Marmalade's Report on the FTFF

Miss Marprelate attended the First Annual Free Thinking Film Festival this weekend and parachutes back to give a full report, or at least a full report of the movies she watched, due to overlapping schedules she regretfully missed some.

First off, great event and very glad I went. Some wonderful movies, terrific discussion panel, and I liked the Havarti and grapes.

The first evening got off to a rocky start with the movie Kalifornistan, which elicited a mixed response. Most of the (few) people I talked to hated the thing, myself included. It was an avant-garde movie based on the premise that the cause of terrorism is sexual repression and mental insanity (Not, for example, a religious devotion and worldview), featuring an exotic dancer and deranged terrorist. It was, to be really frank, stupid, offensive, liberal, and disturbing.

One sentence review: Worst movie I ever watched, don't even think about buying it.

The next morning things improved drastically with the movie Katyn, about the massacre of 20,000 Polish officers by the Soviets. It followed a few of the officers and their families in a gripping award-winning narrative film, which was nominated for an Oscar. I found it to be extremely powerful, moving, and actually very Christian movie. It did have some moments of very intense violence for those who are concerned about that, for example when they were executing the officers one by one as the officers were reciting the Lord's Prayer.

One sentence review: Not for children, but incredibly powerful and superbly crafted.

I changed gears for the next movie, a Michael Moore style documentary called Mine Your Own Business. It covered three proposed mining projects in Romania, Madagascar, and Chile which have all been virulently opposed by environmentalists. Meanwhile the local people are looking forward to getting a decent job at the mine and climbing out of poverty, a dream that is in peril due to environmentalists pressure. One notable moment in the movie was when an environmentalist who makes about $100,000 a year claims (not exact quote) that in this little village success is not measured in things like money, health, nutrition, or education but in smiles. And as rich people are more stressed and less happy these people don't want better jobs.

One sentence review: Good movie, interesting, not kind to environmentalists.

Afterwards Ezra Levant and Elizabeth May squared off on the oil sands. Ezra focused on how we should increase Canadian oil production because it is so much more ethical than other oil sources. Elizabeth May thought that was like coming up with better child labor conditions. She preferred to talk about our lack of a national energy strategy and how we need more manufacturing, less oil, and a way to get oil to the Maritimes without building a pipeline through green areas (alternative not expounded upon). CPAC was there recording it, so it will probably be broadcast by them at some point.

Generation Zero opened up Sunday afternoon with probably the most important documentary I saw at the festival. It focused on cycles of culture in history, and how the current economic collapse (which is just beginning) is a failure of morality. They cover a lot of stuff like the bank's completely irresponsible lending, which the governments (right and left) happily bailed them out of. In other words, we have privatized profits and nationalized risks, but capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell, it doesn't work.

One sentence review: Very important documentary vital to understanding why we are where we are, and where we are going.

Mr. Conservative went on my list of not so great films. In the interests of full disclosure, I watched about ten minutes of it, decided that this was going to be a waste of time, and skipped out to watch one of the other movies. However I got the report afterwards from someone who did stick it out, and was glad I didn't. Apparently Goldwater was a libertarian, not a conservative. His wife started Planned Parenthood in their state, he was pro-gay, and very anti the religious right.

One sentence review: Not my cup of tea, could be yours.

The panel discussion afterwards with Terry Glavin, John Robson, Karen Selick, and Joseph Ben Ami was great however.Unfortunately I missed the first part of Joseph Ben Ami's speech but liked what I heard. I also loved John Robson's definition of conservative as "metaphysical sanity" because we don't demand more of the universe than it can give. And he quoted Chesterton, so two thumbs up. I have to read him much more, he is fantastic (Robson, I already knew Chesterton was fantastic). At the very end they were talking about the connection between conservatives and libertarians, how we can dialog, etc, and Ben Ami and Robson both said that abortion is the litmus test, basically if we can't agree on that we can't agree on anything and we can't even really come to the table together. Which was a surprising thing for them to say there. They also said you cannot be a conservative without being a social conservative (at an event hosted by a gay conservative), or at least Robson said that straight out, Ben Ami was slightly more convoluted but that is what he believes. VladTepes blog was recording that, and he says it will be on his blog and probably the free thinking film website eventually.

We Need to Talk, which I watched in between Mr. Conservative and the panel discussion, was an interesting pro-abstinence, pro-father, pro-life, pro-Christian movie about ten black women from Chicago who had made some mistakes in their lives, and were now giving advice to younger women on how to avoid falling into the same traps. They spoke about how having intimate relationships outside the covenant (yes they used that word) of marriage was like an amputation, giving parts of yourself away to multiple guys. How they regretted their abortions more than anything else, how the loss of their fathers led them to search for male affirmation in all the wrong ways, and how that desire for love and affirmation can never be filled outside of a relationship with Christ. The only thing I regretted was that the message seemed incomplete, because they showed the negatives of a broken life well, but were weak on the positives of a whole life.

One sentence review: Due to my last regret I cannot quite rave about the movie, but otherwise excellent.

All in all I am glad I went. It would be unreasonable, I suppose, to expect that I would love every movie. My strongest regret was that I had to miss so many of the other ones due to overlapping schedules, but that is not a bad regret.

The FTFF left me wanting more. Good job to you all.

Remembrance Day

A link back to last year's Remembrance Day post, featuring my brother's amazing WWI serial story that was published in the Pembroke Daily Observer.

Shock in Oklahoma

The ACLU Oklahoma is supporting a lawsuit that would allow US judges to make ruling with reference to Old Testament/Torah law and ecclesiastical traditions.

Or rather, that is, as they are reflected in Sharia law.

A recent Oklahoma constitutional amendment that prohibits judges from taking international law or sharia law into consideration has been put on hold as it may violate the US Constitution. It has been denounced as Islamaphobic, and discriminatory because it will prevent Muslims from participating in things like getting married, writing wills, forming contracts, etc if they want to incorporate Sharia elements into those things (Personally I strongly doubt that, actually I am sure it won't.) Alternately they also denounce it as unnecessary because no Oklahoma Muslim has ever dreamed of wanting Sharia taken into consideration by courts. Not sure which story they will eventually stick with.

A lawsuit against the amendment is being brought by CAIR.

http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1364884942/Anti-sharia-measure-faces-legal-challenge

The Very Model of a Modern US President

I often try to avoid traipsing into the morass of American politics and endless Obama jokes. But I do like Gilbert and Sullivan.



Link if the crazy thing doesn't want to show up properly. Don't ask me why it won't. Things I am not good at. Anything computer related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54FRMedT_s

Heather Mallick Call Your Pollster

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/881542--mallick-voters-were-filled-with-largely-pointless-rage

Question: After Monday's elections, are you more optimistic about your city, or less optimistic?

If even the Star cannot get more than 50-51% of their readers to be less optimistic, in a poll featured on a Heather Mallick column no less that starts with the profound point "Mayor Rob Ford, Oh dear" and draws to a close with the stellar observation that "Within the next four years, our rage will be scented by rotting garbage and we’ll be riding burros to work.", no wonder Rob Ford won the election.

Then again, maybe the only people who read Heather Mallick aren't left-wing, maybe they are all right-wingers who find her funny. Always a possibility.

Or maybe even some liberals hate government corruption and waste enough to vote for Rob Ford.

On second thought, I think I'll go with hypothesis one. I don't think Heather Mallick knows anyone who voted for Rob Ford, except maybe her manicurist.

Coming Up, and Up, and Up

I tried to think of what I could say about Ontario Hydro that was simultaneously bad enough, and wouldn't get me into trouble with either the law or my Mother (who reads my blog regularly in order to keep me alive and out of court), but came up blank. On second thoughts, make that just the law, my Mom could probably think of her own things to say on the subject of Ontario Hydro worse than any insult I could dream up.

Over 10,000 people make more than $100,000 a year, including CEO of Ontario Power Generation who made $2.15 million and his successor who made $1 million, as well as $975,000 for the CEO of Hydro One. Meanwhile Hydro has doubled since 2003. And thanks to renewables and George Smitherman, not likely to go down. Margaret Wente suggests that anger over this could bring down the Ontario Liberals. Why not? Do you know anyone who doesn't hate Ontario Hydro? Anyone? Anyone? (Hydro employees are NOT invited to stuff the vote on this one)

And my economics textbook tried to tell me that electrical companies are examples of monopolies that don't exploit people.

Yes, you with the Latte.

Kelly McParland writes the far and away funniest commentary on the Rob Ford election.

For Toronto’s urban sophisticates, it was a wipe-out. Total repudiation. Worse than the time they ran out of well-oaked chardonnay at Vintages. What are they supposed to do now, move to Calgary? Buy a leaf blower, for .....? Any day now they’ll be erecting barriers at Pusateri’s, checking IDs. No one gets in without a credit card from Home Depot.

Wearily they munched their almond biscottis and totted up the devastation. Someone would have to contact the holistic, non-profit communal bike-sharing project and warn them the grand opening, scheduled for January, would be delayed.

But you really must read it, every line is hysterically funny.

While the Canadian Charger, as usual being more Marxist than Muslim, endorsed Smitherman. Why do I have this funny feeling that a large number of Muslims actually voted for, wait for it, Ford. The non-gay guy. And the one who doesn't believe in wasting immigrant's hard-earned tax dollars on wasteful and extravagant programs that cater to the already rich.

BTW, one suspects it was a really great day for crisis psychiatrists in Toronto Monday night. Just the Star office alone would have provided employment for about ten.

Upcoming Ottawa events this weekend.

International Pro-Life Conference on Oct 28-31.
Canada's Immigration and Refugee System: What's Wrong and How to Fix It? on Oct 30th.
Ezra Levant Tribute Dinner with Mark Steyn, Oct 30th.

Alberta, Free Speech or Free University?

Freedom of speech is very, very important.

Almost as important as institutional autonomy.

Or private property.

An Alberta judge has ruled that universities, in their dealings with students, are government agencies, and thus are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, the U of C was out of line when it put two students on probation for starting a Facebook group criticizing one of their professors. Some people are seeing this as a victory for freedom of speech, and an especial boon for pro-life students who frequently face opposition, discipline, and arrest for putting forward their view on campus.

But this is not necessarily a victory for freedom. Universities enjoy autonomy for a reason, several actually. And even though this autonomy can and is abused, very often at the expense of right-wing and/or pro-life people, that is not necessarily a good reason to flush it down the tube. Do we really want universities to be government institutions, subject to all government rules and regulations? Really? As George Jonas says:

Institutional autonomy is one of the pillars of liberty. Societies are free to the extent that their institutions — family, church, university — are off limit to the state. This doesn’t sit well with the state, which often uses the sword of justice or “protection” to cut through institutional autonomy in its warfare upon liberty. Using the Charter to sharpen the sword is a bright idea — bright enough to obscure its function.

It's not that I particularly trust university administration to guard freedom of speech. I don't. But given a choice between the government and the university setting the rules, I think I would go with the university.

At least it is easier to switch universities than nationalities. (And at this point, I'm not sure what other country to run to)

Roundup: Shriveling Weeds and Catching Horses

It was a traumatic moment, the time I found out that I agreed with Warren Kinsella on something. A phrase I'm sure he won't sue me for because he would probably be just as aghast at the though of agreeing with me, a blogger who actually likes Ezra Levant. It forced me to take a closer look at my position, study it from all angles, but I eventually had to reach an uneasy truce with my original opinion and decided that the reason we agree is because no marginally sane person on the face of the planet could disagree. In the entire list of crazy, insane, and just plain wrong things that I have read about over the last little while the arrest of David Chen stands out as one of the worst. The man did a citizen's arrest on a shoplifter. And the shoplifter gets a reduced sentence to testify against the store owner on charges of assault, kidnapping, carrying a concealed weapon (aka box cutter), and forcible confinement, although some charges have been dropped. The best argument the crown can come up with is the suggestion that maybe the store owner was going to beat him up later. Unlike the last time he arrested a shoplifter and didn't. Personally I would vote that Chen gets a medal. It isn't, after all, like the cops were going to do anything about it on their own. Probably tell you to fill out a form. Because that stops crime.
P.S. Just in case you were still in some doubt as the level of mind-numbing incompetence down there in Toronto, they had months to get this case to trial but somehow or other couldn't get a Mandarin interpreter. In Toronto? That's got to be like saying you can't find a French interpreter in Montreal.

Speaking of Toronto, and incompetence, and Toronto incompetence, etc. Miss Marprelate hereby endorses Rob Ford. Yes, she is a little sketchy on some of his exact policies except for the cut spending bits, Toronto municipal elections do not come very high up on her list of "issues and events I need to follow", but has several sound reasons for coming to this conclusion.

1. Heather Mallick really hates him. This alone was enough to secure my endorsement. If any of my readers have not read her piece on the gun registry, DO SO NOW. You will not regret it. Personally, I believe I shall remember the phrase "rare orchid of exquisite life-saving beauty" until the day I die. It's not that I object to flowery prose, but, honestly? And then this on the subject of how Toronto could consider Ford (And America Bush). Cue eye rolling smilie:
   

   Voters, they’re like babies. They don’t change, can’t change. They repeatedly swallow buttons and emit eternal rivers of drool.

   Actually that analogy is wrong. Babies are canny. They have a deep drive toward self-preservation (this explains smiling and gurgling) and they know where their interests lie. If they could choose parental units, they’d choose wise, patient ones with an understanding of the GTA’s transit needs, the importance of libraries, trees and good architecture, what keeps a city functioning and just how far you can push unions.

2. His sense of style.
3. He wasn't endorsed by Justin Trudeau. Also enough to secure the endorsement of MM on its own.
4. There is no love lost between Ford and Unions. Even the construction worker's union is switching its vote to Smitherman from Pantalone to get in on the "Anyone but Rob Ford" bandwagon. A particularly interesting choice since I would be willing to bet very large amounts of money on the fact that the majority of construction workers are probably going to vote for Rob Ford.
5. He's actually a conservative, in Toronto. Its like seeing Northern Lights in Florida. You just have to like it. (Unless you are an environmentalist who would see this as absolute proof of global warming and die of heart failure.

My friend who is not a blogger but should be Ben Hicks points out that accusing all Muslims of being backward, terrorist, abusive, haters on the basis of the actions of a few is remarkably similar to accusing all Americans of being backward, hostile, intolerant, discriminatory, thugs on the basis of the actions of one man. Funny how liberals never think of these things isn't it.

Those who wish to get in a sighting of teh Marprelate and or teh Marprelate's Hat will have the opportunity to do so at the First Annual Free Thinking Film Festival. (And no I haven't gone atheist, someone should tell them that isn't really the world's best name considering possible audience. But it will probably be an interesting event.) Tickets on sale here.

Mark Steyn has been banned from speaking at a government owned conference centre in London ON, after the facility received pressure from local Islamic groups. Incidentally and seemingly unrelated, a public announcement from Faisal Joseph that the Islamic response to Steyn will be to drown his speech in the compassion and charitable good works of Islam.
P.S. And for the record, I don't believe that freedom of speech means freedom of venue or medium, when the venue and medium belong to someone else who doesn't want you. Albeit things get sticky when you have a government owned facility.
P.P.S. Also for the record, everyone has the right to protest just about anything, and that includes Muslims.
P.P.P.S. I'm not sure if Faisal Joseph realizes this yet, but you can either be one of two things. You can have your name linked with the CIC, or you can have people listen to you and give you their respectful attention. Not both. Just ask Delic.
P.P.P.P.S. That last postscript obviously does not include United Church pastors and Star opinion columnists. But then when one person in the asylum tells another that they are made of glass, "Napoleon" is very likely to believe him.

Government fat police, Japan style, B.C. style. Which do you prefer?

The Quest for Ethical Oil

My latest article published by MercatorNet, lots of hyperlink references in the original at MN.

Oil sands: satanic horror, or priceless jewel? To describe the extremes of the debate over Canada’s large bitumen deposits thus is barely to exaggerate the positions taken up by opponents and supporters of exploitation of this rising source of crude oil.

For environmentalists, oil sands, or as they are technically known, bituminous sands, are the epitome of everything they hate: big business, oil, greenhouse gas emissions, oil, water wasted and polluted, oil, governmental indifference or collusion, oil, threatened animals and trees -- oh yes, and oil as well. A boycott of fuel sourced from Canadian fields is under way and gathering traction.

For many Canadians, however, and indeed for investors worldwide, oil sands represent an entirely different set of circumstances. For young men in depressed rural Ontario, poverty-stricken communities in Atlantic Canada, and job-scarce northern reserves, this resource represents hope of a future, a down payment on a house, and career training they might never otherwise get.

Alberta's riches, at least partly due to this unconventional oil, funds equalization payments and helps to build schools and hospitals in have-not provinces. Ontario alone stands to gain about 55 billion dollars in oil sands related manufacturing and other economic activity over the next 25 years. Even local communities, whom environmentalists like to put forward as victims of commercial poisoning and exploitation, cannot but benefit economically from a massive employment centre in an area which might otherwise be mostly barren.

These considerations aside, there is no question that the optics are not pretty. Strip mining, massive equipment, oil slicks, flaring smoke stacks and dead birds are not warm and cozy images. Questions being raised about environmental impacts, pollution, water contamination, and so forth are legitimate. Extracting crude bitumen produces more greenhouse gases than conventional production, and a recent study alleges that the oil sands are unacceptably polluting Alberta’s Athabasca River.

As a result, there has been a strong push by environmentalist groups to encourage boycotts of oil extracted from bitumen, the people involved with or investing in oil sands, and the entire province of Alberta, greenies and all. One corporation that has taken up the challenge to shun this demonic fuel is Walgreens, a major U.S. drug store chain of 7,500 stores. Levi Strauss, Gap, and Timberland were also reported to have boycotted the oil sands, but have since clarified their stances to avoid the word boycott, possibly in response to calls for a counter-boycott by Canadians. Walgreens, with no Canadian business to lose, has proven more staunch in its commitment to environmentally-conscious corporate ethics.

Corporate ethics is a rather popular buzz word, and not just with humourists at dinner parties. Bending to public pressure, aka the squeakiest wheel, corporations have been inspired to boost their image by reforming overseas labour practices, promoting equal opportunity hiring, aspiring to places on lists of top ethical companies, and funding/donating everything from children’s playgrounds to condoms. Looking after the environment, however, seems to be a popular ethical issue among companies whose brands have become household names through large retail chains.

Especially if it is not likely to cost them anything. Walgreens admits that the oil sands boycott as it currently stands is likely to have little economic effect on the company since they do not use much fuel from that source to start with. The main point of such gestures might seem to be the opportunity to get an image -- and hopefully sales -- upgrade as a result of their “enlightened ethics” rather than out of a disinterested commitment to environmental issues. In an ironic note, critics have also suggested that those who are involved should first take a look at their own morals: Gap has been caught using child labour in Delhi and Walgreens have come under fire for fraud involving Medicare.

But even if we are to take them at their word, that the boycott is a result of an honest commitment to sustainable and ethical business, is boycotting the oil sand industry really ethical? Assuming Walgreens isn't going to switch their trucks to solar or wind power, how ethical are the alternatives? While it may be more carbon intensive (with about 5-15% more emissions based on “well to wheels” analysis than the American average), the oil sands have advantages in other ways.

For one thing, the industry supports a progressive democracy that cares about things like environmental standards and human rights. In contrast, Saudi Arabia's “cleaner” oil, it can be argued, supports tyranny and terrorism. And, while Canada requires ever tighter environmental regulations, other countries ignore such issues; Nigeria, America's fourth largest supplier, has even hanged environmentalists for speaking out against oil interests.

Ezra Levant, author of Ethical Oil, also points out that, metaphorically speaking, every barrel of oil from Sudan contains a teaspoon of human blood, based on the UN death count of 300,000 for the Darfur genocide. He continues to argue that the oil sands are the ethical choice on the liberal grounds of economic justice, minority rights, freedom and, believe it or not, environmentalism.

No one doubts that environmental issues can be very serious, and deserve thoughtful consideration. A convincing argument could also be made that oil sands extraction is not as clean as it could be, and that efforts should be made to remedy the problem. But if, in our assessment of ethics we desire to put the needs of people first, and I would argue that we should, perhaps dragging crude oil out of sand is not the biggest villain in the story.

The industry will ultimately be none the worse for the spotlight on its activities; few honest things are the worse for sunlight as long as a sense of proportion is kept and facts aren't twisted or falsified on either side. But that sense of proportion and honesty has been too often lost in the debate. Even James Cameron, director of the movie Avatar said, "[The oil sands] will be a curse if it's not managed properly, (but) it can also be a great gift to Canada and to Alberta if it is managed properly."

If corporate ethics means anything, it means the application of moral principles to business. If corporations can maintain a culture of honesty, transparency, justice, respect for human dignity, and accepting responsibility for harm they cause, then their actions will indeed deserve to be called ethical. Otherwise, piecemeal efforts to satisfy the most powerful advocacy groups of the moment, with no foundation in a truly ethical worldview, will be in continual danger of achieving little real good, or at worst, of backfiring badly.

What should we say to Walgreens and the other boycotters? Criticize the oil sands if you please, but remember what the alternatives are. The law of unintended consequences is one of the most unforgiving and dangerous we know, and you may be in danger of falling prey to it.

Back from Sabbatical

Dear All My Readers Who Have Probably Wandered Off And Are Getting Into Trouble Elsewhere.

I am back from Sabbatical. I know, it was wrong of me to go away without giving notice. But I am here now. Aren't you all thrilled? Don't answer that question.

I don't promise posting will be very often. I am now studying for my economics bachelor degree through accelerated distance learning (Hope to be halfway through my sophomore year in November, started studying in August) and hopefully I will at some point or other have a job to help pay for this college thing now that my summer job is over (Anyone know of any nice conservative organizations with tons of money just dying for a student employee who lives in the middle of nowhere? Alternately, anyone know of any good local jobs at Walmart?)

But you didn't want to know about my life. What you really wanted to brighten your day was this quote out of the material I am studying for my sociology exam,

Economic inequality inevitably exists in capitalism as represented by large wealthy and poor classes and a shrinking in the percentage of individuals in the middle class.

Followed by this one:

The economic system known as communism is actually an evolution of socialism into a society of political, social, and economic equality.

And then they expect me to ace history?

For Canada Day

Roundup: Shriveling Weeds and Catching Horses

What we do not want to have happened, didn't happen.

And that includes Churchill's cigars.


As long as we have the airbrush.

Finito.

Annoying as it must be to such cigaraphobes, in Canada things like being a tobacco addict is a prohibited ground of discrimination and, were the HRC consistent which helpfully it never is, anti-tobacco rhetoric (and air-brushing) would be in trouble for marginalizing disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals. I mean really, if someone had in a fit of anti-disability fervor airbrushed out FDR's wheelchair on a schoolbook in order to make the case that disabled people can't do anything worth while, would that be acceptable? So why can we air-brush tobacco products out of famous pictures in schoolbooks (another case not Churchill)? You are discriminating against a disability in each case!

Why I object to rights inflation.

And this assumes that cigaraphobia is not also a protected disability.

Silly assumptions.

Speaking of silly and assumptions and silly assumptions and assumptions that aren't silly but are nonetheless rather hysterical...

"Fox News North" has generated its fair share of all of the above. Don Newman who some time ago "impolitely told him (Teneycke) what he could do with the idea" is of the opinion that Sun News is a very, very bad idea. In an article that rather ADDishly is about the NDP/Lib merger rumours and Sun News, and tries to bring it together by talking about how much Teneycke must love the merger talk, he asserts, more or less, that Fox News (US) is :

1. Polarizing
2. Drive-by attacker
3. Liars
4. Orwellian
5. Propaganda
6. Dangerous
7. And "The parts that aren't wrong are, in some ways, just as dangerous, since they tend to make people comfortable in their prejudices."

Such a pity when reality is dangerous. It might confirm people in the belief that liberals can't handle the opposite point of view having a voice, or that they object to writing the truth if it might be "misinterpreted" by conservatives.

Ezra Levant has a round up of reactions. From those worried about competition to those who find it frightening to those who welcome the new voice to those who think it should be illegal. P.S. to my Winnipeg readers, Pat Martin probably finds you frightening and creepy, maybe you should return the favour.

As for me, I am updating my resume today on the one in ten million chance that they want someone with no experience. I know, but delusions are fun. Anyway, everyone needs an intern, right? Right?

In other news, or actually not "news" per say but a rather clever piece of satire masquerading as news, Paul McCartney apologizes for the "pro-American lyrics and compulsive right-wing behavior" demonstrated by his song "Freedom" written after the 9/11 attacks in which he says "I/We will fight, For the right, To live in freedom" The People's Cube "story" also "reported" his to have said that

"I have disgraced myself with that song and have taken necessary steps to ensure my return to conformity," McCartney said, announcing that he is embarking on an "ongoing self-criticism program" to battle his relapsed jingoism and wants to meet with community leaders to help him "discern the appropriate path for healing."

"I am in the process of understanding where those freedom-loving words came from, and I am asking the progressive community, whom I have personally offended with my pro-Americanism, to help me on my journey through recovery,"

Also from the People's Cube:


Albert Mohler discusses Steve Jobs sensationally (for the computer/internet industry) stance on porn which may be summed up in one word, no. No porn apps on iPhones and Pads. This stance may have something to do with parenthood, Steve Jobs' in particular and parents in general who will feel safer letting their kids use the app store if it doesn't allow pornography. Although for the record, judging from what I see flipping through the app store titles, there is some pretty racy stuff up as of now. I don't know if it will be coming down or if the stuff they are banning is so much worse (hair-raising idea).

David Warren, who I am sure would celebrate Jobs' decision, does advocate letting kids do dangerous things, have adventures, and act like Abigail Sunderland.

Your book recommendation for the week is "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough". While on the face of it the book is something of a female self-help dating book, it is in many ways a cultural critique and deals with some difficult issues. Lori Gottlieb the author became a single mother through a donor because she didn't want to settle for "Mr. Good Enough" as a husband. She wrote a positive article called "The XY Files" in The Atlantic about that experience, but now feels that the joke is on her. "Marry Him" is a call to women to become less picky and more realistic when it comes to picking men because the alternative, living as a lonely single, is no fun. Neither is trying to survive daily life and find a date as a 41 year old single mom. The XY Files (caution slightly graphic at parts)

Related a new study has come out suggesting that children of sperm donors are more likely to have issues and are quite likely to have concerns related to their conception.

Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them, they wonder if they are related. About two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins....As a group, the donor offspring in our study are suffering more than those who were adopted: hurting more, feeling more confused, and feeling more isolated from their families. (And our study found that the adoptees on average are struggling more than those raised by their biological parents.) Slate

Donor offspring with single mothers also are much less likely to report that they can rely on their family. Fifty-six percent of these offspring said they depend more on friends than on family, compared to just 29% of young adults born to two biological parents.

Such a sense of loss may help explain why the study found that adult offspring of single-mothers-by-choice were 177% more likely to report having had trouble with drugs and alcohol than children born to two biological parents. Perhaps in part because they did not enjoy the love, discipline and example of a flesh-and-blood father, young adults conceived through donor insemination to a single mother were also 146% more likely to report having been "in trouble with the law" before age 25. WSJ

44 percent agree, “It is wrong to deliberately conceive a fatherless child;” and 48 percent agree, “When I see friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad.” AJC

It seems that Canadians are potentially supportive of the G8/G20 summits despite the cost.

Three-quarters of respondents to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll said this week's G8 and G20 summits in Ontario are important and worth the expense of their country hosting.

Although it is worth noting that:

Of those polled who expressed awareness of the summits, 61 per cent said they were "too expensive to be worth it," while 32 per cent said the summits' costs were justified. TELUS

I predict that once they start Canadians will forget the cost and will focus on the prestige and fun of having all those world leaders in our country. It will probably be a lot like the Olympics, dogged with controversy and unpopularity before, then turning into an incredible moment of Canucki pride and national bonding. Well, alright, the summits aren't likely to be as popular as the Olympics (unless they start handing out best ballroom dancer, biggest eater, most annoying self-righteous hypocrite awards to all the world leaders) but I'm willing to bet the same principle will apply. H/T Tory Dr. Roy

Speaking of Olympics, thankfully we didn't realize that cheering for Canada was racist unlike... Three guesses first two don't count. Oh yeah, England. Who'd a thought.

In better new from England, a church vicar revived an old law that allowed the vicar to call all the men in the village for archery practice. Now that sounds like my kind of law.

If some people have their way there will be no people to call for archery practice soon enough. Peter Singer (who else) has an article where he talks about the possibility that there is nothing as cruel as having children and that the ideology of mass sterilization so that we can all party ourselves into oblivion in one generation without having to worry about the environment is an idea to be thoughtfully discussed. Thankfully he comes down, at last, on the side of having a next generation. Whew, close call there.

Turns out, the means to the end of not having babies might be running into some trouble. Women are suing a birth control pill manufacturer for downplaying the risks and side effects. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg. H/T Socon or Bust

Blazing CatFur and Mark Steyn report on the troubles and travails of Jennifer Lynch head of the the CHRC who is not appreciating the misinformation being spread around by bloggers. According to BCF she is very sad about all of this

Jennifer Lynch is very sad that virtually every media outlet in the country has spoken against this evil law and the Kangaroo Kourt she ran to administer it. She's sad that a parliamentary enquiry, a senate enquiry, and a private members bill were launched to either investigate or repeal section 13 (1). She's sad that civil liberties associations have spoken against her vile playtoy. She's sad that NGO's as diverse as Gay's and Catholics have spoken against this anti-democratic monstrosity.

I want it down for the record that I am not completely ignorant when it comes to human rights cases. To say that I have read dozens of tribunal cases on everything from physical and mental disability to race, pregnancy, and hate speech would be an understatement. It will probably top hundreds in the not too distant future if it hasn't already. The vast majority are some variation of angry employees who are upset because they got fired and want a little extra money or good old fashioned revenge. It would surprise me if one case in a hundred awards over a few thousand in damages and an enormous majority award nothing and find in favour of the defendants. So their social good may be somewhat questionable. Especially since nearly the entire job could be done by Labour Relations or Landlord and Tenant Boards since the latest Supreme Court decision that such boards can rule on human rights issues.

You know what really annoys me more than anything? When people sue charities and non-profits for discrimination that turns out to be bogus. That is really irritating because you are taking money out of the pockets of those who are providing for vulnerable or needy people. In many cases the alleged discrimination (eg. mental health) is charged against an organization that specializes in helping people with that condition.

Why do you need a government grant of $10,000 to fly paper airplanes in a library where for the time cost of setting up a facebook event you could get a flash mob to do it for free. Oh, let me guess, flash mobs aren't art.

In sober news, most Christians don't have a clue why Christianity is like, you know, true. Josh McDowell, a well known apologist, says that he asked over 4,000 parents, pastors, and leaders why they believed the Bible. "A mere six “came close to giving an intelligent answer,”". Not encouraging. No wonder Christianity is having problems.

Now, as SDA would say, is the time when we juxtapose.

"Is journalism 100 unpaid bloggers all talking and yattering at once, or a city filled with amateur citizen journalists uncoordinated in all their efforts? Those bloggers and citizen reporters are as close to real reporters as karaoke is to Frank Sinatra live and in person." Michael Cooke, editor of the Toronto Star

------------------

Prior to Britain's Got Talent, her (Susan Boyle's) main experience had come from singing in her local Catholic church, Our Lady of Lourdes, in local choirs, and in karaoke performances at pubs in and around her village. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Boyle

Just trying to speculate as to why bloggers keep getting scoops that newspapers ignore.

It seems that if you ask Lesbian mothers if their children are all above average, they are. Cool.

Tea Parties = Social Justice Movement?

Deborah Gyapong with pictures and videos from the National Forgiven Summit

On Eywa, Libertarians, and No Niqabs in Court

I would love to live in a world where being really, really bad at something means that you win. Like what couldn't I do? Win a multi-million dollar grant for software programming research? Get paid to develop a cure for cancer? Win an Olympic medal? Positively critique post-modern environmental feminist literature?

Actually maybe I could do that last one, "She eviscerates my soul with a heart wrenching drama exploring and extrapolating the contours of the female personification of divine uncertainty. Only in suffering this loss. By understanding not with the feeble flutterings of the mind but with the typhoon of truth that lies, swelling but stifled in the breast of every daughter of Eywa as they suffer the torture of conformity to a world determined to destroy their fabric of being. To destroy it so that they, the oppressors, can latter satiate their greed for destruction, while the guardians of the earth, those who were born of our Mother to protect her, the sisterhood of priestesses, stands by with silent, bowed heads. They are empty....." Did I do well? Alright you can all stop laughing. Some people make real money spouting that stuff, which is more than I do.

Speaking of which the people who said that Avatar was Dances with Wolves meets Pocahontas were right. They forgot to add the bit about "...meets Michael Moore". As far as I can see the movie was a call for Greenpeace to buddy up with the Taliban (and the pantheists, what do we call God now, Allah-Leaf? Or is that the drugs that are apparently bankrolling the terrorists. Hm, I get it! The sacred tree is really an opium poppy and the sacred floating milkweed...okay skip it) So therefore the movie was a call for Greenpeace to buddy up with the Taliban and the Mafia to wage armed war for the purpose of destroying the western, Christian, environment-raping, anti-science, war-mongering, capitalist people who want to fight "terror with terror" since we all know that the "terrorists" are gorgeous, peaceful, in tune with nature, good guys. The "baddies" and "goodies" in this movie have seldom been more predictable since nursery fairy tales. They couldn't even vary the stranger meets daughter of chief and falls in love thing. Don't strangers ever meet the daughter of the garbageman and fall in love? For the record, if there was any amazing twist at the end of the movie I missed it. I had a headache and didn't think that watching a bunch of aliens attack heavily armored spacecraft with bows and arrows, and win, was going to help.

But can I have a personal flying bird-thing and a glowing forest? That was cool.

Now if you really want to see a good movie, watch The Book of Eli. That was cool and thoughtful. Well alright, way more thoughtful than cool unless you enjoy post-apocalyptic scenes shot in one colour, gray, with lots of grime, violence, and chronic poverty. I don't. So I'll erase the cool bit and just call it thoughtful. Mentally cool. Christian movies as they should be. Also R rated.

Also on my list of cool things, the Binks. Master compiler, fashion expert (he noticed my hat, what can I say), encourager of little blogs, resource extraordinaire, etcetera ad infantum has another post up. Shove along and read it. You can find some juicy stuff on Gaza peace activist knives, Ayn Rand the Big Sister, oil in the gulf, and the Toronto Police tricycle brigade. Do go read up.

I am a conservative, not a libertarian. Indeed I believe that libertarianism has some fundamental flaws. (this should provoke some unprintable stuff in my comment section. The fact that it is true nothwithstanding. For the record, I even met one card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party of Ontario who freely admitted to me that many of his fellow party members should be in jail. His name shall not be released. The fact that I don't know it is a complete aside.) As Chesterton said,

"Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat." (Orthodoxy)

That is really the fundamental flaw with radical Libertarianism. They deny the cat. That said, libertarians have a tendency to make some remarkably good points on a not infrequent basis. I think slimming down the government is a very good idea. Step one, defund any and all interest groups and subsidies to private businesses and corporations. That should go a long, long way. I promise that I will actually dialogue with any comments this time, I know I have been bad for that in the past. P.S. I am not a libertarian, keep the comments clean. I censor.

David Warren for a good read on Tea Parties and coming problems (and why we need a balance to the "ornery know-nothing libertarians" without capitulating to the "pointy-headed intellectual control-freaks").

Speaking of doing what you want to do, no you can't wear a niqab when you are testifying in court. Yes, it may be painful and difficult to take it off. If it comes to that retelling the story of an assault or abuse may be very painful and difficult, but we don't put people in jail for years without hearing the evidence and testimony against them. Likewise, we want to see your face when you are giving testimony, it is important in deciding whether or not you are telling the truth. And no, we don't have some stereotype that we have to get over about women in niqabs being likely to lie. We have this belief that everyone in court is a potential liar. That's why we have things like cross-examination for instance.

Speaking of which, the article I wish I wrote on the Israeli raid on the "humanitarian" ships written, once again, by our own dear D. Warren. Of course it was nothing but a publicity stunt of the more hypocritical and nasty type. Look, if even I knew that the ships were going to sail before they sailed, it was not a covert attempt. It was provocation.

Stats, I Love Stats

I found this cute little map online, it tells you all the "International Number Ones: Because Every Country is Good at Something". Now I was going to post this as a little politically incorrect satirical joke, until I discovered that it was true.... But leaving all the politically incorrect bits aside (as I know my readers won't when they follow the link) do you want to know what Canada's number one is? Fruit juice consumption! I mean really how, utterly bland, effeminate (I speak as a woman), and just generally Canadian blah is that? It sounds like something a PSA would celebrate. For the record we are also number one in oats consumption (something my parents dutifully support every morning, did I mention that I hate oatmeal?), are half as fat as the States, and have the lowest daily smoking rate. Alright already, we've settled the fact that we are health freaks. (And no dear children I do not support that nasty, dangerous habit of smoking, it makes your hair smell and then you have to have lots of baths where the water gets in your eyes so never, ever do it)

We are also really good when it comes to unpaid diplomatic parking fines (????), horrible when it comes to registered voter turnout , but good when it comes to length of time people spend in school (so we are educated and apathetic, I'm sure this should tell me something). We do produce a lot of books (Thank Canadian government subsidies for useless trash) and have the biggest houses (use the low smoking one on the liberals and sneak this past when they are still beaming about that.). In other news we have the shortest prison sentences. (Which won't stop wining about how we are so mean to criminals)

At 60% we are #4 when it comes to being very proud of your country only beating out Ireland, Australia, and the United States (duh). So much for the Canadians not being patriotic thing (Although the fruit juice and oats stats gave my patriotism a nasty hit), also so much for the German nationalism thing, they hit last with 20%. In a move that doesn't surprise me, Canada ties for last place when it comes to considering people of a different race as undesirable neighbours and ties for next to last when answering the same question about immigrants with 5 and 6% respectively. In a move that does slightly surprise me and is probably completely bewildering to the anti-America pro-Europe people, America scored better than some of our progressive and socialist betters like Norway, France, Belgium, and in one case Finland. Incidentally 17% of Fins and 14% of Norwegians don't want to live beside someone of another race, rub that in the faces of all the people who want to tell us how progressive, liberal, and compassionate Norway is (memo to my Norwegian aunt, don't read this post okay?).

We love to boycott and petition and we are pretty good when it comes to being interested in and talking about politics but we don't join political parties or, as I mentioned earlier, vote. Interestingly we trust the armed forces, church, police and companies more than we trust the civil service. Which makes me wonder if a proposal for a forcible take over by the armed forces and police of the civil service and a subsequent hand over to private corporations with oversight from the church might reawaken interest in politics. Never know. Oh, and the only thing we trust less than Parliament? Trade unions. (You really are fighting a losing battle here Layton)

In stunning news, only 8% of women believe they have equal rights (Time to start defunding a few more grievance-mongering "think" tanks Harper) and we are number one for lone-parents families, thus besting the UK (More ???s) at 11%. We also have lower personal income and property tax than the US (but higher income tax than the UK) and more known terrorist organizations present than the US, Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh (one really assumes that this is not based on, say, deadliness and group membership numbers) and has the same number as Iran. We are also number five in arms exports, which calls into slight question the assumptions about arms exporting nations (Or doesn't depending on how much you like Canada, I like Canada) mind you the numbers fall off pretty sharply once you get Russia, the US, and France out of the way.

Isn't Trivial Pursuit fun?

NationMaster

Note: Not all stats have the same number of countries involved...

Negligent? Never

No not negligent exactly... just juggling the National Student Forum (5 stars by the way), the National Prayer Breakfast (attached to said Forum), work (in real life I actually have a job to pay for college since blogging declines to pay, I'm not just a formless vapor inhabiting a computer keyboard), The National March for Life (awesome!), the Campaign Life Coalition Pro-Life Youth Conference (and heard Lisa Rose live), and working for the Family Coalition Party (great party by the way) as a writer/researcher/youth person....

But live in the wide world has gone on with the good and the bad. Here are a few things for you to get good and miffed, or good and excited about. Depending on inclination and orientation.

From the world of "duh" we get this gem, politicians would rather you not know how they spend their (our) money. However, Canadians are expressing a lively curiosity to know the answers to certain questions. Namely, who gets to resign first? And will so many people resign that we are forced to call a general election? Actually that may be the only credible reason to keep the books shut, from the perspective of the public which is, or so received wisdom tells us, tired of elections. As for me? Well I am a political geek and all political geeks enjoy elections so open them us says I. Taxpayer.com has a petition on the subject so all those notorious troublemakers, who would like nothing better than to see a few dozen heads (or a few hundred) explode all over the Hill and make a big green slimy mess a la Men in Black (which is high on my list of Absolute Worst Movies Ever Made FYI) and an election called where three quarters of the current sitting parliament aren't allowed to run, can make their voices heard.

I know this isn't popular to say in some Canadian conservative circles but Barbara Amiel has a tendency to really annoy me. In fact she not infrequently either inspires visions of throwing magazines at hard walls or inspires snores and/or incomprehension at the high level of complete "You wasted words on that?!". Her sympathy and advocacy for perpetrators of sexual abuse is what tends to inspire the first reaction. Why am I writing this? Do I have to have a reason? Well I just saw something about a petition to release Roman Polanski signed by all manner of Hollywood peoples (which tells you everything you need to know about Hollywood), and I remember something Amiel wrote about him that was really, really annoying...

This is the really important bit. The bit where we prove, yet again, that Canadian judges have brains and HRT don't have, like, any. Or should I say, Canadian judges have half a brain. The Ontario Divisional Court has ruled that you can still be a distinctively Christian organization and serve people with disabilities regardless of their faith. However they ruled, confusingly and contradictorily to some, that Heintz shouldn't have been dismissed. It seems that you can impose moral codes on people who might be in places of influence or evangelism, bathing and feeding people don't count. Could have been worse, could have been better. The first part especially is a vitally important ruling for faith organizations. What were the options? No Christian aid or charity organizations? Would the Salvation Army be forced to drop any religious requirements for officers? Or would they have to make sure that every homeless person they help is a Christian before they can give them food? Would a foreign aid agency have to ask the person screaming in pain and trapped under a fallen building in an earthquake zone if they were Christian, and be forced to leave them if they weren't? That is basically the position that Christian charities were left in after the OHRT ruling that they couldn't discriminate (for example require workers or board members to be Christians) if they served people who weren't Christians.

In other news that will be important soon, or soonish knowing the speed that Tribunals work at, mediation has failed in the case of the gay alter server and the Catholic church. $20,000 because you complained to the priest about whether someone is an appropriate choice for alter server? Are you kidding me? Talk about expensive opinions. He also wants the government to force the Bishop to preach a sermon about the dangers of rumors and innuendo in creating hate and discrimination. Let me repeat that. He wants the government to force the Bishop to preach a sermon. Do I need to repeat that?

Like? You Think?

A fantastic video, vimeo instead of YouTube for a change. I sometimes suffer from this myself, I think. You know? Do you think so because I think but maybe I don't and I just don't really know but I qualify too much maybe?

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Roundup: Shriveling Weeds and Catching Horses

Welcome to Miss Marprelate's Rare and Wonderful Roundups of News that You Should Know.

After considerable time spent telling us that the attack on Times Square was not necessarily the work of Islamist terrorism and could very well be the work of a homegrown terrorist, someone mad at the healthcare bill, ad nauseum they have finally managed to arrest someone who is, wait for it... an Islamist terrorist. Gee, that I could have never forseen. Not of course that I could find the word Muslim or Islamist in either of two NP articles I read, but I'll take any bet going about the motives. BCF

Returning again to the quest for bigfoot, also known as a conservative women who's accomplishments and toughness feminists will respect. Yes, you guessed it, the sighting turned out to be another oddly shaped tree trunk, or rather a woman who is being forced by a man (and consenting to participate in a cringing display of lap dog subservience) to bully other women. Was that a little unclear? Let's reword it. Senator Nancy Ruth, in what I might otherwise expect feminists to call a strong vindication of the belief that women can be just as tough in the world of politics as men, told some activists to "Shut the **** up" and stop pushing the abortion funding in foreign aid question because it had just turned into a political football. In other words she was putting into practice this stirring observation,

"I think women have been told too often to be quiet, be good and then you'll get what you want, I guess my argument is when have women ever made progress and got what they want by keeping quiet?" (NP)

Except of course that this was said in opposition to the Senator by one of the attending Liberals in a room that was apparently gob-smacked by hearing a woman use such language. So why is said Liberal telling the conservative woman to be quiet and good because it is so henious that she told liberal women to be quiet and good (actually more like telling them not to be idiots). And this bullying was apparently at the behest of the really evil Stephen Harper, not the action of an independent woman. Can't you just see the PMO memo, "Use f word here"? Not to defend swearing of course (use that language in my comment section and I'll censor you faster than you can blink) or to advocate for radical feminists and/or Nancy Ruth who seems to be no true conservative (read anthem change here) and probably a first rate pest, but do we not sense a little, I don't know, double standard, irony maybe? Business as usual, again.

Disabilities I feel perfectly happy discriminating against, especially in employment. Alcoholism and drug use. Don't tell the BCHRT. Then again, considering the "crops" grown in B.C., this may be necessary to ensure employment for a large portion of the population....

Objectifying women as sex objects and baby making machines? Enter British welfare system.

It didn’t take long for people to work out the sums. Our neighbour has a 20-year-old daughter who babysits for us. When I suggested to her mother that she should get a full-time job with children, she disagreed. She desperately wants her to get pregnant. If she trains as a nursery assistant she would have a disposable income of less than £61 a week. If she has two babies she could “earn” £131 a week with accommodation thrown in. (TO)

And then they pour vast amounts of money into analyzing things like why we have so much unwed motherhood and social breakdown. Now I am all into helping moms stay at home with their children, but making marriage and jobs financially worthless and counterproductive? No wonder they are heading towards bankruptcy.

But you know that Brit-Bashing these days is starting to feel more and more like picking on the disabled kid at school. Except that the Brits should know better. So they give a 61 year old a criminal record for having a fruit cutting swiss army knife in his car. Yikes. Even when my brother, used to country life where going out without a knife is fairly similar to going out without your underwear on, accidently took a knife to Parliament Hill they only took it away temporarily. We didn't bother to ask for the caps back (You know, the boom-boom gunpowder kind). (WK)

Then we have children banned from dissecting animals for fear that they will turn the scalpels on each other (Bigger fear, this ban is based on a legitimate fear and makes sense). Swimming goggles are also banned for safety reasons. Two year old has cheese sandwich taken away because it wasn't healthy enough. Children have to wear heart rate monitors that beep when they get angry. Oh sorry, mine just went off. Try putting that on me and I'll smack you a good one. Try that on for size. And I am writing this while watching The Island (Chronic multitasking I know, is that illegal too?) it is horrific what is happening. Btw, for any new readers who didn't notice when I said so before or ignored me, watch the movie!

Britian is also busily engaged in protecting public safety in another way. Making sure that saying homosexuality is a sin is illegal and arresting pastors who mention the matter. Then again, inquiring minds want to know, why wasn't he arrested for preaching against drunkenness. We know that alcoholism is a disability, isn't that illegal? (DM)

Suggesting that the Pope open an abortion clinic, launch a line of Benedict condoms, sing a duet with the Queen, bless a gay marriage, and apologize for the Spanish Armada (Before the Brits apologized for beating the Armada I guess) is a government document on the other hand. Yes I'm sure they are sorry. That it got press. There was no need to be so blatantly obvious about what they are up to.

According to the fount of wisdom, the Lynch Mob Preceptor J Lynch herself, the House of Commons Committee that was investigating Section 13 is no longer doing so and the cause is now languishing in, somewhere. This is striking a damaging blow to my views on media and popular influence on politics. If basically every journalist of every stripe is against a law and still can't get it repealed, what can? On a related note, I heard the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the one who campaigned on getting rid of the Human Rights Commission speak at the Manning Conference. Now this was probably the most anti-HRC room full ever collected in this nation. Ezra Levant himself was present, shaking hands, and even appeared in a couple PowerPoints by other speakers. Talking about getting rid of the HRC probably would have gotten a standing ovation. However in his speech he never seemed to get around to the subject, hard as he was milking every other issue for brownie points. We shall see what he does if he gets elected. If he doesn't do away with the HRC you heard it here first. (Ex)

Snapshot of my life, younger brother just walked into the room and informed all and sundry that frozen bananas defrosted in the microwave are yucky. All readers take warning.

A Little Advertising

And no I'm not getting any money, free samples, and/or any other type of compensation for any of this. Mind you, if someone wants to offer...

Apathy is Boring: I mean seriously, where else can you vote on what song your ideal politician would have on his iPod?

Free Canuckistan: Miss Marprelate's secret source for, a lot. Besides, he noticed the hat.

Sermon Audio: AKA the one stop shop for all things Christian... and it is all, or almost all free! (I even got to meet the founder in Cincinnati)

SDA Matt: Political videos of the most Corenish type.

Wintery Knight: To appease broad hints.

Ezra Levant: What do you mean you don't know who he is?! You, you, U of O student type you!

Blazing Cat Fur: Who has a fiendish cunning when it comes to tracking down people's identities and Facebook affiliations.

Albert Mohler: Because his daily email of links keeps me up to date. And because he runs a great show.

Small Dead Animals - The Roadkill Diaries: For the most eminently unforgettable name ever, and interesting content.

Deborah Gyapong: One of the bloggers I have met in person.

This is a small list of some sites I like. More to come later... (Like the next time I need to write a post and don't want to)

AWOL

I have been very badly AWOL, writing research reports and rebuilding a website. And meanwhile all kinds of interesting stuff was happening that I have barely even covered.

The Euthanasia bill in the Canadian Parliament was defeated 228 to 59, which is only a close vote if you like Da Vinci Code genre history. Perhaps euthanasia gets less traction then abortion because everyone voting on abortion is in no danger of being aborted, whereas aging politicians...

I hate people who manufacture frivolous human rights. It is like some of the more PETAish animal rights activists. Do they not realize that they are not bringing animals up but dragging humans down? Do these human rights people not realize that by creating human rights that violate any iota of common sense they are only discrediting real human rights. And we thought that the human right not to be offended was extreme. What about the human right to go on government subsidized vacations? The human right! Not, this will stimulate the economy so we are going to invest in tourism. No, this is saying that people, especially students, the elderly, and those in difficult situations have the human right to go on vacation. You know there is a psychological phenomena that people who are in deep economic trouble tend to start spending more money under the rationalization that they will never get out of this pit anyway so they might as well spend whatever they have left before the creditors come flocking in. I wonder if that applies to nations too. We are so decadent and so indebted that we can think of nothing better to do than throw more money at nonsense. Worse than nonsense. Harmful nonsense. This kind of mindless socialism is like the ideological version of heroin. Expense, unsustainable, destructive, deadly... and addictive.

In better news, Ontario has decided to rethink their new sex-ed policy due to the Catholic Schools breaking into open revolt. So for the time being you will not have to worry about your eight year old receiving government mandated lectures on the warm fuzzies of homosexuality. You will just have to worry about him getting taught that anyway. Cheers all.

Stop the Presses, Ezra Levant is saying extraordinarily nice things about Ujjal Dosanjh. It's a regular little love fest over at ezralevant.com and, I must say, not undeservedly. Even if Mr. Dosanjh didn't seem to be exactly on our side in the Section 13 hearings. Oh, and in other news, Levant has written a new book due to come out soon on the Oil Sands.

Harking back to my Zerbisias for Coulter post... The Zerb will no longer be writing her column at the Star having migrated to Features. Whether that is better, worse, or just equally ghastly I don't know. Jonathan Kay does take a moment to note, and indeed almost lament the fall of the radical left columnist. Something he attributes at least in part to bloggers and their fact checking and satire fetishes. Why lament? What good is a conservative columnist unless the left is busy spouting their ideas? We'd have nothing to make money laughing at anymore. (P.S. That's why conservatives are into freedom of speech. P.P.S. I laugh at liberals, can I get some of the money too?)

Ignatieff, in a frenzy of equal opportunity sanctions, is coping with being put on (political) suicide watch by trying to regulate everyone else's guns too. For the record, in case any liberals are poking around, the previous sentence is called satire, kinda. However Ignatieff is busy trying to save the gun registry by any means possible. How fun. I shall enjoy watching the Liberals lose every rural and semi-rural seat they still have left (Do they have any left?). I like this article on the subject. For the record, I live in a riding which was Liberal for 60 years. Until the gun registry came along and it is now one of the safest Conservative seats in the province.

Speaking of guns and suicide watches. It appears that Allan Rock, who was originally responsible for the gun registry, authorized Houle's letter to Ann Coulter. Some people never learn.

Speaking of Conservatives and my riding and specifically Cheryl Gallant MP who is NOT winning any brownie points on my desk. I received a letter from her today which says, in full.

Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for your phone call of March 29 in which you inquired about Section 13 of the human rights code.
Together with my colleagues in the Conservative government we believe that freedom of expression is a basic tenant of our law, and within appropriate limits, must be respected.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the CHRA without interference from the government.
Cheryl Gallant

If she really didn't want to say anything she could easily have saved herself the bother of writing it out. Perhaps it is not possible for Conservatives to be more emphatic (like saying anything that Francois Houle wouldn't applaud) right now, but then again, when 99.9% of the media is being very forthright about how much they like freedom of speech and how much they don't like the fact that it is being eroded how much more encouragement do you need? Which part of "Parliament can abolish Section 13" is difficult for these people? Will saying, "You are making it very hard for me to want to vote for you" make it easier for them to understand? Coward.

Very interesting Westminister 2010 Document. Over 35,000 signatures in 20 days.

We the undersigned are Christians who believe that protecting human life, protecting marriage, and protecting freedom of conscience are foundational for creating and maintaining strong families, caring communities and a just society.

In signing the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience we commit ourselves to worship, honour and obey God, to exercise social responsibility in working for the common good and to be subject to all governing authorities and obey them except when they require us to act unjustly.

We call upon all parliamentary candidates to pledge that they will ‘respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold and express Christian beliefs and act according to Christian conscience’.

The Calgary Herald makes the good point, relevant to my earlier post, that the U of C is not quite a private institution since taxpayers foot the majority of the bill. Whether that forces them to support freedom of speech I don't know. But threatening to cut funding as long as they fail to fulfill their mandate could be quite appropriate. Another, if unlikely, tactic to consider.

For your viewing pleasure
http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2009/11/23/limbaugh-and-coulter-and-beck-oh-my/

Interesting post by SoCon or Bust on 10 wedges to bring down abortion. He may be right, banning sex selection abortion, stopping government subsidies, and bringing in informed consent laws would probably be more palatable than banning abortion outright. We shall see.

I'm Voting Never

“There will always be voices who claim we’re not ready, we’re not there yet, the time to end discrimination is next year, or next session. But victims of discrimination should not have to wait.” link

Yes.... well.... personally I was going to vote NEVER on this one. You see, call me outdated, puritanical, and a raving bigot, but I have this thing about seeing men in the ladies washroom. I don't take to the idea so well.

Although I have to admit that's really nothing to the way I feel about guys in the girls' locker room.

And what about the guy who keeps doing really well... on the female sports team?

Some people, read Maine Human Rights Commission, are willing to allow transgender people to use whatever gender "stuff" they "need". The case rose out of a transgender twelve year old who was asked to use a single stall bathroom rather than using the girls' bathroom. (And anyway, a transgender 12 year old? Do his parents have serious problems or what? How does he even know the word?) Sounds like reasonable accommodation to me. Not to some people evidently.

The funny part of the case is the other kid, who was given permission by his Grandfather to use the girls' bathroom as long as the other boy/girl did. The Maine HRC had no sympathy for him, he was appropriately punished because he was heterosexual.

That said, according to our dear MHRC you don't need any documentation to declare yourself transgender.

I predict a wave of fifteen year old boys suddenly becoming transgender. Who knew it could have so many perks?

U of C, Free Speech I Think Not

In truth, the University of Calgary would have been more than human if it hadn't taken full advantage of the University of Ottawa's misfortune re Ann Coulter to parade around as the cowboy riding out of the sunset, sweeping up to the forlorn damsel in distress, and saying "Need any help honey?". Opportunities for the West to avoid a great deal of bad press, get some good press, and make a fool out of Ontario all at the same time are too rare to be squandered lightly.

Alan Harrison, Provost of U of C, avoided the fate of Francois Houle (Has he come out of hiding yet by the way, anyone know? Anyone?) by issuing a statement of his own. “If we try to suppress people’s views simply because we don’t agree with them we’re doing two things, we’re acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we’re providing increased publicity for the person who’s spreading those views. That’s not our purpose. Our purpose is to give her the same respect that everybody else deserves.”

Beautifully put. All any Ann Coulter supporter, or just interested person, could want. Quite true too, the increased publicity bit anyway.

But now dark rumours are beginning to swirl around the U of C campus. Was it all a bit of grandstanding? Are they really, deep down, worse censors than even U of O? Have they, gasp, fallen into the mysterious and deadly web of Ontario intolerance and liberalism? Are they a bunch of pious self-righteous hypocrites?

"On Thursday, Campus Pro-life, the University of Calgary’s pro-life club, set up a pro-life display on campus - the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).

Last year, the university charged the pro-life students with trespassing for erecting the same display, which has been displayed on campus peacefully and without incident twice per year since 2006. The crown prosecutors withdrew the charges prior to trial, however.

But in an e-mail sent to the students' lawyer Thursday, the university against stated that it “requires that Campus Pro-Life turn the Genocide Awareness Project signs inward so that the University community does not have to view them," and threatened the students with sanctions for non-academic misconduct.

The pro-life students say that at Thursday’s event campus security initially appeared as if they would not intervene, simply standing on site as the group's exhibit went ahead without incident. However, in mid-afternoon that changed when U of C security went around the exhibit handing out notices to pro-life students, indicating that if they refused to turn their signs inwards, they could be subject to a fine up to $2,000 ($5,000 for further trespass), arrest, civil action, or non-academic misconduct" LifeSiteNews

The University of Calgary says,

This is not an issue about Freedom of Speech; the paramount issues for the University are the needs to uphold its legal right to manage activities on campus, and to ensure the safety and security for the thousands of students, staff, faculty and community members on campus each day.

(The highly annoying and disingenuous "safety and security" bit aside) Perhaps so, the university does have a right to manage what appears on its private property. I moderate comments on my blog after all, post something using half a dozen swear words and I can promise you it will never see the light of day. However regardless of whether they have a legal right to manage what is shown on their property and how it is shown, it doesn't manifest a great willingness to, how should I put it, tolerate other points of view because “If we try to suppress people’s views simply because we don’t agree with them we’re doing two things,we’re acting contrary to what the university stands for, and also frankly, we’re providing increased publicity for the person who’s spreading those views. That’s not our purpose. Our purpose is to give (them) the same respect that everybody else deserves.”

So out of curiosity, has the university ever allowed graphic anti-war protests on campus? Have they ever allowed graphic pictures of torture or other genocides? Did those people deserve respect? What is their policy on graphic or disturbing images on campus? If they have a blanket ban on any image that anyone might find offensive then fine. That is the rule they have put in place to preserve public decency and to keep everything neutral, bland, and safe. You may disagree with that policy, and that is something the media, students, parents, public, and donors can discuss.

But if they do allow other potentially disturbing images on campus but are trying to get rid of pro-life images then we have a problem. Not a legal problem, they have the right to regulate their own campus, but a cultural and moral one. And they should get the same shaming that U of O got. Double, because they are lying hypocrites. Triple, come to think of it, because they were self-righteous lying hypocrites.

This is a secular university, they pride themselves on allowing all sides. Student protests are, as far as I can tell, part of what being at university is about. Let the protesters protest Ann Coulter, I support their right to do so. Let them have Israeli Apartheid Week as long as they don't break the law. I support their right to disagree about whether Israel is a good guy or a bad guy. And let the pro-life people present their point of view. If the pro-aborts want to put up a display next door showing pictures of dead abortion doctors or women who died in childbirth, go ahead. I won't like it, but I don't have to. Let's not censor one side of the debate.

Personally, to forestall any accusations that we are just as big hypocrites because we supported Macleans defiance of Elmassry, who wanted them to publish the other side, I would support Elmassry's legal right to campaign against Macleans, try to sway public opinion so that Macleans would be forced by subscribers to publish the counter-view, and protest all they liked about the issue. They shouldn't have gone to the government to solve their problem and honestly unless there is some law I don't know about I don't think these students should try to get the government to force U of C to keep the signs up either.

But after all, what are we talking about? Disturbing images of lynching and the holocaust? Welcome to an eighth grade history textbook. Disturbing images of violence and genocide around the world? Front page on the coffee table newspaper. Disturbing images of abortion? BANNED, BANNED, DOUBLE BANNED YOU NASTIES.

Ann Coulter got respect (sort of) but she isn't a pro-life student. She has money, lawyers, and a media just waiting to lap up any further news stories about out of control students. As they say, you have to be famous like Levant, Steyn, or Coulter to beat the censorship rap.

It's just not cricket.

Coulter for Zerbisias

If I was a little less of a free speech advocate than I am, I might be willing to strike a deal with the liberals. You get to kick Ann Coulter out, and we get to kick Antonia Zerbisias out. Deal? Sounds fair to me, morality aside which good leftists don't believe in anyway, right?

Oh, for the record, millions of women are in danger of dying because Conservatives won't fund abortions in third world countries. However we are not to worry because "But then, what's a woman's life?".

The conditions under which leftists would oppose abortion...



And incidentally...


H/T Big Blue Wave

If You Can't Get Behind Our Troops, Get in Front of Them

Well, personally I kind of like the line. Rather pithy and thought provoking if you ask me, which no one does.

I also rather like the idea of providing soldier's orphans with scholarships. Sure it would be nice if we had a national merit based scholarship but failing that can anyone really object to giving extra help to kids who have lost a parent serving their country.

I mean really, would even the Grinch do that?

Here is the list of the Professors who do oppose it. Partly, so they say, because there is nothing heroic about our war in Afghanistan and we shouldn't be glorifying militarism.

They also don't think people should be sending them "threats" like, if you can't get behind our troops, get in front of them.

Well it isn't a threat, not from me anyway. It is just something worth thinking about. And by the way, it isn't the soldiers' fault that we are in a war you don't like. Take it up with the politicians. And if you don't like war that much surely you should be the first to advocate compassion for the victims of war, starting with our soldiers.

Nice little editorial from the Globe and Mail.

Protest letter from one of the signers.

And as SDA says, "Since you feel that strongly about it, RESIGN" Or don't you feel that strongly?

Carol.Schick@uregina.ca;
william.arnal@uregina.ca;
Ken.Montgomery@uregina.ca;
Andre.Magnan@uregina.ca;
warnockj@hotmail.com;
Garson.Hunter@uregina.ca;
Meredith.Cherland@uregina.ca;
darlene.juschka@uregina.ca;
Annette.Desmarais@uregina.ca;
david.webster@uregina.ca;
jeffery.webber@uregina.ca;
Emily.Eaton@uregina.ca;
John.Conway@uregina.ca;
joyce.green@uregina.ca;
George.Buri@uregina.ca;
John.Warnock@uregina.ca

Do please be civil. No threats, alright? Try to use logic instead, I know it doesn't work for lefties, but feel free to add your letters in the comments here and we can enjoy them.