domestic crisis, canine variety

Allan and I both work long hours on the weekend. A dogwalker comes in to take care of Cody and Tala.

I get home first. When I came home last Saturday, the place looked exactly as when we left in the morning.

Tala is crated when we're not home. She was very agitated, which is unusual, then she zoomed outside and immediately "did both", also very unusual.

I had a weird feeling that D, the dogwalker, hadn't been in. But I kept telling myself that she wouldn't do that. She's been so reliable and responsible. Had the dogs eaten? Should I feed them?

I was concerned but I just kept debating with myself, was she here or wasn't she. I called and emailed but didn't hear anything. On Sunday morning I left a note and D's money.

When I came home on Sunday, the note and the money were still there, untouched! Now I knew the dogs had been alone all weekend, and hadn't eaten on Saturday.

To compound my guilt, Tala was in a funnel collar - we're trying to get a sore to heal - and she's not very happy in her crate with the collar on. So she was stuck in her crate for 12 hours - something I would never do - two days in a row. And she hadn't eaten the first day! I felt terrible.

And just for good measure, I had a horrible night at work on Sunday (also unusual). So when I came home to this, I was really upset.

Where is D?? She is a single mom of a small child, and has dogs of her own. She has always seemed so responsible and reliable. I keep thinking something must have happened to her or her baby to cause her not to show up. (But why couldn't she have called? Even if there's a crisis, at some point you can find two minutes to call and say you can't make it...) We are confused and worried about her.

You know when you don't know whether to be worried or angry? Of course I hope nothing happened, but if I find out that's true, I'll be furious.

A friend suggested we call the police. It's not an unreasonable idea. "Didn't show up for work" is often how missing people are reported. But D is very close with her mom, who does a lot of child care for her. If D is actually missing, her mother is already aware of it.

I have a new ad on Craigslist (how I found D and her predecessor), and I'm reasonably sure I'll be able to find someone to start next weekend. This weekend, friends of ours are going to come over (thank you thank you thank you). If we couldn't find anyone to do that, we were going to take turns calling in sick. (Uh, no one from work reads this, right?)

We took the dogs to the park both Monday and Tuesday to make up for their crappy weekend. Of course they bounced back much faster than me. Canines are much better at that than humans, with our ridiculous brains.

But where is D?

farley mowat: sealers are not fishermen, they are butchers

I wasn't going to post about the seal slaughter this year. I usually do. In fact, I think an anti-seal-slaughter post was the first criticism of Canada I ever put in this blog - and the only criticism I felt comfortable expressing for at least another year.

I was avoiding the topic this year because I'm sick of the usual, tired arguments.

I eat meat, so I am not entitled to protest the slaughter of animals for fur. Answer: All killing is not the same. Killing for sustenance can be distinguished from killing for commerce and fashion. One needn't be morally pure to protest something one finds immoral. If that were necessary, no one could ever protest anything.

It's a tradition. Answer: So was slavery. So was apartheid. So was women having no legal rights. So is child labour in many parts of the world. Societies change. The fact that a practice was once considered acceptable is not ample justification for its continuance.

The anti-sealing activists are breaking the law. Answer: That's what it takes to change immoral or unethical laws.

I'm tired of the having the same old arguments with the same anonymous posters. So this year, I thought I wouldn't bother.

Until I read this op-ed by Farley Mowat, the man for whom the impounded ship is named. I believe you need Globe & Mail access to read it, so I will reprint the whole thing here.

I have great admiration for Paul Watson and what he has done with his life.

In some ways, I could say our lives have been parallel - both of us more at home with the non-human animals of this world; both of us pretty protective of them, because we have seen how abominably the human species treats other species.

And while I gravitated from my time with the Inuit to care about wolves and whales and became a writer, he moved from whales to reef fishes and on to tuna, and remained always an activist.

When it comes to seals, it was Paul Watson who turned me around.

I met him more than 25 years ago in the Magdalen Islands during one of his early anti-sealing expeditions. I admire fishermen - they're men of adversity who care for nature, and it cares for them - and I thought I'd admire sealers too. So I went out on Watson's boat that year as a neutral observer of the seal hunt.

I was appalled. These sealers weren't like fishermen, they were like butchers. A real fisherman takes what he needs to survive; these people were taking a good deal more. Their sole objective was money.

And they didn't much care if the seals were killed or not. They'd hit them over the head, cut off their flippers and skin them alive. The authorities say this is a canard, that it doesn't happen that way. But it does; it's the absolute truth.

The experience turned me around completely: My sympathy went from the sealers to the seals.

And it brought me closer to Paul Watson. We've kept in touch ever since.

I watched him expand his defence of "the others" until it took in the whole living entity that cloaks the Earth. When I wrote Sea of Slaughter, I was impelled by his work. I'm dedicating my current book, Otherwise, to him.

But what I try to do with words, he does with action. And he's more successful. People can read and ignore my words, they can't ignore him.

In 1998, we went out together on his ship, the Sea Shepherd, to try to stop the seal hunt. We couldn't get near it; we were shadowed every step of the way by the Department of Fisheries' private navy, the Coast Guard.

After the experience, he asked if I would like to have the name of his flagship changed to mine. "You're damn right I would," I said. And it's been the Farley Mowat ever since.

That's made me, vicariously, a participant in the fight to save life in the oceans.

Neither I nor Paul Watson have any problem with those who hunt seals for subsistence, and nothing but admiration for the traditional life of those who live by the sea.

But those who conduct the seal hunt have grown rich by employing men who make a few hundred extra dollars while they buy the fur and flippers and become wealthy from the profit.

It is ruthless exploitation of men as well as nature - the traditional way of life manipulated by a few.

I admit I'm confused by the government's action. I see no financial reason for its persistent defence of this seal hunt. The cost of sending out the Coast Guard, of dispatching delegations to conferences around the world, must be three times the actual returns from the hunt. So what's the point?

Is it just because this way of life has become ingrained and tradition demands that it continue? Well, that's what they used say about bull fighting in Spain, until authorities were forced to change their minds.

Is it because politicians in Ottawa think it garners votes in Atlantic Canada?

Well, I lived in Newfoundland for seven years and still keep in close touch, and it's my experience that more than half the people in the province would like to see the seal hunt ended. They don't like the repercussions, the idea that they are viewed around the world as seal killers.

But most are too afraid to speak out. Loyola Hearn and Danny Williams, these bulls of the balsam swamp, as I call them, frighten them into silence. But it's a lie that most of the people support the hunt.

The authorities say the Farley Mowat endangered the lives of sealers by coming too close to their boats for safety. But even their own pictures show this not to be true. And I know Paul Watson. In all his years, no one has been killed or hurt in any of his operations. If I thought for a moment he'd risk human lives in defence of the creatures of the sea I'd dissociate myself from him. No, the only danger comes from the government that refuses even to enforce safety regulations on the sealers and their boats.

I can assure Canadians that the Farley Mowat did not violate any Canadian laws, and did not even cross into Canadian waters. The people on board knew that Mr. Hearn's navy was waiting to board them if they did. They stayed outside the 12-mile limit, but that didn't stop Mr. Hearn. And I think I know why.

They boarded the ship and forced it to port just to keep it out of the way until the hunt is over. People will find that out in due course. They'll see the electronic positioning records, which the government has seized, and realize it was an error. But by then it will be too late, and another couple hundred thousand seals will be dead and skinned.

The act being played out in the Cabot Strait would be expected if it came from a third-rate dictatorial country, but not from a democracy like Canada.

I'm ashamed of this behaviour.

Here are some letters in response. Just the good ones.

Is it possible for the crew of the Farley Mowat to get a fair trial here, now that Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn has already acted as judge and jury, and publicly called them "a bunch of money-sucking manipulators" (The Seizure Of The Farley Mowat - editorial, April 14)? What a pathetic, unprofessional statement. How annoying that I have to pay for this "trial" and the circus that is the seal kill.
Sharon Stephenson, Langley, BC


I just mailed the cheque I normally would have donated to the Conservative Party to Paul Watson from the Sea Shepherd society. The Conservatives can expect no more support from this home unless they address the slaughter off the East Coast.
Eric Johnson, Grimsby, ON

Seeing my tax dollars hard at work arresting seal protesters makes me ashamed to call myself Canadian. Our government just doesn't get it. Why are we investing hundreds of millions of dollars across Canada to attract tourism when we're prepared to flush our international image down the toilet for $20-million in seal pelts? This cruel slaughter is disgusting, it's an economic disaster, and it's an embarrassment.
Craig Kelley, Vancouver, BC

ok liberals, what are you waiting for now?

The federal Tories have ended their flirtation with majority government territory, according to a new poll that puts them back to the same support levels that gave them their current minority.

The poll shows that, while the Tories appear to be improving their standing with Quebec voters, they have lost support in Ontario since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty launched attacks on the province's Liberal government.

The Strategic Counsel survey, conducted April 10-13, found that 36 per cent of voters would support the Tories if an election were held today, compared with 30 per cent who would back the Liberals.

The results for the two parties match the 2006 vote.

I believe this is what's known as "neck and neck". And this is with the Liberals acting like Tory lapdogs. Imagine how the poll might read if Stéphane Dion and his party showed a little chutzpah and stood up to Harper's bullying?

vacations in the culture of fear

Much has been written about the culture of fear that pervades so many people, especially parents, in these times.

There's a lot of money to be made by exploiting fear, from home-alarm systems to war profiteering. (Get 'em over there before they get us over here!) There are websites, catalogues and stores full of products designed with fearful parents in mind. For many, the padded playground has come to symbolize parental over-protectiveness and obsession with safety. We've all read about it; I won't try to recreate the whole argument here.

I see and hear a lot of stories about many parents' attempt to create a risk-free world for their children - as if such a thing is possible, and as if it is preferred. Without risk, there can be no growth, no testing of boundaries, no meaningful accomplishment. One needn't be a daredevil to know that a fearful child will have less self-confidence and have a more difficult time achieving independence. Falling on an ordinary, non-padded, playground, scraping your knee, then continuing to play is something of a metaphor for growing up.

I overheard something recently that perfectly illustrated the culture of parental fear. (Don't know if you've noticed, but a large percentage of my essay-type posts originate from overheard conversations. I'm always listening.)

This particular overheard conversation was lengthy; I was sort of trapped beside it, unseen, for an extended period of time. A woman was telling someone about her recent family vacation. They went on a Disney cruise. She went on and on about how great it was - an enormous variety of activities for kids of all ages and for adults. But what she really loved about the Disney cruise, as opposed to any other vacation they've taken, is how safe it was.

Every time you walked into a dining room or buffet, staff was handing out hand sanitizers. People were sanitizing the elevator buttons and door knobs all day long.

After leaving the ship for island entertainment (also owned by Disney), they had to pass through metal detectors and show identification to re-board. None of the other cruise lines did that!

All the entertainment was produced by Disney, of course, so there was no danger the children would be exposed to anything inappropriate.

The kids had to wear helmets and shin guards for all non-water activities, and life jackets for all water activities.

She talked about this a lot. "And it just made us feel so safe, so protected. It was the best part of the trip."

This astonished me.

I know that there have been illness outbreaks on cruise ships, so I understand that sanitation may be an issue. I'll give her that. But this was the best part of the trip?

Now, I'm not a cruise person in the first place. I can think of few things I'd enjoy less than be trapped anywhere with 2,000 other people and a bunch of "activities". To an independent traveler like me, the whole concept of this kind of holiday is hideous.

I also reject the notion that the only vacation you can take with kids are theme parks or cruises. I grew up going to national parks and historical sites. We hiked and rode horses and talked to park rangers, and we saw our country.

It's not a money issue. This woman's family had first spent a week in Florida (ugh), then did this four-day Disney cruise. She told her friend that the cruise was more expensive than the entire week in Florida including airfare, a giant splurge. I could plan three vacations for this family with what they spent on this one cruise. I kept thinking of all the cool things they could have seen and done for the same cost.

So sure, my reaction to this conversation is tempered by my general disgust at that type of holiday. But the safety issue just amazed me. How fearful she must be to make that such a high priority!

Are you thinking, "if she was a parent, she'd understand"? Well, I'm not a parent (not of humans, anyway), but my parents were. And I thank [something] that they didn't raise me to believe I needed hand sanitation and metal detection every time I turned around.

We knew about safety. We wore seat belts, we washed our hands after the bathroom, we had a fire safety plan. But we were also taught, by example, that there are worlds to explore, and given the confidence to do it.

My sister and brother are parents, and they didn't raise their kids in a fearful environment, either. My nieces and nephews travel all over the world on their own. They move into unchartered territory in their own lives, both figuratively and literally.

I also helped raise a child - I was a nanny, like a second mom, to a boy for five years. I saw risk, and I saw safety, and I saw a person who needed to test the world, to explore.

In addition, I have spoken with dozens of families of children with physical disabilities. Independence and potential over-protectiveness are huge issues in this world. The children who thrive come from families that recognize that life is risk.

But for every parent who is afraid of the big, bad world their children are entering, Disney, and dozens of other companies, are waiting to cash in.

I don't have any huge conclusion to draw from this. I just find it sad, and wrong.

department of lame excuses deports gay refugee claimant

Slap Upside The Head has the final verdict on Joaquin Ramirez, another gay man denied asylum in Canada.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Joaquin's story, asking why he didn't apply for police protection back at home before coming here.

Police protection. For a gay man in El Salvador. What planet are these people living on?

I guess it's the same planet where the nature of the Iraq War is not relevant to the war resisters' refugee cases, so the Refugee Board refused to hear arguments about it.

See Slap Upside for lots of news you might miss, plus his kickin' illustrations. Slap says he's "combatting bigotry the gayest way I know how". He's one of my favourite bloggers.

now here's a headline i can enjoy

"Mounties search Tory headquarters - RCMP searched Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday at the request of Elections Canada."

I hope they find lots of goodies!

but i'm sure it was just an innocent slip of the tongue

The Chairman of Associated Press referred to the world's most famous and elusive terrorist as "Obama Bin Laden".

After addressing the journalists gathered at the annual Associated Press luncheon in Washington, D.C., today, Sen. Barack Obama, standing at the podium, took a few questions. The last one from the audience, delivered via AP chairman W. Dean Singleton, was related to Afghanistan, our troops in Iraq and the threat posed by, as Singleton put it, "Obama bin Laden."

Obama quickly corrected Singleton. "That's Osama bin Laden," he said. The crowd laughed a bit. "If I did that, I am so sorry," Singleton replied.

Then Obama said, "This is part of what I have been going through for the past months, which is why it is impressive that I am still standing here."

Yes folks, that's the Chairman of AP, the organization described (by itself) as "the backbone of the world's information system, serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers. . . the largest and oldest news organization in the world. . .".

Thanks to the researcher-in-chief.

File this under humour? Election fraud? Things that leave me speechless?

immigration "reform" and this endless harper government

I'm unhappy about the proposed changes to Canada's immigration policy, and unhappy about the way they are being moved through Parliament, tacked onto budget votes in a series of we-dare-you confidence motions.

The Toronto Star's Carol Goar had a good piece about it last month, and it's still relevant. Emphasis mine.

It is possible that Immigration Minister Diane Finley wants more power to do exactly what she says: clean up her department's enormous backlog of unprocessed applications.

It is also possible that she is equipping herself to transform Canada's overloaded immigration system into a lean, business-friendly recruitment tool.

Both interpretations fit the available facts. The determining factor will be how the minister uses her expanded mandate.

Legal experts are still parsing the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, introduced on March 14. But the preliminary consensus is that they are much more significant than Canadians have been told.

Under the new legislation, the immigration minister would have the authority to:

Limit the number of immigration applications Canada accepts.

Deny admission to applicants already approved by immigration officers.

Block the entry of would-be immigrants "by category or otherwise."

These measures, backed by a $22 million funding boost in last month's budget, would certainly allow the government to whittle down its pile of 900,000 unprocessed immigration applications.

If visa offices cut off new applications, the staff could tackle the six-year accumulation of paperwork in their files. If the minister instructed them, as a first priority, to discard all applications from individuals who have died, immigrated elsewhere or decided against coming to Canada, the pile would shrink appreciably.

But if clearing the backlog is Finley's objective, why does she need the power to bar certain types of immigrants? Why does she seek the authority to reject applicants who have already met Canada's admission criteria? Why doesn't she just give managers of visa offices in countries such as China, India and the Philippines the discretion to close the intake pipe when their workloads become unmanageable?

The sweeping nature of the changes proposed in Bill C-50 suggests something bigger than housecleaning is afoot.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty called it "modernizing the immigration system" in his Feb. 26 budget. He said the government wants a "just-in-time competitive immigration system, which will quickly process skilled immigrants who can make an immediate contribution to the economy."

The fastest way to get there is to centralize control in the minister's office.

That is what Bill C-50 would do. If Finley wanted to block the inflow of relatives sponsored by family members in Canada, she could do it. If she wanted to exclude immigrants from certain countries, she could do it. If she wanted to propel foreign workers needed by a government-friendly employer to the front of the queue, she could do that, too.

"This fundamentally changes our immigration policy," said Lorne Waldman, a lawyer who has practised in the field for more than 30 years. "The minister could issue an instruction overriding all of the existing criteria."

What this means, Waldman said, is that Canada would no longer be an immigrant-welcoming country. It would be a rich Western power that shops for high-value immigrants. Federal officials would no longer use objective standards to determine whether an individual qualifies for a visa. The minister would be able to set and change the rules at will.

"I'm very concerned," he said. "These changes are far more serious than people have been led to believe."

. . .

Perhaps Finley has no intention of currying favour with ethnic voters, catering to the demands of business or keeping out people from certain regions. But if this bill becomes law, there will be nothing to stop her.

In the Montreal Gazette, Ian MacDonald writes about Harper's worrisome strategy.

The Conservatives keep daring the Liberals to defeat them in the House. The Liberals keep threatening to do so, only to fold when push comes to shove in votes.

The latest Conservative dare is over an immigration bill meant to reduce a huge six-year backlog of 800,000 persons waiting to get in the country, and expedite those whose credentials fill the need of the Canadian labour market. By tying it to budget implementation, the Conservatives have made it a money bill, and thus a question of confidence.

The Liberals are trying to stir old ghosts among ethnic voters about narrow-minded Conservative attitudes on immigration. Whipping up anxieties in multicultural communities, a core Liberal constituency, is something they do well.

Thus, for two weeks in the House, the Liberals have pounded the government on the immigration bill.

. . .

But this debate isn't about the immigration reform bill. Not really. Especially since it's been tied to the budget as a question of confidence. It's about whether the Liberals can muster the courage to bring down the government at month's end, forcing a June election. It's a big game of truth or dare.

Or, as a senior cabinet minister put it privately the other day: "We are giving the Liberals another chance to defeat us over the immigration bill."

And if the Liberals blink again, then once again they will appear weak and unprincipled. But the Liberal caucus is increasingly unhappy being stuck in this place. And there are hidden leadership agendas, of Iggy and Bob Rae, that could precipitate an election.

MacDonald and many other pundits see the strategy as a no-lose for Harper. He either survives the confidence motion or forces an election while the Liberals are supposedly bleeding support.

But there's a lot of anger and dissatisfaction with this government: with their hypocrisy (transparency? accountability? yeah, right!), their penchant for secrecy, their feud with Ontario, and a whole series of unpopular, regressive bills.

The Liberals have been fools to let the Harper government go this far, as every unanswered dare only strengthens the Tories. Partisan Liberal supporters who can only whine, "But it's not time for an election!" are even worse. Your party props up this Conservative government for twice as long as it should have, and all you can say is "But they're not ready...". That, and blame the NDP (who has done exactly none of this propping up) and NDP supporters for "splitting the vote" (i.e., voting for the actual progressive party).

I don't know what would happen in a summer election - and despite the pronouncements, neither does anyone else - but I do know we won't get rid of this government without an election. Enough already!

a shot at a verified vote in the u.s. election

In the US, activists for democracy have reached a potential milestone. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will vote on HR 5036, "The Emergency Election Assistance for Secure Elections Act".

We already know electronic voting cannot be trusted. Currently, only 17 states have a voter-verified paper trail with a mandatory audit. Without a paper record, the vote cannot be audited.

HR 5036 would provide funds for voter-verified paper records and audits of the vote on Election Day. However, the bill does not require states to have paper trails or audits. Participation is optional, so voters would still have to fight for paper audits on the state level. Big bad feds not allowed to require poor little ole states to do anything.

Howard Stanislevic, who writes a blog about the dangers of electronic voting, sees some welcome language in this bill.

US voters should contact their Congresspeople and urge them to support HR 5036.

This bill represents a long campaign by a lot of dedicated activists. It will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere.

ssod

Search string of the day:

do i have to fill out any forms to move to canada?

Forms?? Oh, baby!

tutu says boycott beijing

How did I miss this? Earlier this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu called on world leaders to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu said Tuesday he supported international protests surrounding the Olympic torch and urged world leaders to boycott the games' opening ceremony in Beijing over China's human rights record.

The retired Anglican archbishop from South Africa also called on China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader and fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, who is seeking autonomy for Tibet.

Tutu praised protesters who have put themselves on the line in Paris, San Francisco and elsewhere to protest last month's crackdown in Tibet, which claimed as many as 140 lives.

In particular, he applauded three climbers who hung pro-Tibet banners Monday from the Golden Gate Bridge.

"I salute them," he said.

Tutu was in San Francisco to receive the Outspoken Award from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission for his work on behalf of gay and lesbian rights.

Desmond Tutu is a hero of mine and proof that religion can be a positive force in the world. Not in my own life, of course! But in the fight for social justice.

crisis of food, crisis of heart

People are starving all over the world.

People who already live on a knife's edge of hunger and need are being pushed further into hopelessness.

This is scrambling my mind and weighing on my heart. I seldom say this about anything, but the global food crisis feels so huge and so hopeless to me.

* * * *

As societies collapse, the people clinging to the bottom rung of the economic ladder will always feel the effects first, and the people on the top will be sheltered the longest. At the very top, consumption - and superconsumption - blithely continues. The tide rises, the people on the bottom drown, and people further up the scale begin to feel the effects.

We see this all around us, as formerly middle class Americans huddle in tent cities, as people riot for food, as rice is delivered in armoured vehicles.

For those of us who already view the global situation as a series of resource wars, this development fits squarely into the picture. The very scary picture.

If the spectre of people starving all over the world doesn't move us, perhaps the spectre of riots, terrorism and massacres will.

Canada is home to much of the world's fresh water and large reserves of oil. How will that figure in?

We know that one major factor contributing to this global crisis is biofuels. We knew it was obscene to grow food for cars, instead of people, but the people with cars can pay, and the people who need food cannot, and profit drives the world.

* * * *

This morning I was crunching some numbers, figuring out how to pay some bills while we save for our vacation. I'm researching where to buy pasture-raised meat. We are planning our party, and filling up our gas tank, and watching baseball on cable TV. And people all over the world are sinking into desperation because the price of a bag of rice is more than their monthly income. It's obscene.

I feel helpless. Please tell me I'm not. Please tell me, what can we do?

is the dalai lama anti-gay? is tibetan buddhism inherently homphobic?

Is the Dalai Lama anti-gay? Is Tibetan Buddhism inherently homophobic?

Does anyone have information on this, or a reliable source?

I am not Buddhist; it's always seemed to me that Zen and activism are mutually exclusive. Plus I am simply areligious. I know the basic outlines of Tibetan Buddhism, but nothing in depth. I have several gay friends who are Buddhists, but then, there are gay Catholics, too.

A (former) wmtc reader tells me the Dalai Lama has made very virulent anti-gay remarks. But the only source he offered was Free Republic, not to be trusted. My own searches turn up some conversation and accusations, but no evidence.

The Dalai Lama welcomed participants in the World Conference of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, and issued a message of support, expressing concern "reports of violence and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" and urging "respect, tolerance and the full recognition of human rights for all."

Gay Tibet is pretty happy with His Holiness, too.

Do you know the origin of the belief that the Dalai Lama is anti-gay? Do you know if it is true?

Since at least half the wmtc readership is queer, and I also have many Buddhist friends, perhaps someone can offer an answer.

Thanks in advance.

women speak out

Not long ago, I blogged about "Lisa Smith", the pseudonym of yet another KBR employee who was sexually assaulted - then silenced - while working in Iraq.

Now "Lisa Smith" has testified before Congress and spoken to the media using her real name, Dawn Leamon.

This is one brave woman.

Background here, and further back, here.

Whenever a woman refuses to be silent about rape, she is standing up for rape survivors everywhere - and for those who didn't survive. She is standing up for all women, and our right to control our own bodies. She is fighting for freedom from fear.

I wish there was something I could do to help Dawn Leamon. Hopefully this post will find her. We are with you, Dawn. You are not alone.

debbie shank and how many others

The good folks at Wal-Mart Watch want you to know that Debbie Shank was the tip of the iceberg.

Debbie Shank, you'll recall, was a Wal-Mart employee. She was permanently disabled and brain-damaged after a truck hit her car on the highway. Debbie now lives in nursing home. After Debbie's husband, Jim Shank, won a modest settlement from the trucking company that hit Debbie, Wal-Mart sued him for the cost of her care.

Yes, even though it takes Wal-Mart only 38 seconds to earn the $470,000 that they spent on Shank's care, they sued her suffering family to get the money back. And they got away with it! Which says something about the justice system, no? Only the huge public campaign publicly shamed Wal-Mart into reversing course.

So what it does mean that Debbie Shank is the tip of iceberg? Wal-Mart is the world's largest employer, and the single biggest employer in the United States. Yet fewer than half its employees are covered by the company health care plan. For those that manage to qualify, health care is still neither affordable nor accessible. Go here for details.

And this is some kind of iceberg.

Did you know Wal-Mart Watch is currently facing the largest class-action discrimination suit in history? 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees are charging the company with paying women less and offering them fewer opportunities for promotion.

But wait, there's more. There's a class action lawsuit filed by African-American truck drivers, and millions of dollars spent to settle lawsuits for discrimination against people with disabilities and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Details and sources here.

Have you seen the "secret" Wal-Mart tapes? These videos were released to the public after the company gave the standard Wal-Mart treatment to (translation: screwed over) a production company that was making a video for them. Wal-Mart watch is using it as a handy organizing tool.

friendly neighbour axes canadian studies centre

I was reading this short item in today's Globe and Mail when I realized it was about a blog-acquaintance of mine.

Canada was heralded as "cool" by a highbrow international magazine a few years ago, but that popularity has dimmed in the ivory towers of the University of Vermont.

The school has yanked funding from its Canadian studies program because interest has sagged in recent years. Only three students at the U of V now major in Canuck.

Faculty members fear the university's Canadian content could soon disappear into the mists of the Green Mountains.

"Symbolically, [the cut] speaks very clearly to the fact that this administration simply doesn't care deeply about the study of Canada on this campus," history professor David Massell said in an interview from the Burlington campus.

Paul Martin, the fittingly named director of Canadian studies, says losing the $35,000 annual allowance will force the program to close its office, shave research assistance and cancel its annual trip to Ottawa.

"That's a heavy loss for us," he said yesterday.

Prof. Martin says the cutback could also spark the Canadian embassy in Washington to chop its annual grant. It awarded $9,500 to the department in 2007.

"As a Canadian who has witnessed the students get so enthusiastic about Canada ... to see the impact that even the small amount of funding that we get has on that whole process, to see that be imperilled, is definitely a personal blow," he said.

The university, meanwhile, says it shut down the administrative centre but the program will live on.

The "the fittingly named director of Canadian studies," Paul Martin, writes the blog As Canadian As Possible... under the circumstances. Martin writes:

Founded in 1964, the University of Vermont's Canadian Studies Program is one of the oldest, most respected programs in North America. It's reputation and long, productive history was what lured me to UVM five years ago and has continued to attract new tenure-track faculty such as Professors Amani Whitfield, Shelly Rayback, and Pablo Bose, all of whom are doing fascinating, cutting-edge research on Canada.

Although the University administration is justifying their cuts to our office with the argument that we only have three majors and two minors in our program and very few connected faculty, this does not accurately reflect the student and faculty involvement in our program. As of 2007-08, we have 10 tenured and tenure-track faculty and three lecturers teaching courses on Canada, and our program today is the strongest it has been in years. In the past year alone, our associated faculty from the departments of History, Geography, Romance Languages, English, Political Science and Anthropology taught 22 courses with either full or partial Canadian content, reaching close to 600 students.

Last year, 65 of our students and 15 Canadian Politics students from Saint Michael's College travelled to Ottawa as part of our legendary, annual field trip to Canada's capital, a trip that has run every year since the mid 1950s. Our program also hosts many high-profile events across campus, such as the visit to campus in October by the Grand Chief of the Council of the Quebec Crees, who spoke to a standing-room-only crowd at the Livak Ballroom about the relationship between the Cree and the Governments of Canada and Quebec whose massive hydro projects have flooded traditional lands in order to provide electricity to Quebec and much of New England.

I recall driving by that little building on Main Street in Burlington, long ago, when I was visiting Allan in Vermont. I always thought it was cool to see the Maple Leaf flying, long before I ever dreamed I'd live in Canada. I wish Paul the best of luck.

las vegas slots have more security than u.s. voting machines

Another dispatch from the Department of Better Late Than Never: The Washington Post discovers that electronic voting is bullshit. Click to view.

A few months ago, The New York Times discovered the same thing.

The graphic is excerpted from an upcoming book, Was The 2004 Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, by Joel Bleifuss and Steve Freeman.

Electronic voting is not the only thing wrong with the US election system. But as long as it's being used, it probably doesn't matter who you vote for.

Thanks to Allan for the story.

moral illogic part 2: supporting freedom, but not if it makes too much noise

The pro-Tibet movement continues to steal the spotlight from the Olympic torch relay.

In San Francisco, planned protests were substantial enough to back the city into a corner, and they pulled a last-minute route change. Although I can understand why protesters and spectators would be frustrated, I hope pro-Tibet organizers realize that they won the day. They are still the biggest news.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has joined German Chancellor Angela Merkel in her decision not to attend the Opening Ceremonies. He says it's not a boycott but nobody believes him.

And while the anti-China, pro-Tibet protests continue, a growing number of Canadians and Americans are outraged. But not about China - about the protests.

You can read their fist-pounding letters to the editors in your local newspaper, or find them on dozens of blogs. They're in a lather over the protesters turning into "thugs" and "resorting to violence". A commonly heard sentiment goes something like, "Now that the protests have turned violent and protesters are committing vandalism, I question my support for Tibet!"

You may recall my post about people who claim to be against the Iraq War, but who think war resisters should be deported and jailed because "they signed a contract". This is the same theme.

The authoritarian streak in so many ordinary people amazes me. Some people are so besotted with order that their moral code runs for cover when the voice of the people gets too loud. If you are in such a huff because a protest turned rowdy or (heaven forbid!) somebody's property was damaged that you would actually stop sympathizing with people struggling against an occupation, I have to question your core values. People clash with police over a protest against China, and the protesters are the "thugs"? Not China?

I don't expect everyone to share my belief that violence is sometimes a necessary and useful tool in a movement. And not everyone understands how the media portrays protester violence out of all proportion to reality, and how often violence attributed to protesters is actually instigated by police.

But are you so indoctrinated with order that when some people in a freedom movement become disorderly, you would rather support totalitarianism?

what i'm watching: shine a light

The Rolling Stones + Martin Scorsese + New York City = Allan and Laura go to the movies. In a movie theatre! For the first time in almost four years!

Yes, it's true, before this afternoon we had not seen a movie in a movie theatre in almost four years. We really don't care for the movie theatre experience: the ads, the people talking, the lack of pause and replay. We much prefer watching movies at home.

But some things must be experienced on a big screen. Martin Scorsese's new film of a Rolling Stones concert is playing in IMAX (Canadian!) five minutes from our home. And we can go to a weekday afternoon show, when there are only five other people in the theatre. This is what is called a no-brainer.

"Shine A Light" was filmed at New York City's Beacon Theatre, where I have seen dozens of concerts over the years. It's an old, restored theatre of the kind found in most North American cities, seats about 2,500 people. The Toronto equivalent is Massey Hall.

In 2006, the Stones performed there for two nights, part of Bill Clinton's 60th birthday celebration and a fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation. The Rolling Stones at The Beacon?! All I can say is thank goodness I didn't live in New York anymore, because even at this distance, the envy is killing me.

Shine A Light is a very good movie. It captures the controlled power and frenetic restraint of a Rolling Stones show. For Stones fans, it's an absolute must. But if you never really "got" the Stones, and you don't understand what all the fuss is about, you might want to see this movie. If you do and you still don't get it, check your pulse, because you're probably dead.

I could write an enormous blog post about The Stones, especially on Jagger and what makes him so great, and especially on Keith and what makes him Keith. These are subjects I've given a lot of thought and which Allan and I have talked about since literally - and I do mean literally - the night we met. But I won't do that. Instead I will say that the things that make The Stones, The Stones, are on brilliant display in Shine A Light.

It's not a perfect movie, I had a few criticisms, but they are very minor in comparison with the fun I had. And the envy. Did I mention envy?

what i'm watching: winter soldier, and how you can prevent war crimes

After our Winter Soldier event this week, Allan and I borrowed the movie of the first Winter Soldier - the original event from 1971 - and watched it last night, on a Red Sox night off. I didn't realize it was available on DVD, and I think I'll buy it now.

It's not easy an easy film to watch. The testimony is brutal, and unceasing, and graphic. There is some actual footage from Vietnam, but mercifully not much. Most of it is the veterans' words and your own imagination, and that is bad enough.

It reminded me of when I was a child in Hebrew school, which, like most American Jewish kids, I attended after school a couple of days a week. One week they showed us films on the Holocaust. I already knew what the Holocaust was, but two hours of graphic pictures and testimony was a different story. I was maybe 9 years old. I came home and threw up, then had nightmares for weeks.

Winter Soldier has the same effect.

It's like listening to what the Nazis did, what Stalin did, what the Khmer Rouge did, what Saddam Hussein did - Argentina, Bosnia, Japan, China - wherever, whoever. The US has plenty of company in the war crimes department, but its mighty global reach gives it a special advantage when it comes to this destruction, and its cover up.

Most Americans - not all, by any means - don't know, don't believe, don't want to believe their country has perpetrated these kinds of atrocities. But a mere 35 years ago, the US government put its citizens to work indiscriminately torturing, maiming, raping, and killing innocent people, along with the total destruction of their homes and everything they owned.

And of course it is happening again, right now.

Winter Soldier is not easy to watch and listen to. Murder, torture, poison gas, chemical weapons, people thrown alive from helicopters, mass rape, dismemberment, disembowelment, the burning of village after village after village.

No distinction made between civilian and combatants.

Competitions to see who could kill the most. Gang rapes as "standard operating procedure". Rewards, such as a three-day-pass, for killing.

"I killed three VC." "How did you know they were Viet Cong?" "Because they were dead."

Don't count the people who board the helicopters. Count the ones who get off, because the numbers won't match.

* * * *

I thought the men who testified were unbelievably brave for doing so. I hope speaking out helped ease their own pain, if only a little, and perhaps set their course for healing. Truth-telling is the only path to healing. Only by facing the horrors of the past, whatever they are, can we liberate ourselves from its grip.

I wondered how Winter Soldier was born. How did these men come together and decide to do this? That's something I'd like to learn more about. Was there any precedent? Were they guided by any psychological insights, or only their good instincts and wounded consciences, compelling them to come forward? How, in all the centuries and millennia of war and war crimes, did these men, in this time and place, break the silence, tell the truth, find their humanity?

I think the counterculture of those times must have helped them find the strength to do it. It could never have happened in, say, the 1950s after World War II, and not just because of the perceived difference between the two wars. The counterculture - insisting on challenging authority, questioning conformity, seeking love instead of hate - gave them the safe space to begin.

I wondered if the Truth and Reconciliation Hearings in South Africa - which also fascinated - used Winter Soldier as a partial model.

One soldier compares his tour in Vietnam to a hunting trip with no limits. Whoever kills the most wins.

One soldier speaks of "the horror of the every day", as he recalls how his unit stoned to death a small child. Only weeks later did he remember the incident. He says, "I never thought my mind would hide things from me." So I learn that the minds of perpetrators repress memories, too, just like the minds of victims. It shows how both victim and perpetrator are damaged, how every perpetrator is also victimizing himself.

One soldier says, "My commanding officer told me the long-haired hippies would condemn me and hate me. But while I was over there, I got a letter from a girl. She told me about a place called Woodstock, where 500,000 people came together in love. I think it was the only time I truly smiled the whole time I was in Nam."

It's easy to caricature the '60s and '70s counter-culture. But it's easier to be sympathetic when you remember what people were reacting against. Like Elvis Costello says, what's so funny about...

One soldier says, "I'm ashamed. Don't let them do this to you. Don't ever let your government do this to you."

* * * *

I know there is individual responsibility, and I know how important it is. And yet... I'm not comfortable blaming individual soldiers for war crimes. I can't demonize these men, or even hold them, at bottom, responsible. Everyone had been brainwashed, dehumanized, turned into a killing machine. Everyone was motivated by fear. Everyone believed that every "gook" was out to get them and kill them, so they had to kill them first.

I'm not exonerating the soldiers, but real responsibility has to roll up. Up the chain of command, all the way to the top. Hitler had his willing executioners, but it's Hitler we remember. As we should remember Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al, in the same way.

* * * *

Looking at history, it's clear that most humans succumb to the mass insanity that overtakes aggressors in wartime. Defying its raw power is nearly impossible, maybe too much to ask of any mortal. Perhaps the only thing you can do is refuse to be in the situation in the first place.

You would have to refuse to fight. Which many did.

Do you see, Canada, why you must take in the Iraq War resisters? These are people who have refused to let their government do this to them. By accepting the war resisters, you are standing up for peace. You are preventing war crimes.

So, one more time folks: if you haven't contacted your MP about this, now is the time. Details here, or here, or here, or please feel free to email me for details. Right now we need letters to Stéphane Dion, and to your own MP, especially if he or she is a Liberal.

the most beautiful jewelry in the world

Today is Opening Day at Fenway Park, and the Boston Red Sox will receive their 2007 championship rings.

I am happy!

torch relay spotlights civil disobedience on a global scale

I have been thrilled to see the continued, sustained protest during the the Olympic torch relay. The torch's progress around the globe has turned out to be a public-relations nightmare for China and the IOC, and a boon for civil disobedience.

In London, the torch was hit with a fire extinguisher. In Paris, the runners gave up, doused the flame and boarded a bus. Protesters in San Francisco used their magnificent bridge to put on a show. (Some photos here.) In England, the torch protests had the support of two high-profile athletes, something I really admire.

The mainstream media has latched onto this, and China can't make it disappear. Curmudgeons and authoritarians everywhere are wringing their hands, but the people are being heard. Every successful protest gives future protesters more courage. It's exciting.

tonight in toronto: winter soldier testimony

If you're in Toronto tonight, you can hear testimony from Winter Soldier. Details here.

beyond any definition of cute

Cute Overload doesn't begin to describe this.

Thank you, Impudent Strumpet! Let's make sure we save their homes.

why give back when you can take back? wal-mart employees, katrina survivors in the same sinking boat

Have you heard of Debbie Shank?

Like more than one million Americans, Shank was an employee of Wal-Mart; unlike many of her fellow employees, she eventually qualified for the company's health insurance plan. Just three months later, Shank was in a horrific car accident, hit by a tractor trailer. She was left brain damaged and permanently disabled. Fortunately, the insurance paid her hospital bills, so at least Debbie's husband and three sons were not left destitute. Debbie now lives in a nursing home.

Debbie's husband, Jim Shank, sued the trucking company that hit her, hoping to cover some of the costs of Debbie's care. The Shanks won a modest settlement, which would go towards Debbie's round-the-clock care.

That's when Jim Shank got a call from Wal-Mart's lawyers: they were suing the Shanks for the settlement. This was, apparently, standard procedure.

With the help of Wal-Mart Watch, SEIU, and people all over the US, the Shanks fought back.

Shank's story has been the focus of a long battle by Wal-Mart Watch, who raised awareness, pressure and funds to help the Shanks. Last week, they won!

Wal-Mart agreed to allow the Shank family to keep the money they won from the trucking company responsible for Debbie's injuries, and dropped its legal proceedings against Jim and Debbie Shank. You can read more about the battle here at Wal-Mart Watch. However, the clause in the insurance contracts that entitles Wal-Mart to do this remains. The battle will not truly be won until Wal-Mart treats its 1.3 million employees fairly. (Does global warming cover hell freezing over?)

I thought of Debbie Shank when I read this story about survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

Imagine that your home was reduced to mold and wood framing by Hurricane Katrina. Desperate for money to rebuild, you engage in a frustrating bureaucratic process, and after months of living in a government-provided trailer tainted with formaldehyde you finally win a federal grant.

Then a collector calls with the staggering news that you have to pay back thousands of dollars.

Thousands of Katrina victims may be in that situation.

A private contractor under investigation for the compensation it received to run the Road Home grant program for Katrina victims says that in the rush to deliver aid to homeowners in need some people got too much. Now it wants to hire a separate company to collect millions in grant overpayments.

. . .

One-third of qualified applicants for Road Home help had yet to receive any rebuilding check as of this past week. The program, which has come to symbolize the lurching Katrina recovery effort, is financed by $11 billion in federal funds.

. . .

Brann pointed out that 5,000 collections cases would represent a 4-percent error rate for the Road Home that is "quite good for large federal programs."

Frank Silvestri, co-chair of the Citizen's Road Home Action Team, a group that formed out of frustrations with ICF [the contractor], sees it far differently.

"They want people to pay for their incompetence and their mistakes. What they need to be is aggressive about finding the underpayments," he said. "People relied, to their detriment, on their (ICF's) expertise and rebuilt their houses and now they want to squeeze this money back out of them."

The prospect of Road Home grant collections comes less than two weeks after the Louisiana inspector general and the legislative auditor said they were investigating why former Gov. Kathleen Blanco paid ICF an extra $156 million in her waning days in office to administer the program. With the increase, ICF stands to earn $912 million to run Road Home, a contract that also sweetened its initial public stock offering, and helped it buy out four other companies. It now reaches into government contracting sectors that include national defense and the environment.

. . .

Upon receiving money from Road Home, grantees sign a batch of forms, including one that says they must refund any overpayments.

Melanie Ehrlich, co-chair of Citizen's Road Home Action Team, which has documented Road Home cases that appear littered with mistakes, said she had no confidence that ICF had correctly calculated overpayments. She charged that the company was more likely using collections as retribution against people who had appealed their award amounts in effort to get the aid they deserved.

"I think they are looking for ways to decrease awards and that's part of dissuading people," she said.

Did you catch this part? "One-third of qualified applicants for Road Home help had yet to receive any rebuilding check as of this past week."

We moved to Canada the day of Hurricane Katrina. We have been here a few months shy of three years. Since that day we have lived in two houses, lost a dog, adopted another, lost and found jobs, written who-knows-how-many words, hosted two parties, travelled to Peru, collected Canadian Tire money, seen our team win another World Series... and there are people still waiting to receive a dollar of help to rebuild their lives.

state of the planet: women in war, rape as a weapon

The ordeal of Jamie Leigh Jones - and her willingness to be public about it - has inspired many other women to speak out. Jones, you'll recall, is the former KBR employee who was gang-raped by other employees, then her employer - with the help of the US government - covered up the crime.

Writing in The Nation, Karen Houppert tells the story of "Lisa Smith" (a pseudonym), a paramedic working for the private contractor in southern Iraq. The story is here. Warning: Rape survivors with sensitive flashback mechanisms may want to proceed with caution or save it for the right time. There are graphic details.

From Houppert:

Smith felt very alone. But she was not.

In fact, a growing number of women employees working for US defense contractors in the Middle East are coming forward with complaints of violence directed at them. As the Iraq War drags on, and as stories of US security contractors who seem to operate with impunity continue to emerge (like Blackwater and its deadly attack against Iraqi civilians on September 16, 2007), a rash of new sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints are being lodged against overseas contractors--by their own employees. Todd Kelly, a lawyer in Houston, says his firm alone has fifteen clients with sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation complaints (for reporting assault and/or harassment) against Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC (KBR), as well as Cayman Island-based Service Employees International Inc., a KBR shell company. (While Smith is technically an SEII employee, she is supervised by KBR staff as a KBR employee.)

Jamie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December--when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government--also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

The "Lisa Smith" story offers an excellent and rare insight into the heart and mind of a recent rape survivor. It concludes:

Smith, who says she cannot sleep, appears exhausted. She tells her story without affect, little inflection and tamped emotion. She only tears up twice, most visibly when speaking about one of her sons, a 22-year-old US soldier who served in the Middle East recently. While she was in the process of debating whether--and how--to go about reporting her assault, she contacted him to see what his feelings were on the matter. "I didn't want him upset with his mom," she says, explaining that she was very loyal to the mission in Iraq and that he was similarly loyal to his service. "I was assaulted by somebody who was wearing the same uniform as him, and I just didn't want him to think bad of me. My children are pretty much my world." Smith's eyes fill with tears, and she pauses to collect herself. "I didn't want him to be upset because I was calling out somebody who was wearing his same uniform. They're supposed to be proud of what they do. And I'm proud of my sons. And in my mind, I live that war every day. I can make all sorts of excuses under the sun for bad behavior."

Her son advised her to make the formal complaint.

"He was like, 'Of course you're going to talk to CID, Mom. Of course you are.'" Smith smiles. "He doesn't think people should be allowed to wear his uniform and act like that. He's been in the war too and says it's no excuse. They're better trained than that. That's what my son thought. And he's not angry at his mom."

Rape has been a weapon during wartime for as long as there has been war. The classic Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller was probably my earliest education about that. But my more recent exploration of the nature of war has also helped me understand it (as much as such a thing can be understood). In War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, Chris Hedges writes about the dehumanization, the atmosphere of violence and aggression, the numbing of all empathy and compassion, that overtakes most people in war, where sex becomes another weapon of submission.

In the movie "The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo", filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson documents rape on a scale almost too large to comprehend. Jackson is herself a rape survivor, and she travelled to The Congo to hear the stories of survivors of mass rapes.

It became so much woman to woman. I very quickly lost that sense of them being 'other.' It made it easier, but it also made it harder. . . there were a lot of tears alone in my room at night, . . . I would find myself, at Panzi or in the bush for instance, and there were entire villages of women who had been raped - there was not a woman there who had not suffered."

I spent more than two years, on and off, interviewing rape survivors and people who minister to them. I thought I could do that without the stories touching memories of my own assault, or perhaps I needed to think that to begin. I also interviewed several social workers who specialize in sexual assault, especially child sexual abuse. I was interested in what happens to people who are absorbing all that pain. I really admire the work Jackson did to make this film. I'm especially impressed (and amazed) that she interviewed men who committed these crimes.

From Women Make Movies:

Shot in the war zones of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), this extraordinary film shatters the silence that surrounds the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. During the decade-long brutal war in the DRC, many tens of thousands of women and girls have been systematically kidnapped, raped, mutilated and tortured by soldiers from both foreign militias and the Congolese army. A survivor of gang rape herself, Emmy-Award winning filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson travels through the DRC to understand what is happening and why.

This moving, award-winning documentary, produced in association with HBO Documentary Films and the Fledgling Fund, features interviews with activists, peace keepers, physicians, and even – chillingly – the indifferent rapists who are soldiers of the Congolese Army. But the most moving and harrowing moments of the film come as dozens of survivors recount their stories with an honesty and immediacy pulverizing in its intimacy and detail. A profoundly disturbing portrayal of the ways that violence against women is used as a weapon of war, this powerful film also provides inspiring examples of resiliency, resistance, courage and grace.

The Greatest Silence premieres on HBO this week, and I imagine it will soon be available on DVD. This is the kind of film that I must force myself to see, but I always do, eventually.

I often hear people say they don't like to see movies that are so disturbing. I think, how else can we learn about other people's experiences? And if we don't learn about them, how will we empathize? I think of it this way: if people can live through it, the least I can do is bear witness.

state of the empire: reproductive freedom

Some Florida teens believe drinking Mountain Dew or smoking marijuana will prevent pregnancy and that swallowing a capful of bleach will prevent HIV/AIDS. Thank you, abstinence-only sex education! [sic]

When those pot-smoking, bleach-swilling Floridians get pregnant, they had better be prepared to become mommies and daddies. Their state legislature is trying to pass some of the most stringent anti-abortion laws in the US.

New laws would require any woman seeking an abortion to pay for, have, and view the results of, an ultrasound test.

The Florida state House of Representatives also passed a fetal homicide bill that would create a separate murder charge if a pregnancy is terminated by violence against a pregnant woman. The law would define a fetus from conception on as an "unborn child".

This hasn't passed the Florida state Senate yet, and may not. If it becomes law, reproductive-rights groups will go to court, as they always do, and the law would likely be found unconstitutional.

My point is not these laws in themselves, disgusting though they are. It's the laws in conjunction with abstinence-only sex "education".

The war against women is fought on many fronts. "Popline" is the world's largest database on reproductive health. It is managed by Johns Hopkins University, with money from US AID, the heavily politicized, anti-abortion, anti-woman Agency for International Development. Last week, a spokesperson for Johns Hopkins said the University had programmed its computers to ignore the word "abortion" in searches.

Librarians at the Medical Center of the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern about the restrictions this week after they had difficulty retrieving articles from Popline.

In an e-mail response on Tuesday, Johns Hopkins told the librarians that "abortion" was no longer a valid search term.

"We recently made all abortion terms stop words," Debra L. Dickson, a Popline manager, wrote. "As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now."

As outrageous and Orwellian as that seems, the US has been making "all abortion terms stop words" in the global sense for a long time, using what's called the Global Gag Rule. Officially known as The Mexico City Policy, the Gag Rule was instituted by (who else?) Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Bill Clinton in 1993, then reinstated by the Resident on his first day in office in 2001.*

The Global Gag Rule states that no US funds can be provided to any foreign organization that uses funding from any other source to: perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country.

Think about it. This is not just "we won't fund abortions". It's "we won't fund you at all, for anything, if you utter the word abortion or accept money from anyone else who does".

The Global Gag Rule increases the spread of HIV/AIDS, contributes to illegal and unsafe abortions, increases the world's population of unwanted babies, decreases the use of contraceptives (including HIV-preventing condoms), and in general increases human misery, suffering and death throughout the world.

For more information on how the Global Gag Rule hurts women, children and families, see Access Denied. You can search by continent and country to see the mighty reach of Empire.


-----
* OK, there is sometimes a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

april 4, 1967

I let April 4 pass without marking the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. I have a tendency to rail against what I see as the distortion - and dilution - of King's teachings. With an African-American man running for President of the United States, it's only gotten louder, and more distorted. I needed to stay away.

But thanks to Common Dreams, I remembered April 4, 1967. One year before his death, King gave a famous speech at New York City's Riverside Church, where he explained why he supported the movement to stop the Vietnam War. King's stance against the war was highly controversial within the civil rights movement, and it cost him dearly. At Riverside Church that day, he explained why working for equality and justice must mean also working for peace.

You can read a lengthy excerpt here. Much of it is specific to the Vietnam war itself, but with a few substitutions - "terrorism" for "communism" - and the parallels are clear.

Somehow this madness must cease. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam and the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently, one of them wrote these words: "Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony, and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of her people.

. . .

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us re-dedicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

Read more here.

what i'm reading: rethinking thin

I just finished Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss - and the Myths and Realities of Dieting, by Gina Kolata, who is a science writer for the New York Times.

The book is framed around a university-sponsored weight loss study, a highly controlled and supported experiment to see which of two diets results in more weight loss. Around this framework, Kolata takes you through the history of the diet and weight loss industry (it's much older than I thought!), and an examination of the available scientific evidence about weight loss.

Kolata's examination of the data brings her to these conclusions:

Humans have very little control over their weight. Your weight is about 80% genetically determined. You can affect your weight only within a small range.

Being overweight is not a serious health risk. Other than the morbidly obese, being fat in itself has very little effect on your health. In fact, being what society considers slightly overweight appears to extend life span and promote good health. (Note that this is a separate issue from exercising and eating healthfully. You can do both and still be overweight.)

No diet works better than any other diet. As every chronic dieter knows, you can lose some weight on almost any diet, and you will always gain it back, and then some. This is not merely observational and anecdotal. It is fact.

People are becoming fatter, but it's not their fault, and may not even be bad, except, of course, socially. An analogy can be drawn to height. In the last century, people in first-world countries have become taller. This is not because humans have changed genetically, but because, for the first time in history, changes in medicine and nutrition has enabled humans to fulfill their genetic potential for height. According to the data, the same goes for weight. It appears that humans have an enormous potential to store fat, and only now, as a large segment of the population has access to unlimited nutrition, are we seeing that.

Data that supports the above conclusion - no matter how rigorous the study, no matter how clear the evidence - are attacked, ignored or dismissed. Studies that support socially acceptable conclusions - no matter how flawed the study or flimsy the evidence - are promoted. This is a running theme of Rethinking Thin, and alone makes the book worth reading, for the general comment on the uses of science in society.

When I wrote about eating disorders, experts were beginning to see data that supported these ideas. I waited for the news to filter down to the general public - and kept waiting. It never happened. Rethinking Thin explains why.

It's a short book and easy to read. Some of the science was a bit beyond me, but that was a minor part, and didn't affect my overall understanding.

The conclusions of Rethinking Thin are certainly controversial. But before anyone dismisses them as hocus-pocus, I would read this.

ssod

Search string of the day:

what is the best way to sneak into canada?

I wonder why they're sneaking in.

hear winter soldier testimony in toronto

On Monday, April 7, the War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a screening of testimony from the Winter Soldier conferences. Iraq War resisters living in Canada will also speak about their own experiences.

This year, from March 13 to 16, veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan testified at Winter Soldier, a conference organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War.

The conference was modelled on the original Winter Soldier hearings, which took place in 1971, during the Vietnam War.

The event this Monday will show testimony from both the original Winter Soldier and the recent Winter Soldier II. You'll also get an update on the situation of US war resisters who are seeking asylum in Canada. It promises to be an eye-opening and gripping evening.

When: Monday, April 7, 7:00 p.m.
Where: Health Sciences Building, U of T, 155 College Street at McCaul
More info: 416.856.5008

wmtc3

The invites for wmtc3 are out. This year's party is Saturday, June 7, and it's also a fundraiser for the War Resisters Support Campaign.

I've tried to gather everyone's email from all over the place, but I'm sure I missed some. If you think you should have received an invitation, but didn't, please do email me. Don't be shy.

my wild salmon dilemma

More from Zoe Cormier's "The Green Report".

THE NEWS: The seal hunt on Canada's East Coast begins this week, and on the other side of the continent another hunt of pinnipeds has been approved to stop the animals from eating endangered salmon.

The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service has granted permission - after years of lobbying - to Washington State and Oregon to trap and (if a home in captivity cannot be found for them) kill up to 85 sea lions per year for five years by the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, where some animals go in order to feed on the salmon.

THE BUZZ: Animal-rights advocates have filed a lawsuit to stop the hunt. The Humane Society claims that it is illegal (sea lions are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act) and unfairly scapegoats the animals (which probably eat less than 5 per cent of the river's fish). But officials counter that booming sea lion populations - more than 200,000 animals on the West Coast, up from 1,000 in the 1930s - can afford to lose less than 100 of their number.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Whether eliminating the sea lions will boost salmon numbers or not, one thing is certain: Overfishing and hydroelectric dams are primarily responsible for the decline of Pacific salmon.

Talk about shortsighted! We're going to kill sea lions to save salmon? How convenient for the fishing industry, and for consumers. How inconvenient for sea lions. And for whatever else their deaths will contribute to.

And this brings me to something I've been meaning to blog about for a while. These wild salmon.

We eat a lot of salmon, because it's very nutritious, and because we think it's delicious. Ever since reading about the environmental damage caused by aquaculture, and knowing how unhealthy farmed fish can be, we've chosen wild salmon whenever possible.

The comparative health risks and benefits are off the charts. Atlantic salmon, like all farmed fish, is laden with toxins, dyes and antibiotics; it contains only a fraction of the healthy fatty acids and other benefits found in Pacific salmon. In taste and texture, Atlantic salmon can't compete with its rich, dark, beautiful Pacific cousin. Once you start eating wild Pacific salmon, you can't imagine how you ever thought that other stuff was tasty. Even frozen Pacific salmon tastes better than fresh farmed salmon.

So there we are, happily buying, grilling and consuming lots of wild Pacific salmon. And I'm wondering, where does all this wild salmon come from? How could there be so much of it? My local Loblaws stocks mountains of this fish. How could any wild-caught fish satisfy such an enormous demand? But I'm buying and eating it, and trying to block out those nagging thoughts.

Of course that only works for so long. Even without trying, I continue to see news about depleted salmon stocks. So now we still buy it and eat it, only I feel guilty.

I don't know what to do. Giving up wild salmon would be an act of Herculean will for me. Especially with grilling season around the calendar corner, I really don't think I could do it. I swear, I wish they'd just ban the damn fish. Our supermarkets couldn't stock it, and I'd be forced to stop eating it.

The wild salmon fishers says that their fish is not endangered. But how can I trust the judgment of people whose livelihood depends on my eating their product? We can't ask loggers if it's all right to cut down old-growth forests.

This is a real tough one. What should I do? If you eat fish, what are you doing?

If you take a stab at my question, please do keep the following in mind. I will not be going vegetarian. I have tried that, including for an extended period of time (more than two years). It was not for me, and I'll never do it again.

Also, I'm trying. I'm thinking about this. And for that reason alone, you should not attack me.

pronghorn antelopes heart wolves

As I hope you know, the US is delisting grey wolves in several states - removing the ban on killing them - and the wild canids will soon be legal game for hunters. Beginning in the late 19th Century, wolves in the Americas were hunted nearly to extinction. Since receiving federal protection in the US 30 years ago, these magnificent animals have made a comeback, although in limited numbers.

Wolves in Alberta are also being killed, supposedly to correct another human-caused wildlife imbalance, but possibly so human hunters won't have any competition.

My most recent posts on wolves are here and here.

I recently saw this little item about how wolves benefit the environment, and wanted to share it. It's no longer online, but it was from Zoe Cormier, who writes "The Green Report" in the Globe and Mail.

Higher numbers of wolves in the Rocky Mountains could benefit an unlikely recipient: the pronghorn antelope. A new survey from the Wildlife Conservation Society says the survival rate of pronghorn fawns is three times higher in areas of western Wyoming with high numbers of wolves and coyotes. The reason? Wolves - unlike coyotes - seldom prey on pronghorn fawns, which are too meagre a meal for a wolf pack, but they do keep coyote numbers down, either through preying on them, or by competing them out of a region. The WCS says that pronghorn have increased by 50 per cent since wolves were introduced to the region in 1995.

Changes in one part of the food web can have unexpected consequences, and top predators can actually be essential for maintaining biodiversity.

Another stupid human attempt at environmental balance coming up.

bit of an inside joke, but still worth posting

Russell Smith says: I'm not begging the question, I'm just begging.

And in case you can't access it:

I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the major usage guides begin to give two meanings for the phrase "beg the question": one archaic, the other current. The phrase is now in such constant use in the media, particularly in the broadcast media, with the meaning "raise the question," that this usage must soon be considered standard.

This will be a terrible shame, of course, and so permit me, in my recently acquired role of quixotic defender of all things archaic, to lay out the argument for fighting this development for as long as we collectively can, like the last remaining humans defending the crumbling fortress against the hordes of vampire zombies. (Sorry, just watched that movie.)

Up to now, the accepted meaning, among educated people, of the phrase "beg the question" has been a fairly abstruse one. It is a principle from philosophy that means an argument that assumes as a premise the conclusion it arrives at. Basically, it means making a circular argument, like saying "This article is flawed because it is not perfect." A good example (from a useful site called alt-english-usage.org) is, "Telepathy cannot exist because direct transfer of thought between individuals is impossible."

The phrase comes from an archaic and clumsy translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii. And no wonder the translation is difficult: The Latin phrase is itself a translation from the Greek to en archei aiteisthai, which means "in the beginning to assume." The noun petitio (from the verb petere) can mean an attack, thrust, blow, request, application, standing for office or candidature. And principium can meaning either beginning or principle. So why "beg," and why "question"? A better translation for principium is probably "premise," and the idea of begging comes from petere as "asking for" or "requesting," a loose translation of the Greek idea of assuming. In other words, a better translation of petitio principii might be "assuming the premise" - in other words, taking for granted the premise on which your conclusion rests. The proposition is used to prove itself.

Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, a book I find very precise if frustratingly non-judgmental, notes that begging the question has also often been used to mean avoiding or ducking the question. The example it gives is this: Say you must prove that locusts are harmful, so you list proposals for counteracting the damage done by locusts. You may convince your audience, with your colourful anecdotes, of the necessity for taking these measures, but you have in fact not proved anything about locusts. This is, strictly, petitio principii. But this definition leads people to thinking that any kind of evading an issue in an argument is "begging the question," and Webster's gives various learned examples of this usage dating to 1860. The editors comment, with their usual cautiously diplomatic tone, that this is "a new meaning of beg that lexicographers must account for. It is fully established as standard."

Okay, well whatever the fine tuning on the logical process the phrase represents, it certainly has not meant, up to now, anything as simple as "bring up an obvious objection," or "raise the question." And this is how it is most commonly used on our airwaves. It's easy for a radio reporter who wants to challenge an interview subject to interject, "Ah, but your public-health initiative begs the question - how will we pay for it?"

Why do you encounter this on radio and TV but not so much in print? Not because writers are superior thinkers, actually, but because we have copy editors. I could no more get the colloquial use of "beg the question" past my editors here - a stern and ruthless bunch - than I could write something racist. Obviously, when you're talking, and particularly in a live broadcast, you don't have the opportunity to polish your language as do those of us who spend our days in ratty sweaters, making coffee and stroking cats and not talking to anyone. So I don't mean to be condescending to my fast-thinking counterparts in radio and TV. But I do worry about the influence of this repeated phrase. The erosion of the original meaning is now almost complete.

So now we are back to the old question: Who cares? If this is the common meaning of the phrase, then why fight it?

Two reasons: First, because it's not yet the common meaning of the phrase. There are still enough educated people around who believe the phrase has one meaning only, and they tend to be influential people. When those people are no longer in positions of power, you will no longer have to worry about impressing them, but it is still useful to do so if you want high marks or wonderful jobs. Second, because the idea of petitio principii is an interesting one and it is useful to have an English phrase for it. It is generally useful to have as many different words and phrases for as many different phenomena as possible; it makes your language a subtler instrument.

Furthermore, the past isn't inherently ridiculous just for being the past; the past is a delightful and fascinating place, full of wisdom and quirk. I respect it. It's pleasant to preserve some of its picturesque ruins in our speech, just as we do in our landscapes.

I have been reading The Diary of Samuel Pepys online, ever since the amazing Phil Gyford began posting it in January 2003. One of the many things I've learned from reading Pepys is how much the English language has changed, and is always changing. Many of the words Pepys uses in the 1660s now have the exact opposite meaning. Yet he also uses many slang expressions that we continue to use, some 350 years later, to mean the same thing. It's fascinating.

I tend to see language as more fluid and ever-changing, and am more willing to go with popular usage, than many people of similar literary bents. But I have my own language dislikes, patterns of popular usage that I am forever correcting, at least in my own mind. "Begging the question" doesn't happen to be one of them, but I can sympathize.

If you know what and who inspired this post, you've been hanging out with wmtc a long time. And I thank you for that.

random notes from nyc and usa

I saw The Rat. I saw Dr. Zizmor on the subway. I bought a $5 umbrella on the street. I feel at home.

Home foreclosures have resulted in animal shelters being inundated with surrendered pets. Families cannot afford to keep their animals, or cannot have animals in apartments - or in homeless shelters, or in tent cities. I can scarcely imagine how heartbreaking this is for both the people and the animals.

Last night I ate kangaroo for the first time. I went to this Australian bar and restaurant - actual Australian, not theme-park Australian - and had kanga skewers. They were totally tender and delicious.

Friends are extremely excited and hopeful about Barack Obama. These folks are very politically savvy, they understand the Democrats, they understand election fraud, they understand racism... yet they have hope in Obama. This is amazing. I am so without hope that I can't even hope that they're right. But I do hope I am wrong.

"Does Canada realize how bad it will be if the war resisters are deported? How un-Canadian it will look??" So says my friend Alan With One L. Canada, please understand this. Please be Canada.