How are we honouring our veterans? We're not

 This is Remembrance Week.   The days up to and including November 11th were long ago set aside to remember the men and women in military uniform or law enforcement who made the supreme sacrifice --  in wars and police actions that were sometimes justified and most time not.    In the decades since the end of World War II, the ceremonies have taken an additional significance, honouring the living veterans who survived but still deal with physical trauma (amputees in many cases) or mental issues related to post traumatic stress disorder (what the military brass used to dismissively refer to as "shell shock").

Here`s my take on why I think we're not doing well by retired warriors.   Not even by a long shot.   And it certainly isn't enough to award a veterans' license plate as a thank you.  

A number of years back, a certain charity and lobby group who promote themselves mainly through a key chain return program (yes, the War Amps) had stated in some of their literature that they had registered the name "Canadian Amputees Foundation" that looked prospectively to the day when disabled veterans no longer existed.   Of course, that's now going to be at least another sixty or so years because of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the events leading to and after 9/11.   If the Parliamentary budget officer has it right, what was supposed to have been a $9 billion operation has cost about $24 billion (2.5 times more) because of disability payouts.

The principle here should be in a way similar to that of worker's compensation in the civilian world.   In this case, that one should be able to go towards an impartial agency to make his or her case as to why they are entitled to get a partial or total pension; that pension, when awarded, will be not a lump sum settlement but a monthly benefit that along with disability payments from the CPP or RRQ will give the person forced into permanent retirement or a modified service position for life a sense of dignity; that although he or she was injured he or she will feel they served their country for something); and that we the people will thank their service (provided of course it was not dishonourable) with such items as cut rate mortgages and the right of first refusal on the federal or provincial sale of public lands (actually, this is the law in Canada but governments both left and right have always ignored it) and government sponsored scholarships or forgivable loans to retrain for the civilian world.   Not to mention access to free or affordable health care to the best specialists.

If this sounds something like the GI bill in the States, I say hell yes.   But the principles I listed above have something else in mind too.   When we give those who have served overseas a chance to serve here, they set a good example for all of us.   By giving them a chance to return to civilian life as full citizens rather than commodities to be written off, they in turn help to ensure the security of our country.    The saying "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" should instead be "We're fighting them over there, so that when we come home we can find something productive to do, to really help protect the country."

In other words, when veterans are valued they are less likely to fall into the pratfalls that come with surviving any life altering situation.

What we call honouring veterans right now, comes mainly in the form of a so-called "Veterans Bill of Rights" which mostly means lump sum payments, a hand shake and an eff off.   Sure, the process is more streamlined, but if we're just saying those who have served to get on with their lives, then we're not doing right by them.   And if we're treating them wrong, that means that everyone else is fair game to get shacked off.

I for the life of me cannot figure out why this is something we're not discussing.   Or why we're so afraid to find out the war stories from those who served.   Or why it's not prudent for the powers that be to just realize that how things are now is just not tenable.   Are we going to have to wait until a veteran goes postal?   It's happened in the States, it's just a matter of time before it happens in Canada.

I personally will always oppose the airbrushing of history.   Where Canada did wrong in the battlefield needs to be aired out, even when it comes to details that amount on one end to titillating gossip or at the other end amount to war crimes, including the deliberate targeting of civilians.

But I will also oppose the efforts of the current government to try to move things along in this way.   Photo ops do not suffice.    I support a strong military, but I also support a strong social support network for vets.    It's really a no brainer.

In the meantime, I will always salute a veteran.   And I will wear a poppy to honour the dead and the living -- and support the right of those who wear a white poppy or no poppy at all.   After all, that's what democracy demands.

R*@#^d Ann, huh?

Maybe it's because I was, at least in the first six or seven years of my life on this planet, a "slow learner" and had to spend Grades One and Two in the remedial program (along with very intensive speech therapy).   Or maybe because it's just Ann Coulter.   I am not mentally challenged (although my parents initially thought I may have been) but I do know people who are, who make a go of it every day and contribute to society as much as they can.

But this time, Coulter really hit way below the belt when she used Twitter to call Barack Obama a "retard" -- not just once but twice.

I am really at a loss for words on this one.   I suspect even many conservative columnists may finally be fed up with her shenanigans or her searches for the totally inappropriate mot juste.

I will readily concede I have said things that are rather inappropriate.   And yes that does include the "N" word even if only in reference to how much I hate the word.

I would have to suppose though that Coulter's worst nightmare is if someone who meets the medial criteria for what constitutes "retardation" actually is elected President during her lifetime.   Maybe having a disabled person in the Oval Office might actually get America back on track.   Certainly if democracy means anything, it's being able to speak one's mind whatever it is or any time he or she wants.   What constitutes class, however, is saying it in a way that is meaningful and casts the person who says it in a respectful way even if one disagrees with it.

Especially when a writer is eager to write off 7 million people in the States, 2/3 of which are old enough to vote, she may have triggered a GOTV campaign from one of the most unlikeliest quarters.  Far as I am aware, none of the 50 States or Washington DC forbids anyone who is "challenged" from voting, and ticking off any identifiable group is bound to really backfire.

Billy Graham: Wrong about gay marriage

Billy Graham, who is into his eighth decade as a minister, is one of the very few people in the States who is so famous that the only address you need to write on an envelope is his or her name only, no box number, no state, no ZIP code -- in this case, Billy Graham USA.

In most respects he certainly does deserve that distinction.    Not just for his dynamic style of preaching, one that appeals to people of faith regardless of denomination.   Nor for his humble living (still residing in his Montreat, North Carolina cottage rather than the super manors most televangelists favour).

In the very early days of the civil rights struggle he was in the front lines against segregation.   Several times, he literally had to knock down rope lines in arenas that separated the "black" and "white" sections and told the organizers he would cancel the crusade if the service was not desegregated.    As he famously said in 1969 (to huge applause from both whites and blacks):    "Jesus isn't black or white.    He is a Palestinian.   He has brown skin, and He belongs to all of us!"    He never named names but this was almost certainly a shot at Jerry Falwell, who opposed racial integration (including for the longest time refusing to perform interracial marriages).

Graham has also been scrupulous in not openly favouring any candidate in particular for any level of office.   He is a registered Democrat, but always has a reserved seat at both the Dem and GOP conventions.   Not too many other preachers who have that honour -- one or the other, yes, but not both.

But in the last few years, indeed as he is now in the sunset of his life, he has become quite stubborn on the issue of faith in politics.  In particular gay marriage.   Earlier this year, he took out ads in North Carolina newspapers urging residents there to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative.   I doubt his comments swayed too many voters, the law was going to pass anyway.    The Tarheel State, while one of the most progressive in the South, is still deeply religious.   Many who are socially liberal on most issues draw the line at abortion and "the right to die."

That's fine.   People can have whatever opinions they want.

Dr Graham, however, has taken the unusual step of going nationwide with his advertorials.   In his words:

"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last.  I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God."

That's all well and good.    Except for the fact that after Mitt Romney visited Graham earlier this week, Graham's ministry's website scrubbed a whole section that defined Mormonism as a cult.   Many apologetics would point out that the LDS church has beliefs that are totally outside of Protestantism -- in fact are outside the articles of faith that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and the dozens of Protestant denominations agree on.   (Read:   the Nicene Creed.)

This is about as close to a full endorsement of a political candidate as Graham has ever come.    One might suppose that since there is clear firewall between himself personally and his ministry (again, something most other televangelists refuse to do) he has the law on his side.

But I do find it very troubling he has only spoken openly about gay marriage now.   True, it is a bridge too far for many people.   And yes, he has the right to have his opinions.  However, the idea that someone who is LGBT opposes the state of Israel or is automatically pro-choice or supports the strict division between church and state is silly.

As far as marriage is concerned, there is the principle that "God is love."    Jesus may have spoken of marriage as one man one woman.   But  that was 2000 years ago.   I would happen to think that if He was here today, he'd say, who cares as long as there is love.   While I am still personally troubled by the moral implications of same sex marriage, on a social level as well as a legal principle it is really none of my business who should or who should not get married or to whom.

So Dr Graham, respectfully, you have a right to your opinions, but the mindset of the free world is changing on this one.   America wasn't destroyed by desegregation, or women voting or being in the workplace, or by having a central bank instead of having banks print their own money.    I hardly think it or any other country will be destroyed by LGBT marriages.

Besides which, the vast majority of gay couples prefer to live common law, seeing marriage as an oppressive institution.   And that's not necessary a wrong opinion either.

"Binders of women", Mitt?

There have been many foot in mouth moments in debates over the years.   Think Gerry Ford's comments in 1976 about how he would not allow the USSR to dominate Poland (of course, Poland had been a client state of Moscow since WW2).   Carter saying that his daughter and youngest child (by far), then 13 year old  Amy, told him that nuclear disarmament was the biggest issue of the 1980 campaign.   Bush 41 in 1992 saying that Jim Baker, not him, would be in charge of the budget process.  Same campaign, Ross Perot saying he was "all ears" -- then an actual pause for emphasis -- if anyone had better ideas to fix the economy than he did.   And on it goes.

But really -- "binders of women" that were provided by women's advocacy groups?   That's how Mitt Romney explained how he selected female members of his cabinet whilst Governor of Massachusetts.    Maybe it's because things register slower for me than most others, but it took a minute before I realized the unintended double entendre.   This during a discussion between Romney and President Obama about the principle of equal pay for women -- which really should be equal pay for work of equal value.

That and his accusal of Obama not calling the attack on the Bengazi consulate a terrorist attack for 10 days, when in fact the President did so the day after (as the moderator, Candy Crowley pointed out, transcript in hand), didn't do much to enhance Romney's credibility.   It may have worsened it.

Overall, the debate was definitely Obama's, as the town hall format suits his style more than Romney's.   And Ms Crowley definitely was in control unlike Jim Lehrer (uncharacteristically) two weeks ago.

But while a campaign should be about more substantive issues, particularly on both foreign and domestic policies, women still are a majority of people in the States, and they vote more as a percentage of the group than men do of theirs.   And this isn't something that will slip and slide like non-stick coating.   After all, they aren't just a page in a binder.   Every woman, and every man, has a story to tell, each of which would fill several filing cabinets.

Khadr: Back in the Great White North

Omar Khadr returned to Canada this past weekend to serve out the remainder of his sentence at Guantanamo Bay.   Unlike the "military commission" which gave Khadr no credit for time served on the eight year sentence he received for manslaughter, the "two for one" rule in effect in Canada at the time looks like it will be applied here which means he could be out of jail by next summer.    There is no excuse for what he did.   But the way he was treated violated most principles of international law.

Some Canadians have said that he should not be allowed to return here at all even if his sentence was served out in Cuba.    Also, says such people, his mother and sister should be kicked out of Canada for their radical views -- no the least of which included that Muslims who died on 9/11 deserved to die because their taxes supported what they (the mother and sister) consider the suppression of other Muslims in the Arab world.

Both arguments about exclusion and expulsion fall flat on their faces by law. First, Section 6 of the Charter which guarantees residency rights for Canadians and landed immigrants.   This right exists with very few exceptions, one being extradition (and even there one a sentence is served there would be a right of return).   And even if that constitutional right wasn't there I still wouldn't be so harsh as the anti-Khadr camp.

Second, the Section 2 rights of freedom of speech are near absolute but for the yelling fire principle.   There is a bit of a ring of truth to the West's support of dictatorships in the Middle East -- and now that there's a rapid move to democracy the push back should not come as much of a surprise.

Khadr should have been allowed to return to Canada much sooner than he was.  Three reasons.

1. He was only 15 at the time, technically a child soldier which by itself is illegal under international law.
2. While he did kill a US medic in the course of battle in Afghanistan, it's by no means clear whether the act was premeditated.
3. The vast majority of offenders deserve a second chance.   It's not like Khadr is a pedophile.

I have to say that Khadr's return now is a bit of a surprise, given that PMS and Co seemed all too willing to let the guy rot.   What happened in the last few days, who knows.   But at least we can finally move on.

Well not quite -- even the now democratic but still very corrupt Afghanistan still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.   For both of these reasons, NATO's war looks like it was a mostly pointless exercise.   9/11 had to be responded to but the resulting reaction was overkill.   Khadr may never have been in the situation he got into if the war was limited to what absolutely needed to be done and no more.   That's as much a tragedy as what led to his arrest.

Justin runs for his father's old job

I really have only four words about Justin Trudeau making a run for the Liberal leadership ...

Just can't win Sussex.   Unless some kind of a miracle happens or PMS stumbles big time, Trudeau is easily beatable.   I suspect any of the registered candidates may well be too. 

I also think a merger between the Liberals and NDP and maybe even the Greens is all but inevitable.   Call it the "Liberal Democrats" if one will; and if Justin winds up the leader of such a merged party he'll have to make a lot of concessions to the socialist party that his father was once a member of, even if the NDP under the late Jack Layton made considerable strides to the centre.

Harper selling out to UK?

It's not necessarily a bad thing to be able to share consular services.    Canada and Australia have had such a sharing agreement for over 25 years -- Australia handles Canadian interests in parts of Asia-Pacific region and in turn we handle theirs in some countries in Latin America and Africa.    Similarly, a citizen of any EU country can use the services of any the other 26 if there's no mission of their home country.

But do we really want to have a protecting power relationship with Britain?   Our former colonial power, who we broke from in 1931 all because a British-appointed GG couldn't tell the difference between representing "Buckingham Palace" and 10 Downing?  This doesn't exactly bode well for an independent foreign policy.   I wouldn't go for a dual diplomatic relationship with the US -- the brief one in the 90s in Nigeria was required only because all Commonwealth states boycotted that country in a show of derision.   But surely there are other countries we can pair up with.   Say, Ireland or New Zealand perhaps?

When you consider all those propaganda ads showing how we "defeated" the States in the War of 1812 -- in reality it was a draw since no border changes resulted -- you'd think John Baird and PMS would want to "Stand Up for Canada ™".   This is anything but.

SCOC grants standing in sex-trade case

The Supreme Court of Canada has done the right thing by agreeing to consider the appeal regarding the prostitution laws in this country.    In a 53 page decision and on behalf of a unanimous court (PDF), Associate Justice Thomas A. Cromwell said that while the women who filed the class action lawsuit from Vancouver's Downtown East Side (DTES) may not represent an active criminal case at this moment in time (in the sense that none of the women leading the class are facing prosecution nor are victims who have filed charges against attackers); but the argument they present is clearly in the public interest and that there has to be certainty as to what the law in this matter should be.

Therefore, wrote Cromwell, the attempts by Team PMS to quash the litigation and have the laws kept as is without a hearing should be trashed -- and as a result the case has been remanded back to the BC courts for further hearing.

Frankly I think the SCC should have taken it further and instead actually had a full oral hearing now, consolidated with the parallel case from Ontario -- simply delaying that hearing only gives PMS even more time to demonize victims rather than helping them as he claims.    I do not as a rule like courts rewriting laws but if it is in the public interest to strike down patently unfair laws and Parliament or the majority in the legislature refuses to even consider the issue, then the courts should do so with due course.    This is clearly a case of the "cure being worse than the disease" and we need to address it ASAP.   Parliament should take the lead here but it's not going to happen with the so-called so-cons.

It is my hope that whatever the result is, a more practical and humane approach to the issue comes out.    We must absolutely put our foot down on the rape and torture of prostitutes, and have zero tolerance for anyone who enslaves someone under eighteen whether for sex or not, but the current status quo is untenable.

There should be laws that actually make sense -- that go after pimps and other predators -- and not go after sex trade workers or to make it a crime to report a sexual assault merely because one is in the trade himself or herself by choice or coercion.   In other words we should actually protect the rights of those who are voluntarily in the trade and helps the already victimized -- and not give the advantage to the bad guys, or make cowards out of the rest of us.

Canada: Sending a message to Iran, or giving up on it?

Following up on my previous post regarding Canada's sudden decision to completely sever ties with Iran, I have these extended thoughts on why this was way too fast and too sudden.   Five days after the announcement, there's still no indication on who Canada has in mind to be a protecting power.   If the Cons have no intention on seeking an intermediary state, then it must be presumed that Canada no longer recognizes Iran's right to exist anymore than most countries in the neighbourhood don't recognize Israel.

Iran certainly does need to have its wings clipped.     Certainly because of its nuclear program -- we now know the country ran computer models within the last three years to determine just how much enriched would be needed to have a viable warhead.   We know who is the intended target -- no state other than Israel.

An oil embargo would be useful, except that as a member of OPEC it pools its output with the rest of the 12 nation bloc -- only one of which, Nigeria, has what can properly be called a democracy or at least a plausible one (Ecuador and Venezuela have regressed big time).    Like a customs union, say the EU, revenues are pooled proportionally in exchange for an understanding one will neither diminish nor strengthen its output or pricing.

It goes without saying that any country that puts its military ambitions ahead of its people is one thing; to use oil royalties that properly belong to the people -- a well educated and relatively wealthy populace but heavily suppressed nonetheless -- to get Da Bomb in defiance of international obligations is unacceptable.

Also completely untenable is its continued sponsorship of state sponsored terrorists as well as states which get much of their armaments from fellow terror states -- in this case, Iran giving a helping hand to Syria.

Trade sanctions need to be applied, except they only work if the regime actually has (or believes it does) the best interests of the people in mind.  Travel sanctions as well are needed-- although they can be a joke if for no other reason than because the US, Switzerland and Austria must provide safe conduct for high officials to and from UN offices in the respective countries, even blacklisted ones -- and those officials are safe even if there is an international arrest warrant meaning the host country can't do a thing about it.    In the same vein, Italy must provide safe conduct to the Vatican -- and perhaps also San Marino.  (That's how the Yasser Arafat and Muammar Gaddafi had, and the very much living [unfortunately] Robert Mugabe and Omar Bashir have, remained free for so long.   Just do official UN or church business then go right back to home base.)

But in these cases, as others like it, there needs to be some sort of contact maintained.   We held our ground in Eastern Europe and Communism fell.    We stood our ground in South Africa, and apartheid ended.   And so on.

Cuba may not have relations with the United States or Israel but communication is maintained through a "protecting power" setup like I noted earlier in the week.   Canada has put its ties with North Korea on ice for the time being (due to its nuclear program and record of state sponsored terrorism as well) but is using the UK as a go between.

For banks to single-handedly close bank accounts because of a customer's ethnicity is outrageous but even more so if the government condones it on that basis.   But to leave when a number of our own is in jeopardy -- well, that's just plain nuts, especially if there is no one to pass messages along and back.

Bottom line, this is a case of the cart before the horse.   Recalling our ambassador for "consultations" (i.e. showing displeasure at the receiving state's actions) would be sufficient.   It would chill things further but it would send a message we're as mad as hell.    Expelling their diplomats posted here back to Tehran is bizarre unless Canada had proof that all of them were spies or laundering money.  There doesn't seem to be proof of either.

John Baird got his 15 minutes of international fame before things turned nasty in Bengazi and Cairo.    But he needs to keep in mind that wielding a sword for the sake of image can have problems of its own.    After all, it's one thing to stand up for Israel and democracy.   It's another thing to just pull up our stakes and say we've given up on democracy in Iran.   Democracies, after all, don't aim nuclear missiles -- or any missiles for that matter -- at each other.

In respect of 9/11/2001 ...

... this page is black today.    In memory of the 2977 men, women and children from nearly 60 countries who were slaughtered in this unthinkable act.

Who's protecting Canada now that we've left Iran?

There's no doubt sanctions need to be put on Iran.   And at first, I thought John Baird had a lot of guts going for the jugular like this.   But wasn't Canada suddenly cutting ties with Iran last Friday just a tad too rapid?    No skeletal staff to handle outstanding visa and immigration applications.    No warning this was going to happen.   And even more important, no protecting power -- which country will act as the go-between on Canada's behalf.    Only a warning that Canadians still in Iran get out as quickly as possible after contacting our embassy in Ankara, Turkey.  (After the so-called "Canadian Caper" in 1980, Canada suspended ties until 1988 with the Netherlands acting as our "go-to".)

If Canada is smart enough to be Israel's "protector" in Cuba, doesn't it stand to reason we should ask one of our allies to step up -- perhaps, Holland again?  Then again, with things changing so rapidly in that part of the world -- several NATO Allies, after all, have acting as protecting powers for the US or other countries in a few of the most volatile countries before they felt the need to leave and throw the hot potato to some other state --  we may need to rely on the good offices of Switzerland for stability's sake.   (Among other things, this would allow our embassy to reopen, as the "Canadian Interests Section" of the Embassy of "X".)

I'll have more on this later in the week ... I've had too much going on so I apologize for the absence.

Dead (or dead)

Although pains were taken to hide the identity of the SEAL Team Six officer who took part in last year's raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, his true name was revealed today.    Regardless of the propriety of this or whether he should have written the account at all, the implication he makes -- that the goal of the raid was to kill Obama period, not to kill only if he resisted capture -- is worrisome.   That one can do whatever he or she wants to achieve a goal.

To be very brief:  I don't mind Osama being dead, to be honest.   But it would have been more satisfying to see him stand trial for the crimes he committed in Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Pakistan, as well as in the United States.   I believe no expense should be spared at rounding up the rest of the gang -- but it should be done with an aim to justice, not revenge.

Harper putting screws on Roma, and it's wrong

I would have thought detention centres for would-be refugees were a thing of the past.   But in the last few days we've actually heard the Cons say that if their refugee "reforms" don't move things fast enough they are prepared to round up the in-process Roma population and confine them until they have their hearings.   And that's not the only proverbial baby that Harper wants to throw out with the bathwater.

Detention camps should have gone the way of the passenger pigeon.   They existed during World War II in Canada for the Japanese, Italians and Ukrainians because of a perceived "threat" to Canadian values.   Forcing the Roma into internal exile now is no better than what we as a country did seventy years ago.

And it leads to another problem.    The law of unintended consequences.

Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel said last week she wants to use her influence to finish up the negotiations on the proposed Canada - European Union trade, labour and copyright agreement by years' end -- our government may be actually prepared to put that into the trash can after four years of painstaking clause by clause drafting.    It is considering imposing visa restrictions on Hungary just as it has with the Czech Republic (since both are perceived as exit points for Roma refugee claimants).   Since most of the EU (as well as the four countries in EFTA all of which have adopted the Schengen rules -- and which we already have a trade agreement with) have mostly open borders and imposes no travel restrictions on visitors  who travel throughout the trade area (generally up to 90 days in a six month period for the area as a whole, not for each country), it would naturally insist on no travel restrictions on any EU country going the other way to Canada.   If there's one set of rules for 24 countries and another one for the other two, there's a big problem.

I have said before that while I think there are some fraudulent claimants among the Roma, that can be said for virtually any ethnicity.    I also think that prejudice no matter what ethnicity it's aimed at is reprehensible -- Antiziganism, as it's called in this case, is just as bad as Antisemitism.  But I have also said that since there exists the right of abode for those who have citizenship in one EU country to live in any other state in the bloc, that other countries in the bloc should be considered for residency before a claimant looks here.   
 While this may effectively create an "internally displaced persons" situation (i.e. refugees in one's own country or trade area) -- not unlike the United States which has about 700,000 IDPs escaping gang violence and which peaked at over 1.2 million in the recent past after the Katrina disaster -- finding a place to stay without having to go through the painstaking process of immigration is, I think, way simpler.   And it's not like there's no violence committed against Roma here because of course there is.

For a claim of this nature to work, one would have to say that there's a well founded fear of persecution that extends to all of Europe -- that no matter whether some moves to France, Germany, the UK or Sweden, there will be no safe home.    But it certainly begs the question -- isn't it easier to prove this out in the open rather than behind bars?

Frankly, not even the way some other countries do it -- letting the claimants out on unlimited day passes so they can work as long as they return before curfew -- isn't much better.   These are in way out places with no connection to the main country to which they want to live permanently.   Remember when Ezra Levant suggested we dump the Tamils on Haida Gwaii until they proved their case?

The thinking here for the Roma is exactly the same.   It's racist, prejudicial and unwarranted.   By all means, legal refugees and illegitimate immigrants should be documented so we know who's here and resources such as for health care and education can be deployed correctly.   But our mostly respected immigration policy will be shot to pieces if this goes through.

Since when was rape "legitimate"?

Just when we thought VP Joe Biden Jr had shot off his mouth yet again when he said that bank deregulation like what Mitt Romney is proposing would put Americans -- blacks in particular -- "in chains" (which would not be my choice of words) ...

... comes this moron, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO 2), challenging Dem Senator Claire McCaskill, who actually had the temerity to say a woman's body can induce a miscarriage in case of a "legitimate rape."   He later clarified this to mean "forcible rape" but that made things worse.  Even the GOP is furious and has demanded he "do what's best for the country" (i.e. withdraw his candidacy) by 5 PM Central today (2200 GMT); or they will get the courts to strip him of his party's line on the ballot.   Akin has backtracked today only slightly, saying "I apologize."   We all know what that means.   Absolutely nothing.

McCaskill, the widow of Mel (and who took his Senate seat when he unexpectedly died before the 2000 election -- and "the dead guy won" over John Ashcroft who promptly got Dubya's AG slot) -- has been seen as "vulnerable" this time around due to Barack Obama's lackluster performance as President; but this snide remark by Akin is more than an unexpected lucky break.   It's a piñata filled with gold coins.

There are people on both sides of the aisle, both men and women, who have nothing but contempt for "the better half" but Akin's screed is more than just reprehensible.   It has no consciousness behind it whatsoever.

I know women who have been raped.   Most had an abortion.   The rest carried to term.   But none of them had the expectation they would be able to prevent a pregnancy by willing it.   Heck, even women who do have consensual sex with their male partner know that each act can plausibly result in pregnancy.

For my part and as a man I don't consider sexual assault, whether there's penetration or not, to be sex at all.   That's because it isn't; it's an act of violence.   Period.   Where there is no consent, whether spoken or implied, it is not a legitimate act.   And comments like Akin's or "retractions" that don't address the issue at hand are totally unacceptable.   Frankly I don't think saying "I'm sorry" would cut it now, it's way too late for that.

(I can only think of two recent examples where mistakes of huge magnitude resulted in an "I'm sorry" and only one of them was political -- Tony Blair's WMD faux pas. The other was the Maple Leaf ™ listeria scandal.)

If this is what passes for discourse these days in politics, those who are considering public office as a career choice would certainly have to stop to ask, why?   Either you say something totally off base and hope you can get away with it or you speak the truth and are shunned for it.   But on this one, there is a stark choice.   Left or right, either you say "No means no" or you don't believe that.   And if it's the latter, you'd better hope it doesn't happen to your wife, daughter or sister.   Or you.

Isn't it time to put an end to the Međugorje fraud?

Being someone who happens to be a kid born in Canada of parents from Croatia, this is bound to ruffle some feathers including some within my "ethnic group".    But it's way past time to put logic into the alleged three decades long non-stop apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Međugorje, Bosnia-Hercegovina (B and H) -- and say once and for all what a lot of people want to say:    The whole thing is a fraud.

The whole sordid thing started way back on June 24. 1981, the feast of St. John the Baptist.    (That's a red flag right there.)    It started with three "visionaries" and has since expanded to six.  It would be fine if there had been a limited number of "appearances".   But non stop for 31 years straight almost daily?   That's about 7,500 give or take.

Those who have flocked to this former weigh station claim to feel a "presence" that's there.   They believe it was the Virgin Mary that freed both Croatia and Slovenia from the "clutches" of Serbia (even though the Eastern Orthodox churches also have a high degree of devotion to the mother of Jesus); and as proof they point to, among other things, a mortar shell that plied upright into the ground near the local parish but  did not explode.   (Um, the Balkan War actually put an end to "duds"?)

But there are a few other problems.   It's not that the first wave of visions during the last half of 1981 started an extremely lengthy row between the Franciscan order and the cadre of priests employed directly by the relevant diocese and who controlled the particular parish in question here.    Nor is it the occasional "dancing of the sun" -- the same fraudulent phenomena that allegedly occurred at Fátima , Portugal, in 1917.   (I'll explain why I think it was a fake in a moment).

Consider too, some of the following outrageous prophecies made at Međugorje (Source:   CrisisMagazine.com) -- and keep in mind, these are just some of the whoppers -- and none of which happened:

•  Then Pope John Paul II would be forced out in a putsch and exiled to Turkey, where maybe a third of one percent of the population are Catholics, most of them from the Eastern rites and perhaps a few thousand are part of the Western or Roman rite.
• Germany and the US would both collapse.   There's still a US.  And East and West Germany along with the free city of West Berlin not only all reunited, but the fused country also agreed de facto to share its currency with any other state that wanted it, hence the Euro (which, bizarrely, B and H has adopted unilaterally as its own currency with protest but no sanctions from Frankfurt).
• There would be a lasting peace in Yugoslavia.    Ha!   The country was torn apart in a bloody war.   B and H effectively operates as a confederation of two states with a shared capital -- not unlike Belgium although the latter uses fighting words instead of the sword.  Even the two republics that were majority Catholic, Croatia and Slovenia, wasn't quite that hunky-dory until very recently and the once open border was slammed shut when Slovenia got into the EU much earlier (2004) than Croatia (admission will be mid-2013).    Serbia is probably next (say, 2015) but it will be 2020 at the earliest before B and H qualifies.   Add in Macedonia -- and the country will be put back together, de facto, although as part of a semi-federal Europe stretching from Ireland and the UK to Finland and Estonia.   The peace will be one of economic necessity, not because of an "Ebony and Ivory" spirit.

Oh yeah, and there was the time when the "Virgin" appeared first as Satan, then suddenly transformed into the Virgin, saying something like, "Sorry, I made a mistake."   Protestants would agree she wouldn't make a mistake like that -- 2 Corinthians 11:14.   Even St. Bernadette Soubirous, who led a virtuous life but had a highly suspect series of visions in Lourdes, France (I think she was hallucinating), was quick to point this out to the Gendarmerie, the French national police.   When one of its officers suggested she was seeing Satan, Bernadette said, "The Devil is not as beautiful as she."    Precisely.

Back to the "dancing of the sun."   I don't know about Međugorje (which has taken it to ridiculous levels), but even what happened in Fátima is also highly suspicious and for this reason:   When Jesus was dared by the Pharisees to perform a sign from the sky, Jesus said the only sign they would see is the miracle of Jonah (three days in the Earth followed by a comeback) -- Matthew 12:39.   A reasonable person would point out that if Jesus refused to force a cosmic disturbance, why would his mother?   There's no doubt something happened that day -- too many eyewitnesses to suggest otherwise.   But it was Satan who did that -- not Mary or her Son.

A special commission by the current Pope, Benedict XVI, was formed two years ago.   Common sense dictates that this series of "apparitions" and "messages"should be called out for what they are -- a fraud.   There's simply no evidence of the supernatural (non constat de supernaturalitate), and there is evidence of no supernatural activity (constat de non supernaturalitate).

In short, the six are all con artists -- and the commission should recommend that they be kicked out of the Church.