Big fat liars

No, not these unfortunate women. The people coming up with this kind of scurrilous nonsense.

It's pointless directing the liars to the science behind the correlation of obesity and poverty. That science has been around, in fact, for a while now. And they darned well know it. Nutritious food costs money--more money than the poor happen to have. The result? The consumption of empty calories. Poor health. Morbid obesity.

If you have the time, plough through this paper. Even missing breakfast--something a lot of poor kids do--is positively correlated with obesity. The result is a vicious spiral. Obesity discourages physical activity, which maintains obesity. Well before the time poor young people become poor adults, the pattern is set. Their health is affected. Their opportunities in life are restricted.

But the usual suspects think those women in the picture are a joke. "This family should hope the cost of food goes up some more." And this gem, referenced above, entitled "Times have changed and now the poor get fat":

Be honest. You don't pity these "poor people" and their ilk, any more than I do. You pretend to, because other idiots told you that you were supposed to. But you don't. You feel what I do: contempt and disgust.

Besides sloth and gluttony, I wonder how many other capital sins such "poor people" commit over the course of a 24 hour period. If they're illegal aliens, and their last names at least raise that possibility, then they're theives [sic], too.

And no one will ever convince me that these are the "poor" Jesus was talking to, and about. They look and sound more like the rich of His time: fat, lazy and irresponsible.

Nope, times haven't changed, actually. The poor get fat. Better-off people tend to be sleek and well cared for; they can afford the healthy food that keeps the pounds off.

I trust this bit did not escape the reader: "If they're illegal aliens, and their last names at least raise that possibility...". Their last names are Hispanic. We all know that there are no American citizens with Hispanic names. Right? Nothing like a little racism for spice.

These wingnuts are for all the world like stupid little kids in a schoolyard, aren't they? "Nyah, nyah, you're a fat spic!" They just never appear to miss an opportunity to ridicule others; they only seem to be happy, in fact, when there are unfortunates to be mocked.

And please, folks, mock if you must, but don't tell me what I feel when I see a picture of a mother and daughter like the one above. Don't project your almost sociopathic lack of empathy onto others. We on the Left aren't like you. We could never be like you. We're better than you are. Your politics aren't politics at all; they're just one fat character flaw.

News of the day

Friday brings welcome relief from a hot and muggy week, both literally and figuratively.

• Here's good news and bad news: good for ordinary folks, bad for conservative lawn-order zealots: for the third consecutive year, the crime rate has dropped in Canada. Blame it on the Liberals?
  

• The CBC, for all its faults under the dubious captaincy of Richard Stursberg, still retains some investigative capacity. It managed to obtain emails that show both RCMP Commissioner William Elliott and BC Liberal premier Gordon Campbell as genuinely shoddy, hypocritical, unprofessional individuals.
  
  Elliott wept crocodile tears in public over the death of Robert Dziekanski, but sent private messages of support and encouragement to his killers. Campbell, despite his public apology to the bereaved mother, was actually "disappointed" that the RCMP was being criticized over the killing, and expressed support for Tasers. I wonder how she feels today.
  
  The feckless Commissioner indicated pearl-clutching concern about "tough or dirty" questions from the media such as "Why did the RCMP lie?" (in today's Globe and Mail coverage, print edition). I wouldn't call that one particularly tough or dirty: it's arguably a stupid question, because the answer is so immediately obvious, but it's instructive to watch the squirming and evasion that follow. (The Horsemen, by the way, don't like some of the media very much, including the Globe and Mail and the CBC.)
  
  Cover-up and information management, as many have suspected all along, have been the order of the day from the very beginning. As soon as the video of the killing became public, a containment strategy was orchestrated out of Ottawa. The fix is in, and it has been from day one. Watch Dziekanski's killers get off scot-free. Maintiens le Droit.
  
  What do the screech-warriors say about human rights commissions? It applies more aptly to the top brass of the RCMP: Fire. Them. All.
  
  
• Happy birthday, Nelson! Rob Anders' card probably just got lost in the mail.
  

Enough for now. I'm off to consider a contribution to the debate shaping up in the comments on my previous post, which are pretty good, the occasional troll-sniping aside.

UPDATE: I spoke too soon. Muggy as hell today.

Open letter to "progressives"

Friends, brothers and sisters, comrades:

Today I resigned as a moderator of Progressive Bloggers. I would like to explain why I did so, and to encourage a debate about the meaning--if there any longer is one--of the word "progressive."

I would draw your attention, first of all, to this post. A Liberal member of the blogroll expressed--and continues to express--strong support for a racist thug in Arizona named Joe Arpaio.

Under Sheriff Joe's watch, unspeakable brutality and violence is the order of the day, from breaking the neck of a paraplegic to strangling a mental patient to deliberately burning a family's puppy alive. The press are routinely harassed by his goons. The prisoners in his infamous "Tent City" jail, most of whom have not been convicted of anything but are simply awaiting trial, are purposely demeaned and ill-treated. Arpaio conducts regular sweeps aimed at Hispanics. I would encourage anyone with a strong stomach to follow the links I have provided. (H/t here to Canadian Cynic and to commenter Mike.)

But Liberal "Diva Rachel" loves Joe. Check out her post for yourselves. To get the flavour: "Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs (i.e. learn some work ethic!)"

"Arbeit Macht Frei" with a cornpone accent.

The original title of this post, in fact, was "Joe Arpaio: please clone him." (You can Google "Arpaio" and "clone" to see for yourselves the sort of people who share that sentiment.) And here is an earlier post of hers, supporting former Australian PM John Howard's racist occupation of Australia's Northern Territory. Stageleft smacked that one down a while back. Rachel is also a fervent supporter of the death penalty.

Since I posted a comment at her place, and she was subsequently contacted by ProgBlogs' chief moderator, Scott Tribe, she has seen fit to publish a "clarification," which contains a certain amount of rapid backpedaling--and a lie about me. She claims that I have sent her "hate mail." And she also makes reference, referring to me, to a "lynching party."

DR is Haitian by birth: hence those comments of hers clearly imply that I am hateful and racist. Facing quite justified critique for her adulatory post of a thuggish Southern US sheriff, she goes and plays the Clarence Thomas card.

The moderators of Progressive Bloggers, at my instigation, held a debate on DR's status as a member. It was (and is) my view that this blogger should be expelled. Whatever the word "progressive" means, it cannot include, or so I would have thought, gushing support for a far-right hoodlum who runs a reign of terror in some jerkwater part of the southern US. That's the sort of thing that only a bottom-feeding conservative extremist could defend. Right?

Wrong, as it turns out. Without going into the details of our private debate (although perhaps in future such debates should be open to all of the members of ProgBlog), let me note that the good sheriff drew some surprising support, and there was also a lot of anxious hand-wringing about my being too hard on the blogger in question. Detailed parsing of her post ensued. Arpaio did stop smoking in his jails and he instituted a two-week (!) English language program, or so we are told. DR only meant that some of his measures made sense. Etc.

Ultimately, the decision was made--to do nothing.

So I'm out as a moderator, although, since anything goes on ProgBlog, I'm going to stick around the 'roll and lash out blindly from time to time as I see fit. There is, however, a wider question, still unanswered, one that arose during the old My Blahg affair (I'll just let sleeping dawgs lie on that one), and in the subsequent eye-opening attempt to draw up a ProgBlog Code of Conduct.

What is "progressive?" What isn't?

The word itself is an anachronism. I don't think too many folks these days, even those of us of the Marxish persuasion, believe in some essentialist notion of "progress," with its quasi-religious teleology and its unilinear social-evolutionary implications. "Progressive" has become a bit of a floating signifier. This latest incident bears me out.

So, should we abandon the label altogether? If so, what would we replace it with? Should it, in fact, be replaced? Is it a useful category of practice, or an outmoded term rendered meaningless by being inclusive of just about everyone who lays claim to the label, no matter how odious and reactionary their political beliefs?

The floor is open.

Liberal fascism

Liblogs' Diva Rachel has found a hero: Sheriff Joe Arapaio. (Her original post was entitled "Joe Arapaio: please clone him." She seems to have reconsidered that hed--maybe too gushy?)

Smokin' Joe doesn't appeal to everyone, though.

Not, I would think, to paraplegics.

Nor advocates for the mentally handicapped.

Nor pet-lovers.

Nor visible minorities.

But at least one Liberal thinks he's doing a fine job. After the Green Shift--Tent City?

UPDATE: Before I get corrected on this, DR no longer appears on the Liblogs blogroll, although she was a member of it during the last Liberal leadership convention, where she supported candidate Gerard Kennedy and was one of the top five Liberal leadership bloggers.

UPPERDATE: (July 17) Here's a link for Jason Cherniak and others who possibly don't get out enough. Yes, you know who you are.

UPPESTDATE: (July 17) DR plays the Clarence Thomas card.

Mr. Harper's sado-politics

The abhorrent spectacle of Stephen Harper's continued temporizing on the matter of Omar Khadr, child soldier, is beginning to gross out even the hardened pols at the National Post. Jonathan Kay made the case for action yesterday, while somehow managing to leave Harper's name out of it:

"Millions of Web surfers are now wondering why Canada's government has acquiesced — and as the video shows, even participated — in the unconscionable treatment of a blubbering boy-soldier."

Indeed, Harper's stubbornness on the matter, it seems to me, borders on pathology. He seems to delight in it. "Mr. Khadr faces serious charges. There is a judicial process underway to determine Mr. Khadr's fate. This should continue," his new mouthpiece Kory Teneycke said, only a few minutes after images of Khadr's interrogation by CSIS were flashed around the world.

"Judicial process?" Khadr has been held in a detention camp for six years without trial. He was tortured right from the get-go. When the "judge" of the case agreed to too many preliminary defence motions on issues of disclosure, he was summarily replaced. Evidence has been tampered with by the prosecution. If ever there was a classic kangaroo court, the Gitmo "military tribunals" are certainly that.

Is this the rule of law that Harper supports?

But of course it's not about law. It's about cruelty, and the almost erotic delight that too many conservatives take in it (Kay being one honourable exception, and there are no doubt several others). To be blunt, there seems to be many a manly swelling of the trousers in those ranks when child-torture is brought up.

Here is the gallery that Harper is playing to, and some of their "ejaculated debate-broadening thoughts" as the Post's Shane Dingman puts it about some likeminded commenters over at CBC.

Now, may we view any of the thousands of similar videos of vicious and manipulative murderers, rapists, and thugs sobbing their way through other police interrogations?

I couldn't care less for the little turd and his creepy family.

Maybe Stephane Dion can take him in, and give him the Father figure, the poor little piece of camel dung is missing in his life!!!

How's that jihad crap working for you now, Khadr? Why should we help you?

evil little shithead

Where is my violin?

Frankly I don't give a damn if he's been tortured beaten or water boarded

"Frankly I don't give a damn if he's been tortured beaten or water boarded
Are you kidding? I'd be disappointed if he wasn't

The best thing for this little s--t is to rott in that jail till he dies and when he goes he can take the cbc and all thier coharts with him

I cringe listening to this baby 15 yr old. A perfect example of a spoiled rotten kid with over-bearing parents

I wonder if he's gonna look like his father, Ahmed when he grows older. If so, we should behead him, so we won't have our appetites ruined again by pictures of that bushy beard bulbous headed toad-face welfare recipient.

Send Khadr back to the ME or leave him in Gitmo FOREVER.

No further words, I believe, are necessary. These folks tell their own sick story far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing. Makes you proud to be a Canadian--eh?

Margo's sour grapes

Stealth Catholic Margaret Somerville is a little late to the party, but today she writes, for some reason, about the Order of Canada--no doubt whistling innocently over her keyboard.

In the "interests of transparency," she lets us know upfront that she received "such an award" herself (actually the Order of Australia) and was turned down 17 years later for an Order of Canada. Then she launches into a sociobiological explanation for human hierarchies, which might lull us momentarily into thinking that she is tackling the subject in a disinterested manner.

But no such luck. Halfway through the article, she begins to probe, none too delicately, the award of an Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. She does so in the form of an interrogation: How are such awards given? Who decides? What values do they hold?

"How does the motto 'They desire a better Canada' apply in the case of contested values, as is the case for abortion?" she asks. But just how contested are those values? And in any case, surely the "contest" here is whether the award itself was justified. We've had some polling at this point, and two-thirds of Canadians approve of the award to Dr. Morgentaler. So much for the "powerful disagreement" that Somerville invokes.

"[I]f unity of Canadians is a goal of the honour, as it's reported the prime minister believes, Dr. Morgentaler's award has been spectacularly unsuccessful," she goes on. The smell of a dead red herring is here overwhelming. "Unity of Canadians" is not a criterion for the award. Who cares what Stephen Harper thinks? And if this criterion did apply, what of Brian Mulroney? Jean Chrétien? Conrad Black? None of these last are uncontroversial. In fact, I venture to suggest that one or two of them might be more controversial than the good doctor.

Does the award mean that "as a society we celebrate and approve of both the person honoured and their conduct" that merited it? she asks. "It's one thing, sadly and regretfully, to allow abortion, quite another to celebrate it." One can just see her wagging her finger at the selection committee. But (how often must we keep repeating this), abortion isn't being celebrated here: one man's heroic effort on behalf of women's right to choose is.

Somerville appears to struggle for balance:

Does this mean awards should be given only to candidates of whom everyone approves or, at least, no one publicly disapproves? Would that diminish the award and make it meaningless? Is that fair or unfair? Would it make people reticent to speak "their truth" as they see it?

But as we shall see, there's method in it. After all, Somerville herself has her critics, and she speaks "her truth" with no reticence at all.

"Is it unacceptable to use the award to further certain political goals or specific ideologies, as is true of Dr. Morgentaler's supporters?" Careful, Margo: that loaded question might go off. But perhaps you might re-load and aim at, say, Sister Suzanne Stubbs, for example.

And then the outright griping starts: "Do principles of fairness and equity apply in deciding who is honoured or don't they apply because awards involve the distribution of privileges, not the fulfilling of rights?"

Wow. It's all in there, isn't it? The snarl-word "privilege." The implication that "fairness and equity" played no part in the Morgentaler award--or in her own rejection.

There is no easy answer about what to do. It could range from abolishing such honours or, its opposite, giving them to vastly more people (the next generation, who all get prizes at school so no one is left out, might take that approach), both of which I believe are bad ideas. Other options include making the award more transparent and democratic and ensuring the widest possible diversity of Canadians are recognized, or retaining the current system and trying to modify it where it seems unfair or inadequate.

Let's parse this a bit, shall we?

"[N]o easy answer about what to do." Who says anything has to be done? What's wrong with the current process?What an unsubtle gambit from a nimble moral philosopher like Somerville. She uses it to introduce possible solutions to a non-existent problem.

Getting rid of the Order or giving it to "vastly more people" are quickly rejected. Then there's "making the award more transparent and democratic...ensuring the widest possible diversity..." three sweet purr-words used to imply something shady about the Morgentaler decision. Transparency! Democracy! Diversity! Who could oppose those?

But wait. Diversity? For every Morgentaler, there's an Emmett Carter. For every Brian Mulroney, there's a Jean Chrétien. For every Brent Hawkes, there's an Otto Tucker. For every Ernie Regehr there's a Charles Foulkes. What more diversity could Somerville want--other, of course, than her own inclusion?

Transparency? We know how the decision was made, who supported it on the committee and who did not, who the members of the committee are, and how they are appointed. Democracy? Most Canadians thought Morgentaler's award was justified. What does Somerville propose for future candidates--a referendum?

But here, in a barely comprehensible, cryptic closing paragraph, Somerville hints at what's really on her mind:

To conclude, there is a tension between standing out enough to merit an OC and not standing out so much, at least for the "wrong" reasons, as not to merit it. This brings to mind a popular Japanese proverb. The proverb states, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down." It's intended to promote the value, a primary one in Japanese society, of conformity. But as one commentator shows, we need to be aware that different lenses on a situation can provide different insights. He rephrases the proverb: "The nail that sticks out sometimes ... stays sitting down."

To avoid the inevitable jarring images of sitting on protruding nails, let me help the reader out with the last bit. The source is here. It appears that some Japanese schoolteachers were punished not long ago for refusing to stand when the Japanese national anthem was played. They were apparently demonstrating their opposition to the militarism and nationalism that continues to afflict that country more than sixty years after WWII.

I think it's pretty clear that Somerville thinks she has been passed over for an Order of Canada for the "wrong" reasons. She has bravely refused to go along with the pro-choice majority, the same-sex marriage majority, the majority that almost inevitably stands on the opposite moral shore from her own. At some point in the future, her refusal to stand with all the others might just be recognized, and an obvious error of omission rectified.

Of course, Henry Morgentaler and his supporters were once in a minority as well. Dr. Morgentaler stood, not for abortion, as Somerville claims, but for the right of women to choose their reproductive destinies. He was imprisoned, ill-treated while there, denied parole, hounded by a spectacular abuse of legal process--but he, and countless Canadian women, eventually triumphed.

He made a real difference. He desired a better Canada, and he put his body on the line for it. He paid the price for his convictions, and that price was oftentimes a heavy one. Comparisons are odious, I know--but what has Somerville done that comes remotely close to that? How would her vigorous advocacy of turning back the clock qualify her for the highest honour in the land?

I think the Order of Canada selection committee has already answered that question.

Tasteless and inoffensive

Given the chatter about the now-infamous New Yorker cover that seems to be building--a political meta-discourse about "acceptable" political discourse--I see I must amplify the remarks I made in my earlier post on the subject. I'm particularly enthralled by the post and ensuing commentary at Chet Scoville's place. Shorter Chet and most of his commenters: "Not funny, and could well be harmful."

I think the cover was hilarious, but whether it is or it isn't is no longer the issue, at least for me: I'm more interested in the "harmful" part.

It's true that satire is a risky business these days: I've been badly bitten myself. There's too much information-flow, too many extremes. Satire, after all, is based upon exaggeration for effect, but everything these days is exaggerated, and its only intended effect is usually literal acceptance. Faith healing evangelists out-Gantry Gantry; a Republican celebrates Hitler's birthday; Obama is the anti-Christ (a trope that the New Yorker missed--I would have liked an upside-down cross on the wall); 9/11 was an inside job. The President of the United States, told of the World Trade Center calamity, couldn't tear his attention away from a children's book.* We have wide-stance anti-gay crusaders, frolicking priests, literally loony miracle cures, political yahoos stalking children, foam food, animal weddings and Christ on a cracker pancake.

How do you satirize this stuff? There's simply no room left for exaggeration, and even if there were, folks would take it seriously anyhow. That's the argument about the New Yorker cover. And it's wrong.

We are talking about a political campaign, allegedly an exercise in democracy, in the land of the First Amendment where almost everything goes. There's a hubbub of voices, brought to us by mass media that, as the name implies, mediate: we get nothing raw, everything slanted, translated, reformulated and carefully selected. We are challenged, even the most politically savvy of us, to keep our feet and figure things out.

In this maelstrom where all extremes meet, the race for the centre is well under way: Obama is betraying every principle he never had and McCain is simpering platitudes to a people already ODing on them.

It's the eye of the storm. Head for calm, where nothing moves. Say nothing, do nothing, that could offend anyone. Pretend to be just like the other guy, and let the people decide, if they're still awake.

And the worst part is that so many people agree that this is just as it should be. The inherent elitism here should be soundly rejected by any progressive. Instead, it's embraced. Americans are just too dumb to figure out the satire, the story goes--hence it's failed satire. Doesn't this sound suspiciously akin to the "soft bigotry of low expectations" of which we as progressives are occasionally accused by conservatives (who apparently prefer the hard bigotry of no expectations)? It's something to be steadfastly avoided, I would have thought, by anyone who supports that fundamentally democratic principle: power to the people.

Let's untangle all this. First, there is no homogeneous American audience, dumb or otherwise. It's precisely for that reason that Obama and McCain, like most other presidential candidates within living memory, are seeking that safe centre where all the vectors cancel out. It's a lousy strategy, and it makes for political elevator music. Eventually all that matters is whether this candidate has bad hair, or that one wears a flag pin. This sort of stuff leaves most people unsatisfied, or in a continued state of somnambulism. But that doesn't mean that they are all the same, or that they like things as they are, or that there is no alternative. It's just that no one's giving them a chance to have anything else.

Secondly, there are smart Americans and benighted ones, but few of them ground their beliefs in and make their political choices on the basis of a cartoon. If they do happen to see it, they might misinterpret it, take it seriously, or get the point, but not too many will confuse it with a photograph or a text or Holy Writ. For American voters already predisposed to see Obama as a monster, the cartoon will simply play back a message they've already received. (Gordon Liddy tells us the New Yorker finally got it right. This has my friend Chet worried. But seriously, does anyone except a jittery liberal or two give an airborne fornication about that woo-woo nutbar and anything he says?)

For those who like Obama, or dislike the shrill wingnuts and the lies they tell, they'll either see the cover for the send-up of the screechy Right that it is, and chuckle, or they'll get offended, or they'll do both, the latter for rhetorical effect, or because they believe their fellow-citizens won't get it, or because they don't get it. And then there will be people who are just puzzled, and even more people who will never get to see either the cover or the controversy.

The media are not exactly fanning the flames here, either. They're giving play, not to the cartoon, but to the controversy around it--a controversy manufactured by timorous liberals. All the reports I've seen get the satire angle right. Ordinary Americans reading about the controversy will grab the main elements: the cover wasn't intended to be taken literally, but some nervous folks in the Obama camp think it will be. And those average American voters have every right to be offended, not by the cartoon, but by the profound condescension and disrespect for them that the Obama camp is nervously displaying.

But the real threat here is more general: we're watching our progressive allies hammer yet another nail into the coffin of political debate. Anything that rises above a dull literalism, or ventures into wit, or indeed requires anything on the part of the masses except absorption, is to be avoided at all costs. It'll be slapped down from all sides as "tasteless and offensive" (McCain's folks know an opening for a high road dash when they see one). Should such fare be carefully labeled for the unwashed so they know what they're actually seeing, as Spike Lee felt constrained to do for his film Bamboozled? "The following cartoon, although intended to be humorous, contains images that some voters may find offensive or disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised."

This isn't politics; it's palliative care.

But the stakes always seem to be too high for us progressives to take unnecessary chances. We need to court the "mainstream," the wisdom goes, even if that stream runs in narrower and narrower channels every day. This is a political campaign, and so we need to be political, and not offend all those stupid voters. Ditch the satirical cartoons, OK? And ditch any serious policy options, while we're at it.

Progressives are, I had hoped, about more than good ideas and possible alternatives. We're supposed to be about process as well: a democratic process that involves and challenges people, and gives them control of decisions that affect them. How does this square with deliberately sheltering them out of fear that they might be misled by this, or offended by that? Who the hell do we think we are? Where do we think we're going with this?

Real cut-and-thrust political commentary in the country of the legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates has been turned into bland pudding, and we're in that goo up to our necks, even those of us who aren't American but support this strategy, if strategy it can be called. And partly because of this, real choices disappear. Suddenly our guy is no longer clear on getting the troops out of Iraq. In the Senate he votes for a dangerous new government spy-on-citizens bill. On the campaign trail he expresses support for the death penalty for non-capital crimes. He speaks up for traditional marriage, and against inner-city handgun control. He thinks more young people should join the army.

Just as well, say his strategists and allies. Otherwise we might get George Bush again. Well, fellow progressives, that we will--no matter how the ballots are cast. And we're doing our bit to ensure it.

______________
*(Well, there was indeed a little room for satire there...)

FFS, lighten up!

Damian Penny first drew my attention to the current issue of the New Yorker, and its cover. (As a subscriber, I'll probably be getting my copy in the mail this week.) His fix on it is generally sound, although his hypothetical--the same cartoon appearing first in Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard--is a bit unconvincing.

In any case, the cover is good satire, and I like it. It's the perfect send-up of the benighted Fox News anchor who raised the whole idiotic "terrorist fist-jab" nonsense in the first place--and the knuckle-dragging anti-Obama hordes currently in full spate.

But it's also proven to be yet another opportunity for a torrent of outrage, faux and real. It's been angrily denounced by the Obama campaign, and McCain has added his piping voice to the chorus. And my brothers and sisters, alas, are not immune to the temptation either. Now the editor of the New Yorker has been forced to do his 'splaining in the most serious terms imaginable, although the cartoonist, Barry Blitt, has maintained his aplomb. And the pundits have weighed in: reconstructed "leftist" Oliver Kamm's contribution here is the (unintentionally) funniest, because he thinks the cartoon is unfair to the anti-Obama side. In this, perhaps unsurprisingly, he joins arch-conservative Little Green Footballs.

Andrew Sullivan publishes an email today that takes the "it's not funny" meme to new lows, its author suggesting that "Spike Lee even in his piece of genius "Bamboozled", felt compelled to preface the film with Webster's definition for the word 'satire'". I see this as further evidence of the long-term harm done to American culture by decades of laugh-tracks. Maybe we indeed need comedy labels in the absence of such prompts, as Lee's sad truckling indicates. "Warning: the following is a joke. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

The level of political discourse in America has been lamentably free of content ever since I can remember. But at this point I'm beginning to think that Jonathan Swift would be on the ropes about now, trying to explain that he didn't really mean that we should actually eat Irish babies. It's just one more reason to stop following a campaign that's rapidly turned boring and disgraceful together, as Obama inevitably tries to show that he's no different from the other guy. Humour was all we had left, even inadvertent humour, but now even that has dissipated into puffs of indignant vapouring.

Bland is in. Tapioca, rice pudding and vanilla are on today's political menu. And my side of the aisle, God help us, is holding the ladle.

The sin of pride

A nun makes a choice--about somebody's else's Order of Canada medal.

In the same spirit, I hereby freely renounce former Canadian citizen Conrad Black's Order of Canada, and would swiftly return his medal to Rideau Hall were it to come into my possession. And the old robber-baron isn't even dead yet. I'm not certain, however, that I would do more than post a short entry here about it. I enjoy the odd bout of self-righteousness, as some of my more ardent critics (and, privately, even some of my friends) might be quick to agree. But there are limits. No press conference, no op-ed piece. The gesture itself tells, I would think, the entire story.

Those who have read Murder in the Cathedral might already know where I'm going with this. Archbishop Thomas Becket is facing imminent martyrdom. The most difficult question with which he must wrestle is whether pride, rather than devotion to God, is motivating his decision to remain in Canterbury to be killed. Does the Archbishop covet his martyrdom, and the ensuing devotion that will be paid him?

Sister Suzanne Stubbs, it seems to me, has not grappled sufficiently with this question. She might, after all, simply have returned the medal, even if it wasn't hers. But she chose, instead, to accompany this dubious act of sacrifice with an article in the National Post and a press conference at Michaëlle Jean's place.

The article fairly reeks of prissy self-satisfaction. And, of course, not only are we called upon to admire the Sister's spotless conscience, we must also hold in high regard the sheer courage it took:

We knew we were taking a risk. We could expect some nasty feedback from friends and strangers. We certainly would be labelled in some way: right, left, pro, anti. We might be made to look foolish. I might even feel foolish at some point. Still, I made a choice to go to Ottawa.

To a gathering of media, the Sister claims, "We had no agenda except to perform a symbolic gesture. That is, we made a statement about what we believe to be true." In the full glare, of course, of as much publicity as she and her fellows could drum up in order to put their virtue on public display.

And how she drones on:

In my work at a Catholic organization, I try to help people know that they matter, too. It is a blessed work, and it gives me peace. In the work of our group, we spend time listening to people. We try to pay attention to them and be concerned for their concerns. We try not to give handouts in our charity work without befriending the person in need.

Yes, she feels their pain:

In my personal work, I've listened to the anguish of women who have suffered abortions. I have listened to the questions of the young who want to inform their consciences about abortion. In some cases, our friends are helped to consider and choose other options than destroying life. I guess my heart has taken in a lot of the pain of the others.

Now the point is not that she isn't sincere about all this. I have no reason to suppose that Sister Stubbs is a hypocrite. But there is something mildly disturbing about the apparent hunger for publicity that accompanied her grand gesture of renunciation. Was her trip to Ottawa simply an opportunity to bear witness against the award of the Order of Canada to a person anathematized by her Church? Or was it, as Catholics might put it, an "occasion for sin"--in this case the cardinal sin of hubris?

The truth about global warming

H/t commenter Kobra, at Pharyngula

The black hole

First the video (h/t, and a further h/t for stimulating this post):



My initial reaction was the same as that of my friend Red Tory. At the very margins of political correctness. Beyond silly. A black hole is so named because its gravity is so intense that no light can escape from it. You can't go around calling it a "white hole" or a "pink hole."

But the man in the video actually raises an interesting point. With the exception of "in the black," popular usages of the word tend to connote something negative. "Black arts," "black hearts," "black look," "black book," "blackout," "black sheep," "blackguard," etc., etc.

No wonder the Irish refer in their language to "blue people" rather than "black people." ("An fear dubh" means "the Devil," literally, "the black man." Hence, out of respect, "an fear gorm" is used for Blacks.)

It's no coincidence that colonialists called Kipling's "lesser breeds without the Law" "black." It accorded with the connotations the word already had. Ditto "white." When did we start calling ourselves "white," anyway? Quite late during the Age of Discovery, as it happens (scroll down to n.35 in the link). Why is someone half-white and half-black "black? instead of "white?" Because the notion of blackness has been made equivalent to sin: maculate vs. immaculate, the staining of purity. "Whiteness," of course, is an ever-shifting category.

The connotations of both "white" and "black" are far too deeply embedded, in any case, to be overcome simply by watching one's words. But there is a solution.

I've never seen a black person, just people in various delightful hues ranging from ebony (actually a very dark brown) to light tan. Instead of internalizing centuries of white racism, perhaps Blacks (who adopted that nomenclature in the 'sixties as a form of political defiance, much as the word "queer" was reclaimed by gays) might want to consider referring to themselves as brown, or umber, or bronze. And we non-Blacks should follow suit, of course. Speaking as a pinkish kind of person, it seems to me that this would be a far less arduous cultural hill to climb.

Any takers?

Oggi in Italia: il risorgimento Fascista

Is anyone paying attention to the rapid lurch of Italy into full-blown Fascism these days?

The extreme-right government of Silvio Berlusconi is now in its second incarnation. It's been in the news recently for rounding up Roma ("Gypsies") for fingerprinting, and threatening to take away their children. Berlusconi himself has hijacked the political process by just passing a law to exempt himself from on-going prosecution on charges of corruption.

Fascism has once again gained a stronghold in Italy. The new mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, a former member of a neo-Fascist youth group, Fronte della Gioventù, (associated with the Fascist political party Movimento Sociale Italiano) was elected a few short weeks ago, to rousing chants of "Duce! Duce!" from his squadristi. Berlusconi welcomed his election, proclaiming, "We are the new Falange."

Meanwhile Berlusconi's Northern League henchman, Umberto Bossi, has already proclaimed, "Non so cosa vuole la sinistra, noi siamo pronti, se vogliono fare gli scontri io ho trecentomila uomini sempre a disposizione." ("I don't know what the Left wants, but if they want to take us on, I've got 300,000 men at my disposal.") And then, getting straight to the point, "I fucili sono sempre caldi." ("Our rifles are always hot.")

A beady gaze had already been cast upon homosexuals under this Mussolini nuovo. Did you know that gays can't drive? Somehow that was never part of the stereotype for me, but a gay man in Italy was forced to re-take his driver's test and then was issued with only a one-year permit, because of his "sexual identity disturbance" ("disturbo del comportamento sessuale"). Both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport were involved. A court in Sicily (the courts have not as yet been purged) has just awarded him €100,000 (about $157,000) in damages.

The European Union passed a strongly-worded resolution with respect to the rounding-up of Roma, but I for one have had my bellyful of strongly-worded resolutions. What about regime change right here at home? While the eyes of the world are focussed upon Robert Mugabe, a European nation is returning to its Fascist glory days.

And needless to say, our "conservatives" love him. More ideological slippage? Or is Fascism, as I've said before, just conservatism with the gloves off?

A nation of sheep

Not long ago I posted a few examples of Canadians' sleepwalking deference to authority. Today's news brings more glaring instances.

In Edmonton, two thuggish cops, both high-ranking, were given wrist-slaps by yet another complaisant judge. These uniformed hoods unlawfully entered a man's house without a warrant, refused to leave, and then broke one of his ribs and doused him with pepper-spray. They walked out of court with six-month conditional discharges (which become absolute discharges at the end of that period), and sixty hours of community service.

The article just linked to reveals a social pathology that should worry anyone genuinely concerned about civil liberties. Defence lawyers wittered on about "impressive community and professional contributions." One of the thugs, we are told, lost 30 pounds and suffered several sleepless nights due to the stress of the trial and attendant publicity.

When the journalist finally moves on, having established to her satisfaction that these suffering boyz in blue were fine upstanding citizens, she get to the nub of the thing:

Ewatski entered the home to speak to him and Dubois shoved him. Ewatski responded by delivering a head-stun. He pushed Dubois to the floor and pepper-sprayed him. Fiorilli pulled back on Dubois's thumb to cause pain.

Almost needless to say, Dubois was charged with assaulting a police officer. The Crown wisely stayed that bogus charge.

And, after all this, as was the case with the cops who killed Robert Dziekanski, it's back to business as usual:

"Chief Mike Boyd has confirmed that there will be no immediate change to the work assignment or status of the officers pending conclusion of the internal investigation," police spokeswoman Dajana Fabjanovich said in a news release.

Does anyone remember the case of Said Jama Jama, a Somalian immigrant badly beaten by a thug named Roy Preston, charged with assault on a police officer, and threatened with deportation? After the whole thing turned out to have been caught on videotape, the judicial system simply threw the book at the officer. He was sentenced to thirty days, to be served on weekends.

It doesn't end there. This was in 2005. The cop actually appealed this little slap on the hand, but in November 2007, his appeal was dismissed. He appeal again, and only this month was a further appeal dismissed. For most of this time he had remained on full pay by special order of Toronto police chief Bill Blair, who had the discretion, under Ontario's Police Services Act, to suspend Preston without pay after his initial conviction. The Ontario Court of Appeal noted, with breathtaking understatement, that his sentence was "if anything, on the lenient side," and rejected a bizarre argument from Preston's lawyer that he shouldn't be imprisoned because it could affect his career as a police officer.

After two appeals, a sentence of thirty days, to be served on weekends. For assault and battery, attempt to frame his victim, and fabrication of evidence, by a person whose sworn duty it was to uphold the law.

And there are people who think that the greatest threat to our freedoms comes from Human Rights Commissions?

*************

Meanwhile, on the international front, our troops in Afghanistan are set to be issued with so-called "laser dazzlers." These, despite the harmless-sounding name, can be used to blind enemy troops, contrary to a Geneva Convention ban on the use of laser weapons. A spokesman for a company that makes these things admits that they aren't "eye-safe," but offers the following reassurances: "As long as they're employed as they ought to be employed, within the safe operating distance, they will not cause any eye damage."

Well, that's OK, then. After all, our military calls them "warning devices." And the kindly Blackwater folks are using them in Iraq.

Back to sleep, my fellow Canadians. Never mind that "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" stuff. That's for dead Romans and weak-kneed leftist bleeding hearts. Those folks in uniform are our friends, upholding law and liberty here and over there.

Move along. There's nothing to see here. I told you to move along. Do I really have to use this thing?

UPDATE: It occurs to me that this excellent piece by Boris over at Galloping Beaver might have inspired this post. H/t, to be on the safe side. : )