Sunday, July 09, 2006

Bush visits Germany - Not Welcome, Mr. President



When Bush visits Germany this week, he’ll be facing a lukewarm reception. Despite his vocal admiration of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush does not engender much love from the German people. The visit will take place in what used to be East Germany, Merkel’s old stomping grounds and the visit is already causing controversy.

Last week 12,000 police, along with numerous U.S. Secret Service agents descended on the chosen towns to be visited and the citizens are not happy. It is expected that the visit will cost 12 million euros and bickering has broken out between the German federal government and the financially strapped German state as to who should pay for it.

During Bush’s visit to Stralsund’s city centre, businesses and residents will face a complete lockdown. Businesses will be forced to close, all vehicles will have to be removed from the streets, and incredibly, residents will be forced to stay inside their homes from 9:30 a.m. until an hour after Bush leaves.

A number of protests are also planned. The area where Bush is visiting includes the Left Party which is a coalition member of the State government. The Left Party which is very anti-war and highly critical of Bush intends to participate in the demonstrations that will “greet” Bush under the banner motto of “Not Welcome, Mr. President”. The state’s environmental minister and the social minister, both members of the Left Party, will join the protests.

I’m sure all this will simply pass over Bush’s head. He’ll be chowing down on the “perfect boar” (I know there’s a pun in there somewhere!), and getting to know Merkel a bit better – someone I’m sure he has much in common with – after all, she’s got a doctorate in physics, has worked in quantum chemistry, and is fluent in several languages.

Spaced out Sundays


M42, aka the Orion Nebula; the birthplace of stars and maybe the most photographed nebula in the sky. It resides in the Orion constellation (in the “sword” portion) and is easily seen with the naked eye. This is the closest stellar nursery (1500 light years away) we have and has long been a source of fascination for astronomers.

M42 is a cloud of gas and dust forming new stars and protoplanetary disks (potential planetary systems in the making). The galaxy contains tens of thousands of dark nebulae, so-called because the dust and gas obscure the light of stars behind them. Over time clumps of higher density gas form and grow within some of these, their gravitational attraction drawing matter from the surrounding cloud. As a clump grows, the weight of layer upon layer of gas builds up, increasing the pressure and temperature at the clump's core. The pressure continues to rise until hydrogen nuclei are packed so tightly together that they fuse, igniting a thermo-nuclear reaction that signals the birth of a star.

This beautiful picture shows the dark trails of dust, red glowing hydrogen gas and blue-tinted dust.

Finally, definitive proof of evolution


I think we all have a tendency towards anthropomorphism, especially when it comes to primates. But who knew it extended to monkeys and money?

A researcher taught capuchin monkeys how to use tokens (money) in exchange for food. Once the monkeys realized that the tokens had value, variations were introduced into the experiment. The researchers allowed the monkeys to decide their favourite food (grapes versus Jello) and the monkeys established how much they were willing to pay for the food. And then the price of the food changed.

If, for instance, the price of Jell-O fell (two cubes instead of one per token), would the capuchin buy more Jell-O and fewer grapes? The capuchins responded rationally to tests like this … when the price of something falls, people tend to buy more of it.
The researchers then introduced gambling. The monkeys were given two gambles involving coin-tossing. In the first gamble, the monkeys bought a grape with their money, but if they won the coin toss they won a second grape. If they lost the coin toss they still kept their original grape. No matter what, they still ended up with at least one grape. The second gamble was the opposite – start off with two grapes and the winner kept both grapes but the loser gives up one grape. The second gamble is more high risk than the first.

How did the capuchins react? They far preferred to take a gamble on the potential gain than the potential loss…in similar experiments, it turns out that humans tend to make the same type of irrational decision at a nearly identical rate…The data generated by the capuchin monkeys, Chen says, ''make them statistically indistinguishable from most stock-market investors.''
Then things started to get interesting. The monkeys began stealing money.

All seven monkeys live in a communal main chamber of about 750 cubic feet. For experiments, one capuchin at a time is let into a smaller testing chamber next door. Once, a capuchin in the testing chamber picked up an entire tray of tokens, flung them into the main chamber and then scurried in after them -- a combination jailbreak and bank heist
It went from interesting to fascinating. The researchers observed a monkey giving money to another in exchange for sex. The monkey who was paid for the sex immediately used her ill-gotten wealth to purchase food.

So the following observations were made in regards to monkeys and money:

When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex.
It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between us and them.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Tory cheque-swapping


The Tory high road:

Conservatives appeared to take pre-emptive action, issuing a press release outlining a complaint submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. The press release accuses Liberals of improperly issuing tax receipts to party members who pay to attend Liberal functions where personal benefits are bestowed -- "meals, drink, entertainment and the like."

Ironically, party executive director Mike Donison states: "as you are aware, receipts for political contributions can confer significant tax benefits for the donor."

"It would therefore appear that the Liberal party . . . has been using Canadian taxpayers to subsidize its supporters to attend Liberal party events."


The Tory low road:

Conservative party officials engaged in a "cheque-swapping" scheme that enabled delegates to get federal tax credits for donations that were not donations.

The scheme is outlined in e-mail correspondence of Conservative party delegates before to a 2005 political convention in Montreal.

The correspondence, written three months before the March 17-19 convention, appears on a website accessible only to party members.

Here's how cheque-swapping worked: Individual riding associations footed the bill for their delegates for food, travel, hotel and registration fees associated with the Montreal convention.
In exchange, the conventioneer would make a donation back to the riding association in the same amount.


That would entitle the delegate to a tax receipt for the donation, amounting to an unwarranted benefit from taxpayers -- that is, reimbursement of a portion of their 'donation' through the tax system.

But the donation wasn't a donation in the true sense of the word. Elections Canada has ruled that anyone receiving something that has a commercial value beyond its political value is not eligible for a tax receipt


Definition of irony:

incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

The most powerful organic in the world – bird droppings!


For everyone who has ever had the less-than-delightful experience of trying to scrape dried bird droppings from your car windows, you have good company – the space shuttle Discovery. It appears that bird droppings on the shuttle’s wing have managed to survive regular Florida thunderstorms, a mighty Fourth of July launch during which 1.1 million litres of water is sprayed at the shuttle's main engines, and a burst upward through Earth's atmosphere. During that launch Discovery went from zero to about 28,000 km/h in just under nine minutes. And still the bird droppings remained in place. Mostly.

That’s pretty powerful shit! Everybody, dig deep into your childhood memories and sing along with me:

Birdie, birdie in the sky
Dropped some whitewash in my eye
I’m a big girl. I don’t cry.
But gee I’m glad that cows can’t fly.

Monday, July 03, 2006

DND thumbs its nose at Harper


Stephen Harper said that the media were not allowed to cover the repatriation of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The Department of National Defence was told to keep the press away. The military’s response? Up yours!

The military has its own way of letting their opinion be known. As someone who has spent a lifetime surrounded by the military in one form or another, I can attest to the remarkable ability of a military man to gleefully wreak havoc on all and sundry while maintaining a perfectly straight face.

A Department of National Defence official snapped photographs outside a repatriation ceremony in April to illustrate how the government's policy was causing security concerns.

[…]

About 20 photographs were shown to Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, according to the documents.


"This may cause safety issues and generate even more frustration, particularly in winter," Lt.-Col. Richard Lavoie, a departmental public-affairs director, wrote in an e-mail in which he forwarded the photos to several colleagues.
“Safety issues”. Right. Gotcha. I’ll bet it didn’t take more than a couple of beers over at the officers’ mess to come up with that one. And just to make sure the message was clear:

Military officials found other ways to express their displeasure: they cleared equipment from the airport tarmac so the news media outside the base could have an unobstructed view of the ceremony.
And it never hurts to call in reinforcements:

The e-mail exchanges between departmental officials were accompanied by photographs of police cruisers blocking a highway lane outside the base. That security blanket allowed journalists standing by the highway to capture distant images of the incoming flight and solemn ceremony.


Department of National Defence: 1
Tory government: 0

Casualties of War - Update



In Dave's posting "Casualties of War", he described the allegations of the rape and murder of an Iraqi women and the murder of her family by US soldiers. Today, federal prosecutors have laid charges against 21 year old Steven D. Green of the 101st Airborne Division, who was recently discharged because of a "personality disorder

The murder and rape charges against him grew out of a military investigation involving up to five soldiers in the March rape and killing of the woman in Mahmoudiya and three of her relatives, one of them a young girl believed to be about 5 years old.

[...]

The age of the rape victim was also unclear. U.S. officials close to the case have described her as a young woman, and FBI documents estimated her age at 25, but a neighbor of the family said the rape victim was 14 and her sister was 10.

The affidavit filed in Green's case by FBI special agent Gregor J. Ahlers of Louisville said Green and three other soldiers from the 101st's 502nd Infantry Regiment were working a traffic checkpoint in Mahmoudiya on March 12 when they conspired to rape a woman who lived nearby.

According to the affidavit's account, the soldiers changed their clothes before going to the woman's residence to avoid detection. Once there, the affidavit said, Green took three members of the family -- an adult male and female, and a girl estimated to be 5 years old -- into a bedroom, after which shots were heard from inside.

"Green came to the bedroom door and told everyone, 'I just killed them. All are dead,"' the affidavit said


Four other suspects in the case have been confined to their base (in Iraq) but no charges have been laid against them...yet.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Light Blogging Ahead

The next week or so will probably be a little sparse in the posting department. Just about everyone is away at the same time.

I'll be at sea and the likelihood of having a decent satellite link is remote on this trip. Others are off to or returning from work or summer travels. As some of the co-bloggers return to the vicinity of their desks, things should pick up a bit.

In the meantime there was one story I wanted to post a comment on but, never got a chance. Britain, worried that Red China would attack Hong Kong during the 1960s, had a plan to defend the place - by attacking China with nuclear weapons. Funny thing though. If you knew anything about Hong Kong you knew that China didn't have to ever attack Hong Kong - all they had to do was cut off the water supply or stop selling food and supplies to the British colony.

Oh well.

While things are quiet around here, I can recommend some other visits readers might like to make.

Our co-blogger Laura writes her blog Liberalism Without Cynicism and there is always something interesting, enlightening and entertaining to read. Laura's keen eye picks up some of the more interesting nuances of Canadian and American politics.

Cathie From Canada keeps things in perspective and is always worth the visit, particularly for her "Great Line Of The Day".

If good old snark is your flavour, do be sure to visit Canadian Cynic. CC keeps things down and dirty and pulls no punches. Some of us are just playing at this - CC is deadly serious and presents his view with a sense of humour and a snort.

Creekside is a must read. Alison's graphic posts will keep you shaking your head and laughing at the same time.

If you haven't visited the Wingnuterer, you need to go there right now. Zorpheous and Mark will give you a reason to go to the heads. Unless you really like sitting in a damp chair after they cause you to pee yourself laughing.

Take some time to visit the Woodshed. The Rev posts from Japan and provides an interesting perspective on the world.

Keeping up on the Conservative convention finance scandal (Yes! It's a freakin' scandal.) is easy if you follow the posts at Somena Media.

I know it's not fair to stop there. There are other great blogs with a lot of excellent posts. You'll find just some of them on the blogroll to the right.

Have fun over the next week. I hope to have myself back into the zone sometime around the 10th of July. In the meantime, keep notes. That or just count the Stephen Harper temper tantrums. It's hard to believe someone that thin-skinned actually wanted a job where there is a target painted on one's forehead. Or perhaps he believed it wouldn't happen to him. Fool.

Enjoy summer. Back soon.

The Danger Tree


While most of Canada celebrates Canada Day, in one province this date holds a different significance. In Newfoundland, this is Memorial Day, a commemoration of one of the greatest human disasters to ever befall that independent British dominion.

On this day 90 years ago, the armies of the British Empire, along the line of the Somme River in France, stepped out from the cover of their trenches and into one of the worst slaughters in military history. The infantry assault against the German positions on the Somme started just after breakfast on the 1st of July, 1916. By sunset of that day, approximately 60,000 Allied troops had fallen - 20,000 of them killed - something which remains a one-day record of losses to this day.

The armies of the British Empire were led by perhaps the most incompetent generals the British army has ever produced. General Sir Douglas Haig, a cavalry officer, planned the Somme offensive to break the German hold on the Somme and divert German resources from the Verdun region where the French were under intense pressure.

However, far from a surprise, an eight day heavy artillery barrage of German positions along the Somme alerted the Germans to an imminent attack. When the troops went over the top at 7:45 am the German Spandaus opened fire, each pumping 500 rounds per minute into the openings of the Allied barbed wire. Most Allied soldiers, ordered to walk shoulder-to-shoulder across 1000 yards of No Man's Land, fell before they reached the outer barbed wire of their own lines.

The Newfoundland Regiment, which on July 1st, 1916, mustered 801 officers and men, formed a part of the 88th Brigade of the 29th Division. This unit, at Beaumont Hamel, was expected to cross 5 kilometers of open ground and capture the German positions. The Newfoundland Regiment and the Essex Regiment were to take the trenches at Beaucort Road, approximately 600 to 1000 yards from the Allied trench line.

At 9:15 am the Newfoundland Regiment, after receiving confused and unclear orders, went over the top.

They were alone.

The Essex Regiment was unable to advance because of huge numbers of dead and wounded soldiers in their front. The friendly artillery covering fire failed to materialize. The Newfoundland Regiment had no protection at all on either flank, nothing to distract or deter the enemy in front of them and faced a withering German crossfire from Spandau machine guns.

The Newfoundlanders were cut down at their own barbed-wire gates. The very few survivors who actually made it to the German lines were horrified to discover that the artillery barrage had not damaged the German barbed-wire. Worse, this was known by the British commanders and had not been passed on to the leaders in the trenches. Thus, of the Newfoundlanders who actually reached the German wire, most were killed then, entangled and trapped.

By 9:45 am, less than 30 minutes after it started, the Newfoundlanders' attack at Beaumont Hamel was over. The attack had failed. Lieutenant-Colonel Hadow, observing the attack from a forward position was ordered to muster survivors and make another assault. The order was eventually countermanded but only after Hadow had insisted that there was nobody to muster.

That night the dangerous job of recovering the wounded started. Those who tried to crawl back to their own trenches became easy targets for German snipers. It took days to tabulate the losses. When the final roll was taken 710 Newfoundlanders, from a regiment of 801 men, would not answer their names. The 1st Newfoundland Regiment had been slaughtered into non-existence.

At home in Newfoundland the news was received with confusion and shock. Virtually everyone in Newfoundland had either a relation or a close friend among the casualties of 1 July, 1916. It would sear the minds of Newfoundlanders forever. No matter what this day was to anyone else, to Newfoundlanders this would be the anniversary of the day on which their regiment of proud and courageous young men fell. It would be underscored by the fact that, among Allied contributions, Newfoundland suffered the highest per capita loss of any British Empire force during the Great War.

The Danger Tree was the only tree left standing, though horribly disfigured from the battle fire. It was decided that those Newfoundlanders who made it into no man's land would make their way to that tree, where the next plan of advance would be decided upon. Sadly, as men gathered around the tree, the Germans aimed their fire right at them. After the battle, one of the largest concentrations of casualties - injured, dead and dying - was in the vicinity of the Danger Tree.
The Somme offensive, which was supposed to break initial German opposition in a one day assault on 1 July lasted until 18 November 1916. Haig would demonstrate utter incompetence during the entire campaign. There were few victories and those which did occur were not followed-up. Haig and his staff consistently failed to consolidate and advance from gained ground.

Having learned nothing from the unbelievable slaughter of the first day of the offensive, incompetent and uncaring British commanders sent thousands more courageous soldiers to their graves. By the end of the Somme offensive in November 1916, after almost 5 months of fighting, the Allies had achieved an advance of well under 8 miles - and an unbelievable 600,000 Allied soldiers were dead.

The Somme offensive unleashed over two more years of an incomprehensible blood-bath. It would change warfare forever.

And, Newfoundland paid a horrible price.

So, yes, it's Canada Day. But in Newfoundland people gather and remember the Danger Tree where so many young Newfoundlanders lost their lives in a far away battle that, to this day, still leaves the descendents of the dead with a profound sense of loss.

Friday, June 30, 2006

Casualties of war


No, Iraq is not Viet Nam. It's drier and hotter.

AP reporter Ryan Lenz, embedded with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, has filed a report which shows yet another ugly side of the US-initiated Iraq conflict.


Five U.S. Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three members of her family in Iraq, a U.S. military official said Friday.

The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of assaulting in the March incident, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

The U.S. command issued a sparse statement, saying Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of coalition troops in Baghdad, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of a family of four in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad. The statement had no other details.

The case represents the latest allegations against U.S. soldiers stemming from the deaths of Iraqis. At least 14 U.S. troops have been convicted.

[...]

"The entire investigation will encompass everything that could have happened that evening. We're not releasing any specifics of an ongoing investigation," military spokesman Maj. Todd Breasseale said of the Mahmoudiyah allegations.

"There is no indication what led soldiers to this home. The investigation just cracked open. We're just beginning to dig into the details."

However, a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested. Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah.

[...]

Senior officers were aware of the family's death but believed it was due to sectarian violence, common in the religiously mixed town, he said.

The killings appeared to have been a "crime of opportunity," the official said. The soldiers had not been attacked by insurgents but had noticed the woman on previous patrols.
I would normally, at this point, be suggesting that nothing more needs to be added until due process runs its course.

That, however, would be to turn away from a fact which accompanies war, particularly a long, protracted and indefinite situation like Iraq and, formerly, Viet Nam: The rape of civilian women by occupying soldiers is nearly inevitable.

The above is not intended to excuse the alleged acts of those now under investigation. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The offenders, if the investigation turns over evidence which bears out the allegations, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Rape is a heinous war crime.

What is disturbing is that this one case came to light the way it did: One of the assailants has admitted his involvement. And, given the level of frustration that fighting an insurgency can cause in soldiers and the length of their deployments, the number of actual cases which go unreported might shock someone unfamiliar with such an environment.

During Viet Nam, rape was common. It also received a blind-eye from command authorities. This piece by Karen Stuhldreher of the University of Washington studies the rape of civilian women by soldiers in Viet Nam and demonstrates that conditions of service often lead otherwise moral individuals to engage in degenerative behaviour.


During the Vietnam war, rape was in fact an all too common occurrence, often described by GIs as SOP--standard operating procedure.2 "That's an everyday affair... you can nail just about everybody on that--at least once," offered a squad leader in the 34d Platoon of Charlie Company when questioned by a reporter about the rape that occurred at My Lai.3 Another GI, Joe Galbally, when testifying for the Winter Soldier Investigation, concluded his report about a specific incident of gang rape by American soldiers by saying, "This wasn't just one incident; this was the first one I can remember. I know of 10 or 15 such incidents at least." Galbally was in Vietnam for one year, from 1967-1968.
What it also suggests is that soldiers' recounting of those incidents indicate they were not motivated by violence but by the need for sexual gratification. Stuhldreher dispatches this "justification", if you will.


... the rampancy of rape during the Vietnam war is indicative of the reluctance on the part of the media as well as the military to report and prosecute these war crimes. This notion that rape is sexually motivated and therefore the logical outcome of male sexual desire, plays directly into myths that rape is spontaneous and victim-precipitated.
The truth is, when soldiers start raping the female civilian population of a militarily occupied but politically unstable country it demonstrates a callous disregard for the indiginous population. Far from being there to help them and win them over, the occupied population has been reduced, in the minds of the occupiers, to sub-human, powerless and subject to intimidation.

In a situation where the "enemy" is no longer a clearly defined, uniformed combatant and has the ability to hide amongst the general population, the entire population becomes the enemy. Soldiers, reacting to the frustration of spontaneous and unpredictable attacks on themselves and their comrades, create fear among a civilian population they do not trust. They respond to violence by demonstrating their power, and rape is one of those demonstrations. While the soldiers may not be deranged sexual predators, the act has more to do with violence than it does sexual gratification.

This latest case in Beiji, Iraq, if the allegations are true, is a symptom of a greater condition. It is a sign that Iraq is lost. The question is whether the war in Iraq will produce a Winter Soldier Investigation or whether 30 years after its conclusion horrific revelations will once again authenticate the folly of sending troops into an inconclusive war where the population is viewed as little more than waste to be disposed of by the leadership of the occupying force.

Gook? Hadji? What's the difference? The level of indifference to their survival is the same.

No, Iraq is not Viet Nam. It's just drier and hotter.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

What's that smell?


Aside from this post I was going to leave the Conservative Party of Canada finance irregularities alone until things developed a little more. That was a "benefit of the doubt" thing.

Then I read Meaghan's take on it at Somena Media here and here. Leading into an email exchange comes the illuminating fact that:

CPoC members are only concerned with how to also receive tax decductions for the additional expenses of travel, lodging, and food. Most already know that the convention fee is a political donation.
Benefit of the doubt is giving way to a stench of intentional illegal acts.

Tax deductions - for political donations. You don't get tax deductions for eating a rubber chicken unless the rubber chicken is actually worth more than four bucks. And there is no "profit" provision in the Canada Elections Act.

And then, there's this inevitable development.

Canada's chief electoral officer wants the federal Conservative party to open its books following a revelation by the Harper government's accountability quarterback that the party failed to report delegate fees to its 2005 convention.
With this inevitable reaction.

The Conservatives, who rode to power on a wave of outrage against perceived Liberal corruption, initially reacted with fury to questions about the apparent fee omission.

After Kingsley's statement, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper would only say they were "puzzled" by the Elections Canada statement.
What's to be puzzled about?

Or is this the start of another Harper dissing of a public service officer responsible for political finance oversight?

No need for Harper or any of his spokespersons to be puzzled. They have already lied that their 2005 books had been audited by Elections Canada, which brought this out of the Chief Electoral Officer:

"Elections Canada has not audited the books of the Conservative Party regarding this convention," said the release from Kingsley, adding Elections Canada has no legal authority to compel such an audit.
Either the Chief Electoral Officer gets to see the CPoC books, PDQ, or people will start flinging the "C" word around in reference to the Conservatives.

Bush's Gitmo Tribunal Plan Quashed


Well, it wasn't really a plan. It was a Republican temper tantrum and a gross violation of the rule of law. Via Raw Story:

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority in denying terror war detainees civilian trials...

The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. The administration had attempted to argue that the "combatants" had no rights under U.S. or international law, or that only certain rights under each applied.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The trials had been challenged by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, former bodyguard and limo driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan has been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years, eventually being charged with conspiracy. The court pointed out that there is no international law against conspiracy.

The ruling is not likely to result in the release of Hamdan, or other Guantanamo prisoners. In fact, it may result in longer detentions, while the United States attempts to put another system into place.

The 5-3 decision overturns a lower court ruling in the government's favor by Chief Justice and Bush appointee John Roberts. Roberts did not participate in the decision.

A complete overhaul of the system for Guantanamo Bay detainee trails is now expected.
Which suggests the Bush administration will now go with their backup plan... which they don't have.

In other news, one of the world's most famous Jack Russell terriers passed away yesterday. He lived well.

So I Told The Judge...


It's not really speeding if I didn't really mean to speed. I mean, y'know, I'd have to be doing it with the certain knowledge and intent to speed. And if there isn't a posted speed limit sign right next to me when the constable decided to pull me over, well, I can't be certain of the speed limit can I?

No excuse?

What if I was a politician? Would that make a difference?

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

When an ass-hat smears Murtha


Roger L. Simon, mystery novelist, screenwriter and instapajamaline blatherer has done it again. Roger attempts to come across as non-partisan on those occasions when he's not doing a Bushco dance. This time he decided that Congressman John Murtha had just jumped the shark.

Wrong. Since "jumping the shark" is actually a television term one would think Roger would understand its meaning - just a little bit - since he's well, sorta in the biz.

In fact, it was Roger who jumped the shark.

He linked to a story (which reader ImJohnGalt had sent to me earlier) and then used a line from the story as a quote from Murtha.

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.
Except that Murtha never did say that. As ImJohnGalt pointed out later, the original source of the story had to issue a retraction since they had attributed a quote that never actually happened. Murtha was citing poll results - not opining, as Roger L. Simon suggested.

Of course, a somewhat popular blogger jumped all over it from the beginning with first, this post, and then this post. The right-wingers, having slathered all over a statement that was never made, should have been embarrassed by my fave SoCal basset owner but, no... nothing but the sound of crickets chirping. The retractions were, kinda, well, missing in action.

Now, I can understand if Roger L. Simon and the whole of the diaperline crew don't read my stuff. Hell, it adds to the anonymity. But to ignore a somewhat popular blogger? That's kind of rude. May his Beckham piss on their slippers.

Anyway, back to Roger for a moment. In his post, which has since been proven to be little more than a good mixture of camel shit and bus tickets, he said this:

To be perfectly honest, up to a few months ago I never paid any attention at all to Cong. John Murtha, D-PA. He was just another back-bencher to me, if I even recognized his name, which I doubt.
Ummm. That sort of says Roger has been living under a rock for a long time. No kidding! How can Roger claim to comment on US politics and not know Murtha's name?!

Oh, hold it. He's a mystery novelist and screenwriter. The producer of fiction. Real names, real people and real information are secondary to the entertainment value. I get it now. Roger is just funnin' with us. Kind of reminds me of the movies.

Some films make the viewer a participant. Others make the viewer, well, a viewer. Others make the viewer a voyeur. SCENES FROM A MALL makes the viewer a third wheel. A very uncomfortable position to be in.
Written by someone who actually watched the movie. I've never seen it. I therefore would not have written that.

Oh yes. The "comments section" from the link Roger used is available here, again thanks to ImJohnGalt. Be careful when reading them and if you have an air-sickness bag left over from the days when airlines used to give them out at no-charge, you might want to keep it handy.

You have to give it to Roger - he has one helluva great list of sources.

Don't worry about the retraction, Roger. Or, any of the rest of you who couldn't wait to risk carpal tunnel to get an emergency smear onto your sites. Just remember John Murtha knows more about what a war is all about than any of you will ever hope to. Or your fearless leader for that matter.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Abortion Ban Bill - Politicians As Doctors


Private Members' Bills don't usually go too far in Parliament. Most never make it past 1st reading and never find their way onto the Order Paper. Those that do often die before the parliament dissolves. Occasionally a PMB gets to debate. The success is usually limited and if it had no real priority with government, it is bound for defeat. There are presently 148 Private Member Bills before the 39th Parliament at the moment. Most will never see the light of day.

However, they do have a purpose, particularly when a member of parliament wants to make a statement or take a stand on an issue. It provides constituents with a view of the MP's priorities and preserves on the public record the MP's position on what may, in fact, be important issues. On the other hand, some PMBs are just plain foolish.

That makes Bill C-388 all the more curious.

Introduced by Liberal MP Paul Steckle, the Bill is intended to make it a criminal offence, punishable by five years imprisonment, to procure an abortion for any woman who is beyond her 20th week of pregnancy. The exceptions are that such late-term abortions are permitted if it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or if she will suffer severe physical injury in giving birth.

Needless to say, the anti-choice crowd is crowing like a bunch of roosters who believe the sun rose just for them.

Most are claiming that the proposed legislation meets the criteria of the Canadian Medical Association definition of abortion which suggests a fetus is viable after 20 weeks. The truth is, the CMA policy does not say that at all. The CMA describes abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability. When a fetus is viable is something to be determined by a competent health care professional - not a politician and certainly not some anti-choice wingnut.

The real truth is that late-term abortions are extremely rare, about 0.4% of all abortions performed, and virtually all of them are performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, or because the fetus is severely malformed and would not survive birth. Most women receiving late-term abortions actually wanted the child.

There is another issue here. Abortion in Canada is a medical procedure - and medical procedures are within the realm of the provinces - not the federal government. Provinces have already run afoul of the medical community when they tried restricting abortions only to have the provincial medical associations refuse to cooperate.

There is something else going on here, however.

Paul Steckle's record on issues is less than completely clear, although he is the co-chair with (shudder) Maurice Vellacott, (an ultra-right-wing, homophobic, racist, Conservative MP, who would see abortion made illegal under all circumstances), of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.

Paul Steckle has brought forth a bill which flies in the face of Liberal Party policy which is essentially, hands-off. Abortion is a medical issue - not a political one. Which raises the question of why the bill wasn't introduced by Vellacott?

Simple. Vellacott has already made a complete ass of himself in this parliament. Harper and his senior staff have gone to great lengths to silence Vellacott while not angering his social conservative constituency. Vellacott is a loose cannon in the Conservative caucus and to allow him to introduce a bill with which a majority of Canadians would disagree would have a lasting negative impact on the government as a whole. Better to let the co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus introduce it. And Steckle being a Liberal makes it even better.

In fact, this bill is little more than a stab at aping the US Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, legislation that has already been struck down by the US federal courts.

What the anti-choice/anti-medical groups fail to understand, or at least will not admit, is that after 20 weeks, if the fetus is deemed to be "not viable" by a medical doctor, or the life and health of the mother is at risk, a traditional D&C or D&X abortion is not performed. Doctors induce labour instead. That is neither a miscarriage or an abortion. It is a prematurely still-born fetus.

The wording of the bill indicates a distinct lack of research and understanding of medical practices and procedures. That's not surprizing since it looks like it came out of one of the anti-choice lobby-shops which have pitched their camps along the Rideau.

In any case, it should strike observers as a little odd that the Liberal House Leader would permit a Private Member's Bill of this nature to reach the table.

Not all that odd really. In fact, it's good parliamentary tactics.

The chances of the bill ever seeing debate are so slim as to be negligible. If it ever does actually get on the Order Paper, and if it ever does get to the point of debate, it will have the delightful effect of drawing out all the Conservative wingnuts - and there's more than just a couple of them. It would highlight the social conservative caucus.

It's not likely to happen. Harper may be petulant, arrogant and driven by his oversized ego, but I can't imagine he's dumb enough to put the worst elements of his party on open display.

On the other hand, maybe he will.

Monday, June 26, 2006

From urban BC to rural Ontario

I'm off to the cottage in the Kawarthas tomorrow and I'll be offline for a month.

So here's some thoughts to ponder.

What's the point of Canada? Is there one?

Is there a vision of a Canada that exists as anything other than a point/counter-point to the USA?

Once we no longer own or control our natural resources or their systems of development and delivery will there still be a rational economic argument to be made for the continuing existence of the country as an entity that can be differentiated from the ownership of the resources?

If, as the right likes to claim, the country's identity shouldn't be reliant on it's social infrastructure, then what should it be reliant on? What is it reliant on?

Are we reaching the point where the most sensible course of action is to let the national experiment go and be the first to acknowledge the new global realities?

Happy summer.

Homosexuality influenced by biological factors

This should cause those who adamantly insist that homosexuality is a disease, or some abomination of biblical proportions, to get their Pampers™ in a twist. From Jonathan Montpetit: (all emphasis mine)

Homosexuality influenced by biological factors, Canadian researcher says

A new study suggests a male's sexual orientation is not the product of his environment but rather is influenced by biological factors present before birth.

Researchers at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., have found evidence that "a prenatal mechanism(s) . . . affect men's sexual orientation development."

The study's author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order, research that shows a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation.

But that concept leaves unclear whether older brothers have a socializing effect on sexuality, or if biological factors are at play.
Bogaert's study has been peer reviewed and will appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal 'memory' for male gestations or births," Bogaert writes.

Bogaert, who teaches in both the community health science and psychology departments at Brock, studied more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men in Canada who had either biological or non-biological brothers.

Dividing his sample into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up.

His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

"The number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant . . . increases the probability of homosexuality in men," the study reads.
No doubt we'll hear from Big Daddy Dobson and his pack of raging homophobes on this.

And if you happen to get most of your news from the Fox Network, you'll see that the headline is a little different than most other outlets.

Study: Older Brothers Increase Chances Men Will Be Gay
If you don't read the whole story, you'll find you're left with a different sense of what Bogaert's study was actually all about. But then, you can't argue with fair and balanced™. And I wouldn't suggest that Fox News fans are likely to limit themselves to reading only headlines.

If you're pro-abortion - you're a racist


At least that's what this piece of tripe is telling us.

According to the study by Paul Jalsevac any attempt at population control is pure eugenics and anybody who supports abortion, contraception, divorce or even homosexuality is being used by a vast conspiracy to depopulate the earth.

Soon after abortion was legalized in North America pro-life activists did not yet realize who and what they were actually fighting. They had no idea then, and sadly, most social conservatives still don't, that abortion was only one part of much wider, international agendas supported by certain organizations and individuals with some common interests and ambitions.
And who are those organizations?

Planned Parenthood has been the most influential of all and could in fact, as the document explains, be considered the world's most influential organization.
Right! Why did I have to ask? Margaret Sanger did actually subscribe to elements of eugenics but her main focus was on the rights of women to choose. She started Planned Parenthood (several times under several different names) in the United States after her mother gave birth 18 times and then died of cervical cancer.

And the most subversive of Sanger's books? What Every Girl Should Know. A small publication that informed girls about their own bodies - information that didn't seem to be getting out there in 1916. In 1917 she followed it up with What Every Mother Should Know. Since it focused on womens' health, she wound up in jail for creating a public nuisance.

But I digress. Back to the important points of Jalsevac's work.

The local abortion mill, elimination of the handicapped, advancement of euthanasia, easy divorce, billions of condoms to Africa (instead of medical and food supplies) and even forced acceptance of homosexuality have all served two main goals:

1. To massively decrease the world's population. (this is happening)

2. Through eugenics, to prune the human race of what are considered by some to be physically, mentally, socially and even economically "unfit" persons. (this is also happening and accelerating)
Well to address point 1, you only have to look at world population figures to realize this is not in the slightest bit true. As for point 2, the Christendom College graduate suggests that the promotion of contraception is somehow racist. Never mind that denying those populations ravaged by AIDS the use of condoms will accelerate their demise or that not allowing women to limit the number of children they bear will strain the ability of developing countries to feed, house and provide sanitation to their population.

Jalsevac's thoughtless and unsubstantiated claim belies the fact that to accept his conclusions is to deny the reality of a global attempt to prevent the spread of disease. In this, Jalsevac becomes the racist. Following Jalsevac's line of thought, populations of the developing world wouldn't stand a chance of survival.

Of course Jalsevac and his Christian conservative admirers could easily take comfort in this statement:

Every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and woman who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.
or

A girl can waste her creative powers by brooding over a love affair to the extent of exhausting her system, with the results not unlike the effects of masturbation and debauchery.
Great words a social conservative can buy into. Get the lust out of your system and you'll be just fine.

Oh yeah. They were written by the very person Jalsevac demonized. Margaret Sanger, despite fighting for better health care and a woman's right to choose, was a bit of a prude.

Update: My apologies to readers who are finding this post suddenly doesn't make sense. It appears "blogger" managed to eat or rearrange some of the post at various times throughout the day. Sigh.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Mrs. Mills and the paparazzi


Ever wonder how to deal with one of those digital photo freaks. Mrs. Mills has it all solved.

A friend carries a digital camera everywhere and takes unflattering pictures of everyone — people eating, asleep and so on. We have just come back from a bar and there is not a single picture that I want to see the light of day. I think she takes these sneaky, paparazzi-style shots on purpose. What can I do?
A dilemma for most, but not Mrs. Mills.

Wear sunglasses all the time.


Read the rest of Mrs. Mills at The Times, including giving a "dirty old man" a bit of a kick.

Bring 'Em Home.


No, Iraq isn't Viet Nam. It's dryer and hotter.

Funny though... the music is starting to sound the same.

Bruce Springsteen from DWT.