The multiple double standards in the banning of George Galloway

George Galloway's banning from Canada by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney simply because the former was trying to carry £1 million of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip, an area presently ruled by the democratically elected party (and listed terrorist group) Hamas, has really worked up a lather with most of my fellow ProgBloggers who have written about it: Maxwell Devin, Cliff Hesby, David Climenhaga, Bernadette Wagner, and Scott Tribe, just to name a few. Of course, the Conservatives don't have a monopoly on banning entry to those who rub them the wrong way, the Liberals did the same to Louis Farrakhan some years ago. But I disagreed with that decision (despite Farrakhan's well known anti-Semitic views) and I have to disagree with this one.

My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:

He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.

For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.

To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.

Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.

Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.

It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.

The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.

Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.

There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)

And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)

Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.

And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.

But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.

But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

We never should have closed down our German bases

Last night, we learned that four more soldiers have been killed in the line of duty for Canada: Master Corporal Scott Vernelli and Corporal Tyler Crooks of November Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment; and Troopers Yack Bouthillier and Corey Joseph Hayes of the Royal Canadian Dragoons. Eight others were wounded and reported in "stable" condition.

That brings the total death toll to 117 -- 116 soliders and one diplomat -- killed in the line of duty since 9/11. Two Canadian aid workers have also been killed.

Obviously, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it is truly infuriating that most of NATO is still not pulling its weight in Afghanistan. Only five countries have full time combat operations there right now: Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. Other countries put so many conditions for the rules of engagement for their fighting men and women that it makes joint operations that would be more effective, impossible to execute. As NATO marks 60 years next month, the success or failure of the operation could well depend on whether more countries will be persuaded to jump in.

However, there is one aspect of the situation -- the wounded -- that still bothers me.

While we have a modern field hospital at the base in Kandahar City that is fully capable of handling critical injuries -- for our troops, our allies alongside, and even our enemies who we capture as POWs -- it is, at its "base" a critical care facility (in and out, so to speak). To handle the more serious injuries that will take a longer recovery period, we have to transfer our WIAs to an American air base facility in Ramstein, Germany. Their physicians, nurses and other specialists are just about the best there is and there is no question our soldiers are in good hands there. And it also helps that there are Canadians posted there on a full time basis (as well as troops from 10 other NATO members), to help keep the wounded company.

But the fact is we had our own base in Germany for decades -- the base at Baden-Soellingen, in addition to facilities in Lahr and Zweibrüken. These were not only staging areas for conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, they also had the facilities you'd expect back home including top-notch medical personnel. Zweibrüken was closed after the three branches (army, air force and navy) unifed their command in the late 1960s, but the other two remained open -- until Mulroney ordered them closed in the early 1990s under the guise of budget constraints. Canada wasn't the only one, other countries pulled out of Germany too with the end of communism in most of Europe.

But many world leaders totally missed the shifting paradigm. It was no longer East versus West as in Eastern vs Western Europe. As the Cold War ended and Europe was becoming more united (with customs-free borders beginning in 1995) the Eastern boundary had now shifted, to the Middle East, South Asia and the Asia Pacific -- and small but well armed and financed groups who were prepared to fight unconventional war against us.

They also missed the opportunity to have battle ready people able to move in in several hours notice, not having to organize a deployment months in the making (as is the case now), fly them half way around the world, and then having to ship the wounded half-way back to a foreign country's facilities. It's insane -- we had our own army hospitals in Germany, good ones, and we shut them down and have the Americans bill us (and we know how expensive their health care is!)?

Too: Having a continued presence would have strengthened Canada's hand in dealing with the EU. We're finally into free trade talks with them now, but this could have been done a decade or more ago -- when we pulled out it was like we were snubbing the people we helped liberate in World War II so they had no reason to reason, particularly during the cod and turbot "wars." Why do you think America can be as tough as it is with the EU, and vice versa? It's because of the physical American presence in Europe.

The other thing is all those "support our troops" stickers you see on bumpers. I'd like to ask them if support means supporting PMS and his policies, or does it mean really supporting our troops -- giving them the best and most up to date fighting equipment possible, not Bay of Pigs relics? Does it mean subletting long term care of wounded soldiers, airmen and sailors to the Americans, or having them in our own army hospitals? Does it mean just giving soldiers their LTD when they get back -- or also emotional, financial and every other support they're going to need, for a lifetime? "Support our troops" in the context presently being used is a sinister one and it is costing our troops dearly. You don't fight terrorists equipped with Kalashnikovs and Berettas when all you have are the equivalent of starters' pistols which is basically what we're doing right now.

I support our troops. Supporting them means they get it in every way, and that includes treatment of the injured by Canadians, from start to finish. Again, I admire the work that the men and women at Ramstein do and I think we should thank them for their friendship and service; but we really need to have Canadians treating Canadians. Flying them home all the way would be impractical, so a mid-way point would have been nice. Closing Baden and Lahr was about the stupidest thing we could have done. And we can't have them back either -- they were sold and redeveloped commercially.

Not too surprising, given conservatives -- progressive and regressive conservatives -- have a penchant for selling top class land at fire sale prices.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Friday night music vault: Softly

This one goes way back to 1969, and the old Johnny Cash show. Softly is one of Gordon Lightfoot's somewhat lesser known songs, but certainly one of the most beautiful ones, the performance a few months before he released his monster hit song If You Could Read My Mind.



Where are the songwriters like this now? I mean, really? Is Taylor Hicks and Justin Timberlake the best the Machine can give us?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Charest: Sitting pretty, running deficits

Could this be a sign of things to come for the rest of the country? The Charest government introduced their 2009 budget for Québec and it is not pretty. For one thing it is "suspending" the province's balanced budget law, which in any province is really a worthless piece of paper to begin with, and announcing deficits for the next four years. As well, it will increase user fees and start indexing them to inflation (except for daycare); and starting in 2011 the provincial sales tax is going up to 8.5%, which of course is going to hit lower income people the most.

There is some targeted stimulus, which is a good thing, but there is nothing in there to explain what the heck happened at the Caisse de dépôt. There's also something a bit confusing in the budget papers, and that's that revenues from natural resources is going to be negative $80 million or so. Someone help me out on that one: The province is a paradise for fish and game, and they're going to lose that much money on permits -- what, they're giving them away for free or something?

Rumour is that the finance minister in the province, Monique Jérôme-Forget, may quit her post because she's gotten fed up with fighting with Slim Jim ™ over transfer payments and equalization. On the other hand, the province also has the kind of flexibility to arrange its finances in a way that other provinces could only dream of and it (relying for resources for much of its economy) saw the warning signs long before the rest of the country, so Charest just can't say it's the global economy's fault. Of course, he has a majority for four years so the Richard Simmons wannabe can just sit pretty until things get better -- if they do.

****

Ontario will have its budget coming any day now, and one claim is that the province will consider harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, as does Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador. We were already lied to about the health tax. Without a huge cut in the sales tax rate, or a big increase in the personal income tax exemption, or a cut in income taxes I say nyet.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Out of nothing at all!

If some Third World countries like -- name any of a number of them -- tried to print money like this, their money would be devalued instantly by several factors and their economy in tatters.

But today the US Fed said that it would create $1 trillion in new securities to try to unlock credit markets -- in other words, they're effectively printing that much in new money. This had the effect of having the dollar drop about 3% against major currencies. Only three percent, I emphasize. How do they get away with it? Because they can.

I may be just ranting here, but isn't making something out of nothing equal to making nothing?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

End of an era in Seattle

It's another "end of an era" within the Fourth Estate, as the Seattle Post Intelligencer -- unable to find a buyer after Hearst put it up for sale -- will publish its last print edition today, and going forward will be a web only newspaper. It's sad, in a way -- it got ahead of a lot of "national" papers and television outlets in investigating stories from crime to politics to entertainment, not just for the Pacific Northwest but across America.

That leaves the Seattle Times as the city's only major paper, which insists it's saddened to see its longtime rival bite the dust -- and one can only anticipate a generation gap with Gen X and younger gravitating to online content while older people will still prefer a paper product in their hands. Different content, different editorial spins -- we're going to pull apart more than we already are I'm afraid. Denver and Seattle are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine as long time two paper towns become one paper -- and there's already a terrible lack of progressive voices in print already.

A few years back, Honolulu came dangerously close to losing its second paper -- and Canadians remember the furore when one paper each in Winnipeg and Ottawa (operated by rival companies) closed, leaving each with an English language monopoly for years until the Toronto Sun started printing local editions (not much of a "choice" if you ask me, for cities with populations educated well above the national average).

It will also be interesting to see how PI can turn a profit on the Web when advertising revenues are scarce right now and people will still want a "free" newspaper.

Could it possible that the Toronto National Post might take this step next? The Aspers are just buying time for it, by getting yet another extension to refinance the debt of CanWest. I think they'd rather sacrifice radio and television properties before their most prized possession, but in this market there are no sacred cows.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Bank official: Deficit to be bigger than forecast. BFS

Slim Jim ™ Flaherty has predicted that the federal budget deficits for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are going to be $33.7 billion and $29.8 billion, respectively. An economic analyst at Toronto Dominion says the numbers for Canada are actually going to be far worse: $39.2 billion and $42.3 billion -- in other words, the fiscal situation will worsen, not improve, over the next two years. While Canada's economy is much larger than it was during the Mulroney years and therefore better able to handle a shock of that size, that's not the point.

It can look bad when one predicts a worst case scenario that's too rosy, as the Liberals did for years, but it does lead also to make a zero based budget that is based on prudent and independent forecasts, so that when the numbers do come in better than expected the excess revenues can go down to pay market debt, thus lowering interest payments and in turn reducing taxes.

But at least that way, you put the cart and the horse in their proper order. If the horse faces the cart -- that is, you make up your own rosy predictions that are not based on realities on the ground, and you also ignore the advice of those who know the realities on the ground, namely the Big Six Banks and the Caisse Dejarsdins credit union -- you're going to run yourself into the ground sooner or later. That's true for private businesses who eventually face bankruptcy, but it's also true for the government who then has to borrow money on the "full faith and credit" of the citizens at large.

This has become a pattern of right wing governments everywhere: Claiming fiscal prudence, they are financial disasters. Claiming surpluses are "excess revenues" they cut taxes so much they can't afford to pay for the daily expenses. And it's going to get even worse in the next couple of years even if the economy begins to turn around.

Consider the GST cut -- the money flowing from the value added tax before Team Harper started their slash and burn on the revenue side, essentially made sure Old Age Security and its supplements for low income people was self-financing. With the first wave of the baby boom starting to collect OAS in 2011, the money required to pay the entitlements will shoot up, big time, and there will not be the money to pay for it. The CPP and RRQ are self-financing, for now -- but there's a chance they might have to be bailed out like Social Security in the States, at which point we're going to have to make some choices. Meanwhile, those who actually have private pensions get a tax break -- now being able to shelter triple what they could before from income taxes.

Seniors should get a tax break for all the hard work they did, but there should also be an expectation that their less fortunate brothers and sisters who live only on OAS get an equal offer in the supplement. Since the tax savings amounts to $450, that means those on supplement (whose incomes are usually so low they often don't pay taxes to begin with) should get an increase in that every year. What do they get, however? Indexed to inflation and there hasn't been an increase since October, and because of dropping prices won't be until July at the earliest. And with the cut in GST revenues, already down because of an ill-timed cut before lower sales figures, there sure isn't room to offer an extra $37.50 per month to the poorest especially when they need it now!

With lower revenues across the board, and with a general consensus on social welfare policies we're going to have to make some choices? Do we need a military? Can we get by without agricultural subsidies? Are we going to have to charge co-payments each time we see a physician or specialist (as most of our competitors do, even the more socialistic ones)? This is something we need to think about.

Surpluses, or at least keeping deficits below the growth rate in the economy, gives one policy options. Running deficits above that water mark ensure we start sinking again. After more than a decade in progress, Canada is making the same mistakes as the rest of the industrial world, and it does not bode well for us as a nation to do that. Appropriate stimulus is needed, but throwing money into a toilet is not.

This is not conservatism we're experiencing. It's radicalism, and it's reckless. And while revenues have gone down, they've increased spending by twenty five percent. This is insanity.

I am also not the least bit surprised we're in the mess we're in. Right-wing governments tend to screw things up like that. Then to make it worse and slap it in our collective faces, they say they run deficits not just because they don't matter, but it's "what Jesus would do."

Give me a break.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Good pay, huge risks, terrible loss of life

Obviously, these have not been a very happy few days for Canadians. I think of course of the helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland the other day that killed 17 of 18 on board whilst the passengers were being ferried to their shifts on board the rigs in the White Rose and Hibernia fields.

The riches of oil and natural gas off the East Coast have brought some long-sought and so well deserved prosperity, but with the business comes inherent risks. Many of us who live in this part of North America, where I write from, don't appreciate just how difficult it can be to be away from home for up to three weeks at a time (with an equal amount of time off back onshore) while working very intense shifts, on 12 hour rotations all week long.

Being in close quarters for such long periods of time, and with co-ed work crews (a good thing) can be trying at the best of times, but it's even harder to imagine the most dangerous part of the job is actually getting there or coming back home. You just can't hop in your car or take a train. This is something that people on the US Gulf Coast as well as those who live along the North Sea in Europe (another abundant supply of oil and natural gas) can appreciate also

There really are no words, other than to offer my condolences ... and a hope that all bodies can be recovered so that the families can properly bury their loved ones. And to the sole survivor, you have my prayers too -- hang in there.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Putting my dad away; another IM upgrade

Today wasn't an easy day for me ... I had to place my father into long-term care. It's been a long time coming and it is definitely one of the toughest things I've ever had to do, but it is the right thing and I hope he's able to get the care that I haven't been able to give him -- I'm come close to pulling out my hair several times. That's all I'm prepared to say about it for now but I'm sure you will all be praying for him.

****

Just a little annoyance last night when I got a message "suggesting" I upgrade to the "next" version of MSN Messenger. In my case, it actually took me up several versions from v8 to v14. Thing was when the browser toolbar loaded up after I opened up IE, it was the AMERICAN one, with links to msnbc.com. I had to click on the side to switch to Canadian settings so I can get the Canadian headlines (and this took several attempts) when I click on the newspaper button. And it didn't even reset until this afternoon even though I made the selection last night.

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the upgrade tool have just transferred my settings from the old messenger to the new one? This is a real pain no matter what security features come with the "new." And based on one's IP address, Macrohard should know by now what country you're in so it doesn't even have to ask.

Life goes on.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Khawaja: 10½ years

It's taken more than seven and a half years since the 9/11 attacks but finally someone has been sentenced in Canada for conspiracy to commit terrorism. Mohammed Momin Khawaja was convicted of helping to finance a training camp in Pakistan. However even the sentence handed down, ten and a half years, is far less than the double life plus fifty-six years prosecutors were asking for, which indicates that to an extent the judge thought the government was full of shit in a large part of their case -- which included their claim that Khawaja had prior knowledge of attempts to build fertilizer bombs in London.

My only two comments: We need to crack down on those who would do the worst harm, and stop each man or woman who would do so before he or she gets the chance. Second, it was wrong to single out Khawaja by denying him double credit for time served which would have meant only a few months more in prison -- that is something that is a grounds for appeal.

No, I don't like the idea of Khawaja walking on the streets. But what's fair is fair, and the fact he's been convicted is enough. He'll have that on his rap sheet for the rest of his life which probably makes him effectively unemployable -- almost no one will want a convicted terrorist on their payroll. However, anyone else would get credit for time served, and so should he.

But the next time there's a roundup, the government should make sure it gets all its facts straight -- otherwise, it's keystone kops all over again, while the terrorists get a chance to actually pull off another mass attack. And next time, sad to say, they will be successful -- it's just a question of when.

Last I checked, the Toronto 18 was down to 11 and the evidence against even some of the remaining is flimsy at best. And I don't think Canadians will really be satisfied, until OBL is captured by Canadians and made to stand trial for the twenty-four Canadians murdered on 9/11.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

France rejoins NATO command

A long running pastime in the United States, at least among civilians, is to be against France, a long time ally of the country. This is in part due to the 1965 decision by Charles de Gaulle to pull France out of the command structure in NATO in 1966 -- which partly had the effect of shutting down NATO bases in the country (although Chirac also said the country would respect the remaining treaty obligations, including the Article 5 "attack on one, attack on all" clause which was eventually invoked after the 9/11 attacks on the US).

Many cite this continued reticence towards NATO for the last President, Jacques Chirac, not sending troops to fight in Iraq which made things between his country and America even worse.

I don't know if Americans are going to say "Vive le France" all of a sudden, but they'd definitely better put away their freedom fries if they haven't already -- because Nicolas Sarkozy, in a surprise decision, has said his country will rejoin the command structure. His argument is that there are NATO missions in which his country participates but his government isn't involved in the decision structure and needs to be going forward. He also said that coordinated action with its allies did not undermine its independence, nor the country's nuclear deterrent which remains firmly in France's hands.

It's certainly the right decision and should help improve relations across the great pond, but it does put France in a bit of a bind -- when it comes to multilateralism is its first priority to the European Union, or to the United States? Also, Europe is trying to develop its own defence policy independent of NATO, how does that affect the Atlantic alliance especially in this, the 60th anniversary year?

Remember Bill O'Reilly's "boycott" of French products, saying it would bring the country to its knees, and citing figures from the "Paris Business Review" to prove it was working? Actually, trade between the US and France increased after the Iraq War started, and the magazine he cited never even existed -- it was an April Fool's Joke (and one which one a Peabody Award. How many Peabodys has O'Reilly won, eh? Stuart Smalley, the comedian who should be Senator from Minnesota except for a wasteful court challenge from Norm Coleman should be able to answer that one for you!)

Mind you, Ted Baxter didn't seem too upset with Germany -- a country which has always had its military structure integrated with that of NATO's and was also opposed to the war. The so-called boycott has long ended, and the consumer advocate (which is all he really is, plus the pomposity) has one less excuse for his "Factor."

Let's not forget, France is heavily involved in NATO missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia-Herzegovina and taking heavy losses. But they are involved, unlike some other NATO members who are just throwing money at the situation rather than providing ground troops and air support. Unlike Canada, the UK and even Poland which have stepped up to the plate.

It'll take a lot more than today's decision to put Sarkozy back in my personal plus column. His overreaction to the Paris riots back in 2005 still draws a nerve.

But it's a good step. We are stronger united than divided, especially when the new threat is terrorism which no one country can contain on its own.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

It's still a mad, mad, mad world

The last few days, it has seemed the world has gone mad. First, two shootings in Northern Ireland orchestrated by the "Real" and "Continuity" IRA that threatens to derail the entire peace process -- and perhaps even put an end to the Common Travel Area that ensures border-free travel between the UK and Ireland. (Even Sinn Féin has disavowed the attacks -- although I think it may have more to do with Gerry Adams trying to position his way to eventually become Taoiseach, the Irish PM, by hook or by crook. Don't say it'll never happen.)

Then a minister in Illinois gets killed during a service on Sunday. Then the gun rampage yesterday in Alabama, followed by the mass murder at a school in Germany today.

And oh yeah, North Korea threatening to start World War III if the rest of the planet tries to "intefere" with a satellite launch -- really, a test of a new style of missile vehicle. The US now thinks it really might be a satellite, but what does a country that is a "black hole" for the Internet want with a satellite anyway, other than to shoot down satellites of its enemies?

I thought we were officially in the Age of Aquarius now? Not that I believe that schitck, but whatever happened to "Can't we all get along?" It sounds trite, but Martin Luther King was right -- it's nonviolence or nonexistence.

On the plus side, someone went over Niagara Falls today and survived in the freezing water -- without a barrel or a lifejacket. Little miracles, I suppose.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Not smart, not now

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation is in enough trouble with little to no disclosure of insider wins as well as other questions about how it manages its operations. Now we learn of another major gaffe, and certainly one of the right hand not knowing what the left was doing.

Although GM and Chrysler are before the federal and Ontario governments asking, as they have in the States, for billions in loan guarantees, the OLG decided to hold a contest the casinos and racetracks -- and the grand prize at each is a Mercedes Benz B200 fastback.

Forget the fact that the steel does come from Hamilton (the Dofasco division of Arcelor-Mittal) and that it is assembled in Alabama. The notion of a German car being offered to players, many of whom may be auto parts or assembly line workers and who been laid off by the current recession, is really quite the insult. People in the plants remaining open must be asking questions too. Why not one of their cars? If the government had to insist on "foreign," why not one of the Suzukis made in Ingersoll, a Toyota in Woodstock or Cambridge, or a Honda in Aliston? Keep in mind many of those plants also rely on steel from either Dofasco or Stelco (US Steel), the latter of which is about to be on indefinite shutdown.

George Smitherman, the minister responsible, should resign. It's just not acceptable, not at a time like this. We should be employing the maximum number of Ontarians right now, not subsidizing Alabama (not that I have anything against people from that state personally).

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Sarah Ferguson: "Canada could have saved our marriage" -- Uh, yeah

Last night on The National, they had a discussion about the production of a new movie about the early years of Queen Victoria and her reign. A couple of surprises -- First, the fact they used a French-Canadian director, Jean-Marc Vallée, almost totally unknown outside of Québec, to direct the film. The second is that one of the producers is none other than Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York.

Ferguson has confirmed that at the time of her marriage to Prince Andrew, the talk about his being appointed Governor General to Canada wasn't just scuttlebutt -- there were serious discussions about it. Ferguson suggested that had the plans gone through, she would have been able to spend more time with Andrew. During the first five years of their marriage, because of his naval duties, they only spent an average of forty days a year together -- which she blames as a huge factor in their eventual breakup. (Most of his time was at sea, the rest was on official business with or for his mother.)

Could the move have strengthened our ties to Britain some more? Maybe. And it certainly would have been a way to get rid of Jeanne Sauvé who just two years into her term was proving to be the most unpopular GG in our history -- she closed the grounds of Rideau Hall to the public, and she caused quite the fuss when she insisted there be a toast to her and not the Queen whenever she showed up for a banquet, which was considered an outrage especially in Western Canada.

Sauvé would also not allow people to sing the words to God Save the Queen at events she attended -- insisting instead on the music only vice-regal salute (six bars of GSTQ followed by the first four and last six bars of O Canada) -- which while technically correct from a protocol standpoint did not exactly endear her to a lot of people. While generally competent in the job, many thought her attitude towards it was so far off-base that only a royal couple could knock sense back into the institution.

I don't mean any disrespect to Ferguson, but there are a few problems with her line of thinking. First, she was a free spirit to begin with -- which was still very unwelcome in "The Firm" at that time. Diana had already overshadowed Charles, and Sarah was outclassing Andrew. Whether by accident or by design, the two women were outsiders, and the House of Windsor had already predetermined they had to be ejected sooner or later.

Second, by the 1980s the idea of having a Canadian as viceroy or vicereine was well established. Being appointed Governor General, effectively our head of state, is the ultimate patronage appointment and no prime minister would want to give that up perk after Louis St. Laurent fought so hard to wrest that from Buckingham Palace in 1952. A trade commissioner or some other high appointment, perhaps, but not GG. (Besides which, and slightly ironically, Andrew is now Britain's foreign trade representative, a very political position.)

Third, she knew full well what she was marrying into. She really can't complain about "what if." Especially since their marriage produced two daughters who both seem (so far anyway) to have their heads on straight, if you know what I mean. And she's not hard done by either -- she paid off her debt to the Queen and easily makes seven figures a year. Not bad for a woman who grew up in an English village with no title, no silver spoon and nothing going for her -- except a very high grade point average and the fact she was a military brat, daughter of a guy who attended Eton. (Yes, she's descended from aristocracy but far enough removed from it she would not otherwise be entitled to a hereditary peerage.)

Despite her history, including the infamous "toe-sucking" incident, I think a lot of guys would jump at the chance to try to date her and make her wife. Who wouldn't want to be a step-father to two princesses, one of whom who just might by fate become Queen some day? I'd tell Ferguson to stop dwelling on the past and live in the present. She seems to be doing quite well for herself -- and so does Canada, thank you very much.

To be fair, I actually have a great deal of respect for Sarah Ferguson. But on this one, she's living in a glass ménagerie.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Who ARE these people? A washing machine?

What is it about Vatican Hill that makes its denizens keep putting their feet in their mouths?

In an editorial in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's "semi-official" newspaper, a church official said the washing machine did more to liberate women than the oral contraceptive. You can't make this stuff up.

In a world where so many women live in fear of their husbands and boyfriends who believe that God made them "masters" over their women, even their "property," in a world where women who need to work can't get affordable daycare, in a world where women have to fight just to be on the front lines in wartime -- this is the best the church, my church, can come up with?

This isn't funny. Equality denotes mutual respect and this kind of attitude does anything but foster feelings of that. This isn't just demeaning, it's repulsive. If the Virgin Mary was here on Earth, she'd slap that editorial writer right in the face, as he so deserves to be. For that matter, even St. Mary Magdalene would as well.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.