differences

When someone asks me why I prefer Canada to the US - if they really want to know - I usually list the Big Things: national health insurance, secure abortion rights, same-sex marriage, no death penalty, a more cooperative outlook to the world, greater tolerance of and respect for difference, all relative to the United States.

These Big Things, in my opinion, speak of a different concept of society, one based more on community and less on unfettered greed and selfishness - a society that is more humane, less violent, and more oriented towards caring for its members and trying to solve people's problems. And these Big Things express themselves in daily life in myriad small ways. In my Globe & Mail essay, I mentioned two examples from everyday life: the GO train, paid on the honour system, and excellent recycling facilities.

A few days ago, Allan and I had dinner with A&S*, another ex-pat couple, here for the same reasons as us. Between the four of us, we have lived in four major US cities - New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Washington, DC - as well as several smaller US cities, and spent time in many more. We all live in the GTA; we have all been here almost one year. We all feel that life is better here, and we were able to enumerate several "little things" - examples from everyday life - that reflect that.

First, the usual important disclaimers. These are generalizations. I'm sure we can all think of exceptions to these observations, on both sides of the border. None of us imagine Canada to be a perfect paradise, and all of us know good people doing the right thing in the US. Nevertheless, after a year living in and around Canada's largest metropolitan area, we have noticed several things.

** Toronto is much cleaner and well-maintained than any US city. Please: no need to point out that Montreal is even cleaner, or that Toronto has gotten dirtier since the Harris government. Despite that, Toronto is much cleaner and well-maintained than any US city.

** Parents do not abuse children in public. In the US, it is not at all uncommon to see parents slap, yank, shake, smack, shriek at or berate their children on public transportation, in malls, in parks, and elsewhere. None of us have ever seen that here. (Again, disclaimer: we're not saying there is no child abuse here, that would be absurd.)

** There are no stray dogs in the parks.

** Dogs here are calmer and seem happier. GTA dogs don't bark, snarl and freak out in public. They are clearly more relaxed, well exercised, and less stressed.

** Ontario law forbids landlords to refuse tenants based on pet ownership. Although there are some pet-friendly US cities, no state, to my knowledge, has such a law. Thousands of people in the US are forced to give up beloved animals because they cannot find a place to live that accepts pets.

** When you're in your car, stopped at a red light, the car behind you does not honk as soon as the light turns green. In the US, it's: red-greenhonk, or even redhonk-green. The driver's hand must be on the horn, waiting to honk the instant s/he sees a red light, like sime kind of noisy reflex test. One of us recalled a sign at a busy New York City intersection: $350 fine for unnecessary honking. In the GTA, people use their car horns for warnings of potential danger.

** On the highway, people do not drive behind you flashing their high beams to get you to change lanes. They will tailgate, but they don't flash lights in your mirror.

** Everyone we do business with is friendly: the cable guy, the car dealership, the bank, the lawn-care guy, the heating oil rep, the grocery check-outs. None of them are so friendly that it uses half your day to complete a small transaction, but all of them are more than just civil - they are friendly and kind. It does no good to say they're friendly because they're taking our money. The same people in New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Washington are not friendly. I quickly learned to be more friendly to the people I do business with. It's very pleasant.

** "A" had to see a doctor before her Ontario Health Insurance was established. Knowing she was paying entirely out-of-pocket, the doctor's office devised ways to keep her fees as low as possible. This is unheard of. When "A" told the story, at first I wasn't even sure I was understanding her correctly. The office visit fee was $32. Comparable visit in Washington, DC: $120.

** Allan and I both have supplemental insurance through our jobs. Cost to us: zero. In New York, we had huge, ever-increasing payroll deductions, large co-pays, and ever-decreasing coverage. I know that there is a trend among Canadian employers to cut benefits or to hire workers as independent contractors without any benefits. I'm aware that this is a problem, and I hope it is not allowed to spread. But Allan and I are fortunate to work in an industry that's not following that trend. The legal industry is also considered an excellent employer in New York - so we're comparing like and like, NYC corporate law firms and Toronto corporate law firms.

** The staff where I work makes full use of their vacation, sick and personal days, without negative repercussions. In a similar job in New York, you are officially given sick and personal days, but strongly discouraged from using them. If you do use them, despite the pressure not to, it may count against you when you are up for a promotion or raise. Here, I see no such pressure. And as "S" said, somehow the society continues to function!




* If you know who this is, please respect their wishes and refrain from using their names.

global

I visited the Global Village yesterday, the public portion of the 2006 International AIDS Conference. There was a performance stage, a public seminar space, and booths from an enormous array of activist organizations. While I was there, an African vocal group was performing, filling the huge hall with ringing harmonies. I wandered through the booths, where every region on earth and every community affected by AIDS was represented. It was overwhelming, inspiring, and heartbreaking, all at the same time.

When I first got there, I saw people selling t-shirts and handicrafts, and it made me uncomfortable. I thought, this isn't a crafts fair, we shouldn't be treating this like another commercial enterprise. I kept my distance from those booths. Later I felt easier about it, realizing that all the organizations are fundraising, and sales is one tool with which to do that.

I'm glad I got past that discomfort, or else I would have missed something truly remarkable: BeadforLife. Bead For Life works with impoverished women in Uganda, who make beaded jewelry. The necklaces, bracelets and other beadwork are vibrant, brilliant pieces. They are all made from recycled magazines, and their profits are reinvested in their community. The organization raises money mainly through house parties held at homes in North America.

From their website:

BeadforLife is a poverty eradication project connecting people in Uganda and North America to work together for the mutual benefit of all. BeadforLife believes true and sustained change can happen when we are willing to work together with our African neighbors to find solutions to extreme poverty. As a grassroots organization, we believe citizens in developed countries care about the problem of extreme poverty and welcome an opportunity to alleviate it. In our experience, all benefit from this exchange.

On our website you will find stories about fascinating and beautiful people both in Uganda and in the United States. Check out Meet the Beaders. Our beaders and tailors are primarily impoverished women who are hard working, intelligent, and strong in their desire to improve their lives. They make gorgeous handcrafted paper beads and turn them into necklaces, bracelets, and earrings. Our tailors make elegant jewelry bags from hand printed cotton fabrics. BeadforLife also sponsors community development projects in the areas of health, education, vocational training, affordable housing, and savings programs.

BeadforLife is guided by the following principles:

1. Creating jobs through local partnerships is a more sustainable approach to poverty eradication than providing aid. Rather than become dependent on handouts from abroad, the beaders build their skills and long-term capacities through meaningful creative work.

2. Concerned citizens in resource abundant countries care about the issues of extreme poverty and are willing to get involved.

3. Paying our beaders fair trade prices allows them to meet their daily economic needs. Investing 100% of our net profits in community development projects for impoverished Ugandans allows for a long-term sustainable future.

4. Forming partnerships between North Americans and Ugandans beaders enriches all of us.

I bought a necklace and a bracelet - I love beadwork, and these are simply beautiful - and I'm thinking about hosting a party. I've never done anything like that, but I find the idea really intriguing.

As I said, I found the Global Village somewhat overwhelming, and although I was glad I went, I was also glad to leave. I went over to the Church & Wellesley area to meet our friend "A" for coffee at the Bulldog Cafe, recommended by friend of wtmc Alex E. (I haven't gotten A's permission to post about her yet, so we'll leave it at that.) Later, Allan and A's partner "S" met us, and we had dinner at the strangely-named Salad King, which serves not salads, but excellent Thai food.

A & S, another opposite-sex couple who left the US for Canada, found us through my essay in the Globe & Mail. (OK Lone Primate, there's another one!) It turns out they landed in Canada exactly three days before us, so we were celebrating our upcoming one-year anniversaries.

We mostly talked about how much we love it here, and how much more sane Canada is than the US. There are so many little things, things you can't really appreciate unless you've lived in that insanity. More on that later.

community

"American By Birth, Canadian By Choice". Hey, someone else shares my tagline!

Daniel WBC suggests marching under that banner at next year's Pride Parade.

Tom of Canadian Hope has joined our bloggy circle. Tom and his partner Emilio are included in a documentary about the immigration struggles of same-sex couples in the US.

what i'm reading: the places in between by rory stewart, a walk across afghanistan

I've just started The Places In Between, an incredible book by Scottish writer Rory Stewart. It's been out in the UK for a few years, but only recently released in paperback in North America.

The Places In Between is Stewart's account of his walk across Afghanistan. Walk. As in, on foot. Across Afghanistan. In winter. And that Afghan crossing was only the final leg in his journey, on foot, across Iran, India, Pakistan and Nepal.

I was moved to pick up this book from this run-don't-walk review in the New York Times (still my preferred place for book reviews, conservative columnists notwithstanding).

Rory Stewart's first book, "The Places in Between," recounts his journey across Afghanistan in January 2002. Even in mild weather in an Abrams tank, such a trip would be mane-whitening. But Stewart goes in the middle of winter, crossing through some territory still shakily held by the Taliban — and entirely on foot. There are some Medusa-slayingly gutsy travel writers out there — Redmond O'Hanlon, Jeffrey Tayler, Robert Young Pelton — but Stewart makes them look like Hilton sisters.

Paul Theroux once described a certain kind of travel book as having mainly "human sacrifice" allure, and how close Stewart comes to being killed on his journey won't be disclosed here. He is, however, sternly warned before he begins his walk. "You are the first tourist in Afghanistan," observes an Afghan from the country's recently resurrected Security Service. "It is mid-winter," he adds. "There are three meters of snow on the high passes, there are wolves, and this is a war. You will die, I can guarantee." For perhaps the first time in the history of travel writing, a secret-police goon emerges as the voice of sobriety and reason.

Recalling an American journalist who wondered if Stewart thought what he was doing was dangerous, he writes, "I had never found a way to answer that question without sounding awkward, insincere or ridiculous." He's then asked if he has read "Into the Wild," Jon Krakauer's account of a well-meaning young man's doomed trek into the Alaskan wilderness. It is, Stewart is told, more than a little pointedly, "a great piece of journalism."

So is "The Places in Between" — a pipsqueak title for what is otherwise a striding, glorious book. But it's more than great journalism. It's a great travel narrative. Learned but gentle, tough but humane, Stewart — a Scottish journalist who has served in both the British Army and the Foreign Office — seems hewn from 19th-century DNA, yet he's also blessed with a 21st-century motherboard. He writes with a mystic's appreciation of the natural world, a novelist's sense of character and a comedian's sense of timing.

I can confirm the reviewer's judgement. Stewart's writing is brilliant - witty, moving, poetic without ostentation, minutely observed, but concise and streamlined. Each short chapter is like a little journey in itself, drawing you to the next step, and the next. It's positively addictive.

By coincidence, while I was reading Collapse, a book I had requested came in at our local library: The Kite Runner, a popular novel about Afghanistan. I read it, impatiently (partly because I wanted to get back to Jared Diamond) and with little enthusiasm. Although The Kite Runner is a good book, especially for a first novel, I couldn't escape the feeling that I was reading a coming-of-age story grafted onto the history of modern Afghanistan.

For many people, a fictional narrative is the best way to learn about another culture. And it's not that I won't read books like that - I've enjoyed many of them. But in this case, the joining of history and fiction seemed too obvious; the seams were showing. I didn't find the fictional tale very compelling, and found myself wishing I was reading nonfiction about Afghanistan instead.

Enter The Places In Between, available here from Chapters.

* * * *

I have some interesting plans this afternoon and evening. Now to get some work done so I can enjoy them. If all goes well, I'll bore you with the details tomorrow.

disdain

Ah, that good old liberal media, influencing Americans' opinions here in Bizarro World where everything is upside down and backwards. Especially the radically left New York Times. You know, the same newspaper that brought you the White House's case for invading Iraq without so much as running it through a spell-checker?

Next time you hear that hogwash about the liberal media, here's a talking point for ya. Esteemed New York Times columnist David Brooks is on record as opposing democracy. David Sirota, writing in Working For Change, pointed this out:

Take, for instance, New York Times columnist David Brooks's piece yesterday - it is arguably the most brazen admission of elite disdain for democracy that has ever been printed in a major American newspaper. Before you dismiss that as hyperbole, read the third line of Brooks' piece:

"Polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

Yes, you read that correctly: According to one of the most prominent columnists in America, "voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Sure, he tries to couch his statement by targeting "polarized primary voters" (because, of course, in the world of David Brooks - a chickenhawk who avoided military service himself but aggressively pushed the Iraq War - the 60 percent of Americans who are now "polarized" in opposition to the war should have their voting rights immediately revoked). But his underlying message is, again, right there in black and white: "Voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the first major American newspaper columnist (at least in my generation) to officially go on record publicly demanding that American democracy be substituted with dictatorship.

. . . .

Brooks goes on to offer up the transparently dishonest claim that "Lamont's voters are rich." As evidenced by its repitition, this lie is clearly a talking point crafted right in the Republican National Committee headquarters, Joe Lieberman's campaign offices - or most likely, both. For instance, right-wing pundit Michael Barone wrote in the Wall Street Journal today that Lamont did not win "the lunch-bucket working class" in Connecticut, but instead was propelled to victory by "the secular transnational professional class" - an attempt, like Brooks, to portray Lamont's victory as just a product of a few wealthy limousine liberal voters. Barone then tops off his tirade with an attack on Lamont, for being "one of several members of a Democratic caucus who have made, inherited or married big money." Barone anger at Lamont for this doesn't seem to be tempered by the fact that Barone himself became famous for marrying into the billionaire Shorenstein family.

How do we know this is a lie? Just take a look at the results. Lamont not only won 7 out of 8 of Connecticut's counties, but he specifically won the poorest, most working-class areas of the state. For instance, Lamont won New Haven. That's not only Lieberman's hometown, but also "the seventh poorest community in the United States," according to the Department of Education, where "one out of every four citizens lives in poverty," according to the Yale Daily News. Lamont also won Hartford, the second-poorest city in America - one the American City Business Journals recently noted "is burdened with more socioeconomic stress than any other major city in the United States."

Sirota's post, with full links and comments, is found here. I haven't read Sirota's book yet, but I hear it's excellent.

Many thanks to our Redsock for the tip.

lmf

I recently blogged about L.M.F., a novel by friend of wtmc Matt Bin.

L.M.F. stands for "Lacking Moral Fibre" - a former British military designation for what is now recognized as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Today I see this story:

The British government is expected to announce Wednesday that it will seek a group pardon for over 300 First World War soldiers executed for offences such as cowardice and desertion, a list that includes 23 Canadian soldiers.

Defence secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the posthumous pardon of 306 soldiers on moral grounds, the Guardian reported.

The soldiers were shot for cowardice or desertion, many after court martial hearings that lasted just minutes.

Descendants of the soldiers and advocates for the pardon have long argued that many were clearly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The families of the executed soldiers received no military pensions, in addition to the stigma they suffered.

Can you imagine? After people had a normal and completely human reaction to the abnormal stress of war, they were killed. This, from the highly civilized British Empire. It reminds me of cultures where women are executed for having been raped. It boggles the mind.

I hope the posthumous pardon can bring the families of these soldiers some measure of peace.

"the soldiers can choose to stop fighting"

What if there was a war, and nobody came?

I frequently post about Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. You might be tired of hearing about Watada, or maybe you just skip those posts. Today, I'm urging you to read his words. You can also see video of the speech here, at truthout.

Watada recently addressed the Veterans for Peace National Convention. Dahr Jamail, writing for truthout, describes how, "just as Watada took the stage and began to speak, over 50 members of Iraq Veterans Against the War filed in behind him. Watada, surprised by this and obviously taken aback by the symbolic act, turned back to the audience, took some deep breaths, then gave this speech".

Thank you everyone. Thank you all for your tremendous support. How honored and delighted I am to be in the same room with you tonight. I am deeply humbled by being in the company of such wonderful speakers.

You are all true American patriots. Although long since out of uniform, you continue to fight for the very same principles you once swore to uphold and defend. No one knows the devastation and suffering of war more than veterans - which is why we should always be the first to prevent it.

I wasn't entirely sure what to say tonight. I thought as a leader in general I should speak to motivate. Now I know that this isn't the military and surely there are many out there who outranked me at one point or another - and yes, I'm just a Lieutenant. And yet, I feel as though we are all citizens of this great country and what I have to say is not a matter of authority - but from one citizen to another. We have all seen this war tear apart our country over the past three years. It seems as though nothing we've done, from vigils to protests to letters to Congress, have had any effect in persuading the powers that be. Tonight I will speak to you on my ideas for a change of strategy. I am here tonight because I took a leap of faith. My action is not the first and it certainly will not be the last. Yet, on behalf of those who follow, I require your help - your sacrifice - and that of countless other Americans. I may fail. We may fail. But nothing we have tried has worked so far. It is time for change and the change starts with all of us.

I stand before you today, not as an expert - not as one who pretends to have all the answers. I am simply an American and a servant of the American people. My humble opinions today are just that. I realize that you may not agree with everything I have to say. However, I did not choose to be a leader for popularity. I did it to serve and make better the soldiers of this country. And I swore to carry out this charge honorably under the rule of law.

Today, I speak with you about a radical idea. It is one born from the very concept of the American soldier (or service member). It became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War - but it has been long since forgotten. The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.

Now it is not an easy task for the soldier. For he or she must be aware that they are being used for ill-gain. They must hold themselves responsible for individual action. They must remember duty to the Constitution and the people supersedes the ideologies of their leadership. The soldier must be willing to face ostracism by their peers, worry over the survival of their families, and of course the loss of personal freedom. They must know that resisting an authoritarian government at home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the battlefield. Finally, those wearing the uniform must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that by refusing immoral and illegal orders they will be supported by the people not with mere words but by action.

The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed. Awareness of the history of atrocities and destruction committed in the name of America - either through direct military intervention or by proxy war - is crucial. They must realize that this is a war not out of self-defense but by choice, for profit and imperialistic domination. WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, and ties to 9/11 never existed and never will. The soldier must know that our narrowly and questionably elected officials intentionally manipulated the evidence presented to Congress, the public, and the world to make the case for war. They must know that neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war - an American law that still stands today. This same administration uses us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war. Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes. They must know some of these facts, if not all, in order to act.

Mark Twain once remarked, "Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country …" By this, each and every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor is responsible for their choices and their actions. The freedom to choose is only one that we can deny ourselves.

The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people. Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one's right to seek the truth - neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. "I was only following orders" is never an excuse.

The Nuremburg Trials showed America and the world that citizenry as well as soldiers have the unrelinquishable obligation to refuse complicity in war crimes perpetrated by their government. Widespread torture and inhumane treatment of detainees is a war crime. A war of aggression born through an unofficial policy of prevention is a crime against the peace. An occupation violating the very essence of international humanitarian law and sovereignty is a crime against humanity. These crimes are funded by our tax dollars. Should citizens choose to remain silent through self-imposed ignorance or choice, it makes them as culpable as the soldier in these crimes.

The Constitution is no mere document - neither is it old, out-dated, or irrelevant. It is the embodiment of all that Americans hold dear: truth, justice, and equality for all. It is the formula for a government of the people and by the people. It is a government that is transparent and accountable to whom they serve. It dictates a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to prevent the evil that is tyranny.

As strong as the Constitution is, it is not foolproof. It does not fully take into account the frailty of human nature. Profit, greed, and hunger for power can corrupt individuals as much as they can corrupt institutions. The founders of the Constitution could not have imagined how money would infect our political system. Neither could they believe a standing army would be used for profit and manifest destiny. Like any common dictatorship, soldiers would be ordered to commit acts of such heinous nature as to be deemed most ungentlemanly and unbecoming that of a free country.

The American soldier is not a mercenary. He or she does not simply fight wars for payment. Indeed, the state of the American soldier is worse than that of a mercenary. For a soldier-for-hire can walk away if they are disgusted by their employer's actions. Instead, especially when it comes to war, American soldiers become indentured servants whether they volunteer out of patriotism or are drafted through economic desperation. Does it matter what the soldier believes is morally right? If this is a war of necessity, why force men and women to fight? When it comes to a war of ideology, the lines between right and wrong are blurred. How tragic it is when the term Catch-22 defines the modern American military.

Aside from the reality of indentured servitude, the American soldier in theory is much nobler. Soldier or officer, when we swear our oath it is first and foremost to the Constitution and its protectorate, the people. If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols - if they stood up and threw their weapons down - no President could ever initiate a war of choice again. When we say, "… Against all enemies foreign and domestic," what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being. Our duty to the Constitution is an obligation, not a choice.

The military, and especially the Army, is an institution of fraternity and close-knit camaraderie. Peer pressure exists to ensure cohesiveness but it stamps out individualism and individual thought. The idea of brotherhood is difficult to pull away from if the alternative is loneliness and isolation. If we want soldiers to choose the right but difficult path - they must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they will be supported by Americans. To support the troops who resist, you must make your voices heard. If they see thousands supporting me, they will know. I have heard your support, as has Suzanne Swift, and Ricky Clousing - but many others have not. Increasingly, more soldiers are questioning what they are being asked to do. Yet, the majority lack awareness to the truth that is buried beneath the headlines. Many more see no alternative but to obey. We must show open-minded soldiers a choice and we must give them courage to act.

Three weeks ago, Sgt. Hernandez from the 172nd Stryker Brigade was killed, leaving behind a wife and two children. In an interview, his wife said he sacrificed his life so that his family could survive. I'm sure Sgt. Hernandez cherished the camaraderie of his brothers, but given a choice, I doubt he would put himself in a position to leave his family husbandless and fatherless. Yet that's the point, you see. People like Sgt. Hernandez don't have a choice. The choices are to fight in Iraq or let your family starve. Many soldiers don't refuse this war en mass because, like all of us,, they value their families over their own lives and perhaps their conscience. Who would willingly spend years in prison for principle and morality while denying their family sustenance?

I tell this to you because you must know that to stop this war, for the soldiers to stop fighting it, they must have the unconditional support of the people. I have seen this support with my own eyes. For me it was a leap of faith. For other soldiers, they do not have that luxury. They must know it and you must show it to them. Convince them that no matter how long they sit in prison, no matter how long this country takes to right itself, their families will have a roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, opportunities and education. This is a daunting task. It requires the sacrifice of all of us. Why must Canadians feed and house our fellow Americans who have chosen to do the right thing? We should be the ones taking care of our own. Are we that powerless - are we that unwilling to risk something for those who can truly end this war? How do you support the troops but not the war? By supporting those who can truly stop it; let them know that resistance to participate in an illegal war is not futile and not without a future.

I have broken no law but the code of silence and unquestioning loyalty. If I am guilty of any crime, it is that I learned too much and cared too deeply for the meaningless loss of my fellow soldiers and my fellow human beings. If I am to be punished it should be for following the rule of law over the immoral orders of one man. If I am to be punished it should be for not acting sooner. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period … was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Now, I'm not a hero. I am a leader of men who said enough is enough. Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler. I say, we compromise now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option instead of the last to act with impunity. Many have said this about the World Trade Towers, "Never Again." I agree. Never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free - be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now - the time to stand up and be counted is today.

I'll end with one more Martin Luther King Jr. quote:

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

Thank you and bless you all.

I found this speech so moving, so inspiring.

On June 22, 2006, Watada said, "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must refuse that order."

Watada's actions has made me ask myself, what can I do to help end the war? How I can declare peace?

saga

The day before we left New York City (August 29, 2005) was, as you might imagine, a little crazy. In addition to picking up the minivan and driving around doing last-minute errands - including some time at the Department of Motor Vehicles, of all places - we had to drive back to the apartment on a regular basis. Buster was on a high dose of Prednisone at the time and had to go out every couple of hours.

That same day, we returned our cable TV and internet equipment to Time Warner Cable. Thus begins the saga - one that ended only yesterday.

The office where we brought the equipment was a tiny, over-crowded room. You would have thought it was a little mom-and-pop operation, not an office of one of the world's largest media conglomerates. The wait seemed interminable, and it was difficult to have patience on such a busy day. We considered driving downtown to their main office, but were warned the wait there might be just as bad, and NYC traffic being what it is, we'd be that much further away from Buster. We even considered returning the equipment by mail, but that option seemed even more time-consuming, and potentially disastrous.

Finally we split up. With slightly more patience for noisy, crowded spaces, I continued to wait, while Allan got a few more things done with the van, and checked on B.

Eventually our number was called and we were able to return the equipment.

We were owed money, both for a deposit, and for the service we had paid for but would not be using. The representative said her computer would not accept a Canadian address. She wrote our new address on a post-it note and stuck it on her copy of the receipt. I thought, what are the odds of that making it through the system? None or none?

In the weeks and months that followed, every once in a while, I would notice "TW refund" in my Outlook task list, and remember that we never received a cheque. I'd summon the fortitude to call, go through the entire sales menu (the system no longer recognized me as a customer, so I had to start from scratch each time), only to be told that refund cheques take four to six months to process, and that I should keep waiting. Four to six months?? Why would it take that long for Time Warner Cable to process a refund cheque? (Answer: it wouldn't.)

Then I would forget about this for months at a time. Then I'd remember and call again. And get the same response.

In early July, on a getting-things-done jag, I determined it was time to get the damn cheque. At this point, obviously, there could be no excuse.

I called, went through the entire menu. At first the representative told me there was no record of my ever having been a customer. On my further insistence, she somehow found our old records, which of course said no money was owed to us. (Patience, Laura, patience.) Finally she said she would refer this to the finance department, who would then contact me.

Was there any way I could contact the finance eepartment myself, to follow up? No. Was there any way I could call directly next time? No. Could she at least give me a case number, so when I called to follow up, I wouldn't have to re-tell the whole story? No.

When weeks passed and, predictably, we never heard from the elusive finance department, I recruited Allan, as I thought I might seriously lose it on the phone. More menus, more hold time, more representatives telling us we were never customers. Same outcome: the finance department, who cannot be contacted, but who will contact us.

I realized I had let this go on too long, and I needed another course of action. From the Time Warner website, I got their mailing address for disputes - only paper mail, no phone number, no email address - along with the addresses of the two New York State agencies that oversee consumer issues with cable companies. Thank goddess for these agencies, the product of consumer advocacy and activist legislators.

I wrote a letter, and cc'd both agencies.

I heard nothing from Time Warner. Both agencies - the State of New York Public Service Commission and the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications - contacted me within the week.

The Public Service Commission told me it is illegal for Time Warner to require a deposit for cable equipment. They were forced to stop the practice several years ago, but long-time customers were never informed of that, nor issued a refund. Reps from both agencies assured me that, along with an explanation and a cheque, we were due interest, beginning at the date our service was discontinued.

A few days later, guess who called?

The oily, officious, ass-kissing Time Warner representative didn't help at all. He only fanned the flames with his now-just-calm-down-we-can-work-this-out attitude.

Weeks passed. Still no cheque.

The agencies emailed, telling us that Time Warner says they cannot send money out of the country. We could either have the cheque sent to our old address (why would we want that?) or give them a local address. Our friend NN was kind enough to accept a cheque on our behalf. We gave them her address on July 24.

Yesterday, August 15, 2006, I received this email from NN: "The Eagle has landed."

* * * *

If Time Warner simply "forgets" to refund former customers' deposits, and customers must be relentlessly persistent to get their deposits back, think of how much money the company can pocket.

I know several of you choose not to have cable, and that's great if it works for you, but it doesn't work for us, both for high-speed internet and for out-of-town baseball. What's more, that's not a solution to a company's responsibilities to its customers.

I know everyone around here complains about Rogers, and I'm sure they have very good reason. (Ted Rogers, for one thing.) However, my own experience with Rogers has been stellar compared to Time Warner. I know it's a tiny sample size, and maybe I've just been lucky, but whenever I need anything from Rogers - cable, internet and cell phone - they are quick, efficient and polite; I get what I called for, very quickly. On the other hand, this saga comes as no surprise to any New Yorkers reading this blog.

puppy news

She was placed in a good home.

It's great news. So why did I almost start to cry when I heard?

Could it be I'm a little closer to being ready for another dog than I thought? I thought about the puppy all weekend. I even thought of a name.

But she found a loving home, and there are plenty of dogs waiting for us when we're both truly ready. All good. Sniffle, sniffle.

disbelief

Here's a testament to the train wreck that is the US education system, and to the rise of fundmentalist ignorance in that same country.

It's a statistic that would have Charles Darwin turning in his grave - more than one third of Americans don't believe in evolution, according to a new study.

After tabulating surveys that covered 34 countries, researchers at the University of Michigan have found that U.S. citizens are much less likely to accept Darwinism than Europeans and the Japanese.

The study, published in Friday's issue of the journal Science, found that in countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and France, at least 80 per cent of adult believe that humans evolved from other species. In Japan, 78 per cent of adults believe in evolution.

But in the U.S. only 40 per cent of adults believe whole-heartedly in evolution, while 39 per cent called it "absolutely false" in the 2005 survey, which questioned 1,484 Americans and more than 33,000 people worldwide.

The study's authors say that after decades of debate it seems the American public is more confused than ever on the issue of evolution. Over the past 20 years, the number of Americans unsure about their stand on evolution has tripled from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent in 2005.

This is some scary shit.

declare peace

I've been getting lots of email from the peace movement lately. As increasing numbers of Americans wake up to reality and turn against the war in Iraq, the movement has been reaching out, and heating up.

United for Peace and Justice lists a full calendar of events, under the banner "We Declare Peace". See what's happening in your area. US readers, if you haven't signed the Voter Peace Pledge, it's not too late.

As always, I urge you to support Lt. Ehren Watada, the first US officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. Watada's pre-trial hearing is August 17; August 16 is a National Day of Education, asking the question "Is the US war and occupation of Iraq illegal?"

Watada is not alone: see Courage To Resist for more courageous peace stories.

The movie "Sir! No Sir!" - the largely untold story of the GI movement to end the Vietnam War - is now available on DVD. If you purchase it through UPJ, the distributors will make a small donation to the peace movement. (But - maddeningly and typically - I can't find a link through which to do that! The UPJ email link goes directly to the Sir! No Sir! website. If I find something, I'll update this.) Iraq Veterans Against the War will buy a DVD for anyone who has served in the military since September 11, 2001.

On the political front, the defeat of hard-core hawk Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary is encouraging. As my email buddy Kevin Baker recently wrote me:

Ralph Reed, down in flames; Tom DeLay, gone; Bob Ney, gone; and now Joe Lieberman, upset in Connecticut. I know, I know...it’s all still a long way from bringing back a politics of worth, but the earth is beginning to quake beneath those bastards at last! November could be very interesting.

As Baker notes, I find it hard to celebrate - Hooray! It's Not As Bad As It Could Be! - but these are clearly good signs.

deliver

Tomorrow, the XVI International AIDS conference opens in Toronto.

There are hundreds of affiliated events planned in connection with the conference, to raise the level of awareness, funds and activism. And there is the Global Village, both in person at the Convention Centre and online, to make the global AIDS crisis more real to us.

I'm going to look at my schedule and see when I can spend some time in the Global Village this coming week.

Thinking about this makes me think about my own activism, dormant for a long time now, while we focused on our BLC*. As we close in on our one-year anniversary in Canada, I'm starting to think about doing some activism or politically-oriented volunteer work. That's always the first step for me - a recurrent thought, vague, but persistent. As it grows it will show me the next step.

Of course, if we adopt a new puppy, activism will go back on hold for a while.





* Big Life Change

clever

What do you make of Stephen Harper's recent appointment? As I'm sure you know, the PM appointed a Liberal MP, who is a Muslim, to be his adviser on Middle East foreign policy. From the CBC:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tapped a surprise source for advice on the Middle East: a Liberal MP of Muslim faith.

In a move apparently aimed at quelling criticism that he's been too ideological and too pro-Israel in his approach to the Lebanese conflict, the Conservative prime minister announced Tuesday that he's appointed Wajid Khan as his special adviser on South Asia and the Middle East. Khan, the Liberal MP for Mississauga-Streetsville, was born in Pakistan, where he served as a pilot in the air force.

Calgary MP Jason Kenney, Harper's parliamentary secretary, said the prime minister wanted "independent" advice from someone with intimate knowledge of the region.

Kenney said Khan could also help Harper build bridges to the Arab and Muslim communities, which have been furious about Harper's unequivocal support for Israel's bombardment of Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Khan is "somebody who has credibility with some groups of Canadians that might be skeptical about our mission in Afghanistan, for instance," Kenney said.

While supportive of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Khan voted against a rushed government motion last spring to extend the mission for two years. He said Tuesday he opposed the haste and lack of debate surrounding the motion but is strongly committed to Canada's "democracy-building" role in Afghanistan.

. . .

Polls suggest Harper's stance on Lebanon is out of sync with the majority of Canadians, who prefer to maintain a more balanced, neutral position in the Middle East. Support for the Afghanistan mission has also slumped as more Canadian soldiers return home in coffins.

The Conservatives' fortunes have slumped at the same time, particularly in Quebec, where opposition is greatest to Harper's decisions to extend the Afghanistan mission for another two years and to unequivocally back Israel in the Lebanese conflict.

Khan dismissed suggestions that Harper is using him to help restore his political fortunes or quell anger in Arab and Muslim communities.

. . .

Before accepting the assignment, Khan said he got approval from interim Liberal leader Bill Graham and encouragement from Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe, for whom Khan is Ontario campaign chairman.

Volpe was vehemently opposed to the extension of the Afghanistan mission. Despite disagreeing over that policy, Khan said he remains a strong supporter of Volpe's leadership candidacy.

Perhaps it's my American background, but I can't see this as anything but a shrewd political move. The recap: Israel rains bombs on Lebanon (also killing some Canadians) - Harper unequivocally supports Israel - more Canadians die in Afghanistan - Harper takes a hit in the polls, especially where he most needs support - Harper appoints a Liberal, who is Muslim and ethnically Arab to shore up that support.

The surprise appointment also makes Harper appear flexible and non-ideological, countering two of the standard criticisms of him. Is he more flexible and less ideological than we think? Maybe. Maybe not.

Meanwhile, although Wajid Khan (who hails from Mississauga, by the way) voted against extending Canada's presence in Afghanistan, note the above quote:

While supportive of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Khan voted against a rushed government motion last spring to extend the mission for two years. He said Tuesday he opposed the haste and lack of debate surrounding the motion but is strongly committed to Canada's "democracy-building" role in Afghanistan.

So although Khan is a Liberal, he may not differ very much from Harper when it comes to foreign policy - as indeed, their two parties do not.

So while perhaps I should think praise this appointment as creative and foward-thinking, I criticize it as politically motivated - and fear it as potentially effective for the Conservative's strategy of gaining a strong majority in the next election.

present

Yesterday was the first day in I-don't-know-how-long that I couldn't blog. Work was insanely busy, as summer Fridays are prone to be. (Let's all leave early and dump our work on other people! Whee!). But I'm not complaining. My day-job is working out nicely, and I'm damn glad to have it. The weather has been beautiful and the Red Sox won last night (and the Yankees lost). Life is good.

I have a big pile of items I'd like to blog about. First, more coffee, then some single-issue posts.

decision

There's a puppy who needs a home.

It was abandoned on a road in Hamilton, near the SPCA. Someone is fostering it, but not taking it to the shelter, as there's reason to believe it would be put down. She's a female, three months old, adorable, with reports of a happy temperament.

I'm on the fence.

On the one hand, Cody loved Buster, and Clyde before him, so much. She adored them, doted on them, worshiped them. She clearly loved living with another dog.

As Cody ages, it will be less and less fair to bring another dog into the home; I feel if we're going to get another dog, we should do so soon, or on the soon side. If we don't get another dog, when Cody dies, we'll be dog-less for the first time since shortly after we started living together. (We adopted our first dog, Gypsy, in November 1987.) That's a scary thought.

I loved having two dogs, and I know I would love a new dog, we'd give it a great home, and it would bring us much joy.

On the other hand, we are very much enjoying the ease of having only one easy-going, low-maintenance dog. Caring for Buster's many physical and emotional issues left us drained and exhausted. Although we never would have given up on him - and you know how much we loved him - we are really enjoying our new freedom. We aren't rushing into the added expense and effort of a new dog, let alone a puppy.

But I haven't been able to close the door on the idea, either. Something in me wants to say yes to this dog. But not entirely.

We continue to think about it. Meanwhile, I'm hoping some other wonderful family takes the pup, and makes the decision for me.

report, part two

We headed out to Buffalo very early today, after reports of massive delays at the border and at airports, because of today's "terror alert". I'm happy to say it was smooth sailing all the way - no traffic, no delays - another successful airport run.

It was also a very successful visit with our niece E. Great talks, lots of laughs, beautiful weather, and even our neighbour's swimming pool - what more could we ask for?

While chatting about Toronto, I told Eva about our theatre subscription, and the Distillery District where we see the plays. She's an artist, and very interested in crafts of all kinds, and really wanted to go there. So, ironically, we went to the one cultural place in Toronto where we've been more than any other, rather than finding someplace new to us. But even though Allan and I have been to the Distillery District many times, we haven't explored the galleries and studios very well at all. So we had lunch at the yummy Brick Street Bakery, strolled around looking at ceramic making, furniture making, weaving, painting and sculpture, then topped it off with Soma, the incredible chocolate and gelato makers. Eva has a very strong interest in organic food and creative cooking, so that was also a great hit.

From there, we drove up to the flagship LCBO store, always fun, although not quite the scene it was last year before the holidays. We drove around Toronto a little, to see a few landmarks and neighbourhoods from the car, then back down to the St. Lawrence Market, to buy cheese, bread, and fruit for our picnic.

We all have fun memories of picnics in Central Park, combined with Shakespeare In The Park or a free concert from the New York Philharmonic. ("I think I've had too many grapes.") Between that and the perfect weather, we decided not to go out to dinner, but to picnic in our backyard.

Then: photos of India, photos of Peru, more baseball (I fear the Red Sox may never win another game), and this morning, a lakeside walk with Cody. I had such a good time this week.

Tomorrow, it's back to real life - work, and time to start my next round of writing assignments.

report

We are having such a great time with E.

Monday night we barbecued a wonderful, simple dinner, and sat outside talking until very late, then sat inside talking until even later. Yesterday we took a long walk on the waterfront trail, swam in our neighbour's pool - well, floated, along with vodka-and-grapefruit juice coolers - then more lovely outdoors eating, then some baseball.

Today we're heading into T.O. for some exploring. I keep suggesting going out to dinner, but this gorgeous weather makes us want to picnic in the backyard. Sometime before Eva leaves, we'll look at pictures of India and Peru.

I truly feel like I'm on vacation. Next week I have to start my next round of writing assignments, so this relaxing time is just brilliant.

Also, my niece is completely amazing.

I hope you're all well! What's going on?

very big news

Nick and Mason are in.

They're in!!!!!!!! They got their letter yesterday, and are breathing again today.

Nick was the first person to contact me through my blog after the 2004 "election" - and of all the people who would continue to email me, he was the first to follow through. He has other friends in Toronto, too; I believe Genet (hey Genet, where's my link?) is one of them.

What am I saying? Nick and Mason have tons of friends in Toronto! Everyone in Canada is waiting for them to arrive!

visit

Today our niece E arrives, staying until Thursday. She's recently returned from six months in India - studying, traveling and, from I what I gather, falling madly in love with the country. She's staying with her parents in New Jersey before heading back to school in Oregon, so we arranged the visit while we're still in easy distance.

E's mom is wmtc commenter mkk; her dad is my brother. We haven't seen each other since last US Thanksgiving, so I'm really looking forward to it!

* * * *

Someone recently asked: I have five nieces and nephews, now ranging in age from 17 to 25. I adore them all and I adore being an aunt. There's something about not being a parent that makes one a better aunt or uncle.

I'm especially close to my brother's kids, having spent a lot of quality time with them when they were teenagers. (Allan and I used to enjoy being the oldest people at those grunge shows.) And of course my sister's kids are no less special to me. A step- nephew and niece were recently added to the crew. I don't know them very well, but I'd like to, and perhaps I will as they get older.

loyalty

Yesterday I noted that some Canadians have been complaining about Canada's recognition of dual citizenship. This seems to have surfaced in connection with Canada's evacuation of its citizens in Lebanon. These bigoted rumblings, which only recently came to my attention, question the loyalty of dual citizens, and call on Canada to force immigrants to choose between their country of birth and their chosen country. (For a capsule version of the issues, see this essay, along with the comments that follow.)

In comments here yesterday, Impudent Strumpet said:

As for the dual citizenship thing, I find it odd that people are so focused about whether dual citizens are "loyal" to Canada, when in my own life as a Canadian-born Canadian citizen the fact of my loyalty or lack thereof has never come up. It might be because I'm young and sheltered, but I've never been in a situation where, if I had been loyal to another country over Canada, it would have made any difference to anything. I may well be only using Canada for convenience too, I've never actually had to think about it.

I thought this was great, and it really made me think. What exactly does it mean to be loyal to a country? And if we can define it, would be it be a good and desirable thing?

Does loyalty mean "My country right or wrong"? We've seen what that attitude leads to. I've been accused of disloyalty to the US, since I chose to leave. I suppose I have been disloyal - because the US has been disloyal to its own ideals.

That's really the crux, I think: we should be loyal to ideals, to values, and we should support whoever supports those values. When our country lives up to the values we admire, or at least strives to, we support it. When it turns its back on them - when it chooses authoritarianism over democracy, empire over self-determination, conformity over personal liberty, selfishness over community - we have to speak up. Dissent is not disloyalty.

However, if dissent is consistently ignored, and the country continues to march to a dangerous beat, disloyalty may be the right thing to do. Imagine, once upon a time, if a few million Germans had been a little more disloyal.

In this sense, loyalty is the wrong word entirely. When a person flees their country because it has been taken over by a dictator, are they being disloyal to their country? The country they love and value no longer exists. They can either be loyal to the dictator, or if they're lucky, get out. Immigrants who have escaped fascist regimes all say the same thing: I love my country, but the country I love no longer exists.

How are people who are citizens of only one country more loyal than dual citizens? In our average, daily lives, how are any of us loyal to our country? By paying taxes? Dual citizens do that, of course - as do non-citizen residents such as myself. There must be something more than that, no?

If Canadian dual citizens live and work outside of Canada, then they don't pay Canadian taxes - but then, they don't use Canadian services, either. How, then, are they "freeloading"? (Freeloading being one of the charges leveled against dual citizens. Click at your own risk - it's pretty disgusting.)

Are the Canadians opposing dual citizenship imagining a scenario where the country of birth wages war against Canada, and the dual citizen must choose which side to support? Seems a bit far-fetched, in today's world. Even so, history shows that country of choice will usually win over country of birth. It was usually chosen because it's a better place to live.

So (as I said yesterday in comments), assuming none of us are terrorists planning to blow up a building in Ottawa, how could any of us be loyal or disloyal to Canada?

what i'm reading

I just finished L.M.F., written by Matt Bin, known to friends of wmtc as M@. It was excellent!

L.M.F. stands for "Lacking Moral Fibre" - a former British military designation for what is now recognized as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

L.M.F., the novel, is a bit of military history from a personal point of view: one man's reaction to the stresses of war. It takes place during WWII, and the main character is a Canadian flying bombing missions over Germany. It's engrossing, very touching, and I learned some history, a great plus for me.

The best news is that Matt is an excellent writer. It's so nice to have talented friends! Conversely, it can be scary to see a friend's work and then compose yourself for a necessary fib. When I worked in theatre, I saw a lot of bad acting and bad plays. But now I have several friends who are very talented writers, to the point where I am often amazed and envious - in a good way.

Did I mention that Matt, Allan and I had dim sum together last week? We talked about dogs and travel - things we all love - and could easily have continued on like that all day.

I have two questions for Matt about the process of writing L.M.F., which perhaps he'll answer in comments. How did you research the details of the bombing missions? I'm also curious about the book's non-linear structure. Did you originally write it in chronological order, and then reorganize it to move slightly back and forward in time? Or did you write it in non-chronological order in the first place?

These questions give me a great idea: a website where writers interview writers about their recent publications. It could be a great publicity tool. Of course, I have no desire to create and maintain such a website. I'd just like it to appear and get lots of traffic - if it doesn't exist already.

susan butcher

Susan Butcher, four-time Iditarod champion, died yesterday. Butcher was 51 years old; she had leukemia.

Butcher dominated the 1,100-mile sled dog race from Anchorage to Nome in the late 1980s, bringing increased national attention to the grueling competition. She won the 1986 race to become the second female champion, added victories in 1987, '88 and '90 and finished in the top four through 1993.

"What she did is brought this race to an audience that had never been aware of it before simply because of her personality," Iditarod spokesman Chas St. George said.

She also made headlines in 1979 when she helped drive the first sled-dog team to the 20,320-foot summit of Mount McKinley, the highest peak in North America.

Clare Hagerty, spokeswoman for the University of Washington Medical Center, said Butcher's family would not comment to the media Saturday night.

According to Butcher's Web site, a bone marrow transplant performed May 16 cleared her system of cancer. But she also developed graft-versus-host-disease, in which transplanted cells start attacking her digestive system. She was moved to intensive care Friday because of a fever and a change in the potassium level in her blood.

"I am sitting with her now and she is sleeping comfortably," husband David Monson wrote on his blog Friday on SusanButcher.com. "We expect that if she continues to be stable she can move back into her old room soon. I have learned over the last eight months though to never make predictions. Just focus on what is in front of you right now. It is the most important."

Butcher, who grew up in Cambridge, Mass., ran her last Iditarod in 1994 when she and Monson decided to have children. They have two daughters, Tekla and Chisana.

Three years ago, when she was considering a comeback, doctors found Butcher had polycythemia vera, a rare disease that causes the bone marrow to produce excess blood.

Butcher planned to compete in a 300-mile race last winter, but was unable to compete after she was diagnosed with leukemia in early December.

"Now my goal is to try and stay alive and fight leukemia," she told The Associated Press. "No questions asked, that's what I am going to do."

During her chemo treatments, Butcher daydreamed about land in the White Mountains she and her husband bought last fall. They planned to build a bigger cabin on the land that comes with 300 miles of groomed trails -- perfect for mushing dogs -- right out the back door.

"I got the cutest, lovingest group of well-trained females. They are easy to handle and I just enjoy them," she said. "They will be waiting for me."

I always admired and cheered for Butcher. I love dogs, love mushing, and love women's sports - so she was a natural for me.

Butcher was very young. I'm very sorry for her family and loved ones.

* * * *

Allan and I fell in love with dog-sled racing - and with sled dogs! - when we were in Alaska in 1996. We hung out with Joe Redington, Sr., called "the father of the Iditarod," and his three dozen dogs at his kennels.

Some years ago, we were planning on going mushing with a tiny outfit in northern Minnesota. It would have been in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, winter camping, a completely novel experience for us. Then we decided to apply to emigrate to Canada. The trip would have been very expensive, and we realized we had to give up the idea, and put the money towards the Canada Fund. (That's the "dream vacation" I refer to in my moving-to-Canada essay.)

I don't know if we'll ever get to do it now. As we get older, the odds diminish. At the very least, we have to visit Dogsled Stacie in the Yukon.

1-800-you-suck

Tomorrow my sister is making a big party for our mother's 75th birthday. For many reasons, it was too complicated for me to attend. My sister, my mother and I all agreed that I should come at an easier time, when we could have a more substantial visit, not at a party.

Feeling bad about my absence, and wanting to acknowledge my mother's special day, I thought I'd send flowers.

Originally I thought I'd have flowers delivered to the party (a little showmanship there), but quickly learned florists won't deliver on Sunday, at least not during summer.

So I thought I'd have them delivered to her home, a couple of days before the event. I called 1-800-FLOWERS, and ordered something really special - a huge arrangement of orchids, lilies and roses - with a note from me and Allan, saying we were sorry we couldn't be there, to enjoy her special day, and that we love her.

I knew the moment it arrived, my mom would pick up the phone to call me. So when I came home from work yesterday and there was no message from her, I knew something had gone wrong.

I called 1-800-FLOWERS. They said, "Oh, it wasn't delivered."

It wasn't delivered? Any explanation?

No. UPS didn't deliver it.

No further explanation. It was as if they expected me to just say, "Oh, thanks," and hang up.

Could I have the same order delivered tomorrow, Saturday?

No. UPS doesn't deliver on Saturday.

After wading through the phone rep's jargon-filled spiel, I learned I could place a less exotic order, to be "florist-fulfilled" - that is, delivered by a local florist on Saturday. I also wanted a discount for the screw-up of the initial order.

This took several trips to Hold, where I was regaled with 1-800-FLOWER commercials (I'm already here! What more do you want?). Just what I wanted to do after working 12 hours.

I was disappointed that I couldn't place the first, more special order, but a dozen long-stemmed roses are beautiful, and I knew my mother would love them, and I could adjust.

I spoke to my mother this morning, as I do every Saturday, and she didn't mention anything. The day went on, still nothing.

Just now, I called 1-800-FLOWERS. They have no record of the second order. It's like it never happened.

Grrrrr.

To make it even more annoying, the little voice in my head was telling me to call a florist in my mother's town. Whenever I don't listen to the little voice, I regret it. Every single time.

Two lessons here. Listen to the voice within. AND DO NOT USE 1-800-FLOWERS.

duality

Under my radar, there appears to have been public griping about Canada's recent rescue of Canadians from the Israeli bombs raining on Lebanon. Many of the evacuated people are dual citizens, both Canadian and Lebanese. Horrors.

Apparently it is a horror for some people, who believe dual citizens are not "real Canadians" - that's the phrase being thrown about - and that Canada shouldn't recognize or offer dual citizenship. Dual citizens are "freeloaders", potential terrorists, disloyal and only using Canada for convenience. Based on what evidence, we don't know. Because we say so.

I first became aware of this debate bigoted ranting through this opinion piece on the CBC's website. The author is in favour of dual citizenship and responds to critics.

The debate over whether dual citizens are "real" Canadians represents the worst of Canada in that it seems at times to be both parochial and uninformed. Strong words perhaps, but it is difficult not to come to that conclusion after reading or listening to comments that ignore or overlook some basic facts.

Let's start with the implicit assumption by many commentators that the benefits in the relationship between country and citizen flow only in one direction — from Canada to the citizen. It is an obvious conclusion to draw in the midst of the evacuation of Lebanon, when what Canada had to offer was safe transit out of a war zone. But is this the whole story? There has been little or no consideration given to the idea, startling as it may seem, that benefits also flow in the other direction — from the citizen to the country — and that these benefits should also be considered within the context of the debate.

One would think that this would be evident from the fact that Canada is busy beating the bushes around the world at the moment for new immigrants. If these new citizens, who are allowed by Canada to keep their former citizenship if they so choose, represent only a burden, why are we seeking them out?

It's a good piece, but the real eye-opener is the comments afterwards. Some are supportive, others are just sickening.

One commenter writes:

When I read about some of the dark sides of Canadian history such as "Gentiles Only" and "Irish need not apply" signs or putting Japanese Canadians into concentration camps, I used to think, "How did that happen here?". Judging by some of the comments I've read, there are still some people who haven't learned from history. - Terry T., Toronto

Terry T, I thought the same thing. Good piece, worth reading, hold your breath for the comments.

sullivan

I wanted to write about Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan for New Mobility magazine, but my editor, Tim Gilmer, beat me to it. Tim wrote a terrific cover story about Sam.

The City of Vancouver is honoured to welcome His Royal Highness The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex, to City Hall for a special civic visit. His Royal Highness will help raise the Paralympic flag to fly next to the Olympic flag. The Paralympic flag was accepted by His Worship Sam Sullivan, Mayor of Vancouver, along with His Worship Ken Melamed, Mayor of the Resort Municipality of Whistler, in Torino at the Closing Ceremony of the 2006 Paralympic Winter Games.

Anyone who has met Sam Sullivan -- not only mayor of the third largest city in Canada, but also a C4-5 quadriplegic from a 1979 skiing injury sustained at the age of 19, a Welfare recipient for seven years, founder of the Sam Sullivan Disability Foundation and a member of the Order of Canada -- would instantly sense his uneasiness at wearing the title, "His Worship." He is soft-spoken and unassuming, a polite man with a boyish smile. His gray-tinged hair imparts an air of respectability, and at times he seems almost shy. Yet hundreds of millions of television viewers watched worldwide as he accepted the Olympic flag from the mayor of Torino, Italy, at the Winter Olympics closing ceremony, and later, the Paralympic flag, waving each from his power wheelchair with the help of a specially-made holster and his trusty joystick.

To say Sullivan's accomplishments are impressive is undeniable, yet what is most remarkable is his personal journey -- from isolation and depression to the pinnacle of municipal power. In the process of rebuilding his life, he created six different nonprofit organizations that have helped thousands of people with disabilities throughout North America. And in becoming mayor of his city in November 2005, he has expanded his civic and political influence tremendously. Sam Sullivan's reach has certainly exceeded his grasp, and he is still reaching.

If you'd like to see how a disability-culture publication approaches Canada's most famous quadriplegic, read on.

Tim also wrote a nice "how I got that story" editorial. If you're interested in how a long magazine feature takes shape, that's found here.

Great stuff. If I couldn't write it, I'm glad Tim did.

headlines

Headlines from this morning's papers

The Toronto Star: Afghan Mission Under Fire

The Globe And Mail: The Bloodiest Day Yet

The National Post: PM Lauds Fallen Troops

It's nice to see a difference in perspective among the media - it truly is.

How nice for Mr Harper to "laud" the "fallen". They, dead; he, comfy in Ottawa. I sure hope this mission is under fire. Let the fire burn brighter and longer, until Canada is out of there.

birds

Two nights ago, there was a bird on the field at Fenway Park, a little black bird who couldn't fly, but who hopped around the bases and along the outfield wall. As the Sox trailed 6-1, the crowd became engrossed in the bird's movements, cheering every time it flapped its wings, trying to get some lift, and groaning as it failed and continued hopping.

At one point, the crowd could be heard chanting, "Bird! Bird! Bird!". A player tossed a little dirt at the bird - presumably trying to move it off the base paths for its own protection - and was roundly boo'd.

Many observers noted that the bird was faster than Red Sox catcher Doug Mirabelli, and someone suggested he was perhaps a better baserunner than Manny Ramirez.

The Red Sox lost the game 6-3. The bird apparently ended up as dinner for one of the red-tailed hawks that live in Fenway's light towers. I was glad to hear that. A bird that can't fly isn't going to last very long. Meeting a natural death in the food chain seems a good thing.

Toronto-area baseball fans surely remember when, during the 5th inning of a Yankees-Blue Jays game, Dave Winfield hit a ball which struck and killed a seagull that was walking on the field. After the game, the Yankees outfielder was arrested on a charge of cruelty to animals. The charge was later dismissed by a Toronto prosecutor. More baseball-and-bird stories can be found on this entertaining page.

Right now I wish the Blue Jays would get off their asses and beat the Yankees for a change. The Red Sox and Yankees are now tied for first, and the Blue Jays could do us a favour by putting up a better fight in the Bronx. The Jays should just pretend they're facing the Red Sox, and clobber them New York the way they do Boston.

slipping

In comments, Lone Primate pointed out this poll, showing that a great majority of Canadians disagree with Stephen Harper's position on the war in the Middle East.

Stephen Harper's decision to support Israel in the current Middle East crisis appears out of step with the majority of Canadians, according to a new poll.

The survey finds that a majority of Canadians want their government to be neutral on the conflict and that Mr. Harper has tilted away from the traditional Canadian position. Moreover, they believe that the Conservative government is taking its cues from U.S. President George W. Bush.

The Globe and Mail/CTV poll also shows that Canadians are paying close attention to the conflict, and that Quebeckers are particularly concerned about the shift.

"What you're struck by is how unpopular the position he has taken is, especially in the province of Quebec," said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel, the firm that conducted the poll.

According to the poll, 45 per cent of voters disagree with Mr. Harper's support of Israel's actions, while 32 per cent support it, and 23 per cent don't know or neither agree nor disagree. In Quebec, 61 per cent are against the Harper position, with only 17 per cent behind it.

The poll also found that 77 per cent of Canadians surveyed say Canada should be neutral in the current conflict, with 16 per cent voicing support for Israel and just 1 per cent backing Hezbollah. Fifty-one per cent say the position represents a move away from previous Canadian governments' views.

Mr. Gregg said the results may be a political warning for Mr. Harper, although he noted that the Conservative Party's popularity has stayed relatively stable in the wake of the conflict.

"It doesn't seem to be affecting their bottom line right now," Mr. Gregg said.

"But when you start digging in to the substantive policy positions he has taken, especially on foreign policy positions, you see how incendiary they can become if that debate began to roil above the summertime consciousness . . . The position Canadians want us to take is decidedly neutral."

On a related question, 53 per cent say they believe Mr. Harper has backed Israel because the position is in line with that of Mr. Bush.

The following day, wmtc reader Tresy linked to this:

A new poll suggests Tory support is sliding over voter concern that Canada has become too cozy with the United States on Middle East policy.

The latest results by Decima Research, released to The Canadian Press, put the Conservatives and Liberals in a virtual tie nationally.

The Tories had 32 per cent support compared with 31 per cent for the Liberals and 16 per cent for the New Democrats.

But the Liberals widened their Ontario lead to 42 per cent of voter support compared with 33 per cent for the Conservatives, and have pulled in front of the Tories in Quebec for the first time since last winter's campaign.

"When we look at the combination of the alignment of the government with the current U.S. administration policy on the Middle East — and in particular with respect to the Lebanon-Israel conflict — it's reasonable to assume it's one of the factors that's driving Conservative support down in the near term," said Decima CEO Bruce Anderson.

"They clearly are encountering some pushback from voters in Ontario and Quebec in particular."

Liberals have also taken the lead in crucial urban ridings by a margin of 35 per cent versus 29 per cent, and are increasingly preferred by women and by voters aged 25 to 34, the poll suggests.

Middle East policy and hefty new defence spending announced by the Tories in June have apparently left some Quebec voters cold, Mr. Anderson says.

The province tends to be the most pacifist in Canada. It's also where Prime Minister Stephen Harper has invested most of his political capital in a drive for a majority government.

This is good news, as Canadians reject the idea of Canada's foreign policy following the US's.

However, Canadians who believe Harper is following "Bush's" policy are missing something: no American president would be any different. Although Bush's personal style grossly offends us, his Israel-only support for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is standard US fare.

what i'm watching: oscar wilde

We saw The Importance Of Being Earnest at Soulpepper yesterday, and it was very good. They seem to do better with comedies (which doesn't bode well for their upcoming production of King Lear). Earnest is a great play, hilarious, biting, brilliantly skewering - and the last Oscar Wilde wrote before he was imprisoned, banished, and died.

It's amazing and horrifying to think of what Wilde endured - even more so when you realize that he courted his own agony by refusing to be anyone but himself. Had he been willing or able to keep his same-sex relationships more secretive, as almost everyone else of his generation did, he might have lived out the rest of his life in the comfortable society that his plays lampooned. Instead he held his head up - asking "What's wrong with how I live?" - and it was chopped off. He was a man radically, fatally ahead of his time.

We were lucky to see Liam Neeson play Oscar Wilde in David Hare's play The Judas Kiss. (Oh boy, that makes me miss New York!) We also saw Stephen Fry as Wilde in the movie "Wilde". Both were excellent - moving, sad, and eye-opening. They were part of a bit of Wildemania, as a good dozen plays and movies were produced in connection with what would have been Wilde's 150th birthday. Here's a review of several of them, here's a good page about Wilde and Stephen Fry, this is Oscar Wilde's Wikipedia entry.

Wilde's plays should be produced often, and his story should be told and retold.

proud

You know Allan, a/k/a Redsock, writes Joy of Sox, a very popular Red Sox blog. The other night, our man David Ortiz hit yet another walk-off home run, which he seems to do at a completely impossible pace. It's gotten to the point where we've all come to expect it, which is ridiculous in baseball. It simply cannot be. Yet it is.

Or is it? Perhaps it just seems that way, because we remember the times when Big Papi (a/k/a god) comes through, and forget the times when he doesn't?

That was Allan's question. So he put on his Sabermetrics hat, crunched the numbers and discovered: it's true. David Ortiz is god.

Allan blogged about it - then emailed the post to his list of Boston-area baseball writers.

Good idea.

First Joy of Sox was quoted online in the Boston Globe, in Gordon Edes' online notebook. Shortly after, we heard Edes plugged Joy of Sox on ESPN radio, the radio pre-game show, the TV pre-game show and his newspaper story in the Boston Globe.

To quote another Red Sox blogger, Cursed To First:

It should also be noticed that this tremendous post on Joy of Sox was referenced by Gordon Edes on NESN's pregame show tonight. A proud day of enhanced credibility for bloggers everywhere. Kudos to Edes for revealing his source, too -- and giving credit where credit was due, even if it was to a "late-night fanboy" as the CHB likes to refer to bloggers.

Then this morning, Allan showed me this amazing mention in the Providence Journal, a big Red Sox newspaper:

John Henry uttered one word when told the numbers.

"Wow," he said.

And then he uttered another.

"Wow," he said again.

If you think the Red Sox' owner is being spectacularly inarticulate, well, see if you can do better. Here -- courtesy of New York-based author Allan Wood, Red Sox fan extraordinaire who has written a book about the franchise's next-to-last championship team (Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox) and maintains a daily blog about the Sox ("The Joy of Sox," located at joyofsox.blogspot.com) -- are some facts about David Ortiz: . . .

Art Martone was talking to the owner of the Red Sox about Allan's post? Whoa. Many, many thanks to Art for mentioning Allan's book, too. That more than makes up for leaving Allan behind in New York.

Whenever Allan has a big influx of new readers, wmtc gets a residual bump, too. Time for me to go on wingnut watch.

disappearance

Canadians often wonder why Americans tolerate the level of bad government currently holding forth in Washington DC. I think it's a two-part answer. One, many don't. They protest vociferously, but are ignored. And two, many others don't know anything about it. For more evidence in that category, I bring you Frank Rich.

The Peculiar Disappearance of the War in Iraq
By Frank Rich

As America fell into the quagmire of Vietnam, the comedian Milton Berle joked that the fastest way to end the war would be to put it on the last-place network, ABC, where it was certain to be canceled. Berle's gallows humor lives on in the quagmire in Iraq. Americans want this war canceled too, and first- and last-place networks alike are more than happy to oblige.

CNN will surely remind us today that it is Day 19 of the Israel-Hezbollah war — now branded as Crisis in the Middle East — but you won't catch anyone saying it's Day 1,229 of the war in Iraq. On the Big Three networks' evening newscasts, the time devoted to Iraq has fallen 60 percent between 2003 and this spring, as clocked by the television monitor, the Tyndall Report. On Thursday, Brian Williams of NBC read aloud a "shame on you" e-mail complaint from the parents of two military sons anguished that his broadcast had so little news about the war.

This is happening even as the casualties in Iraq, averaging more than 100 a day, easily surpass those in Israel and Lebanon combined. When Nouri al-Maliki, the latest Iraqi prime minister, visited Washington last week to address Congress, he too got short TV shrift — a mere five sentences about the speech on ABC's "World News." The networks know a rerun when they see it. Only 22 months earlier, one of Mr. Maliki’s short-lived predecessors, Ayad Allawi, had come to town during the 2004 campaign to give a similarly empty Congressional address laced with White House-scripted talking points about the war's progress. Propaganda stunts, unlike "Law & Order" episodes, don’t hold up on a second viewing.

The steady falloff in Iraq coverage isn't happenstance. It's a barometer of the scope of the tragedy. For reporters, the already apocalyptic security situation in Baghdad keeps getting worse, simply making the war more difficult to cover than ever. The audience has its own phobia: Iraq is a bummer. "It is depressing to pay attention to this war on terror," said Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on July 18. "I mean, it's summertime." Americans don't like to lose, whatever the season. They know defeat when they see it, no matter how many new plans for victory are trotted out to obscure that reality.

The specter of defeat is not the only reason Americans have switched off Iraq. The larger issue is that we don’t know what we — or, more specifically, 135,000 brave and vulnerable American troops — are fighting for. In contrast to the Israel-Hezbollah war, where the stakes for the combatants and American interests are clear, the war in Iraq has no rationale to keep it afloat on television or anywhere else. It's a big, nightmarish story, all right, but one that lacks the thread of a coherent plot.

Certainly there has been no shortage of retrofitted explanations for the war in the three-plus years since the administration's initial casus belli, to fend off Saddam's mushroom clouds and vanquish Al Qaeda, proved to be frauds. We've been told that the war would promote democracy in the Arab world. And make the region safer for Israel. And secure the flow of cheap oil. If any of these justifications retained any credibility, they have been obliterated by Crisis in the Middle East. The new war is a grueling daily object lesson in just how much the American blunders in Iraq have undermined the one robust democracy that already existed in the region, Israel, while emboldening terrorists and strengthening the hand of Iran.

But it's the collapse of the one remaining (and unassailable) motivation that still might justify staying the course in Iraq — as a humanitarian mission on behalf of the Iraqi people — that is most revealing of what a moral catastrophe this misadventure has been for our country. The sad truth is that the war's architects always cared more about their own grandiose political and ideological ambitions than they did about the Iraqis, and they communicated that indifference from the start to Iraqis and Americans alike. The legacy of that attitude is that the American public cannot be rallied to the Iraqi cause today, as the war reaches its treacherous endgame.

The Bush administration constantly congratulates itself for liberating Iraq from Saddam's genocidal regime. But regime change was never billed as a primary motivation for the war; the White House instead appealed to American fears and narcissism — we had to be saved from Saddam's W.M.D. From "Shock and Awe" on, the fate of Iraqis was an afterthought. They would greet our troops with flowers and go about their business.

Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the care" and "the humanity" that went into our precision assaults on military targets would minimize any civilian deaths. Such casualties were merely "collateral damage," unworthy of quantification. "We don't do body counts," said Gen. Tommy Franks. President Bush at last started counting those Iraqi bodies publicly — with an estimate of 30,000 — some seven months ago. (More recently, The Los Angeles Times put the figure at, conservatively, 50,000.) By then, Americans had tuned out.

The contempt our government showed for Iraqis was not just to be found in our cavalier stance toward their casualties, or in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. There was a cultural condescension toward the Iraqi people from the get-go as well, as if they were schoolchildren in a compassionate-conservatism campaign ad. This attitude was epitomized by Mr. Rumsfeld's "stuff happens" response to the looting of Baghdad at the dawn of the American occupation. In "Fiasco," his stunning new book about the American failure in Iraq, Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post's senior Pentagon correspondent, captures the meaning of that pivotal moment perfectly: "The message sent to Iraqis was far more troubling than Americans understood. It was that the U.S. government didn’t care — or, even more troubling for the future security of Iraq, that it did care but was incapable of acting effectively."

As it turned out, it was the worst of both worlds: we didn't care, and we were incapable of acting effectively. Nowhere is this seen more explicitly than in the subsequent American failure to follow through on our promise to reconstruct the Iraqi infrastructure we helped to smash. "There’s some little part of my brain that simply doesn't understand how the most powerful country on earth just can't get electricity back in Baghdad," said Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi exile and prominent proponent of the war, in a recent Washington Post interview.

The simple answer is that the war planners didn't care enough to provide the number of troops needed to secure the country so that reconstruction could proceed. The coalition authority isolated in its Green Zone bubble didn't care enough to police the cronyism and corruption that squandered billions of dollars on abandoned projects. The latest monument to this humanitarian disaster was reported by James Glanz of The New York Times on Friday: a high-tech children's hospital planned for Basra, repeatedly publicized by Laura Bush and Condi Rice, is now in serious jeopardy because of cost overruns and delays.

This history can't be undone; there’s neither the American money nor the manpower to fulfill the mission left unaccomplished. The Iraqi people, whose collateral damage was so successfully hidden for so long by the Rumsfeld war plan, remain a sentimental abstraction to most Americans. Whether they are seen in agony after another Baghdad bombing or waving their inked fingers after an election or being used as props to frame Mrs. Bush during the State of the Union address, they have little more specificity than movie extras. Chalabi, Allawi, Jaafari, Maliki come and go, all graced with the same indistinguishable praise from the American president, all blurring into an endless loop of instability and crisis. We feel badly ... and change the channel.

Given that the violence in Iraq has only increased in the weeks since the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist portrayed by the White House as the fount of Iraqi troubles, any Americans still paying attention to the war must now confront the reality that the administration is desperately trying to hide. "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists," President Bush said in December when branding Zarqawi Public Enemy No. 1. But Iraq's exploding sectarian warfare cannot be pinned on Al Qaeda or Baathist dead-enders.

The most dangerous figure in Iraq, the home-grown radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, is an acolyte of neither Osama bin Laden nor Saddam but an ally of Iran who has sworn solidarity to both Hezbollah and Hamas. He commands more than 30 seats in Mr. Maliki's governing coalition in Parliament and 5 cabinet positions. He is also linked to death squads that have slaughtered Iraqis and Americans with impunity since the April 2004 uprising that killed, among others, Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey. Since then, Mr. Sadr's power has only grown, enabled by Iraqi "democracy."

That the latest American plan for victory is to reposition our forces by putting more of them in the crossfire of Baghdad’s civil war is tantamount to treating our troops as if they were deck chairs on the Titanic. Even if the networks led with the story every night, what Americans would have the stomach to watch?

I'd rather not get into our old debate about whether or not the media is complicit in setting the public's mental agenda and then shaping its opinion. I believe the mainstream media is a principal reason why the American public wallows in ignorance. If you feel otherwise, let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that.