... an opinion poll shows that 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats want to bomb Agrabah, Saudi Arabia. Just one problem - it's the fictional town in Disney's Aladdin. This canard was thrown in with such serious questions as if one is evangelical and how much of a raise there should be in the minimum wage. You'd think those being polled would pay attention. Then again, I've been polled several times and I've been asked stupid questions like how much glasses of milk I drink a day ... as if that has a bearing on how I'm going to vote.
Some of the responses to the other questions were shocking. 33% of the Tea Party believes Islam should be illegal in the US, compared to 26% of mainstream GOPers (and that second one is shocking). 32% of the Tea Party said the internment of the Japanese during WWII was a good thing. And get this - remember Donald Trump saying Muslims on the Jersey shore were cheering when the Twin Towers came down? 36% of mainline Repubs believe that. It jumps to 51% for the Tea Party.
The first item was laughable. But as we get into the nitty-gritty, such as if mosques should be banned, it becomes totally unfunny. Politicians should be playing to our best hopes and not our worst fears. I'm worried it has become just the reverse.
Right now, either a Republican or a Democrat could win 2016, according to the current cycle's "Keys to the Presidency". The Climate Change agreement can be seen as a foreign policy success for the Democrats, but a lot lies on who gets the Dem nomination and if there is a third party run. If Trump wins the GOP nomination, I think it's game over. If he makes a third party run, it could be more complicated but when it comes down to the crumbs I don't think he's as a credible candidate as Ross Perot was in 1992 - a business person who actually had some practical ideas that Clinton adopted. (Balancing the budget, for one.)
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm almost hoping Martin O'Malley picks up the pace in the Dem race - he's way more credible than Bernie Sanders and could pose a challenge to Hillary Clinton if he does well in the debates. Besides, he actually has real executive experience - he ran both Baltimore and the state of Maryland.
Agrabah. Seriously?
Showing posts with label Humour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humour. Show all posts
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Sunday, October 30, 2011
There are overprotective trademark lawyers, and then ... there's the Legion
It is just me, or has the Royal Canadian Legion become a laughing stock for calling in the trademark lawyers to go after -- ready for this -- a group of veteran bikers who raise awareness about the sacrifices the men and uniform make for those of us who don't have the courage to. Why? Because of the group's emblem -- a soldier kneeling, rifle in hand, with a helmet on which is emblazoned a poppy; against the maple leaf in background. Seems that the poppy is legally trademarked and the RCL is flipping mad about that.
A few things. First, the poppy the group uses isn't the one familiar to most Canadians -- a felt four petal poppy with a black centre. The bikers are using the British poppy, which looks more free-form in style and is made of plastic. (There too the style changes depending on where you are -- in Scotland it's a curled four petal; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland it's a flat two petal with a green stem.)
Second -- the bikers are veterans themselves and are trying to raise awareness for the cause of remembrance as well as supporting our troops overseas. They're not in it for themselves
Third, this isn't the Red Cross, the Red Crescent or the Red Crystal (which all refer to the same general international neutral humanitarian movement). All of these, along with the currently dormant Red Lion and Sun (for Iran, until the coming of Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 when he replaced it with the Red Crescent), have the highest level of protection under Canadian law -- in fact the Trademark Act refers to those symbols quite specifically. Any commercial use of the red symbols that might confuse people into thinking a product or service is endorsed by the Red Cross should of course be addressed.
There are a few other symbols that get specific protection under law -- royal crests, the coats of arms of Canada, the provinces and cities, current and past Governors General, the Mounties and so forth. So is the poppy under its articles of incorporation (to be clear, the one specific poppy design we're familiar with in Canada and its reverse colours), but I don't think Parliament ever intended the RCL to become the equivalent of the Tongue Troopers -- um, L'Office québécois de la langue française. There can be no confusing this poppy (the British poppy) with the poppy used in Canada. And remembrance is a civic duty for all, it is not the sole monopoly of the Legion.
Does this mean if I post a poppy, along with the poem "In Flanders Fields" on Remembrance Day, as do so many bloggers worldwide, I am breaking copyright law? I mean, get real. I can understand now why a growing number of people wear the white poppy as a sign of protest against all wars. This custom has been going on since 1926 but it has increasingly curried favour among many.
Should the bikers have asked for permission? Technically, yes, perhaps. But a sledgehammer strategy does no good for anyone. We honour the dead by trying to live lives of peace even as we prepare for wars we may not want to fight; but that does not mean sending in the Fourth Mechanized Lawyers' Battalion. Overreacting over "religious headgear" is what brought disrepute to the Legion a number of years ago, and now this. No wonder so many veterans don't want anything to do with the RCL and I can't blame them one jot.
Just shake hands and leave well enough alone, guys. After all, you fought for all of us, not the party in power when you fought.
A few things. First, the poppy the group uses isn't the one familiar to most Canadians -- a felt four petal poppy with a black centre. The bikers are using the British poppy, which looks more free-form in style and is made of plastic. (There too the style changes depending on where you are -- in Scotland it's a curled four petal; in England, Wales and Northern Ireland it's a flat two petal with a green stem.)
Second -- the bikers are veterans themselves and are trying to raise awareness for the cause of remembrance as well as supporting our troops overseas. They're not in it for themselves
Third, this isn't the Red Cross, the Red Crescent or the Red Crystal (which all refer to the same general international neutral humanitarian movement). All of these, along with the currently dormant Red Lion and Sun (for Iran, until the coming of Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 when he replaced it with the Red Crescent), have the highest level of protection under Canadian law -- in fact the Trademark Act refers to those symbols quite specifically. Any commercial use of the red symbols that might confuse people into thinking a product or service is endorsed by the Red Cross should of course be addressed.
There are a few other symbols that get specific protection under law -- royal crests, the coats of arms of Canada, the provinces and cities, current and past Governors General, the Mounties and so forth. So is the poppy under its articles of incorporation (to be clear, the one specific poppy design we're familiar with in Canada and its reverse colours), but I don't think Parliament ever intended the RCL to become the equivalent of the Tongue Troopers -- um, L'Office québécois de la langue française. There can be no confusing this poppy (the British poppy) with the poppy used in Canada. And remembrance is a civic duty for all, it is not the sole monopoly of the Legion.
Does this mean if I post a poppy, along with the poem "In Flanders Fields" on Remembrance Day, as do so many bloggers worldwide, I am breaking copyright law? I mean, get real. I can understand now why a growing number of people wear the white poppy as a sign of protest against all wars. This custom has been going on since 1926 but it has increasingly curried favour among many.
Should the bikers have asked for permission? Technically, yes, perhaps. But a sledgehammer strategy does no good for anyone. We honour the dead by trying to live lives of peace even as we prepare for wars we may not want to fight; but that does not mean sending in the Fourth Mechanized Lawyers' Battalion. Overreacting over "religious headgear" is what brought disrepute to the Legion a number of years ago, and now this. No wonder so many veterans don't want anything to do with the RCL and I can't blame them one jot.
Just shake hands and leave well enough alone, guys. After all, you fought for all of us, not the party in power when you fought.
Friday, February 25, 2011
In and Out updated
News broke this morning that four senior Con party officials as well as the governing party itself have been charged with violations of campaign spending rules. Remember the allegation that has been brewing for a couple of years now, that the party funneled money into local campaigns, then yanked it back so they could buy more ad time for their national campaign and thus exceeded the $18 million spending limit by at least a million.
Leave it to the courts to determine where this is going ... but I'll wish you a good weekend with this appropriate skit from Sesame Street -- "In and Out Fever."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Leave it to the courts to determine where this is going ... but I'll wish you a good weekend with this appropriate skit from Sesame Street -- "In and Out Fever."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Double dipping, British Isles Style; OR Gerry Adams: He's an MP. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not ...
Boy are there a lot of red -- and green -- faces in the British Isles. And it's all over the decision by Gerry Adams to quit one MP's seat in one country to run for an MP's seat in another.
Here in Canada if you want to resign as an MP, you just tender a resignation letter to the Speaker of the House, then the Prime Minister issues a warrant to hold a by-election in the vacant district -- anywhere from 3 weeks out if it's a government seat, up to six months out if it's an opposition one. Simple enough.
In the United Kingdom, it's not quite that simple. Owing to a 1642 Parliamentary resolution there are only two ways you can vacate the seat for the district for which you were elected. One, you die. Two, you accept an office from the Crown -- whether it's a promotion to the House of Lords, an ambassadorship, head of a Quango (i.e. crown corporation), etc.
Simple enough, except Gerry Adams -- whatever else one may call him -- is also an "abstentionist" member of the British Parliament (that is, he was elected but refused to take an oath to the Queen and therefore could not take his seat, although he certainly could collect a salary and expense allowance), representing Belfast West, as well as being a member of the Northern Ireland regional assembly. In a bid to go after his long sought dream, becoming the Taoiseach (Irish PM) he resigned from the MP's seat so he could officially file papers to run for election as a Teachta Dála (TD, or Irish MP) in a county right on the border between the North and South. To get around the problem he couldn't "voluntarily" resign, it was announced he was named a peer -- yes, a British Lord -- with the awkward title of, get ready, Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, one of two offices the British government long ago created specially to deal with situations like this.
The problem of course is that Adams never actually accepted the role even though it was announced that he did. And the British PM was forced to apologize to Adams today.
And making things even more complicated are two things. First is the Irish Constitution, which was revised in 1998 to renounce the South's claim to the North (redefining the Irish nation not as an island, but as a people; and that reunification could only happen democratically). That Constitution, which has also since been amended to reflect the contentious Treaty of Lisbon, states among other things that while a TD cannot also serve as a member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, it does not apparently prevent a TD from serving in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the British Parliament.
And second? It seems that under a 2000 British law, a sitting MP can also be a TD.
It's bad enough that one can be both an MP as well as a member of one of the national assemblies in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. But to be an MP in both the UK and Ireland?
Imagine if one was elected as an MP in Canada as well as a Representative in the United States. Here, we swear allegiance to the same Queen the UK has. In the States, everyone from the Vice President on down takes a pledge (the President has his or her own oath) to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We already frown (although we also tend to look the other way) at people who resign one office, run for another at a higher level and collect both a salary and a pension -- double dipping, we call it.
Relations between our two countries, while testy at times, are still well above cordial -- as well as can be expected for sovereign states that are tied by history.
But not quite to the extent that the UK and Ireland are (not just because of their shared geography but also their membership in the European Union). But we would never, ever tolerate a splitting of allegiances. There have been Canadians who have held high office in the US -- Jennifer Granholm, for instance, recently ended a two-term stint as Governor of Michigan -- but they didn't hold any Canadian offices at the time, and we would be livid if an MP also moonlighted as an American legislator, even if it was elected dogcatcher.
For historical reasons (which are not entirely clear), however, the UK has always allowed not just its citizens but also citizens of Commonwealth countries resident in the UK to vote, a privilege also extended to Irish citizens who have free movement in the UK. Because Ireland renounced its irrendentist claim to the North (as I noted above) the reason for banning Irishmen and Irishwomen from seeking public office in the UK as well, was also removed in 2000.
It's obvious the problem presented -- a terrible even if well intentioned conflict of interest. One that could lead to Sinn Féin's goal of a united Ireland by stealth. Technicalities aside, there should be no conflict of interest at all. If Mr. Adams wants to quit his Belfast seat, a simple resignation letter should suffice. It's never been a secret what his aims are. But he has to choose once and for all where he wants to fight -- in the halls of Westminster in London, or in the halls of the assembly of what he still calls "The Dublin Republic."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Here in Canada if you want to resign as an MP, you just tender a resignation letter to the Speaker of the House, then the Prime Minister issues a warrant to hold a by-election in the vacant district -- anywhere from 3 weeks out if it's a government seat, up to six months out if it's an opposition one. Simple enough.
In the United Kingdom, it's not quite that simple. Owing to a 1642 Parliamentary resolution there are only two ways you can vacate the seat for the district for which you were elected. One, you die. Two, you accept an office from the Crown -- whether it's a promotion to the House of Lords, an ambassadorship, head of a Quango (i.e. crown corporation), etc.
Simple enough, except Gerry Adams -- whatever else one may call him -- is also an "abstentionist" member of the British Parliament (that is, he was elected but refused to take an oath to the Queen and therefore could not take his seat, although he certainly could collect a salary and expense allowance), representing Belfast West, as well as being a member of the Northern Ireland regional assembly. In a bid to go after his long sought dream, becoming the Taoiseach (Irish PM) he resigned from the MP's seat so he could officially file papers to run for election as a Teachta Dála (TD, or Irish MP) in a county right on the border between the North and South. To get around the problem he couldn't "voluntarily" resign, it was announced he was named a peer -- yes, a British Lord -- with the awkward title of, get ready, Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, one of two offices the British government long ago created specially to deal with situations like this.
The problem of course is that Adams never actually accepted the role even though it was announced that he did. And the British PM was forced to apologize to Adams today.
And making things even more complicated are two things. First is the Irish Constitution, which was revised in 1998 to renounce the South's claim to the North (redefining the Irish nation not as an island, but as a people; and that reunification could only happen democratically). That Constitution, which has also since been amended to reflect the contentious Treaty of Lisbon, states among other things that while a TD cannot also serve as a member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, it does not apparently prevent a TD from serving in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the British Parliament.
And second? It seems that under a 2000 British law, a sitting MP can also be a TD.
It's bad enough that one can be both an MP as well as a member of one of the national assemblies in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. But to be an MP in both the UK and Ireland?
Imagine if one was elected as an MP in Canada as well as a Representative in the United States. Here, we swear allegiance to the same Queen the UK has. In the States, everyone from the Vice President on down takes a pledge (the President has his or her own oath) to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We already frown (although we also tend to look the other way) at people who resign one office, run for another at a higher level and collect both a salary and a pension -- double dipping, we call it.
Relations between our two countries, while testy at times, are still well above cordial -- as well as can be expected for sovereign states that are tied by history.
But not quite to the extent that the UK and Ireland are (not just because of their shared geography but also their membership in the European Union). But we would never, ever tolerate a splitting of allegiances. There have been Canadians who have held high office in the US -- Jennifer Granholm, for instance, recently ended a two-term stint as Governor of Michigan -- but they didn't hold any Canadian offices at the time, and we would be livid if an MP also moonlighted as an American legislator, even if it was elected dogcatcher.
For historical reasons (which are not entirely clear), however, the UK has always allowed not just its citizens but also citizens of Commonwealth countries resident in the UK to vote, a privilege also extended to Irish citizens who have free movement in the UK. Because Ireland renounced its irrendentist claim to the North (as I noted above) the reason for banning Irishmen and Irishwomen from seeking public office in the UK as well, was also removed in 2000.
It's obvious the problem presented -- a terrible even if well intentioned conflict of interest. One that could lead to Sinn Féin's goal of a united Ireland by stealth. Technicalities aside, there should be no conflict of interest at all. If Mr. Adams wants to quit his Belfast seat, a simple resignation letter should suffice. It's never been a secret what his aims are. But he has to choose once and for all where he wants to fight -- in the halls of Westminster in London, or in the halls of the assembly of what he still calls "The Dublin Republic."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
If the death penalty ISN'T on Steve's agenda, what IS?
So at long last, Steve allowed one layer of skin on his onion to be peeled. He told Peter Mansbridge that he does support the death penalty but he won't bring it up for debate in Parliament -- or at least, he doesn't plan to. The unspoken addendum of course is, for now.
Those of us who oppose him have long accused him of a secret agenda.
And it's worth pointing out that once a country reinstates capital punishment it's open season for any of a number of other human rights abuses, as we see so often in the United States. That doesn't mean our record is exactly, perfect -- witness our continued mistreatment of Aboriginals, for instance -- but we are generally seen as being better in the world view. If Harper wants us to go back to the ante 1982 era sans Charter, or even before 1960 sans Bill of Rights, he should just come out and say it. Wait, he actually did last night.
Maybe Harper doesn't realize it, but he may have very well thrown the entire process of negotiations with the EU on free trade and labour mobility, currently in round five, into jeopardy. While agriculture doesn't seem to be as big an issue as thought (i.e. our system of collective supply management vs. their CAP) -- the process has bogged down over Canada's present visa restrictions on the Czech Republic, which runs counter to Europe's open border (literally) policy. But one thing the 27 EU states are in unison on is capital punishment. All 27 countries outlaw it for civilian crime, and 26 out of the 27 have abolished it all together even for war crimes (the exception is Latvia although it maintains a moratorium on the latter as well). In fact, membership for new or potential members is contingent on adoption of Protocol 13 (total abolition) which is why Turkey, 95% Muslim, became the first Islamic state to get rid of the practice.
Does Harper seriously believe a free trade deal will be inked if he pushes it on this issue? Does he realize this is one reason why the US and Europe, allies on most military and foreign policy issues, are so often at loggerheads when it comes to trade?
More importantly, does Harper remember the name Guy Paul Morin? It's been 16 years since he's been exonerated in the sadistic sex slaying of his nine year old neighbour, Christine Jessop, and neither the Morins nor the Jessops are anywhere closer to knowing who killed Christine. What if Morin had been executed and then the truth came out? What would Harper have said? Stuff happens?
If this is Harper's true view on one of the most fundamental issues there is, then what is his real view on health care, supplemented pensions for low income seniors, financial aid for students -- in fact, the entire social safety net? Is it, as on the environment and military policy, whatever the US says it should be?
Apologies to Bill Engvall (who, if I recall correctly, supports the death penalty) but I have to say to Steve on this one, "Here's Your Sign."
UPDATE (9:46 EST, 1446 GMT): Fellow blogger Scott Tribe has the same awful feeling I do, that Harper will try to push this one through on a private member's bill -- it's food for thought since at least one Reform et sequens MP has introduced a private member's bill on reinstatement in every session since 1994.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Those of us who oppose him have long accused him of a secret agenda.
And it's worth pointing out that once a country reinstates capital punishment it's open season for any of a number of other human rights abuses, as we see so often in the United States. That doesn't mean our record is exactly, perfect -- witness our continued mistreatment of Aboriginals, for instance -- but we are generally seen as being better in the world view. If Harper wants us to go back to the ante 1982 era sans Charter, or even before 1960 sans Bill of Rights, he should just come out and say it. Wait, he actually did last night.
Maybe Harper doesn't realize it, but he may have very well thrown the entire process of negotiations with the EU on free trade and labour mobility, currently in round five, into jeopardy. While agriculture doesn't seem to be as big an issue as thought (i.e. our system of collective supply management vs. their CAP) -- the process has bogged down over Canada's present visa restrictions on the Czech Republic, which runs counter to Europe's open border (literally) policy. But one thing the 27 EU states are in unison on is capital punishment. All 27 countries outlaw it for civilian crime, and 26 out of the 27 have abolished it all together even for war crimes (the exception is Latvia although it maintains a moratorium on the latter as well). In fact, membership for new or potential members is contingent on adoption of Protocol 13 (total abolition) which is why Turkey, 95% Muslim, became the first Islamic state to get rid of the practice.
Does Harper seriously believe a free trade deal will be inked if he pushes it on this issue? Does he realize this is one reason why the US and Europe, allies on most military and foreign policy issues, are so often at loggerheads when it comes to trade?
More importantly, does Harper remember the name Guy Paul Morin? It's been 16 years since he's been exonerated in the sadistic sex slaying of his nine year old neighbour, Christine Jessop, and neither the Morins nor the Jessops are anywhere closer to knowing who killed Christine. What if Morin had been executed and then the truth came out? What would Harper have said? Stuff happens?
If this is Harper's true view on one of the most fundamental issues there is, then what is his real view on health care, supplemented pensions for low income seniors, financial aid for students -- in fact, the entire social safety net? Is it, as on the environment and military policy, whatever the US says it should be?
Apologies to Bill Engvall (who, if I recall correctly, supports the death penalty) but I have to say to Steve on this one, "Here's Your Sign."
UPDATE (9:46 EST, 1446 GMT): Fellow blogger Scott Tribe has the same awful feeling I do, that Harper will try to push this one through on a private member's bill -- it's food for thought since at least one Reform et sequens MP has introduced a private member's bill on reinstatement in every session since 1994.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
As 2010 ends ...
... my wishes to you for a good New Year and a prayer that common sense will finally prevail on any of a number of fronts.
To close the year, something that I saw a little while ago that really cracked me up, from The Muppets ™ -- too bad you couldn't get politicians in Canada into the same room for six minutes to do something like this, not any more anyway.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
To close the year, something that I saw a little while ago that really cracked me up, from The Muppets ™ -- too bad you couldn't get politicians in Canada into the same room for six minutes to do something like this, not any more anyway.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
When Mr. Sexy meets -- Mr. Sexy
Nothing really on my mind, so let's have some fun for a change.
A few weeks back, Right Between the Ears (one of the most misunderstood but funniest shows on NPR) performed their latest twist on their Antonio Banderas gag -- this time, with Banderas meeting "The Most Interesting Man in the World" and a totally unexpected party crasher. This one had me howling, I hope it gives you a laugh too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
A few weeks back, Right Between the Ears (one of the most misunderstood but funniest shows on NPR) performed their latest twist on their Antonio Banderas gag -- this time, with Banderas meeting "The Most Interesting Man in the World" and a totally unexpected party crasher. This one had me howling, I hope it gives you a laugh too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Can't terrorist groups come up with better names?
There's ETA (Basque Freedom and Homeland) ... the Tamil "Tigers" ... and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a separatist group in the Phillipines. Yes ... MILF.
Maybe that's why many people don't take the threat seriously. With a name like that ... who would?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Maybe that's why many people don't take the threat seriously. With a name like that ... who would?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Double Exposure Remembrance Day podcast
This is quite a surprise but a nice one ... comedians Bob Robertson and Linda Cullen ("Double Exposure") get very serious for once and have put together a 45 minute podcast in honour of Remembrance / Veterans Day, tomorrow, November 11. Their motivation: Hadnan Hajizade and Emin Abdullayev, who are in jail in Azerbaijan for a satirical video. This is very moving. You can get it off iTunes or download it directly from the humourists' website.
http://doublexposureradio.com/remembrance.html
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
http://doublexposureradio.com/remembrance.html
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Double Exposure is back!
After a hiatus of several years, the brilliant Vancouver impressionists Bob Robertson and Linda Cullen made a comeback a few months ago and resumed their weekly comedy show on mp3 podcast -- and I discovered it by accident this week. Fortunately, it's free! To find out how to subscribe, visit the Double Exposure website. With the new format, they're of course free from standards and practices so you might not want to let pre-teens listen to it -- oh what the heck, most of us talk like that anyway so let it rip!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Steve and Robert
I've heard of diplomatic faux pas in the past -- such as the time when my alma mater McMaster University hoisted the Japanese flag when a delegation from China showed up in town. But how can Canada's PM forget how to spell the word Iqaluit? Someone in PMS' office added an extra "u" after the q, following the general spelling rules. But as we all found out, that extra "u" turns it into a very rude word in the Inuktatut language.
Sure, many media outlets have made the error. Even I have on occasion. But the guy who is primus inter pares? Lord Almighty.
Also, Bob Novak died today. Brain cancer. I generally disagreed with his politics, and his involvement in the uncovering of a CIA agent is still too terrible to contemplate. But many in the Washington inside crowd on both sides always spoke highly of him as an intelligent and compassionate human being. Another microphone has gone silent forever. Too bad.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sure, many media outlets have made the error. Even I have on occasion. But the guy who is primus inter pares? Lord Almighty.
Also, Bob Novak died today. Brain cancer. I generally disagreed with his politics, and his involvement in the uncovering of a CIA agent is still too terrible to contemplate. But many in the Washington inside crowd on both sides always spoke highly of him as an intelligent and compassionate human being. Another microphone has gone silent forever. Too bad.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Sarah and Todd NOT divorcing
It sounded like a plausible theory at the time: When Sarah Palin gave her rambling farewell speech a week ago today, many were thinking what was the real reason she was quitting into her first term in office, a year and a half before the election? Then rumours started spreading in the last couple of days that she and her husband, Todd, were divorcing. Palin's spokeperson said yesterday that the divorce rumour definitely is false as is the rumour she's bought land in Montana or Long Island or wherever. Still, there are a lot of questions about her sudden departure. Why would she leave one of the most lucrative gubernatorials in the US? And what is she planning for her comeback, whenever that is?
Hard to believe the election was back in November, and a year ago most Americans still hadn't heard about Palin. Then she became all the rage, and all the ridicule. This video clip from NPR's hugely funny show Right Between the Ears, shows a "conversation" between Palin and alleged lothario Antonio Banderas. (This is a running gag on the show, where "Banderas" manages to p-off any of his guests, men and women alike, about sleeping with the women with their lives in the case of the guys, or with the women themselves when the guest is a woman.)
Note how "Palin" and the sound effects person can barely contain their laughter when it turns into a confrontation between Antonio and "Tod-d"
Seems like Mrs. Palin is one of those stories that just won't go away, I suppose.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Hard to believe the election was back in November, and a year ago most Americans still hadn't heard about Palin. Then she became all the rage, and all the ridicule. This video clip from NPR's hugely funny show Right Between the Ears, shows a "conversation" between Palin and alleged lothario Antonio Banderas. (This is a running gag on the show, where "Banderas" manages to p-off any of his guests, men and women alike, about sleeping with the women with their lives in the case of the guys, or with the women themselves when the guest is a woman.)
Note how "Palin" and the sound effects person can barely contain their laughter when it turns into a confrontation between Antonio and "Tod-d"
Seems like Mrs. Palin is one of those stories that just won't go away, I suppose.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Franken wins, finally
It's taken far too long, nearly eight months -- but the election for Senator in Minnesota is finally over, and the Democratic challenger, comedian Al Franken, has unseated Republican Norm Coleman. With that, the donkeys now have the long sought after 60 seats in the upper chamber, needed to stop filibusters and ensure Obama's agenda gets smooth passage.
All this talk about filling in circles, chads and whatnot. Whatever happened to the good old paper ballot that you mark with an X or a checkmark? And eight months? Sheez. When there is a recount here in Canada, it usually only takes one day, a couple weeks after polling day.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
All this talk about filling in circles, chads and whatnot. Whatever happened to the good old paper ballot that you mark with an X or a checkmark? And eight months? Sheez. When there is a recount here in Canada, it usually only takes one day, a couple weeks after polling day.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Canada's chance to invade Turks and Caicos? Uh, no
There have long been proposals -- quite serious ones, it seems -- that the Turks and Caicos Islands (which is home base for a lot of "shell" corporations) should secede from Great Britain and join Canada, specifically Nova Scotia. Those dreamers, nearly all of them Canadians, have new ammunition today with word that the TCI's PM has resigned over allegations (denied) of selling government lands for personal gain.
I just post this to point out the story is out there. But really, folks -- does anyone really want TCI to be a part of Canada? Especially those living there? They don't want to give up their currency -- the US dollar. And as long as there are outposts like the TCI, Britain can still claim to say that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" -- or what's left of it.
Besides, we all see what happens when we whites move into a black majority area and try to impose their "civilization". Blueprint: Africa, and most Caribbean states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I just post this to point out the story is out there. But really, folks -- does anyone really want TCI to be a part of Canada? Especially those living there? They don't want to give up their currency -- the US dollar. And as long as there are outposts like the TCI, Britain can still claim to say that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" -- or what's left of it.
Besides, we all see what happens when we whites move into a black majority area and try to impose their "civilization". Blueprint: Africa, and most Caribbean states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The multiple double standards in the banning of George Galloway
George Galloway's banning from Canada by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney simply because the former was trying to carry £1 million of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip, an area presently ruled by the democratically elected party (and listed terrorist group) Hamas, has really worked up a lather with most of my fellow ProgBloggers who have written about it: Maxwell Devin, Cliff Hesby, David Climenhaga, Bernadette Wagner, and Scott Tribe, just to name a few. Of course, the Conservatives don't have a monopoly on banning entry to those who rub them the wrong way, the Liberals did the same to Louis Farrakhan some years ago. But I disagreed with that decision (despite Farrakhan's well known anti-Semitic views) and I have to disagree with this one.
My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:
He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.
For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.
To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.
Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.
Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.
It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.
The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.
Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.
There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)
And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)
Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.
And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.
But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.
But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:
He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.
For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.
To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.
Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.
Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.
It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.
The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.
Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.
There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)
And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)
Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.
And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.
But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.
But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
That satellite radio commercial
Satellite radio is quite the nifty invention. Originally marketed to truckers, it has become a boon for a lot of people tired of conventional radio -- and often, an add-on or standard equipment on most new cars. The commercial-free music stations are great, but the other stations, like comedy, news and -- yes, sex information and talk -- have commercials. Some of them totally unsuited for young audiences.
I suppose this is a throwback to the trucker-oriented days, when the men and women who haul the loads that keep Canada and the United States rolling needed something to spice up their lives for when they came home to their spouses. But there is this one commercial that's been running in various forms for about a year now. And I almost cringe waiting for it. In fact, whenever friends I carpool with hear it, they laugh out loud and can even recite it verbatim along with me.
The ads are for a little "breakthrough" pill for male "enhancement" one that makes Mr. Happy not longer, but "thicker and wider." First it was one of the men who claimed to have invented it, learning from the "experience" he had with four female co-eds as roommates. Lately, it's one of the women involved in the project, who says, "All you women are nodding their heads -- thicker and wider is what we REALLY want."
And the line at the end --- "Order now, and we'll even throw in a FREE MEASURING DEVICE" -- to evaluate your "progress."
I'm not naming the product, although many of you know it by name either by hearing that commerical or by word of mouth. Note they never mention the price on the air.
But I finally looked it up, and they're charging $76 US (plus shipping and handling) for a 30 day supply. 76 bucks for something that supposedly works better than all those other "enhancement" products there? Hasn't anyone actually evaluated this?
Anyone remember something that was supposed to help arthritic pain, by "stimulating" it with a push button? It turns out that it was -- a barbeque starter. That's it, and a consumer advocate show proved it, by disconnecting the regular lighter and connecting it to this "miracle" device.
Another consideration: Like the ED drugs out there, one has to be concerned about the possibility of a "rise" (pardon the pun) in sexual assaults. Remember when the blue pill came out and a lot of women were reported being raped by their men who could finally get it up but the women didn't want to respond? Seems to me a woman could be seriously injured by a very thick -- um, Mr. Happy -- if they were forced to do something against their will, even more so than in a rape where no sex aids were used whatsoever.
Why aren't federal regulators actually checking this thing out, or the ingredients that are in it? Something tells me that this "male enhancement" product could be either a placebo or a big load of -- um, hot air. I don't know too much about women, but I'm sure that no matter what's out there, there's two things that remain true -- it takes a lot more to get in bed with someone than with charm and claims of prowess; two, it's not the size of what's down below or how to use it, but how one uses the most important sex organ of all, the one between the ears.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I suppose this is a throwback to the trucker-oriented days, when the men and women who haul the loads that keep Canada and the United States rolling needed something to spice up their lives for when they came home to their spouses. But there is this one commercial that's been running in various forms for about a year now. And I almost cringe waiting for it. In fact, whenever friends I carpool with hear it, they laugh out loud and can even recite it verbatim along with me.
The ads are for a little "breakthrough" pill for male "enhancement" one that makes Mr. Happy not longer, but "thicker and wider." First it was one of the men who claimed to have invented it, learning from the "experience" he had with four female co-eds as roommates. Lately, it's one of the women involved in the project, who says, "All you women are nodding their heads -- thicker and wider is what we REALLY want."
And the line at the end --- "Order now, and we'll even throw in a FREE MEASURING DEVICE" -- to evaluate your "progress."
I'm not naming the product, although many of you know it by name either by hearing that commerical or by word of mouth. Note they never mention the price on the air.
But I finally looked it up, and they're charging $76 US (plus shipping and handling) for a 30 day supply. 76 bucks for something that supposedly works better than all those other "enhancement" products there? Hasn't anyone actually evaluated this?
Anyone remember something that was supposed to help arthritic pain, by "stimulating" it with a push button? It turns out that it was -- a barbeque starter. That's it, and a consumer advocate show proved it, by disconnecting the regular lighter and connecting it to this "miracle" device.
Another consideration: Like the ED drugs out there, one has to be concerned about the possibility of a "rise" (pardon the pun) in sexual assaults. Remember when the blue pill came out and a lot of women were reported being raped by their men who could finally get it up but the women didn't want to respond? Seems to me a woman could be seriously injured by a very thick -- um, Mr. Happy -- if they were forced to do something against their will, even more so than in a rape where no sex aids were used whatsoever.
Why aren't federal regulators actually checking this thing out, or the ingredients that are in it? Something tells me that this "male enhancement" product could be either a placebo or a big load of -- um, hot air. I don't know too much about women, but I'm sure that no matter what's out there, there's two things that remain true -- it takes a lot more to get in bed with someone than with charm and claims of prowess; two, it's not the size of what's down below or how to use it, but how one uses the most important sex organ of all, the one between the ears.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Those were the days ... Illinois Rhyme Time
Hard to believe that it was six years ago, 2002, a year when Democrats were getting pummeled in the Congressionals, that everyone thought Rod Blagojevich was the greatest thing since sliced bread and Barack Obama was still a nobody state senator from Chicago's South Side. He came up with this really silly radio commercial that got him elected -- by figuring out how to make something rhyme with Blagojevich.
I first heard this last weekend on NPR's Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! You can imagine the shock of the panelists -- last week's show had Paula Poundstone, Tom Bodett (some of you may remember him as the voice of "Good Idea Bad Idea" and "Rhyme Time" on Animaniacs, and the voice-over for all those Motel 6 commercials) and WaPo's Roxanne Roberts -- when they were told this was a real commercial.
If anyone thinks Blagojevich is going to quit, they don't know anything about guys and gals from the Balkans. If there's one that united the people of the heavily fractured former Yugoslavia, it's that no one ever backed down from anything -- and never quit even if the allegations were absolutely true.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I first heard this last weekend on NPR's Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! You can imagine the shock of the panelists -- last week's show had Paula Poundstone, Tom Bodett (some of you may remember him as the voice of "Good Idea Bad Idea" and "Rhyme Time" on Animaniacs, and the voice-over for all those Motel 6 commercials) and WaPo's Roxanne Roberts -- when they were told this was a real commercial.
If anyone thinks Blagojevich is going to quit, they don't know anything about guys and gals from the Balkans. If there's one that united the people of the heavily fractured former Yugoslavia, it's that no one ever backed down from anything -- and never quit even if the allegations were absolutely true.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Saturday night music vault: Brand New Key
Not quite Saturday night in my time zone but here's another one of my favourites -- a more risqué one at that. One can understand why a lot of radio stations wanted to ban Melanie Safka after she came out with this nugget in 1971. But it may have paved the way for the even more controversial #1 hit for Chuck Berry the following year, My Ding-A-Ling even though it was a cover and had actually been written 20 years earlier.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, December 1, 2008
WKRP is back on the air
No, seriously. No word yet if Johnny Fever is going to do the 6 o'clock news.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Somalia Pirates; That Town in Florida (Again)
Saturday morning ... two stories on my mind. First the hijacking crisis off the coast of Somalia. Earlier this week, the world's largest shipping company, Denmark's Maersk, announced they could no longer guarantee the safety of their most vulnerable ships in the Gulf of Aden -- an area about ⅓ the size of the United States -- and will reroute those vessels with decks closest to the waterline (mostly tankers) away from the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal and instead send them around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, adding thousands of kilometres to the voyage and through one of the world's most notorious shipping lanes weather wise.
That Somalia has been allowed to run without any government at all for nearly two decades is scandalous. No one should have been surprised when the "Black Hawk Down" incident happened in 1993 given such lawlessness. You would have thought the world would have put its foot down and pulled out all aid, even humanitarian aid, until the people of Somalia or at least their leaders got their act together.
Instead, banditry has been allowed to ensue and the blood is on our hands for not demanding our governments put a stop to it. And these are not the pirates of old so romanticized by literature and the silver screen. These are terrorists seeking to exploit an already sensitive world economy; knowing the West is heavily reliant on the Middle and Far East's raw materials and finished wares.
Whatever differences may exist between the democratic world and that which isn't government need to agree that enough is enough. The Law of the Sea must be ratified ASAP, and navies given the power to deal with such thugs in an appropriate manner, by force if absolutely necessary. If it means temporarily re-flagging ships and a military escort to ensure safe passage so be it. As well the world must insist that Somalia get its act together once and for all and have some kind of functioning government. A state cannot have no laws; or an enforcement mechanism to ensure the laws stay in place.
Obama has said he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and that's good. He may want to temporarily redeploy some of those forces to the Persian and Aden Gulfs for a few months until this situation is stabilized if not eliminated all together. This is one area where global leadership is lacking right now and all eyes are on him.
*****
And now, for another visit to that friendly neighbourhood called Ave Maria Town, Florida. (HT: AveMaria Watch)
Yes, more signs that Tom Monaghan's Promised Land (read: monument to his own glory) is in major trouble. For whatever reason, the town was deliberately built some distance away from Naples (27 km or 17 miles east, one supposes to ensure the town would be "uncontaminated" from the Gulf Coast's alleged "sinfulness"); and it was reported yesterday that because of current economic troubles a southwest Florida bank has delayed indefinitely plans to open up a branch in the town -- a complete reversal from some reports last summer which suggested that the bank actually wanted to move its headquarters to the town. A building has been completed but remains unoccupied. Interestingly because of this, the town continues to not even have any one bank at all even though most towns its size would have at least a couple by now.
You would think that another bank eager for business would want to take advantage of the lease opportunity or to grab new potential customers. Nope. According to the town's developers, there are no plans to have any bank come to the town other than the one in question. Well, actually, last year those developers announced that an Ohio-based bank wold also becoming to town to ensure competition, but according to that Ohio bank they never had any such plans to begin with.
So, two questions: First, why would they have announced there was an agreement when there was none? Was it a ploy to pretend the instant city was a viable place to live and to get new home buyers to come to set up home? Second, now that the other bank -- the one in Florida -- is getting cold feet too, why on earth would there be hostility to having someone else take up business? Was there a side deal to ensure a monopoly situation? Does Mr. Monaghan have an interest in the bank even if it just a hundred paltry shares?
We don't know because as usual there is a continuing cone of silence. As always these are not accusations. These are questions that remain unanswered.
All this from a man who promised that by 2077 that the university around which the town is being built would have produced between 35,000 and 45,000 "strong" marriages (depending on which news source Monaghan was speaking to on the rare occasions he deigned to come down from his throne to mingle with the commoners), and between 2500 and 4000 priests.
Hard to see this happening when its current enrollment is about 600 (3/4 of them undergraduates) and like other faith groups the rate of divorce among Catholics holds steady at around 50%; not to mention that its accreditation remains constantly on the edge. Its goal of having a 5000 enrollment in twenty years may be doable (if one stretches the imagination), but he's going to need even more salesmanship than Oral Roberts did for his school in Tulsa to pull it off.
And lest we forget, that ginormous chapel (less than half the originally planned size but still too huge for the purpose) built to resemble an upright salmon and not in a style more appropriate to the environment (say, Spanish mission, like the cathedral up the highway in Venice). Not to mention it's right in the middle of the migratory path of the Florida panther.
As far as I know, the school still hasn't been designated an officially "Catholic" one by the Church; merely it is for now a school that operates on what it least claims are Catholic values. (There is a big difference in the two concepts.)
There are other, more reputable and well established private Catholic universities out there -- Gonzaga, Georgetown, Notre Dame; heck even here in Canada we have St. Paul's (connected to the U of Ottawa) and St. Jerome's (affiliated with Waterloo). I don't deny that Monaghan has done a lot of good charitable work, but wouldn't he have been better off using the balance of his fortune to help the needy both around the world and at home, rather than trying to build monuments?
****
It sort of reminds me of a joke that made the rounds a couple of years back. Around the time John Paul II died, so did a businessman. They showed up at the pearly gates. St. Peter dispatched one of his lieutenants to escort the deceased Pontiff was to his new quarters -- a fair sized condominium in a high rise tower, where all the other Popes resided in the afterlife. It was livable. A nice sized apartment but nothing more. About the only perk was each Pope had a dedicated T1 connection to the Internet.
Meanwhile, St. Peter personally took the businessman to his new home, a huge Southfork-style ranch manor with indoor pools, facilities connected to every bedroom (twenty of them), all the creature comforts in every single oversized den and to top it all off, the plates and cutlery were made of solid 24 karat gold. As for the internet connection -- it had bandwidth and speeds that would not be possible even on earth for another thousand years.
The businessman, who was somewhat philantrophic in his life but never thought he was a holy person, asked St. Peter what gave.
"Oh, we've had a lot of Popes in our time; but you're the first businessman to come here since the American Revolution!"
Kidding aside, I hope you get the point.
"Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where your treasure is your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:20, 21)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That Somalia has been allowed to run without any government at all for nearly two decades is scandalous. No one should have been surprised when the "Black Hawk Down" incident happened in 1993 given such lawlessness. You would have thought the world would have put its foot down and pulled out all aid, even humanitarian aid, until the people of Somalia or at least their leaders got their act together.
Instead, banditry has been allowed to ensue and the blood is on our hands for not demanding our governments put a stop to it. And these are not the pirates of old so romanticized by literature and the silver screen. These are terrorists seeking to exploit an already sensitive world economy; knowing the West is heavily reliant on the Middle and Far East's raw materials and finished wares.
Whatever differences may exist between the democratic world and that which isn't government need to agree that enough is enough. The Law of the Sea must be ratified ASAP, and navies given the power to deal with such thugs in an appropriate manner, by force if absolutely necessary. If it means temporarily re-flagging ships and a military escort to ensure safe passage so be it. As well the world must insist that Somalia get its act together once and for all and have some kind of functioning government. A state cannot have no laws; or an enforcement mechanism to ensure the laws stay in place.
Obama has said he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and that's good. He may want to temporarily redeploy some of those forces to the Persian and Aden Gulfs for a few months until this situation is stabilized if not eliminated all together. This is one area where global leadership is lacking right now and all eyes are on him.
*****
And now, for another visit to that friendly neighbourhood called Ave Maria Town, Florida. (HT: AveMaria Watch)
Yes, more signs that Tom Monaghan's Promised Land (read: monument to his own glory) is in major trouble. For whatever reason, the town was deliberately built some distance away from Naples (27 km or 17 miles east, one supposes to ensure the town would be "uncontaminated" from the Gulf Coast's alleged "sinfulness"); and it was reported yesterday that because of current economic troubles a southwest Florida bank has delayed indefinitely plans to open up a branch in the town -- a complete reversal from some reports last summer which suggested that the bank actually wanted to move its headquarters to the town. A building has been completed but remains unoccupied. Interestingly because of this, the town continues to not even have any one bank at all even though most towns its size would have at least a couple by now.
You would think that another bank eager for business would want to take advantage of the lease opportunity or to grab new potential customers. Nope. According to the town's developers, there are no plans to have any bank come to the town other than the one in question. Well, actually, last year those developers announced that an Ohio-based bank wold also becoming to town to ensure competition, but according to that Ohio bank they never had any such plans to begin with.
So, two questions: First, why would they have announced there was an agreement when there was none? Was it a ploy to pretend the instant city was a viable place to live and to get new home buyers to come to set up home? Second, now that the other bank -- the one in Florida -- is getting cold feet too, why on earth would there be hostility to having someone else take up business? Was there a side deal to ensure a monopoly situation? Does Mr. Monaghan have an interest in the bank even if it just a hundred paltry shares?
We don't know because as usual there is a continuing cone of silence. As always these are not accusations. These are questions that remain unanswered.
All this from a man who promised that by 2077 that the university around which the town is being built would have produced between 35,000 and 45,000 "strong" marriages (depending on which news source Monaghan was speaking to on the rare occasions he deigned to come down from his throne to mingle with the commoners), and between 2500 and 4000 priests.
Hard to see this happening when its current enrollment is about 600 (3/4 of them undergraduates) and like other faith groups the rate of divorce among Catholics holds steady at around 50%; not to mention that its accreditation remains constantly on the edge. Its goal of having a 5000 enrollment in twenty years may be doable (if one stretches the imagination), but he's going to need even more salesmanship than Oral Roberts did for his school in Tulsa to pull it off.
And lest we forget, that ginormous chapel (less than half the originally planned size but still too huge for the purpose) built to resemble an upright salmon and not in a style more appropriate to the environment (say, Spanish mission, like the cathedral up the highway in Venice). Not to mention it's right in the middle of the migratory path of the Florida panther.
As far as I know, the school still hasn't been designated an officially "Catholic" one by the Church; merely it is for now a school that operates on what it least claims are Catholic values. (There is a big difference in the two concepts.)
There are other, more reputable and well established private Catholic universities out there -- Gonzaga, Georgetown, Notre Dame; heck even here in Canada we have St. Paul's (connected to the U of Ottawa) and St. Jerome's (affiliated with Waterloo). I don't deny that Monaghan has done a lot of good charitable work, but wouldn't he have been better off using the balance of his fortune to help the needy both around the world and at home, rather than trying to build monuments?
****
It sort of reminds me of a joke that made the rounds a couple of years back. Around the time John Paul II died, so did a businessman. They showed up at the pearly gates. St. Peter dispatched one of his lieutenants to escort the deceased Pontiff was to his new quarters -- a fair sized condominium in a high rise tower, where all the other Popes resided in the afterlife. It was livable. A nice sized apartment but nothing more. About the only perk was each Pope had a dedicated T1 connection to the Internet.
Meanwhile, St. Peter personally took the businessman to his new home, a huge Southfork-style ranch manor with indoor pools, facilities connected to every bedroom (twenty of them), all the creature comforts in every single oversized den and to top it all off, the plates and cutlery were made of solid 24 karat gold. As for the internet connection -- it had bandwidth and speeds that would not be possible even on earth for another thousand years.
The businessman, who was somewhat philantrophic in his life but never thought he was a holy person, asked St. Peter what gave.
"Oh, we've had a lot of Popes in our time; but you're the first businessman to come here since the American Revolution!"
Kidding aside, I hope you get the point.
"Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where your treasure is your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:20, 21)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)