Gay to straight? Fuggedaboutit say psychs, go for it says "religion"

Some ministries just don't get it.
　
Late last night CNN reported that the American Psychological Assocation, meeting this week in Toronto, said that a peer review of 87 studies between 1960 and 2007 demonstrates it is just not possible to use psychiatric treatment to "treat" homosexuality or to try to transform someone from gay or lesbian to straight. In fact, trying to do so can actually cause more harm than good, in the worst case scenario loss of sexual identity all together, loss of appetite or even suicidal thoughts. It's worth pointing out homosexuality was dropped from the list of mental illnesses from the DSM back in 1975, thirty-four years ago, but the perception of wrong is still widespread.

(Report in PDF here.)

While there are cases where someone has themselves come to the conclusion that they are not homosexual but heterosexual -- or vice versa -- and I don't deny the personal stories that do exist along this line, the whole idea of coercion or even "counselling" for what so many see as an inherent "wrong" is just so unseemly that it probably wouldn't deserve further comment; were it not for the resurgence of religious groups who think one can be counselled out of what they still think is either a mental illness or even worse demon possession that must be driven "out", so to speak. Does anyone remember the late Jerry Falwell holding a "Coming Out of Homosexuality" event on the same day as "Coming Out Day"?
　
One of these groups is called Exodus International. Actually a coalition of some 250 ministries, it claims it has been able to "convert" about ⅓ of its clients. I have to wonder about that. Were the switches genuine, or were they forced? Personally, I think that it's mostly the latter.
　
The APA does note that some homosexuals who come to the conclusion that their choice of lifestyle is "wrong" for religious reasons do need counselling, but of the appropriate kind. This includes reducing the stigma associated with the lifestyle as well as respecting their religious beliefs and working that into the counselling rather than as a separate issue.
　
Besides which, people who are gay and lesbian offer as much to the community as heterosexuals. They live, work, parent, contribute to the communities they live in, even serve as police officers or combat personnel. Why do some continue to stamp people who are "different" with the badge of offence? Is it hatred, or could it be just the fear that they could actually be befriended by a genuine person with a good heart?
　
From the Catholic perspective, there appears to be a contradiction in the official line. Article 2357 of the Cathecism states outright that "homosexual acts are instrinsically disordered," but acknowledges how one becomes gay or lesbian in the first place is still largely unexplained. It calls for respect for homsexuals and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (2358), but then insists those who are gay or lesbian should remain celibate (2359).

Fat chance; back in high school during the 1980s I knew for a fact quite a few of my classmates were homosexual and were even openly affectionate about it on school property, and nothing happened to them. Nor did the majority of us who were straight think any less of them or that they didn't have it all "up there." This was at a time when sexual orientation had just been added to Ontario's Human Rights Code, despite the very open opposition of the province's Catholic bishops. (Did they even bother to read the Cathecism in seminary when they were training to be priests, or just listening to what they wanted to hear? I have to wonder.)

Like on many other issues, such as the HPV vaccine (which I wrote on here and here), the bishops are so out of step with the laity on currents that it way past the point of being funny anymore because it is not and never has been; and even the Catholic school boards in the province have acknowledged the necessity of the vaccine for teenage girls -- knowing that despite teaching about abstinence before marriage most of their students are sexually active and it protects students who are both straight and homosexual, not to mention as acting as a line of defence against some STDs if a teenage girl is unfortunately raped.
　
It's not a stretch to imagine that some bishops still think that having an attraction to someone of the same sex is a mental illness. The same bishops who kept moving priests around so they could avoid prosecution for raping altar boys and persons of both sexes at schools of all sorts, who may have in fact contributed to those students become gay or lesbian in the first place. What utter hypocrisy. Let's not forget, at least one of them, Cardinal Bernard Law, the one-time civil rights activist and former archbishop of Boston who was forced to resign in disgrace over this, and who faces possible prosecution in Massachusetts for obstruction of justice, now has a top post at the Vatican (pratically a reward for what he did) and as a citizen of the Holy See while he acts for the Pope has diplomatic immunity. Give me a break, and talk about talking out of both sides of the mouth!
　
If someone is gay or lesbian, then just let them be that way. Throwing religion into the mix makes it so much worse that it defeats the purpose, which after all is supposed to be about compassion and accepting people of all kinds even if we individually disagree with their personal beliefs or lifestyles.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Women, get mad

If we think the struggle for equality of the sexes is far from over here in the Western World, imagine what it's like in Africa, where in many countries women are in general treated like scum or worse. But it also seems some goverments there have a very different definition of what constitutes pornography. No, I'm not talking about the difference between soft core and hard core porn, which is unfortunately getting increasingly blurry. I'm talking about pictures of a woman trying to giving birth.

I kid you not. The news editor of the largest paper in Zambia, Chansa Kabwela, whose paper (the Zambia Post) is a frequent critic of the country's president Rupiah Banda, is facing trial and five years in prison. The background: The paper received pictures of a woman in obvious agony while trying to give a breech birth -- the kind when the baby is turned and coming out of the vagina in a butt- or feet-first position. The woman, turned away from two clinics because of a nurses' strike, went to a third. By that time, the baby had suffocated and died. The pictures were not, I repeat, not published.

But Kabwela was outraged enough that she sent the pictures to the country's health minister and the vice-president as well as some women's groups with a letter demanding an end to the nurses' strike. The VP's private secretary was also shocked and, by his own description, even "aroused" by the pictures -- but thought the issue was important enough to pass the pictures on to the president. It was at that point Banda pressed charges against Kabwela, calling the pictures pornography. It should be pointed out, Banda is currently facing possible impeachment and trial on totally unrelated corruption charges.
　
I'm writing this post strictly from a guy's perspective, and also as someone who's not yet a father. But I think there is something seriously wrong with society if we're going to prosecute anyone for trying to rectify an issue by speaking to the truth with facts no matter how uncomfortable. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing pornographic or even erotic about child birth, especially in a high-risk situation -- it is very much a public health issue. And in a country that bans abortions in most circumstances, it's highly hypocritical for the government to say they're trying to "protect" women whilst doing nothing to protect their or their unborn children's health.
　
This is the problem I continue to have with the pro-life movement's leadership, nothwithstanding that I personally am pro-life. In the most extreme, those would force women to have their children offer no alternatives except adoption -- they oppose increased funding for pre-natal care or nutritional programs for infants and young children as well as nursing mothers, oppose welfare for unwanted children and their mothers, oppose retraining opportunities to help women who most need it. And of course, if the nurses (mostly women) go on strike, they are either ignored or even imprisoned.
　
To further classify childbirth or mere breast-feeding as "pornographic" is not only an insult to the women who give birth and / or care for the women and their children. It also should insult the conscience of men like me who believe that a government should be behind women and children every step of the way. If one is truly pro-life then he or she should also support a seamless web of life from implantation to natural death. Letting the mother hang out to dry is as much an insult as charging the reporter with spreading "porn."
　
One has to wonder if there would be a similar visceral reaction here if our laws were as strict as they are in many parts of the world. Many on the right still wish for the 1950s when married couples were shown in separate beds and the word "pregnant" could not be used. Even now, many neo-cons would like nothing less than the legal imprisonment of women in their own houses and the ban on martial rape repealed. Not to mention, have all the progress we've made so far annulled as well.
　
The correct and proper thing to do here in this situation to a) drop the charges against the reporter, b) change the law so something so ridiculous never happens again; and c) compensate the woman for the loss of her child which was totally unnecessary. But I'm not holding my breath.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

What "quid pro quo" did Clinton offer?

To hear the news that President Bill Clinton has won the release of two journalists, both women, from their captivity in North Korea is indeed heartening and speaks to Clinton's powers of persuasion, even with governments that the US offficially refuses to recognize (in the North's case, Sweden, as a neutral power, acts as a go-between in representing US interests).

I do have to ask, however, what exactly did the States concede to the "Hermit Kingdom" in exchange? I do not believe for a second what current President Barack Obama claims that this was strictly a "private mission," otherwise the North would have not only refused the American request for mercy but also increased the sentences imposed on the women or even executed them. It couldn't have been food aid, because the armed forces in the North regularly seizes it then sells it to the people for whom it was intended as a gift. And as for nuclear concessions -- well, there aren't going to be any, not until North Korea absolutely and irrevocably commits to non-proliferation and using nuclear power for peaceful purposes only (i.e. electricity and legitimate medical research).
　
So what was given up? If the six nation talks are "dead" and the North insists on direct contact with the States, does that mean the US will finally establish direct diplomatic links? That's sure to rile up the hawk wing of the Democrats. It's worth thinking about -- Canada only finally recognized North Korea's government in 2001 but neither has set up embassies in the other country yet, eight years after.
　
Or is Bill Clinton gunning for the Nobel Peace Prize, hoping to share the same honour as Jimmy Carter and Al Gore and Teddy Roosevelt?
　
There may also be a third possibility. We all remember the agreement in 1994 that Carter got with Kim Il-Sung, one month before the latter died and some time after that the North reneged on its commitments. It's generally acknowledged that Kim Jong-Il is also ailing and he just might be gasping for air before he dies, and whichever of his sons takes over the Clinton concessions are also unilaterally cancelled. (The PDRK already broke several promises it made to Dubya, after all -- while the latter was still in office!)
　
I'm not much on conspiracy theories, but there's more to this story than what we've been led to believe. I think we all want a united and nuclear weapons free Korea, but it's going to be a long wait. The DMZ is not the Berlin Wall, the latter of which was destined to fall.

Quid pro quo? Yeah, I think so. And when we all find out what it is, the US and most of its allies -- both inside and outside of NATO -- are going to be pissed, as will the voters in all the countries concerned. All humans lives are sacred and the two reporters should have been freed on day one, but Slick Willy didn't get called Slick for nothing.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Schreiber out of Canada, finally

So Karlheinz Schreiber has finally been extradited to Germany to face corruption and tax evasion charges. Now, he's claiming that the charges could lead Angela Merkel, Gemany's Chancellor, to electoral defeat in a few week's time.

This guy doesn't know when to shut up. Two major former world leaders -- Brian Mulroney and Helmut Kohl -- had their reputations destroyed by Herr Schreiber and his propensity to manage to make secret payments to them, while still serving in high office. The leaders at least admitted they took money from Schreiber, although the admissions were well after they resigned their posts and they insist what they actually got was far less than what Schreiber claims it was. What does he have to possibly gain by trying to sully Frau Merkel, unless he can actually prove he made an illegal donation to her?
　
"Seven scandals in one"? Try one and a half, at most. Maybe just a half. Good riddance -- twenty-one appeals must be a new record in the annals of Canadian justice. As for Mulroney and Kohl, well, we'll just have to wait and see.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

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.

RIP Corazon Aquino

Some very sad news tonight, as we learn of the death of Corazon Aquino, the reluctant woman who led the "People Power" revolution that led to the fall of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. Her push for democracy in a region that at the time saw very little of it (only Japan, Australia and New Zealand could plausibly have been called democracies then) inspired the world, and led to her being one of only until then one of only a very few women who had been named Time's "Man of the Year."

Her no-nonsense approach to democracy as well as her tough line on militants who repeatedly tried to overthrow her set an important benchmark. It's going to be hard to imagine a world without her.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

When IS it a good time to talk about the economy?

Does this sound like something a leader would say?
　
"We do not need another round of political instability and another round of elections — we need Parliament to focus on the economy."

That was PMS.
　
What's the matter, Steve? You actually think Canada is going to turn into Italy, where the old saying goes, "If you don't like the government, wait ten minutes"? Let's face it, there's been an election that has been ongoing since the last one -- just like the last Parliament. It's sort of like a phony war that never ends.
　
If Harper wants Parliament to work, he should make it work -- not constantly point fingers at his enemies. Comments like the one today underscore why he may never win the majority he so desperately seeks.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

EU double standard

Iceland, which has gone through the wringer because of the financial crisis, may get fast-tracked into both the EU and the Eurozone in as little as three years or even less, given the close integration that already exists between the country and the trade block. Meanwhile, the applications for some other countries are being held up for all sorts of reasons: Croatia (a candidate country) still has a border dispute with Slovenia (in the Eurozone); Serbia still is seen as uncooperative with the UN War Tribunals; and of course Turkey -- well, most of Europe fears having a Muslim majority state in on the party.

Is it me, or is there a bit of ethnic prejudice going on here?

Maybe, but I also think people in the EU are still reeling from how fast Romania and Bulgaria were admitted to the EU before they were really ready. Transparency International still gives pretty low marks to both countries -- in terms of "cleanness" Bulgaria ranked 72nd (tied with Mainland China) last year, while Romania was 70th (tied with Colombia). Compare that to some other EU countries -- Poland (58th, tied with Turkey), Italy (55th), Malta (36th, tied with Puetro Rico), France (23rd), and at the top of the list for least propensity for corruption: Denmark and Sweden tied for first (along with New Zealand). Canada, by the way, was 9th. The US rated no better than Belgium and Japan (18th).

Earlier this year, the EU pulled about €450 million (about USD 640 million) in transfer payments to Bulgaria for what is seen as its lack of efforts to clean up the judiciary and purge the Mafia. True, Bulgaria is a "free country" as most Westerners would define it; and I will concede that it along with the rest of the ex-Soviet client states have made incredible strides since the revolutions of twenty years ago. But it is clearly still not at the point where it could adopt the Euro (the country originally set a target of 2012 but 2014 seems more realistic now, if that).

Romania has appeared to fare better, but it still has a large brain drain issue, with many migrants heading to wealthier EU states, including Italy. The strained relations between Italians and Romanians is well publicized.

Sadly, my parents' home country of Croatia still misses the mark on some economic indicators and its judiciary is still partially stuck in the Communist era with judges still not fully independent from political interference -- one of the key hallmarks of a democratic state. The border dispute over Piran and Istria is really a red herring. Canada still has several border disputes with the US but that didn't stop a free trade agreement between the two countries more than two decades ago.

To be fair, Iceland meets most of the criteria for EU membership and it could theoretically become a member tomorrow if an agreement could be made on its whaling practices. But really -- why should it get any more special favours than any other candidate country? Shouldn't it have to meet the convergence rules first and then made to wait, just like all the EU states currently in had to do? A fast-track is simply glad handing the banks there which made some really poor choices in investments then expected the world to bail them out.

EU membership shouldn't be a bailout, but a reward for good financial stewardship.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Honour killing, times four

Looks like the car that smashed into a canal in Kingston, Ontario just didn't end up there by accident. All four of the victims were women and now three people from Montréal -- including the parents and brother of three of the women -- have been charged by Kingston authorities with four counts of murder one. Police aren't saying much yet, but this has all the markings of an honour killing.

Is it that? Or is this part of a long term strategy by some in our society to ensure the long term genocide of women in this country, simply because they dare to assert their God-given equal rights?
　
It may be just a coincidence, but the family is originally from Afghanistan, by way of Dubai -- both in a part of a world where honour killings are enthusiastically accepted by men as part of the culture even though the majority religion specifically condemns it.
　
There have been honour killings in this country before, committed by members of all major religions including Christianity, but just they haven't been reported as such until recently. They will continue unless we all stand up and say enough.
　
Sometimes I don't know what this world is coming to. Comments? (Please keep it clean.)

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Papers -- I didn't need papers when I got on the plane!

It's been about a week since PMS announced, totally out of the blue, visa restrictions on Mexico and the Czech Republic. We're still feeling the repercussions. The government claims it is because of bogus refugee claims from people who make claims for status once they arrive in Canada.

But doing so without much more justification than that is more than just perplexing, it's stupid; and it's creating a common template on two completely different issues.

There is, at least on the surface, a disproportionate number of Roma out of the total number of people who apply for immigrant status from the Czech Republic. And certainly, there is strong evidence that the Romany are being discriminated against throughout the EU. There are mechanisms to deal with this legally in Europe, including at the European Court on Human Rights. For many this obviously takes too long so they look for a safe third country. Since the US appears to be so bureaucratic, and especially with a backlash against even legal immigrants thanks to the Lou Dobbs Army, many see Canada as the "safe" alternative.

But it makes no sense to brush all Czech citizens with the same brush. Not all of those who are Czech bear an animus towards the Roma.

And traditionally Canada have given visa-free access to all EU citizens, a throw-back to our strong cultural, economic and military ties to Western and Central Europe. In return, the Schengen Area affords visa-free access to Canadians provided one gets his or her passport stamped within the first 72 hours of arriving in the first Schengen state he or she enters. It wouldn't take a stretch for the Schengen states to impose restrictions on Canadians in retaliation -- and one imagines, even the UK and Ireland as well since they're more likely to show solidarity with their European partners than their cousins across the sea.

Doing this on short notice was also just bad public relations. If there was a genuine concern, such as an identifiable terrorist group based in central Europe, then Canada should have asked permission to access the information system that lists people on the watch list throughout Europe and who are otherwise restricted from travelling and then put them on our watch list as well.

This also kind of puts a big wrench in the present free-trade negotiations we're having with the EU right now. The EU will absolutely insist that most favoured nation status, including visa-free travel, become permanent and irrevocable, before the treaty is finalized.

Even without such concerns, the visa is way past its prime. If we need a way to control the flow of people coming into Canada, the best way is what the Aussies do -- an electronic travel authority (ETA) that is purchased online once a passage is booked, and is tied to one's passport number. No paperwork, no sticker, no photos, just a confirmation that one is permitted to enter the country, and is cleared once the passport is shown and cross-referenced against the authority on-line and any watch lists.

That being said, I do think there is an argument that purely economic refugees should be dealt with firmly, and excluded from the country. This isn't like the Sudan or North Korea. If one wants to make a claim under the Geneva Conventions from a developed country, there is no reason why he or she can't do so at the Embassy and ask for an expedited claim.

As far as Mexico goes -- I do have concerns about the high rate of crime in that country right now and some people wanting to escape from there. That does not in and of itself amount to a legitimate refugee claim. Nor does economic persecution. The standard for proving political prosecution is very high. I ask if some of the claimants, having failed in the US or fearing they might, are trying for status in Canada because of our perceived more lenient policies (which runs the claimants against the Safe Third Country agreement which provides that one must apply for asylum in the first country they enter).

Still, we do get a lot of tourist trade from Mexico, and imposing a visa requirement on such short notice is not just idiotic but a money grab as well. Are the Conservatives so short of money that they decide that, our having been taxed enough, they will try to get a pound of flesh from those who visit us? What impression does that leave with people looking in?

We need to be absolutely clear on what our policies are and not just make them up. If there is going to be a visa requirement, it should be on six months' notice. If a country is part of a trade block, then the visa requirement should extend to the whole block and then only for the minimum period absolutely necessary to resolve whatever issue there might be in having created the backlog. And finally, we should be using our voice to ensure human rights are respected everywhere. If there's a problem with a minority in a specific country, we should use diplomatic means before using the hammer.

My father came here as a refugee, a legitimate one. Despite his and my concerns about illegal immigrants -- and our differences in politics -- even he would agree that a country shouldn't just change things on the fly, just to appease their base.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

That's the way it was: Walter Cronkite

It's hard to put words to the news Walter Cronkite is dead beyond what so many have said in print and on television. His impact was felt so far and wide beyond the US that even in some EU member states -- in particular Sweden and the Netherlands -- a news anchor is called a "Cronkiter." He famously reported on the death of JFK, Vietnam, the moon landing and Watergate; and he was actually handling the phones live on the air when two famous figures in particular -- Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson -- died during airtime.
　
Like Woodward and Bernstein at their heights, Cronkite was a stickler for details, giving people the simple facts without overdoing it. When he said "That's the way it is," it was. It's hard to imagine another coming along like him.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Anything's got a price, even cable companies

Hearing today that one of the local cable companies here in Hamilton -- Mountain Cablevision -- is being taken over by Shaw brings back some memories.

A number of years back (1997 to be exact), when the big three cable companies in English Canada -- Rogers, Shaw and Cogeco -- got together to launch a dozen or so new cable networks at the same time at a cut rate price and called it "Me TV" -- it took many of the mom-and-pop cable companies by surprise. (And so began the negative option billing controversy that led to the explosion of satellite TV).
　
Here in Hamilton, there were at the time four cable companies; Cogeco and three smaller companies (Western, Mountain and Southmount). I was served by Western, however it did offer the package and I took it. But the other two did not, for months. It wasn't a negative option situation, instead they wouldn't offer them, period. Soon, a local deejay who lived in the footprint of one of those two called them the "loser cable companies," and the name stuck. And when they did offer the channels, the packages were so confusing that it's a wonder anyone picked them up.
　
Since then, in 2000 Western became Cableworks and then got promptly sold to Cogeco but Mountain and Southmount (now Source) were seen as untouchable. Until today. Shaw is a bit of a surprise since some years ago they, Rogers and Cogeco swapped some territories to avoid a "hop-scotch" and Shaw actually pulled out of the Toronto area; so coming back to Southern Ontario is a bit of déjà vu. Still, it amounts to a choice between a cable monopoly, satellite TV or wireless cable.
　
Real choice would be being able to have several cable companies plus the phone company's fiber optic service competing for our business for television, telephone, cellular and Internet service. One family may be laughing to the bank today, but in the end it's the customers who are the losers. Call me nuts, but it would be interesting if there was some way for Rogers and Videotron (as well as smaller companies across Canada) to be able to compete for our business. Then prices would really drop. This isn't like health care where it's in the public interest to have a government monopoly. We should extend net neutrality to its logical conclusion -- real competition.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Not just an ordinary faux pas

As a Catholic, I want to put in my two cents worth on the flap about Stephen Harper apparently taking in communion at the state funeral of Roméo Leblanc last week. Certainly this is not the place to make fun of Harper's religion -- I have too much respect for evangelicals to do that. Nor am I going to debate whether he actually ate the host or he pocketed it; nor about transsubstantiation (this debate goes back to the days of Martin Luther, after all).

Rather, I write to point out that while the vast majority of Catholics in Canada may be that in name only -- in the sense they don't go to Mass regularly and partake in communion themselves -- there is the detail remaining that about 43% of Canadians are at least nominally Roman Catholic, and take pride in the fact that so many of our Prime Ministers, going back to John Sparrow Thompson, have been RCs.
　
We are by no means a cohesive voting block, of course -- there are Catholics of all political stripes -- but ticking off a block that could theoretically cohere and vote a certain way is not exactly my idea of leadership. There simply is no excuse for such a major breach of protocol. That would be true whether it was for a sitting MP or Senator, or a former Governor General as Leblanc was.
　
Moreover, in Canada it has been understood that the title of fidei defensor -- defender of the faith -- which is given to the reigning Sovereign -- just doesn't mean defender of the faith, as in the UK (i.e. the established Church of England), but a defender of faith in general. It is hard to imagine a British PM, whatever his or her personal beliefs, wanting to offend an entire sect -- he or she would get quite the reprimand from the Queen, certainly in the current environment where she has gone to great lengths to gaining the respect of her Catholic subjects while fulfilling her duties as Supreme Governor of the C of E. Some traditionalists in Britain have objected both to this, as well as her outreach to minority groups in the country (including Muslims and Hindus in particular) but most have appreciated her efforts to be a uniter and not a divider.
　
In Canada, where there is a much clearer separation of church and state (although not absolutely complete, as with the school systems in some provinces and where some religious orders still operate hospitals under state supervision) a sitting PM has to be even more careful. We wouldn't tolerate a PM who deliberately set out to persecute a religious minority, whether it was Judaism, Islam or a Christian sect like the Jehovah's Witnesses. To give rise to an offense, however minor or unintentional, to the group that forms a plurality of the populace in Canada, is even more perplexing.
　
It's worth remembering that when Brian Mulroney liberalized the divorce laws in Canada in 1986, he had to put up with the "family caucus" within his party, which consisted of Christians of all stripes. I can't recall if Mulroney allowed a free vote on the issue, but there were at least 50 and as many as 80 of his MPs who threatened to derail the bill on moral grounds and some concessions had to be made to them to get the legislation passed. And as a Catholic, he certainly got a lot of flack from the bishops; but as did most of his predecessors, he understood his job was to protect the liberty of all and not to impose his own or someone else's moral code.
　
While some of the most extreme elements of evangelicalism may have the inside track in government these days, Harper still has a duty to work with those who profess different faiths than his. In attending religious services of other faiths, he can't assume that "their house is my house." No one would have had an issue if he had just crossed his arms and the archbishop blessed him, as should have been done.
　
For what it's worth, I'm actually prepared to give the PM a free pass on this one, although speaking to some other Catholic friends of mine today we got quite the chuckle out of what appears at both first glance and deeper analysis to have been an act of pure stupidity. However, I suspect that many other Catholics may not be so forgiving and they'll remember it at the polls, whenever the plug is pulled on the present Parliament. Certainly, Harper owes Joe Ratzinger an explanation when the former visits the Vatican in two days' time.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

McNamara

He started as one of the "Whiz Kids" that turned Ford around in the 1940s, worked his way up to the presidency of the company (the first non-Ford to do so) and then served as Defense Secretary under Kennedy and Johnson. Very controversial in his time for escalating the war, and later making a mess of the World Bank, Robert McNamara later would come to regret many of the choices he made -- something he discussed in detail in Errol Morris' Oscar-winning documentary, The Fog of War, which I saw at a Hamilton Art Gallery fundraiser a few years back.
　
McNamara died today at the age of 93. I don't know whether to classify him as a hero or a villian, or someone troubled by what he did. But I would highly recommend the movie to anyone who wants an idea of what made him tick.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Sarah Palin -- quits?

Just in time for the Fourth of July, Sarah Palin is back in the news -- saying she's quitting as the Governor of Alaska well before her term expires. There really is no explanation for this other than she has an eye on 2012 and challenging Barack Obama for the Presidency, presuming she can get the GOP nomination that year.
　
But I have to question the timing of this. With Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) admitting in the last couple of weeks of extramarital affairs, is it possible she has been caught in a major scandal of her own and she wants to get it out of the way without being pressured to do so? Something about this doesn't feel right.

Besides which, she really needs to appeal better to the centrists in the Republican Party, and it's going to take more than charm and being a former hockey mom to win over the hearts and minds of card carrying members.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.