Fuckwits and Fuckables (Excuse My French)

(Note: for a variety of reasons, I feel it necessary to direct my readers to the very serious Deonandan.com disclaimer -4/16/06)

It's the end of the fiscal year at my office, and we're all running about trying to get our "deliverables" done. Clumsy mutations of otherwise elegant English words have always bothered me. Use of the nouns "party", "impact" and "network" as verbs irks me, as does anyone's chronic inability to spell "definitelty" without an "a". Similarly, North American society's glaring ignorance of the difference between "less" and "fewer" is maddening. (Hint: in the grocery store check-out lane, the sign should say, "Eight items or fewer".)

But this "deliverable" nonsense is a whole new sort of verbal heck. It is, after all, an adjective (and a questionable one, at that) that is misused as a noun. Is it now okay, then, to refer to one's spouse as a "fuckable"?

Thanks to Purva R. for bringing to my attention this article by one of Indira Gandhi's nutty daughters in law. Maneka Gandhi is known for her ardent support for animal rights, which is not a bad thing. But in this article, she suggests that avian flu, and before it SARS, are a conspiracy perpetrated upon the world by the pharmaceutical industry, duplicitous scientists and, of course, the American government.

Now, duplicitous scientists have existed in history. But they tend not to be smart enough or sly enough to pull off global conspiracies. And the pharmaceutical industry and the American government are guilty of a great many moral infractions, but this is not one of them. Gandhi's article is a wonderful example of what idiocy results when a tiny bit (and I do mean tiny) of scientific knowledge gets into the hands of a dogmatist. For the record, SARS was a real disease that caused genuine havoc in Toronto in 2003. Whether that havoc was an appropriate response proportional to the threat is another matter, but there is no evidence it was egged on by either the drug companies or the Americans. (I wrote about SARS at the time here.)

Similarly, avian flu is a real disease with a high degree of lethality. Gandhi writes, "[people contracting avian flu] have not died of this virus as it cannot spread to humans - which every scientist has admitted." Wrong, wrong, wrong. People can contract avian flu directly from birds, it's just difficult to do so. When they do, however, it is extremely lethal. The threat of pandemic comes when the virus infects a human being who is also infected with regular human influenza. Then, the viruses can exchange DNA and produce a deadly pandemic strain, one with both the lethality of the current avian flu virus and the human communicability of the traditional human inluenza viruses. (I wrote about it here.)

Ahh, the danger of letting non-scientists write authoritatively about scientific matters. Sadly, her article is already being cited by many looking for even more ammunition to use in a flailing war against the Man. Such a war is not without merit, but let's fight it with facts and not with empty and laughable accusations, okay?

Hamas and Iggy

Canada's new right wing government has cut ties with the Palestinian Authority's new Hamas government because, "it has not addressed the concerns raised by Canada and others concerning non-violence, the recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap for Peace." This action includes the suspension of all Canadian financial aid, except that which flows through NGOs.

Some things about this development strike me as odd:

1. It's still early in Hamas's mandate. Why not wait a couple of months and see how they behave before taking such drastic diplomatic actions?
2. Canada does not send money to Hamas; it sends it to the Palestinian Authority. This may seem like a nitpicky point, but is this not unlike judging Canada by its ruling party and not by its structure of governance?
3. Arafat, as the head of the Palestinian Authority, formally recognized Israel. As Hamas is now heading the PA and has not (yet) rescinded Arafat's recognition, why is this (lack of) action not considered de facto recognition of Israel? Surely, any other government in the world would be given such deference.

The answer, sadly, is that Canada's Conservative government is playing to its base and to the Jewish lobby, which has traditionally been supportive of Conservative ambitions in this country. All politics are local, after all. This is a shame. Hamas should be given the benefit of the doubt until they deviate dramatically, and confrontationally, from the path set down by its predecessors.

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff all but announces his bid for Liberal leadership. In a fairly good speech, he tried to lessen his substantial political baggage. His support of the Iraq War is now being couched as a "beliefs of the private citizen" vs "more reasoned position of the political leader" thing, which strikes me as sadly duplicitous. Iggy, if you still support the war, say so and tell us why. If you've changed your mind, admit it. The truth shall set ye free. Also, some weasely words were offered to explain away his defence of torture; and to those who have not read his actual writings on the topic, this might actually work. But to those of us familiar with his writings, he's got a lot more 'splainin' to do.

Nostrawattus Speaks.... Or Not.

The Israeli elections are over and Ehud Olmert of the new Kadima party is the minority winner, with Labour taking a close second.

I remind you now of my blog post of Jan 5, 2006:

"So I am predicting a new coalition government, headed either by Nobel laureate Shimon Perez or Ehud Olmert, and made up of both the Labour and Kadima parties."

Let's see if a coalition is formed and I am proven, once again, prescient.

And speaking of my prescience, let's not forget that I have been predicting since 2001 that Al Gore will run in the 2008 US Presidential elections and win. I reiterated this prediction here and here and here and here. This view is finding resonance here and here. But remember where you heard it first, my droogies!

The Empire's Dying Days

From today's Reese column:

"What we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of Euro-American domination of the planet. When the emperors start being idiots, the empire is on the way to the ash heap of history. If you have any grandchildren, you might suggest that they study Chinese."

Here are some similar missives I have quoted in this space:

"There is also, just for the record, the cold comfort of knowing that all empires crumble when hubris and militarism alienate even their closest allies, distant wars entangle them in bloody conflicts, and popular leaders are exposed as self-serving frauds." -Mark Kingwell, The National Post, March, 2003

"An empire is at its weakest when it appears to be at its strongest because it is at that moment when the Rumsfelds of history are tempted to reach for too much too quickly. This is one such moment in the history of the American Empire." -James Coghlin, letter to The National Post, Mar 18, 2003

What does it all mean? I once asked in this space if 9/11 and the subsequent two wars in Central Asia were indicative of either the solidification --or unmasking-- of Imperial America, or the last gasps of a dying, bloated Imperium. I suspected the latter, and now I am sure of it. The American treasury is all but bankrupt, kept solvent only through enormous infusions of borrowed cash from the superpowers of tomorrow, Japan and China. The fist of the empire has been revealed as porous and weak: it cannot sustain military control over Iraq while simultaneously conducting operations in Afghanistan, not without substantial cooperation and donations from allies.

A true empire must be able to conduct several frontier wars simultaneously, but the bloated American military is too expensive for that in today's climate. Like the Romans did in their waning days, frontline American military might now relies on proxy armies comprised of "barbarians" and mercenaries. Their technology remains overwhelming and humbling, as is their unrivalled air and space power. But for how much longer can the bleeding American economy afford to sustain such investments?

The US dollar is overvalued. With Iranian oil increasingly being shipped eastward instead of Westward, and with Latin American oil remaining an unpredictable quantity, the petrodollar of the 21st century will be either the Chinese yuan or the Euro; in either case, this translates to devastating American inflation and monetary devaluation. Like the 15th century Chinese, who were the world's most advanced and powerful society, internal corruption and economic failure will rot the American empire from its core, finally forcing it to retreat to its purer and saner Washingtonian republican roots.

When President Gore takes office in 2009, he will inherit quite the mess.

Neocon or Neoliberal?

(Note: Before reading this post, please consult the very serious Deonandan.com disclaimer.)

Today's daily perv link is, as usual, quite disturbing.

Isaac Hayes South Park update: they've turned Chef into a paedophile and are killing him off! Like we didn't already guess.

You may recall an earlier post on India's "special relationship" with feces. Well, the Indian government has announced that it intends to be feces free by 2012.

Now, some comments posted to this blog have, in my opinion, reflected a general lack of knowledge about some concepts common in the contemporary media discourse, such as the term "neoconservative" or "neocon". Maybe it's time for a brief primer on the history of the neocon movement.

Colloquial understanding of what constitutes neocon belief or membership postulates associations with the Bush II presidency or with organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation or PNAC. Modern neocon belief is characterized by military aggression, jingoism, fanatical anti-communism and, today, fanatical anti-autocracy, at least superficially. Moreover, neocon philosophy aligns itself somewhat to the political interests of the government of Israel.

We tend to associate neoconservatism with unbridled hawishness, maybe even irrational hawkishness. But the movement's history is more complex than that. Neoconservatism is not an offshoot of old-style conservatism (now called paleoconservatism), but rather of old-style liberalism. The movement traces its roots to at least the Nixon administration, when self-styled progressives and intellectuals decided that the Left had abandoned its responsibilities to the world, and started to advocate for the use of US military power to depose unfriendly regimes and install friendlier ones. The ascension of pacifistic George McGovern alienated those in the Democratic party with neocon tendencies, and reaffirmed the Republican Party as the natural home for most neocons. It can be argued that the movement's philosophical underpinnings are essentially Trotskyist, wherein the hegemon must be placed in a state of permanent revolution, or even Wilsonian, wherein the US global mission must be one to convert the world to democracies. Regardless, it is clear that the modern collective of neocons draws its roots from among the most idealistic of liberal thought.

Many tend to forget that today's neocon leaders, such as Donald Rumsfeld, were in fact high ranking officials in the Nixon administration. Back then, the threat of communism, much like today's threat from terrorism, was overblown and overfed to the American public. (Mind you, at least the Cold War was somewhat grounded in geopolitical reality.) This climate of fear compelled some liberals coming off the 1960s heydey to reassess the role of American might and to conclude that the best road to safety and security was to remake the world, by force, into pro-Western and/or democratic units. They were drawn to Nixonian politics for this reason. Thus it's not surprising to see some of the actors involved in America's Vietnam war being the same actors involved in American's present foreign military misadventures.

Thus, I don't think it's unreasonable to characterise modern liberal politicians, like Michael Ignatieff, as having neocon tendencies, since, like the hardcore neocons of America's present leadership, such individuals advocate the use of force to topple autocratic regimes, regardless of what threat they may nor may not pose to the West, and regardless of the cost in human lives that such forced toppling may require. Modern neocon obsessions, such as a defence of torture and a seemingly unexamined fascination with the disposition of Israel, not to mention an increasing marriage to the Christian right and to corporate interests, distance the movement from its liberal roots, so perhaps the term "neocon" is no longer appropriate for this particular group. But making up a new term is somebody else's job.

Reese-a-riffic

You must watch George Bush talk about global warming.

Why do I blog when Charley Reese often says everything that needs to be said with his tri-weekly columns? Here are a few snippets from yesterday's missive:

When is a nation justified in making the decision to kill other people and destroy their property? I think the rule is the same as it is for individuals. You are justified in killing only in defense of your own life or the lives of others for whom you are responsible.

By that definition, the U.S. has fought only one justified war in this and the past century. That was World War II. Putting aside the fact that the U.S. government provoked Japan into attacking, attack it did, and the U.S. had a right to respond. We were not attacked, however, in Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Iraq.

...Our problem in Afghanistan was not the Taliban government. It was al-Qaida. We overthrew the Taliban government but failed to destroy al-Qaida. Only God and George Bush know why we attacked Iraq. That was clearly a war of aggression, no different from the German invasion of Poland in the 1930s.

...Wars also destroy truth and trust with their secrecy and propaganda. Instead of patriotism, which is a love of the land and the people, the war state substitutes jingoism, which is a love of the government and support of war. In America today, both liberals and neoconservatives have been corrupted by the imperialist war state. The liberals are too cowardly to oppose unjustified wars, and the neoconservatives instigate and applaud them.

Rae Daze

MC Hammer's got a blog!

Sorry, my non-Canadian readers. Let me fill you in.... Back in the early 1990s, the province of Ontario --Canada's wealthiest and most politically influential province-- miraculously voted into power the socialist NDP party, led by former Rhodes Scholar Bob Rae, a fellow who'd sat in my parents' living room more than a few times during his early campaign days. Rae was a former federal politician who was brought in to lead the provincial NDP. They were elected on a sound platform of defeating corporate welfare, but from day 1 of their rule, were subject to a hostile beat-down from the press, which was backed by big business. Rae inherited a basket-case economy from the outgoing regime and took draconian steps to rein it in, including instituting the "social contract", which included mandatory unpaid vacation days for public service employees (called "Rae Days").

His government managed to deliver successive balanced budgets, but never recovered from the press attacks or the stigmatizing label of "socialist". A series of scandals featuring his inexperienced ministers didn't help the picture, nor did Ontario's worst recession in decades. And Rae's style of iron-fisted rule ensured that he and no one else would be taking the blame for whatever failures his government was perceived to have made.

In my opinion, the Rae Days gamble was effective: it prevented lay-offs and saved the budget. But it severed years of good will between the NDP and labour unions. The party never forgave Bob Rae, and his name remains a curse for many. Not surprisingly, he is once more being courted by the federal Liberal party.

Here's where I get to drop some names. Some years ago (1995-98, I think) I was a three-time finalist (but, alas, never a winner) for a high-profile scholarship offered by the Stronach family, hence my (extremely limited) casual social knowledge of Belinda Stronach at the time. At one of the Stronachs' black tie parties, I found myself getting drunk with Alan Eagleson who, of course, was days away from being sent to jail. It was my turn to go get the champagne, so I stumbled over to the bar and ordered a bottle, but suddenly felt a clipping sensation on my right Achilles tendon. When I looked over I saw Bob Rae stumbling past me, and he shot me with quite a hostile glare. Yes, my friends, I had tripped the former Premiere.

Now, the current federal political climate in Canada is this: the Conservative party (neocon-lite) has won a minority victory, resulting in some disarray among the previous hegemonic leaders, the Liberal Party. Former Prime Minister and Liberal leader Paul Martin has stepped down, and so the Liberals need to find a new leader, and fast! Several names are rushing to the forefront, among them Belinda Stronach, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae --all of whom, weirdly, I've had some tenuous connection with. One of these people is likely to be Canada's next Prime Minister.

There are other candidates, too, but they are all Liberal old-guard and are tainted by the various corruption scandals that have ripped through the party in recent years. An exception might be Frank McKenna, who was conveniently out of the country when much of the shit went down. I don't think Belinda has chance in hell. That leaves Ignatieff and Rae as the two prominent celebrity candidates. In my opinion, Ignatieff is already the front-runner. But what about Rae?

If Rae were to run, he'd have little to no support in Ontario, but would enjoy tremendous support in Quebec, where he is well regarded since his federal days. I am more sanguine about his federal Liberal chances that most people, I think. Like Ignatieff, Rae has some neocon tendencies that will endear him to the mouth-breathing set. And he's certainly a smart and politically savvy man.

If nothing else, I really look forward to the televised debate between these two uber-wonks: less posturing and fewer cliches and whole lot more of the meaty stuff.

"Slobo...Slobo....Sheriff Slobo..."

Kamal V. sends us this story about Somali Muslim women having a tough time finding appropriate athletic wear. This strikes me as a magnificent market opportunity for enterprising fashion designers. How hard would it be to design light, linen-based sportswear that covers the entire body? Hop to it, people!

Oh look, we men haven't been whining after all. It really does take women twice as long as us to get ready. (And if you're a woman in my family, six times as long!) Criminy.

So the hospital in which I work has a VIP delegation from China visiting, as part of a health technology course sponsored by the WHO. I managed to finagle an appearance at their invitational reception last night, held in Ottawa's national press club. The poor Chinese were terribly jetlagged and were smart enough not to imbibe too much alcohol. Thus it fell to me and my dipsomanic ways to not offend the bar staff. Hey, all that vino ain't gonna drink itself! After much inebriation, I proudly absconded home with a hunk of cheese, 'cause I'm cheap like that.

Now, it occurs to me that embedded in our visitors' party must be a PRC government handler. I have no idea how to identify this person, or even whether to expect this person to speak English. His or her role, after all, would be to watch for unpatriotic actions on the part of the Chinese, and not necessarily to concern him- or herself with what we Canadians are doing. Am I being paranoid? Maybe, but it' a fun game. Handler or no, I wish our guests an excellent and productive stay in this country. China fascinates me, and though I was there 16 years ago, I would love to go back soon to see how it, like India, has revelled in dramatic social and economic change.

On another topic... With the recent death of possible war criminal Slobodan Milosevic, has come the mandatory arisal of the historical revisionists. Among them, of course, are these folks who refuse to admit that Milosevic did anything wrong. But there are also those revisionists who claim that it was NATO alone who saved the Yugoslav Muslims, while the rest of the Muslim world sat back and watched.

Let me be clear about a few things. First, I am not one of those people who claim that "war is never the answer." War is most definitely sometimes the answer. In the case of the Rwandan genocide or WWII or the fracture of Yugoslavia in the 90s, military action was certainly the appropriate humanitarian and political response. And I give full credit to NATO, and in particular to the Clinton government, for intervening.

(Of course, at the time, the neocon set were complaining that Clinton intervened only in a wag-the-dog scenario, trying to distract attention from his Lewinskyisms. I find this incredible; since when did the neocons ever see a war they didn't like? Oh yes, if it doesn't result in monetary gain or if it in someway glorifies anyone named "Clinton" then it's a bad war. My bad.)

The West certainly had a lot to gain from intervening in Yugoslavia, since to let that nation crumble would be to allow a festering open sore in the heart of Europe, in a location that historically has been the powderkeg for a few very large international conflicts, a World War among them. But this in no way detracts from the honour accrued by US, UN and NATO troops who stopped the on-going "ethnic cleansing".

But this talk of how the Muslim world "did nothing" while their brethren were being slaughtered is just untrue. Well before the West took action, both Pakistan and Iran were smuggling weapons in to the Muslim resistance. And Mujahedeen from all parts of the Muslim world slipped into Yugoslavia to fight the Serbs. These actions weren't well publicized, but I certainly recall reading about them as they happened, usually well past the 2nd or 3rd page in the newspaper.

I suspect that one of the problems is that Yugoslav Muslims weren't necessarily Wahabists, otherwise one would assume that the Saudis would have at least sent them some cash.

More On Freedom of Speech

"If you cannot condemn the flagrant abuses of Palestinians by the Israeli government, then you are undoubtedly a bigot, the worst kind of racist pig who believes that Palestinians are some kind of subspecies of the human race. If you do condemn in your heart these terrible abuses, but are afraid to speak out about them, then you are a damned coward." - Charley Reese

If you're like me and spend way too much time surfing random websites, you've no doubt come across the occasional apartment ad offering decent accommodation for remarkably affordable prices... and a bit of obligatory sexual action. This article discusses this trend. Now, I can certainly see the logic in making illegal the selection of tenants based on ethnicity or religion, as this tends to create ghettos. Selection by gender is reasonable since many people prefer a roommate of a certain sex or orientation for obvious reasons. And selection by behaviour is not unreasonable, because if you're an orthodox Jew or Muslim, for example, you don't want to live with a pork eater!

So what's the big deal about selection by alternative methods of payment? What if someone were to offer free room and board in exchange for maid services, or hourly foot massages? Sure, it's unorthodox and weird, but so what? I really wish our governments would start treating us like adults. If two adult people want to enter into a commercial relationship that commodifies sexual service, with no coercion or duplicity involved, what's the big deal? Of course, legally, what can you do if your roommate refuses to put out? Evict her/him?

So have you heard the story of Jay Bennish? He's a 10th grade teacher who asked his students to deconstruct Bush's last State of the Union speech. The conclusion of the lesson was that the speech bore resemblances to Hitler's speeches. Of course, Bennish is being villified as a purveyor of "liberal indoctrination" in the classroom. I particularly like this typical over-the-top conservative response:

"[The Bennish affair] is not about free speech, but about the meltdown of Western civilization."

Finished laughing yet? Look, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the Bennish thing. I'm all about getting students to think and to question their world. But, judging by the transcript of Bennish's lesson (provided, unironically, by Michelle Malkin) he might have crossed the line from being the moderator of a classroom discussion to being a partisan defender of a set of political beliefs. I welcome your comments on this matter.

That great curmudgeon Charley Reese pipes in with this response:

"...to believe that a teacher criticizing the president and his policies does harm, you have to believe that the students are mindless morons, and they obviously are not."

To Bush's great credit, he responded to the story with this:

"Yes, I think people should be allowed to criticize me all they want, and they do... Look, there are some certain basic freedoms that we've got to protect. The freedom of people to express themselves must be protected."

Though I wonder if he fully understands what he's saying. After all, stories like this continue to mount, wherein a teenager has his computer confiscated by secret service agents after posting a song with lyrics about violence being done to the President. I know there's a law about all threats to His Lordship's body being taken seriously. But arent the lyrics to a song by definition protected artistic speech?

Of course these days, whatever you write on the Internet will come back to bite you on your ass sometime in the future. So since I'm already screwed, I have nothing to lose!

Geocaching (Gezundheit)

Had dinner last night with a soldier friend who's being shipped out to Afghanistan this summer. Maybe I can get her to send us dispatches from the field while she's there?

She clued me in to this new online activity called "geo-caching." It involves using a GPS device to find hidden items around various cities in the world. If only I weren't addicted to TV, I might get off my arse and try it.

So I just can't help continuing to point out the hypocrisy of the reactionary right. (Yes, the reactionary left can be hypocritcal, too, but since the blogosphere is already full of right-wing blogs dedicated to attacking "liberals" at every turn, I will leave that to them.) The Danish cartoon crisis is a strong case in point. (The Danish editors and their supporters continue to claim they are actually defending free speech, rather than simply Muslim-baiting.)

Well, there's this children's book called Three Wishes Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak by Deb Ellis.



It seems that the Canadian Jewish Congress is trying to restrict access to this book, and the Boards of Education of York, Essex and Toronto have already buckled under their pressure. Why? Because, the book "features Palestinian children speaking positively about suicide bombings against Israelis."

Now, I can certainly see how this might be an upsetting topic. But how does it serve society's educational goals to prevent children from learning the true thoughts of other children? The motivations here have nothing to do with concern for the welfare of the children. Rather, this is a political move meant to minimize the importance of the mindset of Palestinians in relation to their perceived injustices perpetrated by the Israelis. Now this is a genuine case of freedom of speech being curtailed. The CJC's actions are not violent or riotous, but are duplicitous and bureaucratic and ultimately, I believe, more damaging than any riot could be.

The Canadian Writers' Union is holding a session to discuss this development on Monday, March 20th, at 3:30pm at the Lilian H. Smith Library (239 College Street in Toronto).

Here are some random links:

• Andrew sends us a portrayal of the World's Bravest Man
• Have you seen Brokeback Mountain yet? Do you not intend to? Either way, check it out acted by rabbits in Brokeback Bunnies

Cartoonapalooza

It appears to be Iran Week in the blogosphere. Even Hitchens is in on it.

The Iranian holocaust cartoon contest is in full swing. Details here. These cartoons ostensibly have a higher purpose: they show the hypocrisy of the Danish papers who, in my opinion, disingenuously claimed to be defending free speech when they targeted Islam for ridicule.

But these cartoons published in Qatar serve no such purpose. They are clearly brazen anti-semitic statements made by racists of the worst stripe.

But how about this:
It's an anti-Muslim cartoon made by an American and published in several American publications. It's clearly in the same vein as the anti-semitic ones above, wherein representatives of a race of people are portrayed as deceitful, greasy and duplicitous., not to mention inaccurate. (This cartoon ignorantly confuses Arabs with Afghans and Dubai port workers.)

This blog has a good discussion of these 'toons.

All these cartoons, from both the anti-semitic fire-breathers from amongst the Muslim community and the anti-Islam type from the mouth-breathing neocon set, have evolved directly from the ones produced by the Nazis, like this one:

It's one of the reasons neither side can hear the other one scream. They are both so busy calling each other fascists that they fail to realize that they are both descended from Hitler's loins, extremist Islamists and asshole neocons alike. In the immortal words of Mick Foley, I invite them all to line up and apply oral suction to my groinal area.

And Iran, Iran So Far Away....

Here's my bias: I really like Persian women. Man, are they sexy. And I am a bit obsessed with some aspects of Persian history, particularly as it intersects with the great march of Alexander the Great, a topic explored in my second book. But there ends my bias.

Well, the cards are on the table. Condy Rice said last week, "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we would like to see developed." So there it is, Iran has been identified by the US government as their new number one enemy. In fact, Rice has even announced an $85 million fund set aside to sabotage the current Iranian regime. (Aside: does it not seem weird to anyone else that American leadership seems at a loss to define itself except in relation to some arbitrarily chosen enemy? Paging Dr. Phil....)

As Haroon Siddiqui writes,

"Just as that pot of gold brought a bevy of Iraqi exiles, like Ahmad Chalabi, with tall tales of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and promises of American troops being welcomed with flowers, this new fund already has Iranian exiles circling Washington like vultures. Get ready to hear and read horror stories on Iran in the months ahead."

It does us no good to duck the facts: the current regime in Iran does indeed pose something of a regional threat to neocon interests. The Iranians back Hamas and Hezbollah, which are known in the West as terror groups, but in the Near East as para-governmental groups. The Iranians back the emerging Shiite powerset in Iraq, which is certainly not the group the Americans want to see acquire power in their erstwhile colony. It's certainly possible that the clerical leadership in Iran continues to provide money and training to anti-American terror groups. And, of course, let's not forget that the Iranian revolution of 1979 involved the storming of the US embassy and the kidnapping of its residents!

But let's also be fair and talk about why the Iranians are so pissed at Americans. In the 1950s, the Iranian people democratically elected Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh who moved to nationalize Iranian oil. As a result of this completely reasonable policy, the CIA engineered a coup that deposed Mossadegh and put the Shah in power. The Shah was a brutal dictator who tortured his people Saddam-style, but who enjoyed a close association with American and European elites. This is why the Iranian people hate Americans so much -- a history you will never learn from watching Faux News.

Iran is not the medieval theocratic morass the neocons would have us believe it to be. As a character stated in the movie Syriana, "Persians are natural cultural allies of the United States." Iran was complicit in the American invasion of Afghanistan, and assented to the invasion of Iraq. Like India, Iran is a young nation with a median age around 24 and a high literacy rate (around 80%), mostly among the elites. With heightened access to media and 21st century media products, young Iranians are increasingly drawn to Western sensibilities and lifestyles. Like all such countries, with young educated populations and a growing thirst for influence and products, Iran will emerge as a global power in this century, barring some catastrophic decisions or events.

The recent kafuffle regarding Iran's nuclear programme is, of course, problematic. With a history of diplomatic brinkmanship, it's not surprising to hear tough talk issue from Tehran. But threats of denying oil to the West are ultimately hollow. Iran's debt remains at over a quarter of its GDP, with a $10 billion trade surplus due entirely to oil exports (mainly to Japan and China, and increasingly to Russia). It can't afford to mess with the flow of its oil. With Iran's traditional ally, India, voting against it at an historic IAEA session, and with Bushite policies essentially gutting the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Iran --and not India or Pakistan or Israel-- is a signatory), the likely course is that Iran will remove itself from the treaty, thus rendering any legal actions against it toothless.

And here's a dimension you are unlikely to hear explored in the mainstream media. With the Americans toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and handing more power and autonomy to the Northern Alliance (which is run in large part by Russia), heroin production has returned to levels enjoyed in the pre-Taliban glory days. This is, I believe, a tacitly understood price the Americans were willing to pay to have the Northern Alliance act as its proxies on the battlefield; something is paying for that war, and it ain't all American tax money. How does heroin enter Europe, its biggest market? Via Iran, of course. Indeed, within Iran itself, heroin addiction is an increasingly large problem, with at least 2 million drug users in that country. The flow of heroin is a disincentive for the West to militarily interfere with Iran, despite Pentagonian belligerent talk.

So this is what's happening. The clerics of Iran are increasing in power due to American actions in the region. This is despite the Iranian population's discontentment with theocratic rule. The rise of Shiite power, as a result of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, further emboldens Iranian imams. American military action on a large scale is now highly unlikely, since they'd have their under-staffed and indebted asses handed to them in a ground fight. Instead, look for two scenarios: if Iran exits from the non-proliferation treaty, then NATO (likely through Israel as a proxy) will attempt a surgical air strike. If Iran stays with the treaty, expect Russia to take a larger role in bringing Iran's nuclear programme under its umbrella, attempting to assure world security that way.

At this point, the smart move for all parties is to allow Iran to exit the treaty, then to barter open inspections of its programme in exchange for enormous trade concessions. And I mean enormous. It's better to pay $100 billion buying security than waste $400 billion fighting for it.

Eeeeevil Wat

Another rare find: a good, polite Canadian progressive blog - drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com

File this under the "sad, sad irony" category: the reigning "Miss Deaf Texas" was killed this week by a speeding train, when she failed to hear its warning horn.

And here is a useful take on the Danish cartoon thingy, an article called "The Right To Ridicule."

But while the anti-Muslim set goes on with their crusade to supposedly defend papers' rights to free speech, let's look at this little gem of a news item. The Pennsylvania Attorney General has seized a newspaper's computers as part of an investigation into who in the government is leaking info to reporters! This strikes me as a much more serious business than any cartoon nonsense. If there was a leak, then it should be investigated at the source, not the destination. It's the press's job to accept any and all leaks. This is what whistleblowers' protection laws are all about. Geez Louise.

Thanks to Rondi for the discovery that I am 40% Evil:

"A bit of evil lurks in your heart, but you hide it well. In some ways, you are the most dangerous kind of evil."

Find out your evilness level by clicking here.

I Have Very Little To Say Today

"Conservatives are going to have to repudiate Bush loudly, en masse, and soon — unless they want conservative to become a synonym for psychotic, criminal, and lousy at arithmetic. " -Joseph Sobran

While getting a ride from Toronto the other day, someone in the back seat commented on an episode of South Park which really lampooned the Church of Scientology. This really surprised me since the voice of "Chef" is none other than Isaac Hayes, known to be a devout Scientologist. It made me respect Hayes more for having the sense of humour to poke fun at his own "religion" --or maybe it was indicative that Hayes secretly didn't believe Scientological doctrine and was in it just for the career plug?

My speculations were put to rest with this article, which reports that Hayes has indeed resigned as the voice of Chef in protest against the show's mockery of Scientologist. As Hayes put it, "Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored. As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

Yet Hayes apparently had no problem mocking Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any other of the religions speared by Southpark. Hypocrisy, thine name is Isaac Hayes!

I leave you today with this story from Bava W. It's about reported health problems possibly connected to industrial activity near the Alberta oilsands. This is a classic case for a need for an epidemiological outbreak investigation. In fact, it's as if the article was plucked directly from one of the questions on my doctoral comprehensive examination! Weird.

Don't Shoot Me!

Greetings from inside Miren C.'s car, hurtling from Toronto back to Ottawa. Interesting post-India observation about big Canadian cities like Toronto: while I used to give change to any panhandler who asked, now that I've seen legless leper children doing backflips for mere pennies, I just shake my head at Toronto beggars. Have I become harder or more rational? Dunno.

But that's not what I wanted to talk a out today...

Back when I lived in Washington DC, I had several occasions to meet members of the American military, everyone from G.I. grunts to Marine intelligence officers. I can happily report that each and every US soldier I enountered was cordial, polite and intelligent. Even when my decidedly anti-militaristic political views were voiced, the officers with whom I conversed were uniformly thoughtful in their responses, often agreeing with me, but always reasoning from a measured and informed stance, much the polar opposite of the tack taken by their more vocal and bombastic civilian supporters.

And since I've moved to Ottawa, I've had the privilege of knowing several Canadian soldiers, whose company I value tremendously. Having once been obsessed with unarmed combat for more than a decade of my life, and having tried (pitifully) to fire paintguns in weekend-warrior scenarios, I know for a fact that I personally do not have what it takes to be a full-time professional soldier.

I say all this because I want to make it clear that I have nothing personal against soldiers in general. In fact, I tend to get along with them splendidly, and some of my oldest friends remain current or former military people.

Having said all this, I'm quite fed up with the old "support the troops" nonsense spouted first by our neocon neighbours to the south, and now parroted by our disappointing new PM in Canada. The rationale often presented is that any anti-war talk reduces the morale of our soldiers stationed abroad.

In a democratic society with a volunteer military, the armed forces are merely an extension of the government. It is therefore always fair game to criticize what government chooses to do with this tool. We don't, for example, silence criticism of the government's domestic justice policies for fear it would demoralize our police forces. Nor do we silence criticism of educational policies for fear that our teachers will feel bad. So clearly this special approach to discussing military policy has more to do with suppression of dissent and the easier force-feeding of unpopular foreign policies. None of this has anything to do the welfare of our troops.

Moreover, media obsession with military casualities is a bit misplaced. As government employees in a lethal business, death and injury should be expected. The newsworthy bit is that deaths are the exception! Do keep in mind that, according to the Workplace Safety Insurance Board, there are two preventable workplace deaths in Ontario every week. Where is the media coverage of these casualties? The life of a coal miner is no less important than that of a soldier.

In fact, here's a sobering truth that I encourage you all to cogitate upon: in a modern war, the safest thing to be is a soldier. The modern soldier, even underequipped Canadian ones, comes with armour, well armed friends, an evacuation plan, health and life insurance, and a massive institution dedicated to saving his life. This is why every death of an American or Canadian soldier in the battlefield is ironically such a surprise! I suspect that it is statistically a more dangerous occupation to be a shepherd in Afghanistan, a coal miner in the Maritimes or a factory worker anywhere in urban Canada.

So if you really want to "support the troops" and act in their welfare, then don't let our leaders send them to wars where they have no business being.

Screwby Doo

(Note: Before reading this post, please consult the very serious Deonandan.com disclaimer.)

The daily perv link is indeed back. Here it is. Yes, today's is about a woman and her dog. I tells ya, the prevalence of such reports in the news is increasing. Again, I suggest the following mechanisms: either the actual prevalence of the act has increased, the tendency for the news to cover it has increased, or the tendency for such acts to be discovered has increased. Insufficient data to conclude which is the case.

The rotten.com forum has some nice comments about this story, though:

"Whatever a woman, and a dude, and another woman, and a dog decide to do in the comfort of their own home and on videotape should be of no concern to the authorities. You know the dog was loving it."

"Seriously, I bet that dog can do some wonderful party tricks now."

"I'm surprised they didn't arrest the dog. Patriot act and all. "

"That dogs out in the backyard now tellin all his buddys how good human p**** is."

(Sad that I have to issue his disclaimer, but I have learned the hard way that many blog readers are semi-illiterate fools who can't distinguish between the reporting of a thing and the advocating for that thing. For the record, I am not advocating this act, which I find vile and criminal. But it is kinda funny.)

A Fractured What?!

(Note: Before reading this post, please consult the very serious Deonandan.com disclaimer.)

OK, scroll down to where they talk about me, but don't laugh.

The return of an old favourite: our daily perv link!

Here is an article on the various injuries one can acquire while doin' the nasty. For a long time, I've had a mortal fear of getting a "fractured penis". Oh, this is real, my droogies. Just look at this... or don't.

As has long been anecdotally suspected, the statistics now show that, at least in Australia, women are punished more leniently for paedophilic crimes than are men. Hmmm.

Thanks to Rondi for this video of female Arab psychologist Wafa Sultan givin' it to 'em on Al-Jazeera television. What's amazing to me about this clip isn't so much the content of Sultan's words or the responses of her detractors, but rather the fact that on a cable news show a guest was allowed to speak for many minutes on end without an annoying big-haired host interjecting with some inane comment. Makes me want to subscribe to Al-Jazeera!

As I've already reported here, courtesy of Darth Vadum's on-the-spot journalism, proto-nazi Ann Coulter has taken to publicly using the offensive term "raghead" in her various appearances around the US. As one commenter on the right-wing Western Standard Blog put it:

"Ah, dear Ann Coulter. She reminds me of an aging porn star who, as her beauty fades, must resort to increasingly depraved sexual acts in order to turn a buck. Ann is at the stage where she's doing beastiality [sic]."

What is amazing about all this isn't that Coulter is predictably a publicity whore and clearly a racist in the old-fashioned knuckle-dragging "me hate you because you look strange" mold, but rather that the blogosphere has erupted with comments coming to her defence! Most common are the type typified by another commenter on the Western Standard Blog:

"During WW2 we called the enemy Krauts and Japs and Nips etc etc...Big deal"

That's right. It is now okay to openly defend the usage of racial slurs. If we do otherwise, the terrorists will have won. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since it's also de rigeur to openly advocate for the legality and morality of torture. How did we get here? My God, how did we get here?

This reminds me of one of Charley Reese's best observations: that during wartime, to dehumanize the enemy is to prolong the war; in order to negotiate for peace, it is necessary to see your opponent as desiring of peace, and for him to see you as trustworthy, not driven by primal hatred. It is not so far-fetched, then, to suggest that the neocons' thirst for war-without-end (in the finest Orwellian tradition) is a factor behind the increasingly common incidents of high-profile Conservatives resorting to racist and dehumanizing epithets for their nominal "enemy". It is thus not surprising to see shadow-born bigots now emboldened to take their stupidity and hatred into the light, like this fool.

We in Canada are buffered against much of this nonsense by our comparative lack of modern racial tension. But we are a bunch of hypocrites in many ways, not the least of which being our stance on the American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to see what I mean? Hold your nose and go here: www.canadianally.com

The site is real. It is registered to the military attache resident in the Canadian embassy in Washington, DC.

While the Canadian public has repeatedly stated its opposition to being a part of the US's so-called "Global War On Terror", and while our governments have supposedly acquiesced to this desire, we are nonetheless marketing to the USA that we are in-step with their war plans. As proudly mentioned on the site, Canadians are responsible for "5,000 tactical airlift, patrol and (ship-based) helicopter sorties" in the Persian Gulf region since 2001; I wonder what operations and theatre hose sorties were involved in, hmmm? Cough-Iraq-cough.

My Blogging Peeps

Though I blog daily, I rarely take the time to browse the blogs of others. Well, I generally make it a point to visit Rondi, Andrew Sullivan, my pal Andrew Currie, Antonia Zerbiasis and, before he took it down recently, the blog of my right-wing friend Matt Vadum. Recent blogs by friends Nick Barrowman and Hope Senechal have also been newly added to my list. The classic blog of Wonkette has suffered since my dream girl, Ana Marie Cox, moved on to better things. Same can be said of everyone's favourite ingler, Jessica Cutler, aka "The Washingtonienne". Rick Mercer is usually fun. And of course, fantasy writer and Deonandan.com regular, Maggie Wood maintains a charming and sweet site. But my blog scanning usually involves looking for news I might have missed in the mainstream media.

So today I took the time to look at the non-newsy blogs of people who have occasionally visited Deonandan.com, whom I do not know personally. And I am truly impressed. From Down Under, my homeboy Phil Gomes tells us all we need to know about cycling. Amba in NY is truly an excellent photographer and has some nice spiritual, political and philosophical insights. And Vodka Rani continues to tread into the dangerous waters where feminism, religion and politics meet. If I've missed anyone, do let me know!

It's a wonderful and exciting blogosphere, no?

Nuclear Proliferation and Hairy Lobsters

The image to the left (assuming that the hosting site hasn't yanked it by now) is of a new species of "hairy lobster" discovered in the French Pacific.

Cool. Sort of. Details here.

So it seems Iran is responding (predictably, mind you) with belligerence in the face of the US-led belligerent threat to Iranian sovereign rights. Yes, I'm talking about Iran's nuclear programme. The Persians now say that the Americans' threat to deny Iran a nuclear programme will result in the US being denied Iranian oil. Well, here comes the obligatory military solution.

Meanwhile, the US has tacitly approved both India's and Pakistan's nuclear programmes and has long turned a blind eye to Israel's well-known nukes. And Russia continues to negotiate with Iran for some sort of processing partnership which, on its face, looks like a compromise which will allow Iran domestic atomic power production while denying it nuclear arms production, but which might also be a localized arms proliferation agreement.

The long and short of all this is that the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is effectively dead. The IAEA has been compromised, with its director calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime", since India and the US signed a civilian nuclear partnership deal, even though neither India, Israel nor Pakistan are signatories of the NPT! Guess who is? Iran.

A weird, weird little atomic play, my friends, and possibly the most important events currently being played on the geopolitical theatre.

Meanwhile --surprise, surprise-- a paper has dared to published disrespectful cartoons of Jesus, and has paid a price! It was a student paper, and the editor was compelled to resign. So why haven't those Danish, German and French papers rushed to reprint these cartoons, since they are, after all, the great defenders of cartoon free speech? I'm waiting.

I leave you with these excellent words from Charley Reese:

[Orwell wrote:] "In our time, political speech and
writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."

...We invade a sovereign nation based on lies, destroy
its infrastructure, depose its government and kill
30,000 of its people, and we call that "spreading
democracy" or "defending freedom."

The phrase "war on terror" is a phony metaphor. We are
not at war. Ninety-nine and 99/100ths percent of the
American people are living the same way they've always
lived. We have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting
an insurrection that our invasions of those countries
caused. They are at war — a war of their own country's
making — but the rest of us are not. Waving a flag or
putting a bumper sticker on one's car cannot be called
a war effort. 

Oop Oop

I'm now officially on the faculty of the University of Ottawa. Now I need to convince the anthropology department to let me teach the course on primate mating practices, so I truly can be a "professor of mad, mad monkey love."

Sad news: Dana Reeve, the 44 year old widow of Christopher Reeve, has died of lung cancer.

More stream-of-consciousness commentary: I now believe that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. Details later.

Don't forget to check out the mini-movies from my India trip!

What? Still On About India?

In lieu, and in honour, of the Oscars, Brother Hrab and I caught a double feature last night: Harry Potter and Syriana. Now, I'd seen the latter already, so took this as an opportunity to enjoy an excellent nap in the theatre. When you're as jet-lagged as me, theatre naps are akin to full body massages. Sweeeet.

But I was delighted to learn that George Clooney had succeeded in winning at least one award last night. I'm not one for celebrity or film silliness, but occasionally I do find one member of the industry whom I truly wish to succeed; Clooney is one of them. He does, however, bear a disturbing resemblance to Hamas spokesman Khaled Meshaal, as described here.

This weekend I was also amused to find a number of TV talk shows dedicated to discussing India's emergence onto toe playing field of world super powerdom. TVOntario's Diplomatic Immunity on Friday was on this very topic, and even they were cognizant of the theme of youth I dicussed to death in my travelblog last month. (The show further benefited from the erudite presence of guest pundit and uber-babe, Ananya Mukherjee Reed. Meow!)

In short, the question they asked was which country is the better bet for economic and political might in the coming years, India or China? China benefits from much foreign investment, excellent infrastructure and stable government. India benefits from having an educated, English-speaking population, and from having increasingly close cultural ties to Europe and America, due in large part to the enormous numbers of NRIs living abroad. Both nations enjoy a strong work ethic, a commitment to education and a large, cheap work force.

But the kicker is this: China's demographics resembles Canada's -- the Chinese are old. Two thirds of Chinese are over 40. India, as I've oft repeated, is a young country. The majority is under 30. This translates to more personal energy, optimism, aggression, a greater ability to endure personal sacrifice, and ultimately a more reliable and stable economic base.

However, I am concerned that the growth of nations like India will be an unsustainable thing, due entirely to an unaddressed and eventual negotiation with the labour class. See, the gap between rich and poor, in places in India, is beyond what we in the North can imagine. In a mall in Toronto, for example, there are classes: those who buy the top end items for hundreds of dollars a pop, and those who clean the floors for minimum wage. But on his off hours, the floor-cleaner and his kids will shop in that very same mall, though perhaps not spending the same amount of money. In India, the floor-cleaner can never dream of even setting foot as a customer into the shops of the malls he cleans; the gap is so wide.

Much of India's (and China's) rapid growth is on the backs of an army of cheap, disposable labour. You can pay literally pennies to get any menial task done, with no requirements for safety, insurance, health care, nutrition or the worker's environment. That's a powerful economic buffer to absorb what in the West would be serious cost overruns.

As these nations develop, particularly in India where its democratic passions are more likely to support a serious labour movement, this large underserviced labour class will increasingly negotiate for better wages and conditions until, at least for a segment of them, the class gap will have significantly shortened.

This is obviously a positive development, but unless the Indian economy is prepared for such an eventuality, in terms of production and management models, expansion will cease and maybe even reverse. I question how Indian society, so dependent it currently is on class delineations, will weather the coming upheaval. Marxist chatter about class warfare was meant for Europe and America, but I think it's more appropriate for the Indian case.

Theocrats Abound

Ack. Back from giving two presentations at a conference sponsored by SUNSIH --the Student University Network for Social and International Health-- at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. I tells ya, young people these days continue to impress me. The average 25 year old young professional is a lot more driven, experienced and informed than I was at that age. Or at least, the average 25 year old who attends such conferences is. Many thanks to the conference organizers and attendees for inviting me and for putting up with my inane chatter.

The most exciting part of the day was the drive to and from Kingston from Ottawa. The rental agency was out of compact cars, so they gave me this honking huge 7-seat SUV! The monster was brand new, with only 30 km on it, too. But I felt like quite the anti-environmentalist fool barrelling down the highway in this behemoth with only one other person filling the 7-seats. Then, I contracted a cold and had to take some medication, making me drowsy for the drive back. So I deflated this effect by breaking a vow I took 3 years ago, one to never drink caffeinated coffee again. So, my friends, I report that in order to avoid falling asleep at the wheel on the 401 highway, I imbibed my first cup of Tim Horton's coffee in 3 years. Oh, it was sooooo good.

So now it's 2:AM and I'm still wide awake.

But today what I really want you to see is the following few paragraphs from Charley Reese's Feb 13th column (emphases are mine):

"That same Danish newspaper, about three years ago, rejected some cartoons ridiculing Jesus on the grounds that they would cause an uproar. The paper has certainly never run anti-Jewish cartoons. Why then did the editors think it was OK to insult Muslims? Apparently, they revealed themselves as just plain anti-Islam bigots.

"Well, there are two sides to the coin of rights we so enjoy in the West. On one side is the right and on the other is the responsibility. To mock and ridicule another's religion is irresponsible, stupid, vicious and despicable. Whoever owns that newspaper ought to fire both the editor and the cartoonists. They caused an awful lot of trouble just for the sake of a joke on the intellectual level of a drunken frat-house member. It is not a question of freedom of the press; it is a case of the press being irresponsible.

"...Everything we say and do has consequences, and nobody should say or do anything unless he is prepared to accept those consequences without being a crybaby about them."

Now compare that to the my blog post that resulted in me being called a theocrat. Pretty much the same sentiments as Reese (and, for that matter, as Eric Margolis), who are both prominent politically conservative journalists and defenders of free speech. Why are they not accused of being theocrats? Because, simply, it's a moronic accusation against a fully reasonable and responsible position which, horror of horrors, is devoid of dogma and hyperbole.

General Amnesty, Corporal Punishment, Private Parts

It's a funny thing having a blog, especially a political one. Lots of people seem to think it's an ego thing, that one somehow gets one's jollies by sharing one's opinions with the world. But the truth of the matter is that for every shared opinion, there are a hundred opposing ones, most of them confrontational and belittling. So this is clearly not the best medium for shoring up one's ego. No, I think most bloggers do it to help refine their positions on matters. When the debate is civilized, it goes well. When it isn't, it goes poorly indeed.

The problem is that no one can agree on what "civilized" means.

Since I started this space over 10 years ago, I've been called: sexist, racist, homophobe, neocon, terrorist, feminist, theocrat, technocrat, imperialist, communist, libertarian, socialist, oppressor, victim, fool, idiot, Muslim-lover, Muslim-hater, pseudo-scientist, anti-Christian, conservative!, allopathic chauvinist and --my personal favourite-- "just another Indian writer".

Clearly, I can't be all of those things, since several are polar opposites of others on the list. So either I'm not writing clearly enough or there are a lot of people out there who really can't read as well as they think they can. I'm willing to accept the possibility of the former, but that would make my publishers, editors, book reviewers, funders and award-granters all morons-- and they all can't be morons, can they?

So I think what's happening is that some visitors come here all hot and bothered about a topic, just looking for a fight; they skim the content and seize upon a word or phrase to the exclusion of the rest of the post, and that becomes the issue they will grip unto death. That, to me, is indicative of poor reading skills. I'm not sure what to do with such people. In the past, I've been deferential and polite, but have universally been responded to with more bile.

Another common occurrence is when a visitor fresh from his very first political science class, armed with new concepts like "the rational model", epistemology, game theory and cultural relativism, somehow convinces himself that he is master of such matters and --more to the point-- that others (i.e., me and others who post here) have never heard of such things before. (Where could we possible have learned such things? Gasp! It's not like we went to, you know, school, or someplace like that.) Or they generously and professorially send me to the writings of Tom Friedman or Thomas Sowell, assuming that I, the dumb hick scientist that I must be, have never heard of these fellows before.

But what is most annoying are the ones who can't even sustain their own internal logics. They argue one side in one comment, then the other side in another comment, seemingly gauging their positions solely as the exact opposite to whatever position they assume I'm taking.

I frequently have exchanges here with Matt Vadum. It may surprise some of you to know that Matt and I are actually good friends, despite the yawning chasm between our political poles. I respect Matt because his positions are consistent, though in my opinion somewhat dogmatic and sometimes approaching bigoted. (I'm sure he feels the same way about my opinions, and that's okay.) Matt, at least, can write very well, so I usually have no trouble understanding what his objection is or what he's trying to say.

Which brings me to my point(s): I will no longer make any special kind of effort to understand what commenters write. I'm a very busy man. If I need to build a translation matrix to figure out what you're trying to say, I will ignore you or maybe even belittle you, because frankly you deserve it. Moreover, and more importantly, any comment than is in the least bit disrespectful will immediately be placed in the "must be belittled" pile, and will have a very hard time extracting itself.

So that is my convenant to you, as it has always been for this site's decade-plus of existence: if your comment is respectful, even if your take on a topic is the exact opposite to mine, you will receive respect back from me. Deviate and you will be treated appropriately. And remember, I reserve the right to ignore, mock, ban, deny --and even to edit-- all comments posted here.

So, what constitutes respect?

Something seems to happen when people get online and adopt anonymous or fake identities: they become assholes. You know who I am; I've got nothing to hide.

(1) So if you are posting under a fake name with no email address or URL, I will already be predisposed to not take you seriously. Anonymity is certainly allowed here, but I am much less inclined to take such individuals seriously.

(2) If your opening post contains a phrase resembling something to the effect that, "I could easily disprove everything you've said, but I don't have the time right now", then you are a disrespectful idiot and I will treat you as such.

(3) If you react with a ridiculous amount of hyperbole, then I am inclined to think that you are a troll with very little to offer. You will treated as such until you prove otherwise.

(4) If you post something racist, sexist or homophobic, you will be mocked, ignored, banned. What is racist, you ask? Attributing to an entire race, culture or civilization the negative characteristics observed in a few.

I was recently taken to task for referring to "the Muslim street" in the context of predictable violence. I still challenge whether this is a racist statement, but I nonetheless issued a change of text in the comments section, because I'm nice like that, and it is always better to err on the side of clarity. However, anyone who suggests that Muslims (not terrorists, mind you, but ordinary everyday Muslims who might be offended by something in a newspaper) are fundamentalists incapable of critical thought are rightfully branded as racist scum.... until they issue a clarification or correction. So far, every person thus branded here has failed to issue any such clarification, so I must conclude that those sentiments honestly reflect their minds on this matter.

(5) If you start calling me or anyone else on this site names, then you will be mocked into stillness. I reserve the right to start calling you names if you qualify under posits (1) through (4) above.

(6) If you keep making the same point again and again, after I or someone else has already responded to it, you will be ignored.

(7) This one is problematic. Many times, someone will post here with what they see as a revelation, not realizing that we've already discussed it to death on a previous day. Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect newcomers to know the tone and covered topics on their very first visit here. And yet that is what I'm going to require of them. The same rules apply in most internet discussion fora: you are responsible for educating yourself about the history of this site. It's your burden, not mine.

(8) On a related note: assume the best. Want to ask an innocent question? Go ahead; curiosity will never be punished. But when you post an opinion here, assume that I and the other readers are well informed and educated, because most of us are. We've most of us already read Friedman, Sowell, Said, Margolis, Coulter, Sullivan, Fisk, Hansen, Steyn, Yglesias, Tomorrow, Reese and the rest.

(9) Lastly, threats of physical violence will receive a hearty belly laugh from me, and, if you're in the same city, a sound ass-kicking. Trust me on that.

In a heated environment, the written word is a slippery tool. Without care with respect to word choices and context, simple confrontationalism can be misinterpreted as belligerence. So I submit that it is entirely possible that I have misread the intentions of some previous posters, and have unfairly relegated them to the category of belligerent trolls (hence worthy of belittling) when in fact they had arrived in all ingenuousness. I accept some responsibility for this, but also wish to make clear that is incumbent upon each of us to write as clearly as we can to avoid such misinterpretations; it's not my job to teach you how to write. I'm not speaking about anyone in particular here, just stating a broad possibility.

Having said all that, this is what I am now offering: a general amnesty for all who have, for whatever reason, entered into a confrontational relationship with me here. If you're interested in starting afresh, you are welcome to do so and I will pretend that you are a brand new person with no history or baggage with me.

But be warned. Cross me on any of the points above, and we'll be right back where we started.

Impromptu Concerts and Crappy Home Movies

Islamic tombs in Hyderabad.


Well, I'm back. My apologies to those whose emails I've yet to respond to. I'm just a little overwhelmed right now with all the stuff I have to do. Yes, photos from India are forthcoming, but it will take a few days to upload them and label them, etc. But I've given you a taste above. This tomb is from a collection of seven Islamic tombs in Hyderabad, not far from the Golconda Fort.

I am a computer geek, a bit of a history geek and very much a science geek. But I am not a camera geek. Hence, it wasn't until late in my trip that I figured out how to use the video capture function on my digital camera. And it wasn't until just now that I realized that this function comes with audio! Had I been so revelated whilst in India, I would have recorded many more video snippets. Sadly, you must make do with what I managed to film: mostly rickshaw rides and random street scenes.

So for those so inclined, I've provided links to snippets of video from India on my new Home Movies page. Please read and respect the disclaimer at the top of that page.

The flight back to Canada was, as always, an experience. Within 20 minutes of taking off into the 14 hour flight, the woman to my left asked if she could exchange her middle seat for my aisle seat. I'm usually a very courteous and accomodating fellow. But India has taught me that courtesy often goes punished. (I had, on an earlier flight, given up my aisle seat so a family could sit together, and ended up squished between two fat guys for the duration.) So I was quick to say no, since I had specifically requested an aisle seat. But it made the rest of the flight a bit awkward. I wish she hadn't asked.

Arriving in Newark was odd. First, we were held up for 20 minutes while a woman overcame her fear of escalators. Then, US immigration chose to process all the US citizens first, from a series of incoming flights, which meant that all of us non-Americans had to languish for hours until every last US citizen was processed, then it was our turn. I'm not sure why this was done. Doesn't seem very efficient, since one would think that the international travellers (like me) are more likely to have time-sensitive connecting flights to make (like me).

Arriving in Ottawa was doubly odd. I was, of course, the only person selected for a baggage inspection. The customs official asked me to unpack my spanking new electric sitar and to play a song for them. Maybe they suspected that it was fake and filled with drugs? In any case, I obliged. So there I was, jetlagged and unwashed in an empty Ottawa airport, playing unplugged electric sitar to an audience of one.

Tomorrow: back to work. Sigh.

And I'm Off (Hence The Odour)

Greetings from ther departure lounge at Indira Gandhi International Airport. Allow me to describe my final hours in India.

Today, my hostess Sylvie and I went to a magnificent modern mandir (temple) built by the devotees of Sri Swaminarayan, who was a dude in the 18th century who wowed the people by showing signs of saintliness at an early age; in fact, he is thought by his followers to be another incarnation of the god Vishnu, and has thus been given the posthumous title, "Baghwan".

Now, I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of worshipping a human being. But that's none of my business, so to each his own. The grounds of the mandir are quite fascinating, though. The style is that of Hindu temples of a thousand years ago, a design that has not been seen since that time. But, in modern Indian fashion, commerce is to be seen here, with an imax movie, a boat tour and other services being offered for a fee. The place is laced by an artificial river filled with "the waters of 151 holy rivers from around the world", and devotees are invited to throw in money and take a dip. I think the holiest man in the world must be the janitor who wades in knee-deep every hour to collect all the change.

More interesting was the temple's overstated Hindu chauvinism. In the garden are statues dedicated to India's history. The ideal women portrayed were all mythological figures known for their fidelity an sacrifice. The ideal men, on the other hand, were all historical Hindu kings, politicians and intellectuals. It is odd that Ramanujan made it onto the pantheon (a great mathematician who killed himself while young) but none of the important Mughal emperors did. Hmmm, I wonder why? Religious divisions are not visible to the untrained eye, but they do run deeply here.

This was also a day for good rickshaw rides! For some reason, all the rides I took today required no haggling, and were all reasonably priced. In fact, at one point, a traffic official stopped us to make sure we weren't getting ripped off! Methinks the Indian government is trying to crack down on the rampant ripping off of tourists. Hear hear! I took great pains to read the devanagari script on the back of our rickshaw.