Hope and Onions

They made a desert and called it peace

2009-01-18T23:17:00.003-05:00

Israeli troops began their withdrawal from Gaza, today:

Israeli soldiers danced on top of a tank and gave "V" for victory signs as they pulled out of Gaza, but the war moved to a close on an ambiguous note.

[...] While both sides put their best spin on the conflict's seeming conclusion, noncombatants were the biggest losers. More than half of the 1,259 slain Palestinians were civilians, according to medics, human rights groups and the UN.

Aid groups sought to funnel more supplies to hospitals and food distribution sites from Egyptian and Israeli border crossings.

At least 13 Israelis, 10 of them soldiers, were killed, according to Israel. Hamas fired hundreds of rockets at southern Israel, intensifying the fear of hundreds of thousands of people who had lived under the threat for years.

"We did a good job. Now we're going home," an Israeli soldier told Israeli television. His name was not released in line with military restrictions on the release of information. Smiling infantry soldiers walked toward the border in the rain, and a rainbow emerged from the clouds behind them.

How is that for a made-for-TV ending? You know, after three weeks of looking at all those anguished parents and mangled bodies, it's about time someone MGMed this war up!

Not that you haven't tried, corporate media. No. Night after night you did your level best to tell us this was what 'self-defense' looks like. Of course, it is easier to say stuff like this when you don't have the smell of incinerated children burning your nostrils. In the words of Bill Moyers:

...pay no attention to those Washington pundits cheering the fighting in Gaza as they did the bloodletting in Iraq. Killing is cheap and war is a sport in a city where life and death become abstractions of policy.

But those so-called 'women and children?' They voted for terrorists who use innocent civilians as human shields! Well, that is interesting, because I seem to recall another ~~militant group~~ army doing the same thing, not too long ago...

B'Tselem's initial investigation indicates that, during an incursion by Israeli forces into Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, on 17 July 2006, soldiers seized control of two buildings in the town and used residents as human shield.

...oh, well, isolated incident, right?

Article 28 of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of civilians as human shields by placing them alongside soldiers or military facilities, with the hope of attaining immunity from attack. The official commentary of the Convention refers to this practice, which was common in the Second World War as "cruel and barbaric." The Convention, in Articles 31 and 51, also prohibits the use of physical or moral coercion on civilians or forcing them to carry out military tasks.

Despite these prohibitions, for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives. It was not until a High Court petition was filed by Israeli human rights organizations opposing such action, in May 2002, that the IDF issued a general order prohibiting the use of Palestinians as "a means of 'human shield' against gunfire or attacks by the Palestinian side.'"

But they're still 'terrorists,' aren't they? Everybody says so! They're firing rockets indiscriminately. Ladies & Gentlemen, here's where I turn you over to Avi Shlaim, a professor of international relations at Oxford University who served in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s. He is the author of 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.' Here is Prof. Shlaim speaking with Amy Goodman last week, on Democracy Now:

Before the ceasefire came into effect in July of 2008, the monthly number of rockets fired—Kassam rockets, homemade Kassam rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip on Israeli settlements and towns in southern Israel was 179. In the first four months of the ceasefire, the number dropped dramatically to three rockets a month, almost zero. I would like to repeat these figures for the benefit of your listeners. Pre-ceasefire, 179 rockets were fired on Israel; post-ceasefire, three rockets a month. This is point number one, and it’s crucial.

And my figures are beyond dispute, because they come from the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. But after initiating this war, this particular table, neat table, which showed the success of the ceasefire, was withdrawn and replaced with another table of statistics, which is much more obscure and confusing. Israel—the Foreign Ministry withdrew these figures, because it didn’t suit the new story.

But they broke the ceasefire! Prof. Shlaim:

The new story said that Hamas broke the ceasefire. This is a lie. Hamas observed the ceasefire as best as it could and enforced it very effectively. The ceasefire was a stunning success for the first four months. It was broken not by Hamas, but by the IDF. It was broken by the IDF on the 4th of November, when it launched a raid into Gaza and killed six Hamas men.

And there is one other point that I would like to make about the ceasefire. Ever since the election of Hamas in January—I’m sorry, ever since Hamas captured power in Gaza in the summer of 2007, Israel had imposed a blockade of the Strip. Israel stopped food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching the Gaza Strip. One of the terms of the ceasefire was that Israel would lift the blockade of Gaza, yet Israel failed to lift the blockade, and that is one issue that is also overlooked or ignored by official Israeli spokesmen. So Israel was doubly guilty of sabotaging the ceasefire, A, by launching a military attack, and B, by maintaining its very cruel siege of the people of Gaza.

Ok, but how is Israel supposed to live in peace when Hamas is intent on "her" destruction? (always the defenseless damsel in distress, you know). Prof. Shlaim is no apologist for Hamas. He is not even anti-Zionist--far from it. Here is his take:

Its charter is extreme. Its charter denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state. The charter calls for an Islamic state over the whole of historic Palestine. The charter has not been revived, but since coming to power, the leadership of Hamas has been much more pragmatic and stated that it is willing to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the state of Israel for twenty, thirty, forty, maybe even fifty years.

Thirdly, Hamas joined with Fatah, the rival group, the mainstream group, on the West Bank in a national unity government in the summer of 2007. That national unity government lasted only three months. Israel, with American support, helped to sabotage and to bring down that national unity government. Israel refused to deal with a Palestinian government which included Hamas within it. And shamefully, both the United States and the European Union joined in Israel in this refusal to recognize a Hamas-dominated government, and Israel withdrew tax revenues, and European Union withdrew foreign aid, in a shameful attempt to bring down a democratically elected government.

Oh, but if only Israel had a partner in peace like, uhhh....Fatah?! Isn't that the strangest thing you ever did hear? Likudniks and their North American mouthpieces pining for the days of Arafat? Please. In the beginning, Israel actually supported Hamas as a force against Fatah. Divide 'n Conquer, etc. How is that working out? But Fatah was notoriously corrupt and Hamas capitalized and promised to deliver. And Gazans, like other life-forms on the planet who like to eat and drink and send their offspring to school...well, they liked the sound of that. Those greedy buggers, eh?

Ok, ok, so maybe the civilians living in Gaza don't deserve to be incinerated in a hailstorm of creepy experimental weaponry. But why don't the other Arab states take the Gazans? Can't the Egyptians have them?

Who? Mubarek? That's a riot, Alice. That guy is so afraid of the populist Hamas coming over his border that he helped Israel seal it right up, effectively trapping the Gazan people in a hunk of land no bigger than the GTA. Remember: Gazans have had some practise at this democracy stuff and they know a thing or two about throwing-out corrupt governments. Can't have that kind of tomfoolery in Egypt.

There is so much more to say on this subject, but I am not equal to the challenge tonight. I am so angry and so sad by these events, and can't believe what has happened to Canada's voice in these matters. When our government bothers to speak at all, it is only to out-Likud and out-AIPAC the USian bleating from the beltway. This saddens me terribly.

For now, I will leave you with a story that epitomizes this brutal turn the world has taken--and a picture that I saw last night and will probably see over and over again in my head.

Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, a Palestinian doctor who trained in Israel, has been a regular fixture on Israeli television during the 21-day-old war against Hamas militants, bringing witness accounts of the medical crisis facing Gazans to Israeli living rooms.

His report Friday was drenched in grief as he sobbed through a cell phone that three of his daughters and a niece were killed by an Israel Defense Forces shell.

Abu al-Aish said he hoped his three daughters would be the last victims of the fighting in Gaza, and that their deaths would help bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

[...]Gazan officials identified Al-Aish's deceased daughters as 22-year-old Bisan, 15-year-old Mayer and 14-year old Aya. His niece was identified as 14-year-old Nour Abu al-Aish.

[...] "Everyone knew we were home. Suddenly we were bombed. How can we talk to Olmert and (Foreign Minister) Tzipi Livni after this?" Abu al-Aish told television reporters at the border crossing. "Suddenly, today when there was hope for a cease-fire, on the last day...I was speaking with my children, suddenly they bombed us. The doctor who treats Israeli patients."

(edited to add link to Moyers' show)

Oh! The places you'll go! ...or not. Whatever.

2008-12-27T22:23:00.002-05:00

Hey there, everyone! Long time no-see, eh? Yeah...about that...*shuffles feet*

I've spent the last nine months working myself stupid. I will spare you the details, but let's just say that the new job has nearly been the death of this here kitteh. But you remember: p/t blogger, f/t DRAAAAAMA queen ;)

So...tonight I return from Xmas part III (the Don Mills edition), only to find I've been tagged by skdadl. Tagged, I tellsya! Of all the cheek! And to make matters worse, here I am on my first Xmas-free night of holidayz and I've been asked to recount the whole of my working existence. Srsly! If ever there was a night to forget about work.

But. On the bright side, this meme thing does give me the sharp elbow to the ribs I need to load up the ol' blog again. And what a mess she is! Jesus phuque is this place a sty! Broken links, mangled Site Meter, and Gord knows what else is hiding under the side-bar. I'm afraid to look! So...while I get on hands and knees and give this place a what-for, you gang can learn a bit about the non-stop thrillride that is my life (*snort*). And if you do fall asleep, try not to drool all over the footer--I'm trying to keep the Board of Health from closing this place down!

OK...where to begin?

babysitter, Mississauga, aka "Land of Factory Carpet Outlet" (sure, you can entrust the most precious things in your life to an anonymous stranger for $1/hr. And they will totally not eat your food after the kids go to sleep.)
McDonald's "crew" and frygirl. The job lasted only three months, but the greaseburns are forever.
Shitty neighbourhood video store. You haven't lived till you've been held up for 70s Betamax porn.
Receptionist and DIY librarian for LEAF's national office (no joke--best job I ever had in my life)
Hostess, book-keeper, and pastry-chef wrangler at a seafood restaurant in Queen's Quay. Emphasis on Queen's; this was Kitty's initiation into fag-hagdom. Kitty also learned to cuss and smoke here, much to the delight of Mama & Papa Kitty.
BSc student & p/t bank-teller (sorry: 'Customer Service Officer, level 1' *snerk*)
Calculus (and sometimes Chemistry) tutor.
Computer help-desk 'consultant,' U of Moo. "How can I help you if you won't let go of my throat?"
MSc student and p/t computer/network support (Fear and Loathing in the Forest City)
Research assistant (Forest City)
PhD student (Forest City)
Unemployed (Forest City)
P/t grant proof-reader ("if I see 'transdisciplinary' or 'leading edge' one more time, I'm going to stab myself in the eye with a dull pencil")
Birth of GDKitty (awww! They grow up so fast!)
Asst. on a software project for a kinky dentist ("don't ask why the receptionist is covered in glitter; Kitty's gotta eat.")
Post-doc #1 of ? (fun times in Hammertown)
Unemployed post-doc (desperate in that shithole we call Hammertown)
Post-doc #2 of ? (still living in Hammertown but working in the Windy Apple)
Death of GDKitty? (errmmm...maybe not; let's see if I can nurse this place back to health and still keep my GD job!)

Counting the flowers & candy

2008-03-20T04:58:00.003-04:00

Five years after the made-for-teevee 'Shock 'n Awe' invasion of Iraq, journalists are seizing this war-i-versary to count the flowers and candy.

Overflowing cemetaries. Unclaimed bodies.

Refugees in Syria, refugees in Jordan, Refugees in their own cities.

Oh but the "surge" is working. Divide, subdivide, and sub-subdivide. Arm the militias, arm the death-squads, and arm the sheikhs in the "awakening" councils. Pay no mind when these same sheikhs are bought off, assassinated, or accidentally killed by US forces. Go back to sleep.

IPS, Oct 19, 2007:

Abu Risha, who had been arrested by Saddam Hussein, became the centrepiece of Bush administration efforts to show that its troops surge in Iraq had been a success.
Many Iraqis, even one of Abu Risha's distant cousins, think differently.
"Sattar was a common thief, and we all knew him to be chief of a highway robbers gang," Salim Abu Risha told IPS in Baghdad. "He and his gang brought shame to our tribe and the whole province, but the Americans tried to make a hero of him."
It is no secret in Anbar province that Abu Risha's activities were not legal either before or after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. When the U.S. government began to support the 'Awakening of Anbar' led by Sattar Abu Risha, which operated under the flag of fighting al- Qaeda, some people did begin to think differently.
"Americans always choose the worst of their collaborators to be leaders of their campaigns," Sheikh Ahmed Ali of the Muslim Scholars Association told IPS in Baghdad. "Look at the governments and councils they chose to lead Iraq. This Sattar Abu Risha only provoked a division among the people of Anbar, and that was exactly what the Americans wanted."
[...]"Americans applied a strategy that has affected some weak brains and hearts," former Iraqi Army colonel Jabbar Saed from Fallujah told IPS. "They starved people, arrested those who opposed their occupation, killed a million Iraqis, supported sectarian militias and death squads, destroyed infrastructure to increase the rate of unemployment, and divided Iraqis into sects and now into tribes, just to make us feel that life would not be possible unless we work for them."

Well, at least that nasty Moqtada al Sadr has extended the cease-fire. The 30-something cleric is currently preoccupied with a crash course, of sorts: he's studying to become an ayatollah. I'm sure his militia will remain loyal and respect his call for continued peace. I mean, it's not like anyone's antagonizing his followers or anything...

Many Mehdi Army members and Sadrist political leaders want the truce scrapped, accusing Iraqi security forces of exploiting it to detain Sadrists, especially in Shi'ite southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are locked in a struggle for power.
[...] Analysts say he sought to impose order on the unrulier elements of his militia, some of whom have degenerated into gangsterism and organized crime. It is a powerful force in Baghdad and the southern oil hub of Basra.

One can only hold a thumb on the spigot for so long.

Some fear that the rampant violence of one year ago may be coming back, especially as the 30,000 soldiers sent to Baghdad last summer to help end a sectarian war begin returning home.
But Iraqi politicians are still gridlocked over sharing power, and citizens appear to have little hope that Iraqi forces could control al-Qaida in Iraq and renegade Shiite militias on their own.
[...]According to an Associated Press count, at the height of unrest from November 2006 to August 2007, on average approximately 65 Iraqis died each day as a result of violence. As conditions improved, the daily death toll steadily declined. It reached its lowest point in more than two years on January 2008, when on average 20 Iraqis died each day.
Those numbers have since jumped. In February, approximately 26 Iraqis died each day as a result of violence, and so far in March, that number is up to 39 daily. These figures reflect the months in which people were found, and not necessarily — in the case of mass graves — the months in which they were killed.
[...] On Wednesday, a group of Iraqi tribal leaders, former politicians and intellectuals appealed to the United Nations to take control of Iraq, a move they say would help U.S. troops leave the country while maintaining calm.
In the letter, delivered to the U.N. office in Cairo, the group wrote that "the only opportunity left for Iraq to be saved from a dark, but not inevitable future, is to engage the international community. ... Such a step will allow the American troops to leave and the occupation to be brought to its end."
Regardless of how many American troops remain in Iraq or if a broader international coalition takes responsibility, Yassin said until the root of the nation's woes are addressed, blood will continue to flow.
"The Americans and the Iraqi government must get to the bottom of the problem and determine the reasons behind all this violence," he said. "There is unemployment among young people, there is revenge by those who lost their loved ones ... There is organized crime and a lot of other reasons.
"So the presence of the Americans or the Iraqi tanks and soldiers in the street is not enough to decrease the violence and get the country and its people back to the better days of the past."

Neighbours are still killed for having the 'wrong' name. Parks become graveyards. Nobody knows how many have died.

Five years on and the water isn't potable. Doctors and nurses kidnapped...murdered. And yet a 744 million dollar, Vatican-sized embassy is erected in the heart of Baghdad. It is built with the blood and sweat of frightened Filipino workers who had no idea they were going to Iraq:

RORY MAYBERRY: I believe I am one of only a few Americans that have recently worked on the site of the new embassy in Baghdad. My impressions about how the construction was being managed left me incredibly disturbed.
BILL MOYERS: Mayberry described how he boarded a plane in Kuwait City along with 51 Filipino laborers - who thought they were heading for hotel jobs in Dubai.
RORY MAYBERRY: Mr. Chairman, when the airplane took off and the captain announced that we were heading to Baghdad, all you-know-what broke out on the airplane. The men started shouting, it wasn't until the security guy working for First Kuwaiti waved an MP5 in the air that the men settled down. They realized that they had no other choice but to go to Baghdad. Let me spell it out clearly: I believe these men were kidnapped by First Kuwaiti to work at the US Embassy. They had no IDs, no passports, and were being smuggled past U.S. security forces. I had a trailer all to myself on the Green Zone. But they were packed 25 to 30 a trailer, and every day they went out to work on the construction of the embassy without proper safety equipment. I saw guys without shoes, without gloves, no safety harnesses, and on scaffolding 30 feet off the ground, their toes wrapped around the rebar like a bunch of birds.

While we've all heard about the overpaid mercenary contractors like Blackwater and Triple Canopy, it's been estimated that 30% of the 155 000 private personnel in Iraq are so-called "third country nationals," many of them from impoverished countries:

"We’ve seen a lot of third country nationals where their passports are taken, or where they were delivered to a place to work which was different to what they were promised," said Erica Razook, legal fellow at Amnesty International USA’s Business and Human Rights Unit.
Rights groups told IRIN that some TCNs effectively work in conditions of "indentured servitude," in which they sign employment contracts that last for three to five years, "but spend their first year just paying off travel expenses," Razook said.

Last November, SOC-SMG came under fire for exploiting and sexually abusing Ugandan guards at Al Asad Airbase, in Iraq:

SOC-SMG has hired more than 2,000 Ugandan guards to secure the base and now those guards are accusing SOC-SMG of serious crimes.
When some guards tried to speak up about low pay and working conditions at Al Asad Airbase, they were allegedly sexually abused and women were passed around as, quote, "sex objects."
Ugandans hired by SOC-SMG were deported for participating in a drug ring.
[...] Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) said, "Well, at a time of war, we'd love to have more oversight before a check is given, but you're at a time of war and decisions have to be made."
Republican Senator Ensign has no problems with private military contractors in Iraq. He says the people on the ground know best. Ensign doesn't question SOC-SMG's practice of hiring Ugandan guards. "As long as they are protecting the United States, protecting the United States assets, we should welcome them," Ensign continued.
Across the aisle, Senator Harry Reid has not been able to create serious reform. He avoids criticism, blaming it all on partisan politics. "I'm saying this war is not good for the American people and I personally have done everything I can to change direction of that war," Reid said.

But nothing changes, even five years after the lies that lead to war. 935 lies. As many (or more than?) a million Iraqis have died since the first bombs fell, five years ago. The invasion and occupation of Iraq may well wind up costing $3 trillion. Almost 4000 Americans have died, too, but only 28% of their countrymen are aware of that. But no matter: as dday pointed out, the American newsmedia have clearly done their level-best to give people what they really need to be informed citizens. That same survey found that "84 percent identified Oprah Winfrey as the talk-show host supporting Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for the Democratic presidential nomination."

Yes, who can concentrate on all that death and lying and missing money when there's the year-long game-show-of-game-shows to be covered? And while a presidential election should be the BEST time to challenge the candidates on their plans to continue the occupation, it's mighty impolite to bother them with questions about dead people and disfigured Lieutenants when there's perfectly good ribs on the grill.

...Or when you'd rather give someone a full religious colonoscopy for 7 days straight.

...Or when you'd rather find an excuse to re-post 10 year old photos of a blue-stained dress.

Or maybe you'd like to put down the dirty dress for a moment and look at the faces of the men and women who are trying to revive you from your 5 year nap? They have something to tell you:

So what will it be?

Muppets: is there anything they can't do?

2008-03-19T00:58:00.002-04:00

This made me happy, today. I know it's the day after St. Paddy's, but that's ok: Danny Boy isn't really an Irish thing, anyway ;)

What do you think you'll do then?

2008-03-15T02:04:00.001-04:00

What do you think you'll do then
I bet that'll shoot down your plane
It'll take you a couple of vodka and tonics
To set you on your feet again

Maybe you'll get a replacement
There's plenty like me to be found
Mongrels who ain't got a penny
Sniffing for tidbits like you on the ground

Pay no mind to the recriminalization of abortion; the important thing is that you had a good time. (UPDATED X3)

2008-03-06T03:58:00.004-05:00

***3 Updates follow***

So, like Ken Epp's fetus-personhood-granting Bill passed 2nd Reading in the HoC on Wednesday evening, 147-132.

What's that? Didn't hear a peep about this on the news, last night? JJ and Birth Pangs were all over this story since last November, when C-484 was but a glimmer in Epps' eye. Here's what JJ said, Nov 23, 2007:

The UVOC [Unborn Victims of Crime] bill would "protect a mother's choice to give birth", making it a crime to cause the injury or death of a fetus in the commission of violence against the mother.

Don't get excited. Nothing "anti-abortion" to see here, noooooo, just move along. Why, the UVOC bill is just about protecting "choice" -- the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term and have it culminate on Day 273 as a baked-to-perfection babycake. And anyone who wields a knife or baseball bat (or scalpel?) and stops that from happening would be committing murder, as surely as it would be murder to kill the mother. Fetus? Hell, never mind that, this bill would protect embryos... zygotes, even. "At any stage of development before birth"

And for a while there, it even looked like a lot of our elected representatives "got it:" this Bill offered nothing in the way of added protection for pregnant women; it was merely a vector for introducing anti-abortion legislation through the backdoor. Heck, even Raymond Gravel (BQ), a Roman Catholic priest, knew that enacting C-484 would set us all back many, many years:

“I’m against abortion, but this is no way to solve the problem of abortion. It’s through education, through outreach, through helping women who have undesired pregnancies I think that’s how to solve the problem of abortion. But not recriminalizing abortion, I don’t ever want to see that happen.”

Speaking in French, Gravel acknowledged that the murder of a pregnant woman is abominable. “But,” he added, “at the same time when the fetus is still in the mother they’re just one being. Its only when the fetus is born is when it becomes another being, when it becomes a human being.”

So they had their first round of debate about it on Dec 13, 2007, with 2nd round scheduled for Feb 29--Sadie Hawkins Day! Birth Pangs and Joyce Arthur (ARCC) issued alerts and exhorted anyone who would listen to post/write/call/fax/carrier-pigeon their MPs to vote against this Bill. We even caught a break, and got an extension of sorts when the debate was post-poned till March 3rd--even more time to contact recalcitrant MPs! Meanwhile, Joyce and Carolyn of the ARCC stuck their necks out and hit the airwaves for us: Joyce, going up against the likes of John Hof (Campaign for Life Coalition, BC), and Carolyn against Ken Epp AND Mary Talbot (the mother of Olivia, who was murdered when she was 27 weeks pregnant).

A lot of us did the quick "parliamentary fetus fetishizer" arithmetic and grew worried: could this thing really pass? Here's what I posted last week:

Ok. There are a total of 308 seats in the HoC, and only 90 anti-choice MPs. But here's the problem: if you add the 65 undeclared MPs to the 90 anti-choicers, you get a potential maximum of 155 votes for Ken Epp's backdoor anti-choice bill. That's 50.3%.

[...] Given that the Bloc and NDP will probably whip their respective caucuses to vote NO on C-484, we don't have to worry about them. Nope, the disquieting 'sect' is the Liberal caucus: Dion has not said that he will whip his group, so we have no assurances that those anti-choice or undeclared Liberals will vote against this Bill.

And here we are. Our worst-case-scenario is reality: too many Liberals voted for this Bill. A freaking Dipper even voted for this thing (I'm lookin at YOU, Peter Stoffer!). But you wannu know what really takes the cake?

Cake!!! Dion was MIA for the vote because he was hosting a party at Stornoway for...*drumroll*...International Women's Day. Susan Delacourt explains (h/t Antonia & matttbastard):

Liberals and New Democrats also are unleashing a raft of women-friendly events this week in Ottawa and beyond. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, for instance, will spend International Women's Day in Toronto on Saturday, while his wife Janine Krieber is speaking in Montreal.

Female journalists on Parliament Hill are invited tonight [March 5] to a reception hosted by Krieber at Stornoway, the official opposition residence, and female MPs and Liberal candidates have various events scheduled for the weekend.

Ok, I haven't even BEGUN to unleash my fury at these people for rolling the dice on this one. Thought it wouldn't pass? Fuck you: it passed. And now it's onto Committee. Go visit JJ for the Cmte member list, and see how each MP voted on the Bill. JJ's also posted the full HoC shitlist--all the 'yeas.'

Save that shitlist, folks. We're gonna need it for the days and weeks ahead. I wonder if eVite has a template for this kinda thing? Hmm...I wonder if Dion can give us the name of a good caterer?

More on this:

Birth Pangs
matttbastard
JJ
pale (A Creative Revolution) & another post here
Berlynn
Blast Furnace
Kuri
April Reign
Dave (Galloping Beaver)
Cathie from Canada

***Cathie found a doozy of a post on a so-con blog: "... the momentum is clearly moving in our direction. If not this time, it will happen in the future. It’s inevitable now."

Here it comes. Here it fucking comes.

Update: Bene Diction Blogs On and Red Tory have more to add. Red Tory actually has the complete list of Liberals who voted FOR this fetus-personhood Bill, along with an equally important list of those who were MIA (including the aforementioned Dion!):

Voting For: Raymond Bonin; Gord Brown; John Cannis; Hon. Raymond Chan; Hon. Roy Cullen; Sukh Dhaliwal; Hon. Albina Guarnieri; Hon. Charles Hubbard; Hon. Jim Karygiannis Derek Lee; Hon. Lawrence MacAulay; Hon. Gurbax Malhi; Hon. John McKay; Hon. Joe McGuire; Hon. Dan McTeague; Hon. Shawn Murphy; Massimo Pacetti; Francis Scarpaleggia; Hon. Raymond Simard; Lloyd St. Amand; Paul Steckle; Paul Szabo; Hon. Robert Thibault; Alan Tonks; Roger Valley; Tom Wappel; Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Absent: Stéphane Dion; Bryon Wilfert; Joe Volpe; Scott Simms; Nancy Karetak-Lindell; Hon. Mark Eyking; Ujjal Dosanjh; Denis Coderre; Brenda Chamberlain; Gerry Byrne.

Update: More reactions from:

Birth Pangs (new)
Daev at Designated Protest Zone
Chet Scoville
Accidental Deliberations
Alison at Creekside (and again, here)
prole (A Creative Revolution)
Sean in Saskatchewan
Pretty Shaved Ape
Zorpheous (Wingnuterer)
The Bored Bureaucrat
James Calder (Progressive Right)
Galloping Beaver (new one from Dave)
Scott in Montreal (Tattered Sleeve)
laura k (We Move to Canada), and again here

Update: More reactions from:

Mike (Rational Reasons)
Miss Vicky
skdadl (pogge.ca)

WIRED publishes more Abu Ghraib photos

2008-02-29T05:19:00.001-05:00

You know, I don't think "NSFW" really cuts it this time. Perhaps "NSFHR"--not safe for the human race--is more appropriate. I am posting a link and a bit of a blurb, but no comment. No doubt you already know what this is about.

From WIRED, Feb 28, 2008:

As an expert witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib guard who was court-martialed, psychologist Philip Zimbardo had access to many of the images of abuse that were taken by the guards themselves. For a presentation at the TED conference in Monterey, California, Zimbardo assembled some of these pictures into a short video. Wired.com obtained the video from Zimbardo's talk...

From the WIRED interview with Zimbardo:

Wired: Do you think it made any difference that the Abu Ghraib guards were reservists rather than active duty soldiers?

Zimbardo: It made an enormous difference, in two ways. They had no mission-specific training, and they had no training to be in a combat zone. Secondly, the Army reservists in a combat zone are the lowest form of animal life within the military hierarchy. They're not real soldiers, and they know this. In Abu Ghraib the only thing lower than the army reservist MPs were the prisoners.

Wired: So it's a case of people who feel powerless in their lives seizing power over someone else.

Zimbardo: Yes, victims become victimizers. In Nazi concentration camps, the Jewish capos were worse than the Nazis, because they had to prove that they deserved being in this position.

Have you poked a Liberal lately? One body. One person. One count.

2008-02-25T21:05:00.001-05:00

Ok, just kiddin'. You don't have to touch any Liberals, but I would urge you to email a few, particularly any Liberals with anti-choice bona fides (see page 2 of this .pdf for a list). You see, the House is due to vote on an anti-choice private member's bill on March 5, 2008. The "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (C-484) was first presented by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park). Birth Pangs issued a Call Out for today, Sadie Hawkins Day, asking pro-choice bloggers to post about C-484. The Creative Goddesses at ACR responded immediately with this motivational video:

As I said a few weeks ago, our government should be working towards increasing support and resources for pregnant women at risk of abuse or assault, but this bill has nothing to do with that. What's more, I guarantee you that we won't hear a word about new funding or resources when the House resumes debate on C-484.

Here's the relevant arithmetic via fern hill (post-2006 fed election numbers):

Action Canada Population and Development (ACPD) reported a new total of 90 anti-choice MPs from all parties, 16 Liberals and 74 Conservatives. [...] 65 MPs did not state their positions, (42 Conservatives, 23 Liberals).

Ok. There are a total of 308 seats in the HoC, and only 90 anti-choice MPs. But here's the problem: if you add the 65 undeclared MPs to the 90 anti-choicers, you get a potential maximum of 155 votes for Ken Epp's backdoor anti-choice bill. That's 50.3%.

Here's what I'm asking you to do:

Given that the Bloc and NDP will probably whip their respective caucuses to vote NO on C-484, we don't have to worry about them. Nope, the disquieting 'sect' is the Liberal caucus: Dion has not said that he will whip his group, so we have no assurances that those anti-choice or undeclared Liberals will vote against this Bill. So...we gotta get on his case. Birth Pangs has setup an Activist Page that allows you to send a quick email to the Loyal Leader of the Opposition. It's quick. It's easy. It's polite. If you are uncomfortable filling in web-forms, then you can contact Dion directly:

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 996-5789
Fax: (613) 996-6562
EMail: DionS@parl.gc.ca
Web Site:* www.stephanedion.parl.gc.ca
Preferred Language: French

Constituency Offices

750 Marcel-Laurin Blvd, Suite 440
Saint-Laurent , Québec
H4M 2M4
Telephone: (514) 335-6655
Fax: (514) 335-2712

Tell him we'll be watching. Next, get your butt over here and add your name to this petition. 3175 signatures and counting, yo!

Still need more ~~ammo~~ info? Check out the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's website, and help yourself to their tips & sample-letter. We've got work to do!

CSIS shows some of its pitiful cards: they got him outta the shower for this?

2008-02-24T06:38:00.000-05:00

Lots of strange and outrageous news on the status of the four men held on so-called 'security certificates,' particularly in the last few weeks:

Mohamed Harkat was one of the men held on a security certificate who was released on bail, but under VERY strict bail conditions. One of those conditions is that his wife or Mother-in-law had to be in the house (or yard) with him at all times. Well, CSIS got wind of the fact that his MIL had broken up with her partner and moved out of the house, so they came and arrested Harkat while he was in the shower (Jan 29). Last Tuesday, a judge ruled that Harkat could be released and sent back home under similarly strict conditions. His wife or mother-in-law must still be present at all times (Feb 19).

On Saturday, CSIS finally released bits & pieces of the "evidence" they have against Harkat and the other men held on security certificates. The Harkats spoke to the Ottawa Citizen about it yesterday and it sounds like a total mess--Mohamed said that the name CSIS alleges to be a "shadowy financial kingpin" involved in terrorist financing is somehow equated with a friend--different name, different spelling, mind you--that Harkat happened to mention over 10 years ago. Gah!! CSIS also alleges that Harkat associated with Abu Zubaydah, but offered no proof. Hmmm...could it be something Zubaydah uttered while he was being waterboarded? One wonders. Mohamed's wife is also suspicious of the long, complete sentence-type quotes that CSIS alleges it extracted from her husband in the mid-90s, because he barely spoke any English at the time of those interviews. I want to quote the whole thing, but I shouldn't, so please go have a look if you have time.

As I said above, CSIS has also released dribs & drabs of its allegations against the other men held on security certificates (CTV):

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service released documents Friday that listed the various allegations against Moroccan-born Adil Charkaoui.
CSIS claims Charkaoui was actually in charge of training recruits at the al Qaeda camp, and also accuses him of talking about taking over a commercial aircraft for "aggressive ends," and applying for airport jobs in what may have been part of a terrorist plot.
[...] Here are some of the accusations made against Charkaoui and the four other accused:
Officials allege Charkaoui told CSIS that Abderraouf Hannachi sent him to an al Qaeda training camp. Hannachi, also of Montreal, sent the millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam to similar camps, the Globe and Mail reported. CSIS also claims Charkaoui trained terrorist recruits.
Syrian-born Hassan Almrei is accused of forging documents, and apparently using access cards to trespass on a restricted area of Toronto's Pearson International Airport in 1999.
Mahmoud Jaballah, of Egypt, is accused of communicating with terrorist cells, along with Osama bin Laden's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri - who he allegedly contact on a satellite phone and called him "the father."
CSIS has accused Mohamed Harkat of being an Algerian sleeper agent and claims to have overheard him possibly discussing terrorist activity.

Adil Charkaoui has released a statement denying the allegations against him. He also believes that some of the 'evidence' cited by CSIS was obtained under torture. You can find Charkaoui's complete response to the allegations at his website, but I will leave you with a sample (emphasis mine):

The new certificate was issued as a result of the Supreme Court decision ruling that the law under which the first certificate was issued was unconstitutional. The Coalition believes that the Harper government has not respected the Supreme Court decision, and that the new law, which entered into force today, remains unconstitutional, unjust and discriminatory. The law and the process which led to its adoption are an insult to democracy. (Analysis of C-3.)

We note that the new public summary of allegations against Mr. Charkaoui no longer includes information from Abu Zubaydah, which was obtained under torture. However, the Coalition is shocked by the fact that the government continues to rely on other information which there are serious grounds to believe was produced under torture. The government cites a confession by Noureddine Nafiaa, a prisoner in Morocco. Media in Morocco and Radio Canada have reported that Nafiaa says he was tortured and forced, blindfolded, to sign a confession that he never saw. His account of torture is corroborated by several reports by independent human rights organizations of the situation in Morocco. The fact that the government relied on torture-information from Zubaydah until this fact was very publicly exposed, and continues to use information from Noureddine Nafiaa, raises very serious questions about the source of other secret information in the file: was it also obtained under torture?

The Coalition is also very concerned that allegations from Ahmed Ressam remain part of the file. Ahmed Ressam, who identified dozens and dozens of people while imprisonned in the United States, under a bargain which lessened his sentence in exchange for information, has publicly retracted his information and is known to have suffered a mental breakdown in prison. Charkaoui and his lawyers have asked to cross-examine Ressam numerous times. This opportunity has always been denied, and it was finally admitted by the government that no sworn testimony existed, and that the information was based on hearsay.

Please go & read the rest of Mr. Charkaoui's response.

This is a fucking outrage.

Looking for our International Man of Mystery (plus notes from Lavoie and the Silent Chef)

2008-02-22T21:53:00.003-05:00

Well, your delinquent kitty is late AGAIN. I'm finally posting some more notes from the Commons Ethics Committee's study of the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. I got a bit of a reprieve this past week, as the House was en vacances, but I'm still really, really behind.

In the meantime, here's some new drama: a coupla days ago, the Chair of the committee, Paul Szabo, said that he's considering whether or not to hold former PM Mulroney in Contempt of parliament if he fails to cooperate with the committee's requests for documents:

Szabo sent a summons to Mulroney's lawyers earlier this week demanding documentation about how Mulroney spent money he received from Schreiber and other details of the lobbying efforts he undertook on behalf of the controversial businessman.
In a separate letter, the Liberal committee chairman also sought a guarantee that Mulroney would personally appear for a second round of testimony on Feb. 28.
So far there has been no response from the Mulroney camp, and Szabo says that, in his view, MPs can't afford to let anyone ignore their authority.

You might recall the former PM's testimony suggesting that he was an "international businessman" and consultant for Thyssen International--that he used the connections he gained as PM to peddle Thyssen's light armoured vehicles to Yeltsin (dead), Mitterand (dead), and Jiang Zemin (uhhh...ixnay on that whole Ananmentiay Aresquay. Y'know...what with the tanks and all). Mulroney was then asked by the committee to provide some kind of, uh proof of his "legitimate" business with these leaders and has stonewalled for two months. Until now, that is:
"Mulroney sends old brochures as proof of international lobbying work"

After offering to provide a Commons ethics committee with documentary proof of his international lobbying efforts, Brian Mulroney has sent MPs copies of two old brochures for light-armoured vehicles.
That material, along with an unclassified NATO document that describes the general demand for such vehicles, does nothing to verify the ex-prime minister's explanation for the secret cash payments he received from Karlheinz Schreiber.
And it's not clear whether it will satisfy the demands of committee chairman Paul Szabo, who threatened to cite Mulroney for contempt of Parliament if he didn't cough up documents showing dates, meetings and travel arrangements by the end of the day Friday.
"The only documents which Mr. Mulroney has in his possession are brochures concerning the light armoured vehicle (LAV) produced by Thyssen and copy of a fax attesting to the possible interest of foreign countries, e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom (copy attached)," said the letter from lawyer Guy Pratte, posted on Mulroney's website late Friday afternoon.
[...] Pratte, in a separate letter to the committee Friday, said Mulroney will wait to see what transpires on Monday before deciding whether he'll accept an invitation to close out the hearings next Thursday.
[...] Szabo said Friday he finds Mulroney's wait-and-see attitude on testifying to the committee again "disconcerting."
"It would tend to suggest the possibility that, depending on what somebody else says, that will change my testimony. That does cause some concern."

Yeah. Got the ol' "404-File not Found," eh? Now that's ballz, with a 'zed!'

So. We shall see. Monday morning brings the long-awaited testimony of Elmer MacKay, Peter MacKay's dad and former Mulroney/Schreiber go-between. Karlheinz Schreiber will also return on Monday afternoon.

In the meantime, I've finally posted my notes from Feb 7 (yes, more than 2 WEEKS ago). The Luc Lavoie testimony is organized into six sections:

François Martin, Brian Mulroney's former chef also presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 7. Martin was called before the Committee to confirm or deny reports that he witnessed, "cash [coming] in like it was falling from the sky" at 24 Sussex. His testimony is organized into two parts:

As you might gather from the last picture, the committee had a difficult time evincing anything from Mulroney's former chef. The "news" was really that Martin claimed that Stevie Cameron exaggerated and sensationalized his comments. Martin looked generally out of sorts and intimidated by the procedure, but insists that he wasn't "coached." Pay special attention to what Szabo says at the conclusion of the Martin hearing: you can tell that sumpin's not quite right here.

As for LOL Lavoie...he's either the worst PR guy in history, or Mulroney did a good job of keeping his friend squeaky clean. Favourite interaction? Lavoie's back and forth with the MPs re: who's really the 'Biggest Fucking Liar.' Not to be missed ;)

Next up: notes from the Lalonde, Alford, Doucet, Pelossi and Cameron testimonies. Egad, do I have my work cut out for me. A bientôt!

Update [Sun, Feb 23, 2:32 AM]: Thanks to Toe in comments: M. Pratte, Mulroney's lawyer has posted his latest response to Szabo. He steadfastly rejects that the committee can compel his client to testify on Thursday and quotes Pat Martin to support his position. You can also view the hilarious brochures etc. that Mulroney's camp sent the committee here, here, and here (!!)

Photo credits:

Metaphysical Lavoie: created by kitty, but adapted from this CP pic by Tom Hanson (ying/yang thing from here)
Lampshade kitteh adapted from a Birthday card I received from Mr. Kitty (Avanti Press Inc, photo by Michelle Reynard, 2007)

F-F-Finalists? WTF?! er...Thank you!

2008-02-19T15:40:00.001-05:00

Sweet merciful crap, my blogs have been included in the list of finalists for the "Canadian F-word Blog Awards:" H&O for the 'Individual' category, and Foul Deeds Will Rise for 'Humour.'*
I'm both grateful and sheepish about these nominations. On the one hand, I'm so thankful that there are peeps out there in the tubez who come visit me. OTOH, I'm totally unworthy of the honour. Look at the others in these two categories: the Birth Pangs crew, Alison and JJ Hippie blog much more frequently and with much greater insight, humour, and frequency than your clumsy kitty. Please go visit ACR and vote for them, and all of your other favourites during the second round of voting, Feb 22-23! I was so pleased to see so many of my favourites (regular reads) make it to the finals--and a lot of new blogs, besides!

And while you're visiting ACR...please consider contributing to WISE, "Wellbeing thru Inclusion Socially and Economically." As prole said in January (emphasis added):

From community development inspired by the grassroots to media campaigning and lobbying, WISE - a group and national movement of low-income women - advances awareness of the links among policy, poverty and health; action to address them; and implementation of creative, inexpensive solutions at the local level. The goals of WISE are (via their website):
Raising the collective voice of women who are living in poverty due to policies of exclusion;
Changing public understanding of poverty: from that of socioeconomic inevitability, to a condition of social and economic exclusion;
Encouraging community members to work with us to reduce poverty in our neighbourhoods to the benefit of all;
Ensuring that policymakers understand the worsening economic situation of an increasing number of Canadians to have a systemic cause, one that they can be instrumental in changing.
WISE is one of many organizations who have been mightily screwed by Canada's Eww Government's cruel and unnecessary cuts to the SWC, because of the need to toss some raw meat to their socially conservative, classist, anti-woman base. WISE needs your generous help more than ever to continue providing leadership, training, awareness, and advocacy for low income women across Canada.

We know that you would help women in need out of the goodness of your heart - there is no doubt about that. However, to sweeten the deal, we have added a super-fantastic raffle which will entice you to give more!
For each $10 donation to WISE - via paypal or cheque only - you will be entered into a drawing, i.e. if you donate $100, you will get 10 chances in the drawing. *Cheques must be mailed and received at WISE's BC address no later than February 20 so that we can verify your donation.

Doubtless you're asking yourself,"Prole, what might I win?" Well I hope you're sitting down...

It's a pair of fabulous, bodacious, hand-knit (by moi) Teutonic Titpillows!

Thanks so much to pale & prole @ACR for organIZizing this process, and for knitting those pillows ;) Va-va-va-VOOOOM!

*Foul Deeds' entry into the 'Humour' finals is kinda...um...funny. It's actually a dry archive of my notes from various Canadian and American hearings (Mulroney/Schreiber, Michael 'Torquemada' Mukasey, and Blackwater warcrimes). I use feeble humour and goofy pictures to lure readers into reading some pretty depressing stuff. e.g. LOL Lavoie

Snuggly the Security Bear & a Valentine's 'Torture Trifecta'

2008-02-19T05:25:00.002-05:00

Finally! The US warrantless-wiretapping scandal made simple, from satirist Marc Fiore: The Spies who Love You!

What's that you say? You wannu get into the weeds? If so, go read bmaz at Firedoglake (or just about anyone at FDL, lately; they've gotcher weeds). In the meantime, here are two things that I have tattooed on my arm about US Pres. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program:

KITTY! DO NOT FORGET:

This program began BEFORE 911: former Qwest CEO says that the National Security Agency (NSA) approached telecom corpses about the program on Feb 27, 2001 (6 months before 911)
“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court” --David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff and former legal adviser (NY Times)

Here's Keith Olbermann on the Preznit's latest attempts to win retroactive immunity for the telecoms and his administration:

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.”

Believed? Don’t you know? Don’t you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You’re a fascist — get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?

(Video here)

Yes, fascism, "the seamless mutuality of government and big business," that F-iest of F-words, is OUT. Out in the open. And it's not just for spying on Americans.

Remember that Addington quote I had tattooed on my arm? Well, I'm a sucker for symmetry so here's what I have on my other arm:

KITTY! DO NOT FORGET:

“the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands.”--David Addington to Jack Goldsmith (Office of Legal Counsel, US Dept. Justice, 2003-2004).

Here's the full context:

Goldsmith...agreed with the president’s determination that detainees from Al Qaeda and the Taliban weren’t protected under the Third Geneva Convention, which concerns the treatment of prisoners of war, but that different protections were at issue with the Fourth Geneva Convention, which concerns civilians. Addington, Goldsmith says, was not persuaded. (Goldsmith told me that he has checked his recollections of this and other meetings with at least one other participant or with someone to whom he described the meetings soon after.)
Months later, when Goldsmith tried to question another presidential decision, Addington expressed his views even more pointedly. “If you rule that way,” Addington exclaimed in disgust, Goldsmith recalls, “the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands.”

Well, we know that so-called "al Qaeda" or "Taliban" prisoners were tortured. But what we didn't know before this month is that the Bush Admin has been paying private intelligence contractors to torture prisoners. CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden has spilled the beans (Wall St. Journal, via TPM):

The CIA's secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony... from the CIA director and two other people familiar with the program.

According to two current and former intelligence officials, the use of contracting at the CIA's secret sites increased quickly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, in part because the CIA had little experience in detentions and interrogation. Using nongovernment employees also helped maintain a low profile, they said.

So now we can add private intelligence contractors to the list of private--unaccountable--citizens who have been hired to torture prisoners in US custody, as we've known about private military contractors for quite a while now. CACI contractors, for example, were accused of torture in a suit brought by 256 Iraqi prisoners (Dec 2007). Despite the lawsuit against them, CACI was recently awarded millions more in contracts (Jan 2008).

There's that "seamless mutuality of government and big business" thing again.

Before I sign-off for now, I want to leave you with Scott Horton's piece, "The Valentine's Day Torture Trifecta:"

On Valentine’s Day the Bush Administration was out on a mission, straight from the Orwellian Ministry of Love. That ministry of course served in Nineteen Eighty-Four as the center for torture. And as the shortest month reached its middle point, three apologists appeared on behalf of the administration to explain to the American public that they needed to relax and start getting comfortable with torture. It’s the new American Way, after all.

Horton goes on to quote three men: Steven Bradbury (Office of Legal Counsel, USDOJ), President Bush, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (Connecticut for Lieberman party). Please go & read the whole thing. It's enough to make your blood run cold on Valentine's Day.

h/t to:
*Crooks & Liars & the Rachel Maddow Show (Feb 15) for the Marc Fiore Cartoon
*Sam Seder Show (Feb 17) for Scott Horton's Valentine's Day Torture Trifecta
*UPDATE: I first saw the Bradbury testimony when skdadl posted a link to the video at BnR

Spectorvision

2008-02-14T05:17:00.001-05:00

This is way overdue, but I've posted my notes from last Tuesday's Ethics Committee Hearing. Yeah, yeah, I know...NINE days late!

Former Mulroney Chief of Staff Norman Spector presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 5. I've annotated my notes and organized them into the following 5 sections:

Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice (1993-7) Allan Rock also presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee on February 5. My annotated notes are available in two parts:

I hope you find these notes useful, even just for future reference or research. Coming up next: I promise to post my notes from Feb 7 (testimony of Mulroney's Chef and Luc Lavoie). I've also recorded the Feb 12th hearings, and I've setup my recorder to cover the Valentine's Day Schreiber-hearing-blowout. Stay tuned!

Spector "Wall of Sound" postcard from efrank.ca

ALERT YOUR MP: Put an end to the backdoor shenanigans!

2008-02-10T22:26:00.001-05:00

Our Big-Dumb-Parliament is poised to vote on an anti-choice private member's bill on March 5, 2008. The "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (C-484) was first presented by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park). Just where in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks did this come from? (Vancouver Sun):

The sister of slain teacher Manjit Panghali is seeking support for proposed federal legislation that would make it an offence to harm or kill unborn babies during attacks on their mothers.
Jasmin Bhambra wants people to sign a petition to Edmonton MP Ken Epp, who is advocating for the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill, which she said is scheduled for debate on Feb. 29.
The petition,at www.manjitpanghali.org, calls for unborn babies who are injured or killed in attacks on their moms to be recognized as separate from their mothers and for two charges to be laid against an offender, rather than one.
The petition states that the death an unborn baby "violates the woman's right to protect and give life to her child."
At the moment, Canada has no such law in place.
Panghali was four months pregnant with her second child when she was murdered in October 2006 and her body set alight. She was found days later on Deltaport Way.

Now, I should hasten to add that pregnant women are murdered at greater rates than their un-pregnant sisters. Our government should be working towards increasing support and resources for women at risk. But this bill has nothing to do with that, and I can guarantee you that we won't hear a word about new funding or resources when the House resumes debate on C-484, later this month.

Nope. We're gonna hear about murdered babies. And innocence. And innocent babies. But don't fall for it for a second, dear reader, 'cause this bill will have nothing to do with protecting pregnant women from crime. And we've heard this song before. Check out the last sentence of the Feb 2 Vancouver Sun piece:

The proposed bill is similar to the American Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Ah yes. The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act." And just like Epp's bill, the re-introduction (and passage) of the American UVVA was timed to exploit citizen outrage over the high-profile murder of Laci Peterson, a pregnant woman.

Jeez Louise...is there any American tactic that our Cons won't ape? Here's what Ken Epp's and other so-called 'fetal homicide' bills are really about (via Joyce Arthur):

The narrowness of the bill indicates that the real intent is not to protect women, but to give fetuses legal personhood, for no apparent reason other than to try and use it as a wedge to re-criminalize abortion. The bill was introduced and promoted by anti-abortion groups and individuals (e.g., Campaign Life Coalition, Conservative anti-abortion MP's, Margaret Somerville, and others). Also, it uses anti-choice language, including "unborn child", "child" and "mother". The bill is modeled after similar bills promoted and passed in the U.S. by anti-abortion groups and legislators. In South Carolina, anti-abortion lawmakers explicitly stated they wanted to use the state’s fetal homicide law as a legal foundation to overturn Roe v. Wade (the decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.).

I know, I know...private member's bills don't usually go anywhere, so it's not worth worrying about. Except that it is. Or at least it might be. Here's some quick arithmetic via fern hill (post-2006 fed election numbers):

Action Canada Population and Development (ACPD) reported a new total of 90 anti-choice MPs from all parties, 16 Liberals and 74 Conservatives. [...] 65 MPs did not state their positions, (42 Conservatives, 23 Liberals).

Ok. There are a total of 308 seats in the HoC, and only 90 anti-choice MPs. But here's the problem: if you add the 65 undeclared MPs to the 90 anti-choicers, you get a potential maximum of 155 votes for Ken Epp's backdoor anti-choice bill. That's 50.3%.

Still not worried? Are you confident that enough of the 65 undeclared MPs will vote against C-484? I know I'd like to believe that. But I don't like to leave things to chance these days, so here's what I'm asking you to do:

Given that the Bloc and NDP will whip their respective caucuses to vote NO on C-484, we don't have to worry about them. Nope, the disquieting 'sect' is the Liberal caucus: Dion has not said that he will whip his group, so we have no assurances that those anti-choice or undeclared Liberals will vote against this Bill. So...we gotta get on his case. Birth Pangs has setup an Activist Page that allows you to send a quick email to the Loyal Leader of the Opposition. It's quick. It's easy. It's polite. If you are uncomfortable filling in web-forms, then you can contact Dion directly:

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 996-5789
Fax: (613) 996-6562
EMail: DionS@parl.gc.ca
Web Site:* www.stephanedion.parl.gc.ca
Preferred Language: French

Constituency Offices

750 Marcel-Laurin Blvd, Suite 440
Saint-Laurent , Québec
H4M 2M4
Telephone: (514) 335-6655
Fax: (514) 335-2712

Tell him we'll be watching. And we're ready: Birth Pangs has issued a Call Out for February 25, Sadie Hawkins Day, asking pro-choice bloggers to post about C-484. Here's BP's fern hill with our marching orders:

In response, we at Bread and Roses and Birth Pangs are launching a campaign we’re calling ‘One body. One person. One count.’
We’re calling on all progressive bloggers — and especially ones with Liberal connections — to blog against this bill on Monday, February 25. We hope that thousands of blog readers will be moved to contact their MPs to tell them what they think of this sneak attack on women’s rights.
Go and be motivated by pale’s powerful vid.
We hope that bloggers and their readers will inform themselves by visiting the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada to read Joyce Arthur’s excellent article on the bill here and the talking points against it.
In the meantime, you can further this action by visiting and directing your readers to Birth Pangs’s Activist Page to send an automatic message to Stéphane Dion demanding that he whip his MPs into line on this.

Do it. Bookmark or 'del.ici.ous' Birth Pangs' page or pale's Youtube video. Facebook them, too, for good measure. And then tell your friends to do it. And so on. You know what to do.

February 25th: One body. One person. One count.

Note: if anyone has more recent-MP math regarding the population of anti-choicers and undeclared MPs, please feel free to comment and I'll update my post.

I've let y'all down sniff

2008-02-09T05:05:00.002-05:00

Ok, that's a bit conceited, eh?

What I meant was: I totally neglected my Schreiber and Mukasey 'live' blogging duties this week. I was very busy when the House of Commons Ethics committee reconvened this week and, before I knew it, I'd already missed an entire day's worth of Norman Spector and Allan Rock testimony. For shame.

As luck would have it, CPAC is promising to re-air both its Feb 5 & 7 coverage on Sunday (12:30 PM and 2:30 PM EST). I will make an honest attempt to watch and je vais faire des notes. My apologies to the faithful readers who have come to my blog in search of those notes, only to find musty ol' coverage from 2007. I trust that you were able to get your Schreiber-fix elsewhere, e.g. Kady O'Malley's coverage on Feb 5 and 7, and, of course Impolitical's analysis.

And while I'm apologizing: I also missed the US House Judiciary committee's Feb 7th hearing on torture. Skdadl and I followed the Senate's latest hearing last week, but I totally abandoned her this Thursday, and left skdadl alone with Mukasey. Skdadl covered the HJC (beginning here, on this thread at BnR) and then posted about it at POGGE. Go! Read skdadl and watch those Youtubes. They will make your hair stand on end.

C-span has posted vids of the HJC proceedings, so I will try to catch up with that this weekend.

Shame-kitteh via Icanhascheezburger

Obama backer jokes: "we may give San Francisco to Canada"

2008-02-05T16:40:00.000-05:00

Fightin' words from San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom (San Fran Chron):

...just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."
[...]
"He was pissed," said one former staffer.

In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

He was asked about the flak he took after announcing that San Francisco would allow same-sex marriages - flak that included claims he had helped Republicans by handing them a wedge issue heading into a presidential election year. In the interview, Newsom admitted he'd been hammered over the decision. "And I'm not just saying from Republicans," he added at the time.

"One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that particular person - not once, but twice - because of this issue."

Classy, eh? If you think this was an isolated incident, recall Obama's autumn courtship with homophobic preacher, Donnie McClurkin.

Mr. McClurkin, a black preacher who sang at the Republican National Convention in 2004, has gained notoriety for his view that homosexuality is a choice and can be “cured” through prayer, a view ridiculed by gay people.

Ridiculed by gay people? How 'bout "ridiculed by anyone with a fucking brain?!" Obama defended himself thusly:

Mr. Obama said through a spokesman that he “strongly disagrees” with Mr. McClurkin’s views. He did not indicate he would cancel Mr. McClurkin’s appearance, but said, “I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like H.I.V./AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.”

I still don't like it. I don't think you give bigots like McClurkin a seat at the table. You don't stand with them and sing-along. You do not clap in time to their odious music.

You know what? I had nearly forgotten about the McClurkin thing until this morning, when I read about Newsom.

But the ever-merciful kitty will let Obama's camp have the last word. Here's how they responded to Newsom's damning anecdote (via Ben Smith):

Fumes a high-level Obama backer: "He is never going to serve in our administration, and we may give San Francisco to Canada."

Wherein Matalin realizes she has to back McCain

2008-02-04T04:51:00.000-05:00

...and Kitty remembers why she stopped watching Meet the Press:

Republican Mary Matalin, right; Democrat James Carville, left, MTP, Feb 3

Mary is having a tough time these days. The former Cheney adviser and Republican 'strategist' has had a lotta bad luck, lately. Not "hey! I'm stuck in GTMO without access to a lawyer!" bad luck, but still: the woman's had better days.

I think the last time I saw Mary, she was heading up the "I'm with Fred!" campaign. Yeah. Even Fred's not with Fred anymore...

So what's going on in this picture? Matalin's listening to her husband, James Carville:

MR. CARVILLE: In 2004, we were sure there were three powerful pillars of the Republican Party: the right wing preachers, the nutty supply siders and talk radio, OK? It--McCain has vanquished all three. All of them had no influence in this election. McCain has said that he definitely was not on the right wing preachers, he's definitely not a supply sider and right wing talk radio can't stand John McCain. And now they have to deal with him. That's the, that's the reality.

...and the penny? She dropped.

Poor Matalin realized that she would have to back John McCain in the General Election! Aaaaaaaaah!

And poor kitty realized that she had lost an entire hour of her Sunday.

Seriously, for a GOOD take on what's wrong with American horse-race coverage, see media-prof, Jay Rosen. Please! Go Now! Save yourselves!

Photo credit: ME! This is old school, yo. I was watching teevee, paused it, and snapped it with my ancient digicam.

"I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two..."

2008-02-03T01:41:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking a lot about the surreal Reagan ~~necrophilia~~ worship goin' on in the American GOP debates, lately. To wit: Wednesday night's debate at the Reagan library in Simi Valley, California. Here's CNN's Anderson Cooper, asking the final question of the evening:

Would, and if so, why -- why would Ronald Reagan endorse you? Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?

Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Ronald Reagan would look at the issues that are being debated right here and say, one, we're going to win in Iraq, and I'm not going to walk out of Iraq until we win in Iraq.
Ronald Reagan would say lower taxes. Ronald Reagan would say lower spending.
Ronald Reagan would -- is pro-life. He would also say I want to have an amendment to protect marriage.
Ronald Reagan would say, as I do, that Washington is broken. And like Ronald Reagan, I'd go to Washington as an outsider -- not owing favors, not lobbyists on every elbow. I would be able to be the independent outsider that Ronald Reagan was, and he brought change to Washington.
Ronald Reagan would say, yes, let's drill in ANWR. Ronald Reagan would say, no way are we going to have amnesty again. Ronald Reagan saw it, it didn't work. Let's not do it again.
Ronald Reagan would say no to a 50-cent-per-gallon charge on Americans for energy that the rest of the world doesn't have to pay.
Ronald Reagan would have said absolutely no way to McCain- Feingold.
I would be with Ronald Reagan. And this party, it has a choice, what the heart and soul of this party is going to be, and it's going to have to be in the house that Ronald Reagan built.

Got it? He's Mitt Romney: The Dead-Reagan-Whisperer. You can watch all of the candidates respond here (beginning at 3 min 23 sec), but I would strongly advise against it.

You know what? Now that I think of it, the whole ~~seemy~~seamy (har har...Simi Valley) spectacle reminded me of this:

('What would Brian Boitano Do?' lyrics)

TKO! Happy Birthday, Birth Pangs!

2008-02-02T21:50:00.000-05:00

It's Groundhog Day, mesdames et messieurs, and you know what that means: it's Birth Pangs' 1st birthday! Happy Birthday, sweetie dahlings. Let's all raise a glass and make a toast!

'Martini Time' courtesy of The Imaginative Universal

Now journalists can't kiss the talking frogs, either

2008-02-01T04:15:00.000-05:00

Good Gawd. ReWind.It and Mandos tell me that Harper is keeping the media from talking to the scientists who work at Environment Canada:

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no "surprises" for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.

"Just as we have ‘one department, one website' we should have ‘one department, one voice,' " says a PowerPoint presentation from Environment Canada's executive management committee that's been sent to department staff.

This news comes on the heels of the Harper government's dismissal of the National Science Advisor, which in turn came on the heels of the Harper government's dismissal of the nuclear safety regulator.

In case you missed the 'talking frog' reference: it relates to a joke often told by the dismissed National Science Advisor, Arthur Carty (I posted the joke on the weekend). It's about talking frogs, politicians, and journalists.

But these days, the only one left laughing is Mr. Harper.

You can waterboard, but for the love of God, don't "pick nits!"

2008-01-30T18:20:00.000-05:00

US Attorney Gen. Michael B. Mukasey is testified before the Sen. Judiciary Committee today. Both skdadl and I followed his testimony as closely as our c-span streaming abilities would allow. You can read our collective notes on the hearings here:

I will clean-up these notes later today, after I've rested my poor, tired fingers ;)

A quick word about the hearings: Mukasey is a loathsome human bean. You don't have to read the entire testimony to be convinced--here's everything you need to know about Mukasey (where "WB" is waterboarding, "D" is Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and "M" is AG Mukasey):

12:27 PM

Durbin: I asked you who your heroes were. You said you kept a picture of Orwell b/c of his essay, Politics and the English language. I respect you for that. In that essay, Orwell was critical of misleading pol speech ("concrete melts into the abstract") Mr. AG, I'd say, with respect to waterboarding, that the concrete melts into the abstract.

D: (I'm) still troubled as I listen to your answers. First, you say in your letter to cmtee that reasonable people can disagree with respect to WB. Can you cite any court cases, scholars, people of good faith who disagree that WB is not torture? Secondly, when you replied to Biden, you said WB in certain circs would no shock conscience, e.g discovery of nukes. Why has gov discontinued this form of interrogation if there *are* circumstances that justify it? Third, your unwillingness to take an unequivocal position against WB--our troops protected against WB. There are special forces, personnel...
[...]
12:31 PM

M: some in this chamber have disputed that it wouldn't be legal to engage in certain techniques...and then pull back, if necessary to save American lives

D: the Senate? We've voted on a bipartisan, overwhelming vote to prohibit certain practices, the McCain amendment...

M: and the chamber on another occasion declined, with respect to WBg, and others who said the lang was so general that it would open things up to other things that would be so objectionable and cruel...

D: if Detainee treatment act is so clear, and went so far as to grant amnesty to employees who engaged in it, you still think the jury's out on whether WBg is torture?

M: question is not whether Sen is "out" on this or that technique, the question is whether Senate has spoken clearly enough in leg it has passed, and that President has signed, which is all anybody has to work with

D: where is lack of clarity in McCain legislation?

M: the words, people on both sides of debate, to point to "this" or "that" seems to me is to pick nits at this point

D: as chairman has noted, Sens McCain, Warner and Graham (sponsors of legislation) that under Military Commissions Act, WBg is a "warcrime." At this moment, you have employees of yours in Iraq, counselling employees not to use torture. Your testimony so far is that "it depends on circs"--we're trying to teach to the world, a standard we want our own people to live by?

M: the reasons I outlined are already matters of record.
[...]
D: Sen Biden's question? About "shocking conscience"?

M: what I described was a situation in which it *would* shock conscience. It was put in place by the person who wrote the decision. Not by me.

D: I assume you were arguing that the use of such techs to discover nukes would not shock conscience?

M: No...that's not what I said

D: what about circs where tech would save lives?

M: not part of program. Don't know how that would work

D: under military standards, they're not interested in danger. They say unequivocally. You say, for non-military it's still unresolved?

M: still unresolved. I've not been presented with a concrete situation.

It was to weep.

I've got so much to say about this. For now, it appears to be clogging my windpipe. More later.

'Steve' or 'CPCBashi?'

2008-01-30T03:00:00.000-05:00

"I admit it, there are too many portraits, pictures and monuments. I don't find any pleasure in it, but the people demand it because of their mentality."
--Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenbashi (leader of Turkmens)

CBS News' Bob Simon, 60 Minutes, Jan 4, 2004:

If you think Saddam Hussein was fond of himself, just visit Turkmenbashi's country. There's a poster or a statue of him in nearly every public space.
When Soviet rule collapsed in 1991, Turkmenistan was left on its own, with no real government, and no national identity. Turkmenbashi filled that void. He built a nation and a culture based on him.
The golden likeness of the former communist party boss-turned-dictator is in the center of the capitol, always rotating to face the sun. His picture is on the airplane that brings you to the main port town called Turkmenbashi. It watches over workers in the field, over children in school, over drivers on the road. He's also on the money, and he's even on the national vodka.
His face is everywhere, and you can’t walk a block without seeing either a statue or photo of him.
[...] Turkmenbashi is so controlling that he has even rewritten the calendar, and he recently renamed the month of January to "Turkmenbashi." April is named after his mother.

From Tim Naumetz, Ottawa Citizen:

Photographs of Mr. Harper in various poses, at various sites, are hung throughout the private and cosy government lobby of the House of Commons.
Ms. (Elizabeth) May and Ms. (Kady) O'Malley were surprised and a bit speechless when they saw the exhibit recently as guest Commons Speakers during a youth Parliament.
"When you walk in the door, all you see are pictures of Stephen Harper," said Ms. May
"I'd say between every window, in every available space of the wall, at eye level, every available space has a photo of Stephen Harper."
"You've got photos of Stephen Harper, but not of previous prime ministers," she added. "Photos of Stephen Harper in different costumes, in different settings, dressed as a fireman, in Hudson Bay looking for polar bears, meeting the Dalai Lama, even the portrait of the Queen had to have Stephen Harper, but in a candid, behind her."

No Dogs Allowed! (The Sunday Times, Dec 17, 2006):

In Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s spotless white capital that he is building in the desert out of unfeasible quantities of imported Italian marble, dogs are banned. Turkmenbashi doesn’t like their smell. Also banned are foreign newspapers, journalists, opposition parties, and, apparently, women’s make-up, because, according to the president, Turkmen women don’t need make-up.

And...finally:

The other day, he sacked the chief weatherman for getting the forecasts wrong. Before that he got rid of the cameramen who were making the women singing his songs look fat. Turkmen women don’t get fat. Recently he banned female newsreaders from wearing studio make-up as it made their faces unnaturally white. Didn’t they know a Turkmen woman’s complexion should be the colour of Turkmen wheat?

All hail CPCbashi!

h/t Cathie for the Ottawa Citizen article
Golden bust of Turkmenbashi courtesy of tmrepublican.org
Street photo of Turkmenbashi by Alan Cooperman, AP
Classroom photo of Turkmenbashi by Burt Herman, AP
Harper & Batchelet photo, Hanoi APEC 2006, by Tom Hanson, CP
Harper with Cheddar, the kitty cat, pm.gc.ca

Celebrating 20 years: "I am mine. And that's where it ends"

2008-01-29T02:06:00.000-05:00

The word "debate" keeps coming up: debate? What debate? The "debate" over whether women have the right to self-ownership (makes me sick just to type that) ended on January 28, 1988...
I am mine. And that's where it ends.
---JJ, aka "Unrepentant Old Hippie," on the 20th anniversary of R. v Morgentaler

I couldn't have said it better, myself. As many of you know, Monday marked the 20th anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, a decision that left our country without a single law regulating abortion. Seriously! Not a one. This actually makes us sumpin' special, as fern hill , Kuri, Chet and others pointed out today.

And how have we coped with all this lawlessness? Fire? Brimstone? Dogs & Cats? All things considered, we're doing pretty well, relatively speaking. To get a veritable 'lay of the land' (no pun intended), check out the incredible 20th Anniversary blog-burst. A few weeks ago, Antonia and others put out the call, and boy, howdy, was there a RESPONSE!

The depth and breadth of Monday's posts have been impressive. Some, like Berlynn and Regina Mom have provided us with important historical backround, particularly regarding the oppressive "Section 251" (remember 'Therapeutic Abortion Committees?'). Others, like Megan and Vicky have shared their stories of pregnancy and loss.

Meanwhile, Alison and 900 Ft Jesus served as our trusty truth-squad, knocking down some of the most pervasive myths about why & when women exercise sovereignty over their own bodies. Do yourselves a grace & favour and add them to your bookmarks, to save for a rainy day. And there will be rainy days ahead. After all, us pro-choicers are just asking for it. Just ask deBeauxOs, who recounted her own interaction with "zealots who screamed "baby-killer" at me, conveniently ignoring the reality of my 18 month old daughter, snuggled up on my back."

Ah yes. "Baby killer." Here's the Cynic, taking a few Blogging Tories to school over this lingo. And while you're in Cynic-land, PLEASE check-out Lulu, who had a righteous post about that particular invective, particularly in light of all of the documented violence perpetrated by these assholes. Take it away, Lulu!

Their complaints that they’ve been silenced are plastered across national newspapers and on cars covered with abortion porn and on street corners in front of clinics but still they play the victim. They lie. And this is why I fight.
These supposedly morally superior people consider themselves “pro-life” warriors on a mission from God and accuse those who disagree with them of being “pro-death”. They use terms like “pro-aborts” and “poor choicers” to describe anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to choose what happens to her body, convinced that only they know best. They argue that it isn’t a matter of choice at all even as they seek to impose their views and their choices on everyone. They refer to the pro-choice movement as one that embraces a “culture of death”, while holding themselves up as defenders of the very sanctity of life. But this doesn’t seem to stop them from standing outside clinics and screaming accusations of “baby killer” at women struggling with a decision that is no one’s business but their own as they attempt to enter those very same clinics."(emphasis added)

****applause****

So, please, I implore you: put down that sign with the picture of catsuppy roadkill* and take Debra's advice:

Those who claim a commitment to pregnancy and to foetuses need to get off the clinic protest lines and join the protests for decent welfare payments, social housing, a livable minimum wage, universal child care, and a stronger commitment to schools.

What's that, you say? Adoption? Pale has a response to that, untimely rip'd (as it were) from the man himself, the good Dr. M (CBC, June 16, 2005):

There are 88,000 children in foster care in Canada (I believe the number is significantly higher because there are 30,423 children in foster care in Ontario alone and the numbers are similar in Alberta); of these, 49 per cent are "Crown Wards".
[...] Meanwhile, there are 22,000 foster children in Canada actively awaiting adoption. Every year.

Ok, let's suppose for a sec that you're still not willing to think rationally. Maybe you're just not in the mood to be reasonable. If that's the case, please go visit the ever-Rational, ever-Reasonable Mike. Here's a hint: think 'forced-abortions.' Think 'illicit organ trade.' Think hard:

That is, it is an essential element of our humanness that we own and control our own bodies. To allow others to do so is to render us to a less-than-human life as an incubator, spare parts repository or automaton to be controlled. It is slavery and it is not life. (emphasis added)

...and, above all, know THIS:

Abortion is not about a culture of death, it is not about hating children or being sinners. It is about controlling ones health, ones life, ones future.

Yep. It's the truth. It's not about killing babies. ~~Hell~~ Heck, I'd even go as far as saying that it's not about all that torrid, "guilt-free" sex the kids are having either, but somehow I doubt you'd buy that. In fact, I'm not even sure that Heather Mallick buys it:

...birth control and abortion rights have been a sexual volcano for men, one of those volcanoes that never stops erupting. So much more, and better, sex has been had. Men have been having a giant fling for decades, and women, able to relax about the terror of an unwanted pregnancy, have had more and better sex too.
[...] Why should I have to be the one to point out the obvious — that men always have an orgasm when they have sex, and women don't, so why aren't men celebrating massively this week or at least taking us out to dinner?

Heh. You know what? Men are celebrating this week. Lots of 'em! And, no, I will give them more credit than Heather, and suggest to you that they're celebrating for *ahem* nobler reasons than...y'know. In addition to Rational Mike, there's Dave's 20th anniversary celebration, reflecting on the the real crux of the anti-choice movement, and how it dovetails rather conveniently with the cuts to women's shelters, crisis centres, child-care, etc.

Oooh! And here's another wonderful man's 20th anniversary contribution to the blogburst. And here's yet another bastard's contribution. You know, there's a reason that he's my favourite bastard:

Make no mistake: now more than ever, a woman’s body is a moral battle ground. We can’t cede any ground to anti-choice zealots who would fallaciously and callously equate potential people with human beings, acorns with oak trees–no matter how “reasonable” compromise may seem in theory.

And then along came another dude: here's Daev, with an extremely thoughtful response to Lulu's post:

I also encountered on the Wish List the phenomenon of the "supportive pro-choice man" who thinks that what the movement needs is a better understanding of "debating tactics" and is more than willing to show the wimmins how to better fight to maintain their rights, never realizing that the pro-choice side has already won, and that women know best how to lead the movement.

See? There are loads of guys celebrating this week, Heather! And you mustn't forget our favourite Dawg--I have it on good authority that he is, in fact, a member of the XY club. And he had a lot to say on Monday. Par example:

I suggest that the fierce opposition to reproductive freedom (first expressed as opposition to contraception, which only became legal in Canada in 1968, and then to abortion as the latter emerged from its underground nightmare of coat-hangers, seedy exploiters, sepsis and death) really comes down to a defence of the traditional role of motherhood. The opposition is not grounded in fetus-fetishism, but in anti-feminism.
[...] Our victory was a major step in coming to grips with that structure of inequality, even if on-the-ground organizing played far less of a role than successful lawyering. The state, however, and the unequal relations that it mediates and reinforces, remain. (emphasis added)

Hmmm. It was such an elegant treatment of the subject, particularly the use of language in our discourse regarding abortion, that I was totally lulled into agreement with the good Dawg...that is, until that last bit (the emboldened part). But, after all, I was only 14 years old in 1988, so I am hardly in a place to argue about the relative contributions of the grassroots to the successful outcome of R. v. Morgentaler. Paging skdadl! Paging s-k-dadl to the white courtesy telephone!

In answer to Dr Dawg, all I can think to say is to remind him of the deeper historical parallels. Outlawing slavery did not immediately change the lives of all the Africans who were transported to the Caribbean or North America or northern Europe. It "freed" them, but then ... Did it bring them social justice? Hardly even yet, and how long has that taken?
And yet it was a triumph to outlaw slavery, a triumph of the mind, a social triumph, a place to stand for those who would fight for genuine social justice."
[...] No one ever liberates anyone else. People liberate themselves. Lawyers are ok, but girls are strong. (emphasis added)

And this was just the kick in my lucky-thirty-sumpin-ass I needed to go back and revisit that archival footage of Dr. Morgentaler in June 1983, as he attempted to open his first clinic in Toronto. Both he and his supporters--including Judy Rebick--were attacked. They were threatened. And yet they were determined to return every day. After reviewing the footage from the CBC archives (thanks, Kuri!), I went on to read Rebick's thoughts on "Twenty years of freedom of choice":

The abortion battle is probably the best example of the relationship between social struggles and legal decisions. For the almost eight years between the foundation of OCAC (Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics) and the Supreme Court decision, the abortion debate had been on the front pages in Ontario and then across the country. Debates, marches, direct action, clinics opening and in some cases being shut down, clashes with the "anti's", resolutions in the unions, on campuses and in community organizations, everyone had to take a stand, including the Justices.

This was more than just "successful lawyering;" this was a movement. And as we celebrate that wonderful 1988 SCC decision, we also have to remember that it's not really over yet. Just last week, the Globe & Mail's André Picard pointed out some of the barriers that stand in the way of truly universal access to abortion-care in Canada. And doctors who provide abortion care, not to mention their supporters, still face death threats in the year two-thousand-eight.

As I said last week, during our celebration of the American 'Roe v. Wade' decision, it doesn't take an outright ban on abortion to reduce access. Sometimes the most successful anti-choice measures are the ones that nibble around the edges. Make no mistake: they WILL try this in Canada. Mallick explains:

Strange people still do creepy things to eat away at abortion rights. They say abortions cause cancer, mental illness and, en masse, post-traumatic stress disorder. Everyone collapses, including you, the father, your parents, siblings and your grandpa.
If you ever yearn for the mucky sensation of sticky fingers crawling down your spine, go to Hansard and read MPs discussing Alberta Tory Ken Epp’s proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act, due for a House vote in March. The private member's (what an appropriate name) bill means murderers should get a lower prison sentence for killing a regular woman than for killing a pregnant woman. Read them say how nice it is when a pregnant lady lets you feel her belly: "I think we've all experienced that," Epp says.

Need a shower after that? It's ok. I'm just about done here. Whew! It's now Tuesday and I'm officially done celebrating. Time to get back to work, of course, but I promise to keep an eye on Mr. Epp, and I know that you will, too. In the meantime, promise me that you'll do one more little thing for me?

Go watch George Carlin :)

Heather Mallick link via F-email Fightback
"Celebrate 20 Yrs of Choice" badge courtesy of Debra, April Reign;
"Canada Celebrates 20 Years of Reproductive Freedom" badge courtesy of Alison, Creekside.

*You think that's a fetus? Who are you kidding?!

UPDATE [Jan 29, 2008, 12:48 PM]: Please check out Red Jenny, Yappa Ding Dong, Cathie-from-Canada, and Aurelia, for their contributions to the 20th Anniversary blogburst!

UPDATE from The Dawg! [Jan 29, 2008, 12:53 PM]: Dr. Dawg has updated his excellent post with a note about the importance of the SCC throwing out Section 251 "as a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rather than, say, getting it repealed, or turning it into a dead letter." Go Read!

UPDATE [Jan 29, 2008, 3:35 PM]: Please check out Justice is a Woman with a Sword, Pedgehog, Prole @ ACR, and The Rev @ Galloping Beaver (how'd I miss you, yesterday? Sorry about that!).

Harper won't kiss the talking frog

2008-01-27T18:35:00.000-05:00

In the Spring of 2004 (April Fools' Day!), former PM Paul Martin created the 'Office of the National Science Advisor' (ONSA). In the Spring of 2007 (again, April Fools'!), our "New" PM will officially shutter the ONSA (CBC). The first & last occupant of the position was esteemed chemist and former head of the National Research Council, Dr. Arthur Carty. Carty's original mandate, circa 2004 (in his own words):

The principal element of the NSA's mandate will be to provide sound, unbiased, non-partisan advice on (science and technology) to the Prime Minister in the context of Canada's goal to be one of the most innovative countries in the world. In this regard I will certainly have to play a role in building a truly national advisory capacity that provides the PM with authoritative, well considered options for decision making.

Why was this position so important? Here's Bob McDonald (Quirks & Quarks):

The National Science Adviser is a voice of reason to the government over actions it should take on issues such as climate change, genetically modified foods, managing fisheries, sustaining the environment - any time the politicians need to be educated on the basic science behind those often controversial issues. Of course, decisions are seldom made for purely scientific reasons; all too often, the interests of industry, special interest groups or a misinformed public will cloud the scientific truth. The Adviser’s job is to provide clarity and perspective.

Whatever his other failings, I would credit the former PM Martin for both creating the position in the first place, and for putting ONSA in the Privy Council Office. You see, Dr. Carty's office was created with the intention of giving ONSA direct access to the Prime Minister:
Carty was no dummy. Even in his first months as NSA he knew he'd have to tread carefully. What on earth am I talking about? Well, Carty was particularly fond of a certain Joke. You will see this Joke again and again, if you take the time to visit his archive of speeches and presentations (hey! Guess what Kitty did on Saturday!). Here's the Joke, as he related it to the Canada Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Forum, Edmonton, Alberta, June 17, 2004:

During a break in a meeting a politician and a journalist took a walk in a park, when a frog suddenly jumped out in front of them and started to speak: "I am a scientist who has been put under a spell. If you break the spell by lifting me up and kissing me I will serve you forever!"
The journalist said to the politician: "Wouldn't that be something for you? Just imagine, you would always have an expert on hand to give you scientific advice!" But the politician said: "No, better not. We all know what scientists are like, they talk too much, know everything better than you and always want to be the centre of attention. But it would be ideal for you! Editorial offices don't often have science writers, or if they do, they are not always very well informed. He would be really valuable for you. So, go on, pick up the frog and kiss him!" The journalist picked up the frog and looked at it briefly before putting it in his pocket. The politician was amazed and asked "Why did you put the frog in your pocket instead of kissing him?" To which the journalist replied "Because a talking frog is a hundred times more interesting for the media than the best scientist".

*groan* Quite the knee-slapper, eh? But it brings home several points for me, both as a citizen and a (not-very-accomplished) scientist. First of all, it is clear from his repeated use of this joke that Carty knew his job would be difficult, regardless of PM. I can tell you, from my own set of trivial experiences that, with few exceptions, non-scientists generally don't enjoy listening to scientists talk about, uhhh...science. And who can blame them, eh?

Remember: "...they talk too much..."

Ok, sometimes we get a little excited. Perhaps we've spent months or even years working on that one thing and can't wait to share it with you over the dinner table. Not because we're bragging, mind, but because it's all we can think about lately. But, we get carried away, and before we know it, our dinner companions are face-down and blowing bubbles in their soup. Stop! Stop! For the love of Gawd, somebody switch her offffffff! And that's just our friends. Family's not always so subtle.

Remember: "they...know everything better than you."

Ah Family. You see, much as they love you and can't wait to tell their friends that their daughter/son/talking-robot is a scientist, they sure as fuck don't want to hear about your daily science-type doin's. Sometimes parents manage to curtail your excitement without hurting your feelings, e.g. "Oh, that's nice, dear. Say, how are you fixed for panty-hose?" But sometimes it's not so nice. Sometimes the reaction is one of angry, Stephen-Harper-grade insecurity: "You think you're better than me, eh?"

While I can only speak for myself, I can honestly say that I've never thought I was "better" than anybody. At anything. What I can tell you for sure is that I've learned to never talk about my area of science anymore unless someone asks about about it first. That said, while I've tried to limit my discussion to small 'blurbs,' Mr. Kitty shows no such restraint about his own area of science. You see, although he's an otherwise modest and considerate human bean, Mr. Kitty loves his work, and he will not stop talking until the last man's drowned in his soup. And while this proves mildly embarrassing at times, I secretly love him to bits for it.

Shit. Where was I going with this? Right. Canada's "New" Government. Yes: to them, scientists are like annoying gnats, forever buzzing in your ears. And when Stephen Harper became PM, he made damn sure to fumigate his office. Remember that organizational diagram from 2004? With the direct line between the (O)NSA and the PMO? Here's what happened to that when PMS came along:

Soon after taking power, the Harper government moved the National Science Adviser position from the Privy Council Office down to Industry Canada, where Dr. Carty reports to the Minister there instead of directly to the PM.

This means that Dr. Carty's ONSA has been effectively neutered since the council was moved from the PCO. Seriously folks, what's the point in providing "independent" advice to the Prime Minister if that advice is first filtered through a Konservative hack like Jim Flaherty, our current Min. Industry? I reckon that lots of Carty's advice was already...how you say? Lost in translation. Sadly, removing the ONSA entirely just makes it official.

I don't know how the other parties will respond to this. Bear with me for a sec and take the case of the recent Chalk River/Linda Keen fiasco: while the bigger story is, quite rightly, about silencing whistleblowers, manufactured crises and the secret selling-off of our commonwealth, I also think it was illustrative of a more general unwillingness on the part of politicians of ALL stripes to educate themselves about scientific matters. I know, it's unfair to expect them to understand nuclear physics or nuclear medicine, but some of the comments (again, from ALL parties, mind) were downright cringe-worthy. Forgive me for saying this, but somebody needs to crack a fucking book. Unrealistic? Ok, get somebody who does know a thing or two to advise you. Like, a scientific advisor or...oh. Right.

So, even when a Member of Parliament has his/her heart in the right place (e.g. Save our planet! Stop poisoning our kids!), they still need good, independent scientific advice to fully elucidate the problem and to devise plans to address that problem. Who knows? Might even be worth putting up with a few annoying gnats. A final thought: It's worth remembering that, despite his enthusiasm for the appointment in 2004, Dr. Carty was clearly aware of the difficulties inherent in his job. It's not uncommon for independent scientific advice to be in tension with either corporate or political interests. That said, here's one thing the good chemist knew for sure: better to be the gnat-in-the-ear than the talking-frog that nobody listens to anymore. And with that, I'll leave you with Bob McDonald:

...those who feel threatened by a scientific finding, such as polluting industries, will lobby the government with their own experts who try to dismiss or cast doubt on the original finding. Notice I said dismiss or cast doubt. Industry-hired guns seldom arrive on the scene with their own evidence from experiments they performed and published that counter the mainstream idea. Usually, they’ll say, “I don’t believe it,” which is just an opinion, or they’ll look for small uncertainties in the data and focus on that to cast doubt on the results.
All science involves uncertainties - that’s the way the system works. But it takes a scientific eye to determine whether those uncertainties are significant or not. Without that perspective, a politician hears conflicting views or biased information that clouds the issue and confuses the public.

h/t Runesmith and LuLu

Hold onto your pearls, daaaaahlink: The F-word nominations are open!

2008-01-25T16:09:00.000-05:00

If you haven't visited Pale & Prole's wicked-kewl new Awards site, you really gotta go. Go now! Nominate your favourite Canadian feminist bloggers. Need somewhere to start? Checkout my blogroll--loads of good'uns there. Personally, I've been on a wild, nominatin' free-for-all! I've spent the last couple of hours (yes, hours *blush*) combing through my Blogroll to select my favourite feminazis...and those who love them. Some of you were out there bright 'n early, so if I didn't nominate you, I swear it was only 'cause someone else beat me to it ;) BTW, "Support Bro" has gotta be the bestest category-name evah!

Oh! The inaugural F-word Awards is accepting donations to "WISE," aka "Wellbeing thru Inclusion Socially and Economically."

Raising the collective voice of women who are living in poverty due to policies of exclusion;
Changing public understanding of poverty: from that of socioeconomic inevitability, to a condition of social and economic exclusion;
Encouraging community members to work with us to reduce poverty in our neighbourhoods to the benefit of all;
Ensuring that policymakers understand the worsening economic situation of an increasing number of Canadians to have a systemic cause, one that they can be instrumental in changing.

Please consider giving what you can to WISE via ACR and you will be entered into a draw for one (or a pair?) of Prole's infamous "Teutonic Titpillows." Talk about a conversation piece!

Va-Va-Va-Vooooom! And don't miss out on Pale's saucy new F-words Awards promo!

You wanna talk blushing? Kitty is both astonished and grateful to have been nominated this morning. I don't deserve it, given the lack of content here lately, but please know that I'm very touched!

Blog for Choice Day: "The Last Abortion Clinic"

2008-01-23T00:33:00.000-05:00

This year's "Blog for Choice" campaign asks us to consider "why [we] vote for choice." Why think about that now? Well, Tuesday marked the 35th Anniversary of the 'Roe v. Wade' decision, in the States. And while I'm not, nor have I ever been, an American, I think a lot of Canadian feminists worry that the anti-choice forces in our own country will gain inspiration from their trailblazin' American counterparts.

In November 2005, I watched a PBS/Frontline documentary that scared the ever-lovin' crap outta me. "The Last Abortion Clinic," used the state of Mississippi to illustrate how successful anti-choice forces have been at all-but totally restricting access to abortion care in that state (full video available here). At the time of filming, there was but one abortion clinic left in the entire State of Mississippi. And the anti-choicers weren't satisfied with that, either: early on in the doc, the Fetishizer-in-Chief vows to make Mississippi the first "Abortion Free" state in the Union.

And she's had a lot of help. Sure, Roe is still in effect, federally, but individual States have been able to chip away at access via State laws. In an effort to figure out how things got so bad in Mississippi, the filmmakers discovered that the real restrictions seemed to come after a 1992 Supreme Court decision, "Planned Parenthood v. Casey:"

The Court was asked to review provisions of a Pennsylvania abortion law which included the following restrictions on first trimester abortion: 1) informed consent, including giving the woman information on fetal development and the medical risks of abortion and childbirth; 2) a 24-hour waiting period; 3) for a minor, consent of at least one parent, with a judicial bypass option; and 4) for a married woman to sign a statement that she had notified her husband of the procedure.

The Court's ruling:
By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld all the provisions of the Pennsylvania law except spousal notification.

More significantly, while reaffirming the central holding of Roe v. Wade, the court rejected "Roe's rigid trimester framework" and changed the standard of review for laws regulating abortion to the "undue burden" standard proposed by Justice O'Connor in Webster. The majority opinion, written jointly by Justice O'Connor, Justice David Souter, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, explained, "An undue burden exists, and therefore a law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."

"Undue burden?!" While you and I might think that's ridiculous language to attach to a medical procedure, the anti-choicers saw this as an open-invitation to back-door shenanigans. *cough* The Frontline doc explains:

While the Court upheld Roe v. Wade, it changed the standard by which abortion laws would be judged. It allowed states to regulate abortion so long as they did not place an "undue burden" on the women seeking the procedure.

"...[E]ver since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, people got the impression that abortion was safe; Roe v. Wade was safe," explains William Saletan, the author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. "All the pro-choice people went home."

In the years after Casey, the pro-life movement has dramatically changed the landscape of abortion politics. In Mississippi alone, they helped pass 10 laws regulating abortion. And in the last two years, the state has passed legislation on fetal homicide prosecution, new clinic regulations, requirements to report abortion complications, rights of conscience, and a law that would prohibit the state's last abortion clinic from offering abortions beyond the first trimester.

If Mississippi sounds impossibly bad, hold on to your cervical cap, 'cause these kinds of laws and restrictions are cropping up just about everywhere in the U.S. of A. PBS has even provided a map offering "the most recent information (as of June 6, 2006) on these regulations." Visitors are encouraged to "click on the map for a particular state's laws concerning mandatory waiting periods, counseling, parental consent for minors, taxpayer funding for abortion, rights of conscience protection for healthcare workers, state regulation of abortion facilities, and more."

With each new restriction comes less choice. And what if your options in life are already limited by factors like poverty, class or rural isolation? Frontline interviewed an abortion clinic owner in the rural South who was able to give us some important perspective on this:

I think that we're being triaged. I think that basically the folks that are supportive of abortion rights are saying: "We can't save everybody, so let's just let Mississippi...go. We're not going to be able to save those women, and let's concentrate on who we can save." And that's frightening. Certainly it's frightening because we're here. We're being triaged, cast out, if you will.

But yet again, these women, the neediest of the needy, are being deserted. And when we have the most major spokespeople in the country backing away from the abortion issue, then there's no one left. Who's speaking for these women now?"

She goes on to explain how these State laws erode women's access to abortion care. The owner also reminds us how her State's refusal to fund either (a) the care itself or (b) the training required for new abortion providers (doctors, etc) affect access:

And so this whole movement has occurred where it's almost a death by a thousand cuts. Each little law that's passed, each little regulation that passed on the surface may not seem like that much. And, you know, even with the 24-hour law, it looks good. What's wrong with giving women information and letting them take 24 hours to think about it, until you realize all of the devastation that can cause? And few folks follow that to the natural conclusion."
[...]
The procedure itself, first-trimester abortion, is just simple. It is minor surgery. Regardless of what you think of abortion, regardless of the moral consequences, the one thing that is absolutely true is a first-trimester abortion is very safe and very easy to perform. So you have this paradox of the very simple procedure, this very safe procedure no one's being trained in, and such a level of harassment around doctors providing abortion care that it makes it really difficult to find physicians that are brave enough and willing to provide care.
[...]
And the state also provides no monies for abortion services, although they will provide all resources for prenatal care. So what the state has done is basically subjected a class of women, poor women, to forced maternity on behalf of the state.

And they can do it because they can get away with it. These are voiceless and faceless women. They don't have representation in the legislature or really in Congress. No one's speaking on their behalf. And in that example, to some extent, it is like the pre-Roe days...Abortion is not a fundamental right for many, many women, particularly for poor women and rural women. There's no doubt about it that it is as though abortion is illegal.

"No one's speaking on their behalf"

So. Who will speak up for these women, now? If we recall for a moment the 'official' Blog for Choice theme ('Why vote for choice?'), we can't help but worry about which 2008 presidential candidates will really speak up for these women. Gloria Feldt asked the same question, on Tuesday morning (Huffington Post):

The elections will determine the future for all of us Roes. That's why a mortally wounded Roe v Wade's 35th anniversary requires the candidates to answer my questions in full. Facile answers to "Are you pro-choice or anti-choice?" and "Do you support the Roe v Wade decision?" or "Do you believe the Constitution includes a right to privacy?" don't suffice any more.

I am Roe and I have these questions for presidential candidates:

1. Do you agree that reproductive rights are human rights? (If your answer is "no", do not pass go, do not collect my paltry campaign contribution, and no two-stepping explanation will bail you out.)

2. If your answer is "yes", tell me what you'll do to lead America to secure a more durable policy and legal basis for reproductive self-determination.

I am rooting for you, America's Pro-Choice population! I don't know whom you'll elect, but here are some parting links to help you make your choice about choice:

Cristina Page: "Republican Presidential Candidates Announce a Bold New Plan for American Women: Do-it-Yourself Abortion"
Rebecca Bauman: "Feminist or Terrorist?"
Katha Pollitt: "With Facts on our Side"
Associated Press: 'Values Voters' Hold Debate (Sept 17, 2007)
Scoop: "Bishop Romney's Sadistic Anti-Abortion Counseling"
PBS "NOW": "Post-Abortion Politics" (some states pushing "psychological harm" rules, i.e. docs have to warn women of bogus "post-abortion syndrome;" some states now have mandatory ultrasounds)
Sherry F. Colb: "What Proponents of the "Rape Exception" Teach Us About Abortion"
Dr. William F. Harrison: "I first met Hillary..." (Daily Kos, Aug 23, 2007). Dr. Harrison is an Ob/Gyn from Fayetteville, Arkansas and an old friend of Sen. Clinton's. Last summer, he offered some rhetorical advice for Clinton and others in the pro-choice movement.
John Edwards' voting record on reproductive rights
Hillary Clinton's voting record on reproductive rights
Barack Obama's voting record on reproductive rights
Dennis Kucinich's voting record on reproductive rights
John McCain's voting record on reproductive rights
Mitt Romney's record on reproductive rights
Mike Huckabee's record on reproductive rights
Ron Paul's record on reproductive rights
Rudy Giuliani's record on reproductive rights
Dr. Suzanne Poppema: "Four Abortion Myths Dispelled"
For lots, lots, LOTS more, visit Birth Pangs

*NB: The next American President will probably have an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, as well as untold numbers of lower-court Judges!

Update [Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 3:02 AM]: Read lots of other Canadian perspectives on the 35th anniversary of Roe. Too many great ones to link to individually!

Time to Celebrate! Presenting: the Canadian F-word Blog Awards

2008-01-17T01:12:00.001-05:00

Hear ye! Hear ye! Step right up and place your bets! Preeeeeeesenting: The Canadian ~~Feminist...d'oh!~~ F-word Blog Awards. Brought to you by the brilliant minds at 'A Creative Revolution.'

Snubbed by mainstream blog awards.

Accused of being "in a snit".

What's a feminist blogger to do when she's all dressed up with no place to go?
Announcing the First Annual Canadian F-word Blog Awards!

Join us in celebrating the best Canadian feminism has to offer - activists, artists, uppity women, and more snark than you can shake a stick at.
This event is being hosted by A Creative Revolution.

Nominations graciously accepted from January 25 to February 8
The nomination list
First voting/elimination round: February 15 - 16
Final Vote: February 22 - 23
Winners announced February 24

Now, I'm not posting this to prod anyone to vote for kitty, as I've only been blogging on a spotty, intermittent basis this last year or so. Also, I'm allergic to competition ;) Rather, I'm using this F-word awards announcement to take the opportunity to promote all the fantabulous Canadian feminist blogs out there. Take a look at the H&O blogroll--loads of great nominees right there, so please take the time to check'em out!

Hats off to Pale, Prole & co. for taking the initiative. And congratulations, pale, on the kick-ass video. Cheers!

Huckabee: love the one behind you

2008-01-10T02:20:00.000-05:00

Seriously, it's so important he said it twice (Iowa victory speech, Jan 3, 2008):

Ladies and gentlemen, I recognize that running for office is not hating those who are in front of us. It's loving those who are behind us.
[...]
Now, ladies and gentlemen, for the same reason that our founding fathers and those before us saw what was behind us and gave it their best, I ask you to join me across Iowa and the rest of America to look out there in front of us and not to hate those, but to look behind us, and to love them so much that we will do whatever it takes to make America a better country...

Who? Who's behind you, Huck? I mean, other than Chuck Norris, of course. Actually, I'm starting to think it's Republican hatchet-man, Ed Rollins (WaPo, Jan 2, 2008):

Rollins, as both a former pugilist and a backroom storyteller, is great with the blow-by-blow. So he's giving us his version of what happened. The original idea for the advertising campaign was his, says Rollins, who joined the campaign in December. Though not entirely comfortable with Rollins's approach, Huckabee certainly wasn't happy with what Romney was doing with his record.
[...]
"I told him, 'As far as I'm concerned, governor, it's your race. You've gotten this far. I've only been here two weeks,' " Rollins recalls. "But I also told him there's going to be a definite reaction, a cynicism from the press. You didn't have 100 reporters and 30 cameras sitting in a room because you're putting up a commercial. They think they're here to see Ed Rollins coming back to drop to the knees and fire at the groin of Mitt Romney."
[...]
He and Huckabee first met early last year at the New York home of Republican icon Georgette Mosbacher. After Huckabee spoke, Rollins, the grizzled brawler, says he felt deeply moved and told Huckabee so. Then, over the series of debates which Rollins calls "stupid," he watched Huckabee closely and grew to like him more. In early December, Rollins sent an e-mail to Huckabee offering his paid services, which Huckabee accepted.

"With someone like me," Rollins says, "you've got someone who's been around the track. If I don't have a good horse, I'm not going to win. But if I have a medium horse, I can make him a competitor. If I have a great horse, he's a winner. All I have to do is not fall off."

And Rollins proves, once again, that you never really forget your first time:

"This is not me going down some reminiscent trail," Rollins says. "It's me seeing someone who's tapping into a populist dissatisfaction in this country as it was in '92, as it was in '80 with Reagan. I mean this with all sincerity. I told my wife last night that I've haven't had more fun or been more turned on by a candidate since Reagan. There's a sincerity there. He's smart. He's a young Reagan."

Hey, Ed & Mike, I wish ya all the best. I just hope you don't live in Arkansas. Some batshit crazy pastor-governor tried to enact all kindsa homophobic laws there (from Think Progress):

Huckabee is against gay marriage, arguing that “civilization” may not survive if “what marriage and family means” is “rewritten.” As Governor of Arkansas, he “avidly” supported the state amendment banning gay marriage. That wasn’t the only anti-gay public policy Huckabee pushed in Arkansas:
– In 1997, Huckabee requested an amendment to a state Senate bill stating “that it is Arkansas public policy to prohibit sodomy to protect the traditional family structure.” [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/23/1997]
– In 1998, Huckabee supported banning gay men and women from acting as foster parents because “it is not in the best interest of children.” [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/29/1998]
– In 2003, Huckabee said “If you ask for survivor benefits to be paid to a same-sex survivor, I think we have a right to say no to that.” [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/3/2003]

Well, the good news is that you have a choice. You don't have to love the one behind you, at least not within earshot of Tim Russert. And you certainly don't have to marry the one behind you. But it's a darn good thing you took precautions and renewed your vows to Janet--that "covenant marriage" is really paying off! Just think of the mess you'd be in without your super-duper-control-top marriage! *cough*

Oh, and unlike the fuddy duddies in Arkansas, I don't begrudge you your covenant wedding ceremony, Huck. In fact, I tip my hat--you and Janet really knew how to make Arkansans feel...um...included in your family's special moments (Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone):

Huckabee has also been accused of paying himself as a consultant to his own senatorial campaign, allowing special interests to pay for airline tickets for his daughter, receiving a canoe from a Coke bottler and — hilariously, if you're wont to laugh at the sheer small-town gauche greediness of it all — setting up a "wedding registry" at Target and Dillard's department stores so citizens could lavish the Huckabees with gifts as they renewed their marriage vows. The long list of desired goodies included twenty-four settings of Lenox "Holiday Nouveau" china, a KitchenAid mixer and a "Jack La Lanne power juicer." If you didn't want to pick out something yourself, the Huckabees were glad to take straight cash. "Message from the couple," the registry noted. "Target GiftCards are welcome."

Say, Huck? Gawsh, this is embarrassing, but I gotta confess: I couldn't track down a "Power Juicer" for your big day. Perhaps I could interest you instead in a Power...uh. Nemmind.

h/t to the awesome Rachel Maddow, for the Huckabee Iowa speech (mentioned on her Jan 4th show)

"Testicle lockboxes" and other 2008 Love Stories (Updated)

2008-01-08T05:47:00.000-05:00

Now that's one helluva title, eh? I first heard this charming expression on the December 7th broadcast of Bill Moyers' Journal. I should hasten to add that Moyers was merely quoting, among others, the execrable Rush Limbaugh:

I mean on Rush Limbaugh, he talks about Clinton's testicle lockbox. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson says there's just something about her that feels castrating. One of his guests, a former spokesman from the Republican National Committee, Clifford May, says that if Clinton is going to appeal to women for support on the basis of her gender, at least call her a vaginal-American.

Hey! Remember the 90s? Yeah. Me too. You know, I realize this might be a huge leap for some of you Konservatives out there, but it's actually OK to find fault with Sen. Clinton without dragging out your inner caveman. Gawd, this is so retro...or so I thought. I mean, we're all aware of Limbaugh and Tucker and their "schtick." No surprises there. Who listens to these pilonidal cysts anywayz?

The internets. The misogynistic anti-Hillary vids and social-wotsitz are full of poisonous, violent, sexual imagery about the Jr. Senator from the State of New York. Moyers interviewed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and Prof. Jamieson has unearthed an entire 'underground' (or rather, 'innertubez') network of impossibly hateful online-stuff. On Facebook, par example:

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: [...] the graphic images, the images that are manufactured to be placed in these [anti-Hillary Facebook] sites are such that you wouldn't want to be associated with them in any way, nor would I. And they contain such things as graphic representations of what a donkey should do to Hillary Clinton. They contain language suggesting various sexual acts in relationship to Hillary Clinton. They reduce Hillary Clinton to various sexual body parts. They engage in characterizations of her in relationship to her policies.
[...] BILL MOYERS: Here are some of the entries from Facebook, you know? "Hillary can't handle one man; how can she handle 150 million of them? Send her back to the kitchen to get a sandwich. She belongs back with the dishes, not upfront with the leaders." It goes on and on like that.

[click "Read on, MacDuff!" to continue reading]
First off, do not make the mistake of interpreting Jamieson's research as an endorsement of Sen. Clinton. Both Jamieson and Moyers go out of their respective ways to state that they're not endorsing anyone. Jamieson is an old hand (pardon the ageist expression) at this media studies stuff, particularly following media portrayals of women in leadership positions (e.g. her 1995 book on the subject). As such, she is able to put some of these interwebz attacks in context (to Moyers):

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, and at one time there was actually an argument that if women became educated, they would become infertile. There was also, for a long period of time, serious penalties for women who tried to speak in public. And the residue of this is a language that suggests that women in power cannot be women and be in power. And as a result, as Hillary Clinton certifies herself as being tough enough to be president, competent enough to be president, these attacks say then she can't be president because she's not actually a woman. And you can't trust someone who is that inauthentic. So underlying this and underlying the vulgarity and underlying the assertions of raw sexual violence is deep fear about a woman holding power.
But I'm not sure that it's only about that with Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton has been attacked as long as she's been in the public sphere. She came into national public awareness with the candidacy of Bill Clinton. Some of this coincides with attacks on liberals and Hillary Clinton as a liberal woman. Some of this coincides with original attacks when she was in the White House and what was framed as exercise of unelected power. And one of the questions that-- I find interesting is this hypothetical. Let's say if Elizabeth Dole was this far along in the polls for the Republican nomination. Would she be subject to the same kinds of attacks? And I think the answer is no.

Moyers went on to play some of the more 'benign' (PBS-safe, non bestial etc.) clips of these viral video attacks. You can watch them at the PBS website (piece with Jamieson begins at 4 min 11 sec). Some are just plain goofy--Hillary's the devil--the hornz! Or, Hillary's a witch! The cackle!

Wait...Witch? Don't you mean...um. Yeah. "How do we beat the bitch?"

BILL MOYERS: This is why some women whom I know and respect say, as much as they admire Hillary Clinton for her role all these years, they would rather see her not run next year because it's going to open up all of this animosity, vilification, and vituperation.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: One of the complications of this is we're moving into new linguistic territory. And we haven't found a way to discuss this. When a woman stands up and asks Senator McCain, "How do we beat the bitch?" and there isn't a clear statement by Senator McCain that that's not the way one characterizes, you know, my opponent on the Democratic side. And there's not a public commentary that surrounds it the way there was a public commentary about the statement by Imus or about the comedian from SEINFELD. Essentially what we say to the culture at large is that must be appropriate discourse to apply to a female candidate running for office — or at least this female candidate.
BILL MOYERS: It's okay to talk this way.

Look, I can't say, in all honesty, that I was surprised when this McCain-supporter clip first hit the media. Or to hear the "B" word used in this context. I just spent some time in Florida and that word was flyin' around a lot viz Sen. Clinton. Ditto for any epithets relating to the damage or "busting," if you will, of a certain prized pair of organs. (She's a socialist! She wants to turn us into a nanny state!). Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton has attained a certain bugaboo status down South that has nothing to do with, well, anything she's actually done.

She is a caricature--a face at which they can throw their darts/stick their pins/throw their poo.

Sidebar to the passionately anti-Hillary progressives out there--and you must trust me when I say this--they are not pondering the finer nuances of her positions on the Peru Free Trade Act or the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment when they fling their poo. Quite the contrary. Believe me, they know nothing of this incarnation of Hillary Clinton.

No. This is the manifestation of 15+ years of utterly fucked-up authoritarian/follower, call/response B.S. Call it Konservative Konditioning, but I'm afraid it's just pure reflex now.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: The way we find that these kinds of characterizations of Hillary Clinton have been out there is to look to other forms of media throughout the 1990s where we do, indeed, find them. Hillary Clinton as dominatrix, for example, is one of the ongoing themes and one of the parodies on Rush Limbaugh.

Which brings us back to Rush. Poor, helpless 1990s-Rush. Back then, you know, before Media Matters and the internetz, the only way a Canadian like me could learn about Rush was through the comedic writings of Al Franken and Michael Moore. And yea, I did read Franken and Moore, and I was suitably horrified, not just by Rush's shenanigans, but those of his callers & compatriots in AM Radioland. From Moore's 1997 "Downsize This" (Chapter 20, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary"):

Bill and Hillary are attending the first baseball game of the season. Just before the game starts, Bill picks up the First Lady and throws her out on the field. "No! No!" cries an adviser. "Mr. President, you're here to throw out the first *p*itch!" --Joke heard on right-wing talk radio.
[...]
Talk radio has ...made Hillary its favorite target, bashing her up one side and down the other for a list of sins that, if they weren't filled with so much inciteful violence against her, would be hysterical. Callers like to describe what they would do to her if given the chance.

What does Hillary Clinton do every morning after she shaves her pussy? She sends him off to work in the White House. Why has Hillary Clinton banned miniskirts in the White House? Because she doesn't want anyone to see her balls.

Classy, eh? Well, here's where I'm still attempting to square the circle, as it were: Moore wrote about this stuff in 1997. But this Godfather of the Modern Lefty Polemic wrote about this in a chapter entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." What's more (punny!), Moore actually referred to her as a "Shit kickin' feminist babe." Can you imagine Moore serenading her thusly in this election year? The Senator Clinton of 2008? Yeah, neither can he. In fact, just last Wednesday, Moore published a letter about his lost love (Jan 2, 2008):

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve.

Blah, blah, blah, you know the rest of the progressive rap sheet on Sen. Clinton. So Moore went on to speak less harshly of ~~Teh Hope! Look! It's Hope!~~ Obama, but, like Nader, he eventually kinda endorsed John Edwards. Look, it's probably a mug's game to talk endorsements and progressive "cred." So Edwards has Nader, Moore, Sarandon and Robbins. Obama has Kucinich, most of Hollywood, Oprah and her Book Club (Hey, she was right about that Poisonwood Bible thing!). Clinton? Hmm...that ol' peacenik McGovern endorsed her, and so did RFK Jr. Not to be sniffed at, you know.

Le Sigh. They are all flawed candidates. Can I speak personally for a second? Ok: I'm deeply uneasy about all of them. I warn you, though: while some of my discomfort is the result of years of reading and serious-pants-discussion, some of my reasons are just downright "gut level," but not, I repeat NOT the result of Konservative Konditioning! (if anything, they're the result of too much Simpsons-viewing). Ok. Deep breath. You can do this, kitty...year of blogging dangerously, and all that sherry-infused-New-Years-crap. Here goes:

I confess, I used to idolize Clinton in the early days post-Reagan/BushI. She was exciting, I was in Grade 13, and never heard anyone talk like her before. Fast-forward to the Senate years and...oy. So disappointing. Clinton's voting record on trade, war funding and Iran have been almost ALL wrong, and I really have to grep my memory for exceptions. I did like how she put a hold on that creepy anti-choice FDA nominee, von Eschenbach and gave Rumsfeld the dressing down of a lifetime at the Abu Ghraib hearings. And the woman can do research--that I have seen in some of her committee performances. You know: for what it's worth, 'n all.

Obama likes to talk about how good his judgement was pre-Iraq, but his Senate votes re: Iraq have been virtually identical to Clinton's (save for the one regarding confirmation of Gen. Casey--Clinton was ag'in him). Sure, I will grant you that Obama's a phenomenal speaker, but he has an annoying habit of...uhh...not actually saying anything. I still don't know WTF the man is really for, do you? (And P.S.: small point, but what kinda narcissist writes their memoirs at 34 years old? I wannu know!).

For his part, Edwards has really been talkin' the talk since he got his Golly-Gee-ass handed to him in 2004. The capital-L-Labour talk hits all the right buttons. And you gotta love Elizabeth--I mean it, you really gotta love Elizabeth. Unlike her hubby, she's not afraid to come right out (pardonnez-moi) and advocate for equal marriage. Not afraid of no Coultergeists, neither. No sirree. And for all the MSM flak she's taken for being a 'loose cannon,' the woman is totally fearless about speaking extemporaneously on just about any topic. I luvs it. Elizabeth should be running.

But. Try as I might, I'm just not "feelin' it" for John boy. I give him top marks for admitting his mistake on the 2002 AUMF for Iraq. But the dude was on the intelligence committee back then. How could he have missed it? Even dotey ol' Bob Graham was motoring around the country with his hair on fire, trying to warn his fellow donkeys.

And...this is kinda cynical of me, but perhaps I've heard Edwards' speech too many times to buy it. I think it's called: Sonofamillworker, which is one word, btw. Ok there's more than one speech--there's the 2004 version and the 2007 "Remix." Other petty campaign notes? It helps to point at an actual millworker in the audience, if available, but any guy in a STP trucker hat will do in a pinch. Really. He's probably just happy you came. Just don't engage him if he asks you about how you might actually back out of these horrible-yet-entrenched trade agreements with a recalcitrant Congress and absolutely zero policy apparatus. Note to John: direct questions to Elizabeth. Or, if you've got a lotta time to kill, just talk about your favourite movie or something...wait, what's that again? Did we settle on Dr. Strangelove? I can't remember.

Ok, I'm done pissing and moaning. Seriously, it's a good thing I have the luxury of turning up my nose from above the 49th, eh? I honestly don't know what I'd do, if I were 'merican. I mean, we could go whole vegan-hog and dismiss them all if you'd like, as they did on Democracy Now. Turns out the top 3 are all evul warmongers suffering from American exceptionalism syndrome. So what else is new? What do you do if you're an American? Stay home? Wait for Nader? I mean, the guy's gonna run as soon as Edwards flames out. (Seriously: what do you expect him to do when that happens?)

I don't know what I'd do. But I do know I have one thing in common with Michael Moore: I miss 1992 Hillary. And I luuurve 2008 Elizabeth Edwards. Ladies & Gentlemen: Hail to the 'Vaginal Americans!'
Oh. At least for now, Barack can be their Attorney General. Or Toast Master General. Or maybe they can put him in charge of the lockbox. Oh, get your mind outta the gutter, ditto heads: I just mean he's got a thing or two to learn about Social Security ;)

Photo Credits: circa-1990s photo of Hillary Rodham Clinton via "Downsize This," by Michael Moore, 1997. Photo by Dennis Brack (Black Star). Elizabeth Edwards via "First Wives Club Contenders"

UPDATE [Jan 8, 2:37 PM]--Wow, I didn't see this story before I wrote my post:

Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business," Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.

Earlier in the day, Clinton became emotional when speaking to a group of voters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Grrr! Not cool, Johnny. Not cool :( Amanda Marcotte and Antonia Zerbisias have more to say. From Ross K (the comments at Antonia's place), it looks like one of Edwards' campaign managers ("Mudcat" Saunders) got a dressing down from teh awesome Rachel Maddow. FWIW, neither Marcotte, Zerbisias, nor Maddow are in any way, shape or form declared for HRC.

Happy New Year, Gorgeous HappySad

2008-01-05T04:16:00.000-05:00

"Sea Green" from William Orbit's "Hello Waveforms" CD:

This is one of the many reasons I am lucky to have met Mr. Kitty. I don't know where he finds such gorgeous music, but he does. Not bad for guy who's 1/2 deaf, eh?

Love & kisses, my gorgeous happysad. Here's to 2008!

Merry Whozits and Happy Wotsit from the Kitty

2007-12-25T01:37:00.000-05:00

Wishing all of you a peaceful, happy holiday. May you enjoy the simple pleasures that life has to offer--good food, good friends, good...uhh...poinsettia wrappers?

Be good to each other. Lots of love & hugs,
GDK

The Mumbrage: The most melodramatic drinking game on The Hill

2007-12-16T15:49:00.000-05:00

Oh! The Draaaaama! Have you recovered, yet, Brian? I'm not sure that I have. Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've probably heard that the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11), your friendly neighbourhood kitty took notes. Too many notes! I hope you find them useful: I've added links to documents, articles and references to Karlheinz Schreiber's testimony.

You can find my notes at my not-so-live-blog "Foul Deeds," in twelve parts:

Part I: "It was like a near-death experience," except it wasn't
Part II: I'll be on the couch, since you're already on the Cross
Part III: International Man of Mystery
Part IV: It was all very sophisticated
Part V: "Winnipeg in January? Now, that's downright nutty!"
Part VI: A perfectly legitimate businessman
Part VII: The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately
Part VIII: "You've been very generous with your taxes"
Part IX: Comartin brings it!
Part X: Never ask a man 'how big' it was
Part XI: "I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"
Part XII: "Clean as a hound's tooth"

Ugh, wasn't it bad enough to live with him for 8 yrs--I gotsta seez him puff & blow & point on teh TV, too? As Heather Mallick said, it was downright excruciating. His blowhardiness knew no limits, and I've taken significant pains to document each and every spit-take and eyeroll-worthy comment he made. In fact, as I noted in Part II ("I'll be on the couch, since you're already on the Cross"), I really wish that I had proposed a Mulroney Drinking Game: Take a shot whenever BM says "my family" or "international(ly)."

Contradictions and admissions to oily-oozy-sleazy behaviour are noted in blue-text as "Whoops!" or "Oopsie!" to draw your attention to the low-lights of BM's testimony. Check-out this testy exchange with Thibault, par example:

Thibault (LPC): did the money go through the law firm, the two subsequent amounts?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: they didn't go through the law firm (Whoops!)
Thibault (LPC): thank you...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed) No, just a minute! I negotiated a provision w/the law firm that would allow me to deal with this kind of matter in the manner that I did. It was an exception...
Thibault (LPC): thank you
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it was a single exception to the partnership rule.
Thibault (LPC): thank you, I appreciate your brevity. You were working for Thyssen internationally--did you report to Thyssen on the work that you did, either in written reports to Thyssen or to Mr. S?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: not in written reports, but to Mr. Schreiber, yes. (Whoops x 2)
Thibault (LPC): did you make notes of your progress?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Thibault (LPC): can you provide them to the cmte?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I can't provide them to the cmte today. (Whoops x 3) It was some 14-15 yrs ago.
[...]
Thibault (LPC): In your deposition, in lawsuit against gov Canada, on pg 98, question 276, you said you've never had a bank acct outside Montreal, and never have. How do you explain that?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: It was a safety deposit box. (Whoops x 4)

So: the Schreiber money went into BM's 'international' consulting business, but he's destroyed any record of these transactions (or work completed in exchange for the cash). And the cash sat in safety deposit boxes. Nice, huh? And it got worse...here's the BQ's Ménard (and, later, chairman Szabo) with more fun-with-missing-documents:

Ménard (BQ): did you keep track of your "professional work?" (*snerk*)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed) yes, I said so.
Ménard (BQ): yes, you did speak about it, but you had some accounting, some time-sheets?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't have any accounting, (Oopsie!) [...]
Ménard (BQ): that's what I'm trying to understand...you had 75K in cash in a safety deposit box...you were travelling. Did you regularly get money from that (box) to get money for the trip?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, not at all, I used my credit card. When I was travelling internationally. As you know, as a lawyer in Montréal, I was travelling for a number of clients, so I used my credit cards, and at the end, I assigned a very modest percentage of that to Mr. Schreiber's acct. The rest I kept either for the office or for myself.
Ménard (BQ): did you keep track of that? Any notes on the amount you attributed? Where did you write it down?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I kept it in the records I had w/me, I gave a file to Mr. Yeltsin...(Huh? We have to go dig up Boris to find out?!)
[...]
Szabo (chair, LPC): referring to the safety deposit box in your home, but you also referred to a ledger you were keeping? You have a written ledger?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, that was 15 yrs ago. As soon as the tax issues were resolved, I disposed of those documents. (Major Oopsie!)

Comartin managed to get BM to repeat this particular confession, later in the hearing. Aside: it must be said that Comartin and Ménard really served us well on Thursday. Thibault, too. No showboating or hammin' it up for the cameras (*cough* Pat Martin *cough*). Just short, sharp questioning. But lest any Konservatives try to persuade you that this was a partisan "feeding frenzy"--a phrase BM used ad nauseum on Thursday--here's CPC ~~Ralph Reed~~ Russ Hiebert evincing yet another confession from the Man without a Past:

Hiebert (CPC): when Mr. Schreiber provided that money, did you give him a kind of receipt?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't, in fact, he didn't even indicate to me---he told a newspaper that, when he gave it to me, that I had no idea what the amount was or the denominations were--and he told someone else on TV that he's a European businessman and that's how transactions were done...and that's essentially what he told me, so I had no idea. (Whoops!)

That's right: no receipt or invoices for services rendered to Schreiber. None. Never. Not ever. This grand, 'International' ~~Man of Mystery~~ businessman couldn't issue an invoice against his retainer? Why the hells not, if it was 'perfectly legitimate business?' It beggars belief. In fact, it's so literally incredible that even Conservative hack Mike Wallace returned to the receipt question, later in the hearing (and got the same answer, but with added Mumbrage --Mulroney umbrage):

Wallace (CPC): so you've provided him w/no receipt and he's asked for absolutely none.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's correct. He was satisfied w/the full report I gave him--over an hour!--at the Pierre Hotel in NYC. And he said, "this is tremendous initiatives, hard work, visiting these heads of state..." (Oh, *puke* enough with the Yeltsin meetings, already!)

And so it went. The Mumbrage. The hurt puppy looks. The dramatic readings from newspaper clippings (e.g. the Schreiber loves me/He loves me not sequence for Del Mastro). Yes, our former PM clearly fancies himself quite the ac-TOR:

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!
My gorge rises at it.--Hamlet Act 5, scene 1, 179–188

But, perhaps most cringe-worthy of all were his repeated allusions to his poor family--teh wife! teh kidz! This grew quite tiresome and, uhhhh...rich. I can't imagine how you coped, sir:

Well, he had enough money to be able to buy a mansion at 47 Forden Cres. in upper Westmount, the richest part of the richest Montreal neighbourhood, for $1.675 million. And then he and Mila proceeded to spend at least $700,000 fixing up the home, which includes an indoor swimming pool.
[...]
To top it off, the "broke" Mulroney managed to find a job within days of stepping down as prime minister, returning to one of his old employers, the Montreal law firm of Ogilvy Renault. The salary wasn't disclosed, but you can bet it meant he was no longer poor.

Ok, I will grudgingly concede that Mulroney testified that he was not in critical financial trouble post-PM (e.g. in his exchange w/Murphy). But would you believe he actually had teh ballz to liken his tribulations to a: (1) "near death experience," (2)"long and painful nightmare," (3) "catastrophe," and (4) "calamity?" He practically begged the committee's pity. And as Mulroney is wont to do, he went too far...he actually asked the cmte to remember the story of a little boy named James Moore and that ~~wicked witch~~ "errant MP" who accused him of watching teh pr0n. I shit you not:

Last week, a fine young parliamentarian had his reputation assaulted, when a fellow MP made damaging allegations about him in the HOC. Within minutes, this story was across the country, particularly in BC, where he lives, works and represents a constituency in the HOC. His reputation was damaged, his credibility affected, and his integrity challenged. [...]Fortunately, the errant MP soon apologized and withdrew the false allegation. But the damage was done. But what happens to you if there is no prompt withdrawal (like, the rhythm method?) and you are forced to fight on frequently for years and at enormous emotional and financial cost to defend yourself and your family against this accusation? What happens to you? And your kids? (your kids?! They go to Harvard and/or host crappy knock-off reality shows?) Twelve years ago, my reputation, legacy and family honour were almost destroyed on the basis of false information conveyed to the Swiss government.

Yup. That's our B2theM: classy-to-the-max!

Well, before I leave y'all to read the details, I want to take a sec to direct your attention to Impolitical and Curiosity Cat--they've done some truly excellent boiling-down to brass tacks, pointing out contradictions and sniffing out the more putrid or dodgy statements. Andrew Coyne had an impressive post about this, too. So...until February, eh? Think of teh kidz! ;)Photo credits: Icanhascheezburger (melodrama & cruel world)

Schreiber's last stand: B-b-b-benoît and the Jets

2007-12-13T02:03:00.000-05:00

Yes, it's your congenitally late Schreiber-blogger kitty, returning with her head hung in shame, as it's taken her far too long to organize her notes from Tuesday's proceedings. Yes, Karlheinz Schreiber returned to the Commons Ethics committee for the fourth time on Tuesday, Dec 11. As with the three previous meetings (Nov 29, Dec 4, and Dec 6), quote at your own risk ;) I hope you find these notes useful: I've added links to documents, articles and Schreiber's previous testimony.

If you're looking for proper live-blogging, look no further than Kady O'Malley's blog at Maclean's. The National Post's Jeremy Barker also did a wonderful job of blogging the hearing.

You can find my notes at my not-so-live-blog "Foul Deeds," in eight parts:

Part I: B-b-b-benoît and the Jets
Part II: Make me late for breakfast
Part III: Bros before PMOs
Part IV: Won't get fooled again!
Part V: "You may be the next one who's going to sell hot dogs"
Part VI: "No room for any bargains with me"
Part VII: This isn't 24/7 for me...I have a life, you know
Part VIII: "It started in Alberta..."

Tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow...we get Mulroney!

Oh, shit. Just realized it's already Thursday morning. I'd better get to bed! Mulroney's up, avec famille, at 09.00h! Night night!

Photo credits: Stereogum.ca and Don Burleson blog. Don't worry! The pics will make more sense when you read the notes ;)

Gentlemen, you can't lie in here--this is the Ethics Committee!

2007-12-09T23:59:00.000-05:00

Karlheinz Schreiber returned to the Commons Ethics committee for the third time on Thursday, December 6. While I can't fully explain it, Committee Chairman Paul Szabo is really starting to remind me of Peter Sellers' President Merkin Muffley character in Dr. Strangelove:

Ok, maybe it's just the baldness. I mean, he doesn't really say much of anything, but he does have to contend with the sputterings emanating from the CPC table. Does Vice-Chair Tilson remind me of General Buck Turgidson? *pffffft* Now that's a bit of a stretch...

Alright. A full 3 days later, your friendly neighbourhood kitty has finally gotten around to posting her notes from the hearing. As with the two previous meetings (Nov 29 and Dec 4), this is NOT a transcript, but I've done my best to annotate the notes with links to documents, articles and references to Schreiber's previous testimony. Again, I must be honest with you: if you're looking for true live-blogging, check out Kady O'Malley's blog at Maclean's or The National Post's Paige Aarhus. The committee itself hasn't posted the official transcript yet.

You can find my notes at my not-so-live-blog "Foul Deeds," in eight parts:

Part I: Who's Afraid of a Big, Bad Inquiry?
Part II: The Sweet Smell of Success Fees
Part III: What happens in Switzerland, stays in Switzerland
Part IV: Party Pooper
Part V: "Everybody wanted to get something"
Part VI: And if Brian asked you to jump off a bridge, would you do that, too?
Part VII: Bless this Mess
Part VIII: You can't lie to me--this is the Ethics Committee!

By this time, you've probably already heard about the so-called "smoking gun" letter that Schreiber wrote to Mulroney, particularly this bit:

I am prepared to disclose:
that you received payments from GCI, Frank Moores, Fred Doucet, Gary Ouellet, that I was asked by Fred Doucet to transfer funds to your Lawyer in Geneva, (Airbus) what the reason was for your trip to Zuerich in 1998, that you asked me through my lawyers to commit perjury to protect you, that you supported fraud related to the Thyssen project and more.

Pretty nasty, eh? Well, you can imagine that just about all of the hearing was devoted to teasing out more information about these "disclosures." The Cons were quick to point to Schreiber's July 2006 letter to Mulroney--yes, the glowing, obsequious letter that Schreiber swears was dictated to him by Elmer MacKay. The crux of Schreiber's defence here is that Mulroney demanded Schreiber sign MacKay's letter in exchange for getting PM Harper's help with KHS's rather persistent extradition problem. The Cons weren't buying that: both Wallace and Hiebert asked KHS why he would sign a letter that wasn't true.

Now, here's something I'm having a lotta trouble confirming/debunking: at one point, Dean Del Mastro (hear his mighty roar!!) tried to trap Schreiber into admitting that Pierre Bourque Sr (a Liberal! Gah!) owned GCI at the time that Schreiber was allegedly asked to direct money (from GCI) to Brian Mulroney. This would have been in the late 90s. Schreiber insisted that GCI was still under the control of the late Frank Moores, and didn't have any clue what Del Mastro was puffing and ranting about. Frankly, neither did I, so I did some lazy-Sunday searching and this is the best I could do:

I couldn't confirm Del Mastro's allegation that Bourque Sr. owned GCI.
I can find references to Bourque using GCI as a lobbying firm for his own developing company, but, at most, I think Bourque had partial ownership (this site refers to a Globe & Mail article hinting that Bourque was part-owner).
Bourque Sr. was convicted on Jan 31, 2000 for tax-evasion:

What's unusual about this case is the source of the unreported income. It was paid to Bourque by GCI, a lobbying group with links to the conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It's also a company that was working for Bourque to secure the lease of an $80-million building constructed by the developer. [...] Pat MacAdam, a former friend of Brian Mulroney who worked for GCI, was paid $250,000 for successfully landing the lease. MacAdam was also convicted of income tax evasion for failing to report this income.

If anybody has any more information about this, please lemme know. I will update my site with a correction/addendum.

Oh! One more interesting thing that came totally outta the blue on Thursday: a little piece of disturbing Manitoba politics. NDP MP Pat Martin asked Schreiber about his correspondence with former Min. Justice Vic Toews. At first, I just figured that Martin was going to ask whether Schreiber was angry that Toews wasn't helping him with his extradition problem, but this took me completely by surprise:

Martin (NDP): is it possible that Vic Toews wanted you out of the country b/c there's some connection with what happened in Manitoba, with the overthrow of the NDP government?

Huh?! Well, I didn't have to look too far to find out what Martin was talking about:

Mr. Pawley was elected premier of Manitoba in 1981.

In 1988, his NDP government was enduring criticism for raising auto insurance premiums by 21% and barely had the numbers to pass its budget by a slim margin. But to general surprise, NDP MLA Jim Walding voted against it and brought down the government, after which Mr. Pawley resigned.

The NDP was reduced to 12 seats, while the Tories under Gary Filmon won a majority and ended up ruling Manitoba until 1999, though questions remained about the chain of events.

Mr. Walding subsequently bought a large home in British Columbia that some suggested exceeded his means. Mr. Walding, who died last April of cancer, always maintained he voted out of principle because he felt Pawley's government had lost touch with voters.

[...]

"This member had indicated that very day that he was going to support the budget, but when the actual vote came, to everyone's surprise, he voted against the budget."

Mr. Pawley, 73, will not speculate what might happen at hearings, but he said he hopes Mr. Schreiber will at least be forced to discuss the issue further. Was his government brought down by criminal means?

*shrug* Dunno if this will come to anything, but it's definitely curious, eh? Speaking of exotic animals not-found-in-my-guidebook, has anyone ever heard of Derek Haniford (sp?)? Martin asked Schreiber if he knew Haniford, and he denied it. Apparently he was the head of the Privatization Commission for the Manitoba Cons. Martin also wanted to know if Schreiber had heard of the "Prenor Trust Company" (he had not). As near as I can figgur, Prenor collapsed in 1993. I've absolutely no idea if/why that's germane to these hearings. But please dish if you know something, okay?

So, my pretties, we wait...Schreiber returns again on Tuesday, Dec 11, and Mulroney is tentatively scheduled to bring his Big Sack o' Umbrage with him on Thursday.

moar funny pictures

Red Roses on White Snow

2007-12-06T20:36:00.000-05:00

Across the country, Canadians took a moment to remember the 14 women killed at l’École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989:

Anne St-Arneault, 23
Geneviève Bergeron, 21
Hélène Colgan, 23
Nathalie Croteau, 23
Barbara Daigneault, 22
Anne-Marie Edward, 21
Maud Haviernick, 29
Barbara Klueznick, 31
Maryse Laganière, 25
Maryse Leclair, 23
Anne-Marie Lemay, 22
Sonia Pelletier, 23
Michèle Richard, 21
Annie Turcotte, 21

In my travels, I've been privileged to attend Dec 6th memorials at three different Universities. While I am not an engineer myself, I have always been impressed by the engineering students who organize these vigils. I am especially touched by the growing numbers of male students who attend and don the white ribbon--pledging to "never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls."

There are so many ways to honour, to grieve, and to remember our lost sisters. Candles, roses, or even a simple moment of silence. Just this morning, I was thinking about the first time I attended a ceremony at McMaster, last December. Fourteen red-roses were laid before the commemorative stone in front of the Engineering building ("JHE" as it's known). I remembered that I'd wished I'd had a photo of the roses. Today I remembered my camera:

My beautiful sisters: I wish I could find the words to honour you properly. Please know that you are not forgotten.

"Wash me, but don't make me wet"--Schreiber returns!

2007-12-05T16:08:00.000-05:00

Karlheinz Schreiber returned to the Commons Ethics committee on Tuesday--avec ses notes! (video here). My husband and I are still sharing one measly computer, so I didn't have an opportunity to post my notes from Tuesday until now. This is NOT a transcript, but I feel that it's important to archive them here for future reference. Again, I must be honest with you: if you're looking for true live-blogging, replete with witty running commentary, look no further than Kady O'Malley's blog at Maclean's. The National Post's Paige Aarhus also did a wonderful job of blogging the hearing. The closest thing that I can find to a 'proper' transcript is here, at David Akin's site.

You can find my notes at my not-so-live-blog "Foul Deeds," in eight parts:

Part I: Canada, the Trojan Horse
Part II: To Sir, With Love
Part III: Saudis, Pasta, and the Unstoppable Kim Campbell
Part IV: 'Helpful Donations' and that Dirty, Dirty Liberal Airline
Part V: Hey, why don't you look at the documents?!
Part VI: "Wash me, but don't make me wet"
Part VII: Mike Wallace plays Matlock
Part VIII: Fellas, please! It's really hard to hear with all this Conservapoo flying around

(Last Thursday's notes can be found here, beginning with Part I)

Some passing thoughts on Tuesday's "Christmas" presents: they went over like a lead balloon! In fact, I'd wager that the only people who were pleased with these 'revelations' were the BQ and their provincial counterparts (Oooh! Charest!). And, FWIW, Charest is denying that he received $30 000 from Schreiber to finance his 1993 PC leadership campaign.

The HarperCons squirmed and agitated throughout Tuesday's proceedings, but overall, they seemed right pleased with themselves. The smarmy Del Mastro tried to leave us with the impression that the Airbus deal was just good business. Y'know...bizness. Wallace, last seen getting booed at the Toronto vigil for Robert Dziekanski, made a total arse of himself, interrupting and barking legal-ish objections towards the end of the hearing. Wallace was irritated that Schreiber said he'd received assurances from Mulroney that Harpo was on-side (to intervene in Schreiber's extradition).

Mulcair and Martin continued to play tag-team on the NDP side of the committee, but it was much smoother than Thursday's go-round. Martin has a problem, constantly playing for the camera...he wears a permanently aggrieved look and tends to repeat phrases like, "Bags of cash!" By contrast, Mulcair was the consummate professional and conducted his line of questioning very efficiently, even eliciting the secondary 'bomblet-shell' of the afternoon: Schreiber claimed that the RCMP never questioned him about the Airbus affair. (The Mounties deny this, btw).

The Grits (Dhaliwal, Goodale-sub-for-Thibault and Hubbard) were fairly single-minded: they wanted to know about Schreiber's correspondence with Harper and the father/son MacKays. That's all well and good, but sooner or later we have to find out about that $2.1 Million defamation settlement we gave to Mulroney. Y'know...like, why? Anyone? Bueller...Bueller...

The committee adjourned on Tues afternoon to review the boxes & boxes of Schreiber-lit. They're supposed to return on Thursday, having actually read some of it, although judging from this crew, I wouldn't expect much. Would it be too much to ask to get the 5th Estate guys to ask the questions? Aaaaaarggghhhh.

The Schreiber testimony: You know, it's not just about this "pasta nonsense"

2007-11-30T04:41:00.000-05:00

Karlheinz Schreiber appeared before the Commons Ethics committee on Thursday to testify about his dealings with Former PM Brian Mulroney (full video here). I was too weak to resist...I parked myself in front of Newsworld and watched the whole damn thing. And I took notes, Luddite long-hand style!

Ok, world's smallest violin--I haz it. My husband and I have been reduced to sharing one measly computer lately, so I haven't had an opportunity to post my notes from the Schreiber hearing until now. This is NOT a transcript, but I feel that it's important to archive them here for future reference...even if it's just my own ;) Let me be honest with you, though: if you're looking for true live-blogging, replete with witty running commentary, look no further than Kady O'Malley's blog at Maclean's. She haz it. The National Post's Shane Dingman also did a damn fine job of blogging the hearing.

You can find my notes at my not-so-live-blog "Foul Deeds," in five parts:

Part I: Going on their "willy nilly way"--the ghost of Eddy Greenspan
Part II: Deferred admission--does anybody here know teh rulez?
Part III: And for 500K, he'll even wax your tank!
Part IV: Wherein the CPC suddenly discovers its passion for bilingualism
Part V: The "Neverending Story," or "Why don't we just ask the 5th Estate guys what happened?"

Some passing thoughts on the hearings: Cripes in shitty napkins, doesn't anyone on that damn committee know the rules? While the members get props for keeping their pencils to themselves this time, I'm just blown away by how many times members had to be corrected (point of order v. point of debate) and by the frequent need to consult with the Clerks.

Oh, and hey: did you know Schreiber used to be a judge?! Me neither. At first I just figured he was joking...maybe he meant "Judge" in the "Reinhold" sense of the term. Heh.

Cons were desperate to paint this hearing as a waste of time and tried to create some serious distance between their ~~CRAP~~ party and that of the former PM. They also tried to put off the hearing until 7PM Thursday, ostensibly to allow Schreiber time to find his documents, but really...you could tell they just didn't wannu be there (or have journamalists present!).

Schreiber's cagey, but we knew that, eh? Show them a bit of leg on Thursday and...

Stay Tuned.

Postcards from the Toronto Vigil in memory of Robert Dziekanski

2007-11-27T01:32:00.000-05:00

On October 14, 2007, Robert Dziekanski was killed by RCMP officers in Vancouver International Airport. On November 24, 2007 hundreds of people gathered in Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto, to honour Robert's memory and to demand an end to the use of TASER(TM) guns. I decided to attend the Toronto vigil with a group of friends--lovely people from Bread & Roses.

As our BnR coterie gathered together on the snowy, muddy lawn at Queen's Park, Aga Magdolen, one of the organizers of the vigil read from a postcard that the late Dziekanski sent to his mother last year:

"People become good by doing good; it is rare that a person is good by nature alone.
Goodness does not exist so one can make use of it. Goodness does not flow from a place of weakness but one of power."

"Ludzie staja sie dobrzy poprzez praktykowanie dobroci, rzadko sie zdarza czlowiek dobry z natury. Dobroc istnieje wcale nie po to by z niej korzystac. Dobroc nie moze wyplywac ze slabosci tylko z potegi." Gliwice, 26/07/2006

--from the postcard that Robert sent to his mother, Zofia Cisowski, July 26, 2006

Organizers of the vigil: Mike Mlynarczyk (left), Aga Magdolen (centre), and Wojtek Smiegowski (right)

After observing a moment of silence, the organizers invited a series of speakers:

Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae
Alan Borovoy - General Counsel - Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Andy Buxton--Representative from Amnesty International
Peggy Nash - NDP MP for High Park
Borys Wrzesnewskyj – Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre
Louiza Szacon-an excellent student representative (UWO); she gave the most passionate speech of the afternoon!
? (my sincere apologies, but I missed the name of the elegant woman in the beige coat & black wrap)
Cheri DiNovo - NDP MPP for Parkdale-High Park
Mike Wallace--Conservative MP for Burlington; the only one to elicit audible Booooo!s (for parroting Stockboy one time too many)
Wladyslaw Lizon – President - Canadian Polish Congress

And you know what? As angry and sad as we felt...the crowd never lost focus on why we were all there. There were no "Legalize Pot!" or "Free X, Y, or Z" signs. No white guys with dreadlocks, walkin' around on stilts (not that I have any problems with those things/people).

Nope. Saturday was a day for Robert, and what his death meant to us as Canadians. Peaceful reflection and excellent signs, most demanding answers and action:

Text of the multi-coloured sign (lower pic): "I was hungry; you didn't feed me. I was thirsty; you didn't quench me. I was confused; you murdered me." This powerful sign was singled out by Cheri DiNovo, MPP for Parkdale/High Park.

Debra at April Reign has also blogged about Saturday's vigil, where she brings the Big Picture into sharp focus:

As was stated at the rally this is no longer just about 4 officers, or TASER™’s this is about a culture and climate of political change which has allowed and encouraged the police to see the general public as an enemy to be subdued.

Finally, if I had one "postcard" from Saturday's vigil that I would be honoured to send Robert's mother, it would be this one:

Post-script:

My full set of photos is posted at poloniablog.com.
Graeme has also assembled a "Defend Robert Dziekanski" page, where he's provided his own pictures from Saturday's Toronto vigil.
A short video excerpt from the Toronto vigil is available on Youtube.
To sign a petition, or to check for updates and news, please visit "Solidarity and Justice for Robert Dziekanski"

Poland will be watching

2007-11-23T22:12:00.000-05:00

A Polish TV documentary crew will be including the November 24th Vancouver rally in their doc about Dziekanski's death:

"(We've come) to show what happened. To tell the story, but at the very same time, to portray the reaction of Canadians themselves," said Marcin Wojcik with TVN, a national broadcaster in Poland.

In Poland, there is no ill will towards Canada but rather questions about the country's policing system, said Wojcik.

"Nobody is connecting the story with Canada itself," he said.

The TVN crew members plan to stay in Canada for the next 10 days and say they've been promised co-operation from many of the agencies involved in the incident.

If you are in the Vancouver area tomorrow, please stand up and be counted. Poland will be watching--and as my friend skdadl said, they know from rallies! (below: Solidarity leader Lech Walesa speaks at a Fiat factory in Bielsko-Biala, Feb 1981. Photo credit: Gérard Rancinan/Sygma/Corbis)

...but, then again, so do Vancouverites, seen here at the Nov 17 vigil at YVR airport (photo credit: Stuart Davis, Vancouver Sun):

In addition to Vancouver, there are Nov 24 rallies planned for Victoria and Toronto. I will be attending the vigil in T.O. If there are other rallies or vigils in the works, please let us know with your blog or, if you like, feel free to leave a comment on my little site. Most importantly...

Let the rest of the world know that Canadians will not tolerate State Executions in our name.

The Mean Season

2007-11-15T23:56:00.000-05:00

There is a definite chill in the air these days. Something feels very wrong.

Like many Canadians, I went to bed last night with the image of a State Execution running through my brain. Anguished, bloodcurdling screams...

They say it took 25 seconds from the moment the officers arrived, till the moment they tased him.

Like many Canadians, I spent last week worrying about Canada's reversal on the UN Declaration against the death penalty. And everywhere I turned, there were Conservatives sneering and taunting: even our Environment Minister, John Baird:

"You won't stand up for Canadians, but you'll stand up for murderers"

And, like many Canadians, I've been slowly--too slowly--bubbling and retching with shame over our complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. February... April... July... August... October... November...

"We do expect these kinds of allegations from the Taliban...It is their standard operating procedure to engage in these kinds of accusations."

I can't cope feeling alone, inside my head with all of this rattling cruelty. I can't fix the rotten, vengeful souls who practise it in ALL of our names.

I can only speak its foul name. Demand justice for Robert Dziekanski. Demand an end to State Executions. Demand an end to Torture.

Mukasey comes up for air

2007-11-08T05:28:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, November 6, the US Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-8 to recommend confirmation of Michael Mukasey (Pres. Bush's nominee for Attorney General). skdadl (POGGE) and I have been following this process very closely on the BnR message board. I've finally managed to compile our notes from Tuesday's session and 'enhance' them with several links to relevant documents and testimony at my not-so-live blogging site: Foul Deeds Will Rise

While Majority leader Sen. Harry Reid and Majority Whip, Sen. Dick Durbin are both vehemently opposed to his confirmation, there is only the slimmest of chances that he will be filibustered. Mukasey will almost certainly become the next Attorney General of the US. This, despite his unwillingness to characterize waterboarding as torture.

And yet, there is no question: waterboarding was designed to torture, as sure as any mock execution technique. The military knows this: In a bizarre feat of reverse-engineering, Former Navy SEAL Malcolm Nance was tasked with studying such time tested torture techniques for his "Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape" (SERE) training program:

Once at SERE and tasked to rewrite the Navy SERE program for the first time since the Vietnam War, we incorporated interrogation and torture techniques from the Middle East, Latin America and South Asia into the curriculum. In the process, I studied hundreds of classified written reports, dozens of personal memoirs of American captives from the French-Indian Wars and the American Revolution to the Argentinean ‘Dirty War’ and Bosnia. There were endless hours of videotaped debriefings from World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War POWs and interrogators.
[...]
Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

The full details of the hearing can be found over here, but I wanted to leave you with some important statements from the new conscience of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sheldon Whitehouse, the freshman Democratic Senator from Rhode Island (You gotta leave on an up note---even when the post is about f'g torture!):

America for centuries has been called a “shining city on a hill.” We are a lamp to other nations. A great Senator said “America is not a land, it’s a promise.”

Torture breaks that promise; extinguishes that lamp; darkens that city.

[...] There are practical concerns over whether torture actually works, whether it is sound, professional interrogation practice. I am not an expert, but experts seem to say it is not.

But the more important question is the one I asked earlier – whence cometh our strength as a nation?

Our strength comes from the fact that we stand for something.

Our strength comes from the aspirations of millions around the globe who want to be like us, who want their country to be like ours.

Our strength comes when we embody the hopes and dreams of mankind.

[...] What path will we follow? Will we continue America’s constant steady path toward the light?

Will we trust in our ideals? Will we recognize the strength that comes when men and women rise in villages and hamlets and barrios around the world and say, that is what I want my country to be like; that is the world I choose, and turn their faces toward our light.

Or, if I may borrow from Churchill, will we head down “the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little farther on there are only flagstones, and a little farther on still these break beneath your feet”? Will we join that gloomy historical line leading from the Inquisition, through the prisons of tyrant regimes, through gulags and dark cells, and through Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers? Will that be the path we choose?

Photo: Poster of a 1556 woodcut, "The Water Torture." The woodcut depicts "a prostrate man having his nose pinched and water poured down his throat (during the Spanish Inquisition)." The poster was displayed during a Nov. 1st Washington D.C. seminar hosted by human rights organizations called "Waterboarding and Other Forms of Torture." Credit: Melina Mara, Washington Post.

Mukasey & Friends (Updated link!)

2007-10-19T04:00:00.000-04:00

Update: I fixed the link to the latest hearing 'not-so-live blogging.' Sorry about the error!

The US Senate Judiciary Committee continued its second day of confirmation proceedings for Judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee for US Attorney General. After the committee had their crack at Mukasey, several witnesses dropped by to lend their thoughts and feelings about the Judge. You will find my summaries of Thursday afternoon's hearing over at this blog.

This morning's hearings are available over here (yesterday's hearings here & here).

I have some more general thoughts I'd like to share with you about the substance of these hearings--stay tuned!

Mukasey Hearings, Day 2: More, more, more! How do you like it?

2007-10-18T15:12:00.000-04:00

The US Senate Judiciary Committee began Day 2 of its confirmation proceedings this morning for Judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee for US Attorney General. I've 'published' my notes from this morning's proceedings over at this blog. You will find my summaries of yesterday's hearings here & here. As with yesterday's notes, I've attempted to add links wherever possible. I hope you find them useful!

This morning was a much tougher slog than yesterday--some of the Senators were speaking much too rapidly for my comfort (I'm lookin' at you, Sheldon!). Not that I can stay mad at ~~Harrison Ford~~ Sen. Whitehouse, you understand ;)

These notes were first compiled on this message board, with the help of skdadl, my partner in all-things-Harrison-Ford ;)

Mukasey after hours: Part II of the Senate Confirmation Hearings

2007-10-17T23:28:00.000-04:00

The US Senate Judiciary Committee began its confirmation proceedings this morning for Judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee for US Attorney General.

Woo-doggy, was that a doozy of a hearing! I've posted my notes from this afternoon over here. I've made a modest effort to add links and annotate as much as possible.

(my notes from this morning's hearing can be found here)

Mukasey in da Mornin'

2007-10-17T14:38:00.000-04:00

The US Senate Judiciary Committee began its confirmation proceedings this morning for Judge Michael Mukasey, Bush's nominee for US Attorney General. I've posted my notes from this morning's festivities (first compiled on this message board). I've added loads of links, in case anyone's interested.

I'll update the blog later tonight, with this afternoon's monkey-bizness ;)

(Mukasey photo courtesy of jurist.pitt.edu)

The World According to King Steve

2007-10-16T20:51:00.001-04:00

Tonight, Her Excellency, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean opened the 2nd Session of the 39th Parliament of Canada. Although I don't have a laptop, and my teevee is much too far away from my 'puter for "live" blogging, I wanted to have a record of my rather frenzied notes on the Throne Speech. I am gradually transcribing over here, for future reference...even if it's just um...my future reference ;)

My usual *snerk*s and *snort*s might be somewhat delayed as I'm still shaking my head at the whole bizarre phenom.

Oh: A reminder for non-Canadians: this speech was written by our Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Yep. This guy.

MMP: Democracy or Bust

2007-10-10T15:22:00.000-04:00

10/10 has arrived! And today's the day Ontario makes it's Big Decision. Mr. Kitty and I will be casting our vote for electoral reform. On accounta the fact that the polls will close in a few hours, I'm gonna keep this post brief. And yes, by 'brief,' I mean lazy ;)

I am reprising my original endorsement of MMP. Please take the time to read it and consider casting your vote for REAL democracy!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark it down: Democracy is Coming to Ontario on Oct. 10, 2007:

Yes, 10/10 is the date: Ontario is the place.

Question: Aren't you sick of elections where a party can win 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power, with a paltry 40% share of the vote? And what if I like Candidate X, but I know his/her Party leadership doesn't have a snowball's chance in...Cancun? I know...it's all very silly.

Come October 10, 2007, Ontarians will have a chance to change all of this.

You know, a few weeks ago I put up a "Vote for MMP" button on my sidebar (it's ok if you didna notice...*sniff*). I uploaded the button shortly after learning about this campaign on Facebook, but I neglected to 'splain what it was all aboot. So. What is this MMP you speak of? Is it another vaccine? Do I have cooties?

It's Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Panic not, mes amis, this campaign's low on wonk and high on...uh...tonk? In any case, MMP is so easy a kitteh could figgur it out ;)

~~Step 1. Cut a hole in the box...~~ Sorry.

Step 1: Vote for your "preferred local candidate"
Step 2: Cast a second vote for your "preferred political party."

Step 3: Elections Canada pixies will descend on the scene and take it from there:

The share of these votes that each party wins will determine its overall share of seats in the legislature.
If after the 90 riding seats are filled, a party has fewer seats than its portion of the party vote, that party wins some of the additional 39 provincial (or at-large) seats to ensure it has its fair share of the total seats. These at-large representatives are elected from provincial lists of candidates nominated by each party in advance of the election. Voters can judge these at-large candidates, as well as local candidates, and vote accordingly.

Huh? Lists? "At-large representatives?!" Whatchu talkin'bout Willis?:

Here's an election example: Party X gets 30 per cent of the party votes, but when riding results are tallied, they have a share of seats that is 10 short of the 30 per cent of the seats they deserve. In that case, Party X will also gain 10 at-large seats, with their top ten at-large candidates winning those seats.

But wait! I'm still worried: I'm not sure I trust Party X to fill their list with the people I like. What do I do?
I have confidence that Dr. Dawg and CuriosityCat will assuage your fears. Here's Dr. Dawg:

The Ontario Citizens' Assembly specifically recommended that parties be required to make public their method of list creation by submitting their selection process to the non-partisan Elections Ontario, which would then publish that information widely. Electors could see, for example, if backroom party hacks or cronies of the Premier have been awarded the list positions, or if, on the other hand, the parties have a more democratic and open process, that does something, for example, about the representation of women and minorities, geographic balance, and so on.

...and the Cat:

The fact that the MMP system proposed does not lay out rules for the names on the individual list being chosen is not a negative at all. In fact, it allows individual parties to decide on their own criteria, and voters will be better served by this happening. If you feel that the Liberals are not doing enough to ensure that women are represented in Parliament, and their list continues this trend, but the Tories, for example, are, you can cast your vote accordingly. Only those who fear the power of the ordinary voter should be running scared of this wonderful grassroots democratic option.

Stand not amaz’d: the prince will doom thee death

2007-10-04T05:45:00.000-04:00

"Nobody shot at them and nobody attacked them. They (Blackwater) just started shooting people at random. Many people died right there. I got in my car and started driving away but they kept firing heavily at me. That's when my car flipped over. I lost consciousness then. They fired at least 24 bullets in my car, four of them hit me in the back."---Hassan Jabir, Iraqi citizen (speaking with the Real News Network following the September 16, 2007 Blackwater shootings in Baghdad)

"We're a private company, and there's a key word there -- private"---Erik Prince, CEO of Blackwater USA, responding to a question from Congressman Murphy (D-CT), US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, October 2, 2007.

Yes, Blackwater USA has made the Big Time. Tuesday morning it was Lights! Camera! Hearings! for the private ~~mercenary's~~ security firm's 38 y/o CEO, Eric Prince.

Congressman Harry Waxman, the tireless Chairman of the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, presided over 3+ hours of Prince's testimony. While the committee was anxious to ask about the September 16th shootings of Iraqi civilians, they were constrained by the current US Dept. Justice investigation of same.

Make no mistake: there were plenty of other things to discuss. You see, after 6 years of constant war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and don't forget Haiti!), the US has found plenty of 'use' for a firm like Blackwater USA. In fact, the US government has found them so useful, they've all but put them on their speed-dial. "Break Glass in Case of Embarrassing Troop Shortfall"

And that's really the problem. It isn't just that the US is using Blackwater's 'security' personnel to supplant uniformed military service members. It's so much more than that, as the world's foremost (non-evil) Blackwater-expert, Jeremy Scahill discovered:

Need to guard an oil pipeline? Send Blackwater.

Are those Katrina evacuees gettin' ya down? Send Blackwater.

Too many I-leegals sneakin' into San Diego? Send Blackwater.

Oh! I almost forgot: Do you have a BS war you'd like to fight? Well, what if I told you that you could have the war of your dreams, without all those names read on the evening news?
Act now, sir, and we'll throw in what's left of Pinochet's old army and some death-squad veterans from Honduras. Yes, yes, I like to think of us as an 'Instant Coalition of the Willing.' We call this "The President's Package." Of course...

What? What's the catch?

Well...you understand, o'course, that we can't just give The President's Package away. Each of our guys is gonna run you 'bout 5x as much as one of your regular guys...

Aww, that's ok. You're Erik Prince! You're a Bush Pioneer!

Well, gee, that's great to hear, Mr. President. Now, there is one more thing...

Oh. Right...don't you worry about that. I'll hide you guys under the State Department. Nobody ever digs around over there, anywayz. And Bremer? Ya, he's m'boy! I'll make sure he's gotcha covered. Frankly, I can't see what could possi-Bly go wrong...

Yeah. Well...here we are, it's October 2007 and The Prince is before Waxman's Oversight Committee. Personally, I couldn't wait to hear what this guy had to say for himself, so I sat, and watched, and listened, and...typed for over 3 hours. By mid-afternoon I realized I had very nearly transcribed the testimony! And while I was tapping away in the BnR war thread (well, one of our war threads), my dear colleague skdadl was equally busy reporting on the Senate Judiciary hearing in our 'prosecutor purge' thread. With some gentle nudging from Alison@Creekside, I decided that it wouldn't be a bad idea to copy my rough Prince/Blackwater notes into my poor, neglected blog :)

This is NOT a true transcript. I did mah best, but tis rife wif tpyos. I have added links where I feel they're most necessary. If nothing else, please make sure you read about Blackwater's role in training NATO members, like, oh...I dunno...CANADA!

To proceed to my annotated notes and rough-transcript: I bring you my new sub-blog, "Foul deeds will rise"

Oh! And please take a moment to cast your mind back to Spring 2006...

April 10, 2006: President Bush takes a question from a student (VIDEO HERE)

Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)
Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will -- I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)

January 14, 2007: Bush speaking to Scott Pelley, 60 Minutes

I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

(April 2006 video via Scruffy Dan)

Happy update: Kevin Yourdkhani's family can stay in Canada!

2007-10-03T03:38:00.000-04:00

This is such a tremendous relief! Kevin Yourdkhani & his family are allowed to remain in Canada! Last February, a 9 year-old Canadian boy was imprisoned with his Iranian parents in a Texas 'immigration' prison. Their story was followed with tremendous anxiety and interest in many Canadian blogs, including this one (AnnaMarie and Liberal Catnip were particular relentless, bless them!!).

The Yourdkhanis were held in what could only be described as inhumane conditions for 45 days, before receiving a temporary (6 month) permit from the Canadian Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Diane Finley. Knowing the permit expired on Sept 20, 2007, I anxiously setup a Google Alert for 'Yourdkhani'...and waited.

Well: October 2nd rolled around and, Boy! Did my Inbox a-jingle with the 'alert' I've been waiting for...the Yourdkhanis have received "an approval in principle" for permanent residence (Unnati Gandhi, G&M):

"Approval in principle is the difficult step to meet and that normally takes two or three years," Andrew Brouwer [their lawyer] said. "The remaining step is to do the security, criminality and medical screening ... and I don't anticipate any problems with that."

Majid Yourdkhani and Masomeh Alibegi could become permanent residents as early as next month. "I'm very happy now because my mom and my dad is happy," Kevin said yesterday.

The decision marks a new beginning for the family who, just months ago, had found themselves in international limbo.

Now? Kevin is back in school, having missed 2 years. His dad and mom can now apply for an "open work permit." (Mr. Yourdkhani has been working as a temp in a pizza place since arriving in Canada)

There is a sad strain to Kevin's return to Canada after such a prolonged absence. He couldn't stay at his old school, due to the stigma of jail, but he appears to be quite happy in his new "digs:"

He says he is happy at his new school and likes his teacher.
"It's way better. Nobody knows about ... anything that happened. I can relax a little bit. I have got some new friends."

Boy, does that do my heart good. Congratulations, Kevin & family!

P.S. AnnaMarie is very happy, too. :)

The tyranny of the minority...

2007-09-22T05:08:00.000-04:00

The Konservative Minority Guvmint, that is. Yes, King Stephen strikes again: the 33 y/o National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) has shuttered its doors.

Over the last three decades, NAWL has fought very hard to improve the social, legal and economic standing of Canadian women: improving maternity and parental benefits, the criminalization of wife assault, and legislation against sexual harassment, for just a few examples.

This was not a sudden death, but rather a protracted, painful demise due to a starvation of resources. NAWL's fate was as good as sealed as soon as the HarperKons announced their cuts to Status of Women Canada (that's SWC, NOT "SOW," you Kretins). Cut, cut, cut...

October 4, 2006: "Tories to cut Funding for Womens' Advocacy Work (Canadian Press)
November 29, 2006: "Tories Shutting Status of Women Offices (CBC News)
November 30, 2006: "Ottawa Consolidates Status of Women Services" (CBC News)
...

Ah hell. I can't bear to do the list. You see, NAWL was neither the first, nor the last organization to be cut by the HarperKons. April Reign has kept careful track of the bloodletting over at her blog.

But it's ok. Don't see this as another symptom of ruthless neglect. Clearly you misunderstand! Yes, Harper and his ~~latest stooge~~ Minister of Canadian Heritage, Josée Verner, would like NAWL to simply apply themselves a little better and follow their new & improved guidelines for SWC funding. On Thursday, Verner joined CBC Radio's Ana Maria Tremonti to 'splain things for us (The Current, Sept 20, 2007). Verner claimed to be "very disappointed that this group did not apply" for 2007/2008 funding and "did not submit any requests yet." When Tremonti countered that the New Government's (TM) funding rules do not apply to groups who perform advocacy functions (e.g. NAWL), Verner rolled out Meme#1: "We decided to fund concrete projects"

Ah yes. Concrete projects. None of that wishy-washy, namby-pamby advocacy horse-pucky.

Advocacy. As in avocat--French for lawyer. As in: people who practise law. Call me crazy, but it's hard to see how the National Association for Women and the Law could get around doin' a little advocacy now & then.

So what's a "concrete," ergo SWC-eligible project? Well, Verner rambled about funding for women's shelters, but failed to provide any solid--concrete?--examples. Verner repeated that she was confused about why NAWL simply didn't apply for SWC funding, leaving the impression that the organization had simply let itself starve to death out of sheer negligence.

But: NAWL is not dead...yet. The association is maintaining its board of directors and volunteers, but has closed its physical shop and laid off staff. Konservative Krazies, like Gwen Landolt (REAL women--I'm not linking!) have suggested that NAWL simply raise funds the 'traditional' way--after all, if they're really so important to women, shouldn't they be able to come up with their own support? REAL translation? Har har har, we know you radical feminazis don't have the same kind of grassroots support that we do! You don't speak for all women, or you wouldn't need your government-funded ivory towers!

Bullshit. Money does not equal democracy. A lot of the organizations decimated by the HarperKons were established to serve those without the means or the megaphone to speak--nay, advocate--for themselves. Think Court Challenges Program. Think federal programs for the homeless (e.g. SCPI, the 'Supporting Community Partnerships Initiative').

If you heard or read anything at all about the cuts, it was probably this word: Neanderthal. As in: "Harper called 'Neanderthal' for cuts to women's groups." (that was Opposition critic, Maria Minna, dropping the N-bomb there). But Minna wasn't the only one outraged by the cuts. Here is a sampling of official and unofficial rxn to NAWL's announcement:

NDP Reaction: Irene Mathyssen

The work NAWL has done in coalition with other groups to dismantle barriers to achieve women's equality will be greatly missed by the many women's organizations that depend on them for their research, advocacy and expertise [...]
The closure of NAWL will turn back the clock on women's equality in Canada [...] The Harper government is not committed to promoting women's equality. They don't understand the issues that women face today. They are abandoning everyday women in this country.

Liberal Reaction: Maria Minna

Women's groups that promote equality in Canada and around the world are fighting for the right to exist under the Harper government [...] NAWL is just the latest victim of the Conservatives' narrow-minded, right-wing ideological policies.
[...] NAWL has been instrumental in many areas of women's advancement including Sections 15 and 28 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; amendments to sexual assault laws; positive changes to family law and to the Divorce Act; rape shield legislation; and criminal harassment legislation [...] I would like to know why Mr. Harper is against an organization that protects women's rights.

Le Bloc Québécois: Nicole Demers

En mettant la clé sous la porte, le groupe Femmes et droits montre à quel point les femmes sont mal servies par le gouvernement Harper, qui a procédé à des compressions budgétaires sans précédent dans les fonds destinés aux groupes de défense des droits de la femme. Le Bloc Québécois a dénoncé à plusieurs reprises ces coupes injustifiées et continue à contester cette attitude préjudiciable pour les femmes d'ici.
[...]Stephen Harper a décidé que seuls les groupes de femmes qui offrent des services à leur clientèle peuvent bénéficier des subventions gouvernementales. Comme Femmes et droits est un groupe de défense des droits des femmes, il ne reçoit plus de subsides du gouvernement. Est-ce à dire que les femmes n'ont plus besoin d'être représentées? Et qui va s'occuper de la défense et de la promotion de leurs droits si ce n'est des groupes comme ceux-là? Sûrement pas les conservateurs!

{NOTE: No official Green Party rxn, but their leader is smack-dab in the middle of hip-replacement surgery today--a successful surgery, from what I gather}

From NAWL itself:

Summary of articles since the SWC cuts were first announced, last fall
The Importance of Funding Women's Groups (Sept 2006)
Letter to Stephen Harper (Dec 1, 2006)
Harper government working to silence women (Sept 20, 2007)

Blog Rxns:

Unrepentant Old Hippie (JJ) X 2 (early Sept 21, and again, later that night)
In the House and Senate (900 ft Jesus)
F-email Fightback (CUPW sisters) + 2 new posts here & here***
Empowerment 4 Women (Leisha) x 2 (here & here)
A BCer in Toronto (Jeff Jedras)
Impolitical
Creekside (Alison) ***new***
bastard.logic (matttbastard) ***new***
April Reign ***new***
A Creative Revolution (Prole) ***new***

Other important links: Bookmark these, if you haven't already!

Statusreport.ca: particularly their scooped SWC Powerpoint slides about Harper's strategy for "Achieving Efficiencies at SWC"
Fall 2006 rxn from Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW): New Federal Policies Affecting Women's Equality: Reality Check
Put Equality Back on Track!
SWC Prog Blog Support Initiative: 114 Blogs/Journals posted (as of Nov 1, 2006)

{'Far enough' Image courtesy of April Reign. H/T to Holly Stick, Sparqui and Alison at Breadnroses.ca for The Current interview and other helpful links}

UPDATE, Saturday, Sept 22, 1:50 PM: added link to Alison's fab post @ Creekside :)
UPDATE, Saturday, Sept 22, 5:12 PM: added links to matttbastard's fab post @ bastard.logic, and CUPW sisters' 2 new posts @ F-email Fightback (here & here).
UPDATE, Sunday, Sept 23, 4:55 AM: added fab post at April Reign.
UPDATE, Sunday, Sept 25, 2:15 AM: added fab post by Prole at A Creative Revolution.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

2007-09-07T18:52:00.000-04:00

Tonight, attendees of the Toronto International Film Festival will be treated to a very special short film by Naomi Klein. The premiere of the ~6 min film has been timed to coincide with the release of Klein's much anticipated book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism."

If you found this short-film upsetting to watch, you are in excellent company: Klein herself found it "disturbing." Yes, despite years of dogged research for The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein has not inured herself to the subject matter. And who can blame her? Let's take a quick look at some of the ground covered by the book (from Random House of Canada; emphasis added):

From Chile to China to Iraq, torture has been a silent partner in the global free market crusade. But torture is more than a tool used to enforce unwanted policies on rebellious peoples; it is also a metaphor of the shock doctrine’s underlying logic. Torture, or in CIA language "coercive interrogation," is a set of techniques designed to put prisoners into a state of deep disorientation and shock in order to force them to make concessions against their will. ...The shock doctrine mimics this process precisely, attempting to achieve on a mass scale what torture does one on one in the interrogation cell. ...The original disaster – the coup, the terrorist attack, the market meltdown, the war, the tsunami, the hurricane – puts the entire population into a state of collective shock. The falling bombs, the bursts of terror, the pounding winds serve to soften up whole societies much as the blaring music and blows in the torture cells soften up prisoners. Like the terrorized prisoner who gives up the names of comrades and renounces his faith, shocked societies often give up things they would otherwise fiercely protect.
—from Shock Doctrine

Torture. Bombs. Coups. Disasters. As a journalist, Naomi Klein has written about all of these things, in her work as a reporter. What is almost unique about Klein is that, while many other journalists have enriched our understanding of such events in our recent history, Klein provides us with the back story. The context. The history. The motives.

When post-invasion Iraq erupted in "looting" and chaos, Klein saw another, more insidious type of robbery at play. In "Baghdad Year Zero," Klein reached into the black, ugly heart of the matter, visiting Iraq to document the so-called reconstruction. And she found that nothing of the kind was happening. The Wolfowitz/American Enterprise Institute's free-market utopia was turning into a nightmare. The bombed-out Tabula Rosa (blank slate) that was post-Saddam Iraq was supposed to be the perfect venue in which to test their neocon/neolib fantasies. A kind of "economic shock-therapy" where the citizens would be too dazed, too confused and too desperate to object to their experiments.

When the first images of tortured Abu Ghraib prisoners appeared in the New Yorker and on 60 minutes, the American media exploded in an indignant chorus of "Never Before." Naomi Klein was there to remind us of The School of the Americas and The Phoenix Program. In Shock Doctrine, Klein promises to build on the important research unearthed by Dr. Alfred McCoy, including a treatment of the sinister McGill/CIA research performed in the 1950s.

When the South Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina resulted in devastating losses of life and livelihoods, Klein was there to document the unseen secondary disasters. After the December 2004 tsunami, Klein observed that the world's loan sharks (the World Bank and the IMF) were using the 'opportunity' presented by the disaster to "push through its cookie-cutter policies" and essentially impose privatization of State services on the disoriented survivors. After Katrina? Klein spoke with Jordan Flaherty, a New Orleans-based labour organizer, who told her, "Now the developers have their big chance to disperse the obstacle to gentrification--poor people." In Shock Doctrine, Klein further connects the exploitation of natural disasters by the Blackwaters and Bechtels and Halliburtons.

Naomi Klein has proved that she has the scholarly patience and rigour to make these important connections. Where others see only 'news,' Klein sees a multi-act play--often with many hidden actors.

And she sees hope. In her speech to the American Sociological Association, Klein concluded that--despite everything--another world is possible:

We who say we believe in this other world need to know that we are not losers. We did not lose the battle of ideas. We were not outsmarted, and we were not out-argued. We lost because we were crushed. Sometimes we were crushed by army tanks, and sometimes we were crushed by think tanks. And by think tanks, I mean the people who are paid to think by the makers of tanks. Now, most effective we have seen is when the army tanks and the think tanks team up. The quest to impose a single world market has casualties now in the millions, from Chile then to Iraq today. These blueprints for another world were crushed and disappeared because they are popular and because, when tried, they work. They're popular because they have the power to give millions of people lives with dignity, with the basics guaranteed. They are dangerous because they put real limits on the rich, who respond accordingly. Understanding this history, understanding that we never lost the battle of ideas, that we only lost a series of dirty wars, is key to building the confidence that we lack, to igniting the passionate intensity that we need.

I am very much looking forward to reading The Shock Doctrine. I could really use some more hope with my onions, lately!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
About the video: Film Description and Director Biography

In the short The Shock Doctrine, author Naomi Klein and filmmakers Alfonso and Jonás Cuarón team up for an elegant illustration of a powerful idea: massive political change follows massive crisis, and it is never by accident. (Cameron Bailey)

Jonás Cuarón has directed the feature Año Uña (07) and the shorts Un Disparejo (Ro-Sham-Bo) (03) and The Shock Doctrine (co-director, 07).

Alfonso Cuarón was born in Mexico City and has directed several internationally acclaimed films, including Y Tu Mamá También (01), Children of Men (06) and The Shock Doctrine (co-director, 07).

Naomi Klein was born in Montreal. She wrote the documentary feature The Take (04). The Shock Doctrine (07) is a film by Klein and Alfonso and Jonás Cuarón.

DISCLOSURE: I have promised to review The Shock Doctrine, which I will do in the coming days. In return for this, and for posting the video, Random House has offered to send me a free copy of the book.

The Fly Swatter in Chief

2007-09-06T03:56:00.000-04:00

I get it now. I have unravelled one of the great, lingering mysteries of our times. A great weight has lifted. The clouds have parted.

Be patient. I promise you it'll be worth it.

I have finally figured out WTF Condi Rice was talkin' about, that fine spring day in 2004, when she finally deigned to testify before the 911 commission.

You will recall that her appearance was no small beer, and came only after months of relentless shaming. You will also recall that famous--no doubt inadvertent--confession regarding the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (more on that in my "911 Bookends" post, if you're so inclined). But there was something else amiss at that day's testimony: apart from her attempts to persuade the commissioners that Bush & friends had done their due diligence pre-911, there was something else that brought strange new wrinkles to my nose and brow.* (from her opening statement; emphasis added):

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to try and eliminate the al-Qaida network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swatting flies.

Flies, you say? Commissioner Lee Hamilton was also curious: what exactly did Bush and Rice do to protect the US from the gathering threat. Hamilton noted, for example:

Your public statements focused largely on China and Russia and missile defence. You did make comments on terrorism, but they were connected _ the link between terrorism and the rogue regimes, like North Korea and Iran and Iraq.

And by our count here, there were some 100 meetings by the national security principals before the first meeting was held on terrorism, September 4th. And General Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that terrorism had been pushed farther to the back burner.

So what did she do exactly? Rice responded with a meandering statement, testifying that Bush really wanted to do something about bin Laden, but his gosh-dern cab'net wasn't giving him any plans. She concluded:

All that I can tell you is that what the president wanted was a plan to eliminate al-Qaida so he could stop swatting at flies.

And so it continued, with the commissioners taking their respective turns with the witness. And then came Commissioner and Fmr. Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska):

KERREY: You've used the phrase a number of times, and I'm hoping with my question to disabuse you of using it in the future. You said the president was tired of swatting flies.
Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to Al Qaida prior to 9/11?
RICE: I think what the president was speaking to was...
KERREY: No, no. What fly had he swatted?
RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on...
KERREY: No, no...
RICE: ... when the CIA would go after Abu Zubaydah...[**]
KERREY: He hadn't swatted...
RICE: ... or go after this guy...
KERREY: Dr. Rice, we didn't...
RICE: That was what was meant.
KERREY: We only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?
RICE: We swatted at _ I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that's what he meant by swatting flies. It was simply a figure of speech.

Fly, flies, swatting...gah! I admit it: I was distracted by the image of Bush being distracted by swarms of flies. My brain's like that, unfortunately.

And then, three years hence, we meet Robert Draper, Bush biographer.

Now, I should hasten to add that I have not read 'Dead Certain.' Like many of you, I have read several excerpts and summaries, since the embargo was lifted on the weekend: how Bush put the shiv in Jerry Bremer's back, or how Bush likes to cry his evil l'il eyes out, just for two examples. Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

But then...then there was this little nugget:

Sitting in an anteroom of the Oval Office, [Bush] eschewed the more formal White House menu for comfort food — a low-fat hotdog and ice cream — and bitingly told an aide who peeked in on the session that his time with Mr. Draper was “worthless anyway.”

But as Mr. Draper described it, and as the transcripts show, Mr. Bush warmed up considerably over the intervening interviews, chewing on an unlit cigar, jubilantly swatting at flies between making solemn points, propping his feet up on a table or stopping him at points to say emphatically, “I want you to get this” or “I want this damn book to be right.”

And then the penny, she dropped. Just like that. Bush has been literally swatting at flies.

Not bin Laden. Not al Zawahiri.

Flies. Like, for 6 1/2 years...and counting.

You see? I promised you that it would all make sense. And, alas, it does.

*I would come to practise this particular wrinkling pattern with much regularity in the intervening years of the Bush dynasty.

**GDK note: you mean one of the guys you tortured half to death?

An infinite number of monkeys will eventually produce a link between this guy & al Qaeda

2007-08-12T05:18:00.000-04:00

If "an al Qaeda" falls in Samarra, does it make a sound? Usually the answer is "yes," unless somebody drugs Dubya's PR monkeys. Then why hasn't the killing of Haythem Sabah al-Badri made for E.Z. "We Got' Em" listenin, this week? Here we have Centcom issuing a press-release, announcing the killing of "the al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of Greater Samarra," the guy to whom US Centcom attributes the bombing of the Golden Mosque (Feb 2006), and nobody throws a party in the WH Rose Garden?

I mean, the story has everything: a veritable Qaeda/Iraq sandwich, too mouth-watering to ignore. Are you telling me you're not gonna eat that?

Well, here's the problem: even the best sandwiches go rotten with time. In this case, all of the ingredients--while they seemed delectable in their own right--they were never meant to go together.

What am I gettin' at with this ill-conceived metaphor? The NY Times' Frank Rich will help us out. Today, Rich presents us with a carefully constructed timeline of the US Preznit's propaganda since the Nov 2005 ~~lead-balloon~~ plan for "Victory in Iraq." Rich contrasts the PR-events that punctuated the intervening months against our best knowledge of...reality and manages to unearth yet another Big Lie.

Rich reminds us that, in Jan 2007, Bush strongly "implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the country’s December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006," when, you guessed it: the Golden Mosque in Samarra was bombed. Not true. The death-squads and civil war had been raging for at least 15 months prior to Feb 2006. Samarra didn't mark the beginning of 'sectarian violence.' (memo: can't say "civil war," no matter how many times your own people try to warn you that one is brewing--and they did. Back in 2004.). Rich rightly calls BS on this.

Recalling the same "surge" speech, Rich observed how the Preznit struggled to worm al Qaeda into his justification for 20 000+ more troops. But how to do it? Nobody had been directly fingered for the bombing yet, but it sure as hell wasn't...oh, fuckitall:

Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. [GW Bush, Jan 10, 2007]

But Rich knows what's what:

In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security forces were themselves responsible.)

Uhhh....but how does Badri fill the bill? Rich:

Since Badri is a leader of a tiny insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to complete his newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan for victory until the mosque was bombed. 2) “Al Qaeda in Iraq” bombed the mosque. 3) Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” those “very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th.”

A-Ha! As L. Paul Bremer might say: "Ladies & Gentlemen: We got'em!" So...why not crow a little louder, even if it is a ~~widdo-white-lie~~ double-decker Royale with Cheese? Well, as it turns out, Bush's confidence in his own capacity for misdirection actually has its limits. To identify the limits of his confidence, you first have to recognize that Bush has no difficulty conflating "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with "the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th." Then, putting aside the fact that Bush has no solid evidence connecting Badri to the bombing (I'm sure it's in a secure location), Bush knows that he can't promote Badri, however posthumously, from some penny ante thug who happens to identify with the al Qaeda brand to "the al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of Greater Samarra." No "al-Qaeda in Iraq emir"-->no al Qaeda terrorists feeling threatened by Iraq's glorious democracy and no al Qaeda blowing up "one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam" (just like they blew up our buildings...remember? Hmm?).

Rich provides a perfect summary of the White House conundrum:

Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri’s death nine days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official White House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn’t do his usual victory jig over Badri’s demise because there’s no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin Laden. He was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam’s Special Republican Guard.

If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our woes in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president’s story line falls apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden’s Qaeda, the Samarra bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr. Bush denies.

So there we have it. Bush didn't get his "US smites the al Qaeda emir who blew up the Golden Dome" fairy tale.

And thus, just this once, their Goose failed to lay a Golden Egg.

No PR monkeys, geese or sandwiches were harmed in the composition of this post.

Mark it down: Democracy is Coming to Ontario on Oct. 10, 2007

2007-08-10T01:11:00.000-04:00

Yes, 10/10 is the date: Ontario is the place.

Question: Aren't you sick of elections where a party can win 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power, with a paltry 40% share of the vote? And what if I like Candidate X, but I know his/her Party leadership doesn't have a snowball's chance in...Cancun? I know...it's all very silly.

Come October 10, 2007, Ontarians will have a chance to change all of this.

You know, a few weeks ago I put up a "Vote for MMP" button on my sidebar (it's ok if you didna notice...*sniff*). I uploaded the button shortly after learning about this campaign on Facebook, but I neglected to 'splain what it was all aboot. So. What is this MMP you speak of? Is it another vaccine? Do I have cooties?

It's Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Panic not, mes amis, this campaign's low on wonk and high on...uh...tonk? In any case, MMP is so easy a kitteh could figgur it out ;)

~~Step 1. Cut a hole in the box...~~ Sorry.

Step 1: Vote for your "preferred local candidate"
Step 2: Cast a second vote for your "preferred political party."

Step 3: Elections Canada pixies will descend on the scene and take it from there:

The share of these votes that each party wins will determine its overall share of seats in the legislature.
If after the 90 riding seats are filled, a party has fewer seats than its portion of the party vote, that party wins some of the additional 39 provincial (or at-large) seats to ensure it has its fair share of the total seats. These at-large representatives are elected from provincial lists of candidates nominated by each party in advance of the election. Voters can judge these at-large candidates, as well as local candidates, and vote accordingly.

Huh? Lists? "At-large representatives?!" Whatchu talkin'bout Willis?:

Here's an election example: Party X gets 30 per cent of the party votes, but when riding results are tallied, they have a share of seats that is 10 short of the 30 per cent of the seats they deserve. In that case, Party X will also gain 10 at-large seats, with their top ten at-large candidates winning those seats.

The Ontario Citizens' Assembly specifically recommended that parties be required to make public their method of list creation by submitting their selection process to the non-partisan Elections Ontario, which would then publish that information widely. Electors could see, for example, if backroom party hacks or cronies of the Premier have been awarded the list positions, or if, on the other hand, the parties have a more democratic and open process, that does something, for example, about the representation of women and minorities, geographic balance, and so on.

...and the Cat:

The fact that the MMP system proposed does not lay out rules for the names on the individual list being chosen is not a negative at all. In fact, it allows individual parties to decide on their own criteria, and voters will be better served by this happening. If you feel that the Liberals are not doing enough to ensure that women are represented in Parliament, and their list continues this trend, but the Tories, for example, are, you can cast your vote accordingly. Only those who fear the power of the ordinary voter should be running scared of this wonderful grassroots democratic option.

Ah yes. Dawg and Cat bring up an important point. A more diverse legislature is one of the best byproducts of MMP. Equal Voice and Fair Vote Canada have studied this issue and found that, compared to our clunky first-past-the-post system, women are bound to gain much better representation under PR. And bonus: wouldn't it be cool to kick Sweden's ass?

And yet here we sit, citizens of Ontario, sweatin' the summer away, NOT knowing a dern thing about the choice we face in October: an Environics poll discovered that "70 percent say they are not familiar with it, including 51 percent who admit no familiarity at all."

So that's why I'm blogging about this MMP thing here tonight. Debra, Scott, Mark, Kuri (of TIBT fame) and others (noted/linked above) have edu-ma-cated me about MMP, but it's clearly time to spread the word. Here's Mark of "Blogging for Democracy" with his $10.10 Challenge:

That's why I'm calling on all my readers who are fed up with politics-as-usual to dig into their pockets and make a small donation to the Vote for MMP campaign. Like I just did, you can take a minute and donate online to the campaign right here.

Yes. Money. Gettin' the word out takes some dosh. Not a lot, if we all chip in: Mark is suggesting $10.10, in 'honour' of the date, October 10. And if you're joining the bloggin' fur MMP funfest, make sure you drop a line to the Vote for MMP site. That's where I'm heading right...now!

(Sample MMP ballot image courtesy of Equal Voice)

Part 9: "Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy"

2007-08-06T02:43:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the ninth and FINAL installment of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Reminder...you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy

(General Question: Stephanopoulos plays a clip dated August 14, 1999, in which Dubya promised to restore the "honor and dignity" of the office. What would you restore to the office?)

TANCREDO: "Hope. We have made a number of mistakes…we can no longer afford political correctness" (huh?) He then vowed to start braggin' about 'Merica again, to tell the world that "there is something not just good but great" about the USA. (Tony the Tiger could not be reached for comment)
T. THOMPSON: He would "open up the East Wing" and bring in the "best minds, Democrat, Republican or Independent" and…do what, exactly? Play some RISK ? Hungry, Hungry Hippos? Thompson just kinda trailed off there.
BROWNBACK: He wants to begin "rebuilding family" and laments the number of "out of wedlock" families. He wants you to know that he "stands for life," and that he will appoint the next Sup. Crt. Justice to "overthrow Roe v. Wade" (creepy amounts of audience cheering, unfortunately)
MCCAIN: He wants you to know (yes, again) that he is "fully prepared…to fight the transcendent challenge…the struggle against violent Islamic extremism"
GIULIANI: Would "restore hope" (hey! Rudy's cribbin' from Tancredoland!). Rudy goes on to claim that "none of the Democrats" have ever run an executive office (what is Bill Richardson, then?)
ROMNEY: Vows to "strengthen America's military," add "more troops," (Geddit? "Romney Strong"). He will also "strengthen the economy" and "strengthen families."
HUCKABEE: Tells an anecdote from his days as Gov. Arkansas, when he had a picture in his office with "Our Boss" inscribed in the frame. Huckabee would rotate pictures of "ordinary" Arkansans through the frame, so that he would "never forget who the boss really, really is." (C'mon...it's Rove, right? It's ok…you can speak freely here)
PAUL: Vowed to restore "openness" and "transparent government."
HUNTER: Would restore "economic patriotism." Feels that Americans, during WWII, "rode to victory on an arsenal of democracy" (did he just cuss?) Further, Hunter vowed to stop "China from cheating on trade" and would "elevate the family" (you better hurry…Romney's just threatened to "come down on life"!)

You know, I never realized how many ways there were to pander. Evidently there are many, many ways. Family, terrorism, life, and democracy. Free market. Grow the economy. Hey, I think I've got the hang of it! I can has GOP nomnashun?

Woohoo! We made it. We traversed the entire 90 min Loonytoons debate in...well, ok, it took a long time.

Return to the Introduction/Part 1..."Sex, Guns & the Return of Karen Hughes"

Part 8: "I know what you did last summer"

2007-08-06T02:41:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Part 8 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

I know what you did last summer

(General question: Can you point to a defining mistake in your life?)

HUNTER: "Contemplating running as a Democrat"
PAUL: "I didn't speak forcefully enough" for the cause of "liberty" and the constitution.
HUCKABEE: He wishes he'd started losing weight earlier in life. (Awww…this actually makes me feel sorry for him)
ROMNEY: Regrets that he used to support "pro-choice" (people? causes?). Mitt hastens to add that he eventually "came down on 'life'" (Blech…would you mind scooching over a bit, Mitt? Come down on sumpin else, ta very much.)
GIULIANI: Jokes that he has "only 30 seconds" to respond, then proceeds to rib Stephanopoulos about his Priest father, suggesting he'd only "confess" his mistakes to a man of the cloth (i.e. he passed on this one)
MCCAIN: Random-ish choice he made in Vietnam that (presumably) ended with his capture & torture. (I honestly have no jokes for this one--his was a genuinely awful story)
BROWNBACK: Regrets "not telling [his] wife and kids that [he] loves them often enough" (Gawd, some of these 'rock-ribbed' Republicans can get really smooshy, eh?)
T. THOMPSON: Explains that all of his female primary relatives have/had breast cancer and he wants to work harder to "end" it. Gives date of 2015.
TANCREDO: Regrets that it took him "30 years to realize (recognize?) Jesus Christ as [his] personal saviour." (Really? I thought Tancredo's personal saviour was Lou Dobbs. Or maybe John Birch.)

Speaking of...did you know that Tancredo has produced his own little series of vids? The series is entitled, "Tancredoland." Watch Rachel Maddow take a tour...

Quick tease: Tancredo shows us where he likes to play with "army men."

Ok! We're on the home-stretch, yo! The final installment, Part 9 is coming right up..."Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy"
or...
Return to Part 7..."Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"

Part 7: "Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"

2007-08-06T02:40:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Part 7 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies

(General question: The Iowa Republicans have proposed a "Fair Tax," i.e. elimination of all fed & state taxes and the imposition of a 23% sales tax)

HUCKABEE: Supports fair tax. "More Americans fear an audit by the IRS more than they do being mugged," and goes on to joke about how very "painful" IRS audits can be (do you hear that, victims of mugging? You buncha babies? Jeez.) Huckabee suggests that the Fair Tax would eliminate the "underground" economy, and that gangsterism, prostitution, gambling would die-off. (now why am I dubious about this? Seriously. An end to prostitution? This is the GOP! At least spare Mitt his "underground" police force...it's all that stands between him and the NY Times!)
ROMNEY: is "cautious" about the Fair Tax, and will not yet lend his endorsement. He would, however, like to "get rid of the tax on savings." (I didn't understand this)
GIULIANI: Whips out his emergency Frank Luntz handbook and begins crowing about the "Death tax!" Rudy would "immediately" eliminate the inheritance tax on the upper-upper-upper fraction of 1% families. He says he is "intrigued" by the Fair or Flat Tax proposals, but he's not yet willing to endorse them outright. (Interesting use of word "intrigued"; makes it sound like he has a prurient interest in fringe tax policy. Tax fetishist!)
MCCAIN: He is more interested in resolving the "Alternative Minimum Tax" problem. Vows to "find Alan Greenspan," round up his ol' bones, and force him to head a commission, so they can "pass a law." (Are you looking forward to the John Galt Act of 2009?)
TANCREDO: Instructs the other candidates to "read Neil Boortz's book" ("The FairTax Book," reviewed here). Tancredo is a proponent of the 'FairTax' because "income tax is designed to manipulate behaviour" and accretes "too much power for the federal government."
BROWNBACK: He is for "an optional flat tax…16 countries have already gone to a flat tax"

Say...do you wannu guess which "16 countries" have adopted the flat tax? Go ahead and look. I'll wait.
In the words of U.K. PM Gordon Brown:

An idea that they say is sweeping the world, well sweeping Estonia, well a wing of the neo-conservatives in Estonia.

Oh yeah...add Teve Torbes to the list. He was super keen for the flat tax. Great company, eh?

Part 8 is on the way..."I know what you did last summer"
or...
Return to Part 6..."Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President"

Part 6: "Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President"

2007-08-06T02:38:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Part 6 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President

MCCAIN: Jokes that the VP only gets to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and "to enquire daily as to the health of the President." (har, har, har). But seriously folks…McCain would assign the VP to "area of talent," e.g. telecommunications, and he would "be clear that there is only one President."
T. THOMPSON: VP "Cheney is an honourable individual"…Thompson then reverts back to health care, insisting that he doesn't want the press to think "Republicans are against poor children." (remember those greedy, greedy children)
GIULIANI: Makes the case for a strong VP, "Now that we're at war…a VP has to be just as capable, just as ready to take over that office at a moment's notice." Feels that the Reagan/GHW Bush model was a good'n, and that the US can't have another FDR/Truman scenario (wherein Truman was completely unaware of the Manhattan Project).
ROMNEY: The President and Vice-President "have kept us safe these past years" (…and other bedtime stories, by Gov. Mitt Romney)
BROWNBACK: Tips his hat to Cheney's vast "experience" (e.g. Sec. Def.), but feels that the "President over-relied on that" (I think that's a new word?)
PAUL: Blames the VP's prominence for the admin's "neocon agenda" and reminds the audience that most Americans think that the VP is more powerful than the President.
HUNTER: Brags about his personal military background and implies that he would not need a hawkish military running-mate to lend gravitas to his ticket (hint, hint…*cough* Giuliani *cough* *cough* Romney) "I would not share the role of Commander-in-Chief" (and don't even ask about his Thin Mints. I mean, really.)

Part 7 is on the way..."Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"
or...
Return to Part 5..."Gas, grass, or ass: Nobody rides for free"

Hope and Onions

They made a desert and called it peace

Oh! The places you'll go! ...or not. Whatever.

Counting the flowers & candy

Muppets: is there anything they can't do?

What do you think you'll do then?

Pay no mind to the recriminalization of abortion; the important thing is that you had a good time. (UPDATED X3)

WIRED publishes more Abu Ghraib photos

Have you poked a Liberal lately? One body. One person. One count.

CSIS shows some of its pitiful cards: they got him outta the shower for this?

Looking for our International Man of Mystery (plus notes from Lavoie and the Silent Chef)

F-F-Finalists? WTF?! er...Thank you!

Snuggly the Security Bear & a Valentine's 'Torture Trifecta'

Spectorvision

ALERT YOUR MP: Put an end to the backdoor shenanigans!

I've let y'all down *sniff*

Obama backer jokes: "we may give San Francisco to Canada"

Wherein Matalin realizes she has to back McCain

"I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two..."

TKO! Happy Birthday, Birth Pangs!

Now journalists can't kiss the talking frogs, either

You can waterboard, but for the love of God, don't "pick nits!"

'Steve' or 'CPCBashi?'

Celebrating 20 years: "I am mine. And that's where it ends"

Harper won't kiss the talking frog

Hold onto your pearls, daaaaahlink: The F-word nominations are open!

Blog for Choice Day: "The Last Abortion Clinic"

Time to Celebrate! Presenting: the Canadian F-word Blog Awards

Huckabee: love the one behind you

"Testicle lockboxes" and other 2008 Love Stories (*Updated*)

Happy New Year, Gorgeous HappySad

Merry Whozits and Happy Wotsit from the Kitty

The Mumbrage: The most melodramatic drinking game on The Hill

Schreiber's last stand: B-b-b-benoît and the Jets

Gentlemen, you can't lie in here--this is the *Ethics* Committee!

Red Roses on White Snow

"Wash me, but don't make me wet"--Schreiber returns!

The Schreiber testimony: You know, it's not just about this "pasta nonsense"

Postcards from the Toronto Vigil in memory of Robert Dziekanski

Poland will be watching

The Mean Season

Mukasey comes up for air

Mukasey & Friends (Updated link!)

Mukasey Hearings, Day 2: More, more, more! How do you like it?

Mukasey after hours: Part II of the Senate Confirmation Hearings

Mukasey in da Mornin'

The World According to King Steve

MMP: Democracy or Bust

Stand not amaz’d: the prince will doom thee death

Happy update: Kevin Yourdkhani's family can stay in Canada!

The tyranny of the minority...

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

The Fly Swatter in Chief

An infinite number of monkeys will eventually produce a link between this guy & al Qaeda

Mark it down: Democracy is Coming to Ontario on Oct. 10, 2007

Part 9: "Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy"

Part 8: "I know what you did last summer"

Part 7: "Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"

Part 6: "Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President"

I've let y'all down sniff

"Testicle lockboxes" and other 2008 Love Stories (Updated)

Gentlemen, you can't lie in here--this is the Ethics Committee!