all, King was the one who said, "When you are right, you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."
Is going from a prime minister who stands up for the Charter to one who only grudgingly acknowledges its existence -- but not its constraints -- the kind of change Canadians had in mind?
People who are voting Conservative to teach the Liberals a lesson about corruption should remember that the Tories are going to teach all of us a lesson about our constitutionally "protected" civil liberties.
Those who are voting for change should remember that there is such a thing as change for the bad (as social conservatives are wont to say about same-sex marriage).
A prudent thought walking into the polling station would be to imagine four to five years of right-wing ideology being put ahead of all else.
Ask yourselves: do you really think the Conservatives will stop at same-sex marriage? (When they see how easy it is to take it away, how far behind do you think, say, a woman's right to choose will be?)
In case it's not already obvious, I'd rather gouge out my eyeballs with a rusty spoon than vote Conservative.
After not voting Conservative, I'll be taking an unpaid sick day...because I'm sick of politicians -- all of them. (To quote Tool: "Fuck smiley glad-hands with hidden agendas.")
I define the phrase "from bad to worse" as a Tory minority followed by Alberta-centric conservatives getting into bed with Quebec separatists. (If there's a majority, you can just substitute the phrase "nightmare scenario.")
When Stephen Harper finally wins, will Alberta finally shut the hell up? (I mean, oil money and social conservatism? Ralph Klein is going to be in hog heaven!)

That jumbled mess is pretty much all I want to say about the election, other than to suggest visiting Egale Canada to find out how you can help stop these well-funded right-wingers from shamefully turning back the clock on equality in Canada. And here I was thinking that I lived in a socially progressive country. Sigh.

Back later. Maybe.

2005-06-13T01:27:00.000-04:00

On hiatus while I ponder the futility of blogging.

A review at last, or a last review?

2005-05-30T18:55:00.001-04:00

Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas was very enjoyable, and I look forward to reading the rest of the Culture novels. Which is odd, considering that I didn't feel that way the first time around, eight years ago. In fact, re-reading Banks' SF debut, I was struck by just how little I remembered about it. I had a pretty good inkling about the ending, and could remember some of the more poignant landmarks, notably the Vavatch Orbital -- Banks' own Ringworld -- but other than that, it's as if the book was brand spanking new to me; a novel novel, if you will. Had I not bought two copies of it -- one new way back when; one used a short while ago -- it could have been said that I got twice as much for the money, what with my poor memory.

And then I started and finished Rudy Rucker's Wetware and was onto a couple other books before I could think of anything worthwhile to say about Software's sequel (other than I really liked it). And that, ladies and gentlemen, made me wonder why I don't just read -- and enjoy -- the damn books and leave the reviews to the reviewers. Sheesh.

Read it. Loved it. Wrote a one-paragraph review.

2005-05-21T15:19:00.001-04:00

I'm not in the mood for another one of my formulaic book reviews -- a pithy title followed by three paragraphs: what I gleaned from it, typically something to do with punctuation; how much I enjoyed it, or not; what I'm reading next and why -- so Walter Jon Williams' Hardwired will get the succinct treatment. A feral Roy Batty yelling, "That's the spirit!" after taking a few of Rick Deckard's desperate whacks to the head -- that's what kept coming to mind as I read the book; that scene from Blade Runner, with its ecstatic exclamation, sums up my reaction to Hardwired. In other words, it was just the sort of cyberpunk page-turner I was hoping for; in fact, I didn't want the story to end. (Surprising, then, that I launched straight into Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas moments after finishing it instead of pulling its sequel, Voice of the Whirlwind, out of the wall of books.) Not unexpectedly, it had the fringe benefit of fueling my desire to get my hands on as much cyberpunk as possible. Online research has hit a fever pitch as a result, and John Shirley's A Song Called Youth trilogy and other books I hadn't previously known about or given much thought to have been added to my to-get list -- all thanks to Hardwired. There, review done.

The unfettered imagination.

2005-05-10T16:45:00.000-04:00

If I can praise John Brunner for anything, it's that in A Maze of Stars he didn't let himself be constrained by science. I have absolutely no affinity for so-called "hard" science fiction, where the story is fiction but the science isn't; in fact, I avoid it like the proverbial plague. (This is why I've been hesitant to read acknowledged science geek Robert J. Sawyer's books, despite enjoying Golden Fleece recently and respecting the Canadian author well before that. If not for that hesitance, I'd have his entire bibliography -- minus the just-released Mindscan -- instead of just a couple of his space operas; the used bookstores I've been frequenting have provided me ample opportunities to acquire his works.) I read the books that I do to escape our reality; why then do I want to be manacled by that of science, to have conditions set on the suspension of my disbelief? Speculation or extrapolation based upon fundamental precepts is all well and good, but it lacks the freedom -- and just plain wackiness -- of making shit up. I like my reality skewed, thank you very much; if that means -- gasp! -- exceeding the speed of light and ignoring other dos and don'ts of science and technology, then so be it. It's fiction: boundaries are meant to be pushed; extremes are meant to be gone to. For me, the whole point is to be able to ask, "What if...?" (or, when confronted with the laws of nature, "Yes, but what if...?"). In the case of A Maze of Stars, I didn't need to know how protagonist Ship does what it does -- only that it does.

I also appreciated Brunner's use of dashes (not to let the punctuation fixation go unheeded); unfortunately, I can't say the same for A Maze of Stars' story. Of all the books I've read recently, this one did the least for me. That's not to say that there wasn't an interesting concept behind it; it just wasn't the sort of page-turner I was hoping for, is all. Part of the problem, I think, is that the story actually consisted of a series of disparate, yet loosely connected, mini-stories; chapters were de facto new beginnings. The resulting structural repetition reminded me of a sine wave, complete with the ups and downs: some mini-stories didn't appeal to me as much as others. At least, that's how I felt halfway through the book; it did pick up towards the end.

The moral of the story (no pun intended) is that you can't expect to hit the mark every time you throw that dart at the wall of books. Speaking of which, what's next? I think I'll cleanse my literary palette with some '80s cyberpunk: Walter Jon Williams' Hardwired. To avoid further disappointment, I'll avoid the temptation of going into it with my hopes raised; then again, if Metropolitan was any indication...

"Needs must when the devil drives."

2005-05-03T16:21:00.000-04:00

That's the answer; here's the question: What does Red Dwarf's Series V episode "The Inquisitor" have in common with John Brunner's A Maze of Stars? Both the show and the book used it, Arnold Rimmer the full expression (although, "when" was replaced with "as") and Brunner the shortened "needs must"; in so doing, they informed me of an ages-old proverb-turned-idiom that I had heretofore never heard or read, much less used in any way -- and probably won't, so long as I keep picturing Satan behind the wheel. In the fortnight before reading the two-word version in A Maze of Stars, I heard the expanded one several times courtesy of my just-bought Red Dwarf DVD, which is the only reason why I noticed the former; prior to Rimmer's usage -- the first that I can recall -- "needs must" had always escaped my attention. Point being, if the expression ever finds its way into my writing or speech, I can now trace its source. Speaking of sources, given that I've just used the word "fortnight" for the first time, it's safe to assume that my burgeoning collection of British books and DVDs is subtly altering my brain. Pretty soon, I'll be calling guys "blokes," fries "chips," trucks "lorries," and replacing who knows what other words in my North American vocabulary with Briticisms.

Follow-up: Thanks to BBC Kids' presentation of Blackadder II episode "Money" a week later, I heard it again; although, cash-strapped -- and, consequently, house-selling -- Edmund Blackadder put a not-unexpected sardonic twist on the expression: "But needs must when the devil vomits into your kettle."

Got fembots?

2005-04-27T21:48:00.000-04:00

Of the British authors that have recently invaded my reading, only Paul J. McAuley has an U.S. publisher -- at least, of the editions I've read -- which could explain the double quotation marks, American spelling, and non-conspiratorial approach to semicolons. (Although, I suspect that McAuley himself is responsible for his semicolon usage, rather than any editors he may have had across the pond.) As for his compatriots, I have indeed gotten used to their single quotation marks; so long as they're used consistently, I really don't mind. When it comes to their spelling, we English Canadians may have lost the motherland's accents and colloquialisms, but we've retained its spelling -- officially, that is; some of us have chosen, quite deliberately and in the face of years of scholastic indoctrination, to give in to the dark side and spell like our southern neighbors (as opposed to our neighbours). Why? Expediency, logic, sanity -- take your pick. Call me a spelling traitor if you must, but it made sense to make the transition when I started blogging in 2002. (When you live in the linguistic wake of the world's largest consumer and producer of the English language, OED Online's monthly subscription rate is that per year of Merriam-Webster Unabridged -- my current dictionary, not surprisingly -- and the Department of National Defence engages in defensive operations, that sort of decision is put into perspective.) Point being, as a writer, I lean one way, but as a reader, I'm bi: I'll do either spelling.

Dammit, there I go again rambling on about everything except the book itself: Fairyland was excellent. I'd describe it as nanotech-gengineering cyberpunk, which could explain why I enjoyed it so much, and why the temptation to reread William Gibson's Sprawl series grew the further into it I got. McAuley does not want for imagination; he manages to pack the book with inventive speculation, both technological and sociopolitical. His wonderfully evocative writing, also reminiscent of Gibson, had me doing the occasional double-take: crickets don't chirp -- they "stitch the night with pulses of insect code." (Nice!) Without any punctuation to take issue with, I'll have to confine my complaints to the story: either I wasn't paying attention enough, or it was getting a tad convoluted as it raced towards the climax. Thankfully, confusing in this case doesn't mean uninteresting.

The question is, now that I'm done with Fairyland and its arresting metaphors, do I throw a metaphorical dart at the wall of books, or give in to my Gibsonian urges? No, I'll hold off on rereading -- yet again -- Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and the short stories collected in Burning Chrome; that is to say, I'll wait to savor Gibson's cyberpunk -- savor more than I ever have, thanks to my new perspective on books and others' writing. I think now is the time for some more British space opera: John Brunner's A Maze of Stars. I say "think" because it took me a while of hemming and hawing in front of the wall to make this choice; I even had to flip through several books, sampling bits and pieces of text, to do it. In the end, I found an unlikely tiebreaker in John Berkey's amazing cover art, its stylized spaceship and accompanying spaceport stirring both my memory and interest: I remember my father reading it in the early '90s (soon after it was published), and the idea of a monolithic vessel -- a world unto itself -- exploring the cosmos has always been an appealing one to me.

Chalk one up for Canadian-South African sci-fi.

2005-04-16T22:07:00.000-04:00

I rather enjoyed the two-hour premiere the Charlie Jade on SPACE: The Imagination Station. I'd describe the dark, gritty show as trans-dimensional, corporate-dystopian film noir, complete with requisite tip of the hat to Blade Runner, including refinery flares over a smog-choked metropolis. As a shoot location, Canada is ho-hum, I'm sorry to say; thankfully, Charlie Jade is shot in South Africa, which is anything but: the country's diverse landscapes -- from ocean paradise to desert wasteland to Capetonian cityscape -- and its actors' distinctive accents give the show a feel that's completely out of the ordinary (at least to North American viewers and listeners). What's more, if the initial episode is any indication, the show's writing is up to the task of making its intriguing tridimensional concept -- "The Multiverse" -- work. I think it's safe to say that the hooks are in: I want to see how Charlie Jade progresses.

Follow-up: SPACE's prime-time lineup the following Saturday consisted of Charlie Jade, Dark City, and the director's cut of Blade Runner. Escapism at its finest.

Collecting "Get Out of Jail Free" cards as I read.

2005-04-15T18:32:00.000-04:00

The greatest irony of my life is that I only became a reader after becoming a writer; I learned to love the English language by writing it, rather than by reading it. (The sad part being that I only started reading one book after another after my father, the voracious reader, passed away.) Now that I've been blogging for two and a half years, I find myself able to read critically, able to look at others' writing with a critical eye, able to fixate on authors' style, grammar, and (especially) punctuation.

Here's an example of what I mean: I was in a waiting room the other day, with nothing to do but wait, so I perused a several-month-old edition of Maclean's focusing on the life and times of the then recently deceased Pierre Burton, a former correspondent for Canada's weekly newsmagazine. One of the articles quoted was the piece he wrote upon his arrival in Korea during the war, over 50 years ago. My reading faltered on one of the initial paragraphs; its first of two sentences, a curt one, was unremarkable, while its second was anything but: it was 71 words long and contained only commas. On the one hand, I was shocked by word count, what with today's journalism tending towards the succinct; on the other hand, I was buoyed by it: if Burton can do it... Don't get me wrong, I'm already guilty of writing longer sentences -- two that I can think of offhand: 137 words and 151 words respectively -- but they always contain at least one semicolon, colon, and/or dash to join or list distinct clauses; to rely exclusively on commas is just so...outré. (By way of contrast, the preceding sentence was 51 words long.)

So, instead of focusing on Burton's wonderfully evocative description of a city and its populace living under constant threat of attack, I was busy counting words, examining punctuation marks, and otherwise gleaning what I could from his style; I was comparing it to my own, justifying my grammatical faux pas (of which there are many). However appreciated the first-hand view of the Korean War from a master journalist may have been, it was no where near as much as Burton giving me a sort of carte blanche with that glorious 71-word, comma-delineated sentence of his. If and when someone takes me to task for a run-on sentence -- let's face it, that's what Burton's was, no matter how eloquent -- I'll be ready with that grammatical nugget.

If there's a moral to this story, it's that an unconventional approach to the written word does have its benefits; my ass-backward reading has, in its own peculiar and meandering sort of way, worked to my advantage. And to think, soon after I started blogging, I was laughed at for saying, "I have no appreciation for literature." Clearly, I should have said that I have no appreciation for literary snobbery. (All irony aside, I still have no interest in reading The Lord of the Rings.)

I must tell you, dear stone, that I liked this book.

2005-04-13T18:13:00.000-04:00

Having recently gone through all my old posts to make sure didn't have coordinating conjunctions like "and" and "but" following semicolons -- as per The Associated Press Guide to Punctuation -- it was easy to notice that Adam Roberts frequently did in Stone. Combined with his colon phobia, I'd say that, yes, he is part of the conspiracy. At first, it seemed to me that he was a bit player in it -- I even drafted this post to say as much -- but the further into the book I got, the more I realized that he is indeed one of the conspirators; one with a general aversion to commas, at that (albeit unrelated to the semicolons). And, of course, being a Brit, single quotation marks abound; luckily, I'm getting used to them. Other than all that, his punctuation usage is smooth as silk.

Oh, the book: I thought it was great; I really enjoyed it. Just because I have a punctuation fixation -- admittedly, writing-related hypocrisy at its finest -- doesn't mean the novel wasn't a good read. It certainly has a very interesting concept at its heart, not to mention an odd, yet enticing, first-person narrative. The book appealed to me enough to add the rest of Roberts' novels -- minus the parodies; I've never been a fan of those -- to my to-get list alongside Iain M. Banks' (whose Culture novels Stone's author loves to pieces). This, of course, is when I kick myself for not having bought those used copies of Roberts' books I saw repeatedly in Toronto. I almost did, their unusual, bright-colored, stark-lettered covers having caught my eye -- you hear that, publishers? -- but he was an unknown to me all those months ago and his "high-concept" science fiction didn't pique my interest at the time. Go figure.

Speaking of Banks, I'm awfully tempted by that Consider Phlebas brick in the wall; however, I shall resist that temptation for now and choose Paul J. McAuley's Fairyland as my next read instead. It's one of three books of his I've bought because of how much I enjoyed "Dr. Luther's Assistant," his 1993 short story collected in the Pat Cadigan-edited anthology The Ultimate Cyberpunk. Fairyland is set in the same world as the short story, which is why I bought it in the first place (and a good reason to get my hands on McAuley's The Invisible Country, which collects the other three short stories in the Fairyland series); the other two novels, completely unrelated to that bioengineered Europe of the future, are leaps of faith on my part. Incidentally, McAuley is the fourth British author I've read recently, which leads me to believe that some sort of subconscious punctuation masochism is at work.

If equality isn't a Canadian value to him, then he shouldn't be first among equals.

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

Stephen Harper addressing a Parliament Hill rally against same-sex marriage: how very...prime ministerial of him. If that man wants to lead Canada, then perhaps he shouldn't be actively fighting -- alongside the likes of Jason Kenney, no less -- against some of its citizens gaining equality. Perhaps he should be standing up for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms instead. I don't know about you, but I want my prime minister to speak up for my rights and those of my fellow citizens; if Canada's leader won't even do that, then what hope is there for Canadians whose rights have been denied? When mine are taken away, who's going to stand up for me? Clearly not Harper and the Conservatives.

What really bothers me about the sponsorship scandal isn't the money wasted or the so-called "corruption" (or "pattern of criminality," as Kenney asininely put it) -- it's the linkage between the Gomery Inquiry and the rights of Canadians: the angrier voters are at the Liberals -- who, by the way, set up the inquiry in the first place; the opposition parties who so vocally demanded answers are now conveniently forgetting that -- the greater the chances of the Conservatives forming the next government, and, therefore, the less likely that gays and lesbians will have the right to marry across Canada (or at all). It's sad that a protest vote, a vote out of spite against one party, rather than a vote for another and its bigoted platform, means that the Charter, as well as judgments based upon it made by the Supreme Court and its provincial counterparts, are ignored or even countermanded. (The more the Conservatives attack the judiciary, the more grateful I am that it's there to interpret the Charter in its stead; clearly, any Parliament whose members include narrow-minded people like Harper and Kenney should not be doing it.) Voters are pissed at the Liberals, therefore, Canadians end up being denied equal marriage -- for starters; abortion, bilingualism, and who knows what else could be next. (Anytime a party has to constantly make promises about what it won't mess with -- that's when I get nervous.) It seems to me that people using the sponsorship scandal to vote the Liberals out of office does not and should not give the Conservatives the mandate to deny or revoke Canadians' rights; they'd only be in power because voters were upset with the governing party, not because Canadians endorsed their social-conservative agenda. Chances are, the Opposition, with or without the Bloc Québécois, is going to pull the plug on the Liberal minority government sooner than later -- whenever the opportunity for power presents itself -- and the immediate effect of that is going to be the death of the Civil Marriage Act; same-sex marriage is going to be a victim of the sponsorship scandal. (An example of causality gone awry, if ever there was one.)

Oh, and gone at last are "Herr Harper" and "Herr Klein." Since I first started using the German title for the right-wingers last fall, it's been gnawing at me; at the back of my mind, I felt bad about using a low blow like that -- historical trash talk, if you will. (I was on the verge of using it during my seemingly never-ending election post last June, but even a tangential reference to Nazism felt inappropriate at the time, what with the 60th anniversary of D-Day halfway through the campaign.) A few days ago, after much deliberation, I gave in to my misgivings and replaced the word "Herr" with "Stephen" or "Ralph"; however, I'm now having seconds thoughts about my editorial decision: today's rally was a stark reminder of how well-deserved the title is. If Harper is going to be low enough to tie the sponsorship scandal to same-sex marriage for his own gain, saying that corruption is not a Canadian value but that (heterosexual) marriage is, then why shouldn't I be just as low in how I address him and his kind? Perhaps I should go even lower; "Adolf Harper" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

All the banned Adscam news that's fit to blog.

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

Ah, the benefits of using an American server finally reveal themselves: I can report what the news media in Canada can't because of the temporary publication ban at the Gomery Inquiry. The testimony of individuals facing criminal trials is under wraps here for the moment, but can and is being reported by American blogs -- which, in Internet and, therefore, legal terms, mine is (no matter how disturbingly ironic that may be). Keep in mind that those political Web sites south of the border aren't acting on behalf -- and certainly not for the good -- of the Canadian public; whether admitted to or not, they have a pro-Republican agenda: anything that destabilizes the Liberals, and boosts the Conservatives' fortunes, is fine by them. Hell, I wouldn't put it past Her Majesty's "Loyal" Opposition to be feeding them transcripts of the effectively closed-door testimony. Irrespective, though, of the Canadian source and American publisher's motives, the unreportable-in-Canada inquiry details are indeed available on the Web, and here they are...

Not bloody likely.

First of all, I don't share the American phobia of publication bans; they serve a valid judicial function, one that I agree with entirely, especially when used as a short-term measure to protect the criminal justice system (as is the case here). To violate a publication ban, especially by using an Internet technicality -- the geographic location of the Web page's host server -- as a loophole, would be a slap in the face of our legal system -- and shame on any Canadian blogger who does: it's morally wrong, no matter how much of a legal gray area or technical legality it is. (And by "Canadian blogger," I mean someone who, like me, lives and writes in Canada, but whose blog is published and hosted in the U.S. -- and, no, the irony of that is not lost on me.) That, of course, is no impediment to the Americans, who seem to have little respect for other countries' legal systems and laws at the best of times, and even less when a judge has the audacity to use those them to -- gasp! -- infringe on free speech. That, and they have no problem sticking their noses into other people's business, no matter how little they understand it; all they know is, something can't be reported in Canada, therefore they must report it, if anything, to expose the judicial tyranny of it all -- and, hey, if it hurts the Liberal government of a country they're not terribly fond of these days, then so be it.

Secondly, what makes you think I want to read the forbidden testimony, let alone spread it through the Blogosphere like a meme (even if doing so wasn't an affront to my beliefs)? I need the sponsorship scandal and its fallout like I need another hole in my head. Quebecers may follow it like it's the Second Coming, but I want to know about it as much as I want to know about anything that leads to more separatists and Conservatives being elected; national unity doesn't need any more of the former and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't need any more of the latter, thank you very much. (Not that a Conservative government representing only English Canada, and right-leaning Western Canada at that, would do federalism much good, either.) As I said during last year's election, "a government of Liberal boondogglers -- thieves, even -- is a much lesser evil than one of Conservative hatemongers." I've since developed an addendum to that: better a separatist than a Conservative (put another way, better Quebec's independent spirit than Alberta's social conservatism); I may despise the Bloc Québécois and its raison d'être, but at least it's liberal-minded when it comes to social issues like same-sex marriage.

So, if you're looking for me to circumvent the publication ban, or even to point to those who are, you've come to the wrong place.

"In a country of microphones and microphone stands...."

2005-04-04T05:32:00.000-04:00

If the latest inductees into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame proved anything during their two-song performance at the 2005 Juno Awards last night, it's that they're tight as shit, musically speaking. A lot of bands would be out of their element on a stage that wasn't their own, and wouldn't sound their best, but not The Tragically Hip. This being a group of musicians who have spent their two decades on the Canadian music scene honing every aspect of their craft, and 20 years of musical refinement produces the sort of awards-show performance seen last night. As for the normally laconic, if not reticent, Gordon Downie, he showed that he becomes a whirling dervish -- vocally, facially, and bodily -- not to mention an improvisational madman, on stage. Proof positive of the latter were his whimsical discussions about -- and with -- the mic and its stand during "Fully Completely" and "Grace, Too." (Yelled into the mic after trying unsuccessfully to right it and its knocked-over stand with his foot: "Where do you think you're going? You're a microphone" -- turning to the still-fallen stand and pointing at it accusingly, thumb cocked -- "and a microphone stand! You think you could make on your own? You wouldn't last five seconds! Here, watch! Watch! Go!" Then he released the now-rejoined mic and stand, stood back with his hands on his hips, head rolling and face contorting, and shot an equally smug and scornful glare at the offending objects.)

I'm not sure why, but I've been in a Hip frame of mind lately, even before the Junos. Perhaps as a bulwark against the anti-Canadianism floating around recently. Or maybe I'm just tired of the generic pop shite on the radio -- Ottawa radio, that is -- these days. Whatever the reason, I've been feeling increasingly guilty about not having bought the band's last three albums -- 2000's Music @ Work, 2002's In Violet Light, and 2004's In Between Evolution -- yet; that, and not having been to one of its shows in over a third of its career. I've had the privilege of attending two of The Hip's concerts over the years: the first at a packed arena in Canada, and the second at a cozy, standing-room-only club south of the border; I loved both, but the latter was truly spectacular -- and not just because I was rocking out at the bar the whole time. (Ah, if only it had been a buck and a half for a beer...)

The cultural dictates of semicolons.

2005-04-03T16:15:00.000-04:00

Judging from Use of Weapons, Iain Banks is part of the great British semicolon conspiracy: semicolons frequently being used in place of commas, periods, dashes, and -- my favorite -- colons. Don't get me wrong, I like semicolons; I use them all the time, and for a variety of purposes -- but I don't introduce explanatory clauses with them, or string together (rather than list) a seemingly endless number of non-comma-containing phrases with them, or use them when other kinds of punctuation are clearly called, no, screamed for. Do I always use semicolons correctly? Absolutely not. But I do struggle with their use, while Banks and, to a lesser degree, Jeff Noon -- compared to the Scotsman, Vurt's author is a semicolon dilettante -- seemingly do not; at least, their wanton use of them doesn't suggest as much. Another Brit thing seems to be the use of single quotation marks in lieu of double ones, and vice versa; both authors are equally guilty of that offense (as seen through North American eyes). Don't worry, Banks' punctuation doesn't affect his imaginative storytelling any -- it just detracts from my reading, is all; the semicolons, in particular, tend to make me grumble and say, "Stop doing that!" (I imagine my writing, with its interminable use of dashes -- among other sins -- does the same to people; mind you, I haven't published 20-plus books.)

My semicolon reaction notwithstanding, it would be an understatement to say that I'm glad I picked up Use of Weapons and gave the Culture another go. In fact, soon after I started reading it, I bought Inversions and re-bought Consider Phlebas; I'm really looking forward to reading them and any others under the Iain M. Banks pseudonym -- the middle initial denoting his science fiction -- I can find used. Years after reading Consider Phlebas, the Culture is now fascinating to me. (Go figure.) I'm certainly eager to read more inspirational descriptions of the massive General Systems Vehicles (GSVs) and other Culture spaceships; for some reason, those sections of Use of Weapons enthralled me. (Hmm, perhaps I should be reading more space opera...) That being said, I'm going to go with Adam Roberts' Stone next, if anything, to see if he, too, is in on the conspiracy.

You see twelve men and one woman; I see Supertramp.

2005-03-31T03:17:00.000-05:00

I thoroughly enjoyed The Real Da Vinci Code, shown on History Television; in fact, I've been watching it over and over on tape all week (always a good sign). Hosted by Tony Robinson -- Baldrick of Black Adder fame -- the witty documentary does a very good job of debunking Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code; at the very least, it reminds the book's readers, many of whom have become tourists of same, that it's called "fiction" for a reason. Well, what does Brown expect when he and his best-selling novel -- "the #1 worldwide phenomenon" -- claim historical facts that are neither? At least, that's the view of many historians and academics, who are shaking their heads at The Da Vinci Code's theories, as well as those that they, in turn, are based upon. (A house of cards, if ever there was one.) However, that's not the reason why I haven't read the book: I have no interest in it at the moment -- even if I did, it wouldn't change the fact that its underlying theories and the great secret they point to are completely irrelevant to me -- and what with 50 paperbacks piled on my desk, with specific ones being actively sought, I'm not hard up for reading material. Besides, I'm not criticizing the fiction itself; anyone who can write a novel -- something I can't do, but would like to -- much less a page-turner like that, gets my respect on that basis, alone. That being said, I don't enjoy being preached to, religiously or otherwise, by the fiction I'm reading; I'm not saying that's what Brown does in The Da Vinci Code -- only that, in general, it's a surefire way to get me to put down a book.

"Is Doctor Who gay?"

2005-03-28T23:17:00.000-05:00

First of all, Doctor Who isn't a television character -- the Doctor is; Doctor Who is the eponymous and punny title of the long-running BBC series. ("Who are you?"; "I'm the Doctor."; "Doctor who?"; "Just Doctor, actually." -- I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point.) Technically, the questioner is asking whether the show is lame, not whether the character is homosexual. (Kind of like asking, "Is the press gay?") Secondly, the real question is: Who the hell are these idiots in the media (including the today's Ottawa Citizen) who are applying human sexuality to a nonhuman -- alien -- Time Lord? They're basing this, of course, on the fact that the Doctor pays little attention "in that way" to his young, attractive female companions, and has a tendency to dress rather whimsically and eccentrically, frilly even. Of course, they're ignoring the fact that he doesn't hit on his male companions, either; for all intents and purposes, he's asexual -- Doctor Who was always a family show, after all. And what sort of taste in clothing would they expect from a whimsical and eccentric personality, anyway? Thanks to his TARDIS, the near-millennia-old Gallifreyan has mastery of time and space, and access to every civilization in existence; just because he has a fondness for earthlings, doesn't mean he has a fondness -- nudge-nudge, wink-wink -- for them, male or female. For all we know, he could get it up -- does he even have an it to get up? -- for any number of species other than humans; hell, he could be a Daleksexual! Did the media ever consider that? Sheesh. (At the rate they're going, next week's asinine question will be, "Is Chewbacca into bestiality?")

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let me say that I'm glad that the series is coming back to television, and especially glad that Christopher Eccleston, an actor I've always enjoyed -- most recently in the first two Cracker series on DVD -- is playing the Ninth Doctor. Canadians coast to coast will be able to catch the show's latest incarnation -- regeneration, if you will -- starting April 5, on CBC of all places. (Who says our public broadcaster isn't hip?)

Follow-up: It was with great anticipation that I watched the April 5 premiere of the updated-for-the-21st-century Doctor Who. My initial reaction, said wide-eyed: "Well, that was...interesting." Christopher Eccleston -- who's last name I can now pronounce thanks to his hosting the CBC broadcast (a nice touch, by the way) -- was a joy to watch as ever, but other than that, the show was, um...how's about I continue watching it and reserve judgment? Suffice it to say, the latest incarnation of the cult classic faces an uphill battle if it's going to top the '70s and '80s versions of itself.

Hotel America: hating Canucks; loving their bucks.

2005-03-28T08:50:00.000-05:00

Ottawa Citizen, front page, above the fold, continued on page A4, Cristin Schmitz byline: "U.S. take on Canada: a frozen land of Zamboni drivers"; "American commentators take aim at their northern neighbour, from the music of Nickelback to perceived terrorist threat." The article itself...well, suffice it to say, it reinforces everything that I've been (futilely) railing against, and more; it certainly proved my point about last week's trilateral summit, what with the lead up to it inspiring the latest round of arrogant commentary. You know, when Canada is seen, incorrectly, as nothing more than a terrorist haven -- their gateway to the U.S. -- and a "great white waste of time" (among other, more insulting things) by our neighbor, when we're constantly denigrated and defamed by our so-called "friend," I find it really hard to understand why Canadians reward it by putting a ton of money into its tourist economy; for that matter, why they vacation in a country where they have to conceal their nationality, flag especially, or where they're only tolerated for their money. While the American news media are busy lying about us, insulting us, and inciting hate against us with complete impunity -- for ratings, fun, whatever; because they can (the hallmark of any bully) -- we're busy lining American pockets. (You'll notice that, thankfully, our big-name journos and talking heads aren't wallowing in the gutter with their American counterparts; in a way, their hands are tied by, among other things, journalistic standards and practices -- they have to play fair while those south of the border, notably the right-wings ones, can play dirty.) Texas, alone, had 247,000 Canadian visitors last year; they're referred to as "Winter Texans," which explains why we do it: snow and ice; shoveling and scraping; bone-numbing cold and wind chill; less sunlight and more seasonal affective disorder; dry air and drier skin -- they all conspire to trump indignation and repudiation. I've got news for you, my fellow citizens: Mexico, Cuba, and whole lot of other places south of us are just as warm and sunny during the winter -- if not more, and possibly for less money -- and they aren't pissing on our heads at the highest levels of journalism. I think Canada needs to approach this the way Bill O'Reilly would: it's time to boycott the U.S. as a travel destination. Got vacation time? Have money to spend? Need sun and/or surf? Then go somewhere that has a modicum of respect for your country and its people. America has already lost my tourist dollars; it's time for it to lose yours.

That being said, Nickelback is fair game. Yuck.

Follow-up: The next morning, I went to the supermarket, and was struck by the amount of produce and other food products with "Product of U.S.A." on their packages or displays. It didn't affect my buying decisions any, even when there was a choice -- Mexican cherry tomatoes versus Californian grape tomatoes, for instance -- but it did remind me how many American goods we consume, and, therefore, how many U.S. companies, as well as their employees and shareholders, profit off of us. As a Canadian grocery-shopper, especially one who lives in a frozen wasteland for part of the year, it would be asinine to turn my back on fresh, American-grown products like fruits and vegetables. All I'm saying is, business is business: if a company can't give you want you want or is mistreating you, then you go with another -- that's the only power that we, as consumers, have. (The "you snooze, you lose" principle.) So, when a country's government and news media hold your country and its citizens in such low esteem, contempt even, as to feel the need to be vocal about it, then why should its tourist industry benefit at the same time? Why should we, as travelers, continue to patronize a country that publicly dislikes ours? Why should we reward America's unremorseful institutional hatred of Canada? (That's exactly what it is next to our sporadic anti-Americanism, which is invariably followed by self-castigation: accepting the resignations of advisors and kicking MPs out of caucus, for instance.) It's one thing for governments to have public disagreements -- that's to be expected; annoying, but expected -- it's another thing for members of the press, spurred on by like-minded politicians, to insult and debase people of another country, especially those of one's closest neighbor, largest trading partner, and biggest supplier of energy and other natural resources. We are a nation of potential tourists, and the U.S. is seemingly competing for our dollars by insulting us as people, as well as everything from our government and institutions to our music and culture. If a company did that sort of thing, how could it possibly expect to gain or retain customers? Besides, if Americans can boycott our seafood products -- and other things Canadian, depending on who you talk to -- because of our seal hunt, then we should be able to boycott their tourist destinations because of their gratuitous disrespect.

Follow-up: By the way, I'd really like to think of this treatment as some form of displacement on their part -- the rest of the world doesn't like or trust the U.S. at the moment, so Americans resent us instead -- but I think it just comes down to them not liking us, and the further to the right they are, the less they do; even among the well-informed, "liberal" is a bad word, the weak and powerless (as the neocons see us) are despised, the Liberal government is rightfully in the Republican doghouse, and so on and so forth. Now, while I greatly appreciate Frank McKenna's vigorous -- and refreshing -- defense of Canada to the less-informed right-wingers down there, including taking on a C-SPAN call-in show's callers and their litany of complaints about their northern neighbor, going so far as to remind viewers that nasty things have been said about Canada, our new ambassador to the U.S. is looking at a lost cause: the American government and news media's brainwashing is complete and irreversible; what began as misunderstandings, misconceptions (urban legends, as McKenna sees them), and just plain lies have, in the last four years, become unshakable truths -- reality -- in the minds of the country's conservative electorate. (Hence the success of the blame-Canada doctrine.) These are, after all, the people who still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Iraq was behind 9-11 and that the hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada. Still don't believe me? Ask a representative sampling who was responsible for the August, 2003, blackout; trust me, it won't be a power company in Ohio.

Follow-up: A quote from the April 5 AP article by Lara Jakes Jordan, entitled "U.S. to Tighten Border Controls by 2008": "Canada is the United States' largest trading partner, with $1.2 billion worth of goods crossing the border every day. Nearly 16 million Canadians entered the United States last year, generating an estimated $7.9 billion in travel-related revenues, according to data provided by the Travel Industry Association in Washington." Yes, that's half the population of Canada. Yes, those are American dollars. Talk about proving my point -- but by all means, folks, keep insulting us.

Never underestimate my ability to get lost in my own city.

2005-03-26T15:31:00.000-05:00

I keep telling people that, but they never believe me. Today, for instance, I wound up in the Kanata North Business Park, one full Queensway exit from where I wanted to be. As fate would have it, I turned off of March Road onto Terry Fox Drive, and stumbled into the most interesting collection of buildings in Ottawa. (Thousands of employees at high-tech companies there would disagree with me, of course.) As I made the circuit of what I later found out to be the Kanata Research Park, still (stupidly) looking for my kilometers-away destination, I was utterly fascinated by the edifices around me; the Stealth Building, in particular, had me gaping: the squat, jet-black monolith was just so...unusual. It's the only time I can remember that I've actually enjoyed the architecture, landscape, and sheer presence (for lack of a better word) of buildings enough to want to go back and see them again; in the case of Stealth, I want to visit it on a weekday to see what goes there, maybe even get a look at the foyer. Suffice it to say, the research park was inspirational; it made me think of cyberpunk-style arcologies. Mind you, all the greenery detracts from the sci-fi feel of the place; encroaching on it with additional buildings and parking lots, not to mention getting rid of The Marches Golf Course, would go a long way towards enhancing it. I think I'll mention that to the people in charge; I'll even give my proposal a snazzy title: Plants? Bah! (Think it will go over well? Me neither.)

Unnatural ice hockey.

2005-03-24T01:40:00.000-05:00

I finally saw a televised game being played on blue ice, and I have to be honest, it looks bloody awful -- and that's an aesthetic point of view; I'm not being a purist. As far as I could tell, the ice is highly -- and disconcertingly -- reflective, with the lines (mostly) visible, right after the Zamboni has done its thing; however, the further into the period you are, the duller and whiter the ice is -- because of gouges, shavings, whatever -- and the harder the lines are to see. So, remind me again what the point of blue ice is? Clearly, the people responsible for this insidiousness need to head north for the winter: blue is the color of the stuff you spray on your windshield or throw on the sidewalk; the stuff you're trying to melt is either clear or white -- nature is quite keen on that point.

Absolute monarchy, Lone Star-style.

2005-03-23T03:03:00.000-05:00

What's the point of Vicente Fox and Paul Martin attending a trilateral summit of North American leaders when they're both on Bush's shit list -- Mexico's leader for criticizing U.S. immigration policies; ours for not joining BMD (among other things) -- and the president will only deign, reluctantly, to give them each 20 minutes of requested one-on-one time? Today's meeting in Waco, Texas, to be followed by lunch at Bush's ranch in Crawford, leaves a bad taste in my mouth before it's even begun: it comes across as two lowly peons seeking an audience with a king who has absolutely no concept of noblesse oblige. (Many thanks to Terry Mosher, aka Aislin, for putting that notion my head with his March 19, 2003, editorial cartoon; I saw it in a collection at a bookstore the other day.) So, why are they subjecting themselves -- and, by extension, their citizens -- to this? Isn't Bush's state visit still fresh in Martin's mind? More importantly, why are the taxpayers of Mexico and Canada paying to see their duly elected leaders prostrate themselves in front of a man who couldn't care less about their respective countries and what his administration is doing to them? If Bush has any demanding or lecturing to do, he can bloody well do it over the phone, without Fox and Martin having to prop up his facade of diplomacy and respect with an undeserved photo op. Then again, Bush has a rather attractive carrot to dangle in front of them: the cachet of a Crawford invite -- something that eluded our last prime minister. As for the American press dubbing the meeting the "Three Amigos Summit," well, there are three of them and it is a summit -- two out of three ain't bad.

Follow-up: It must be Canada's lot in life: only our foreign affairs minister would be stopped by the U.S. Secret Service and asked for identification. "Pierre Pettigrew? Nice try, pal. Hey, Joe, there's a Frenchy here pretending to be a Harry Potter character!" Can you imagine what would happen if the RCMP asked to see Condoleezza Rice's passport? Yikes!

"It's wise to always err on the side of life."

2005-03-22T06:31:00.000-05:00

Yes, the American president had the unmitigated gall to say that. I realize that Bush was referring to Terri Schiavo, in an attempt to rationalize why he and other right-wing politicians are sticking their ideological noses where they don't belong, but given what's going on in Iraq -- a death toll including, but not limited to, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 1,500 U.S. soldiers -- and elsewhere, with more to come (Syria? Iran? North Korea? Canada?), how can he possibly spout such hypocrisy? Did he fall off the wagon or something? Is he back binging on cocaine? How Christian conservatives, from the grass roots to the highest levels of government, can go to any and all lengths to protect unborn fetuses and vegetative adults -- in the case of Schiavo, turning a blind eye to the separation-of-powers doctrine to stop what some are calling a "modern-day crucifixion" -- but completely ignore the pain and suffering of so many men, women, and children around the world is simply beyond me. I have an even harder time understanding how some of them can cause so much of it, including death in all its forms, and then come out with the sort of delusional tripe that Bush did. "When they say 'right to life,' they're talking about their right to decide which people should live or die." -- George Carlin's Reagan-era aphorism is disturbingly fitting these days. It's just ironic that amongst those slated to die -- or put into a vegetative state -- are the pro-life, pregnant, and unborn.

Now that was a good read.

2005-03-19T02:43:00.000-05:00

I'd describe Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan as cyberpunk in a cyberless, far-future world. No wonder I enjoyed it so much, and no wonder it did such a great job of topping Robert J. Sawyer's Golden Fleece. It doesn't hurt that Williams is a man after my own heart when it comes to the use (overuse?) of dashes. Although, his use of ellipses...well, we can't always get the punctuation we want, eh? Given the option, I'd read Metropolitan's sequel, City on Fire, next; unfortunately, I don't have it, so I'll have to skim through my 45-book backlog instead. At the moment, it consists of a handful of new books from Christmas, and a whole lot of used ones accumulated at Book Market locations here in town, at a gaggle of dingy shops in downtown Toronto, and via Internet sellers (for the harder-to-find ones). I may not be the most voracious reader in the world, and certainly not the fastest, but even I get a lot of pleasure from having such a selection -- my own personal literary menu -- available whenever I finish a book. I find it very comforting to have the unread paperbacks stacked on my desk, their multicolored spines facing me as a work on the computer; not only do they represent a plethora of escape at my fingertips, but they make for the best kind of decoration: pretty and utilitarian. So, which brick do I now pull out of the mini-wall of books? I'd say...um, let me see...well, it's been the better part of a decade since I've read a Culture novel, so I'll go with Iain M. Banks' Use of Weapons. (I didn't have the greatest opinion of Consider Phlebas all those years ago, so it'll be interesting to see how I react to another book in the series -- which, of course, is why I bought it.)

Good riddance to a bad diplomat.

2005-03-18T23:19:00.000-05:00

What started out as South Park's tongue-in-cheek mantra has become political doctrine south of the border: blame Canada. In the last week, alone, it's been everything from hunted seals to counterfeit goods to crop-ruining starlings, not to mention those perennial favorites, marijuana and terrorism. These days, any Canadian's attempt at staying informed means being inundated with U.S. scorn. (Go ahead, pick up a newspaper and see for yourself.) And point man in this reproachful approach to neighbor relations has been Paul Cellucci. Thanks to his four-year stint as Washington's chief whip-cracker in Canada, our country's position as America's favorite whipping boy has been solidified. His appointment up, the ambassador can now return home, smug in the knowledge that we've been soundly put in our place -- for our own good, of course -- and that he's left us with some uncertainty, a final "fuck you" to all Canadians: we don't know how long his Fortress America office will remain vacant -- that tried and true diplomatic snub -- and how big of an asshole his replacement will be. Being a natural pessimist, especially when it comes to Canada-U.S. relations, I daren't say, "It can't get much worse!" In fact, his departure today, joyous and much-anticipated an occasion though it may be, is tempered by the sad truth that His Rudeness is the proverbial devil we know; for all we know, he could be a veritable diplomatic delight compared to Bush's next choice, whoever that might be. Given the president's recent tendency towards ironic, if not downright disturbing, nominations, a notorious Canada-hater would probably seem the ideal ambassador to him -- keeping in mind that Cellucci claims to like Canada; I've even heard him use the word "love"! Incredulity aside, the good news is, the evil has left; the bad news is, he may have been the lesser one. In either case, those of us familiar with the insufferable diplomat will be giving him a long-overdue one-finger salute and boisterous "Take off, you hoser!" on this, his last day tormenting us in an official capacity. Good riddance, indeed.

Follow-up: One last kick at Canada literally at our expense: His Rudeness is writing a book about his tenure here; Unquiet Diplomacy will be published by Toronto's Key Porter Books -- yes, a Canadian publisher -- in September. (A far better title would be Sticking it to Canadians, don't you think?) I'll be sure to run out and buy a copy...right after I gouge my eyeballs out; there is no way in hell I'm going to subject myself to that man's insulting words, much less put money in his pocket for them. You know, if Cellucci had any sort of decency, he'd use the book to apologize to Canadians for being a prick; however, he doesn't, so expect more browbeating from the undiplomatic ex-diplomat.

Is he leaving, or what?

2005-03-18T05:01:00.000-05:00

Today is supposed to be the day that His Rudeness graces us -- finally -- with his departure. So, can we begin celebrating, or is there a delay? (Another punitive measure, I suppose.) This sucks: my farewell-to-Cellucci post is all ready to go, and now I have to wait for exit confirmation before being able to publish it. Damn him!

Follow-up: Cancel the delay alert -- his ambassadorial duties ended on time. Nice of him to take partial credit for Canada's recent increase in defense spending while heading out the door, eh? (Pointing out a blinding glimpse of the obvious is hardly cause for patting oneself on the back, you know.) Anyway, I can go ahead and publish my diplomatic adios; however, I'll do so with a new post instead of adding a follow-up to this one -- trust me, it needs its title.

"Is Christianity under attack?"

2005-03-17T23:22:00.000-05:00

No, Cheryl Gallant, it isn't; nor is the Liberal government persecuting you. The rights of gays and lesbians -- and women in general -- under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other hand, are under attack...by Christian-conservative MPs like you. Thanks for asking your constituents the titular question, and for reminding Canadians that your party's social conservatism is alive and well despite its feeble attempts to appear moderate and mainstream. Clearly, the Conservative policy convention now underway -- the merged party's first -- is nothing but a sham, a facade of tolerance, an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of voters. If Stephen Harper really intended to turn his party into a centrist one, he'd kick you -- Gallant -- and your fellow right-wing extremists out of caucus. (The prime minister had to do that with Carolyn Parrish; why shouldn't the leader of the Opposition be held to a similar standard?) Until that happens, and until his moral compass, his home province of Alberta, drops its anti-gay and -lesbian fire wall -- Ralph Klein is once again using the notwithstanding clause to take a stand, last-ditch though it may be, against same-sex marriage -- the Conservative Party will remain nothing but a repository for bigotry in all its forms. Just because you talk of the center, doesn't mean you're anywhere near it; it's nothing but optics, just like holding the convention in Montreal is: we all know you're anti-bilingualism, anti-French, and anti-Quebec. Speaking of Alberta, parties, and bigotry, how the hell can Klein call himself a Progressive Conservative? Can someone please send the premier a dictionary? (I'll say this for his federal counterparts: at least the word "progressive" and all its pretense was dropped when the right was united.) And one final note about Gallant: I don't know about other Ottawa residents, but I find the fact that she represents a riding close to the capital -- Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke -- rather disturbing.

Happy to have been fleeced.

2005-03-11T21:35:00.000-05:00

I was expecting to have finished Golden Fleece before tonight, but snoring kept getting in the way. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time reading Robert J. Sawyer's debut novel; it's just that I have a reading problem: doing it in bed, as I am wont to do, invariably leads to sleeping in bed. (At one point, I jolted awake when the book hit the floor; amazingly, I had dozed off while holding it aloft in one hand.) Anyway, I'm glad to have finally checked it off the reading list, albeit years after I first heard about the Canadian sci-fi author and read the book's opening chapter on his Web page. An interesting component of Golden Fleece is its Canadiana, something you don't often come across in SF (although, perhaps I'm not the best person to be saying that). The story's pacing parallels the motion of the starcology -- spaceship -- that provides its setting: slow at first, gradually accelerating, and then hitting its peak with an ending that -- never mind, this is a spoiler-free zone. Let's just say that the danger of me falling asleep lessened considerably the closer I got the end of the book; I even -- gasp! -- skipped television to read the last few chapters. I'm not sure how I'm going to top that; perhaps my latest Book Market acquisition, Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan, will do it...

Phoque off, eh?

2005-03-11T19:34:00.000-05:00

Every year around this time, environmentalists, animal protection groups, and others get their hackles up over Canada's commercial seal hunt, for which I have become a sort of apologist. This year, the Humane Society of the United States is calling for an international boycott of Canadian seafood products, and is starting its round of protests with an international day of action against the hunt on March 15.

Two things came to mind when I heard about this: First of all, I don't think that any group from the U.S. has the right to call for a boycott of any Canadian industry given what their protectionist country has put our cattle industry, alone, through recently (and will be, by all accounts, for another year to come). Secondly, and it may sound callous to say this, but better to club a seal than to harm a human. Perhaps American protesters and some of their European ilk should be aiming their self-righteousness at their own governments for what they're doing economically and militarily to other sovereign countries and their citizens. I find it both sad and amusing when people's indignation is aroused to the point of action by animal slaughter, but not by the human kind. (Don't even think of responding with the line "But they're defenseless..." because I'll give you a long list of your fellow beings who are.) When it comes to HSUS and its efforts, there is irony at work. Is it that the society is trying to stop the seal hunt by calling for a boycott of an industry that depends to some degree on the culling of the fish-devouring animal? Or is it that it seemingly finds the seals more deserving of humane treatment than, well, humans? (Actions do, after all, speak louder than words.) Perhaps its members and other protesters would give a shit about the people of, say, Iraq if they realized that the wildlife there is just as threatened by the bombs and bullets; until then, a more philosophically appropriate placard for these people would read, "Save the seals; kill the humans."

I'll let George Carlin sum things up for me: "And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet, we haven't learned how to care for one another -- we're going to save the fucking planet?" Amen to that.

Follow-up: I don't know about you, but the more these people protest the hunt and reproach Canada and Canadians at large for the actions of a few in an economically depressed region, the more I want to clad myself in sealskin. (The "few" being people who need the work, both as sealers and fishers; what's more, by the doing the one, they increase the chances of being able to do the other: culling the seals boosts the fish stocks.) To really spite the protesters, I'd insist that only the cutest pups be clubbed and skinned for my garment, and that the bloodstains be left intact -- to give it character, of course. Oh, and fingers crossed that the sealers have footage of their kills -- call it the "club cam" or "pelt POV" -- to accompany the final product as a sort of certificate of authenticity.

Follow-up: I have no problem with Canadians, particularly those in Atlantic Canada where the hunt takes place, protesting against it. If it is as evil as opponents say it is, then change from within would be a good thing. But when people in Mexico and other countries with spotty -- at best -- human rights records are up in arms against it, I'm left stunned by the incredulity of the situation, with Carlin's "Are these fucking people kidding me?" resonating in my head. There are simply those who have no business poking their fingers into other people's eyes; in the case of gross human rights abusers, none whatsoever.

Follow-up: Yes, I know how to spell "fuck." Guess what the French word for "seal" is. Right. Now we're on the same page.

Her name is Erin Karpluk.

2005-03-10T20:47:00.000-05:00

Usually, I write about Canadian actresses I've actually seen in things, be they national commercials or homegrown shows. Now I'm banking on one that, despite a growing list of credits, I have yet to see in anything except previews for an upcoming show -- Godiva's, on Bravo!, in which she plays Kate -- but that was enough to pique my interest. Actually, "pique" is putting it mildly; I mean, just look at her IMDb Publicity Photos and tell me she isn't a woman that you could just fall in love with on sight -- I certainly did.

Follow-up: The JAM! Television review of Godiva's included a good photo of her. What a smile!

Carolyn Parrish, meet Marlene Jennings.

2005-03-10T17:54:00.000-05:00

If you're the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister with special emphasis on Canada-U.S. (relations), and you suggested during a committee meeting that Canada should "embarrass the hell out of Americans" around the world over trade irritants -- if not as a means of settling our disputes, then as a warning to other countries about the dangers of signing trade accords with the U.S. -- just how stupid would you have to be? And, more importantly, just how fast should you be fired by your boss? In the case of Marlene Jennings, I'd suggest extremely and immediately respectively, and in the case of the latter, preferably in the most loud and grotesque manner possible; maybe then Washington will hear and see it, and perhaps that, in turn, will lend less credence to the ever-present notion of Liberal anti-Americanism. (The Conservatives may have pounded a heartfelt apology in the House of Commons out of her, and then accepted it, but I don't think that part will be mentioned by their counterparts on Capitol Hill or by the right-wing press south of the border.)

First of all, if anyone is going to embarrass the Americans, it's going to be themselves -- it's their purview, just as it is ours when MPs like Jennings open their gobs and unceremoniously shove their feet in. Secondly, not only is her fatuous statement an embarrassment to the portfolio -- kind of like a health minister doing smack out behind the East Block, wouldn't you say? -- prime minister, Liberal Party, government of Canada, and country at large, it is the height of idiocy at a time when the Canada-U.S. relationship is suffering greatly. What I want to know is, what exactly goes through a Parliamentarian's head when making such an asinine suggestion, even facetiously? Does it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be of any benefit to the country? And why doesn't that brain lock -- the one that prevents you and I from saying everything that comes to mind -- kick in when they're about to embarrass themselves and their fellow Canadians? I have would thought that, post-Carolyn Parrish, the high road would be every Liberal's polestar -- apparently, not.

Way to go, Jennings, you moron.

Tragedy and shame.

2005-03-04T17:20:00.000-05:00

The day after four RCMP officers were killed in the line of duty, there are people using the tragedy to oppose the decriminalization of marijuana. What exactly has decriminalizing small amounts of pot -- which I support, by the way -- have to do with a convicted criminal using a firearm to commit multiple murder? The only relevancy of the fact that the gunman was running a grow op is that he was committing a crime; one of many, from the sounds of it: the four officers were securing the property until members of the RCMP Auto Theft Unit could arrive to search for stolen goods. By all means, crack down on grow ops and increase the penalties for their operation, but don't use the deaths of four Canadian heroes to play politics with pot. That conservatives, be they politicians in Ottawa or residents of Alberta, are using this tragedy to oppose the decriminalization of marijuana instead of, say, the possession and use of guns by criminals is shameful, myopic, and shows a lack of priorities. Equally shameful -- and asinine -- are those liberal-minded folks who are saying that the constables would be still be alive if pot were legalized. No, they would still be alive if a gun-toting, cop-hating whack job didn't ambush and shoot them in cold blood. And yet, apparently, pot is the evil here; not the fact that, as the RCMP put it, "the male" -- and by "male," they mean a felon who has spent time in jail, who is referred to by his father as "a wicked devil," and who, according to CBC, "is being described as a dangerous man, with a long history of run-ins with police and a lifelong fascination with guns and weapons" -- "was in possession of a rapid fire auto carbine assault style rifle." No, now is not the time to jump on the anti-marijuana bandwagon.

Follow-up: I, like so many Canadians, watched the March 10 memorial live on television. The sea of red, the outpouring of grief, the continent-wide police presence, the eloquent words -- it was all so...gratifying; a nation in mourning, indeed. Although, having lost my father recently, I'm finding it hard to grieve for those fallen RCMP officers. That may sound counterintuitive, but it kind of makes sense to me: I'm still numb from the one, so I'm numb to the other. I did, however, find it disconcerting that CBC Newsworld's French-language counterpart, RDI, aired only a little bit of the memorial before switching back to the Gomery Inquiry. I realize that live testimony regarding the sponsorship scandal has become the soap opera in Quebec, the province's version of must-see TV, but four members of our national police force died in a heinous crime, and their memorial was unprecedented in Canadian history. Judge Gomery, the lawyers, and the equally shifty characters on the stand could have all been taped and broadcast later in the day of mourning. In not doing so, the French half of the public broadcaster was disrespectful to the rest of Canada -- but, hey, it played well in Quebec, so who cares, right? (Tragedy and shame, indeed.)

I'm watching what these days?

2005-03-01T22:13:00.000-05:00

At a time when I'm forgoing network television in general, I not only watch CBC's This is Wonderland, Rick Mercer's Monday Report, and The Newsroom, CTV's Corner Gas, and Discovery Channel's Daily Planet, but look forward to them. (A vote of confidence in Canadian television if ever there was one.) It is a joy to watch such well-written and -acted characters as Elliot Sacks, George Findlay, and Oscar Leroy -- mercurial, self-absorbed, and curmudgeonly respectively -- to name but a few. Screw Cancon -- just give us more great TV!

My kingdom for a conclusion.

2005-03-01T18:53:00.000-05:00

Showcase has been airing the one-hour parts of British crime drama Cracker. It didn't take me long watching Robbie Coltrane's wonderful performance as criminal psychologist Eddie Fitzgerald -- a man whose flaws include chain-smoking, heavy drinking, and a gambling addiction -- to fall in love with both the character and the show. Now, while I appreciate Showcase's programming choice, it doesn't do me any good to enjoy it in fits and starts. When you keep missing the third and final part of an episode, a certain amount of frustration develops. You get yourself really into it, loving every moment, and then the end credits roll on that part. Months later, when the episode repeats, you still don't see how it ends. Enough was enough: I went out and bought the Cracker: Series Two DVD box set. I went with the second series because I wanted to know how episodes "To Be A Somebody," guest-starring Robert Carlyle, and "The Big Crunch," featuring Samantha Morton, end once and for all. (That, and the price was really good.) Right now, you're saying, "Get a VCR you moron!" If I did that, and had the episodes on tape, I couldn't justify going out and getting the DVD version, now could I? Besides, it's been on my wish list -- one that proves that, as time goes on, I'm becoming quite the Anglophile, entertainment-wise. If I had my druthers (read: lots of disposable income), I would fill my as-yet fledgling DVD collection almost exclusively with British comedies, dramas, and even historical documentaries: everything from Red Dwarf and Black Adder to Cadfael and Inspector Morse to David Starkey's Elizabeth and The Six Wives Of Henry VIII. Hollywood movies aren't the sort of things that I can watch repeatedly, so aside from a few favorites like Blade Runner: The Director's Cut, Conspiracy, my collection is going to be Brit-heavy and, therefore, very watchable. (No, I haven't forgotten Corner Gas: Season Two, a DVD I want to buy even before the season is finished.) Recently, I've found myself watching, or having on in the background, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes DVD box set -- the second in my collection, after Corner Gas: Season One -- almost daily because of its soothing effect; as with Jeremy Brett's Holmes, Coltrane's Fitz is sheer joy to watch, so I expect today's purchase to also provide a pleasurable escape from, well, everything. For me, that has become the raison d'être for DVDs.

Let the petty vindictiveness begin.

2005-02-28T23:10:00.000-05:00

Four days after Ottawa's muddled decision not to join Ballistic Missile Defense, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spitefully postponed her first trip to Canada. (Not a speed record for retaliation, but fast nonetheless.) I'm not happy with how the prime minister handled the issue either, but I think it's the height of hypocrisy for Bush and his cronies to be upset with Paul Martin's so-called "double-talk" and "sandbagging" when the president did exactly that during his state visit: agreeing not to raise the issue of BMD, then turning around and privately admonishing Martin on it before publicly putting him on the spot about the country's participation. (And Bush decrying anyone else's lack of leadership is just plain laughable -- irony at its finest.) Also hypocritical are the American analysts and experts on Canada-U.S. relations who fail to mention how poorly their own government handled the cross-border issue: no quid pro quo, just an "or else." (These are the same people who are suggesting that Frank McKenna, our new ambassador to the U.S., should be blunt and play hardball with the politicians down there. Yeah, as if that would go over well.) To my way of thinking, the ultimate double-talk and sandbagging is when you repeatedly tell a country that it's free to choose, then retaliate when it does. It makes Canadians wonder, myself included, why our country should be at the table with the U.S., discussing anything, when there's always a gun pointed to its head. Irrespective of the matter at hand, we can always be guaranteed of one thing: a puerile, knee-jerk reaction when the Americans don't get their way -- a diplomatic snub, the president refusing to take the prime minister's calls, and other passive-aggressive bullshit, for instance. Admittedly, Paul Martin's way of handling missile defense was to dither endlessly before making a seemingly unilateral decision; at least we're up front about it, unlike Bush and his chief diplomat, who won't acknowledge that they're throwing a hissy fit and vindictively punishing Canada -- again. Oh, and thank you to both of them for once again presenting us with a no-win situation, and for setting us up for yet another fall. Much appreciated. Jerks.

Follow-up: If, as the Americans are arguing, we're only hurting ourselves -- or, as His Rudeness is keen to put it, we're giving up our sovereignty -- by not joining BMD, then why isn't it being left at that? Why are we being punished by the U.S. anyway? Aren't we supposed to make a bad decision, get hurt, and then come crawling back with our tail between our legs, just in time for a "told you so"? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? America's concept of "lessons learned" seems to be that of the world's worst parent: warning a child not to, say, touch a hot element or they'll get burned; the child, ignoring the warning, touches the element and gets burned; the parent then beats the shit out of the child. Like that child -- for that is how the U.S. treats Canada -- we're facing both the consequences and their consequences. Gee, and they wonder why Canadians aren't sympathetic to their way of thinking.

Follow-up: Less than a week after the BMD decision, a judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction against reopening the border to Canadian cattle; this in response to a lawsuit filed by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America. That's either another example of the U.S. government allowing trade irritants to fester by standing idly by as powerful lobbies have their way, or someone's attempt at retribution; either way, Canada is suffering for it. Given that a lone judge -- the same one, incidentally, who granted the same complainants an injunction last year against a decision to allow additional cuts of meat from Canada -- is deciding the fate of an entire industry here, I think some questions are in order: Is the judge a Republican? Was he appointed? (Yes, it was a man; I'm not being sexist.) If so, by whom? If not, who elected him? The constituency wouldn't be made up of ranchers -- say, members of R-CALF USA -- would it? Hmm... So, as it stands, the border remains closed to our beef and cattle (at first because of mad cow disease, now because of court-sanctioned protectionism), the softwood lumber dispute continues unabated, and other ongoing trade irritants aren't going anywhere. What's the difference between how the U.S. is handling -- or not -- those issues and how Canada handled BMD? What's the difference between the U.S. giving in to regional lobbies and Canada giving in to regional interests? What's the difference between the U.S. wanting Canada to join BMD and Canada wanting the U.S. to reopen its border to Canadian beef and cattle? It seems to me that America's idea of quid pro quo is having Montana cattlemen stand outside a courthouse in their ugly-ass cowboy hats, all smiles, arms raised in celebration, cheering the pain and suffering of their Canadian brethren that has lined their pockets since May, 2003. (There's an image I won't soon forget; for me, it captures of the essence of the Canada-U.S. relationship.) On this, the day Frank McKenna began his new job in Washington D.C. Interestingly, I think our new ambassador might be paying heed to the analysts and experts: he's now suggesting that BMD would have been handled differently had trade irritants been -- had the political climate been conducive to do so. (Had Canadians not been so upset by the prolonged beef ban and illegal softwood lumber tariffs, for instance.) Good on him! Now for our point man to take on R-CALF USA and other lobbies...

Follow-up: Did I say, "standing idly by"? Did I say, "Republican"? Ha! The next day, one week to the day after the BMD decision, the U.S. Senate, including Democrats, quashed the plan to reopen the border to Canadian cattle. That's either blatant protectionism, or indirect retaliation -- take your pick. (I'm leaning towards both, myself.) Whatever it is, it reinforces Frank McKenna's assertion that festering trade irritants were behind the BMD decision; more to the point, that public opinion of the one affected that of the other. (Watching an entire industry go down the drain made me want to support missile defense.) Perhaps The West Wing, that flight of fancy about U.S. politics, should be casting a critical eye on America's protectionist and retaliatory tendencies instead of casting aspersions on Canada. CBC Newsworld's clips today of the show, picked for how they mirror the current state of affairs between the two countries, reminded why I stopped watching it at the end of last season; at that time, the lecturing about Middle East politics was getting a tad annoying. Although, its portrayal of a novice and Mr. Magoo-like Canadian ambassador certainly doesn't reflect reality, especially since yesterday: McKenna -- one of my former premiers, by the way -- may be a neophyte diplomat, but as a political operative, he's savvy, intelligent, and very experienced; in short, he's deserving of respect, grudging though it may end up being from the Americans. I hope, no, pray that his tough talk goes over well -- that I'm wrong, in other words -- and that it gets results for Canada. Just remember: there's a difference between talking tough and being disrespectful; McKenna can ask His Rudeness about that. (Fifteen days and counting, Cellucci.)

Follow-up: Bush was "personally offended" by Martin himself not informing him about the BMD decision? Yes, because, as we saw with the president during his trip to Ottawa, if you're going to be a prick -- say, by privately lecturing someone about, then publicly raising, an issue that was specifically not on the agenda -- it's best to do it yourself. Has it ever occurred to Bush that maybe, just maybe, Martin was personally offended by his approach to BMD, by him casting a shadow over a fence-mending state visit with it, by the way he put him -- and Canada itself -- in an awkward position over it? What a fucking hypocrite.

Follow-up: His Rudeness said that the U.S. was led to believe that Canada would be joining BMD. Yeah, well, we were led to believe that the U.S. border would be reopening to our cattle tomorrow. Looks like we both have to learn to deal with disappointment, eh? (Except, in our case, it's costing us billions.)

Words, words, and more words.

2005-02-27T15:34:00.000-05:00

I've written approximately 153,000 of them in my blog's 1,553 posts (excluding this one), up 43,000 from last count just over a year ago. That number is minus date headers, "posted by" lines, and anything in the template, as well as about 12,000 words of quoted material (up 2,000 -- I'm guessing -- from last time). Also, that's 153,000 edited words: all extraneousness, or as much as possible, has been eliminated, leaving the essence of the writing. I mean, I could blather on and on, endlessly repeating myself; instead, I try to make the writing as pithy as possible. I haven't done any precise calculations on this, but it seems to me that there's a 10:1 ratio between editing and writing: for every unit of time it takes me to write something, it takes 10 units to edit it. Actually, that's being generous -- I suspect the actual ratio is much larger. Point being, the editing is an attempt to not only produce grammatically correct writing, but make it as focused as possible. I don't always (often?) succeed on either count, but at least I try.

At least there won't be any hobbits this year.

2005-02-27T06:56:00.000-05:00

It's time for that perennial question: Am I going to watch the 77th Annual Academy Awards tonight? Well, considering that I've seen a grand total of four nominees, none of which are in any of the major categories -- a new low, even for me -- it seems rather pointless. Besides, there's a full episode of Dalziel and Pascoe on TVO tonight, followed by a new episode of Mythbusters on Discovery Channel. Even on Oscar night, one must have priorities.

Follow-up: Nope, didn't watch. The Oscars, that is -- Dalziel and Pascoe and Mythbusters were great. I haven't skipped the awards show in years. I guess I just don't care about Hollywood these days.

As oblivious as ever.

2005-02-26T04:43:00.000-05:00

Up until a few moments ago, I had no clue that The SF Site's editorial address was in Ottawa. Hell, I drove past it last week! I've really got to start paying attention. Sigh.

Hurry hard!

2005-02-25T21:39:00.000-05:00

Every year around this time my love returns: The Scott Tournament of Hearts. This year's, hosted by St. John's, Newfoundland, certainly hasn't disappointed. Congratulations to Team Ontario, representing the Ottawa Curling Club, for not only making it to the semifinals, but contributing to Colleen Jones and Team Canada's unexpected elimination. I'm becoming increasing enamored with Ontario skip Jenn Hanna and, especially, third Pascale Letendre, although Manitoba skip Jennifer Jones is giving them a run for their money in the beauty -- I mean, skills department.

Follow-up: Hanna's rink made it to the final against Manitoba. Woohoo!

Follow-up: Sadly, Team Manitoba defeated Team Ontario. In true nail-biting fashion, Jennifer Jones came from behind to score four friggin' points with her last, bloody stone. Sigh. Thanks to her team's comeback win, I've pulled all my hair out. Don't worry, I'm sure it will grow back in time for next year's Scott. Hopefully, Jenn Hanna, Pascale Letendre, Dawn Askin, and Steph Hanna will be there and will defeat the -- grumble, grumble -- newly crowned Team Canada. For now, give yourselves a pat on the back, ladies -- you've earned it.

And now for something completely different.

2005-02-25T06:34:00.000-05:00

My reading has been slow of late, so I only finished Jeff Noon's Pollen today. I may have gone with the book because I was in a Vurt frame of mind, but it's no Vurt. Of his debut novel, Noon said: "Basically, I was trying to import William Gibson into Manchester." Even before reading that, I thought of Vurt as having the subtlety and understatement of Gibson's early cyberpunk. Pollen, on the other hand, does not. In it, Vurt's mystery is explained away; heretofore enigmatic concepts like the Shadow and the Vurt are laid bare. Now, while I appreciate the understanding that the elucidation brought, I found that it, well, deVurted Pollen, for lack of a better description. It did, however, prove once and for all that no book in the Vurt universe ever belongs in the general fiction and/or literature section of any bookstore. On its own, the nebulous Vurt could be mistaken, incorrectly, by some as plain, old fiction; not so with demystifier Pollen on the scene. Next time I spot the error, I'm going to mention it to the manager or owner: "Have you read Pollen? No? You do so, and then ask yourself whether that non-SF&F shelf over there is the right place for that book."

So, another Noon novel next? More proof of incorrect categorization? A voyage further into the dream? Nah. It's time for some good, old-fashioned space opera: Robert J. Sawyer's Golden Fleece.

Federal Budget 2005.

2005-02-23T22:02:00.000-05:00

Granted, there's always the chance that the opposition parties force an election over it, but putting that aside, the budget's bright spot for me is the $12.8 billion over five years for the military -- the biggest increase in defense spending in two decades. That being said, it's only a start, and a slow one at that. I suppose saying "More, more, more!" and "Faster, Ralph Goodale! Spend! Spend!" (with apologies to Russ Meyer) in regards to the Canadian Forces would make me a fiscal conservative. Then again, I'm not one for tax cuts; I'd rather give the Canada Revenue Agency -- is that what they're calling themselves these days? -- more of my hard-earned money if it means the government spending more on essentials like the military.

A confusing day. Hopeful, but confusing.

2005-02-22T23:26:00.000-05:00

Frank McKenna, our new ambassador to the U.S., said that we're already part of Ballistic Missile Defense, in light of having amended the NORAD agreement last year to (logically) share information about missile threats, and that, therefore, we've largely given the Americans what they want. In response to the opposition's inevitable -- and fiery -- barrage about this during question period, Defence Minister Bill Graham said that it's not a done deal, that we haven't decided yet, and that we will only decide when the time is right and if it's in Canada's best interests. (I also understood him to say that the House of Commons would be debating it -- as demanded by the BMD-friendly Conservatives -- but I could be wrong.) Meanwhile, the news media is reporting that the prime minister has already told Bush at the NATO summit that we won't be joining the program -- at least, the offense part (no pun intended); helping detect the missiles is one thing, but helping shoot them down is another -- and that he will be announcing his decision in the House on Thursday. Um...one question: What the fuck is going on?

Follow-up: I don't know about you, but I feel as though a weight has been lifted: if Paul Martin's "no" is confirmed, it would mean the end of the uncertainty of BMD; additionally, it would remind the Americans, His Rudeness in particular, that bullies don't always get their way, especially when there's no quid pro quo.

Follow-up: The next day, the State Department said it wouldn't comment without an official statement from Canada. That, of course, didn't stop His Rudeness from shaking his head at us for the supposed decision. "We don't get it," said the ambassador. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest." I think the basic assumption here is that, if a missile is heading towards Canada, and we haven't joined BMD, the U.S. will let it hit us, if anything, to teach us a lesson and to say, "We told you so!" (After the impact, they're welcome to say that, of course.) You know, I have yet to meet a Canadian who is worried about missiles being aimed, much less fired, at us. Hell, we often joke that the country most likely to attack Canada...is America. Iran, Syria, North Korea, Canada -- what's the difference to the Republican hawks?

Follow-up: There are those who argue, on both sides of the border, that Canada is ceding its sovereignty by not joining BMD. But doesn't making decisions in response to one's domestic politics fall under the purview of one's sovereignty? It seems to me, judging from the Americans' reaction to any hint of us not going along with them on this, that Bush can make decisions based on domestic considerations, no matter how it affects Canada and the rest of the world, but Martin cannot, even when it doesn't affect the U.S.: missile defense doesn't require us; it's going ahead, with or without our participation. Unlike his Canadian counterpart, the president isn't challenged by an effective opposition, doesn't have any more elections to face, and, therefore, needn't worry about committing political suicide. His Rudeness is keenly aware of those differences and the rest of our considerations -- the majority of Canadians, especially Quebec, urban, and female voters, being opposed to BMD, and even more thinking that it's an election issue; the NDP and Bloc Québécois being dead set against it, and the Conservatives silently wavering on it; the Liberals being on the verge of an internal revolt against it -- but he won't acknowledge them, or the fact that Martin faces a Hobson's choice because of Canada's political reality, not the least of which being the fact that he has a minority government; instead, Paul Cellucci chastises and berates us, making it sound as though we're being offered a great deal but are too obstinate or stupid (or both) to go for it. Even Stephen Harper understands the dilemma, which explains why he and his colleagues have been quietly calling for a parliamentary debate on missile defense instead of loudly demanding that we (blindly) sign on. (It certainly makes for good optics in Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and other parts of the country where the party has few, if any, seats.) Besides, it seems to me that Canada cedes more sovereignty by giving in to U.S. pressure and joining BMD, than by taking into account domestic politics, including national unity -- something the U.S. doesn't have to deal with, and cares nothing that we do -- and not joining. If, as the news media are reporting, Martin has spoken to Bush and the CDS has contacted his opposite number at the Pentagon, both to pass on a firm "no," all that remains is the inevitable: retaliation by Washington -- I'm taking bets on how long the border will remain closed to our cattle and how much softwood lumber tariffs will increase...for starters -- and gratuitous attacks by America's right-wing press. Of course, I doubt either will point out the president's double standard: mending fences with France, Germany, and other European countries over something he oversold (Iraq), while breaking them with Canada over something he undersold (BMD).

Follow-up: As promised, the prime minister -- or, should I say, the erstwhile "Mr. Dithers" -- made it official on Thursday, February 24: "We are announcing today that Canada will not take part in the proposed ballistic missile defense system." My reaction? Given that BMD was never actually explained to us, by either the Americans or our own representatives, it's hard to say whether participation would have been the right course of action. I know, politically and domestically, it's the right decision for the minority government; in terms of defense, though, I don't know. Instinctively, the program has "bad news" written all over it; pragmatically...who knows. Again, any informed decision by the Canadian public was rendered moot by the lack of edification. Perhaps a debate in the House of Commons would have shone some light on it -- but we'll never know, will we? I actually agree with the Conservatives that there should have been one -- not just to explain it to Canadians, but to negate any resemblance to the preceding prime minister's decision almost two years ago; as it stands, it's shades of Iraq, and a debate would have illuminating. In addition, there should have been a free vote, same with Iraq, so that party divisions could have been exposed to all concerned, and the will of the Canadian people, through their representatives, could have been made clear to the Americans; they'd still dismiss any negative outcome, of course -- our will is, after all, irrelevant to them -- but at least they wouldn't be able to pin the decision on the Liberal Party's inner circle. At the very least, there should have been public hearings with expert testimony, perhaps under the auspices of a Commons committee; from an optics point of view, it would have improved the situation considerably: the prime minister and his cabinet deciding on facts, not just politics. On blame stand-by in Ottawa is His Rudeness, of course, who has so far called the decision "confusing." (Dang it, we've gone and baffled him again!) Well, as far as the ambassador is concerned, the reason we're not joining BMD is because he has been, and continues to be, a fucking prick towards us. Don't like it, Cellucci? I guess you shouldn't have been a jerk for four years, eh? Speaking of jerks, I honestly hope that Bush is sitting in the Oval Office, asking himself, "Did I misunderestimate lecturing what's his name and that other fellow on BMD?"

Follow-up: Further reaction from His Rudeness: "We simply cannot understand why Canada would, in effect, give up its sovereignty -- its seat at the table -- to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada." and "We will deploy. We will defend North America." After hearing all this talk of sovereignty and seeing the ambassador all aghast -- an Oscar-winning performance, to be sure -- it dawned on me why the U.S. is so eager to have us join BMD: they intend to fire missiles over Canadian soil, with or without our say-so. (Paul Martin may expect Canada to be consulted despite his decision, but it's simply not going to happen -- this is America we're dealing with.) By having us on board, they could have done that legally; by us not signing on, though, they can't do that without violating bilateral treaties and international law, and committing an act of war. Therefore, Paul Cellucci is doing his best to paint the decision as Canada ceding its sovereignty, so that the U.S. can justify its inevitable violation of our airspace. In other words, it is Iraq all over again: the U.S. government about to commit a fraud, and ours saying "no" to it without Parliament. Well, with the exception of the whole undermarketing, underselling thing -- Iraq couldn't be any further from BMD on that. (I don't know about you, but March 18 cannot possibly come any sooner for me; although, given his role as Washington's chief retaliation coordinator in Canada, I imagine the last three weeks of Cellucci's tenure at Fortress America will be the most arduous so far for Canadians.)

You show him a majority, and he'll show you leadership.

2005-02-22T11:48:00.000-05:00

"The uncertain leadership of Canada's Paul Martin"; "'Mr Dithers' and his distracting 'fiscal cafeteria'"; "The prime minister will probably survive a sleaze inquiry. Will that allow the old Paul Martin to stand up?" -- The Economist, February 17. This in response to his "faltering leadership" and, well, dithering during his 15 months in office so far. When I first heard the line "Mr. Dithers" (I'll add the stylistically correct period) a few days ago, in response to the article -- it's not as commonplace as The Economist seems to think it is -- I didn't know how to feel about the potential epithet, then I realized that it's not an insult -- it's reality: a tenuous minority government with an (actual) opposition party close on its heels; an ongoing political scandal courtesy of the former PM and acting like a festering wound, especially in the political minefield that is Quebec; highly controversial and divisive issues to be dealt with my said minority government, including same-sex marriage (currently) and Ballistic Missile Defense (eventually); Canada's perennial and tiresome federal-provincial bickering, backstabbing, and just plain whining; Canada-U.S. relations at an all-time low and the delicate footwork required to mend fences without losing, again, said minority government; a good financial situation which could easily become a bad financial situation without great diligence; the worst-case scenario of another nasty election -- and someone being punished for it -- hanging over Parliament like a storm cloud... I'm not trying to be an apologist, but the sad reality right now is one of a minority government and all the trepidation that comes with it. Hell, the Liberals get worried when ministers go on trips lest they're not around when a snap vote is triggered by the opposition. And, as the article mentioned, they just lost a vote on a piece of legislation last week. In that context, the dithering makes perfect sense; I don't like it, but I understand it. Do Canadians expect more from Paul Martin? Absolutely. Do want him to show more leadership? Of course. Would we give the same answers if someone else were in power? Well, yeah. That being said, perhaps the article will be just the sort of kick in the arse Martin needs to nix the moniker. That, or it will be bolstered by the political tightrope-walking necessitated by any -- you guessed it -- minority government. (Someone explain the concept to the Americans -- oh, wait, they want the Liberal government to fall, don't they?) Besides, better to be a man of inaction for the right reasons, than a man of action for the wrong reasons, like a certain world "leader" we know and loathe.

I was hoping for an Itchy and Scratchy wedding, myself.

2005-02-21T11:31:00.000-05:00

I didn't catch The Simpsons last night -- actually, I haven't watched the show since last century -- so I missed its take on same-sex marriage; however, I did see enough clips on the news to know that a correction is in order: Homer mentioning "Massachusetts, Vermont, maybe Canada" as places where the gay couple he was marrying would be lawfully married doesn't exactly take into account the eight of the 13 Canadian jurisdictions -- a fraction over 61.5 percent -- where it's legal and will continue to be whether or not the Civil Marriage Act passes. Something like "...and the majority of Canada" or "...and seven Canadian provinces, plus one territory" or "...and most, but not all, of Canada" would be much more apt; the only maybe about it is when and how the five remaining jurisdictions will legalize same-sex marriage, and whether conservative politicians will use the notwithstanding clause to override the Constitution. And given that Homer advised the same-sex newlyweds to "stay out of Texas," Canada should have its own warning: "stay out of Alberta." (Texas is, after all, known as the Alberta of the U.S.) Hypersensitivity on my part? A semantic argument? Perhaps. Either way, the show having the audacity to show people of the same sex not only kissing, but marrying (minus any last-minute plot twists, Simpsons-style), certainly has both countries' family-values zealots up in arms. I'm not sure which is more comical: the satirical cartoon itself, or the reaction these groups have to it. Our CFACers were particularly outraged by the corporate irresponsibility of airing the controversial episode at 8 pm, when children might be watching. (Better to use that time of night to indoctrinate kids into religious intolerance and human rights double standards, eh?) Or could it be because the show was aired the day -- a Sunday, no less -- before that most sacred of provincial holidays, Alberta Family Day? No matter what, I seriously doubt that they would have appeciated the titular feline-rodent nuptials: same-sex, cross-species, and bloody as all hell.

Stephen Harper's marital aide.

2005-02-21T02:54:00.001-05:00

According to Conservative MP and deputy House leader Jason Kenney, who seems to be doing a lot of interviews on behalf of the party these days, "marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman," and while it is not an "exclusively procreative" arrangement, "that's the core of it." The ideal -- and preferred -- marriage for Kenney: opposite sexes and procreation (of heterosexual sons and daughters, of course). This begs some questions: What about opposite-sex couples who don't want to have children? And what about those who, like same-sex couples, albeit for different reasons, are physically incapable of having children? If it's okay for opposite-sex couples to marry for love and not have kids, whatever the reason, then why isn't it for same-sex couples? Besides, since when is procreation a condition of a provincial marriage license, marriage act, or solemnization ceremony? When offspring are taken out of the equation, civil marriages are the same, except for the lack of an opposite sex in one and a same sex in the other. Of course, it's still a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and Kenney and his right-wing cohorts don't want that to be called "marriage" lest it affect the oh-so-sacred traditional kind -- the one involving a high rate of divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse, and just plain misery. Oh, no, you wouldn't want gays and lesbians to poison the institution of marriage with their loving, committed, long-term relationships. Damn their homosexual insidiousness! (Speaking of traditional, didn't some other traditions include slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, to name but a few?) I really think the MP for Calgary Southeast -- not just Alberta, but the same city as the CFACers -- needs some one-on-one time with the MP for Newmarket-Aurora, Belinda Stronach, one of the few members of the Conservative caucus to have the courage of her convictions and support same-sex marriage. The rest, as well as the other parties' naysayers, fear religious reprisal at the ballot box, being the cowards that they are. "Sorry you're still second-class citizens, but dammit, I have a cushy job to keep!"

With family values like these, who needs enemies?

2005-02-19T13:29:00.000-05:00

Not just a consumer boycott, but death threats, abusive phone calls, threatening e-mails, and the like -- that's what Famous Players and its employees got for having the audacity to run a couple movie-theater ads paid for by a company executive and sponsored by Canadians for Equal Marriage; ads saying such abominations as "'I do' means the same thing, whether you're straight or gay" and "marriage is a fundamental human right, whether you're straight or gay," and both ending unconscionably with "let your MP know you support our Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The horror! How dare they! Using facts, no less! All sarcasm aside, I would like to thank conservative groups like the Calgary-based (no surprise there) Canadian Family Action Coalition and its equally militant wing, the defendMARRIAGE Coalition, for their reactionary response to the ads; it was very...Christian of them. Lucky for the devout, the commandment doesn't read, "Thou shalt not make death threats." (And to think, these were text ads -- no icky gays and lesbians in sight.)

That being said, I agree with Famous Players' decision to put an end to issue-driven advertising in general (although, I would have run the ads a little while longer, for free, just to spite the boycotters); after paying good money for entertainment, an escape from the real world, moviegoers don't want to sit through a big-screen television commercial, much less an ad representing one side of a divisive issue, irrespective of their beliefs. Personally, a similar ad against same-sex marriage -- which the CFACers are still boycotting Famous Players to have put in theaters -- would have me out of my seat and demanding a refund pretty damn quick; there's no way I could enjoy the movie after being subjected to that kind of right-wing drivel. That, or I'd politely complain to the manager after the movie, if it's one that I had been really looking forward to seeing. You may think of that as hypocrisy, given what I've said, but I certainly wouldn't debase myself by resorting to threats and abuse to get my point across. I'll save that kind of reprehensible behavior for the pious and others who wallow in the muck.

The Famous Players controversy is further proof that opponents of same-sex marriage and its most recent incarnation, the Civil Marriage Act, will stop at nothing in their fight against equality. And that's what this is all about: equality. It's a human rights issue, pure and simple. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The superior or appeal courts of seven provinces and one territory, representing 87 percent of the population of Canada, have ruled in favor of it. (And the other provincial and territorial courts will eventually, whether or not the Civil Marriage Act is passed.) It's been determined, at both levels of government, to be consistent with the Canadian Charter and Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, it's the job of Parliament -- which, unfortunately, includes MPs like Jason Kenney -- to apply legislation, nationwide, to what is now a patchwork of equal marriage; in short, to harmonize it: to fill the gap of the five remaining jurisdictions and 13 percent of Canadians who live where they can't legally marry someone of the same sex (or have their same-sex marriage recognized). This is not for a referendum to decide, no matter how much conservative voters think it is. This is not for an election to decide, no matter how much the right-wing electorate complains about having it "rammed down our throats" (pardon the pun). Nor is it for Canada's increasingly vocal multicultural communities to decide, either; these immigrants, émigrés, and refugees should be grateful that they've come to a country where rights are added, (hopefully) not taken away, and where they do not face the sort of persecution that they, ironically, are subjecting gays and lesbians to. The rights of minorities cannot and should not be decided by popularity contests; that's for boycotting movie theaters, not for deciding who has equality under the Charter in provinces and territories where the courts haven't spoken yet. Your time is coming, Alberta; you, your bombastic premier, and your family-values groups like CFAC will just have deal with it.

A perfect sell, or passive-aggressive bullshit?

2005-02-17T18:54:00.000-05:00

I notice that the radio ads for Keanu Reeves' latest movie, Constantine, end with the line, "featuring A Perfect Circle's new single, 'Passive.'" (The television ads also feature it, but trailers are notorious for playing music that isn't in the film. James Horner's climactic Aliens score has been used how many times?) The kick-ass song is one of the two new ones on eMOTIVe, which I dutifully bought the day Bush was reelected. (Suffice it to say, I will never forget when the album was released.) But will the song convince me see the film? Um, no. It doesn't work that way with me -- but thanks anyway for boosting APC's profile and royalty statement, and for giving the song its due. Besides, these days, I have a craven attitude when it comes to Hollywood movies; in Constantine's case, I expect "Passive" to be the only thing that doesn't disappoint me about it...when they finally get around to playing the song during the end credits.

Follow-up: I'm getting the impression that "Passive" might actually be played in the body of the movie: APC did a video for the song, available for download on the movie's Web page, which features scenes from the film. The plot thickens...

NHL R.I.P.

2005-02-16T13:25:00.000-05:00

As expected, the 2004-2005 hockey season has been cancelled, and both the league and the players' association are to blame. I know little or nothing about the collective bargaining agreement and the business of hockey in general, but I do know one thing: businesses that screw their customers, lose their customers. The real losers, of course, are the game, the fans, and the businesses that depend on it; more to the point, Canada's game, Canadian fans, and our businesses, including sports broadcasters like TSN and the CBC, who are losing millions. (And pity the poor hockey commentators and their waning incomes!) That's why I say it's time to reclaim Lord Stanley's Cup and create an all-Canadian league to play our game for it. No offense to Vancouver, but if your climate does not allow for the natural creation of ice, if your arena is the coldest place you've got, then you have no business having an NHL franchise. That's certainly one place where the league went wrong: selling ice hockey to cities where the game cannot possibly be played outside, where the closest the residents get to snow is whatever's dumped by the Zamboni; that after having taken franchises away from snowbound cities like Winnipeg and Quebec City. Whether you like the game or not, whether you care about the season being cancelled or not, no matter how frustrated or indifferent you are, you cannot deny the fact that hockey has great cultural significance to Canada, and not just because it's our national winter sport. (The near-daily national news coverage of the lockout, alone, is proof positive of that.)

To be honest, these days, I don't watch hockey games until the playoffs, and even then, I have no problem missing individual best-of-seven games for fear that my team will lose. (I'm weird, I know.) Given that I've only been to one Senators game -- when the ticket was given to me -- it's doubtful that I'd ever attend games regularly, even if I could afford the tickets. I can't even remember half the names of Ottawa's players, let alone those of other teams. League stats -- forget about it. And yet, I have many cherished hockey memories: watching CBC's Hockey Night in Canada, eagerly anticipating Don Cherry and Coach's Corner; having Roch Carrier's The Hockey Sweater/Le chandail de hockey read to me in Grade 5; collecting Topps hockey cards (which I still have 25 years later); writing Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky for an autographed picture in Grade 2 (long gone, I'm afraid); translating the French hockey game on the radio for my uncle who snuck out of a dry wedding reception to drink beer in the car; attending a Nordiques home game -- before the team's ignoble death -- against Darryl Sittler and the Leafs; having Grecian Formula pitched to me by Maurice "The Rocket" Richard; flipping through the Bobby Orr book I got from Scholastic...

Even without these and other fond recollections, hockey would still mean something to me because it means something to Canada -- it's in our blood; it's part of our psyche; the fabric of our land is woven with skate laces and patched with hockey tape (pick your metaphor). (How else would Cherry and Gretzky find themselves alongside prime ministers and other historical figures on the list of Top 10 Greatest Canadians?) It's time to take the game away from the sunny beaches and hot deserts and bring it home, back to its frozen roots, back to where it has meaning, and build a new league, one with a Canadian soul. The NHL is dead; bury it and move on.

Great against carbon dioxide; stymied by hot air.

2005-02-16T12:13:00.000-05:00

No offense to Rick Mercer, but why am I being asked to take The One-Tonne Challenge when the Canadian government, a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol -- which entered into force today -- hasn't spelled out its emission-reduction plan, and, in fact, has scaled back greenhouse-gas targets for large industrial emitters? Then again, when you live next to the world's largest polluter, a country that won't ratify the global-warming treaty, does it really matter what you and your leaders do or don't do? It seems to me that, thanks to the U.S., stopping climate change is like ending war: laudable, but futile.

Follow-up: And how come all those companies that shove untold amounts of wasteful and unwanted junk mail into my mailbox don't have to take The One-Tonne Challenge? If and when I want a new credit card, I'll apply for one through my bank, thank you very much. I no longer eat at McDonald's and no amount of coupons will convince me to again. Just how many pizza menus do I need when I'm on a low-fat diet? My stack of menus, alone, is two-and-a-half inches tall; I've started using them to wrap people's gifts, just so they serve some purpose before getting tossed. Most junk mail, however, spends about three seconds in my possession while I transfer it to the blue box. Just how much energy is wasted in the production of this crap? Just how much pollution is generated? And I'm expected to take the government's challenge?

A very special National Flag of Canada Day.

2005-02-15T12:00:00.000-05:00

The Maple Leaf flag turns 40 today. Being younger than Canada's glorious red-and-white symbol, I've known no other. (I've been subjected to others, mind you; the Fleur-de-lis comes to mind.) My pride in the Maple Leaf is such that I plan on eventually getting tattooed with it, encircled with "Proudly Canadian" -- just to spite that faker, Future Shop -- or "Made in Canada" or "100% Canadian" or "No, I'm not one of those Yanks pretending to be a Canuck -- I'm the real thing, eh?" or some other patriotic slogan. In the meantime, happy birthday!

In other news, the end is nigh.

2005-02-10T23:17:00.000-05:00

Today, Paul Martin appeared before the Gomery Inquiry, the first sitting prime minister to testify publicly at one since Sir John A. Macdonald, 130 years ago. The PM's appearance, his personal attempt to quell the politically devastating sponsorship scandal, was not only history in the making, but potentially of great consequence to the Liberal minority government and, therefore, to Canada. It follows, then, that CTV News' lead story tonight, one rating both a report from a correspondent and an interview conducted by the man himself, Lloyd Robertson, would be Prince Charles' engagement to long-time companion Camilla Parker Bowles. Sigh.

The United Empire Loyalists will never forgive me for saying this, but when it comes to the British Monarchy, my only concern is which member's ugly mug will be adorning Canada's currency. Why Americans are fascinated with the Royal Family is beyond me; not being part of the Commonwealth, they will never have to be subjected to a bat-eared royal highness -- or worse -- by their coins and bills (no offense to commoners with protruding ears). Over the years, the Queen has gone from fetching to distinguished-looking (despite the hats); the Prince of Wales, not so much (and the kilts really don't help). Now, if the order of succession to the throne were to skip a generation and go straight to the heir apparent's son, Prince William, it would go a long way towards beautifying our money; even Quebec separatists would ogle the handsome lad when they go to pay for their cigarettes and beer. (A gross generalization, of course; besides, they're probably out buying poutine and 6/49 tickets. Relax, I'm being facetious.) It's quite a feat of genetics to end up with William after all those centuries of inbreeding -- but I digress...

Point being, CTV's news staff screwed the pooch tonight (the newscast, not the betrothed). (With apologies to the network for singling it out on this; I imagine other news organizations made the same silly editorial decision.)

Follow-up: Just because I and many other Canadians roll our eyes at the Royal Family and its...eccentricities, doesn't mean there's an Australian-style republican movement afoot here, even in separatist-minded Quebec. Getting rid of the monarchy, whether by referendum -- like in Australia, albeit unsuccessfully -- or some other means, is a non-issue in Canada; in fact, if were any more below the radar, it would be buried in the ground. Besides, the word "referendum" conjures up an entirely different -- and visceral -- meaning here, one that will occupy more of our time, energy, and concern than the monarchy could ever hope to. (As for those most likely to hold one, there isn't much point in the Québécois fretting over an outdated tattoo when they're planning on amputating the whole arm.) Our history, especially that of Canada's most-populous province, is linked inexorably to the Crown; when that pesky revolt took place in the colonies to the south of us, those loyal to the British Empire fled to what is now Ontario, hence its motto: "Ut incepit Fidelis sic permanet" -- "Loyal she began, loyal she remains." The nascent U.S. then went one way, minus England and its monarchy, and pre-Confederation Canada went another, with both along for the roller-coaster ride. However, just because the ceremonial role it and its representative, the Governor General -- picked, thankfully, by our government -- play in Canada is both historically symbolic and culturally significant, not to mention constitutionally important (albeit completely innocuous nowadays), doesn't mean that that freak show of a family back in the U.K. isn't above ridicule. Hell, why go to the circus when you can watch the royals? Prince Charles riding in a taxi for the first time; Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform at a party; Prince William looking devilishly cute as he manhandles a sheep; the Queen's dog pooping, piddling, or, tragically, being mauled to death by Princess Anne's dog; Prince Philip opening his mouth -- you can't buy that kind of incredulity-inspiring entertainment!

Sometimes my mind wanders.

2005-02-10T02:09:00.000-05:00

I'm thinking of creating a bubble bath called "Osama Pear Linden," featuring "aggressive bubble action." Think it will sell?

It's that time of year again.

2005-02-06T23:20:00.000-05:00

If the CRTC can guarantee Canadians anything, it's that the Super Bowl will be commercially dismal for them. I only caught the first half hour of Super Bowl XXXIX, but it was enough to confirm that this year's commercial breaks would be as disappointing as its predecessors (which I ranted about in 2003 and 2004). The way I see it, Super Bowl Sunday is the one day of the year the commission's simulcasting rules aren't of much benefit to Canadians. (With the possible exception of not having to miss any of the game while getting more food, taking a piss, having a quickie, whatever -- our commercial breaks can actually be used as breaks.) The other 364 days of the year, American ads can be as annoying as they are useless by promoting not-so-local businesses, quoting prices in U.S. dollars, raising issues that are irrelevant to Canadians, and otherwise disaffecting us. Inserting Canadian commercials into Canadian simulcasts makes perfect sense, and doesn't go unappreciated -- except that one day of the year when American ads become high art, monetarily and culturally speaking. So, instead of being able to watch the much-hyped Super Bowl ads in all their glory, we're subjected to the same damn ones the Canadian network -- whoever has the broadcast rights here; Global, in this case -- has been airing lately, interspersed with the few new ones American companies are willing to pay extra to have included in the simulcast. (Although, occasionally, a kick-ass Canadian commercial is premiered during the game; last year's "Kiss and Make-Up" comes to mind.) For football fans here, the game better be good -- the ads generally aren't. And so ends my annual rant; see you again in 2006.

Six weeks and counting.

2005-02-04T13:26:00.000-05:00

I know of only two kinds of Canadians: those who don't know who Paul Cellucci is, and those who've had it up to here with him. Those of you in the latter category who, like me, are eager for the glowering diplomat and his oft-wagging finger to leave Canada once and for all will want to circle March 18 on your calendars: the U.S. ambassador's much-anticipated departure date has been confirmed. That should give everyone enough time to get the munchies, (Canadian) beer, party hats, and "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!" banners ready for the big send-off. Now, while I grudgingly agree with his latest sermon about Canada needing to beef up its military -- something long overdue after years of Liberal decimation; our sovereignty and violations thereof in the North, alone, demand it -- I think four years of his undiplomatic admonitions and backhanded compliments are quite enough, thank you. Hopefully, his replacement won't be under the same delusion that bullies, and rude people in general, make for constructive critics.

Follow-up: According to Cellucci, our response to the tsunami was too slow. Whatever are we going to do after March 18, when His Rudeness is no longer around to point out the obvious to us? You know, after four years, I finally have the ambassador pegged: he's like one of those people who comments on your weight every time you see them -- except when you've shed some pounds. (On the outside, you grin and bear it -- slapping the person wouldn't be polite -- but on the inside, a little voice in your head is screaming "I know! I'm working on it! Shut up and leave me alone you inconsiderate jerk!")

Follow-up: He's critical of our defense spending. He's critical of us not having (yet) joined Ballistic Missile Defense. He's critical of this. He's critical of that. The closer he gets to leaving, the more critical -- and vocal -- he is. Has it ever occurred to him that maybe that's why polls in Canada are showing increasing opposition to BMD, for instance? (Sir Isaac Newton thanks him from the grave for proving that his Third Law of Motion -- "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." -- applies to diplomacy and politics.) Amazingly, Cellucci disagrees with those who say that Canada-U.S. relations have soured on his watch. (Perhaps we should add "delusional" to our list of complaints against him.) I think that in five weeks, on March 18, moments after his plane has cleared our airspace, the Canadian government should act upon all those things he's bitched and whined about for four years, just to spite him.

Follow-up: This is as good a time as any to mention that, shortly before the U.S. election, I asked friends from Boston about Cellucci, their former governor (1997-2001). Before I had the chance to give a litany of examples of his tactless behavior in Canada, they were apologizing to all Canadians on behalf of the people of Massachusetts. Now, admittedly, these are staunch Democrats, and he's a Republican; mind you, the sympathy crossed political lines: they were critical of the man, not his party affiliation or even his friendship with the president (hence the plum position north of the border, for which he resigned his governorship). Having had the displeasure themselves, they were genuinely sorry for us. It was all quite gratifying to hear, I must say.

What's Jeffrey Combs going to do now?

2005-02-03T22:57:00.000-05:00

Star Trek: Enterprise's cancellation today, although hardly unexpected, was unfortunate. The UPN show -- aired in Canada by Citytv, SPACE: The Imagination Station, and others -- had a good four-season run. Well, minus the third. (If I ever hear the word "Xindi" again, I'm going to puke.) Nevertheless, the show will be missed, and fans will be left with the thought of what could have been. (Personally, I was enjoying the exploration of the early human-Vulcan relationship.) As far as first-run space operas go, Battlestar Galactica will have to take up the slack. If you like that dark, edgy, non-gold-lamé version of the '70s classic -- I do, a lot -- the blow of Enterprise's demise will be softened. Of course, knowing that the Star Trek franchise will be in syndication in perpetuity doesn't hurt, either. Although, when it comes to re-runs, Earth 2 -- another great sci-fi series cut short -- has me captivated once again, ten years after its lone season aired.

Let the acrimony over matrimony begin.

2005-02-01T23:08:00.000-05:00

Now that Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, a man who is fast becoming a hero of mine, has tabled the Civil Marriage Act -- aka Bill C-38, "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes" -- the fight for same-sex marriage moves to the House of Commons, that bastion of civil discourse (said tongue in cheek, of course). As suggested by Canadians for Equal Marriage, I contacted my MP today to tell him that I support the legislation, and ask that he do the same. I've already used my words to challenge, albeit ineffectually, the claims of some of the more closed-minded -- and irrational -- opponents of same-sex marriage; now, on this landmark day, I must add something else to my rhetoric against these people: a reminder that, someday, they may be the minority in need of protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, some of today's protected minorities have short memories: Sikhs, for instance, fought for the right to wear turbans in uniform and elsewhere; now they're (supposed to be) opposing same-sex marriage because of an edict from their high priest in India. (If it's not the Vatican, it's the Golden Temple...) Another irony of this debate is that the bill's foes are relying on the Charter's fundamental freedoms -- "freedom of conscience and religion"; "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" -- to oppose gays and lesbians' equality under it. This has become a human rights issue through and through: those who being are denied them, and those who are using theirs to do the denying.

Follow-up: Oh, and America, stay out of our same-sex marriage debate -- it's an internal Canadian matter; it doesn't affect you; it's none of your business. (Would you like it if we went to Washington D.C. and lobbied your politicians on social security? Would it even make sense?) You're welcome to legislate against same-sex marriage at the state level, push for a constitutional ban against it federally, and otherwise relegate your gays and lesbians to second-class citizenship, reprehensible though it may be; just keep your well-funded Christian groups -- and their money -- family-values zealots, homophobic protesters, and others who have absolutely no business here to yourself. (Opponents in Canada who are getting any support other than moral from these foreign brethren take heed: sedition is a crime in this country.) Hell hath no fury like a Canadian scorned by inappropriate American lobbying; in fact, if I come across any of your citizens in Ottawa who are here for something other than tourism -- Winterlude is starting this weekend, after all -- or legitimate business, something nefarious, I'm going to give them a good tongue-lashing, preferably within earshot of Fortress America (lest its Republican masters have any involvement in the supposedly grassroots opposition). The rights of Canadians are the exclusive purview of Canada's constitution, courts, citizens, and, now that the bill's been introduced, Parliamentarians. You may share faith or sentiment with people here who are opposed to same-sex marriage, but you don't share their standing in the Civil Marriage Act debate. My reaction to your impertinent meddling, in a nutshell: Yankee, go home!

Follow-up: I'm not sure which is more sickening: Americans funding campaigns against same-sex marriage in Canada, or them pressuring our MPs to vote against our legislation; either way, it's revolting, and would be even if we were on the same side of the issue. I've gotten out of the habit of linking to news stories, but I should mention CBC's online story; up until I read it, I had been (stupidly) clinging to the hope that our neighbors would stay out of something so obviously not their business. (A week and a half later, CTV News had a similar report, which had me fuming as much as CBC's.) I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or insolence (or both) that makes them think, incorrectly, that not being Canadian citizens, taxpayers, voters, residents, or even people protected by the Charter -- do they even know what it is? -- somehow gives them the right to impertinently participate in our political process. Their sense of entitlement would make sense if it were their rights being debated -- but it isn't, and yet, here they are, impudently extending their tendrils into the heart of our democracy. If the roles were reversed, and it were the rights of Americans under the Bill of Rights at stake, what do you think they would be doing right now, besides going apeshit? Well-funded Canadian groups donating to American campaigns; Canadian citizens flooding Senators and Representatives with e-mails, phone calls, and faxes; the Canadian government involving itself to some degree, at the very least giving tacit approval to the aforementioned activities -- we'd be crucified in the U.S., even by the Christian right, and many there would perceive our interference as an act of war. And the reaction would be just as negative if we tried to legislate against their involvement here. (We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.) My only suggestion would be to shine the brightest possible light on these American meddlers, especially those acting surreptitiously: their names, contact information, and interferences -- contribution amounts, communication logs (including which Parliamentarians were contacted), border crossings, and other activities -- should be made public, so that Canadians can respond in kind, starting with the words "Fuck the hell off!" (First on the list: the Knights of Columbus, which supplied its Canadian brethren with postcards with which to deluge MPs.) And despite what those Canadians grateful for American assistance are saying, any lobbying and protesting we do in the U.S. is clearly not the same as what they're doing here: attempting to defeat Supreme Court-vetted same-sex marriage legislation and, therefore, deny our citizens rights under our secular-liberal constitution, based on their Christian-conservative values and beliefs. (Comparing our, say, participation in antiwar/anti-Bush protests there to their bigoted, anti-equality activism here is like comparing apples and oranges.)

Follow-up: Now what? So far, I've e-mailed my MP, the prime minister, and the minister of justice to say that I support the Civil Marriage Act and same-sex marriage in general. The good news is that they agree with me; the bad news is that they agree with me: I was preaching to the converted -- there was no fight to be had, no convincing to be done. Therefore, aside from futilely blogging about gays and lesbians' struggle for equality, my words mere drops in the ocean that is the Internet, I'm left twiddling my thumbs and worrying about the fate of same-sex marriage in this country; meanwhile, the bill's opponents are using their deep-pockets, bulwarks of faith, and impertinent American allies -- and their pockets and bulwarks -- to wage an all-out propaganda war against it. Because I feel that it is not my place to go outside of my constituency, as it were, I can only encourage like-minded friends to contact and/or visit their own representatives, perhaps going so far as to provide them with contact information (but hands off other than that); meanwhile, the Civil Marriage Act's foes are zealously blitzkrieging Parliamentarians left, right, and center, irrespective of whose MP or even whose country it is. So, I ask again: Now what?

Follow-up: On February 16, the same-sex marriage debate in the House of Commons began in earnest with the prime minister delivering an address on the Civil Marriage Act. His words, bolstered by those of the NDP's Bill Siksay and -- gasp! -- the Bloq Québécois's Gilles Duceppe (who even delivered his in English), encapsulated my feelings on the matter. (Stephen Harper also addressed the bill, but his kind of right-wing tripe isn't worth mentioning.) And so begins the descent into parliamentary anarchy...

Conscientious objection to the conscientious objectors.

2005-01-31T16:34:00.000-05:00

I really hate to admit it, but while editing my latest venom towards him, I realized that I -- gasp! -- agree with Bill O'Reilly on something: the U.S. military deserters who fled to Canada and are claiming refugee status here, however many of them there are by now, should be returned home. (That despite the pinhead threatening Canada with a boycott over them nine months ago.) Of course, O'Reilly and many Americans would prefer that we put them on a southbound plane, train, or automobile forthwith -- and that future deserters take heed -- instead of giving them a fair and impartial hearing first, as required by Canadian law.

What is indisputable is the fact that they are not draftees or conscripts (no matter how much Michael Moore argues that, socioeconomically, they are) -- they are professional soldiers in the world's most well-to-do volunteer army, and the only thing they're dodging is duty. They signed contracts in the form of enlistment papers -- or, more telling, reenlistment papers -- in good faith, knowing full-well what they were getting into, what joining up could involve. Ignorance is not a defense: they cannot claim that they honestly thought theirs of all countries would not deploy them overseas in offensive operations at some point or another. What were they expecting, the Peace Corps in camouflage? Did they think their hawkish commander-in-chief was looking for dovish GIs?

Whatever was on their minds when they joined up, obviously Iraq wasn't, and now they want to live here. While that's gratifying to Canada, and vindicates our opposition to the war, it doesn't change the fact that they're not refugees -- they're recalcitrant employees facing disciplinary action. The Immigration and Refugee Board's Refugee Protection Division may disagree with me, but I think they have no business coming to Canada and applying for refugee status when their lives are only in as much danger as their brave comrades in Iraq, and the only persecution they face is military justice -- a court martial followed by, at worst, some time in Leavenworth -- and the sort of scorn that ineffectual Democrats and antiwar protesters have to put up with these days. (When, say, their families have been hacked to pieces with machetes and they're dodging death squads intent on ethnic cleansing, then, by all means, they should flee to Canada as refugees.)

If America wants them back, it should have them; it's time for these two deserters to own up to their responsibilities as soldiers and citizens of that country. Afterwards, they're welcome to immigrate to Canada. The refugee board may not say anything of the sort in its rulings, but it should definitely deny their applications.

Follow-up: The board's ruling with regards to Jeremy Hinzman was the correct one: the first of the deserters to have his case heard was denied refugee status in March. Of course, with the appeals process, he won't be heading home anytime soon. (Given the Terri Schiavo fiasco in the U.S., no one there has the right to complain about claimants here exhausting their appeals.)

What I didn't realize at the time I wrote this post was that when Hinzman enlisted in the army three years ago, he joined the storied 82nd Airborne Division. What exactly did he think that paratroopers in the "largest parachute force in the free world" do for a living? When I heard what he chose to do in the army, I lost even more respect for him: of all the options available, he picked one that's a whole lot more armed, dangerous, and just plain gung ho than others in order to pay for college (or whatever his reason was for enlisting other than wanting an army career). It's one thing to desert your unit when you're about to deploy to Iraq; it's another thing to feign ignorance about that unit's raison d'être after you've volunteered for it. It's like someone joining the fire department and then objecting -- two years after the fact -- to being exposed to flames outside of training. Sheesh. (I have the sneaking suspicion that Hinzman saw Band of Brothers and thought that it would be cool to jump out of planes onto the field of battle, but then found out that it's only cool in peacetime, when the battles aren't real.)

Oh, and thanks to his rally appearances and media interviews, he's turned an application for refugee status into a cause célèbre for the antiwar/anti-Bush movement, one that isn't endearing us to the U.S. Given the awkward position he and other deserters are putting Canada in, they should do us all the favor of being grateful that they're not in Iraq -- for now -- and shutting the hell up.

No, you disgust the hell out of them, Bill -- and they're not alone.

2005-01-29T19:47:00.000-05:00

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly spouts the worst kind of right-wing claptrap with impunity, and when someone has the audacity to question its journalistic value -- in this case, CBC's The Fifth Estate ("Sticks and Stones," January 26) -- he slams them on the air, calling it an "attack." (Keep in mind that he refused to be interviewed for the documentary.) By blaming the Canadian government, O'Reilly has shown how little he knows about our public broadcaster; if he wasn't so ignorant, he'd realize that CBC is expected to bite the legislative hand that feeds it. (Remember the Somalia Affair? Following the sponsorship scandal these days? Think of these examples -- two of the many -- and ask yourself whether CBC is really in bed with the government, especially the Liberals, who lost their majority not too long after Adscam broke.) The Canadian public demands that its broadcaster be independent of the government and ruling party; of course, being a shill for the Republican party, Christian right, and neocon movement, O'Reilly wouldn't know anything about journalistic independence. Or balance. Or proportion. Or accuracy. Or integrity. Or accountability. Or any of the craft's other essential elements which CBC has in abundance but which Fox News finds itself sadly lacking -- call it journalistic penis envy. Go ahead, Canada, review your broadcaster's journalistic standards and practices, and ask yourself whether the American network measures up -- it doesn't; allowing someone as puerile, bombastic, and just plain biased as O'Reilly to be its standard-bearer proves as much. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fox News has no business broadcasting in Canada; why we're rewarding its constant excoriation of our country, people, and institutions by allowing it to is beyond me. (Oh, and adding Fox News to your digital-cable lineup, Rogers -- that's strike two.)

Follow-up: Oh, I forgot to mention what I thought of The Fifth Estate's documentary. Three things came to mind, starting with the urge to vomit: being subjected to those conservative blowhards and their ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy, misinformation (lies, lies, and more lies), and hatemongering literally made me sick to my stomach -- it was that disgusting. (Just about as nauseating as those traitors at CBCWatch.ca, who feed Bill O'Reilly's hatred of the broadcaster -- and all things liberal-Canadian -- and who think he's above reproach, no matter how many times he denigrates Canada.) Second, the documentary was a whole hell of a lot more fair and balanced than Fox News could ever hope to be; praise be that CBC has the aforementioned standards and practices. And, finally, homegrown right-winger Rachel Marsden clearly belongs on the other side of the border; why she lives here when she obviously hates what Canada stands for is perplexing. (Gee, and I thought David Frum was a scout for Fox News.)

Follow-up: I grew up with CBC Radio and Television. No matter where we lived, no matter which province, it was always there, like a security blanket. The kitchen radio was always tuned to CBC during the day. My morning cereal, before school, was always eaten with World Report. Family dinners meant The World at Six, As it Happens, and, on Sundays, Cross Country Checkup. We brunched with Quirks & Quarks on Saturdays and Royal Canadian Air Farce on Sundays (although, I always preferred enjoying it as an aural dessert, afterwards, in the living room). My parents capped off their weeknight television-viewing with The National and its then counterpart, The Journal. To this day, when I think of Peter Gzowski and Morningside, I think of days off school -- that's the only time I heard his show in full. His and other now-silent CBC voices, like AiH's Barbara Frum (mother of David) and Alan Maitland, will always be a comfort to me. CBC Radio One may not figure much in my life these days, but it's still an integral part of my life's soundtrack, and I'm damn glad my tax dollars help pay for it and the rest of my broadcaster's offerings. (Hell, on the basis of its quality journalism, alone, I'm willing to fund CBC.)

So, when Bill O'Reilly hurled his latest insults at CBC and, therefore, those of us who believe in it wholeheartedly, he inspired me to do something I have never done before: write the CRTC and CBC; the former to chastise it for letting Fox News broadcast here (the reasons being self-evident) and the latter to say "thank you for being you" (I'm paraphrasing). To safeguard my privacy, I won't quote my exact words -- there's always the chance that they could be used publicly by the recipients. Let's just say that I made my opinions known and will continue to do so from now on; actually, I have to: Fox News and its windbags are a blight upon journalism, and I must contribute my words -- and real name, which I rarely do -- to the fight against the disease in Canada.

Follow-up: This question may be too much of an afterthought to belong in this post; nevertheless, I'm going to ask it here: Does Bill O'Reilly also accuse the British of being socialists -- yes, in his mind, that's derogatory -- or does he prefer to maintain a double standard for America's closest friend and ally? ("Sticks and Stones" reminded me that, while pooh-poohing a Globe and Mail reporter and her reaction to his threatened boycott of Canada, he suggested that she was a socialist -- and for shame: the interview and its accusatory tone resulted in threats against the Canadian journalist, some racially motivated.) Apparently, it's okay for the U.K. to be led by the Labour Party, the self-described "democratic, socialist party," but it's not okay for Canada to be led by the Liberal Party, which the Royal Canadian Air Farce's Don Ferguson described as a cross between Ralph Nader and The Wall Street Journal. As far as I understand it, the L-word ("liberal") and S-word ("socialist") are both used as insults by American right-wingers, but if you're the latter, or have been accused of being one, it's overlooked when you help invade a sovereign country and, more importantly, help maintain the invasion's facade of legitimacy. Have I got that straight, you hypocrites? (Apparently, the irony of a journalistic crypto-fascist like O'Reilly attacking socialists, real or perceived, is lost on them.)

Follow-up: It's time for all those Canadian right-wingers and CBC-haters flocking to the now-broadcasting-in-Canada Fox News to decide where their allegiances lie. If they're subscribing to the channel to have access to an alternate, albeit questionable, source of information and to add another point of view, jingoistically American though it may be, to the national discourse, then so be it; if, however, they want to join O'Reilly and crew's chorus of Canada-bashing, then I have a serious problem with that. My patience is wearing razor thin when it comes to Canadians -- in name only -- who don't have the balls to stand up for their country; it especially bothers me when these pussies need the opinions of Americans and other foreigners to validate or bolster their low Canadian self-esteem. The fact is, Canada is not the U.S.; if these people cannot accept that, and are hoping that Fox News' denigration of our country will help bend and shape it into the 51st state or, worse, remake it in the image of Bush's America, then it's time for them to turn in their passports and emigrate south, leaving the rest of us to live the way we want and be Canadian as we please. (Don't let the Maple Leaf hit you on the way out, folks.) And before I'm dismissed as just another outraged liberal, let me point out that I also object to the media in Quebec, that liberal-minded though Liberal-hating province, being used to promote separatism -- the breakup of Canada. Would it be appropriate, in that scenario, for a news network from France to broadcast in Canada when it has adopted "Vive the Québec libre!" -- Charles de Gaulle's infamous call to arms -- as its mantra? And how would federalist Canadians feel when the CRTC approves the network's broadcast license over their objections and then Quebecers flock to it? To me, there's no difference between that and the Fox News situation.

Follow-up: Speaking of running out of patience, I'm close to calling Rogers to complain about it advertising its Fox News digital channel. This is a company that gets more of my money every month than any other, so why should I be subjected to the sickening image of Bill O'Reilly and other Canada-bashers? (When I'm trying to eat, no less!) Just like I have the choice not to watch a show that offends me, I have the choice not to subscribe to Fox News; I don't, however, have a choice when Rogers inserts one of its own ads during a commercial break on its cable network -- the one, again, I pay good money for. Rogers has reported and I've decided: I don't want to be reminded of Fox News polluting Canadian airwaves. If the company is not willing to listen to my concerns, then perhaps it's time for me to find another Internet provider; that would cut in half the amount of money it gets from me, and there would be great satisfaction in that. (Two birds with one stone: I'll also be getting Rogers back for taking XFM away.)