Get it? Commonwealth? Commonpoor?  Get it?  Me so clever.

First off, did you hear about Stephen Colbert’s appearance at the US Congress, talking about the rights of undocumented migrant workers?  I love this quote:

So, I’m sure most of you have heard of the controversy surrounding the “national shame” felt by Indians that the athletes’ residence in New Delhi, for the upcoming Commonwealth Games, are not up to standard.  A Canadian “advance team” reports that the residences are intolerable, citing feces on the grounds, dirt in the rooms, non-functioning plumbing, etc.  Then comes word that several Canadian athletes are refusing to compete, for fear of “health and safety concerns” in the Delhi residence.

Several things come to mind:

1. India had wealth and manpower and organizational acumen and time.  They dropped the ball hugely and the Indian government has no one to blame but themselves.  They deserve all the derision being pointed their way.

2. Do people in the “North” realize what was done to an etire slum of indigent in order to accommodate these games?  Before you start feeling sorry for your athletes who might have to sleep in a stinky room, consider that hundreds, and likely thousands, were dispossessed to give them that luxury.  Direct your sympathy to those who truly deserve it, please.

3. Do people in the “North” realize how the site is being built?  Probably largely with underpaid, untrained, impoverished slum-swelling labour whose daily working conditions would horrify most of us.  Many of them would just love to be living full time in these quarters that our athletes deem unsuitable for their “health and safety”.   Again, direct your sympathy to those who truly deserve it.

4. There is photographic evidence of child labour (by which I mean toddler labour) being employed to get the job done on time.  This, of course, plays into all the stereotypes the North has of India as an exploiting, uncaring land of dirt and suffering.  And, for a lot of people living that experience, that stereotype is accurate.  However, this is an opportunity for us to step back and consider the true price of many things we of the developed workld take for granted.  The shoes we wear, the TVs we watch, the mobile phones we use, and the sporting events we enjoy are all the products of the interminable labour of legions of poor and often children.

5. Corollary to #4: Calls for the games to be moved to a “developed” country miss the point.  If they were to be held in England or Australia, for example, the suffering would merely be invisible.  The athletes would still be wearing shoes and jerseys, etc, made by slave labour in the developing world.  So let’s not get all high and mighty about this, shall we?

6. Yeah, I would prefer to sleep in a comfy air conditioned hotel suite than in a hastily built room in which a dog had pooped a couple of days earlier.  But you know what?  If I had the chance to compete in the Commonwealth games in my chosen sport, I would happily sleep on the street and eat garbage for the privilege.  So yes, I’m with the writer of this editorial: if poor accommodations are enough to cause you to cancel your participation, then I don’t ever want you representing me or my country abroad.  Heck, it’s lack of hygiene, it’s not a freakin’ war zone!  Suck it up and learn to appreciate the incredible privilege you enjoy as a tax payer-subsidized athlete being sent abroad to glory in the public eye and to party with your pals afterwards, all on the tab of the hundreds of millions underpaid Indian labourers who built and paid for your rooms.

7. If nothing else comes of this, I hope people in the North come to appreciate the desperate living conditions of the poor of the global South.   You can’t handle the Commonwealth games residences?  Try living in the shacks, shared by rats and neighbours, like the ones in which the labourers who built that residence have to live.  We have it damned easy, in large part at the expense of those who suffer, and it’s about time more of us started to realize it.

8. Why do we even have these big state-funded sporting events anyway?  Dave Feschuk in the Toronto Star foolishly said that it’s “for the athletes”.  Bullshit.  It’s for political capital, both for the host nation and for the nation whose team brings back the most shiny discs.  These things are properly the domain of corporate interests.  Let companies compete for them and run them and pay for them.  Or let’s not have them at all.  Problem solved.

Okay, now I’m pissed off.

Today is the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks and the 37th anniversary of the overthrow of the Chilean government.  Both are worthy of remembrance.  The former will probably receive wall-to-wall coverage.   The latter will likely receive nothing.  I wrote about this already back in 2008.

Now, on to something else….

Earlier this week, I was up for 48 hours straight.  After I finally crashed, I had the weirdest dream.  Normally I subscribe to the rule that people’s dreams are only interesting to the people who had the dream.  That’s probably true in this case, as well.  But since this is my blog, you’ll have to suck it up.  See, this dream wasn’t in traditional dream format.  Rather, it was a series of TV commercials!

I only remember one of the commercial.  It was from some South American or Latin American Spanish-speaking country.   It was one of those exciting, urban market affairs, catering to the cosmopolitan condo-dwelling young professional.  It featured a young couple sharing a glass of wine in big glasses, nestled in their penthouse condo overlooking a sprawling South American city… perhaps Buenos Aires.

And what was the commercial about?  Urban farming.  Specifically, it was for a company that provides one sheep and one goat for every highrise condo unit.  I don’t know why any urban condo-dweller would need a sheep and/or a goat, but you can let your imagination wander.  All I know is what I saw in the dream commercial.  And the best image was the final image.  We pan away from the happy yuppy wine-sipping couple to their balcony.  The sun is setting over the smog-filled mega-city.  And there, on the balcony, a goat and a sheep perch on their hind legs with their forelegs on the balcony railing, both peering thoughtfully into the sunset.

There you have it.  A glimpse into my subconscious.  Do with it as you will.

In Other News…

I just discovered something fantastic on Youtube.  It’s a series of videos produced by RedLetterMedia that are presented as film reviews by a serial killer.  It really is some of the most entertaining shit I’ve seen in a while, especially if you know your films.  A good place to start is with the review of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace:

Pastor "Doctor" Terry Jones, in his Harley-riding gear

Burning a book is never a good idea.  Our culture is rife with exhortations against this barbaric practice.  It was, after all, something the Nazis were famous for doing.  Ray Bradbury’s classic book, Fahrenheit 451 refers to the temperature at which the pages of books begin to combust, evidence of our culture’s abhorrence of this practice.  (It’s actually supposed to be Celcius, but let’s not quibble.)

Now comes news that a wacky Christian fundamentalist, “Doctor” Terry Jones, is planning to publicly burn copies of the Koran.  He’s even got a Facebook page (and I feel bad for advertising it, but it’s all in the name of education.)   He’s burning these books, not for the traditional reason espoused by book-burners (to suppress “dangerous” ideas), but overtly to offend and incite.  On second thought, maybe he really is afraid of some of the Koran’s “dangerous” ideas…?

This is big news because “the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus, has said that the move could endanger the lives of troops in Afghanistan and protests have already kicked off in Jakarta and Kabul.” [BBC]

(Aside: there are some “news” reports of Terry Jones being arrested for child pornography.  At the time of this blog post, none of those stories appear valid.  So don’t get distracted by them.)

In an interview with BBC radio, Jones was seemingly self-contradictory.  He said that his event was to draw attention to the violence of radical Islam.  Then he said that the Koran was demonic and that Islam was innately violent.  The contradiction is in his original intent to only target “radical” Islam, but his method and verbiage clearly smears all Islam. This appears to be the norm for many American Muslim-baiters, who try to cache their hatred in the rhetoric of the reasonable, but who fail miserably when their words are examined closely.

It’s important to note Jones’s official intent: he overtly states that his intent is to incite a violent reaction from adherents to radical Islam.  We’ll come  back to this.

So what’s going on here?  Well, there are three parties that need some serious condemnation.  First are those members of the Islamic community who will predictably react with violence at Jones’s little publicity stunt.  People, listen to me: yes, it’s offensive and Jones is a moron for doing it.  But it’s just paper.  It’s the words that are sacred, not the paper.  Anyone who rises to his baiting is, frankly, a fool.  So suck it up and respect Jones’s right to be a moron.

Related to this first group is the governments and para-governmental bodies that will literally “fan the flames” to make as much of this spectacle as possible.  Iranian government and Indonesians with bullhorns, I’m looking at you.

Third, of course, is Jones himself… and his thousands of Facebook followers and silent lurkers who will nod in cowardly and silent complicity.  I have written many times that one of humanity’s greatest inventions is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.  That remarkable document gives Jones the legal right to express himself however he pleases.  To me, that right is inviolate.

But the Constitution does not say that the exercising of its rights does not excuse a citizen from responsibility for the consequences of such actions.  This is an important point, I believe.  Some contend that the fundament of ethical (and therefore legal) behaviour is that one is ultimately responsible for the foreseeable consequences of one’s actions.

So, remember Jones’s declaration, that his intent is to incite the adherents of radical Islam into violence.  The consequences of his actions, then, are not only foreseeable, they are expected… by his own proud admission, no less.

Thus, if violence does erupt, the first who must be blamed are those who commit the violence.  But a close second are those who knowingly and intentionally incited the violence.  If anyone dies as a result of this feat of nonsense, I wouldn’t be surprised if civil suits –and possibly criminal suits– are successfully brought to bear against Jones and his foolish followers.

There is so much tragedy at play here.  First there is the tragedy of a foolish bunch of inbred Floridians failing to avail themselves of a state-funded education.

Second is the tragedy of a sea of religious Muslims whose sensibilities are so fragile as to be inflamed by an inbred Floridian.

Third is the tragedy of the beautiful U.S. Constitution forced to defend actions that may cause mass bloodshed; certainly not then intent of its brilliant writers.

Fourth is the tragedy of the rest of the world’s inability to understand the beauty and intricacies of the Constitution… and so many Westerners’ inability to acknowledge that culture gap!  By this I mean the many comments I’ve read by Muslims abroad who don’t understand why the U.S. government doesn’t just step in and stop Jones’s foolishness.  (It’s because the glorious Constitution doesn’t give the government the ability to do anything it pleases, a limitation much of the world has yet to embrace.) Relatedly, so many Americans don’t understand how foreigners don’t understand that an individual’s rights are sacrosanct.  This is the cultural gap I’m talking about.  Much dialogue is needed.

And fifth is the profound tragedy that this one act will undo years of hard P.R. work by the West’s brokers for peace and understanding.   The selling of the War on Terror has always been that it is a struggle against those radicals who wish to co-opt the good name of Islam to do violence for political ends.. to counter the world’s sense that it’s just a mindless war on Islam.  The burning of the Koran sends one message and one message only: that American military adventures in Iraq Afghanistan and Pakistan are just manifestations of the West’s hatred for Islam as a whole.

No good will likely come of this.  But some good can come of this.  If the Muslim world takes a deep breath (for a change) and simply ignores this Floridian fool, maybe just shake their heads in pity and disgust and walk away, then Terry Jones’s thesis would be dramatically disproved and the two civilizations could take a giant step forward.  So how about it?  Any takers?

First off, thanks to the High Commissioner of India in Ottawa for hosting celebrations of India’s 63rd anniversary of independence from Britain yesterday.  Here’s a pic from the event, courtesy of Frank Scheme:

In private celebration of the anniversary, I re-watched Gandhi and did some additional reading on the circumstances of Indian independence.  Some of you might be interested in this critical appraisal of Gandhi’s role, by Richard Grenier.

Today, on the other hand, we celebrate two unrelated anniversaries.  First, it’s the 33rd anniversary of the death of Elvis Presley.  Weirdly, I remember the exact moment when I heard his death announced on the radio.  I was ten years old and playing in my brother’s bedroom (which was always cleaner than mine).

Second, today is the 36th anniversary of the first time that The Ramones played CBGB.  Why is this important? Because it marks the official birth of punk rock.  And yes, punk rock was important.

In Other News

Now, on a totally different topic, I’m sure many of you have heard of the plan to build a mosque on private property in lower Manhattan, near the site of “Ground Zero”, where the World Trade Centers came down on September 11, 2001.  For the obvious disappointing reason, this has become a controversy, fed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

Fortunately, President Obama has spoken out in favour of religious freedom.  Mayor Bloomberg has inspiringly stated that the building of this mosque is one of the most important tests of democracy in the USA, or something to this effect.  Despite these views, hatred and anger abound, as in this site.

Others have recently piped up to accuse the founder of the mosque to be in favour of certain seemingly undesirable principles, such as the promotion of Sharia law.

Frankly, the way I see it, it really doesn’t matter what the intent of the mosque is.  The fact remains that it’s a place of worship to be built on private land, and the Bill of Rights gives each citizen the right to build such a thing.  So the mosque must have legal licence to be built.

That doesn’t mean that other citizens aren’t free to voice their displeasure, discontentment and perhaps even suspicion.  That, too, is the nature of democracy.  But they certainly do not have the right to demand that the mosque not be built in the first place.

An interesting comparison is between the building of the mosque and the publication of those Danish cartoons way back when, the ones that portrayed Mohammed in an unflattering light.  A lot of readers took exception to my post back in 2006, in which I attempted to analyse the publishing of the cartoons via a set of ethical axioms.  To summarize, I maintain the right of freedom of expression under the law.  But it’s valid to ask the intent of the expression for the purposes of formulating a response.

Similarly, the law does and should defend the right of the mosque founders to build their place of worship.  But it’s also fair game for critics to question and discuss their motivations… without calling for the limitations of their rights under the Bill of Rights.

Fareed Zakaria put it best, in a recent interview with Charlie Rose.  He said something to the extent that the Bill of Rights is innately an anti-democratic document, as it should be.  The Bill protects the rights of the individual, even when the majority is incensed.   So both Bloomberg and Obama are correct in their characterization of this crisis as a test of the resilience of the US Constitution –for my money one of the greatest achievements of human civilization– and particularly the Bill of Rights, which is in essence the first ten amendments of said Constitution.  Failure of the Bill to defend the construction of the mosque may indeed signal the crumbling of the heart of the US social contract, the set of beliefs that truly made America into the shining city on the hill.

What our neighbours to the south eventually decide –both in terms of law and in terms of their behaviours and words– will inform us of the content of their hearts, and will tell us if they have indeed left the Bush days of exceptionalism, xenophobia and irrationalism behind them.

New Delhi, 8:pm

1. Brock Lesnar

Just finished watching UFC 116. (Yes, in my hotel room in Delhi; I’ve been trying to download it on this slow wifi connection for DAYS now).  I stunned even myself when I found myself screaming out loud, as Shane Carwin pummelled Brock Lesnar in the first round, “Kill the fucker!!!”  Yes, that’s exactly what I exclaimed.

Clearly, I don’t like Brock Lesnar.  His antics, which I described here, ruined the good name of the martial arts.  However, the beast managed to beat Carwin in the second round, and even showed some class at the end of the fight.  So maybe he’s learned something about appropriate behaviour.

2. Old Delhi

Today I took a few morning hours for a stroll through Old Delhi, specifically along Chandni Chowk, the “moonlight” walk of classical Mughal times.  It is thus named because at its imperial peak, a canal ran along the centre of the street, reflecting the moonlight at night.

Even Old Delhi has changed.  It’s still the heart of bustling Delhi, still the place to see working camels towing wood and equipment around the rail station, and still the place to dodge bicycle rickshaws that dart out of the various mosques and mandirs that pepper the main and side streets.  But even here, people tend not to notice or bother the tourists anymore.

Now, a caucasian visiting India for the first time, may disagree with this assessment.  But trust me, five years ago you would have been molested on all fronts by touts and beggars.  Today, not so much.

I find it further interesting that in previous visits, I was clearly identifiable as a brown man of foreign origin.  The locals would immediately try to speak English to me.  This time, I’ve lost count of the number of times someone has struck up a conversation in Hindi with me, only to back away confused when faced with my toddler-like abilities in the language.

Now, I’ve said some nice things about the Delhi subway system.  Did I mention the trains are built by the Montreal company Bombardier?  Technologically, it’s quite an impressive system.  But India has yet to develop a subway culture.

Ever seen the Tokyo subway during rush hour?  Delhi is ten times worse.  The doors open, and an army of people surge forward, elbows up, without letting the deboarding folks off first.  Today I was literally lifted off my feet and into the press of flesh within the car.  I witnessed an eight year old boy similarly crushed.  It was really quite disgusting.  In this floating sea of compressed humanity, a good third continued yapping away on their cell phones. People, if you wait 30 seconds for the exiting passengers to deboard, there will be twice as much space for you!

But that’s not the way for a city of 13 million, where people have learned the hard way that you need to take what you need, and take it now, before the opportunity is plucked from you.

As the subway expands and as usership increases, the crowds will become a huge issue, especially in terms of safety.

At this point I need to explain something to those of you who’ve never travelled to India.  The Indian men of the northern cities are a skinny lot.  I’m a small man by North American standards, but am of average height in Delhi.  I’m also twice as old as the average man here, but… and believe me when I say this… I’m also easily twice as muscular.  The dudes who work with their hands here are tough as nails, don’t get me wrong.  But the office workers are soft and light.  I do not exaggerate when I say that I could bench press most of them, and would probably burst out of most of their shirts.  And I’m a petite girly man!  Among the middle class, there is not a culture of gym fitness, something that occupies a good fifth of my personal time, though there is a fair bit of vicarious living through laughable action stars and their fake martial arts.

I mention this because at two points today, while lining up to buy subway tokens, a “gentleman” has jumped the queue in front of me, completely disrespecting my place in line.  Both times, I grabbed the miscreant by the collar and yanked him back, at one time even baring my teeth in the process and probably unintentionally uttering a loud expletive.  The interesting bit is that in both instances, the men just went limp in my hands, neither resisted and neither protested, and neither changed his facial expression when thusly physically admonished.

What this tells me is that in both cases, the fellow knew he was being transgressive and was taking advantage of the yokel (i.e., me).  Lesson learned.

The new New Delhi is a place profoundly lacking in social graces and common courtesy, as rush hour subway travel accentuates and illustrates. If you step aside to make way for an oncoming person, he will not thank you, nor will anyone else do the same for you.  On the plus side, no one seems to get mad when others cut them off or fail to give them opportunity to merge into pedestrian traffic.  The furstrating part is that it is all so inefficient.

I’m usually of the “when in Rome” school of travel.  If this is the way they want to live, then so be it; I can do it, too.  The exception is when someone cuts in line in front of me.  Sorry, that’s when the teeth come out.

3. The Canadian Census

Now I’m going to take a break from my regular India travelogue to comment on a recent development in Canada, specifically the elimination of the mandatory nature of the long form of the Canadian national census.  The census of this country has traditionally consisted of two components: the short form, which is mandatory and which applies to everyone (though perhaps not Aboriginals), and the long form, which has also traditionally been mandatory, but only applied to a subset of Canadians.

There is no question that the data is useful for researchers like me.  But is usefulness a sufficient positive to outweigh the negative of compelling citizens in a liberal democracy to share personal information to their government?  I’m not so sure.

A senior colleague of mine is organizing a formal response, through the university, to the Canadian government, to argue for the reinstatement of the mandatory long form.  His argument is that failure to add the force of law to this information will cripple valuable information-gathering attempts by researchers and policymakers alike.

This person gives a thorough argument for keeping the longform survey mandatory, though I think he (I think it’s a he) understates the privacy concerns.

Personally, I think that unless we’re looking at an emergency situation (e.g., a disease outbreak or intense national security situation) civil liberties and privacy always trump the government’s desire to collect information.  The need for quality data is not sufficient impetus to apply the sledgehammer of criminal law to compel the vitiation of such privacy protections.

For one thing, there is no such thing as a guarantee of privacy where the government is concerned.  We learned this the hard way in the wake of 911, when the Bush government raided all federal databases to find terrorism links, including those that were collected under the precepts of complete privacy and confidentiality.  In short: there is no such thing as privacy; all it takes is a shift in government, government policy or the greater political landscape to make all extant data open or at least semi-permeable.

The extreme Libertarian view is that the census is innately an oppressive governmental tool.  I would not go that far, but the potential for abuse is always there.  And such potential suggests that compulsory participation, especially in this era of renewed distrust of government, may not be appropriate.

I wrote about this back in 2006, back when the government was weilding its sledgehammer in an irresponsible manner, threatening criminal action if I didn’t mail back their ridiculous census form.

Not only is this tack offensive, it’s also inefficient.  What is the goal here?  To compel maximum participation in the census?  Easy.  Instead of threatening citizens with the hammer, cajole them with the carrot.  Instead of spending tens of  millions on the criminal enforcement of census compliance, spend a single million on a national lottery: everyone who sends back their longform survey is entered, for free, to win that million dollars.  Trust me, this would be cheaper and much more effective.

And then let’s make the shortform survey voluntary, as well, okay?

Everyone’s favourite cyborg, Professor Stephen Hawking, is in a bit of trouble with the media.  Apparently, he thinks that if we were to have contact with an advanced alien species, we would suffer for it.  Therefore, he argues, we should avoid contact with potential non-terrestrial intelligence.

I don’t know why he gets shit for articulating this belief.  He is not the first to do so.  In fact, if one applies the rational model of decision theory, it is hard to escape the conclusion that things will necessarily go badly for homo sapiens in the great cosmic blind date.

Hawking’s proclamation reminds me of the way in which I conceptualize this discussion, as a dialectic between two poles.  On one end is the pacifist optimism of Carl Sagan, my boyhood hero.  On the other end is the cold, calculating, almost neo-liberal harshness of Charles Pellegrino, whose books I discussed in this Podium article (reproduced on Skiffy.ca).

In short, Sagan’s argument was that any civilization that managed to master the economics, politics and technologies needed to achieve sustained interstellar travel must have also solved its indigenous social issues.  For, he argued, if one is constantly diverting resources to address preventable concerns, such as wars, then one can never become a multi-planetary civilization.  Therefore, when we finally venture forth into interstellar space, we will have become a truly peaceful society.  By that same logic, any aliens we encounter must also necessarily be pacifistic.

Do remember that Sagan presented his many ideas mostly during the 1970s, when the Cold War was fierce and foremost on everyone’s mind.  Hope was in desperate need, and Sagan often saw it as his duty to provide such hope from the podium of science.

Pellegrino, arguing from another era –the post-Society era of crumbling empires, multipolar uncertainties and a global return to warlordism– had another take.  He argued essentially three things:

1. Vegetarians don’t become top dog.  In other words, the dominant species on any planet will likely be a predatory species well bred in the arts of conflict.
2. When push comes to shove, any rational party (i.e., the aliens) will always consider their own needs above ours.
3. They will assume the same of us.

With those three assumptions, Pellegrino concluded that any meeting of any two interstellar species will eventually become violent.

Pellegrino added to his argument the likely development of “the big gun,” a weapon of such awesomeness that its theoretical existence is sufficient cause to ratchet up the tension levels.  Pellegrino’s “big gun” is the relativistic missile.  Imagine, if you will, a ship the size of a space shuttle.  One could accelerate this ship to high relativistic velocities, of the order of 99.999% the speed of light, using foreseeable technology, such as an ion impulse drive (which was successfully tested on NASA’s Deep Space One mission).  You’d have to leave the engine running for many centuries to achieve such a speed, but we are dealing with immense distances and times here, so that is not a problem.

Now imagine such a ship, traveling at such a speed, colliding with an inhabited world the size of the Earth.  It is conceivable that 100% of the ship’s mass would be instantaneously converted to energy, according to Einstein’s famous theorem.  That amount of energy would, Pellegrino argues, be sufficient to destroy all life on the target planet.

Okay, so the big gun sucks.  So what?  Well, a relativistic missile is moving at almost the speed of light.  This means that by the time you see it, it’s already here.  There is therefore no conceivable defense against such an attack.  This is not a failing of technology, that can be overcome with more research.  Rather, it is an immutable fact presented to us by the laws of physics.   (Just accept the argument; I know there are science fiction solutions having to do with subspace or hyperspace or whatever, but those constructs currently don’t play well with mainstream physics.)

Lastly, since the relativistic missiles need to be launched centuries in advance, it’s best to launch earlier rather than later.

So, given that any interstellar species could build such a thing, and that there is no possible defense against it, and that its result is complete genocide….  well, you do the math.  Pellegrino concludes that if we were to ever meet an interstellar species, we must launch first, because we cannot tolerate the risk that they might launch first.

He uses this reasoning to explain why the skies are silent, why the SETI project has failed to find any sign of intelligent extraterrestrial life: anyone who was foolish enough to broadcast was summarily terminated.  The universe might be teeming with civilizations clever enough to know to stay silent, and they have the good sense to hide from us and from each other.  Civilizations, it seems, were meant to never know of each other’s existences.  Our only choices are aloneness or summary destruction.

And remember: we’ve been broadcasting for about a century now.  For all we know, relativistic missiles have already been launched in our direction.

Have a nice day.

Here’s an old post from Deonandia 1.0, from Nov 4, 2004:

As I’ve already gone out on a limb and predicted that Al Gore will return to national prominence very soon, let’s make a few more predictions for the next 4 years:

• Within the next 4 years, Hillary Clinton will lose considerable power in the Democratic Party, perhaps even losing her New York senate seat to, oh, let’s say Giuliani.
• Within the next 2 years, probably sooner, the USA will give Israel the go-ahead to bomb Iran. They’ve already supplied the Israelis wtih 500 bunker-buster bombs and several long-range fighter-bombers. The US is in no position to invade Iran as things stand, so their best bet to continue neo-con foreign policy is to use Israel as a military proxy.
• Roe vs Wade will be challenged… successfully.
• The Democratic Party will continue to wither well past the midterm elections, and will finally re-emerge, branding itself the party of “individual liberties” or something like that.
• Canada will join the USA in the useless (but more or less harmless) continental missile defence programme.
• A more militarized Europe will start to emerge, strengthened by the inclusion of Russia.
• Both China and India will join the new global arms race, to the consternation of both Pakistan and Iran.
• Turkey will fail in its bid to enter the European Union, as fear of Muslims reaches a global pitch.
• The clever Aaron Brown will finally get doofus Lou Dobbs’s earlier slot on CNN, but both will be Anderson Cooper’s bitches.
• Mark Steyn will retire, and no one will care.
• Another devastating terror attack will occur on US soil. There will be much horror, but we’ll all get over it.
• John Edwards will never be heard from again.
• I will have written at least 2 more books, none of which will make me any money whatsoever.

Well, how many of my predictions came to pass?  The China, India and Turkey one.  That’s about it.  The biggest let down?  I haven’t written any new (published) books since 2003!

The lesson: I know nothing.  And now we have proof.

I recently posted the following Jimmy Carter speech to my Facebook page:

It’s rather prescient, no?At the other end of the spectrum is this oft-linked Ronald Reagan speech warning of the “evils” of socialized medicine:

I don’t doubt Reagan’s sincerity. But it is instructive to note the Right’s philosophical objection to socialized medicine, at least according to Reagan. It’s twofold: (1) if you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it; and (2) it’s the beginning of telling doctors where to work, and that ain’t American.

Interestingly, I think few today –other than many doctors themselves– would object to legislating where and to whom doctors must provide service. In Canada, we are almost there, with an incredibly polarization of services leaving rural and remote regions almost completely unserviced. The market has no solution for such disparities.

But back to Carter. It’s not a popular view, but I’ve always held that Carter was a great man who let his good soul get in the way of being a great President. He did what was right, not what his electorate wanted of him. Some would argue that doing what is right is what makes a great leader; others would argue that serving the needs of the people is what defines greatness. I do know, though, that many of Carter’s beliefs and predictions are only now being appreciated. The speech above references a real crisis of energy that is only now being taken seriously. In other speeches, he chastises citizens’ greed and wastefulness –a stark contrast to today’s leaders who toady to the electorate and insist that we are good and right when we clearly are not.

Carter came two generations too early. His manner and approach are sorely needed today.

I’m a bit worried about ol’ Jimmy. I haven’t seen him in the news of late, and he is pushing 90, after all. It will be a sad day indeed when President Carter shuffles off this mortal coil. Let’s hope it’s later rather than sooner.

In Other News

The nominees for the 2010 Hugo Awards were announced this week. If you don’t know, the Hugos are the premier science fiction awards, the Pulitzer for the nerd set, if you will. I won’t mention the novels or short stories, since few of you have heard of them. Rather, let’s look at the dramatic entries, bot long and short form.

Nominees for the long form (i.e., movies) include Avatar, Moon, District 9, Star Trek and Up.

I reviewed Star Trek here. It’s a fine action movie. But it’s neither science fiction nor clever. If it wins, I am through with the Hugos.

I reviewed Avatar here. It’s genuine science fiction, though heavily derivative and hardly worthy of an award that celebrates originality. If it wins, I won’t be through with the Hugos, but I will lose a hefty amount of respect for them.

Up is an excellent, moving and entertaining little film. But is it science fiction? I really don’t think so.

That leaves Moon and District 9. I must admit to not having seen Moon. I hear it’s quite good. But from what little I know of its plot, I question whether it’s actually science fiction. An astronaut on the moon is not particularly far-fetched. That leaves the sole option for winner being District 9.

Now, on to the short form, The nominees are an episode of Dollhouse, and episode of FlashForward and three episodes of Doctor Who. All are very good choices, though we can all wonder how Lost or Fringe didn’t make the list.

More baffling, however, is how this past year’s true masterpiece of TV science fiction failed to make the Hugo short list. I’m talking about Torchwood: Children of Earth, which I reviewed here.

I don’t use the word “masterpiece” lightly. It’s a difficult accomplishment to manage in a general public prime-time TV format, especially within the confines of an existing TV show with existing characters and relationships. But Children of Earth is that good, it really is. Not only is it pure science fiction –something the actual nominees dance around– but it’s poignant, heartbreaking, terrifying and exhilirating.

A big raspberry to the Hugo people for omitting Children of Earth. As compensation, let’s inaugurate the first annual Skiffy.ca TV award for the best science fiction dramatic short form. I hereby award it, without hesitation, to Russell Davies for his –wait for it– masterpiece in Torchwood: Children of Earth.

Thanks to DeeMack for sending me this. It’s reproduced, supposedly, from Rosie O’Donnell’s blog. It’s an open letter to the “teabaggers” demonstrating with unrestrained fury against the passing of Obama’s health care bill:

Now You Get Mad

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate
energy policy.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn’t get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans…oh hell no.

Three important facts to note:

1. I’m a professor at the University of Ottawa
2. Politically, I’m liberal on philosophical points, particularly relating to foreign policy, and conservative on fiscal matters. But I’m probably best described as Left of centre, if you really need me to pick a side.
3. I think Ann Coulter is delusional, hypocritical, possibly narcissistic, dangerously disingenuous, and a seething cauldron of unexamined –nay, proud!– hate.

And if you strongly disagree with point #3, you will probably cite points #1 and #2 in your inevitable actions to refute what I’m going to say for the rest of this post. I do tire of these games, and have no intention of entering into any kind of debate with anyone over anything to do with Miss Coulter.

As you probably already know, Coulter is on a pan-Canada tour. Why? Who knows. Maybe Americans –flush with purpose and a renewed skepticism of knee-jerk hate after a Democratic and supposedly liberal President gave them all health care– are no longer in the mood for Coulter’s particular brand of idiocy. Maybe she feels that Canada, North America’s only nation now with a retrograde conservative leadership, presents better hunting grounds for a niche in which to sell Coulter’s smear-jobs-of-the-week that she packages as books.

I don’t care why she’s coming. Lots of people come here. I don’t have a problem with it, especially since I’m presently in Mexico and thus far away from her.

The problem, of course, is that Coulter is known for her so-called “hate speech”. In the past, she has publicly called for the invasion of Muslim countries, the murdering of their heads of state and the forced conversion to Christianity of Muslim civilians. In a rehearsed public speech, she called John Edwards a “faggot”. These are two examples off the top of my head. To cite more would require me to go back and read her columns again, and I really don’t want to put my ageing and addled brain through such torture.

Do her words qualify as hate speech? Sure, why not? I’m on record, though, of being opposed to Canada’s hate speech laws and hate crime laws. I think that a crime is not made more criminal simply by being hateful; and I think that hateful speech should not be legally punished until a link can be shown between such speech and an actual criminal act. Otherwise, people should be able to say whatever (non-libelous things) they want to say.

But that’s just me.

So where are we? Ann Coulter, known for her hateful speech, is coming to Canada. Of more immediate concern to this blog post, though, is that Ann Coulter was coming to the University of Ottawa…. my generous and gracious employer whom I’d never dream of disparaging

Now, I don’t know why the following happened. I have some theories. Here’s one. The university knows its students, knows that they are mostly a Left-leaning activist lot who would get quite riled up by Coulter’s (deliberately) provocative statements. Statements that may dance on the border of hate crime, or maybe even cross over into that realm, would be carefully parsed and legal action would be demanded of the university by these passionate students. So perhaps to save itself such trouble, perhaps to avoid more administrative burden in an institution already known for its overwhelming mass of bureaucracy, the university issued the following letter to Ann Coulter:

“Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa”

I don’t know if the letter was meant to be public. But it has been reproduced in many Right-leaning forums, the National Post among them. Poor Dr Houle was now on the radar of the vicious, bitter and petty extreme Right-wing blogosphere, for what really is a polite letter.

Now, many Coulter supporters read this letter as a veiled threat of criminal action. There’s nothing veiled about it. I think it’s quite a reasonable letter, but it is clear in its intent and implications. If some of Coulter’s speeches in the USA were spoken in Canada, they might very well constitute hate crime under our current laws. The letter did not discourage her from coming or threaten to ban her if she didn’t promise to “play nice”. It just suggested that the university would feel compelled to add to its ridiculous administrative burden if Coulter did indeed give her standard US campus presentation on Canadian soil.

So far, so good…. Except that Coulter, seeing a chance to gain some press over what would have otherwise been yet another barely noticed campus tour, saw her opening. She re-printed the letter on her column, with the provocative –and incorrect– title, “Canadian University Provost Wants To Send Me To Jail… For a Speech I Haven’t Given Yet“. At that point, what transpired next was fairly predictable for anyone who’s observed the shenanigans of the bored and angry far-Right as much as I have.

Now, being in Mexico, I haven’t been privy to all the details of what’s happening on campus. But essentially, citing fears for Coulter’s personal safety, “organizers” cancelled her appearance. The “organizers”, as I understand it, were a campus-based student group. This is important: the university never cancelled Coulter’s appearance; her own representatives appear to have done so, or at least a campus group in coordination with Coulter’s representatives did so. Keep in mind that I have no facts beyond that which are published in the papers, and I’m observing all of this from Mexico. So, really, what do I know?

Okay, now on to the really predictable part. With the appearance cancelled, Coulter retained none other than Ezra Levant to –here it comes– represent her in a human rights complaint against the University of Ottawa.

Now, I have talked about Ezra Levant many times in the past in this space. There was Ezra’s seeming tolerance of hate speech on his own website. There was more of the same. There was Ezra’s attacks on former Liberal leader Stephane Dion. There was Ezra’s seeming blind love for all things George Bush. Oh, I’ve talked about him many many times before. One of his supporters even suggested that Ezra would one day track me down and beat me up. (Yeah, I laughed, too. I’m not that hard to find.)

Now the important thing about Levant, at least with respect to the current topic, is that he styles himself as an uncompromising defender of free speech. This, in and of itself, is a great thing. Who doesn’t love a defender or liberties? The problem is that his support only seems to extend to people who want to say things that he agrees with.

For example, when George Galloway was banned from speaking in Canada –a true and obvious denial of free speech!– Levant said of the issue:

“I don’t see this as a free speech issue; I see it as a sovereignty issue — keeping out an undesirable foreigner who has no right to be here, and who boasts about violating our criminal code.”

“Undesirable foreigner who has no right to be here”? Sounds like a certain skinny blonde firebrand with a hate-on for Muslims. Someone “who boasts about violating our criminal code”? Again, if Coulter brags in her column that the things she says would get her arrested in Canada, I think that that constitutes “boasting about our criminal code.” How about it, Ezra?

(By the way, read my whole take on the Galloway affair here.)

Levant is claiming that his reasons for taking on the Coulter case is to show how duplicitous the human rights tribunal process is, and that it is biased against conservatives. I don’t know if that’s true. But I think Levant lost pretty much all his credibility with not only his failure to defend Galloway’s right of free speech in Canada, but his active support for the denial of those rights. Levant would be more convincing if he were more consistent with his views and appplications of his principles.

What about Coulter? Since I started writing this post about 10 minutes ago, I received an email from her automatic listserv (someone thought it was funny to sign me up; I actually kind of enjoy deleting her emails). You can read her current column here (which is exactly what she wants you to do; so I guess I’m helping her out, as well.) It’s interesting how the mighty have fallen. Once a syndicated columnist at leading papers, a promising lawyer, someone who, I think, even worked at the White House briefly, Coulter is now calling out members of the SFUO –the University of Ottawa’s student federation! Picking fights with undergrads? Really? Oh Ann.

So Coulter is denouncing someone’s decision to “deny” her he opportunity to spread her extreme views on a college campus. Hmmm, this sounds vaguely familiar. Let me see… Columbia University once compared Coulter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why it this relevant? Because Ahmadinejad once spoke at the Columbia campus, despite conservatives trying really hard to prevent him from doing so.

In fact, prior to the Iranian leader’s appearance, conservative forces rallied under the leadership of such Coulter compatriots as Michelle Malkin, who issued this call for supporters to send a message to the university administration that Ahmadinejad was not welcome on campus.

When Coulter herself was asked about Ahmadinejad’s Columbia appearance, she said this:

“You know, I give a lot of college speeches, I know how colleges behave, and there is the least free speech on a college campus as any place in America. It is like Iran—so for them to be saying they are allowing this guy to speak because of free speech, you know, your head explodes.”

Er… what? Further in the same interview, Coulter suggested that by allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, Columbia was “aiding the other side.” At least that’s the way I read it. Coulter is a master of dancing around topics so deftly that it’s hard to pin her down to any particular viewpoints, except that liberals are sissies and Muslims are evil.

The president of the University of Ottawa, Mr Allan Rock, a seasoned diplomat, issued the following statement to all members of the university community today:

“On Tuesday, March 23, an appearance by Ann Coulter was scheduled on our campus, organized by the International Free Press Society Canada and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.

The University of Ottawa has always promoted and defended freedom of expression. For that reason, we did not at any time oppose Ann Coulter’s appearance. Whether it is Ann Coulter or any other speaker, diverse views have always been and continue to be welcome on our campus.

Last night, the organizers themselves decided at 7:50 p.m. to cancel the event and so informed the University’s Protection Services staff on site. At that time, a crowd of about one thousand people had peacefully gathered at Marion Hall.

“Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University. “We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus. Last night was no exception, as people gathered here to listen to and debate Ann Coulter’s opinions.

I encourage our students, faculty and other members of our community to maintain our University as an open forum for diverse opinions. Ours is a safe and democratic environment for the expression of views, and we will keep it that way.”

It doesn’t sound to me like anyone’s free speech was being curtailed. In fact, all official missives suggest that Coulter was openly welcomed to the university campus. I think what actually happened was that when Professor Roule sent that ill-advised letter, the Coulter-ites and their hypocritical self-styled supporter of “free speech for people I agree with”, Ezra Levant, saw this as an opportunity to manufacture an event and make both Levant and Coulter briefly relevant again.

That is all. Nothing more to see here. Ignore the pests and they’ll just go back to screaming about Communists and evolutionists in their basement meetings.