Monkey Business Hour

The state of the human rights movement

2005-09-21T22:03:00.000-04:00

Well, Tuesday marked the first Amnesty club meeting at my school. A rather large turnout, yes. In fact, turnout was so large that I thought a class was still going on. But nonetheless, it's rather dissapointing, on a few counts

1) There was only one other male in the classroom with me, who was probably in grade 7 and nervous out of his mind to be in the same room with a bunch of very intimidating grade twelves
2) The issues people raised and wanted the group to focus on for the year

Now, some of the issues people brought up ranged from the serious to the mundane. For example, somebody expressed interest in covering abortion, and thought we may be able to do so because we're in a Catholic school. Another person in grade twelve pointed out that abortion was classified as a reproductive right of women, and so doesn't apply to human rights.

But the question has to be asked - what exactly was that person thinking by bringing up abortion? Since she mentioned that we would be able to bring up abortion because we're in a Catholic school, it's plainly obvious that she thought that abortions were violating the human rights of fetuses, and wanted a branch of Amnesty International to run petitions against abortion.

That should really be telling of the kind of people we're bringing in - altruistic teenage girls who don't understand what are and aren't human rights, and who aren' capable of forming their own opinions on abortion (for those of you who aren't in the know, the Catholic school board makes a point of forming our opinions for us during the formative younger years)

Another issue was raised by a girl who apparently has relatives in Israel, concerned that all individuals born in Israel are forced to give military service for a certain amount of time. Just like in, say, Italy (except that only applies to men) and Austria and Switzerland.

Now, the question, again, has to be asked - what exactly are these people thinking? They obviously (and understandably) don't understand quite how Amnesty International operates, but why would they consider forced military service and women's right to choose violations of human rights? And who exactly would they write petitions to in order to stop those practices?

"Attn: Israel. Stop making people join the army!"

"To: Paul Martin
Re: Abortion
Dear Mr. Martin
Please make abortion illegal. We find that abortions are a violation of the human rights of the baby inside the mommy.
Thanks!
-Amnesty International"

It really does make you wonder.

And, worse yet, the topic that was (somehow) decided we would devote our attention to - First Nations' rights.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that the state of First Nations in various first world countries is absolutely deplorable and deserves far more attention than it is getting. However, these are not the days of boarding schools any more. The issues surrounding First Nations' are more reserved to the eradication of poverty and land rights, rather than human rights.

And, again, how exactly would the issue be raised? I haven't seen Amnesty devote much attention to aboriginal rights as of late, and there aren't very many individual cases for us to devote our resources to. A worthy cause, in general? Absolutely. But not, perhaps, for a branch of the human rights movement. An issue to raise at the next meeting, then. Because I think there are other things the group could and should be focusing on that provides a clear target for the writing of letters and specific cases of human rights abuses which needs more attention from the larger community. And citing statistics on the unfortunately lower standard of living that First Nations enjoy (if that word can be used) than the average Canadian doesn't relate itself to the human rights movement.

But it's a rather sad reality that attendance is sure to drop off quickly in the next few weeks. Last year, we were lucky to get seven people into an Amnesty meeting, and the supposed student leaders were often a no-show. We have the capability to do better and be far more active within the community.

In other news, I may end up becomin the editor of the school newspaper this year. I plan to use my influence in such a way that would make Hearst blush.

"Inarguable" has too many meanings

2005-09-10T22:52:00.000-04:00

In 2004, 23% of Americans considered SUV owners to be patriotic.

Real family values

2005-08-24T20:52:00.000-04:00

A wonderful piece by Andrew Lewis, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada.

All Canadians can celebrate now that Bill C-38 has just passed the final hurdle of Senate approval, ensuring same-sex couples the right to marry in Canada. Our identity, based on social and family values of tolerance and diversity, has been upheld and strengthened.

Why family values you may ask? I was struck recently at the power of marriage: how we identify so strongly with the institution, its symbolism and values that it can actually transcend any feelings of fear, hatred and indifference, bringing not only couples together, but whole families.

I was one of several guests invited to a Green Party neighbourhood meeting at the home of Robin Roberts and Diana Denny, in Gordon Head. Political conversation was curious, informed and ranged widely, but eventually came round to same-sex marriage. It just so happens that Robin and Diana were part of the original team of litigants taking the same-sex marriage issue to the Supreme Court five years ago. This was the catalyst which eventually brought about Bill C-38, now passed into law.

Last year, Robin and Diana tied the knot after 21 years of raising their 4 children in a common-law relationship. As Diana tells the story, it brought 175 friends and relatives together and was the momentous occasion that it should be. However, as Diana explains, due to their same-sex relationship, many years, even decades of hostility, hard feelings and silence had separated them from many family members. The prospect of a bona fide wedding broke the impasse, something that an invitation to a "civil union" would have been unlikely to achieve. Their legal wedding became an opportunity for healing, reconciliation, renewal and yes, love for the whole family. These are family values that our nation, with a growing maturity and sense of responsibility, has been able to endorse. Thank goodness.

Forgetting how to forget

2005-08-22T15:00:00.000-04:00

It's funny, you know. When I had initially read of the bombings in London, I said that I would comment further once it is found out who the bombers were.

And I don't think it's actually been proven that the bombers were, in fact, inspired by the Al Qaeda philosophy. I guess no amount of investigation will tell you what the people were thinking when they decided to kill themselves and dozens of innocent commuters. And on top of that, even finding out what they were thinking still won't make any sense of the bombings.

Murder is a tricky thing. When it's a shooting in a school, it was done by a couple of mentally disturbed Nazi sympathists. When you turn that into a bomb and bring it on a bus, it's an attack against Western civilization as a whole.

Time to be physically ill

2005-08-17T18:44:00.000-04:00

You all remember Jean Charles de Menezes, don't you?

You might be interested in this.

Building homes, etc.

2005-08-11T18:10:00.000-04:00

Today I started volunteering for Habitat for Humanity. Turned out to be much more fun than I had thought construction would be. I also got on the bus for free because of my volunteerism. Now if only they'd work on having the buses come on time, getting on them for free would be worth it. Besides that, Habitat is definitely a worthy cause, and you don't need any experience in building homes to help out.

P.S. Intelligent Design

Shake Hands with the Devil

2005-08-08T22:20:00.000-04:00

Is there something so ridiculously significant about the death of Peter Jennings that I'm not aware of? It's all over the blogs and websites that I'm beginning to wonder if this guy was more than just a news anchor. But then I found out that he was, indeed, just a news anchor. So now I'm beginning to wonder if news anchors have some supernatural abilities that make them better than the rest of us, which makes his news so much more important than, say, the genocide currently occuring in Sudan or something to that degree. It must be the fake emotion that they portray when visiting those areas that makes them so special, I suppose.

Death is such a fickle thing, you know. When millions of black people die, it's a passing fad, but when a rich white guy dies, you better be prepared to spend some time outside and away from the TV.

Picked up Shake Hands with the Devil by Romeo Dallaire from the library today (modern commies are too cheap to pay for stuff / believe in communal book-learning), and I'm looking forward to read it. Although I'm rather dissapointed it came so soon, I was looking forward to reading this on public transportation so I could try and pick up chicks with it. Who knows.

North American for life

2005-08-03T10:15:00.000-04:00

I don't suppose you've heard all about the plane crash here in Toronto by now.

The coverage of this is absolutely sickening. Let's review the simple truths of this situation:

1) Nobody died.
2) Nobody in North America would give a rat's ass about this if it didn't occur in North America.
3) Nobody outside North America cares because this isn't important.

That, and Wolf Blitzer taking his dear sweet time discussing what the firefighters were spraying the plane with.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that nobody in this city really cares so much about this story. It's something to talk about in the bars for a few minutes because it's such a huge story (relatively speaking - downed airliner > everything else), and then there's other things to talk about. Like how the Leafs are giving up on this season, losing all of their great players. The fact that Joe Niewendyk went to Florida is very surprising, considering that he was playing in Toronto because he actually wanted to play in Toronto, turning down larger contract and trying to get the Leafs to sign him. The new deal in the NHL is really bad news for all the big teams.

Like I said, bigger things to talk about. I'll go have a look and see what the LGF'ers are saying. Perhaps hoping that a few Frenchies and Canadians got killed, I'm sure.

Breakin' the Law

2005-07-22T19:42:00.000-04:00

Non-Proliferation Treaty Who?

That's it Mr. Bush - go to war with Iraq over false allegations of purchasing yellowcake, but supply India with nuclear energy materials, contrary to the NPT and several U.S. Laws. IOKIFYAR.

I'm sitting outside right now in my backyard - the weather's been brutally hot, but it's been relatively cool this week, low humidity, so I'm in my backyard while my rabbit's digging a hole. Actually, she's on her union break right now. Don't mind her.

There are still a few things that need to be addressed

2005-07-13T21:43:00.000-04:00

Players and owners reach a tentative deal

I have had a few solutions to this problem since last September:

-get rid of Gary Bettman, that asshole needs to go back to business school
-players get some backbone and speak out against players union which is not doing them any sort of service

Commies get what commies want

2005-07-12T17:47:00.000-04:00

A nice piece from Slate about Bush's policy towards Cuba and political assassination: The Assassination of Alberto Coll

Rove named; a step in the right direction

2005-07-11T22:01:00.000-04:00

One day all this will stop

Karl Rove named as leaker in Valerie Plame scandal. Who knows where this will go; if found guilty, Rove has committed treason, punishable by death. I'm glad to see that this is starting to pick up some heat within the press.

You'll also notice that over at LGF, there's not a single mention of Karl Rove... gee, I wonder why.

The lasting memory of September 11

2005-07-10T00:14:00.000-04:00

So, kids, I've figured it out: the legacy of September 11th will be a method of naming terrorist attacks by the day and month of their occurence. 9/11, 3/11, and now 7/7. Honestly, is there nothing more constructive we can do with our collective time than to unoriginally coin terrorist attacks by this method?

I've been reading the overview of blogs' take on the London Bombings over on Slate and I'm pretty disgusted by what I see. Once people saw that the people of Spain didn't support an illegal occupation and were wise enough to realize that violence only breeds violence, they're now choosing to stick up just that much more for the Brits, because they're not going to "pull a Spain", whatever that means. For all of the countries that supported the invasion of Iraq, only two of those countries had a majority of their population which supported the invasion. One of them was, obviously, the United States, and the other was Israel. Every other leader of every other country went against the wishes of their respective population. Maybe one day all these conservatives will realize that and see that the supposed "support" of other countries in the invasion of Iraq ("you forgot Poland!") was merely a facade.

Have people learned nothing? When the United States chose to illegally invade Iraq using Sept. 11 as a justification, Osama Bin Laden won. That's right, he won. International politics is nothing but a game of chicken, and the United States stayed out on the road a bit too long before that car came. And now there's a massive culture of fear that Osama is coming to get them again. While the train bombing in Madrid certainly lacked the gravity and scale of the Sept. 11th attacks, Spain was wise to take the high road out of it. Don't go invading any more countries, no more bombings, and no more violence. And, oddly enough, you don't see Al-Qaeda bombing Spain on a monthly basis for their refusal to play along in their little game, people went on with their lives. The fallout from the London bombings has yet to completlely play out, but given the reaction of Londoners - just going on with their daily lives after the attacks out of the necessity of maintaining order and their way of life suggests that the British government will not react in a fashion similar to the way that the American government did. Over at Captain's Quarters, some guest blogger said that the Brits won't pull a Spain because England speaks English. To be more specific, there's something noble in English speaking culture which is the reason why English-speaking countries have dominated world politics for hundreds of years. Read between the goddamned lines and realize the person who wrote that is nothing but a bigoted moron who wants so desperately to believe that the Spaniards were wrong and that the only way to respond to violence is with violence. Funny he should mention English speaking imperialism - didn't Mohandas K. Ghandi, undoubtedly one of the greatest men of the past 100 years, defeat the British and gain Indian home rule without so much as lifting a finger against them? Why, yes he did. There weren't any armed revolts or attacks on British soldiers, despite the massacre at Amritsar. And I'm supposed to believe that Ghandi's actions weren't noble? Bullshit.

Whatever will happen from the London bombings will happen, no matter what colour people's skin are or what language they speak or what culture they identify with. But the use of violence as a response will be wrong - every bit as wrong as the bombings were in the first place.

Art comes in one too many forms

2005-07-07T21:19:00.000-04:00

I think this picture is, perhaps, one of the most tragic I've seen yet today:

More on the London Bombings

2005-07-07T20:36:00.000-04:00

Going around various internet outlets, looking at what they have to say on the attacks on London has been a pretty troubling experience. In the first place, the blasts are absolutely despicable - there's no justification for the minds who decide that going around killing innocent people is any means with which to achieve anything. I'm a regular subway rider myself, and there's no reason why anybody should have to fear for their safety in their daily commute. As of yet, there is no official word on who planned and executed the attacks, so there's no sense in trying to conjecture on that subject. And frankly, it doesn't matter who did it, be it the IRA or Al-Qaeda or whatever group you choose to name. Violence is neither a means nor an end to any goal. And looking back on the opinion left by Matthew Good in my previous post, it's painfully obvious that we've become far too desensitized to violence in the form of car bombs. Furthermore, it's also painfully obvious that when that violence happens to Iraqis, we don't care as much, if at all.

A few select quotes I'd like to share:

A Letter To The Terrorists, From London

What the fuck do you think you're doing?
This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.

Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.

All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.

And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.

Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.

And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.

So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, from the New York Times, the reactions of two very important leaders:

"It is reasonably clear that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London," a shaken Mr. Blair told reporters before he left Gleneagles, speaking after several hours in which the authorities had spoken only of a power-surge on the subway lines and shied from blaming the attacks on terrorism.

"Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack or a series of terrorist attacks, it is clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G-8," he said. He added that it was "particularly barbaric" that the attacks coincided with a gathering designed to combat African poverty and global warming.

"The terrorists will not succeed," he said. "Today's bombings will not weaken in any way our resolve to uphold the most deeply held principles of our societies and to defeat those who would impose their fanaticism and extremism on all of us. We shall prevail and they shall not."

In a recorded message later from his office at 10 Downing Street to the nation broadcast after he returned to London, a somber Mr. Blair declared: "This is a very sad day for the British people. But we will hold true to the British way of life.

"The purpose of terrorism is just that - to terrorize people and we will not be terrorized."

He promised "the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice." He praised "the stoicism and resilience of the people of London."

And from President Bush:

"On the one hand you have people working to alleviate poverty and rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and ways to have a clean environment and, on the other hand, you have people working to kill people," [Bush] said.

"The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent folks," Mr. Bush said. "The war on terror goes on."

I'd like to know what kind of hypocrisy goes on in that man's head to condemn other people for a lack of upholding human rights and liberty, not to mention the killing of innocent people.

I'm not a Blair man in any way, but I found his comments spot-on and appropriate for the situation.

From matthewgood.net

2005-07-07T15:38:00.000-04:00

What Matthew Good has to say of the London bombings:

What happened today in London was nothing short of tragic and the result of the actions of murderous cowards. No person should fear to ride a bus, ride a train, or walk down the street, no matter where they live. Fighting those who struggle to strike fear into the hearts of others can only be successfully undertaken by ensuring that a likeminded approach is not relied upon to defeat them. We have seen all to well what matching the lunacy of those who would undertake such actions as today visited London produces – more of the same.

Londoners are not unfamiliar with incidents such as these. Having endured decades of IRA attacks, many have cultivated a suspicious nature regarding packages left on buses and in Tube stations and on trains. The difference now is how this incident will be used to heighten their fear, reduce their liberties, and inch them closer to resembling the neo-fear state that is the United States.

But while we grieve for those lost and contemplate what will become of all of this, let us recognize our own glaring hypocrisy. The Western world is, of course, stunned that this has happened. A significant number of world leaders have already made statements condoning the attacks and asserting their support for the British people and government. So one has to ask the question - where is the outpouring of mass sympathy for the people of Iraq? This sort of thing happens on a daily basis in Iraq - thirty Iraqis can be slain by a car bomb and it often doesn't make the news. Where are the statements from world leaders? Where is the front page coverage of their deaths, of their loss, of their suffering? Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, not thirty or fifty or even three thousand. And yet their plight is largely ignored. Are they less human than the rest of us? Are their lives worth less? If we are to be stunned that Londoners can be murdered, why aren’t we as equally stunned that innocent people in Iraq have been killed by US bombing or insurgent suicide attacks?

Humanity knows no difference in worth. It’s time some of us learned that.

London Burning

2005-07-07T14:53:00.000-04:00

It's a bad news day.

Will comment once it is found out who perpetrated the attacks and what the motivations are.

Karl Rove leaked identity of Valerie Plame

2005-07-04T12:15:00.000-04:00

It appears that Time Magazine turned documents over to a grand jury claiming that it was Karl Rove who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. From the Huffington Post...

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

Very big news. Who'd have thought that George Bush's brain committed an offense punishable by jailtime? Well, if it turns out to be accurate, at any rate. But you really have to wonder - what kind of reaction will there be to this story? So far, there hasn't been much. We'll see how it goes.

In other big news, from The Guardian

British and American aid intended for Iraq's hard-pressed police service is being diverted to paramilitary commando units accused of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and extra-judicial killings, The Observer can reveal.
Iraqi Police Service officers said that ammunition, weapons and vehicles earmarked for the IPS are being taken by shock troops at the forefront of Iraq's new dirty counter-insurgency war.

The allegations follow a wide-ranging investigation by this paper into serious human rights abuses being conducted by anti-insurgency forces in Iraq. The Observer has seen photographic evidence of post-mortem and hospital examinations of alleged terror suspects from Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle which demonstrate serious abuse of suspects including burnings, strangulation, the breaking of limbs and - in one case - the apparent use of an electric drill to perform a knee-capping.

The investigation revealed:
· A 'ghost' network of secret detention centres across the country, inaccessible to human rights organisations, where torture is taking place.

· Compelling evidence of widespread use of violent interrogation methods including hanging by the arms, burnings, beatings, the use of electric shocks and sexual abuse.

· Claims that serious abuse has taken place within the walls of the Iraqi government's own Ministry of the Interior.

· Apparent co-operation between unofficial and official detention facilities, and evidence of extra-judicial executions by the police.

I just vomited in my mouth a little bit...

Janus has a new face

2005-06-29T12:11:00.000-04:00

Slate's assessment of the Bush speech. I have to admit that I didn't so much as bother watching the speech because I've grown tired of having to listen to that man speak. I'll learn everything I need from the Daily Show tonight. But, from that article:

Perhaps the most appalling part of the speech came toward the end, when President Bush told the American people how they can contribute to the cause. This Fourth of July, he suggested, write a letter of thanks to a member of the U.S. armed forces or help out a military family that lives down the street. Up to this point, the president had been describing the many ways in which the fate of Iraq will shape the peace and freedom of the Middle East and the security of democratic nations everywhere. And this is his idea of commensurate sacrifice?

Hey, you never know.

Also be sure to check out Robert Fisk's assessment of the situation in Iraq, though not directly pertaining to Bush's speech.

Bigger news: Same-sex marriage legalized in Canada. This is, without a doubt, the most productive thing the House of Commons has done since its election one year ago.

The vote sealed two years of provincial court decisions that gave same-sex couples the right to marry in 8 of 10 provinces and one of the three northern territories. When the Senate approves the measure, considered a formality, Canada will become the third national government, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to enact such rights.

Now doesn't that sound a hell of a lot better than what Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson were spewing out of their asses a few months ago?

Even before the vote, the Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, questioned the legislation's authority because the Liberals needed the votes of the separatist Bloc Québécois to win passage. "Because it is being passed with the support of the Bloc, I think it will lack legitimacy for a lot of Canadians," he said in a televised interview.

The Liberals shot back that the Conservatives had made a tacit alliance with the Bloc just last month in an effort to call early elections.

The problem I find with Harper's comments is not so much that he made an alliance with the Bloc a month ago, it's that he has the audacity to suggest that the bill will lack legitimacy with Canadians for any reason. Firstly, the idea that the bill isn't legitimate because seperatists voted on it is a moot point - they vote on every single bill that comes through the House of Commons, and you don't hear Harper complaining that those bills lack legitimacy. Secondly, saying that it lacks legitimacy to Canadians is pretty presumptuous of him - how does he know what I, or anybody else, thinks? Opponents of same-sex marriage oppose the bill because they oppose same-sex marriage (for whatever dubious reasons they choose to hide behind), and will continue to oppose the bill in that way, not because it is illegitimate. So long as it was voted on and approved by a majority of democratically elected representatives of Canadian citizens, approved by the Senate and signed by the Governor General (the latter step being entirely a formality), it is completely legitimate by Canadian law, and certainly legitimate by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

UPDATE: From the LA Times, reporters to be held in contempt of court if they don't reveal their confidential sources. I'll leave you to think about it.

World Tribunal prelim; Bush address

2005-06-28T12:27:00.000-04:00

First off, the preliminary verdict from the World Tribunal on Iraq is in, and it's certainly not the canned condemnation you're used to seeing on editorial boards. A must read.

Secondly, President Bush is going to be making a speech tonight, in front of a huge military audience, as we all might expect.

I'm beginning to wonder - what state is society in that it must draw its patriotism from its military? Is there nothing better for us to collectively look at and say, 'that is what my country stands for'? Mind you, it seems that those types of things are getting in short supply, but to the point, why is it that patriotism is always synonymous with fellating military personnel? As it stands, American military personnel are not defending anyone in the United States against any real threat. They're simply kids who were either too idealistic or were trying to fund their post-secondary education out in the desert fighting to survive. And yet anyone who questions why they are risking their lives is somehow unpatriotic.

I'd really like to know. What is the militaristic rationale that says anything unpatriotic considered an insult to every man and woman who ever served in the armed forces?

Back to the point; George Bush + hundreds of handpicked soldiers + no journalists to ask question = one speech.

UPDATE: Re: media relationships with corporations on CommonDreams. This chart, in particular, is rather disturbing:

New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi

Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's

Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels

The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo

News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments

GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble

Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo

Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America

Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi

AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton

Interesting to note that the New York Times has ties to the Carlyle Group, which has, by connection, ties to the Bush family. Despite the fact that the Times is a rather liberal paper, it was named by the WTI as a media organization which disseminated false information about WMD's in the run-up to the Iraq War.

My conspiracy theory detector just went off.

It also appears that they have ties to Ford. Ouch.

Following up on Karl Rove

2005-06-27T12:29:00.000-04:00

The blogosphere is abuzz with Karl Rove's comments about the motives of liberals.

From the rather infamous Captain's Quarters (who, you'll be interested to know, was the blog who violated the canadian publication ban about Jean Breault's testimony), comes this gem.

What we have here, in this demand for a retraction after a season of personal attacks from Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party is pusillanimity at its most hypocritical. Talk about dishing it out and not being able to take it! That the party of Harry Truman has descended to this jaw-dropping level of political cowardice and sheer crybaby status boggles the mind.

Small wonder that the American electorate has shut Democrats out of power during this epic period of national security crises. Who would trust these wimps to defend themselves, let alone anyone else?

...

It sounds to me like truth is an absolute defense for Rove.

...

Look at the links I've provided and tell me how Rove said anything inaccurate. Howard Dean told radio audiences during the primary campaign that he thought it was possible that George Bush conspired with the Saudis to cover up their involvement in the 9/11 attacks -- and you all made him the chairman of your party, so he could continue calling Republicans evil. Ted Kennedy keeps talking about how Bush cooked up the entire war on terror at his Crawford ranch, and no one's asked him to step down. None of you had anything to say when Dick Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate compared Camp X-Ray to Dachau, the gulags, and the Cambodian killing fields. And now Rove's echoing the words of MoveOn, Al Sharpton, Neil Abercrombie, and others to audiences in New York is "despicable"? Pathetic.

You keep at it, buddy, I need the entertainment.

Everything you need to know about Karl Rove

2005-06-24T22:20:00.000-04:00

I found this blog to be extremely poignant and moving. Definitely check it out.

Pentagon Papers, Part II

2005-06-20T22:35:00.000-04:00

News regarding the authenticity of the downing street memo - here. I suppose hopeful self-delusion from several right-winged blogs has been quashed, at least in my mind.

I must admit, the name of the column, "Terror Watch", scares me just a little bit.

If you haven't already, do have a look at the Downing Street Memo. It's high time we woke up.

You'll have to prepare for some serious blog down-time over the summer; a lack of computer access for the sole purpose of reading the news in the mornings will have gone away, and the summer also happens to be vacation time. Weather's been great out here these last few days, and I've at least taken measures to enjoy it to some degree. First of three exams on Thursday, wish me luck. I can tell you everything you need to know about everything leading up to the fall of absolutist Spain in the 17th century, how's that for an accomplishment?

UPDATE: Also check out the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul.

Make a Wish

2005-06-17T22:45:00.000-04:00

First and foremost, Happy Watergate Day. I hope you all celebrated in your own little way.

A few things in the news - the Schiavo autopsy. Does this settle things now, people? The woman's brain had shrunk to half its normal size and she was blind. But, apparently it doesn't. A ha ha.

You'll have to excuse the sparse updating; my exams officially start next week, but I had my band playing exam on thursday and a seven paragraph essay to write as part of my exam today in history. The Scientific Revolution never had it so easy.

It's a strange thing; the more you study history, the more you realize that people have forgotten its lessons. I, for one, enjoy living on this side of the Enlightenment, and proudly so. Anybody with me?

Little Ignorant Footballs

2005-06-08T21:54:00.000-04:00

Check out Little Green Footballs' proud rant about how CBC has been proven to be biased against the United States.

Being that I both have a link to the CBC from my blog, and watch the National as well as other fine programming when I happen to be watching TV and they're ever on, I thought it prudent to respond.

First of all, the conclusion of the report from the Frasier institute is highly flawed. They only discussed the content of the CBC News reports, and went on to conclude that the CBC was responsible for anti-American sentiment in the United States. There were no statistics to back up this claim; no survey of CBC viewers, as well as surveys of viewers who prefer to watch CTV, Global, or American news networks such as CNN. Therefore, it would be decidedly unscientific to say that the CBC could be at the source of anti-American sentiment without first examining the causes of anti-American sentiment in Canada. There has always been, to one degree or another, anti-American sentiment in Canada. Part of it is in jest; it's one of our national past times to make fun of the Americans in one way or another, no matter who is in the White House.

The idea that anybody needs a "biased" news network to stir up anti-American sentiment is ludicrous. If the CBC is to blame for anti-American sentiment in Canada, how do these mouth-breathing knuckle draggers explain predominant anti-American sentiment in Asia, South America, Europe and the Middle East? I'm sure the Iraqi people don't need a news network to stir up anti-American sentiment.

On top of that, reading through these comments is both entertaining and enraging.

We will get the best part of Canada in the next 10 years, and the Quebecks will be a vassell , colon/of france.
the only reason they are able to do what they do is because the "socialist are in power by the "kick back" adv. thing they did to "crooK" their way to the tiny hold they have ,, they are done for and they will be
cbs soon no longer CBS

I'd like to know how this individual manages to out-think their front door in the morning. Besides that, what makes them think Quebec would become a "colon" of France? In all honesty, I cannot imagine Quebec becoming a colon of France any more than I can imagine any other part of Canada becoming a colon of Britain. Vive le Republique Quebecoise?

WARNING: BEFORE EVERYONE STARTS JUMPING ALL OVER CANADIANS IN GENERAL (which often happens on these threads) REMEMBER TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE CANADIAN LIBERAL ELITE AND THE CANADIAN PEOPLE.

We have a lot of good Canadian lizardoids here, and I hate to see them suffer abuse.

By his definition of "liberal elites", we may assume that Canada's liberal elite comprises 80% of our population. Apparently, real Canadians can only be people who agree with them. I prefer to think that the Canadian People happens to be any individual who lives in Canada, whether or not they were born here, or whether or not they are liberal or conservative. That's one of the many things I enjoy about living here; we don't question people's patriotism when our ideologies disagree. We can all get drunk with equal pride on July 1st.

CBC - BBC - CBS - ABC - NBC

What's the difference?

They all hate America.

They all are biased.

They all lie.

They all have no crediblity.

They all are dinosaurs.

Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife.

it's kinda creepy knowing the enemy is south AND north. Whether the general population in Canada is neutral or not, the elite are doing the damage and the elite will help the terrorists over the border.

Such an awful thing to have a jealous little stepsister hanging around the door of your room whining and tatling!

I believe this guy is alluding to the idea that Canada let terrorists into the United States, who were responsible for Sept. 11. Newt Gingrich made a similar statement recently, and Canada's new ambassador made him make a public retraction. First of all, the notion that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 entered into the United States is simply false. Secondly, if the terrorists DID come into the U.S. from Canada, is it not the United States' responsibility to stop them at their border? Last time I went into the United States, we were stopped at the border by an American border patrol, who had a vested interest (i.e. he would get fired) in keeping dangerous people out of his country, and not by a Canadian patrol officer. Really.

Above all, these morons are whining about how 37.6% of statements in regards to terrorism reflected the U.S. in the negative. It really makes you wonder - is a news station allowed to be punished for telling it like it is? We're awfully sorry that you have to hear about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and the constant bombings and deaths and detainings and such, let's post a picture of an Iraqi saying the U.S. doesn't suck and we'll use him as the poster boy for "The Iraqi People". Because, as you know, when using a nationality and the word "people" after it, it always means those people represent the majority, and not just the people who agree with you.

Eco-terrorism in its truest form

2005-06-08T20:17:00.000-04:00

From today's New York Times

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

"They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science," said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 "Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program," a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

Another political appointee who has played an influential role in adjusting language in government reports on climate science is Dr. Harlan L. Watson, the chief climate negotiator for the State Department, who has a doctorate in solid-state physics but has not done climate research.

In an Oct. 4, 2002 memo to James R. Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program and an appointee of Mr. Bush, Mr. Watson "strongly" recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews research on human-caused climate change.

The boxes, he wrote, "do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions."

While those changes were made nearly two years ago, recent statements by Dr. Watson indicate that the admnistration's position has not changed.

"We are still not convinced of the need to move forward quite so quickly," he told the BBC in London last month. "There is general agreement that there is a lot known, but also there is a lot to be known."

This isn't stupidity, this isn't bungling, thi sisn't a screw-up. This is willfull deception in the name of profit, and in the name of not giving a shit about our future. A future which I sorta kinda want to be a part of. I suppose not being able to breathe because Americans want their fucking SUV's is A-OK, because SUVs = freedom, don't you know. The freedom to safety and speed behind the wheel, in the words of the white house. Let me run you by something; the only safety you get from an SUV is the safety of knowing that you are going to kill the nearest college student driving their Toyota Corolla while only getting a light scratch on your bumper. Speed from an SUV? Try again. What good is speed when you're sitting five feet above the ground in a truck while a computer does all the gear shifting for you? Gee, why bother with a nice little car with a snappy little gearbox and a low-to-the-ground cockpit that gives you a better feel of the road zipping beneath your ass?

SUV's are minivans for people who don't want to be seen as soccer moms. Nobody "needs" an SUV, it is pure self-delusion that we need a V8 engine capable of towing a house. We need more diesels out on the street, and we need to establish laws that regulate the amount of sulphur in diesel to something less than 500 ppm. For those of you who haven't taken chemistry, 500 parts per million is a hell of a lot of sulphur - 0.5 grams of sulphur for every 1 gram of diesel fuel.

Did you know, the guy who invented diesel engines (last name diesel, his first name escapes me) originally ran his compression-ignition engine on peanut oil? That's right. You can take a standard diesel engine and run it on vegetable oil. Of course, you need to take the glycerin out of it for start-ups, but once that engine gets going, you can run it on standard vegetable oil. You better believe it. Smells like french fries and doesn't feed money into the hands of corrupt, human rights violating theocracies. Oh the things we could do if we were willing to give up a little luxury and start driving cars that were fun to drive that didn't have engines larger than your refrigerator.

More bullshit?

2005-06-04T17:11:00.000-04:00

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American jailers at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects splashed a Koran with urine, kicked and stepped on the Islamic holy book and soaked it with water, the U.S. military said on Friday.

U.S. Southern Command, responsible for the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, described for the first time five cases of "mishandling" of a Koran by U.S. personnel confirmed by a newly completed military inquiry, officials said in a statement.

In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his post and urinated near an air vent and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Koran." The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners.

Southern Command said a civilian contractor interrogator, who was later fired, apologized in July 2003 to a detainee for stepping on his Koran. In August 2003, prisoners' Korans became wet when night-shift guards had thrown water balloons in a cell block, the statement said. In February 2002, guards kicked a prisoner's Koran, it added.

In the fifth "confirmed incident" of mishandling a Koran, Southern Command said a prisoner in August 2003 complained that "a two-word obscenity" had been written in English in his Koran. Southern Command said it was "possible" a guard had written the words but "equally possible" the prisoner himself had done it.

Southern Command released its findings on a Friday night.

And, because I'm otherwise not intelligent enough to comment on this, go have a look at Americablog.

I've got an essay to write on the failures of the Treaty of Versailles, excuse me.

Six year old children running the white house

2005-06-01T21:59:00.000-04:00

...and other things you thought could only happen in a movie.

From CommonDreams.org...

WASHINGTON - Stung by Amnesty International's condemnation of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and elsewhere overseas, the administration of President George W. Bush is reacting with indignation and even suggestions that terrorists are using the world's largest human rights organization.

The latest denunciation came from Bush himself during a White House press conference Tuesday. ''I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world,'' he said, adding that Washington had ''investigated every single complaint against (sic) the detainees.''

''It seemed like (Amnesty) based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth'', Bush went on. ''And so it was an absurd report. It just is''.

"It just is."

Boy, how many times have I heard those words from the mouths of children?

Bush's reaction Tuesday largely mirrored that of Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview taped on Friday and broadcast Sunday evening by CNN.

''For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously,'' the vice president said in response to Amnesty's report.

''Frankly, I was offended by it. I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world.''

Dick Cheney taking credit for the last 100 years, ladies and gentlemen. One must assume he is also taking credit for WWI, the Vietnam War, and covert operations in Central America in the 1980's as the United States helping to spread the cause of freedom. If we could only understand the sheer stupidity of the Domino Theory, perhaps we could understand why the war in Iraq is justified. However, I'm sure all of you out there realize that when South Vietnam was finally taken over by the North, communism did not spread all the way from Indochina to Southeast Asia and back again across the Indian subcontinent, to the Middle East and to North Africa.

That's one thing Americans never cease to harp on, the last 100 years and all the dandy wars they fought in, which somehow transfers the noble quality of WWII to the present day. It doesn't work like that, kids. Advertisements try to transfer the qualities of sex to everything imaginable and are rarely successfuly; Dick Cheney tries to transfer the qualities of truth to Iraq and fails horribly.

Hopefully we've all got our bibs on, don't want any of that bullshit to stain our shirts.

Culture of Life in a petri dish

2005-05-31T22:14:00.000-04:00

From Slate.com:

Yesterday, in the wake of the compromise cut by the Senate moderates and the Minority leader that curiously cut out majority leader Frist, the House passed legislation to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush, for his part, has threatened to veto any such legislation should it pass, though he may find himself to be the next Dr. Frist (both in terms of competency and marginalization) should he do so as a majority (57%) of Republicans support embryonic stem cell research and achieving override may be easier than anticipated.

This is an issue that I have both some experience in and a vested interest in, so I'm going to address this from several perspectives because the administration makes it a point of pride to display its disdain for both science and metaphysics more complex than a first grade Sunday school primer.

As it happens, I have adopted one of those frozen embryos in a fertility clinic that this debate whirls around. My son—my six month old baby boy—is the blessing of embryonic adoption and that has without question transformed my life. It is troubling to hear so many talk about the disposition of these embryos when so few actually have any exposure to the process. So, having actually done more than talk about those frozen entities and done something about it, I'd like to take the opportunity to inform those who insist on meddling in the very private matters of those of us involved in these processes.

Tom DeLay stated that those who vote in favor of this measure: "vote to fund with taxpayer dollars the dismemberment of living distinct human beings for the purposes of medical experimentation." Apparently DeLay shares Bush's disdain for science and metaphysics. Therefore a few points for both officials are in order.

First, 'conception', 'life' and 'living distinct beings' are not the same thing as 'fertilization', no matter how much it serves one's purposes to make it so. Fertilization and the creation of blastocysts is an unremarkable event that takes place daily. If that embryo doesn't implant, there is no conception, no life, no pregnancy. Every day millions of women have 'embryos' floating around in their uteri, flush them during menses and nobody bats an eye. These embryos that have not implanted and sunk a vein and begun the process of advancement are not, even by the most conservative of standards, life. Nobody posits funerals or mourns for the millions of these that are, with no awareness, flushed every day. Give a woman as many pregnancy tests with an embryo inside her that has not implanted as many times as you like—there will be no positive result, pee on as many EPT sticks as you like, no plus sign. This is why after an IVF transfer (the two week wait) people so anxiously wait—they are hoping—desperately—that they have CONCEIVED. It hasn't happened yet.

That embryo may or may not implant and create a conception, a pregnancy, but one thing is for certain—those women who get their period without ever knowing there was a fertilized egg that failed to implant are not flushing 'living distinct human beings.' There is the potential for a conception—nothing more. So, ladies—suck it up and deal—Bush and DeLay need you to stop menstruating post haste—just cross your legs and get thee to a an OB-GYN every 28 days. You see, we need to blood test you and ultrasound the hell out of your uterus in case you absent mindedly were about to flush a 'living distinct human being', because we're all about a 'culture of life'—just not yours. You're an incubator. We need to stem the flow of blood in this culture of death, and apparently that means your menstrual flow.

Secondly, these frozen embryos are so incredibly valuable to the administration that they cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research… because they need to be… THROWN OUT! What they fail to understand is that the disposition of these embryos, like banked chord blood or donated blood or tissue donation, lies with the donor. When you participate in an IVF cycle you sing a form that determines what happens to any leftover fertilized eggs. The choices are cryogenic preservation for: adoption, stem cell research, later transfer to the originating parent, medical research or destruction. DeLay, Bush and his cohorts are saving nothing. It's not as though these embryos in cryogenic willed for research are know suddenly going to be adopted or implanted. They won't—our 'culture of life' perversely demands that they be thrown into the garbage—that's how precious they are, and that's how much we value them. We must destroy life, according to the administration, to AVOID preserving life! Go back and re-read that sentence.

I love my son, profoundly, deeply, more than I ever though possible, but my son became my son when he grew in that womb and survived the transfer. There were four embryos transferred that day—and nobody mourned those other three that simply flowed out naturally, no more my son than the other hoped for pregnancies that were unsuccessful as we hoped each month and waited and prayed that this month the test would be positive.

The key to understanding this intellectual schizophrenia the administration subscribes to is understanding that the point is not to save those embryos—if that were the concern, they'd be scrambling to adopt them like I did—no, this is about the agenda of throwing a bone to their ill informed and zealous base.

The problem is they do a grave disservice to that base, to you, to embryonic adoptive parents like me, to the ill, to EVERYONE in confusing prophylactic measures (the prevention of implantation) with abortificents. It's not the case, and no amount of obfuscation will make it so.

The obfuscation and misdirection is important because it reveals both the real agenda here the actual consequences of these actions and the hypocrisy of the Bush standard: 'No destruction of life to save life.' Indeed. The problem is we're not doing that. We're preserving tissue rather than destroying it so we can throw it out as if the administration has some perverse new garbage disposal regulation (and that would be the first evidence of environmental concern form them!), and designating the sick and elderly as unworthy of not only our efforts but unworthy of even taking the time to make these distinctions.

The administration's actions give lie to their words. It is mind boggling to watch an administration that talks about a 'culture of life' or not 'destroying life to save life' and then blithely proceeds to slaughter tens of thousands to 'save lives and bring democracy' or that has no qualms about executing everyone from the incompetent to juveniles not for vengeance or for deterrence, but to destroy lives to save lives. It is astonishing to watch an administration that would willingly come meddle in your lives to dictate to when your life begins and ends in your hospital bed, in your bedroom, in your doctors office, and at the pharmacy but it is despicable to watch them continue in this vein so ill informed, with actions so ill considered and so triumphal in their ignorance.

That ringing in your ears is the cognitive dissonance from listening to the administration and the noise they make as they come to tell you what you will do, and why—in your bedroom… in the hospital… with your doctor, with your very life—and they'll define that for you, thanks very much. Because they'll preserve what they want and destroy what they want for different reasons and in different ways because they can't be bothered to make the distinctions—and they like it that way. And apparently, so do we.

So while we're stemming flows, of blood, of ignorance, of death, and abandoning any pretense of 'compassionate conservatism' how about stemming the flow of hypocrisy?

Best blog since the last one I posted

2005-05-29T18:10:00.000-04:00

Sorry for not updating much lately; too much news about people dying and corruption and human rights violations to be interesting.

Blog of the week: Mark Twang.

The Apprenticeship of Naming Blogs

2005-05-19T21:27:00.000-04:00

I'm going to keep changing the name of the blog until I run myself into self parody.

The current title is a line from the Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz by Mordecai Richler.

There could have been his father, sitting on the porch and sucking sugar cubes maybe. "My boy was broke," he'd say. "He hadn't made his name yet. He was just another kid at the time and he got this job as a waiter at Rubin's. But he wasn't going to be a waiter for long, you bet. All the while he's serving those chazers ideas are ticking over like bombs in his head. Tick-tock, tick-tock... He sets up a roulette game, cane you imagine? There he is not even eighteen yet, a St Urbain Street punk, and he takes on all the BTO's at the hotel in a roulette game. On this side Fort Knox, so to speak, and on the other my kid, the house. And what does he say, 'The sky's the li mit, gentlemen,' and he doesn't blink an eyelash. The money goes down one-two-three on the table, fives and tens and twenties, and the wheel begins to spin. Round and round she goes, where she tops nobody knows. It's up to fate. Kismet, as they say. outside the stars don't care. They shine on an on. Midnight, the monkeybusiness hour. Bears prowl the woods, a wolf hows for its mate. Somewhere a wee babe is screaming for its mommy... The waiters and office girls are banging away for dear life on the beach: nature. PLUNK! The wheel stops. Zero. My kid rakes the table clean..."

Et voila.

Mein kulturkampf

2005-05-16T20:55:00.000-04:00

Changed the name of the blog... if you are wondering, Kulturkampf was a policy of Otto von Bismarck shortly after the reunification of Germany, seeking to limit the influence of the Roman Catholic Church on the affairs of state, including such topics as education, marriage and divorce. I thought the direct translation from German decidedly apt (culture struggle), so why not? It also makes me sound smarter than what I had before.

Sadly, http://kulturkampf.blogspot.com is already taken, so there goes that. Another spare in second period today; no news.

Excerpts from the Kansas Evolutionary Hearings

2005-05-15T13:52:00.000-04:00

Some of you might have known about how the Kansas State Board of Education has been holding hearings on whether or not Evolution/"Intelligent Design" should be taught in biology. Here's an exerpt from the transcript.

3 MR. ATASHROO: I am Ali Atashroo.

4 I'm a concerned parent. I live in

5 Kansas City --

6 MR. CASE: Please spell your

7 name.

8 MR. ATASHROO: I'm sorry?

9 MS. CASE: Please spell your

10 name.

11 MR. ATASHROO: Atashroo,

12 A-t-a-s-h-r-o-o. Atashroo. Atashroo.

13 I am a concerned parent whose two

14 children were taught Evolution as a

15 scientific fact rather than a theory.

16 Both of our children entered the medical

17 field. With no exposure to scientific

18 intelligence cause for human body, would

19 they honor the sanctity of life or treat

20 life -- or treat human body just a

21 product of Evolution by natural

22 selection? Their scientific

23 understanding of the origin of life

24 could have a grave impact of what kind

25 of a doctor they would become.

1 Equipped with understanding that

2 human anatomy was evolved by natural

3 selection, they feel no inhibition to

4 abort life if not stopped by law or

5 personal belief. On the other hand, had

6 they also been exposed to the scientific

7 intelligence cause theory for human life

8 -- I'm sorry, for human body, they would

9 not become doctors --

10 MS. WILLIAMSON: Fifteen seconds.

11 MR. ATASHROO: -- who would not

12 act as a natural selector of human life,

13 but honor the sanctity of life.

14 To teach Evolution as a natural

15 established scientific fact --

16 MS. WILLIAMSON: Time.

17 MR. ATASHROO: -- has to -- thank

18 you.

I'd like to know where the people behind Intelligent Design get off as looking remotely academic. Would someone care to name me one serious university biology program that does not teach the modern theory of Evolution?

What is the purpose of high school? To prepare us for the rest of our lives? That sounds decent enough. High school the the step before university - we all need a high school education to get into university, and we need to take specific coures to get into different fields in university. Why the hell would people want to teach Intelligent Design in high school biology when they are going to end up in university biology and be behind everybody else who already understands the basic concepts of Evolution?

For the record, I do not take biology, as it does not serve a purpose towards the field I'm interested in pursuing (chemistry). But I do go to a Catholic school, and not once have we ever been taught anything remotely similar to Creationism in a science class. We did cover what Evolution was way back in grade 6 (when our teacher mentioned to us something about everything being created by God or what have you), but that was just what the basic elements of it were. When I sign up for a science class, I expect that I'm going to be taught real science, not a curriculum designed by some religious folk who feel the need to make sure that I am taught their belief system, because I get enough of that in religion classes.

Besides that, you can tell these Intelligent Design folks don't understand science to the least - they use the word "theory" as though it means scientists are unsure of it. To say that something is a theory (such as the particle theory of matter) is to express extreme confidence in it.

I'm telling you, Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes must be rolling in their graves. Another excerpt from the hearing:

19 MS. FLOURNOY: My name is Iris

20 Flournoy, I-r-i-s F-l-o-u-r-n-o-y. I am

21 a science teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas

22 Catholic High School in Johnson County.

23 I did become a teacher after becoming --

24 being a medical technologist for about

25 23 years because I want to promote

1 health professions in our society.

2 We -- the Catholic schools teach

3 Evolution. They always have. There is

4 no conflict in our religion. Our relig

5 -- Evolution is not a belief system. We

6 believe God created us, but how is open

7 to the discovery through scientific

8 processes and inquiry.

9 I have read the proposed changes to

10 the science standards from the

11 Intelligent Design promoters, and am

12 very much against their acceptance. As

13 a microbiologist, I watch bacteria

14 change into resistant bacteria from

15 sensitive, and I know that change, over

16 time, is a fact; it is not an unproven

17 theory. Benchmark 5, Standard 3 on Page

18 7 is just plain scientifically wrong.

19 The nature of science cannot be

20 changed, as a definition. I've got a

21 great NSTA Science Teacher that has a

22 great explanation about that. I don't

23 think the Board of Education in Kansas

24 is qualified to change the definition of

25 science.

1 The proposed changes also argue about

2 junk DNA, but I read the original

3 research about that, and no scientist

4 indicated any problem with genetics

5 within this research. So that was -- I

6 -- that is the reason I think that part

7 should be wrong.

8 The State of Kansas is writing

9 standards for excellence in teaching

10 science in order to make sure all

11 students are learning accepted --

12 MS. WILLIAMSON: Fifteen seconds.

13 MS. FLOURNOY: -- curriculum in

14 science.

15 The future of our students and the

16 future of our -- our health system, all

17 our professions, depends on honest

18 presentation of science in classrooms.

19 Thank you.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Science classes can't become religion classes.

B-Class Benz

2005-05-12T20:47:00.000-04:00

From the Globe and Mail...

The (Mercedez-Benz) B-Class will be available here in two versions: the B 200, with a base price topping $30,000, and the B 200 Turbo, for some thousands more. A diesel may (and I think should) follow.

The B-Class won't be sold in the United States initially, with the Canadian market providing a "foot in the door to North America," according to Hense.

Behind this cautious approach is likely concern about Americans' ability to simultaneously think small car and premium car. We much more worldly Canadians are expected to have an easier time grasping this notion.

In basic concept, the B-Class is not unlike such vehicles as the Toyota Matrix or Suzuki Aerio. Mercedes naturally doesn't consider these rivals for its new upscale compact but, like them, the B-Class offers tidy exterior dimensions with useful passenger and cargo space and versatility.

The Matrix can at least serve as a basis for dimensional comparison. The B-Class is 4,270 mm long; 1m, 604 mm tall, and 1,777 mm wide, with a wheelbase of 2,778 mm, making it shorter, but wider and taller and possessed of a longer wheelbase than the Matrix. Curb weight is virtually identical.

The Matrix offers 428 litres of cargo space with its rear seat upright and 1,506 with it folded. The B 200 has 544 litres seat up, 1,645 litres with it folded, and with the front passenger seat (easily) removed 2245 litres.

The B-Class has a rather mini-minivan look from the side, but with some very dramatic elements, including a particularly attractive nose and side window treatment that give it a look all its own.

Mercedes has, of course, taken its own unique engineering approach, and loaded the car with high-tech features.

It's built around a deep, almost bumper-to-bumper "sandwich" substructure that brings benefits in chassis rigidity and crash-worthiness. The engine is canted forward and designed to slide under the passenger cell in a collision. This structure also means it's a distinct step up into the cabin and you sit 200 mm higher than in other compacts.

Front suspension is by MacPherson struts with an unusual parabolic axle system at the rear. Selective damping shock absorbers adjust automatically to driving conditions.

Steering is by a speed-sensitive, electromechanical system -- it felt slightly odd on the B 200, nicely linear on the Turbo.

There's an electronic stability program that incorporates the steering and four disc brakes with ABS.

Power for the B 200 is supplied by a new 2.0-litre, twin-cam, four-cylinder engine producing 134 hp at 5,750 rpm and 136 lb-ft of torque at 3,500 rpm. The B 200 Turbo's version of this engine produces 190 hp at 5,000 rpm and 206 lb-ft of torque, which is available from 1,800 rpm.

A five-speed manual transmission comes with the B 200, a quick-shifting six-speed with the Turbo, or you can opt for a continuously variable (automatic) transmission with either. This worked particularly well with the Turbo engine.

The interior is functional rather than luxurious (although materials are obviously of high quality) as befits a car that to me has a very European look, feel and character.

The wheel is thick rimmed with a slightly spongy texture; simple round instruments are located in an alloy panel, and the centre stack logically locates audio system up top with climate controls below. Banging elbows with my passenger made the point that it's a compact.

The base B 200 is a sure-footed, agile, flat cornering vehicle with under-steer only noticeable when you're really pushing hard, and rock solid at speed.

Its engine isn't quite as smooth as it might be, though, and it could use some additional power. It's pleasantly drivable but not too quick with 0-100 km requiring over 10 seconds.

That's not an issue with the killer-B Turbo. It's a fast machine -- 0-100 km in 7.6 seconds -- with tonnes of torque on tap in any gear and even better handling.

So, can the terms premium and small car be used in the same sentence? In the B-Class's case I'd say, yes.

Despite its similarity in some ways to less expensive vehicles, there would seem to be more than enough "Mercedes-Benz" built-in to justify the price tag.

You know, when I was reading this in the paper, I was talking to my brother about this. People could just as easily buy a Toyota Matrix for 24,000 dollars that gets equal horsepower, similar dimensions, and far superior fuel economy - not to mention better reliability - instead of this B-Class. Hey, you could even get a Matrix XRS with 170 horsepower for less than the B-Class, and that comes with a 6-speed manual transmission, and still superior fuel economy. I just don't get it.

Not to mention, the Matrix looks better than the B-Class, as far as I'm concerned. Looks like a proper hatchback, not a minivan.

For the price of the B-Class, you could get a far superior car. Assuming that the price tag of the B-Class is over 30,000 dollars Canadian (plus "Thousands more" for a souped up model), here's a list of cars within 10,000 dollars that are easily a better value than it, even if not a hatchback:

Toyota Matrix XRS - $25,000

Infini G35 $39,900

Mazdaspeed 6 - $35,995

Nissan Maxima - $34, 968

Penis enlargements don't just come in pill form.

Lessons from Vietnam

2005-05-11T18:59:00.000-04:00

Not much news today, kids, I was at York University researching on the Vietnam War. The more you read about it, the more fascinating it is. Did you know that one Pentagon historian estimated that the amounts of soldiers fragging their officers is 5% of the total U.S. military deaths in Vietnam? I do now. All thanks to my local library.

Blog of the week: Thoughts from Kansas.

From the NY Times

WASHINGTON, May 11 - A small plane flew into restricted airspace over the nation's capital today, causing a scare that prompted evacuation of the Capitol building, the White House, the Supreme Court and other government sites.

The two men aboard the plane, which military aricraft forced to land in Maryland, were taken into custody and questioned. But this evening they were reported to have been released after the authorities determined that the men's foray into some of the most closely guarded airspace in the world had been accidental.

The midday episode lasted barely a quarter-hour, and the errant pilot was quickly shooed away by two F-16 jet fighters that scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base after the small plane was detected shortly before noon. But for those brief minutes there was a palpable sense of fear here as people recalled the terror of the day in September 2001 when a hijacked airliner flew into the Pentagon, killing 189 people.

The single-engine Cessna that set off today's widespread alarm was first detected 15 miles away, just on the edge of the restricted airspace and heading toward the Capitol and the White House, the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said at a briefing not long after the incident.

Mr. McClellan said the pilot had not responded to repeated attempts to communicate with him. The craft, tracked by jet fighters, ultimately came within three miles of the White House before veering west and away from the restricted area, Mr. McClellan said.

At the time, President Bush was outside the capital, bicycling in Maryland. But Vice President Dick Cheney, who was at the White House, was quickly escorted to a "secure location," as were First Lady Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan, who was visiting, Mr. McClellan said.

Several Congressional hearings were suspended as people streamed out of the Capitol Building, with Congressional leaders being hustled into armored vehicles. Scores of people were simultaneously evacuated at the White House, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, under clear blue skies as the Secret Service briefly went on its highest-alert status. (The Pentagon, across the Potomac River in Arlington, Va., was not evacuated.)

After veering away from the White House, the Cessna, one of the smallest private aircraft in service, was escorted by military aircraft to an airport in nearby Frederick, Md., where it put down. Two men were taken into custody at the airport, the Capitol police chief, Terry Gainer, said at a news briefing.

Best story ever, as far as I'm concerned.

Eat your bangers

2005-05-06T20:56:00.000-04:00

Tony Blair got re-elected the other day. What to say? He's certainly not George Bush, although I wouldn't be surprised if when George Bush brushes his teeth, Tony Blair gets his set done as well.

Call it liberal party syndrome. Up here in Canada, the liberal party got re-elected, even after it had been discovered the party (under the leadership of Jean Chretien, if it makes a difference) wasted millions of dollars on AdScam. Read up on it on the CBC, if you care so much. Of course, the Toronto Sun was absolutely flabbergasted that people wouldn't elect superman Stephen Harper to office (and who can blame them?).

How does this relate? In the British election, there were two main choices (other than the liberal party) - the Labour party, or the Tories, the party of Maggie Thatcher. Jolly good.

Anything else newsworthy? George Bush will make a visit to Chechnya following his visit to Red Square for a 60th anniversary V-E day special, which drew some protest from a Russian government official, in a letter made to Condi Rice. It's in the New York Times.

Also, today is the 60th anniversary of WWII ending in Germany. There's something special. More people died in World War II than the population of Canada in the course of 6 years.

My history teacher was talking to us about it, actually. He actually brought up a point that I really hadn't considered about World War II - a guy my age in the 40's wouldn't be lining up what universities he wanted to go to or what career he was interested in, he'd be going off to basic training.

It's time we appreciate the fact that we're allowed to be intellectual these days. We're not going off to war in our youth, we're off to higher learning. You can go read some other blogs for the poetic waxing about all the lessons we've forgotten.

Another important thing to remember about the end of World War II is the mass migration from Europe to North America. I don't know about you, but my grandparents came from two countries that had been horribly damaged by World War II and came to Canada looking for a better life. Remember where you came from, because we're all immigrants in one form or another.

Some silly "Vow of Silence" thing in school today, people got to spend good money on a t-shirt so that they couldn't talk to raise awareness about child prostitution in Thailand. It's a hard fact, people only care when it's convenient. I think it's pure exhibitionism - every one of those people who went around wearing those shirts will come back to school on Monday and entirely forget about the sheer amount of child labour and prostitution throughout the third world. That's another sad fact.

You shouldn't have to spend money and go around in a red t-shirt to show that you care. Actions will always speak louder than words. And especially so in this case, because they weren't supposed to talk.

Supposed to, at any rate.

A long weekend derails your efforts to amuse yourself

2005-04-30T12:00:00.000-04:00

Haven't posted in a while (by my standards, anyways), and there are a few key reasons to that:

1) A spare for history class got me out of the library and into the cafeteria to hang out with a friend who already has a spare on Wednesday, destroying my normal time for reading the news.
2) Being just bored enough to forget about ways to keeping yourself entertained.

I've been wondering about this blog, actually. It's really not so great. Great blogs are all the personal blogs by people with more talent in the writing than I. A personal blog isn't something I'd so much like to keep in the public domain. I tried that before, and somebody who I knew found it, discovered me insulting them for their lack of ability to play the saxophone. Oh, yeah, I play the saxophone. Rather well I think, but being around people who are really great can destroy your self-confidence. I also have a slight overbite, which I think is harmful to my technique, and may well cause me to squeak so goddamn much. I'm getting braces soon - could have gotten them a few years back, but was too chicken to bother, so I'm finally biting the bullet and will swallow the pain over the summer, when it's less likely to interfere with my saxophone playing, because I do a lot of it in school - anywhere between an hour and three hours a day, although sometimes I get off not playing at all. But those days are rare.

What do I like? A lot of things. I'm rather fond of music. I expand my CD collection by taking CD's out of the library, then ripping them onto my computer. So far I've got 450 songs, the majority of which are from the library. Today I'm going to pick up No Cities Left by the Dears. I have 10 dollars left on a gift certificate from HMV, which I've been planning to buy Matt Good's Last of the Ghetto Astronauts with, but haven't gotten around to it. I also wonder if there are better things I could buy - expanding your CD collection > expanding your Matthew Good CD collection. I'm thinking getting something by Interpol, as I've heard good things about them, but I've not heard a single one of their songs. I don't download, last time I tried that, my computer got messed up hideously with spyware.

3 day weekend this time around, and I'm about half way through it, which means I had better get to the several ISP's and papers and research essays I've got to do. On tap? Music history, music history ISP (Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique), English ISP final copy, and comparative essay rough draft. I should be doing some research for my religion ISP on the factors leading to the Reformation, and of course my history ISP on how the Vietnam War has affected American Foreign Policy. We're taking a class trip to York University on wednesday to do some research in a real research library. I actually want to go to York, perhaps in the field of chemistry. They're more of an arts university, but their lab classes have 25 people in them, which sounds quite impressive. Plus, its still in... rather, near Toronto. Living in suburbia means you never quite get exposed to the wonders of the inner city, so I'm not intent on abandoning that for some university out there in the wilderness. Besides, they had the best brochures at the Ontario Universities Fair last fall, and they gave me a bag to carry all my brochures in. Western just gave me a lanyard, so they're out.

I think I've got some work to do, excuse me...

EDIT: It looks like Limblifter is shooting a video for Perfect Day to Dissapear. Exciting times we live in, folks.

Following up

2005-04-26T19:11:00.000-04:00

Because I care about my integrity, Slate has posted an editorial about the debate regarding contraceptive pills, and a pharmacists' right to refuse. It also mentions the New York Times article I quoted the other day, so I thought it in the interest of fairness to include it.

I found the coolest website ever: Jesus is Saviour. I mean, other than the fact everything they say is patently false (see: evolutionism), it provides hours of entertainment.

I've also been doing a bit of reading on the teaching of evolutionism/creationism in schools. It's got more depth to it than you'd think:

Intelligent Design Doesn't Belong in the Classroom
Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States

Both great essays, the second one is a pretty big read.

Even I, as a dedicated science nerd, learned a few things, so definitely have a look at them, as they're very well researched.

The internet has failed me

2005-04-23T10:35:00.000-04:00

Blogger is being blogger as of late, making it dififcult for me to post. I had an excellent one all written up for you fine people, but alas, it was destroyed. Something about George Bush telling senators to put politics aside and confirm John Bolton to ambassador to the UN. Ironically, he made the statement during a speech that was supposed to be about social security. I guess he's got a hard time putting politics aside.

Other than that, I've been trying to read Robert McNamara's In Retrospect lately, an offshoot of an ISP I'm doing in history on how the Vietnam War has affected American Foreign Policy. Of course, reading books for English is more important than reading for enjoyment, so its not getting the attention it deserves. Nonehteless, an interesting book, and it defeinitely puts the Vietnam conflict into a new light, if you've not studied it in tremendous detail before. You can also see the similiarities between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war.

I know, I've heard it before, the Vietnam War is entirely different from Iraq, but that's only from a strategical standpoint. They both had different objectives, but the similarity is that they both failed or are failing, and people are dying. Government officials without any indepth knowledge of the politics in the region. I think its time everyone do a but of studing of history, because democracy just doesn't pop out of a hole, and people just don't embrace it. Democracy developed in Europe over hundreds of years, through war and revolution and Enlightenents, it didn't happen overnight. It's time we all learn that.

Also, if you want to email the new Pope, you may reach him at benedictxvi@vatican.va

Pharmacists Gone Wild; Eggs Benedict

2005-04-19T18:03:00.000-04:00

First off, from the New York Times, pharmacists gone wild!

Well, not really. More like pharmacists trying to use their power and force children to be born, whether or not they're wanted.

Pharmacies Balk on After-Sex Pill and Widen Fight in Many States - NY TIMES

CHICAGO, April 18 - As a fourth-generation pharmacist whose drugstore still sits on the courthouse square of his conservative small town downstate, State Senator Frank Watson knew exactly what side to take when Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich ordered pharmacies to fill prescriptions for women wanting the new "morning after" pill, even if it meant putting aside their employees' personal views.

"The governor is trying to make a decision that must be left to the pharmacy," said Senator Watson, whose family business, Watson's Drug Store in Greenville, Ill., does not stock the pill. "It's an infringement on a business decision and also on the pharmacist's right of conscience."

Senator Watson, the Republican leader of the Senate, and Governor Blagojevich, a Democrat, are the latest combatants in a growing battle over emergency contraception. In at least 23 states, legislators and other elected officials have passed laws or are considering measures in a debate that has attracted many of the same advocates and prompted much of the same intensity as the fight over abortion.

In some states, legislators are pushing laws that would explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception or abortion on moral grounds. Others want to require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control, much like Governor Blagojevich's emergency rule in Illinois, which requires pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to dispense it without delay. And in some states, there are proposals or newly enacted laws to make the morning-after pill more accessible, by requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims or allowing certain pharmacists to sell it without a prescription.

...

On the federal level, bills requiring all legal prescriptions to be filled have been introduced in recent days by Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey. A House version of the Lautenberg bill has been sponsored by Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney of New York and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida, both Democrats, and Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, among others. The bills are not expected to get very far.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense certain drugs as long as another pharmacist on duty would.

It's all about power, people. My grade 10 science teacher once said something about power after having a rough time getting a bunch of water bottles filled at an elementary school during a school board sponsored soccer tournament. But like I said, power - pharmacists have power over people. These pharmacists, in particular, are using their power to advance a political agenda, no matter how insignificant.

Pharmacists should not have the right to decide who gets what treatment. These pills stop conception altogether - what do they have to do with abortion? Are convenience store clerks now going to refuse to sell condoms because that doesn't jive with their religious beliefs? It really makes me wonder. What exactly are these people thinking? After conception, you can't have an abortion. Now, before conception, you're not allowed to prevent conception from happening. I sure hope they don't expect people to not have sex at all.

Imagine if a doctor refused to perform a blood transfusion on a patient because of his religious beliefs in an emergency situation - he'd be in front of a court before long. Or how about if another pharmacist refused to dispense a prescription for morphine?

One's own moral objections should hold no place in the realm of science - and that's exactly what field they've chosen, science.

You'll also note that John Kerry sponsored a bill that would give a pharmacist permission to refuse to fill out a prescription for contraceptives if another pharmacist on duty would. I wonder what democrats think of him now. I'd also like to know what those republicans that called him the most liberal member of the Senate think of him now.

The other thing I'd like to bring up is the election of an essay posted on Slate.com about the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Very interesting. Still though, Ratzinger is 78 years old, which is only 2 years under the limit for which cardinals may participate in a conclave. Needless to say, it's a very non-commital choice, which will undoubtedly result in a short papcy (particularly short when compared to John Paul II).

Check out the media circus on CNN. They had Rick Santorum on, talking about the new pope. Rick Santorum! Geez, you want insight on how the new pope will affect Catholicism in America, go talk to a Bishop or Cardinal from the U.S., not to a senator who happens to be catholic. Seperation of church and state my ass.

They were also talking to Cardinal Kasper from Germany about Ratzinger, asking the most mundane of questions - Kasper's a liberal and Ratzinger's a conservative, how are they going to get along now that Ratzinger is the Pope? I don't think they're shallow enough to let that get in the way, morons.

George Bush also made a statement asking Americans to pray to give Benedict XVI strength and courage for the job. Because we all know George Bush knows how much courage and strength (and faulty intelligence) it takes to be the most powerful man in the world.

It's been a slow news day.

News from the Republican Convention

2005-04-12T19:26:00.000-04:00

Months after the Republican Convention in New York, the many protesters who were arrested en masse have begun challenging their charges in court. What complicates matters a bit is that the police were using misleading evidence, according to this New York Times article.

Dennis Kyne put up such a fight at a political protest last summer, the arresting officer recalled, it took four police officers to haul him down the steps of the New York Public Library and across Fifth Avenue.

"We picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed," the officer, Matthew Wohl, testified in December. "I had one of his legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own."

Accused of inciting a riot and resisting arrest, Mr. Kyne was the first of the 1,806 people arrested in New York last summer during the Republican National Convention to take his case to a jury. But one day after Officer Wohl testified, and before the defense called a single witness, the prosecutor abruptly dropped all charges.

During a recess, the defense had brought new information to the prosecutor. A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed complaints.

A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive, lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the convention.
For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors.

Among them was Alexander Dunlop, who said he was arrested while going to pick up sushi.

Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.

Certainly makes you wonder, though. Is there any responsibility of the Republican Party for this? Perhaps. The massive amount of arrests and subsequent poor treatment of those arrested - involving holding them for long amounts of time in crowded group cells without food. Are Republicans to blame? Not necessarily. I'm not foolish enough to think that George Bush is personally responsible for the way these people were treated, but I'm not foolish enough to say this was all the work of the police. Remember at the Democratic Convention where there was a designated area where people could protest? (at the bottom, last entry)

Who knows? But don't be fooled thinking that either the Republicans or the Democrats have their hands clean in such matters.

On to other matters, you may have read in yesterday's New York Times article about John Bolton's confirmation hearings that John Kerry is one of the Democrats on the panel. He's actually taken a rather large profile for a Senator, also serving on the panel to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. He vowed after the election that he would continue working hard for what he promised in his election campaign. How does he do it? I don't know, you'd think the guy would bow out of the political circuit after losing such an important election.

But Kerry's a career politician, what else has he got to do?. The fact that he's continuing on with his work after running for president shows his transparency. Al Gore wouldn't be able to continue working as a senator, because he was very much a viable candidate for president - plus, there was the whole election fraud in Florida thing, which would have made him working as a senator just that much more awkward. Let's all face it, Kerry was a weak candidate for president (not to say that there were others in the primaries that were strong and politically viable), so the fact that he's going back to work as a Senator even shows that he agrees with the sentiment. The Democratic party had this election in the bag before anyone knew who the candidate was. John Kerry let himself get beaten by the Republicans. He wouldn't fight back against the hypocritical (and often shady) accusations of being a flip-flopper, while merely sitting quietly by while his war record was being torn apart by a bunch of guys who had been thoroughly discredited by various members of the media. All John Kerry had to do was read a couple editorials and start repeating what they were saying. It's all about getting your message out, and John Kerry wasn't even lazy enough to steal a message from the internet, like a college student stealing a thesis.

I'm not bitter.

There's nothing wrong

2005-04-11T21:37:00.000-04:00

Lots of things happening lately. None of which are interesting in the least. That's how things go, I guess.

The news:

-What's that growing on Camilla's head?

In all seriousness folks, I may not consider myself a monarchist or an anti-monarchist, but if either Camilla or Charles end up getting printed on my money, I won't know what to do with myself.

Oh, and get a load of picture 7.

-Witness contradicts some of Brault's testimony in Sponsorship Scandal - CBC

Is it all-out corruption in the Liberal party, or a couple of hacks bent on world domination? Stay tuned. We'll also have comprehensive coverage of mock indignation from the Toronto Sun.

-Bush Nominee for U.N. Envoy Is Pressed Hard at Senate Hearing - NY Times

Also, don't miss Slate.com's collection of editorial cartoons about John Bolton, if you're too lazy to form your own opinion on him first.

Editorial of the time period until I post next? Shameless Photo-Op - NY Times

Short but sweet? Not necessarily. It's about George Bush's attempts to downplay the 1.7 trillion dollars of public debt as merely being IOU's and worthless bonds. It may be true that a significant amount of the U.S. foreign debt is a commodity that can be bought and sold, but it doesn't change the fact that there is 1.7 trillion dollars of it. Didn't his tax cuts to the rich have any effect on the debt? Or was that the deficit? Hopefully, there won't be any Republican bloggers out ta get me over this, I haven't been reading up on politics as I used to.

I'll try to find more interesting things to talk about next time. I swear.

As usual, make sure you catch today's Doonesbury. That's a permanent link, so when you click it, it always comes to today's strip, no matter when you're seeing this. In fact, Slate always has some interesting articles - Which breat implants look best?, anyone?

And the best part is, since Slate isn't owned by Microsoft anymore, it's completely guilt free.

We're starting something new

2005-04-10T22:49:00.000-04:00

We're starting something new here. July 2004? That day was the beginning. This is the beginning of the end. Quickly, I still have homework to do.

Guided by Tony Pierce, and his How to Blog article (rather, the blogging Constitution), this blog will be a tour de force on the blogging scene. I guarantee it. Just you wait. All I need to do is sleep with the right people, and before you know it, I'll be choosing the freakin' Pope. I will be lobbying lobbyists, I'll be controlling the minds of people who put mind-control chips into people. Just you wait. The Freemasons will want into this secret society before long, baby, and you're on the ground floor. We don't have an elevator yet. Or stairs. Or even an upper floor. The advantage is, we don't have a roof - expandability. We have walls, and a floor, and a reception desk. One day, just you wait. One day, we'll have a receptionist, then an office. Then a line into the office, and we might have somebody in the office worth waiting for before long.

One day, the name of this blog won't suck. I promise you. I'll come up with a better name. If you currently think the name of this blog doesn't suck, it's because it sucked before, and I changed it. And you will not know what it is, because I can guarantee you, it verily sucks. I will guarantee you it will not be a song title, song lyrics, or anything to do with anything else. I will not steal it from the National Post. I will not rehash the name of a previous blog I've kept, and, as you can see, abandoned. I guarantee it. Like I said, the ground floor. We have walls, we have a door, and an empty receptionists desk. Humble beginnings. Everything has to start somewhere. It started in July of 2004. We're beginning.

The End.

Is this legal?

2004-07-15T16:55:00.000-04:00

Well, this was spur of the moment. Thanks for reading.

ctrl + shift + p