Rights and Democracy: the worst defence

...is an inept offence.

Paul Wells, senior Maclean's columnist, chipping away at the comic-opera governance of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD), gets this for his pains:

Insults from the Chairman of the Board:

I am in between classes, and I just received your message. I truly believe that the truth loves light. Unfortunately, you have only attempted to bury the truth. The fact that, here, you have approached us at the very last minute on the afternoon of your deadline with such a barrage of distortions (which would obviously take substantial time to correct), indicates that you do not seek my cooperation in shedding light on the truth, but rather my assistance in helping you write yet another grossly misleading piece against myself and the leadership of Rights & Democracy.

Sincerely,

Aurel Braun

Evasion, bluster, even a veiled threat from the interim President:

Dear Mr. Wells,

I have read your questions. Given my other commitments, it has not been possible in the short time this afternoon you have provided to respond to your questions. The assumptions behind your questions are in large part demonstrably wrong, misleading, incomplete and\or distorted and I caution you against publishing an article based on them. You have certainly been interested in this matter on an ongoing basis, and if you wished to be fair and balanced and genuinely wished to hear our perspective, you would have written a few days ago and given me an adequate opportunity to respond. It is wrong that you have not done so. [emphasis added]

Jacques Gauthier, Ph.D.

Meanwhile, when you're under attack on all fronts, why not kick out the top managers and call in private detectives on the taxpayers' dime--that'll let the staff know who's boss. And everyone else will see you're on the job, fearless white knights in a dark cavern.

What, not enough?

OK, then, let's order up a forensic audit.* Never mind that the Auditor-General carries out annual audits. Brush aside the five-year review conducted by Foreign Affairs from 2003 to 2008 whose "final assessment of the five years in question [was] a positive one," and which concluded: "A review of the financial statements for the 2003-08 period did not find any abnormalities. "

Mud is mud. Some is sure to stick. Won't it? Keep throwing!

What an exciting, action-packed several months it's been. The new Board members set to with a will, starting last year with a full-bore attempt to blacken the name of the (now-late) President, spending a wodge of taxpayers' money to try to keep him from seeing, let alone responding to, a negative evaluation. Conducting ethnic profiling of the staff to see if any Jews have been hired; asking around to find out who speaks Arabic.

Riding herd on employees, who have consequently complained almost unanimously of on-going psychological harassment and intimidation. "Repudiating" grants to respected human-rights groups, then slandering them. Suspending the top echelon of managers. Hiring a surveillance firm. Commissioning a forensic audit.

Human rights? Democratic development? Good grief, at this point ICHRDD ought to be giving a grant to itself.

___________________
*Forensic audit: "Application of accounting methods to the tracking and collection of forensic evidence, usually for investigation and prosecution of criminal acts such as embezzlement or fraud. Also called forensic accounting."

Saturday rocks: five best

Talk about subjective! But my curiosity was piqued the other day when a couple of commenters gave me the hairy eyeball for suggesting that My Sharona was "one of the best damn rock tunes of all time."

OK, who would be on your Top Five list? Feel free to put up YouTube clips if available--my fancy new comments system allows that sort of thing.

Here, for what it's worth, and dating me terribly no doubt, is my off-the-top-of-my-head list, unranked and probably meaningless, but happy listening anyway:

Jimi Hendrix, All Along the Watchtower, also the best damn cover of all time:



Layla. I was lucky enough to be at the Rainbow, gloriously blitzed, when Eric Clapton, just weaned off the "naughty powder" by his friend Pete Townsend, opened with it. But here's the original Derek and the Dominoes version.



Cream, Sunshine of Your Love. Three brilliant musicians, cooking up a storm; almost any track would suit, frankly. This one has sentimental value:



Rolling Stones, Brown Sugar (just try to ignore the lyrics):



And again, not being in the least anti-New Wave, here's The Knack and My Sharona, which some consider a turning-point in rock history. If it really helped put an end to disco, it's got my vote:



Bonus track: Velvet Underground, 1966--that other turning-point. Here's the studio version of I'm Waiting For My Man:



Over to you!

Proud to be a Canadian?

I wonder how Abousfian Abdelrazik feels at the moment.

Abdelrazik is presently suing the Canadian government, which illegally exiled him in Sudan and, thanks to CSIS, exposed him to torture.

And what is the Harper administration's response? After stealing a man's life for six years, and continuing to deny him the right to find employment now that he's back in Canada by court order, the government is calling Abdelrazik's lawsuit "frivolous and vexatious."

Paul Koring, as usual, is all over this:

Even if he was thrown in prison in Sudan at the request of Canadian agents, Abousfian Abdelrazik has no case against the federal government because Canadian law does not protect him overseas, Justice Department lawyers claim.

The government's filings go downhill from there.

One of Abdelrazik's lawyers, Paul Champ, for whom I have a lot of respect, may have been momentarily blinded by illusion: "I expected the government would approach us about an apology and a settlement," he said.

"Instead," he reports, "they have been entirely unrepentant."

But this is Stephen Harper's government, Paul. Canada's New Government, if now somewhat frowsy and shopworn. A government for whom some citizens are more equal than others.

Koring's article includes the background of this case. Go have a read, and remind yourself once again why the Harper regime needs to be tossed on the dustheap of history.

Our selectively impermeable borders

Our border follies continue. An American violence-promoting hatemonger is greeted with open arms--but a star Mexican chef and his assistant have just been turned away.

Readers may remember that Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, took it upon himself last July to keep Canada free of Roma fleeing Eastern Europe for their lives, and he threw in Mexican visitors for good measure.

Yesterday the Montreal High Lights winter festival, one of those grand celebrations of life for which Quebecers are well-known, began its run. Gastronomy, of course, is on the ticket: chefs from all over the world will be visiting for a day or two to demonstrate their prowess and offer their cuisine to the revellers.

Not, however, Enrique Olvera.*

Olvera is a world-class chef who operates the highly-rated Pujol restaurant in Mexico City. He was on the festival guest list, but Immigration denied him a visa. Officials told Olvera that there was a risk he would remain in Canada illegally after the festival, and that, in any case, he would have needed a work permit--something no other chef has ever been required to obtain.

The owner of the trendy Montreal restaurant Raza, who had been expecting to host Olvera, was "disappointed, sad, but most of all angry." Almost all of the places at his restaurant had been booked, preparations were well underway and airplane tickets purchased, before he learned of the decision. As for Chef Olvera, he says he won't try to visit Canada again. "Your people treated me like an outcast," he said.

Not "our people," Señor Olvera. Jason Kenney, his department and his government do not speak for the majority of Canadians. Their values are not our values. Most of us, on learning this news, will feel deeply ashamed, as I do.

Give us a few months, OK? Once we have taken out the trash, I hope you will reconsider. For now, unfortunately, the apologies of ordinary Canadians for this insult must suffice.

[H/t En beau joual Vert]

UPDATE: (February 20) Marie-Claude Lortie of La Presse, who broke the story and to whose report I linked above, is annoyed with me for giving her insufficient credit for the details in my post. Be sure to visit her place for updates on this story. She has, at this point, spoken with MP Denis Coderre, who is now pressing the matter with Jason Kenney.

White-collar criminal

A man flew a small plane into a building near Austin, Texas, housing 190 employees of the Internal Revenue Service:

Initially identified as Joseph Andrew Stack, the pilot, said to be a disgruntled engineer, allegedly left an anti-government note on the Internet before crashing his small plane into the office building that houses the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The note outlines problems with the IRS and says violence "is the only answer." It also lashes out on [sic] former president George W. Bush and incumbent President Barack Obama.

But, I am delighted to report, the Austin police have assured us that this was not an act of terrorism.

"No one likes paying taxes," said newly-elected Republican Senator Scott Brown, of Massachusetts. Whew. Had me worried there for a minute.

Our selectively porous borders

The vile Ann Coulter is coming to Canada. And the Usual Suspects are pleased.

A while ago George Galloway was barred. I must admit I didn't lose much sleep over that little episode--he's a windy, self-loving sort, like some folks closer to home, and I don't much care for him--but maybe I should have. I got far more upset, in any event, about this and this and this and this and this.

I'm not arguing that the fearsome-looking racist, homophobic skank* person pictured above should be stopped at the border. Let her in by all means. Most of us will be spared her toxic bloviations in any case. Registration is required to listen to her, and I'm sure that suitable echo-chambers are even now being prepared. But I'd like to point out a few inconsistencies in the matter.

Galloway was blocked because he allegedly supported terrorism. Well, here are a few ripe quotations from Coulter:

My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.

I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

You remember what a fabulous success court-ordered "desegregation" plans have been. Few failures have been more spectacular.

They're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.

When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages.

I think our motto should be post-9-11, "raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences." [This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.]

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say....

Vester: You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?
Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

So a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe, a self-declared supporter of fascism, torture and violence, gets to go on a Canadian speaking tour and be lionized by the Speech Warriors™, even though she's iffy on freedom of speech. No border difficulties for her, and a warm welcome awaits. Because, after all--she's conservative.

*UPDATE: The comment thread has been derailed by my use of this term, whose current meaning was not, alas, clear to me. Mea maxima culpa.

Retraction: finale

Further to my recent retraction, it appears that Ezra Levant has backed off his additional demands, made through his lawyer, that I purge an entire post and delete all comments on the subject of his recent encounter with the Law Society of Alberta.

The matter, I believe, is now concluded.

When one sets aside Levant's trademark Sturm und Drang, the whole story amounted to this: I published an inaccuracy. It was brought to my attention, and I promptly corrected it.

That has, in fact, been my practice since I started up this blog nearly five years ago.

Levant preferred to kick the door rather than try the knob. I hope he spent good money on this guy. An email would have cost him nothing.

In any case, he's had his gotcha moment. Now he can go back to noisily defending himself against what he is pleased to call "lawfare." And I will go on mocking and criticizing him mercilessly. Let the games continue.

Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees

IRQR is an organization I heard about a mere few days ago. The fault is likely mine.

The aim of IRQR is, quite simply, to rescue gays and lesbians from the theocratic Iranian regime, under which being homosexual incurs the death penalty, and help them to safety. As this photo indicates, life is a nightmare for the GLBT folks under Iran's brand of Islam:



IRQR is hosting a fundraising brunch in Ottawa on February 27. Come, listen to "Tone Cluster--Quite a Queer Choir," and learn. See you there!

When: Saturday, February 27, 2010
10:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Where: Ottawa City Hall, Colonel By Room
Host: Councillor Clive Doucet
Capital Ward, City of Ottawa

Tickets: $10.00 — Donations also welcome

To order: info@irqr.net
Info: www.irqr.net
(613) 237-5337

Rights and Democracy: on the brink

The antic new Board of Rights and Democracy has driven another nail into the organization's own coffin, shutting down its office in Geneva.

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon promises "action." Why am I not reassured?

And, after revelations about interim president Jacques Gauthier's ethnic profiling, veteran commentator Gerald Caplan has some choice words to say about Jewish hiring quotas.

[H/t sassy b/c]

Israel Derangement Syndrome

Having put up a few articles critical of Israel, I've been accused of IDS from time to time--by commenters who tend to be pro-Israel in their views. Indeed, some of the friskier among them have taken to following me around the blogosphere, noisily denouncing me. One over-the-top BC blogger (no link here) went so far as to accuse me of being an apologist for the Blood Libel.

But in an era where even Jews critical of Israel state policy are called anti-Semites, none of that should surprise anyone.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to loom large in public commentary, and is an obvious priority for the Harper government. Stephen Harper himself considers criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic. A Parliamentary "coalition" is hard at work paving the way for the eventual criminalization of such criticism. Campus hoaxes add fuel to the fire. And lobby pressure to shut down dissent continues, incessantly, remorselessly.

Israel Derangement Syndrome? I've been responding to it.

Today I learn that the junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Kent, has effectively committed Canada to war in the Middle East if Israel is attacked. No such bilateral arrangement, to my knowledge, exists with any other country in the world.

We'd better have a national debate about this new move, and sooner rather than later. Its implications are grave. One wonders, for example: would the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, in which all inhabitants of Southern Lebanon were considered legitimate Israel Defence Forces targets, have put Canada at war with Lebanon under this new policy? After all, the fighting began with a minor border skirmish initiated by Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, a display of photographs of Gaza by Israeli and Palestinian photographers, sponsored by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, has been abruptly ordered out of the Cinéma du Parc, a repertory house in Montreal, by the owners of the building. From the CJPME news release:

On Monday, Feb. 15th, the critically acclaimed Human Drama in Gaza Photo Exposition in Montreal was threatened with closure by Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., the real estate management firm owning the property housing the Exposition. A legal representative of Redbourne, Lieba Shell, sent an email late in the day to the exposition host, Cinema du Parc, ordering the removal of the exposition and threatening legal action if the exposition were not taken down by evening. Cinema du Parc and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) – the producer of the exposition – asserted through their legal advisor, Mark H. Arnold,that such threats from Redbourne were not lawful.

Human Drama in Gaza was launched in mid-January, and received very positive reviews in several media. Redbourne, however, demanded the removal of the exposition based on a paragraph in the lease that Cinema du Parc has with Redbourne relating to "purely cinemagraphic use" of the premises. Arnold, however, asserted that the cinema’s hosting of a photo exposition would very much constitute cinemagraphic use of the premises. Officials with Cinema du Parc also pointed out that the cinema has hosted dozens of photo expositions in the past several years, and has never had a complaint from Redbourne, the landlord.

The corporate media have not even bothered to report this latest instance of meddling and muzzling. It's just not news anymore.

It's good to see that Cinéma du Parc is standing its ground. I wish them luck. Those who want to protest may send a letter to the building owners (ignore the prepared screed and use your own words). But in Canada, 2010, I can't help feeling that it's a bit like using a toothpick to stop a flood.

UPDATE: (February 20) Redbourne has backed off, and the show will go on. [via Filasteen]

Current standings in the polls

Facebook, that is.

For prorogation: 1,257. Against prorogation: 225,588.

For Stephen Harper: 30,872. For the Onion Ring: 177, 634.

Vox populi, vox dei.

"Your" MP? Guess again

Think that your Members of Parliament go to Ottawa to represent all of their constituents, even those who didn't vote for them?

James Lunney, Conservative MP from Nanaimo-Alberni, is here to tell you that you're full of it.

A group of his constituents wanted a meeting with him to discuss the government's de-funding and smearing of the respected charitable organization KAIROS. This was the result:

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Government of Canada announced it would no longer financially support international development projects of KAIROS, the coalition of 11 national churches and religious organizations working for social justice.

Parksville-Qualicum KAIROS requested a meeting with our Member of Parliament, James Lunney, to discuss the matter. We were not able to secure a meeting, and finally, in a telephone call on Feb.1, Lunney advised that he would not meet with our group because, he claimed, we disagreed with all of his and his government’s actions. [emphasis added]

Lunney isn't the first MP who has behaved in this arrogant fashion. Readers may recall that the vacuous Liberal Tom Wappel pioneered the technique back in 2001, refusing to help a disabled war veteran because the man hadn't voted for him in the previous election.

This raises a couple of fundamental questions that go well beyond partisan politics--or should. To what degree is the MP from your riding "your" MP? And how do MPs "represent" you--even if you did vote for them?

Under our creaky, undemocratic "first-past-the-post" electoral system, most representatives these days end up going to Ottawa with the support of only a minority of the voters. In the last federal election, 192 Members of Parliament of all political stripes went to Ottawa with the backing of fewer than 50% of their voting constituents. In Gatineau, just across the river from me, Richard Nadeau of the BQ received less than 30% voter support. In Nunavut, the now-Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq found herself in Ottawa with just over one-third of the vote.

We have even had majority governments in Canada for whom fewer people voted than for the opposition (e.g., the current government of New Brunswick)--truly a "democratic deficit," if there ever was one.

But no matter whether an MP wins a minority or a majority of the popular vote, the ballots of those who voted for someone other than the winner are effectively wasted. In the 2008 federal election, more than half of the Canadians who turned up to vote--over seven million out of the 13.8 million who cast their ballots--had no effect whatsoever on the composition of Parliament.

Recent referenda in Canada (in BC, PEI and Ontario) have failed to change the system, for a host of reasons. It may be awhile before we get another crack at achieving proportional representation (PR) in this country, one of only a handful of nations retaining a pure "first-past-the-post" system. We're well behind the times, democratically speaking: how often are we reminded that a mere 40% of the vote puts a party into "majority government territory?"

On the other hand, no matter what PR system is used, the results are that the composition of the legislature more closely resembles the political composition of the electorate. That is what democracy looks like.

In our heart of hearts we know that James Lunney and Tom Wappel were merely being honest about the system as it currently stands. The folks who voted for them are the ones who count. It's their loyalty that needs to be maintained. If that can be done, the interests of the others are of little or no consequence--even if they happen to be in the majority.

Most MPs, of course, are more tactful. They will at least maintain appearances, meet politely with their constituents, hear them out, perhaps offer them coffee or tea, but rarely a commitment. Unless the visitors control a decisive bloc of votes that can make a difference in a swing riding, they might as well save their breath and help organize the grassroots for the next election. And then the whole dreary routine can begin anew.

But even if you actually voted for your MP, as a minority of Canadians did, remember: party loyalty comes first, and that loyalty can be rigidly enforced. Your MPs are "yours" if you voted for them, but only relatively speaking: the central party office can and does overrule the wishes of constituents all the time. Free votes in the House of Commons are rare. Yet in a truly representative legislature, every substantive vote should be a free vote. Constituents should call the shots: their representatives should be accountable only to them.

Shouldn't they? Why not ask your MP?

[H/t BCL, and to Fair Vote Canada's Wilf Day for the election stats]

Climate Roundup

Lots of interesting things going on in the world of climate and I thought I would give a brief update. Feel free to add your own in the comments.


My friend and sometimes co-blogger - John Cook - has an excellent site called Skeptical Science (Dr. Dawg has a link on the sidebar). However I will have to add another distinction to John, he is the first person I know to have turned their site into an app for the iphone or the ipod (do I have my technical jargon correct - I didn't even know what an ipod was until my daughter wanted one for Christmas). Check it out and if you are ever in a debate, make sure you have it with you.


In other climate related news, it appears that so far the sum total of the errors in the IPCC document are 2 (neither of which is in the scientific assessment). If anyone is interested in claiming that the document is full of errors, please show your work.


I have never been particularly interested in quotes offered up by the skeptics or the media since they all too often turn out to be inaccurate. However a quote that has been making the rounds is attributed to Sir John Houghton, who supposedly said 'Unless we announce disasters no one will listen'. The Independent actually does some research into this.


Finally, the most recent story making the rounds is an interview of Dr. Jones who says that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Some have taken this to mean that warming stopped in 1995, but the key is the idea of it being statistically significant. If you are interested in the statistics of this, Tamino has an excellent post. The key graphic is the one shown below. The black line is the trend and the red lines are the confidence intervals. As you can see in 1995 the lower redline just crosses the zero. An excellent read if you like statistics.












Like I said - feel free to add your own in the comments.

RIP Doug Fieger

...who co-wrote one of the best damn rock songs of all time. He passed away yesterday, after a five-year battle with lung cancer.

His Sharona:

"Doug changed my life forever. He left on Valentine's Day, a day of heart and love, and that was Doug, all heart and love."

Play it loud. (The unembeddable official version is better.)

Annals of anti-Semitism

The stories just keep flooding in.

First, the real thing: a little projection by popular far-right American commentator Rush Limbaugh. Suggesting that Barack Obama is anti-Semitic because the president is critical of bankers, he finds the tables rightly turned by none other than Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who called his comments "borderline anti-Semitic."

Borderline? Linking "banker" and "Jewish?" Well, I don't want to be more Catholic than the Pope, as it were. Over to you, Mr. Foxman.

Here at home, that alleged "hotbed of anti-Semitism," York University, has yielded up another cold ember.

Two Jewish students assaulted! University investigating! shrieked the Jerusalem Post, on the say-so of Tyler Golden, co-president of the aptly-named Hasbara Fellowships, who claimed that about 50 activists surrounded some Jewish students, chanted anti-Israel and anti-Semitic slurs, and then got physical with them.

And here's Marlee Mozeson, Golden's co-president: "The University's steps to ensure a safe campus for all have been proven unsuccessful and ineffective. We call on the University to take immediate action to restore order and safety for all students on campus."

The ubiquitous Jewish Defence League, meanwhile, has offered a $500 reward "for the assailants [sic] identities, names, alias [sic], phone numbers and addresses."

And then the whole thing turned out to be a lie. Security cameras had been rolling throughout the event, and they tell quite a different story.

Surveillance footage made available to Excalibur [York's campus newspaper] shows no evidence of a physical brawl. While the footage lacks audio, it does clearly show that no one physically touched another person or invaded anyone’s personal space in a threatening manner.

Body language is exuberant, at most, but never aggressive. No more than 20 to 30 people can be seen around the table in the video, including both parties and bystanders. Two visible handheld cameras can be seen on screen, none of which is smacked to the ground.

Shalom Life, which published the original incendiary report, has now published what is, in effect, a retraction:

The video was taken using the closed circuit cameras which are installed on campus, and although there is no audio as the camera is placed in a high traffic area, it clearly shows the events which took place between 4pm and 5pm on Monday, February 1, the day in question. The table which was set up by the Hasbara group at York is visible, and no more than about 15 to 30 people are seen around the table at any given time. At one point, it can be seen that an argument may have taken place; however, at no point during the video is there any evidence of a brawl, nor can a shouting match be evident from the students’ body language. At several points cameras are being used by the students, and at one point a female student who obviously does not take well to being on camera tries to reach for the camera, but the male student holding it lifts it up so it is out of her reach. No evidence of students being physically assaulted can be found during the video. York’s security officers are seen towards the end of the video taking statements from students who were on scene.

We are no longer dealing with conflicting Rashomon-like accounts, but with a camera lens (not to be confused with a CAMERA lens). How many other sensational stories of campus pogroms might have been put to rest with strategically-located surveillance equipment? Bring on the transparent society: once again, I commend futurist David Brin to your attention.

[H/t ftbt, b/c]

Idiot provocateurs

I couldn't agree more with Rev. Paperboy over at the Galloping Beaver about the young rioting fools in Vancouver:

[H]ere's a newsflash for "Blayze" the masked protestor who speaks to the press at the end of the video here: "The next level" of a peaceful protest is not smashing windows and trying to provoke the cops and it isn't "the perogative" of some self-important douchebag in a black hoodie and bandana to make the sensible people who are trying to make a point in a civilized way look bad just because he thinks he's a revolutionary who is going to bring racist exploitive capitalism to knees by throwing newspaper boxes through shopfronts. Dude, your friends are not activists, they are assholes.

Amen to that. The only objective difference between these people and the cops at Montebello is their self-deception.

[H/t Galloping Beaver via Cathie from Canada]

UPDATE: But lest we forget....VANOC is still insane.

UPPERDATE: (February 16) Judy Rebick weighs in.

[H/t Ernie Yacub]

Fleurs du mal

The police investigation into the Col. Russell Williams affair continues. Meanwhile the media are conducting one of their own. And we wonder, and speculate.

In our hubris we dare to imagine that we can make sense of the universe and our place in it, and know who and what we are. And then someone like Col. Williams--innocent, of course, until proven guilty--comes along to shatter our illusions, by making a nonsense of our attempts to understand.

The media, and many of us who are spectators, are presently engaged in a kind of frantic biography. It is a futile and self-destructing exercise. Biography is a form of fiction. The facts that one finds in a biography may be empirically verifiable, but the narrative itself is a lie.

There are, as we know, conflicting biographies of the same person. What facts are included in a biography--and how many myriads more are excluded? Can we ever have access to enough of them? Which are salient? In a science biography, do a botanist's lousy table manners have significance?

This, of course, is the problem of history. History doesn't reveal a single, unitary "past": it is a form of storytelling. So why do we want to tell a story about Col. Williams? And what shape does it take?

Can that story--or stories--include only one man, entire of himself? I think most of us recognize that such a notion is nonsensical. To be intelligible, the narrative(s) must, of necessity, include his upbringing, his friends and associates, his daily life, his surroundings, his reading and ruminations, his observations, his impulses. But the latter can be only poorly translated, if at all, into language and narrative and explanation. And too much will always be missing, in any case, to make the project forensically useful.

The attempts to piece together a biographical account--Col. Williams' early life, his change of name, his parents' marital difficulties, his hobbies, his schooling, his aloofness and his self-evident capacities--reflect our common fear. We want to find the mark of Cain, uncover the sign that identifies the monsters among us, so that we can breathe a little easier as we perform the play called "society," one that requires of us a fundamental, necessary trust.

And so, as I write this, people are scrambling for an explanation, clues, a key. Because it is too terrible to contemplate that, if he is guilty, there might be no explanation at all.

Precious bodily fluids

It is now illegal in Virginia to give people the Mark of the Beast against their will. General Jack D. Ripper can rest easy: the politicians have it all in hand.



[H/t Red Tory]

Asbestos: killing for profit

We continue exporting this poison: workers continue to die.

The unholy alliance that promotes the carcinogen begins with Stephen Harper. It includes politicians of various hues, a powerful pro-asbestos lobby, even a Quebec union central.

And we continue to export 200,000 tonnes of asbestos to the Third World every year, with catastrophic consequences.

A Health Canada-commissioned report condemning the mineral was suppressed by Harper's office. We have torpedoed international action on the issue.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff flipped and flopped, but finally took a position, which in itself is remarkable. But for now the killing continues.

Watch the video and see what Canada is doing to human beings for profit, consciously and deliberately.

Racism rewarded in the Deep South

Southern Ontario, that is--the land of the "nipper-tipper."

A racist thug deliberately and repeatedly rammed a carful of people with his pick-up truck, finally running them off the road and into a tree. One man, Shayne Berwick, suffered permanent brain damage as a result, and is now confined to a wheelchair.

Most Two of the car's four occupants were Asian. Race, said the judge, was a motivating factor in the attack.

And then he handed the punk a sentence of two years less a day. He'll be out in a few months.

Judge Alfred Stong declined to invoke the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code that allow for harsher penalties.

The audience was outraged by this judicial wrist-slap. Ruohang Liu, one of the victims of the attack, broke a courthouse window. He was promptly arrested.

Berwick, in a coma for three months after the attack, requires constant care now. His parents were "devastated" by the judge's kid-gloves treatment of the racist, whose crime changed their lives forever. Berwick's father: "It is a soft sentence and I don’t think it sends any kind of message to others not to hate."

No kidding. But perhaps the judge had no such message in mind.