The Pigs of Politics

How long do we sit and take this? How much do we put up with before we wake up and realize that we don't need to be treated as fools?

Over the past week, various political parties in Canada have been planning nothing short of a political coup. By using the economy as a smokescreen, NDP leader Jack Layton has been making backroom deals with the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and Liberal Party.

From the CBC:

The NDP and Liberals have reached a deal to topple the minority Conservative government and take power themselves in a coalition, CBC News has learned.

A deal has been negotiated between NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion that would see them form a coalition government for two and a half years, the CBC's Keith Boag reported, citing sources.

Layton: The Loser
The report goes on to say that Liberal leader Stephane Dion believes he has the right to be the prime minister. Though the Bloc Quebecois wouldn't get any cabinet seats, a CTV report said tonight that the Bloc would have "influence" in the new government.

More from the Canadian Press:

A budding coalition between New Democrats, the separatist Bloc Quebecois and Liberals is an exercise in nation building, NDP Leader Jack Layton told his caucus in a conference call covertly recorded by the government.

Layton's national unity musings were secretly recorded Saturday by the Conservatives. They held the tape for a day and then had an official from the Prime Minister's Office deliver it to various media on Sunday.

"The 'Coalition for Canada,' I love the idea - (but it) could be a deal-breaker for the Bloc," Layton is heard saying to laughter.

"'The Coalition for Canada and Quebec?"' he adds, to more laughter.

Yes, very funny. Two parties that lost by a landslide are yucking it up at sharing power with a Bloc party which exists solely to separate from Canada. Laughter all around. News for you, Jack: no need for nation building. There's already a nation called "Canada." It held an election in October. You lost.

Remember what their supposed reasons are for this coup: they want a "stimulus package" from the Conservatives, and the Conservatives can't give them one to their liking. The Conservatives also wanted to cut off the $30 million of taxpayer money that is paid to political party campaigns each year.

Well, that just won't do. Better to plan an overthrow of the government then to foot your own party bills. No taxpayer money? No confidence vote.

More from Layton:

"What we really want is just to get Harper out and get this new group in because it's going to be a hell of a lot better for everything we believe in. Correct? Correct!"

And he warned his caucus not to be defensive because the coalition represents the majority of Canadian voters.

"You can see where Harper's going here," said Layton.

"He's going to say its the socialists and the separatists and the opportunists getting together. Those are their talking points and so we just need to push back."

Actually, Jack, how is that last bit incorrect? The socialists, the separatists and the opportunists are getting together. That's the whole point of your backroom deals.

He might think every Canadian is a fool, but I'm not one of them. Jack Layton, pig of a politician, is as transparent as cellophane. His hunger for power and the money trough outweighs any party loyalty or vision. Six weeks ago, his party won only 37 seats in the national election. 6 weeks later and he is suddenly King maker. How the time does fly.

Will no one stand up to this demagogue? This petty little pantywaist of a bureaucrat?

Dion: "I failed."
I wish I knew the exact moment that we as Canadians became so beholden to losers? That's what Jack Layton is: a loser. Out of the 4 major political parties in the country, his came in 13 votes behind the Bloc Quebecois, a party that wishes it didn't belong to Canada.

This fiasco is not the fault of any budget crisis, or a Conservative "stimulus package." It is about a man who lost an election in a massive landslide, and now sees a great opportunity to prey off his fellow Canadians' fears. He's drumming up fear of the economy in order to overthrow an elected government and steal political power. Our votes meant nothing to him. Nothing. He is a small-time hood, an extra in the Sopranos, a dictator in sheep's clothing. If you disagree, then tell me who else but a wanna-be dictator loses an election, ignores the people's votes, and immediately schemes to take power by other means?

And what about his henchman, Stephane Dion? Five weeks ago the word was he would have to step down as Liberal leader. He himself said he had "failed" and would step down next year. He led his party to its worst election returns in 141 years. Now he feels he is entitled to be the prime minister. He is a shameful politician, another loser on parade. He deserves ridicule and disrespect.

Are we idiots? These pigs seem to think so. So do the press, who mention this coup for five minutes and then move on to the weather.

Don't let them prove we're fools. Our voice matters, no matter what they say when they think we can't hear them.

Photos: CBC

And Now, A Word From Our Egos

With all of the doom and gloom coming from the media experts, sometimes it's good to remember that they aren't omnipotent gods. They're real people...and real babies.

Warning: a lot of foul language from our oh-so-calm-under-pressure professionals.

Collapsing Under The Kool-Aid

Peggy Noonan proved herself to be a phony during the US presidential campaign. Now she also proves to be an expert at chugging Kool-Aid:

The hundred days are happening now. That's the real headline on President-elect Obama's series of news conferences and his announcements of intended administration policy, such as an economic stimulus package. We don't really have to wait till after the inauguration on Jan. 20 for the new administration to begin. What the Obama transition has become is historically unprecedented. He is filling the vacuum created by a collapsed incumbency and an acute economic crisis.

She then goes on to sip some more juice and praise Obama for his "preternatural steadiness." Right. Still, not a surprise. A lot of conservative writers have been busy penning Obama love letters over the past couple of months. Job security, I suppose.

Yes, yes, I know I go on about this "office of the president-elect" stuff, but politicians bother me when they wear their hunger for power on their sleeves. If McCain had been elected and pulled this arrogant garbage, I would be shelling him with the same gusto.

Noonan naturally thinks this new precedent of taking office before taking office is a good thing. Times are tough and all. They weren't tough during any other presidential transition, just this one. The economy's in bad shape. The sky is falling.

"Precedent" is a word I've been thinking about, too. Politicians and the media have not slapped Mr. Obama's hand for getting too far ahead of himself, so his posturing will undoubtedly establish a new tradition: president-elects will begin mouthing off the second they're elected, turning the White House's statements into mixed signals of static for two whole months. This cannot be a good precedent to set.

Noonan's comment of a "collapsed incumbency" is ridiculous. Was the President of the United States impeached sometime in the last five minutes? The incumbency has not collapsed. Mr. Bush was elected by the American people to serve four years. Though he is constantly called an "unpopular" president, it doesn't matter. Voters asked him to serve for four years, and serve for four years he shall. End of story.

In another four years, should Mr. Obama lose the 2012 election, what wlll be the excuse then? A war somewhere? A bankrupt liquor store? A hangnail?

This usurption of the presidential bullhorn isn't just low class, it's dangerous and should be considered illegal. The president-elect has absolutely no constitutional standing to speak for the executive branch on any subject whatsoever.

But, hey, times are tough. So just this once...

My Best Friend's Girl - Review

Director: Howard Deutch
Writer: Jordan Cahan
Starring: Dane Cook/Kate Hudson
Runtime: 1 hr 43 minutes

I heard that Dane Cook, star of the film, hated the movie poster and ridiculed the people that put it together. I can see why. The movie poster would lead you to believe that this a fluff romantic comedy, fun for anyone over the age of 12.

Wrong. Be warned: this is not a romantic comedy in the usual boring and overdone "Rom-Com" vein. I don't think for a second that the writer or director thought it was going to be one, no matter what the poster says. I guess the marketing people thought the posters would bring in a wider audience, but it does the film a disservice. It's an R-rated picture about sex and relationships, not a puff piece about kids that meet at the mall.

This movie is crude and vulgar. It's extremely over-the-top ugly in some scenes, and uncomfortably lewd in many others. Some people will be shocked by it, others will find it disgusting, all for good reason.

The movie also happens to be hilarious.

The set-up is simple. Tank (Dane Cook) works as a relationship expert. If a guy has recently been dumped by a girl, Tank will take the girl out on a date to show her what real jerks men are. He treats them like garbage, swears incesantly, talks dirty, and asks for sex before he's even opened the restaurant door. Once a woman has had a date with him, she can't wait to get out of the dating scene and back to the nice guy she dumped. Call the film A Vulgar Version of Hitch and you've got the idea.

You have to understand what Tank's version of a "bad date" is. It includes dirty jokes about mothers, dirty jokes about sex, taking girls to disgusting restaurants, vomiting, strip clubs, you name it.

The movie doesn't surprise you with any of this. The very first scene lasts about two minutes, and it shows you what you're in for. People that complain about the vulgarity of this movie will get no pity from me. The writer and director instantly tell the audience, "Leave now or hold your peace."

As the title implies, Tank gets into trouble when his best friend Dustin (Jason Biggs) asks him to help him out. Dustin is in love with a co-worker named Alexis (Kate Hudson), but she sees him as a friend and nothing more. Reluctantly, Tank agrees to work his magic. Let the games begin.

The movie is perfectly cast. Dane Cook is very funny. He's a stand-up comedian by trade, so he can tell a joke. His delivery is perfect. Kate Hudson is good as usual, and I was struck again at how charismatic she is. No matter what she's doing, the lens digs her. Jason Biggs is good as the straight man. I haven't seen him around much lately, so hopefully he'll be doing more pictures.

Alec Baldwin is in the film, too. He's showing up as second fiddle in a lot of movies these days. No more leading film roles for him. I'm not sure if it's because of his political activism or if people think he's past it, but it's a shame. He is a damn fine actor. In this movie he plays a sexist pig, and let it be said straight off that no one can play a sexist pig better than Alec Baldwin. That isn't a negative comment. He just has the voice and smart ass sound to make any crude joke sound like great drama. If he yelled the phone book, you'd be riveted or laugh out loud depending on how he wanted you to feel.

If I sound like I'm singing this movie's praises too much, it's because it made me laugh. A lot. Though the script is actually quite well put together, I couldn't really have cared less about the plot. I'm not sure how much of the joke material was in the script, but screenwriter Jordan Cahan deserves kudos. He's a funny writer. He managed to blend in some poignant moments for the ladies, but for the most part his film is a gutsy, over-the-top comedy and it works. The director moves it along at a fast clip, and it doesn't get tired and old. He also used an excellent music soundtrack.

If you don't mind gutter humour once in a while and need a belly laugh, see this movie.

Parliament of Cynics, Public of Suckers

This story is for everyone who likes a parliamentary system, and especially the boneheads that say a minority government parliamentary system is the way to go.

Sensing weakness in Prime Minister Harper over the economy, the Liberal and NDP parties are in talks to build a coalition. Next week, Harper's Conservative party has to present an economic update. If it receives a no-confidence vote, Harper would have to dissolve Parliament and call another election only six weeks after the last one.

It gets better. Under the wacky, pothead rules of the Canadian parliamentary system, the Governor-General could simply hand power to a leader of another party. Since both the Libs and the NDP got trounced in October's election, obviously she can't hand power to one of them. But if they have a cool sounding coalition, maybe she'll go for it. This is why the Libs and NDP are trying to virtually form a new party over night. These cynical losers can't agree on anything and ran for separate parties, but suddenly they're best friends.

Fun, huh? If you thought politicians around the world didn't see this "global financial crisis" as a good thing, you were drunk. Now they can tax you to death, spend what they want, and steal more and more political power.

Canada's system is especially a joke. The Governor-General is an unelected official. She should have absolutely no business deciding who runs the country. In fact, she shouldn't even be in the Parliament building. She should turn in her limo and expense account, then go out and get a job. (In case you're wondering where the Governor-General is right now, she's visiting Europe, but has made plans to come to Ottawa if needed. Nice of her. Hope she's having a great time).

Campaigns, elections, and votes don't mean a thing in Canada. Nada. Squat. The entire political process in this country is a charade, and the system needs an overhaul from the top down.

More on Der Untergang

Here's a bit from Ron Rosenbaum. It's from an article about the myth of Hitler's "one testicle." I'm with Rosenbaum: there's no substantial proof that Hitler lost a testicle in WWI, and even if he had, it didn't make Hitler who he was.

However, Rosenbaum and I disagree on the movie Downfall (Der Untergang) which I reviewed a while back. Rosenbaum:

This has always been my problem with films like the German-made Downfall, which while initially being taken seriously by many, many film critics has found its true level as a YouTube camp joke. Downfall purports to offer the "inside story" of the last days of Hitler in his Berlin bunker and implicitly makes the case that the Holocaust wasn't the fault of the German people—no, they were victims, too!—but rather of one man, Hitler, and the small coterie of madmen and evil women surrounding him. Nothing to do with Germany's eager reception of exterminationist anti-Semitism.

I disagree with that. It's been a couple of years since the film came out, and I wonder if Rosenbaum's seen it recently or if he's going by old memories. That line about Downfall "initially" being taken seriously speaks volumes. This means the film got to critics, and was panned later only after they were spun by others.

There is no doubt that some German books, movies, and people-at-large play down German citizens' responsibility for the Holocaust. Fact is, the majority of Germans during the 1930s and WWII had absolutely no problem with the Nazis' answer to the "Jewish question." Some brave German writers face this reality. Some do not.

Der Untergang doesn't really go one way or the other. It does not blame regular German folk, but neither does it let them off the hook. The reason? The movie doesn't touch upon the subject at all. Hitler says a couple of lines to Speer about being proud of destroying Jewry in Europe, and that's that.

You can take that how you will. Rosenbaum takes it this way: "[Downfall] implicitly makes the case that the Holocaust wasn't the fault of the German people..."

Sorry. I don't buy it. You may think that's what the movie was doing, but there's no way you can say it was making a case for it.

Here's the thing: if a Hitler film doesn't mention that the Holocaust was the fault of the entire German nation, then it is hammered as being soft on Germans. Unfortunately, satisfying the "hard" requirement means playing games with the historical record.

In Downfall, Jews aren't a matter of much discussion. From everything I've read, this is historically accurate. The bunker was not a cesspool of people raving around the clock against Jews. It was a hole in the ground where people saw the end coming, worried about their own skins, and tried all kinds of tricks to get Hitler to grant them passes so they could make a run for it. Others that revered Hitler declared they wanted to stay with him to the bitter end, though most of those eventually scrammed. Albert Speer spent his time in the bunker trying to convince the Fuhrer not to order the self-destruction of Germany. Not to save Jews - what did he care? - but to save Germans from starvation and death once the war was over. Hitler disagreed, saying Germany deserved to burn because the German people had turned out to be weak. Then Speer hit the road.

That, to me, is evidence of a more frightening theme. Not that concentration camps weighed on people's minds in the bunker, but that they didn't consider Jews worth thinking about. No guilt, but no exaltation either. No nothing. The extermination of Jews was what is was. Big deal.

It must be remembered that up until the last day of his life, Hitler deluded himself into thinking that the war could still be won. Talk of surrender was absolutely verboten. Even after Hitler shot himself, Goebbels declined to think of surrender. Then he, too, shot himself, and still the fighting went on in the streets of Berlin.

During all of this, there simply wasn't much talk of Jews. The fact that Downfall was historically accurate should not be used against it. It's unfair to ask a film to place scenes in a movie in order to please modern day critics.

If you go back and read about the Holocaust, you will be struck by how normal Germans considered it. Boycott Jewish shops? Smash Jewish store windows? Burn synagogues? Force Jews into ghettos? Place Jews in concentration camps? Shoot Jews in the street? This went on for years, in front of, accepted, and perpetrated by the German citizenry. The orders from Nazi commanders for the dismal treatment of Jews read like dinner recipes. Dry and matter-of-fact. The "No Jews Allowed" signs at the edge of many towns was a fact of life. Again, normal.

If it's fear you're looking for, don't look into the eyes of a raving lunatic. Look at the regular joe sitting across from you in the subway and ponder what he's thinking.

It's Funny What Real Problems Do

Fairy tales seem small time when compared with bad news from the stock market.

There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada. - Windsor Star

I'm sure there's an easy explanation. Like being told for the past 20 years that the world is heating up, only to step outside and freeze your ass of from October to May. Like usual.

This is why I think the enviro-boobs changed the theme from global warming to climate change. That way if the Earth didn't heat up on cue, they could point to a hurricane or a blizzard and say, "See! See!" Doublethink is their specialty.

People have all kinds of time to listen to garbage when they have nothing else to worry about. Then they hear that the big 3 auto makers might go bust and Senator Charles Shumer's response is that people should buy green cars. You know, the expensive hybrids that the move stars buy. Great, Chuck.

Or how about Toronto, where they've decided to charge you more for every bag of garbage you put on the curb. That's not much of a hassle for a beer swilling bachelor, but it puts the kibosh on junior's new shoes if he lives with a family of six.

Or how about the latest news from glorious Toronto: a by-law is being tabled to force shops to sell plastic bags at 5 cents apiece. Toronto takes the phrase "nickle and dime them to death" straight to heart.

Then there's the Chief of the Enviro-Boobs, Al Gore. He flies around in a gas guzzling jet while telling people to turn off their lights and pay him big bucks to mouth off about polar bears. Maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to see through the hypocrisy.

Point is, "going green" only makes you go green because you're ready to barf at how expensive it all is. Going green costs money. When wallets get tight, going green doesn't seem like a great idea.

Real life is meeting the religion of Environmentalism in a head-on collision. When the dust settles, I'm guessing real life will be the winner.

Musing on Iraq's (No) News

From the AP, on a report that the US and Iraq have made a deal to have US troops out of the country in three years:

The war has claimed more than 4,200 American lives and killed a far greater, untold number of Iraqis, consumed huge reserves of money and resources and eroded the global stature of the United States, even among its closest allies.

I wonder if that last bit is true? Bush and the US stuck it out when all seemed lost. Now Iraqis are living good lives, voting in free elections, and are unafraid to speak their minds in a parliament made by the people for the people. These are the reasons you haven't seen Iraq in the news for months, and why this latest 3-year-deal isn't making headlines. Bush and Iraq never receive good press. What is good news for a president? No news. Iraq has become a bore.

We take it for granted that the stature of the United States has eroded because of this war. It's repeated endlessly, like a mantra. It's burned into our brains. "Bush failed. Iraq was a disaster. The global reputation of the US is in tatters."

I'm not so sure. If anything, Iraq has proved that the United States will not cut and run. It showed America's enemies that it will attack, stand, and fight.

That has to mean something positive to somebody. Vietnam gave the US a reputation of not seeing things through, not going for the throat, and of leaving people in the lurch when times got tough. The first Iraq war only confirmed it. That reputation has now been erased. Whether two, five, or twenty years from now, if a country needs US support but questions America's stomach, a president can point to Iraq and say, "We didn't leave them. We won't leave you."

In terms of stature, that has to carry some weight. Doesn't it?

Diversity Can Kill You

I don't put much past college kids. When I was in university, I was an incredibly diligent scholar, caught up with dreams of loosening bra strap, attending free keggers, and toilet papering the quad on Friday nights.

Jimmy Buffett's song Pencil Thin Mustache has a great line:

They send you off to college
To try and gain a little knowledge
When all you want to do
Is learn how to score.

That's about right. So yes, like most students, I was a goof. But at least I knew I was a goof. When railing against oppression and declaring parliament a group of fascists, I knew I wasn't going to do anything more about it other than have a deep heartfelt talk with the blonde at the bar about how Camus could show us the way to enlightenment...through her dorm room.

Even back then, students were always so serious. The end of the world was always nigh, even when people were high. Everything mattered. Everything deserved a champion and a cause label. Everything, that is, except straight white guys.

That line of thinking has now been taken to its logical conclusion by the students of Carlton University in Ottawa. From the National Post:

The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough.

Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men" said the motion read Monday night to student councillors, who voted almost unanimously in favour of it.

Well. Just how stupid are the students of Carlton University?

Pretty stupid. I'm guessing that some bubble-headed sophomore saw the word "Caucasian" when Googling CF, and decided that white guys didn't deserve to be saved from lung failure. Unfortunately, Caucasian and white are not the same thing. The Post:

[CF] is commonly considered an illness that affects Caucasians, but that includes people from the Middle East, South America, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

Shinerama has been going on for decades. I remember it from when I was in school in the mid '90s. I don't remember asking what CF was, I just knew that anything with cystic in it had to be bad. I couldn't have cared less if the disease affected whites, blacks, or people with polka-dots. It was a disease and people needed help. So sure, for a day I could put down the Old Milwaukee and give some time for the cause. This mostly involved hanging out with the girls that were really into it. Then, back to the blessed life I had. Truth be told, I don't remember much about Shinerama except getting a t-shirt with a big footprint symbol on it and being told a couple of weeks later that a bunch of money had been raised. Cool.

I cannot imagine ever saying back then that someone didn't deserve help because of their skin color or their gender. That's genocide in reverse. I can't imagine anyone saying it back when I was in school.

But I can imagine it now. And these agents of diversity frighten me a little bit more every day.

Notice that the Carlton student councillors voted almost unanimously for the motion of stopping aid for people because of their skin colour. "Student councillors." IE, busybodies and politicians in training. Our future leaders. God help us.

The only thing that makes me rest a little easier is that Carlton was never known as a home for MENSA candidates. It was always last on the list for people going to university. Last Chance U. Let's hope it's still got that rep, and it stays that way for a long, long time.

Happy Thanksgiving

Here's what I had to say about Canadian Thanksgiving last year. I think it works just as well for our American cousins who are celebrating their own Thanksgiving this weekend.

Today is Thanksgiving in Canada, which is a good thing for hard working Canucks. It's a day off to sit around and do zip. It also means I won't have to hear "Happy Turkey Day!" for another year. Likewise, "Gobble-gobble!" from supposed adults. More...

Will He Be Worth It?

It's simply coincidence that I'm doing doing two dog posts in a row, but this story caught my eye.

The other I day heard pundits on a halftime show saying that Michael Vick will end up with the Dallas Cowboys next year. Vick's due to be released from prison in July, 2009, after a stint for dogfighting charges.

Yesterday, more bad news about Vick. From The Smoking Gun:

In the most disturbing account yet of Michael Vick's dogfighting operation, a federal investigative report details how the disgraced athlete killed pit bulls by hanging them from a nylon cord nailed to a tree and drowned others in a five gallon bucket of water.

Apparently Vick lied about killing dogs, saying he had only watched it happen. But then he flunked a polygraph and had to come clean with the FBI.

Will any football team think this guy's worth having around, whether for moral or PR reasons? The signs in the stands, the booing and jeers, and the negative interviews are going to be intense, with good reason.

Photo: AP

Man's Best Friend

Here's a clip that's getting passed around. It's a soldier returning home from Iraq after 14 months.

It reminds me of The Odyssey. When Odysseus came home after more than 20 years at sea, the only one who recognized him was his dog Argos. After seeing him, the faithful old dog wagged his tail, then laid down and died.

The soldier who posted this says it was pre-arranged, but it's still cool.

The Bear's Back

When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."

That's from an article I found on Drudge, quoting a Russian analyst. When I got to the "who's going to rule the world" question, I literally said, "Yeah, take a guess," and then I read the word "Russia," and smiled.

"The role of regulator." Sure. More like Master of the Universe.

With the Russians, it's always the same. Meddling, scheming, and hungry for power.

This particular analyst believes the United States is collapsing and will split into 6 different countries, separated along racial and political lines. One of the new countries will be found in the northern states where he says "the influence from Canada is strong."

Good one. A strong Canadian influence in the northern United States? Russians are hilarious.

The analyst goes on to say that the Russians could reclaim Alaska, saying that the state was only granted on a lease.

If this kind of talk doesn't sound familiar, it should. The Russians were always good at this stuff. In fact, a lot of what Russia is doing these days should ring bells.

From the AP:

Russian warships arrived off Venezuela's coast Tuesday in a show of strength aimed at the United States as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America.

Maybe I'm just an old Cold Warrior, but I never believed a word of that perestroika stuff, at least as it was applied to politics. Even in high school I knew they were full of it. That Gorbachev-the-hero-of-freedom garbage is just that: trash. He just happened to be around when the house fell in. If the USSR's economy hadn't imploded, the Berlin Wall would still be standing.

The USSR engaged in more "freedoms" during the 1980s not because they thought democracy was a desirable goal, but because they were going broke. Though remembered as political themes today, perestroika and glasnost were economic terms, and had nothing to do with freedom of speech or free elections. Those came later, and were a byproduct of the crippled bear trying to get back on its feet. Didn't work.

It cannot be stressed enough that Russian heavies do not trust democracy. Why would they? They have no tradition of it. Before almost a century of Communist rule, they lived under a monarchy. To any Russian over the age of 35, voting is still weird. To any former KGB agent (like, say, Vladimir Putin) it's downright scary. Let the peasants run the country? You must be nuts.

Now, take all of that and blend it with the knowledge that before 1989, every Russian was taught that the Americans were an evil people, and that their decadent capitalist ways were shameful and needed to be eradicated. What do you get? A "liberal" like Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. From CBS:

Appearances can be deceiving. Six months ago, when Dmitry Medvedev was inaugurated as Russia’s new president, many hoped there would be a thaw in U.S.-Russia relations.

The soft-spoken lawyer has never worked for the KGB. His reputation as a liberal seemed to contrast sharply with his predecessor, Vladimir Putin.

Yes, it did. And it didn't matter. He's an old school Russian. He was raised on anti-Western borscht.

Russia's bigshots have given their psuedo-democracy a ride for almost twenty years and guess what? They don't like it. Further to that, they'd love to see the USA and her allies on their knees. Payback's a bitch.

The CBS report goes on:

Putin had a reputation for being tough, but it was under Medvedev that Russia used excessive force against Georgia, occupying part of its territory and crushing its military. Medvedev then defied world opinion by accusing the United States of instigating the war and by recognizing the independence of Georgia's two separatist regions.

The Cold War rhetoric continued with the Kremlin blaming the United States for the global financial crisis.

"Russia has warned many times of the potentially negative situation that had built up in the American financial system, and that has now transformed into a full-scale international financial crisis," Medvedev said.

Hey, hey. There's the Russia I remember. Swallowing European states, sending in the tanks and blaming the US for it, then bashing American capitalism as an evil system destined for failure.

Good to see you, old buddy. How was your hibernation?

Steyn Wars - A Peace Treaty Drafted (And Rejected)

Earlier this year, the CHRC asked Professor Richard Moon to take a look at Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's the section that says you can't write or say anything over the internet that might expose identifiable groups (whoever they are) to hatred or contempt (whatever that is).

If you need some backstory on Steyn Wars, you can read a re-cap here. Long story short, Steyn quoted a Muslim that said something bad about Muslims, so a couple of other Muslims wanted him to shut up or, barring that, they wanted Maclean's magazine to let them write a cover story refuting Steyn (and the Muslim guy, I guess), which Maclean's would have to print artwork and all. For a while, it looked like the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, and Canada might back them up on this, but the CHRC decided to hedge and asked some dude named Professor Moon to tell them whether they could prosecute hate crimes or not. So Steyn was accused of being a bigot, but it was never clear if he was even allowed to be accused of being a bigot.

Get it? Me either. Welcome to Canada. It's been 7 years since the internet hate crime rule went into the books, and only now does the Canadian Human Rights Commission even ask if they're allowed to prosecute internet hate crimes.

Anyway, Professor Moon has decided that hate speech is bad, but censorship is bad too. Quite a pickle. Says Moon:

We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes the members of an identifiable group and to hold institutions such as the media accountable when they engage in these forms of discriminatory expression.

Well, allow me to throw a can of Chock Full O' Hate Crime right through that window. Again, we come back to the old argument: define discriminatory expression.

He can't do it. No one can do it. The best Moon can do (and it's a pretty good argument) is say that hate speech advocating physical violence should be punished, as this is a much more narrow test than punishing hate speech that hurts someone's "dignity."

I can get into that, and frankly I have to because the Canadian Criminal Code already covers it. But still, he's keen to see the good side of Section 13, and gives a nice atta-boy to the CHRC: The few section 13 cases sent to Tribunal and in which the Tribunal has found a breach of the section have almost all involved expression that is so extreme and hateful that it may be seen as advocating or justifying violence against the members of an identifiable group.

Doc, you should have quit while you were ahead. Notice the key words: "almost" and "most" and "may."

That doesn't wash with me. Either something urges violence or it doesn't. "I wish art didn't exist," is one thing, "Kill all artists," is quite another. Would "I wish art didn't exist" imply killing artists? Depends who you ask.

In the end, Moon does grow a pair, if only for a moment. After despairing about how and why to shut people up, he comes out with a doozy: 1. The first recommendation is that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.

That must have really curled their hair up in Ottawa. Surely they must have thought that a guy with a PhD would fall on the left side of the aisle. Doc, don't you know how many bureaucrats you'll put out of work with talk like this?

Still, he goes on. He can't help it. There's just something about regulations that appeals to people who are used to thinking that regular folks need to be kept in line. Here's the bit that should scare any so-called journalist in the nation:

Newspapers and news magazines should seek to revitalize the provincial/regional press councils and ensure that identifiable groups are able to pursue complaints if they feel they have been unfairly represented in mainstream media.

If this does not happen, consideration should be given to the statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership. This national press council would have the authority to determine whether a newspaper or magazine has breached professional standards and order the publication of the press council’s decision.

A newspaper is not simply a private participant in public discourse; it is an important part of the public sphere where discussions about the affairs of the community takes place. As such it carries a responsibility to portray the different groups that make up the Canadian community fairly and without discrimination.

Whoa. That's quite a broadside against a free press. Let's take it one by one:

1) [E]nsure that identifiable groups are able to pursue complaints. Define "identifiable groups," and tell me where they would file their complaints. Also tell me what remedies we're talking about. I have a funny feeling it would involve cash.

2) [W]hether a newspaper or magazine has breached professional standards and order the publication of the press council’s decision. Who decides the "professional standard," and since when should a council order a private paper to print anything? This sounds like a wonderful way for the big boys to knock a small magazine out of business.

3) A newspaper is not simply a private participant in public discourse. Depends where they get their money, pal.

4) As such it carries a responsibility to portray the different groups that make up the Canadian community fairly and without discrimination. Get bent. They have a responsibility to make money and sell papers. Period. And one more time, tell me who the "different groups" are and how me and my beer buddies can get a membership card. We'll need one for when we're treated unfairly.

Moon's peace treaty isn't bad. If he had stopped typing after saying that Section 13 should be scrapped, I would have been on board. But the second he remembered who he is (and who he's working for) I got off the train. Telling papers what to print, and who to write stories about, is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Get back to me after the re-write.

The Katrina Lie

Another day, another reference to Hurricane Katrina. Here's Howard Kurtz, defender of all things Big Media:

In merchandising terms, [White House Press Secretary] Perino hasn't had an easy product to sell since taking over the podium in the summer of 2007. Bush's popularity sank below 30 percent and stayed there as the public blamed him for the intractable war in Iraq and the botched response to Hurricane Katrina, among other failings. During the Wall Street meltdown, he was denounced for the lax regulation that helped fuel the market crisis.

The only people that even remember Hurricane Katrina today are liberal writers. It's just another arrow in an a very slim arsenal: Iraq, Katrina, and the economy. If the Wall Street collapse (aided and abetted by a Democratic Congress) hadn't come around this year, they'd be stuck sucking on an Iraq War going splendidly well and a three-year-old rainstorm.

Don't get me wrong. Bush and Republicans deserve blame for several screw ups. But as I wrote before, the "Katrina Effect" is a lie.

Gee, How'd They Do That?

From the Independent:

The disclaimer came after two senior MPs called on the British government to say whether or not it had been made aware in advance of the attack plan. Andrew Dismore, Labour chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, said: "We can investigate whether British security services had involvement in providing intelligence concerning British nationals in Pakistan." The former shadow security minister Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark, said: "This raises the question of how much co-operation the British intelligence agencies provided in ... the execution of a British subject."

A British teacher on sabbatical, gunned down in cold blood?

A mother of five on tour with her husband, blown up while eating local cuisine?

An innocent backpacker, killed while reading a copy of Lonely Planet?

Nope. Turns out the "British subject" was the UK's most wanted terrorist.

Hopefully the British government can shed light on this dastardly deed so it never happens again. According to the report, UK officials categorically deny any British involvement and say it was - cue Lon Cheney music - "unilateral action" by the US.

Not quite. Give the Pakistanis some credit, as they told the US where to look.

Sorry British guys, three's a crowd. You had your shot before you let the guy escape from Britain. If you're dumbfounded how the US finds your most wanted men, that's your problem. Just say thank you, move on, and ask your Human Rights guru to file a complaint at the UN.

Quantum of Solace - Review

Director: Marc Forster
Writers: Purvis/Wade/Haggis
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench
Runtime: 1 hr, 45 minutes

I watched some episodes of American Idol last year. My favorite critique of Simon Cowell's: "You did a good job with that song, but it was forgettable." That is excellent, excellent criticism. Don't fight to be good; fight to be remembered.

This is Quantum of Solace's problem. It is not great, not bad, not anything. It's forgettable. It's a generic action picture that happens to have a character named James Bond. He uses the line, "Who do you work for?" more than once, without a hint of embarrassment. The line has been used so often in spy stories that Austin Powers made a joke out of it. That was a decade ago. If you think that's bad, Quantum of Solace even has this fresh and original dialogue: "You're suspended until further notice." Quantum of Solace's hero could have been named John Smith and it wouldn't have made a difference.

The Quantum story picks up where Casino Royale left off. Bond's girlfriend has just died and he is out for blood. Following the so-so opening theme song, Bond chases people, fights, chases people, fights, and finally stumbles upon the arch villain of the movie. The man's name is Dominic Greene. As his name suggests, he is a pitchman for green environmental projects. His latest scheme is a bid to stop the deforestation of Bolivia.

It's only later that we find out that Greene is truly deranged. Not only does he kill people, but he's lying about saving the planet. He couldn't care less about the water table of Bolivia. Even worse, he's in bed with the most vicious, evil entity on earth: the United States of America and the CIA. The lead CIA man in the film is a chuckling boob, and is more than happy to have a go at killing an MI6 agent. During discussions about how twisted the CIA and US government are we're treated to a few helpings of, "Americans will do anything for oil."

Good grief. Is this the best they could do, a bad guy from the op-ed page of the New York Times? Paul Haggis helped with the script so I'm not surprised it went down this road, but I thought they'd have something else to level it off. Nope.

The movie is literally a Bourne rip-off, with very little "Bond" in it. The one or two cheesy one-liners sound flat and aren't funny this time around. Connery and Brosnan's delivery was far better. Hell, so was Daniel Craig's in the last movie. But that was the last movie.

The fight and chase sequences are cut way, way, way too fast for a Bond film, and could easily have been taken from Bourne outtakes because you can never focus long enough to see if Daniel Craig or Matt Damon is driving the car. The one five-second sex scene in Quantum isn't sexy, and the violence is way over the top, making Bond as indestructible as a Van Damme.

Maybe they were going for a younger crowd. Maybe they had such good luck with the "dark side" of Bond in Casino Royale that they forgot who Bond is. We want to like him and be like him, not just watch him wreck stuff and see him get punched in the face over and over again.

Quantum of Solace has turned James Bond into regular action fare, removing all of his charm and killing his humour. When he drinks a martini, he drinks to get drunk and forget his sorrowful past. When he kisses a woman good-bye, it's a quick peck on the lips. This is Bond? James Bond? Even the Bond theme takes a backseat, as it is only used at full volume during the closing credits. In the film, the theme is replaced by a lame action movie beat. (This is probably a cheap shot, but I even have a problem with the movie's posters: since when does Bond walk side by side with a girl, looking dirty and morose? Where's the tux? The smirk? The confidence? Or in the other poster, since when does Bond carry a howitzer instead of his slick pistol? Is he compensating for something since his girlfriend died?)

Though this movie is an early hit, I think it's riding on the reputation gained from the last outing. Another one or two like Quantum of Solace and they could sink the franchise.

Cowell's pragmatic criticism fits this film perfectly: forgettable.

Killer Regulations

Better people should die than receive help from that dirty thing called religion. What else can be the point of this regulation?

From CBS:

City officials have ordered 22 New York churches to stop providing beds to homeless people.

With temperatures well below freezing early Saturday, the churches must obey a city rule requiring faith-based shelters to be open at least five days a week -- or not at all.

Arnold Cohen, president of the Partnership for the Homeless, a nonprofit that serves as a link with the city, said he had to tell the churches they no longer qualify.

He said hundreds of people now won't have a place to sleep.

Shake This, Sanchez (II)

A CNN reporter has to correct CNN's bonehead Rick Sanchez.

The Warm War

One thing that's been missing from most political story lines this year is Latin America. Early in 2008 all I'd hear about is Iraq and Afghanistan. Then it was presidential politics. Finally it was the economy, which looks to be the story that will take us into 2025. Problem: nobody's been talking about Latin America's renewed love affair with Russia.

During the US presidential election this relationship was never discussed. I thought both Obama and McCain were utter fools not to see Latin America as worth mentioning. Whenever they were asked about Russia, they would talk about Ukraine and Georgia and I would wonder if they were blind.

Georgia is small potatoes. For most Americans, Ukraine and Georgia might as well be on the moon. Latin America is right next door and it's worth worrying about.

Either McCain and Obama were ignoring Russia's new push into Latin America, or worse, they didn't see the implications of what the Russians were doing there. Worse yet, they saw the implications but didn't take them seriously. Now one of them is set to go into the White House as the next President, and he'd better wake up.

It's a mistake to believe that Russia simply wants to gain an economic position there. Don't take my word for it. Here it is from the horse's mouth: "The current level of cooperation could be broader than in the Soviet era. Latin America has already ceased to be the United States' backyard," a Russian diplomatic source told the Russian daily Kommersant. "Now the region is following its own line, which gives Russia an opportunity to strengthen our position," said the official.

"Following its own line...Strengthen our position." That's an awfully peculiar way of saying you're just hoping to make a few bucks.

In the past couple of months, Russia has delivered weapons to Venezuela and will conduct joint military exercises in the region next week. They're also set to meet with Cuban and Peruvian leaders at the end of the month. If this had happened twenty-five years ago, it would be perceived as an act of extreme aggression against the US, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, Western people tend to think of all things as having "beginnings" and "endings." Germans hated Jews because of Adolph Hitler; when Hitler died, Germans became nice people again. Of course Russians can't consider America an enemy - they lost the Cold War; now they're a happy member of the "international community."

Oh, really? Just because Communist Russia went bankrupt doesn't mean they were glad to get down on their knees to be proud little disciples of democracy. Far from it. When I was in St. Petersburg watching Russian military bands play Yankee Doodle Dandy, I could only imagine the rage that burned deep in the hearts of Russian generals.

The Russians have found a great opportunity. The US is distracted by the economy, Iraq, the economy, Iran, the economy, Afghanistan, the economy, and Obama's election. And the economy. Sooner or later, US leaders will look up to discover that the Russians have established a base of power just south of Florida. And then what?

Today I read a report which laughs at the next round of Russian visits to the region:

Latin America analyst Johanna Forman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, described as "ham-fisted" a trip crafted months before the November 4 election victory of a more conciliatory US president, Barack Obama.

"It's more an in-your-face approach that may not resonate when you have a new administration ... The Russians are still fighting a war with Bush," she said.

That's an incredibly dangerous and naive way to look at a new Russian backyard: the bully's trying to intimidate Bush but - ha ha- Bush is leaving, so what a fool the bully is.

News flash: this isn't about Bush. It's about Russia. Playing Mr. Nice Guy has never cut it. If their in-your-face tactics don't resonate with Mr. Obama, so much the better for them. By the time they do resonate, it's too late.

Some time back I read a report about the Russian navy heading to the Caribbean to conduct exercises with Venezuela (the Russian ships will arrive in Venezuela next week). Another modern day Chamberlain had this to say: Jason Alderwick, naval analyst at the institute, said that the Russian warships, which set off from their base at Severomorsk, near Murmansk on the Arctic coast, were Cold War “legacy ships”, not the modern vessels deployed by Western navies with advanced communications and surveillance systems.

“This is a case of naval diplomacy rather than a demonstration of capability,” he said.

It depends on what you mean by "capable." Me, I see it is a very big demonstration of capability. The Russians aren't out to show the US that they have all of the latest gadgets. They are showing the US that they are capable of establishing a base of power in the Caribbean, and they want to see what the US will do about it. They have their answer: nothing.

Having pushed the envelope a little with news of that pleasure cruise, in September the Russians sent two Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela for another "training mission." These bombers are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. So much for relics. Venezuelan megalomaniac Hugo Chavez said, "The Yankee hegemony is finished," and indicated he wouldn't mind purchasing some Russian submarines. Not to be outdone, Brazil has expressed interest in purchasing Russian helicopters for an air force that is already the largest on the continent.

The public response from the USA? Crickets.

I've never understood why people are so voluntarily stupid. I guess it's because they're stupid. Everything the Russians have done in the past year has been another tick on their checklist. What will the USA do about A and B and C? A little further down the list is G, which stands for "good luck."

Once the Russians have armed people unfriendly to the US and its allies, established mucho political and economic ties to aggressive Latin American states, and based Russian military units on their soil, what then? Good question. You could hope that the Russians will get bored and go home, but I doubt that's the answer. Besides, it's academic: once you've armed aggressive people, they generally feel the need to try the stuff out with or without the permission of their arms dealer. Who's going to stop them? Chile?

One analyst in Peru gets it: Lima-based analyst Alejandro Deustua, of the country's Diplomatic Academy, criticised Russia's military role in South America, saying it was time for Russia to "explain plainly to each South American country what their intentions are with these military exercises."

Deustua has every right to be worried. When you're a goody-goody analyst snuggled deep in the comforting bed of Hope and Change, it's easy to laugh at Russia's "ham-fisted" attempt at turning Latin America into a sphere of influence. It's a bit different when you live in Latin America, in which case Russia's aggression doesn't appear ham-fisted at all. It looks like what it is: a threat.

Latin America's going to be in the news a lot in the coming years, whether American politicians like it or not.

Revealing News

This is probably the most revealing news story I have seen in years. Honestly.

It's Governor Sarah Palin, in an annual ceremony that many elected officials perform before Thanksgiving Day: pardoning a turkey.

At the start of the news piece, the anchor tells you to send the children out of the room, as well as anyone who might be squeamish. He says they have tried their best to "sanitize" what follows, but that you should still be wary. He asks if you're ready, then goes to tape.

The revealing part is the second half of the tape, where Palin is interviewed by a reporter. The reporter and the cameraman know full well that behind Palin, turkeys are being killed (this happens a lot before Thanksgiving; sorry, kids). Yet they do not stop the interview to seek a new spot. Back in the studio, here are the lower-thirds used by the news channel:

TURKEYS DIE AS SARAH PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS FROM NEWS MEDIA.

TURKEY KILLING FOWLS [SIC] PALIN NEWS CONFERENCE.

GOVERNOR PALIN NOT REALIZING INCONGRUITY OF HER WORDS VERSUS HER BACKDROP.

Where to begin?

Never before have I seen the true colours of Big City liberal wimps burn so brightly. This video should be played at the beginning of every journalism class, to show students just how out of touch and hypocritical they are supposed to be.

I remember a couple of years ago I was in England watching a documentary with a friend's mom. She's a lady from Norway, and she wanted to show me this doc on Norwegian soldiers during WWII. In the documentary, modern day soldiers were showing what the WWII soldiers' living conditions were like up in the mountains. In one scene, a Norwegian is cutting up a bird and he says, "Kids need to do this stuff. Where the hell do they think things in the shop come from? They don't even know where potatoes come from."

My friend's mom said, "Exactly."

Of course she's right. We are so far removed from real life that a choice of anti-bacterial soap is more important than knowing how to kill what we eat. When we're hungry, we go to the shop and buy a pork chop or a slab of bacon. It never really occurs to us that somebody has to kill the pig, gut it, clean it, chop it up, and send it market. We take that for granted.

Like the MSNBC anchorman, the majority of us are "squeamish" because we are allowed to be. We're spoiled babies. We don't have to kill or prepare our food. By the time it gets to us, all evidence of life has been removed from the plastic wrapped object in the shop window. The closest any of our kids get to blood today is when an old man at the next table is eating a medium rare steak. Even then the mommies tell the kids not to do that later in life because the USPH says everything should be cooked well done. Double-dead.

And you know what? That's fine, as far as it goes. But it's ridiculous to use real life as an insult to the governor of a state where a great many people kill, clean, and cook what they eat.

No doubt the reporter thought she had a coup with this story, rather than an amusing blooper reel, but all they managed to do was show the imbecility of the reporter and others in her profession. I have no doubt in my mind that when the Chyron operator was punching in the catchy lines to those lower-thirds, he was just back from stuffing his face with a vacuum-wrapped ham and cheese in the cafeteria.

Notice during the video that Palin looks over her shoulder and sees the slaughterhouse, then looks back to the reporter and takes another question. From the angle she has talking to the reporter, I'm not sure if she knew that the killing was in the shot, but even so she doesn't blanche, doesn't stutter, doesn't lean over and puke. She's a woman that has killed her own food. She knows that a big male turkey is called a "tom," and manages to educate Americans by telling them so. She is that quaint thing we call an "outdoor" person, as if the rest of humanity was born to be raised in a three bedroom house.

The most telling lower-third on the screen is the one about Palin's "backdrop." Backdrop, huh? You mean the world? There was a time when the chopping block was more ordinary than a telephone. Just because those days are gone doesn't mean that someone else isn't cutting off the heads of your chicken nuggets.

If you're celebrating Thanksgiving in the US this year, don't forget to give thanks to the guy over Palin's shoulder. Without him, you wouldn't be having dinner. Then think about how incongruous you are to your surroundings.

Note: one other thing about this piece was bugging me from a cameraman's point of view. There was more than enough room to move in for a close-up on Palin if he chose to. Barring that, as a cameraman, I also would have slung the headphones over the tripod handle, wandered over to the turkey man, waved him to me, and told him we needed five minutes and could he take a smoke break? This is often done without cutting an interview. You'll notice the man is looking towards the camera (people always do that) and ruining the shot. I have to believe that if he wasn't killing turkeys, the cameraman would have moved him.

Shell Game

The old Lenin line of "useful idiots" sums it up.

Obama rose to prominence on a huge anti-war platform. A large chunk of his base came from the MoveOn anti-war crowd, and I guess they believed him when he said he would begin bringing the troops home the second he got into office. Over time, the word "immediately" became "responsibly," and the phrase "bring the troops home" became "redeploy." But hey, in for a penny, in for pound so the anti-war crowd stuck with him. Then when Obama said during the debates that the real war was in Afghanistan and he would have to transfer troops in Iraq over there, they must have been really skeptical about his anti-war credentials...right?

Nope. They still loved him. And only now are they getting queazy upon discovering that when Mr. Obama says something, you'd better wait for the follow-up:

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

As luck would have it, the "surge" strategy which Mr. Obama opposed has worked. Iraq is doing well, which is why you never see it in the papers anymore. So you'd think it should be no problem for him to bring those troops home. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is sticking to the "redeployment" angle, which means these troops could stay in Iraq, go to Afghanistan, or take a trip to the moon.

This politicking is already starting to take its toll, as progressive websites begin using words like pressure, and fight (the pun is theirs). One Obama anti-war guy is especially flabbergasted at the lack of doves on Obama's shortlist:

"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.

Astonishing? Dude, where have you been?

Shake This, Sanchez

Hot Air had a video clip of George W. Bush at a G-20 summit, where he and world "leaders" didn't shake hands. CNN's Rick Sanchez sees a conspiracy that proves Bush is a jerk.

Sanchez says it might be case of "what goes around comes around" and that Bush is a bully. To prove it, he says he Googled "Bush + bully" and came up with over 2 million hits. He played the video twice and and called the moment sad, saying it reminds him of saying a kid had "cooties" back in high school.

I watched the video one time through, and I'm pretty sure Sanchez is on crack. Take a look for yourself. There is no body language of "snub." Not a single leader reaches out to Bush, and neither does Bush reach out to them. There's some kind of backstory here, either Bush saying he didn't want to shake that day, or he's got a cold, or he's got a bum hand, or something. But in the fantasy world of Rick Sanchez, it is just another episode of sad Bush getting what he deserves.

Still, let's say Sanchez 's take is true. If so, I'm on Bush's side. I'd shake his hand a lot faster than I would shake Rick Sanchez's, which would be never. Presidents are more important than reporters. I'm funny that way.

Hot Air says they Googled "Sanchez" and "idiot" and got over 500, 000 hits. Good one.

Shiver Their Timbers

There are no reliable estimates of the number of pirates operating in Somalia, but they must number in the thousands. And though the bandits do sometimes get nabbed, piracy is generally considered a sure bet to a better life.

And that line pretty much says it all.

Tonight I heard a CBC report, where a reporter talked about "non-lethal" methods of dealing with pirates. That line says it all, too.

People are getting a history lesson. Piracy isn't pretty. Never was, never will be. Pirates of the Caribbean looks great when the pirate who hijacks your ship is named Johnny Depp. It's not so great when the pirate takes you to Somalia to spend weeks and months waiting for someone to cough up a ransom.

This week's capture of a supertanker changes the game completely. When the booty a pirate captures is worth $100 million, the ransom demand will be so high that hostages could end up sitting in Somalia for over a year while people haggle. Then again, the pirates could just decide to shoot a few hostages to make a point, in which case at least the hostages don't have to wait in Somalia anymore.

We're seeing why the Royal Navy had no patience for pirates, and hanged or sank them any chance they could get. There was no talk of "non-lethal weapons" for pirates back in the day, and there shouldn't be now. There was also no jail time for pirates who were "nabbed." If you were nabbed as a pirate, you were dead as a human being.

I've got a sinking feeling about this. Someway, somehow, the UN and other fools will manage to make this a political problem and turn it into a focus group on Somalian poverty. The Sea Chart to Peace will be placed on the agenda, and the shipping lanes will become the hometown of thugs.

To think that all of the world's "powerful" nations are going to be held hostage to a bunch of goons with boats is disgusting. Nine ships have been seized in the past two weeks. The "powerful" countries best get their act together before the UN gets too involved and wants to talk.

If the countries don't take action, then the only chance to steal the initiative back is for the large export companies to hire men with boats and guns, and tell them to start sinking things. Now. Attention must also be turned to raiding Somalia's pirate towns, sinking their ships, and burning down their mansions. Turn the piracy business from a good life to an extremely horrible, guaranteed dead one.

From the CBC: In Haradhere, residents came out in droves to celebrate as the looming oil ship came into focus this week off the country's lawless coast. Businessmen started gathering cigarettes, food and cold glass bottles of orange soda, setting up small kiosks for the pirates who come to shore to re-supply almost daily.

Sounds like a great place to start shivering some timbers. Ready...aim...

More on Parker

Well, Ms. Parker's stunt worked. Some commentators have worked themselves into a lather over Parker's "Giving Up On God" piece. Jonah Goldberg is especially ticked. You can find some reaction here. It's called "The Corner" and it's a place for National Review writers to sound off about anything that's bugging them.

For Parker, the piece was a good career move. She should keep it up. MSNBC, Slate, Salon, and other outlets will be happy to have a conservative convert make guest appearances. If she proves her bona fides by penning a hardcore pro-abortion piece, she's in like Flynn.

That said, I don't know how much of money-making future there is in commenting on anything. Newspaper sales are down, and Time magazine is the latest to announced layoffs.

Blessed Are The Arrogant

Kathleen Parker is an opinion piece writer. She used to be buddy-buddy with conservatives until she started taking a lot of shots and the GOP and Sarah Palin. Now she's on the outs. You can find her latest piece here. It outlines her view that the Republican Party needs to dump religious people as their base because religion is dying. Her opening:

"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type."

Cute. But not hateful. Had she been mudslinging at anyone but Christians, then she would be a hateful person. But those Christians are such deserving little targets.

I'm not sure if I should fall into her trap of reacting too strongly. Something about Ms. Parker's writing smacks of desperation, and I have a feeling she's going to be penning a lot of publicity stunts like this from here on out. She's being shunned by conservatives, but that is no guarantee for being loved by liberals (unless Parker is pro-abortion, in which case she'll do fine; I have no idea if she is or not and can't be bothered to search for the answer).

The language in her piece is downright bigoted to a people that have a first amendment right to believe whatever they wish. Some examples:

Christians are lunatics: "So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners."

Christians are morons: "Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows."

Christians are creepy: "To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh."

Christians should shut up: "And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs."

Christians are old and ill: "Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting."

Though not a religious person, I've never fallen into the "hate religion" pit. It's bogus on its face. When people say they despise religion, they aren't talking about religion. They're talking about Christianity. I don't know how Parker wound up feeling the way she does about that faith. It would interesting to hear the explanation. In any event, she believes the problem with the Republican Party can be summed up with two words: "white and Christian."

I wonder if she gave any thought to black Christians? Or Asian Christians? Or Latino Christians? Certainly she must know they exist, as she is very fond of quoting all kinds of numbers like how many Jews voted for Barack Obama. So let me ask: if blacks and Latinos voted heavly for Obama, and their main religion is also a form of Christianity, how can Christianity be the problem for the Republican Party? If she wants to make arguments using base politics, shouldn't she be more concerned with race than religion? And why would such a bright light as Parker not see the opposite of the argument: if the Republican Party managed to bring all Christians under their umbrella, they'd win every election by a mammoth landslide.

Ah, but I forgot: Christianity is passe. Loopy. And once completely private, dead. Or so Parker would hope.

For all of her bigoted remarks (and make no mistake, they are bigoted; writing similar screeds about Jews, blacks, gays, or women, and telling them to shut up, would be received with daggers drawn), Parker's most revealing line is this: "But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way. Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party."

That's pretty heavy stuff. She's advising a political party to cut itself off from a loyal part of the population for political expediency. Her solution to GOP problems? Put the loony grandma in the attic and lock the door.

According to her, white Christians, especially evangelicals, need to be dumped. Nevermind what they have to contribute to the national dialogue, or that they may want to be heard in Congress. They're dying out anyway, so they might as well just take a seat and do it quietly.

Kathleen Parker is a strange person. Though 24-hour news may make politics seem like a meaningless game, some people still think it matters that they get to be heard. For her to declare that the winning formula for the Republican Party is to betray millions of their supporters overnight is incredible. For her to claim that Christians are becoming a minority, but that this minority should be silenced and shunned by the political system is shameful.

But not hateful. No, not that.

Bold Pirates, Typical Bureaucrats

From the Times of London, on the pirates that hijacked a ship laden with oil:

Roger Middleton, a Horn of Africa specialist at the Chatham House think-tank, said that the capture was a crucial escalation. “Now that they have shown they are able to seize an enormous ship like this, it is beyond a military solution. You won’t fix this without a political solution.”

Surprise, surprise. Someone's quickly figured out how to make a buck out of this and form another bureaucracy. And lemme guess: the UN to the rescue?

Such an announcement can only encourage pirates to hijack every ship in sight. Once you make it a political issue, then the pirates are political people, ergo they have "rights."

Being hard people, pirates know cowardice and opportunity when they see it. They'll call a politician's bluff in no time at all, and pretty soon the seven seas will be one big Palestine requiring a Sea Chart to Peace.

Hell with 'em. Break out the yardarms and the planks. It's time to get real.

Logic in the Narrative of Tolerance

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Despite the Nov. 4 vote, the decision to ban same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of our society and the future of our state. A highly charged court challenge is headed for a clarifying ruling by the state Supreme Court.

The voters' decision on Prop. 8 was a huge disappointment, as it would allow the will of the majority to discriminate against a minority. By a 52 to 48 percent margin, voters chose intolerance over equal protection under the law and inclusion.

Got it. When the minority get what they wish, it's called equal protection and tolerance. When the majority get what they wish, it's discrimination.

Oh, please, great and might Supreme Court, let us kneel before ye omnipotent oracles and receive clarity for our ignorant and evil ways...

Der Untergang - Review

Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Writer: Bernd Eichinger
Starring: Bruno Ganz
Runtime: 2 hours, 28 minutes

It took me a while to get around to this movie. I've been studying Nazi Germany and World War II since high school because I find it one of the most fascinating periods in world history. Trouble is, you can only take so much of it. A few books here, a couple of films there, and then a lot of time off to decompress.

If you immerse yourself in Hitler's Willing Executioners one week, Stalingrad the next, and a Hitler biography the week after, you're asking for depression. Over the years I've read dozens of books, articles, and diaries on the subject, but I always pace myself. Never too much at one time.

I think I wrote about this a while back, but when I was in university I dated a Jewish girl and nothing churned my stomach as much as reading the vile, bizarre history of Nazi Germany, then going over to her place and looking into her beautiful brown eyes. You have to shelve madness away when you see beautiful things lest the madness makes you morose.

Why did I just write all of that?

Good question. I think it's because every time I buy a book with a swastika on it, I'm afraid that the bookshop girl will think I'm some neo-Nazi loon, so I wrote the above stuff to let you know I'm not. Funny.

I remember once I was carrying a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (still the best book on the subject) and an Israeli friend was walking by. He said, "Can I see that?" I had forgotten to turn the cover towards my hip, to hide the swastika. So I gave him the book and he looked it over, and he looked at me, and I could tell there were all sorts of questions running through his mind. In the end, he decided not to ask them, and just said it was good to see that I liked history.

Swastikas do that. They're packed with potent meaning, and they make people take notice. It was Hitler and the Nazi Party that gave those bent lines such incredible force, a force that lasts to this day. That's why I've never held any truck with the people that say Bush is like Hitler, or any other politician is like Hitler. No one but Hitler has given a symbol such stopping power. Some anti-religion types might disagree and say Christ and the cross have such potency, but I don't think too many of them walk past a church, see a cross, and call the police. Only the swastika does that.

In the past hundred years, nobody has been like Hitler except Stalin, but no one compares anybody to Stalin because Stalin always gets a pass, mainly for being a communist. You can hand me Pol Pot, Milosovic and other dictators, but on the whole these were entirely regional figures and did not shape world events as Hitler and Stalin did.

While the swastika stops people in their tracks, the letters CCCP on a t-shirt hardly make people blink, and the hammer and sickle seem somewhat quaint though more people in the 20th century were killed under that symbol than any other, including the swastika. In any event, it's interesting that Stalin and Lenin photographs are tourist items in St. Petersburg while you will never find a Hitler portrait for sale in a Munich tourist trap.

What does this have to do with the film Der Untergang? I think it's the feeling that the film gives you. It makes you do a lot of thinking, some of it not so good.

The movie details the last week of Hitler's life. He spent these days in the bottom of his Berlin bunker, surrounded by the usual sycophants, until one by one they all left him (with the exception of Joseph and Magda Goebbels; after Hitler committed suicide, the Goebbels also took their own lives, but not before executing their six children).

The movie is historically accurate, but it may have one drawback: it expects you to know your stuff. Goebbels' name is hardly spoken in the film, but the actor Ullrich Mathes looks so much like him that the director expects you to clue in and stay with it. The same goes for fatso Hermann Goering, slick Albert Speer, and SS leader Heinrich Himmler. Even the bit part thugs are very well cast as far as appearance goes.

The film is subtitled, so if you're not into that, you may not like it. I think the film is the better for it. My German is rusty as hell so I needed the subtitles, but there is something about the guttural cadence of German that brings the words you're reading to life. Bruno Ganz plays Hitler, and he is superb in the role. The German language only adds to the effect and makes him more believeable than Anthony Hopkins was in 1980's The Bunker (Hopkins was fine in that movie, but he was still an Englishman; it makes a difference).

I would be curious to hear from someone that has never heard of the last days of Hitler, and what they thought of the film. I wouldn't be surprised if they found it somewhat tedious. During the last week of his life, Hitler degenerated into mad delusions of victory one minute, and deep despair the next.

Last known photo, outside the bunker
Every few hours Hitler would be moving large armies around a map, until one of his braver generals told him that that army no longer existed. Hitler would blame this on a general's betrayal and on cowards in the military. The next day he would be talking about the 1000 jet fighters he had in reserve to crush his opponents. Then back into depression as he learned the Russians were only kilometers away, then euphoria as he declared that the 9th Army would come to the rescue, until being told that the 9th Army could no longer fight, then back into depression, and so on. For a movie, this can get old in a hurry. Since you're stuck in a bunker with the guy, the mood swings can lose their power. You could end up halfway through the film saying, "Ah, here he goes again," and tune out.

But the filmakers stuck with it, and I admire them for that. They played it more or less the way it's agreed upon in the history books and, knowing that, it makes for a more fascinating film. After all, there were a lot of people in the bunker with Hitler. If we as an audience find his tedious ravings insane, how could the people in the bunker not do the same?

That's the million dollar question, the one that gets argued about all the time. How could this man command such obedience? You can argue that one until the cows come home and you still won't be any closer to an answer. And that's another reason the film makes you think some dark thoughts, both about the past and the future.

I read some reviews about this film a while back. They were mainly good, but several were disturbed that the film showed some sympathy to the people in the bunker. I don't agree, or in any case don't think it's worth worrying about. It all depends on how you look at sympathy versus empathy. Empathy is no big deal. Can I feel empathy for people stuck in a hole, waiting to be captured by a vengeful, evil Russian regime, while watching their surroundings turn into a death cult of suicide and execution? Yes I can. I can understand their terror and hopelessness. I am empathetic to those feelings. Do I have any sympathy for them? None whatsoever.

The writer and director of this movie are empathetic to their characters, but they are not sympathetic to them. To direct the movie otherwise would have been phony. Much as we would like to believe that monsters do not cry, sometimes they show us tears. Filming those tears does not demand that the audience should reach out and hug the monsters. (Magda Goebbels is an entirely different story in the tears department; it was she that fed sleeping potions to her six children, then came back later and crushed poison capsules between their jaws; her reasoning was simple: living without National Socialism would have been too much for her children to bear. So she killed them. And people wonder why I distrust political hero-worship).

One other note: I saw a preview for the new Tom Cruise film Valkyrie. It's about the attempted assassination of Adolph Hitler in 1944. From about 1939 on there were several plotters in the army that entertained doing Hitler in, but the plans never came to fruition for all kinds of reasons, mostly to do with spinelessness. In 1943 one attempt was made to blow up Hitler's plane (the bomb didn't go off), and another attempt to kill him a few days later also flunked. Then in 1944, a bomb exploded that injured Hitler but didn't kill him. This is the bombing that Valkyrie is about. During the preview of the movie I heard these words spoken by a character: "We have to show the world that we are all not like him."

This is extremely dubious. If the film is being built around that, you should be wary of the film's central theme. An assassination of Hitler could have been made many times before 1944, but most army officers involved in any "resistance" were chicken to try it. And why bother? In the early days of the war, Germany had conquered France and taken a big bite out of Russia. Then things changed. It wasn't until the war turned in the Allies' favor that the plotters went into gear. They were especially eager to kill Hitler in 1944 when all seemed lost, because they wanted to make peace with a Western army, as opposed to the Russians, from whom they would receive no mercy. Any moral "not like him" stuff in the film should be looked upon with deep skepticism.