I had an interesting conversation with someone at work recently, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I'll preface this by emphasizing that the person I spoke with - we'll call her PA, for Person A - is not a bigot, not overtly racist, and seems open-minded. She grew up in Canada, and has traveled in many parts of the world.
I'll also say that my conversation with PA was not confrontational or adversarial at all. I mostly just listened, or gently offered my own perspective from my own experience.
PA said Canadians are "too easy-going," too unlikely to make a fuss when they should stand up for themselves. When I asked what she was referring to, it turned out to be about immigration and multiculturalism.
PA took pains to emphasize that she appreciates a multicultural society, that she believes it enriches everyone, that Canadian society is stronger and more interesting for its diversity. I believe her.
PA's central gripe went something like this. (I'll paraphrase.) "We welcome these people into our country, we go out of our way to make them feel comfortable and accepted and not second-class citizens, and that's as it should be, but then they turn around and tell us our customs and traditions are offensive, and we can't display the traditional symbols of our society."
When I probed further, she said (again, paraphrasing), "We respect everyone's right to celebrate their own religion and their own holidays and customs, but now people are telling me I can't have a Christmas tree? I'm sorry, that's going too far."
I gently offered that no one has told her she can't have a Christmas tree in her own home. Correct?
PA softened a little. Yes, that's true. No one is saying we can't have a Christmas tree at home. But we can't in school. In my child's school, we can't call it a Christmas tree, it can only be a holiday tree, for the winter holiday. There can't be any mention of Christmas, because it excludes the children who don't celebrate Christmas. Now how could anyone be offended by a Christmas tree?
Poor PA, she didn't know who she was sitting next to. I told her that as a Jewish person, and an atheist, I am not offended by other people's Christmas trees, but I was always bothered that there was a Christmas tree on the White House lawn, in a country that is not supposed to have an official religion - and that Christian symbolism in public places has been a source of discomfort and alienation for me.
PA said that when she was growing up, students stood and recited the [so-called] Lord's Prayer every morning, and the Jewish students left the room during that time. She said, "I never thought of them any differently, I never looked down on them."
I offered that, although she may not have looked down on the students who left the room, those students were singled out, made to feel different, and may indeed have felt unwelcome. They had to accommodate the majority. The majority religion was being practiced in public, taxpayer-funded space - rather than the public space being neutral, and each of us practicing religion in our own private space.
PA ignored this. She was very huffy and worked up that Canada "has gone too far," and has "allowed" "these people" too much leeway, without sticking up for "ourselves". Her main issue seems to be the Christmas tree, which she insists is not a religious symbol. She claims the Christmas tree is a neutral symbol of the winter holiday season. Yet she is incensed that her child's school says the tree must now be called a "winter holiday" tree. She is angry that her children can no longer sing Christmas carols in public school.
I pointed out that the Christmas tree is indeed, in our modern world, a religious symbol. If it truly were a neutral "winter holiday" tree, why would she have a problem with it being called a winter holiday tree?
(Please, no need to point out the pre-Christian, pagan roots of the Christmas tree, or how Christians in other eras condemned its use. It's true, but irrelevant.)
I asked PA if it would be ok with her if Muslim or Jewish parents brought religious symbols to school and asked all students to sing songs of their faiths. She said that in Canada, everyone is free to celebrate their own religious traditions, but that has no place in public school.
PA saw no irony in this.
She insisted that the Christmas tree is part of "how we've always lived" and should be seen and accepted as neutral. She said that her family has been in Canada for hundreds of years, and that part of her family is First Nations. (Again, no irony.) "We're not making them become Christian! But why shouldn't we be able to practice our religion the way we always have?"
We talked like this for a while. When the conversation threatened to become a little touchy, I tried to validate her concerns: "Your point of view is valid and should be listened to and respected." She said, "Well, that's the problem. Canadians don't speak up, so we just get walked on."
I segued into a different subject.
So to summarize: Multiculturalism is good, but "Canadian ways" are Christian. Christian symbols are the default setting, because that's the way it's always been. "We" have accommodated "them", but "they" cannot ask us to change our ways. Religion should not be in public school, but Christmas trees should be, because that's what "we've" always done.
So at what point do "they" become "us"? How many generations removed from immigration must someone be to be truly "us"? Could it be that unless one is nominally Christian, one will always be "them"? Chances are good that PA's child's classmates who are Muslim and Jewish are themselves Canadian citizens. Why are those children still "them", the ones who've been accommodated? Why is it so difficult for some people to grasp that Christian symbols are not universal?
6.19.2006
6.18.2006
solved
The iced coffee problem has been solved! (Alex E, are you reading?) Thanks to James and Lori, I checked out the Port Credit Starbucks. Lo and behold: ice brewed coffee and the horrendously named but delicious iced Americano. I don't know where there are Starbucks in Toronto, but I'll soon be learning.
I'm also going to tell Second Cup, for what it's worth, that I'd rather spend my loonies there, if only they'd satisfy my summer craving.
Ahhhhhh....
I'm also going to tell Second Cup, for what it's worth, that I'd rather spend my loonies there, if only they'd satisfy my summer craving.
Ahhhhhh....
party wrap
I think the first (annual?) wmtc party was a success. I really don't know. It appeared that everyone was enjoying themselves. When you're the host, it's so hard to tell.
People talked, ate, remarked on the enormity of our backyard. It was a very hot day, and groups of people migrated around the yard, huddling in shade. I had no idea our yard got that much sun! It looked like a sparse crowd, but then, in our yard, anything would - kind of like listening to chamber music in a football arena.
About 20-25 people showed up, including several wmtc readers. Attendees you might know included G, James, and Diamond Jim, who has just arrived in Canada! My friend D from Waterloo, who I met online long before I ever dreamed I'd live in Canada, came, as did three groups of American ex-pats who contacted me after my Globe And Mail essay ran, and long-time reader/lurker Shane, who made me happy by asking for an invitation. They all seemed like terrific people who I'd love to see again. Our next-door neighbours came, and hopefully they enjoyed their tables and various other items we had borrowed.
My sister-in-law "mkk" and my incredible nephew D were there; between them and Ellen The Amazing Dogsitter and her partner Paul, I thought Cody would pass out from happiness. When she saw each of them, she literally sank down to the ground. Another dog might have leapt or run in circles out of joy, but our Cody just collapses.
Two new friends from work came, too, and one brought her adorable dog Maggie. While Maggie chased her ball, Cody chased after Maggie, one of her favourite things to do. But Maggie is a young girl, about two years old, and Cody's an older lady, and Cody quickly gave it up, lying down and panting while Maggie took over the fetch duties.
Guests were so generous. Despite my admonitions against bringing anything, people brought an array of beverages, plants, a CD of Canadian humour, even folding chairs with a Canada logo. And don't forget the flashing Maple Leaf pins and maple sugar candy. Now we can try icewine and Tankhouse Ale for the first time. The Strongbow cider was gone before I could try one! It sounded like something I would like, so I'll pick some up this summer.
The last group left around 7:30. Our two out-of-town guests, mkk and D, and Allan and I, hung out in the backyard until well past dark, telling family stories, including the extended-play versions of How We Met, from both me and Allan, and mkk.
We had a really lovely day. The best part, for me, was meeting people who we'd like to see again - people I feel we could be friends with. That's a Big Thing.
The food was great, but the person at Whole Foods who told us how much to get (based on the number of guests) was way off. We have enormous amounts of food leftover. That kind of pissed me off. I would have been very happy to spend the money to feed 50 people if 50 people had been here - but to feed 50 people when you're expecting 25 doesn't make much sense.
Unfortunately, I didn't realize how much extra food there was, or I would have begged people to take home leftovers. As it stands, I'm hoping people will take leftovers after the fact: we're offering to deliver roasted potato salad, blue cheese coleslaw and black bean cilantro salad to anyone who wants it. The only catch is you had to be there yesterday.
We have photos. What's the protocol on posting people's pictures? Do I need permission from every single person? Is it ok to post pictures without captions, meaning I don't say who's who?
People talked, ate, remarked on the enormity of our backyard. It was a very hot day, and groups of people migrated around the yard, huddling in shade. I had no idea our yard got that much sun! It looked like a sparse crowd, but then, in our yard, anything would - kind of like listening to chamber music in a football arena.
About 20-25 people showed up, including several wmtc readers. Attendees you might know included G, James, and Diamond Jim, who has just arrived in Canada! My friend D from Waterloo, who I met online long before I ever dreamed I'd live in Canada, came, as did three groups of American ex-pats who contacted me after my Globe And Mail essay ran, and long-time reader/lurker Shane, who made me happy by asking for an invitation. They all seemed like terrific people who I'd love to see again. Our next-door neighbours came, and hopefully they enjoyed their tables and various other items we had borrowed.
My sister-in-law "mkk" and my incredible nephew D were there; between them and Ellen The Amazing Dogsitter and her partner Paul, I thought Cody would pass out from happiness. When she saw each of them, she literally sank down to the ground. Another dog might have leapt or run in circles out of joy, but our Cody just collapses.
Two new friends from work came, too, and one brought her adorable dog Maggie. While Maggie chased her ball, Cody chased after Maggie, one of her favourite things to do. But Maggie is a young girl, about two years old, and Cody's an older lady, and Cody quickly gave it up, lying down and panting while Maggie took over the fetch duties.
Guests were so generous. Despite my admonitions against bringing anything, people brought an array of beverages, plants, a CD of Canadian humour, even folding chairs with a Canada logo. And don't forget the flashing Maple Leaf pins and maple sugar candy. Now we can try icewine and Tankhouse Ale for the first time. The Strongbow cider was gone before I could try one! It sounded like something I would like, so I'll pick some up this summer.
The last group left around 7:30. Our two out-of-town guests, mkk and D, and Allan and I, hung out in the backyard until well past dark, telling family stories, including the extended-play versions of How We Met, from both me and Allan, and mkk.
We had a really lovely day. The best part, for me, was meeting people who we'd like to see again - people I feel we could be friends with. That's a Big Thing.
The food was great, but the person at Whole Foods who told us how much to get (based on the number of guests) was way off. We have enormous amounts of food leftover. That kind of pissed me off. I would have been very happy to spend the money to feed 50 people if 50 people had been here - but to feed 50 people when you're expecting 25 doesn't make much sense.
Unfortunately, I didn't realize how much extra food there was, or I would have begged people to take home leftovers. As it stands, I'm hoping people will take leftovers after the fact: we're offering to deliver roasted potato salad, blue cheese coleslaw and black bean cilantro salad to anyone who wants it. The only catch is you had to be there yesterday.
We have photos. What's the protocol on posting people's pictures? Do I need permission from every single person? Is it ok to post pictures without captions, meaning I don't say who's who?
6.17.2006
party
The wmtc party is today! I have a serious, discussion-oriented post lined up, but I'll save it for another day. Now, to get ready.
6.16.2006
heard
At Zeller's:
"Will you be using your HBC card today?"
"No."
"Do you have an HBC rewards card?"
"No."
"Would you like to apply for one today?"
"No."
"Would you like to donate one dollar to [unintelligible]?"
"No. Thank you."
And unfortunately, because I found the cashier nearly impossible to understand, the conversation actually sounded like this:
"Will you be usinzyershababalalay?"
"Sorry?"
"Will you be using your sheesha bleeza today?"
"No."
"Do you have a kurjashablablahcard?"
"Sorry?"
"Do you have an blatherbebeddy card?"
"I'm sorry, what did you say?"
"Would you like to jabbawabbablabla today?"
"No."
"Would you like to donate one dollar to wazeewhahoolie?"
"No. Thank you."
Please just let me buy these two items and get out of this store!!
"Will you be using your HBC card today?"
"No."
"Do you have an HBC rewards card?"
"No."
"Would you like to apply for one today?"
"No."
"Would you like to donate one dollar to [unintelligible]?"
"No. Thank you."
And unfortunately, because I found the cashier nearly impossible to understand, the conversation actually sounded like this:
"Will you be usinzyershababalalay?"
"Sorry?"
"Will you be using your sheesha bleeza today?"
"No."
"Do you have a kurjashablablahcard?"
"Sorry?"
"Do you have an blatherbebeddy card?"
"I'm sorry, what did you say?"
"Would you like to jabbawabbablabla today?"
"No."
"Would you like to donate one dollar to wazeewhahoolie?"
"No. Thank you."
Please just let me buy these two items and get out of this store!!
saved
Whole Foods, the upscale supermarket chain, has announced it will stop selling live lobsters and soft-shell crabs.
I applaud Whole Foods's decision to "consider the lobster".
Customers craving fresh crustaceans will have to look beyond Whole Foods Market Inc. after the natural-foods grocery chain decided Thursday to stop selling live lobsters and crabs on the grounds that it's inhumane.Although I am no longer a vegetarian, I have serious ethical discomfort with the way the animals I eat are turned into food. Allan (who has never been a vegetarian, and never will be) and I have both stopped eating certain foods because of the extreme cruelty involved in the processing. Veal and lobsters are two such animals. I'll add that I adore lobster; it's one of my very favourite foods. However, I've eaten quite a bit of it in my life and I'm sure I will live quite nicely without ever eating another.
The Austin-based grocer spent seven months studying the sale of live lobsters from ship to supermarket aisle, trying to determine whether the creatures suffer along the way.
In some stores, they experimented with "lobster condos," filling tanks with stacks of large pipes the critters can crawl inside. And they moved the tanks behind seafood counters and away from children's tapping fingers.
Ultimately, Whole Foods management decided to immediately stop selling live lobsters and soft-shell crabs, saying they could not ensure the creatures are treated with respect and compassion.
"We place as much emphasis on the importance of humane treatment and quality of life for all animals as we do on the expectations for quality and flavor," John Mackey, Whole Foods' co-founder and chief executive, said in a statement.
Animal rights activities were thrilled with the decision, not just because of the way lobsters are harvested, shipped and stored but because of the fate that awaits many of them — being dropped alive into a pot of boiling water.
I applaud Whole Foods's decision to "consider the lobster".
cody
Cody has been so sweet lately. She's really thriving as the only dog in our pack. She spends lots of time outside, says hello to all the other dogs she meets on our walks, and has lots of new human friends (especially her Favourite Person In The World, our next-door neighbour). She's even more affectionate to us, in her own low-key way, now that she doesn't have a dog brother or sister to obsess on.
Cody loves sticks. Finding them, chewing them, carrying them, chasing them (although not retrieving them). And the bigger, the better. She loves to bite down a huge branch - sometimes several times longer than she is, and full of leaves - and drag it around the backyard. She has a special corner of the yard where she brings all her stick treasures, stockpiling them for future use.
The other day I was cutting down a patch of dead shrubs - mostly sticks with some leaves on the top. Cody came over, turned her head sideways, and tried to pick up a stick that was still rooted in the ground. She was trying to bite a stick right off the tree! It was so funny. Next time she does it I'll try to have a camera ready.
Allan's going to take pictures at the party tomorrow, so with any luck, Cody will perform her stick-dragging routine.
* * * *
I'm starting to dislike having only one dog. But at the same time, I'm not ready to do anything about it. If there were stray dogs in Mississauga - wandering around on the street or in parks, the way there often were in New York - the question would probably be answered quickly. But a conscious, non-accidental decision to adopt another animal... I think we don't have it in us right now. And, as Cody ages, she'll reach a point where it wouldn't be right to bring another dog into the family. Yet we can't imagine one day being dog-less. (We adopted Gypsy, our first dog, in 1987.) That's where it stands right now: just kind of confused.
Cody loves sticks. Finding them, chewing them, carrying them, chasing them (although not retrieving them). And the bigger, the better. She loves to bite down a huge branch - sometimes several times longer than she is, and full of leaves - and drag it around the backyard. She has a special corner of the yard where she brings all her stick treasures, stockpiling them for future use.
The other day I was cutting down a patch of dead shrubs - mostly sticks with some leaves on the top. Cody came over, turned her head sideways, and tried to pick up a stick that was still rooted in the ground. She was trying to bite a stick right off the tree! It was so funny. Next time she does it I'll try to have a camera ready.
Allan's going to take pictures at the party tomorrow, so with any luck, Cody will perform her stick-dragging routine.
* * * *
I'm starting to dislike having only one dog. But at the same time, I'm not ready to do anything about it. If there were stray dogs in Mississauga - wandering around on the street or in parks, the way there often were in New York - the question would probably be answered quickly. But a conscious, non-accidental decision to adopt another animal... I think we don't have it in us right now. And, as Cody ages, she'll reach a point where it wouldn't be right to bring another dog into the family. Yet we can't imagine one day being dog-less. (We adopted Gypsy, our first dog, in 1987.) That's where it stands right now: just kind of confused.
6.15.2006
courage
About ten days ago, I blogged about someone who - at the time - was known only as "LT". Since that time, his identity has been revealed. From the website Thank You, LT:
It is no surprise that the US military is trying to silence Lt. Watada. From Thank You, LT:
My opposition to the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq costs me nothing. (Although I did take a few unpaid days off from work to attend demos!) But really, when I blog about the war, nothing is at stake. This man is putting everything on the line. That's moral courage, which is more impressive - and more rare - than the physical variety.
Friends Of LT asks us to write or call:
On Wednesday, June 7th U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to the unlawful Iraq war and occupation. He announced his duty to disobey the illegal order to deploy to Iraq in coordinated press conferences in Tacoma, Washington and Honolulu, Hawaii via a video taped messaged due to a direct military order not to attend the pre-scheduled Tacoma press conference.You can listen to Lt. Watada's statement here.
It is no surprise that the US military is trying to silence Lt. Watada. From Thank You, LT:
The following day, Thursday, June 8th, Lt. Watada's commanding officer moved to prosecute Lt. Watada for nothing more than his protected free speech. Lt. Watada was read his rights and declined to make a statement without a lawyer present. Although the Fort Lewis military public affairs officer has stated that Lt. Watada "hasn’t done anything wrong" so far, an official investigation into his public speech is underway.Unfortunately, the information in the press release is not completely clear. I'm not sure what Watada is being charged with, or what the US military is doing to suppress his public speaking. I do know that I want to support this brave man.
When soldiers join the military they swear to uphold our Constitution. They do not give up their basic right to freedom of speech. Outlined in Department of Defense Directive 1325.6, members of the military have the right to say what they think and feel about the military, and even participate in peaceful demonstrations, as long as they are off-duty, out of uniform, off-base, and within the United States.
My opposition to the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq costs me nothing. (Although I did take a few unpaid days off from work to attend demos!) But really, when I blog about the war, nothing is at stake. This man is putting everything on the line. That's moral courage, which is more impressive - and more rare - than the physical variety.
Friends Of LT asks us to write or call:
"Dear Col Stephen Townsend; Please drop the investigation currently underway against First Lt. Ehren Watada of 3-2 SBCT for his protected free speech in opposition to the war in Iraq. Respectfully,"This guy's doing our heavy lifting. Let's try to help.
TO:
Col Stephen Townsend
Commanding Officer
3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division
Fort Lewis WA 98433
(253) 967-9601
CC:
Lt Gen James Dubik
Fort Commander
Fort Lewis WA 98433
6.14.2006
celebration
Thanks for all your birthday wishes, my friends. Here's how I spent the day.
I had to get some work done in the morning, unfortunately, but it went well. Allan showered me with gifts and cards, as usual. The man is a great Birthday Guy. He says my Big Present is late, so yesterday's book, CDs and DVDs were "fill in" gifts. Cool!
We had tickets to The Real Thing, part of our Soulpepper subscription, but I decided to exchange them for another performance. I'm feeling too busy to relax and enjoy a play. Besides, working three nights a week, we already miss too much baseball. We decided to see the play when it doesn't conflict with the Red Sox. (James, what's that you said about fandom as a career...?)
So from the Soulpepper box office in the Distillery District, we walked over to the Jamie Kennedy Wine Bar. Many thanks to Genet for this excellent recommendation (seconded by Gazetteer). It was fabulous, and such an Allan and Laura kind of place. We sat at the bar, sampled many wines, ate small plates of yummy things (including perfect frites, no small find) and were generally very happy.
After Jamie Kennedy's, we got some amazing gelato at Solferino, among the best I've ever tasted, and ate it while walking up to Sam The Record Man. My birthday gift to myself was a CD-buying splurge. I haven't bought any music in well over a year, and I walked out with a nice bundle. I like that store so much better than the usual big-box chains.
On the way home, I called J, my oldest nephew, with whom I share a birthday. He lives in California now, and I hardly ever see him, but we always speak on our mutual day. (Another friend with whom I shared a birthday is gone now, dying tragically before he turned 50. Rhonda, my very dear friend who was his partner of 25 years, called me from England yesterday. I just wanted to mention Stephen here.)
We were home in time to catch the Red Sox - and what a game it was, we were so glad we didn't miss it. Unfortunately, what started out as a scintillating pitcher's duel ended as a devastating loss in the 12th inning. That's baseball for ya.
As I write this, it occurs to me I had a very Toronto birthday. It was, in fact, very similar to how I might have celebrated my birthday in New York. My life is very different now, living in a house in the suburbs, but when I want to renew my urban spirit, it's just moments away. Very cool.
I had to get some work done in the morning, unfortunately, but it went well. Allan showered me with gifts and cards, as usual. The man is a great Birthday Guy. He says my Big Present is late, so yesterday's book, CDs and DVDs were "fill in" gifts. Cool!
We had tickets to The Real Thing, part of our Soulpepper subscription, but I decided to exchange them for another performance. I'm feeling too busy to relax and enjoy a play. Besides, working three nights a week, we already miss too much baseball. We decided to see the play when it doesn't conflict with the Red Sox. (James, what's that you said about fandom as a career...?)
So from the Soulpepper box office in the Distillery District, we walked over to the Jamie Kennedy Wine Bar. Many thanks to Genet for this excellent recommendation (seconded by Gazetteer). It was fabulous, and such an Allan and Laura kind of place. We sat at the bar, sampled many wines, ate small plates of yummy things (including perfect frites, no small find) and were generally very happy.
After Jamie Kennedy's, we got some amazing gelato at Solferino, among the best I've ever tasted, and ate it while walking up to Sam The Record Man. My birthday gift to myself was a CD-buying splurge. I haven't bought any music in well over a year, and I walked out with a nice bundle. I like that store so much better than the usual big-box chains.
On the way home, I called J, my oldest nephew, with whom I share a birthday. He lives in California now, and I hardly ever see him, but we always speak on our mutual day. (Another friend with whom I shared a birthday is gone now, dying tragically before he turned 50. Rhonda, my very dear friend who was his partner of 25 years, called me from England yesterday. I just wanted to mention Stephen here.)
We were home in time to catch the Red Sox - and what a game it was, we were so glad we didn't miss it. Unfortunately, what started out as a scintillating pitcher's duel ended as a devastating loss in the 12th inning. That's baseball for ya.
As I write this, it occurs to me I had a very Toronto birthday. It was, in fact, very similar to how I might have celebrated my birthday in New York. My life is very different now, living in a house in the suburbs, but when I want to renew my urban spirit, it's just moments away. Very cool.
6.13.2006
it comes again
I'll just repeat what I wrote last year.
This year I just feel all those things more deeply.
And the fifth holiday (also mentioned here) will be celebrated on August 30.
This year I just feel all those things more deeply.
And the fifth holiday (also mentioned here) will be celebrated on August 30.
6.12.2006
seen
In a review of Douglas Coupland's new book, JPod:
And still we gravitate toward the familiar, no matter how frequently or profoundly it has let us down in the past; we always prefer the cold comfort of formula to the white-hot panic of unpredictability — modest security over the risk associated with trying something different. At least we do if we live in the United States, which is perhaps why we so desperately need a Canadian to make sense of our lives for us.I don't read Coupland, personally. I just liked that sentence.
facts for trolls
1. I am still an American citizen. That is not a matter of choice. The US and Canada require that I retain my American citizenship for a certain number of years, no matter where I live.
2. I am not a Democrat. I have voted Democrat in some elections and for progressive third-party candidates in others. In general I hate the Democrats almost as much as I hate the Republicans.
3. You are free to express all your opinions. However, I am under no obligation to host your opinions. That is not censorship. Censorship would be if you were somehow prevented from having your own blog, say, wemovetocanadasucks.blogspot.com. I have no power to censor you and wouldn't exercise that power if I had it.
4. I am not attacking you. I did not post insulting, ignorant comments on your blog. You, however, posted insulting, ignorant comments on my blog, which you freely admit you did not even bother to read.
5. This is my own blog. My partner, whose blog you also know, reads and comments on my blog, and I on his. We are each individuals and are solely responsible for the content on our respective blogs.
6. We don't know you and we wish you no harm. (Well, I don't.) Now please be a good boy and go away.
* * * *
Additional information you might find useful:
7. We decided to move to Canada in late 2002 and filed our immigration applications in 2003. Note that this was before the 2004 "election". George W Bush's continued residence in the White House, although loathesome, was not a determining factor.
8. We have lived in Canada since August 30, 2005 and have no plans to leave. We are planning to apply for Canadian citizenship as soon as we are eligible.
2. I am not a Democrat. I have voted Democrat in some elections and for progressive third-party candidates in others. In general I hate the Democrats almost as much as I hate the Republicans.
3. You are free to express all your opinions. However, I am under no obligation to host your opinions. That is not censorship. Censorship would be if you were somehow prevented from having your own blog, say, wemovetocanadasucks.blogspot.com. I have no power to censor you and wouldn't exercise that power if I had it.
4. I am not attacking you. I did not post insulting, ignorant comments on your blog. You, however, posted insulting, ignorant comments on my blog, which you freely admit you did not even bother to read.
5. This is my own blog. My partner, whose blog you also know, reads and comments on my blog, and I on his. We are each individuals and are solely responsible for the content on our respective blogs.
6. We don't know you and we wish you no harm. (Well, I don't.) Now please be a good boy and go away.
* * * *
Additional information you might find useful:
7. We decided to move to Canada in late 2002 and filed our immigration applications in 2003. Note that this was before the 2004 "election". George W Bush's continued residence in the White House, although loathesome, was not a determining factor.
8. We have lived in Canada since August 30, 2005 and have no plans to leave. We are planning to apply for Canadian citizenship as soon as we are eligible.
demo
Not the kind of demo I usually write about: this is demolition. This happened in my area this morning. I would have liked to have seen it!
what i'm reading: overthrow, suite francaise
I'm soon going to start Jared Diamond's Collapse - and if you still haven't read his incredible book Guns, Germs, and Steel, what are you waiting for? - but first I am combing through a pile of book reviews and movie reviews. It's really a virtual pile, as I'm mostly reading them online, with the occasional hard copy for GO train time.
This, I see, is why I need to get a newspaper delivered to my doorstep. I get my news online, but reviews and feature-y things about what's happening in Toronto don't seem to filter in. I know there are plenty of websites for those sorts of things, but my preferred method is to leaf through an actual newspaper.
We were getting the Globe And Mail for a few months - we got a free map book and a $20 Loblaw's gift card for subscribing - but stopped it before we went to Peru. Now I think we'll try the Toronto Star for a while. It's certainly more in sync with us politically, although the quality of writing in the G&M is better.
Among the stack of book reviews I've been reading, two stand out.
The first is Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer:
The second book is, for me, a must-read: Suite Francaise by Irene Nemirovsky.
This, I see, is why I need to get a newspaper delivered to my doorstep. I get my news online, but reviews and feature-y things about what's happening in Toronto don't seem to filter in. I know there are plenty of websites for those sorts of things, but my preferred method is to leaf through an actual newspaper.
We were getting the Globe And Mail for a few months - we got a free map book and a $20 Loblaw's gift card for subscribing - but stopped it before we went to Peru. Now I think we'll try the Toronto Star for a while. It's certainly more in sync with us politically, although the quality of writing in the G&M is better.
Among the stack of book reviews I've been reading, two stand out.
The first is Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer:
A senior member of a Washington research group once told me that he "could not believe" that the United States would ever help the Pakistani military overthrow a democratically elected government in Pakistan if that government refused to help in the war on terror. Now there's a man who really needs to read the latest book by the former New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer. "Overthrow" is the history of forcible regime changes by the United States and its local allies over the past 110 years, starting with the undermining of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, passing through Cuba (1898), the Philippines (1898), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954) and elsewhere, and ending with present-day Iraq.The full review makes a nice capsule history lesson. Chatting with my mom and Allan last week, I was trying to remember (from Howard Zinn) what war the US started for fruit. The answer: Guatemala, 1954.
Kinzer has written a detailed, passionate and convincing book, several chapters of which have the pace and grip of a good thriller. It should be essential reading for any Americans who wish to understand both their country's historical record in international affairs, and why that record has provoked anger and distrust in much of the world. Most important, it helps explain why, outside of Eastern Europe, American pronouncements about spreading democracy and freedom, as repeatedly employed by the Bush administration, are met with widespread incredulity.
What's most depressing about Kinzer's book, however, is not the drastic clash it describes between professed American morality and actual American behavior. For, after all, the historical record of other democratic imperial powers, like Britain and France, has been even worse than that of the United States. Operating in the real world as a great power is not a business for the overly fastidious.
But if you are going to use the argument that making a successful geopolitical omelet requires breaking eggs, you'd better have something edible to show for all the shattered shells lying around. As Kinzer makes clear, the problem is that all too many of the interventions he recounts were not just utterly ruthless; they were utterly unnecessary.
It should have been obvious that the damage to the countries concerned was likely to be out of all proportion to the possible gains to the United States.
The second book is, for me, a must-read: Suite Francaise by Irene Nemirovsky.
This stunning book contains two narratives, one fictional and the other a fragmentary, factual account of how the fiction came into being. "Suite Française" itself consists of two novellas portraying life in France from June 4, 1940, as German forces prepare to invade Paris, through July 1, 1941, when some of Hitler's occupying troops leave France to join the assault on the Soviet Union. At the end of the volume, a series of appendices and a biographical sketch provide, among other things, information about the author of the novellas. Born in Ukraine, Irène Némirovsky had lived in France since 1919 and had established herself in her adopted country's literary community, publishing nine novels and a biography of Chekhov. She composed "Suite Française" in the village of Issy-l'Evêque, where she, her husband and two young daughters had settled after fleeing Paris. On July 13, 1942, French policemen, enforcing the German race laws, arrested Némirovsky as "a stateless person of Jewish descent." She was transported to Auschwitz, where she died in the infirmary on Aug. 17.These books are tangentially related, but I'll leave it to you to determine how.
The date of Némirovsky's death induces disbelief. It means, it can only mean, that she wrote the exquisitely shaped and balanced fiction of "Suite Française" almost contemporaneously with the events that inspired them, and everyone knows such a thing cannot be done. In his astute cultural history, "The Great War and Modern Memory," Paul Fussell describes the invariable progression — from the hastily reactive to the serenely reflective — of writings about catastrophes: "The significances belonging to fiction are attainable only as 'diary' or annals move toward the mode of memoir, for it is only the ex post facto view of an action that generates coherence or makes irony possible."
We can now see that Némirovsky achieved just such coherence and irony with an ex post facto view of, at most, a few months. In his defense, Fussell had not heard of "Suite Française," and neither had anyone else at the time, including Némirovsky's elder daughter, Denise, who saved the leatherbound notebook her mother had left behind but refused to read it, fearing it would simply renew old pains. (Her father, Michel Epstein, was sent to Auschwitz several months after her mother and was consigned immediately to the gas chamber.) Not until the late 1990's did Denise examine what her mother had written and discover, instead of a diary or journal, two complete novellas written in a microscopic hand, evidently to save scarce paper. Denise abandoned her plan to give the notebook to a French institute preserving personal documents from the war years and instead sent it to a publisher. "Suite Française" appeared in France in 2004 and became a best seller.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, the back story of "Suite Française" is irrelevant to the true business of criticism. But most readers don't view books from such Olympian heights, and neither, for that matter, do most critics. If they did, publishers' lists wouldn't be so crowded with literary histories and biographies, those chronicles of messy facts from which enduring art sometimes springs. In truth, "Suite Française" can stand up to the most rigorous and objective analysis, while a knowledge of its history heightens the wonder and awe of reading it. If that's a crime, let's just plead guilty and forge ahead.
kids
In case you missed it in comments here, Redsock sent this news item, which notes:
This is truly America's eternal shame.
The Interior Ministry yesterday identified the two Saudi detainees who died Saturday in Guantanamo Bay as 29-year-old Manie ibn Shaman ibn Turki Al-Habardi Al-Utaibi and 22-year-old Yasser Talal Abdullah Yahya Al-Zahrani, who was detained at the age of 17.Twenty-two years old, imprisoned at age seventeen. I'm so disgusted and infuriated, I can hardly express my feelings.
This is truly America's eternal shame.
hurrah
The weather forecast has been revised; thunder storms and rain pushed back to Sunday. Not that I'm worrying about the weather, mind you.
6.11.2006
"stunned by the lack of interest"
We once had a lengthy debate on this blog about the media's role in keeping the US ignorant and right-wing. To my and Allan's utter astonishment, a commenter felt that the media has little or nothing to do with it. I can't find the post now, and it's just as well, as I don't want to single out the person who espoused that view. We felt that he simply must be unaware of what the media is like in the US. There seemed no other plausible explanation.
I was reminded of that when I read this in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s article, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:
There have been actual bribes and payoffs - that's been proven - and it's likely that there have been many more that we'll never discover. Many of us are certain the 2004 election was fixed, and the media isn't necessarily to blame for that.
However, the public's ignorance of this treasonous act must be largely laid at the feet of the US media.
I was reminded of that when I read this in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s article, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. "We're in a terrible fix," Rep. Conyers told me. "We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms."In a way, this serves as an addendum to my two posts about the Conspiracy Theory label. There are factors for which no actual conspiracy is necessary. The media's complete "lack of interest" - to quote Keith Olbermann - in this story doesn't mean that each and every outlet was "in on" the conspiracy, merely that looking the other way serves their own agenda. Bland media that doesn't rock the boat is more pleasing to corporate sponsorship, which has a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's also easier and cheaper to refrain from boat-rocking, and it hedges against the possible withholding of access to the courts of power of said boat-rockers.
The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. "I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers," he said. "And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night -- and then everything flipped." Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. "I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters," he said. "The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes [which has been shown to be a cover story] -- and no one covered it. Shouldn't someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?"
There have been actual bribes and payoffs - that's been proven - and it's likely that there have been many more that we'll never discover. Many of us are certain the 2004 election was fixed, and the media isn't necessarily to blame for that.
However, the public's ignorance of this treasonous act must be largely laid at the feet of the US media.
fret
This weekend the weather is beautiful - brilliantly sunny, cool, and breezy.
The forecast for next weekend - the wmtc party - is hot and humid, with thunder storms.
I'll hope the forecast changes during the week. One nice thing, if it rains and we have to be inside, it will look like a lot more people showed up! Our backyard is much bigger than our little house.
It's just a minor fret, though. I'm not worked up over it.
I wrote enough yesterday to keep you guys busy through Monday. So I'll leave it with this for now.
The forecast for next weekend - the wmtc party - is hot and humid, with thunder storms.
I'll hope the forecast changes during the week. One nice thing, if it rains and we have to be inside, it will look like a lot more people showed up! Our backyard is much bigger than our little house.
It's just a minor fret, though. I'm not worked up over it.
I wrote enough yesterday to keep you guys busy through Monday. So I'll leave it with this for now.
6.10.2006
beyond belief
My head just exploded.
Three men who were being imprisoned indefinitely and illegally at the US's concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay have committed suicide.
This is a portion of the US's response:
And you want to know why I moved to Canada.
Three men who were being imprisoned indefinitely and illegally at the US's concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay have committed suicide.
This is a portion of the US's response:
Military officials on Saturday suggested that the three suicides were a form of a coordinated protest.People in a state of hopelessness, frustration and despair choose death, seemingly their only exit. And they are waging war against us.
"They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," Admiral Harris said. "They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
And you want to know why I moved to Canada.
two words, part two
Not all conspiracy theories are true. That much should be obvious. But just because a set of ideas is a conspiracy theory does not make it false. Yet, for many people, the CT label is a stop sign. Look no further. This is a set of false assumptions, wacky ideas and suppositions, topped off with a healthy serving of paranoia. If you believe [insert alternative theory here], next thing you know, you'll be putting on your Reynolds Wrap and taking messages from the mother ship.
So anything that challenges the Official Version is labeled a CT. And once a set of ideas wears the CT label, the standard responses to it are irrational non-arguments.
A theory is not disproven because some people you don't like believe it to be true.
A theory is not disproven because a person who supports it once supported another theory, now disproven.
A theory is not disproven because you can't imagine it happening. That may be nothing more than the limits of your own imagination.
There may not even be a fully formed theory. There may only be unanswered questions, questions that the Official Version ignores or ridicules, or responds to with implausibilities, at best. Those questions should signal us to look further, to dig deeper. Instead, the questions are labeled CT and dismissed.
One of the stupidest, albeit understandable, responses to allegations of election fraud, US foreknowledge of (and complicity in) the September 11th terrorist attacks, and just about anything else involving this US administration is "But they wouldn't do that!" Stupid, because history shows us that powerful people with great resources at their disposal will stop at nothing to achieve their aims, be they Alexander the Great, Ferdinand and Isabella, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot (or Dick Cheney). Understandable, because you have a conscience, and sometimes it's hard to believe what people will do when they don't.
If you think something couldn't happen because people "wouldn't do that," open a history book. Chances are people have already done it.
One fallacy about conspiracies holds that they can only be promulgated by a very small number of people, because "it's hard to keep a secret". Daniel Ellsberg knows a few things about conspiracies, and about secrets. If the name doesn't ring a bell, Ellsberg is the former US Defense Department, State Department and defense/security/weapons/strategy analyst who worked on a top secret study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam (1945-68), which came to be known as "the Pentagon Papers". In 1969, Ellsberg photocopied the 7,000-page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Two years later, he gave it to the New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.
The revelations - that, early on, the US government knew the war in Vietnam was unwinnable and would lead to many times more casualties than they were publicly admitting, and that that same government cared neither for public opinion nor the US servicepeople who would bear the cost of their decisions - helped end the war and bring down the Nixon White House. Ellsberg risked his career and his freedom (the 12 felony counts he was charged with carried a potential sentence of 115 years) to expose these secrets.
In his memoirs, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg writes:
Again, I'd like to limit comments and discussion to the idea of conspiracy theories - the label itself, the use and misuse of it, our response to it - as opposed to hashing out facts and arguments about any number of theories out there. Thanks in advance.
So anything that challenges the Official Version is labeled a CT. And once a set of ideas wears the CT label, the standard responses to it are irrational non-arguments.
A theory is not disproven because some people you don't like believe it to be true.
A theory is not disproven because a person who supports it once supported another theory, now disproven.
A theory is not disproven because you can't imagine it happening. That may be nothing more than the limits of your own imagination.
There may not even be a fully formed theory. There may only be unanswered questions, questions that the Official Version ignores or ridicules, or responds to with implausibilities, at best. Those questions should signal us to look further, to dig deeper. Instead, the questions are labeled CT and dismissed.
One of the stupidest, albeit understandable, responses to allegations of election fraud, US foreknowledge of (and complicity in) the September 11th terrorist attacks, and just about anything else involving this US administration is "But they wouldn't do that!" Stupid, because history shows us that powerful people with great resources at their disposal will stop at nothing to achieve their aims, be they Alexander the Great, Ferdinand and Isabella, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot (or Dick Cheney). Understandable, because you have a conscience, and sometimes it's hard to believe what people will do when they don't.
If you think something couldn't happen because people "wouldn't do that," open a history book. Chances are people have already done it.
One fallacy about conspiracies holds that they can only be promulgated by a very small number of people, because "it's hard to keep a secret". Daniel Ellsberg knows a few things about conspiracies, and about secrets. If the name doesn't ring a bell, Ellsberg is the former US Defense Department, State Department and defense/security/weapons/strategy analyst who worked on a top secret study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam (1945-68), which came to be known as "the Pentagon Papers". In 1969, Ellsberg photocopied the 7,000-page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Two years later, he gave it to the New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.
The revelations - that, early on, the US government knew the war in Vietnam was unwinnable and would lead to many times more casualties than they were publicly admitting, and that that same government cared neither for public opinion nor the US servicepeople who would bear the cost of their decisions - helped end the war and bring down the Nixon White House. Ellsberg risked his career and his freedom (the 12 felony counts he was charged with carried a potential sentence of 115 years) to expose these secrets.
In his memoirs, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg writes:
It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well.I'd like to juxtapose this with the thoughts of someone else who has, judging from this quote, thought a lot about the CT label. I'm not familiar with this person's website or his work, I just thought this essay was excellent.
Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks. Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."
But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."
It is currently standard practice in America to simply dismiss any piece of information that punches a hole in any widely accepted explanation of a disturbing event. In many cases, especially when a serious crime is in question, the "conspiracy theory" tag is immediately attached to any new discovery about the event. Information related to such important topics such as 9/11, election fraud, the new world order, secret societies, or globalization is too often ignored as part of a baseless conspiracy theory even before any of it is ever presented, discussed, or evaluated.I've watched the 9/11 Truth Movement struggle for mainstream media attention, and watched with my head shaking in dismay as alternative news sites have shut them out. As I said recently in comments, it's bad enough when the mainstream media ignores you. But when progressive websites like Democratic Underground and Daily KOS won't allow an open discussion, it's very depressing. I don't know all the facts, that's for sure, but I know we should always ask questions.
There seems to be no set criteria for dismissing information as a foolish conspiracy theory. The only prerequisite for information to be so categorized seems to be the desire to reject it. The reason for the rejection does not seem to matter. It appears that anything people do not want to believe is simply set aside as not believable. It almost seems that if you set some people on fire they would dismiss the flames as non-existent, simply because they did not want to believe what was happening. The pain and damage done by the fire, no matter how devastating, would not be evidence enough to convince these people that the fire was real. Their need to believe otherwise would win out. In the same vein, people dismiss information and apply the conspiracy theory tag to anything they chose to disbelieve at their own discretion, regardless of any hard evidence that accompanies the "theory."
It's time to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. It's also time dispense with the name calling and understand the dynamics of what is happening when new information is rejected. We have to deal with the resistance to any tampering with accepted "truths." And we have to find ways to convince people to seriously consider the new information, new discoveries if you will - that so many refuse, under any circumstances, to acknowledge.
It is absolutely accurate to say that conspiracies exist all around us every day of our lives and and in all walks of life. Conspiracies are a very common part of life. Children conspire to play jokes on their friends, football teams conspire (in the huddle) to outmaneuver their opponents; the rich conspire with one another to get richer and governments conspire about virtually everything.
. . .
When new facts are brought out about controversial issues, something strange happens. Minds close and battle stations are taken. A confusion arises between unfounded theories and actual facts, discoveries, clues or evidence that may or may not support existing beliefs about those issues. We have to make a serious effort to distinguish between the expression of an unfounded theory and the disclosure of verifiable information and facts.
Today there is an ongoing battle between those in possession of newly discovered information and those who do not want to even consider the validity of that information. Real evidence and factual information are being lumped with baseless theories.
This is not always the fault of the person to whom the information is presented. In many cases, the presenters offer unpopular conclusions too quickly that alienate their audience. This is often the case when new information about the events of 9/11 are revealed. When people are involved in discussions about the attacks, they are prone to dismiss verifiable evidence because they are offended or distressed by greater ramifications that arise. This is both unproductive and dangerous. Information has to be examined and evaluated, regardless of its wider implication. That is the responsibility of the recipient. But there has to be a way to clearly present valid, tangible, verifiable and often undisputed information so that it is more readily accepted. That responsibility belongs to the presenter, who must deal with facts rather than conclusions.
Another thing to keep in mind is the possibility that a simple discovery can disprove a great deal of what is previously accepted as truth. At the same time, however, it may not completely prove the validity of an alternative theory. It only proves that an existing belief is wrong. [Emphasis mine.] This is the case regarding the mountains of evidence uncovered by the independent 9/11 researchers. What they have discovered easily disproves the official version of the events and the Kean Commission findings. What it does not prove conclusively is what actually took place.
There is also another factor to deal with when dealing with the truths, half truths, and lies that surround events not clearly resolved in the minds of the public. Holding on to half truths is often easier than accepting that one has been fed a truckload of lies in the first place. [Again, emphasis mine.] Suffice it to say there is a large segment of the American population that continues to dismiss every one of the verifiable findings of the independent 9/11 research community. They absolutely refuse to accept even the most convincing proof because they dare not admit to themselves that they have been lied to by officials in whom the placed their trust. Betrayal by those who lead the country they love is simply too painful to accept. Denial is too often the best defense of the deceived.
. . .
When researchers, history buffs, truth seekers, conspiracy nuts or whatever you want to call us, present newly discovered, yet verifiable information to the public, we are directly attacked as promoters of a conspiracy theory and lambasted with the usual assortment of insults. This is totally unacceptable. We can no longer allow the conspiracy theory tag to be indiscriminately used whenever anyone has new discoveries to reveal. There has to be a concerted effort to clarify the goals of those with information to impart. Presenting new evidence can not be perceived as an attempt to establish a forgone conclusion. At the same time, new information must be dealt with in isolation of any other ramifications or another resistance relating to its possible reality.
9/11 remains the perfect example with which to illustrate my concerns. A massive amount of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however, to use the newly discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. . . .
In conclusion, let me summarize two "conspiracy theory" problems that must be dealt with:
Those who opt to disclose new discoveries must clearly separate the theoretical elements of their presentation from the information they disclose.
Those to whom information is presented must deal with their personal unwillingness to hear new facts. They must become more receptive to new evidence and avoid dismissing verifiable evidence simply because the ramifications are distressing or difficult to conceive.
We have to discourage the misuse of language that wrongly labels and categorizes people with information to share. Hostile or incorrect terminology only serves to interfere with our mutual and communal education. It is vital that we examine evidence and discoveries for what they are. We must be careful not to expand evidence beyond its empirical reality. Facts must not be confused with folklore, but must be presented within the limits of their validity. By doing this, we may convince the skeptics among us to listen with less resistance and to end the practice of dismissing evidence solely because it disproves their initial beliefs. If we deal effectively with these obstacles, we all may become better informed about the things we need to know. And perhaps one day we will come to know the reality that continues to evade us to this day. [Read this essay, by Jesse, the editor of TVNNewsLies website.]
Again, I'd like to limit comments and discussion to the idea of conspiracy theories - the label itself, the use and misuse of it, our response to it - as opposed to hashing out facts and arguments about any number of theories out there. Thanks in advance.
two words, part one
I want to talk about two words - two overused, misused, misunderstood words. I want to talk about Conspiracy Theory.
It seems like any ideas that people haven't heard before, don't know about, and haven't read about it in any mainstream sources - any story that challenges an Official Version of events - is labeled "conspiracy theory," and discarded, unexamined.
Governments, of course, will always dismiss challenges to their own versions of events. They have every reason to defend their Official Story and deride - censor, harass, imprison, or kill - anyone who challenges it. I'm not talking about that. And I'm not talking about wingnuts who, for whatever authoritarian, fascist reasons, feel obligated to defend everything their government says and does, and generally oppose rational discourse of any kind.
I'm talking about otherwise open-minded people who, when faced with an alternative explanation, or even with questions about the Official Version, simply shut down, and refuse to even consider another version of events. They apply the "CT" tag, and that's the end of the story.
I would rather we didn't discuss the specifics and validity of any alternative theory - of anything. The only people who are qualified to do that are those who have actually studied them - not people who've heard a snippet of information here and there. I'd like instead to discuss the label of CT itself: why people use it, what it means. And what conspiracies really are.
My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together, an agreement among conspirators," and offers the word "plot" as a synonym. Following down the page to conspire, we find "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of a secret agreement".
Therefore, an event such as the terrorist attacks of September 11th was a conspiracy. Did people conspire? Certainly. Did they join in a secret agreement to commit a wrongful act? Absolutely.
Yet when citizens who have studied the details of the event say, 'You know, the Official Version leaves many important questions unanswered, we should really dig a little further,' they are dismissed as Conspiracy Theorists. That is, nuts. Wackos. Tin-foil heads.
Again, from the government and the wingnuts? Sure. But why this response from otherwise progressive people, who know full well that the government deals in lies and propaganda for its own purposes, who normally don't believe a word issued from either government or mainstream media sources...? Why are so many progressive and liberal people so willing - seemingly determined - to accept the Official Story, to swallow it whole with no questions asked, and equally determined to shut out - and attempt to silence - anyone who challenges that version?
I'm not only referring to 9/11. I recently heard a progressive American dismiss the idea that the 2004 presidential election was fixed by labeling it a conspiracy theory. He seemed to feel that because Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s article is refutable - whether or not the refutation is accurate and factual** - the stolen election is, therefore, a conspiracy theory.
In truth, it is. Those of us who believe the 2004 election was fixed do indeed believe that people conspired to fix it. And we are indeed dealing with theories, as we don't have a video tape showing people in the act of throwing the election. But the CT label means more than that, of course. And for some, that label is all it takes. It's a conspiracy theory - meaning, it's supposition, it's exaggeration, it's wishful thinking, it's paranoia.
Think of everything this US Government has done, all it has lied about. WMDs, the occupation, mission accomplished. The Plame case, the fake news reports. Katrina. Abu Ghraib. Spying on US citizens. The Patriot Act in bookstores and libraries. The Medicare prescription mess. Stem cell research, and lack thereof. Attempts to privatize social security. Shall I go on? There's so much more. And you believe they would do all that, and way more, but they wouldn't fix an election? And if they didn't do it themselves, that some of their lackeys and corporate sponsors wouldn't fix it for them? And we're wackos?
Why? Why are people unwilling to even entertain these ideas?
Perhaps I can take a stab at a partial answer to this question by examining my own feelings and behavior at a particular time. It wasn't long after September 11th that Allan, my partner, became interested in the questions that were circulating about 9/11. And it wasn't long after that that he became an activist in what I'll call the 9/11 Truth Movement: people who have dug deeper into September 11th and find the Official Version of events non-credible.
Although many of the questions Allan early on raised were very valid, I dismissed them offhand. For me, it was too soon. I was still crying. I was still mourning. I couldn't process it. In addition, when I looked at the information he would bring to my attention, it was often attached - by association, on the same website - to ideas that were offensive (anti-Semitism) or ridiculous (Area 51) to me. I especially disliked what I called the "woo-woo" aspect of the theories: loaded, biased language, full of dark innuendo, as if the truth couldn't even be spoken.
Allan and I had some bitter arguments about this. He thought I was being close-minded - the only real sin in our household - and I thought he was being gullible. In fact, I was the gullible one. Why was I willing to believe the government's version of events, when I don't trust or believe a word they say about anything else?
We both learned from these arguments, in a very practical sense. When Allan helped edit Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline (also a book), he encouraged Thompson to omit the "woo-woo" and stick to the facts - to use cool, straightforward language - to seek light, not heat.
For my part, I'm proud to say Allan was right. The more I opened my mind, the more I set aside my fear or scorn or whatever it was that was blocking my mind, the more I saw that questions about 9/11 were valid, and should be asked, and had to be asked.
More relevant to this post, I also saw how people who knew almost nothing about these events - who only knew the Official Version - were ready and willing to pounce on and dismiss anyone who questioned that version.
Is my initial reaction to the key, the reason that otherwise open-minded people won't listen? Is it too much to think about? Too upsetting, too damaging to their world view? Is it, as journalists say, ok to rock the boat, but never ok to say the entire ocean is in trouble?
Or are they more concerned with PR than with the truth? So fearful that they'll be tainted by association, they make a preemptive strike of their own, labeling the truth-seeker a wacko. And rather than seeing if the wacko might actually have something worthwhile to say, they stop up their ears and shut the door.
Who do you think knows more about a topic: the person who has read about it daily, examined multiple sources, compared details, sifted through conflicting versions of events? Someone who has made this a prime interest for three, four, five years? Or a person who has only heard accounts on CNN and read The New York Times?
If the topic was stem cell research, or MP3s, or contemporary painting, the answer would be obvious. But if the topic is voter fraud or 9/11 - or anything else for which there is an Official Version of events - the knowledgeable researcher becomes a Conspiracy Theorist.
Next: "two words, part two" - commonly held, mistaken beliefs about conspiracies.
** [Kennedy responds to Salon's Manjoo here, and election fraud author and activist Robert Fritakis responds to Manjoo here (I can't find the original source, but this is the entire column).]
It seems like any ideas that people haven't heard before, don't know about, and haven't read about it in any mainstream sources - any story that challenges an Official Version of events - is labeled "conspiracy theory," and discarded, unexamined.
Governments, of course, will always dismiss challenges to their own versions of events. They have every reason to defend their Official Story and deride - censor, harass, imprison, or kill - anyone who challenges it. I'm not talking about that. And I'm not talking about wingnuts who, for whatever authoritarian, fascist reasons, feel obligated to defend everything their government says and does, and generally oppose rational discourse of any kind.
I'm talking about otherwise open-minded people who, when faced with an alternative explanation, or even with questions about the Official Version, simply shut down, and refuse to even consider another version of events. They apply the "CT" tag, and that's the end of the story.
I would rather we didn't discuss the specifics and validity of any alternative theory - of anything. The only people who are qualified to do that are those who have actually studied them - not people who've heard a snippet of information here and there. I'd like instead to discuss the label of CT itself: why people use it, what it means. And what conspiracies really are.
My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together, an agreement among conspirators," and offers the word "plot" as a synonym. Following down the page to conspire, we find "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of a secret agreement".
Therefore, an event such as the terrorist attacks of September 11th was a conspiracy. Did people conspire? Certainly. Did they join in a secret agreement to commit a wrongful act? Absolutely.
Yet when citizens who have studied the details of the event say, 'You know, the Official Version leaves many important questions unanswered, we should really dig a little further,' they are dismissed as Conspiracy Theorists. That is, nuts. Wackos. Tin-foil heads.
Again, from the government and the wingnuts? Sure. But why this response from otherwise progressive people, who know full well that the government deals in lies and propaganda for its own purposes, who normally don't believe a word issued from either government or mainstream media sources...? Why are so many progressive and liberal people so willing - seemingly determined - to accept the Official Story, to swallow it whole with no questions asked, and equally determined to shut out - and attempt to silence - anyone who challenges that version?
I'm not only referring to 9/11. I recently heard a progressive American dismiss the idea that the 2004 presidential election was fixed by labeling it a conspiracy theory. He seemed to feel that because Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s article is refutable - whether or not the refutation is accurate and factual** - the stolen election is, therefore, a conspiracy theory.
In truth, it is. Those of us who believe the 2004 election was fixed do indeed believe that people conspired to fix it. And we are indeed dealing with theories, as we don't have a video tape showing people in the act of throwing the election. But the CT label means more than that, of course. And for some, that label is all it takes. It's a conspiracy theory - meaning, it's supposition, it's exaggeration, it's wishful thinking, it's paranoia.
Think of everything this US Government has done, all it has lied about. WMDs, the occupation, mission accomplished. The Plame case, the fake news reports. Katrina. Abu Ghraib. Spying on US citizens. The Patriot Act in bookstores and libraries. The Medicare prescription mess. Stem cell research, and lack thereof. Attempts to privatize social security. Shall I go on? There's so much more. And you believe they would do all that, and way more, but they wouldn't fix an election? And if they didn't do it themselves, that some of their lackeys and corporate sponsors wouldn't fix it for them? And we're wackos?
Why? Why are people unwilling to even entertain these ideas?
Perhaps I can take a stab at a partial answer to this question by examining my own feelings and behavior at a particular time. It wasn't long after September 11th that Allan, my partner, became interested in the questions that were circulating about 9/11. And it wasn't long after that that he became an activist in what I'll call the 9/11 Truth Movement: people who have dug deeper into September 11th and find the Official Version of events non-credible.
Although many of the questions Allan early on raised were very valid, I dismissed them offhand. For me, it was too soon. I was still crying. I was still mourning. I couldn't process it. In addition, when I looked at the information he would bring to my attention, it was often attached - by association, on the same website - to ideas that were offensive (anti-Semitism) or ridiculous (Area 51) to me. I especially disliked what I called the "woo-woo" aspect of the theories: loaded, biased language, full of dark innuendo, as if the truth couldn't even be spoken.
Allan and I had some bitter arguments about this. He thought I was being close-minded - the only real sin in our household - and I thought he was being gullible. In fact, I was the gullible one. Why was I willing to believe the government's version of events, when I don't trust or believe a word they say about anything else?
We both learned from these arguments, in a very practical sense. When Allan helped edit Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline (also a book), he encouraged Thompson to omit the "woo-woo" and stick to the facts - to use cool, straightforward language - to seek light, not heat.
For my part, I'm proud to say Allan was right. The more I opened my mind, the more I set aside my fear or scorn or whatever it was that was blocking my mind, the more I saw that questions about 9/11 were valid, and should be asked, and had to be asked.
More relevant to this post, I also saw how people who knew almost nothing about these events - who only knew the Official Version - were ready and willing to pounce on and dismiss anyone who questioned that version.
Is my initial reaction to the key, the reason that otherwise open-minded people won't listen? Is it too much to think about? Too upsetting, too damaging to their world view? Is it, as journalists say, ok to rock the boat, but never ok to say the entire ocean is in trouble?
Or are they more concerned with PR than with the truth? So fearful that they'll be tainted by association, they make a preemptive strike of their own, labeling the truth-seeker a wacko. And rather than seeing if the wacko might actually have something worthwhile to say, they stop up their ears and shut the door.
Who do you think knows more about a topic: the person who has read about it daily, examined multiple sources, compared details, sifted through conflicting versions of events? Someone who has made this a prime interest for three, four, five years? Or a person who has only heard accounts on CNN and read The New York Times?
If the topic was stem cell research, or MP3s, or contemporary painting, the answer would be obvious. But if the topic is voter fraud or 9/11 - or anything else for which there is an Official Version of events - the knowledgeable researcher becomes a Conspiracy Theorist.
Next: "two words, part two" - commonly held, mistaken beliefs about conspiracies.
** [Kennedy responds to Salon's Manjoo here, and election fraud author and activist Robert Fritakis responds to Manjoo here (I can't find the original source, but this is the entire column).]
6.09.2006
shame
I'm amazed at how many people find it perfectly acceptable to celebrate the death of another human being. If they are told that person is their enemy, then the death is cause for happiness.
From a letter to The New York Times:
Someone else, from the Bronx, New York, says:
Do these people really believe that the death of this one person will save the lives of many? Or is it just that those saved lives are more important, because they're American and Israeli?
From a letter to The New York Times:
Whatever else is going on in the world, whatever you dislike about the American government, it deserves credit for removing this barbaric murderer.Am I the only person who finds this sentence ironic?
Someone else, from the Bronx, New York, says:
Don't get me wrong: I am glad to hear the news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed. It is to be hoped that his death will result in the saving of American and Iraqi lives.He's almost got it, but not quite. Yes, the euphoria is unbecoming. But what of that first sentence?
But I think that the reported euphoria is somewhat unbecoming. It reminds me of the television footage of Iraqis celebrating the deaths of American soldiers.
Do these people really believe that the death of this one person will save the lives of many? Or is it just that those saved lives are more important, because they're American and Israeli?
regression
Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has this to say from Stockholm:
During the Cold War, it proved possible to reach many significant agreements on disarmament. Why does it seem so impossible now, when the great powers no longer feel threatened by one another?Read Blix's essay here.
Almost all the talk these days is about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran and North Korea, or to terrorists. Foreign ministers meet again and again, concerned that Iran has enriched a few milligrams of uranium to a 4 percent level.
Some want to start waving the stick immediately. They are convinced that Iran will eventually violate its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to forego nuclear weapons.
While it's desirable that the foreign ministers talk about Iran, they don't seem to devote any thought to the fact that there are still some 27,000 real nuclear weapons in the United States, Russia and other states, and that many of these are on hair-trigger alert.
. . .
A report with 60 concrete recommendations to the states of the world on what they could do to free themselves from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, worked out by an independent international commission of which I was the chairman, is now available at WMDCommission.org.
Apart from proposals for measures to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to more states and terrorists, the report points to two measures that could turn current concerns about renewed arms races into new hopes for common security. In both cases, success would depend on the United States.
A U.S. ratification of the comprehensive test-ban treaty would, in all likelihood, lead other states to ratify and bring all such tests to an end, making the development of nuclear weapons more difficult. Leaving the treaty in limbo, as has been done since 1996, is to risk new weapons testing.
The second measure would be to conclude an internationally verified agreement to cut off the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes.
This would close the tap everywhere for more weapons material and would be of special importance if an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States were to give India access to more uranium than it has at the moment.
quiet again
Another mom visit successfully completed!
We're getting the hang of this long-distance thing. We used to live right across the Hudson River from each other - a 5-minute drive or a 40-minute walk. We would meet for lunch or coffee, and if one day didn't work out, another was just as good. The three- or four-day visit, planned in advance, is a big change for us. But so far it's gone well.
My mother said that all her friends - and she's got a million of them - ask her, How do they like it up there? How do they like living in Canada? She said, "I tell them, they love it!"
What can I say. It's true.
We're getting the hang of this long-distance thing. We used to live right across the Hudson River from each other - a 5-minute drive or a 40-minute walk. We would meet for lunch or coffee, and if one day didn't work out, another was just as good. The three- or four-day visit, planned in advance, is a big change for us. But so far it's gone well.
My mother said that all her friends - and she's got a million of them - ask her, How do they like it up there? How do they like living in Canada? She said, "I tell them, they love it!"
What can I say. It's true.
6.08.2006
question
Tuesday is my birthday. We have tickets to the next play in our Soulpepper subscription, Tom Stoppard's The Real Thing (which I've seen before and like a lot).
I'd like to go out to dinner beforehand, but not in the Distillery District where the theatre is. Some place we haven't tried yet (easily done), where we can have a nice early dinner and get to the play comfortably by 8:00. Doesn't have to be very high-end, but not some place extremely casual like a pub or Chinatown. We like all kinds of food, but especially love bistros or casual French dining.
Recommendations?
I'd like to go out to dinner beforehand, but not in the Distillery District where the theatre is. Some place we haven't tried yet (easily done), where we can have a nice early dinner and get to the play comfortably by 8:00. Doesn't have to be very high-end, but not some place extremely casual like a pub or Chinatown. We like all kinds of food, but especially love bistros or casual French dining.
Recommendations?
arrests
A few people have asked me my thoughts on the recent alleged terrorist arrests in the Toronto area. I don't know that I have any interesting thoughts to share; all I can offer is a series of hopes.
I hope, since these men have been presumed guilty, that they really are.
I hope that Stephen Harper doesn't use this as excuse to ramp up a war machine. I hope, if he does, there is widespread public sentiment against it. And, if he does, I hope that someone didn't frame the men to give him that excuse.
I hope Canadians will not use this as an excuse for intolerance and bigotry, or to turn away from multiculturalism. It can't be a coincidence that, a few days after the arrests, the Globe And Mail's online poll asked, "Is multiculturism the proper course for Canada in the 21st Century?"
Many bloggers have pointed out that Harper's platitudes after these arrests recycled W's famous post-9/11 blather. I first saw it at The Gazetteer:
I hope, since these men have been presumed guilty, that they really are.
I hope that Stephen Harper doesn't use this as excuse to ramp up a war machine. I hope, if he does, there is widespread public sentiment against it. And, if he does, I hope that someone didn't frame the men to give him that excuse.
I hope Canadians will not use this as an excuse for intolerance and bigotry, or to turn away from multiculturalism. It can't be a coincidence that, a few days after the arrests, the Globe And Mail's online poll asked, "Is multiculturism the proper course for Canada in the 21st Century?"
Many bloggers have pointed out that Harper's platitudes after these arrests recycled W's famous post-9/11 blather. I first saw it at The Gazetteer:
"We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values - values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish."The Gazetteer's post on this is very good, and very simply sums up my feelings on the matter. What are yours?
Stephen Harper, June 3rd, 2006
"Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
George W. Bush, Sept 21, 2001
a new family moves in
Allan told me he's been seeing this lovely family, always in the same cove at the end of our street. Last night on the way home from dinner, the three of us looked for them, and found them busily pecking the grass for insects. When I crept too close, one of the parents hissed me back.
This morning on my walk with Cody, I took my camera. They don't let you get any closer than this - if you approach on the shore, they paddle away.
6.07.2006
that's better
Grouchy demands occasionally work. My recent post prompted several replies.
I must admit - getting a bit more personal than I normally do - I had been seriously disappointed that more people couldn't or wouldn't attend.
On the one hand there are our friends and family in the New York/New Jersey area. Since everyone says they'll come up and visit "one day," I thought throwing a party would offer an opportunity and excuse to make good. But no. It was bad timing for most. (The very wonderful and happy exception is wmtc reader Mkk and our nephew D, recently relocated from New Mexico, who we can't wait to see.)
On the other hand there's the wmtc crowd. Of course many wmtc readers don't live anywhere near us, and I didn't expect cross-continental treks for a backyard get-together. But many who live in and around T.O. are choosing not to show their faces in person.
I'm so used to meeting online friends in person that it's very natural to me. The internet is a great way to meet people, and we've met online friends in cities all over North America. So I forget that for some people, making that leap from internet to physical life is scary and unwelcome.
And then of course there are a million conflicts - weddings, family barbecues, and other happy events like book signings. And the expected guest list shrinks from 45-50 to 20-25 people.
So that's my sob story, and if it's the worst one I have this summer, I'm a lucky girl. I gave myself a good talking to and remembered we'll have a really fun day with whoever shows up. At the very worst, we'll have a small, quiet gathering, where we eat lots of good food and enjoy each other's company, and that sounds pretty nice.
I must admit - getting a bit more personal than I normally do - I had been seriously disappointed that more people couldn't or wouldn't attend.
On the one hand there are our friends and family in the New York/New Jersey area. Since everyone says they'll come up and visit "one day," I thought throwing a party would offer an opportunity and excuse to make good. But no. It was bad timing for most. (The very wonderful and happy exception is wmtc reader Mkk and our nephew D, recently relocated from New Mexico, who we can't wait to see.)
On the other hand there's the wmtc crowd. Of course many wmtc readers don't live anywhere near us, and I didn't expect cross-continental treks for a backyard get-together. But many who live in and around T.O. are choosing not to show their faces in person.
I'm so used to meeting online friends in person that it's very natural to me. The internet is a great way to meet people, and we've met online friends in cities all over North America. So I forget that for some people, making that leap from internet to physical life is scary and unwelcome.
And then of course there are a million conflicts - weddings, family barbecues, and other happy events like book signings. And the expected guest list shrinks from 45-50 to 20-25 people.
So that's my sob story, and if it's the worst one I have this summer, I'm a lucky girl. I gave myself a good talking to and remembered we'll have a really fun day with whoever shows up. At the very worst, we'll have a small, quiet gathering, where we eat lots of good food and enjoy each other's company, and that sounds pretty nice.
6.06.2006
rsvp
What's the big deal? It's a yes or no question: can you come or not? Send an email. I'm assuming if you haven't RSVP'd by now, you aren't coming, but would it kill you to let me know? How can I plan? For chrissake's, come on already.
You don't have to apologize for your lateness, you don't have to give an excuse. A simple yes or no - I will be there or I cannot attend - will suffice.
People who give parties regularly tell me this is always the case, that it's like pulling teeth to get people to RSVP. Geez.
You don't have to apologize for your lateness, you don't have to give an excuse. A simple yes or no - I will be there or I cannot attend - will suffice.
People who give parties regularly tell me this is always the case, that it's like pulling teeth to get people to RSVP. Geez.
6.05.2006
seen
Seen on the New York State Thruway:
Open 24 HoursI spent eight hours in the United States and all I got was this illiterate signage.
Til 11 pm
Mon-Sun
right side of the dial
I've always been surprised - and flattered - to find wmtc on the blogroll of The DCeiver, who writes cogently and entertainingly about music, politics and Washington DC, among other topics. The Deceiver recently unfurled a series of excellent music-and-politics posts that kept me chuckling throughout the day.
From the intro:
And finally, DCeiver offers you the opportunity of your very own to make your own list of conservative rock songs.
Go take a look, it's great stuff.
From the intro:
The National Review unloaded a summer's worth of cognitive dissonance on the world last week by identifying what they consider to be the Fifty Greatest Conservative Rock Songs of all time. Looking at the list, it's hard to say whether the adjective "greatest" is meant to modify the conservativeness of the songs or the rockingness of the songs. I'm left to conclude, mainly, that it chiefly refers to the level of wishful thinking going on.The Deceiver then goes on to skewer the entire list, song by song: first, in Through A List, Dubiously, then in Part Two. Did you know "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a conservative anthem? Surprised, eh? I was, too!
And finally, DCeiver offers you the opportunity of your very own to make your own list of conservative rock songs.
As shown by the National Review, it takes only a few ingredients to turn that rebel rock song you've been pissing your parents off with into a down-home paean to the redistribution of a nation's wealth into the hands of degenerate fatcats. All it takes is the following:I have only two (very minor) questions for Mr DC. Has he really never heard Bob Dylan's song "Neighborhood Bully" or "My City Was Gone" by the Pretenders? Seems hard to believe he missed both, but then, the Dylan canon is large, and not everyone loves Chrissie Hynde as much as I do. In any case, take my word for it: Chrissie was not lecturing on urban planning. She was just saying, "I went back to Ohio ... and my city was gone." You know how it can be.
1. Extreme cognitive dissonance.
2. The willingness to ignore anything fact-esque.
3. The ability to discard the truth of an author's intent while savoring the delicate morsel of truthiness you manage to construct.
Go take a look, it's great stuff.
6.04.2006
event
We're both off from work today, to attend a wedding in Geneva, New York. It's really an excuse to see my family, including some great cousins from Florida who I haven't seen in many years.
And for our parting gift: my mother! She's coming home with us and will stay til Thursday. I'm really looking forward to her visit. See you all tomorrow.
And for our parting gift: my mother! She's coming home with us and will stay til Thursday. I'm really looking forward to her visit. See you all tomorrow.
6.03.2006
while we were out
While we were in Peru, three people told me Jane Jacobs died, but no one told me about this!! Oh my god!!! Keith!!!
Do you know, Keith Richards was the first thing I knew Allan and I had in common? We hated each other's baseball teams, but we always had Keith.
Can you imagine, after everything Keith has been through, after all his body has survived, if he bought it by falling out of a tree?
And my next question: What do they mean "his home in Weston, Connecticut"? Try his home in NEW YORK CITY!!
Do you know, Keith Richards was the first thing I knew Allan and I had in common? We hated each other's baseball teams, but we always had Keith.
Can you imagine, after everything Keith has been through, after all his body has survived, if he bought it by falling out of a tree?
And my next question: What do they mean "his home in Weston, Connecticut"? Try his home in NEW YORK CITY!!
welcome
Wmtc welcomes Diamond Jim, formerly of Brooklyn, USA, to Toronto, Canada. Watch out, T.O., we're taking over!!!
I'm giddy. I just love welcoming people to my new home.
I'm giddy. I just love welcoming people to my new home.
the theft
Although I blogged about this just the other day, some things bear repeating.
Redsock says:
Redsock says:
You MUST read this story. I'm about half way through it and it is absolutely shocking.The story is here. Please: print, read, circulate.
(This may also give some people an idea of what is going on in the US that never gets reported in the mainstream media, meaning you have to live through it to know anything concrete about it).
The openness and audacity and sheer volume of the Republicans' crimes -- Kennedy stacks them up one after the next after the next after the next like cord wood -- in defiance of often days-old court orders -- is as brazen as anything you would find in a dictatorship.
As much as I follow what the regime has done, I still found myself shaking my head at these reports, wondering how is this possible???
If nothing comes from this story's publication, I almost feel like nothing will come from anything.
P.S.: The website has footnotes and links not in the print version.
border, too
If you're interested in the recent thread about Canada-US border security and openness, you might want to go back and catch up on comments. Friend of wmtc Scott M is a former customs officer, so we are lucky enough to get an inside perspective.
I find Scott's info very interesting. Even though I cross the border regularly (and quickly), the motives behind the various questions and procedures are not obvious to me.
Scott's comment here lays out some of the trade-offs border security faces.
I find Scott's info very interesting. Even though I cross the border regularly (and quickly), the motives behind the various questions and procedures are not obvious to me.
Scott's comment here lays out some of the trade-offs border security faces.
The current system of observation and -- dare I say it -- profiling has a major advantage: speed. This advantage is not to be minimized... the vast, vast majority of those crossing the border have no immigration issues and are welcome in our country (Canada at least). Our job as Canadian Customs officers is first and foremost to facilitate the crossing of the border. The unfortunate thing is that this means that while we can catch a lot of people crossing illegaly from an immigration standpoint, we are not guaranteed we catch 100%.I've also learned that we really weren't supposed to rent a car in Buffalo and drive it around Ontario without paying import duties. Guess we dodged a bullet on that one. Goddess knows we had enough going on the week we landed without that.
Now, if you decide that ensuring 100% of people who enter via a port are legitamite, and that you really don't care if you slow down the border or make things difficult for the vast majority of legal visitors, than having a border card makes sense.
It's difficult. All the US is doing is changing the balance of inconvenience (which all borders have) and security (which all borders strive for). Where's the right balance? I don't know.
One advantage to the Border Services folks requiring ID is that they will no longer be accused of racial profiling when pulling people over for immigration issues. That's a major plus... not because there's no profiling-- in fact, there is. There must be. All of customs and immigration is based on profiles: this look of person with this accent with this route is more likely to be a drug runner so search them.
You can only take a second glance at 5% of folks (at a maximum). You've got to choose wisely, random's not good enough.
So, if you decide to check immigration status of 100%, there is no profiling argument. Unfortunately, the customs side of the house will still require profiling and all the controversy around that.
shared destiny
I've just finished a fascinating and stirring essay that (for me) was also very enlightening about the current political and social climate of Canada. It's a long piece, but worth your time, and I'd love to hear your take on it.
In the June issue of The Walrus, Roy J. Romanow - former (and long-time) premier of Saskatchewan and the commissioner on the Future of Health Care in Canada - argues for a return to Canadian values, and to a strong national identity.
The disturbing trends he enumerates are all found in greater quantities in the US, in a sense marking the difference between the two countries as one of degree, not kind. However, Romanow doesn't concern himself with the US - that's my own editorial comment.
According to Romanow, these trends are a relatively recent development, not supported by history, and they can and should be reversed.
In the June issue of The Walrus, Roy J. Romanow - former (and long-time) premier of Saskatchewan and the commissioner on the Future of Health Care in Canada - argues for a return to Canadian values, and to a strong national identity.
A House Half BuiltRomanow then outlines several related, and, to him, disturbing trends: unchecked decentralization, individualism and privatization, a climate where "unbridled competition appears to be the new orthodoxy. ... The result is a bizarre redefinition of Canadian federalism from one based on greater co-operation to one of greater compartmentalization. The delicate Canadian balance between nation and enterprise, between the individual and community, is imperiled, all under the pretext of building national unity."
by Roy J. Romanow
There have been two moments in my life when I have felt truly concerned about the future of Canada. Then and now.
On the night of the 1995 Quebec referendum, I participated in a live television panel in Montreal. As the results poured in and the nation swept back and forth between apprehension and hope, I tried to suppress a gut-wrenching feeling that all might be lost. The final tally, narrow as it was, meant that Canada could renew its commitment to federalism and national unity. That was then.
Now, my anxiety is occasioned not by the drama of one critical evening, nor by the potential loss of a province that contributes so much to what makes Canada unique and distinct, but by the erosion of this country's legacy and values, and by the growing assault on policies based on that legacy. We are again at a pivotal moment in our history and, frankly, many more of us need to stand up for a country based on fairness, opportunity, respect, and balance between the individual and society. The current political culture militates against visionary leadership and active citizen participation, but if Canada is to remain progressive, united, and strong enough to meet tomorrow's challenges, it must change course.
At stake is the legacy of a century of nation-builders and the cornerstone of the Canadian idea: that our social contract is one of shared destiny.
The disturbing trends he enumerates are all found in greater quantities in the US, in a sense marking the difference between the two countries as one of degree, not kind. However, Romanow doesn't concern himself with the US - that's my own editorial comment.
According to Romanow, these trends are a relatively recent development, not supported by history, and they can and should be reversed.
An agenda for a renewed national purpose requires a return to co-operative federalism as the vehicle to solve Canada's major problems. Our leaders - governmental, corporate, and community - must be guided by the overarching principle of what the national good demands, and solutions to challenging issues must be openly debated.Set aside a half hour of your day and read the whole essay here. Then let's talk.
This agenda could also encompass a made-in-Canada economic strategy that provides short-term financial opportunity and longer-term prosperity, and that lessens our dependence on the US by boldly developing new markets. At the same time, we must dramatically increase the size and vigour of Canadian businesses and, partly to protect the country from global recessions, expand Canada's internal markets. And this must be done in the context of advancing workers' rights,ensuring that a forty-hour workweek provides a decent wage, improving our natural environment, and demanding that the political rights of those who live in the lands of our trading partners are respected.
The income-security system, one of Canada's social-justice hallmarks, is in trouble. We must modernize it and reinvest in it. Similarly, the country can afford a national affordable-housing program and universal child care, and to at last honour the rights of aboriginal peoples to healthy lives, equal opportunity, and a share in the country's bounty. A renaissance in education and research and increasing access to university and college by lessening the financial burden would spur economic development and innovation.
In health care, the provinces need to do the heavy lifting involved in properly re-engineering the universal system: using new money to buy real change, developing effective programs on disease prevention and well-being, providing for independent auditing, and telling their electorates that it will take seven years to achieve these goals, not seven months. Playing around with private-delivery health-care options is the default position of those governments that have not had the courage to innovate within the public model.
Similarly, supporting Canada's unique cultural identity through what we see on television, hear on radio, and read in newspapers, magazines, and books, will produce genuine dividends. It's time to restore our cultural sovereignty over the airwaves through generous investments in the arts and in broadcasting; and it is time to affirm the democratic commons and bring legislative remedy to the unacceptable concentration of media in the hands of a few.
International prominence comes not just from enterprising businesses. Canada should recapture its reputation as a world leader in building peace and sharing prosperity through our international objectives. It is unimaginable how far we have slipped. Canada's foreign-aid spending, for example, is a national embarrassment. And imagine a bold and dramatic national environmental initiative to restore our damaged biosphere. Imagine corporate- and government-sponsored research dedicated to making Canada a world leader in environmentally sensitive new technologies.
I can hear the protests and rebuttals to this modest down payment on a better Canada: "Cost. What would all this cost?" It is a reasonable, albeit predictable, question, but the fiscal capacity necessary to achieve our shared destiny is well within our reach. Just look at accumulated federal surpluses; just look at the rising trend in corporate tax benefits. We must demand investment. After all, isn't it a fact that a progressive society is shouldered on the foundations of a progressive tax system and progressive social policies?
lt
This, to me, is the epitome of moral courage.
From the press release:
From the press release:
Military Officer to Refuse Illegal Iraq WarI admire what this man is doing with all my heart, and I want to support him in any way I can. One way we can show our support is by signing this petition.
Thank you, LT.*
"Never in my life did I ever imagine I would have to disobey my president. But then again, never did I imagine my president would lie to go to war, condone torture, spy on Americans, or destroy the career of a CIA agent for political gain. I would rather resign in protest, but the army doesn't agree."
The first U.S. military officer poised to publicly refuse orders in support of the illegal Iraq War requests your immediate support and assistance. Having already attempted to resign his commission in protest, he is now poised to refuse deployment via simultaneous, cross-country press conferences, within days.
"I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to "stay the course." . . . I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home."
- LT, US Army officer*
A working group has formed to facilitate an unprecedented political and legal support campaign on his behalf. Well respected civilian legal representation has been secured. A legal and political defense fund has been created. Many of us have already met LT* and have been moved by his determination to help stop an unjust war.
(*At the press conferences LT's name will be made public)
6.02.2006
so kill me
To the GO train riders who were sitting in the last car of the 8:45 from Port Credit:
I'm sorry I had a coughing fit this morning. I have allergies. I am not contagious.
Perhaps you believe that staring at a person who is coughing, or glaring at them with grave disapproval, will cause them to stop coughing. As you now know, it does not.
Perhaps you believe that a person who is coughing should not take public transportation. However, I wasn't coughing when I left my house.
Next time I am coughing uncontrollably, holding my hand over my mouth, gasping for breath, tears rolling down my face, struggling to breathe, I will remember that my biggest problem is really that I am inconveniencing you.
Signed,
An allergy sufferer
I'm sorry I had a coughing fit this morning. I have allergies. I am not contagious.
Perhaps you believe that staring at a person who is coughing, or glaring at them with grave disapproval, will cause them to stop coughing. As you now know, it does not.
Perhaps you believe that a person who is coughing should not take public transportation. However, I wasn't coughing when I left my house.
Next time I am coughing uncontrollably, holding my hand over my mouth, gasping for breath, tears rolling down my face, struggling to breathe, I will remember that my biggest problem is really that I am inconveniencing you.
Signed,
An allergy sufferer
read me
I just found out (by accident) that my recent article about Dave Kiley is online. I haven't even seen the magazine yet. (Haven't seen a check yet either.)
I've written about Kiley, a wheelchair sports superstar, several times in different contexts. This is a feature profile for New Mobility magazine, catching readers up on the most recent incarnation of a very interesting life.
Keep in mind that the story is written for a wheelchair-using readership, so Kiley's paraplegia is just a fact of his life, not an ongoing tragedy. I stopped pitching these stories to mainstream magazines long ago, because I find the "overcoming adversity" template pretty dull.
I've written about Kiley, a wheelchair sports superstar, several times in different contexts. This is a feature profile for New Mobility magazine, catching readers up on the most recent incarnation of a very interesting life.
Keep in mind that the story is written for a wheelchair-using readership, so Kiley's paraplegia is just a fact of his life, not an ongoing tragedy. I stopped pitching these stories to mainstream magazines long ago, because I find the "overcoming adversity" template pretty dull.
"i need immediate help"
I'm always interested in how brutality hurts not only the victim, but the abuser as well. Here's a story about one marine who was part of the Haditha massacre last November. He is the first to speak publicly about what he did, and what he witnessed, that day.
I'm only noting that those marines, and tens of thousands of others we'll never hear about, have been damaged. Without adequate support and help, many will be damaged permanently. The cost to themselves, their families, and to the larger society that will cope with the increase in alcoholism, drug addiction and attendant violence, is incalculable.
I see the US armed forces in Iraq as victims themselves in many ways - a sentiment universally rejected by servicepeople. From what I read and hear, most volunteered for a combination of personal and altruistic reasons. They trusted their country's leadership to use their services only when needed, and for the greater good - for safety and security, for democracy, for ill-understood abstract concepts like "freedom" and "liberty".
Even leaving aside the real motives behind the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq, these young men and women were sent into a grossly ill-planned war, with inadequate protection. They're sent home without limbs and eyes to a Veterans Administration medical system which is, by all accounts, overwhelmed and under-funded. And, for most reserves, eligibility for medical services will run out. Amputees, for example, need ongoing prosthetic care, all their lives. It ain't cheap - and, in most cases, the US government won't pay for it.
In early April, less than 36 hours after his return from Iraq, Ryan Briones got into serious trouble in his hometown that he and his family say was related to stress from the Haditha incident.I'm not suggesting the perpetrators of the Haditha atrocities have suffered as much as their victims or the survivors of those victims. That would be ludicrous. Nor am I saying the marines at Haditha had no choice, or are not responsible for their actions.
Briones was charged with stealing a pickup truck, crashing it into a house, leaving the scene of the accident, driving under the influence and resisting arrest. A picture of the spectacular crash with a white Ford F-150 lodged in a Hanford living room appeared on the Hanford Sentinel's front page April 4.
Released from Kings County jail April 5 on $35,000 bond, Briones has a court date set in mid-June.
His mother said that her son has joined Alcoholics Anonymous and is being treated by a San Diego physician for his post-traumatic symptoms.
"My son saw what the Marines did, and he knew who did it before the Haditha investigations began," the mother wrote in a long letter to local authorities seeking leniency in the criminal cases.
"He saw the killings and knew who sent the word out to do the killings, he had to clean up the bodies of children who were sleeping in their beds and he saw his best friend die in front of his eyes."
Susie Briones said she is angry at what she described as the Marines' failure to adequately "decompress" him and other Marines when they come home from combat. She said she was writing a book to help other families avoid what she and her son are going through.
"I used to be one of those Marines who said that post-traumatic stress is a bunch of bull," said Ryan Briones, who has prescriptions for anti-depressants and sleeping pills. "But all this stuff that keeps going through my head is eating me up. I need immediate help."
I'm only noting that those marines, and tens of thousands of others we'll never hear about, have been damaged. Without adequate support and help, many will be damaged permanently. The cost to themselves, their families, and to the larger society that will cope with the increase in alcoholism, drug addiction and attendant violence, is incalculable.
I see the US armed forces in Iraq as victims themselves in many ways - a sentiment universally rejected by servicepeople. From what I read and hear, most volunteered for a combination of personal and altruistic reasons. They trusted their country's leadership to use their services only when needed, and for the greater good - for safety and security, for democracy, for ill-understood abstract concepts like "freedom" and "liberty".
Even leaving aside the real motives behind the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq, these young men and women were sent into a grossly ill-planned war, with inadequate protection. They're sent home without limbs and eyes to a Veterans Administration medical system which is, by all accounts, overwhelmed and under-funded. And, for most reserves, eligibility for medical services will run out. Amputees, for example, need ongoing prosthetic care, all their lives. It ain't cheap - and, in most cases, the US government won't pay for it.
photos, panic
Last night we looked at all our photos from Peru. I have to say, they're pretty great. They're also a lot: 19 rolls of film and about 700 digital pics.
We were especially impressed with the quality of our digital pictures. Our digital camera is an inexpensive little model, very basic; I bought it only for blogging and emailing. But much to our pleasant surprise, the lighting, colour quality and definition of the photos were excellent.
I'm glad we're also using our conventional camera - a nice Olympus with a Vivitar wide angle/telephoto lens - especially since the little digital wasn't up to the task when it came to the Nazca lines. I can see eventually getting a higher quality digital camera, and going all digital the way most travelers have. Maybe for our next vacation.
So when are you going to see a selection of these pictures, you ask? (Yes, people have been asking.) I have June 15 writing deadlines, and the party on June 17, and my mother will be here next week. All good things, but they add up to a time crunch. Sometime this summer, we'll choose a couple of photos for each wmtc-goes-to-Peru post and update the blog. But it will have to wait.
I'm trying not to panic about the party preparations plus deadline convergence. It's not easy for me.
We were especially impressed with the quality of our digital pictures. Our digital camera is an inexpensive little model, very basic; I bought it only for blogging and emailing. But much to our pleasant surprise, the lighting, colour quality and definition of the photos were excellent.
I'm glad we're also using our conventional camera - a nice Olympus with a Vivitar wide angle/telephoto lens - especially since the little digital wasn't up to the task when it came to the Nazca lines. I can see eventually getting a higher quality digital camera, and going all digital the way most travelers have. Maybe for our next vacation.
So when are you going to see a selection of these pictures, you ask? (Yes, people have been asking.) I have June 15 writing deadlines, and the party on June 17, and my mother will be here next week. All good things, but they add up to a time crunch. Sometime this summer, we'll choose a couple of photos for each wmtc-goes-to-Peru post and update the blog. But it will have to wait.
I'm trying not to panic about the party preparations plus deadline convergence. It's not easy for me.
6.01.2006
mighty comfortable
Last week, I asked readers to reply to something W said to a man in a wheelchair. The idea came from 360 Magazine:
360 has posted a sample of their reader responses, which they say fall into the following categories:
Before a speech in South Florida encouraging Medicare recipients to sign up for the new prescription drug benefit, President Bush added another entry to his list of verbal miscues.My favourite wmtc reader comments were "I'd be happy to trade you places" (Vera) and "So do you, but then, my handicap's visible" (Lone Primate).
According to the Associated Press, during the usual hit-and-run of handshakes and hugs, President Bush greeted a man in a wheelchair with, "You look mighty comfortable."
After the groans subsided here at 360, we began asking each other how the wheeler should have responded. Keep in mind, you have probably no more than a couple of seconds of his attention, so how do you react? What do you say to the most powerful man in the world after such a comment?
360 has posted a sample of their reader responses, which they say fall into the following categories:
"I’d be much more comfortable if the government stopped chipping away at the ADA and took disability rights more seriously."—Craig R.Three cheers to Stephen C.! That's the perfect response. Any bets on how Tom A. voted?
"My 'tush' feels like your feet after you have been walking on them all day."
—Mary B.
"I'm not offended by this remark because at least he was acknowledging the gentleman, instead of looking right past him--you know the one that they think 'if I don't make eye contact with him, then he'll go away.'"—Tom A.
"I would be really comfortable if you would allow stem cell research to get me up and out of this chair."—Stephen C.
breaking news - updated
Actually, old news, with breaking confirmation.
The Brad Blog previews an exclusive story in Rolling Stone magazine, in which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. confirms everything we've known and believed about the 2004 US presidential election. The story can be read here..
The page is loading incredibly slowly, so I am taking the liberty of copying the post - lifted from Democratic Underground - below.
Many thanks to my trusty news source and loving partner. Although I wish he'd revive his own political blog, instead of using mine.
The Brad Blog previews an exclusive story in Rolling Stone magazine, in which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. confirms everything we've known and believed about the 2004 US presidential election. The story can be read here..
The page is loading incredibly slowly, so I am taking the liberty of copying the post - lifted from Democratic Underground - below.
Many thanks to my trusty news source and loving partner. Although I wish he'd revive his own political blog, instead of using mine.
EXCLUSIVE: BOBBY KENNEDY JR. TO QUESTION 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN MAJOR ROLLING STONE FEATURE ARTICLE!Once again, read the story here.
Tells BRAD BLOG: 'Evidence Shows High-Level Republicans Succeeded in Scheme to Steal Election in Ohio'! Mag to Hit Stands Friday, Internet on Thursday, Publicity Push to Accompany
A damning and detailed feature article, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for Rolling Stone and documenting evidence of the theft of the 2004 Presidential Election is set to hit...
A damning and detailed feature article, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for Rolling Stone and documenting evidence of the theft of the 2004 Presidential Election is set to hit newstands this Friday, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm. The online version of the article will be posted tomorrow (Thursday) morning.
The article -- headlined on the cover as "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election?: How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio" -- has been several months in development and will contend that a concerted effort was undertaken by high-level Republican officials to steal the Election in Ohio -- and thus the country -- in 2004!
Kennedy told The BRAD BLOG this morning that "the best evidence says the Republicans succeeded" in their plan.
He writes in the 10-page long article, and confirmed to us today, that evidence shows Ohio Sec. of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was "certainly in on" the scheme, and there are indications that the effort went all the way up to the White House.
Kennedy, who is co-host of Ring of Fire, a weekend show on Air America Radio, is an environmental attorney and the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy. This is his first public foray into the realm of Election Fraud, Election Integrity, Electronic Voting and, in particular, the questionable results of Election 2004.
A major publicity push is currently in the works to accompany the feature story which is sure to get the attention of more than a few D.C. and Buckeye State pols in addition to the mainstream media who have, of late, begun reporting more frequently on the litany of concerns and now-documented evidence that new electronic voting machines are hackable through a number of means.
Several public appearances are currently being scheduled for Kennedy in the coming weeks, including an appearance on The Colbert Report currently scheduled for Monday, June 12.
========== ...MORE... ==========
Sources have told The BRAD BLOG that Kennedy "does not hold back in this article."
One of the election integrity advocates involved in research and development with Kennedy on the story told us a number of weeks ago that "[Kennedy] essentially says everything that those of us who have been contending there was massive chicanery in the '04 election were right, and the media and politicians who ignored it at the time were wrong."
We'll have more details and information shortly from the story which includes quotes from Democrats such as Howard Dean and John Kerry, as well as pollster Lou Harris who also questions the validity of the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio according to the article...
========== ...MORE... ==========
A sidebar included with the article calls for an investigation into Electronic Voting machines prior to upcoming elections...More soon...
========== ...MORE... ==========
Keeping in mind that a mere 6 votes registered for Kerry instead of Bush at each precint in Ohio in 2004 would have given the state, and the Presidency, to Kerry, here's a few quotes from the article...
Howard Dean: "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided."
U.S. Congressman from Ohio, Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections – not throw them."
Pollster Lou Harris of the Harris Poll -- described in the piece as "the father of modern day political polling" -- says: "Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen."
Despite Harris' comments, which may be amongst the most explosive in the article, Kerry himself brings up the rear...
John Kerry: "Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can't. There's no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse."
...DEVELOPING HARD...
Ed note: Glad to have so many of you folks stopping by to check out this story. While RFK Jr.'s story focuses largely on what happened in 2004, please check out BRAD BLOG's front page for a list of just a few of our "Hot Stories" (links at top of page) covering our crumbling electoral system in 2006! Including more scandalously under-reported stories than you can shake a stick at! From Diebold's now-proven hackable election systems to Ann Coulter's own felonious voting fraud to ES&S's complete electoral meltdown so far this year to Bob Ney and Jack Abramoff's dirty hands in the creation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which has brought about the rise of these god-forsaken machines to the tune of 4 billion tax-payer dollars. Also, more more to come from Kennedy as well on the mess we face in 2006 as well, by the way, in the not too distant future. Stay tuned.
fresh air
Shortly after we moved in, while we were unpacking and working on the house, I asked if anyone knew how to unstick windows that were painted shut. Painted shut, ha! As if the problem were that simple.
I'm speaking of our front downstairs windows - three in the living room, two in the dining room. Allan worked on them for a long time, pulling out ribbons of insulation and dried glue, but never getting the windows open a single centimetre, until I made an executive decision for him to move on to more pressing concerns. Winter would soon be upon us; the windows could wait until next spring. We talked to our Esteemed Landlord, and he assured us that, come spring, he'd help us get those windows open.
And here it is, spring.
Last night EL came over, and he and Allan worked on the windows. This entailed: two men, three hours, two Exacto knives, a spackling tool (the edge of which was used as a cutting tool and wedge), two hammers, three chisels, a crowbar, blocks of wood of various sizes, and large amounts of brute strength.
Windows did open. Air did enter. Now it requires one tall, strong person (i.e., not me) working very hard to change their position again.
Tonight EL is coming over with a grinding tool. He plans to grind down some wood on the badly warped frames, to facilitate future shutting and opening.
I'm speaking of our front downstairs windows - three in the living room, two in the dining room. Allan worked on them for a long time, pulling out ribbons of insulation and dried glue, but never getting the windows open a single centimetre, until I made an executive decision for him to move on to more pressing concerns. Winter would soon be upon us; the windows could wait until next spring. We talked to our Esteemed Landlord, and he assured us that, come spring, he'd help us get those windows open.
And here it is, spring.
Last night EL came over, and he and Allan worked on the windows. This entailed: two men, three hours, two Exacto knives, a spackling tool (the edge of which was used as a cutting tool and wedge), two hammers, three chisels, a crowbar, blocks of wood of various sizes, and large amounts of brute strength.
Windows did open. Air did enter. Now it requires one tall, strong person (i.e., not me) working very hard to change their position again.
Tonight EL is coming over with a grinding tool. He plans to grind down some wood on the badly warped frames, to facilitate future shutting and opening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)