tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78170785271151373242024-03-05T01:58:42.313-05:00Canned Goods and AmmunitionWithout choice, there can be no virtue.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-32619072375228628952010-06-10T23:22:00.000-04:002010-06-10T23:22:16.039-04:00Come on over to the CommonsHey, this is just a quick note to tell y'all about a new site that I'm a part of called <a href="http://www.thecommons-ccd.com/">the Commons</a>. We just launched last week, and we have a rather impressive collection of contributors - including journalist Kate Chappell, ThePolitic/The Mark/HuffPo/Politico contributor Richard Albert, and Scott H. Payne of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, True/Slant and The Washington Examiner.<br />
<br />
So far we have a few posts up.<br />
<br />
Richard <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/brian-mulroneys-good-intentions/">writes</a> about Mulroney.<br />
<br />
Kate <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/helen-thomas-unfortunate-resignation/">laments</a> the loss of Helen Thomas.<br />
<br />
Scott <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/political-messaging-and-the-canadian-press/">analyzes</a> the media.<br />
<br />
Patrick Baud <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/coalition-talk-kills/">talks</a> coalition and the lack of imagination.<br />
<br />
And my old roomie, Tarek Virani, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_472480805"></span>looks<span id="goog_472480806"></span></a> at the implications on Canada of the BP oil spill.<br />
<br />
I've got a few posts up, too. I write about the <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/upon-killing-your-child/">tragedy</a> of children dying in the back seats of cars, the <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/maxime-bernier-has-caught-the-bug/">craziness</a> of <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/maxime-bernier-uniting-the-world/">Maxime Bernier</a>, the <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/life-imitates-candice-bergen/">rise</a> of Murphy Brown and, of course, <a href="http://thecommons-ccd.com/2010/06/live-baby-live-now-that-the-night-is-over/">INXS</a> (cuz it's all about 80s pop culture... always).<br />
<br />
So come on over, and be friend there. As they say, blogs should never tear us apart.<br />
<br />
<object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Imr8GLO9uNQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Imr8GLO9uNQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-19279770384187599192010-05-07T22:16:00.002-04:002010-05-07T22:18:02.766-04:00Police Terrorize Child, Shoot Dogs, or, Some Cops are AssholesThis has been making the rounds this week (Radley Balko writes about it <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri">here</a>; Erik Kain writes about it <a href="http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2010/05/05/what-tyranny-looks-like/">here</a>), and I thought it was important enough to post here. This video takes us inside a drug raid. It's chilling when the bullets ring out and the barking of the two dogs stops. The cops shot the families two dogs. A child had to walk down the hallway, squeezing past the killers who have his father pinned to the floor.<br />
<br />
There's no reasonable way to defend this.<br />
<br />
The War of Drugs continues to destroy lives. Everyone should watch this video. It's important to realize that North America's attitude towards such "crimes" is little more than barbarism.<br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RbwSwvUaRqc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RbwSwvUaRqc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
All of this for a small amount of weed.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-683116579707333992010-03-22T13:30:00.002-04:002010-03-22T13:30:17.130-04:00My Mechanic's Name is OttoThat's pretty awesome.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-34846601751694373482010-03-05T23:04:00.000-05:002010-03-05T23:04:20.182-05:00Bearing Witness to Police BrutalityAt about 1:20 am Tuesday morning, I awoke to my wife standing at the window, the red flicker of an emergency vehicle's flashing lights routinely hitting the glass. Eight and a half months ago, we were woken up by fire, and within hours, homeless. Flashing lights tend to focus our attention.<br />
<br />
Outside, there were numerous - perhaps four or five - squad cars. In the parking lot of the industrial facility across the street (we live in a new build condo on the commercial end of a quiet residential street), there was a car "parked" erratically. The police officers were handcuffing two men. One on the ground. One against the hood of the squad car.<br />
<br />
The gentleman on the ground knew the game was up. He quietly and co-operatively walked with his hands cuffed behind his back to a squad car and got in. His cohort, faced down on the hood of the car, was nothing of the sort. He was screaming at the cops, and fighting the application of the cuffs. His upper body jerked up and down, trying to get enough torque free himself from what he obviously felt was an improper arrest. His feet rose and dropped in sync. He swore endlessly.<br />
<br />
He was the complete embodiment of resisting arrest.<br />
<br />
As many officers attempted to subdue him, and get him handcuffed (with eventual success), this gentleman kept screaming to know what the charge was. It seemed likely - considering the positioning of the car, and his obvious altered state - that the charge was impaired driving. I could not hear the response by the police officer, but it must have been something along those lines, for this gentleman's response was, "but I wasn't driving."<br />
<br />
I have no idea if this gentleman was driving. I would assume the officers saw which person exited via which side. Further, this gentleman continued to kick and scream for the enunciation of a charge, as if no answer had been given prior, and as if he had not just acknowledged such a response. At this point, the officers were tough with him, and maybe a little rough, but I could not wholly fault them for their behaviour. This was about to change.<br />
<br />
In the parking lot across the street stands an electrical box. Made of metal, it probably measures six and a half feet high, and about four feet wide and deep. It has a cement base and numerous warning signs demanding safety. The gentleman would not stop screaming, "what's the charge?" It is my assumption that although officers must answer this question, there is no requirement to answer it dozens of times from a man who has already acknowledged the response.<br />
<br />
It is also my assumption that when a man, drunk or not, continues to ask this question, screaming but of no threat to the officers, the proper response is <i>not </i>to slam the man by his throat against a six foot high metal electrical box. Nonetheless, that is what I viewed.<br />
<br />
At that point, I went to find my camera. Though I am glad that there are police officers who will protect the public from potential dangers - such as a drunk driver - I cannot, and will not, suffer officers who assault defenseless individuals.<br />
<br />
I came back upstairs, wondering if the officers (one of whom regularly shone a flashlight at our row of condos) had noticed the light go on in my living room; wondering if they would come to my door at 1:30 in the morning to find out what <i>I </i>might be doing. Thankfully, no such thing happened.<br />
<br />
Upon return to the bedroom, my wife informed me that they had doubled the man over and sat on him. When I returned to my perch on the side of the bed, I could see them fighting with the man as they attempted to get him into a squad car. He was still resisting.<br />
<br />
Eventually, one of the officers went to the other door and reach in, pulling. His body made repeated jerking motions. His arms deep in the back seat; his head coming back and forth as a piston. It became clear they were pulling and pushing him into the squad car.<br />
<br />
Eventually, they were successful - though the gentleman was not giving up. Banging sound came from within the cruiser as it rocked back and forth. He must have been kicking it with all his force, considering the effects.<br />
<br />
The gaggle of officers stood around and chatted. More cars had come, as well as some SUVs. Even the paramedics had arrived, though they soon left. Eventually, one officer appeared to take this man's statement.<br />
<br />
We sat in our bedroom, unable to go back to sleep, recording video footage that would catch nothing significant (we have only a digital camera with some video function). We knew that someone had to provide witness for the events.<br />
<br />
After the statement was taken, and police vehicles came and went, we sat. We thought they would soon leave, or that a wagon would come to pick up the arrestee. Neither would happen.<br />
<br />
Eventually, the officers opened the door to the squad car and removed the gentleman they'd just fought so hard to intern in their Crown Victoria. They brought the gentleman, still resisting, but with less energy, to another car. They walked around the car and opened the door. They were on our side of the street, just off the side walk; we could see clearly what was happening.<br />
<br />
Once again, they attempted to put this man in the back seat of a squad car. They got him to a sitting position on the back seat, but that was as far as this man was willing to go. He would not pull his legs from the ground, and he struggled as best he could, arms still restrained behind him. There were three or four officers fighting to get him in. One kicked at his legs, trying to get them in. Then they backed off, and began to close the door on this man's shins. They hit his legs with the door. Then, as that was not enough, multiple officers began pushing on the door, the gentleman's legs caught between the door and the frame of the car, feet still hovering inches from the ground. They repeated this maneuver, but to no avail. At no time did they try to pull him in from the other side - the tactic that had worked previously. They attempted to use pain to make this man submit. None of it worked, and they backed off.<br />
<br />
They kept him pinned to the back seat of the car, legs still hanging out. It was at this point we saw an officer begin to move over him. It was at this point we saw a red dot, much like that of a laser pointer, dance across his torso. The officer moved over him more, blocking his torso, the red dot no longer visible.<br />
<br />
And then we heard a noise.<br />
<br />
It wasn't loud, but it was loud enough. It was indescribable. There was no bang, no attack, just a quick, sharp... something. I wondered if it was the sound of electrocution.<br />
<br />
I wondered if I had just witnessed a man being tasered.<br />
<br />
After this sound, the gentleman folded up into the backseat of the cruiser. He was as loud as ever, but there was no sign of physical resistance.<br />
<br />
Coincidentally, it was shortly after this that the paramedics returned. They spoke briefly with the police and left. Other squad cars left. Eventually the car housing the perpetrator-turned-victim left. Our street was quiet again. It all took about forty minutes.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Days have passed. It's Friday night as I write this. So far, I have done nothing about the incident. Well, not exactly nothing. I have been scouring the local news to try to get some shreds of information, but nothing has appeared. <i>The Ottawa Citizen</i> has a feature called <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/blotter/index.html"><i>The Blotter</i></a> which details crimes and police activity. There is nothing. Ottawa Police Services has a <a href="http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/CrimeFiles/CrimeMaps_Reports/cr_redirect.aspx">crime mapping tool</a>, which <a href="http://www.crimereports.com/map?search=Ottawa+Ontario">purports to show</a> all the "calls" that are made that require police intervention. There is nothing.<br />
<br />
This post is the opening, but it is not the end for me. Though the police may react appropriately to most situations, there are times when they do not. It is our responsibility as citizens to refrain from ignoring such activities. The police have great power. They have the ability, intentionally or not, to foster fear in law abiding members of the populace.<br />
<br />
I do not know what good I will be able to do. I do not know what steps may have already been taken to address this situation, but I will begin to do my duty.<br />
<br />
A man was abused. He was abused by police. He may be a criminal; he may be a bad person, but the actions of the police were inappropriate. The actions were brutality.<br />
<br />
A man I have never met, and would likely never befriend was slammed against a metal edifice by his throat. He was kicked. He was assaulted with a car door. He may have been electrocuted. I will take up his cause. I will fight back for him.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-25101288189541952162010-02-28T14:25:00.000-05:002010-02-28T14:25:29.558-05:00Live Tweeting My Church's Annual General Meeting - Follow @jonathanmcleod<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><br />
</span></span>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-4054747022141444212010-01-30T02:28:00.000-05:002010-01-30T02:28:54.658-05:00Doctors Raping PatientsAt <i>ThePolitic</i>, I have a <span id="goog_1264831886642"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/">brief comment<span id="goog_1264831886643"></span></a> on the <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/time-to-end-pelvic-exams-done-without-consent/article1447337/">story</a> about non-consensual pelvic exams done on patients who are unconscious. It is my contention that this is rape. You don't get to stick things into a woman's vagina without her consent. When you do, it's rape. If I were to do "pelvic exams" on women who had passed out in bars, I'd (rightly) be called a rapist. The same holds true for doctors in operating rooms.<br />
<br />
Putting that aside, it's obvious that there are people in the medical profession who see nothing wrong with this form of rape. As I note at <i>ThePolitic</i>, there's a lot to unpack here. The mentality that justifies such egregious abuses of personal autonomy is somewhat disturbing.<br />
<br />
The main justification for this practice seems to be that without this abuse there would be no women willing to submit to unnecessary pelvic exams - a useful teaching tool. The data proves this wrong. Further, there is always the option of paying women. Nonetheless, even if we take this incorrect assertion as fact, it does absolutely nothing to justify the abuser's actions.<br />
<br />
To assume that it does, we must assume that any one person - or any one group of people - is worth less than the collective. To decide that the individual's wishes do not matter, in the context of the greater good, is to decide that each one of us is here as a resource for the group. Our liberty and our autonomy matter not. To approve the use and abuse of unconscious women is to degrade them, and to degrade the rest of us. This is illiberal. This strikes against everything that Western democracy is supposed to stand for (and be built upon). This not only dehumanizes individual humans, it dehumanizes <i>humanity</i>. The inherent dignity that liberty presupposes is considered non-existent when the personal wishes of an individual are deemed irrelevant in pursuit of the amelioration of the masses.<br />
<br />
It's often joked that doctors have God complexes. More than any other profession (well, maybe politicians), popular culture assigns self-reverence to doctors. The actions described in the article would not, by definition, constitute playing God (God' not a criminal), however, by deciding that they, and they alone, will be the arbiters of what is moral, what is acceptable, what is legal and what value to place on human life, these doctors are not far off. There's a certain level of narcissism required to assume that you should decide what goes in someone else's vagina.<br />
<br />
Despite this abhorrent behaviour, I'm not willing to assume that all doctors are sociopaths (I would assume that the rate of sociopathy is no different than any other profession). It seems to me that we are likely witnessing an instantiation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milgram_Experiment">the Milgram Experiment</a>. Med students, naturally obedient and subservient to the doctors from whom they're learning, will be disinclined to refuse to abuse women when so directed by a superior. I imagine this mentality is not the sole domain of med students, either. From my experience (personally, and from what I've witnessed of friends and loved ones), patients are likely to defer to experts. When a doctor tells us something needs to be done, we forgo the need to think critically. Well, if a <i>doctor</i> said it, then it must be true. Patients too often take insufficient command of their own treatment, acquiescing to whatever the man in the white coat suggests.<br />
<br />
(This is not meant to be a polemic against doctors in general; just against those who would sexually abuse women.)<br />
<br />
Since this mentality seems to be natural among humans, it is, perhaps, unfair to single out med students. It is much fairer to pin the bulk of the blame on the doctors who ordered the abuse. They were the ones most in control of the situation. They are the ones who, ultimately, are responsible for the well being of their patients. Though, I have to wonder, how long has this been going on? Were the doctors who are ordering the exams expected to perform these same exams when they were med students? If the med students who perpetrated these crimes in the past are now in a position to put a stop to them but don't (or worse, actively perpetuate this wretched practice), I have no sympathy for them. Even if we could consider them victims when they were med students (big stretch), we do not absolve abusers because they were once abused.<br />
<br />
Further, it is not the practice in North America to forgive someone of their crimes, even if we have a Milgram situation. Just as the abusers in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam">strip search prank call spree</a> are rightfully considered guilty (though with mitigating circumstances), so must the med students be considered guilty. It has been a long time since Western democracy has accepted, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles#Principle_IV">'I was just following orders,'</a> as a basis for exoneration.<br />
<br />
In the end, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of their "good" intentions, regardless of their willful ignorance, these doctors and med students committed rape. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, but (I'm cynical enough to assume) they will. Our only real hope is that enough people will realize the abhorrent nature of this practice and put a stop to it. Until then, we have no way of knowing how many more women will be abused.<br />
<br />
Hell, we have no way of knowing how many have already been abused. Many women will go without justice, because they have no idea that they were raped.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-29349402089951281592010-01-28T21:04:00.000-05:002010-01-28T21:04:55.881-05:00At the Risk of Charges of Treason...I must ask, what the hell is going on at DND? <i>Now</i>, they're all worried about reports of torture of detainees handed over to Afghan police forces. The rest of us have <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/10/03/stephen-harper-i-heart-torture/">been talking about this</a> for months. Richard Colvin has been talking about this for <i>years</i>.<br />
<br />
Here's the <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100128/military_investigation_100128/20100128?hub=Canada">story</a>:<br />
<blockquote>The Canadian military has ordered a formal investigation into how a critical report on the beating of an Afghan prisoner remained buried at National Defence headquarters.<br />
<br />
In June 2006 soldiers captured a suspected Taliban fighter and handed him over to local police, who then beat him to the point where the Canadians had to intervene.<br />
<br />
A report on the incident, which undermines Conservative government claims that no prisoners handed over to Afghans faced abuse, was apparently uncovered only in December.<br />
<br />
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk ordered an investigation, which is headed by Rear-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.<br />
<br />
Natynczyk's deputy, Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, says the probe will look at the incident itself, why soldiers took the actions they did and how it was reported.<br />
<br />
The report of the investigation is due March 1 and is to be made public shortly after.<br />
<br />
Diplomat Richard Colvin testified before a special House of Commons committee in November that he repeatedly warned federal officials in 2006 and 2007 that prisoners faced the possibility of torture in Afghan jails.</blockquote><br />
You'll have to pardon me if I think it is a little late for the Chief of Defence to suddenly be concerned with the treatment of people we handed over to local authorities in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad the bureacrats at DND will, I assume, be trying to discern what went wrong. They should have just been a little more concerned three or four years ago.<br />
<br />
Further, can this little incident put to rest the notion that if you don't like government officials covering up torture, you obviously <a href="http://unambig.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/smearing-the-troops-its-what-the-liberals-do/">hate the troops on the ground</a>? It's my reading that the troops on the ground <i>agree</i> that certain Afghan officials were torturing people. It's my reading that the troops on the ground <i>agree</i> that we shouldn't let this happen. Granted, we shouldn't be that surprised. This is <a href="http://cannedgoodsandammunition.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-soldiers-try-to-do-right-thing.html">not the first time</a> soldiers in the theatre acted nobly, only to have their higher-ups not really care. <br />
<br />
So Gen. Natynczyk, by all means, report on your error, but please let no one try to spin this to imply that no error was ever made - or that it was just a administrative error. It's become clear that we, as a nation, knew - or chose to ignore - that people were being tortured, people whom we had a moral and legal obligation to protect.<br />
<br />
And it should be remembered: it was government officials who failed our troops, not those of us who refuse to let our nation be complicit in torture.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-80469463017674329962010-01-28T19:48:00.000-05:002010-01-28T19:48:12.531-05:00The Second Derivative of Political AccountabilityThis morning before work, I was watching a bit of CTV Newsnet, and the ticker along the bottom noted that the Conservative government's support is continuing to drop (sorry, no link). To a casual observer, it appears that this decline began with the prorogation (is that even a word?) of Parliament, and has just kept going for the past month.<br />
<br />
If you're cynical like me, you're pretty sure that a big reason that the Conservatives prorogued Parliament was to <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/30/the-olympics-prorogue-and-the-moral-vacuity-of-the-conservative-party/">shut down</a> the Afghan detainee scandal. By extension, it's my guess is that it was the cynicism of the move that has hurt the Conservative government. Ironically, I hadn't noticed much evidence that the inquiry into the Afghan detainee abuse issue was actually hurting the public's opinion of the Conservative government (your humble writer notwithstanding).<br />
<br />
Scott H. Payne wrote a <a href="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/12/the-truth-would-have-set-you-free/">post</a> a little while ago (quoting a certain author of this blog) suggesting that if the Conservative government had just come clean at the beginning of the scandal, admitted mistakes were made and vowed to get to the bottom of things, they could have come out of the whole thing pretty much unscathed. The implication being that, a la Nixon, it wasn't the crime; it was the cover up.<br />
<br />
But since the government seemed to be doing fine throughout the fall, it appears that it's not even that. The public may have tolerated the crime; they may have even tolerated the cover up of the crime, but they were simply not willing to tolerate the cover up of the cover up of the crime.<br />
<br />
God bless second derivatives.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-16984535151637707882010-01-27T22:02:00.001-05:002010-01-27T22:03:22.010-05:00Greg Oden's IndiscretionAs some of you may have heard, Portland Trailblazer's center, Greg Oden, has been captured naked by... <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/greg-oden-naked-pictures_n_437238.html">Greg Oden</a> (safe for work, barely). Apparently, Oden had taken pictures of himself for a special friend, who, in turn, seems to have decided to share the pictures with the world. Oden has since apologized. No word on if the special friend has apologized.<br />
<br />
It'd be quite easy to grab this incident and parade it around for kids to teach them about the dangers of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting">sexting</a>. We could easily say, 'see, when you take naked pictures of yourself, it comes back to haunt you.' We could demonstrate our righteous indignation, and let kids know just exactly how wrong it is to participate in sexting.<br />
<br />
We could teach them that the natural result of sexting is shame, that they will be shamed; that the world will look down on them in moral self-righteousness; that they will be judged and judged harshly. We could teach them that sexting makes them nothing more than pornographers. Unfortunately, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/25/ruining-kids-in-order-to-save">we already are</a>.<br />
<br />
Who cares that we're teaching children to be ashamed of their bodies (lord knows that's never turned out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Gold">badly</a>). Who cares if we're teaching them that sex is inherently dirty and sinful. Who cares if we're <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/11/sexting-hysteria-drives-teen-t">driving them to suicide</a>. Modesty is a lesson that must be taught, regardless of the consequences.<br />
<br />
So Greg Oden apologized, and we, no doubt, are the worse for it.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-81028106289179211832010-01-14T23:18:00.000-05:002010-01-14T23:18:02.326-05:00Of Hey Lewis, Afghanistan and a Torch Now Extinguished<i>Dear John, Dear John. By the time you read these lines, I'll be gone...</i><br />
<br />
At <i>ThePolitic</i> I <a href="http://bit.ly/79Shkt">break up</a> with Stephen Harper... and I reference Huey Lewis and The News, Suzanne Somers and Patrick Duffy (and now I've referenced Judd Hirsch... awesome).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/96xZvoBRDPg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/96xZvoBRDPg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
</div>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-39327620185145314182010-01-13T23:50:00.000-05:002010-01-13T23:50:16.688-05:00I Fully Support Jim Watson's Candidacy for MayorAt least until someone else declares. Even then, there's no local politician I could think of who would be a better candidate. Alex Munter? Jan Harder? Alex Cullen? Ugh, please. So, yeah, for now, I'm pleased that Mr. Watson has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Watson_%28Canadian_politician%29#Municipal_politics_in_Ottawa">thrown his hat</a> in the ring.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Jim Watson would likely be the best mayor Ottawa has had since... well... <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/return+Smooth/2434300/story.html">Jim Watson</a>.<br />
<br />
Okay, not much more to say on that front, but I think I will take this opportunity to reflect on the tenure of our current mayor, Larry O'Brien.<br />
<br />
First off, Mr. O'Brien was an embarrassment; not a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/mel/megacity_mel.html">Mel Lastman</a> or <a href="http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/detroit-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick-jail-sentence/">Kwame Kilpatrick</a> embarrassment, but an embarrasment nonetheless. Insutling the homeless, standing trial for corruption - that's not what you want in a spokesman for your city.<br />
<br />
Despite all that, I do not regret voting for Mr. O'Brien. There are two main reasons for this: 1) Bob Chiarelli; 2) Alex Munter. These were my choices. Despite all the problems with Mayor O'Brien, I am still confident that extending the Chiarelli administration or created a Munter dynasty would have been far worse. Further, it seems to me that there is little to chance of Mr. O'Brien winning another term. So, as embarrassing as he was, it was just a stop gap measure. We've gotten past the Chiarelli era, and Mr. O'Brien will hopefully be a bridge to a new, better era (whether that be under Mr. Watson or not).<br />
<br />
Of course, if Mr. O'Brien does win another term, I may start regretting my decision.three years ago.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-2168649668311567942010-01-04T22:24:00.002-05:002010-01-04T22:29:28.410-05:00Swifter, Higher, FreerIn my most recent <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/30/the-olympics-prorogue-and-the-moral-vacuity-of-the-conservative-party/">post</a> at <i>ThePolitic</i>, I argue that proroguing parliament is a pretty wretched action by the current government. I see no valid reason for it, and I focus on the idea that they're proroguing parliament to evade the Afghan detainee scandal.<br />
<br />
But, I think I'll step back a moment and take a look at another possibility. One reason I've read for the prorogue is to keep focus on the olympics. This, from what I've read, comes in three forms:<br />
<ol><li>Canadians don't want to be distracted by politics while they focus on the Vancouver games;</li>
<li>The government doesn't want to face tough (and potentially untrue) allegations during the games;</li>
<li>Politicians want to be able to follow the games without getting distracted by politics.</li>
</ol>I must say, I love the olympics. I've followed each games for the last 24 years quite closely, cheering on Canadian athletes, following the developing storylines, and reveling in the spectacle of it all. I remember Elizabeth Manley winning silver. I remember Wayne Gretzky not winning gold. I remember Kerry Strug blowing up her leg. I remember Eddie the Eagle flying high (but not very far, relatively). I remember Gaetan Boucher's Sarajevo gold.<br />
<br />
But in the end, the games don't f-ing matter.<br />
<br />
Commenting on my post, RD writes:<br />
<blockquote>Also, if I had to choose between the Olympics and having a functioning and democratic elected government, I’d cancel this and every subsequent Olympic games.<br />
</blockquote>RD is absolutely correct. It is a sad joke that some people would temporarily trade their government for the olympic games. Of course, I don't think anyone <i>truly</i> prefers the olympics over democracy - and, certainly, Stephen Harper is not <i>actually</i> suspending democracy - but the reason that we, as a society, are willing to make this trade is because we have become too complacent. People take for granted their democratic rights. They take for granted democracy. It is this sort of complacency that we need to fight. We need to grasp our freedoms tight and preserve them, fight for them, let no infringement creep upon them.<br />
<br />
However, look around. We don't do that - not in this country. We accept transgressions against freedom of speech. We accept limits on our religious freedom. We don't fight back when the government, the courts, tribunals or the police trample our legal rights.<br />
<br />
And, I predict, we won't punish a government who steps on our democratic rights.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xe8YcvqtAMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xe8YcvqtAMY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MJHgMD1S0bg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MJHgMD1S0bg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q7iXcKKpdx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q7iXcKKpdx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div><br />
(Sorry, couldn't decide which one to use, so you get both.)Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-4411625652718440192010-01-03T23:26:00.000-05:002010-01-03T23:26:47.966-05:00The Return of Hoffa?I'm watching the last professional football game to be played at Giants Stadium (aka The Meadowlands). The Jets are taking it to the Bengals (37 - 0 with four minutes remaining), and Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth are talking about the destruction the stadium.<br />
<br />
So, does that mean we'll finally learn what happened to Jimmy Hoffa? And will they be disturbing sacred union burial grounds?<br />
<br />
Here's Bragg and Wilco doing Guthrie.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k4t3DDbZL7o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k4t3DDbZL7o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-12779941210531278152010-01-01T00:38:00.000-05:002010-01-01T00:38:00.622-05:00Broken Windshield Wiper PlaylistSo, tonight, we were supposed to head out to a New Year's Eve party where we'd get to see a number of friends we haven't seen in a while. Unfortunately, when Mrs. CG&A went to run a couple of errands in the afternoon, one of our windshield wipers broke off. Being New Year's Eve, the neighbourhood hardware store was closed. Consequently, I'm blogging fifteen minutes into 2010.<br />
<br />
Relegated to this fate, I've decided to post a few videos related to New Year's Eve.<br />
<br />
First...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOiDfY3i8Ac&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOiDfY3i8Ac&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div><br />
Next...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Im9jXmoCs6M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Im9jXmoCs6M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div><br />
Finally...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXRLUeVXpMA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXRLUeVXpMA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div><br />
Here's to 2010. Hopefully, next year we'll actually make the party.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-75458961090631127212009-12-30T23:32:00.002-05:002009-12-30T23:39:11.510-05:00We're Living in a Compromise, or, I'll Sell My Soul / What is it Worth?So, Parliament has been prorogued. The Olympics are coming. And it looks like we won't be getting to the bottom (read: Peter MacKay) of the detainee scandal anytime soon.<br />
<br />
I pass judgement on this latest development <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/30/the-olympics-prorogue-and-the-moral-vacuity-of-the-conservative-party/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Scott at <i>The League</i> has some <a href="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/12/burn-baby-burn/">thoughts</a> on the scandal, and y'all should check him out.<br />
<br />
At <i>ThePolitic</i>, I've caught a lot of flak for not toeing the party line - I was actually called a 'bleeding heart liberal', if you can beleive it. Some people want to conflate this prorogation with last year's (which I, unpublishedly, supported). There's also a lot of talk about senate committees and 'pressing the reset button' (gawd, I hate that phrase) and a whole bunch of other 'valid' reasons for prorogation. I'm unmoved, but no completely unsympathetic.<br />
<br />
So, why don't we make a deal? Mr. Harper prorogues Parliament but promises to have a full, open, independent investigation into the willful blindness our officials displayed in Afghanistan. If he makes such a promise, I will support his prorogation 100%.<br />
<br />
(Sure, I don't believe promises from politicians, but I find their promises useful. In this case, if he backtracked on such a promise, it would be all the more ammunition against the Conservatives.)<br />
<br />
Earlier this evening the wife and I noted that one purpose of CG&A is seemingly random pop culture references. So, a propos Scott's post (titled <i>Burn, Baby, Burn</i>), I give you the appropriately named Ash:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3IujMfJCW1k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3IujMfJCW1k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div><br />
And on that note, here's my favourite Ash song:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/szUeXBaOfl4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/szUeXBaOfl4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-30614272970260374182009-12-19T00:08:00.001-05:002009-12-19T00:10:48.273-05:00Counting on the End of the WorldThere's a minor <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2009-12-14-xmas_N.htm">controversy</a> in the U.S. regarding Christmas, the census and Jesus Christ:<br />
<blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfSS3ajydyeNLPP8oYiU-MVmTJXnBVOeQWqhP0EZ74Ycwwz-SsSYNCb0r-p15XbVZeo3-JbcioYFG_h0CHmx_gFothGBkw2rUNXRVOZOx5Uqghhij69N0gAmMeOED7cVIFvPytV9J-C8e/s1600-h/censusadx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfSS3ajydyeNLPP8oYiU-MVmTJXnBVOeQWqhP0EZ74Ycwwz-SsSYNCb0r-p15XbVZeo3-JbcioYFG_h0CHmx_gFothGBkw2rUNXRVOZOx5Uqghhij69N0gAmMeOED7cVIFvPytV9J-C8e/s320/censusadx.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>A push to spread the gospel about the 2010 Census this Christmas is stoking controversy with a campaign that links the government count to events surrounding the birth of Jesus.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/National+Association+of+Latino+Elected+Officials" title="More news, photos about National Association of Latino Elected Officials">National Association of Latino Elected Officials</a> is leading the distribution to churches and clergy of thousands of posters that depict the arrival of Joseph and a pregnant Mary in <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Bethlehem" title="More news, photos about Bethlehem">Bethlehem</a> more than 2,000 years ago. As chronicled in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph returned to be counted in a Roman census, but he and Mary found no room at an inn, and Jesus was born in a manger. <br />
<br />
"This is how Jesus was born," the poster states. "Joseph and Mary participated in the Census." <br />
<br />
Most of the posters are in Spanish and target Latino evangelicals, says Jose Cruz, senior director of civic engagement at the Latino association, which launched its Ya Es Hora (It's Time) campaign in 2006 to promote voter registration among Latinos.<br />
<br />
It is promoting the Census, used to help allocate $400 billion a year in federal dollars, redraw state and local political districts and determine the number of seats each state gets in Congress.<br />
</blockquote><br />
This is, probably, blasphemous. It is, definitely, offensive. It is, comically, stupid.<br />
<br />
Let's re-cap the actual story of Christmas. An unrepresentative and oppressive government forces a pregnant woman, who appears to be term, to travel cross-country on a donkey to participate in a useless bureaucratic excercise.<br />
<br />
Is this what the National Association of Latino Elected Officials are trying to say? The oppressive, undemocratic U.S. government, via the census, imposes incredibly trying ordeals on pregnant women.<br />
<br />
Oh wait, it gets better.<br />
<br />
Upon the birth of Mary's (the dutiful census participant) son, Herod, the corrupt ruler, attempts to kill her son. When that fails, he orders the murder of all boys under the age of two. So, apparently, participating in the census will lead to the slaughter of children.<br />
<br />
Of course, that's not the end of it. Mary gives birth to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. So, apparently, participating in the census will lead you to give birth to the Son of Man. Of course, this will be the second coming of the Saviour, which means, the End of Days.<br />
<br />
Yup, according to the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, participating in the census will lead to the end of the world.<br />
<br />
Well, I guess if they're quite devout, they might welcome the Rapture.<br />
<br />
(H/T: <a href="http://reason.com/blog"><i>Hit & Run</i></a>)Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-56034513839734417252009-12-18T00:31:00.000-05:002009-12-18T00:31:59.070-05:00The Deception of Big Numbers, or, In Praise of Second DerivativesI was taking a cab today and the cabbie had the radio tuned to CFRA (a rather right-wing radio staiton in Ottawa). My cabbie started laughing at Lowell Green (one of the talking heads on CFRA) and then started telling me about the Tar Sands in Alberta.<br />
<br />
(I didn't really care. I tend to agree with Lowell Green on a number of issues, but I still think him a buffoon, and I disagreed with what he was saying today. Nonetheless, I find the infantile outlook that everyone you ever meet <i>obviously</i> agrees with your politics quite irritating. It's generally a sign of narcissism coupled with a week mind.)<br />
<br />
All that aside, the cabbie then went on to talk about a book he'd just read, <a href="http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/hot-flat-and-crowded"><i>Hot, Flat and Crowded</i></a>, written by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html">mass murder apologist,</a> Thomas L. Friedman. Anyway, the cabbie decided to apply the idea of overpopulation to his native country, Ethiopia.<br />
<br />
Apparently (according to Mr. Cab Driver), Ethiopia had a population of 27 million in 1988. In 19998, the population grew to 58 million, and in 2009, the population was 77 million. His analysis: 77 million! The growth is out of control!<br />
<br />
So, from 1988 to 1998, the population increased by 31 million, or 115%.<br />
<br />
And, from 1998 to 2009, the population increased by 19 million, or 33%.<br />
<br />
So, the growth between 1998 and 2009 <i>dropped</i> by 12 million, or 82 percentile points compared to the growth between 1988 and 1998. In fact, the percentage growth dropped by 71%.<br />
<br />
But apparently, the growth is out of control!<br />
<br />
This is why math is important.<br />
<br />
Speaking of math...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQH7UD0Qhgk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQH7UD0Qhgk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div>Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-85334574933868720602009-12-12T01:10:00.000-05:002009-12-12T01:10:32.060-05:00So, Do We Still Think It's Okay to Randomly Hack off Bits of Little Boys?Okay, really, outside of religious obligations, why does the developed world still think routine circumcision is fine? From<i> peaceful parenting</i>:<br />
<blockquote>Tuesday, December 08, 2009<br />
4-Yr-Old Hospitalized after Circumcision Escape AttemptIt happens yet again.<br />
<br />
This morning a friend was telling me that one of her acquaintances causally mentioned to her that their 9 year old son is finally recovering from his circumcision - an amputative surgery inflicted upon him this past summer.<br />
<br />
Why was it done?<br />
<br />
A right of passage into manhood.<br />
<br />
No, not in some far off land. Right here in North America.<br />
<br />
Surprised?<br />
<br />
Well, we do prohibit genital cutting on our daughters at any age...but we do nothing to protect our sons from the willy-nilly cutting off of their body parts.<br />
<br />
Too often people believe there are no risks associated with the surgical amputation of the <a href="http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html">prepuce organ</a>.<br />
<br />
Wrong.<br />
<br />
There are many risks. And every time a baby dies or seizures or lapses into coma or has a heart attach, or a boy ends up in the hospital with 1/2 his penis gone, or an infant suffers from uncontrolled hemorrhaging, or a newborn <a href="http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/11/breastfeeding-circumcision.html">refuses to breastfeed</a> after being cut -- we see these consequences of circumcision and just how grave and how frequent they are. And these are only the outwardly visible physical impact of genital cutting. It does not even touch on the mental, emotional, social consequences of such mutilation.<br />
</blockquote>The article goes on tell the story of the mutilation of a four year old in New Zealand. Apparently, this was part of the movement to 'circumsize the world'. It's frightening that there are people who have a pathological obsession with cutting up little boys... and we <i>don't </i>lock them up:<br />
<blockquote>A doctor who botched the circumcision of a wriggling four-year-old, severing an artery in the boy's penis, may face further disciplinary action, after a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner was released today.<br />
<br />
The botched operation, which saw the boy require emergency hospitalization, was performed at an unnamed medical center in January by a general practitioner, assisted by a doctor unqualified to practice in New Zealand and the doctor's wife.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
On arriving at the medical center, the parents and the young patient were directed to the waiting room, with the doctor busy performing a circumcision on another patient, a 14-year-old boy. The family were concerned to hear the screams of the older boy.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The boy's mother told the commissioner the child was taken into the operating room, was given an injection, then cut into seconds later, before the painkiller had time to take effect. Seeing her son in pain caused the mother to start crying, at which point she was ordered out of the room by the doctor, apparently for passing her anxiety onto the child and disturbing him.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
After about an hour, the boy's father walked in to the operating room to see the doctor apparently talking to another doctor on the phone about how he didn't know what was going on.<br />
<br />
He saw the clinic manager and the unlicensed doctor were holding the boy "as if they were holding a wild animal", the report said.<br />
<br />
About an hour-and-a-half after the boy went into the operating room, the doctors called an ambulance, due to uncontrollable bleeding. The doctor, however, said the boy was subdued and calm, while the father complained of dizzy spells and became pale, and was asked to leave the room, lest he collapse during the operation.<br />
<br />
He did admit the child became "extremely difficult to handle" and, due to the strength of the four-year-old's pelvic muscles, enlisted the aid of two people to hold him still. "It's really difficult because the pelvic muscles are tough and the forearm muscles are not that strong," the doctor said.<br />
</blockquote>If you live in the developed world, there is absolutely no valid reason for partaking in routine circumcision. If you subject your son to this unnecessary and dangerous procedure, you wronged your child. If you were duped by doctors into thinking it was the best course of action, I feel sorry for you and your son, but it was your responsibility to learn about circumcision. These days, the information is available, and it is wrong to abdicate your parental responsibility to someone else, regardless of that person's title.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-88187908600514569062009-12-05T00:57:00.000-05:002009-12-05T00:57:28.748-05:00Well, as Long as You Have Moved On...The other day, I <a href="http://cannedgoodsandammunition.blogspot.com/2009/12/because-winning-is-absolutely-everyting.html">noted</a> that Pittsburgh Steeler's Wide Receiver Hines Ward decided to bring into question whether or not Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger should have played despite having a concussion. It was a pretty wretched thing for Ward to do.<br />
<br />
Well, now Ward has <a href="http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/12/02/hines-ward-apologizes-for-his-roethlisberger-comments/">realized</a> his error and apologized to Roethlisberger. His comment about the matter:<br />
<blockquote>"We talked. I'm not going to get into what was specifically said."<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
"The issue's been resolved. I apologized to the team today for having to even answer questions about this. We've moved on and getting ready for Oakland.''<br />
</blockquote> He created this whole situation by demonstrating insufficient concern over the severity of a teammate's brain injury when speaking to the press. It's great that he apologized to Roethlisberger, but he doesn't get to just wave his hand and make everything magically go away.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-37675855500395797732009-12-04T23:53:00.001-05:002009-12-05T00:05:36.149-05:00Boys, We Need Less SexismIt's too bad <i>National Post</i>'s Adrian McNair (who also blogs at <a href="http://unambig.wordpress.com/"><i>Unambiguously Ambidextrous</i></a>) doesn't seem to understand the nature of sexism or even elementary biology.<br />
<br />
In a recent <a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/03/adrian-macnair-boys-we-need-more-babies.aspx">post</a> regarding New Brunswick Tory MLA Carl Urquhart, Mr. McNair defends Mr. Urquhart's overtly sexist comment (for which Mr. Urquhart had already apologized) against a misguided attack from a political adversary. In doing so, Mr. McNair ignores the<i> </i>actual implications of Mr. McNair's unfortunate remark, using non-sequitors and incomplete - and, thus, incorrect - arguments about reproduction.<br />
<br />
Ok, here's the <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/733609--new-brunswick-tory-apologizes-for-babies-facebook-comment">background</a>:<br />
<br />
Via Facebook, Mr. Urquhart wrote, "Another Liberal budget ... Another $1 billion on the debt by March ... Girls we need more babies or we will never be able to support our future."<br />
<br />
In response, Liberal MLA Joan MacAlpine-Stiles said, "To suggest to New Brunswick's young women that their only role in society and their only contribution to the New Brunswick economy is to have babies is demeaning and outdated thinking."<br />
<br />
Mr. McNair, for some reason, decided to defend Mr. Urquhart, writing:<br />
<blockquote>I don’t think feminists like Ms. MacAlpine can really expect to be taken seriously when they wave their fingers at men in this way. Nobody has suggested that the “only role” of women in society is to have babies, nor did Mr. Urquhart suggest anything remotely close to that in his Facebook update. The only observation Mr. Urquhart made is a correct one: we have a negative population growth that will not and cannot be offset without either a baby boom, an increase in immigration, or a reduction of spending in services. Something has to give.<br />
<br />
The other point I’d like to make is that Mr. Urquhart appealed to the only segment of the population which, so far as my sexual education classes taught me back in grade school, are actually able to have children: females. Should he have posted an equal opportunity request for men as well?<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
For some feminists, or in these cases, political opportunists, the truth is less important than the appearance of standing up for women’s rights, no matter how fictitious the reality. When did we, as a society, become so sensitive to gender roles that we deny basic biological imperatives? Admitting we need to have more kids isn’t sexist. It’s being a realist.<br />
</blockquote><br />
First of all, labeling someone with whom you have a difference of opinion as part of your rebuttal is, at the risk of understatement, poor form. I don't know if Ms. MacAlpine-Stiles is a feminist or not, and I don't really care. It has no impact on the validity of her argument.<br />
<br />
(And by the way, if she currently goes by MacApline-Stiles, and is named such in the story to which you link, don't call her Ms. MacAlpine. It is, again, poor form.) <br />
<br />
Second, I assume that Mr. McNair's sex education classes taught him more than the fact that women are the only ones who get pregnant. Perhaps it also taught him that men are necessary in order for women to get pregnant (the inspiration for the current holiday season notwithstanding). So, unless we are to have mass woman on man rape, thinking that reproduction can be left solely to the actions of "girls" is pretty ridiculous.<br />
<br />
But let's get to one point that Mr. McNair does get right. Mr. Urquhart never said that reproduction was the <i>only </i>thing that "girls" are good for. Bravo.<br />
<br />
Is this how low we are setting the bar to determine if something sexist was uttered? If it is possible to infer from a statement that "girls" <i>might</i> be good for something other than procreation, we are to consider this enlightened discourse?<br />
<br />
So, here's where we really get into things. Let's assume that Ms. MacAlpine-Stiles is a feminist. And let's assume that she is the caricature of all things bad about feminism. And let's admit that she was wrong. Mr. Urquhart's statement is still sexist.<br />
<br />
First, he calls women "girls". Sure, maybe he's trying to be fun and colloquial, but men - especially older men in positions of authority - have to understand the context of their speech. The fact is, for much of the past few decades/century/forever, feminists have been right. Men treated women wretchedly. Men still do, but it is not as systemic or pervasive as it was in the past. However, men with any sort of power have to realize that the weight of history will colour much of what they say. Refering to women as "girls" (unless he's going to start arguing for a lot of child brides) is demeaning. It is dismissive of women as a gender. It treats women as some sort of other; individuals who do not have the stature or value of adult males like Mr. Urquhart.<br />
<br />
Now, I doubt that Mr. Urgquhart meant all of this. Most of us say and write things without an appropriate thought to the prism through which it might be viewed, but that doesn't really matter. A male politician has to understand why it is inappropriate for him to write that. And if he does not understand, then it must be brought to his attention. Mr. Urquhart understands that what he wrote was wrong. He has apologized. It is bizarre that this blogger at <i>National Post</i> would then decide to stick up for him.<br />
<br />
Further, putting assided any argument about female on male rape, Mr. Urquhart does put the onus on women (I'm jettisoning his word "girls" for the rest of the post) to take care of procreation. I don't know if this means promiscuity, chasing after men, unsafe sex or choosing to have a family when one might not have otherwise done so. Again, this is a statement that, I charitably assume, ignores the significance of history.<br />
<br />
Mr. Urquhart is implying that other desires and goals of women must accommodate being a mother. He's not saying women can't do other things, just that their lives should include motherhood. He is making no similar exortation for men to be fathers. Again, considering how women were, historically, relegated to the role of wife and mother, to turn only to women to take on the role of parent is to echo the oppression that we have only recently deemed so distasteful.<br />
<br />
But let's ignore women for now. Let's look at the other side of the family/babymaking coin. Mr. Urquhart makes no demand of men. He sees a need for an increase in the birthrate (which leads to an increase in childrearing), and he makes no call to men. His comment is not just offensive to women; it is offensive to men (though, let's admit, less so). I assume he doesn't really think men have no place in the raising of a new generation, but he certainly implies it. To diminish the importance of men in the reproduction of the species - by completely ignoring them when discussing the reproduction of the species - is to do what so many people <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism">blame</a> cartoonish feminists of doing.<br />
<br />
I do not understand why Mr. McNair would come to Mr. Urquhart's defense. It was reasonable to point out the incorrect claim made by a rival MLA, but that does not require defending the indefensible.<br />
<br />
The enemy of your enemy is not, necessarily, your friend. Sometimes, he's just a guy who wrote something stupid on Facebook.<br />
<br />
(H/T: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/stageleft">@stageleft</a>)Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-55422915600671309762009-12-02T21:34:00.000-05:002009-12-02T21:34:40.527-05:00Please, Mr. Obama, Disarm.I <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/12/01/im-not-listening-to-barack-obama/">did not watch</a> the president's speech last night. I did, however, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHrqPvdzFF5Tb0L0JCA_rqNQHoXwD9CASPAG1">read</a> the speech, and I found it uninspired and uninspiring. I've long supported the war in Afghanistan, though recently I've been thinking it's time to just get out. Perhaps Mr. Obama's plan will work. I hope it will. If he's going to mortgage the lives of so many soldiers, I hope there is a happy ending.<br />
<br />
But I'm really skeptical. Further, I don't think he actually laid out a viable case supporting the war. That's not to say that there isn't one, just that he didn't make it. Of course, TV orations aren't really the forum for deep policy analysis, so I'm willing to cut him some slack.<br />
<br />
Nick Gillespie has a nice quick <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/02/obama-on-afghanistan-full-text">reaction</a> to the speech at <i>Reason</i>:<br />
<blockquote>While I think the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was never warranted, I think the invasion of Afghanistan was a legitimate use of American military power. The country was on the hunt for the people behind the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban government was clearly working hand in glove with them. When the trail went cold, the reason for us being in Afghanistan became far less clear. Are we nation or region building there? And if so, don't the myriad objections that Democrats and Republicans alike used to throw up in opposition to such efforts apply? If it's all about gutting al Qaeda and de-surging the resurgent Taliban, then what's with the timetable for exit?<br />
</blockquote>Of course, the whole reason for this post - and especially the title - was to show this clip of Smashing Pumpkins playing at the '94 MTV Awards: <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QESQQa9rqp4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QESQQa9rqp4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</div><br />
I was starting my final year of high school when this was aired. I had a lot of friends in bands (including some I played with). Most of my friends thought this sucked. One of my friends agreed with me that it was an awesome performance. He's the one I'm still friends with fifteen years later.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-40168484862903041592009-12-01T23:27:00.000-05:002009-12-01T23:27:18.170-05:00Don't Ask Don't Tell vs. Defense of Marriage ActAt<i> The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</i>, Scott H. Payne expresses his <a href="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/12/i-take-it-all-back-2/">displeasure</a> with President Obama regarding two issues relating to civil rights and equality for gay people:<br />
<blockquote>It is, I suppose, until one sees the run-off impacts of pushing the need to repeal <em>Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell</em> or the <em>Defense of Marriage Act</em> off to another day, or not having a President who believes in equal rights under the law speak loudly and clearly of the need to support marriage equality, or inviting Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration of that President in the harsh and unforgiving light of <a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/11/29/pastor-rick-warren-responds-to-proposed-ugandan-legislation.aspx" target="_blank">purely putative and explicitly discriminatory legislation</a> elsewhere.<br />
</blockquote>I don't share Scott's disappointment in Barack Obama (I didn't have particularly high hopes for him, and he claimed to oppose same-sex marriage during the campaign), however, I share his displeasure with the lack of corrective action regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell. It is a vile policy that <a href="http://voguerepublic.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/why-dont-ask-dont-tell-must-be-repealed/">should be repealed</a> forthwith.<br />
<br />
However, I'm not as convinced about <i>DOMA</i>. According to wikipedia, <i>DOMA</i> has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act">two effects</a>:<br />
<blockquote><ol><li>No <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state" title="U.S. state">state</a> (or other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States" title="Political divisions of the United States">political subdivision within the United States</a>) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage" title="Same-sex marriage">marriage</a>, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States" title="Federal government of the United States">federal government</a> defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.</li>
</ol></blockquote>I'm fully in support of the first effect. Civil marriage is, rightfully, the domain of each individual state. The federal government has no standing to impose the decision of one state on another. This means there will be unfair treatment of homosexual couples, but there will be a fair process of establishing what is considered civil marriage in each state.<br />
<br />
It may seem paradoxical - to support same sex marriage, but also to support a state's right to deny recognizing it - but procedural justice is important for democracy and liberty. Proposition 8 in California is wretched law, and I am no fan of plebiscites to decide such matters of policy. However, it was a step up from the previous situation, in which gay marriage was forced on the state by judges. Prop 8 may have lead to a poorer policy, but it was an improvement in terms of the democratic process in California.<br />
<br />
The second effect in <i>DOMA</i> seems a little less defensible. If <i>DOMA </i>is to leave marriage in the hands of each state, it seems odd to then have the federal government defiantly refuse to acknowledge any legal same sex union. I can see how this is a very tricky situation. The federal government must treat everyone the same, and, thus, until all states support same sex marriage, the federal government might be required to fully oppose it, lest it lead to some other challenge (equal protection, perhaps?) that would facilitate a federal court to impose gay marriage on all states.<br />
<br />
If all the the second point does is safeguard against such an imposition by federal courts, I'm all for it. However, it seems to me that it is not only safeguarding traditional marriage definitions in some states, but also negating same sex marriage in other states. That seems to strike against any notion of federalism.<br />
<br />
Now, I may be reading too much into it, and it might just be necessary to fully protect federalism, but it just seems quite wrong. I would prefer <i>DOMA</i> be stripped of this portion, or at least have it re-written to read something like, "[t]he federal government defines marriage as a legal union between two people, in accordance with the laws of the state in which they reside." I'm fully aware this could lead to all sorts of other problems (and I'm not a lawyer... or even an American... so I'm just taking a blind stab at this make believe legslative writing), but the spirit is more in line with what I would wish to see in any legislation like <i>DOMA</i>.<br />
<br />
It is these sorts of intricacies that lead to a slow and methodical approach to crafting public policy, and, generally, this has its benefits. However, if you have no philosophical hang ups to gays in the military and no philosophical objection to the judicial imposition of same sex marriage, there is little reason for caution.<br />
<br />
And from that perspective, I fully understand Scott's despair.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-20583644267288634092009-12-01T22:57:00.001-05:002009-12-01T22:57:27.417-05:00Because Winning is Absolutely EverythingHines Ward, wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, is sometimes lauded as a tough, gritty player. At other times, he is reputed to be one of the dirtiest players in the National Football League.<br />
<br />
But apparently, he, perhaps along with other Steelers, is just a <a href="http://profootballweekly.com/2009/11/30/steelers-strangers-to-controversy-unrest-2">bad person</a>:<br />
<blockquote>The Steelers find themselves in the midst of a three-game losing streak and in the teeth of controversy Monday after WR Hines Ward suggested some in the Steelers' locker room might have wanted QB Ben Roethlisberger to play in the Week 12 loss to Baltimore in spite of a concussion.<br />
<br />
Ward made the comments to NBC in an interview aired before the Steelers fell 20-17 in overtime to the Ravens with Dennis Dixon, not Roethlisberger, at quarterback.<br />
<br />
"This game is almost like a playoff game," Ward said in a transcript released by NBC. "It's almost a must-win. I could see some players or teammates questioning, like 'It's just a concussion. I've played with a concussion before.' It's almost like a 50-50 toss-up in the locker room. Should he play? Shouldn't he play? It's really hard to say.<br />
<br />
"I've been out there dinged up, the following week, got right back out there. Ben practiced all week. He split time with Dennis Dixon. And then to find out that he's still having some headaches and not playing and it came down to the doctors didn't feel that they were going to clear him or not. It's hard to say. Unless you're the person itself.<br />
<br />
"I've lied to a couple of doctors saying I'm straight, I feel good when I know that I'm not really straight. I don't think guys really worry about the future while they're playing currently in the NFL. … Trust me, the players want to go out there because these games you don't get back. You're never going to get this Baltimore-Pittsburgh game back. This is a big game. Unfortunately, Ben can't play, so the 53 other guys have to rally the team and see if we can win one down here."<br />
</blockquote>Of course, Ward eventually walked back from the comments:<br />
<blockquote>After the game, Ward said that finding out just one day before the game that Roethlisberger was out was "frustrating." However, he indicated he wasn't being criticial toward Roethlisberger.<br />
<br />
"You really don't want to mess around with concussions," Ward said. "Guys have concussions and still play. But you have to look at the whole big picture. When the health comes into question, you got to look at the long-term effect. When I said that, I really wasn't saying (it) in a negative towards Ben. You have to be concerned about it because we don't know what the future may hold considering all the research on concussions. I wish we would have had him out there. But we didn't, and we fell short."<br />
</blockquote>Ward's obvious realization of what he said does not absolve him of having said in the first place. Regardless of the whether or not he was one of the players that considered Roethlisberger's injury "just a concussion", by spreading such a noxious opinion, he is responsible for its implications. The NFL has not done enough to protect players from the effects of concussions, to <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2734941">tragic</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/02/02/i_dont_want_anyone_to_end_up_like_me/">results</a>. Ward, and anyone holding this opinion of Roethlisberger's injury, need to gain some perspective.<br />
<br />
Thankfully, Steelers' head coach Mike Tomlin had a better understanding of the gravity of the situation. Although Roethlisberger dressed for the game, Tomlin told the crew of Monday Night Football that the quarterback would only play if the two other quarterbacks got injured - and even then all he would do was hand the ball off, never being exposed to further injury (and likely ensuring a Pittsburgh loss).<br />
<br />
He understands the relative importance of a football game compared to a young man's health. Nothing.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-55790613807312717522009-11-20T00:18:00.000-05:002009-11-20T00:18:56.795-05:00Talkin' 'Bout Torture at ThePolitic.You can read my thoughts on the revelations of Richard Colvin <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/11/19/canada-was-complicit-in-torture-diplomat-says/">here</a>. Long story short: I have no doubt that mistakes have been made. The more the government and the military circle the wagons, the more we desperately need a public enquiry.<br />
<br />
Until then, the Conservatives are complicit in torture.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817078527115137324.post-62852042984298277102009-11-16T23:08:00.000-05:002009-11-16T23:08:10.888-05:00Teh World is Ending !!1!!!1!At ThePolitc, I <a href="http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/11/16/climate-change-and-copenhagen-the-world-is-apparently-ending/">write</a> about the climate change debate.<br />
<br />
I don't really have much more to add here; I just wanted to use this post headline, which wouldn't quite be appropriate at ThePolitic (and, no, there are no typos in it).Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05131425614294077209noreply@blogger.com0