Please take a break from politics to enjoy a few moments of canine cuteness and joy. Because when a sweet dog interrupts your game, there's nothing else you can do.
Canadians may now return to thinking about how to defeat Stephen Harper.
3.25.2011
my first canadian get out the vote campaign
Get Out The Vote:
Canadians Advocating Political Participation; on Facebook (formerly known as Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament)
Catch 22 Conservatives
LeadNow
Fair Vote Canada
Coffee Party Canada
Voter Registration FAQ
Kathleen O'Hara at Rabble: Ten reasons to oppose the Harper candidate in your riding
Thomas Walkom: Yes, contempt of Parliament does matter
Lawrence Martin: On the road to the Harper Government's tipping point
Jeffrey Simpson: What if Stephen Harper's previous views were used against him?
"Defend Parliament": The Harper attack on democracy, the long version (and this list is more than a year old)
If you have any good links in a similar vein, please post them in comments.
pushed to the left: "come together, vote him out"
Great work by Emily at Pushed to the Left and Loving it.
goodbye harper government
This is a day I've been waiting and hoping for, for what seems like a very long time. Goodbye Harper Government™, hello election. Bring it!
Now to glue myself to CPAC.
Now to glue myself to CPAC.
3.24.2011
stephen harper dismantles canada's refugee system; jason kenney attacks canadian democracy
Canada has long been thought of as a country with a generous refugee system. Despite recent anti-immigrant fear-mongering, Canadians are very proud of their country's history of offering haven to people fleeing injustice and persecution, from the Doukhobors in the early 20th Century to US war resisters and Vietnamese "boat people" in the 1970s, all of whom became part of Canada. I wonder how many Canadians know that proud history may be coming to a close. The situation may soon look more like the St. Louis, the ship of more than 900 European Jews who were refused entry and sent back to die in Nazi concentration camps.
At a recent fundraiser for the War Resisters Support Campaign, immigration and refugee lawyer Alyssa Manning spoke about the Canadian refugee system in light of the passage of Bill C-11 last year. Alyssa's remarks reminded me that although I blogged about C-11 when it was introduced, I never followed up on the very significant changes it made to Canada's refugee system, or about Jason Kenney's recent remarks at the University of Western Ontario Law School. (Many thanks to Alyssa for her permission to paraphrase some of her remarks for this post.)
* * * *
Bill C-11, which will be fully implemented by December of this year, significantly changes Canada's refugee system.
Where previously it would take a few years for someone applying for refugee protection to get a hearing – during which time they could find a lawyer, secure legal funding either from legal aid or through a personal network, gather documents to support their case, prepare emotionally, and so on – now, applicants will be required to present their story eight days after making their claim. After that, they will be given 120 days to prepare themselves for a full hearing.
Keep in mind that many people applying for refugee status arrive in this country penniless, traumatized and in a state of emotional and psychological disarray. Building a case for refugee status often entails getting an official diagnosis of PTSD and finding expert witnesses. There are often language barriers. The person has to find a place to live, possibly enrol their children in school – they have to set up a life in a foreign country – while working with a lawyer to build their case. How can this be adequately accomplished in 120 days? It cannot.
Another change that may superficially appear to be positive is the new refugee appeal division. Instead of appealing a negative decision to federal court, a claimant will now appeal to the IRB itself, something refugee advocates have wanted to see for a long time. But of course there's a catch, and it's a big one: the appeal has to be made within 15 days. In other words, the appeals process is effectively useless. It seems pretty obvious the idea is to rush refugee claimants through the system, out the door, and back to whatever horrors they may face in their previous country.
After receiving a negative decision in a refugee claim, many claimants make an application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I've been told that in the recent past, about half of these applications were approved. Not anymore: it's now rare for an H&C to be approved. A recent article in the Toronto Star showed that IRB members appointed by either Jason Kenney or his Conservative predecessor, Diane Finley, grant asylum in as few as 10% of cases they hear.
Formerly, an H&C application had to demonstrate that a person would experience "unusual, undeserved and disproportionate hardship" if removed from Canada. There was an overall assessment of the claimant's circumstances both in Canada and in his/her home country, which would consider the best interests of any children involved, any hardship the family faced if removed, and so forth.
This may all be gone under the changes to IRPA. It's still unclear exactly what an H&C would cover under the new guidelines, but it appears that the process has been gutted and rendered useless. Alyssa said that the refugee-advocacy community will know more in the next few months, when further guidelines are released.
Meanwhile, CIC has formed a special division to deal with the huge backlog of H&C applications – a backlog CIC created by not filling vacant positions. Hundreds of new officers have been hired to – it appears – rubber stamp REJECTED on a big pile of H&C applications. Canadian Border Services Agency has also hired hundreds of new officers to enforce removal orders and warrants, and to make sure failed refugee claimants are all reporting their whereabouts to the government on a monthly basis. (Remember, before C-11 was amended, it called for refugee claimants to be held in prison immediately upon arrival in Canada, as they are in the US.)
It's in this context that CIC Minister Jason Kenney unleashed his recent rant about Canada's judiciary system. The text of Kenney's speech is here. The speech was both misleading and completely inappropriate.
First of all, Kenney is being dishonest with the facts. For example, he speaks about a man whose refugee case supposedly went on for 15 years. What he doesn't say is the man's case file was lost in the immigration system – sitting on someone’s desk, untouched – for almost a decade. The man was not abusing the system: he was stuck in it. There are other similar distortions or stories with choice (and essential) facts omitted. This reminds me of the urban legend about the McDonald's coffee burn victim. But here a government Minister tells the story; the distortions and omissions don't get corrected, and the stories become common "knowledge", even though they're false.
In a similar vein, Kenney and everyone involved in refugee work knows there is no queue for refugee status. A queue has never existed. People in need of refugee protection don't take a number and line up in their home countries waiting for entry to Canada. They need safe haven immediately, and they often risk their lives or their freedom to find it.
The language Kenney used in his recent attack on the judiciary is purposely misleading – and insidious, and dangerous.
Kenney says: the courts are "indulging" claimants in reviews and hearings. Is due process under the law now to be considered an "indulgence"?
Kenney says: negative decisions are overturned "seemingly on a whim, or perhaps in a fit of misguided magnanimity", when a judge disagrees with the rulings of "multiple levels of diligent, highly trained public servants". Yet those public servants are employed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. Their boss is Jason Kenney. Can they be expected to make impartial decisions? What's more, some of those "highly trained" public servants are brand-new hires, as I mentioned above, whose implied task is to quickly process a massive, manufactured backlog of claims. Are federal court judges not "highly trained"? Why are they presumed to render decisions "on a whim"?
Kenney says: "I fear that such decisions do serious harm to the overall immigration system and prevent it from doing more good for deserving immigrants". That is, the court sometimes prevents the entire refugee and immigration system from operating the way Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper would like it to. The courts are the last bulwark of defense for the defenseless.
Kenney says: "That is why I believe it's important to engage in a dialogue with the judiciary on these matters." But Jason Kenney knows perfectly well that the judiciary cannot "engage in a dialogue" in public – with anyone – ever! Judges in Canada must be completely free of bias or politicization. They can't express political opinions publicly; they can't even sign a petition. I have a friend whose sister is a judge. The friend was involved in G20 activism, and her sister told her, "Don't talk to me about anything to do the G20. If you do, and a G20 case comes before me, I would have to recuse myself."
So Jason Kenney makes these comments and shapes public opinion with words like "jump the queue," "indulge" in appeals, "seemingly on a whim," and so forth – and the judges cannot respond.
Judicial independence is a bedrock feature of any democracy. Indeed, in non-democratic countries or in very corrupt states or municipalities, the judiciary is a hollow, political body that rubber-stamps governments' wishes. The courts exist to ensure that the the government of the day respects the rule of law, and without an independent judiciary, there really can be no democracy. Jason Kenney's public disapproval of federal court decisions is a flagrant attempt to undermine judicial independence, and to undermine Canadian democracy.
That's why Kenney's comments were excoriated as evidencing "a shocking lack of understanding" by the Refugee Lawyers Association of Ontario and many other lawyers and law professors. Even a former Conservative immigration minister said Kenney went too far, calling the Minister's remarks "a rant". At the Slaw blog, Law Professor Emir Aly Crowne writes:
At a recent fundraiser for the War Resisters Support Campaign, immigration and refugee lawyer Alyssa Manning spoke about the Canadian refugee system in light of the passage of Bill C-11 last year. Alyssa's remarks reminded me that although I blogged about C-11 when it was introduced, I never followed up on the very significant changes it made to Canada's refugee system, or about Jason Kenney's recent remarks at the University of Western Ontario Law School. (Many thanks to Alyssa for her permission to paraphrase some of her remarks for this post.)
* * * *
Bill C-11, which will be fully implemented by December of this year, significantly changes Canada's refugee system.
Where previously it would take a few years for someone applying for refugee protection to get a hearing – during which time they could find a lawyer, secure legal funding either from legal aid or through a personal network, gather documents to support their case, prepare emotionally, and so on – now, applicants will be required to present their story eight days after making their claim. After that, they will be given 120 days to prepare themselves for a full hearing.
Keep in mind that many people applying for refugee status arrive in this country penniless, traumatized and in a state of emotional and psychological disarray. Building a case for refugee status often entails getting an official diagnosis of PTSD and finding expert witnesses. There are often language barriers. The person has to find a place to live, possibly enrol their children in school – they have to set up a life in a foreign country – while working with a lawyer to build their case. How can this be adequately accomplished in 120 days? It cannot.
Another change that may superficially appear to be positive is the new refugee appeal division. Instead of appealing a negative decision to federal court, a claimant will now appeal to the IRB itself, something refugee advocates have wanted to see for a long time. But of course there's a catch, and it's a big one: the appeal has to be made within 15 days. In other words, the appeals process is effectively useless. It seems pretty obvious the idea is to rush refugee claimants through the system, out the door, and back to whatever horrors they may face in their previous country.
After receiving a negative decision in a refugee claim, many claimants make an application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I've been told that in the recent past, about half of these applications were approved. Not anymore: it's now rare for an H&C to be approved. A recent article in the Toronto Star showed that IRB members appointed by either Jason Kenney or his Conservative predecessor, Diane Finley, grant asylum in as few as 10% of cases they hear.
Formerly, an H&C application had to demonstrate that a person would experience "unusual, undeserved and disproportionate hardship" if removed from Canada. There was an overall assessment of the claimant's circumstances both in Canada and in his/her home country, which would consider the best interests of any children involved, any hardship the family faced if removed, and so forth.
This may all be gone under the changes to IRPA. It's still unclear exactly what an H&C would cover under the new guidelines, but it appears that the process has been gutted and rendered useless. Alyssa said that the refugee-advocacy community will know more in the next few months, when further guidelines are released.
Meanwhile, CIC has formed a special division to deal with the huge backlog of H&C applications – a backlog CIC created by not filling vacant positions. Hundreds of new officers have been hired to – it appears – rubber stamp REJECTED on a big pile of H&C applications. Canadian Border Services Agency has also hired hundreds of new officers to enforce removal orders and warrants, and to make sure failed refugee claimants are all reporting their whereabouts to the government on a monthly basis. (Remember, before C-11 was amended, it called for refugee claimants to be held in prison immediately upon arrival in Canada, as they are in the US.)
It's in this context that CIC Minister Jason Kenney unleashed his recent rant about Canada's judiciary system. The text of Kenney's speech is here. The speech was both misleading and completely inappropriate.
First of all, Kenney is being dishonest with the facts. For example, he speaks about a man whose refugee case supposedly went on for 15 years. What he doesn't say is the man's case file was lost in the immigration system – sitting on someone’s desk, untouched – for almost a decade. The man was not abusing the system: he was stuck in it. There are other similar distortions or stories with choice (and essential) facts omitted. This reminds me of the urban legend about the McDonald's coffee burn victim. But here a government Minister tells the story; the distortions and omissions don't get corrected, and the stories become common "knowledge", even though they're false.
In a similar vein, Kenney and everyone involved in refugee work knows there is no queue for refugee status. A queue has never existed. People in need of refugee protection don't take a number and line up in their home countries waiting for entry to Canada. They need safe haven immediately, and they often risk their lives or their freedom to find it.
The language Kenney used in his recent attack on the judiciary is purposely misleading – and insidious, and dangerous.
Kenney says: the courts are "indulging" claimants in reviews and hearings. Is due process under the law now to be considered an "indulgence"?
Kenney says: negative decisions are overturned "seemingly on a whim, or perhaps in a fit of misguided magnanimity", when a judge disagrees with the rulings of "multiple levels of diligent, highly trained public servants". Yet those public servants are employed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. Their boss is Jason Kenney. Can they be expected to make impartial decisions? What's more, some of those "highly trained" public servants are brand-new hires, as I mentioned above, whose implied task is to quickly process a massive, manufactured backlog of claims. Are federal court judges not "highly trained"? Why are they presumed to render decisions "on a whim"?
Kenney says: "I fear that such decisions do serious harm to the overall immigration system and prevent it from doing more good for deserving immigrants". That is, the court sometimes prevents the entire refugee and immigration system from operating the way Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper would like it to. The courts are the last bulwark of defense for the defenseless.
Kenney says: "That is why I believe it's important to engage in a dialogue with the judiciary on these matters." But Jason Kenney knows perfectly well that the judiciary cannot "engage in a dialogue" in public – with anyone – ever! Judges in Canada must be completely free of bias or politicization. They can't express political opinions publicly; they can't even sign a petition. I have a friend whose sister is a judge. The friend was involved in G20 activism, and her sister told her, "Don't talk to me about anything to do the G20. If you do, and a G20 case comes before me, I would have to recuse myself."
So Jason Kenney makes these comments and shapes public opinion with words like "jump the queue," "indulge" in appeals, "seemingly on a whim," and so forth – and the judges cannot respond.
Judicial independence is a bedrock feature of any democracy. Indeed, in non-democratic countries or in very corrupt states or municipalities, the judiciary is a hollow, political body that rubber-stamps governments' wishes. The courts exist to ensure that the the government of the day respects the rule of law, and without an independent judiciary, there really can be no democracy. Jason Kenney's public disapproval of federal court decisions is a flagrant attempt to undermine judicial independence, and to undermine Canadian democracy.
That's why Kenney's comments were excoriated as evidencing "a shocking lack of understanding" by the Refugee Lawyers Association of Ontario and many other lawyers and law professors. Even a former Conservative immigration minister said Kenney went too far, calling the Minister's remarks "a rant". At the Slaw blog, Law Professor Emir Aly Crowne writes:
It is appropriate that the Minister’s initials are j/k, because had I not known better, I would have taken them to be a joke. But his remarks are from it. In fact — and quite ironically — his remarks strike at the very values that we, as Canadians, prize: freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman have already addressed some of these issues in their op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail, and while I may re-tread on some of their ground, it is for a damn good reason.The Globe and Mail Op-Ed by law professor Audrey Macklin and immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman, referred to in the above blog post, make it very clear just how inappropriate Jason Kenney's comments were.
. . . .
So if 1% percent of refugee decisions are overturned — an insignificant number by any statistical measure — then how exactly does this get us to the proposition that the “integrity of the decision made by the decision makers” in the Immigration Department “is being questioned without sufficient justification”?
I close with two very telling sentences from the Minister’s speech:I believe that, in a free and democratic society such as ours, judicial decisions should encourage debate over where the line is drawn between legitimate legislative objective and constitutionally protected rights and freedoms… But we legislators are not an island, and we don’t act alone. We need the judiciary to understand the spirit of what we are trying to do.These are very troubling statements. The Minister apparently wishes to engage in an actual dialogue with the Federal Courts — a dialogue which he readily knows will just be himself yelling into an empty room — because the very principles of judicial office demand that judges refrain from actual discourse on political matters. He then wants the Federal Court to give him and his Department a "free pass" on that trifling 1% of cases that are indeed overturned.
To suggest that the judges of the Federal Court should somehow be beholden to his Department in the name of “constitutionally protected rights and freedoms” strikes at the heart of all those very rights and freedoms. [Worth reading.]
When cabinet ministers attack judges, they attack democracyWe will finally have the opportunity to get rid of this dangerous, anti-democratic government. Let's make sure we do everything we can.
Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman
In a speech to the University of Western Ontario’s law faculty last week, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney launched an attack on Federal Court judges for rendering decisions he didn’t agree with. He suggested the judges were preventing him from properly administering the immigration program.
What's wrong with that? After all, lawyers, academics and the media freely comment on judicial decisions, so why not government ministers? Well, what makes it wrong is that judges are supposed to be independent of government, and government is supposed to respect that independence. The executive appoints our judges. But once they’re appointed, our democracy requires that they render their decisions free from government influence or pressure.
When a government minister criticizes judges for how they’ve decided past cases, they’re sending a messages judges for how they’ve decided past cases, they’re sending a message to judges about how they want future cases to be decided. Indeed, Mr. Kenney was quite explicit about this. After presenting highly selective, incomplete and misleading accounts of a few cases, he complained that judges were deciding these cases “seemingly on a whim,” and declared his belief that “most Canadians share my despair at such decisions.” Whether Canadians would share his despair is an interesting question, but, in any event, his remarks seemed directed at undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
The judges do not work, and should not be seen to work, for Prime Minister Stephen Harper or his immigration minister. And because of their special role in society, they aren’t expected to participate openly in the political process. Indeed, you haven’t heard the Federal Court respond to Mr. Kenney, despite his misrepresentation of cases, jurisprudence and statistical evidence. Judges don’t reply because they understand the importance of not becoming politicized.
When Mr. Kenney publicly criticizes judges for interpreting the law in a manner that diverges from his own preferred outcome, he shows contempt for judicial independence. That’s not to say the minister can’t take action when he disagrees with a court’s decision. As a member of cabinet, he has the power to introduce into Parliament amendments to any federal law. The cabinet may also pass regulations implementing existing law. The government possesses the unique jurisdiction to change the law to conform to his views. But using an address to a law school – of all places – to take potshots at judicial decisions the government doesn’t like is an inappropriate exploitation of political office.
To add further discredit, some of the anecdotes cited by Mr. Kenney were just plain wrong. He mentioned the case of Parminder Singh Saini as an example of a person allowed to remain in Canada for years as a result of judicial interference. What he fails to note is that Mr. Saini was found by a Citizenship and Immigration Canada official in 2003 to be at risk of torture. A ministerial review of his case then took more than six years. Meantime, Mr. Saini, a convicted hijacker, had respected Canada’s laws and received two university degrees. When Mr. Kenney, who became the immigration minister in 2008, decided in 2009 that Mr. Saini should be deported, a request for a stay was summarily dismissed. By suggesting that the delay was the fault of judicial interference, Mr. Kenney misrepresents the facts.
In the same speech in which Mr. Kenney attacked the Federal Court, he mentioned the new cadre of bureaucratic decision makers who will decide refugee claims under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. These decision makers will be government employees, ultimately answerable to the minister. Yet, Mr. Kenney also referred to them as “independent public servant decision makers.” But those decision makers do work for the minister.
Based on this government’s practices, criticism (or even the threat of criticism) by the minister may well cause these decision makers to reasonably fear for their livelihoods if they make decisions that the minister finds politically unpalatable. All Canadians have reason to be concerned whether these decision makers will be genuinely independent.
wish david suzuki a happy birthday by signing the pledge of interdependence
Today is David Suzuki's birthday, and you can give him a gift by signing the Declaration of Interdependence.
The Suzuki Foundation says:
You can sign it here.
The Suzuki Foundation says:
The declaration is a heartfelt prayer to preserve the Earth, and a commitment to act on the understanding that we are completely dependent on and interconnected with nature.I wish the Foundation didn't describe this as a prayer; to me this Declaration is a simple and powerful resolution. It reads:
Nothing would make David happier than knowing how many people support him, and agree that we need to take care of our environment.
David and friends wrote the Declaration for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit. But the words are as compelling and important as ever.
For David's birthday, pledge to live by these values. We should all be stewards of the Earth.
We can't steal from the future to serve the present.
We need to sustain and steward the Earth for our descendants.
You can sign it here.
u.s. soldiers admit to killing afghan civilians (including children) for sport
This story broke several months back, but it's been revived and is receiving international attention. From today's Guardian:
We've encountered these stories too many times, in too many places, in too many eras, to excuse it away. It's what war is made of. It's why it has to stop.
An American soldier has pleaded guilty to being part of a "kill team" who deliberately murdered Afghan civilians for sport last year.Video from ABC News, back in September:
Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock, 23, told a military court he had helped to kill three unarmed Afghans. "The plan was to kill people, sir," he told an army judge in Fort Lea, near Seattle, after his plea.
The case has caused outraged headlines around the world. In a series of videotaped confessions to investigators, some of which have been broadcast on American television, Morlock detailed how he and other members of his Stryker brigade set up and faked combat situations so that they could kill civilians who posed no threat to them. Four other soldiers are still to come to trial over the incidents.
The case is a PR disaster for America's military and has been compared to the notorious incidents of torture that emerged from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This week the German magazine Der Spiegel published three pictures that showed American soldiers, including Morlock, posing with the corpse of a young Afghan boy as if it were a hunting trophy.
Confession Video: US Soldier Describes Thrill Kill of Innocent Afghans - Corporal, 22, Tells How His 'Crazy' Sergeant Allegedly Murdered For Kicks, Collected Body Parts.I realize that many soldiers of any country will not participate in this kind of blood lust. But this wanton butchery appears to be the natural extension of war without end and without purpose, as both victims and occupiers are further dehumanized, until killing another human being is mere sport.
We've encountered these stories too many times, in too many places, in too many eras, to excuse it away. It's what war is made of. It's why it has to stop.
3.23.2011
chris hedges on hope, by which he means resistance
Last Saturday, on the 8th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, thousands of people marched in Washington in protest of US imperial war and occupation. Of those, 113 people were arrested, including Daniel Ellsberg and Chris Hedges.
I'm told it was Ellsberg's 80th arrest. I'd be so proud to have that record - although I probably couldn't have emigrated to Canada!
This is Hedges speech before he was arrested. Please watch.
The following day, there was a rally at the Marine base at Quantico, where Bradley Manning is being humiliated and held in abusive solitary confinement.
Hedges also gave a passionate and remarkable speech about hope in Lafayette Park on December 16, 2010:
The text is here.
I'm told it was Ellsberg's 80th arrest. I'd be so proud to have that record - although I probably couldn't have emigrated to Canada!
This is Hedges speech before he was arrested. Please watch.
The following day, there was a rally at the Marine base at Quantico, where Bradley Manning is being humiliated and held in abusive solitary confinement.
Hedges also gave a passionate and remarkable speech about hope in Lafayette Park on December 16, 2010:
The text is here.
we like lists: list # 9: celebrity crushes, lifetime edition
When I was a kid, pre-teen, I loved watching old movies. I don't know how I got into this, but I grew up watching Ingrid Bergman, Bette Davis, Spencer Tracy and a whole constellation of actors unknown to most of my peers.
[Retro aside: If you're a certain age and grew up in the New York metro area, you watched the "Million Dollar Movie" on WWOR, non-network Channel 9. The open was a montage of New York City images played to "Tara's Theme" from "Gone with the Wind". There's a version of it on YouTube, but it's a later incarnation. A 1970s image of the Broadway TKTS booth has been substituted for the clip I remember most: a woman going up an escalator, seen from behind. I can't find the original anywhere.]
In those days, my favourite actor, hands-down, was Humphrey Bogart. I would scan the TV listings for any movie he was in, and knew many of them - classics and duds alike - backwards and forwards. Recently I read a review of a new biography of Bogart, and I had a minor revelation: he was my first celebrity crush. And I started to think about who else has held that category in my life.
So this list is your celebrity crushes over the course of your life. Three elements:
- We'll define celebrity as someone widely Google-able, and known by fans of the person's milieu. Readers not into music or baseball may not know some of my crushes, but rock fans and baseball fans will. So, not Betsy Klein from your Grade 7 Algebra class.
- Crush is more difficult to define. It's not just someone you think is hot. There are lots good-looking people out there, but you don't crush on all of them. This is someone you have a "thing" for. You'll see any movie she's in, no matter how stupid. When you were younger (or maybe even now) you taped a picture of him to your desk or had a poster of her in your bedroom. It's not only about looks. This person has something that makes them magnetic in your eyes. I haven't found an adequate definition for this word anywhere; perhaps it's indefinable.
- And here's a very important part of this list: lifetime. I'm asking you to delve into your past - your childhood, your teen years, your 20s - and follow the thread all the way to the present, if you still form crushes.
I'm posting mine roughly in chronological order. I'm also linking to pics from the crush era, which you can do or not.
I've wanted to do this list for a while, but I thought it might be a little weird. I'm really curious to see if it resonates with anyone.
1. Humphrey Bogart.
2. Paul Newman.
3. Janis Joplin.
4. Keith Richards.
5. Rick Danko.
6. Thurman Munson. (Sorry! First baseball crush.)
6a. Late addition: Bruce Springsteen.
7. Chrissie Hynde.
8. Alex Rodriguez, circa 1996. (Please note year! Mariners!)
9. Jacoby Ellsbury.
[Retro aside: If you're a certain age and grew up in the New York metro area, you watched the "Million Dollar Movie" on WWOR, non-network Channel 9. The open was a montage of New York City images played to "Tara's Theme" from "Gone with the Wind". There's a version of it on YouTube, but it's a later incarnation. A 1970s image of the Broadway TKTS booth has been substituted for the clip I remember most: a woman going up an escalator, seen from behind. I can't find the original anywhere.]
In those days, my favourite actor, hands-down, was Humphrey Bogart. I would scan the TV listings for any movie he was in, and knew many of them - classics and duds alike - backwards and forwards. Recently I read a review of a new biography of Bogart, and I had a minor revelation: he was my first celebrity crush. And I started to think about who else has held that category in my life.
So this list is your celebrity crushes over the course of your life. Three elements:
- We'll define celebrity as someone widely Google-able, and known by fans of the person's milieu. Readers not into music or baseball may not know some of my crushes, but rock fans and baseball fans will. So, not Betsy Klein from your Grade 7 Algebra class.
- Crush is more difficult to define. It's not just someone you think is hot. There are lots good-looking people out there, but you don't crush on all of them. This is someone you have a "thing" for. You'll see any movie she's in, no matter how stupid. When you were younger (or maybe even now) you taped a picture of him to your desk or had a poster of her in your bedroom. It's not only about looks. This person has something that makes them magnetic in your eyes. I haven't found an adequate definition for this word anywhere; perhaps it's indefinable.
- And here's a very important part of this list: lifetime. I'm asking you to delve into your past - your childhood, your teen years, your 20s - and follow the thread all the way to the present, if you still form crushes.
I'm posting mine roughly in chronological order. I'm also linking to pics from the crush era, which you can do or not.
I've wanted to do this list for a while, but I thought it might be a little weird. I'm really curious to see if it resonates with anyone.
1. Humphrey Bogart.
2. Paul Newman.
3. Janis Joplin.
4. Keith Richards.
5. Rick Danko.
6. Thurman Munson. (Sorry! First baseball crush.)
6a. Late addition: Bruce Springsteen.
7. Chrissie Hynde.
8. Alex Rodriguez, circa 1996. (Please note year! Mariners!)
9. Jacoby Ellsbury.
3.22.2011
rip pinetop perkins
I've just learned that Pinetop Perkins died last week. Pinetop was one of the greatest blues piano players ever, and one of my all-time favourite musicians. He lived to the advanced age of 97 and died peacefully at home in Austin, Texas.
Pinetop, born on a Mississippi plantation in 1913, originally wanted to play blues guitar. Fortunately for me and so many other lovers of blues piano, he was stabbed in the arm.
Perkins was born on a cotton plantation and taught himself guitar, but his arm was hurt in a stabbing, ending his dreams of becoming a guitar man. He collaborated with Muddy Waters, B.B. King and Earl Hooker and inspired Ike Turner. Last month he won a Grammy for best traditional blues album.I used to see a lot of live blues, and catching Pinetop in a band was always a huge treat. I can always identify his piano on a CD. It's easy: if you find yourself thinking, wow, that's great blues piano, so rich and deep, but not at all gaudy or show-offy, that's your man.
Pinetop Perkins switched to playing piano after he was stabbed in the arm in 1942. His influence was vast; his pedigree impeccable.
Pinetop Perkins, a regal pianist who was one of the last of the original Mississippi Delta blues musicians, died Monday of cardiac arrest at his home in Austin, Texas. He was 97.
“He was absolutely the premier blues pianist," said Bruce Iglauer, founder of Chicago's Alligator Records, an independent blues label. “His career spanned literally over 80 years. He was the symbol of a whole generation of musicians."
Just last month Perkins' easygoing keyboard virtuosity won him a Grammy Award for best traditional blues album, for “Joined at the Hip: Pinetop Perkins & Willie 'Big Eyes' Smith." That made him the oldest Grammy winner, the honor augmenting his 2007 Grammy for his work on “Last of the Great Mississippi Delta Bluesmen: Live in Dallas" and his 2005 Grammy for lifetime achievement.
Perkins' influence was vast and his musical pedigree impeccable, for he collaborated with all forms of blues royalty, from Muddy Waters to Robert Nighthawk, Earl Hooker to B.B. King. Through it all, he maintained an enduring mastery of the piano.
Joe Willie Perkins learned about blues in the best—and the toughest—way possible: immersed in the culture that produced it.
Pinetop lived a full life and enjoyed much success, but his passing brings an extra measure of sadness, as he was one of the last of the original Mississippi bluesmen, the very end of his generation.
He shared the wealth, too. The mission of the The Pinetop Perkins Foundation "is to provide encouragement and support for youth and young people at the beginning of their musical career; and help provide care and safety for elderly musicians at the twilight of their career."
the harper government meets the birthers
I don't pay much attention to partisan campaigning, so I didn't realize just how far into the slime the Harper Government™ has sunk. I'm not surprised, but it is worth noting: a very nice post from Impudent Strumpet, with an important link.
class war, u.s. edition
It's always so galling to me when members of the privileged, corporate class raise the spectre of class war. As the saying goes, "They only call it class war when we fight back."
Here's a picture of the current class war being waged against working people in the US, found here (where it's a little more readable).
I've heard that some folks are working on a Canadian version, which is bound to be less dramatic, but equally imbalanced and unjust.
Here's a picture of the current class war being waged against working people in the US, found here (where it's a little more readable).
I've heard that some folks are working on a Canadian version, which is bound to be less dramatic, but equally imbalanced and unjust.
henry rollins: nothing can stop new york
Although I am not a Henry Rollins fan, I see he and I have something in common. Take a couple of minutes to appreciate New York City along with us.
3.21.2011
tonight in toronto: fundraising dinner for war resisters support campaign: rescind "operational bulletin 202"
If you're reading this from the Greater Toronto Area, I hope you'll join us tonight for dinner, music, community, and an update on the War Resisters Support Campaign. Time and place details below.
We've all been following the machinations of the Harper Government™ as it lurches from scandal to scandal, subverting and short-circuiting democracy in any and every way it can. US war resisters in Canada are no strangers to the government's underhanded methods.
Last summer, the Federal Court of Appeal issued a unanimous decision in favour of war resister Jeremy Hinzman. The court called the rejection of Hinzman's application to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds "flawed" and "unreasonable," clearly stating that immigration officers must take into account the applicants' sincerely held beliefs that motivated them to come to refuse illegal orders and come to Canada.
Immediately after that, Minister of Censorship and Deportation Jason Kenney issued "Operational Bulletin 202," which directs immigration officers to automatically reject war resisters claims for refugee status - without even hearing their cases! This is one more example of how the Harper Government™ places itself about the laws of Canada.
Peter Showler, a former head of the Immigration and Refugee Board, current director the Refugee Forum, explains how Operational Bulletin 202 subverts the refugee claims process in this open letter to Jason Kenney.
We have a new petition, which you can download here, and an informational leaflet with more ideas of how you can help. [links coming soon!]
If you're in Toronto and you want to be part of this effort, please come to the dinner tonight. A suggested donation of $20 gets you dinner, music, a talk by Alyssa Manning about the government's attacks on the judicial independence, and a refresher course on how you can help the campaign.
WHEN:
Monday, March 21
6:00 Dinner
7:00 Programme
WHERE:
Steelworkers Hall
25 Cecil Street (near College/Spadina)
Toronto, ON
Suggested donation: $20
We've all been following the machinations of the Harper Government™ as it lurches from scandal to scandal, subverting and short-circuiting democracy in any and every way it can. US war resisters in Canada are no strangers to the government's underhanded methods.
Last summer, the Federal Court of Appeal issued a unanimous decision in favour of war resister Jeremy Hinzman. The court called the rejection of Hinzman's application to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds "flawed" and "unreasonable," clearly stating that immigration officers must take into account the applicants' sincerely held beliefs that motivated them to come to refuse illegal orders and come to Canada.
Immediately after that, Minister of Censorship and Deportation Jason Kenney issued "Operational Bulletin 202," which directs immigration officers to automatically reject war resisters claims for refugee status - without even hearing their cases! This is one more example of how the Harper Government™ places itself about the laws of Canada.
Peter Showler, a former head of the Immigration and Refugee Board, current director the Refugee Forum, explains how Operational Bulletin 202 subverts the refugee claims process in this open letter to Jason Kenney.
The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.The War Resisters Support Campaign asks friends of US war resisters in Canada and all opposition parties in Parliament to demand the government to rescind Operational Bulletin 202 immediately.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1
September 19, 2010
Dear Minister,
On July 22 of this year, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) sent a directive to all Immigration Officers in Canada that sets a basic principle of refugee law on its head. The directive, Operational Bulletin 202, concerns the processing of military deserters who claim refugee status in Canada. The first paragraph of the directive sets out the following line of logic:
Military deserters from other countries have sought refugee protection in Canada. Desertion from the Canadian military is a serious criminal offence. Therefore these deserters may also be serious criminals and therefore inadmissible to Canada.
Conscientious objection to military service, whether by draft resisters or deserters, is a widely recognized ground for granting refugee protection, both in Canada and internationally. Over the years, hundreds of conscientious objectors have been given protection although not all deserters or draft resisters are accepted as refugees. The facts of each individual case are considered, particularly: the motives and sincerity of the claimant, the legality or illegality of the military exercise they are seeking to avoid, and the possibility of excessive punishment or discriminatory prosecution. These are all facts and issues of law to be decided by a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) after hearing the claimant’s testimony and evidence. It is fundamentally wrong-headed and a violation of the UN Refugee Convention to suggest that deserters are automatically inadmissible to Canada before hearing their claim because desertion is an offence in their own country.
Although the bulletin cites a general principle of law, a closer reading identifies the real target of the directive, namely, military deserters from one country, the United States of America. I presume then that military deserters from other, less friendly and more offensive regimes, such as Iran, Burma, Sudan, North Korea, possibly Syria and Kyrgyzstan, are still welcome to seek refugee protection in Canada and that their violation of state laws will not be a deterrent to making a refugee claim. The bulletin implies that military deserters from the US should be treated differently than deserters from other countries. There is no basis in law for that proposition. At the risk of repeating myself, that is the job of the Immigration and Refugee Board and not something to be decided prematurely by a border official before the evidence is heard.
The bulletin then discloses that its precise target is even narrower, namely those U.S. deserters who have already had their refugee claims denied and who have asked to remain in Canada for humanitarian reasons. Once again, the government appears to be circumventing the law and intruding on the independence of the Immigration Officers who are delegated to decide humanitarian applications based on the law and the evidence. It is the Immigration Officer who has the discretion to decide whether a refused claimant, for example, someone who has married a Canadian and may now be the parent of Canadian children, whether that person should be permitted to remain in Canada for humanitarian reasons.
These are difficult decisions with complicated and often heart-rending facts that include the best interests of the children but may also include the violation of US military laws. Regardless of the relevant factors, responsibility for the decision lies within the discretion of the Immigration Officer. Does any Canadian reasonably think that an Immigration Officer is making an independent decision when he or she is instructed, for US deserter cases, to “seek guidance” from the Regional Program Advisor and to copy their communications to very senior levels of their department? The clear implication is that any deserter from the US should be denied permanent residence in Canada no matter how sincere their motive for deserting or how compelling their reasons for staying in Canada.
Operational Bulletin 202 misstates the law and seeks to intrude on the independence of both IRB members and Immigration Officers. Out of respect for due process of law, I urge you to withdraw the bulletin.
Respectfully,
Peter Showler
Director, the Refugee Forum
Human Rights Research and Education Centre
University of Ottawa
We have a new petition, which you can download here, and an informational leaflet with more ideas of how you can help. [links coming soon!]
If you're in Toronto and you want to be part of this effort, please come to the dinner tonight. A suggested donation of $20 gets you dinner, music, a talk by Alyssa Manning about the government's attacks on the judicial independence, and a refresher course on how you can help the campaign.
WHEN:
Monday, March 21
6:00 Dinner
7:00 Programme
WHERE:
Steelworkers Hall
25 Cecil Street (near College/Spadina)
Toronto, ON
Suggested donation: $20
3.20.2011
the arabist: five questions few are asking about libya
Yippee, a no-fly zone, because it's much better for the West to kill Libyans than for Gaddafi to do it! Hey, those crazy Arabs can't liberate themselves, you know. They need our help. Just ask the Iraqis! Those who have survived, anyway.
Some excellent analysis by The Arabist: 5 questions few are asking about Libya.
Thanks to Hysperia for the Arabist post.
Also:
Stop the War Coalition (UK): The real reasons behind the United Nations' Libya vote:
Some excellent analysis by The Arabist: 5 questions few are asking about Libya.
Thanks to Hysperia for the Arabist post.
Also:
Stop the War Coalition (UK): The real reasons behind the United Nations' Libya vote:
A new war has been declared in the Middle East. With the bloody and failing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan still in place, the USA, Britain and France are now committed to an escalating armed intervention in Libya.Dissident Voice: Mission Creep and Slippery Slopes, Bombs Away Over Libya
malalai joya denied entry to u.s.: four things u.s. readers can do to help
As you may know, Afghan writer and activist Malalai Joya has been denied entry to the US. Joya opposes the Western occupation of her country, and with a clear majority of USians now opposing the war in Afghanistan, those who profit from the occupation want to prevent her injecting public opinion with facts and motivation.
I saw Joya speak - report here and here - and I know the peace movement in the United States needs her.
When Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's flunky stupidly declared former UK MP George Galloway "inadmissible" to Canada, the ensuing publicity for Galloway's tour became Jason Kenney's nightmare. Eventually that nightmare ended up in court, and Galloway is now a regular guest of peace activists in Canada. I hope the US peace movement will get behind Joya's visit in a similar way. [For details on that, click on the wmtc category "george galloway in canada".]
United for Peace and Justice, the umbrella coalition of 1,400 US anti-war groups, has four ways you can help.
1. Have your elected representatives sign onto a letter urging the US Embassy to reconsider their decision.
Six Congresspeople and three Senators have sent such a letter, which is posted at here and here.
Ask your Senator or Representative to send a similar letter as soon as possible.
2. Sign an online petition demanding Malalai Joya be granted a visa to the US.
Click here to sign the petition.
Share the petition on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, email.
3. Attend one of the many events organized for Malalai around the country.
Whether Joya is allowed to enter the US or not, the events will go on as scheduled, with Joya appearing either live or by video. Transform these events into declarations of your right to free speech and free association.
Tour details here.
4. Demand media coverage of Malalai's visa denial.
Contact local and national media, urge them to cover Malalai Joya's visa exclusion. The denial of a visa to Afghanistan's most intrepid and well known feminist should make headlines! See the Afghan Women's Mission's media release for details.
And I'll add number 5: share this post.
3.18.2011
greenwald: manning forced nudity = media tipping point
Glenn Greenwald, including links and emphasis:
The forced nudity imposed on Bradley Manning followed by the forced resignation of P.J. Crowley has clearly created a media tipping point in this story. In addition to the scathing New York Times Editorial from Monday (Manning's treatment "conjures creepy memories of how the Bush administration used to treat terror suspects"), editorial condemnation has now come from The Los Angeles Times ("punishment, not protection, is the purpose of these degrading measures") and The Guardian ("There was at least the ghost of an excuse for bullying foreign combatants but no US need for mistreating one of their own"). Perhaps most notably, even the military-revering, establishment-defending Washington Post Editorial Page today emphatically condemns these conditions as "uncomfortably close to the kind of intimidating and humiliating tactics disavowed after the abuses at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons that eroded the country’s standing in the world."Plus: Tom Tomorrow: The president consults with General Flustercluck.
The abusive treatment of Manning is indeed now reverberating internationally. Der Spiegel has a long article on the conditions of Manning's detention, noting that "even US politicians believe they're illegal" and highlighting the point I've repeatedly made:Before he was inaugurated, Obama talked about the importance of whistleblowers, or sources who expose abuses within their organizations. Such "acts of courage and patriotism" ought to be "encouraged, rather than stifled," his website read at the time.Meanwhile, The Guardian has an excellent article today describing how Physicians for Human Rights is now formally raising objections to the role of brig psychiatrists in enabling Manning's inhumane treatment (just as they once raised objections to the role played by health professionals at Guantanamo).
Once in office, Obama underwent a radical shift. His government is currently taking legal action against a number of whistleblowers. The government apparently wants to use the Manning case as a deterrent.
time-of-use energy pricing coming to ontario; is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Beginning May 1, Ontario will begin time-of-use pricing for energy* use.
With time-of-use pricing, electricity use will be billed at three different rates: off-peak (least expensive), mid-peak and peak (most expensive). Mid-peak is a higher rate than current billing, and off-peak is a lower rate. That is, under the new pricing plan, your bill cannot stay the same; it can only go up or go down.
There are also two different time-of-use pricing models, one for May through November, the other from November to May.
Ontario has been gradually reducing its dependence on coal-fired electric plants, down from 25% in 2003 to the current 8%. The last coal-fired plant is supposed to be closed by 2030, a big step towards cleaner air and better health. Infrastructure is being upgraded, renewable sources expanded, and all that other stuff that means rates are slated to significantly increase.
So TOU pricing involves a choice between changing habits and escalating costs. With the price of energy expected to rise considerably over the next decade, most people will want to change habits.
There are very home electricity habits that one can reasonably change. Most people are not going to sit in the dark, not watch television or use their computers anytime they want, or cook dinner in the middle of the night. Some people consider air-conditioning a wasteful indulgence; for me it's a necessity. So in my view, the two most common home energy-use habits that one can change are using the dishwasher and doing the laundry, especially using the dryer.
The dishwasher is easy: run it at night. Start it before you go to bed and in the morning your dishes are clean.*
Laundry is a bit trickier. If you do your laundry on the weekends, that's already off-peak. But I'm at work all weekend, and generally do my laundry during normal working hours. I'm experimenting with different strategies of how to get the laundry done without staying up too late or working when I need to be resting.
I've heard it claimed that TOU pricing discriminates against working people, especially working parents who are over-burdened and pressed for time. Naturally I would oppose any scheme that redistributed a burden downward. But I haven't been able to figure out how TOU pricing unfairly burdens one group of people over another.
Overall, lower-income people are being walloped with cost increases from every side, and incomes never keep pace with the ever-escalating cost of living. I'd love to see energy use priced on a sliding scale according to income, but that will require a revolution. Instead, we have a few tax credits and rebates to help working people recover a few costs.
But specifically, how does TOU - as opposed to the current uniform rate - unfairly affect working people?
Weekends and evenings are off-peak, and that's when most working people do their laundry. TOU pricing would certainly unfairly burden working people if off-peak was during normal hours, but it's not. Many low-income people don't own washers and dryers, and if laundromats go to TOU rates, those would also reflect weekend and evening discounts.
If I'm missing some big piece of the puzzle, please fill me in. In general, do you think TOU is A Good Thing? Are you in favour of it? Will you change your habits to adjust?
* Note that in Ontario, many people refer to electricity, regardless of source, as "hydro". I find this ridiculous and will not say it.
** I'm aware that one can also wash dishes by hand. Since Allan and I never had a dishwasher before we moved to Canada, we feel we've paid our dues in that department. What's more, using a dishwasher actually helps us eat more healthfully and save money.
With time-of-use pricing, electricity use will be billed at three different rates: off-peak (least expensive), mid-peak and peak (most expensive). Mid-peak is a higher rate than current billing, and off-peak is a lower rate. That is, under the new pricing plan, your bill cannot stay the same; it can only go up or go down.
There are also two different time-of-use pricing models, one for May through November, the other from November to May.
Compare this to our current rate of 6.4 cents/kWh.
Ontario has been gradually reducing its dependence on coal-fired electric plants, down from 25% in 2003 to the current 8%. The last coal-fired plant is supposed to be closed by 2030, a big step towards cleaner air and better health. Infrastructure is being upgraded, renewable sources expanded, and all that other stuff that means rates are slated to significantly increase.
So TOU pricing involves a choice between changing habits and escalating costs. With the price of energy expected to rise considerably over the next decade, most people will want to change habits.
There are very home electricity habits that one can reasonably change. Most people are not going to sit in the dark, not watch television or use their computers anytime they want, or cook dinner in the middle of the night. Some people consider air-conditioning a wasteful indulgence; for me it's a necessity. So in my view, the two most common home energy-use habits that one can change are using the dishwasher and doing the laundry, especially using the dryer.
The dishwasher is easy: run it at night. Start it before you go to bed and in the morning your dishes are clean.*
Laundry is a bit trickier. If you do your laundry on the weekends, that's already off-peak. But I'm at work all weekend, and generally do my laundry during normal working hours. I'm experimenting with different strategies of how to get the laundry done without staying up too late or working when I need to be resting.
I've heard it claimed that TOU pricing discriminates against working people, especially working parents who are over-burdened and pressed for time. Naturally I would oppose any scheme that redistributed a burden downward. But I haven't been able to figure out how TOU pricing unfairly burdens one group of people over another.
Overall, lower-income people are being walloped with cost increases from every side, and incomes never keep pace with the ever-escalating cost of living. I'd love to see energy use priced on a sliding scale according to income, but that will require a revolution. Instead, we have a few tax credits and rebates to help working people recover a few costs.
But specifically, how does TOU - as opposed to the current uniform rate - unfairly affect working people?
Weekends and evenings are off-peak, and that's when most working people do their laundry. TOU pricing would certainly unfairly burden working people if off-peak was during normal hours, but it's not. Many low-income people don't own washers and dryers, and if laundromats go to TOU rates, those would also reflect weekend and evening discounts.
If I'm missing some big piece of the puzzle, please fill me in. In general, do you think TOU is A Good Thing? Are you in favour of it? Will you change your habits to adjust?
* Note that in Ontario, many people refer to electricity, regardless of source, as "hydro". I find this ridiculous and will not say it.
** I'm aware that one can also wash dishes by hand. Since Allan and I never had a dishwasher before we moved to Canada, we feel we've paid our dues in that department. What's more, using a dishwasher actually helps us eat more healthfully and save money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)