Warriors and Terrorists

One of my favourite actors is the late Sir Peter Ustinov who was not just a thespian, but an outspoken intellectual, journalist, representative for UNICEF and past President of something called the World Federalist Movement (more info about it here).

In his column this week, Eric Margolis quoted one of Ustinov's more pithy observations: "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

This is clear to many of us who have sympathy for the world's dispossessed hordes. Yet, in this new era of stupidity, it behooves me to have to declare yet again that acceptance of Ustinov's axiom is in no way admission of support for terrorists; if anything, it's a further disavowment of terrorism, as the quote lumps the tactic in with the great obscenity of civilization: war.

Yet therein lies the unspoken pathology of the present pro-war set: one may offer rhetoric to the effect that war is bad and needs to be avoided, but a current of militaristic fetishism runs deeply through such declarations, borne out through the constant reassertion of the glories of traditional military trappings: uniforms, ballads, flags, worn out slogans and the like.

I believe Ustinov's quote comes close to revealing the true source of discontentment from which the more virulent of the pro-war croud suffers. If, as Ustinov correctly observes, terrorism and warfare are two sides of the same coin, how truly thin is the disk of metal that separates them?

If one defines terrorism as violent acts deliberately perpetrated upon civilian populations in order to attain political goals (a commonly accepted definition), then traditional warriors certainly qualify. The Nazis were terrorists for establishing death camps and for raining bombs down on London during the Blitz. The Allies were also terrorists for flattening Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even in situations of what modern spin-doctors call "collateral damage", wherein civilian deaths are incidental to the destruction of military targets, the defence is disingenuous, since if civilian death are expected, then they are de facto targets and hence are victims of terrorism, especially when the goal of the operation is as much psychological as military, eg. "shock and awe". (In legal cliche, "intent follows the bullet".)

What then is the difference between "warriors" and "terrorists"? The difference is in the trappings. We of the "civilized" world dress up our "warriors" in uniforms that are fetishized by fashionistas and undersexed young women. We march our soldiers out to standard drumbeats and to the strains of military marching bands. We wave flags that somehow (God only knows how) have attained the status of personages, to the extent that in many armies the only right action after losing one's flag to the enemy is to kill oneself. All these trappings, you must admit, are frail and feeble and desperately transparent in their attempt to distract us from the true task of their bearers: to kill other people. How in God's good name did the word "warrior" take on a positive connotation in our culture? A warrior is someone who makes war, kills people, destroys property, causes suffering and mayhem. Yet every society seeks to grant such individuals --criminals in any other context-- the shimmer of honour, or else we would all slide into guilty, self-hating despair.

Terrorists, by virtue of being the warriors of the poor (and I use the word "warrior" in its true, unglorified meaning), have no such trappings under which to hide their shame. It is this thin and artificial veil that separates suicide bombers from B2 bombers. And it is the thinness of this veil that makes many of the hawks of the West uncomfortable: to honestly consider the motivations of terrorists is to compel onself to honestly consider the motivations of the military actions of one's own cultures and countries, and for many that is an unpalatable prospect. For the truly unsettled, to see oneself in the actions of one's enemy is a painful exercise akin to psychotherapy; only the strong and centred can survive it.

To be a "peace-keeper" is an honourable trade. To "police" a zone, prevent crime, protect the weak and provide a psychologically buttressing presence are worthy activities for those who seek to make the carrying of assault weapons their main trade. But to make war against the innocent who have not harmed or threatened you, whether traditionally under a flag and wearing drab olive, or asymmetrically while dressed in civilian garb, is not something to be proud of. For those who argue that it is nonetheless necessary, at least have the guts to admit that it is murder, and stop hiding behind the unconvincing veneer of honour, religion and tradition.

Fatties To the Left Of Me, Fatties To The Right Of Me

Yeah, everyone's getting fat. Shaila M sends us this article telling us what we all know already: there's a lipid epidemic hitting (North) America! Almost a third of us are porkers. It's getting to the point where it's almost economically arguable to sacrifice one portly mid-Western porker to feed a small African village of 200. Hey, it would breathe new life and meaning into the Peace Corps, no?

I don't mean to mock fat folks. I come from a long line of fatties, and myself was a jolly brown Raywat in my youth; I still have the stretch marks on my neck to prove it, and am terrified of ever sliding down the path fo adiposity again. I also spent two years in Washington, DC, consulting for the NIH in diabetes and obesity research: I know the epidemic is real and it's nasty.

They say the causes are known: sedentary lifestyles, larger meals and less healthy meals. (Poor people tend to eat poorer quality meals in America, hence are fatter.) There are other factors, too, that I suspect may play a role, though the evidence has yet to be collected. Changing ethnic profiles mean a shift in what is considered an aesthetically pleasing form.

And our increasingly toxic environment, featuring phytates, phyto-estrogens and byproducts of contraception medications flushed down the toilet are contributing to a feminization of the Earth; we see it in wild fish and other biota, in which androgynous characteristics are becoming more frequent. We see it, too, in a global decline in sperm quality and male sexual potency, and not just in humans. (Mind you, this data, too, is problematic because we have no baseline against which to compare them to.)

Biochemical feminization and adiposity are related. And just as externally influenced female hormones can increase fatness, so can fatness decrease a body's testosterone:estrogen ratio. It's a vicious, greasy circle.

Also, the definitions of obesity and overweight are absed on BMI, body mass index. A BMI over 30 is considered obese. Over 25 is overweight. Now, as much as I complain about my body, I'm in pretty damned good shape. But my BMI is 27 and climbing, which makes me borderline obese. The problem with BMI is that it does not take into consideration the greater weight of muscle relative to fat and other types of soft tissue. So the fittest, strongest people are in fact categorized as overweight and obese in most national surveys. There's no way around this (short of doing impedance or water flotation tests on tens of thousands of people), so scientists just hope it all averages out in the end.

But that doesn't mean Americans aren't eating too much and exercising too little. And what we/they are eating is crap! Despite a particularly cogent line from the blehh movie Michael, you can have too much sugar. Sugar is not your friend, especially fructose, which causes a greater-than-glucose insulin spike without triggering feelings of satiety. That's why we should all avoid anything with the words "High Fructose Corn Syrup" on them. HFCS is a cheap and unhealthy way to sweeten foods, especially soda pop. If you do nothing else for your health, give up sweetened soda pop: it's just liquid candy.

Here are some other things you need to do to get and stay thin: eat lots of calcium, it helps to mobilize abdominal fat; same goes for chromium; eat fatty fishes with a high omega 3:6 ratio (not the reverse!); avoid white breads, pastas, etc. If you must eat starchy foods, stick to whole wheats which are high in fibre and protein. White carbs, like WonderBread, are just soft and mushy sugar. In short, get to know something called a "glycemic index."

I could go on, but I won't.

Instead, I will plug my friend Kulpreet's first venture into the world of blogging.

Bush is not a Nazi, so stop saying that.

Benjamin Ferenccz was one of the chief prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis accused of war crimes at the end of WWII. He was responsible for the convictions of 22 Nazi officers in association with the infamous death camps. Ferenccz has now been quoted as saying that both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

(Oh, but Bush is not a Nazi, so stop saying that.)

Of course, George Bush (or Cheney and Rumsfeld, who are likely the reall culprits) will never be brought to trial. But maybe now is the time for some enterprising law students to try him/them in absentia? I mean, give the dudes are real, fair trial on the charges of war crimes. I'd be interested to see the outcome.

Speaking of Nazis, websites run by one of them in the US might be blocked to Canadian eyes by the CRTC soon. Without question, the content of these sites is vile and provocative. But, really, what is the point in banning them? I covet few American items, but their First Amendment is one of them: people should be free from government interference to say whatever the heck they want, and the rest of us should be free to ignore it or rebut it. I should specify: I covet the First Amendment as it is written, not in the way it has been practised/ignored.

Lastly, did anyone catch Christopher Hitchens on Bill Maher's new cable show? Hitch showed his true colours by giving the audience the finger and telling them to "fuck off". Download the clip in Windows format here, and in Quicktime here. Here's a quote from one online commenter:

"There is just no way someone with Hitchens' beliefs can rationally support someone like George Bush, and I've long suspected Hitchens' head will burst when the double-think reaches critical mass. This rather astonishing clip shows he's creeping ever closer. " -Karen

George's Cajones

Interestingly, there's a group out there called "Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism". (Thanks to Dave M. for the link.) Their rationale seems to vary, but among their arguments is the belief that the Torah teaches them not to be political, thus seeking a Jewish homeland is not acceptable behaviour. Mind you... isn't protesting against Zionism also a political act? Hmmm. Complicated. Regardless, I thought I'd share this with you.

Speaking of things Israeli, I think it's also important that I share with you this Amnesty International report teaser, which accuses Israel of war crimes in the recent conflict with Lebanon. A quote from the press release:

"Israel's destruction of thousands of homes, and strikes on numerous bridges and roads as well as water and fuel storage plants, was an integral part of Israel's military strategy in Lebanon, rather than 'collateral damage' resulting from the lawful targeting of military objectives."

Unrelated, but sort of related, if you know what I'm talking about, is the ongoing realization among thinking people of the blatant anti-social and bigoted stance of Canada's Western Standard paper, particularly through its blog. It's a topic I've harped on about here for some time. I said I would no longer read it, and I've stuck by that statement. Now voices from the Right are coming to realize that the WS and its blog are nothing but trouble for them; witness this post from a well known Right-of-centre blog. From the post:

"I still think it's remarkable that of all the weblogs out there, one run by a reputable news magazine has managed to become the go-to destination for (in Coyne's words) 'western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks,' to say nothing of liars, abuse-hurlers and unapologetic racists and bigots."

Always remember: the WS is owned by a prominent member of the Conservative party, and its contributors include prominent supporters of the party. What does it say about the party when this is the kind of people and the kind of intellectual activity it seems to produce and attract in more than just trace amounts.

Also unrelated, but sort of related, is this clip of George Galloway giving it to the US House of Representatives. As I said before, George is a blowhard and a weasel at times, but other times I'm glad he's around, 'cause few others have the cajones to tell it like he does.

More Fluffery

The topic of yesterday's post got me rummaging about my enormous science fiction collection to pull up some of the works of the late Grandmaster Robert A. Heinlein, pictured to the left. Heinlein was a visionary and fearless writer who never talked down to his audience, even when writing children's books. His The Star Beast (1954) was the very first sci-fi novel I ever read by myself (I think I was 8 or so) and featured the first and only fictional character I ever fell in love with: the protagonist's girlfriend, Betty Sorenson. Yes, my romantic inclinations peaked at 8 and it's been downhill ever since.

But Betty Sorenson is an aside. Heinlein had a particular character, the seemingly immortal Lazarus Long who, like so many of Heinlein's characters in his latter novels, held a fascination for consensual adult incest. Methinks Heinlein had some issues he wanted to get off his chest.

Since today is a day of fluff posts, let's talk about pop music. I've been watching TV's Rockstar: Supernova, 'cause I'm a fool for that crap. (Ever notice how people trying to be socially rebellious all seem to rebel in the same scripted way?) One of the contestants mentioned a song that was "the anthem of his generation". It was Radiohead's Creep. That got me thinking: what are the other anthems of recent generations?

Of course, this sort of fluffy question is culture and geography dependent, so I can only discuss this from my context, having grown up among the white folks in the Toronto inner city in the 1970s and 80s. Having said that, I'm not sure what the pop anthem for my generation was. But I think the anthem for the present generation of mainstream Americans might be this catchy tune by The Killers: All These Things That I've Done. Check out the original of two videos for it here. I think it's the modern equivalent of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody (which, by the way, is one of the few Western pop songs embraced openly by Iranians; something to do with the word "bismillah").

Now, I like The Killers, I really do. And I like that song. But there's something about that little lead singer of theirs that makes me want to kick sand in his face and give him a wedgie. Maybe it's the steroids talking, but I would have liked to have seen Eric Roberts slap him around a bit on that Mr Brightside video .

Anything I Write For A Title Will Just Get Me Into Trouble

Yes, outspoken Scottish politician George Galloway is a blowhard with questionable morals at times, a man seemingly in love with the sound of his own voice, and whose business dealings are certainly not beyond reproach.

But sometimes he gets it right on the money, and there's no denying that among Western politicians, he's alone in having the guts to rail against the Establishment.

Take this video, for example. It's his now infamous interview on Britain's Sky TV, where he points out the uncomfortable truths about the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, specifically that: (a) the conflict is not a few weeks old, it's decades old; and (b) Rupert Murdoch's TV stations don't want their viewers to realize that. I highly encourage you to view the video.

(I for one will never forget the time John Malkovich issued public death threats against both Galloway and Robert Fisk, exposing Malkovich's own ironic stupidity, given that his family is made up of reporters whose bread-and-butter is freedom of expression without fear of physical coercion. The incident has affected my ability to enjoy a Malkovich film ever again. Read Fisk's response to the threat here.)

On another topic...

Many years ago, I went out on a date with a lovely young woman who sheepishly had a confession to make: her parents, it seems, were first cousins. While such a practice raises eyebrows here, in many cultures it's quite common for cousins to marry. Naturally, one instantly fears for the genetic robustness of the progeny of such unions. But, I am quick to point out, this particular woman was stunningly beautiful and a brilliant lawyer in the employ of the provincial government; so clearly, the genes were doing just fine.

Today comes this story about a 47 year old man entering into a consensual sexual relationship with his 25 year old daughter. The two of them had a baby, which was subsequently abused. Now, ignore for a second the baby abuse charge. Let us, as thinking, moral people concerned for the sanctity of civil rights, consider the appropriateness of the law in this case. Both the man and his wife/daughter are being charged with incest, and there's no denying that they are guilty of that charge. However, should there even be an incest charge where consenting adults are concerned?

Really now; I've always held that whatever a man, a woman, another woman and a monkey choose to do behind closed doors is none of my business, and certainly not the government's business. (Okay, I'm kidding about the monkey bit; my opinions supporting anti-bestiality laws are on record.) The fact remains: what business is it of ours what adult humans, in an unaltered state of mind, choose to consensually do with each others' gonads? For the most part, we accept this logic as it applies to which gender we choose to have sex with. Why is the logic not extended to degrees of relation?

One argument for the upholding of adult anti-incest laws is the real threat of genetic malformation of progeny. But consider this: in our society it is unacceptable to, by force of law, prevent genetically compromised individuals from procreating. (People with serious genetic malformations or diseases, for example, are legally and ethically free to have childen, despite the high probability of passing on their defective genes.) Why then is it reasonable to use such genetic reasoning to prevent incestuous procreation?

The answer, of course, is that it's oogy. Ewwww. I'm with you there. But, honestly, is ooginess sufficient reason to criminalize a thing? Many, many people consider homosexual contact to be aesthetically unpleasant, as well, but we now accept that it is inappropriate to criminalize homosexual behaviour. Indeed, what of incestuous adult homosexual unions? I'm not sure of the rationale for criminalizing these.

Another argument that is sure to arise is one of power imbalance. In the cited case, the father is 22 years older than his daughter. One assumes he wields some authority over her. It could be reasonably argued that, in such a circumstance, the affair would not be consensual. This is a slippery slope argument, however, because it necessarily challenges the validity of every sexual relationship involving an age difference. And it doesn't address the illegality of adult sibling relationships. And indeed, I perceive an assumption underlying the law, that the fact of adulthood vitiates most power imbalance arguments: either we are all adults with equal power of appeal and control or we are not.

(How sad it is that I must include this paragraph, but such are these times of ignorance and low general intellect: my questions herein are not meant to be supportive of the practice of incest, but are merely an exploration of the relationships between law, morality and civil liberty in our society. Got it?)

What do y'all think? I eagerly await your comments.

George Allen Knows What He Can Do With My Macaca

I've made up my mind. I'm never reading the Western Standard's blog, The Shotgun, ever again. To this point, I've been reading Ezra Levant's electronic equivalent of used toilet paper as a public service to you, my droogies, 'cause somebody's gotta keep an eye on the lunatics of the extreme Right. But lately, the unfiltered bigotry is even too much for my jaded and world-weary eyes. You know, I can almost tolerate a bit of racism now and then, if it's an occasional lapse cached in between insightful commentary. But, increasingly and unsurprisingly, the writers and commenters on that site (and presumably the paper itself) are just proving to be historically ignorant dumbasses,

A recent thread had this priceless comment about Native peoples:

"Tear up the treaties. The Natives don't respect our laws so to hell with them. Why should we show respect for treaties when they continually spit in our faces and blame us for their own shortcomings?" -Liz J

Did you laugh, too? Or cry? Or simply shake your head and grumble? How bad is public education in Canada when people blieve it was the aboriginals who failed to honour treaties?

Interestingly, there are some who theorize that the Standard, despite catering to a dedicated audience of hardcore bigots, is in mortal peril of bankruptcy. As one commenter on the cited blog puts it:

"Levant has nothing to say and says it very loudly. For him, libel's just another word for nothing left to say." -Greg Felton

Speaking of bigotry, my people are at it again. A new restaurant in Mumbai is, um, Hitler-themed. (Insert forehead slapping sound here.)

And you can't have a post about bigotry without talking about the US Republican party, right? Check out this video of comments made by Sen. George Allen (R). Allen picks out the sole non-white person in the audience (an American citizen by birth, by the way), calls him a "Macaca" several times, and adds, "Welcome to America." (Apparently, "Macaca" is a slur against Arab Africans.) This Washington Post article ridicules Allen's office's lame attempts to explain away the Senator's racist comments. Before you think this is an isolated incident, apparently Allen has a long history of hatin' on the dark folks.

So with all this disturbing racist stuff today, let's end with a little more fluff, shall we? My favouritest Canadian foreign affairs pundit, Eric Margolis, is being invited back to TVOntario for the new current affairs show, The Agenda. A bit of a disclaimer: many years ago, I wrote a very positive review of Eric's excellent book, War At The Top Of The World for India Currents Magazine. (One of the critic quotes on his website is from my article.) As a result, Eric and I enjoyed a brief correspondence. He is a charming and well-informed gentleman, though he wears his defensible biases on his sleeve. The story is that Eric walked out of his TVO gig because the producers were slanting the show toward the neocon Right. Perhaps one good thing has come from the demise of Studio 2: Eric Margolis may be returning to my TV screen.

But it's not all good news in TV land. Another great Canadian show, Street Cents, has been cancelled. If you've never seen it, Street Cents is a kids' show that teaches young 'uns how to shop responsibly and how to be immune from the forces of consumerism which abound. What is the CBC thinking?

Mmmm.... Burqalicious

Oh, this is not a joke. Above is an ad for "Armor of God Pyjamas" for that duo of young Christian fundamentalists you're raising in your basement, amidst the fertilizer and gun collection. And why not? Christians need to catch up. After all, fundamentalist Islamic fashion is making its way onto the runways of Paris and New York:


But this ain't no joking matter. Persecution based upon appearances, specifically with regard to religious garb and aesthetic customs, is a growing problem. Brother Hrab directs us to this disturbing story about innocent brown-skinned travellers being forced off of commercial airliners because the other passengers had been whipped into a Muslim-fearing frenzy. People! Calm the frack down!

But today's blog spot isn't supposed to be too political. Let's keep it light and fluffy today, okay? I haven't slept enough to get my indignation fully on. So instead I give you Cracked's Top 5 Most Obviously Drug-Fueled TV Apearances Ever.

Note that the first winner is Crispin Glover's infamous appearance on Letterman. The problem is that there is some evidence that Glover was in fact in character, emulating the doofus he played in the forgotten drug film, Rubin and Ed. There's a taste of the film here.

But if you want to see a real drug-driven TV appearance, check out Farah Fawcett's appearance on Letterman here and here.

On another topic, remember that fantasy book series I told you about? His Dark Materials? I'm not quite finished the last book yet, but I wanted to share some news. The book touches a little on current quantum and cosmological theory, including some supposition of what dark matter really is. Well, today comes news that there exists astronomical proof that dark matter truly exists. This is a big development in astrophysics.

Okay, I will leave you with one non-fluffy item: the rightwingnutosphere's supposition that since tomorrow, Aug 22, marks the date of the appearance of the 12th Imam of Shiaism, the Iranians will try something big and violent, supposedly against Israel. Whatever. We'll see.

Studio 2 Gone?

A funny thing just happened. I just now realized that my favourite TV current affairs show, TVOntario's Studio 2, has been cancelled! It's a rare thing to have a genuinely intelligent news show where experts are brought in to give opinion, not position, and where everyone gets the time they need to make a cogent argument without an upwardly-mobile host butting in to get his face time. This is a sad revelation for me, and I believe for Canada.

The show was very highly rated, which reaffirms my belief that there exists a thirst in our society for truly informative news and discussion. So why did they cancel it? Well, since the network is owned by the province, you'd have to turn to the Ontario Liberal government. According to Conservative spokespeople, the show was turfed because it gave too much voice to the Opposition. I suppose that that is possible. You know what? That's one of the qualities I loved about the show: all views were presented, and no one fought or bickered or postured.

It will be replaced by some lame-sounding show, also hosted by Steve Paiken (pictured above), called The Agenda. I'm sure it will be a good show, but it will suck in comparison.

"What is the difference between the homicidal terrorists and those who terrorize mankind in the name of opposing them?" -Karen De Coster

Which Annoying Harry Potter Git Are You?

You scored as Draco Malfoy. Spoilt and proud, you place high value on the purity of wizard blood and look set to follow in your father's somewhat shady footsteps. Draco Malfoy 75% Sirius Black 70% Albus Dumbledore 70% Ron Weasley 65% Hermione Granger 60% Lord Voldemort 55% Harry Potter 55% Remus Lupin 40% Severus Snape 40% Ginny Weasley 35% Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...? created with QuizFarm.com

35? What the...?

Yes, I recently turned 39, but have always held a certain pride that I look very much younger than my age. I like to think that this is because of healthy living and a positive attitude, but I think the truth of it is that the degree to which one ages gracefully is probably 85% genetic. But, man, I intend to maximize that 15% !!

Mind you, in order to look younger or older than one is, there has to be an established baseline or norm for comparison purposes. Who said a 39 year old man is supposed to be greay-haired, wrinkly and have a big belly? Where does this expectation come from? It's a caucasion Western norm bred from 60 years of American visual media, I say. Darker-skinned peoples tend not to wrinkle as much, for example, so perhaps it's inappropriate to guage my ageing patterns against the established North American norms?

Whatever. Take this test. It will tell you what your real biological age is. It seems mine is 35. I gained 4 years because of my lifestyle. But, according to the test, I can do better. It's a pretty good site. I encourage you to take the test and report back. (Thanks to Sukhy H.)

I leave you with this surreal video of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Marilyn Manson. As usual, O'Reilly comes across as an asshat. I may find Manson banal and predictable, but I love him in interviews. It takes more than a 3rd rate blowhard than O'Reilly to make Manson lose his cool.

Introduction of the Royal "We"

We bid bon voyage and safe travels, yadda yadda, to regular Deonandia visitor Sarah M, who, as part of the Canadian military, is being shipped off to Afghanistan today. While Deonandia is on record as being opposed to the Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan, we nonetheless hope very much that Ms M keeps herself safe and returns soon with all faculties and limbs intact.

(No, that's not her to the left. That's the real Tank Girl.)

For one time only --One time only, people-- Deonandia presents the return of the Daily Perv Link. Remember: we do not advocate the activities described in the link; we only bring them to your attention for scientific and outrage purposes. Don't believe me? Check the disclaimer.

We continue to track the weirdness of social conservatism manifesting in America (weird because it happens during a time when so much American anger is directed at other parts of the world, supposedly for their social conservatism). Today's story is about a law in a city in Missouri which prohibits more then three people from living in the same home if they are "unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption." Just imagine if this law were common nationally --there would have never been a Three's Company!

We leave you today with mention of an excellent series of books I'm reading. It is said that there were three great English fantasy series written in the Twentieth Century: The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia and.... His Dark Materials. It's the latter that I'm devouring now. It's ostensibly a series of children's books, but the premise is essentially.... a war against God. How can you not be intrigued by that? Oh yeah... of course, there's a movie coming out, too.

You're Shiva... My Hero!

To the left is my very special birthday card sent to me by photo-artist Richard Erlac.

Brother Hrab sends us this article about how "Western values" are causing "mental illness" in Japan. Also from B.H. comes this article on a topic pertinent to this ageing bachelor: how staying single may make us thinner but confer shorter life spans!

If you need cheering up after that news, Andoo sends us a selection of Star Trek inspirational posters!

Speaking of Trek, apparently William Shatner is looking for a new spokesperson for his new line of science fiction DVDs. Yes, he's looking for unknowns, so go forth and audition, Geeks of the World!

From Darth Vadum, we have this article about how every one of us is probably descended from royalty. Speaking of the evil Darth, remember his video showing Bill Clinton's supposed response to Ann Coulter? Apparently the link is not reliable, so Dave M sends us this alternative link.

The Dark Lord from DC also shares with us this extraordinary video of a woman who tok a photograph of herself every day for three years.

Here's a topic worthy of a lengthier blogpost. You know how the world is (mostly rightly) down on Western men who travel to the Third World looking for cheap sex? Well, how come no one ever talks about the hundreds of Western women who do the same thing?

So, the US and UK invaded Iraq to bring democracy, order and decency to that country, right? (Insert suppressed laughter here.) That explains the latest (of many) cases of brutal rape and murder of Iraqi civilians committed by Western soldiers.

But that's just a blip, right? 'Cause the invaders, for the most part, are at least better than the religious fanatics that would have otherwise controlled the Middle East. Right? Right? Apparently, there are plenty of religious fanatics right here in North America, and they have the power of government. A new law in Kentucky now prevents the use in public schools of any book that teaches, "sectarian, infidel, or immoral doctrine." No need to go fight ni Afghanistan; the Taliban are right here in North America, white-skinned, in business suits and clutching Bibles to their breasts.

'Sall I got today. Wat out.

Happy Birthday To Me...

Mongol General: Conan, What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

Mongol General: That is good.

-Conan the Barbarian

Did You Hear A Pop?

A couple of pics from Monday's suburban brunch with the Wong clan (captions courtesy of Ed Wong):

"Higher, damn you!"	"Did you hear a pop?"

Courtesy of Darth Vadum, here's Bill Clinton's response to Ann Coulter's allegation that he is a latent homosexual.

Here's an annoying story: it seems a 9-year old girl stuck her hand into the meerkat habitat at the zoo and was bitten. But because her parents didn't want their little treasure to endure a series of rabies shots, all the meerkats had to be killed and their brains tested. They tested negative, of course. Here's an idea: if your brat can't keep her hands out of an animal's home, maybe a few well placed rabies shots are all she needs to learn the lesson, huh?

A certain comedian directs us to this article, which examines the USA's intimate relationship with Israel. But it's Rick Salutin who gets the money quote today, from his brilliant column on anti-semitism:

"[G]enerations of Arabs have had to pay for two millenniums [sic] of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, once 'the West' decided it owed a debt to Jews for the Holocaust."

Salutin also talks a bit about Mel Gibson. I like Gibson's movies, especially The Year Of Living Dangerously, which is among my 5 favourite films of all time. But he's clearly a racist/anti-semite and is thus welcome to kiss my motza-lovin' ass.

Ceiling Cat

"For a long time I believed that World War I was the most stupid war ever fought in human history, but by golly, the brain-dead governments in Washington and Tel Aviv might yet blunder into one that surpasses it. That would be fitting, as the present-day Middle East, with all its problems, was created by the winners of World War I. " -Charley Reese

Many thanks to Ed Wong and his lovely wife Meiling for hosting a BBQ in Markham yesterday, which was actually an excuse to get free babysitting (i.e., Lord Wat, Sean M, Kev H and Andrew C) for his adorable toddlers, Adam and Madeline. I bring this up because never before have I seen four grown 40-ish men cr0uched on a mattress in the middle of a room, pretending that it's a pirate ship.

Always remember:

Interesting news. Remember that blog post of mine that became an article for India Currents Magazine? Looks like it's been nominated for something called a "National Ethnic Media Award". I don't know what all this is about, but... cool.

Let's begin with the small stuff:

• A DMV in the USA has ruled that a senior citizen's licence plate, which she has had for years, is now obscene. The plate says: NWTF, which in modern dumb-ass chat-room parlance means, "Now What The Fuck", but which the senior had been using as an acronym for her business, Northwood Tree Farm. While this is dumbassery at the highest level, what's more interesting is that they didn't rule the woman's name --Pat Niple-- to be obscene, as well.
• Speaking of obscenities, a recent poll indicates that 50% of Americans believe that WMDs were found in Iraq after the invasion. This number is actually up from 36% last year. Even more fuel for my contention that before one should be allowed to vote, one should be able to pass a basic current events test.
• For all the right wing apologists who lurk on this site, here's some casual reading for you: 26 dictators propped up by the US government

Let's end with a little revisit of the history between Lebanon and Israel:

"Let's not forget the 1982 massacres, in which the Israeli army allowed vengeful Lebanese Christian militiamen to enter the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, where the militiamen slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees. An Israeli inquiry, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, concluded that then Israeli defence minister Ariel Sharon bore 'personal responsibility' for the massacre. Once again, a slaughter is taking place in Lebanon, only this time those allowing the slaughter to take place are running the governments of the United States, Britain — and Canada." -Linda McQuaig

Interesting, isn't it, that a recent Israeli leader, still revered in the corridors of DC, could be considered pretty much a war criminal by an inquiry in his own country? Let's not forget, as well, that another former Israeli PM, Menachem Begin, was himself a terrorist leader who murdered British civilians during his own jihad against British imperial rule, leading up to the founding of modern Israel.

My point? Simply this: there ain't no obvious good and evil in this conflict. And there's a barely discernible distinction between terrorist and legitimate leader within the global community. Anyone who tells you differently is, quite simply, a fool.

High Fidelity

Here's a leftover photo from my sojourn in New York a couple of weeks ago. It's a sign in the hallway of my cousin's apartment building in the Bronx:


Looks like Shrubby boy just won't give up with the imperial ambitions. According to this WaPo article, a new White House proposal would set in place expanded powers of military courts to prosecute suspected terrorists (even US citizens) without the protections currently provided for by the US constitution. Heck, why not just shred the damn thing already? I'm rightly reminded of a very timely quote by writer Sinclair Lewis:

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

In brighter news, despite being a hotbed of racial intolerance at times, in many ways Australia is a bit of paradise. Whaddya think, Phil? More on the meter maids (lordy, lordy) here.

The big new news is that Fidel Castro may be dying. You don't need me to point out what a gargantuan figure he has been in modern history. And, depending on your ideology, he has been either a hero or a villain. As always, I prefer the more complicated view: that he is/was a hero with villanous tendencies.

Let us very briefly examine the history of Fidel's revolution. Cuba acquired independence from Spain as a result of the Spanish American War, and from 1898-1902 was actually ruled by the USA, hence the superpower's continuing paternal interest in the island state. Immediately prior to Fidel, Cuba was ruled by the US-backed proto-dictator Fulgencio Batista, who was a classic military thug in a business suit (though who also has a fascinating political history, to be discussed another time). The Batista government was cozy with American developers and the mob, allowing great prosperity to flow into the country, but in a stratified sense, with the lion's share remaining with the foreign elite. In 1959, a pro-democracy Fidel Castro led the successful revolution that ousted Batista and made an enemy for life of the United States. Castro's turn to the USSR for ideological and financial assistance didn't help matters much, leading to several failed CIA assassination attempts and at least one US invasion attempt.

Contrary to the democratic principles he espoused as a young lawyer, Fidel eschewed elections and installed himself as dictator for life, in a country that had already been ruled by a series of successive dictators. But let's look at some of the things he accomplished as dictator:

• 97% literacy
• universal health care
• national independence for almost 50 years
• inconsequential HIV/AIDS rate (<0.1%), compared to neighbouring countries
• racial harmony
• negligible crime and corruption
  
• a thriving artistic community

Castro's crimes are also worth noting. Cuba's low HIV/AIDS rate is due to mandatory testing and forced incarceration of anyone testing positive. Castro's is a homophobic regime which imprisons homosexuals and which employs classic police state tactics to stifle dissent.

Perhaps the fairest way to look at Fidel's accomplishments/crimes is not to compare Cuba to the ideals of the 21st century, but rather to ask ourselves, where would Cuba be today if Batista had remained in power? In my opinion, she'd be another Miami: a crime-ridden 3rd world megalopolis that thinks its in in the First World, and whose people slip through gaping chasms in the decaying social system.

Cuba's lack of democracy has never been an issue for me, since in this space I have often expressed the opinion that democracy is overrated as the great panacea of global discord. Indeed, one could argue that during the Cold War, the CIA (read: USA) saw democracy in its neighbours as a weakness to be exploited: in Chile, Colombia and Nicaragua, where democratic elections led to left-leaning governments, the USA instead backed rightist tyrants and attempted to stifle those nations' economies; we see the same thing happening in Chavez's Venezuela. As one discussion forum participant pointed out, those Carribean/Latin American counties that did follow the US-standard democratic model tended to suffer for their efforts, in terms of human rights; Haiti is the perfect example.

Castro's time is over. The "progressive" world has better role models to follow now, Chavez and Morales among them.

I Am Ironman

...Inventor, Businessman, Genius. Cue Black Sabbath theme music. Oh yes, and find out what superhero you are!

So this morning I emerged from my overnight observational sleep study. Here's a pic of me with all the electrodes attached, ready to slip into a night of blissful slumber. Sexy!

Actually, trying to sleep with wires sticking into you --in a drab hospital cubicle with dry air and loud technicians-- is not particularly fun. But, hey, at least I get to blog about it.

Apparently 1/4 of American readers are outraged that the side of an exposed breast was shown on the cover of a parenting magazine. The breast was in the process of exuding milk into the sucking mouth of a baby. Christ, people, no wonder so much of the world thinks you're a bunch of overreactive moralistic nitwits! Get over it already!

Well, surprise surprise, our barely elected PM doubts that the Israeli bombing of the UN outpost was deliberate. Hey, maybe it was. I don't know. But I, as an unelected blogger whom no one reads, am free to suggest that it was deliberate, based upon my reading of the evidence, just as other unelected types are freeto suggest that it wasn't. I think it's inappropriate, however, for the Prime Minister to give any opinion on the matter until the event has been at least cursorily investigated.

Consider this: what if it had been Hezbollah who had bombed the UN outpost and had killed a Canadian peacekeeper? What do you think Harper's response would have been then? Think he would still "doubt" that it was deliberate? Think he would stay quiet and not express outrage that a Canadian citizen had been murdered? Methinks our PM's ideology is showing through again, and this is unacceptable, especially in a minority government and especially on matters so divisive.

His ideology shone through earlier with the statement on CNN, "What we refuse to do is to be drawn into a moral equivalence between a pyromaniac and a fireman,” meaning that he clearly sides with Israel (the fireman) in this conflict. There are many Canadians who share his point of view, and many others (I would argue, the majority) who do not. That's not the point. The point is two-fold: (1) whatever happened to Canada's golden role as mediator? That's gone now, shredded by one brief government, and may never return; and (2) is the world reall so simple to him? Really, now, I expect that level of analysis from bloviating TV pundits. But from a sitting PM, I would hope to see some level of nuance and a grasp of the subtleties of the situation.

While we're at it... why is he making such bold declarations on CNN, while avoiding the CBC and his own Parliamentary Press Corps? Hmmm?

PS. This fake reporter now predicts a massive Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon by the end of the week.

The First Qana Massacre

First, the news:

• Indian doctors have been caught amputating healthy limbs from beggars to increase the latter's potential income. India may be a burgeoning regional superpower, but it's got some issues to deal with first.
• This is weird. Amazon.com is selling one of my stand-alone short stories! I didn't know they could do that!
• As you all know by now, I love to watch athletic dance. Check out this Japanese b-boy video.
• Increasingly, people are being fired for what they write in their blogs. I will have a lot more to say about this in the future.
• If you're like me and spend a lot of time surfing the nauseating right wing websites, you've likely come across several memes on the topic of, "why Muslims can't be good Americans/Canadians/Englishmen/Whatever". It's a moronic topic. But, at last, here's a good response: Can A Christian Be a Good Canadian? (Thanks to Anju G.)
  
• Don't know if I've mentioned this already, but my friend Andrew Johnston from DC has a new book out. Check it out here. Yeah, I'm in the credits, which is why I'm plugging it! ;-)
• Last night I randomly caught a televised performance of some hiphop/thrash/bboy dude named Kazzer. I am now a huge fan.
  

Back on June 18, I blogged about my disgust with Ezra Levant's Western Standard, and in particular about the outrageous things being said on the magazine's blog, many of which would typically qualify as hate speech. (For the record, I am opposed to hate speech laws --that's for another discussion.) At the time, I made my view clear: that it is incumbent upon Ezra (and indeed the Conservative party, which has close ties to the Standard) to disassociate himself from such comments lest the world assume (rightly? wrongly?) that he shares them.

It seems I'm not the only one to have this concern. Witness the following comment by Michael Watkins on another blog:

"Question for media lawyers: there does not appear to be any serious attempt by the Western Standard to distance itself from such comments; regardless of any current or future disclaimers, they appear to be willing partners in publishing such vile stuff, and if so, are they a likely target for hate crime investigation?"

Well, any lawyers up for the take?

In the comments of the last post, the question was brought up: what would Israel possibly have to gain by deliberately bombing UN outposts? I pondered this for a while. One suggestion made to me was that the targeted outpost happened to be the sole office containing recently collected witness depositions which described Israeli war crimes in the "security zone" of South Lebanon.

As outrageous as this sounds, it reminds me of something called "Operation Grapes of Wrath", which occurred in April of 1996. This event spawned the so-called "Qana Massacre", in which 106 Lebanese civilians were killed while taking refuge in a United Nations compound run by Fijians. (It is more than ironic that 10 years later, a larger Qana massacre is taking place.) Amnesty International issued a document describing the unlawful attacking of civilians in the '96 exchange.

To be clear, both the IDF and Hezbollah are guilty of war crimes for targetting civilians, both in 1996 and today. Do keep in mind that the Hezbollah rockets did little more than psychological damage, while the Israeli munitions flattened whole villages. So who really has the moral highground here?

What concerns me in this blog post is the targetting of a UN compound. It happened in 1996 and it happened again this time around. All quite fishy.