Must be the winds blowing from the North, but a fairly conservative state -- Montana -- is now considering abolishing the death penalty. Since restoring the death penalty in 1974, Big Sky Country has had only three executions. One inmate has been granted clemency while two sit on Death Row. But in an interesting twist, the state Senate -- as well as the Attorney General -- has now concluded that promoting a "culture of life" while actively seeking some one's death is simply inconsistent. Says the AG, John Connor:
"It seems to me to be the ultimate incongruity to say we respect life so much that we're going to dedicate all our money, all our resources, our legal expertise and our entire system to try and take your life. ... Frankly, I just don't think I can do it anymore ... There will always be religious, moral and emotional reasons why the death penalty doesn't make sense, but I think the real practical consideration for the policymaker is, is this where we need to be committing our very limited, scant criminal justice resources?"
This has been one of the flaws of the neo-conservative movement for years. How one be both "pro-life" on issues such as pre-natal care and the terminally ill, but "hang 'em high" on criminal justice is not only contradictory; it's also hypocritical. Say what you will about Pat Robertson, but even he has rethought the issue and has called at least for a moratorium on the practice.
I for one am glad Canada does not have the death penalty. No question, the most serious offences should get heavier sentences and not a slap on the wrist. We still have issues about miscarriages of justice, however, and my worry is that in the path to getting tough on terrorists, the mafia and sexual predators we may engage in rushes to judgment. One only has to think about the injustice Guy Paul Morin endured (several years after Canada abolished capital punishment) to understand why when prosecutors seek a conviction it had better be based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Something that's ironically often far more lacking in jurisdictions with the death penalty. There's far more reason to not disclose evidence when someone could face death than a life sentence. If someone has a reason to want someone to die, they'll do anything to ensure that happens. If the sentence is life, they're going to have to make sure they have it absolutely right on with no chance for error. It should be the other way around, but it's not.
The fact Montana is at least talking about it -- and at least 10 other states have a moratorium -- shows that the debate may be shifting in the States. If it finally joins the civilized world and gets rid of the practice I would certainly welcome that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Halliburton turns back on Texas
Halliburton, the energy services company that received the lion's share of "reconstruction" contracts in Iraq without tender (and also happened to be run formerly by Vice President Dick Cheney) has now said it's moving its headquarters from Dallas, Texas to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
One can only surmise they're doing this so they will no longer be under the scrutiny of the SEC or other regulators but will be able to do their own thing -- under a regime that ranks just 31st on the perceptions of the least corrupt countries in the world (Canada is 14th while Finland, New Zealand and Iceland were tops). True, things are better in the UAE than in many other countries where bribes are a matter of course (and where they are actually tax deductible even in "clean" countries like France) but the fact is the US Treasury stands to lose billions in taxes from this post-boxing move.
Say what you will about Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (D-MA), but their idea for a "Benedict Arnold" tax -- an exit tax for companies and persons who renounce their homeland -- sounds like a great idea. If it means Cheney loses the rest of his deferred compensation, I wouldn't mind.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
One can only surmise they're doing this so they will no longer be under the scrutiny of the SEC or other regulators but will be able to do their own thing -- under a regime that ranks just 31st on the perceptions of the least corrupt countries in the world (Canada is 14th while Finland, New Zealand and Iceland were tops). True, things are better in the UAE than in many other countries where bribes are a matter of course (and where they are actually tax deductible even in "clean" countries like France) but the fact is the US Treasury stands to lose billions in taxes from this post-boxing move.
Say what you will about Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (D-MA), but their idea for a "Benedict Arnold" tax -- an exit tax for companies and persons who renounce their homeland -- sounds like a great idea. If it means Cheney loses the rest of his deferred compensation, I wouldn't mind.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Putting families first
Many Canadian families are finding themselves shocked to discover that the hundred bucks a month per child under six paid under the Universal Child Credit (designed to destroy the national child care strategy as well as the tax-free and very effective Canada Child Tax Benefit) they thought was tax free is in fact taxable income. And while the lower income parent many think the UCC is tax free because they're still below the basic exemption, the fact is their partner's spousal amount goes down -- meaning it winds up being taxed anyway. (Or in the case of a single parent, or even unmarried siblings living in the same household, the "equivalent to spouse" amount drops).
Meanwhile, while the federal government clears up the red tape for foreign adoptions, it refuses to do anything about the gulag called the Canadian foster care system. 23,000 kids remain wards of the state -- and of course, because they're "un-adoptable" the government doesn't have to pay a single penny of the "child care" dough. Little wonder why unmarried mothers as well as mothers with low incomes decide it's just better to have an abortion, rather than have their unborn child be a "burden" on the system.
In recent months, I've done a lot of soul-searching and have decided that on balance I lean more pro-life than pro-choice. I do not think, however, simply outlawing abortions is the answer (although I do feel they should be restricted after viability). I do believe, however, that if our country had the kinds of social policies that actually put families first we could substantially reduce the number of terminated pregnancies -- and it would be possible to do this without any legal restrictions.
I'm not talking about a nanny state. I am talking about adjusting tax and family policies that make children front and centre.
First, I'd take the hundred bucks a month and make it tax free -- in fact, I'd tack it on to the base amount of the CCTB. This would ensure no provincial clawbacks. It would also ensure over ninety percent keep all of the money, and even upper middle class families (between $110 and 170 thousand) would get a partial tax rebate.
Second, I'd reduce the clawback on the National Child Benefit (NCB) supplement -- from 22% to 4%, the same as the CCTB. More money for middle income parents.
Third, I'd restore the young child supplement. It may seem like a small amount, but $20 a month would be useful to parents.
Fourth, I'd bring back the tax exemption for children. For example, it could be $2000 per child under seven and $1000 for kids 7-18. Along with the enhanced CCTB and NCB, it would take several hundred thousand families off the tax rolls during a child's most critical years -- up to 7.
Fifth, a daycare plan. I personally do not favour a flat user fee like which exists in Québec, but child care should be geared to income and available to any parent who asks for it. The fact remains not one single new day care space has been created the last thirteen months. We were promised 25,000 in the first year. There should be a combination of public and private day care with regulations applying across the board, and real tax incentives to encourage corporations to build in-house facilities. To ensure equality, parents who decide to stay at home should receive an equitable tax break -- equal to the tax realized value of the child care deduction.
Sixth, provinces must abandon their "rob Peter to pay Paul" attitude, taxing back what the federal government gives. If this means higher transfer payments from Ottawa to cover the gap, so be it.
Seventh, as I noted above, the red tape that exists in foster care must be eliminated. No question, there should be background checks to ensure prospective parents are capable of taking on their task. It simply doesn't make sense, however, to give foreign kids more rights than those of all races in our system. There should be, at least, a national adoption registry and provinces should cooperate to ensure foster children may be placed anywhere in Canada. It's true child protection is a provincial responsibility, but if there is no suitable parent in say Prince Edward Island but there is one in Saskatchewan why should the PEI kid be stuck?
And eighth, we do need to have a serious discussion about stem cell research. This has mostly been limited to the medical community and while we do have a law in place it's something that should be revisited on a frequent basis and not merely set in stone. In my opinion, unused embryos should not be destroyed unless an implant candidate cannot be found and the parents do not want any more children.
These steps are certainly radical. I think, however, we need to say that we're both going to have family values as well as value families.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Meanwhile, while the federal government clears up the red tape for foreign adoptions, it refuses to do anything about the gulag called the Canadian foster care system. 23,000 kids remain wards of the state -- and of course, because they're "un-adoptable" the government doesn't have to pay a single penny of the "child care" dough. Little wonder why unmarried mothers as well as mothers with low incomes decide it's just better to have an abortion, rather than have their unborn child be a "burden" on the system.
In recent months, I've done a lot of soul-searching and have decided that on balance I lean more pro-life than pro-choice. I do not think, however, simply outlawing abortions is the answer (although I do feel they should be restricted after viability). I do believe, however, that if our country had the kinds of social policies that actually put families first we could substantially reduce the number of terminated pregnancies -- and it would be possible to do this without any legal restrictions.
I'm not talking about a nanny state. I am talking about adjusting tax and family policies that make children front and centre.
First, I'd take the hundred bucks a month and make it tax free -- in fact, I'd tack it on to the base amount of the CCTB. This would ensure no provincial clawbacks. It would also ensure over ninety percent keep all of the money, and even upper middle class families (between $110 and 170 thousand) would get a partial tax rebate.
Second, I'd reduce the clawback on the National Child Benefit (NCB) supplement -- from 22% to 4%, the same as the CCTB. More money for middle income parents.
Third, I'd restore the young child supplement. It may seem like a small amount, but $20 a month would be useful to parents.
Fourth, I'd bring back the tax exemption for children. For example, it could be $2000 per child under seven and $1000 for kids 7-18. Along with the enhanced CCTB and NCB, it would take several hundred thousand families off the tax rolls during a child's most critical years -- up to 7.
Fifth, a daycare plan. I personally do not favour a flat user fee like which exists in Québec, but child care should be geared to income and available to any parent who asks for it. The fact remains not one single new day care space has been created the last thirteen months. We were promised 25,000 in the first year. There should be a combination of public and private day care with regulations applying across the board, and real tax incentives to encourage corporations to build in-house facilities. To ensure equality, parents who decide to stay at home should receive an equitable tax break -- equal to the tax realized value of the child care deduction.
Sixth, provinces must abandon their "rob Peter to pay Paul" attitude, taxing back what the federal government gives. If this means higher transfer payments from Ottawa to cover the gap, so be it.
Seventh, as I noted above, the red tape that exists in foster care must be eliminated. No question, there should be background checks to ensure prospective parents are capable of taking on their task. It simply doesn't make sense, however, to give foreign kids more rights than those of all races in our system. There should be, at least, a national adoption registry and provinces should cooperate to ensure foster children may be placed anywhere in Canada. It's true child protection is a provincial responsibility, but if there is no suitable parent in say Prince Edward Island but there is one in Saskatchewan why should the PEI kid be stuck?
And eighth, we do need to have a serious discussion about stem cell research. This has mostly been limited to the medical community and while we do have a law in place it's something that should be revisited on a frequent basis and not merely set in stone. In my opinion, unused embryos should not be destroyed unless an implant candidate cannot be found and the parents do not want any more children.
These steps are certainly radical. I think, however, we need to say that we're both going to have family values as well as value families.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Not a happy B-Day for the rest of us
Osama Bin Laden turns 50 years old today. The man named public enemy number one by over a hundred countries around the world is still at large. More than ever, it's become obvious those countries who've declared their intent to stamp out terrorism picked the wrong fight. If all those hundreds of thousands of American troops were in Afghanistan and not Iraq, and Pervez Musharraf was more serious about stamping out Taliban sympathies in the northwest of Pakistan, there's a good chance OBL would have been behind bars by now. The message would have been sent that terrorists can run but they can't hide. Instead, they've been drawn like a magnet to Iraq and making the war there even worse.
Some think that because of OBL's "silence" since the 2004 US election, he must be dead. Highly unlikely. He's lying low, because he knows that even most Americans now realize the high price the Iraq War has exacted and he's waiting for the moment when opinion might even begin to rally the other way even slightly to strike again.
However the real issue, as former CIA agent Michael Scheuer keeps reminding us, is not that the terrorists strike us for who we are, but what our governments do. We keep hearing the myth that we're attacked because of our general tolerance for all religions and for giving at least nominal equality to women. Not true. We're attacked for supporting Israel; our indifference to the Palestinian issue and for backing the corrupt Arab sheiks that plunder oil royalties for themselves rather than diversifying their countries' economies; and our general reluctance to criticize their human rights records for fear the oil will be cut off.
Scheuer also developed the "extraordinary rendition" process during the Clinton Administration, something escalated big time under Dubya and rightly criticized, but from a general standpoint his analysis about what's really going on in the Middle East is absolutely bang on. The influence of the pro-Israel lobby in DC ensures these issues are never debated in the halls of Congress; and while Scheuer doesn't say we should stop supporting Israel, he does say we should at least talk about whether it's appropriate to continue giving foreign aid to a developed country -- the only developed country that in fact receives such assistance -- or ask questions where the money's going. I for one don't mind such money going to health care or low-income housing (on Israel proper, not the Occupied Territories), but if it's plunked into military hardware or the "security wall" that's wrong -- Israel should use its own revenues for that.
OBL's success lies in that he makes complicated issues simple ... and that the source of all of the Middle East's ills is NATO. I will never condone what he does, but it's way past time we heard the grievances of those who are suffering. Otherwise, we'll keep getting attacked.
So it's important to remember that while the struggle to end terrorism must never end, we must also alter our policies to link energy purchases to democratic reforms. It simply doesn't make sense only one country in the region, Israel, is a democracy while the rest are dictatorships.
That being said, we need to see measurable results in Afghanistan -- not just the capture of OBL, but sowing the seeds to help develop a self-sustaining economy and government that can both deal with terrorism within that country's borders. Otherwise, even I would be prepared to drop my support for the war effort there; and demand that when our current tour of duty ends in 2009 the Canadian troops come home -- and be redeployed to Vancouver, where a real threat of attack exists in the run-up to and during the Winter Olympics the following year.
Tanks in the streets there might put off some people, but at least one can be assured the Canadian Forces will not turn their guns in anger against law-abiding civilians -- unlike the Chinese Army who's just dying (pardon the expression) to massacre people in Tiananmen Square again during next year's Summer Olympics.
The fact remains, it's been over five and a half years since 9/11. On May 18th the War Against Terrorism will have lasted longer than World War II did in Europe. Isn't it time we finished the job so we can bring all the troops home early, so we can actually have something to celebrate?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Some think that because of OBL's "silence" since the 2004 US election, he must be dead. Highly unlikely. He's lying low, because he knows that even most Americans now realize the high price the Iraq War has exacted and he's waiting for the moment when opinion might even begin to rally the other way even slightly to strike again.
However the real issue, as former CIA agent Michael Scheuer keeps reminding us, is not that the terrorists strike us for who we are, but what our governments do. We keep hearing the myth that we're attacked because of our general tolerance for all religions and for giving at least nominal equality to women. Not true. We're attacked for supporting Israel; our indifference to the Palestinian issue and for backing the corrupt Arab sheiks that plunder oil royalties for themselves rather than diversifying their countries' economies; and our general reluctance to criticize their human rights records for fear the oil will be cut off.
Scheuer also developed the "extraordinary rendition" process during the Clinton Administration, something escalated big time under Dubya and rightly criticized, but from a general standpoint his analysis about what's really going on in the Middle East is absolutely bang on. The influence of the pro-Israel lobby in DC ensures these issues are never debated in the halls of Congress; and while Scheuer doesn't say we should stop supporting Israel, he does say we should at least talk about whether it's appropriate to continue giving foreign aid to a developed country -- the only developed country that in fact receives such assistance -- or ask questions where the money's going. I for one don't mind such money going to health care or low-income housing (on Israel proper, not the Occupied Territories), but if it's plunked into military hardware or the "security wall" that's wrong -- Israel should use its own revenues for that.
OBL's success lies in that he makes complicated issues simple ... and that the source of all of the Middle East's ills is NATO. I will never condone what he does, but it's way past time we heard the grievances of those who are suffering. Otherwise, we'll keep getting attacked.
So it's important to remember that while the struggle to end terrorism must never end, we must also alter our policies to link energy purchases to democratic reforms. It simply doesn't make sense only one country in the region, Israel, is a democracy while the rest are dictatorships.
That being said, we need to see measurable results in Afghanistan -- not just the capture of OBL, but sowing the seeds to help develop a self-sustaining economy and government that can both deal with terrorism within that country's borders. Otherwise, even I would be prepared to drop my support for the war effort there; and demand that when our current tour of duty ends in 2009 the Canadian troops come home -- and be redeployed to Vancouver, where a real threat of attack exists in the run-up to and during the Winter Olympics the following year.
Tanks in the streets there might put off some people, but at least one can be assured the Canadian Forces will not turn their guns in anger against law-abiding civilians -- unlike the Chinese Army who's just dying (pardon the expression) to massacre people in Tiananmen Square again during next year's Summer Olympics.
The fact remains, it's been over five and a half years since 9/11. On May 18th the War Against Terrorism will have lasted longer than World War II did in Europe. Isn't it time we finished the job so we can bring all the troops home early, so we can actually have something to celebrate?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Bread and circuses
With Halifax deciding to pull out of the bidding for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and it being way too late for my hometown of Hamilton to even consider resubmitting its petition, I have a few thoughts.
It seems every time there's a big sporting event that draws international attention -- whether it's the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games or the World Cup of Soccer -- there seems to be a disconnect between what the granting body terms as "legacy" and what ordinary people see as such. Take the 1976 Olympics in Montréal; which were plagued by construction strikes and massive cost overruns -- which were only finally paid off last year. Or consider that Mexico only had four years to prepare for the 1986 World Cup when the original winner -- Colombia -- suddenly decided they couldn't afford to host it; then just months before the tournament an earthquake damaged quite a few of the soccer venues.
Legacy usually means how it will promote sports both domestically and internationally in the long run, well after the tournament ends. Being stiffed with over sized facilities that were designed to be used only a few times isn't exactly a nice idea of legacy, though. And the athletes villages which are supposed to go to low-income housing usually wind up being sold off as luxury condos.
So it's little wonder why people were complaining about Halifax's bid costs exploding through the roof -- from about $700 million to $1.7 billion. I'd like to meet the bean counter who came up with this one.
I'm not against large scale events of this nature. I am against dubious accounting. It should go through a due diligence process and estimate costs at the time of the actual games seven years down the road -- not current dollars. It should also account for worst case scenarios.
Otherwise, we're getting into a bread and circus scenario -- money being misspent at worst, shoddy organization at best, while those who should benefit the most do not ... and that's just plain wrong.
An aside: Why is it that the Commonwealth Games Society for Canada separate from the Canadian Olympic Committee? Most other Commonwealth nations get by just fine with their Olympic Committees.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It seems every time there's a big sporting event that draws international attention -- whether it's the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games or the World Cup of Soccer -- there seems to be a disconnect between what the granting body terms as "legacy" and what ordinary people see as such. Take the 1976 Olympics in Montréal; which were plagued by construction strikes and massive cost overruns -- which were only finally paid off last year. Or consider that Mexico only had four years to prepare for the 1986 World Cup when the original winner -- Colombia -- suddenly decided they couldn't afford to host it; then just months before the tournament an earthquake damaged quite a few of the soccer venues.
Legacy usually means how it will promote sports both domestically and internationally in the long run, well after the tournament ends. Being stiffed with over sized facilities that were designed to be used only a few times isn't exactly a nice idea of legacy, though. And the athletes villages which are supposed to go to low-income housing usually wind up being sold off as luxury condos.
So it's little wonder why people were complaining about Halifax's bid costs exploding through the roof -- from about $700 million to $1.7 billion. I'd like to meet the bean counter who came up with this one.
I'm not against large scale events of this nature. I am against dubious accounting. It should go through a due diligence process and estimate costs at the time of the actual games seven years down the road -- not current dollars. It should also account for worst case scenarios.
Otherwise, we're getting into a bread and circus scenario -- money being misspent at worst, shoddy organization at best, while those who should benefit the most do not ... and that's just plain wrong.
An aside: Why is it that the Commonwealth Games Society for Canada separate from the Canadian Olympic Committee? Most other Commonwealth nations get by just fine with their Olympic Committees.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Dumont, Boisclair, Charest: Elmyra, Pinky and the Brain (no particular order)
I sometimes watch the French-language newscasts to get a view on the "other" solitude. Tonight's newscast on Radio-Canada really made me wonder just how crazy provincial elections can get. First, "Super" Mario Dumont dumps the ADQ candidate for the Deux-Montagnes district (which includes the Kanesatake First Nation) after saying there's no longer a need for commemorations for the December 6th, 1989 massacre at the U of Montréal's engineering school. The comments came to light on -- Women's Day.
Second, the PQ is red-faced after it became known that the candidate in the St. Henri - Ste. Anne district of Montréal has long disputed the official version of events in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In this moron's view, it wasn't genocide at all.
Third, the Liberals continue to be embattled over their decision to sell off part of Mount Orford Provincial Park in the Eastern Townships even though they now claim they'll use the money to buy adjacent land and double the size of the existing park.
Mario Dumont, André Boisclair, and Jean Charest. Or should I say: Elmyra, Pinky and the Brain. I'll let you decide who's who.
Under first-past-the-post, one of these idiots will almost certainly get a majority in the National Assembly ... much more certain now that we know Dumont didn't vet his candidates well enough. Isn't it time for proportional representation? I would have thought that the most socially progressive province in the country would want to take the lead on PR.
Almost makes one want to look at the alternatives (such as the Green Party).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Second, the PQ is red-faced after it became known that the candidate in the St. Henri - Ste. Anne district of Montréal has long disputed the official version of events in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In this moron's view, it wasn't genocide at all.
Third, the Liberals continue to be embattled over their decision to sell off part of Mount Orford Provincial Park in the Eastern Townships even though they now claim they'll use the money to buy adjacent land and double the size of the existing park.
Mario Dumont, André Boisclair, and Jean Charest. Or should I say: Elmyra, Pinky and the Brain. I'll let you decide who's who.
Under first-past-the-post, one of these idiots will almost certainly get a majority in the National Assembly ... much more certain now that we know Dumont didn't vet his candidates well enough. Isn't it time for proportional representation? I would have thought that the most socially progressive province in the country would want to take the lead on PR.
Almost makes one want to look at the alternatives (such as the Green Party).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
International Women's Day: The struggle never ends
It's International Women's Day, but as usual there's really nothing to celebrate. Yes, we've made a great deal of strides (at least in the Occidental World) towards recognizing at least the legal equality of the sexes and to ensure women have the same kinds of opportunities. We're not quite there yet but we're much further than we were, say, even two decades ago.
Yet we must never forget there there are still attitudinal problems in society. Ethnic groups that refuse to recognize the supremacy of law and subjugate their female members under the police radar; through forced arranged marriages, repeated marital rapes, female circumcision and so forth. Employers who ask prospective employees (both females and males) about their families (it's illegal to do so but it does happen). And yes, there's "the lineup." I mean architects who don't appreciate females don't "go" the same way as men and make the restrooms the same size when for practical reasons the women's facilities should have double and even triple the number of stalls.
And let's not forget, there are still many countries where femicide is rampant. I'm not just talking about baby girls being murdered in the fields in Mainland China. I'm also talking about people in India running ultrasound clinics for the sole purpose of helping parents decide whether or not to abort their fetuses on the sole basis of sex. (This unfortunately happens a lot in our part of the world too, and no matter where one may stand on reproductive issues there should be a consensus that abortions for this reason should be outlawed.) I'm talking about countries and break-away republics where women are forbidden to go to school or even fly a kite. I also speak of the genocide of Aboriginal women in Canada, both on and off reserve. Have we forgotten about Helen Betty Osborne?
And of course, we must not forget the plight of sex trade workers. It's too easy to view them as less than human -- in fact, countries like Venezuela only see them as 20% of a human being; in other words if you're convicted of a sex crime against a pimp or street walker you get an 80% discount on your sentence. All the women who have disappeared from Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton ... why won't the police do their jobs? Especially the female members of the police.
The struggle for women's rights must never end. While I oppose some of the excesses of radical feminism (the "men are pigs" camp), the freedom of males are tied to the freedom of females. We're partners in this world. We may not be able to live with each other, but we sure as heck can't live without each other either.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Yet we must never forget there there are still attitudinal problems in society. Ethnic groups that refuse to recognize the supremacy of law and subjugate their female members under the police radar; through forced arranged marriages, repeated marital rapes, female circumcision and so forth. Employers who ask prospective employees (both females and males) about their families (it's illegal to do so but it does happen). And yes, there's "the lineup." I mean architects who don't appreciate females don't "go" the same way as men and make the restrooms the same size when for practical reasons the women's facilities should have double and even triple the number of stalls.
And let's not forget, there are still many countries where femicide is rampant. I'm not just talking about baby girls being murdered in the fields in Mainland China. I'm also talking about people in India running ultrasound clinics for the sole purpose of helping parents decide whether or not to abort their fetuses on the sole basis of sex. (This unfortunately happens a lot in our part of the world too, and no matter where one may stand on reproductive issues there should be a consensus that abortions for this reason should be outlawed.) I'm talking about countries and break-away republics where women are forbidden to go to school or even fly a kite. I also speak of the genocide of Aboriginal women in Canada, both on and off reserve. Have we forgotten about Helen Betty Osborne?
And of course, we must not forget the plight of sex trade workers. It's too easy to view them as less than human -- in fact, countries like Venezuela only see them as 20% of a human being; in other words if you're convicted of a sex crime against a pimp or street walker you get an 80% discount on your sentence. All the women who have disappeared from Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton ... why won't the police do their jobs? Especially the female members of the police.
The struggle for women's rights must never end. While I oppose some of the excesses of radical feminism (the "men are pigs" camp), the freedom of males are tied to the freedom of females. We're partners in this world. We may not be able to live with each other, but we sure as heck can't live without each other either.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Want to NETFILE your tax return? Sorry, no can do!
So here I am, finally doing my and my father's taxes ... I knew I was getting a refund but I was shocked to see Dad was getting one to. And I'm just about to file over the Internet and discover -- the site is down. Matter of fact, the whole damn server is down so that not even the professional tax preparers can file. Nor can you use TELEFILE either if you have a relatively simple return. A lot of people who thought their returns are being processed are instead discovering they're in a huge queue.
The people at the CRA say that the glitch happened sometime between Sunday night and Monday morning when the system is down and it won't accept returns anyway. Okay, fine ... but with all the taxes we spend you'd think they could have an IT man or woman on call to work on the issue. After all, a lot of us need the money for the March "crunch" we seem to face each year. Oh yeah ... it's the government. They only work 8:30 to 4 Monday to Friday.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The people at the CRA say that the glitch happened sometime between Sunday night and Monday morning when the system is down and it won't accept returns anyway. Okay, fine ... but with all the taxes we spend you'd think they could have an IT man or woman on call to work on the issue. After all, a lot of us need the money for the March "crunch" we seem to face each year. Oh yeah ... it's the government. They only work 8:30 to 4 Monday to Friday.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Libby goes down
I take no satisfaction over Scooter Libby being convicted on four of the five counts of obstructing justice in the Valerie Plame leak scandal. My worry is that the White House will simply say "Justice has been served" and then let anyone else in the executive who betrayed Plame get away with treason. Or give an outright pardon to Libby.
Leaking the name of a CIA agent -- especially one who was working on one of the very files of most concern to the world, namely Iran's WMD program -- is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. I can only wonder who else is going to be sacrificed next for a worthless war.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Leaking the name of a CIA agent -- especially one who was working on one of the very files of most concern to the world, namely Iran's WMD program -- is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. I can only wonder who else is going to be sacrificed next for a worthless war.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Is your computer ready for the time change?
This weekend in most of North America and the Caribbean, the clocks are going ahead one hour -- three weeks earlier than last year. They will go back the first weekend in November, one week later. This was something done by the US Congress in 2005 to promote energy conservation and since most other countries in North America are so much tied in trade to the US they pretty much didn't have a choice but to follow. Only problem is, unless you've updated your computer's operating system to download a patch, it will still "think" we're on standard time this weekend and won't change the time until the first weekend of April. This isn't so much an issue as big as Y2K but it could be a heck of a nuisance.
So just a suggestion: If you don't download your updates automatically, and you live somewhere where the change will take place this weekend, take a few seconds to go to Microsoft or Apple and download the time patch. It'll save a lot of aggravation.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
So just a suggestion: If you don't download your updates automatically, and you live somewhere where the change will take place this weekend, take a few seconds to go to Microsoft or Apple and download the time patch. It'll save a lot of aggravation.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, March 5, 2007
I'm entitled to my entitlements: Kanye West edition
Remember right after Hurricane Katrina, how the networks put on a benefit concert -- and in the presence of Mike Myers, Kanye West said that Bush didn't care about blacks? A totally unscripted moment but something that had a lot of truth to it.
Very interesting then that Mr. West decides to order a meal from Wales and have it shipped all the way to New York. The normal price of the meal is about £8.97. The price for West, including delivery (for a party of four): £2000.
Hey, Kanye, your brothers and sisters in New Orleans are still suffering. How about using that money to help them instead? Especially nice of you to waste your time ordering from a restaurant that has a delivery radius of 3 miles? While those in the strike zone still have to depend on food stamps (um, food debit cards)?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Very interesting then that Mr. West decides to order a meal from Wales and have it shipped all the way to New York. The normal price of the meal is about £8.97. The price for West, including delivery (for a party of four): £2000.
Hey, Kanye, your brothers and sisters in New Orleans are still suffering. How about using that money to help them instead? Especially nice of you to waste your time ordering from a restaurant that has a delivery radius of 3 miles? While those in the strike zone still have to depend on food stamps (um, food debit cards)?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
The snark strikes again
Why is Ann Coulter even allowed to remain in the Republican Party? Saying that John Edwards is a "faggot" is not only slander, it's beneath even most conservatives' definition of civil discourse.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Mass firing of prosecutors fails sniff test
Could this be the issue that finally gets the Democrats' fire lighted?
Back on December 7, a fair number of federal prosecutors were fired on supposed "performance issues." It now turns out that the dismissals may have been politically motivated -- i.e. the White House wanted them gone because they weren't "aggressive enough" in enforcing Bush Administration policies.
There's no question it is the duty of the executive to ensure laws are enforced. But it is another matter entirely when one picks and chooses which laws are going to be followed (such as Bush's record number of "signing statements" where he signs a law but indicates he won't execute them because they're unconstitutional and bind the executive in a manner the legislature is not supposed to).
One can appreciate a firing if a prosecutor is not performing "up to grade." But aren't there well established public service standards for that? One would kind of expect a district attorney or his or her assistants to exercise due diligence in trying to figure out what cases are worth taking to court, which ones stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. He or she shouldn't just get a ham sandwich indictment because he or she is told to. Moreover, DAs are rarely fired in the middle of an executive's term -- they serve at pleasure, of course, but usually changes are made when a new executive comes into office.
The White House readily admits they should have warned lawmakers that a large number of prosecutors were being given their pink slips and the optics in hindsight look bad. Tell me something I don't know. Now the Democrats are demanding hearings and will sub poena the fired DAs to hear their side of the story. I was under the impression that only in rare cases would the executive directly get involved in prosecuting people -- that for the most part district attorneys would be given a certain amount of free reign. Guess that's another truth that's too inconvenient for the President who would be King.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Back on December 7, a fair number of federal prosecutors were fired on supposed "performance issues." It now turns out that the dismissals may have been politically motivated -- i.e. the White House wanted them gone because they weren't "aggressive enough" in enforcing Bush Administration policies.
There's no question it is the duty of the executive to ensure laws are enforced. But it is another matter entirely when one picks and chooses which laws are going to be followed (such as Bush's record number of "signing statements" where he signs a law but indicates he won't execute them because they're unconstitutional and bind the executive in a manner the legislature is not supposed to).
One can appreciate a firing if a prosecutor is not performing "up to grade." But aren't there well established public service standards for that? One would kind of expect a district attorney or his or her assistants to exercise due diligence in trying to figure out what cases are worth taking to court, which ones stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. He or she shouldn't just get a ham sandwich indictment because he or she is told to. Moreover, DAs are rarely fired in the middle of an executive's term -- they serve at pleasure, of course, but usually changes are made when a new executive comes into office.
The White House readily admits they should have warned lawmakers that a large number of prosecutors were being given their pink slips and the optics in hindsight look bad. Tell me something I don't know. Now the Democrats are demanding hearings and will sub poena the fired DAs to hear their side of the story. I was under the impression that only in rare cases would the executive directly get involved in prosecuting people -- that for the most part district attorneys would be given a certain amount of free reign. Guess that's another truth that's too inconvenient for the President who would be King.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, March 2, 2007
It's not censorship if the right demands it
The claims this week that James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici made regarding burial boxes that allegedly contain the bones of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene has caused quite the fuss. Frankly, I think it's bogus. I agree with the vast majority of Christians who say that there simply is no way these could be what they say it is. Anyone remember the hoax surrounding the James Ossuary? The box was authentic (according to the Israeli government) but the inscription on it was a forgery.
But let's set aside for a minute what this piles onto -- the longstanding allegation that Jesus and Magdalene were married. There's no doubt they had a special relationship, perhaps to the point of being best friends. But married? The historical record just doesn't bear that out. If they were, the authentic four Gospel writers would have pointed that out.
My beef isn't the ridiculousness of the claim, the same one made in The Da Vinci Code. Rather, it's the attempts by some to get the upcoming documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus banned from the airwaves. Yup, the so-called Media Research Center and the Catholic League are up to their old tricks again. In fact, Bill Donohue of the CL actually said: “It’s time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism.”
Get a life! Most people are going to watch the show and then just dismiss it with a laugh. Because that's all Cameron and Jacobovici deserve to get for financing a project based on a very tenuous theory. Especially considering they now claim the James Ossuary is the "missing link" that proves Jesus wasn't executed.
Should we expect more in terms of standards from the Discovery Channel? Probably. But they've put out a lot of other crazy theories out there, which are now deemed to be not so crazy after all. And of course they've the highly rated MythBusters which puts a whole bunch of urban legends to the test.
So here's my suggestion. Donohue: Get a life, sir. Seriously. You're entitled to your opinions, but the First Amendment protects the free marketplace of ideas, not matter how ridiculous. Free speech doesn't only apply when people agree with you but when they disagree as well. The people should decide whether this theory is real or not, and using their common sense they probably will. But don't you dare say the documentary should be banned just because you hate Hollywood.
And to the Discovery Channel: Air the documentary as is, then let the MythBusters team figure out whether this is a bogus story as well. Given the proven record on the first ossuary, it shouldn't be that hard for M5 to bust the Jesus and Magdalene story out of the Dead Sea, once and for all. Then maybe we can finally put the "King of the World" out of his wretched business, as he so richly deserves to be, and get some reputable people to dig through antiquities and put them through the scientific method.
Will I be watching next week? Sure. My dad's still in critical condition and I need the laugh, desperately.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But let's set aside for a minute what this piles onto -- the longstanding allegation that Jesus and Magdalene were married. There's no doubt they had a special relationship, perhaps to the point of being best friends. But married? The historical record just doesn't bear that out. If they were, the authentic four Gospel writers would have pointed that out.
My beef isn't the ridiculousness of the claim, the same one made in The Da Vinci Code. Rather, it's the attempts by some to get the upcoming documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus banned from the airwaves. Yup, the so-called Media Research Center and the Catholic League are up to their old tricks again. In fact, Bill Donohue of the CL actually said: “It’s time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism.”
Get a life! Most people are going to watch the show and then just dismiss it with a laugh. Because that's all Cameron and Jacobovici deserve to get for financing a project based on a very tenuous theory. Especially considering they now claim the James Ossuary is the "missing link" that proves Jesus wasn't executed.
Should we expect more in terms of standards from the Discovery Channel? Probably. But they've put out a lot of other crazy theories out there, which are now deemed to be not so crazy after all. And of course they've the highly rated MythBusters which puts a whole bunch of urban legends to the test.
So here's my suggestion. Donohue: Get a life, sir. Seriously. You're entitled to your opinions, but the First Amendment protects the free marketplace of ideas, not matter how ridiculous. Free speech doesn't only apply when people agree with you but when they disagree as well. The people should decide whether this theory is real or not, and using their common sense they probably will. But don't you dare say the documentary should be banned just because you hate Hollywood.
And to the Discovery Channel: Air the documentary as is, then let the MythBusters team figure out whether this is a bogus story as well. Given the proven record on the first ossuary, it shouldn't be that hard for M5 to bust the Jesus and Magdalene story out of the Dead Sea, once and for all. Then maybe we can finally put the "King of the World" out of his wretched business, as he so richly deserves to be, and get some reputable people to dig through antiquities and put them through the scientific method.
Will I be watching next week? Sure. My dad's still in critical condition and I need the laugh, desperately.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
When someone wants to surrender, you arrest them on the spot
For the last couple of years or so, the Hamilton Police Service has had a "most wanted" suspect of the month and has asked anyone who has information to call the authorities. The capture rate has been quite high.
Questions are being asked though, about a rather foul turn of events. A man called Corey Rogers was "marked" by the cops for a savage beating in 2004 in which a man was left a quadripelegic. Rogers' alleged accomplice, a woman, was quickly arrested but Corey remained at large. Upon hearing his name in the local press Rogers called 911, offering to turn himself in.
The procedure is supposed to be the police go to the address attached to the phone number and attempt to make the arrest themselves. Instead, the dispatcher told Rogers to turn himself in. He never showed up. One week later two teenagers were killed outside a Barton Street bar. Two others were stabbed.
Guess who the police arrested? Rogers.
The families of the dead victims are crying foul and saying they are just as guilty of the murder as Rogers is -- if they had done their job, their sons would still be alive.
I wouldn't go that far, but someone has to take responsibility for this. Would the FBI just allow one of their Ten Most Wanted to get away if one of them called in and offered to surrender? This isn't a left or right issue. We all pay taxes to ensure public protection and no one was protected in this instance.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Questions are being asked though, about a rather foul turn of events. A man called Corey Rogers was "marked" by the cops for a savage beating in 2004 in which a man was left a quadripelegic. Rogers' alleged accomplice, a woman, was quickly arrested but Corey remained at large. Upon hearing his name in the local press Rogers called 911, offering to turn himself in.
The procedure is supposed to be the police go to the address attached to the phone number and attempt to make the arrest themselves. Instead, the dispatcher told Rogers to turn himself in. He never showed up. One week later two teenagers were killed outside a Barton Street bar. Two others were stabbed.
Guess who the police arrested? Rogers.
The families of the dead victims are crying foul and saying they are just as guilty of the murder as Rogers is -- if they had done their job, their sons would still be alive.
I wouldn't go that far, but someone has to take responsibility for this. Would the FBI just allow one of their Ten Most Wanted to get away if one of them called in and offered to surrender? This isn't a left or right issue. We all pay taxes to ensure public protection and no one was protected in this instance.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)