Forgive Him Father... He is a Robot From The Future

Somehow Mad TV finds a way to bring Christianity and the Terminator mythos together:



Christian Bale stars in Terminator Salvation in 2009. The trailer looks promising, at least to these jaded eyes.

Incidentally, one of the founding castmembers of Mad TV, Artie Lange, has just had his autobiography published. My brother Joe gave it to me as a gift for Christmas. I tore through it in two days flat.

Well worth a read, Too Fat to Fish is the funny, poignant, occasionally harrowing tale of a talented comedian from New Jersey who was also a compulsive gambler, cokehead, drunk, and heroine addict, and a guy who could have thrown it all away and ended up as a second-rate Chris Farley clone, but somehow survived the nineties to become an obese and messed-up funny guy on Howard Stern's show.

Definitely worth a read!

Gabriel's Message

An old piece of basque sacred music, given English lyrics (as interpreted by Sting)



1.

The angel Gabriel from Heaven came,
his wings as drifted snow, his eyes as flame,
"All hail", said he, "thou lowly maiden Mary,
most highly favoured lady," Gloria, Gloria!


2.

"For know, a blessed mother thou shalt be,
all generations laud and honour thee,
thy Son shall be Emmanuel, by seers foretold.
Most highly favoured lady," Gloria, Gloria!


3.

Then gentle Mary meekly bowed her head,
"To me be as it pleaseth God," she said,
"my soul shall laud and magnify His holy Name,"
Most highly favoured lady, Gloria, Gloria!


4.

Of her, Emmanuel, the child, was born.
In Bethlehem, all on a Christmas morn,
And Christian folk throughout the world will ever say,
Most highly favoured lady. Gloria!

Retrieved from "http://www.choralwiki.net/wiki/index.php/Gabriel%27s_Message_%28Traditional%29"

What a Neat Trick

Been away for a while, but in that time I have noted a couple of things (exactly two, actually)

FIRST:

A surprisingly clever turn in Tropic Thunder, and now with the Christmas release of Valkyrie, a thriller set during WWII and featuring an all-star cast of top-notch thespians, it looks like the rehabilitation of the couch-jumping alpha-Thetan is just about complete.

Not so fast, mein herr.

As surely as they love Hasselhoff, Germans hate Scientologists.

Hierarchy, rigid discipline... what's not for a German to love?

***

SECOND

Is it just me, or does live action Shrek look like a certain NBC talk show host in some post-apocalyptic nightmare?

For those of you wondering what a radioactive, horribly mutated Jay Leno might look like, wonder no more:



CREEPY

Crazy Press Conference Disruptions

I'll see your Iraqi shoe-bomber and raise you a flying phallus:

Post-Mortem

A couple of interesting pieces on Election 2008 that you may enjoy:

PJ O'Rourke on how Conservatives blew it

Some dead-on stuff here, like:

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

The Michael S. Malone theory on media bias during the last campaign

This piece came our before election day, and thanks to Drudge, Malone's thesis --that the journalism establishment got behind Obama in an attempt to protect their sinecures and stave off their inevitable demise, basically by backing the reintroduction of the fairness doctrine and other sneaky moves-- has received a thorough airing, but far be it for me to let a dead nag go unbeaten. Some of my favourite bits:

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the Big Leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play. The few instances where I think the press has gone too far - such as the Times reporter talking to Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends - can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha Bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

Now what I'm awaiting is for the other shoe to drop. What happens when the media gets back to doing their job and starts to give the new administration the business? After all, whirlwind romances often go sour, don't they?

The Great Republic

That`s what Winston Churchill called it, and the moniker still fits. After an arduous, hard-fought campaign, the American people have spoken.

They argued, they debated, they campaigned, they mobilized, and they voted. Sure, there were irregularities, and it is certain that a legion of lawyers will find employment dealing with the petty squables that will inevitably follow the process; recounts, inconclusive results in some races, public officials contesting their defeats and such. But all this will be done in an orderly manner, free of violence and civil strife, and the transfer of power will be peaceful.

The fact remains that the Americans have once again shown the world that in the United States of America, the greatest democracy on earth, it really is the people that decide.

Now I'm going to listen to a powerful orator give what I hope will be an inspiring speech, and just maybe I'll go to bed feeling, dare I say it... hopeful?

One More Day... Then Everything's OK!

It is entirely appropriate at this juncture to declare that the American media have abdicated their role. They are no longer in the journalism business, but in the Obama-electing business. I’m also looking for the “landslide” calls to start coming in sometime early in the evening. Game over, people, why bother fighting the inevitable?

Of course, not everyone in the media has settled comfortably into this new job. Nobody has laid a glove on Ovama for months, and now with seconds to spare, some are belatedly waking up to the fact that he has gotten a bit of an easy ride? "Quick, fellahs uh, come up with something! Anything!!!" says the drowsy editor as he comes out of his year-long stupor.

Slate thinks the campaign should release their donor's list? Are you kidding me? Don't you think Obama's people have better things to do? Like planning the victory rally!?! Besides, how the hell do they explain all those silly pseudonyms if they do that! Sheesh, the nerve of some people.

Contrary to most of the unconverted, I blame none of this on Obama himself. His campaign would have been stupid to not take advantage of the felicitous circumstances they have found themselves in for months now. But if (or, as some would have it, when), we discover that the emperor has no clothes, the media will bear a share of the responsibility.

At this point, expectations have been raised to such a ridiculous level that the chosen one could not possibly deliver on everything he has pledged. The result, of course, will be bitterness and dissappointment for some when the Obama begin to artfully scale back those expectations, as some claim they have already begun doing.

What has driven this twenty-month phenomenon? Is it idealism? The immense personal charisma of one man? The dream of a new golden age? The desire to turn the page on race once and for all? The unseemly urge to be “liked” by the rest of the world, as if that was of any consequence? I'm baffled, but I look on in amazement as America takes this titanic leap of faith into the abyss.

Season of Uncertainty

I was sitting at home with William a few nights ago wondering about the future. Through some strange confluence of circumstances, we found ourselves in the midst of American and Canadian election campaigns at the very moment that the world economy had begun to sputter like an old jalopy. "William, my boy" I said, "I'm afraid you won't be going to college". William grinned and drooled, but I could tell he was as concerned as I was.

Experts tell us that in the next few weeks a course will be set that will either lead to economic catastrophe and worldwide upheaval, or else a near-miss that will leave us all chastened and thankful for having dodged a mortal bullet.

And the crazy thing is that here in Canada the electorate has had a real say in determining the direction we will take... after all, we all just voted right?

Normally, we would shrug and hope for the best when something like the credit crunch and stockmarket drop happened, knowing that whomever occupies 24 Sussex essentially has a free hand to chart an economic course through the tough times. But this time around, because things started going tits-up smack dab in the midst of our federal election campaign, the citizenry got their say, and gave PM Harper the nod.

For now, the individual who will chart the course of the U.S. has not yet secured command of the vessel, and each of the candidates await the judgment of the electorate as the rest of us look on. These are serious times, folks.

The seriousness of recent events has begun to cast a shadow over the trivialities of this political "silly season", which has seen the hyperpartisans in each camp, abetted by the media, attempt to score points of the other side in the most asinine ways imaginable.

Most recently, after McCain invoked the exchange his opponent had with some plumber on a ropeline to condemn Obama's philosophy (re: the government's role in "spreading the wealth around") and score points during their third and final debate, the MSM, adopting its now-default mode as the Obama campaign's propaganda arm, rushed to dutifully report the stunning revelation just handed to them by the Democratic fact-checkers: "Joe the plumber isn't really a plumber!"

As if the status of Joe's license or his personal failings negate the relevance of the debate between the advocates of neo-Keynesianism, and those who favour Hayek at a time when the instruments of world capitalism are heading for a major retrofit.

No, it is far more easy for the campaign aparatchiks to try to discredit the man instead of adressing the ideas he raises. Besides, Joe questioned the truth of the gospel. He is a heretic. Burn him. This is just lazy and cynical.



On the other hand, the simplistic labelling of Obama as "socialist" by the other side, does make the possibility of a reasonable philosophical discussion more difficult. That toxic euphemism suggests a link between the Senator from Illinois's political philosophy and the horrors of Maoist China, or Castro's Cuba. That's just silly. For starters, Obama is far too much of a pragmatist and opportunist to ever credibly be called an ideologue of any kind -- would Colin Powell endorse a socialist, I ask ya?

In actual fact, like so many other words used by the senator's opponents, it is simply shorthand, suggesting something "un-American" in Obama's ideas, which to a certain segment of McCain's rapidly-diminishing fear-based coallition of the unwilling, is just about the greatest indictment one can level at someone running for office in the U.S.A.

McCain's campaign has done little to raise the tone of the discourse, and McCain's indignation at the debates was laughable, given the kind of nonsense some of his surrogates have been putting out to stoke the flames of "fear", some of which has nearly accomplished the herculean task of diminishing McCain's character and shrinking the American hero in the eyes of his nation. Memo to McCain: When Hitchens throws his hands up in disgust, your goose is cooked.

It looks like that discussion on economic philosophy will have to wait for some other time.

***

Update

Iowahawk dispenses with the funny, and
lays it out for ya:

We've all witnessed a lot of insanity in American politics over the last few years. Up until the last few days, none of it has seriously bothered me; hey, just more grist for the satire mill. But after witnessing the media's blitzkreig on Joe 'the Plumber' Wurzelbacher, I can only muster anger, and no small amount of fear.

Politicians -- Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. -- obviously have to put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it's right there in the jobs description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the cable news cameras. Joe simply had the temerity to speak truth (or, if you prefer, an uninformed opinion) to power, for which the politico-media axis apparently determined that he must be humiliated, harassed, smashed, destroyed. The viciousness and glee with which they set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative Deathrace 3000, and Web 2.0 turned into Berlin 1932.0.

Godwin's Law! you say? if the jackboot fits, wear it.

If it's meta-memes and meta-meta-narratives these media headlice want, so be it. I hope you will join me in expressing a simple bit of solidarity with this guy, Spartacus style. I AM JOE. I am a Wal Mart schlub in flyover country who changes my own oil and unclogs drains without a license. I smoke and drink beer and toss the football in the front yard with my kid, and I figure I can fend my way without handouts from some Magic Messiah's candy bags. Most everyone in my family and most everyone I grew up with is another Joe, and if you screw with them, you screw with me.

Will the new narrative of this campaign be about the revolt of the Joes?

Perhaps, but at the same time, people need to chill. A little perspective please.

Some conservatives don't like the --gasp- leftist/Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-like panic the thought of an Obama presidency has provoked among some on the right. In other words: show some dignity, for God's sake, you are supposed to be conservatives!

Obama’s agenda is liberal boilerplate – the same crap they’ve been advocating for 30 years. It isn’t communism. It isn’t socialism (Obama is not going to guillotine the rich and throw their money to the peasants in order to “spread the wealth.”). In fact, Obama’s and the Democrats’ ideas are egalitarian in nature. They can be traced to the Utopian movements of the 19th century and early progressives of the 20th century who saw government as something that could be “perfected” scientifically.

We conservatives know the folly of believing in such nonsense. We also know what this “tinkering” means; threats to private property rights, threats to individual liberty, threats to the free market, threats to the civic values that we believe are essential in order to ensure a just and moral society.

We will fight these threats with every ounce of our strength and through whatever means we have at our disposal. But we will do it free from the fear that Obama and the Democrats want to turn the US into a Soviet style state or destroy the Bill of Rights.

.

Well put, sir. I commend your sang-froid.

Even Better Than the Real Thing



Thanks to all the vitriol that had been expended on her over the past weeks, Palin exceeded expectations by simply not sucking, but Joe Biden won by giving a good performance and sounding in command of the facts even when he actually wasn't.

Truth matters, but perception is everything: Joe Biden may have made some factual errors, but Sarah Palin missed almost every chance to call him on his multiple inaccuracies because she did not know they were falsehoods. This just goes back to what the (rational) critics of Palin had been saying: She simply did not have the depth to go toe-to-toe with Biden on most issues--energy being a notable exception. Therefore, Biden came across as authoritative and knowledgeable, and Sarah, not knowing any better, let him.

For a change, the McCain camp adopted the right strategy and prepped Palin to go short on details-long on rhetoric in her answers. She sometimes avoided a question on which she was weak --near the begining of the debate, she had announced that she would "speak directly to the American public", a tactic that let her work her significant charm (wink wink), even when the substance just wasn't there. The camera really does love this woman, and I got a chuckle watching the line representing the male members of the CNN focus group spike on the reaction-meter when Sarah got flirty or conspiratorial with the viewer.

Palin also managed to get in a couple of zingers in her singular down-home way, but because Biden did not rise to the bait nor come off as a blowhard by belittling or condescending to her, he kept to his message, kept to the game plan, and he won.

VP Debate tonight!




The Leader is Good
The Leader is Great
We surrender our wills
As of this date!

Let's call a Spade a Shovel

Watch this:



The bloom is off the rose, and I have to say I have been asking some serious questions myself every time I catch myself cringing, on the edge of my seat, as I watch the trainwreck-ish segments of Palin's first major interviews since the Republican convention. Of course, neither of the interviews (Charlie and Katie) were entirely disastrous, but in the era of the ten-second-soundbite, a VP candidate only needs to slip up badly once during a one-on-one for it to stick. And there have been plenty of sticky soundbites to be cringed at in the last couple of weeks.

In the case of the clip from the Couric interview Cafferty played, it is clear that Palin was trying to steer things away from the bailout and talk about job creation, but the result was nonsensical, to say the least. I see a total failure of strategic communications: This appears to be a case of a woman who has been briefed, overcoached and scripted to death, and is now being subjected to a scrutiny so intense that her natural charm and political skills, so evident at the convention, are beginning to fail her. Does she know the answers? Maybe, maybe not. Does she demonstrate a mastery of a wide range of policy issues and appear capable of delivering substantive responses in a coherent manner at a level befitting a Vice President. Not so much.

But the funny thing is that the overwhelming idiocy of the knee-jerk ractions to her selection from various media doofuses has made it all the more difficult for those same people to raise some substantive and relevant concerns with Palin. In foolishly stooping to ad hominem attacks, or cheapshots against largely irrelevant facets of her persona (so she hunts moose, so her daughter is pregnant... deal with it, jackasses), they have made it all the more difficult for themselves as they now attempt to tear her down for legitimate reasons. What's more, we now see that people have risen to her defense time and time again are continuing to do so, even in the face of mounting evidence that she may in fact be a political lightweight.

David Frum stands apart from so many of his media colleagues because although he was one of the early Palin doubters, he came to his conclusions somewhat more dispassionately. Here is what he wrote shortly after the Palin announcement in August:

The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me. And I increasingly doubt that it will prove good politics. The Palin choice looks cynical. The wires are showing.

John McCain wanted a woman: good.

He wanted to keep conservatives and pro-lifers happy: naturally.

He wanted someone who looked young and dynamic: smart.

And he discovered that he could not reconcile all these imperatives with the stated goal of finding a running mate qualified to assume the duties of the presidency "on day one."

Sarah Palin may well have concealed inner reservoirs of greatness. I hope so! But I'd guess that John McCain does not have a much better sense of who she is, what she believes, and the extent of her abilities than my enthusiastic friends over at the Corner. It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.

Here's I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign's slogan is "country first." It's a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.

But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

See how easy that was? He did not have to stoop to personal attacks or unfounded accusations. Frum, a right winger, simply did not allow himself to be swept up in the hype that envelopped most Republican partisans. He cast a cold analytical eye on the bill of goods being offered in the selection of the Governor of Alaska as McCain's running-mate, and found that the cons outweighed the pros.

Frum has paid attention to the big picture throughout the McCain run, and sees the Palin pick as one of many tactical moves in a campaign that has lacked an overarching message and strategy.

This predilection for increasingly ineffective stunts and hail-marys may now be killing the McCain campaign, one flesh-wound at a time.

GOOP much?

So the onion AV Club tells me Apple and Moses’ mom and Chris Martin’s part-time punching bag has a new website up.

It is called, problematically, GOOP, which I theorize (absent any evidence) stands for Gareth, Owen, Ophelia, and Percy, which are the names of her next four kids as selected by Coldplay’s singer. Proper English names, they are, not like Apple bloody Martin or Moses ("that’s it, no more sodding silly names from you, love" said Chris). Her intro essay reads:

My life is good because I am not passive about it. I want to nourish what is real, and I want to do it without wasting time. I love to travel, to cook, to eat, to take care of my body and mind, to work hard. I love being a mother who has to overcome my bad qualities to be a good mother. I love being in spaces that are clean and feel nice....

Make your life good. Invest in what's real. Cook a meal for someone you love. Pause before reacting. Clean out your space. Read something beautiful. Treat yourself to something. Go to a city you've never been to. Learn something new. Don't be lazy. Workout and stick with it. GOOP. Make it great.

The AV Club reacts angrily:

Your first sentence should read, "My life is good because I'm Gwyneth Fucking Paltrow and I'm really good friends with Mario Batali, who asks me to travel around Spain with him eating delicious food and going to spas and then the whole thing is sponsored by Chipotle and shown on public television because, again, I'm Gwyneth Paltrow. GOOP that, suckers."

I was watching that show for a minute or two, and it kinda blew my mind. The whole time I am thinking: "So let me get this straight, Gwynneth... you won't be sinking your chompers into some pata negra? You disgust me".


Gwynnie and Mario: BFF!

Anyway, I like her writing style. And it is easy to imitate. Just string together a bunch of random oblique commands in no particular, and presto, you have Gwyneth Paltrow advice!

The AV club commenters can lend a helping hand to get you started:

Make your life good. Invest in what's real. Cook a meal for someone you love. Pause before reacting. Close cover before striking. Not exactly as illustrated. May contain peanuts or process cheese food. Clean out your space. Read something beautiful. Treat yourself to something. Don't talk with your mouth full. Don't fidget when I talk to you. Stop tracking mud across my nice, clean floor. Don't give me that look. Go to a city you've never been to. Learn something new. Don't be lazy. Workout and stick with it. GOOP. Make it great. Every woman adores a Fascist, the boot in the face, the brute, brute heart of a brute like you.

Oh, there's plenty more...

****

BONUS
My thoughts on the first Obama McCain debate, in twelve words or less:

It was a draw. McCain needed a win. Obama wins by default.

Let's Get Silly

"The film is just me in front of a brick wall for an hour-and-a-half. It cost $80,000,000"



***

Awesome site: Garfield Minus Garfield

Garfield Minus Garfield is a site dedicated to removing Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb.

***

McCain Sings Streisand



I'd sooner buy the McCain album than listen to Babs drone on about those "drums of war" at some Obama fundraiser!

***
So the neanderthal says to the troglodyte...

Really Old Jokes

Yes, unbelievably, these pre-date Bob Hope.

***

In an alternate universe:

Midwest John Travolta looks like a younger Joey Travolta

Creepy!

***

John Cleese and the "God gene"



About time somebody takes the piss out of bothRichard Dawkins and fundamentalism in the same bit!

***

Are you kidding me?

Ignatius Reilly: Found beaten to a pulp in an alley behind the cineplex for his heresy

***

At last, the truth about Sarah Palin:



Has she no decency?

***

Ludacris fills cups like double Ds

Black community to Luda:

STFU!!!!!!

On the other hand, if you hold the head steady, he gon' milk the cow.

***

Insane Tattoos

Oh God.

No... just...no

***

Leland Orser

warning: strong language



Leland Orser is just amazing. When a script calls for someone to freak right the hell out, casting directors know who to call. Seriously, does anyone lose their shit as well as Leland does?

My wife tells me he plays a very calm doctor on E.R... yeah right, a very calm doctor who will most definitely go postal before the season finale. You know this in your heart.

***

Last but not least

menwholooklikeoldlesbians.blogspot.com

Self-explanatory.

Quizzical

I just checked out Salon.com's hi-larious Bush or Palin Quiz. Take this quiz and guess who made which insane or ridiculous statement. Was it Chimpy McBushitler, the War criminal cowboy of Crawford, or was it Caribou Barbie,the Alaskan dominatrix brood-mare? Fun for the whole family!

The Salon piece really enlightened me, and I look forward to more such quizzes, such as

"GUESS WHO SAID IT?
Jeremiah Wright, or a mentally-ill derelict on the streets of Chicago?"

or "WHICH OBAMA-ENDORSING CELEBRITY HAS THE HIGHER IQ?
is it high-school dropout "I don’t know what our government does except put us into debt and blow up other countries." Madonna, or high school dropout Barbra "Drums of War" Streisand?

Incidentally, I don't know about you, but I take all my cues on how to vote from celebrities, who, as we know, are among the most selfless, well-informed and thoughtful citizens out there.

I mean, really, it is clear that Obama supporters like Fergie and Will.i.am, who did that really kick-ass video, have obviously done their homework.

In all seriousness,regular people who support Obama (you know,the non-millionaires who are actually most affected by the results of the election) should be starting to get worried about all this celebrity involement in their man's campaign.

Though they may be trying to help their guy by spouting off about the "Alaskan hillbilly" a heartbeat from the presidency,
if recent polls are any indication, every time a Matt Damon, Pammy Anderson or Maria Bello flap their gums, another thousand independents go over to the other side.

Maybe the more out-of-touch celebrities and snobby journalists in the tank for Obama beat-up on Governor Palin and point out her obvious flaws and shortcomings, the more ordinary folk are identifying with her... who can say?

All I know is that the Obama campaign's next memo to all their celebrity supporters should go something like this:


Dear Celebrity Douchebag

Until November 5, 2008, kindly shut the f*ck up.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama, Democratic Nominee for President of the United States of America

Momentous

Well, that was a heck of a thing! The Republican convention, like the Democratic one before it, started out pretty slow. In this case, it was partly mother nature's doing.

Strangely enough, even as Hurricane Gustav wreaked devastation on the Gulf Coast, it may have been a blessing in disguise for the GOP. After all, what a contrast the Jindal and (admittedly largely symbolic) McCain responses made to that of Blanco, Brown and Bush a few years back.

Only trouble was that last time around was the one that really counted, and both the Republican Prez and the Democratic Governor of that state blew it, so it was almost a bit like bombing on opening night of a Broadway show, getting reviews so bad you are forced to close early, then putting on one great performance in the final week of your run... too little, too late.

On the interwebs, the reviews for the GOP festival to stave off despondency were mixed. Nevertheless, even the most strident leftist blogger can hardly deny the historical significance of the nomination of Sarah Palin and the momentousness of her subsequent acceptance speech. We are talking about a forty-something woman being given a spot on the ticket of the supposedly reactionary American party, people. Regardless of if it was done cynically, in desperation, or with genuine forethought, the fact that it was done at all speaks volumes of American society in the first decade of the Twenty-First Century.

If the scale of attacks on a candidate is any indication of concern and outrage from the other side --and seeing how the right went after Obama, I think it is fair to make that correlation, then some on the left are both very concerned and very outraged about Palin indeed! Whether you love her or loathe her, Palin definitely has buzz.

I had a good laugh the next day when I overheard two left-leaning people talking about how hockey moms were real bitches compared to soccer moms (heh heh). Proof, to me, that the whole hockey-mom thing had struck a nerve, even with those who disliked her. I also heard some more nonsense that day, with some attempting to diminish the feat she pulled off, i.e. "she basically just read a speech that a Bush speechwriter crafted for her... how hard is that?"

Well, first of all, if you really believe that Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates normally write their own speeches all by their lonesome, I have an exciting real estate investment opportunity to tell you about. Second, Palin did not exactly just "read" off the bloody TelePrompTer... oh, the TelePrompTer myth has been debunked, yes indeed, but no one can tell me that what they witnessed that night was some woman "reading a speech".

What Palin did was deliver a speech, and deliver it with a skill that few politicians I have seen could match, including, in my humble opinion, the Democratic V-P nominee. So credit where credit is due: as is the case when Obama speaks, regardless of what you think of the content, the delivery is dynamite.

In contrast, McCain's speech I found plodding, earnest, and serviceable at best, except for the section where he spoke about his time in North Vietnam, which is something everyone else does alot for him, but he has seldom done himself, at least until recently. That portion, and the brief section at the very end where he began to show some passion ("Fight With Me!") were the highlights of the acceptance speech given by a man not known for his oratory, but as the signs said for putting "Country First".

There were a couple of lines in each speech that I really found effective.

Palin:

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change,"

McCain:

"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change
us."

Funny, I had just been thinking about that neat metaphorical device I kept hearing over the past few weeks (the Democrats used it too) but could not quite pin down, and then Juliet Lapidos of Slate comes along and names it: Antimetabole.

Probably the most famous example of this is JFK's exhortation from his 1961 inaugural address:

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country

I tried to think of some Canadian examples of antimetabole, but couldn't, so like any mediocre memory-deficient blogger would, I googled it. I came up empty. I guess Canadian pols are not as fond of that rhetorical technique as their American counterparts.

The Slate article actually mentions one of the most resonant ones of the 2008 campaign, somewhat in passing:

"In the end the true test is not the speeches a president delivers, it's
whether the president delivers on the speeches."

That one was spoken by Hillary Clinton, and it may well be the premise upon which the entire election hinges:

Can I trust this person's words? Can I trust them to bring about the change they have promised?

Sexism: Alive and Well

Sexism and Sarah Palin
'We will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we like her or support her, but because that's how feminism works.'


Last update: 4:27 p.m. EDT Sept. 2, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 02, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- As part of its Stop The Silence on Sexism campaign, WomenCount sent this email to its members today:

It started Friday afternoon with John Roberts on CNN, and then in a slow build over the weekend it became clear what the leading sexist charge would be against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: Is it appropriate for her to accept the vice presidential nomination given the magnitude of her current family responsibilities?

The question came not just from members of the media but also from voters around the country who wrote in to news organizations and on blogs.

The obvious retort is whether anyone would ask the same question of the father of a four-month-old with Down Syndrome and a pregnant teenager. We think not.

Radio talk host Ed Schultz on CNN Monday night took things even further by declaring that Palin would not be able to focus on her job given her family distractions.

And Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn wrote: "Of course, women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I've done both. Other women in public office have children ... but ... a mother's role is different from a father's."

The message? Sarah Palin: bad mother.

On that count we have no doubt these accusations would never be made about a man. In that sense, Sally Quinn is right -- and that's why things have got to change.

The very notion that Sarah Palin should not have accepted this nomination because she is a mother with demanding challenges underscores just how far we have to go.

Throughout the weekend, we have been asked about WomenCount's views on Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee. It is important to distinguish between the broader issue of sexism and the ideology of an individual. WomenCount was born of the passion its founders had for Hillary Clinton's clear view of social issues and progressive values. We cannot pretend that Governor Palin meets any standard of progressive politics or social values.

Regardless of the candidates' ideology, we will work to stamp out sexism when we see it on the campaign trail. To paraphrase the words of one blogger who said it best over the weekend: We will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we like her or support her, but because that's how feminism works.

WomenCount PAC was created to ensure that the 51 percent of American citizens who are women have their values and votes counted in the political process. So far in the 2008 election cycle, WomenCount has run a series of ads related to the presidential campaign and made contributions to several women candidates for Congress.

Contributions to WomenCount PAC are not tax-deductible. Contributions will be used in federal elections, and are subject to federal law regarding prohibited sources and limits. Contributions to WomenCount PAC are limited to $5,000 per calendar year and contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.

Paid for by WomenCount PAC

Bravo ladies. Way to stick to your principles, and way to point out a the double-standard that has been so evident since McCain's VP pick was announced.

This kind of principled stand brings to mind the oft-quoted and misattributed statement (Voltaire did not say it) about disagreeing with someone, but fighting for their right to say it. Just because she is a Republican poster-girl, and darling of the religious right, does not make her fair game for the kind of nonsense, frankly, she has been subjected to thus far.
If the shoe were on the other foot, how would people react to Hillary being subjected to this kind of crap by Republican smear artists?

****

Update: Bad blogging etiquette! i should have linked to this.

BTW, speech-wise, it ain't exactly going so great for the Republicans in St Paul, is it? Sure Thompson was fine, Lieberman was... uh, Lieberman, but honestly, nothing like the Clintons' or Obama's speeches last week. And the less said about President Bush's canned address the better. Palin has to knock it out of the park tonight.

What to make of all this?

Quite an eventful week in American politics. The Democratic love-in got off to a bit of a slow start, but thanks to deft speeches by Mr and Mrs. Clinton, a surprisingly lively one from John Kerry, and an effective, if not overly "inspiring" address by the candidate for the Presidency himself, the Dems had themselves a pretty great convention.

Barry's speech at INVESCO field on the final evening was actually quite impressive, and even a bit reassuring, salted as it was with policy details instead of windy rhetoric. For those who were wary of the young first-term Senator from Illinois, with his messianic pretentions and the cult-like devotion he has inspired in true believers, it was actually nice to have the candidate put some meat on the bones of his lofty pronoucements about change and show that he is not all charisma and grand speeches devoid of substance. It was also nice to get a sense of just who this guy is... I write this notwithstanding the Grand-Canyonesque-holes in his carefully expurgated biography, as evidenced by the neat little introductory film they showed prior to the speech --just what was he doing between the ages of 8 and 28, frinstance? And what about all these half-siblings we keep hearing about?

On the negative side, I cannot believe that some of Obama's supporters are still saying that Hillary did not go "far enough" in her endorsement of their chosen one. She came right out and said that her supporters should vote for Obama!... as did hubby Bill, which incidentally, must have really stuck in his craw. What more could people want? I suppose they would have her throw herself at his feet like Magdalen and beg for absolution, if that was within their power. Seriously, after reviewing the text of Senator Clinton's speech, any reasonable observer would have to say that she went further than either Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan ever did in their respective convention concession speeches, which hardly endorsed the other guy:





This anxiety over the Clintons' support speaks to a very understandable concern among Democrats that they must move forward fully united as a party if they are to defeat a resurgent McCain come November. And it is clear that even after Hillary's entreaties, some Clinton supporters are still smarting, still bitter, and still reluctant to grit their teeth and get behind Obama... especially now that John McCain, in a real game-changer, has
thrown a major-league curveball at American voters.

No one is going to convince me that there was not an element of cold pragmatism, if not outright tokenism, in McCain's veepstakes calculus. Go ahead and tell me with a straight face that if Alaska's governor was a dude, he would be on the Republican ticket. That being said, in Tina Fey doppleganger Sarah Palin, McCain has a young, telegenic, accomplished --if decidedly conservative-- partner; one who might very well appeal to some Independent or Democratic women while reinforcing his bonafides with the party's base. Oh, and Palin is the only one of the four politicians on the ticket with executive branch experience... weird, that!

The level of condescension coming from the more rabid partisans is hilarious. Let's face it, being elected as the governor of any state is a singular achievement. I dare say that ANY female Democratic governor, even one with the lightest of resumes, would never be subjected to such dismissiveness from the ranks of the Democrats. On the other hand, the Obama campaign is being more circumspect. It's almost like this choice was so unexpected, so out of left field, they hardly know what to make of it.

Will the audacious choice of Palin bring over alot of Hillary supporters? Doubt it. She is pro-life, for one. Some feminists recoil in horror at her. "Not one of us!" they sneer, insulted by McCain's cynical one-upmanship and openly contemptuous of a woman who refuses to adhere to their orthodoxy.

But the point is, with 18 million votes going to Hillary during the primary season, McCain doesn't need to peel off all that many Clinton supporters. If things are as close as they seem to be shaping up to be, one twentieth or perhaps even one fiftieth of those Hillary votes going to McCain could make a difference, especially in some of those battleground states where an authentic, charming, folksy, working mother of five could conjure some real magic on the stump... And has anyone noticed that Hillary hasn't exactly blasted McCain for his selection? At least, not yet.

Things are really starting to get interesting!

Iraqracy

Newsweek has a great interview with General Petraeus, the man who will never admit victory --a wise strategy, given the history of "mission accomplished" in the Iraq War.

It is clear by now to even the most ardent advocate of American withdrawal from Iraq that Petraeus' surge transformed the situation on the ground. While the political settlement remains tenuous, nearly all serious observers of the conflict are saying that the bulk of American forces in Iraq could and should go... it is now a matter of when and how America makes its exit that occupies the discourse --A remarkable thing, when you consider the dire state of affairs in that country two years ago.

Watching the Democratic Convention, it is indeed interesting to see how the narrative of this war has been transformed from that of a "lost war" to one of an "unecessary and costly war" that America must extricate itself from so that it may redirect the $10 billion a month it is costing somewhere else... a sum particularly galling to many when one considers the almost grotesque gobs of oil money that the government of Iraq is now raking in.

Meanwhile, politicians from every part of the political and ideological spectrum are congratulating themselves on their shrewdness and foresight, cherry-picking their own statements and nuances to demonstrate their wisdom and foreign policy acumen in advocating "the surge" or "timetables" or "staying the course" or whatever, cheerfully disregarding anything they got somewhat or utterly wrong.

And through it all, the American military, cast adrift by the politicians and foresaken by a significant part of the populace, continues to do what it has done throughout the hard months of the surge, competently and professionally executing the mission laid out by superiors and through dogged stubborness and the use of intelligent counterinsurgency tactics, snatching success from the jaws of failure and ignominy.

My favourite bit of the interview is this:

Petraeus: I think it's true that they are past Al Qaeda. They are past ... an organization that embraces an extremist ideology, employs indiscriminate violence, and practices oppressive social actions such as forced marriage or cutting fingers off smokers.

Newsweek:Forget that, no smoking ...

Petraeus: That was the tipping point when they cut the fingers off the first person who was smoking. I mean, can you imagine an Anbar sheik being told he can't smoke?

Will historians in decades to come say that Al Qaeda was defeated because of its opposition to tobacco use? As someone with personal experience in the matter, I can tell you that an Arab having a nicotine fit is a fearsome adversary!

Rolling Stone's
500 Greatest Songs of All Time

...and Love Will Tear us Apart is only #179?



Regardless, all things considered, it's a pretty good list

Happy Anniversary, Baby!

August 20, 2006

Stuff That Makes Me...

Happy:

• Canada's rowers
• Canada's female wrestlers

Movies like this one that aren't afraid to offend:



Dana Stevens of Slate brings up a good point :

In her review in the New York Times, Manohla Dargis points out that the Les Grossman character that Tom Cruise plays, a grotesque caricature of a vulgar Jewish movie mogul, is arguably the most offensive thing in the movie, amounting to a kind of "Jewface." Maybe it's because Stiller himself is Jewish, or maybe it's just that Tom Cruise was so unexpectedly hilarious in that role, but that one rolled right off my back.

As has been said countless times, this movie is making fun of HOLLYWOOD --not Jews, blacks, or those with intellectual disabilities. Besides, in my book, any flick that can rehabilitate Tom Cruise's image is a towering achievement.

Sad:

• The Conflict in Georgia --where the hell are the anti-war protesters that turned out in their thousands and hundreds of thousands to protest the Iraq War? Code Pink? A.N.S.W.E.R.? Bueller? Bueller?... oh, this isn't American aggression, is it? In that case, as you were, peace activists.
  
  

This trailer

Bill O'Reilly is not funny. He is the King Midas of not funny. Everything he touches becomes not funny. Anything within a 10 yard radius of him is automatically not funny. Anything he even considers remotely funny is automatically not funny. Ergo: This movie is not funny.

• George Lucas : How can we explain what happened to this guy? how can we explain his latest cinematic abominations? I have a theory that, although once a pioneering visionary, George Lucas’ evolution as a storyteller has been shaped both by the birth of his children and by his gradual poisoning through the ingesting of large quantities of lead and aluminum over two decades…. Something which drove him mad and turned him into the megalomaniac he is today.
  

Be Sure Your Sin Will Find You Out

So John Edwards has thrown it all away. And the lowly National Enquirer was the rag that gave his political ambitions the Coup-de-Grace? Shameful!

Just who is this femme fatale that managed to lay low a man who aspires to the most powerful position on earth? New York Daily News sez:

She is one of millions of other girls, not smart enough to make it as a writer, not pretty enough to model or act.

Oh, and she used to do alot of blow and sleep around NY... She's a keeper!

And by the way, loyal spouse Elizabeth Edwards has cancer, remember? But it's cool, right? Because Edwards "didn't love" this Hunter lady, and he ain't that baby's daddy, ya'll.

Classy guy!

In the wake of these revelations, and the feckless way in which the former Senator has "managed them" , even some Liberal Bloggers are shaking their heads in disgust and disappointment. They are generally a forgiving lot, these progressives, but Edwards has so comprehensively beclowned himself, that many erstwhile supporters seem ready to introduce the well-coifed attorney from North Carolina to the underside of the bus (Mind you, over at the Daily Kos they are all La La La I can't hear you!)

What is it with some powerful alpha-male Democrats? These are guys married to accomplished, overachieving, and sometimes quite attractive women, and if they wanted to they could probably date models or playboy bunnies or rocket scientists on the side... depending on what they prioritize.

Yet time and time again we find them getting sleazy with very,very, average women, or when they do get involved with lookers, they turn out to be hookers!

Perplexing!

You Can Be Better

Triumph gives it to ComicCon 2008

Why So Serious?

I'm not really a big fan of the caped crusader. As a teenager, I was a big fan of ultraviolent movies, like many my age, and my "comic book vigilante" tastes ran more toward the antics of Frank Castle, better known as The Punisher, a deeply disturbed Vietnam Vet who saw his entire family slaughtered by mobsters and embarked upon an almost suicidal one-man-war on crime that continues to this day. In those days, the anti-hero Punisher seemed grounded in a certain gritty 1980s "war-on-drugs" era reality, and there was a grimness and sense of despair in Frank Castle that appealed to my adolescent self, I suppose.



That is not to say that the more fanciful Batman mythos was not without some appeal, but not being a big D.C. comics reader, the film and TV interpretations were my only real exposure to Bob Kane's iconic creation in my youth.

As a 14-year old,for instance, I found little charm in the campy 1960s incarnation in reruns on the TV, and was greatly disappointed by the grotesquely overhyped Tim Burton take on the character. The ludicrousness of Bruce Wayne's modus operandi, i.e. dressing up like a giant bat in a stiff, rubbery suit to "scare criminals" had an air of the ludicrous, which was not helped at all by the stilted action depicted in the Tim Burton-helmed movies. Throw a punch? Please! Michael Keaton could barely raise his arms in that getup.

Frank Castle's persona and methods, on the other hand, manifested more realism. The Punisher had no real gimmick or mask or secret identity: his imposing physique, perpetually grim expression and Kevlar armour emblazoned with a giant skull were all he needed to intimidate criminals... and besides, I think killing the criminals was higher on his priority list then intimidating them.

The further 90s iterations of the Batman franchise only served to renforce my antipathy toward the character: I was completely uninterested in the animated versions, and found the ridiculous Joel Shumacher films annoying. I was first introduced to Harry Knowles's site, as many others were, when I caught wind of his now-legendary obliteration of the third sequel, Batman and Robin, an event that some say simultaneously ushered in a new era in the internet (the era of the uber-powerful online movie geek?) and put the moribund franchise on ice for almost a decade. Good riddance!

But then, three years ago, Chris Nolan made Batman Begins. Was it the perfect superhero movie? No, of course not. There were some false notes: Katie Holmes in over her head as the love interest, some bad fight-scene editing, and some groan-worthy expository dialogue during the runaway-L-train climax immediately spring to mind. But you could feel that Nolan was on to something with his "re-boot" approach. Instead of simply swallowing the Batman's 1930s origin story holus-bolus and proceeding as if it were a given, Nolan chose to re-interpret and update it, grounding the Batman's origin story in a reality that today's filmgoer could swallow.



I remember thinking that it was almost as if all the comics and films that had come before had been legends, that is to say, embellished retellings of a story that had actually taken place; tales about a mysterious man who really had existed, but whose exploits were now lost in the mists of time, like those of the heroes of Troy, or the knights of the round table. Batman Begins seems to be offering us a more reality-based take on the mythical character known as "the Bat-Man", showing us the "facts" that form the basis of that myth. Batman, this version shows us, is not some supernatural being, but rather a man who has harnessed extraordinary wealth and physical gifts, and trained himself rigourously in order to put them in the service of good, all the while cultivating an aura of mystery so as to strike fear into the criminals he stalks. Batman, we learn, is really just a ninjitsu-trained billionaire masquerading as a playboy in order to pursue his virtuous vigilanteism.

Perhaps it was purely coincidence that Batman Begins came into being in an era where films like Troy and King Arthur were offering stripped-down versions of two of the legendary stories most central to Western society, removing the centuries of accretions and interpretations to get back to, if not the historical basis of each myth, at least more plausible versions grounded to some degree in "reality" --which did not prevent mostly justifiable accusations of historical innaccuracy and fabrication in each case, incidentally.

With Troy, this re-interpretation meant excising "the gods" from the story almost entirely, and offering compelling explanations for iconic references like Achilles' famous heel and the Greek gift of a wooden horse. In King Arthur, it meant losing the supernatural elements and questing beasts, turning Merlin into a loincloth clad druid, and stripping off the late medieval period plate armour common in so many depictions in favour of late roman chain-mail more appropriate to the post-roman Britain in which the historical Artorius likely lived (By the way, another film that adopts this approach is 2007's Last Legion, which starred Colin Firth, and which would not otherwise merit a mention, given that it was mostly crap and anachronistic in the extreme).

The relatively unspectacular box-office take of these films illustrates that re-envisioning beloved legends and mythical archetypes is an endeavour fraught with peril, not to be taken lightly, but Chris Nolan's deft handling of the problematic areas of the Batman mythos also shows that it can be pulled off.

Batman Begins offers alot of explanations to questions that have never been satisfactorily answered before. i.e. Why Bruce Wayne really picked the bat as his symbol; How he was trained to do what he does; Where he got the equipment to begin his mission; What his ultimate goal is. And at every step, we find that the explanation is plausible... far-fetched, certainly, but definitely not supernatural.

Now, with his very dark follow-up, The Dark Knight, Nolan takes us one step further into this plausible world he has created, and in its disconcerting realism, we find it more nightmarish than we could have imagined. In this sequel that surpasses the first film in every way, Nolan has created a surprisingly moving tragedy and a really effective crime drama featuring horrifying moral dilemmas and very effective action set-pieces.



I'm not going to parrot everything the critics have already stated about the "Godfather II of superhero movies", but I will say that the comparisons to Michael Mann's Heat strike me as quite appropriate. Tonally, and in terms of their style, ensemble cast and scope, the movies are indeed comparable. The performances in the Dark Knight are everything you have heard they are too, and a startling turn by the late Heath Ledger as a nihilistic psychopathic Joker is every bit as haunting and disturbing as reported --it will stay with you. If there is a weak link in the chain, it is Ms. Gyllenhaal, whose status as a sex symbol and "it girl" continue to baffle me and countless others.

Regardless, this movie is grim, brutal, unforgiving. Characters are forced to compromise their integrity, characters we want to see succeed fail and some we care about die. The film will punish you, but it will also reward you.



Maybe the Dark Knight will be the movie that finally manages to transcend the "superhero movie" genre, and be recognized for the masterpiece it is.

Go see this movie, and see it in IMAX.

Thanks

"We never know the love of our parents for us till we have become parents."
-- Henry Ward Beecher

Ain't that the truth!



I learned so much in these past few weeks:

I learned that you can become so incredibly attached to someone you have never even laid eyes on.

I learned that a 3-D ultrasound does give you a pretty good idea of what a baby will look like, so much so, that when William finally arrived, I exclaimed "that's the kid from the picture!"

I learned that my wife really is as tough as I suspected.

I learned, or rather confirmed, that my mother really is as generous as everyone always said she was.

I learned that family is not only the most important thing, it is really the only thing.

Now comes the really hard part...

William Timothy Charbel Ellard

Born July 11, 2008 at 14:42

Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam

What an eventful week, both in the news and on the home front! The folks came up to spend some time with my wife and I, now that Nesrine is in the final days of her pregnancy. That meant that I got to watch La Selección's moment of glory with my dad last Sunday. Though the scoreboard may have said the score was 1-0, the truth of the matter is that the Germans looked thoroughly outclassed by the Spanish side, and that it could of easily been 3 or 4 nil. Sure, grim-and-bloodied German captain Michael Ballack and his squad gave Spain's fans a couple of frightening moments but the result was never in any real doubt.

I basically missed Canada Day altogether, as Nesrine and I had a little hospital stay which turned out to be a false alarm --the stork got diverted by bad weather, I gather, but I did catch wind of the controversial appointment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada on our nation's birthday some time after the fact. Perhaps I found this news so very dispiriting because my wife is in her final days as the vessel for what is most manifestly a little human being who has for some months now displayed his own personality, individuality and even habits.

There are so many reasons that this appointment, a manifestation of what John Paul II called the culture of death, should be considered offensive, but I think David Warren's column says it best, so I am attaching it in its entirety:

How Morgentaler exposed the chasm between elites and the rest of Canada

David Warren
The Ottawa Citizen


Sunday, July 06, 2008


Let me tell my reader about an "epiphany" I once had -- a long time ago, yet seemingly yesterday. Some things, especially memories of love, remain vivid for the duration of one's life. The experience occurred when I was 17, travelling through India by third-class rail.

I had left Howrah Station in Calcutta the day before, bound for Raxaul on the frontier with Nepal. I rode 25 hours continuously on an unbelievably hot and crowded train (often thinking I might die of suffocation), to some obscure distant junction. There I changed trains, as instructed, boarding a flatbed, to my relief -- with crudely built railings and grid of low benches to hold the passengers in place -- wonderfully open to the sky. Another 20 hours, making every stop across the state of Bihar.

An atheist at the time, I almost prayed for rain.

In such a carriage, one does not choose a seat. It chooses you. I found myself physically merged with an extended family, consisting of two sisters, their frail-looking husbands, a sprightly grandma, and about 15 small children. The elder sister, sitting high in the middle of the mob, was also quite pregnant. And beaming with joy.

When I say these people were poor, I am describing a phenomenon beyond the comprehension of most North Americans. They had the rags they were wearing, a bedroll or two, a tiffin stack of simple food. (If they had any valuables, they were effectively concealed.) But what they also had was a treasure beyond postmodern understanding. They had each other.

I was passed a little baby soon after the train moved (so slowly, I thought I could outrun it). A little boy was also set on my left knee; there being nowhere else to put him. Rags were stretched against the scorching sun; a cool breeze puffed them. The magnificent scenery of the Gangetic Plain rolled by in splendour -- the little farmer's fields, the galaxy of villages. Chaos at every stop.

Eye contact was made with each member of this family in turn, and I was now fully adopted. Language was unnecessary: I followed the conversation in their eyes. There was some singing; there were some prayers. When mealtime came, I was passed my share -- a chapati, with a spoonful of lentils on it.

After a few hours of this, the profound happiness of this extended family had communicated itself to me. I felt an inner exhilaration of belonging, such as I had never felt; a profound joy in being alive. For these people knew: that life is holy.

"I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life."

Yes, this is a sermon. That would be Moses speaking, in the Book of Deuteronomy. I don't think I began to grasp this idea until I was 17, riding those rails through Bihar: that we choose life, or we choose death; for ourselves, for others. The rags you wear are of no great importance. It is important to live; and living, to rise, towards the Love that made us. "Rise, let us be on our way," in the words of the last Pope.

Like many, many, many Canadians, I took the appointment of Henry Morgentaler to membership in the Order of Canada -- proclaimed on "Canada Day" -- as a stick in the eye for everything we believe in. As a gratuitous insult to the memory of three million aborted babies.

It was intended as that. The perpetrators of this hateful deed -- presenting an abortionist as a model for "humanism" and champion of women -- knew perfectly well what they were doing. As I had learned even before the event, protocol had been breached in making the appointment. There was no consensus on the appointment committee; the chair, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, had failed to recuse herself. It was done deceitfully, after the Governor General's office had assured outraged callers last February that Morgentaler would not be on the list this year. And last weekend, as the rumour spread, a fresh round of outraged callers were being mocked -- given the phone number of Campaign Life Coalition by the Rideau Hall switchboard.

The announcement was then delayed -- another irregularity -- until after the Parliament Hill celebrations, to prevent a large pro-life demonstration from coalescing there. And, instead of denouncing the appointment, our cynical prime minister had "talking points" distributed to his caucus before the fact.

A very dark thing was done, as such things are always done -- in a very dark way.

Yet I think it may be for the best, in a longer view of things. We might often grumble that the "ruling class" in Canada -- the smug, self-serving, "progressive" political, legal, academic, and media elites, including the prime example at Rideau Hall -- belong to some other world than the one from which they suck taxes. But seldom is there an event so stark, that we see them as they are. The Morgentaler award revealed that to so many Canadians.

Gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter, quam fortes milites bellis

Seneca wrote that. It means great men rejoice in adversity just as brave soldiers triumph in war.

Now that we know that Conrad Black will stay in jail, we will see whether or not he rejoices in his adversity.

Black steadfastly refuses to fade away quietly in disgrace. During his incarceration, he has taken to teaching as well as writing. It is said that his jailhouse history seminars are standing room only.

Here he is in fine form, still writing in the NP:

No one knows if there are more people who would vote for an African-American president to prove that they and their country are tolerant than would vote against him because of intolerance. I suspect there are, but no prudent person would predict the outcome of this election. Accordingly, I reaffirm my prediction that McCain will win.

Whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that Lord Black seems to have made some premium lemonade out of the lemons life has handed him.

Politicians Flee Category Five McCain

The Republican nominee for POTUS was big news round these here parts last week when he came to town. He waded through the tumbleweeds and past the creaking saloon doors of the ghost-town that was end-of-parliamentary-season Ottawa to give an address at the local speakeasy.

Paul Martin was in the news recently too. Why? Who cares?

Nobody appears to have any time for him anymore. He is the rare electoral loser leader among the pantheon of Liberal winners --He and John Turner rate a shared alcove next to the restrooms. When it comes to Martin, PMPM loyalists could drive themselves crazy with tantalizing “if onlys”. For example: if only he had waited for the fall of 2004 or later to have the writ dropped for his first election as PM, the sponsorship stuff might (might, I said) have blown over somewhat and he would not have lost his majority in the 2004 election, right? Who knows what Martin could have achieved if only he had built on, or at least kept, the majority that the Little Guy from Shawinigan handed him when he left…

But hey, isn't it funny how some Canadians who claim that seventy-year-old John McCain is “too old” to be President are the same Canadians who would have gladly followed Paul Martin had he won that imaginary majority back in late 2004 and then decided to take the Liberals into the next election this fall as
a seventy-year-old PM and party leader?

Pulled from the Fishwrapper

Eddie On the Socks:

The thing is, I understand how the complainants feel. They probably feel the same way I and other Jews feel when we go to the Canadian Islamic Congress website and read "editorials" with headlines such as: "Zionist Israel at 60 -- A History Built on Ethnic Cleansing" and "Israel: An Armed Ghetto by Choice."

***

Afghanistan: It's a mess.

Sarah Chayes, one of the few Westerners living "outside the wire" in Kandahar, decries rampant corruption in a pretty good Scott Taylor piece:

"If the Afghan government is a criminal enterprise and Canada’s stated mission is to support the government of Afghanistan, then what the hell are you achieving?" she said. "Is NATO here to make five people happy or to make the whole province happy?"

***

NYT sez Mrs. Obama will be a target

Ya Think?

E.D. Speculates on the secret gang signs that Obama and wife are using:



Shortly after this, Ms. Hill received a "terrorist fist jab" right out of her slot in favour of someone slightly less retardulous.

***

Apres Lucien, Gerard

Andre Pratte on two brothers well acquainted with the canibalistic tendencies of the sovereignty movement

Then in the comments, sovereigntists wine, snivel, spout conspiracy theories, and denounce as they usually do whenever someone confronts them with reality.

Scott Thompson and Kurt Cobain



Stuff like this is the reason I love The Kids In The Hall. Who else besides boy-faced Dave Foley could take a somber topic like the death of a rock icon and say something in such poor taste to bring down the house? As is the case with Monty Python, another troupe that defined comedy in an earlier era, most of the stuff the members of KITH did after the end of their show does not hold a candle to their groundbreaking early work, but occasionally they can blow you away with something daring, like Foley did here.

Here is a favourite from their TV show: