there is no political correctness. there is just common decency.

I recently complained about this on someone else's blog, so I might as well bring it here and vent at a more appropriate place.

In a baseball-related discussion, someone wrote that my partner's blog "often has a hair trigger on political correctness matters".

I hate this. Hate it!

For centuries whole segments of the population were disparaged and referred to in less than human terms. Now some of us insist this is wrong. We ask that we all refer to people as people, the way we ourselves wish to be spoken of.

This supposed "hair trigger on political correctness matters" means commenters on that blog don't ignore racism, sexism, homophobia or xenophobia. We see it, we call it.

In another irritatingly wrong usage, people who fancy themselves speakers of unvarnished, unpopular truths will say, "It may be politically incorrect to say so, but...". As if being so-called politically correct demands we not speak plainly, that we coddle difficult facts in euphemism.

First of all, words like woman, African-American and Muslim are not euphemisms. When one of my relatives calls a 50-year-old woman an "office girl", and I ask that she use the term "assistant", I am not being euphemistic. The person is a woman, and an assistant.

And on the other hand, where do we really see the use of euphemisms? Who is repackaging torture as "aggressive interrogation methods"? How did genocide become "ethnic cleansing"? Where did abortion rights become "pro-life"? It's our side that demands the plain truth.

We should crumble up that meaningless phrase "politically correct" and throw it in the trash heap of reactionary hoaxes. It can land right on top of "liberal media" and "feminazi".

There's no agenda. There is no "political correctness". There is just common decency.

free rice!

No, Condi has not been locked up. Oh well.

But while I was visiting Impudent Strumpet, I realized I have neglected to blog about Free Rice.

Word lovers, test your vocabulary skills and donate food through the United Nations Food Program. Careful, it's addictive. Which is a good thing.

Free Rice

soldiers for peace

There's a lot of war resister news both here in Canada and in the US. Here's some of it.

According to our newest resister in Toronto, US military jails are overflowing with soldiers who are refusing to participate in the occupation of Iraq.

One of those is Ryan Jackson, who will be court-martialled on June 3. The Army is holding Jackson in pre-trial confinement. Apparently this is almost unheard of for a non-violent offense, but Jackson is outspoken, and the Army wants to keep him quiet. Ryan served in the military for two and a half years, including two tours in Iraq.

Jackson applied for conscientious objector status, and was denied. In his application, he wrote:

I feel ashamed every day. I feel ashamed for taking part in the killing of others, and for allowing my comrades to be killed themselves. By putting on a uniform, I am showing my support. . . . I can no longer be a part of the Armed Forces or any organization of a violent nature. . . .

Interviewed by Courage To Resist, Jackson said:

Once my beliefs started to evolve and change, I became a different person. It starts to take a hold of you, giving you hope that you can make a difference, that you can change what you are doing, and that it is not too late!

[The military's CO application process was] immoral, unethical, and wrong. I've come to realize that my beliefs are not valid or sincere based on what any person that reads this says or thinks. My beliefs are valid because I say they are and because they are my beliefs and they compel me to be a better person.

Prior to surrendering at Fort Sill, Ryan spoke about what might happen next.

I really don't worry about it, because there are so many great people that have inspired me in the past that have faced so much worse than me.

I looked at people in history – Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, who faced real persecution for their beliefs – and came to the conclusion that these people did this before me, to fight for civil rights and fight for peace and nonviolence. I said, 'Well, who am I in this day and age when we supposedly have this freedom?' The worst they're going to do to me is possibly imprison me for a little bit, but I'll still live to tell about it another day. . . .

No matter what the Army decides to do with me, if I just take it and turn it into a positive experience and use my story and what I have to say to people to hopefully inspire other people and maybe save one person from going to kill other people and possibly being killed, then the sacrifice I made, I feel, is worth it.

* * * *

Robert Weiss also applied for conscientious objector status and was denied. Weiss was court-martialled and sentenced to seven months in prison. He also received a Bad Conduct Discharge, the equivalent of a felony offense. Weiss's military hearing took place in Germany, where he had no support except his lawyer.

His charge - desertion and missing movement - still carries a maximum punishment of death by firing squad.

In his closing remarks during the sentencing portion of the trial, civilian defense lawyer David Court presented an overview of what the U.S. Military Code of Justice seeks to accomplish through criminal punishment.

Court concluded most aspects – like rehabilitation and protecting society – simply did not apply to someone guilty of essentially refusing to commit an act of violence against other human beings.

"The only tenant that is relevant is to maintain Good Order and Discipline," he said. "Those three letters [G.O.D.], that's where Robert J. Weiss sees his command. He believes the requirements of his spirituality overcome that of a soldier."

"He will believe he is being punished because he broke the Army's rules, but not because he broke higher laws," Court said.

Though shackled as he left the building, Weiss managed to rotate a wrist, flashing one last peace sign before boarding a van for Mannheim.

He had only two words to say.

"God bless."

* * * *

"This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq."

These words were spoken by Matthis Chiroux, a Sergeant in the US Army. Chiroux was honourably discharged last summer, after serving more than four years in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines.

On May 15, Chiroux publicly announced that he is refusing orders to be recalled and deployed to Iraq. He made this announcement outside the US Congress, after fellow members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (More on that below.)

Chiroux's statement:

Good afternoon. My name is Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, and I served in the Army as a Photojournalist until being honorably discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines. As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand.

In February, I received a letter from the Army ordering my return to active duty, for the purpose of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength, clarity and resolve to declare to the military and the world that this Soldier will not be deploying to Iraq.

This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment in support of illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being, but in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq.

* * * *

Last week, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace brought Winter Soldier to Washington. Aaron Glantz covered the hearings.

Antiwar veterans of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan took their case to Capitol Hill Thursday, baring their souls with stories of killings of innocent civilians, torture, and wrongful detentions.

"On several occasions our convoys came upon bodies that had been lying on the road, sometimes for weeks," said Marine Corps veteran Vincent Emanuele, who served in al-Qaim near the Syrian border in 2004 and 2005.

"When encountering these bodies standard procedure was to run over the corpses, sometimes even stopping and taking pictures, which was also standard practice when encountering the dead in Iraq," he told the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which organized the hearing.

Emanuele also said that U.S. military personnel often took "pot shots" at cars passing by.

"Our rules of engagement stated that we should first fire warning shots into the ground in front of the car, then the engine block, and the windshield. That is if the car was even moving in the first place," he said. "Many times cars that actually had pulled off to the side of the road were also shot at."

Thursday's hearing was an outgrowth of an event in Maryland earlier this year called "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan - Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations." For four days in March, dozens of veterans of the two wars testified about atrocities they personally committed or witnessed while deployed overseas.

At the time, many of the veterans expressed a desire to take their case to Capitol Hill. Thursday they got their wish.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, addressed a panel of veterans at the start of the hearing.

"We now have an opportunity to hear not from the military's top brass but directly from you," she said, "the very soldiers who put your lives on the line to carry out this president's failed policies."

Nine veterans of the Iraq war told their stories before members of Congress and a packed gallery. One of the veterans had also served in Afghanistan. About 40 veterans were in the audience.

The veterans spoke about extremely lax rules of engagement handed down by commanding officers, which they said virtually guaranteed atrocities would be committed, and which in turn created a violent backlash among Iraqi people and a continued cycle of violence.

Former U.S. Army Capt. Luis Carlos Montalvan served directly under Gen. David Petraeus in 2005 and 2006.

"We have beaten our drum to try to raise the issue of the dereliction of duty committed by a number of generals who have been promoted and promoted again and continue to perpetuate the lies [that] paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq," he said.

. . .

Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War hope this week's hearing will spark an investigation by a full Congressional committee and speed the end of the wars.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) praised the veterans who spoke Thursday. "I want to thank you for having more courage than many members of Congress have -- for coming here in defiance of what you have been instructed and taught to do," she said. "They attempted to tell you that you should be satisfied by everything that you saw and everything that you did and everything you witnessed, but you're not. I praise and honor you for that."

The veterans' testimony, however, may be overshadowed by an unrelated legislative maneuver that occurred just steps away from their hearing room Thursday: the House of Representatives defeated a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While many antiwar activists were elated by the news from the House floor, their victory will likely be only symbolic, and short-lived.

President George W. Bush had threatened to veto the spending bill anyway, citing the time line it would have imposed for withdrawing troops, and what he described as unnecessary domestic spending. Knowing that, and angered over the way Democratic leaders handled the bill, 131 Republicans abstained from the vote. That left those who opposed the new funding with a surprising plurality of the vote.

More here.

And more from resisters themseves, this Wednesday night in Toronto.

mob rule - with government blessing and assist - in italy

Europe's favourite scapegoat is being persecuted again, and believe it or not, it's not the Jews. It's the Roma people, known popularly as Gypsies. I urge you to read the whole story; it is chilling.

In cruel and unusual concert, Italy's new government, its police and paramilitary carabinieri, and even its gangsters, have turned their joint might against the nation's enemy number one: the Gypsies.

Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI and a small number of left-wingers raised lonely voices in central Naples against the national hardening of hearts towards Europe's perennial outsiders. To little avail: the Pope's appeal for a spirit of welcome and acceptance was met with a hail of angry rejection in blogged comments on news websites.

But what will remain scorched in the nation's memory – as a mark of shame, or a beacon pointing the way forward, depending on how you see it – are the flaming structures of the Gypsy camp burnt in the Ponticelli district of Naples on Wednesday.

Residents of the former communist stronghold on the northern outskirts of Naples have been raising hell about the camp since Saturday, when a woman claimed a Gypsy girl had entered her flat and tried to steal her baby.

The first Molotov cocktails descended on the improvised huts and cabins on Tuesday evening, after which the 800-odd inhabitants began moving out of the area in groups. On Wednesday the fire-raisers, said to belong to the Camorra, the Neapolitan equivalent of the Mafia, burnt the camp in earnest, watched by applauding local people and unchallenged by the police. When firefighters showed up to douse the blaze, local people taunted and whistled at them. The last Roma moved out under police protection.

Only then did local politicians shed a few crocodile tears: Antonio Bassolino, governor of the Campania region, declaring: "We must stop with the greatest determination these disturbing episodes against the Roma." Rosa Russo Iervolino, the Mayor of Naples, chimed in: "It is unthinkable that anyone could imagine that I could justify reprisals against the Roma."

But the first act of ethnic cleansing in the new Italy passed off with little fuss. Flora Martinelli, the woman who reported the alleged kidnap attempt on her baby, said: "I'm very sorry for what's happening, I didn't want it to come to this. But the Gypsies had to go."

Roma have been living in Italy for seven centuries, and 70,000 of the 160,000-strong population have Italian citizenship. They amount to less than 0.3 per cent of the population, one of the lowest proportions in Europe. But their poverty and resistance to integration have made them far more conspicuous than other communities. And the influx of thousands more from Romania in the past year has confirmed the view of many Italians that the Gypsies and their eyesore encampments are the source of all their problems.

The forces of law and order took up the struggle yesterday. In Rome, some 50 Roma without identification and living in the city's biggest Gypsy camp were arrested as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration which resulted in more than 400 arrests nationwide.

Meanwhile, the government announced that its new diktat on security is almost ready and will be approved at its first cabinet meeting in Naples, as announced by Mr Berlusconi, to symbolise his determination to crack the city's chronic refuse problem.

The "decree law", which will have immediate effect, is expected to make illegal immigration a criminal offence, punishable by up to four years in prison. The discussion of the draft of the law and the announcement that there will be no more amnesties have thrown the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who work informally as nurses and old people's companions into a panic. Now the government is trying to fine tune the law so it only applies to criminally inclined clandestini – and Gypsies.

Fascism is on the rise in the country where the word was born.

consume, dominate... decapitate?

The mind-snatchers grab another space. (Thanks to Allan.)

And some advertising misogyny: here and here. (Thanks to James.)

The tie ad is from 1939. I don't know how many North Americans were buying ties or having breakfast in bed during the Great Depression.

But the slacks-and-rug ad dates from 1970, corresponding with the re-emergence of the women's movement on the mainstream radar. Come on, men, don't fall for that shit: dominate!

I don't know about you, but I find seeing a woman's head without a body more than a little disgusting.

something else to blame on fat people: global warming

Not only are fat people lazy, self-indulgent and visually offensive, they are helping to destroy the planet.

Obesity contributes to global warming, too.

Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and the problem will worsen as the population literally swells in size, a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine says.

This adds to food shortages and higher energy prices, the school's researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in the journal Lancet on Friday.

"We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility," Edwards said in a telephone interview. "Obesity is a key part of the big picture."

A key part of the picture? Really?

Is an overweight person who takes public transportation more of a threat to the environment than a thin person who drives an SUV? (What about if the thin person drives back and forth to the gym in an SUV every day?)

Do you know how much the thin person eats? There's an assumption a thin person eats less than a heavier person, but that's not necessarily the case.

Has anyone even studied the carbon footprints of a large number of obese people and compared them to the environmental footprints of a large number of thin people? If not, isn't this "finding" just an assumption?

Looking for a link to this story, I was glad to find Gina Kolata's response. Kolata is the author of Rethinking Thin, which I blogged about here. In that book, Kolata examines the hard, scientific evidence about obesity and comes to a pretty clear conclusion: body size and shape are only slightly more malleable than eye colour.

First we said they were ruining their health with their bad habit, and they should just quit.

Then we said they were repulsive and we didn't want to be around them. Then we said they were costing us loads of money — maybe they should pay extra taxes. Other Americans, after all, do not share their dissolute ways.

Cigarette smokers? No, the obese.

Last week the list of ills attributable to obesity grew: fat people cause global warming.

This latest contribution to the obesity debate comes in an article by Sheldon H. Jacobson of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and his doctoral student, Laura McLay. Their paper, published in the current issue of The Engineering Economist, calculates how much extra gasoline is used to transport Americans now that they have grown fatter. The answer, they said, is a billion gallons a year.

Their conclusion is in the same vein as a letter published last year in The American Journal of Public Health. Its authors, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did a sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much extra fuel airlines spend hauling around fatter Americans. The answer, they wrote, based on the extra 10 pounds the average American gained in the 1990’s, is 350 million gallons, which means an extra 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide.

"People are out scouring the landscape for things that make obese people look bad," said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.

And is that a bad thing? Dr. Jacobson doesn't think so. "We felt that beyond public health, being overweight has many other socioeconomic implications," he said, which was why he was drawn to calculating the gasoline costs of added weight.

The idea of using economic incentives to help people shed pounds comes up in the periodic calls for taxes on junk food. Martin B. Schmidt, an economist at the College of William and Mary, suggests a tax on food bought at drive-through windows. Describing his theory in a recent Op-Ed article in The New York Times, Dr. Schmidt said people would expend more calories if they had to get out of their cars to pick up their food.

"We tax cigarettes in part because of their health cost," he wrote. "Similarly, the individual's decision to lead a sedentary lifestyle will end up costing taxpayers."

Eric Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, said his first instinct was to laugh at the gas and drive-through arguments. But such claims often get wide attention, he says, and take on a life of their own.

"This is like, let's find another reason to scapegoat fat people," Dr. Oliver says.

. . .

The message in the blame-obesity approach, said James Morone, a political science professor at Brown University, is that it is so important to persuade fat people to lose weight that common sense disappears.

"Anything we can say to persuade you, we will say," Dr. Morone added.

So is it working?

It doesn't seem to be. Fat people are more reviled than ever, researchers find, even as more people become fat. When smokers and heavy drinkers turned pariah, rates of smoking and drinking went down. Won't fat people, in time, follow suit?

Research suggests that the stigma of being fat leads to more eating, not less. And if reducing the stigma suggests a solution, that's not working either.

. . .

One problem with blaming people for being fat, obesity researchers say, is that getting thin is not like quitting smoking. People struggle to stop smoking, but many, in the end, succeed. Obesity is different. It's not that the obese don’t care. Instead, as science has shown over and over, they have limited personal control over their weight. Genes play a significant role, the science says.

That is not a popular message, Dr. Brownell says. And the notion that anyone can be thin with a little effort has consequences. "Once weight is due to a personal failing, a lot of things follow," he said. There’s the attitude that if you are fat, you deserve to be stigmatized. Maybe it will motivate you to lose weight. The opposite happens.

In a paper published Oct. 10 in Obesity, Dr. Brownell and his colleagues studied more than 3,000 fat people, asking them about their experiences of stigmatization and discrimination and how they responded.

Almost everyone said they ate more.

sexual assault: two very good stories of recovery

This week, the Globe and Mail ran two excellent essays in their "Facts & Arguments" section. They were both stories of healing from sexual assault, and they ran on back-to-back days.

Read them while they're still accessible:

Taking Back Control, by Allison Haley,

and

The Burden of Silence, by Janet Goldblatt.

Although each person's experience is unique, it's remarkable how so many stories of sexual trauma sound alike. Both these women use almost the exact same words I have used when writing about my own experience.

The first writing I ever had published was about my own recovery from rape, and, like these women, my essay was published nationally. That was quite an experience in itself. For a while it was the only clip I had to send to editors, which was a bit strange!

I hope Allison Haley and Janet Goldblatt know that by speaking out, they are helping survivors - women and men - everywhere. I thank them both.

from my window

We had some visitors this morning.

These are our neighbourhood ducks. They hang out and walk around the development. I suppose they live in the nearby Cooksville Creek, although they haven't said.

I was taking pictures through our living room window, and I thought when we went outside, it would scare them away - but no. They stayed long enough for me to get some rice crackers (gluten-free ducks?). Even Tala barking through the backyard gate didn't scare them off.

I love how everyone enjoys seeing animals. Our neighbour was leaving for work, but she sat in her car on the driveway for a long time so as not to startle the ducks. Allan's great-aunt in rural Vermont always tells us what animals have been around her house.

There's something so wonderful about being visited by a wild animal, even for a moment.

person of conscience jailed because of liberal party dithering

When I wrote about this yesterday, I think I buried the lede. Today's headline is much better.

The original post is here.

Deportations loom for many US war resisters in Canada. We expect final news on at least one deportation very soon. It doesn't have to happen. It's up to Parliament to act.

california supreme court says all people are equal

In case you haven't heard, yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled that constitutional principles demand that marriage be open to same-sex couples. This is a very significant decision. California's Supreme Court is one of the most influential courts in the US, and has been a bellwether for many important social changes.

From Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU LGBT & AIDS Project, who writes the ACLU blog Get Busy, Get Equal:

We won the marriage case in California. No need for hyperbole here; this is big; big in terms of what it does, big in terms of what it means, and big in terms of the opportunity for progress it gives us (I’ll suggest some of the ways to take advantage of that opportunity below).

Simply having the California Supreme Court say that constitutional principles demand that marriage be open to same-sex couples is an enormous win. This Court has a remarkable history of leadership on civil rights and civil liberties. It made landmark decisions on race and sex discrimination, on freedom of speech and privacy, and on treatment of the disabled and poor people long before the U.S. Supreme Court. No court in America has more authority to say that marriage for same-sex couples is an issue of basic freedom than this one.

And as the New York Times recently pointed out, the California Supreme Court is the most influential state high court in America. If you'd like to read it, here’s the decision.

Marriage in California will transform the discussion of marriage nationwide. California has one of the largest economies in the world. Given the state’s economic clout, the fact that California is marrying same-sex couples will put considerable pressure on the rest of the country to recognize those marriages.

Even more important, the rest of the country recognizes that California is America's cultural trendsetter, that cultural change in California is usually a preview of what is to come in the rest of the United States. Most Americans already believe that marriage for same-sex couples is bound to happen sooner or later. I think marriage in California will help persuade many of them that this is an issue of basic fairness, and that the time for it is now.

This was a prize of inestimable value.

Now, of course, we have to hold on to it. It appears fairly certain that anti-gay forces have gotten enough signatures to put on the November ballot an initiative that would amend the state Constitution and overrule the decision.

That initiative is scary. We lost a different vote on marriage only eight years ago. And our opponents, recognizing that marriage in California is a great prize, will fight with all their might. They’ll put everything they have into this. Which means that to win, we'll have to raise a great deal of money and run a very smart campaign.

Full post with links here.

keith olbermann tells bush to shut the hell up

God I love this man. I love his anger.

Part I:

Part II:

why is james burmeister in prison?

James Burmeister is a private in the US Army. I blogged about James here:

In Iraq, James was assigned to a "small kill" team. Their duty was to place a fake camera on a pole with a sign labeling it US property, then shoot anyone who touched it. James, whose task was to provide perimeter security for the small-kill team, never got over his disgust for the tactic.

After he was wounded by a roadside bomb - suffering traumatic brain injury, hearing loss and facial wounds - the Army sent James to Germany to recover. When it was time to go back to Iraq, he went to Ottawa instead.

After 10 months in Canada, James turned himself into the military, and was put in the brig in Fort Knox, Kentucky.

So James Burmeister - who suffers from a traumatic brain injury and hearing loss from a roadside bomb, as well as severe PTSD - is in prison because he listened to his conscience instead of following immoral orders. He's in prison because of the venality of the US government and its military. He's in prison because he refused to kill.

But the most immediate reason for James Burmeister's imprisonment, and probable dishonourable discharge, is that the Liberal Party has failed to act.

The Harper Government deserves a fair share of blame, but because they are more in sympathy with James' captors than with peace-loving Canadians, we've given up on them.

However, if the opposition parties united behind the resolution to Let Them Stay, people like James Burmeister could remain legally in Canada. The Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats support the resolution. The Liberal MPs who serve on the Committee for Citizenship and Immigration have recommended that the House of Commons pass the resolution. Many Liberal MPs agree.

But the Liberals, as a party, have failed to act. Stéphane Dion has not taken a position.

And because of that, a man is in prison for refusing to kill.

If you believe, as I do, that US war resisters should be allowed to remain legally in Canada, please make sure your MP knows how you feel. If you're in the US, a letter to the Canadian embassy would go a long way.

* * * *

For a primer on the issues, you might want to read this post, including comments. This thread is not intended for debate about the war resisters. Pro-Iraq-war or anti-war-resister comments will be removed. Thank you.

newfoundland question

We're working on a rough itinerary for our trip to Newfoundland in June. We very much want to go up to L'Anse Aux Meadows, the archaeological site of the Viking settlement which is the earliest known European contact in the new world. The site is way at the top of the Northern Peninsula; there's only one road, and it's a fair distance, so we have to map out a plan to make sure we have enough time. And of course, there are all the other things we want to do - whale-watching, iceberg watching, Gros Morne National Park, among other things.

From what I read and hear, it seems like a lot of visitors to Newfoundland go to St. John's and the Avalon Peninsula, and that's it. It sounds like the Avalon is a microcosm for the whole province - a stand-in, so to speak, where if you were only going to be in Newfoundland for a few days or a week, you could tool around the Avalon and see a little bit of all the different Newfoundland attractions. Given that, it also sounds like the Avalon is much more heavily touristed.

Our timing works out better if we spend a day or two in St. John's, then head west towards the Bonavista Peninsula. But do I have the courage to skip the Avalon entirely? People rave about Witless Bay Ecological Preserve and the Irish Loop. But something tells me that's because that's all they've seen of Newfoundland. If we're going to Bonavista and Twillingate and the Northern Peninsula and Gros Morne, is there something in Witless Bay that we won't see anywhere else?

Keep in mind that we can't see everything, you never can on any trip. Also keep in mind if we go to the Avalon, it would be for a day or two at most. So given all that, do you think we can skip the Avalon and not miss something completely unique and must-see?

dallaire: canada is "slipping down the slope" towards losing its moral standing

Catching up on some news from while we were away, I was moved and impressed by this youth activism.

Even by the surreal standards of the Omar Khadr saga - one that has seen allegations of doctored evidence and arguments over whether the detained Canadian is allowed to read a Lord of the Rings screenplay - the scene in Ottawa yesterday was striking: About 50 teenagers dancing and demonstrating on Parliament Hill, chanting “Omar! Omar!” and demanding Mr. Khadr get a fair trial.A group of students from Quebec and Ontario descended on the nation’s capital to demonstrate against Mr. Khadr’s now-six-year detention in Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Khadr faces multiple charges, including murder, before a U.S. military tribunal. The charges stem from an Afghan firefight in 2002 during which Mr. Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier. He could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted. At the time of the alleged incident, Mr. Khadr was 15 years old - the same age as many of the students demonstrating on his behalf.

Yesterday Romeo Dallaire said that Canada has lost its moral standing in the world by failing to act on Khadr.

Canada has sunk to the moral equivalent of al-Qaeda by failing to treat Canadian Omar Khadr the same way it treats other child soldiers, Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire said Tuesday.

Dallaire, who appeared before a foreign affairs committee on international human rights, said Khadr is clearly a child soldier who shouldn't be prosecuted by an illegal court system at Guantanamo Bay but reintegrated into society.

Canada is heading down a slippery slope by failing to obey the United Nations conventions on child soldiers to which it is a signatory, he said.

"The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties in order to say you are doing it to protect yourself . . . you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all," he said.

"We are slipping down the slope of going down that same route."

Now that Brenda Martin is in Canada, and free, the Harper government's shameful dereliction of duty towards Khadr becomes even more blatant. I'm glad Martin is out of the Mexican prison, but allowing a Khadr to be "tried" by kangaroo court is unconscionable.

But I don't know if it's fair to blame only the Conservatives. So far the Liberals are failing to act on US war resisters in Canada, ducking and hiding rather than taking what would be a moral - and politically popular - stand.

It's killing me that Canada is not doing the right thing on both these issues. Deportation looms for several war resisters and their families. How can Canada allow these people of conscience to go to prison?

bush gives up golf for war

What do you mean Bush didn't sacrifice anything for the Iraq War?

Bush: I quit golf over Iraq war

US President George W. Bush said in an interview out Tuesday that he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of US soldiers killed in the conflict in Iraq, now in its sixth year.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said in an interview for Yahoo! News and Politico magazine.

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."

The US president traced his decision to the August 19, 2003 bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed the world body's top official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the UN, got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do," said Bush.

Bush's last round of golf as president dates back to October 13, 2003, according to meticulous records kept by CBS news.

On the day of the bombing two months earlier, he had cut short his golf game at the 12th hole and returned to his ranch in tiny Crawford, Texas.

There's really nothing to say, is there?

Thanks to the several people who sent this to me, especially Magnolia2000, who posted it in this thread about the very real sacrifice other families have made, and continue to make. The juxtaposition is beyond infuriating. Enough to make you want to start a revolution.

letter from the father of a war resister

The following was written by Erich Burmeister of Oregon. Erich's son is James Burmeister, an Iraq War resister who recently turned himself in to the Army. This will appear as an op-ed in a local Oregon newspaper (no link yet).

Some background on James is here; that post contains links to earlier posts about him.

Passion and empathy: Why is it that it takes a harsh reality to kick in your own front door, grab you by the scruff of your own all too relaxed neck, before you really cry again. Maybe its cancer, a hurricane, a drunk driver, somebody gone crazy with a gun on campus, in a shopping center, on the job, on the freeway, or maybe a kid with a gun in a war, a soldier, your kid, like mine PFC James Burmeister. He is not a kid anymore. When he joined the army, he was a typical poor kid, naive kid, painted himself in a corner kid. A typical young man high on testosterone low on common sense, he bought the recruiter's line of crap and fine-print flim flaw, and was coached on how to assure his induction despite medical conditions that would have disqualified him.

So the army trained him how to kill efficiently in urban warfare situations and shipped his naïve butt over to Baghdad to carry out the orders of his commander and chief, the Warrior Prince Bush, our president, brave military veteran of Vietnam. So my son was forced to take part in and was witness to acts of human cruelty beyond his wildest imagination. He killed other young men just like him. In another place in another time, they could have been friends, they could have worked side by side and shared their dreams, now their ghosts will haunt his dreams, like the dreams of this brand new generation of "winter soldiers". For the matter of a few feet, or maybe even a few inches, my son's brains would have been spilled out on a Baghdad street. My nightmare of a soldier's dad, of cradling my son's blown up head in my lap while I try to put it back together, it would have become reality like the nightmares of the families of those soldiers who have already died, and those who will die next week, next month, and next year.

So now my son is sits in Army custody, brain injured by a roadside bomb and struggling mightily with PTSD while he awaits court-martial for desertion, because he refused redeployment to combat in Iraq in May 2007 in protest over the war crimes he was ordered to engage in. He manned a fifty-caliber machine gun atop a hummer providing perimeter security for one of the now infamous small kill teams.

With the help of war resistance groups in Canada, on the eve of his re deployment, he went AWOL and has lived in Canada until March 4th of this year when his worsening mental and physical condition, his homesickness and his family responsibilities left him little choice but to turn himself in to the Army at Fort Knox Kentucky.

For these soldiers who speak out against war crimes like my son, for these female soldiers like Suzanne Swift, who dare to speak out against sexual misconduct, for officers like Ehren Watada, who refused to be the executor of illegal orders, the military system is set up to make them pay dearly, the two codes: The code of "military justice" and the code of secrecy. Dearly many have paid, like wounded combat vet Daniel Anderson Dennis, a pioneer soldier/ war resister who willingly faced prison, and whose rotten discharge now denies him any medical benefits for his serious wounds. So one really ticked-off mom Anita Anderson Dennis has single handedly taken on the US Army, has become an angel of deliverance for many soldiers like my son, and has kicked some real butt, just like we in this community can kick some real butt if we want to. We cannot remain silent and docile.

As the father of a soldier, as a father who already knows the pain of losing a child, when I hear the president, whose aristocratic upbringing, and military record we know of all too well, when I hear him speak of sacrifice and see the tears roll sown his cheeks, I am brokenhearted and furious. Our troops are fighting for freedom? Whose freedom? Is it ours? When millions are without healthcare, decent jobs, when schools and roads are crumbling, when there are no cops or government help for natural disasters, when we can't even keep the local animal shelter funded. Are we free? Are we free from terrorism? Are any of the mass murders that have become a regular occurrence in our society carried out by al-Qaeda? Does our warrior prince president speak of the freedom of the dead, the orphans and all the victims of this human tragedy past and future? I know this fact, no matter how long the war goes on, the private jets will fly, they country clubs will stay busy, they Hollywood parties will go on, the mansions will stay lit, the pools will stay heated, and the yachts will keep sailing. As the father of a combat vet, I cannot forget the faces of these dead young soldiers, so proud in their uniforms, now they are gone forever. The families have a folded flag and a permanent hole in their souls. Their kid gets a 60-second bio on the local news, and if a soldier merely gets an arm or a leg blown off, or half their face, or has to poop in a colostomy bag the rest of their life, what do they get?

Here is what they get: They get the debacle of Walter Reed, they get to join the backlog of the hundreds of thousands of claims for disability, they must actually prove to the VA, that they were even wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, and then must wait months and sometimes longer to even receive benefits or therapy. That is why we must open our ears and hearts, to organizations like the Veterans for Peace and Iraqi Veterans against the War. Please seek out and help any of these organizations that are aiding disabled vets and their families, because they have been abandoned by their commander in chief and nearly all of our so called voices in congress, who have sacrificed nothing, yet tell the rest of us to "suck it up". Well, we ain't got no straw or got no cup!

I just want to hug my son again, and hear him play this beloved bass guitar again and see the joy on his face as the music brings forth the best in us all. I want to help him heal his soul from when he had a gun in his hands, bringing forth the worst in us all. How many moms and dads just want to hug their kid soldier again and see them bringing forth the best in us all here at home. Every day, every week, every month, every year that this occupation continues, another parent like me will never see young dreams fulfilled, and will mourn the rest of their days. At least my son is still alive but he is certainly not whole. He struggles with PTSD, yet he is quartered within earshot of the shooting range and tank training area, daily hearing the gunfire, and explosions. He has been prescribed a dangerous cocktail of anti-psychotic drugs and sleep aids by Army doctors, while the command decides if they want to send him to prison, as a coward, a soldier who faced death, and followed orders to "shoot to kill". The cowards – George Bush and Dick Cheney, those in Congress, and the Generals with the blood on their hands – why are they the punishers instead of the punished?

The military fears public scrutiny more than anything else. By making them aware that their every move is being watched, we can force them to do what is legally and morally correct. Otherwise it just won't happen, because they are instruments of the hypocrisy of their supreme commander, who himself fears public scrutiny more than anything else.

So, if you would like to irritate the crap out of the Army, those whose business is war, do not like to be reminded. Write, phone or fax the Inspector General, Ft Knox, Kentucky phone 502-624-1710; fax 502-624-2197, or call the Ft Knox Public Relations office (502) 624-7451. Call for James' immediate medical discharge. The Army intends to silence his words of truth, and those of soldiers like him. We have initiated a Congressional Inquiry through Peter DeFazio's office, but unfortunately Representative DeFazio suffers from the usual politician's affliction of having no spine. So direct community actions not only helps my son, but the thousands of others who have been thrown on the scrapheap, by those who have used them like pawns on a chess board, in their lust for wealth and power. It is not our fault that these men have done what they have done, but it is our fault if it is not stopped.

Otherwise, especially for my fellow baby boomers we write our own sad epitaph - We wiped out the social gains made by the generations before us, and stole the future from the generations to come. If you are a young parent, with young children, look into their faces today. When you hear them laugh or see them smile, do you want to feel joy for their bright future or pity for the futures victims?

We must ask ourselves; when does silence and docility become complicity? Martin Luther King said, "The opposite of love is apathy". When you become a father of a soldier in a war, all the soldiers become your children. You dream that they are all home where they belong, alive and whole and able to pursue their dreams. In your nightmares they only come home in a box or in a wheelchair. The President will cry for them.

Our community can be at the forefront of the movement to stop the inhumanity, but it will not be a "party for peace", or a yearly two hour "well planned, well mannered" event like our local "protests" have become. We will have to cross our own bridge in Selma, for if we fear sacrifice for justice, we will always fear our own shadows! Drop my son a card of encouragement!
PFC James Burmeister
HHC Bldg 298
Gold Vault Rd
Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

Overload the Ft Knox post office before they lock him away, and basically give him a drug induced lobotomy, which is the Army's tactic to silence the speakers of truth, especially the combat vets who know. Time is of the essence. All of us must make the decision of conscience before it is too late for all of us.

My deepest thanks to Erich Burmeister for sharing this with us.

If you are in the Toronto area, please come hear war resisters speaking about their experiences. A Conversation With US War Resisters, moderated by Andy Barrie, will take place on Wednesday, May 21. Details here.

fun with statcounter

No SSOD today, but I did get a nice chuckle out of this.

I saw the search string "sean penn move to canada" in my Statcounter and followed the link. In the Google search there was a link to Yahoo Answers link, and they're usually good for a laugh. The URL was gone, but in the cached copy, I found this:

If Rudy Giuliani wins, who is moving to Canada?

One of the answers:

Don't you just love the Liberal threat's that they will move to Canada if a Republican is elected? Like any one would care! They never keep there promise and leave cause they are so full of sh*t . Here's a news flash Liberals are useless to America! If you want to leave please don't let the door slap your arss! Problem is I don;t think Canada would take all the Libatwits . Maybe they should go to Iran!

And another:

No one. It is an empty promise. No one will move, not even Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and the dozens of other Hollywood weirdos who will make the promise to do so if he gets nominated. No one ever leaves the U.S. to live in another country.

Meanwhile:

The number of Americans admitted to Canada last year [2006] reached a 30-year high, with a 20 per cent increase over the previous year and nearly double the number that arrived in 2000. . . . .

The survey found that 10,942 Americans came to Canada in 2006, compared to just over 9,262 in 2005. In 2000, 5,828 came to the country.

And that's just Canada, only one of the many countries Americans have escaped to.

wacko or parody? you make the call... updated with the answer

As everyone on the Joy of Sox gamethreads knows, I have a tendency to be a complete dolt when it comes to sarcasm online. People say things, I take them seriously and reply... then realize that everyone except me knew they were joking. As the Prince Regent said, thick as a whale omlette.

Yet some things defy parody, because they are already parodies. When I saw this comment on my recent post about anti-choicers protesting birth control, I assumed it was a joke. I expected the commenter's profile to link to a progressive blog. But no. It went nowhere.

But after re-reading the comment a few times, I now think this person is totally serious. And seriously, seriously scary. No wonder he (or she? please, no) posts anonymously.

Wingnut or parody? You decide.

The pill and abortion have almost single-handedly destroyed western civilization. Women should be mandated to have at least two children. Japan, Europe and North America must stop destroying their cultures through abortion and birth control. Only after giving their country at least two children should women be allowed in the work force and all women who have more than two children should be rewarded with baby bonuses and increased pensions. Women wake up and stop destroying us!

Update: Those of you who guessed "wingnut" were correct. The person who left the comment showed up to elaborate. After leaving a spate of disgusting, fascist comments, which I deleted, he did the usual troll thing: random insults, then "what's amatter, can't handle the truth?!", and your blog sucks anyway. (Paraphrasing, of course.) These trolls are devoid of originality.

why i blog

With deepest apologies to George Orwell, one of my great writing heroes.

Why I Blog

I find it an extremely valuable writing discipline. Blogging helps me write every day. Writing every day primes the pump for my life as a writer.

It is very useful to write for an audience. Instead of writing in a notebook and ending up with a bunch of half-formed ideas, knowing that someone is reading helps me write more clearly, which means it helps me think more clearly.

On the other hand, it is very difficult and time-consuming to get columns or essays published. My work was published before I started blogging, and continues to be. But writing without the need to attract an editor frees me from having to construct a complete, publishable essay tailored to a specific audience.

Thus, somewhere between the personal notebook of vague ideas and the slaved-over, multi-drafted essay for possible publication, lives my blog post.

For self-expression. I have a need to write. I have had this need all my life.

To share information I find interesting, noteworthy or valuable.

For community. We've met most of our friends in Canada through this blog. Other people have met each other (independent of me) through wmtc.

To help people interested in emigrating to Canada. People email me for information all the time. I can't always answer their questions, but I can try to point them in the right direction, and I can at least offer support. Many Canadians were incredibly helpful and supportive to me and Allan in our journey. I try to do the same for others.

To learn. I ask questions, I put forth ideas, people of similar viewpoints offer more information and direct me to other sources.

To have a record of my experience, first as an emigrant, then as an immigrant, and one day as a Canadian citizen.

Not Why I Blog

To gather a spectrum of viewpoints on a particular topic. Because I don't tolerate all viewpoints and opinions on wmtc, I am frequently criticized for being close-minded. The truth is I see a lot of different viewpoints. I just don't want them on my own blog. It would ruin the experience for me. A new friend of wmtc recently described my blog as a "safe space"; for me that affirmed I was doing the right thing.

To debate. I dislike debate for its own sake. I find it tiresome and tiring, a misuse of my limited time and energy. My preferred method of learning is to read and consider. I will read and consider anyone's opinion, but I won't be baited into an argument. When I forget that, I am always sorry.

There are hundreds of thousands of blogs and message boards on which people can debate any topic under the sun. Readers seeking that type of experience would do well to avoid wmtc.

To bait others into an argument. See above.

So that other people can use my blog as a soapbox. And lest any friend of wmtc be paranoid, I welcome long comments from wmtc readers and discussions among readers. I'm referring to people who don't read my blog but think it might be a good place to direct other people to their own blogs, or to spout their opinions on any unrelated topic.

For money. I love being paid for my writing, and if blogging helps me land a paying assignment, that's beautiful. But the blog itself has to stay noncommercial in order for it to remain completely independent, and to retain its value to me.

Because I have nothing better to do.

* * * *

I don't want to turn this into a meme, but if anyone reading this would like to write about why they blog, I'd be happy to read (and post) the link.

a step towards justice for jamie leigh jones

A US judge has taken a stand for justice and accountability over unchecked corporate power. Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped when she was a KBR employee in Iraq, will have her case heard in court, not by arbitration.

A Houston woman who says she was gang raped by co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad won a major court battle late Friday when a Texas judge ordered that she can bring her case to court instead of forcing her into secretive arbitration proceedings with Halliburton and KBR.

"We are ecstatic that [District Judge Keith Ellison] had the courage to uphold justice in this case," Jamie Leigh Jones' attorney Todd Kelly said after the decision.

Jones says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

Jones returned from Iraq following her alleged rape in 2005. She was the subject of an exclusive ABC News report in December, which led to Congressional hearings.

After months of waiting for criminal charges to be filed, Jones decided to file suit against Halliburton and KBR.

KBR had moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom, as provided under the terms of her original employment contract.

Ellison, however, wrote in his order Friday that Jones' claims of sexual assault, battery, rape, false imprisonment and others fall beyond the scope of her employment contract.

"The Court does not believe that Plaintiff's bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer," Ellison wrote.

Ellison did, however, rule that a sexual harassment claim that Jones included in her case against her supervisor in Texas would have to be decided in arbitration.

Halliburton, which has since divested itself of KBR, has said it is improperly named in the suit and has referred calls to KBR.

In arbitration, there is no public record nor transcript of the proceedings and Jones' claims would not have been heard before a judge and jury.

Background here, here, here and here. Jamie Leigh Jones' foundation is here.