Could be worse

As some people seem to enjoy talking about how undemocratic things are becoming these days in Canada ( which I don't buy, but for the sake of argument... ), let's just take a moment to catch a glimpse of what real undemocratic action looks like, shall we?

Since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed the presidency of the country in 2001, more than 800 Filipinos murdered in politically-motivated, extra-judicial, targeted killings. Since the 4th quarter of July 2005, one person has been killed every two days.
The victims of these brazen acts of violence were all unarmed citizens: lawyers, judges, journalists, medical practitioners, members of cause- oriented groups, priests, church- workers, human rights advocates, laborers and farmers.
It is widely believed—and the United Nations support this belief—that state security forces are complicit in these crimes.

Just to introduce a little bit of comparative governance....

Road to Perdition

By Jim Quinn, via TheBurningPlatform.ca:

"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it."

Richard Lamm

Decade after decade, Americans have voted for intellectually and morally bankrupt dullards that promise them more goodies under the tree. Every day is Christmas in Washington DC. Long-term means the next election cycle to these traitors of the Republic. I have written ad nauseum about the impending financial cataclysm that awaits our nation. I have spent countless hours documenting the unsustainable path of our politicians’ financial decisions and lack of courage in addressing the forthcoming tragedy that grows closer by the day. Our political system is so corrupt and dysfunctional that there is absolutely no chance that our path will be altered at the voting booth. Government programs are fashioned, but never finished. The IRS tax code consists of 3.4 million words covering 7,500 pages of payoffs to business lobbyists. Simplicity is a virtue. The politicians who are bought and sold by corporate interests prefer complexity and obscuring the truth. Everyone knows that the government cannot fulfill the fiscal promises they have already made. Instead of dealing with this reality using intelligence, courage and conviction, the weak kneed politicians that slither the halls of Congress have chosen to add a brand new bloated entitlement program guaranteed to detonate in our faces. This is the existing reality. There is nothing I can do that will change this reality. Instead, I will propose a new model.

Read the rest here.

Is it a bad thing that I laughed at this?

Mix-up over benefits hangs over dying woman’s last Christmas

By Jeremy Warren, via the National Post:

SASKATOON -- An error at Canada Revenue Agency has led a Saskatoon family through a protracted fight for money owed and the postponement of a dying mother's last family Christmas this year.

The agency ended Dorothy Jones' monthly child benefits in October because officials wrongly believed she married her brother.

Ms. Jones, 36, has cervical cancer and is in palliative care in St. Paul's Hospital. She could die at any moment. She wanted the money to fund a special Christmas for her three children.

Ms. Jones received the federal Child and Family Benefits and Credits -- about $600 every month -- to supplement her social assistance.

The cheques stopped arriving three months ago when the Canada Revenue Agency "determined that [Jones had] a spouse or common-law partner for tax purposes," according to an agency letter sent on Oct. 2.

The letter was addressed to Ms. Jones' brother, Jason Langan, 35, who the agency "determined" was Ms. Jones' spouse or common-law partner. The siblings briefly lived together with Ms. Jones' children almost three years ago.

In late December, the agency reversed itself and said benefits would be restored.

Canada Revenue said it is working to "re-establish the status-quo" for Ms. Jones, but couldn't confirm when a cheque might arrive.

Read the rest here.

Charming...

Prorogue!

Well, it seems it's on until March 3rd:

Today, the Prime Minister announced that the next phase of our Economic Action Plan will be launched, following the Olympic Games, with a Throne Speech on March 3 and a Budget on March 4.
The call for a new Throne Speech to launch the 3rd Session of the current Parliament is routine. The average Parliament comprises three or four sessions (and three or four Throne Speeches); some Parliaments have heard as many as six or seven Throne Speeches.

This is the 105th time in Canada's history that a new Throne Speech will launch a new session of an existing Parliament.

The economy remains Canadians' top priority and our top priority. The three economic themes of the new session will be: (1) completing implementation of the Economic Action Plan, (2) returning the federal budget to balance once the economy has recovered and (3) building the economy of the future.

Ms Hoeppner's bill to repeal the long-gun registry will be unaffected by the launch of a new session. We will reintroduce in their original form the consumer safety law (Bill C-6) and the anti-drug-crime law (Bill C-15) that the Ignatieff Liberals gutted.

We will seek Opposition agreement to proceed expeditiously with other Government legislation -- particularly laws urgently needed to fight crime -- that the Ignatieff Liberals have blocked and obstructed.

Kady O'Malley's got all the coverage you're going to need, although John Geddes over at Macleans has some interesting points to check out. Meanwhile, The Hook provides a good round-up of the coverage, and Andrew Coyne does what Andrew Coyne does best.

So far as I know, the GG hasn't signed off on things yet, and so I'll refrain from joining some of my colleagues in calling this move undemocratic until she gives her yes or no. Shifty, crafty, and underhanded? Yes. A rather disturbing removal of the check of Parliament upon the government's actions for two months? Hell yes. Undemocratic? I wouldn't go that far.

However, the real question to me is why. What is there to gain from this move? The attention is going to be focused on the Afghan detainees scandal, undoubtedly, and perhaps even on the as-yet-unresurrected Military Police Complaints Committee Commission, but I'm not convinced that Harper would prorogue just over that. Not that I have my doubts that the Tories are more than willing to play games while in government to their own advantage. To prorogue instead of allowing the scandal to sink into the muck of the political background ( much as the Campbell Liberals have done in BC with Railgate ), where it will eventually be forgotten by all except the diehards, isn't really a smart move. And it's a dumb move when you consider the added scrutiny, skepticism, and down-right anger that this prorogue is undoubtedly going to provoke over the next couple of months - hey, for months afterward too, if the opposition plays their cards right.

And let's not forget the Olympics. Does anybody really think that for their duration, the media is going to be focusing on a relatively obscure Parliamentary committee looking into a three-year-old scandal? Really?

I dunno - it just seems to me that it would not behoove Stephen Harper to make the prorogue happen just to make the Afghan detainees scandal go away. It doesn't seem efficient - and I think he's smarter than that.

A far more likely possibility, I think, is that Stephen Harper is going to try and get the Senate in his corner of the ring after the post-prorogue re-allignment, as Paul Wells, John Geddes, and Stephen Taylor have explored.

All in all, it will be interesting to kick back and watch this as it gets spun - undoubtedly way out of proportion by both sides.

[ UPDATE: John Ivison has largely the same analysis, although Andrew Potter thinks it's all about the unredacted documents - an interesting take - and thinks this would be a perfect moment for the Opposition to, you know, act like an Opposition ( my words, not his ). Jeff Jadras says ho-hum, but the Opposition better get moving, and Aaron Wherry shows the decline in a shorter-Parliament trend over the decades. Meanwhile, it seems as if the GG may not have had a chance to say yes or no on the prorogue, just yet. ]

[ UPDATE II: Ah - the prorogue is on, as they say. Let come what may - I still think the spin on this is going to be just short of fantastical. ]

I see your cat and raise you by one

Since Blazing Cat Fur saw fit to post a picture of his cat, I thought I'd get in on the game:

[ UPDATE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth raises the stakes even higher... ]

Psh...who needs facts? It was still a good line

Hmm....

I tracked down the original quote — and it appears James Rainey put a few words in James O’Keefe’s mouth. Here is what O’Keefe actually said, according to reporter Robin Abcarian:

I am in NY and trying to do these videos full time. A lot of them are undercover. Veritas Visuals, I can show you some links, did some investigation for right.org, a parody up on YouTube. I want to be the conservative version of Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Jackass and Trigger Happy TV. Combine those elements to promote the conservative agenda thru those means.

Rainey’s version unfairly rewrites the actual quote. O’Keefe never actually said that he “follows the mold” of Michael Moore to “us[e] confrontation to get at his version of the truth.” Rainey made it sound like O’Keefe admitted seeking something less than the full truth. But O’Keefe told me that he seeks the full truth and resents Rainey’s false implication that he admitted otherwise.

Well that just looks bad.

Winston Blackmore: classy

You might remember Winston Blackmore as the religious leader from Bountiful, BC, who was let off on polygamy charges earlier this year after the BC government realized that they were trying to prosecute him on the wrong grounds ( well, that's been my interpretation, at least... ).

At any rate, it's nice to see that he doesn't hold a grudge:

Maybe I will make one prediction. Here goes. This coming year will not be a good one for all you officers, presidents, bishops, counsellors, trustees, spokespersons, or any other responsible persons that deliberately break up families, interfere with the free agency of men, women and children, and cause an attack or assist in an attack, religious or otherwise upon any person or his family.

This year will be the beginning of your end and in the end you will be single, lonely, desolate and damned.

Stay classy, Winston.

Pay no attention to your missing journalist...

All is well:

TEHRAN — The Tehran prosecutor confirmed on Tuesday the arrest of an Iran-based reporter working for Dubai TV, two days after he went missing, local media reported.

"No one is missing ... a person has been arrested and if the ministry of culture confirms that he had permission to work then he will be freed," the Mehr news agency quoted Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi as saying.

Reza al-Basha, a 27-year-old Syrian, was arrested in Tehran during opposition protests, a colleague told AFP on Sunday.

Dubai TV had said on Monday that it was awaiting a reply from Tehran authorities regarding the whereabouts of its missing reporter, who has been working for the channel in Iran for a year.

Blast from the past

Here's an old article of mine for my former employer, the Cowichan Valley Citizen, on, believe it or not, breastfeeding.

Heh.

Rights commissions not the place

Alright. First of all, I feel that it is necessary for me to get the obligatory caveats over and done with: breastfeeding is something that is perfectly natural, a bonding between mother and child, and in no way am I disputing a mother's right to breastfeed (her children at least). I am in full support of a woman's right to breastfeed in public.

And so, dear reader, as you continue to peruse this article, please keep those caveats in mind. I don't want a bunch of angry militant breast-feeders on my case for this one.

You see, a complaint has recently been filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission because staff at a Vancouver H&M asked a woman called Manuela Valle to be more discreet while she was breastfeeding her child. That's right, you read that last sentence correctly. As Valle was waiting for her husband, who was trying on clothes, she started to breastfeed her two-month old daughter in the store. A clerk came by and asked her to move to a change-room to breastfeed, so as not to offend the other customers, and Valle was hustled off. Valle stated later that she was made to feel like a shoplifter. Of course, the most reasonable response was the one which Valle gave, which was to state, "I am being arrested for breastfeeding my baby," while being moved to a change room to do so (she actually said that).

This is not the first such complaint to be filed recently in Canada. There's been another one filed in Toronto, via a woman named Allison Loblaw. She complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, claiming that a female clerk rather rudely and quite embarrassingly told her to use a change room to breastfeed.

Now, while I can understand that embarrassment and a certain amount of anger, I cannot help but feel that such human rights complaints are actually opposed to rights and freedom. Let me explain.

I am a libertarian, or at the very least, an individualist. I believe in the ideal of a free society: maximum personal freedoms, and no government interference in our interactions, unless absolutely necessary because of violence or other outright criminal behavior. From this viewpoint, I uphold a woman's right to breastfeed, as I would uphold all other personal freedoms -- so long as it is understood that one person's freedoms do not trump any other person's.

However, from this viewpoint, I also support a "free response," which means that while I support a woman's right to breastfeed, I also support the rights of the people around her to voice their disapproval of such. If a mother can breastfeed in public, so too can people voice discomfort, and ask her to do so elsewhere. Especially considering that breastfeeding is an action conducted by choice, such a balance of freedom in interaction within society seems fair enough to me. Everyone's on the same playing field.

It is therefore hypocrisy, to me, for someone such as Manuela Valle or Allison Loblaw to lobby in favour of their rights to breastfeed in public, while at the same time using a government bureaucracy to, in effect, silence people when they respond to said breastfeeding. If you only support your own freedom, then you don't believe in freedom at all. These women are only interested in their own freedom to act, and to use tax dollars to enforce any such agenda is much less than admirable.

The Manuela Valle incident was the focus of a "nurse-in" protest -- basically like a sit-in -- only with nursing mothers at that H&M store. That's a great response. An interaction between citizens, and a voice for Valle and other breastfeeding advocates which does not involve a government bureaucracy looking over the proceedings. I have no problem with that.

But I do have a problem whenever someone uses a bureaucracy -- like Human Rights Commissions -- for their own ends, or for the ends of whatever cause they believe in. Breastfeeding advocacy, like any other cause, is something to be decided upon by us: the citizens. We're not children. We can't go running to the government whenever something doesn't go our way, or whenever the others don't play nice. To do what Valle and Loblaw are doing is equivalent to not only taking your own toy and going home, but to having your parents come in and take everyone else's toys as well. We can't have everyone on the same level of free citizenry when some people feel it necessary to stack the odds in their favour by going to a higher power.

And quite frankly, to compare being embarrassed by clerks at a store with the legitimate hardships that some people have faced because of race or sex, is insulting to all those who have fought for the cause of true equality in Canada.

It's an odd day when citizens are bickering amongst themselves over whose rights trump whose, with government presiding. It's almost like a real-world version of almost every family sitcom on television. Except it's actually funny.

Because I do other things too - my latest, for Defend Geert Wilders

The Weekly Wilders Round-Up, for December 28th, 2009. Last one of the year - oh boy.

Binks does it again

Over at Canucki Jihad, Binks takes on a couple of demonstrations in Toronto from the Muslim community. More here.

[ UPDATE: Binks keeps the series coming with another post: Utopia, ho! ]

Events calender

Here's an upcoming event that Toronto residents might be interested in: The Courage of Our Convictions: Principled Leadership for a Better Canada, which is being put on by the Societe Macdonald-Cartier Society, on January 23rd.

More info on the Macdonald-Cartier Society website:

Speakers
- Michael Taube (Public affairs analyst, commentator, and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper)
- Rory Leishman (national affairs columnist for The London Free Press in London, Ontario, Canada as well as for Catholic Insight magazine)
- Brian Ferguson (former Civitas Director, Associate Prof. at University of Guelph Economics)
- William Gairdner (author of many books, including "Oh, Oh, Canada! a Voice from the Conservative Resistance")

Moderator: Michael Coren (Michael Coren Show on CTS)

Free online games

I just realized that those three words in the title might ensure me a lot of search-engine traffic from people trying to kill time at work and whatnot.

I say, hey, cool. But that's not the purpose of this post. In fact, the real purpose of this post is to direct your attention toward The Simple Dollar's roundup of six free online games that he (the author ) really enjoys. Check it out.

This is just getting ridiculous

My latest for the Libertas Post blog, talking about the Afghan detainees 'scandal', and the Tories' absolutely idiotic and childish response to what should be a relatively nothing issue.

Let's face it

Writers suck at making money.

Nice inter-governmental organization you've got there

You don't mind if I shuffle a few papers around, do you?

[UPDATE: Binks. ]

All you need is a little less C02, and your problems will melt away

Got AIDS? Not a problem! With our patented new C02-be-gone formula, you'll be back on your feet in no time!

Or:



H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.

People have asked me why I don't like Elizabeth May. This is only part of the reason.

Another one for the hmm.... files

Again, via The Tyee, by coincidence:

Earlier this year, Canada and the European Union announced plans to negotiate a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), possibly the biggest Canadian trade negotiations since NAFTA. The first round of talks took place in Ottawa in October, yet the treaty has generated practically no public scrutiny.
That may change following the leak last week of the European Union's proposed intellectual property chapter.
Simply put, the EU demands target the entire Canadian economy. They include increased patent protection for pharmaceutical companies, heightened support for famous trademarks, and new rules for industrial designs. The EU is also keen on restrictions on the use of geographic indications, which would limit the ability of Canadian wine and cheese makers to use such words as champagne or parmesan.

Read the rest here.

Because who needs the bother of democracy, really? Round two

Earlier I noted one Victoria councilor's aversion to the idea of a referendum.

Well, five thousand petitions later, and it's looking a lot closer...

Another for the hmmm.... files

Via The Tyee:

On Dec. 7, Toronto's city council delivered the rarest of political creatures -- a new tax with broad public support. The tax on billboards was proposed to help enforce the bylaws governing signs, and also fund public art to offset the blight of outdoor advertising.

This combines two things which I dislike: taxation with a cause, and public funding for the arts. Goodie.

Er...about that Carbon Tax

We'll be asking for our money back now, please:

British Columbia's Liberal government is struggling to defend its record on climate change after Environment Canada released a report indicating that B.C. is the only province to have increased its industrial greenhouse gas emissions in 2008. Provincial journalists pointed out the hypocrisy of Premier Gordon Campbell receiving an honour in Copenhagen last week for his introduction of the transportation carbon tax in light of the figures indicating higher emissions.

The HST...

We're not done with you just yet.

Just one quick observation: it's interesting to observe restaurants lobbying against the Harmonised Sales Tax, really. Correct me if I'm wrong - but the HST was implemented precisely for businesses like restaurants to be able to remove a few layers of paperwork and cost, and thus pass on the savings to the consumer. This seems the weak point of the plan for me, because there is absolutely no guarantee that businesses are going to pass on the savings, but I just find it rather curious that restaurants are lobbying so hard against this tax. Perhaps it is out of actual concern for the consumer. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that when the taxes are harmonised, these restaurants are going to have less of an excuse as to why their prices are staying at the same rate of expense, even though their operating costs are, presumably, going down.

I would be more willing to believe the former if many of the restaurants lobbying against the HST weren't members of larger chains, like A&W or Tim Hortons - both of which, locally at least, have joined the fight against the unpopular tax.

Strange...

American's Crazed Corn Habit

By Justin Rohrlich, via the Mises Institute:

According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, the increased use of ethanol is responsible for a rise in food prices of approximately 10 to 15 percent.

Why?

We're turning corn into fuel — a highly inefficient one, at that — instead of food.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy points out that "mixing food and fuel markets for political reasons has done American consumers no discernable good, while producing measurable harm."

However, perhaps summing up the issue most succinctly is Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan-Flint:

Anytime you have Paul Krugman agreeing on ethanol with such a diverse group as the Wall Street Journal, Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, Investor's Business Daily, Rolling Stone Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, John Stossel, The Ecological Society of America, the American Enterprise and Brookings Institutions, the Heritage Foundation, George Will and Time magazine, you know that ethanol has to be one of the most misguided public policies in US history.

But Brazil seems to have made it work. Using just 1 percent of its arable land, Brazil produced 6.57 billion gallons of sugar ethanol last year, roughly half the annual oil production of Iraq. Ethanol accounts for about 50 percent of Brazil's automotive fuel. General Electric and Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer are working to develop ethanol suitable for powering commercial aircraft, with a test flight possible by early 2012. Most importantly, Brazil relies on imported oil for only 10 percent of its energy needs today — due in large part to its ethanol industry.

So, what's Brazil doing right?

Read the rest here.

I'm not usually one to give the media lumps...

But come on...this is just pathetic, man!

I'd kiss Beverly McLachlin if she weren't a Supreme Court judge

Hey, whaddaya know - the system works! Via CTV:

Top court upholds 'responsible journalism' defence

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a ruling that allows reporters to defend themselves against libel claims by using a defence of responsible journalism.

The Toronto Star had argued the defence of "responsible journalism" when appealing a 2007 verdict that ordered the newspaper to pay $1.5 million in damages to an Ontario businessman.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned that verdict last year and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court, in turn, upheld the appeal court decision.

The responsible journalism defence allows for factual errors as long as journalists acted responsibly and in the public interest when reporting on a story.

Lawyer Peter Jacobsen, who intervened in the case on behalf of CTVglobemedia, called it "a seminal decision that is going to greatly advance the cause of freedom of speech."

"Basically what the court did is they said where the media or a communicator has acted responsibly and reported on a matter in the public interest, they will have a strong defence against a libel claim," he explained to CTV News Channel on Tuesday morning.

Also Tuesday, the Supreme Court also overturned a libel judgment involving the Ottawa Citizen and a former Ontario Provincial Police officer, ordering a new trial.

The Ottawa newspaper had been ordered to pay $125,000 to Danno Cusson, a former OPP officer who travelled to New York City with his dog after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The paper produced three articles which cast his activities in a negative light. Because some portions of the articles were considered defamatory, Cusson was awarded damages in a verdict upheld by the provincial appeal court.

The decision clears the way for the responsible journalism defence to be used in the new trial involving the Citizen.

Making responsible journalism a possible defence will only strengthen reporters' ability to report on matters of public interest, Jacobsen said.

"What they now know is that if they act responsibly, try to find out the truth of the story and still get it wrong, they will have a defence," said Jacobsen.

Read the rest here. More coverage at the CBC, with more background at the Victoria Times-Colonist. Jay Currie has some very interesting points for your consideration as well, while Blazing Cat Fur does that thing that he does, and Jesse Ferreras writes:

I've yet to read the entire decision but for now I need not read the whole thing to conclude this is a great victory for Canadian journalists and a greater victory for free expression. Rejoice!

Also, more at Free Dominion, and from Scaramouche, while Terry Glavin provides a very worthwhile explanation for why this might not be quite as great as we might like to think it is, as does Colby Cosh for Macleans. In the meantime, Warren Kinsella chimes in from his side of the fence.

Finally, the decision - first one, I believe - can be found here.

More appeals to the horny voter

Caught this on Public Eye Online:

A former government Website address is now being used to advertise a line of male sex toys known as Fleshlights. In 2007, the British Columbia and Alberta provincial governments established a joint expert panel to review pension plan legislation in the two provinces. Those interested in finding out more information about that review, which wrapped up in November 2008, were encouraged to visit www.ab-bc-pensionreview.ca. But in an email sent out on Friday, British Columbia advised stakeholders that address "no longer belongs to the Panel or the governments. It has come to our attention that the lapsed site address has been purchased by another user, who has posted material of questionable taste and having no relation to pension reform."

Where's Carolyn Bennet when you need her?

Because I do other things too - my latest, for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is - the Weekly Wilders Round-Up, for Dec. 21st, 2009.

Check it out.

Because I do other things too - my latest, for the Libertas Post

Here it is: Olympic censorship:

Late this November, Vancouver City Council said that it would consider amendments to earlier bylaws which regulated the speech of residents of the Greater Vancouver Area.
Particularly the one which would allow bylaw officers in the Greater Vancouver Area to enter any private residence, without the owner or occupiers' consent and with 24-hours' notice, in order to remove or alter signs, advertisements, or graffiti which 'violate' local restrictions.
The amendments to be considered would distinguish between 'political' speech, and 'advertising' speech - the first being protected, the second being just as restricted as before.

Read the rest here.

Pictures from the National Art Gallery

While in Ottawa, I managed to stop by the National Art Gallery – and I’m glad that I did. Here are a couple of pics that I managed to snap from that little jaunt, from the outside.

Here’s the iron ( I believe ) ‘spider’ that stands in front of the National Art Gallery, presumably to class up the joint:

A wider shot, including part of the NAG building:

And, finally, here’s a shot from inside the NAG, just before I entered a no-cameras-allowed zone:

More pics of Ottawa

I really must apologize for putting you poor people through the pain of looking through all these photos. I’m like a proud grandma leafing through photos of her grand-children – the pictures are interesting to me. To you, they might have some fleeting interest, but that faded after the fifth picture or so.

Nonetheless, here we are. You’re at my mercy. So here are a few more pics from my trip to Ottawa, for, well…someone’s enjoyment:

I think this next pic is kind of trippy. What do you think?

And here’s that flame – can’t remember the official name – in front of the Parliament buildings:

And a few more pictures from around the Parliament Buildings:

By the way - if you need help with your Christmas shopping...

May I suggest that you drop by Alexander of Hollywood's place? Plenty of cool stuff there for a loved one, or even a hated one.

Well now we're getting somewhere

Oh please, oh please let this go somewhere and do something:

Journalists union demands criminal charges against Olympic security

TORONTO, Dec. 18 /CNW/ - The head of a union representing journalists in Ontario is demanding criminal charges against security officers involved in crowd control for the Olympic torch run after two journalists were assaulted in Newmarket today.

The two journalists, both photographers for the Toronto Sun, were attempting to take pictures of Olympic torch bearers as they made their way along Davis Drive in Newmarket shortly after noon.

Photographer Dave Thomas was repeatedly shoved as he tried to take pictures but was not injured. But photographer Ian Robertson, who is about 60 years old and was laden with camera gear so he was unable to defend himself, required hospital treatment for an apparent head injury after he was shoved to the ground by security officers wearing the grey Olympic uniforms.

"This is an outrage," said Brad Honywill, president of Local 87-M of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. "The Olympics are supposed to represent the highest of human values but the behaviour of the security officers represents nothing less than brutality and cowardice."

H/t to BigCityLib.

Do you believe?

More on WaMo

Who is this character, anyway?

Because who needs the bother of democracy, really?

Via The Hook:

During a Dec. 10 debate on the future of Victoria's Johnson Street bridge, rookie councilor and former New Democratic Party member of parliament Lynn Hunter panned giving voters a say on the matter.
“I'm firmly opposed to a referendum because I consider it an affront to representative democracy,” said Hunter in a speech available from citizen journalist site B Channel News. “The question we should ask ourselves is where does the use of referenda stop? In this electronic age it is possible the public could vote directly on anything and everything, making elected representatives obsolete.”
Some people might welcome that, but it would lead to worse decisions, she said. “I firmly believe that well considered decisions come about only through the representative system. We had an election just last year and we were the ones that were selected.”

I. Am. Speechless.

More on Donald Douglas, etc.

Many apologies to All American Blogger for dragging him into this. T'was not my intent.

Also, American Nihilist keeps the pressure on.

BING!

H/t to Unambig. Ambidext.

A shot over my shoulder of Edmonton as viewed through a coffee-shop window

The title really sets this picture up to fail, I must say. The main point of my even posting this picture is because it was taken with my little Acer netbook’s webcam feature. Cool, huh?

Man I need a life.

Introducing: WaMo

Dear readers(r?), do you think that it's time I took the next step, and took on a nick-name? Personally, I think it's high time. And so, without further ado, I introduce to you: WaMo.

Why Ezra Levant is a Conservative

Not the reason I would choose, but hey - to each their own.

Lars Hedigaard on the 'Third Jihad'

Very interesting talk with Lars Hedigaard, founder of the International Free Press Society, courtesy of Vlad Tepes:

Link:

Anti-Olympic mural censored in Vancouver

By Cory Doctorow, via Boing Boing:

Greg sez, "Yesterday the Crying Room Gallery got a visit from City of Vancouver bylaw inspectors who demanded that they remove "graffiti" from the front of their gallery. The graffiti in question was an anti-Olympic mural by a local artist. The City says it had 'nothing to do with content' and everything to do with graffiti bylaws, but the Crying Room has had art up in that space for the better part of ten years without complaint. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has come out against the City's crackdown. The BCCLA Legal Observer Program, set up to monitor for rights violations during the Games, has started a gallery of Olympic censorship in Vancouver."

Read the rest here.

Do you believe?

H/t to Free Canuckistan.

Binks does it again

Steynite 402rd.

Because I do other things too - my latest, for Defend Geert Wilders

Here it is: The Weekly Wilders Round-Up, for December 17th, 2009.

Meanwhile, lots of cool updates at the Lynch Mob, that you might want to check out.

Has Britain lost its mind?

I don't have a lot of comment for this story. I just found it vaguely ludicrous. Anybody else?

Here's the story: London arrest warrant to Tzipi Livni: British, Israel relations down the toilet.

Sigh...

Donald Douglas just keeps going

I don't have the energy to keep on haranguing Donald Douglas for his ridiculous attacks upon my friend Erik Kain. But just keep on reading his stuff, if you'd like a few good examples of specious logic, and what looks like down-right paranoia.

However, just one quite note: I find it odd that Donald Douglas is using many of the guilt-by-association arguments that he attacks Erik for supposedly supporting in the figure of Charles Johnson. The irony is apparently lost upon Douglas that he is using Charles Johnson-like tactics to go after someone for having links to Charles Johnson.

Is it just me? Or has anybody else noticed that?

At any rate, the folks at American Nihilist provide the smackdown. Check it out.

A leadership race to come?

I came across this very interesting story from the Globe and Mail via the Vancouver Observer's Political Junkie blog, whose author was musing about the possibility of Carole Taylor contesting the BC Liberals' leadership role.

I think that's a very interesting possiblity. As both the Political Junkie author, and the Globe writer pointed out, not only is Carole Taylor a capable politician ( she was the Liberals' finance minister at one time ), but she is completely untainted by the HST scandal, and, indeed, most if not all of the other scandals currently plaguing the party. Indeed, since she was removed from the Liberals for a while, she could openly campaign as a sort of 'maverick' politician, promising reform, all that jazz - sort of like the Wildrose are doing in Alberta right now. She has the benefit of not having prior platforms and positions to back up or refute. She'd be all promise.

I'll be looking for the name Carole Taylor in the next few months and years to come, that's for sure.

Canadian SF author says he was beaten by US border guards

By Crawford Killian, via The Hook:

The blogosphere erupted this weekend about the alleged beating of Dr. Peter Watts, a Canadian science fiction author, by American border guards in Michigan.
Another SF author, Cory Doctorow, broke the story on Boing Boing:

My friend, the wonderful sf writer Peter Watts was beaten without provocation and arrested by US border guards on Tuesday. I heard about it early Wednesday morning in London and called Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She worked her contacts to get in touch with civil rights lawyers in Michigan, and we mobilized with Caitlin Sweet (Peter's partner) and David Nickle (Peter's friend) and Peter was arraigned and bailed out later that day.
But now Peter faces a felony rap for "assaulting a federal officer" (Peter and the witness in the car say he didn't do a thing, and I believe them). Defending this charge will cost a fortune, and an inadequate defense could cost Peter his home, his livelihood and his liberty.

Watts reported the incident on his own website:

Along some other timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the vehicle. In that other timeline I was not punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, shit-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a holding cell for three fucking hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to waive my Miranda rights. Twice.).
Nor was I finally dumped across the border in shirtsleeves: computer seized, flash drive confiscated, even my fucking paper notepad withheld until they could find someone among their number literate enough to distinguish between handwritten notes on story ideas and, I suppose, nefarious terrorist plots. I was not left without my jacket in the face of Ontario’s first winter storm, after all buses and intercity shuttles had shut down for the night.

The story moved across the blogosphere this weekend, generating almost 1,800 hits in a Google blog search for "Peter Watts" limited to Friday and Saturday.
The Port Huron Times-Herald described the incident, quoting police captain Jim Jones as saying "a border officer used pepper spray to subdue Watts. Jones said Watts 'choked' an officer during the struggle."
Watts, who holds a Ph.D. in marine biology, was released on a $5,000 bond and must appear in a US court on December 22. If he is convicted, he could be jailed for two years and fined up to US$2,000.

Read the rest here. More from Dawg's Blawg.

Ugh...what a disgusting tale. Even if there's only a grain of truth to it, it's still a horrible story to hear...

Amy Goodman Gets Brilliant Story Idea from Canadian Border Guards

By Lalo Espejo, via the Vancouver Observer:

Well, it's official. Suspicion of criticizing the 2010 Olympics gets you on a watch list at the Canadian border. Want to come to Canada and discuss the environmental shame that is the tar sands? Go ahead. Want to meddle in Canadian military policy in Afghanistan? Fill your boots. Want to criticize the Government's position on Global Warming? Whatever, dude.

But if you cross the border and you've got that look on your face that says “The ice on the luge track might be a bit slushy if El Niño makes its way through,” then watch out! The Canadian Border Services Agency will not tolerate any Olympic dissent!

On Wednesday night, American Journalist Amy Goodman, host of the independent radio show, Democracy Now, was crossing into Canada. She was scheduled to speak in Vancouver and Victoria, while on a tour promoting her new book Breaking the Sound Barrier, on the subjects of Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare, and global warming – all sensitive issues that might make a patriotic border guard give pause.

So when Goodman told the border guards why she was coming to Canada, she was asked to pull over, brought inside and questioned for an hour and a half. Known for being bold and forthright, she was honest about the subject matter she'd be covering. When she said she'd be discussing Afghanistan, they said “What else?”

Read the rest here.

A very Mark Steyn Christmas

I'm having a good time listening to Mark Steyn's Christmas show, in two parts.

Here's part one, and part two.

You see, we've all got matching uniforms...

This is the Olympics, man. We've just gotta have matching uniforms, or what's the point of even having the bloody thing anymore?

Elizabeth May: a pain? No, no, that can't be true at all.

Rondi Adamson provides the smackdown, and it is both spectacular and delicious. Seriously, I think I've still got the taste of it in my mouth, and I don't mind it at all ( heh; try removing the context on that line and see where it goes ).

Anyways, go read what Rondi had to say.

Now whose law, exactly, did you say that was again?

Well, if you're not sure, I'd sure love to have it.*

Elisabeth Lecture video 1 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

*I'd try to work in a reference to 'See, this is why we don't have nice things', but I just don't have the energy. Make one up yourselves.

The HST...

...we aren't done with you just yet.

Tip: don't take rides from policemen

At least when they're dressed up in civilian drag. Via The Hook:

Undercover cop infiltrated torch protesters' ranks

By Bob Mackin

An undercover cop watched Lower Mainland anti-Olympic torch relay protesters in the rear-view mirror on Oct. 30, according to Victoria Police chief Jamie Graham.

"You knew that the protesters weren't that organized when on the ferry on the way over they all rented a bus, they all came over on a bus, and there was a cop driving the bus!” Graham told the 12th Vancouver International Security Conference on Monday.

Graham said protesters were “probably going to be violent,” so uniformed police infiltrated the crowd. A group of 300 people, many in Hallowe’en costumes, peacefully blocked traffic, diverted the torch relay and delayed its arrival at the Parliament Buildings.

“The relationships individual field officers have with protesters and so on just kills these kinds of disturbances and it worked extremely well,” he said.

Graham described the $220,000 policing bill as “well beyond our ability to pay,” but worth it.

"Police departments from all over the country have taken our game plan, our operational plan and adopted it as their own,” he said.

The day was not without incident. Graham said two ferry passengers were arrested for dumping water on an undercover security person, while two motorcycle cops wiped out on slippery pavement. “One of them was hurt quite badly, but has since recovered,” he said.

Meanwhile, a secondary security vehicle "got T-boned by an old guy who ran a red light.”

It mainly sounds like most of these incidents were those undercover cops getting hurt. If they hadn't been there, the event probably would've gone off without a hitch. And I must say, I'm rather curious as to how dumping water on somebody is an arrestable offense. Assault charges perhaps? Pretty weak - whaddaya want to bet that it had something to do with the fact that it was a cop who had the water dumped on him while he was playing protester?

But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

An open letter to the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Dear CHRC,

Over the past couple of years, I’ve been just a tad critical of your way of operating. However, with recent developments, I believe that I would actually be a model CHRC employee. Here is why:

1) I absolutely love dabbling around with online accounts, making me an ideal specimen for the dissemination of entrapping comments on various white supremacist websites. But that’s just an incidental benefit of having me in your employ. The main reason why you should hire me is,

2) I also know the value of a dollar. For instance, Jennifer Lynch blew over ten grand on her trip to Geneva. I promise you, I could easily up that to at least twenty. And that’s just for the hookers and cocaine that I would be more than willing to supply for any fellow members of the Commonwealth Forum of National Human Rights Organizations – also helping international co-operation with your human rights brethren.

Obviously, Jennifer Lynch does not understand the meaning of the word budget – after all, the more you spend, the more you get to spend. In these crazy economic times, you can’t afford not to hire me.

Sincerely,

Walker Morrow

Polar bears let loose on protesters in Copenhagen

Heh. Just dreaming.

Donald Douglas: give it a rest, mate

In an earlier post, I gave a rather short-but-sweet reply to Donald Douglas' continued haranguing of our old publisher at NeoConstant, Erik Kain. Well, it seems that I didn't give you the full story, although I think that the full story holds up what I said.

As best I can follow, here's the timeline of events:

1) Donald Douglas was a writer for NeoConstant. Then, when NeoConstant was suddenly shut down, briefly in favor of New Constantine, and then entirely, Donald wasn't too happy about that. Fair enough, I suppose.

2) But Donald didn't just leave it at that. He continued to criticize and harangue Erik Kain, getting more and more personal, and accusing him of giving up on his previous neocon sensibilities:

E.D. Kain, the dirtbag blogger who once giddily published my work at his now defunct "hardline" neoconservative portal, Neo-Constant, has an interview with Charles Johnson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, "The Evolution of Blogging: An Interview with Charles Johnson."With the exception of perhaps the harebrained Conor Friedersdorf, I can't think of more perfectly suitable blogger to interview the Mad King of LGF (Charles pumps up the interview here). It turns out E.D.'s now a featured contributor at True Slant. It notes there, at his bio-blurb, that he's also a "writer at David Frum's site, New Majority" (now called the "Frum Forum," and circling the drain as I write this). Beyond his abject dishonesty and spinelessness (discussed here), E.D.'s made a name for himself with his incoherent ramblings at the Ordinary Gentlemen. He's a stream-of-consciousness smear-master who's never learned the meaning of terms like "concision" and "parsimonious." Not only that, he's an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon, which raises obvious questions of integrity (if not sanity) all by itself.So now, with the interview of C.J. at Ordinary Gentleman, E.D.'s now gone all in, breathlessly and irreversibly, with the weasely so-called postmodern conservatives who are increasingly being revealed as mindlessly useful idiots for the radical left. A quick case in point is Andrew Sullivan, who gleefully links the interview (off a hat-tip from airhead Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum).

Read the rest of that here. Then:

This has to be one of the greatest moments in my blogging career!The inimitable sleaze-blogger E.D. Kain, erstwhile neoconservative and publisher of the now-defunct political webzine Neoconstant, has broken the final barriers of obscurity to capture the highly-coveted Conor Friedersdorf Wannabe Award for Faux-Conservative Punditry!The award goes to the biggest gasbag to follow in the footsteps of Conor Friedersdorf, the Andrew Sullivan myrmidon and closet leftist who's jonesing to single-handedly nuke the entire American right-wing, from Sarah Palin to Mark Levin to Rush Limbaugh.The honor is bestowed on those rare occasions when a nominees's work has been recognized for its supreme anti-right-wing smear-mastery by none other than RawMusleGlutes (the Daily Dish, now esteemed as the blogosphere's "nerve center for news from the Iranian street"); and King Charles of Little-Green-Libel-Lizard-Land (and now self-proclaimed expatriate from the "Birthers, creationists, climate deniers," etc.).Looking at this Memeorandum screencap, we see that both mental cases have linked to E.D., the aspiring slander-master at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, and his post, "Conservatives as Self-Parodies"

[...]

I do recommend E.D.'s post, if for nothing else but the butt-freak arrogance that's dribbling off the page like a milky load of Andrew Sullivan's spooge. E.D. ridicules Andy Schlafly, the no-name publisher of the unread Conservapedia, with supreme self-importance

Sigh...there's more there if you want to subject yourself to it.

3) After this, and, I assume, other, previous attacks, Erik Kain responded thusly, as explained by Donald:

I almost titled this post, "The Arrogance of Blogging: The Secret World of E.D. Kain." (But I thought better of it, starting the header instead with "E.D. Kain" so as to maximize TOTAL Search Engine Optimization!)I was working at my office Friday night, cleaning out old books in preparation for my department's move into our new college building. While packing, I came across my copy of Anthony Summers', The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon. Two words in Summers' book title capture the essence of E.D. Kain: arrogance and secret. I wrote about E.D.'s arrogance a couple of days ago, in "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!" At the book's brief foreword, Summers asks, "Who was this man in whom so many millions of Americans had placed their trust, who had broken that trust, yet who had achieved political resurrection time and again?"
That's a rather interesting quotation in relation to E.D. Kain, a moral coward trying to outrace a secret life of reptilian dishonor and shame, also seeking political resurrection. A man who has broken trust, mine certainly, but also the trust of many other bloggers to whom I've spoken. Who knows whose trust he'll destroy going forward? Indeed, who knows E.D. Kain, really? This is a man (if I can use that noun without discrediting it) who will descend to the most slimy dirtbag techniques to preserve the filthy stealth that is his own life. It's unbelievable, really, but that's what's fascinating about being online. You meet the most despicable cobags who'll take what they can get, then move on as quickly as a thief who steals a candy from children, without a second thought.
In any case, the "Sleaze-Blogger" entry must have must have really hit a nerve because it turns out that E.D. KAIN E-MAILED MY DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN TO ALLEGE DEFAMATION AT THIS BLOG. So, with this clear attempt at intimidation, there's not much doubt as to what's at stake for E.D. Kain. Through intimidation and threats, he's seeking to shut down this blog and quash the truth surrounding his political duplicity and moral bankruptcy.The chair of my department, as a matter of administrative policy, informed me of the complaint, and then told me that HE WANTS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONFLICT. And for the record: E.D.'s complaint is going nowhere at my college, at least nowhere in the absence of formal legal action. The issue is First Amendment rights, first and formost. And what happens at the blog is my concern, not the school's. Intimidation and threats mean nothing. They won't silence me. They only prove the juvenile cowardice of the claimant. But most importantly, THERE'S NOTHING IN ANYTHING I'VE WRITTEN THAT'S UNTRUE -- NOTHING!! Nope, not a damned thing to raise even the slightest hint of libel. Hey, if it's a little in-your-face, and vulgar even, MAN UP BIG BOY!! Turn off your Ladies' Hallmark Christmas movies and GET IN THE ARENA!! It's all true. Everything I've ever written here about E.D. Kain is entirely true. Yep, and Mr. Sleaze-Blogger's totally wiggin'. So obviously I'm over the target if the puke's resorting to a cowardly campaign to chill freedom of speech. How damned pathetic.And that, of course, substantiates what I've been saying all along: E.D. Kain is no conservative. He's a flaming Andrew Sullivan/Charles Johnson/Daniel Larison wannabe -- a spineless prick whose last inclination is to stand up like a man and TAKE SOME FREAKING RESPONSIBILITY!!

He then goes on:

[...]

After posting a couple of my essays at NeoConstant, E.D. Kain wrote to say that "I assume that I have some free reign in cross-posting your pieces as they all are attributed to you and link back to American Power."And so here's the thing: E.D. Kain assumed unlimited cross-posting privileges from my work at American Power. And that was fine -- I didn't mind at all. I enjoy cross-posting at other blogs, etc. I sent him essays I thought were a good fit, and everything was cool. But then one day NeoConstant went dark. First the server-page was inaccessible. Then E.D. put up an "under construction" notice. And then, in a burst of hilarity, he actually created a new website for a week or so called "NeoConstantine"! No doubt E.D. was hoping to hold on to the domain, but for the life of me I couldn't think of anything particularly conservative about a "neo" Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or something, but I guess that was the closest fit. (Daniel Larison's Christian Orthodox, however, so maybe there's some thread there, but more on that below.)It didn't last long, in any case. NeoConstantine came down some time thereafter, and that was it. But strangely, throughout, not a word from E.D. on what was going on -- NOT ONE WORD! -- and hence the spineless secrecy. I'm not sure what happened, but I noticed E.D. had been palling around with folks like Mark Thomspon, a Palestinian fan and "Hamas-Helper" who praised rocket attacks on Israeli civilians as "rational" during the 2008 conflict (see, "Publius Endures Applauds Hamas Rationality"). Then some time toward the end of last year, these boys joined up to establish a new blog, The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. The League's ideological program is decidely leftist, with lots of postmod-conservatism thrown in (if there's really such a thing as "pomocons").
Soon, as best I can recall, E.D. Kain's criticism of the mainstream right started getting picked up by Andrew Sullivan. I have no clue if E.D. knows Sully personally, but I it's likely they communicate. Perhaps E.D. can respond, as this is just speculation. Either way, E.D. Kain's emergence as an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon is a key indicator this man's ideological destitution. Perhaps E.D. Kain's blogging on Sarah Palin gave Andrew Sullivan a rise, since the Daily Dish's biggest campaign has been to destroy Governor Palin, a program that continues today, unrelenting.

He then goes on at length to explain exactly how and why Erik has abandoned his neoconservative roots, after raping them and leaving them in a ditch by the roadside ( my phrasing ). All the while over-looking the fact that, you know, people can change their minds. I mean honestly, did it never occur to Donald that somebody might go from being a neoconservative to a conservative moderate ( or however Erik identifies himself )?

And don't even get me started on the ghastly logic of guilt-by-association that Donald resorts to in order to 'damn' Erik's motivations: Erik spoke to Charles Johnson. Therefore Erik directly supports everything that Charles Johnson has ever done. How did Donald even get to be a professor? Was it based upon his use of logic? I certainly hope not, or his students are completely and totally f*cked.

I wouldn't be so nasty about things if he hadn't used this logic to utterly drag a man through the mud, and shriekingly condemn him for changing his mind on an issue - which is, by the way, what responsible writers do sometimes: they change their minds, and explain their reasoning.

Donald goes on to demand an abject apology:

In conclusion, I have never defamed nor slandered E.D. "ERIK" Kain. Everything I've written about him is true. And thus, since things have taken an ugly and uncomfortable turn, I'm demanding a FULL AND UNEQUIVOCAL APOLOGY!! I'm calling on E.D. Kain to write BLOG POSTS linking American Power, apologizing to me and taking full responsiblity for his actions, past and present. He must also renounce the underhanded tactics of intimidation and foreswear all efforts to contact my employer. My school has nothing to do with this. If E.D. Kain has claims against me, he can make them in a court of law, not in secret e-mails to my academic colleagues.

Then Erik explained his reasoning, including an apology, in the comments to that post:

Donald,

Ok. I have resisted responding to you because from the outset you've been nothing but uncharitable.

I have never written one single word against you. Not one. You can go back and search as hard as you can but you won't find one single negative phrase against you from me, ever, nor against any of the other writers who contributed to Neoconstant back in the day. Indeed, I have maintained friendly relationships with basically all of them.

And yet you, from the very outset, have decided to hurl insult after insult at me. You've called me the most horrible things I can think of - and never once have I responded in kind. Never once. If you can find one single time where I've attempted to smear you, please do. But it doesn't exist. While you smear me time and time again for apparently no reason other than I had a change of political heart. (sleaze-blogger, gasbag, slander-master, butt-freak arrogance, etc. etc.)

What have I called you?

I don't understand this. I don't understand why you would do that to somebody who has never once said anything negative about you at all.

So yes, I did contact your department chair - not to shut you down but to express my frustration, since I had no reason to believe that you would respond to me with anything but more of the same jeering. I was not and am not trying to "shut you down" and honestly only contacted the chair because I was upset over your last post which again called me numerous names over something that had nothing at all to do with you. It was an act of frustration and I was reaching out to someone who I thought might be able to help.

And you know what? I shouldn't have done that. You're right. That was me acting out of frustration and anger and it was not the right move. I apologize.

But I also think that this bad blood needs to end. You can't keep this up. Like I said, I've maintained good relationships with many of the writers from Neoconstant despite our disagreement on the issues. (Walker, Beaman, Courtney, etc. etc.) I still consider them my friends as far as internet friends go. I'd still defend them even despite our disagreements. I'm still on good terms with Duane Lester at All American Blogger - again, despite our disagreements. Duane's a good guy.

There is simply no reason why we can't disagree and still be amicable. Sure, politics is all about battling it out, but it certainly doesn't have to be personal. Like I said, I've never once called you out by name. I've never once dragged your name through the dirt. I may have had harsh words for neoconservatism, but that's just a political ideology. That's not you.

So do with that what you will. I stepped over the line out of frustration and because I am truly, deeply hurt by all the things you've said about me here. They're uncharitable and unchristian. Whatever I did wrong by shutting down Neoconstant wasn't meant to offend anyone and I said as much. That was a mistake on my part, and it was a stupid thing to do, but it's been over a year now. It's time to move on.

I don't want this war - if it is a war - to continue. I'm not trying to war with you. If I say something against neoconservatism that you disagree with, by all means say why. But it doesn't have to be personal. It never needed to be in the first place.

5) Ah, but it wasn't over just yet, as Donald goes on to explain from his side of things:

Only one little problem: ONCE AGAIN -- AGAIN! -- E.D. KAIN E-MAILED MY DEPARTMENT TO ALLEGE DEFAMATION AND SHUT DOWN THIS BLOG!!
Jesus, what a freakin' crybaby!But to be clear, right after I wrote "'Blame it on Cain ... Don't Blame it on Me...'," where I mentioned my pending response to Kain's "apology" above, my department chair approached me in the hallway. He said he'd gotten another e-mail from E.D. Kain, who complained that this was all supposed to be "confidential." Right. E.D. Kain can just keep threatening and intimidating, and I have to STFU because he wants it kept confidential? Sheesh.
Okay, I'll be clear for the record: I HAVE NOT RECEIVED COPIES OF THE E-MAILS - THEY HAVE BEEN KEPT CONFIDENTIAL - I HAVE BEEN CONSULTED BY ADMINISTRATION. You see, obviously, as a matter of record, the department must inform me of the complaint. The allegations themselves would not be kept secret, only the substance of the communications. But E.D. Kain thought he had a contract to smear, intimidate, and harasss, and thus cried foul when I defended myself here at the blog. Can you freakin' believe it? What a pest! And I repeat, like I said yesterday, my co-workers want no part of the flame wars. THIS IS NOT college business, and E.D. Kain's contacts amount to NOTHING MORE THAN RANK HARASSMENT!! E.D. Kain needs to deal with me personally and he must STOP THE INTIMIDATION AT MY WORKPLACE!!And also, very importantly, I spoke with the college's VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS. I gave him a heads up just in case the harassment continues. Everything's on the record -- everything. AND THAT'S IT -- MY COLLEGE'S INVOLVEMENT ENDS THERE!!So, I am requesting from E.D. Kain once again to stay away from my place of work. This is a private blogging matter. American Power is hosted on Blogger. None of my college identification pages link to my blog. I recommend my blog for students to read, on a voluntary, non-assignment basis. Occasionally I'll pull up an academic post in class as a lecture launcher -- and actually, THAT'S A GOOD TEACHING THING!! (By the way, check William Jacobson's comments on this, "Blogging While Employed.)I'm also doubling my request that E.D. Kain issue an apology, published at both of his blogs, the League of Ordinary Gentlemen and True/Slant. That's the least he could do, after proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the very case for dishonesty and abject duplicity I've laid out in previous entries. I'm starting to think E.D. Kain's got serious mental instabilities. This is ridiculous.

There's only one problem here. You see, Erik wasn't threatening Donald's job in the slightest, as Erik explains:

That's not true at all. I contacted your department chair again this morning after reading your post saying that I had thought the email was confidential and that if he had wanted no part in this that he could have simply told me so and been done with it. I said nothing more on the issue of defemation or to shut you down. I apologized in the other comment thread for the initial email. The second email had nothing whatsoever to do with you, and only mentioned briefly that I had believed the emails to be confidential. That's it. So this whole notion of escalating intimidation is simply untrue.My blogs are not forums for my apologies to you any more than your blog ought to be a forum to drag my name through the dirt. Once again, I'd ask you to find one single instance of my smearing your name and bring it forward. It hasn't happened.

I'm not the only one who's pointing out that Donald has been going too far. See Just Another Blog (From L.A.), and repsac3 for American Nihilist ( thanks to the author for the link to my site, by the way ).

Now, let me just say that I think Erik was right to apologise for taking this into the 'realspace' realm. As Legal Insurrection points out:

We don't all just have to get along. But there are certain lines which should not be crossed, and trying to disrupt another blogger's employment crosses that line. Can we at least agree on that?

We certainly can, although I don't think Erik was 'trying to disrupt' Donald's employment, necessarily. I don't know for a fact, though, not being Erik. All I do know is that Donald has been going way too far himself. And while things which are done in the heat of the moment, like contacting another blogger's employer while under fire, can come under criticism, it's the things which are done in the 'reasonable' moments which really help to distinguish who the better man is. That man has not been Donald of late.

Christian fathers put in jail for shunning explicit sex ed

By Bob Unruh, via WorldNetDaily:

An international human rights organization today announced it will pursue a civil lawsuit on behalf of parents who want to control their children's education and withhold them from explicit sex education and play-acting classes required by the German government.

Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group told WND the government in Salzkotten, Germany, is sending the fathers of the children to jail for terms of one week because they have refused to turn their children over to school officials for mandated sex classes.

According to a report from Richard Guenther, European director for the IHRG, eight families of Christians have decided to withhold their children from required sex education classes in Salzkotten.

Why do I, all of a sudden, have a badly-parodied German voice saying 'You 'vill go, and you 'vill like it' in my head? Am I the only one?

Sheesh.

Elizabeth May: relevant as ever

I see Elizabeth May continues in her campaign to be the poster child for the shrill and annoying side of Leftism.

It's working out quite well for her, I must admit.

Brave New World - 2009

By Jim Quinn, via TheBurningPlatform.com:

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in't!
William Shakespeare – The Tempest

“Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”
Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley wrote the dystopian novel Brave New World in 1931 at the inauguration of the last Crisis period in America. Dystopia is the often futuristic vision of a society in which conditions of life are miserable and characterized by poverty, oppression, war, violence, disease, pollution, nuclear fallout and/or the abridgement of human rights, resulting in widespread unhappiness, suffering, and other kinds of pain. The novel was his response to the writings of H.G. Wells (Men Like Gods) and George Bernard Shaw which glorified socialism and a one World State. Orwell’s 1984, written in 1948, is the other famous dystopian novel of the era. Huxley had visited America during the Roaring 20’s and his experience provided the character for the novel. He was outraged by America’s out of control materialistic egocentric society. He witnessed youthful superficiality, commercialization, sexual promiscuity, and a self centered culture. Fellow writer G.K. Chesterton explained his view of Huxley’s novel:

“After the Age of Utopias came what we may call the American Age, lasting as long as the Boom. Men like Ford or Mond seemed to many to have solved the social riddle and made capitalism the common good. But it was not native to us; it went with a buoyant, not to say blatant optimism, which is not our negligent or negative optimism. Much more than Victorian righteousness, or even Victorian self-righteousness, that optimism has driven people into pessimism. For the Slump brought even more disillusionment than the War. A new bitterness, and a new bewilderment, ran through all social life, and was reflected in all literature and art. It was contemptuous, not only of the old Capitalism, but of the old Socialism. Brave New World is more of a revolt against Utopia than against Victoria.”

Read the rest here.

All for what end

[ ED NOTE: This is also posted to the Libertas Post blog. ]

A lot of people aren't happy about the upcoming BC Winter Olympics. Can you blame them? Between the speech codes, the extra legislation, the union-trouncing, and the general re-arrangement of the entire province at the Olympics' beck and call, one can expect a few sad sacks to fail to see the grand vision. What grand vision? Well, simply put: the Winter Olympics are just too big to fail. They have to work. Otherwise, everything that has gone into setting them up, every little concession on the part of the BC government, will have been for naught.

Indeed, if you take the chance to listen to some of the rhetoric surrounding the games, you'll find a hint of manic hope mixed into the arguments. Take Liberal Burquitlam MLA Harry Bloy's recent comments painting Olympics protesters as 'terrorists' of 'limited intellect'. The government, and therefore, the BC Libs, have put way too much into this venture for it not to pan out.

Unfortunately, hope and reality seldom coincide; something which the Campbell government is slowly coming to realize. A little while ago, The Tyee reported that the provincial government had reduced its estimate of the economic activity surrounding the Winter Olympic games from around $10 billion to $4 billion, although during subsequent questioning, provincial finance minister Colin Hansen only said that the games would generate a nebulous 'billions and billions'.

Also, according to The Tyee, four reports from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) measured the 2003 and 2008 Olympics preparation effects against economic benefit projections from a 2002 InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. report. This InterVISTAS report was the basis for the $10 and $4 billion figures quoted by the BC government ( the $10 billion figure was based on the total economic impact surrounding the Games, including the expansion of the Vancouver Conference and Event Center; the $4 billion figure wasn't ). The PwC reports came up with an estimate that over the course of six years, the Olympics' impact on GDP and employment will be to the tune of 788 million dollars, with 18,362 people employed - about the middle of the road when it comes to the original InterVISTAS projections.

Things get difficult from there, though. The 2008 GDP for the province of British Columbia was 199 billion dollars, and the amount of people employed in BC is around 2.4 million. The Olympics projections, although they sound impressive on their own, are a drop in the bucket when it comes to the larger picture. Employment, for instance, according to these projections may only be boosted by 0.125 percent.

Furthermore, although the $10 and $4 billion figures were based on expectations of high amounts of tourism from five years before the Games onward, PwC's analysis was that tourism-related spending between 2003 and 2008 had not increased substantially, with lower amounts of tourism than hoped for associated with the Olympics at that time.

To top all of this off, the estimated bill for pulling off the 2010 Winter Olympics is around $6-7 billion.

Now, it's true that a series of reports from PricewaterhouseCoopers isn't conclusive evidence that the Winter Games are going to fail. In fact, as the author of the 2002 InterVISTAS report, Mike Tretheway, stated in a subsequent story by The Tyee, the Olympics security prep people, and those working on various technical aspects of Olympic venues weren't included in PwC's tourism statistics, and resorts that are outside of the greater Vancouver area - such as in Kelowna, Kamloops, and Vancouver Island - have seen an upswing in customers. But at any rate, even Tretheway's predictions of the most likely economic impact - either a $2.4 billion addition to BC's GDP, with 54,000 employed, or $3.3 billion with 77,000 employed - fall short of the total estimated cost for the games.

Reality's harsh. The BC Liberals would do well to remember this as they continue with their rather pie-in-the-sky rhetoric surrounding the Olympic Games. It may be their game to play, but it's ours to lose.

Ours is not to question...

Found this via The Hook:

Police visits to anti-Games critics are a necessary compromise between personal freedoms and Olympics security, one of Canada's top privacy officials suggested today.
"We've understood that [security forces] have the need to establish relationships with possible dissidents," Chantal Bernier told the Tyee. "That is preventative work in relation to public safety."
Canada's assistant privacy commissioner was in Vancouver today to speak at a public safety conference.
She outlined how she'd met with representatives from the $900 million Vancouver Integrated Security Unit last February. Since then, security forces have been open and responsive whenever privacy concerns arise, Bernier added.
"They have answered all of our questions," she said.
Last September, intelligence officers approached a friend of Olympics critic Chris Shaw. The incident raised many concerns about the balance between privacy and security. Bernier wouldn't comment on specific ISU cases.
"Our job is not to second guess their security measures," she said. "Our job is to make sure they comply with the privacy act."

Sure - I mean, police officers questioning private citizens about their political beliefs isn't something to get worried about in the slightest. Nothing to see here, folks...