Heroine of human dignity: Mildred Fay Jefferson

So the new (or new to me) email feature of blogger works! Cool.  Anyway, my latest article on MercatorNet.
Heroine of human dignity: Mildred Fay Jefferson Source: mercatornet.com The first black woman to graduate from Harvard medical school used her position to defend the humanity of the unborn.
missmarprelate@gmail.com sent this using ShareThis.

Not ALL the British are Crazy

Just most of them.

However one sane judge still seems to know what the phrases "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" mean. And that they actually apply to Christians too.

Talk about judicial thoughtcrime.

Maybe they should put up posters about that.

When Quoting Orwell Feels Like a Broken Record

Maybe I am the only person in the world who feels like this, but the huge flat-screen TVs at Wal-Mart checkouts really get on my nerves. It is bad enough that you are trapped in a line up like a hamster in a too small cage, but then they have to gratuitously rub it in by playing advertisements at you the entire time. Talk about adding insult to injury.

I just refuse to look.

Now, in the States not only will you be forced to endure perky advertisements featuring smiling families selling you trashy clothing or electronics, you will also be forced to watch ads (either perky or ominous, no news on that yet) encouraging you to report "suspicious behaviour" to the authorities in order to fight terrorism and crime. While the CNN story doesn't elaborate on what constitutes "suspicious behaviour", we may be able to gain some insight from British anti-terrorism campaigns.


British radio-ad transcript:

 Female Voice over:

How d’you tell the difference between someone just video-ing a crowded place and someone who’s checking it out for a terrorist attack?

How can you tell if someone’s buying unusual quantities of stuff for a good reason or if they’re planning to make a bomb?
What’s the difference between someone just hanging around and someone behaving suspiciously?
How can you tell if they’re a normal everyday person, or a terrorist?
Male voice over:
The answer is, you don’t have to.

 

 Or, my personal favourites, the parodies.

The HRCs - Crazy or Evil? Discuss.

I thought I was past being surprised, if not angered, by the Human Rights Commissions, I really did. I have seen them make stupid decisions, I have seen them make not so stupid decisions. I have seen them on innumerable occasions spill mind-numbing quantities of time, money, and ink on the process of dismissing vindictive and fabricated complaints. 

But they managed it. Oh yes, did they ever.

The Quebec HRC has just awarded a pilot by the name of Javed Latif $319,000 in compensation for racial discrimination by Bombardier when it refused to allow him to take pilot training at one of their facilities.

Why did Bombardier do this?

Because, as it turned out, the United States considered him to be a "threat to aviation or national security" and refused to allow him to train in the United States.

Bombardier, after thinking about this for probably less than thirty seconds, decided that if an individual was on the United States' no-fly list (or at least no-flying-training list, reports are a little vague) they probably didn't want to train him to fly jets.

Reasons 1-30 for this decision probably read, "Bad idea for really obvious reasons that no one should have to explain", number 31 was that if they trained him their training facility could be decertified as a training center for US pilots (For this reason alone I would expect them to win the HRC complaint on the grounds of undue hardship), and number 32 was, to quote Bombardier  “If there’s a threat, in good conscience… it ends there. It’s a business call. It’s a decision. It’s a safety call.” (As a potential flyer, thank you)

We won't even go into the consequences of if, God forbid, anything had happened and it turned out that Bombardier had ignored clear warnings of potential trouble, can anyone say  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Methinks $300,000 is suddenly starting to look very small indeed.

But far worse and more sinister than the $300,000, which is probably Bombardier's annual paper clip budget, is the other order the Quebec HRC handed down. They have ordered Bombardier to  “stop applying or considering the standards or decisions of American authorities in terms of ‘national security’”.

Read that again, then continue.

The Americans say, "This person is a potential terrorist". Bombardier says "I never heard that, are you ready to start flight training yet?"

And we have to go through naked scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" on the less than million to one chance that a random person pulled out of an airport lineup is going to be a terrorist.

Why must they ignore American information when deciding whether or not to train a pilot? Because according to a Canadian law professor, American security laws "are based on stereotypes and racial profiling, and identify these groups (Muslims and Arabs) as national security threats.”

Indeed.

A few closing facts for the record. As soon as Mr. Latif was taken off the list as a security threat in 2008, Bombardier happily provided him with all the training he wanted. Bombardier has also trained a number of Muslim and Middle Eastern pilots since 9/11, just not ones that were considered a security risk. So obviously this was no pattern of systematic racial profiling on Bombardier's part.

Also, one may feel sorry for Mr. Latif if, as seems more than likely, he is an innocent person who got put on the list by mistake. But that's not Bombardier's fault, and they made the only responsible decision. After all, what if he wasn't innocent? And even if Bombardier had checked with the Canadian government (as they were faulted for not doing) and the Canadian government didn't have anything on him, there would still exist a significant question mark. 

There is security that is over the top, and there is security that just makes sense. Not letting the mouse guard the cheese, or the potential terrorist fly the plane, seems like common sense to me.


Tasha Kheiriddian
National Post
CTV
The Star 

Just for Fun

So for the record I have no idea what this is supposed to be advertising, but it is a pretty cool movie. Does your subway turn into a roller coaster?

H/T Samuel Kordik

Petition on Human Smuggling

   JJ Honasan, someone I know from the Canada Student Forums (Great event by the way, one which I highly recommend attending if at all possible), has put up a petition in support of a "National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking in Canada" as put forward by MP Joy Smith, one of the speakers at last year's CSF.

"It is quintessential that Canada have a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking. According to the US Department of State’s 2008 Trafficking in Persons Report, Canada is a source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking.

The RCMP estimates that 600-800 persons are trafficked into Canada annually, predominantly for sexual purposes, and that an additional 1,500-2,200 persons are trafficked through Canada into the United States.
"

Sign it.

Drip, Drip, LEAK!!!

In Yes Minister, the incomparable show of "Why politicians are idiots and bureaucrats are the enemy" they depend a great deal on leaks. Drip this here, drip that there, embarrass so and so here. "The ship of state is the only known vessel that leaks from the top down".

As far as I can see the reason for freedom of speech is that there is always a tension, or the possibility of tension, between the rulers and subjects. Even in generally contented and peaceful nations, in which category I would put Canada, has issues in that regard. Sometimes as a result of the government trying to encourage too much contentment and peace, hate speech legislation springs to mind.

So to my mind there is a continual war, a great game, a gentleman's duel between the government and the people. They try to keep us in the dark about things, we try to find out about things. They try to play their games, we try to make a decent life for ourselves and ignore them as far as possible. They try to leak us the info they want leaked, we try to get more. Sometimes we cooperate with the government, we help them suppress information, we follow the laws, usually when we believe it is our best interest to do so or we can't be bothered resisting.

So I don't really see the point of getting too upset about the wikileaks affair. Maybe we scored a point, maybe the ship of state leaked again (unlikely I suppose but...), maybe no one scored a point and it was all just meaningless. (We learned that Canadians have an inferiority complex re the States, a pond is also wet and the Sahara is also dry.)

But I don't get the free speechers saying this shouldn't have happened. Why not? The claim about costing lives is very sketchy at this point, and the same could be said, is said, with potentially more credibility about "hate speech".

It embarrassed a lot of people. That's called life. I don't like having my country embarrassed more than the next person, probably less than the next lefty. But, if the truth will set you free, then what are we afraid of?

And if the truth is too much for us to take, do we deserve to continue?

And if it is all lies, well the great refrain of free speech is combat bad speech with good speech.

Do we believe that when it really matters?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" Ben Franklin

Go for it Mr. Franklin.

And don't kill Julian Assange.

Postscript to Hats

As a commentator has mentioned that my last post on hats is not as comprehensive, or inclusive, as might be desired. To remedy that I present Hats - Male.

1 megawatt of power = 5 jobs lost

Spain, once heralded as the model for the future of green economies has proposed slashing subsidies to solar and wind power by 30%, and is expected to withdraw financial backing for renewable power plants after economists discovered, too late, that every megawatt of renewable power generated cost five Spanish jobs (Ontario, having cribbed Spain's model, is just now confronting its own electrical cost reckoning).

Just what we need, more jobs lost in Ontario!

Thanks McGuinty and Smitherman.

Hats

As some of you may know I have a thing about hats. I like hats. I love hats. So you can imagine that even if I wasn't a monarchist already, the news that the royal engagement is likely to cause an upsurge in hat popularity would have filled me with the warm and fuzzies. And yet, on the other hand, what do you do when you find your personal fashion statement becoming a popular fad? Drop it in the interests of staying unique? Follow along and let everyone think you are a mindless trend follower? The questions that women have to grapple with.

Hat picture from my favorite hat shop, Beau Chapeau in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Quote of the Day

I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943

Money, Money, Money by the Pound

Is required to keep the wheels of revolution turning. (Cue evil laugh)

But we will refrain from imposing crop seizure on any peasants who may be reading my blog. We will just turn the thumb screws on your conscience and point out that if you really believed in freedom of speech you would support those on the front line...

"Fee Speech" Fundraiser for arrested Carleton Students.

JDL Chanukah Party to support Blazing Cat Fur on December. Honestly I'd like to go, but only if they have the purple kitty menorah.

And any spare cash you have lying around could go to support the great and wonderful Binks. Either that or some strategic purchases on his Amazon account.

Oh yes, and if you like Miss Marprelate and know of any spare jobs lying around, you could chuck them this way. There, that is my shameless pitch for the month. Got it over with, back to politics.

Airport Security

Look it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the Toronto Star is campaigning for the "Israelification" of airport security, that maybe this would be a good idea. It isn't like that kind of statement comes naturally to them after all.

And it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that evacuating Pearson terminal as a first response to a suspicious bag is not really a great idea. Actually let me amend that, it doesn't even come up to the level of an idea.

It also shouldn't come as a particular surprise to anyone that some people aren't crazy about getting sexually molested in order to fly on an airplane. Think I'm exaggerating? How would you describe this? “I was wearing shorts at the time – between the underwear, right on the skin, all the way around the back, all the way around my front, 360 degrees, touched inappropriately,”

And no it doesn't make me feel much better that it is same-sex pat-downs. After all, I have this sneaking suspicion that they aren't allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian TSA officers. And frankly I don't want anyone touching me there regardless of orientation.

But it is wonderful to know that apparently Muslim women who wear hijabs don't, or shouldn't, have to go through a pat down. According to CAIR anyway.

Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands

That would be after you demanded to know why you were selected for screening, if it had anything to do with your wearing a hijab, and probably threatening to sue for discrimination.

Web page complete with contact info for CAIR, apparently in case these guidelines aren't followed by the TSA.

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, or 202-488-8787, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com

The ACLU, in one of it's rare fits of usefulness, supplies a handy form for you to file a complaint.

In related news a woman is suing because she was publicly exposed during a search, and experienced crude jokes from airport staff.

And to make it all better, you have as much chance of getting cancer from the naked scanners as being a victim of a terrorist bombing.

But you can sue and send the TSA people to jail for up to three years if you can prove they acted inappropriately.

That's nice.

But I'll bet nearly impossible.

So how far is too far in the name of security?

Discuss.

Caledonia Part 2

Not only did law and order break down in Caledonia due to political correctness, those who want to speak about it are shut down by political correctness.

Christie Blatchford, a Governor-General award winner, wrote a book on Caledonia and got shut down by students at the University of Waterloo in an Ann Coulter reprise, presumably without the "Go back to America" slogans.

Remind me again why ANYONE thinks that universities are bastions of free speech, diversity, or intelligence?

Interestingly, no one shut down George Galloway, the students just protested in the designated areas, even though many strongly disagreed with him.

Buy Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us

Fix the United States Budget

Ohhh I like fun little toys. And right now, the New York Times has the funnest little toy of all fun little toys on their website called..... Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget. Cue little squeals of delight and hand rubbing from all the political geeks and junkies who like nothing better than a five minute fix to vital questions of international importance.

So here you go ladies and gentlemen, how would you fix the budget? Do tell in the comment section. I am almost scared to put my results up, because I didn't take a great deal of time doing this and I am sure everyone will disagree with my answers, if for completely different reasons. However I did manage to eliminate both the short and long term deficit while ringing up a surplus.

My results.

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.