…. for a party that had been trying for years to shake a negative catch phrase pinned to it by political opponants and the media … and say I had a summer of pre-election campaigning to fill, do you know what I’d do?
I’d call a news conference, and with the cameras rolling and the microphones recording, I’d announce the launch of the “Hidden Agenda Tour”.
Then, I’d take it nationwide, to – In the immortal words of Mark McKinnon – Love it to death.
Adscam: Follow The Money
Anti-Corruption.ca has the most useful chart detailing the Adscam money flow, according to Gomery testimony so far. (A good one to send to your disinterested Canadian friends.)
Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto: Owns Anti-Harper website
Bill Strong has stumbled upon a piece of political dynamite;
The registered owner of Sinclair Stevens’ new anti-Harper website bloc-harper.com is The Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto Foundation.
The website of The Royal Commonwealth Society of Canada, Toronto Branch lists the Hon. Sinclair M. Stevens, P.C., Q.C. as its Foundation Chairman. They also list the following:Patron in Canada: Her Excellency The Right Honorable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.D. Governor General of Canada Honorary Chairman: The Hon. James K. Bartleman, OOnt, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.
Given that the Governor-General and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario are Patron and Honourary Chair, you would think that the Society would wish to avoid purely political issues. Reading the Society’s constitution and values pages does not give any indication that the Society would be / should be involved in partisan politics, such as the bloc-harper.com website. In fact, their purpose is plainly stated on their main page.
Our purpose is to promote the increase and spread of knowledge respecting the peoples and countries of the Commonwealth. This is pursued by the formation of regional branches and through a variety of educational activities. RCS-Canada is affiliated with the RCS International headquarters in London, England.
Why then is the Royal Commonwealth Society getting actively involved in Canadian politics?
Screenshot:
UPDATE This morning, the record has been updated to show “Freedom International Ass’n” as the owner, but with the same address. Good thing I grabbed that screenshot.
Update – the only Freedom Interntional I can find in existance seems to be based in Australia. (I’ve written them for an explanation). Google provides no sign of such an organization in Canada, much less one listed at the address provided in Newmarket. Perhaps others with different tools can dig up more.
Updated June 2
There Have Been Seven
For all the attention that has been given the tragedy of the four Canadian soldiers who died in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, could we just stop once in a while to also remember Cpl. Jamie Brendan Murphy, Sgt. Robert Alan Short, and Cpl. Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger ?
True, they didn’t go out at the hands of Americans, so there isn’t any political milage to be gained, but still…
Does It Take Four Hours To Say No?
As I said in the comments section below, I hope this is a signal that someone in Tory headquarters has learned the “Abu Ghraib�� Strategy” – that to inflict maximum damage to an opponant caught in a story of wrongdoing you must ensure that the dirty details …. dribble … out …. one …. at … a … time.
As the world media did with the prison abuse story, the controlled release of “new photos” (though all had been taken at the same time) turned a brief moment in history into a multi-chaptered saga that lived for weeks, and worsened with the ugly exposure of each new naked body ….
8 minute increments, boys.
Make them squirm. Keep them on the defense for a change.
OK. Back to gardening.
Random Links
I think I’ve earned a brief holiday from blogging, so I’ll just throw up some links I’ve had forwarded or spotted on my own that are relevant to recent events;
I may be taking a break, but Newsbeat1 isn’t. There’s a ton of stuff there this morning. (Take the time to add this site to your blogroll. )
The apple is climbing back into the tree.
Further to the tender sensibilities of those offended by the use of the word “Jap”, (I presume you’ll rise in similar indignation next time you hear “Yank”), a few sentimental wartime postcards.
Greg and others think the Conservatives should release their platform now. Just in time for summer vacation. I don’t.
Someone asks privately about a detail of the RCMP murders that I wrote about at the time – oddly no photographs of the weapon seem to have been published in the mainstream press. Perhaps a photo of a HECKLER & KOCH, HK91 is “inconsistant” with the more important message that the “smoking gun registry” keeps “banned weapons from the hands of criminals”.
At Bound By Gravity, More historical photos, these ones of bombing damage at Saint-L�, France in the wake of D-Day.
Yes, a Blogger’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will…”
The Libranos Strike Back II
Further to events of this morning; Reading Coyne’s column again, can anyone point me to a passage that accuses Tim Murphy of committing a crime?
You know, among my first thoughts in reading this were that the National Post is a big place, with lawyers and whatnot, to vet columns before they run. Are we assuming too much in thinking this column is the target, or if it is, is this just a ham-fisted attempt by Murphy to intimidate the leading critic of Papa Paul – and more importantly, the powers that be who publish him?
Pure conjecture on my part, I’ll readily admit. But now that I’m in conjecture mode (and the first beer I’ve ever consumed before dinner hour since I turned 17…);
Recall the threats to bloggers for linking to Captains Quarters – and for all the crowing of the blogosphere, that threat was successful – several bloggers fell into line and delinked, while almost all in the mainstream followed suit. For all the pomposity of our press, they are willing litlle sheeple like the rest of us when it comes to, you know – actually taking risks for the truth.
A very long time ago, before I first ventured onto the blogosphere, I speculated that the core difference between Americans and Canadians wasn’t “a more European world view”, or medicare or our “cultural mosaic”.
It is the singular fact that Canadians have never had to fight on their home soil for the right for their nation to exist. We had no Indian wars, no Canadian revolution, no civil war. No Pearl Harbour, no 9/11.
I think that fact alone explains the national angst about “Canadian identity” more than any other. We don’t know how to fight, truly fight for what should be our inalienable rights.
“An Angry Party With Narrow Views”
|
Rookie Conservative MP Steven Fletcher has apologized for an incident last weekend where he referred to Japanese soldiers from the Second World War as “Japs” and “bastards.” Fletcher made the remarks last weekend at a veteran’s convention in Winnipeg. His specific statement was: “The Japs were bastards.” In his statement of apology on Saturday, Fletcher referred to his family’s personal experiences during the war, saying they had given him “a very emotional perspective” on that historical period. His grandfather was a prisoner of war held by the Japanese, captured during the fall of Singapore. “I allowed those emotions to colour my remarks,” he said. “I should have chosen more appropriate language, and will do so in the future. I apologize for any offence I may have caused, and retract my choice of words without reservation.” But he also said this: “I stand by the fact that the Japanese were ruthless. If people want to challenge me on that, I look forward to it.” Fletcher told The Canadian Press: “They used my grandfather’s friend for bayonet practice. They put my grandfather on a raft when he was ill to die. They shot people indiscriminately. “In the context of the time, in World War II, they treated people in ways that were barbaric and disgusting, and it should never be forgotten, and it should never be allowed to happen again.” During the 1940s, “Japs” was commonly used to describe Japanese people, but it is now considered to be an ethnic slur. Fletcher’s role at the conference was to bring greetings from the federal government. Hayden Kent, president of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Unit 283, said the MP’s remarks caught the veterans off guard. “I understand his feelings about what his grandfather went through, but that wasn’t the time or the place,” he said. “If we’d had a person of Japanese descent on the convention floor, how would that person have felt? We have to forgive.” Bev Oda, a Conservative MP and the first Japanese-Canadian elected to Parliament, was mildly critical of her colleague. “We have a job certainly as members of Parliament to work against racism but we can do that without using the terminology of the day,” he said. The Liberals said Fletcher’s outburst is yet more evidence that the Conservatives are an angry party led by people with narrow views. But the NDP said Fletcher’s apology should end the matter.
|
“Reluctantly, the American prisoners did as they were told, all 150 of them, crawling single file into the dark, poorly ventilated pits. Everyone but Stidham, whose stretcher was conveniently placed beside one of the trench entrances. If the planes came, his buddies would gather his limp form and tuck him into the shelter with everyone else. They waited and waited but heard not a single American plane, let alone a hundred. They huddled in the stifling dankness of their collective body heat, sweat coursing down their bare chests. The air-raid bell continued to peal. A Navy signalman named C.C. Smith refused to go into his pit. Suddenly the Buzzard set upon him. He raised his saber high so that it gleamed in the midday sun, and with all his strength he brought it blade side down. Smith’s head was cleaved in two, the sword finally stopping midway down the neck. Then, peeking out the ends of the trenches, the men saw several soldiers bursting into the compound. They were carrying five-gallon buckets filled with a liquid. The buckets sloshed messily as the soldiers walked. With a quick jerk of the hands, they flung the contents into the openings of the trenches. By the smell of it on their skin, the Americans instantly recognized what it was — high-octane aviation fuel from the airstrip. Before they could apprehend the full significance of it, other soldiers tossed in lighted bamboo torches. Within seconds the trenches exploded in flames, The men squirmed over each other and clawed at the dirt as they tried desperately to shirnk from the intense heat. They choked back the smoke and the fumes, their nostrils assailed by the smell of singed hair and roasting flesh. They were trapped like termites in their own sealed nest. Only a few managed to free themselves. Dr.Carl Mango, from Pennsylvania, sprang from his hole, his clothes smoldering. His arms were outstretched as he peaded — “Show some reason, please God show reason” — but a machine gunner mowed him down. Another prisoner crawled from his trench, wrested a rifle from the hands of a soldier, and shot him before receiving a mortal stab in the back. A number of men dashed toward the fence and tried to press through it but were quickly riddled with lead, leaving a row of corpses hung from the barbed stands like dried cuttlefish. A few men managed to slip through the razor ribbon and leap from the high cliff, but more soldiers were waiting on the beach to finish them off. Recognizing the futility of escape but wanting to wreak a parting vengeance, one burning prisoner emerged from his trench, wrapped his arms tightly around the first soldier he saw, and didn’t let go — a death embrace that succeeded in setting the surprised executioner on fire. All the while, Lieutenant Sato scurried from trench to trench with saber drawn, loudly exhorting his men and occasionally punctuating his commands with a high, nervous laugh. At his order, another wave of troops approached the air-raid shelters, throwing grenades into the flaming entrances and raking them with gunfire. Some of the troops poked their rifle barrels through the entrances of the trenches and fired point-blank at the huddled forms within. James Stidham, the paralytic who had been watching all of this from his stretcher, quietly moaned in terror. A soldier stepped over to him and with a perfunctory glance fired two slugs into his face.” From Ghost Soldiers– an account of the atrocity at Palawan, Dec.14, 1944. |
Advice For Stephen Harper
From Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun. Advice for everyone, actually.
Via Nealenews
The Libranos Strike Back
Apparently, voicing the same opinion as Jack Layton and Gille Duceppe – that Tim Murphy committed an offense under the Criminal Code in suggesting that rewards would come the way of certain Conservative members if they were to abstain – can get you sued;
Andrew Coyne is being sued by the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Tim Murphy for libel. There’s no other details on exactly what Coyne wrote that was so libelous, but I’m guessing it’s the column in the National Post that directly accused Murphy of breaking the law. Coyne has not put the column up on his site as he usually does, and his site has shut down comments and has had no new content added for a couple of days. Something’s happened; it may be the thuggish hand of the Liberal Party, or it may be a bad case of stomach flu.
Debbye Stratigacos of Being American in T.O. and I feel that the Prime Minister’s office should not be able to shut down the questioning of their ethics with legal threats and have decided to post the column. Because of copyright issues, we’ll both post just half of it. If Andrew Coyne requests we take it down, we will, but for now, here’s the first part of the offending column.
Debbye has more.
Correction According to this Globe & Mail piece titled “Layton joins call for probe into MP’s allegations”, Murphy is “considering” suing Duceppe, too.
Now, why not Jack Layton, do you suppose? Or is he granted “immunity” so long as he remains a member of da Family?
update
Coyne explains why his comments section has been closed. It’s a reminder of why I asked a couple of days ago for folks here to keep it in check. It’s one thing to get pissy – indeed, I think that having a place to allow readers to let off steam is an important function of blogs – it’s quite another to piss in your own bed.
another update: My presumption that Coyne was “voicing the same opinion as Jack Layton and Gille Duceppe” is inaccurate. (The original quote at Autonomous Source has updated as well).
Belindarella, Up After Midnight
Partying Liberals were treated Thursday night to the incredible sight of Belinda Stronach, Canada’s new human resources minister, and Tim Murphy, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, dancing atop a speaker at an Ottawa bar. The tune? “Material Girl,” by Madonna. The lyrics to that song include these memorable, and some would say fitting, words: “Some boys kiss me, some boys hug me, I think they’re OK, If they don’t give me proper credit, I just walk away. They can beg and they can plead, But they can’t see the light. That’s right, ‘Cause the boy with the cold hard cash is always Mr. Right.”
When asked for reaction, Liberal members present at the bash responded stiffly.
The Supreme Court Case Nobody Will Report On
P.M. Jaworsk notices that the New York Times is reporting on an important case that no one in the Liberal wing of the Canadian media seems to want to touch;
[T]he article, entitled “A Doctor-Lawyer-Gadfly v. Canada’s Medical System,” is a good account of Chaoulli’s struggles and battles with Canada’s health care system. That struggle has been temporarily put on hold, since the Court has not yet issued a ruling in the case. (Chaoulli finished his arguments almost a year ago…)
In my article, scholars that I spoke to expected the decision to come down before the end of last year. Why the delay? No one really knows for sure, but Chaoulli told me that he sees it as a “good sign.”
The NYT article is online though you will have to register (free).
A diminutive man who has trouble keeping his wire-rim glasses on straight, Dr. Chaoulli, 53, hardly looks like the “freedom fighter” that Canada’s conservative news media have called him. But if he wins his case he will tear up the third rail of the nation’s politics and raze what many Canadians consider to be the bedrock of their national identity.
He argues that regulations that create long waiting times for surgery contradict the constitutional guarantees for individuals of “life, liberty and the security of the person,” and that the prohibition against private medical insurance and care is for sick patients an “infringement of the protection against cruel and unusual treatment.”
He believes that Canada is disallowing the basic contract rights of doctors and patients, and that the country would serve the sick much better if it had a parallel private health care system, as in France and many other industrialized countries.
“His argument is credible,” said Patrick Monahan, dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto. “The issue of waiting times does raise constitutional issues.”
Check out the Western Standard article from last year, too.
I Concede
I’ve been listening for weeks now as Liberals defend their party as though theft was simply a policy issue to debate on its merits – a small part of a larger, more important national picture, sometimes marketed as the Greater Good[tm].
These Liberals seem to genuinely believe that systematic dishonesty is just a point of disagreement for which a sensible compromise could be found, if only both sides would be civil.
“Compromise” is defined by Websters in this way:
“An amicable agreement between parties in controversy, to settle their differences by mutual concessions. “
Well, therein lies the rub. Conservatives aren’t wired the same way as you Liberals. As we are so often reminded, we tend to view the world in terms of “black and white”.
This Ayn Rand quote is illustrative of this uniquely conservative character flaw, the unreasonably rigid fixation on notions of right and wrong as though they are, you know – meaningful.
“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.”
Stupid woman. Rand should have known that so-called “poison” can be ingested safely if dosage remains within limits of toxicity. Lives are saved through chemotherapy every day by the very pharmaceuticals that would kill you instantly if administered in overdose. The grey area between safety and toxicity is scientific fact – a property of every chemical substance on earth, with the exception of agricultural pesticides, growth hormones and fertilizers.
Still, hard wired as the conservative that I am, I can’t help myself. I can’t quite resolve a middle ground between good and evil. While on some intellectual level I’m sure I know better – I cannot shake the belief that beaurocratic corruption is an institutional character fault so grave that it should disqualify those afflicted from any position of power. In the case of the Liberal Party of Canada, I believe the party should be deregistered. I know this is harsh, but that’s how I think. Black. White. Crime. Punishment.
It’s not as though the question of corruption remains in dispute. An announced $750,000 trust fund indicates that Mr. Martin’s Liberals have moved past denial and presumption of innocence, and have entered the plea bargain phase.
While I acknowledge this is progress of a sort, in the greater scope of events, it’s pretty clear that my outdated “conservative” definition of justice, a justice that includes punishment, will not be realized. Having admitted guilt, there will be no penalty outside of “community service”.
The Liberal Party will not only continue to exist, they shall continue to govern and enjoy the privilage of stealing from me for the greater good.
So, to my fellow moderate, mainstream, compromising Liberal Canadian citizens so tolerant of the mischievious ways of our political masters – today I concede.
You win. I lose. You are right. I was wrong. You were always right, and I was always wrong.
Having broken the shackles of black and white, I’m ready to venture into this brave new ethical world of “Grey” and work with you. I can’t say I understand it, but nonetheless – it’s time to adapt.
As my first step, as a show of good faith, I’ve arranged a compromise with you. We will find a middle ground between “honesty” and “dishonesty”, a happy litlle grey parking spot between “respect for property” and “systematic theft”.
In my previous life in the world of black and white, “fairness” would demand participation of two consenting negotiators to arrive at “mutual concession’. I’m glad we can dispense with that outdated notion.
I’m going to play by your rules. Just as I had no place at the table when you were conceding the fundamental honour and integrity of the political system I must live under, you’ll surely understand this compromise that I have chosen for you.
You get to keep your Liberal Party and then some – you may also keep your Liberal government in perpetuity.
Easy? Easy.
In exchange I am going to impose a similar system of institutionalized theft on you, but in a more streamlined version. (Some conservative habits die hard) .
While your political party is stealing my money to fund their own election campaigns and in turn, reward their supporters (which would be you and the others who vote for them), in my parallel system, we’ve cut out the middleman.
I’ve made a deal with your bank. They have agreed to allow me, at the time of my choosing, to dip into your personal account and take a few dollars when I need them. Or alternately, when I want them. It’s nothing to get worried about, because the amounts I take will be such a tiny percentage of the bank’s overall holdings.
I won’t be telling you when I’ll be accessing your account, how much I’m going to take or how I will spend it. (I negotiated that, too.)
Because this is a democracy, you will have the right to complain just as much as you wish – so long as you remain civil. No anger allowed, because I really am uncomfortable – distrustful really – of angry people. They scare me.
If the tone of your complaint meets with my approval, I will go back to the bank and we shall sit down and discuss your grievance. The process will be completely democratic. You may watch and you can comment, and you will even cast a vote. You, me and the banker all cast votes.
Majority rules.
Then, after the majority has ruled, I’ll admit that maybe I took some of your money, look you straight in the eye and tell you I’m very, very sorry about the mess and give you my solemn pledge – let me be very, very clear about this – not to steal from your personal account until next time.
Then, I’ll instruct your banker to increase your account fees. We shall then distribute the extra revenues to the bank accounts of your like-minded mainstream Liberal Canadian friends.
They, in turn, will remind you that we do not live in a world of black and white.
Grewal Tape Online(?)
I can’t download this, so am trusting London Fog that it’ s as advertised;
GOPinion “has obtained an exclusive unreleased recording of a conversation between British Columbia MP Gurmant Grewal and the Canadian Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Tim Murphy. We cannot yet confirm the authenticity of this tape.
It’s 8.2 megs.
A Sense Of Timing
Arriving in constituants’ mailboxes this week… (scroll down a little)
The New Website is up.
Sorta.
Guest Blogging For Coyne
I come up with my best ever original quote, and what happens?
Coyne posts it, and gets 770 comments.
I suck.
Librano Sloganator III
The Librano Election Sign Generator
Note: you’ll need to save your sign and host it yourself if you want to display it. Sean, of Pol:Spy fame has generously offered space for those who don’t have their own websites.
Email: libranos[at]circleofconfusion.ca The gallery is here
Paul Martin’s Hidden Agenda
Globe And Mail. (Conservative MP Germant Grewal and Tim Murphy, Paul Martin’s Chief of Staff);
Murphy: [unintelligible] …best for you and best for us, in a way that allows everybody to feel comfortable, and also allows everybody to feel principled, and I think to be principled. Both.
So, I was kind of thinking about that and I talked to Ujjal last night and again this morning, just before I came, which is why I was a few minutes late.
I apologize.
Grewal: That’s OK.
Murphy: What I think… what might be the easiest thing to do, and see what you think about this, because we have the vote tomorrow night, and if the government doesn’t fall, it’s not the only vote we may have to face. My guess is that when you look at issues like supply, final votes on the budget, opposition days, there could be as many as eight votes between now and the end of the session which could bring the government down, right?
Obviously, each one of them will be a nail-biter right to the end, and obviously, the two votes that you and your wife represent are the way the House is made up now, matter a lot, or can matter. There are, just to be honest, as I think I told you yesterday. There are other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemma that you face, and are musing, so �
Grewal: [unintelligible] many?
Murphy: I don’t want to, in the he same way I don’t want to do anything that, I don’t want to�
Grewal: [unintelligible]
Murphy: If I’m to honour your trust, I have to honour others.
Grewal: Definitely.
Murphy: So, I hope you don’t take that wrongly.
Grewal: Absolutely not.
Murphy: So I think the way to make it work, and the way that allows us the freedom�as you can tell. Right? Just to be blunt, right?
I think it’s a bad idea, truthfully, to have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade. Because I think anything that [unintelligible]. I don’t think it’s good if anybody lies. So if anybody asks the question well, was there a deal, you say, ‘No.’ You want that to be the truth. And so that’s what I want, is the truth to be told.
Secondly, though, I mean obviously it’s an important decision for you and your wife and I understand that you want to ensure that you can continue to contribute. Both of you. So, I understand that.
And, as I said, people who make decisions like this in a principled way are people who ought to and deserve to continue to contribute. So how do we square that circle?
Grewal: Okay.
Murphy: So one of the proposals I have is this, that, tomorrow’s vote is, let me phrase it in the abstract. If two members of the Conservative Party abstain from that vote… don’t vote against their own party, right? Don’t have to.
But equally don’t vote to bring it down tomorrow night on the two/ I think there’s two key votes. And that can be done on the basis… those members can do it, on the basis, well, you know.
Look, my riding doesn’t want an election. Doesn’t want one now. Thinks it’s the wrong time to do it. But equally, you know, to vote the opposite way is to vote against the party I’m a member of, the leader of the party, and I’m not prepared to do that.
But I don’t think an election’s the right thing � I don’t want to say that won’t create some…
[interjection by Grewal, unintelligible]
… some flak, but it keeps freedom, right? Allows someone to go back home in the right circumstance and it also allows someone an opportunity, right? So if there is an abstention. If someone then, though, in my view, if someone then abstains in that environment, who has exercised a decision based on principle, it still gives the freedom to have negotiating room.
On both sides. Both going back home � then it’s actually the freedom to have discussion is increased if someone has made a decision that doesn’t preclude any options based on principle.
Then you can come and say, “Well look…” � then you can have an explicit discussion. And then in that environment, you know, a person can say, “Look, I obviously abstained, and that created some issues, and now I’m thinking hard about.”
You can say, “I’m thinking hard about what’s the right thing for my riding and the contribution that I could like to make.”
Then we can have a discussion that welcomes someone to the party. And then in that environment we know if those two votes continue to vote, either the one vote switches, or one switches and one abstains, or both abstain, from now until the end of the session the government will survive, right?
We know that. And then we get through to the end of the session, right?,
And then, if one person wants to switch and make the contribution, then that makes a lot of sense.
If the other wants to switch and then serve until an election, or some time in advance of that, and then… and then… and then… you know, something would look to be done to ensure that that person…
[…]
Murphy: All of which is to say, that in advance of that, explicit discussions about Senate. Not Senate. I don’t think are very helpful, and I don’t think frankly can be had, in advance of an abstention tomorrow.
And then we’ll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that with some freedom.
And I think what that allows is negotiating room for you, in either direction.
You can easily, say, “Look. Yeah, you know, if you don’t like it, you can stay home, stay back with… where you are. And if you do like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move. Now look, I don’t expect, you to react to that right now. Think about it. Please talk to Ujjal. Ujjal knows this is the discussion I’m having with you. Please feel free, and say, you know, he knows. And then, if that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something happening.
(Pause. Grewal starts to speak. Murphy interrupts.)
Well, I have talked to Volpe, already. So �
Grewal: Is he manageable?
Murphy: Yes.
Grewal: What happens is�..[unintelligible] you know how we came together. There are some common friends. He approached me. [unintelligible]
Murphy: No, it’s a bit… it’s the same. I understand. Sorry. Please accept, I understand completely. It’s much like Belinda, where there is a third party who is independent of both sides. You didn’t approach, we didn’t approach.
Grewal: They did approach me.
Murphy: The independent party played the role, like we didn’t approach, you didn’t approach.
Grewal: [unintelligible] End of tape
So, where is our media? Where is the discussion about the possible conspiracy to commit a criminal code offence?
You know, in between those debates about how “scary” “hidden agenda” Conservatives are to “mainstream Canadians”?
The Great Pyramid vs. the 7-11
From Part II of Sanctuary;
[W]hile I love and admire dolphins, I don’t fetishize them. They are highly intelligent, very social creatures, but I do not think we will find them at the edge of the galaxy as astral travelers propelled by advanced spiritual auras.
Some people do. Some people think dolphins are the most advanced life form on the planet – far beyond we filthy killer apes and our evil, planet- spoiling technology. To many people, being a dolphin is as good as it gets: the pinnacle of gentleness and insight and playfulness and non- violence.
So, it’s a little hard to watch the video of grown dolphins ramming these sleek little infants hard enough to send them flying across twenty feet of open sea. And make no mistake about it, these killers are indeed playing with their prey: tossing them, chasing them, and bashing their little perfect bodies again and again, long after they are dead. We know that female dolphins that lose infants in captivity become morose, depressed – practically suicidal. What were these female dolphins feeling as I watched this video in horror? Who could they call for help? What price would these young males pay for this act of torture and murder? How could they be sure that these killers don’t kill again?
The Simulated Progressive I keep in a little mental cage for moments just like this wanted to know: who taught these young killers the cycle of violence? What part of dolphin society was responsible? How do we break this cycle of violence? What are the root causes of this aggression? What governmental agency can we form to prevent such deaths in the future? And most importantly, how was Karl Rove able to issue instructions to these killer dolphins so that I could use them to advance the Right Wing Agenda?
And it gets better.
In case you missed it from yesterday, here is Part I. Start there if you haven’t read it already.
When ‘Liberal’ Isn’t A Dirty Word
An older post at Skeet Skeet Skeet I stumbled on today, that reveals what so few seem to have figured out – the irony of Warren Kinsella’s cheap trick achievement in destroying the political career of a bona fide Canadian liberal.
On the topic of anti-semitism, he addressed the recent UN ‘memorial’ to the victims of the Holocaust. Recognizing it for what it was, he went through a laundry list of complaints with the day:
no resolutions or final declarations were allowed Only 41 countries spoke (by his count), and only 5 mentioned Israel. Canada wasn’t amongst those that recognized the Jewish state. You know, the one that was established by the UN because of the holocaust. Kofi Annan’s terrific idea to start a registry of Palestinians who have been affected by the security council (I’m still waiting on that registry of the Sudanese murdered in Darfur), with no mention of the Men, Women and children who have been killed, maimed or otherwise injured by Arab terrorism in Israel
In another parallel to President Bush, Day went on to quote Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident and political prisoner who now is in the Israeli Knesset. Never call a tyrant anything but that. Not a diplomat, not a leader. He went on to state that Sharansky is his personal hero. I find it really hard to not like this guy.
Of course, in a world turned upside down – where classic liberalism is denounced as “neo-conservative fascism” and Stalinist holdovers like Castro hold audience with Hollywood “liberal progressives”, I doubt Kinsella could spot a “liberal” if one reached down from the sky to smite him.