Yeah Yeah, I Know

Droogies, sorry for my absence. I'd planned all sorts of detailed posts, but the fatigue has finally run me down. You can only pull so many all-nighters before the brain begins to shut down. But fear not, I will be back to my curmudgeonly self very soon.

In the mean time....

• Nasty Nicky B. sends us this long awaited petition to get the city of Ottawa to remove its "Support the Troops" decal from official vehicles. I've talked about this before. The bottom line, as the petition states, "the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has stated that support for the troops means support for the war in Afghanistan and support for his government's policies there. This makes 'Support Our Troops' a political statement. And political statements have no business being on public vehicles.

Regardless of how you may feel about the war or about soldiers, I think we can agree that the police has no business advertising a partisan government policy, not when citizenry requires them to act objectively on matters relating to that policy, such as policing peace demonstrations.


• P.W. sends us this fantastic article by the brilliant Paul Krugman, about how irrational fear has hijacked US politics.


• Here's some incredible news: the British are testing what "appears" to be an "invisible tank". With photo goodness! It reminds me of this:



• And here's more evidence that the Apple corporation is run by jerks.

Lastly, here's a heads up: I'll be giving a speech at the World AIDS Day thingy in Ottawa on November 30. Details to follow.

Dumbledore Is A Republican Senator!

I'm sure everyone has already heard that JK Rowling has let slip that her beloved secondary character in the Harry Potter books, wizened wizard supreme Albus Dumbledore, is in fact a beans-n-franks sort of fellow.


What does this all mean? Does it mean anything? Some gay rights supporters are claiming it's a positive sign of support for their cause. Other gay rights supporters are claiming it's a shallow and cowardly sign of support for their cause, because nowhere in the books does dear Albus explore his taste for dangly gonads. Some fans are considering whether this revelation explains Dumbledore's fascination with winsome young Harry; see this photo, if you dare. Some anti-gay rights people are claiming such "controversial" sexuality has no place in a children's book. For them, though, this is all par for the course, since the Christian Right has long since been opponents of Rowling's universe, which normalizes witchcraft and other such "Satanic" activities.

Yet others are expounding on Rowling's marketing brilliance. The gayness appears nowhere in the books, and she waited till the final book had already hit peak sales before laying the news on us, assured that any negative repercussions would in no way affect the bulk of sales. This way, she gets to be "cool" while keeping her creation free of any "tarnishing" consequences of the revelation... maybe even fueling some more interest in the upcoming movies, which now will unavoidably feature renewed scrutiny on Dumbledore's character; maybe some more flowery robes. (Oh come on! You know you were thinking it!)

I'm surprised that no one has suggested an untoward relationship or advances between Dumby and Voldemort being the cause of the latter's downward spiral; seems an obvious take on the current rash of abuse allegations affecting similar religious-themed private schools.

The most reasoned take on the "controversy" that I've heard so far is that the fibre of the stories themselves prevented any discussion of Dumbledore's sexuality. The books are about youth, told from their perspective. To them, the adult world is one of mystery and foreboding. Dumbedore in particular is a character of great mystery and intrigue. It is natural that these more personal aspects of his life --perhaps closeted-- would contribute to his aura.

My take is an authorial one. In my last book, I had two homosexual characters who weren't overtly so. Their sexuality was in no way relevant to the story or to their characters. But I envisioned them, as I do all my characters, with full life histories and emotional palettes. Thus, their sexual orientation flavoured their actions, but was never explicitly expressed. If Rowling is anything like me, then she did the same with Dumbledore: it is how she thought of the character, her creation; thus it was irrelevant if she actually explicitly mentioned his penchant.

We clear now?

But feel free to insert your own joke about "magic wands".


In other news...

The Other Ray sends us this story about new developments in astronaut food... farming insects!

The Misleading Afghan Poll

Quick primer for our readers outside of Canada....

The Canadian military is presently heavily involved in combat operations in Afghanistan, as part of the NATO mission to secure former Taliban-held lands and offer stability in the chaos that resulted after the ill-conceived American invasion. Canadian troops are not (officially) involved in Iraq, so Aghanistan is this country's major policy excursion in the so-called War on Terror. It's an unpopular mission --or, more accurately, its popularity is difficult to gauge, since its nature has been miscommunicated to Canadians on many occasions. It's a combat operation, not a peace-keeping one; and it is being regularly conflated with Canadian health and development aid adventures, as Afghanistan is presently the #1 recipient of Canadian foreign aid.

So, supposedly to give some clarity to this issue, the Canadian media commissioned the polling company Environics to survey the Afghan civilian population on their attitudes toward the mission. The results of the study are famously resported on here, with the much quoted excerpt, "60 per cent of Afghans surveyed believe the presence of foreign troops has been good for their country."

Unsurprisingly, the Conservative government, which is a passionate supporter of this mission, is overjoyed at the results.

Even Reuters is on board with this interpretation, claiming that "a majority of Afghans support the presence of NATO-led troops and want them to remain in the country to fight the Taliban."

Clearly, this is evidence that the anti-war crowd has been wrong all along, and that Canada's new militaristic ways are actually a net positivie phenomenon. Right?

Well, hold on there, partner. Once more I am disappointed in the West's journalistic sector, who continue to write articles based on quotations, hyperbole and press releases, rather than on actual source material. A quick visit to the Environics website allows us to examine the company's summary analysis of the survey, though the actual survey itself remains conspicuously absent. From this summary, it seems that the actual question from which the CBC's 60% figure is derived does not specifically ask about soldiers or the military. Instead, it asks if the presence of foreign countries on Afghan soil is a good thing; 60% think that yes, it is.

But foreign countries is not the same as foreign troops. As mentioned, Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian development aid. The question conflates (deliberately?) military operations with health, education and development aid. The CBC should be ashamed of falsely reporting that the survey indicates that "60% of Afghans surveyed believe the presence of foreign troops has been good for their country." It does no such thing.

Environics appears to be guilty of a little chicanery, as well. They report that, "a plurality of Afghans say that foreign troops should remain 'however long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order'", a result jumped on and quoted by the media. This is true... but the journalists and general public don't seem to be aware that a "plurality" is not the same as a "majority." In this case, only 43% reported that they want foreign troops to remain "however long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order". That means that 57% (a true majority) did not give this response.

Indeed, the Globe and Mail's headline was, "A Majority of Afghans Want Foreign Troops to Stay and Fight." This interpretation is by no means suggested by the published results of the Environics poll.

The question appears to be broken down a little meaningfully, according to the Environics data which suggest that "foreign presence" is made up of: fighting the Taliban, reconstruction assistance, and training the army and police. In fact, a segment of the Environics summary completely unreported by the media reports that Afghans are only cursorily aware that Canadians are in fact engaged in "fighting the Taliban". This begs the question, what then do they think Canadians are doing there? Clearly, the answer must be that most Afghans believe the Canadian presence is primarily to provide those non-military services in training and reconstruction.

Given this belief, then, of what value --in terms of informing the appropriateness of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan-- is the poll's conclusion that 60% of Afghans support our "presence"? The answer: there is no value. This study is a complete non-starter and a sham of a public opinion research poll.

Thomas Walkom of The Toronto Star notes:

• "First let us be clear about what the poll did not find. It did not find that a majority of Afghans want foreign troops to stay and fight. It did find that a majority of those polled approved of 'the presence of foreign countries'".
• "[In the poll], India was rated more highly than Canadians... India's main contribution there is not troops but goods and entrepreneurs."
• "In short, the vast majority of Afghans don't want us to keep fighting in their country until, as Harper puts it, the job is done."
• "When Afghans were asked specifically about Canada, most were delightfully complimentary. But first they had to be reminded we were there."
  

Cool It - Lomborg Redux

Deonandia has discussed the iconoclastic Bjorn Lomborg several times before, most recently here. Lomborg, you will recall, is the political scientist who has, in my view, been misrepresented --or misrepresented himself-- as an economist, a statistician and a climatologist. This is important, because Lomborg's credentials are the foundation of his oft-cited "scientific" stance about the nature of Climate Change, one referred to repeatedly by the CC-denial set, desperately seeking high-level empirical evidence to support their business-biased positions.

Lomborg was catapulted into the public spotlight with the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, which describes, supposedly empirically, his journey from being a self-described left-wing academic to becoming a right-leaning climate change skeptic. Despite Lomborg's subsequent claims, the book clearly placed him in the camp of so-called "Climate Change deniers". Leading scientific journals, Scientific American and Nature --among others-- dedicated many pages to debunking Lomborg's claims. In this space, I, too, have criticized Lomborg's imprecise methods. But the damage had been done: the public, and people who decide policy, are not moved by arguments of lack of scientific rigour; rather, they see a so-called scientist presenting them with so-called scientific data, communicated in a well-marketed and accessible manner, suggesting that things are not as bad as the less eloquent nerd set are claiming.

Then a remarkable thing happened. After years of being simultaneously demonized by the Green movement and celebrated by the Right, Lomborg subtly changed his message in his new book, Cool It. He now does not deny that Climate Change is real. He also does not deny that human beings are responsible for Climate Change. Instead, he argues that, since the actual extent of devastation of Climate Change cannot accurately be determined, we should not be focusing so many of our resources on this issue. Instead, he says, we should focus them on matters that affect us today, such as HIV/AIDS, water quality, malaria, housing and food shortages, etc.

On TVOntario's The Agenda last night, Lomborg said of the Kyoto Accord that its cost is gigantic but its effect will be minimal, if at all measurable. This is a strong argument, and it makes sense. Yes, I said Lomborg's present positions make sense. I am certainly not in favour of the Kyoto Accord, but rather of something more potent. Lomborg argues that since reducing emissions is politically impossible, and economically costly, we should be applying our political will to solving the problems of today, and on investing in research and development to replace the polluting technologies before 2050. Sound reasonable? Sure, when Lomborg sticks to his training --political science-- he can make a lot of sense. It's when he challenges the climatology and faultily conducts meta-analyses --something he does not do with his new position-- that he falters and embarrasses himself. However, even in his new incarnation, he misses many key points:

1. Lomborg assumes that the world is rational. The Rio Summit and Kyoto both failed, he argues, so any future attempt to make the world's powers agree to emission standards will also fail. Thus the effort should be spent on eradicating AIDS and malaria, etc. Well.... if two summits backed by popular will failed, what makes him think that the world will be wiling to eliminate AIDS and Malaria instead, given that these things have been around for decades and centuries, respectively, and have no appreciable impact on the economies of the wealthy? A naive --or disingenuous-- position, I believe. It's more likely that the resources that would not be spent on emission reduction would instead be spent on expanding industrial economies.
   


2. Malaria, water quality, food shortages, etc, are all symptoms of larger concerns, among them unrestrained industrialization and Climate Change. Would Lomborg have us treat the symptoms rather than the diseases?


3. Kyoto and Rio, etc, are learning experiences. With each large political failure comes hope that we can get it right the next time. Two attempts is not a reason to quit trying.


4. It is beyond naive to assume that new technology will save the planet. Yes, we should continue to look for such new technology, but we cannot assume that it will arise. When the nature of civilization itself is potentially at risk, it seems to me that it's worth our political will to try to focus on three fronts simultaneously: invest in R&D, reduce emissions now, and redouble our efforts to fix today's problems, as well.

Despite these points, it is assured that Lomborg's new position will form the rallying cry of the new wave of Climate Change deniers --to no longer doubt the phenomenon, but rather to deny the need to address it!

For more on the Lomborg debate, visit Putting The Heat on Lomborg and Skepticism Toward The Skeptical Environmentalist.


In other news:

From EK Hornbeck: James Watson, legendary co-discoverer of the DNA helix, is now claiming that black people are genetically less intelligent than other races. As EK put it, this will no doubt be his "Jimmy The Greek" moment. I will try to talk about this more later.

From Uncle D: India will be setting up a new university just for the children of NRIs (non-resident Indians, i.e. rich ex-pats). Oh dear.

Harry Potter and the World Medal of Freedom

Today is Blog Action Day. I don't care, so won't be doing any acting, just blogging.

Friend to Deonandia --the inestimable Nasty Nick Barrowman-- has jus been awarded the World Medal of Freedom. Let us congratulate Dr Barrowman with a well-earned raspberry, delivered with love and respect.


Details of this highest honour are further offered here:


The medal, and awards like it, are offered by the American Biogaphical Institute, a vanity awards company. I'm sure the many trolls who attempt to post here are familiar with this group, given its appeal to the fragile ego set.

In other news...

• As discussed in our various science fiction threads, the "Multiverse", or the proposition that there exist an infinite number of parallel universes has been a popular trope in speculative science and in the more obscure niches of theoretical physics. Now comes the theory that we might be able to detect such parallel universes!


• I just finished reading the final Harry Potter book. This review sums up my opinion perfectly.


• EK Hornbeck sends us this paper on how talk of India becoming an explosive economy like China is premature. It is true that India has nowhere near as robust an economy as China. But it's the future that warrants consideration: (a) India is English-speaking, which is attractive for Western business interests; (b) India is a Western-style democracy with a functioning judicial law system, which is needed for assurances that longterm business agreements will be upheld; China truly suffers in this regard; (c) India benefits from a much larger and better connected ex-pat community wishing to retain and build strong ties to the motherland, bringing with them more of that sweet, sweet Western currency; and (d) unlike China, India benefits from a predominantly youthful population, the economic advantages of which, the West is only now starting to understand.


• Relatedly, the USA this week experienced a momentous first: the first of the Baby Boom generation applied to receive Social Security benefits. (Keep in mind that the Canadian Baby Boom is a tad different from the American case.) This is the beginning of the flood, as an ocean of silver-haired elders now descends upon the unprepared US Social Security system, thus demanding greater giving from the remaining, smaller, workforce.
  
  But wait.... that's not all! Very soon, this same cohort will begin cashing in its billions of dollars of retirement savings, pulling them from the investment accounts currently being used to prop up US industries and trade imbalances. The USA is about to experience a cash crunch, perhaps even an economic crisis. Hold on to your seats, boys and girls. The next 20 years, overall, may not be pretty.

Atul Deonandan ?

Who is this handsome young man? His name is Yogesh Chotalia and he is an up-and-coming Canadian actor from the Toronto area. Why do I have a photo of him up here?

Well, back in June 2006, I reported that the Canadian TV show ReGenesis would be introducing a new minor character based on yours truly. At the time, I was told the character would be an epidemiologist named, appropriately, "Dr. Deonandan", and that she would be a super-hot uber-babe. I rightly wondered if there was a special psychological diagnosis for someone who is physically attracted to his own fictional portrayal on TV.

Well, "Dr. Deonandan" was morphed back into a male character, and his profession was shifted from epidemiologist to infectious disease doctor. And he is no longer based just on me, but also on a friend of the creator, named "Atul". Hence, the character's name is "Dr. Atul Deonandan". And he is played by the able and charming Yogesh Chotalia.

Copyrights be damned. If you'd like to see the episode featuring the dashing, brilliant and insightful Dr. Deonandan, you can download an MP4 of low quality (about 150MB) here:

http://download.deonandan.com/ReGenesis-3x06-Phantoms.mp4

Now the embarrassing part: "Dr. Deonandan" has about a minute of total air time. If you blink, you'll miss him. And he's not called by name at any point during the show. That bit of info is only available in the credits. Hey, how many TV characters are named after you? So stop laughing.


In Other News...

• Ray R. sends us this great series of videos on how to save time.


• Mischa sends us this and this, indicating that Al Gore --despite my predictions of the past 6 years-- will not be running for President. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound. I stick by my prediction. Helping me along is the news that Gore has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. The time is ripe, Al. The time is ripe.


• My latest MicroSoft column is up and available here.


• Spidey Patel sends us this news that Harry Potter creator JK Rowling is suing a group in India for having created a model of Hogwarts School for use in some sort of festival, without getting permission from her or Warner Brothers first. Bad bad Rowling. If these folks are not getting any commercial gain from their big model, why crush so many dreams? It's not like you would have milked much money out of this set of poor Indians with your books and films, is it? Very very sad.


• Sarah M. sends us this survey of homosexual comic book characters.... and their fates! And we wonder why Batman and Robin keep their relationship a secret!


• I'm selling more crap on Ebay. Check 'em out by clicking "Auctions" on the menu to the left, or by clicking here.

Ontario Election Post-Mortem

Well, the Ontario elections came and went. My call of a Liberal majority was accurate. But, really, a retarded monkey could have called that one. My prediction of the seat distribution, though, was well off. I was basing it on my prediction of the popular vote, though, which, given our first-past-the-post system, would not yield an accurate view.


This is how the actual seat distribution finally came down:

Liberals - 71
Conservatives - 26
NDP - 10
Green - 0

This is how I called it:

Liberals - 59
Conservatives - 34
NDP - 13
Green - 1

D-Mack sends us his computation of what the following breakdown of seats would have been, had proportional representation been in play:

Liberals - 45
Conservatives - 34
NDP - 18
Green - 9
Other - 1

Well, I wasn't too far off in my prediction, in a parallel, proportionally represented universe.

The sad bit is that the proposal to bring in MMP (mixed member proportional representation) was soundly defeated, with only five ridings supporting it --all, unsurprisingly, in downtown Toronto, in traditional NDP strongholds. I had foolishly predicted that MMP would win out, but that was mostly wishful thinking. All the signs were there that it would fail.

There are good reasons for voting against MMP, but I don't think that's why it lost out. These are the true reasons it lost:

1. The threshold for adoption was wayyyy too strict. (Mind you, the votes didn't even approach that threshold);
2. MMP is a confusing system to understand, even for those of us who have invested some time in thinking about it;
3. People tend not to choose change unless it's been heavily marketed to them, and unless the status quo is truly overbearing --neither of which is the case;
4. The only media bytes that mentioned MMP were negative ones.

What MMP needed was a non-governmental body to champion it to the people, to put on TV commercials and pay for print ads. Sure, there were some signs up on roadways, but no one knew what they were all about.

My concern now is that efforts at electoral reform will be summarily quashed. And I wonder if a Citizen's Assembly really was the best way to go about it. A better way might be for the government to simply introduce an electoral reform bill, and let members vote on it. Problem there, of course, is that it is not in the ruling party's interest to mess with the status quo.

The remaining issue is the fate of Conservative leader John Tory. Here is a genuinely likable guy with great personal conviction and dignity. He said a stupid thing about faith-based schools, and on principle refused to distance himself from it. He chose to run in an urban riding heavily stacked against him, again on principle, since if he was going to lead the "urban renewal" of the Conservatives, he was going to do so as an example to his compatriots. He lost the government and his own seat, all because of his principles. And now he refuses to step down as party leader.

His caucus will eat him alive behind closed doors. One has to question the man's judgment. Is he so out of touch with reality? The government was his to snatch, and instead he squandered it by embracing a fatally unpopular --and unnecessary-- policy till the end. I am curious to see what the immediate future holds for Mr. Tory.

Ontario Election Predictions

Weird day. Internet was down in my office, so I retreated to my home office (which, lucky me, is 4 blocks away) and was promptly stricken with a migraine. So here I am, some hours later, completely stoned on codeine and balancing an ice pack on my head.

This is not the reason that I failed to vote today in Ontario's provincial election. Rather, I lead a complicated existence, balancing a corporate address against a personal address against a nomadic lifestyle. In short, I'm never quite sure in what riding I should be voting. And because I was too unprepared to send in an early ballot, I --sadly, shamefully-- failed to vote today. This is not a matter of pride, merely a matter of fact.

I tried to find a way to squeeze into a polling station at the last minute, but I have no proof of address. This is perhaps an issue that will grow in prominence in coming years: so many of us no longer receive physical mail from reputable sources; many of us now get our bills, etc, via email. As a result, proving one's address is now quite difficult.

This is the second Canadian election in a row in which I have failed to participate. I missed the last federal election because my father was in the hospital getting major surgery that day, and I felt my place was there, not at the polls. (He, of course, had a different opinion on the matter, always berating us to exercise our franchise.) And, to be candid, I felt the need to sacrifice something important that day, so that the gods would look kindly upon the surgery; so I sacrificed something very important to me: my vote.

Some may argue that my failure to vote in these two elections disqualifies me from having an opinion on political matters in this province and country. It's an argument that has some validity. But we effect our influence on selecting a government in a variety of ways, not just via voting: campaign donations, candidate endorsements, and soliciting public debate on relevant topics. I would argue that having engaged in any of these activities more than qualifies an individual to have an opinion on governmental matters.

More to the point, a citizen (or resident) is always in his rights to demand accountability from his government, regardless of whether he voted for that government or whether he voted at all. This is the nature of a truly free, liberal democracy. (Whether we actually live in a truly free, liberal democracy is an issue for another day.)

For those of you outside Ontario who are reading this, let me catch you up on some matters. The Ontario Premier (who is comparable to a US state Governor, though in some ways has more power) is Dalton McGuinty of the Liberal (centrist) party; he currently enjoys a majority government. His major competitor is John Tory of the Conservative party. In perennial third is Howard Hampton of the leftist/socialist New Democratic Party (NDP). There have not been back-to-back Liberal majority governments in Ontario in 70 years.

This election is notable for a handful of reasons. The McGuinty majority was seriously threatened early on, after what appears to be cronyism, financial mismanagement and a slew of unkept promises. McGuinty, as a man, comes across to me as a disingenuous, superficial fellow, and I suspect many Ontarians see him this way, as well. The Premier's office seemed wide open for Tory's Conservatives.... until Tory made the poorly calculated announcement that, if elected, he would allow public funding of faith-based schools.

See, presently, as a result of Canada's founding document, the British North America (BNA) Act, Catholics in Ontario enjoy their own fully-funded parallel education system. No one sees this as fair, but what is the solution? Denying Catholics this right might require a Constitutional debate, which is a nightmare in this country. Tory's solution was to give the same rights to everyone else. It's not a bad idea on its face. The problem is that the electorate, perhaps rightly, perceives this as a further slide away from our vaunted secularism, that it opens the door to the spectre of Sharia Law and the Balkanization of education. Tory failed to accurately gauge the public's fear of theocracy, and I think it is this that will cost him the Premier's chair.

The second interesting trend is the rise of Green party, led by the eloquent Frank de Jong. With the rise of true environmentalism these past couple of years, the Greens are enjoying a surge of new support. I have my hesitations about their economic policies, and in fact all of their policies outside of the environment. But there's no denying that this is their most important election. We may indeed see the first Green MPP in Ontario history, probably de Jong himself.

The other important aspect of this election --and perhaps the most interesting-- is the referendum on election reform. Ontario currently employs a first-past-the-post system, which is fraught with biases, especially a bias against smaller parties and urban areas. A "Citizens Assembly" was convened to come up with a better way. I met with Assembly representatives (as reported here), as part of a group put together by the Maytree Foundation, to give my opinions on the matter. I came away quite pleased with the process, though with some hesitation about the final product, the "Mixed Member Proportional Representation" (MMPR) model. Ontarians are now being asked to choose between the existing system and the new model, which is quite exciting. For the record, I endorse MMPR because its positive aspects marginally outweight the negative, in my opinion.

FYI, for the MMPR to win out, at least 60% of voters must select it, and it must win out in at least 60% of ridings. It's a tough threshhold to pass!

So.... after all that, with polls about to close, here is my projection:

Liberals - 59 seats
Conservatives - 34 seats
NDP - 13 seats
Green party - 1 seat

MMPR - passes... barely
(probably wishful thinking on my part)

And the polls close..... now!

Support The Troops All You Like, But On Your Own Time

Since the discussion over on the Blackwater thread is getting kinda long, I thought I'd drag some elements out into the open.

I saw something in Ottawa recently that really irked me: police cars, ambulances and fire trucks with "support the troops" bumper stickers.

Let's examine this phenomenon... What does it mean to "support the troops"?

1. Certainly, only a heartless asshole would not wish for our soldiers to escape unscathed from their mission. If that is support, then I'm 100% behind that.
   
   
2. A slightly more discerning individual might see "support" as wishing that the military's current mission be effected with great efficiency and effect.
   
   
3. A more literal interpretation would see "support" as a vow to petition the powers that be to better effect (1) and (2) above.
   
   
4. The less obvious interpretation is that "I support the troops" also means "I support our decision to go to war".
   

All of the above options, with the exception of (1), are political positions. This is especially true when the war in question (Afghanistan here, Iraq in the US) is not one of direct service to Canadian citizens, but is rather a voluntary foreign excursion opposed (according to current polls) by the majority of citizens.

It is my belief that option (4) is in fact the most common usage of this particular trope. This is the result, I believe, of disingenuous forces (certain members of the media, and politicos) wishing to silence anti-war voices by accusing them of "not supporting the troops". The result is that, increasingly, "supporting the troops" is a sentiment best associated with those who wish to vocally commit their approval of the political decision to go to war.

Have I overstated the case? I don't have any evidence for this, but I think I'm quite correct. This guy, speaking for the American case, is on board. And this blogger shares the position, but with considerably more ire.

Donna Saggia is even more cynical than me, again regarding the American case. She writes:

"In other words, 'support the troops' feeds the cult of the military and allows Americans to be self-righteous about our global interventions. It has absolutely nothing to do with, well, supporting the troops."

And here is a considerably angrier screed by blogger Ed Strong about how "support the troops" is simply "pro-war propaganda". Sadly, there is a growing sense that the red poppy, so long a Canadian symbol of post-war peace, is being co-opted into a symbol for rallying pro-war support.

Given that 3/4 of the possible interpretations of "support the troops" that I listed above are in fact political positions, and not assertions of public values, I question the appropriateness of seeing this sentiment/slogan broadcast on the bumpers of public-owned vehicles. If we accept that "support the troops" is increasingly becoming propaganda for "support the war", then a police car with such a bumper sticker is essentially expressing support for a particular federal party, the one vowing to sustain the war effort.

To me, this is just as unacceptable as a police car having a "I'm pro-choice" bumper sticker, or even something as inane as, "support mixed member proportional representation". The personal beliefs of the policeman are irrelevant; he's welcome to explore them on his own time. But he should not be using his position or tax-funded equipment to advertise a platform that is beyond the mandate of his station.

It was expressed to me in the Blackwater thread that policemen, firemen, etc, are entitled to express solidarity with their brothers in uniform who have similarly put their lives on the line in the name of public service.

This is a nice sentiment, and indeed peace officers are free to do so... on their own time, using their own vehicles. The formality of expressing such support on publicly owned vehicles and equipment is, I believe, a deliberate attempt to confound two unrelated phenomena: the righteous, heroic sacrifices made by policemen and firemen in the service of taxpayers, and the deployment of troops on foreign soil to kill and die for a political edict that I and the majority of Canadians oppose. It reinforces the supposition (one rejected by many, including myself) that Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying for us in this particular war.

(And let us leave aside the truly scary image of men with guns and authority overtly suggesting to the rest of us what political position to embrace. Is this not how the term "police state" arose?)

I have heard calls for an augmentation of the slogan to, "I support the troops, but not the war." This is, unfortunately, even more of a blatant political statement.

So what's the solution? Ideally, it would have been nice if the slogan weren't politicized to begin with. I know who I blame for that. Now it's too late. But a solution to the immediate issue of misuse of tax-funded vehicles is for city administrators to issue an immediate order that no public vehicle will be used to advertise any political message, even one as deceptively harmless as "support the troops".

Songs of Distant Earth

Today's "SciFi Book of the Day" is Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C Clarke (1986).

Clarke is known as one of history's greatest "hard" SF writers, i.e. an author who focuses on the technical aspects of the science being fictionalized, to the exclusion of character development and lighter plot points. In many ways, this novel was his response to critics who found him too "hard". The book is a real tear-jerker. In fact, ambient composer Mike Oldfield was so moved by its story that he wrote an entire album inspired by it.

Little known is the fact that the basic story of the novel was first published in a short story back in 1958. And it was further developed into a movie treatment in the 1970s before finally maturing into a full length novel in the late 80s.

The basic premise is that Earth is going to be destroyed by natural phenomena in a few generations. So scientists send robot ships into the cosmos to create new colonies of humans, based on stored genetic material, over a period of thousands of years. Human civilization might die, but humans will live on. The final generation on Earth, however, finally finds a way to build a true interstellar space ship and masters cryogenic freezing. So, at the last minute, a final ship of Earth-born humans is launched onto a millennia-long voyage to reconnect with the children of the robot craft, as Earth, its histories and billions of inhabitants perish in a fiery orgy of finality.

The essence of the narrative is the encounter between this last ship of "true" humans and a small colony of humans descended from the humans "created" by the robot ships generations earlier. Like much of Clarke's work, the colony resembles his beloved Sri Lanka, with many Tamil names throughout. And, to Clarke's credit, he does not allow his characters to descend into a racist argument over who is the "true" human remnant; that perversion is left for the reader.

This is a very moving and inspiring tale of optimism, heartache, loss, maturity, finality and love, yet quite light on the technical specifics. As such, it would be a fine read for those of you not too inclined toward the hardcore SF titles. Twenty years after reading it, I still think of it often; it's the kind of literature that sits at the heart of one's emotional core, that travels with a reader for the remainder of his life.

Benefiting From The Fruits of Oppression

Why do I do it? Why, in the wee hours when I am weak and vulnerable and avoiding all kinds of overdue items, do I skulk back to that mossy pit of delusional hatred, the Western Standard Blogs? I don't know. Maybe there's a masochist lurking within me, so in turn I lurk in the online cesspits.

An ongoing trope on that site is the open hatred of anything having to do with more rights and compensation for Canada's Aboriginal peoples, or indeed anything alluding to the mere possibility that Aboriginal peoples are suffering, or that --gasp!-- bad things were done to them in the past. Here is a telling thread, punctuated by a comment by right wing regular Adam Yoshida, who wrote:

'Frankly, I'd love for someone ...to explain to me why I, the decendent of Japanese-Canadians, ought to pay for various forms of compensation for alleged "crimes" and "wrongs" which were committed not only long before I was born, but also at a time when my own ancestors were either in Japan or here being likewise oppressed.'

Well, Adam (and I know you're reading this because we online folk are all narcissists who google our names and track references to ourselves), allow me, an immigrant with an even more tenuous connection to the crimes against Canadian aboriginals by European settlers, to offer an explanation:

See, Adam, Canada is a prosperous nation. I know many among your political ilk, such as VD Hanson, would argue that we are prosperous because of characteristics innate to the Western ethic, specifically rationalism, democracy and the free market. While those factors certainly contribute, there's no denying that Canadian prosperity would not be at all possible if it were not for the great boon of our natural resources, which constitute the foundation of our economic strength. All the rationalism and democracy and free market in the world would be useless if we had nothing to sell. Land, Adam, it's all about land; Canada's high quality land, soil, minerals, water, timber and fauna are what allowed this country to rise to the near top, in terms of GDP.

And why do we have all this land, Adam? It's because some English and French settlers steadily pushed the Native Peoples into marginalized areas. The Canadian forebears were not as brutal or as systematic as the American settlers were, but they were nonetheless focused on supplanting whatever land rights the indigenous peoples had. This encroachment was likely effected by the unanticipated diseases brought by Europeans --an unintended vector that nonetheless resulted in an intended outcome, specifically the transfer of Native lands into European hands.

So, to answer your question, Adam, we --you and I, whose forebears were nowhere near this place when all this happened-- benefit today in a real, measurable way from the wrongs done to the aboriginals generations ago. In legal terms, we have received stolen goods, which makes us part of the crime. History does not begin with our births, you know; and claiming this nation as our home means that we also agree to be responsible for its past and its legacy.

As for your ancestors' oppression, I'm truly sorry about that. Mine were, too. If you'd like support in railing against their oppressors, I'd be happy to add my voice to yours. But that in no way excuses our responsibility to consider our role in benefiting from the fruits of the oppression of others. This isn't a victimhood competition --something your Western Standard friends don't seem to get-- rather, this is a matter of being responsible adults who are not afraid of being held accountable for the true cost of our prosperity.

Beyond the very rational and defensible argument that I have presented to you, there is the simple ethical point that there exist large communities of people living in Canada --who have always lived in Canada-- who live in destitute conditions typical of devastated sub-Saharan Africa. Beyond what we owe these people historically, what kind of soulless monster could look upon the poverty endemic in some reservations, within the borders of our very nation, and not be moved to action?

I'm sure you have a suitably smarmy and offensive response ready for me, if the tone of other "conservative" commenters on this blog are any indication. But I'm not writing this for you. I'm writing it so that there is at least one voice friendly to Native peoples in the Canadian blogosphere.

Wrong

Today's Daily Perv Link (TM) Pic:


And because fair is fair...


First, here's what's 'round the 'Net:

• Jon Stewart interviews that vapid gasbag Chris Matthews and puts him in his place. Some priceless quotes:
  

  Stewart: "I'm not trashing your book, I'm trashing your philosophy of life."
  Matthews: "Come on Hardball."
  Stewart: "I don't troll."

• Swedish scientists say that use of Tamiflu may inadvertently create a super-resistant strain of Avian Flu. As the author of one of the Canadian government's scientific studies on the use of Tamiflu for preventing Avian Flu, all I gotta say is.... why didn't I think of that?


• Blackwater follow-up: seems a plane crash that killed several US troops in Afghanistan was caused by its Blackwater pilots, whose last words were, "I swear to God, they wouldn't pay me if they knew how much fun this was." Need I say anymore?


• Uncle D. sends us this article on efforts to shorten the path to a PhD. While I commend the intent, I must ask: where were these people 10 years ago when I could have used them, hmm?

In other news...

• Remember by MicroSoft Small Business Forum posts? Well it seems my last one on "Unbusinesslike Business Cards" was one of the featured articles in the MicroSoft small business e-newsletter, and actually managed to garner the most number of click-throughs for that edition! Goes to show that one can never predict what's going to be popular. And by "one" I mean "me", and by "popular" I mean "clicked on and thereafter ignored."


• Well, thanks to Andoo, I was made aware that the Treo 755p I bought on Ebay was in fact not a GSM phone, as was falsely reported in the ad. I got my money back and instantly bought a Treo 680, and am now awaiting its delivery. But, as we have well established, I have zero luck buying smartphones online. So stay tuned.

Understanding The Pro-Warriors

Allan Greenspan might have "shocked the world" when he admitted what everyone already knew --that BushCo invaded Iraq largely for oil-- but, unsurprisingly, the complacent media --and the even more complacent US public-- don't care.

I recall that back in 2003 my various pro-war friends were claiming that the invasion was necessary to disarm Saddam. When no WMDs showed up, they then changed their tune to: "we" were fighting terrorists "over there" so that we wouldn't have to fight them "over here". Of course, that was a load of bullshit. The smarter ones knew better than to try to link Saddam to 9/11, so that path was a no go. So then they changed again to, "we toppled Saddam to save the Iraqi people." Yes, insert rolling eyes icon here. If "saving" a people means killing 5% of their population and rendering the remaining 95% into a neolithic refugee subsistence village, then frankly I hope these folks never try to "save" me or my people.

I have yet to see a single argument for the war that hasn't been refuted with the simplest of data. It comes down to this: what possible rationale can you provide to justify the killing of half a million people, the injury of countless thousands more, and the complete devastation of a society? What possible rationale can there be short of one alluding to an imminent threat of some sort? And surely no one has the nerve to suggest that?

With this level of disconnect from reality, one has to wonder what the mental pathology of those who cling to this pro-war myopia truly suffer from. I don't think most are "evil", though some certainly are. (You can read the drippage of the "evil" lot over at the Western Standard, where cries for murdering "sand niggers" is a regular occurrence.) No, I believe most sincerely believe that "we" are doing good in the Middle East, promoting democracy, freedom, etc. And while a part of me admires the nobility of the intent, a larger part detests the arrogance, naivete, and the general devaluing of non-Western life.

Finally, a good article has been written about the misdirected nature of this good intent. It is here, written by Paul Campos. His thesis reminds me of a quote I have oft relied upon to describe the problem with modern mainstream America, the thing that separates them from the rest of the world --it has to do with how to conceptualize the tragedy that was the Vietnam War. In America, that tragedy is thousands of dispossessed and disillusioned US vets returning home to question their government and their values. In the rest of the world, the tragedy is a million dead Vietnamese.

When you're done reading the Campos article, read this interview with Seymour Hersh. just to depress yourself further.


In other news...

Older men make better lovers. Well, nuhhh.

Curry powder is a biohazard. Well, nuhhh.

Of course, the world is upset with Farcebook... now because the son of the Prime Minister of France was caught being a member of the group "I am too proud of my poo." Well who isn't?

Lastly, here's a photo of resident Deonandia villain Darth Vadum meeting Condileeza Rice. I promised I would not mock either, and I keep my word. The meeting was in regards to this.