Iraq Five Years On:

I just watched No End In Sight, the Academy Award nominated documentary about the Iraq war. It's a remarkable film, and will no doubt bolster the already robust case that the people that sent American troops into Iraq really had no plan (or at the very least, a severely flawed plan) and no clue of what to do once they had won the war.

My guts were in knots watching the anguish on the face of the former Colonel and CPA official talk about how his Iraqi counterparts greeted Jerry Bremer's de-Ba'athification order and the disbanding of the Iraqi army with chagrin and disbelief. No wonder. The movie point to those two measures, among others, as catalysts for the Iraqi insurgency and while this is probably an oversimplification, it is obvious in hindsight that no good could come from firing a million able-bodied Iraqis from their jobs and setting them loose on the streets with weapons within reach.

The movie has its flaws, of course, and it must be viewed with a critical eye --nary a mention is made of the animals that came to call themselves Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, and the Iranian infiltration is also glossed over. The eye-rolling and smugness of Obama's now shitcanned policy advisor Samantha Power becomes tiresome, particulary when during an interview she smirks annoyingly as she offers an anecdote about a Lebanese diplomat referring "bullets in the eyes" of American representatives -- botching it, according to my wife, who knows the actual expression in Arabic.

It is particularly tragic to think that some of the logical measures advocated in those early days and weeks are only now, five years on, being implemented in that tortured land with almost startling success, those ideologues who opposed them (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) having been consigned to ignominy, and the dustbin of history.

For what it is worth, I think this gets the Iraq narrative right, even though the tinfoil hat brigade will still squeal “it's all about oil!"

If that is the case, my only question is

What the HELL happened?


***

9-2?

Way to run up the score, jerks!

Did Probert feed some poor bombardier his jersey too?

I'm kidding. Classy move by some NHL greats to play road-hockey with the boys.

Muy Blanco


I don’t like Anne Coulter most of the time, but every once in a while, she writes something like this piece about Elliot Spitzer, and I can't help but chuckle.

One shudders to imagine the sepulchral gloom pervading the Spitzer home this week. At least Hillary would liven the place up with some lamp-throwing.

***

I was recently directed to this site, which offers a helpful anthropological primer designed to assist “ethnic” people in their dealings with Caucasians, ostensibly by offering insights into the habits, beliefs cultural practices and customs of the caucasoids with whom they must share the planet.

I decided to peruse this site thoroughly and see how many of these articles apply to me in order to discover how white I actually am, relative to other crackers.

Turns out I am moderately white.

How did I figure this out? I deployed all my grade 12 math skill to come up with a mathematical formula I call the Whiteness Quotient. How does it work?

Step one: Get over yourself, honky.

Step two: Read each of the entries in this blog, and as you go, make note of how many apply to you, how many could apply to you somewhat, or in some circumstances, and how many are completely foreign to your experience.

Step three: Deal with your reality – You are a hopeless cliche

Step four: Divide number of positive responses by number of total items (currently 90 or so, but they are constantly adding new articles), giving half marks for an equivocal or noncommittal response. That will give you your whiteness quotient.

I have created the following scale of whiteness:

0.0-0.9 low risk of blancmange
0.1-0.29 somewhat prone to caucasianisms
0.3-0.49 Moderate WASPishness
0.5-0.69 Significant hipster contamination
0.7-0.99 Full blown whitey douchebaggery


My Whiteness quotient is: 0.297 ... I have been found to have trace elements of Donnie Osmond:



***

I don't know what the creepiest website out there is, but I know photoshop disasters sure creep me out! How about you?

Alistair Cooke

Most people know Alastair Cooke as the host of Masterpiece Theatre, but I'll always think of him as the author of the book that first kindled my interest in American History, the companion tome to his famous 1970s miniseries of the same name: Alistair Cooke's America.

Cooke was a journalist who spent his years chronicling life in the U.S. with his American Letters. He lived through and reported on the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam and Watergate, and was only yards away from RFK when he was assassinated in 1968.

When he first arrived in the US in the 1930s, Alistair Cooke met the famous jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes, who was a young Union officer during the Civil War, had once met Abraham Lincoln (he called the President a fool for standing up in battle).

So until he died at age 95 in 2004, when Alastair Cooke met a young person he was fond of saying "You have just shaken the hand of a man who shook the hand of a man who shook hands with Lincoln."

Cooke had a long and distinguished career as a media personality, but perhaps the ulitmate tribute to this cultural giant is that one of the best recurring parodies that Sesame Street did was based on his show:



Oh yeah, and his bones were stolen after his death by criminals involved in the illegal body-part trade. Yuck!

***

An Irish Blessing for Saint Paddy's Day:

May your shillelaigh be all knotted with boils

OK, you got me...It's from the Aristocrats.

Chuck Norris For President

...OF IRAQ

"Truthfully, I didn't know who he was. I asked the Americans, and they said he was a great fighter, and that's why they named me after him. They showed me a video, and it's true, he's a great fighter" said police trainer Mohammed Rasheed.

***

The Ottawa Citizen on Campus Totalitarians:

If you want to see totalitarianism in action, you don't have to travel overseas to some impoverished, politically backward society. Just head over to York University in Toronto.The face of totalitarianism is one Kelly Holloway, president of York's graduate students' association. It was she who pushed for the cancellation of a public debate on abortion. The event had been booked and the fliers printed, but it never happened. "This debate, over whether or not women should be able to have an abortion, is not acceptable in the student centre," said Ms. Holloway. Not acceptable in the student centre? Abortion is among the most controversial issues anywhere. Theologians, ethicists and doctors - not to mention ordinary people - have been wrestling with abortion for many years. Even though abortion is widely available, there is still no philosophical consensus on the morality of killing a fetus.

But Kelly hath decreed that the matter endeth here! Surely this closes the discussion?

Er, no. I'm afraid it ain't over, Kelly

It's good that York University started acting like a university again!

The People - and by "People", I Mean Celebrities - Have Spoken!



Jessica Alba: I would like to see, um, uh cleaner earth for... my child, that I'm bringing into the world very soon.

Done! Obama has already promised that all commercially available potting soil will be required by legislation to contain at least one quarter loam, one quarter leaf mold, and no more than one part per hundred bacterial contaminants, excluding pig and cow excrement!

Ryan Philippe: I think it's time for change... I want a better future for my children.

Yes! Obama will push congress to legislate more change... up to 10 million additional quarters and 5 million additional dimes will be produced by the United States Department of the Treasury every year during an Obama presidency!

Some attractive black woman: I would like our environment to be safe

No problem! Obama has already arranged funding for Al Gore's next movie: An Inconvenient Truth II: Electric Boogaloo

Some attractive hispanic woman: Esto es nuestro America, mi America, tu America

Por supuesto! Viva Obama, el commandante en jefe! viva el socialismo!

Guy who got punched: Someone to actually make a difference in my generation

Obama: People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation!)

Hip guy in interracial couple: I would like to see us in a world without fear

Indubitably! Obama will ask congress to introduce legislation outlawing boogey-men, as well as their more rare variant, bogey-men.

Attractive hispanic woman again: Basically, ooommm, I want the war to end

Obama: War is oooover, if yooou want it

Jessica Alba again: I would like the world to think highly of our amazing country

You got it! Obama has pledged to pursue aggressive diplomatic and/or military action against anyone who does not think highly of the U.S.

Another attractive black woman: I think the thing that inspires me most about Obama is he really is going to be the President of the United States, you know, he's not going to be the president of the top ten percent, or the president of the most powerful corporations, or the president of the most powerful lobbyists, he's going to be our President, he's going to speak for us, cuz we put him there

Obama refuses to be president of the top ten percent, the lobbyists, and the corporations. Immediately following his inauguration, he will have those three groups expelled from the country. Unfortunately, numerous entertainers and hollywood types will need to relocate, since they fall into that first category.

John Leguizamo: That's what Obama is about... unity to this country, and changing America's face to the world

Russia: America, have you had some work done?
America: You noticed!
China: America, you look just fabulous! Who's your surgeon?
America: Dr. Birnbaum... he's in Beverly Hills

George Lopez: Obama es el cambio, que representa esperanza

Obama: Dos cervezas por favor

Will.I.am: This is my America, your America, our America

It's Obama's America, we only live there

Woman of colour: And he stands for... not just black people, but all people... uh, he's almost like a revivalist...

Obama: Hallelujah!

Woman of whiteness: I believe in Barack Obama, because he believes in us

Actually, Obama believes in you because you have the good judgment to believe in him!

***

My favourite two comments on the videocracy site:

if this wasn't made by private citizens, it would legitimately qualify as propaganda, right?

and

...those least affected by any particular administration (the wealthy) are demanding change. How inspiring.

The nature of censorship

Steve Paikin has a great show. Here he discusses Bill C-10 and the limits of censorship with Len Rudner, Rebecca Shechter, Jon Kay, and Charles McVety.

I find one part very revealing: about halfway through where Rebecca responds to Charles about his opinion on what is in bad taste and offensive (and his right not to have to pay taxes for this type of stuff) "YOU have a problem, Canadians don't have a problem" to which Steve Paikin says "Rebecca, you think he is the only guy in the whole country who has a problem with this?"

Rebecca's freudian slip speaks to the reaction that some otherwise very nice and reasonable people have when confronted with a guy like Charles McVety, who tends to speak in language very alien to progressives, using terms like judgment, decency and morality when making his points. They marginalize him because his point-of-view sometimes appears to be bizarre, reactionary, and completely outside the "mainstream", hence her attitude: of course a bible-thumper like McVety is going to object to an entirely reasonable proposition.

And yet, notwithstanding the alien "morality" rhetoric, his point is solid: McVety is simply saying that as a general rule, the government should not be empowered to decide what movies get made, but that it is the arbiter of taste when it comes to deciding which movies get funded; a proposition you may not agree with, but an entirely legitimate viewpoint.

Jon Kay, the journalist who speaks the language of "the mainstream", makes a valid point too: As a free-speech advocate, he doesn't like the idea of government mandarins making decisions of any kind relating to censorship, whether it is deciding what movies get funded, or what he can and can't say. As an opponent of Human Rights Commissions as they are currently run, he also thinks that people need to "toughen up and lighten up" when it comes to getting offended and seeking redress through quasi-judicial bodies.

Len Rudner disagrees with him on technical grounds, i.e. the HRCs do a good job of screening out the vast majority of "nuissance complaints", so therefore they are not a problem... although I don't see how this supposed bureaucratic efficiency justifies their existence if it is the principle they are functioning under that is being questioned.

I'm increasingly coming around to the Jon Kay/Ezra Levant/Mark Steyn point-of-view of free speech absolutism, not because I am in favour of unfettered free speech (and incidentally, I am not in league with neo-nazis, notwithstanding what someone like Warren Kinsella might contend), but because I believe our society is already on a slippery slope when the state starts going completely in the opposite direction, "sanctioning" and approving public debate. This type of state control is something I think will end up being far worse than "too much freedom" in the long run.

Rebecca Schecter has a funny viewpoint: she is in favour of censoring hate speech, but not "smut", because she has a vested interest in preserving that particular freedom (the freedom to promote filth, or whatever you want to call it). In other words, she is holding two contradictory viewpoints, and attempting to rationalize her positions with some dubious logic. At least, I wasn't convinced... you can watch the video and judge for yourself.

Ms. Schecter is far from the only person to display this kind of paradoxical logic. A couple of days ago, Jon Kay wrote an article about Kelly Holloway, a detestable functionary in the student government at York with a bright future as a censorship commissar:

I've been writing a lot lately about free speech. My view on the subject is pretty basic: You have to tolerate the speech you hate in order to guarantee protection for the speech you love. Once you go down the road of ideologically motivated censorship, it never stops: Government hate-speech laws that are designed to shut up neo-Nazis eventually get used to harass legitimate commentators like Mark Steyn.

Of course, censorious activists and lawmakers never actually concede they are engaged in "censorship." Invariably, they try to argue that the speech they are targeting is so offensive as to not even constitute legitimate expression. Consider, for instance, what has been going on at York University, in Toronto. Here's a snippet from a March 5 news item in The Excalibur, a York University newspaper:

"A planned debate on abortion rights at York University’s Student Centre was canceled less than three hours before it was scheduled to begin. At an emergency meeting on Feb. 28,members of the Student Centre Board of Directors ... voted unanimously to cancel the debate that was to be held later that day ... Student Centre vice-chair Kelly Holloway said the debate was cancelled because it was an equal rights issue. 'The reason is that it’s an equity concern for the Student Centre. Having a debate over whether or not women should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies is tantamount to having a debate about whether or not a man should be able to beat his wife,' Holloway said. 'The issue is violence against women, and women in this country have a right to choose what they do with their bodies. They have a right to have an abortion, and we don’t want to validate a debate that wants to threaten that right.'"

According to Holloway, in other words, the millions of pro-life Canadians who would presume to voice their objection to abortion do not have "valid" viewpoints. They deserve to be shut up because all they're doing is expressing de-facto threats against women, akin to urging spousal violence.

What's interesting is that, on another issue dear to her left-wing heart, Halloway is quite capable of sounding like a free-speech purist. Just two weeks ago, Holloway signed her name to a Feb. 21, 2008 letter complaining that the university's decision to ban anti-Zionist "Israeli Apartheid" activities on campus is "a blatant violations of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent." The letter also goes on about the "democratic context of the public university" and asserts that "universities are places where discussions and debates about difficult geo-political questions should be promoted, not stifled."

So what is the confused Ms. Holloway — a censor or a free-speech champion? Both and neither. Rather, she is a symbol of the basic human instinct to permit speech we agree with while shutting up one's opponents — and then finding some tortured logical argument to reconcile the two. The only thing unusual about Holloway is her public hypocrisy. She is a perfect example of why vesting the power to censor in politically correct mandarins — be they from Ottawa or a student government — is always a bad idea.

The Schecter and Holloway cases are merely anecdotes, to be certain, but they are important signposts: In essence, what we are seeing is the gradual de-normalization and deligitimization of fairly mainstream Christian viewpoints in the public domain, under various banners. I say: free speech for all.

***
Update:

Wow, link from Steynonline.com... I guess I better do a better job proofreading my rantings if I'm going to be getting visitors of that calibre.

Explain this please:



Seriously, what the Christ is this? The annoying little macarena-style dance and jingle in the ads from a few years back were bad enough. They tended to put me in a bad mood when they came on TV. But now this latest batch of ads takes it one step further, with strange auditions featuring abrasive dorks of various ethnicities who can't even get the jingle right. How is this supposed to sell the product?

And don't even get me started on this guy:



The feelings this particular commercial bring up in my are, in order:
Surprise, bewilderment, contempt, and finally, shock and anger right at the end when he yells.

Now my stomach feels all upset. I think I'll go take some Tums or Rolaids.

Never Count the Clintons Out

Hey, wouldn't it be something if it turned out Obama lost Ohio because some political hack from north of the border blabbed to the media about a supposed conversation between campaign officials and Canadian diplomats concerning NAFTA?

And just think, some conspiracy types say the Yanks are the ones always messing with our elections!

***

Chris Hitchens says: Oratory? They are just a bunch of cliches, people!

El Cid Campeador

When I was young --like maybe 10 or 12 -- I remember watching a movie about some cool knight named Rodrigo who went around Spain getting into fights with everyone. He fought a bunch of Moors (Muslims living in Spain), but refused to hang them after he beat them. This led to him getting mad respect from them and getting called "Cid" which meant "Lord". He fought his girlfriend's dad and killed him, which kind of put a damper on their relationship, as you can imagine. He fought fellow spaniards, he fought African invaders... he even fought the law, but the law won, if you can believe that.

This was of course Anthony Mann's EL CID, starring my main man Chuck Heston in the title role, and the lovely Sophia Loren as Chimene, the love of his life.



Well, when I found out that they were releasing this bad boy on DVD, I just had to get myself a copy. I watched it again this week for the first time in twenty years.

Is the movie as good as I remember it being as a twelve year old? I'm happy to write that it is.

Not only did I find it hugely entertaining, I would actually say it stands head and shoulders above some of the other gargantuan historical epics from that era (the Fall of the Roman Empire, Cleopatra), and it compares favourably with the best of them, including Spartacus and Ben-Hur, two of my favourite films.

The tone is set at the very beginning of this film, when we are introduced to the main baddie played by Herbert Lom: the Fanatical Ben Yusuf, poster boy for the Jihad (11th century edition). Here he is going to town on the Emirs of Al-Andalus:

The Prophet has commanded us to rule the world. Where in all your land of Spain is the glory of Allah? When men speak of you they speak of poets, musicmakers, doctors, scientists.... Where are your warriors? You dare call yourselves sons of the Prophet? You have become--women! Burn your books! Make warriors of your poets! Let your doctors invent new poisons for our arrows--let your scientists invent new war machines! And then--Kill! Burn! Infidels live on your frontiers--encourage them to kill each other. And when they are weak and torn--I will sweep up from Africa--and the empire of the One God--the True God, Allah--will spread, first across Spain, then across Europe, then--the whole World!

How odd... how unfamiliar... Can you imagine any movie including that kind of character speaking dialogue like that nowadays? What a grotesque unrealistic caricature!

Uh, maybe not, actually. Although fictionalized, the character is based on Yusuf ibn Tashfin, a Berber Almoravid who invaded Spain in the 11th century seeking to conquer new territories for the Umma and bring orthodoxy and a puritanical version of islam to the muslims already inhabiting the peninsula, who had up to that point been busy doing silly stuff like creating a civilization, and preserving culture and knowledge.

Come to think about it that does seem familiar!

Of course, Ben Yussuf represents one side of the Islamic coin, and the presence of many honourable and noble Moorish characters in this movie, including Al Kadir and Moutamin, who were allies of the Cid and vassals of the Spanish King, reflects the reality of the time, just as the existence of moderate muslims is a reality today, notwithstanding the bad press the entire religion tends to get as a whole. Largely thanks to the Ben Yusuf types.

But lets be honest, here, you aren't going to watch this movie because you want a history lesson or treatise on relations between the religions in 11th century Spain, you are going to watch it because you want an old fashioned epic full of pomp and spectacle, romance and adventure.. and this flick delivers on all those counts. In fact, the climax of the movie is one of the most memorable bits of filmaking I have ever seen. It is the one scene in the movie that has stayed indelibly etched in my memory for the past 20 years.

Behold, the climax:


Tell me you don't get a shiver down your spine when the Cid rides through the gate and the organ begins to play!

A Unified Theory of Tarantino



Pretty entertaining short, but is this anything new? As a big fan of the video store clerk from Tennessee who influenced a generation, I appreciate that somebody actually went to the trouble of outlining and organizing every observation, stray thought and half-formulated theory that me, my friends and a legion of other drunken guys of my generation came up with in our rec rooms over a few beers.

Tarantino movies have been dissected to death by every movie geek who came of age in the nineties, so none of this is new. Tarantino is the fountainhead for post-eighties cinema, and will probably be remembered as a towering figure in the history of filmaking. That being said, however, I'm beginning to see that the law of diminishing returns applies even in the case of the guy who wrote and directed possibly the coolest film ever committed to celluloid.

I just saw Grindhouse and, it pains me to write this, Deathproof got tedious.

Not the whole thing, of course. QT is still too dynamic and imaginative to ever descend to hack-like levels of mediocrity, but it still feels lazy.

We know the formula by now... Cast one iconic, slightly-past-his-best-before-date genre actor as a lead character: Keitel, Travolta, Carradine, and in this case, Snake Plissken himself, Kurt Russell; surround with compelling, quirky supporting cast, preferably including at least one or two hot women (this flick has several babes-du-jour); be really self-referrential by casting people who have appeared in other Tarantino/Rodriguez movies as similar yet-not identical characters (step forward Rose McGowa, star of Rodriguez Grindhouse entry Planet Terror ), and insert liberal amounts of violence, genre aesthetics, pop culture references, and signature Tarantino Dialogue. Why screw with the formula? It works .

Except, this time, it didn't.

Not for me. Not completely, anyway.

If you are going to make the kind of dialogue-heavy movies that QT makes, you better make sure the dialogue is up to snuff. If it ain't, the talky bits can be a bit much. For the first time, I found myself viewing a Tarantino movie and thinking "Get on with it, already!". I watched in dismay as Tarantino descended into self-parody, with absurd parabolic profanity-laced riffs that contributed nothing to the plot and went absolutely nowhere. It wasn't that the characters were badly-written, it was more that at times they seemed to be working to arrest the plot, rather than propel it forward. Of course, this being Tarantino, he did manage to redeem himself with virtuoso action set-pieces and some compelling character work from Kurt Russell, among others, so the movie is still very much worth seeing, especially the parts where Stuntman Mike is onscreen.

It becomes very clear when you watch the Grindhouse special features on DVD that Quentin is a man still very much enthused and besotted by film and the art of filmmaking. I trust that for his next work --supposedly the long-awaited Inglorious Bastards, Tarantino will recover his footing and deliver a war flick that will cement his place among the giants of contemporary cinema.

Empty Suit in Need of Filling

Terrence Corcoran thinks November is a long time from now. Now that he is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, very soon Obama is going to begin to come under much heavier fire, and eventually his followers won't be able to just shrug it off and go right back to spewing their same old vague platitudes about "change" and "inspiring people" --the kind of thing I have really enjoyed, since it has usually led to steam shooting out of both Bill and Hillary's ears. The continue to look on, incredulously, as everything they toss at Obama just slides right off of the media-applied teflon coating. By the time Hillary's run ends, both Clintons should be certifiable.

Already, there are signs that the honeymoon is over. Barry Obama's wife is taking hits for saying that for the first time in her adult lifetime, she is proud of her country and for whining about the student loans that paid for the ivy-league educations that enable her and her hubby to make a nice fat six-figure salaries. Even some of his acolytes have been forced to come to terms with the fact that he is not Jesus. Check out erstwhile Obama fluffer Chris Matthews beat the piss out of Kirk Watson



Embarrassing. Chris Matthews did the Obama campaign a favour. He gave them a bit of a preview of what is rolling on down the road towards them as the Republicans coalesce around their man and load up the rocketlaunchers. They better hand out some meatier talking points or else prevent starry-eyed goofballs like this from championing their man in the media.

***

After all the craziness of the Kinsella/Levant Blogwar of 2008, which I'm not going to rehash here, it is great to read something so genuinely thought provoking on such an important topic like this piece from Andrew Potter. On a not-entirely-unrelated subject....

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens does one of his trademark imolations on another religious target, and on this occasion I can't help but agree with his disdain for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Because what the Archbishop said was a disgrace :

just look at how casually this sheep-faced English cleric throws away the work of centuries of civilization:

[A]n approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts"—I think that's a bit of a danger.

In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—"There's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said"—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don't yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough? For the women who are the principal prey of the sharia system, it is often only when they are shipped or flown to Britain that their true miseries begin. This modern disgrace is deepened and extended by a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.

Williams should really consider giving up his position as putative head of the Anglican Communion.

CRAP

CRAP CRAP CRAP

Day Seven is delayed until next year

What the heck do we do until then?

Oh, and just to rub salt in the wound, today we find out that co-creator Joel Surnow is leaving the show

Surnow was the right-wing wingnut who is largely seen as being most responsible for 24s controversial "ends justify the means" ethos during its early seasons.

One of my favourite examples of this particular sensibility was at the begining of Season 2, where Jack, having executed a police informant in cold blood, asks outraged CTU Director George Mason for a hacksaw so that he can decapitate the corpse in order to formulate an elaborate deception. When Mason protests Jack's drastic measures, the CTU agent rounds on him:

That's the problem with people like you, George. You want results, but you never want to get your hands dirty. I'd start rolling up your sleeves.

I can't help but think that with Surnow's departure, the show will lose a bit of its trademark ruthlessness and cruelty.

Five from Factory Records

I recently saw a really great movie about the heyday of Factory Records and the Haçienda in Manchester during the eighties called 24 Hour Party People. Before I saw the film, I had no idea what an important role the band New Order had played in supporting the iconic club.

While I'm a big fan of New Order's music, I never knew much about their history. I was only five when Ian Curtis died, so I didn't know the story of Joy Division and how it had reformed as New Order following Ian's suicide. It's really quite remarkable to listen to JD and NO songs back to back. The bands sound so different, and yet they consist of nearly all the same people. Of course, JD were post-punk, whereas New Order quickly transitioned to electronic and dance music, and Ian Curtis' vocals could not have been more different than those of Bernard Sumner, who never wanted to be a singer, and apparently only took on singing duties by necessity!

Apparently, there is a biopic about Ian Curtis out there -a 2007 film called Control, which has gotten good reviews -so I'll have to check that out next!.

Dead Souls
by Joy Division
Recorded 1979




Love Will Tear Us Apart
by Joy Division
Released 1980




Blue Monday
by New Order
Released 1983



Bizarre Love Triangle
by New Order
Released 1986




True Faith
by New Order
Released 1987

My Take on this Obama thing

Obama is a highly problematic candidate for the Democrats. On paper, he runs to the left of almost everyone on almost everything, and yet his rhetoric seems to be all about bipartisanship, and the Republi-cons ain't buyin' what he's sellin'. You can't reach out across the isle if the other guy thinks you are going to put him in a headlock and try to drag him over to your side. Thought Dubya was divisive? How is the tone in Washington gonna change if the right-wing ideologues running the show just get swapped out for left-wing ideologues?

The Democratic primary voters seemingly do not care about this because Obama is the candidate that makes you feel good about yourself. He is like a Hollywood idea of a black president. He isn’t Jesse Jackson, who was so deeply identified with identity politics that his very blackness became an issue. Obama transcends colour, and yet allows white voters to say to themselves “look at me, I’m voting for a black guy! I’m so progressive”. Deep down I think that if Obama was white, he would be dismissed by the electorate as quickly and comprehensively as other charismatic flash-in-the-pans like Edwards and Howard Dean. I think Liberal Blogmeister Cherniak is telling the truth when he writes the following:

Just like JFK actually won more votes because the media kept asking whether Americans would elect a Catholic, I believe that all this talk about whether Mr. Obama can win "white votes" has become a strength. It is almost like a challenge to white people to vote for him just to prove that they are willing to vote for him. He's a young, attractive, charismatic guy, so why not?

That would line up with what we saw on Super-duper Tuesday: Obama got the black and upper middle class white vote (i.e. people who love the idea of a black president). Hillary won low income whites, women, and latinos –all people who pragmatically ask "Which democrat is going to manage the economy and deliver concrete results for me and my loved ones?". Even some Republicans who loathe McCain have said they would vote for Hillary if it comes to that, because they recognize Obama for what he is, an empty suit.

For a great summary of the Campaign thusfar, read Hanson's article
Domacrats Want to Lose, Republicans Don't Want to Win

Good News All Around

Nathan Rabin just concluded his magnum opus. Now he has decided it will be an ongoing monthly feature!

***

Alot of talk of "Free Speech", Ezra Levant, Macleans and Mark Steyn among the blogeratti lately. At long last, these stories are just starting to gain the attention of the media with the news that Keith Martin will be introducing a Private Member's Motion to Change the Human Rights Act, thereby paving the way for a return to power of the National Socialists, or so you would think...

Who is this "hatemonger" Mark Steyn and What does he stand for? Incidentally... you never hear about fishmongers or ironmongers anymore, but hatemongering has become a very popular occupation, apparently. Here is the man at Pepperdine:



***

New Kraft Doubles!

Maybe it was this quote that gave me a fit of giggles:

After years of catering exclusively to depressed, lonely men in their 30s, Kraft is proud to present a product for people who are capable of experiencing love and happiness," Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld said at a press conference.

Why We Fight

"I believe in a strong international role for Canada. I think this world is getting more complicated, more difficult, more dangerous. I don't think those issues should just be resolved by nuclear superpowers. I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play. Projecting our values. Standing for the rights of individuals, of the human security of people whose own governments can't protect them. That's something that we as Canadians have talked a lot about and we believe in.

And what's our alternative? ... This is not, you know, you can't turn the rheostat on this. You either stay. And you say you mean it. And you get something that we can call success, which is giving the Afghan government the ability to maintain its own security like any sovereign country should be able to do it. Or you get out.

And if we get out, what's the next mission? ... We're a rich country. We've gotta do some of this stuff. Would it be in Darfur? Well, you know, regrettably, the government of Sudan doesn't want anyone in Darfur. And, let me tell you, it'd be just as dangerous. It would be a combat mission.

Would it be in Rwanda? We didn't have a combat mission in Rwanda, we had blue helmets. And the result was genocide.

You know, the world isn't a pretty place. But I happen to believe that the people that came before me in the Liberal party, that believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage, would say, there are times when we have to count. There are times when it matters. We're not prepared to retreat under the U.S. missile shield and live in fortress North America. We're prepared to be out there and we're prepared to pay the price. Because that's what you expect of a country like Canada. That's what I say."

John Manley, commenting on the release of the report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan

Since Nato has now confirmed that it intends to support Canada in its mission in Kandahar province, it is probably a good thing that we have eloquent men like John Manley, a proud Liberal, to remind us what Canadians stand for. Sometimes, I fear we have forgotten who we are, and what we have always been, regardless of what the revisionists would have us believe.

If Canada really is a one-and-a-half party state and the Liberals are the party of "the majority" of Canadians, then Mr. Manley, who is very much a mainstream Liberal and is therefore without the ideological bagage of the Harperites, did something that no Conservative has been thus far able do: Speaking the language of modern liberalism and Pearsonian foreign policy, he gave a most compelling explanation of why centrist and left-of-centre Canadians should get behind the Afghanistan mission.

****

Related: Ivison beats up May for her profound silliness on Afghanistan. I hear that tomorrow there will be an encore of some type involving fish in a barrel and a firearm.

Human Rights Omission

If there really should be limits on free speech, I submit that perhaps this fellow comes a bit closer to crossing the line than either Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn ever did... Not that I believe free speech should be limited.

But tell me there are at least a couple of Osgood Hall Law Students willing to speak out against this kind of hatred and incitement... Nah, didn't think so.

The Killing of Canadian Troops is Legitimate and Well-deserved?

So what I really want to know is at what point do we start talking about treason here? This is about as bald-faced as one can get.

While he writes that he approves of attacking Canadian troops, he also says he would not do so himself.

Of course not! He's at University in Mississauga, enjoying all the benefits of living in Canada! He doesn't want to roll his sleeves up and you know, actually do anything for the global struggle! He may be "hot for jihad", as Steyn would put it, but he prefers to outsource his war on those of the Christian/Crusader Heritage --Incidentally, I thought Canada was a multicultural nation, but thank you Elizabeth May for clearing that up.

I bet you "the brothers" are really glad that they have pampered college jokers in Canada cheering them on from the sidelines.

Give Me That G-D Clickerbox

That title, completely unrelated to the content of the actual post, is in honour of Ma and Eddie Reardon,the grossly underappreciated culture critics from This Hour Has 22 Minutes. God how I miss them. Somebody should YouTube some of their stuff. It's classic.

On the subject of brilliant use of the 'ol YouTube...seen some of the promos for Cloverfield? There's some pretty groovy viral stuff out there. This is the trailer:



Have you seen Cloverfield? I mean the actual movie. In the words of Jules Winnfield, "That was some chilling shit".

Jonah Goldberg of the NRO says it is Godzilla meets Blair Witch. That seems like a pretty good description to me.

I dare not ruin any of it for you so I don't know what to say about it except to say it is very much worth seeing... Ryan and I had a little e-mail back-and-forth on it after we each watched it separately. Here is part of that conversation, sans spoilers. The names have not been changed to protect the innocent:

Ryan:

I am interested in the talk of a sequel as long as it doesn’t become a
Blair Witch 2 project type thing. I hear it may document another group’s
perspective of the attack. Still once may be enough. I really have no commitment
either way.

James:

agree… it is a singular movie event, and if they go
back to the well too many times, it will lose its unique appeal… maybe a TV news
team’s perspective, which would mean much better footage, and a more
professional approach. It could be unedited footage –a series of stand-ups and
interviews at various locations with the reporter giving her perspective and
talking to military leaders, survivors etc , followed by out-takes, where they
don’t turn the camera off, and we get exposition from various characters, and
even some “coverage” where you get some “combat camera” type footage. It writes
itself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now watch those bastards steal my idea that I already stole from War of the Worlds!

Back to Blog

It has been about three weeks since I last signed on. Many family gatherings in the last little while, so I figured I would start off 2008 with a few photos from the holidays:

This is Malak, Nesrine's little cousin. She likes to dance whenever her uncle plays a certain song on his cell phone. Yes, it is adorable.

Three generations of the women of my family.

The old man thanks Joe and George for his Christmas gift: An Elliptical trainer.

I really like this photo. The Ellards have always been a demonstrative bunch, never shy about showing affection, as you can see.

Fantastic news! George and Yinzee announced their engagement at my folks' house.

Nesrine' aunt, a devout Shia Muslim, just got back from the Hajj, and the family had a dinner in honour of her return. She had some amazing photos of the pilgrimage and was still in a bit of a daze. I guess it can be an overwhelming event and I'm not surprised that it takes a while to process the experience.

Best Wishes for 2008

What did I learn this year?

A Calgary Bar Chick will gladly forsake the chance to become a prince's consort for a bit of cash... and if it means there is a chance that Pamela Anderson will play her in a TV movie.

Pam Anderson is now 40.

How about 46-year-old red-head Eric Stolz as Prince Harry?

*****

Bob Shaye's insanity was reversible after all. And all it took was a few flopperooneys for New Line. So rejoice, rejoice, o legions of the nerdly! Here comes The Hobbit.

*****

God and Science do not have to be at odds. Actually, I already knew that, but it is nice to read something intelligent that reinforces that notion!

*****

There is someone in Canada who writes about military affairs and actually seems to know what he is talking about --unlike 99% of the columnists out there.

And his name is not Scott Taylor, it is David Pugliese.

*****

Good news from Iraq may mean good news for us in Afghanistan ... and wouldn't it just piss some people right off to have the U.S. pick up the slack where NATO appears to have dropped it?

*****

Dana Perino is not that bright. Not that bright at all.

*****

And finally, life is tough for Osgood Hall crybabies. Why, oh why, won't anyone let them respond?
Damn those meanies at Macleans! Boo! They are so, like, oppresive, man!

Seriously, this face-off between Macleans magazine and the 4 law students is tiresome, and my wish for 2008 is that it be resolved quickly and utterly in favour of the magazine. The idea that the fundamental principle of free-speech could be challenged before a human rights commission is a startling enough notion, but the idea that these lawyers-in training only resorted to this measure because they were thwarted in their efforts to engage in a debate on the issue is ludicrous. Ali Eteraz, a lawyer whose progressive bonafides are beyond doubt, dismisses this notion completely:

“Thanks for your input, now what is left for you to do is to please show me the opening to this elusive gateway to public debate. Myself and thousands of Muslims would love to get a chance at engaging in this debate. This is the essence of the claim.

Please let us debate, please let us be heard, I urge and will even go as far to beg of you to help me express myself on an equal footing with these Islamophobes. You provide me a vehicle for debate I will gladly take that anytime of the year over a human rights complaint. What don’t you understand, we encourage debate, where is it? Please guide me to the forum!”

With all due respect, this is the saddest and most pathetic thing I have ever heard.

“Please let us be heard?”

“Provide me a vehicle for debate?”

Is something wrong with you?

1 -Did you call Mark Steyn’s agent and try and set up a public debate? I bet he’d love a go; the right wing pundits do.

2 - Did you contact opposition publications to Macleans and publish stuff there? I bet they’d love a go to make Macleans look bad.

3 - Did you try and raise funds to start a new liberal magazine so you can respond to people like Mark Steyn?

4 - Did you contact the writer of Little Mosque on the Prairie, who is quite sympathetic to the CIC, and ask her to make a snide reference to the demographics issue that Steyn raises?

5 - Did you call Tarek Fateh, who and his associates seemingly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER getting published works critical of Steyn?

6 - Did you even think about taking me up on my offer to get you guys published in the Guardian?

7 - Did you try and contact Anar Ali, the short story writer, to use her influence to write a rebuttal?

8 - Did you try to contact Irshad Manji — who last year wrote a piece damning all those who seek to stifle immigration — to help use her influence in challenging Steyn?

9 - Did you try to contact an agent for yourself or your other equally inept legal friends so that you might write an anti-Steyn?

I’m sorry if this sounds too much like a generalization, but I’ve dealt with individuals propounding the same kind of rhetoric you are — willful victimization, complete ignorance of how the world works, wallowing in self pity — and they often love to attach themselves to Western Muslim communities after 9/11 and drag them down. I’m sure you’ve got a few Muslim enablers as well. The individuals I am describing often tended to be highly educated, driven by some kind of parochial original sin which motivates them to teach utter and total despair to the community they attach themselves to, so that they may then save said community, and feel good about themselves.

I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into “humanitarians!” in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as “defenders of the weak.” To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).

Again, like I said, the statement of yours that I just quoted, is one of the saddest things I’ve read; quite helpless in fact. I never respond at this length in the comments, and felt compelled to do so, because you are just so far gone its tragic.

Read the whole thread to get the picture!

*****

That's all I got for this year. Hope to blog alot more in 2008. If not for you, whoever you are, then for me, because it's fun to put my nonsense out there.