Some new information has come out today about what was in OJ Simpson's ill-fated book, If I Did It. In a chapter that Newsweek managed to obtain, Mr. Simpson now says that "if" he did it, there was an accomplice that he names "Charlie" -- which is interesting, since the Los Angeles District Attorney at the time totally dismissed out of hand that there was any second suspect in the case. According to Simpson, Charlie was actually an unwilling aide to the fact and begged OJ to stop. There are also some interesting details about the bloody socks and why there were no other clothes, the racket that woke up Brian "Kato" Kaelin, and something else significant -- that Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown's pal (and who was actually returning the glasses of Nicole's mother, not Nicole's as has always been reported), tried to save her life and even threatened to use karate on OJ.
What's more alarming is that Simpson uses the language of a classic wife abuser, always denying responsibility, always blaming his victim -- Nicole -- for being responsible for provoking the attacks. He's especially angry with her repeatedly committing adultery, although if even half of what is said about his treatment of her is true, her dalliances would have been completely justifiable. I think all of us remember that 911 call where OJ broke into Nicole's home and was shouting at her in violation of a court order (and how it took nearly a minute for the dispatcher to realize that "OJ" was the same one as the football player / broadcaster / actor / comedian, wasting precious moments for the police to break it up). I also remember one piece of evidence introduced where OJ complained to Nicole about filing a joint income tax return when their divorce had long been finalized -- dated less than a week before the murder.
Was that the motive for the murder, financial irregularities? Or the fact that she was at the wrong end of a drug deal gone terribly wrong (there was evidence she was experimenting with hard drugs)? Or the fact that he directly accused Ron Goldman of being there for the specific purpose of having an affair with Nicole? And, if what OJ is saying about Goldman standing up for both himself and Nicole is in fact true, then Goldman comes out as a true hero. Further, if the account is true, Goldman and Kato were at least acquaintances because Kato waved at the former before leaving the scene -- and immediately before the murders.
It's not just that OJ wrote the book that bothers me (why that is I explained here). What bothers me is his overall attitude towards women in general. I don't think it's the football that conditioned him to hate women, rather his sense that he was entitled to his entitlements. He felt he had paid his dues to society (or rather, society owed him because of his multiple talents) and here was this woman who wanted to expose him for the creep he really was. So what if she wanted to sleep with Goldman? Nicole and OJ were no longer married, therefore it was no longer OJ's business even if she was the mother of their children.
The scary part? Now that the publishing rights have been returned to Simpson, he's free to publish the book again -- even self-publish it if he chooses (and it's not that expensive anymore, hasn't been for sometime with a good office suite). He set up a trust for his kids specifically so the Brown and Goldman families don't get a penny. And all the while, he's free to pontificate his repulsive attitudes about the female half.
No doubt he's a very talented guy in every other respect. He had a major role in the seminal miniseries Roots, and is such a good actor he was actually considered for the title role in The Terminator. Not to mention his broad knowledge of the game that made him famous.
That's no excuse, however, for his revolting behaviour off the field. It's irrelevant if he "did it" or not. The fact is he has a rap sheet for his abuse. For that reason, and that reason alone, he should be avoided like the plague.
UPDATE (7:09 PM EST, 0009 Monday GMT): You're absolutely right, Justin. It was Ron, not Brian. I've edited accordingly.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Want to show "An Inconvenient Truth" in school? Bring your Bible
At the rate things are going, former Vice-President Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth will surpass J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter septology as the most challenged movie and book in America's schools.
Case in point: In the Seattle, Washington suburb of Federal Way, an evangelical parent challenged the movie, saying that it had to be "balanced" with the Bible -- or the movie had to be shown by a teacher who expressed the "opposing" view. From the words of the parent in question: "The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." Well of course it's not in the DVD because it's not in the Bible.
It's outright heresy, and as Gore himself said over a decade ago, an "appallingly self-fulfilling prophecy of doom." God never said he'd burn up the earth, but that plagues the world had never seen before would stymie the earth immediately before the arrival of the anti-Christ. Moreover, Jesus himself said in the Olivet Discourse that his return would be as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West -- in other words, the cosmic disturbance to end all of them. Nothing about fire there.
God promised to Noah he'd never destroy the Earth. Quite frankly, we're doing that ourselves -- and we're reaping the consequences: Depleted soil, uncontrolled forest fires, contaminated water, and of course massive hurricanes and tornadoes at the most inconvenient time of the year (like, say, November in urban Hamilton, where trailer parks are banned).
Truly said is that the White House and 24 Sussex are each inhabited by individuals who -- although they're entitled to believe what they believe -- have a warped view of what the Bible actually says. It's our job to have dominion over the earth, not to have domination.
I saw Gore's movie last year. While it's presented with an entirely secular viewpoint, it's also rooted in Gore's strong evangelical Christian faith. Of course, many if not most evangelicals have a hard time believing a Democrat could even be a Christian. If these critics want balance, they should do it from a secular standpoint -- and I'm not talking about "intelligent design" either because even an intelligent designer would not set up the Earth to self-destruct.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Case in point: In the Seattle, Washington suburb of Federal Way, an evangelical parent challenged the movie, saying that it had to be "balanced" with the Bible -- or the movie had to be shown by a teacher who expressed the "opposing" view. From the words of the parent in question: "The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." Well of course it's not in the DVD because it's not in the Bible.
It's outright heresy, and as Gore himself said over a decade ago, an "appallingly self-fulfilling prophecy of doom." God never said he'd burn up the earth, but that plagues the world had never seen before would stymie the earth immediately before the arrival of the anti-Christ. Moreover, Jesus himself said in the Olivet Discourse that his return would be as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West -- in other words, the cosmic disturbance to end all of them. Nothing about fire there.
God promised to Noah he'd never destroy the Earth. Quite frankly, we're doing that ourselves -- and we're reaping the consequences: Depleted soil, uncontrolled forest fires, contaminated water, and of course massive hurricanes and tornadoes at the most inconvenient time of the year (like, say, November in urban Hamilton, where trailer parks are banned).
Truly said is that the White House and 24 Sussex are each inhabited by individuals who -- although they're entitled to believe what they believe -- have a warped view of what the Bible actually says. It's our job to have dominion over the earth, not to have domination.
I saw Gore's movie last year. While it's presented with an entirely secular viewpoint, it's also rooted in Gore's strong evangelical Christian faith. Of course, many if not most evangelicals have a hard time believing a Democrat could even be a Christian. If these critics want balance, they should do it from a secular standpoint -- and I'm not talking about "intelligent design" either because even an intelligent designer would not set up the Earth to self-destruct.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Accredit foreign workers now
In the effort to build a more progressive society where everyone plays an equal part -- not one where the working and middle classes serve the upper echelons -- one group is often marginalized: Immigrant, skilled workers who are forced to drive taxis or flip burgers because their foreign credentials aren't recognized. This applies to both people who have full documentation of their skills as well as those who don't have them because they were "left behind" while running from the authorities.
This lack of justice has been a problem that's been going on for decades, but with a greater percentage of the immigrants coming from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia it has only gotten worse. What's even more bizarre is that accrediting authorities don't even want to talk to these people, they have a vested interest in "protecting" those who are already members and don't want "outsiders" from joining the club.
The problem is those immigrants came to Canada on the specific promise their skills would be recognized. By not doing so, we're breaking faith. And, as a consequence, possibly creating another terrorist within our midst.
Today's decision by the Ontario Superior Court in one such case is a step in the right direction. A teacher from Iran who escaped persecution (specifically, because she had the chutzpah to have her class debate the merits of The Satanic Verses) sued the Ontario Teachers' College saying it wouldn't even allow her to take the necessary examinations to become a licenced teacher in the province. The court said that the College discriminated against Fatima Siadit.
She's just one. We've all met the engineer / taxi driver at some point in our lives, or the physician / janitor, and so forth. What is it with Canada that this discrimination continues? We cry about a shortage of skilled labour, yet most of it is right here and ready to go at a second's notice.
For God's sake, just let them take the examinations. They're written in English or French so that should weed out ... well, nobody. If language proficiency is an issue, add the demand they take the TOEFL or the TFI in French (with additional testing to prove spoken proficiency and not merely they've been "taught to the test"), but that's it. We could easily drop the unemployment rate a full percentage point, and raise income tax revenues substantially, by ending this discrimination. If those who run the law societies and medical colleges and so forth resist, let them be stripped of their credentials and forced to push brooms so they feel what it's like.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
This lack of justice has been a problem that's been going on for decades, but with a greater percentage of the immigrants coming from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia it has only gotten worse. What's even more bizarre is that accrediting authorities don't even want to talk to these people, they have a vested interest in "protecting" those who are already members and don't want "outsiders" from joining the club.
The problem is those immigrants came to Canada on the specific promise their skills would be recognized. By not doing so, we're breaking faith. And, as a consequence, possibly creating another terrorist within our midst.
Today's decision by the Ontario Superior Court in one such case is a step in the right direction. A teacher from Iran who escaped persecution (specifically, because she had the chutzpah to have her class debate the merits of The Satanic Verses) sued the Ontario Teachers' College saying it wouldn't even allow her to take the necessary examinations to become a licenced teacher in the province. The court said that the College discriminated against Fatima Siadit.
She's just one. We've all met the engineer / taxi driver at some point in our lives, or the physician / janitor, and so forth. What is it with Canada that this discrimination continues? We cry about a shortage of skilled labour, yet most of it is right here and ready to go at a second's notice.
For God's sake, just let them take the examinations. They're written in English or French so that should weed out ... well, nobody. If language proficiency is an issue, add the demand they take the TOEFL or the TFI in French (with additional testing to prove spoken proficiency and not merely they've been "taught to the test"), but that's it. We could easily drop the unemployment rate a full percentage point, and raise income tax revenues substantially, by ending this discrimination. If those who run the law societies and medical colleges and so forth resist, let them be stripped of their credentials and forced to push brooms so they feel what it's like.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
It's time for Bush to throw in the towel
Rather than listen to common sense, including that of his own generals and a blue-ribbon panel of wise men and women, George W Bush thinks that escalating the war in Iraq may the only way to save the situation. So he's sending 20-22 thousand more troops. Needless to say, most Democrats (with the natural exception of Joe Lieberman) are furious and are sticking by their promise not to give Bush the funds he needs to escalate operations.
Until recently, I thought an escalation -- going big, as it's called in street talk -- was the only solution. After all, America made the mess, it had to get out of it. But in the last couple of months as it's become clear the police action has become a civil war, having American troops on the ground at all makes no sense at all; they're just target practice for the real aim -- Sunnis killing Shias and vice versa.
If it was just a question of getting rid of terrorists making imminent plans to attack a NATO country, I'd support a targeted mission to get rid of cells associated with Al-Qaeda and allied groups. I'm no pacifist -- protecting the home front sometimes means taking drastic action abroad. In the present situation, though, it's impossible to tell who's with the terrorists and who isn't. It's partly that, that explains why the killing has become so indiscriminate.
Even if this worked the way Bush thinks it could, it only buys America some time -- three to six months at most. The fact is the insurgents on both sides will simply catch their second wind and start all over again. The pottery barn rule can only go so far. America has had nearly four years to purchase the broken crockpot -- all they've done is subcontract the repair job to Big Oil. It's time for America to bring its troops home so they can fortify the country for the next terrorist attack, which will probably be sooner than later. Let the Iraqis themselves figure out where their country goes from here -- not the Pentagon.
There's no dishonour in admitting defeat -- in fact, doing so rather than just saying "mistakes were made" may be the best way Bush can salvage his reputation.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Until recently, I thought an escalation -- going big, as it's called in street talk -- was the only solution. After all, America made the mess, it had to get out of it. But in the last couple of months as it's become clear the police action has become a civil war, having American troops on the ground at all makes no sense at all; they're just target practice for the real aim -- Sunnis killing Shias and vice versa.
If it was just a question of getting rid of terrorists making imminent plans to attack a NATO country, I'd support a targeted mission to get rid of cells associated with Al-Qaeda and allied groups. I'm no pacifist -- protecting the home front sometimes means taking drastic action abroad. In the present situation, though, it's impossible to tell who's with the terrorists and who isn't. It's partly that, that explains why the killing has become so indiscriminate.
Even if this worked the way Bush thinks it could, it only buys America some time -- three to six months at most. The fact is the insurgents on both sides will simply catch their second wind and start all over again. The pottery barn rule can only go so far. America has had nearly four years to purchase the broken crockpot -- all they've done is subcontract the repair job to Big Oil. It's time for America to bring its troops home so they can fortify the country for the next terrorist attack, which will probably be sooner than later. Let the Iraqis themselves figure out where their country goes from here -- not the Pentagon.
There's no dishonour in admitting defeat -- in fact, doing so rather than just saying "mistakes were made" may be the best way Bush can salvage his reputation.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Good start for "Little Mosque"
I saw the première of Little Mosque on the Prairie last night and I have to admit that my first impressions are quite high. This is definitely the show that's needed in a post-9/11 world. It plays to all the prejudices that have always been an undercurent of Western society and became exacerbated after that horrible day when every little nuance became the subject of scrutiny often to the point of being preposterous.
The show's title of course is taken from the 1970s and early 80s show Little House and in my mind there was an arc of episodes that could be directly lifted out of it that could directly relate to the culture clash in the new show -- in particular the ones where bad girl Nellie Olsen turned good and married Percival Dalton, a Jewish boy. A major family feud erupted when Nellie became pregnant and it was trying to be determined whether the child would be raised as a Christian or as a Jew. (Perhaps this was a shot at the undercurrent of anti-Semitism that has always pervaded a significant part of American society.) Eventually, Nelson, Nellie's father, offered a compromise -- Christian if a girl, Jewish if a boy. As it turned out, Nellie was pregnant with twins -- a girl and a boy. Family harmony was restored, and perhaps the most poignant moment was the town's men -- all Christian -- gathering at the church afterwards and reciting the Shema in Hebrew: "Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is One."
The current series has one of the main characters, a former Christian, being married to a Muslim -- and trying to be a go between keeping the peace in the town -- as well as their daughter who's also caught up in the perceived clash between Western and Muslim values. For me, though, the most bombastic character is the radio talk show host -- to me a cross between Rafe Mair and Lowell Green -- and who play to the worst fears of people who like things "the way they used to be."
If the writers play their cards right, this could be the yang to Corner Gas' ying and could run for several seasons.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The show's title of course is taken from the 1970s and early 80s show Little House and in my mind there was an arc of episodes that could be directly lifted out of it that could directly relate to the culture clash in the new show -- in particular the ones where bad girl Nellie Olsen turned good and married Percival Dalton, a Jewish boy. A major family feud erupted when Nellie became pregnant and it was trying to be determined whether the child would be raised as a Christian or as a Jew. (Perhaps this was a shot at the undercurrent of anti-Semitism that has always pervaded a significant part of American society.) Eventually, Nelson, Nellie's father, offered a compromise -- Christian if a girl, Jewish if a boy. As it turned out, Nellie was pregnant with twins -- a girl and a boy. Family harmony was restored, and perhaps the most poignant moment was the town's men -- all Christian -- gathering at the church afterwards and reciting the Shema in Hebrew: "Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is One."
The current series has one of the main characters, a former Christian, being married to a Muslim -- and trying to be a go between keeping the peace in the town -- as well as their daughter who's also caught up in the perceived clash between Western and Muslim values. For me, though, the most bombastic character is the radio talk show host -- to me a cross between Rafe Mair and Lowell Green -- and who play to the worst fears of people who like things "the way they used to be."
If the writers play their cards right, this could be the yang to Corner Gas' ying and could run for several seasons.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
CBC Radio's Bad Taste
I normally like CBC Radio One, even more than CBC Television. Their newscasts tend to provide a lot more context on news issues than their boob tube counterparts. However, in reporting one particular story this morning, the scribes crossed the line of what's appropriate for morning radio.
Now, don't misunderstand me ... I'm all for free speech and a free press. But it's morning drive time and kids are often listening as their parents drive them to school. Or they may be listening to the radio themselves. So how to explain this:
First, in reporting on the birth of sextuplets in Vancouver -- a Canadian first -- the reporters relayed the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. How that is in any way relevant to a medical marvel is beyond me. People of most if not all religions use fertility treatments -- even quite a few of my fellow Roman Catholics notwithstanding the Vatican's opposition to nearly all of them.
But then in the very next report, they began by mentioning the world's first IVF baby (Louise Brown) then did a 180 turn and changed the subject; talking about other parents faced with multiple birth situations (usually the result of fertility drugs), say five or more unborn children; and how many feel compelled to resort to "selective termination" to cut the number of fetuses down to just two in the interests of promoting normal childhood development -- even describing the drug typically used to achieve this particular form of abortion which just happens to also be one of the drugs used in a lethal injection.
This is not the place to reopen the abortion question -- I've addressed how I feel about it in the past (both personally and as a matter of public policy), although my views have shifted somewhat since then and I'll opine about in a future post. My question for now instead is this: Aren't there other shows on Radio One where this is a more appropriate forum for discussion -- such as The Current (when most kids are in school) or Ideas (in prime time)? And can we keep the religion out of it too? I don't mind the issue being raised, I only mind the timing.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Now, don't misunderstand me ... I'm all for free speech and a free press. But it's morning drive time and kids are often listening as their parents drive them to school. Or they may be listening to the radio themselves. So how to explain this:
First, in reporting on the birth of sextuplets in Vancouver -- a Canadian first -- the reporters relayed the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. How that is in any way relevant to a medical marvel is beyond me. People of most if not all religions use fertility treatments -- even quite a few of my fellow Roman Catholics notwithstanding the Vatican's opposition to nearly all of them.
But then in the very next report, they began by mentioning the world's first IVF baby (Louise Brown) then did a 180 turn and changed the subject; talking about other parents faced with multiple birth situations (usually the result of fertility drugs), say five or more unborn children; and how many feel compelled to resort to "selective termination" to cut the number of fetuses down to just two in the interests of promoting normal childhood development -- even describing the drug typically used to achieve this particular form of abortion which just happens to also be one of the drugs used in a lethal injection.
This is not the place to reopen the abortion question -- I've addressed how I feel about it in the past (both personally and as a matter of public policy), although my views have shifted somewhat since then and I'll opine about in a future post. My question for now instead is this: Aren't there other shows on Radio One where this is a more appropriate forum for discussion -- such as The Current (when most kids are in school) or Ideas (in prime time)? And can we keep the religion out of it too? I don't mind the issue being raised, I only mind the timing.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Kurd case against Saddam "moot"
There just seemed something wrong with the rush to execute Saddam Hussein last week. Why were they in such a hurry -- and why did they have to do it, of all days, the same weekend of the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the most solemn rituals in Islam? I was thinking there was some unfinished business -- and there was. He was still on trial for ordering the genocide of 180 000 people; and specifically the mustard gas attack in 1988 that murdered 5000.
Today, an Iraqi court declared the Kurdish case against Mr Hussein moot. Since he was dead, there was no point in continuing the prosecution.
What a warped sense of "justice" there is, when someone faces the ultimate punishment whilst another case against him or her is pending. Even most democratic states that retain the death penalty, including the United States, normally do not carry out an execution until any and all appeals are exhausted.
It's this kind of rush to judgment -- or rather revenge -- that's just one reason why I am so against capital punishment. In his death, Hussein has become a martyr not just for Palestinians as he vowed he would be, but for all Muslims -- including ironcially the Kurds, who are mostly Muslim but feel they have been cheated out of their sense of justice. And the consequences could be incalculable. In my humble opinion, Saddam Hussein may have been convicted of the Dujail atrocity but he was executed for ordering an assassination attempt on George Bush Senior.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Today, an Iraqi court declared the Kurdish case against Mr Hussein moot. Since he was dead, there was no point in continuing the prosecution.
What a warped sense of "justice" there is, when someone faces the ultimate punishment whilst another case against him or her is pending. Even most democratic states that retain the death penalty, including the United States, normally do not carry out an execution until any and all appeals are exhausted.
It's this kind of rush to judgment -- or rather revenge -- that's just one reason why I am so against capital punishment. In his death, Hussein has become a martyr not just for Palestinians as he vowed he would be, but for all Muslims -- including ironcially the Kurds, who are mostly Muslim but feel they have been cheated out of their sense of justice. And the consequences could be incalculable. In my humble opinion, Saddam Hussein may have been convicted of the Dujail atrocity but he was executed for ordering an assassination attempt on George Bush Senior.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Warsaw bishop resigns
On the very day he was supposed to be installed as the new Archbishop of Warsaw, Stanislaw Wielgus announced that he was resigning. Turns out he was a collaborator with the Communist-era secret police of Poland. In a country where many people see the Roman Catholic Church is seen as being the moral force that brought down iron rule (although it's more fair to say decades of economic stagnation proved to be too much for the Poles), Wielgus' admission last week was seen as a betrayal.
Only thing is, this is the latest in the very long aftermath of the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Just months after the Berlin Wall collapsed, the outgoing East German administration tried to stop the unsealing of the files of the Stazi, but the pressures to do so were overwhelming. It came as no surprise that a handful of couples spied on each other. Not to mention officials from the Catholic and Lutheran churches were also in cahoots with Erich Honecker.
In such a repressive regime it's hard to know who to trust. Being born in Canada, I never experienced the kind of repression my parents did in Croatia (then part of Yugoslavia) -- a free market brand of Communism under Josip Tito but Communism nevertheless. In fact, my father defected in 1964 after a not too pleasant stint of compulsory military service in part because of his religious beliefs.
It makes me wonder whether on his escape route the very people in the underground who were facilitating his exit may have been in fact ratting on him to the authorities to try to stop him. Wouldn't have been too surprising -- so in a way, it's a miracle he did make it out, and I'm here and not six feet under from bullet wounds from the war of liberation.
Given today's news I doubt that the rate of people who nominally claim Catholicism is going to drop in Poland any time soon (about 90%). But Karol Wojtyla must be spinning in his crypt at the Vatican knowing one of his trusted friends and allies was one of the enemies. He would have excommunicated Wielgus on the spot. But Joe Ratzinger's running the show now, so probably he'll just send him into a life of "contemplation and repentance." Nevertheless, it's still a huge letdown. In a part of the EU that is still very religious when most of the rest has officially eschewed religion (except the UK and the official state religions of Anglicanism and Presbyterianism), the RC Church is seen as a positive force. At the very least, I suspect church attendance among practicing Catholics will decline. If Wielgus was one of "them," who else wearing the Roman collar is?
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Only thing is, this is the latest in the very long aftermath of the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Just months after the Berlin Wall collapsed, the outgoing East German administration tried to stop the unsealing of the files of the Stazi, but the pressures to do so were overwhelming. It came as no surprise that a handful of couples spied on each other. Not to mention officials from the Catholic and Lutheran churches were also in cahoots with Erich Honecker.
In such a repressive regime it's hard to know who to trust. Being born in Canada, I never experienced the kind of repression my parents did in Croatia (then part of Yugoslavia) -- a free market brand of Communism under Josip Tito but Communism nevertheless. In fact, my father defected in 1964 after a not too pleasant stint of compulsory military service in part because of his religious beliefs.
It makes me wonder whether on his escape route the very people in the underground who were facilitating his exit may have been in fact ratting on him to the authorities to try to stop him. Wouldn't have been too surprising -- so in a way, it's a miracle he did make it out, and I'm here and not six feet under from bullet wounds from the war of liberation.
Given today's news I doubt that the rate of people who nominally claim Catholicism is going to drop in Poland any time soon (about 90%). But Karol Wojtyla must be spinning in his crypt at the Vatican knowing one of his trusted friends and allies was one of the enemies. He would have excommunicated Wielgus on the spot. But Joe Ratzinger's running the show now, so probably he'll just send him into a life of "contemplation and repentance." Nevertheless, it's still a huge letdown. In a part of the EU that is still very religious when most of the rest has officially eschewed religion (except the UK and the official state religions of Anglicanism and Presbyterianism), the RC Church is seen as a positive force. At the very least, I suspect church attendance among practicing Catholics will decline. If Wielgus was one of "them," who else wearing the Roman collar is?
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Wacky weather -- warm but wishing for the white stuff
As I look outside my window this morning, it's overcast but unseasonably mild. At this time of year, one should expect temperatures in this part of Canada to be around the minus 5 Celsius range. It's been averaging plus 10. Needless to say, it's been anything but business as usual. Yesterday, I heard that local city crews which normally run the snow plows have instead been doing some winter pruning of trees. The spring-like winter has also, perhaps, accelerated construction of the Red Hill Parkway, which was supposed to open next fall but instead could be open by the summer.
It hasn't been happy news elsewhere, though ... like at Blue Mountain, which yesterday laid off 1300 employees for three weeks because there just isn't any snow on the ground -- or enough, rather, to make ski conditions safe.
To my memory, I can't remember a winter this mild since 1983 ... and the stuff on the ground then was mostly slush and not snow. But to hear it's not just us and that the cherry blossoms are blooming in Manhattan, something that hasn't happened this early since 1888, is in some ways very scary. Consider the ice wine industry in Niagara, to the east of me, is heavily reliant on cold steady temperatures for the crop to be produced. I don't think it's been below minus 10 three day in a row since -- um, March of last year. I'm not the only one noticing this. But it was the cold snap of winters that prepared us for the heat of summers; making us tougher persons. We see places like Los Angeles basking in summer eleven or even twelve months of the year and think, they're not so tough!
The cities of Canada are their best when there is both winter and summer --which makes us very different from the places the "snowbirds" flock to during the winter to escape winter all together. Sure, some places the snow's around for too long it seems, but it's that winter moisture that prepares the rural soil for the spring crops. Too little of it, and there's going to be a big problem.
Maybe I'm a cold romantic in wishing for a Green Christmas every year ... but we could use some snow. Not a blizzard, but enough that's easy enough to shovel but also make sure the farmers are ready for spring and the reservoirs full in case -- as I sense -- there could be a scorching summer and the threat of a water shortage, even with Hamilton sitting right on Lake Ontario. After all, the farmers have to pump in the water from somewhere and it's not just from the wells.
It's not just the same without the white stuff. It's just not Hamilton. If places like the Far North and New Orleans are the proving grounds for global warming, imagine what it's going to be like inland when the weather changes become permanent.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
It hasn't been happy news elsewhere, though ... like at Blue Mountain, which yesterday laid off 1300 employees for three weeks because there just isn't any snow on the ground -- or enough, rather, to make ski conditions safe.
To my memory, I can't remember a winter this mild since 1983 ... and the stuff on the ground then was mostly slush and not snow. But to hear it's not just us and that the cherry blossoms are blooming in Manhattan, something that hasn't happened this early since 1888, is in some ways very scary. Consider the ice wine industry in Niagara, to the east of me, is heavily reliant on cold steady temperatures for the crop to be produced. I don't think it's been below minus 10 three day in a row since -- um, March of last year. I'm not the only one noticing this. But it was the cold snap of winters that prepared us for the heat of summers; making us tougher persons. We see places like Los Angeles basking in summer eleven or even twelve months of the year and think, they're not so tough!
The cities of Canada are their best when there is both winter and summer --which makes us very different from the places the "snowbirds" flock to during the winter to escape winter all together. Sure, some places the snow's around for too long it seems, but it's that winter moisture that prepares the rural soil for the spring crops. Too little of it, and there's going to be a big problem.
Maybe I'm a cold romantic in wishing for a Green Christmas every year ... but we could use some snow. Not a blizzard, but enough that's easy enough to shovel but also make sure the farmers are ready for spring and the reservoirs full in case -- as I sense -- there could be a scorching summer and the threat of a water shortage, even with Hamilton sitting right on Lake Ontario. After all, the farmers have to pump in the water from somewhere and it's not just from the wells.
It's not just the same without the white stuff. It's just not Hamilton. If places like the Far North and New Orleans are the proving grounds for global warming, imagine what it's going to be like inland when the weather changes become permanent.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Girl "stunted' by parents, on purpose
Yesterday's reporting that a pair of parents decided to stunt their disabled nine-year old daughter's growth made me wonder just how much we have entered the "Brave New World" that Aldous Huxley wrote of in 1932. Simply stated, to make sure "Ashley" stays four foot five they had her "de-sexed" -- removing her breasts and uterus -- and giving her significant amounts of hormones. What's more bizarre is that the procedure was done by a children's hospital (this one in Seattle), which normally has a mandate to make the lives of children and their parents more manageable.
One could probably empathize with the parents' plight, but under normal circumstances the young woman would grow to a height of five foot six. And many if not most mentally and /or physically challenged persons enjoy sex as much as the rest of us. What possible purpose could be gained by keeping a child such as Ashley small forever? Are kids that dispensable?
Moreover, whatever happened to the principle of informed consent? Surely a child of that age, no matter how challenged, must be aware of what her parents want to do to her. The parents have asked people not to judge them, but who can't help but do so?
For me, this isn't so much an act of love as it is one of frustration. This reminds me so much about the case of Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Tracy. No doubt Tracy was in excruciating pain and the numerous surgeries must have absolutely overwhelmed the parents. But rather than putting her into long term care where Tracy might have received the palliative care she was entitled to, Robert took the coward's way out and poisoned her. She wasn't asked if she wanted to die, if her father had the state would have had no leg to stand on even if the killing was immoral. Robert made the decision for her -- or more accurately, for himself.
But the case of Ashley is in some ways worse. To make their lives easier, they have disabled their daughter even more. Moreover, they have taken away her womanhood so that if in the future by some unforeseen circumstance she is suddenly cured she will never have the life that a woman is entitled to. We freak out, and justifiably, at female "circumcision" of able bodied females, many of which are done by other misguided women. Doesn't Ashley have the same rights? Isn't she entitled to keep her breasts and her uterus? It's not like she has cancer which might otherwise necessitate a mastectomy or hysterectomy.
Kids are not an inconvenience. They are God's gift to us. We don't inherit the world from our parents but borrow it from our children. Having a child is one of the most solemn responsibilities we can take on -- part of the reason why I haven't had any yet because I haven't felt I was able to be a parent, until now. We just can't throw them away because they're a burden. We have a duty to ensure their well-being, no matter what condition they are in.
What I would do if I were in Ashley's parents' position? Honestly, I don't know -- but this is one option I would not consider, any more than euthanasia.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
One could probably empathize with the parents' plight, but under normal circumstances the young woman would grow to a height of five foot six. And many if not most mentally and /or physically challenged persons enjoy sex as much as the rest of us. What possible purpose could be gained by keeping a child such as Ashley small forever? Are kids that dispensable?
Moreover, whatever happened to the principle of informed consent? Surely a child of that age, no matter how challenged, must be aware of what her parents want to do to her. The parents have asked people not to judge them, but who can't help but do so?
For me, this isn't so much an act of love as it is one of frustration. This reminds me so much about the case of Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Tracy. No doubt Tracy was in excruciating pain and the numerous surgeries must have absolutely overwhelmed the parents. But rather than putting her into long term care where Tracy might have received the palliative care she was entitled to, Robert took the coward's way out and poisoned her. She wasn't asked if she wanted to die, if her father had the state would have had no leg to stand on even if the killing was immoral. Robert made the decision for her -- or more accurately, for himself.
But the case of Ashley is in some ways worse. To make their lives easier, they have disabled their daughter even more. Moreover, they have taken away her womanhood so that if in the future by some unforeseen circumstance she is suddenly cured she will never have the life that a woman is entitled to. We freak out, and justifiably, at female "circumcision" of able bodied females, many of which are done by other misguided women. Doesn't Ashley have the same rights? Isn't she entitled to keep her breasts and her uterus? It's not like she has cancer which might otherwise necessitate a mastectomy or hysterectomy.
Kids are not an inconvenience. They are God's gift to us. We don't inherit the world from our parents but borrow it from our children. Having a child is one of the most solemn responsibilities we can take on -- part of the reason why I haven't had any yet because I haven't felt I was able to be a parent, until now. We just can't throw them away because they're a burden. We have a duty to ensure their well-being, no matter what condition they are in.
What I would do if I were in Ashley's parents' position? Honestly, I don't know -- but this is one option I would not consider, any more than euthanasia.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
The pointless fitness tax credit
There's something perplexing about the Conservatives' new "fitness tax credit" of five hundred dollars (which, at 15.5%, really amounts to a saving of just $77.50). One of the terms of the credit is that a certain amount of physical "exertion" must be demonstrated in order to qualify for the credit.
So I guess that means sports like ice hockey and lacrosse (our national sports in Canada), as well as biathlon, swimming and soccer etc. qualify. Sports that don't require as much (like bowling or table tennis) don't. And it says absolutely nothing about people who aren't physically inclined but like to engage in mental or artistic pursuits like musical instruments, Scouting, ballet or old fashioned community service. They don't qualify period.
This is baffling and not just because of all the questions it raises (and I for one can't wait to read what the interpretation bulletin will say as to exactly what's a "sport" and what isn't). It's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money, giving a measly at best subsidy to only a small percentage of Canadians. It'd be far better to give parents a real tax break, say a five hundred dollar per year increase in the child tax credit. (I've argued in past columns for much more but a per capita increase that modest would do more good to promote health and nutrition for all, than just giving a King, Betty Windsor and Laurier to a few.)
I understand what the government is trying to do. Canada is an obese nation (and to be fair I do have a few extra pounds myself) and we need to promote physical activity. But why aren't we doing it in the schools already? Arts and gymnastics are the first items to go in any budget cuts by school boards. Not only are we creating kids who don't have the ability to think, they're also fat and they don't even realize they are.
When I was in kindergarten and grade one, Ontario had something called the "Health Hustle" -- a quick, ten minute mandatory stretching and jumping exercise to start the day. (The Gen-Xers who read this will probably remember this one, which included four popular songs from the era -- the two that stick in my mind were Hot Butter's Popcorn and Captain and Tenille's blockbuster cover of Neil Sedaka's Love Will Keep Us Together.) The weird thing was, it actually made us want to seize the day. (It's still used in some jurisdictions, although nowadays more contemporary music such as the Macarena.)
And forget the arts. Music appreciation and visual arts were a big part of my education -- a huge one, and I am convinced it helped make me a more rounded person; even if when it came to painting I was mostly a klutz. (My "masterpiece," if you can call it that, was a bronze engraving I did, copied from a single frame comic strip popular during the 1980s -- and not a totally unreasonable one for me.) Now, kids are just required to take one arts credit in Grade Nine. One.
Is that the way to promote balance with our kids? The provinces don't get it, and neither do the feds.
I hear there's a Cabinet shuffle today. No doubt Rona Ambrose and a few others will be dumped (welcome news to us progressives), but one cannot change outward appearances if there is inner decay. The minority government is just managing the country, it's not governing it. And one of its keynote policy decisions, the fitness tax credit, is rotten to the core. Noble idea, but the wrong way to do it.
Increase funding at the school level, yes (including federal transfers that help the provinces run education). Give a paltry tax break, no.
UPDATE (2:02 PM EST, 1902 GMT): Ambrose is not out of the Cabinet, but she has been shifted to President of the Privy Council. Included in that file is intergovernmental relations -- so she'll be point woman to the provinces. Given most provinces have already taken the lead on the environment, it's hard to see how she'll be able to persuade them on the constittution.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
So I guess that means sports like ice hockey and lacrosse (our national sports in Canada), as well as biathlon, swimming and soccer etc. qualify. Sports that don't require as much (like bowling or table tennis) don't. And it says absolutely nothing about people who aren't physically inclined but like to engage in mental or artistic pursuits like musical instruments, Scouting, ballet or old fashioned community service. They don't qualify period.
This is baffling and not just because of all the questions it raises (and I for one can't wait to read what the interpretation bulletin will say as to exactly what's a "sport" and what isn't). It's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money, giving a measly at best subsidy to only a small percentage of Canadians. It'd be far better to give parents a real tax break, say a five hundred dollar per year increase in the child tax credit. (I've argued in past columns for much more but a per capita increase that modest would do more good to promote health and nutrition for all, than just giving a King, Betty Windsor and Laurier to a few.)
I understand what the government is trying to do. Canada is an obese nation (and to be fair I do have a few extra pounds myself) and we need to promote physical activity. But why aren't we doing it in the schools already? Arts and gymnastics are the first items to go in any budget cuts by school boards. Not only are we creating kids who don't have the ability to think, they're also fat and they don't even realize they are.
When I was in kindergarten and grade one, Ontario had something called the "Health Hustle" -- a quick, ten minute mandatory stretching and jumping exercise to start the day. (The Gen-Xers who read this will probably remember this one, which included four popular songs from the era -- the two that stick in my mind were Hot Butter's Popcorn and Captain and Tenille's blockbuster cover of Neil Sedaka's Love Will Keep Us Together.) The weird thing was, it actually made us want to seize the day. (It's still used in some jurisdictions, although nowadays more contemporary music such as the Macarena.)
And forget the arts. Music appreciation and visual arts were a big part of my education -- a huge one, and I am convinced it helped make me a more rounded person; even if when it came to painting I was mostly a klutz. (My "masterpiece," if you can call it that, was a bronze engraving I did, copied from a single frame comic strip popular during the 1980s -- and not a totally unreasonable one for me.) Now, kids are just required to take one arts credit in Grade Nine. One.
Is that the way to promote balance with our kids? The provinces don't get it, and neither do the feds.
I hear there's a Cabinet shuffle today. No doubt Rona Ambrose and a few others will be dumped (welcome news to us progressives), but one cannot change outward appearances if there is inner decay. The minority government is just managing the country, it's not governing it. And one of its keynote policy decisions, the fitness tax credit, is rotten to the core. Noble idea, but the wrong way to do it.
Increase funding at the school level, yes (including federal transfers that help the provinces run education). Give a paltry tax break, no.
UPDATE (2:02 PM EST, 1902 GMT): Ambrose is not out of the Cabinet, but she has been shifted to President of the Privy Council. Included in that file is intergovernmental relations -- so she'll be point woman to the provinces. Given most provinces have already taken the lead on the environment, it's hard to see how she'll be able to persuade them on the constittution.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Two (or more) serial killers, two different approaches
With the news that someone in Edmonton has been slapped with a second murder charge in the disappearance of sex trade workers in that city, people are wondering if there is a serial killer on their hands. They only have to think about Robert Pickton, who's accused (and I stress merely accused) of 27 homicides of prostitutes in the Vancouver area. (There are presently 28 other cold cases and Pickton is thought to be the prime suspect also.)
I think back a few years when the numbers in the Lower Mainland were beginning to accumulate yet the city's police force didn't really seem to care. After all, the attitude was, they're hookers -- who gives a damn about the world's oldest profession? But these were women who were estranged from their families. They were sisters, daughters and in some cases mothers, who were just trying to get by and taken advantage of in the worst possible way. So why weren't the cops doing their jobs? Seems they were more interested in protecting the homes of the super-wealthy (in a city with the most expensive residential real estate in the country), which just happened to be experiencing a rash of break-ins at the time.
And of course, they couldn't be bothered to just pick up the phone and ask other police forces if they saw something weird going on or if women were missing from their cities. Selfish pride and good old police rivalries rather than making service and protection their common priority.
So when no reward was offered for information about the missing woman but a large one -- $100 000 -- was for the burglars, people naturally went nuts. What an appalling double standard. It was as if the Vancouver police had adopted the despicable decree of one particular prophet in the Bible who believed that the most virtuous woman was still worse than the most wicked man. Eventually they wizened up but in the time they wasted many lives could have been spared.
Compare that to the Edmonton approach. When something suspicious was happening there and the same pattern began emerging, the police there didn't hesitate. They got together with the Mounties and pooled their resources (in something called Project KARE), and made it one of their top priorities. They also didn't stall in saying they're looking for more than just one predator; that there are quite a few out there.
It's not hard to imagine which one makes more common sense.
Sure, prostitution is a plague. Frankly, it'd be good to see those involved in the business (mostly women) either find work or be given the support to get job retraining so they can get real jobs and put the business out of business. For the part of the patrons, they need to find other ways to gratify themselves than deal with total strangers at spas (or for the well-heeled, going to so called "massage parlours" which are really bawdy houses or bordellos). It's a two way street and the evil itself must be cleansed. All reasonable attempts should be made at family reunions as well.
But as long as such evil exists, we must prevent an even worse evil -- those who would take advantage of the most vulnerable in the worst possible way. The vast majority of us who are law abiding vowed to stop child exploitation when the Internet allowed it to spread faster than at any time in history. So why won't we do the same for adult women (and men) who are in this dead end?
Every murder case, every sexual assault, every robbery, must be treated the same by the cops -- whether the victim is someone on the A-list or the Z-list. It's by doing that that law enforcement earns trust and respect -- not because they're armed and dangerous. As long as police apply double standards, the regard people have for law enforcement will decline. No police force is ever perfect. But some are better than others in practicing the principles of equity.
It's little wonder why there was such a large list of applicants when Edmonton was looking for a new police chief some time ago -- and very few even bothered when Vancouver did the same.
UPDATE (3:23 PM EST, 2023 GMT): Fixing a bad link. Sorry folks, still getting used to Blogger.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
I think back a few years when the numbers in the Lower Mainland were beginning to accumulate yet the city's police force didn't really seem to care. After all, the attitude was, they're hookers -- who gives a damn about the world's oldest profession? But these were women who were estranged from their families. They were sisters, daughters and in some cases mothers, who were just trying to get by and taken advantage of in the worst possible way. So why weren't the cops doing their jobs? Seems they were more interested in protecting the homes of the super-wealthy (in a city with the most expensive residential real estate in the country), which just happened to be experiencing a rash of break-ins at the time.
And of course, they couldn't be bothered to just pick up the phone and ask other police forces if they saw something weird going on or if women were missing from their cities. Selfish pride and good old police rivalries rather than making service and protection their common priority.
So when no reward was offered for information about the missing woman but a large one -- $100 000 -- was for the burglars, people naturally went nuts. What an appalling double standard. It was as if the Vancouver police had adopted the despicable decree of one particular prophet in the Bible who believed that the most virtuous woman was still worse than the most wicked man. Eventually they wizened up but in the time they wasted many lives could have been spared.
Compare that to the Edmonton approach. When something suspicious was happening there and the same pattern began emerging, the police there didn't hesitate. They got together with the Mounties and pooled their resources (in something called Project KARE), and made it one of their top priorities. They also didn't stall in saying they're looking for more than just one predator; that there are quite a few out there.
It's not hard to imagine which one makes more common sense.
Sure, prostitution is a plague. Frankly, it'd be good to see those involved in the business (mostly women) either find work or be given the support to get job retraining so they can get real jobs and put the business out of business. For the part of the patrons, they need to find other ways to gratify themselves than deal with total strangers at spas (or for the well-heeled, going to so called "massage parlours" which are really bawdy houses or bordellos). It's a two way street and the evil itself must be cleansed. All reasonable attempts should be made at family reunions as well.
But as long as such evil exists, we must prevent an even worse evil -- those who would take advantage of the most vulnerable in the worst possible way. The vast majority of us who are law abiding vowed to stop child exploitation when the Internet allowed it to spread faster than at any time in history. So why won't we do the same for adult women (and men) who are in this dead end?
Every murder case, every sexual assault, every robbery, must be treated the same by the cops -- whether the victim is someone on the A-list or the Z-list. It's by doing that that law enforcement earns trust and respect -- not because they're armed and dangerous. As long as police apply double standards, the regard people have for law enforcement will decline. No police force is ever perfect. But some are better than others in practicing the principles of equity.
It's little wonder why there was such a large list of applicants when Edmonton was looking for a new police chief some time ago -- and very few even bothered when Vancouver did the same.
UPDATE (3:23 PM EST, 2023 GMT): Fixing a bad link. Sorry folks, still getting used to Blogger.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
In Memoriam: Teddy Kollek
Some sad news when I woke up this morning, although I suspect as usual many televangelists will be actually quite happy. Theodor Kollek, the long-time former Mayor of Jerusalem, died this morning at the age of 95. Against a gradual tide of anti-Arab resentment, Kollek tried to promote the co-existence of Jews and Palestinians in the Holy City, starting from his election in 1965. He was also a major patron of the arts and made Jerusalem one of the world's top tourist destinations -- so much that when was finally defeated after 27 years in office by Ehud Olmert in 1993, it was hard to imagine Jerusalem without "Mayor Teddy."
Few other mayors have worldwide name recognition. Besides Jerusalem, I can only think of the mayoralties of Paris, London, New York City and Los Angeles that rank in importance alongside Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Kollek's passing is quite bitter. The peace process is at an absolute standstill and even retrenching; and it all comes down to ultimately what the "final status" of Jerusalem will be. Israel insists that it must remain undivided, while the Palestinians want at least the east side of the city (al-Quds), including the Holy Sites of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, as their future capital. Interestingly, only Bolivia and Paraguay have their embassies in Jerusalem or its suburbs -- even El Salvador is in the process of moving its mission to Tel Aviv as most other countries did after Jerusalem formally annexed the East in 1980. This was at about the mid-point of Kollek's tenure and he kept holding out hope even afterwards -- naïvely, perhaps -- that some kind of reconciliation could happen. His downfall, coming around the same time as the Rabin-Arafat accord, was perhaps the beginning of the end (or the end of the beginning, depending on how one views it).
With Hamas running the show, it's hard to see any movement in the foreseeable future -- the moment of opportunity actually expired in 2000 with the collapse of Camp David II, when Arafat was offered 97% of what he asked for plus some territory within what the world recognizes as Israel and it still wasn't enough.
Perhaps with Kollek's passing someone, somewhere, out there will rally all religious groups within the region to recapture the optimism "Teddy" represented and at last come up with a deal that offers peace and security and without triggering the supposed seven-year countdown to Armageddon. One that allows Jerusalem to be shared fairly, and with free access to the Holy Sites not just there but also those sacred to all in Jericho and Hebron as well.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Few other mayors have worldwide name recognition. Besides Jerusalem, I can only think of the mayoralties of Paris, London, New York City and Los Angeles that rank in importance alongside Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Kollek's passing is quite bitter. The peace process is at an absolute standstill and even retrenching; and it all comes down to ultimately what the "final status" of Jerusalem will be. Israel insists that it must remain undivided, while the Palestinians want at least the east side of the city (al-Quds), including the Holy Sites of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, as their future capital. Interestingly, only Bolivia and Paraguay have their embassies in Jerusalem or its suburbs -- even El Salvador is in the process of moving its mission to Tel Aviv as most other countries did after Jerusalem formally annexed the East in 1980. This was at about the mid-point of Kollek's tenure and he kept holding out hope even afterwards -- naïvely, perhaps -- that some kind of reconciliation could happen. His downfall, coming around the same time as the Rabin-Arafat accord, was perhaps the beginning of the end (or the end of the beginning, depending on how one views it).
With Hamas running the show, it's hard to see any movement in the foreseeable future -- the moment of opportunity actually expired in 2000 with the collapse of Camp David II, when Arafat was offered 97% of what he asked for plus some territory within what the world recognizes as Israel and it still wasn't enough.
Perhaps with Kollek's passing someone, somewhere, out there will rally all religious groups within the region to recapture the optimism "Teddy" represented and at last come up with a deal that offers peace and security and without triggering the supposed seven-year countdown to Armageddon. One that allows Jerusalem to be shared fairly, and with free access to the Holy Sites not just there but also those sacred to all in Jericho and Hebron as well.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Best and Worst US Person of 2006
In the mode of Stephen Colbert, it's time to do a "wave of the finger, tip of the hat." Since I felt so alienated by the course of Canadian politics this year until the last month with the election of Stéphane Dion as Liberal leader, I couldn't really pick a best and worst Canadian. So instead, here's my pick for the worst and best US person of 2006.
Worst: Bob Ney, the former Republican Congressman from Ohio. He got caught up in a number of kickback schemes that got the king of lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, into so much trouble. I thought Tom Delay was wretched, but he was one of the causes of the disease called the "K-Street Project." Ney was the disease and leached on it. To be fair, he was much more aligned with the moderate wing of the GOP than the liberal; but the guy who created "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" still made friends in all the wrong places. He's expected to testify against some pretty high people in the new year in exchange for a reduced sentence ... and given the fact that he was less than honest about his ties to Abramoff until recently, one can only anticipate who else he's going to say was less than honest about their ties to Abramoff. (Hint: GB in WH.)
Best: Keith Olbermann, the former conservative sportscaster and news commentator turned liberal, now host of Countdown on MSNBC. In a series of commentaries -- some directed at his archenemy Bill O'Reilly, the rest at the Bush Administration -- Olbermann became the last angry man. In a sense, he is partly like Howard Beale, the "mad as hell" anchor in the 1976 film Network. Unlike Beale, however, Olbermann never resorted to histrionics but used the cold hard facts to make his case -- and in a dead serious voice. His analyses on the Malmédy Massacre, the 9/11 attacks and Dubya's emaciation of habeas corpus were especially devastating. He has established himself as Edward R Murrow's true heir -- something badly needed in broadcasting.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Worst: Bob Ney, the former Republican Congressman from Ohio. He got caught up in a number of kickback schemes that got the king of lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, into so much trouble. I thought Tom Delay was wretched, but he was one of the causes of the disease called the "K-Street Project." Ney was the disease and leached on it. To be fair, he was much more aligned with the moderate wing of the GOP than the liberal; but the guy who created "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" still made friends in all the wrong places. He's expected to testify against some pretty high people in the new year in exchange for a reduced sentence ... and given the fact that he was less than honest about his ties to Abramoff until recently, one can only anticipate who else he's going to say was less than honest about their ties to Abramoff. (Hint: GB in WH.)
Best: Keith Olbermann, the former conservative sportscaster and news commentator turned liberal, now host of Countdown on MSNBC. In a series of commentaries -- some directed at his archenemy Bill O'Reilly, the rest at the Bush Administration -- Olbermann became the last angry man. In a sense, he is partly like Howard Beale, the "mad as hell" anchor in the 1976 film Network. Unlike Beale, however, Olbermann never resorted to histrionics but used the cold hard facts to make his case -- and in a dead serious voice. His analyses on the Malmédy Massacre, the 9/11 attacks and Dubya's emaciation of habeas corpus were especially devastating. He has established himself as Edward R Murrow's true heir -- something badly needed in broadcasting.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
UK repays debt to Canada, US
An item in yesterday's International Herald Tribune served as a reminder that a debt, no matter large or small, must be eventually repaid in some manner. The news was that the UK made its final installment on the post- World War II loans for reconstruction, money borrowed from the United States and Canada. The amount: $100 million US.
I mentioned a little while back Jim Flaherty wants to get rid of the "net debt" rather than actually pay it off in full. Kind of like the Brits just paying the interest on the debt from the Napoleonic Wars than just putting it to rest as well ... because apparently the interest is cheaper than the redemption costs. At least, though, Westminster gets it.
When this is all I find worthy to comment on other than last night's execution of Saddam Hussein, it tells you the kind of day it's been.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
I mentioned a little while back Jim Flaherty wants to get rid of the "net debt" rather than actually pay it off in full. Kind of like the Brits just paying the interest on the debt from the Napoleonic Wars than just putting it to rest as well ... because apparently the interest is cheaper than the redemption costs. At least, though, Westminster gets it.
When this is all I find worthy to comment on other than last night's execution of Saddam Hussein, it tells you the kind of day it's been.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)