An American Queer in King Harper's Court

King Harper Goes the Extra Millimeter

2006-10-09T08:52:00.000-04:00

It was widely reported last week that King Steve made an angry phone call to King George demanding that the U.S. "come clean" on what it knows and didn't share about Maher Arar.

It made Harper look like he had something that might resemble a spine. Or did it? It was good politics for Harper, who is increasingly looked at in Canada as a Bush lapdog/wannabe. The phone call seemed almost Rovian in timing. Harper's numbers are falling in Canada. He hasn't delivered on promises to his base and the rest of the country has never really warmed to him.

Harper's phone call seems to indicate that the U.S. has information which wasn't part of the completed Arar inquiry in Canada. Harper's phone call seems to indicate that he believes that the U.S. has information which it believed made Arar a candidate for torture. Harper is whistling into the wind on this one.

The U.S. doesn't need a REASON for torture. It just needs a body. Just look at the Bush Administration's No-Fly Lists and other terror laws. The recent terror detainee law passed in the U.S. is a prime example. Detainees have no right to Habeas Corpus or due process. The U.s can hold someone indefinitely without charging the detainee with anything. Further, it is the Executive Branch's sole discretion as to what to do with detainees and when. Despite all of George Bush's proclamations that all life is precious, he and his administration certainly treat human life callously and cavalierly.

I'm not sure why Harper won't apologize to Arar. It's an easy thing to do. He looks compassionate and he can blame the previous Liberal government for letting such a thing as this happen to a Canadian. It wasn't, after all the Harper government that was in charge when Arar was sent on his little Syrian hiatus. Harper seems to think that if he apologizes, that his administration will be blamed for something that happened before he ascended to his throne. That doesn't make sense....unless there have been other Canadians taken into custody since Harper took office, shipped them to the U.S. who, in turn has shipped them to other countries for torture. Is that why Harper won't issue an apology? Because he's afraid that he'll be doing it a lot more later on?

The entire Arar situation is disturbing. The fact that the international community hasn't stood up against the U.S. breaking any number of international laws and treaties by sending someone to another country for the purpose of torture is galling.

So Harper's pathetic little phone call to his "frat buddy" Bush was the least he could do. I guess it's surprising that he even did that.

Contagious Amnesia

2006-10-03T15:43:00.000-04:00

Let’s put two and two together on a couple of things. The entire Bush administration is running around saying they were never briefed and had no advance knowledge that an attack by al Qaeda was emminent. At every turn, they have always pointed the fingers at others, George Tenet and the CIA dropped the ball, they weren’t briefed by the people who should have briefed them, and lately it was all Bill Clinton’s fault.

This dog just doesn’t hunt. There is now plenty of evidence to show that they DID know; that they WERE briefed and that they did nothing. Bob Woodward’s latest book claims that Condi Rice was briefed. She, like everyone else in the Bush administration on this topic, has completely no knowledge of anything ever. Is there such a thing as contagious amnesia? If so, there is a terrible outbreak in D.C. right now.

But back to our math problem. It has been shown that the outgoing Clinton administration did brief the incoming administration on the al Qaeda threat and even left them an action plan (which the Bush administration quickly threw away). Despite Condi’s failed memory and her denials last week, State Department spokesman Sean McCormick on October 2nd said that a review of White House records indicate that the briefing did happen on July 10 as George Tenet has said it did. Whether Woodward’s claim that Condi brushed them off isn’t the point. Condi didn’t say that last week. She categorically denied having any memory that any meeting or briefing ever occurred. I can’t remember where I put my keys half the time. But I do remember the big things. It’s quite unbelievable that the National Security Director would forget that she was told that a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil was emminent. I may lose my keys, but I’d remember that. It doesn’t end there.

White House lap dog/media whore Judith Miller, revealed in May of 2006 that she had been given a secret NSA intelligence report months before the September 11 attacks indicating that there was an imminent attack on the U.S. According to Miller, the security and counter-terrorism communities were concerned that it was going to happen over the 4th of July weekend in 2001. She went to Washington and was told by a credible source that they had an intercept of two al Qaeda operatives complaining that the U.S. did not respond strongly enough to the attack on the USS Cole and that something was going to happen in the U.S. to force the government to respond. Both Miller and her editor confirm that Miller had the story; had a credible source and they knew who the source was inside the White House.

Miller gets the NSA document but never writes the story. This is probably payback to the White House for putting her up in some nice hotel or palace somewhere. And the New York Times track record on the Bush administration is pathetic. Really, Steve Engelberg? You didn’t think this story qualified as “all the news thats fit to print?” After the Sept. 11 attacks, both Miller and her editor “regret” not running the story. That’s nice. That makes me feel better about the 3,000 lives that were lost, the thousands more military lives that have been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq even though neither of those countries were involved in the attacks. Their simple regret makes me think it was worth losing our civil liberties and now habeas corpus and due process.

But I’m off track here. So we have part of our equation. Let’s add it up. Who was head of the NSA at the time? Condoleeza Rice. Condi’s denials about what she knew and when she knew it have always been eye-rollingly unbelievable. She told Congress there had been chatter but no credible evidence. Really, Condi? This document that Ms. Miller has certainly would seem to refute that. And it’s certainly not outside the realm of believability that Condi herself gave Miller the document. Miller hasn’t said that, but Miller didn’t deal with underlings in the Bush administration.

So they did know. They all knew. This isn’t a collective memory lapse. It’s pathological lying. Whenever anyone in the Bush administration is cornered in their lies, they immediately pull a Mission Impossible style memory clear and the tape in their brains that held that information self-destructs.

But what is more distressing is the mainstream media focusing on who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby and not doing the math. Can we get someone to send the Bush administration and the media a truckload of Focus Factor?

Turtlelus Republicanus

2006-10-03T00:09:00.000-04:00

I've noticed that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has no neck any more. It's almost as if his head is trying to sink into his own body. Every day, he looks more and more like a turtle. With the relevation this past weekend that a Florida congressman had sent inappropriate emails to, not one, but several, underage Congressional Pages, Haster got a whole lot more turtle-lier. Then, it was revealed that Republican leaders, including Hastert, have known for some time about Congressman Foley and his internet activities. Did it take long for the word cover-up to arise? No. Nor should it. Hastert denies he new anything at all ever until last week. Then he said his staff knew. Then he denied remembering any meeting with another representative about the issue.

It's amazing. Every Republican in Washington seems to have been hit with a bout of amnesia. Condi Rice evidently doesn't remember any meetings with Tenet or anyone else in which she was told anything about immenent attacks on the U.S. Rummy doesn't remember meetings with generals that they say happened. No one in the administration has any memory at all of anything. They deny they knew anything.....ever.

It seems we have a new species of turtle. Turtlelus Republicanus. When convenient, duck your head inside your shell and deny everything. Perhaps this is why Hastert's neck seems to have disappeared. The titele of Woodward's new book, State of Denial, seems to be more of a mantra for the Bush's administration these days. Deny the war is going badly. Deny that you knew anything. Deny. Deny. Deny.

But is Foley's Folly the real story?

Virtually on the same day that the Foley story was breaking, the U.S. Congress was dealing a body blow to what's left of the U.S. Constitution. Congress doesn't believe that the right of habeas corpus needs to exist in the U.S. anymore. Since the government no longer needs to present evidence against someone, or even file charges and can imprison them in perpetuity as an "enemy combatant" (a term that has no legally defined meaning), doesn't that mean that in one swift move the Republicans, with the help of 12 Dumb-O-Crats in the Senate and 34 in the House. Habeas Corpus. A concept that has been part of law since the 12th century. Congress, in their infinite stupidity have in one vote turned America from a democracy into an oligarchy. They have abdicated their constitutional mandate for checks and balances over the executive branch; they have obliterated the need for a federal court system. The president, and the president alone, has the right and insight to determine who is a threat. Not a court. Not a judge or jury. Due process is a quaint concept of the past. The Executive Branch can declare you an enemy combatant and there is nothing that can be done.

One Republican senator remarked that the Supreme Court would likely overturn the law but he voted for it anyway. I'm not so sure. Both Alito and Roberts have, in their writings, stated that they believe in a supreme presidency. They will likely uphold the law. Scalia, who has been off his rocker for some time and done the administration's bidding time and time again, will also vote for it. Clarence Thomas does what Scalia wants him to do. That means, if either Kennedy or Stevens vote to uphold this odious law, the United States, as a democracy, is no more.

That's the real story here. Not the show of three allegedly firebrand Republicans disagreeing with the Administration on torture. Torture is bad and wrong. But there is something much more fundamental at stake here. And once again, Congress has failed to realize that it's quickly legislating itself out of existence. Or perhaps, Turtleus Republicanus is affecting everyone in Washington.

Cutting a Budget that Doesn't Need Cutting

2006-10-01T14:33:00.000-04:00

The Harper government announced massive cuts to many social programs at a time with there is a huge surplus. If this sounds familiar -- it's straight out of the Bush-Rovian playbook. I guess this means that King Steve got his orders on his recent trip to D.C. So, in his on-going quest to be Bush-lite, Harper cut programs that really didn't need cutting. Harper's droids lamely made the argument that these programs were ineffecient but offered no real evidence as to how.

Bush did the exact same thing. He took office with a huge budgetary surplus. His program cuts were allegedly designed to save the taxpayers billions of dollars and make the country more fiscally sound and responsible. What does the U.S. have today? The largest debt of any country in the history of mankind. By some estimates, the U.S. taxpayers will never finish paying off this debt. It's amazing that Harper and Bush can't find the empathy to fund things like school lunches, aid to the poor, etc. Bush has found the compassion to fund a corporate welfare program for "poor" companies like Halliburton and its subsidiaries to the tune of, by some estimates, over $60 BILLION dollars. This despite the fact that Halliburton has never once fulfilled a government contract without charges of overbilling and fiscal mismanagement.

The important point that no one seems to have made in the recent coverage of this is that cutting budgetary programs doesn't necessarily translate into a healthier bottom line. For example, it has been rumoured that Harper is eyeing cutting arts councils and grants out of the federal budget. This is a stupid idea. It's economically unsound. The argument that was used in the U.S. to do this was that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to fund art that some people find objectionable. Harper hasn't gone that far. He's tried to keep on the message that it's just about the budget. But, is it?

In the U.S., a small pitence of the federal budget is spent on the National Endowment of the Arts. But, to hear the Bushniks tell it, if congress eliminated this program, the federal budget would balance itself in a matter of seconds. Yes, a couple hundred million dollars will make up the trillions of dollars of fiscal imbalance. However, if you look at the program, for every federal dollar that is used in NEA grants, approximately $20 is returned into local economies. For every dollar that is spent, local communities get $20 back. That means money that is spent at local businesses, hiring local workers, boosting local economies. This doesn't even consider the tax revunues generated. How many government spending programs can the conservatives point to that make a return like that? Certainly not any involving Halliburton, Enron, ExxonMobile, Shell or other fat multi-national companies that are now sucking the American taxpayer dry.

Harper's next step will no doubt be to start awarding contracts to politically connected companies that will feed his election campaign coffers while he feeds them with bloated federal corporate welfare programs.

It is interesting that the conservative cabal can rationalize corporate welfare but not social welfare.

What Does "Canadian" Mean?

2006-07-02T09:47:00.000-04:00

As I am still adapting to my new homeland and since we just celebrated Canada Day, I pause to wonder: just what defines Canadian? Canadians have a lot of national pride. They should this is not only a beautiful country, but the people here seem genuinely friendly. They seem to have a common sense of decency and fairness. But is that it?

John Grierson, the father of documentary filmmaking and founder of the National Film Commission (later the National Film Board) of Canada, founded that institution on the premise of "talking Canada to the Canadians." I think there is something to that. But it is also a double-edge sword. On the one hand, I think it is important for Canadians to define what it means to be Canadaian. The Star recently published lists of music, writing, etc. that they felt was distinctly Canadian -- a Canadiaun Cultural Hall of Fame, if you will. It has generated quite a bit of heat. Why are certain things on there and others not? That sort of thing.

Since I've been looking for work, it seems that there is still a bit of "talking Canada to Canadians." I have received Landed Status and, therefore, am legal to work in Canada. The problem is that no one wants to hire an immigrant over a Canadian. This means that I can apply for jobs below my skill set and have the employer reject me because I'm overqualified or I can apply for jobs that I am qualified for and be rejected because I'm not Canadian -- I'm just a faux Canadian at this point. Or, finally, I can look for work outside my field. I realize that no one wants to be seen as giving a job to an immigrant that should go to a qualified Canadian if that person is applying from outside the country, but the way I interpret the government's giving me Permanent Residency is that they are saying, "Hey, this guy could actually contribute something to our country and economy." Which is what I want to do.

I get off on this digression because it does seem that Canada is a bit protectionist in this regard. There seems to be a want to keep Canada inside the borders of Canada. But then, I look at Harper and he seems more intent on playing the provinces against each other (I think they call that "divide and conquer") than uniting them. (It's also important to note here that George Bush ran saying that he was a "uniter" and not a "divider" -- look what's happened there.)

One of Harper's latest plans is to make federal funding to the provinces contingent on doing what Ottawa (i.e., King Harper's administration) wants. If you don't agree to that, then those equalization payments will go to your provincial neighbor. This is dangerous. It's also a method that Bush/Rove have used quite successfully in the U.S. to get their odious agenda through. Remember Bush's famous "if you're not with me, you're with the terrorist's" speech? Harper's plan seems to be just an economic form of the same type of blackmail. And, it seems, distinctly un-Canadian.

Give Canada Your Huddled Masses

2006-06-24T11:31:00.000-04:00

Liberal leadership candidate, Maurizio Bevilacqua, proposed a major expansion to the immigration policy. It's certainly an interesting idea. But, as a new immigrant, let me give you my perspective on what changes should be made.

I'm not certain that opening the doors to Canada is the answer. One of the things I've confronted so far is that, while the government has given me permission to enter the country and that status has given me permission to work, It's difficult to find a job that is in line with my qualifications. I have two masters degrees and nearly 25 years as a professional in my field. I can't get a nibble. I'm not applying for the heads of companies either. I'm more than willing to start at the bottom rung and work my way up. I'm applying for low-level entry positions and internships. Nothing. Zip. Nada. And, from what I understand, my experience is not uncommon. There seems to be almost a pathological fear on the part of employers that if they hire someone with Landed Status that they will be charged with some sort of crime by the government. Where does that come from? Is that the law that really needs to change?

One of the arguments for expanding the immigration policy is to attract the best and the brightest from other countries. But, if you're not going to allow them to work in their fields once they get here, what's the point?

I would also say that the government needs to look at the process itself. The immigration form is quite lengthy and, in some cases, downright silly. One part of the application asks you to list every address you've lived at since you were 18. If you're in your 20s, that's probably pretty easy. However, if you're in your 40s (the age group that gets the most "points" in terms of selection criteria for skilled workers), this become quite problematic. Had I not been a pack rat and found a box of old tax records, I wouldn't have been able to do this. I'm still not clear as to how where I lived twenty years ago would either qualify me or disqualify me to live in this country. There are a couple other things like that. It took me two months to fill out the application. I have a feeling that it's this type of unnecessary data which then, presumably, some immigration officer somewhere has to sort through has contributed to the backlog of applications. One question Mr. Bevilacqua doesn't address is how an already backlogged system will handle and process more applications. Right now, it seems like the system is trying to force a beach full of sand through a pin-hole. Could it really handle more?

Then, once the application is in, you wait. And wait. And wait. There is supposedly an on-line system where you can check the status of your application, but it isn't updated until after you've been notified by mail of what is going on. I was lucky. From the time my application was received until the time I received my Confirmation of Permanent Residency was only 18 months. Most people from the U.S. wait more than two years. In fact, Sharon Gless (of Cagney & Lacey and the U.S. verison of Queer as Folk) had applied under the Business Immigration class. This meant that she was going to come to Canada and start a business which would create jobs and employ Canadians. It was reported that she had spent of $100,000 trying to get this application processed. She hired and immigration attorney; filed her papers and heard nothing for nearlly three years. There has got to be a better way than this.

I think that fixes in the the system need to come before Canada flings open its doors to more applications.

It does seem a bit like Bevilacqua is trying to court the immigrant population in light of Harper's recent head-tax apology. Both, however, seem like they're trying to do the same thing Bush has been trying to do with the latino-immigrant voting block in the U.S. with his broken Spanish (and English, for that matter).

Run, King Harper, Run!

2006-06-24T11:15:00.000-04:00

It has been announced that King Harper will not attend the World AIDS Conference in Toronto. I can't believe in this day and age and this far into this epidemic that we have a leader so clueless that he won't even put in an appearance. It is truly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's refusal to admit there was a problem in the 1980s. Some have speculated that it's Mr. Harper's homophobia because he isn't going to attend the Outgames either. Well, duh!!! Is there anyone that expected HRH to suddenly embrace the gay community once he annointed himself king? No. Mr. Harper still has the ideology to ignore and avoid ANYTHING that could remotely be construed as him accepting anything or anyone gay -- including AIDS. Even though AIDS is not a "gay disease," now approaching three decades of the epidemic, most conservatives still view it as such.

I also don't see Harper coming to Toronto all that much. After all, it was the mean, evil and sin-laced Torontish that denied him a majority government. They must be punished. So, my guess is that anytime he can avoid Toronto, he will.

But Mr. Harper's refusal to attend the conference and the games, I think, is laced with something even more pathetic. By taking this stance, it plays well into the hands of the ultra-conservatives who would love to see the Canadian take on the same moral and theological bent as the so-called "religious" conservatives in the U.S. have been able to forge in the U.S. It's about playing to his base. But sadly, if his government takes the same approach to AIDS as it has to the environment, many will die. He won' be able to run from that.

I've often said that he looks like the Stepford candidate. The dull vacant look in his eyes is eerily like the look of the automatons of the fictional town of Stepford. Who could be pulling the strings? Karl Rove? In some ways, it almost feels like he's running for office in the U.S. and not Canada. My perception of Canadians has been that they are infinitely sensible people who do not like the government to make moral or personal decisions for them. In Harper's actions, I see him setting up the same "wedge issues" for Canada that the zealots in the U.S. did. And look what's happened there. One thing is clear, though, actions like this prove that he is not a leader for all ofCanada. Just those people who support him. Look for him to continue to cut Toronto and other places which are heavily liberal out of the picture.

"Al Qaeda Inspired": The New Terrorism Buzzwords

2006-06-23T00:12:00.000-04:00

The FBI arrested seven people in Miami on a purported attempt to attack the Sears Tower. The evidence against these guys seems to be that they told people they were muslim; they were black and spoke with Jamaican accents; they wore turbans and they had pictures of the Sears tower. There is no link between this group and Al Qaeda. In light of the recent major terrorism bust in Toronto, it bears looking into. No longer do authorities need to tie alleged terror suspects to the boogey man. Now, they just need to be boogey-man inspired. Under this kind of thinking, it would be easy for any government to claim that anyone who disagrees with them as being "Al Qaeda inspired."

Evidently, the case in Miami was in such early stages that they really have no other evidence of a plot. A few months ago, several men parked their car in an illegal zone near the Sears Tower; got out and started taking pictures and, when confronted by a security guard got back in their car and sped away. The guard got the license plate and found that it was a rental which had been rented under an alias or false name. Seemed like a terrorist plot in the making. Except the FBI the next day came out and said that the incident never happened. It was very X-Men. I kept expecting the FBI to pull out those little wands; flash a bright light in our eyes and erase our memories. Perhaps they did. The story was dropped and never pursued in the media.

Seems like something like this would warrant a terror investigation. But no, guys who exercise at night instead of the heat of the Miami mid-day sun, are now considered suspects.

I have long maintained that Bush knows he, his adminstration and the Republicans stronghold on the US Congress are in danger in the fall election. I believe that the Bush administration has started their summer-long campaign to pound the terrorism drum so that they can either allow or execute a terror attack in the US just prior to the fall mid-term elections so that, one more time, they can use the "stay the course" logic. And since, the "Al Qaeda inspired" bullet point worked so well in Canada, why not try it out in the US?

What's the Real Story?

2006-06-22T23:55:00.000-04:00

A couple of contradictions in the news leave me wondering what's the real story:

A report on global warming asked for by the US Congress was reported in the US media as "Earth hottest in 400 years. In the Canadian press, it was "Earth hottest in 2,000." That's quite a little difference. Is the Bush-controlled media in the US trying to dampen the report?

In the Canadian press, The Globe and Mail reported that the Conservatives bill raising the age of consent was hailed by police and child-advocacy groups alike. In the Star, the story was that the bill was met with mixed reviews. uhhhhhm.....

The Tax Cut Carrot

2006-06-21T09:22:00.000-04:00

One of the reasons I think the quality of life is so great in Canada is that Canadians don't have to worry about certain things: healthcare, pension, etc. These are financial worries that keep Americans trapped in jobs they despise because if they lose or change them, it could be a financial catastrophy for their families. For decades, Republicans in the U.S. have tried to gut every social program in the federal government. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid have all faced proposals which put their very existence in doubt for many people that will need them in years to come. So Americans slog on trying to make sure they don't get caught short.

For decades, the political leaders have convinced Americans that the government can't afford a sensible national healthcare plan. The U.S. is the only major industrial nation without one. Oh, we can afford to pay companies owned by the political leaders friends and families BILLIONS of dollars for goods and services which should cost a fraction of what they do. Halliburton is a good case in point. It stands to make billions and billions of dollars a year in no-bid contracts for the government and the military. Darth Cheney still receives "deferred compensation" from this company. (No one has quite explained to me how that isn't a bribe.)

So every year the conservatives get out their budgetary knives and start cutting at social programs in what they say is an attempt to "balance the budget." In reality, if they cut all these programs, the budget wouldn't be anywhere near balanced.

I am of an age that, I believe, by the time I get ready to retire, there will be no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. And the U.S. has no national pension plan either. I'd be working until I die. And, God forbid, I should have a serious illness.

Now comes the news that Harper plans to introduce bills to cut the CPP payments individuals and business have to pay. I haven't seen the actual legislation, but I'll bet you money, that itwill benefit major corporate supporters of Harpers and very little will go back to the workers. This is a classic Bush/Rovian move. You try to sell something that has serious long-term consequences for the people by dangling the carrot of a tiny increase in their take home pay now. Let me say from personal experience in the U.S. that it's simply not worth it.

Look at the U.S. When Bush took office, the surplus was healthy. Within months, the Bush administration decimated the surplus and sent the U.S. into the largest debt in the history of the world. Harper has surpluses. He keeps proposing these plans which supposedly will "give the surpluses back to the people." What happens when those surpluses are gone? A cautionary lesson from the U.S. will show that they can disappear fast. If they are gone will the Tories go running around the country saying that Canadians can't afford these programs any more? You bet they will.

Just as tax cuts in the U.S. have benefitted the rich, the same type of cuts will benefit the priviledged in Canada. Recent tax cuts by theBush administration will give over $20,000 back to the wealthiest and only about $20 a year (no, that's not a typo -- twenty) to middle and lower income. And with inflation, that means middle and lower income Americans will actually take home less.

Just as Ronald Reagan started the conservative movement to rid the government of social programs (and the Department of Education -- after all, who wants and educated electorate?) and make the government a pig trough for the corporations, Harper seems to be laying the groundwork for the same thing in Canada. Daily news reports in the U.S. tell us how the goverment is controlled and being sucked dry by corporations. And those that pay a few paltry dollars to a conservative politicians often reap huge rewards at the expense of the taxpayer.

Examine King Harper's plan carefully. It sounds a bit like selling your birthright for a mess of porridge today.

Just How Many Times Do You Have to Say "Thank You?

2006-06-21T00:36:00.000-04:00

The Star ran an article announcing the results of an international survery which found Toronto is the third most polite city -- Zurich was number two and New York was number one. I had to read that several times. Don't get me wrong, I love New York, but I've fought for my share of cabs there; I've pushed and jostled my way through a crowd. I thought it might have been an April Fool's joke -- except that it's mid-June.

One thing I've noticed about TO is that the people here are INSANELY polite. It almost seemed pathological. Had I stumbled into country of Stepford people? At one point, I was left to wonder: just how many times do I need to say "thank you"? I finally realized, it's just the way the Torontish are: easy-going and polite. It was refreshing. I finally allowed myself to breathe.

I don't want to be looked on as the ugly, boorish American. I want to fit in. I want people to think I've been here all my life. Part of that will be my learning all the nuances of the politeness of this city.

Now, it's not that I have trouble being polite -- I have my limits, but people in Toronto do seem to have raised it to an art form. My reasons for wanting to fit in undetected is more self-centered than altruistic. Americans are pretty much hated wherever they go -- even in Canada, I understand. In fact, we're often told that when we're traveling to tell the locals that we're from somewhere else. The obvious answer to me is Canada.

As a case in point, a Canadian was recently in a life-threatening situation in Afghanistan, I believe. His captors were ready to kill him. He desperately told his captors that he was Canadian. He showed them his passport and they let him go stating, "We love Canadians." There's a lesson to be learned here.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you......

American's Living With Less Liberty

2006-06-19T21:55:00.000-04:00

Tim Harper of the Toronto Star wrote and interesting piece about Americans learning to live with less liberty (U.S. Learns to Live With Less Freedom, The Star, June 19, 2006). Mr. Harper got a few things right and a few things wrong. In his piece, Mr. Harper writes “The exploitation of that fear by an administration intent on inflating the powers of the presidency, at the expense of a cowed Congress and with the tacit approval of an anxious nation, may be a cautionary tale for Canadians should some of that U.S.-style fear find its way north of the border in the wake of Toronto's recent terrorism arrests.” This is the understatement of the century. Stephen Harper has already shown time and time again his propensity to play directly out of the Bush (or more accurately, the Rove) Playbook. Canadians should be worried. There is no secret agenda with Harper and his administration intend to go down the same road as Bush.

Harper (Tim, not Stephen) goes on, “With the threat of another attack foremost in their minds, Americans looked the other way as "enemy combatants" were held without due process at Guantanamo Bay, shrugged amid revelations their government was secretly picking up terrorist suspects and flying them to countries with ugly human rights records, yawned when they were told the CIA might be holding prisoners in secret sites in Eastern Europe” This is not quite true. Actually, many Americans were angry about this. Many did protest. It was the U.S. mainstream media who made the decision that the American people would rather hear about Brittany, Brangelina or the latest American Idol cast off than hear about the scandals and war crimes of the Bush Administration..

Harper also states, “But more surprising has been the lack of pushback when they were told the Bush administration had ignored a law requiring court approval and had begun wiretapping international calls of Americans and assembling a massive databank of phone records of Americans. Again, not true. The anger over this has been palpable. The American people are overwhelmingly against this. It is our Congressional leaders (with the aid of the media) that have tried to ignore this. My theory is that the Congressional leaders are afraid of what the Bush Administration may already know from this illegal surveillance. (It is interesting to note that, after Jefferson’s congressional offices were recently raided by the FBI, several members of Congress (who are also under investigation for various things) came out immediately against the raid as unconstitutional. Bill Frist, most notable among them, then did a 180 and suddenly came out and said he supported the raid. One can only assume he made a deal with the Bush Administration that his insider stock trading investigation would either not go forward or would move at a more glacial pace.

But back to the claim that Americans didn’t care. Americans did and do care. But the media’s insistence that we care about inconsequential matters has played into the perception that we the people don’t care. It is interesting to note that the media’s mantra has been that they cover this bilge because it’s what “the people” want to see, hear and/or read. Oh, really? Then, how’s come most every major mainstream media outlet in the U.S. has suffered overwhelming losses in viewer, reader and listenership. If they were truly giving us what we want, wouldn’t their ratings be up? How is it that most people between 18 and 35 get their news from the comedy program The Daily Show? These questions go unanswered.

A good example of this is the Howard Dean “scream.” CNN played the scream approximately 633 times in a short period of time. I figured it out and it came out to playing that clip at last once every 9 minutes twenty-four hours a day. By the same token, CNN hasn’t mentioned “Hookergate” – this is the scandal that forced Porter Goss and one of his goons, Dusty Foggo, to resign abruptly from the CIA. In this scandal, the administration of the organization that is supposed to investigation terrorism, keeping our country safe, yadda, yadda, yadda, was profiting by getting giving contracts to companies wanting to do business with the CIA. They did this in exchange for parties with hookers at the infamous Watergate hotel. (Haven’t the Republicans learned that this is not a lucky place for them?) But I digress. Immediately after the NSA phone bank database was made known in the U.S. media, CNN couldn’t wait to broadcast the Administration (and almost exclusively the Administration’s) spin on this story. So much so, that I started calling them the Cheney News Network. But how can you get a sense of outrage if no one will talk about it? And by “no one,” I mean specifically the media.

But it was clear early on that the media wasn’t going to buck Bush. After all, the Bush administration was paying many of them. My feeling is that the couple of “journalists” that we know about that received monetary compensation from the Bush Administration to tout Bush policies was just the tip of the iceberg. Judith Miller was given the red-carpet treatment (and probably money) in order to push the Administration’s view of the Iraq war.

Mr. Harper says that the Republicans (yes, the Republicans) are finally getting backbone against the jack-booted policies of the Bush Administratio. Which begs the question: Do the Democrats (or, more accurately, the Dumb-O-Crats) have a spine? Or does America just have one political party?

This should, as Mr. Harper, notes serve as a cautionary tale for Canadians. It was a little disturbing recently when Harper banned photos of returning war dead that the media didn’t challenge him. Yes, there was grousing in editorials, but not one media outlet challenged Harper (this time Stephen, not Tim) by publishing photos of that nature. The media must keep its distance from the administration. King Harper’s protestations that the media is unfair to his government is just and echo of what Bush did. He wants to keep up that mantra until they pull back. Canadians should let the media do this. Otherwise, just look to the south to see what will soon become of Canada.

An Examination of the Positions of Margaret Somerville and Ryerson University

2006-06-18T14:39:00.000-04:00

By Sam Patterson
© Sam Patterson 2006. All rights reserved.

There has been a controversy over the awarding of an honorary degree to Margaret Somerville by Ryerson University. While Ms. Somerville is entitled to her opinions, it is incumbent upon any university granting an honorary degree that the basis for granting such degrees is consistent with their mission and grounded in scholarship. It is important in the true interest of academic freedom to examine both Ms. Somerville’s position and that of Ryerson. Finally, it is important that degrees are not handed out based on personal opinions of the recipients but rather on the scholarship merits of their work. In this case, the system seriously failed. Scholarship was lacking as was academic freedom and debate.

Margaret Somerville’s basis for denying same-sex marriage rights is not based in reality, science or fact. Reading her articles and notes, her views appear only to be bigoted and homophobic hand-wringing. Her constant refrain is that it’s “about the children.” Deny the right of same-sex marriage because the children will be harmed if you don’t. Oh, really? There is not one scintilla of evidence that any of the claims she makes will harm the children. Ms. Somerville’s arguments are so farcical and baseless that any rational thinking, and yes, ethical human being can punch holes with little trouble.

Ms. Somerville, in an “opinion” published in the National Post in July of 2005, states “Same-sex marriage, in disconnecting marriage from procreation, compromises this right for all children.” In using this logic, Ms. Somerville declares that the ONLY reason for two people to get married is procreation. Does that mean that childless couples are not legally married in her eyes? Barren couples should be banned from marriage? Ms. Somerville states in the same article that same-sex marriage “will also affect the fundamental rights of children, a vulnerable group of Canadians with no power to protect themselves at the ballot box.” Again, using the logic that marriage is for procreation, Ms. Somerville seems to be saying that children in single-parent households are also at risk, but that somehow is acceptable – presumably because these children are being raised by heterosexuals.

At this point in that “opinion,” Ms. Somerville takes a left turn and begins talking about “new reproductive technologies” which would allow same-sex couples to conceive a child. She has no problem with heterosexual couples using the same technologies. Here, her “logic” not only gets murky but laughably bigoted. She states, “One issue is children's rights to know their parents and, thereby, their own biological identity. Legislation establishing the right of adopted children to know the identity of their biological parents is becoming common in Canada; internationally, the same right is increasingly being accorded to children born through gamete donation (sperm or egg). But in Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 (AHR Act) prohibits disclosure without the donor's consent. In Quebec, where the province's Civil Code recognizes same-sex couples' ‘projects involving assisted procreation,’ and two women can be the parents listed on a birth certificate, the identity of the biological father is not even recorded.” Sounds good. Too bad it’s full of hokum. A similar argument could be made with heterosexuals, but again, because they’re straight, that’s okay according to Ms. Somerville. Ms. Somerville conveniently ignores the fact that these new technologies are being driven by heterosexual couples – not homosexuals. So this issue which should apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals is only an issue to be used to deny same-sex marriage. (And yes, there are conceivably ways in which heterosexuals would need this same technology.) If it’s bad for gay people to do it, it’s bad for straight people to do it. She’s not talking about marriage – her objection is about advancements in reproductive tecnology.

Ms. Somerville rants on “A second issue is children's rights to be born from the union of one natural, unmodified ovum and one natural, unmodified sperm. Technological possibilities on the horizon include making embryos from two ova or two sperm and making gametes from adult stem cells, thus allowing a same-sex couple to have their own "shared baby" -- and even to further fiddle with the genetic makeup of that baby.” “Designer children” are not sole purview of same-sex couples. Scientists and geneticists are already working on ways to allow parents to pick the hair color, eye color, and most likely sexual orientation of their baby through genetic manipulation. Ms. Somerville seems to be fine with this because it is heterosexuals doing the manipulation. If she wants to make arguments against genetic manipulation and new reproductive technologies, that’s fine. But it has nothing to do with ethics of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry. If she is going to make that argument, then she needs to apply the rules equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. But she does not. What she has done has used her bigotry and homophobia to launch into a rant about these reproductive technologies. It has no place in the debate about same-sex marriage.

In the National Post article, she claims “‘donor conceived adults’ describe powerful feelings of loss of identity arising from their ignorance of their parents' identity, and describe themselves as ‘genetic orphans.’” Really? Every single donor conceived adult feels this way? Every single one? As a result, their lives are not fulfilling or worth living? This wild and broad generalization is not supported by facts at all. Notice, too, that we’ve now skipped from the children who have no voice at the ballot box to adults who do. Interestingly, since same-sex marriage is new in Canada, it would seem that all of these “donor conceived adults” were raised by heterosexual parents. But she couches the argument in such a way as to appear to say that it’s the homosexuals who caused the donor conceived adults to feel like “genetic orphans.” Again, she’s making an argument that would apply to reproductive technologies which have been the domain of heterosexuals. How come, Ms. Somerville, it’s acceptable for heterosexuals to use these technologies to create genetic orphans? How would it be more damaging for a same-sex couple to do so? Again, she has no science, research or facts to back this outrageous bigotry.

Several studies, on the other hand, have found that children raised in same-sex parent households suffer no significant detriment as opposed to children raised by opposite-sex parent homes. What seems to matter most is the quality of the relationship the parents have to their children.

Ms. Somerville’s argument always starts out with “marriage is primarily about giving each child a mother and a father.” She also declares that Marriage between a man and a woman is the way society institutionalizes and symbolizes and, thereby, establishes those rights of children.” This seems to be centered less on ethics and more on the ancient thought that sex was only for procreation because the species (and the tribe, as a result) needed to be furthered for survival. We are no longer living in that archaic frame of mind. Under this same thinking, women were properties who were married off to men. It was a civil contract. A sale. In fact, the concept of marriage being between “a man and a woman” is a fairly new one. In biblical times, most traditions held that women were nothing but property. The more wives a man had the more he was worth. A man needed a male heir. Wives failing to give their husband a male heir often faced torture or death. (How’s that ethical, Ms. Somerville?) In fact, it could be argued that this was the first attempt at genetic engineering a child since the sex of a child comes from the sperm.

In fact, non-polygamous marriage in the history of humankind is a fairly recent idea. The idea that girl children are somehow “less than” male children, however, still persists in many societies today. But, according to Ms. Somerville’s twisted thinking, because they were born of natural causes and from a man and a woman, those children will have all their rights realized. Yeah, right. (If this were true, would so many people be traveling halfway around the earth to adopt unwanted girl children?) The argument doesn’t fly. Simply because a child is born and raised by a man and a woman as parents doesn’t mean that the child will be any better off. And Ms. Somerville cannot point to any research that will support that position.

In an article in the Toronto Star, Michael Landsberg quotes Ms. Somerville as saying “All religions have always believed in heterosexual marriage, for millennia and millennia.” Again, not true Ms. Somerville. It is also important to note (since Ms. Somerville is a professor of law she SHOULD know this) that marriage is a civil contract. It is regulated by the state – not by religions or religious institutions. It is also not true that religions have always believed in heterosexual marriage. In the history of humankind, marriage as a religious ceremony is also somewhat a new concept. Heterosexual marriage was not recognized in the church until approximately 1200 A.D. (That’s only a mere 800 years out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of human history that this idea has been around.) Until that time, the Church’s view was that marriage was an earthly institution that would not be recognized in heaven. [NOTE: in his groundbreaking book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, the SCHOLAR John Boswell notes that there is ample evidence same-sex relationships bearing a strong resemblance to heterosexual marriage were sanctioned by the church prior to heterosexual marriage. But again, this was back when women were looked on nothing more as property and marriage was about the ownership of the woman. Is Ms. Somerville saying women are nothing more than property to be owned by men? Using her process of “logic,” it would seem so. But it also bears repeating that government controls the RIGHT to marry – not religions. Religions control their own distinct “rite of marriage.” A “Right” is a power, liberty or legally recognized claim and individual or thing may have. A “Rite” is a ceremony. Ministers may marry people, but unless those individuals have a marriage license, the marriage is not recognized by the state. This is something a first-year law student should know.

What’s perhaps most appalling is that Ms. Somerville attempts to pass herself off as some sort of scientist or authority. In this case, she is neither. Her views on ethics are not based in science, medicine or law. In an article arguing against male circumcision, Ms. Somerville wrote “good ethics depend on good facts.” Where are those “good facts” here? She has none. She only has what she refers to as “a quaint, old-fashioned view” of marriage which is, in itself, incorrect. Again, why are her opinions on this subject any more valid than other peoples. A little bit of research will reveal that there are other ethicists who vehemently disagree with Ms. Somerville – not only on her views on same-sex marriage but a host of her other ethical positions. (Where are the honorary degrees for them?) In her arguments against circumcision, she says “Over the years I have been patiently and respectfully educated by many people who oppose circumcision or genital mutilation of any children.” It’s too bad. She didn’t use the same approach before voicing her ignorance on same-sex marriage.

Now, to address the illogical and indefensible position of Ryerson University. The University has stated that they cannot disinvite because of “academic freedom.” That’s a lie and a weak lie at best.

If the committee at Ryerson seriously looked at Ms. Somerville’s arguments, they would have realized that she is the Ann Coulter of medical ethicists. She says what she erroneously believes rather than basing it in fact or research. Her belief system becomes the “ethics” by which we all must abide. Not fact. Not logic. Her personal belief system. It is highly unlikely that, under the guise of “academic freedom,” the administration of Ryerson would allow any professor to say things so baseless. “Academic freedom” doesn’t mean that people can just say anything baseless. In true academic freedom there would have been a debate. Two sides arguing their positions and supporting them with facts. And, as seen here, Ms. Somerville’s arguments would not have stood the test of scrutiny. Yes, people are allowed to disagree on issues. That is what makes intellectual diversity so important on a university campus – a free exchange of ideas. There was no exchange here. Where was the debate on this argument? Nowhere. They gave this award to Ms. Somerville as a fait à compli. No intellectual diversity. No challenge. That’s what the award committee’s definition of academic freedom is in this case. Then they hide behind the tattered lie that they can’t deny someone an award simply because their views are controversial. Using this logic, Ryerson could (and should) give Josef Mengele an honorary degree for his groundbreaking work in genetics. Oh yes, his views are repellent, but because they are conservative and oppressive, they get “protected” under the guise of “academic freedom.”

Finally, there was the pathetic and laughable claim that the committee didn’t know of Somerville’s views prior to giving her the award. These views are not something new. She didn’t come out after the announcement of the award with this bunk. No, this has been a long-standing position for Ms. Somerville. The committee didn’t know she’d testified before Parliament using this same bigotry labeled as fact? The committee didn’t know she’d published articles on this? It is inconceivable that they were/are this ignorant. This raises the question of exactly what kind of vetting process of candidates did this committee go though? Exactly on what grounds are they giving her this award? Then, as if to rub salt into this avoidable wound, the committee is quoted as saying that if they knew in advance of her position they would have had “serious pause before approving the award.” Notice that they don’t say they would have denied it or given it to someone deserving. It is unbelievable that they didn’t know. They knew. They had to have known. And if they didn’t, why are they sitting on a committee handing out honorary degrees and awards for a university that is supposedly a seat of knowledge? It is one thing to say that academia is life in an ivory tower, but that doesn’t mean you are completely oblivious to the world around you.

According to Ryerson’s own website, their academic mission is:

The special mission of Ryerson University is the advancement of applied knowledge and research to address societal need, and the provision of programs of study that provide a balance between theory and application and that prepare students for careers in professional and quasi-professional fields. As a leading centre for applied education, Ryerson is recognized for the excellence of its teaching, the relevance of its curriculum, the success of its students in achieving their academic and career objectives, the quality of its scholarship, research, and creative activity and its commitment to accessibility, lifelong learning, and involvement in the broader community. [Emphasis added.]

Scholarship? Research? Ms. Somerville’s opinions have none of that. In fact, it would seem that she is the antithesis of that. If students picketed, disrupted or otherwise protested the ceremony, it is highly doubtfully that Ryerson would view that as “academic freedom.” And Ryerson should be ashamed of its lame defense of honorary degree.

This leaves the question of why would Ryerson want to celebrate and award someone whose opinion is not only repugnant but devoid of scholarly foundation. The only answer is that seems to come up is that the administration of Ryerson has a misguided wish to somehow curry favor with the Harper government. Harper has made it known that he intends to reopen same-sex marriage “debate” in Parliament this fall with what he calls a “free vote.” Really? A free vote? This from a Prime Minister who will not allow his MPs to speak to the press without his consent and direction. It is highly unlikely that any Conservative Party member in Parliament will be “allowed” to vote in favor or same-sex marriage. And, if they do, they will most likely find themselves in a political no-man’s land. But, according to Ryerson’s logic and definition, that would be “academic freedom.”

2006-06-18T13:39:00.000-04:00

Why Am I Here?

After many years of dismay at the political situation in the U.S. , I reluctantly made the decision to leave my country. People in the U.S. seemed to be walking around oblivious to the coming oppression. I kept hearing, "that won't happen here." But it did. And it does. And it continues to happen. So I applied for Permanent Residency in Canada. It wasn't as far from the U.S. as I'd like to go, but it would do for the time being. I waited. I was lucky in that my application was approved in a mere 18 months.

Unfortunately, just before the approval of my Permanent Residency, Stephen Harper was elected as PM of Canada. I watched the campaign saying to myself, "don't they see that he's just Bush-lite?"

Even though Harper was elected, it has not dampened my spirit or admiration for my new country or the people in it.

Almost immediately after his election, Harper started pulling some of the same tricks Bush did. The point of this blog is to chronicle my journey as someone who has seen their country decimated by a leader doing things that the populace thought would never happen here. It is to give a warning. It is to journal my experiences as a new (or should I say, "faux") Canadian.

While the name of this blog is "An American Queer....", I do not think of myself as American anymore. The America I knew and grew up with is no more. It's not just that the current political administration seems to be trying to destroy everything I believe in and every principle on which the U.S. was founded. No, it's more than that. It's a mindset that has taken over in the U.S. It's a sense of feeling like an outsider in one's own country.

I was told, "Stay and fight." Fight for what? The opposition in the U.S. has long since rolled over and given into the fascist mentality of the Bush administration. The mainstream media is more obssessed wth Brittany than with the multitude of scandals and lies swirling around the Bush Administration. There are no signs that this is changing.

When I go to Canada, I feel much more in tune with the people. I feel I belong. So, I aksed myself, "why stay?" There was no good answer.

It was not an easy decision. It is not a decision that is right for everyone. I believe that it is right for me. As the weeks and months progress, I hope to chronicle my journey; offer insights; write commentaries, rans and diatribes. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do hope that you will consider my writings to be thoughtful, well-researched and founded in fact. I hope it will provoke thought and make you evaluate and re-evaluate your own perspectives.

I'm glad to be here.