Harper and Ignatieff: Compare and Contrast

If you want to know how a leader will lead, look to how they respond when their followers screw up.

Harper’s closed-door campaign marches woman out of rally in London - thestar... - StumbleUpon

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has long been known for martial discipline, but his campaign may have crossed the line when someone frog-marched a young woman out of a rally in London, Ont., Sunday.

The first-time voter’s crime, apparently, was to have posed for a picture with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and posted it for all to see on her Facebook page.

About half an hour before Harper arrived at the crowded hotel rally, one organizer asked to speak with Awish Aslam and a friend outside the room. There, he ripped up their nametags and ordered them to leave.

“We know you guys have ties to the Liberal party through Facebook,” the University of Western Ontario student told the London Free Press. “You are no longer welcome here.”

The Tories say the incident was a mistake, though Harper himself offered no apology when asked about it Tuesday.

“The staff runs our campaigns and I can’t comment on individual matters like that,” Harper said.

'Shocked' Liberal leader orders probe into past comments of Quebec candidate

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has ordered an investigation into alleged racist comments made by one of his Quebec candidates, saying, if true, Andre Forbes would be dismissed.
"The reported remarks of this candidate are utterly unacceptable. They do not reflect Liberal values," Ignatieff said during a campaign stop in Compton, Que., on Wednesday. 

"As soon as I heard that these remarks were made or had been made in the past, I ordered an immediate inquiry. As soon as I find out the facts, we will take decisive action." 

Forbes, who is Metis and the Liberal candidate for the riding of Manicouagan, made a series of comments several years ago when he was president of an association for the rights of white people — but they are only now coming back to haunt him after the NDP brought them to light.

I'd say that the two reactions to followers acting in appallingly un-Canadian ways is pretty damn definitive. Despite all the Conservative hooplah about Iggy being more American than Canadian, I think that given the Cheneyesque arrogance displayed by Steven Harper, I think it's clear who owes more to the US tradition of leadership.

American Conservatives: this is what you swore to conserve.

I should like very much to credit this illustration, but I cannot. I'd appreciate knowing who made it, and where I should link it, other than imigr.com, for I suspect they may have many other interesting things to say.

This is what makes the United States exceptional. If you wish to prate about "American Exceptionalism," you really must accept that the ideas and circumstances that made the US exceptional in the first place. It was founded on very radical propsitions, that were forced upon a reluctant population by very arrogant and foolish persons blinded by privilege and position. There was a general skepticism that it would work, and indeed, it took a civil war to resolve some of the compromises that made the experiment possible in the first place.

In other words, the American Experiment was a very expensive beta test. It has been, on balance, successful, but it took a lot of bloodshed and pain to demostrate it. It would be less than conservative to dismiss that with a handwave and say, in the finest tradition of liberal ideologes, "that is then, this is now, and history is irrelevant."

The first tenant of genuine Conservatism is this: "We don't care why it works, we see that it does work." Conservatives are not idolologues. We leave that to Liberals, populists, Randians, Marxists, Maoists, Fascists, Dominionist Christians and genuine, doctrinare, actual "islamofacists" who think that a theocratic Calafate is a good idea. Furthermore, Conservatives know this is a game, and the rules exist for a reason, so if you cheat, regardless of the apparent outcome, first, you did not win, and second, the outcome will be exactly the same, in the end, as if you had NOT won.. Save that, of course, it will be your innocent grandchildren who are put up against the wall, not you.

Those of you who seem entirely comfortable with that likelihood.. well, I think it obviously better that you go against the wall now, for your own sins, and not your grandchildren. Though as an Conservative, I also admit that in the long run, it will not matter to anyone outside of your lineage, it should matter to you, and the fact that it appears that you don't understand this argues against any genuine conservatism on your part, much less any protestation of  "family values."

Conservatives support that which works for most people, most of the time. Which means, in effect, upholding the right of all people to do what they damn well please and accepting a broad and evolving consensus as a basic assumption of what "civiliation" entails.

Conservatives care much about things like sewage and the rule of law... not so much about what happens in the bedrooms of people.. unless that requires alteration to plumbing or the adaptation of existing law. And in either case, it's the conservative position that those who wish adaptation to either law or plumbing work for it.

But if they do make their case, it becomes the new conservative reality.

Conservatives do not throw out the baby with the bath-water. They do not cut off their noses to spite their faces. They do not eschew fact in favor of ideological purity. These are the attributes of ideologues, and no true conservative is really all that comfortable with ideological purity. The true conservative response, when presented with a supposed "moral imperative" is to shoot their cuffs, smooth their perfectly tailored lapels and say, "why don't you show me the numbers on that?"

You see, no real conservative really supported the American Revolution. Conservatives were dubious, to say the least. Bad Kings come and go, said they, but Magna Carta and Britannia abide. They waited, and they saw. And indeed, an entire nation was founded upon the inevitable collateral damage. Today we call it Canada, and here in Canada, we are Conservative in the Burkean sense, to the very bone. To underline that point, an entire commonweath of nations have gained not just the liberties of the United States, but in many cases, rather more than that, by virtue of patience and working within the system. Mind you, it took a couple of centuries - but for most Americans - more than half, for more than half were black, hispanic, non-land-owners and not male- that was true as well. So actually, we all did end up in the same place at about the same time, as peoples and nations, by different means, and of course, inspired by each other.

As a liberal, I might argue that it would not have happened without America. As a conservative, I don't really have to care. For a conservative doesn't have to care how we got to the status quo ante, so long as the status quo is sufficient unto the needs of the day - and that that explains our reflexive distrust for the "neoconservatism" of the US variety, for we know it by it's true name. "NeoLiberalism."

That is to say, the offensive presumption that "the people that matter" actually do "know better" than the great masses, and if they should argue the point, that is because they are over educated and getting above themselves. As an elieist snob, I must confess that such a proposition is indeed attractive - but there is a difference between being actually, demonstrably elite and simply asserting the status without evidence.

Those taht would take a wrecking ball to what that does work, not because it fails to work but because it works in a way incompatible with their preferences are insufferable.

As a person that takes seriously the very conservative presumption that government is indeed about the "Greatest good for the greatest number" - well, then, by definition, Neo-liberalism cannot be conservative, for it's about the greatest benefit to the wealthiest few.. at this point in time.  That is to say, it is "penny wise, and pound foolish."


True conservatives learn from history. Mistakes are expensive, and having paid for them once, it's imprudent to repeat the same, obvious errors.

Now, you may be surprised at that, for we have all kinds of things up here that American Conservatives decry - gun control. A welfare state. A universal system of medical care that we defend against US and IMF encroachment like rabid weasels.

That is not due to ideology. That is because we have run the numbers, and they work, for us. The fact that it works for us may not work for YOUR idiological purists, but the only proper response to that is a cheerful "fuddleduck."

As Canadians, we do not believe that there are politics that transcend the personal or the local. We believe very firmly in "Peace, Order and Good Government" and the even more basic civiliational principle:

"No sudden moves; regular offers of food."

We know that is the difference between a dog and a wolf. And civilization is truly based on such essentials; who gets to stay outside in the cold, and who gets to sleep on the bed.

Canadians are not nearly as liberal as the US, historically. We are reluctant to change. If it ain't broke, we damn well won't fix it. Our culture is based on mercantilism and the values of prairie farmers. If you think Enron was evil, you should look up the history of Hudson's Bay Company! We are not morally superior, never have been. But we have learned, and try not to institutionalize our more obvious errors. Our government is generally small, lean, underfunded and professional to an extent that most Canadians take for granted and which would stun most Americans.

This is not intended as a "Canada, fuck YEAH!," moment. This is a reminder to my much beloved Southern Cousins that Conservatism is about keeping that which is unique, valuable and worth keeping. There is no Conservative value in theory. Conservatism is all about the tried and the true, the things that work.  It's not conservative to bulldoze and redo things from scratch. Conservatives preserve and extend from what exists.

So there can be no absolute Conservative ideal. All Conservatism is local. It is up to liberals to make the case that change is first desirable, and then necessary. It is up to conservatives to make them prove their arguments, force them to make their case, permit them to demonstrate the value of their ideals under controlled conditions. And then, in the rare but transcendentally important cases (as illustrated above,) take the evidence, accept it as real, and PRESERVE it.

For there will always be a new fad to tickle the minds of those easily persuaded. It should never be easy to prove the affirmative case. But once it has been proven, it's not Conservative to hold grudges. A conservative conserves that which is tried, true and proven, regardless of it's origin; otherwise, most of us would be illiterate serfs. It is up to suitably persuaded conservatives to make the minimally required changes affordable and workable toward the greatest benefit of a civil society.

The word for people who cannot be convinced by facts, by numbers, by evidence is not "Conservative." The polite term is reactionary. The accurate term is insane. For insanity is, by definition, the obsessive repetition of ideas and policies that do not work and cannot work in the face of reality.

Really, it's that simple. Don't over-think it, and don't be persuaded by populist ideologues or single-issue fanatics who care not in the least about the consequences they dismiss as unimportant, like, say, Hard Money fanatics or pro-life absolutists. (or indeed, pro-choice absolutists!)

Anyone who would dismiss any shades of grey from the political sphere is not doing politics; they are commiting acts of religous fanaticism upon your person. And this is, my dear readers, an imposition upon your conscience and good nature regardless of your position on the issue supposedly at hand.

Remember the wisdom of the great Yoda.

"Only Siths deal in absolutes."

And yet - and the thrust of the whole story cycle supports this beyond question -Yoda was a social conservative. As was Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Yet the author of this entire story cycle - this whole morality tale - is derided as being a Hollywood Liberal.

Let us take another leaf from the lesson of the Star Wars saga. The parts we all hate, those that we all reflexively dismiss as being the least worthy chapters of the story were the ones where Lucas allowed the essence of the story to be replaced by a narrative conducive to product placement aimed at the 14-25 demographic.

That is to say, immediate results trumped over timeless verities, as re-presented and restaged for a new generation.

It was once said as a criticism that Star Wars was a John Ford Western in Space. It could well have been said that John Ford put Shakespere in the West, and Shakespere put Aesop in the Globe Thetre, in front of the Court of Elizibeth the First - who were in great need of such things.

Let us all take this as examples of what is kept, and why.

Ignatieff - "In the middle of the word accountability is the word count"

Michael Ignatieff is making a damn solid point. It's the sort of point a conservative leader should be making; that your government is only as good as the data it has on hand... unless of course you are governing to American Conservative standards, where "post-modernism" and wishful thinking have taken the place of facts.

The allergy of the modern Western Conservative to facts in evidence is akin to a virus, and it's spread, methinks, by the like of Rupert Murdoch, who's propagandist organs are waved in our faces daily.

God forbid a government should actually do some hard science to find out what it's citizens, it's small business communities, it's regions and it's future require in terms of sensible and sustainable public policy. That sounds like something that notorious communist, Barry Goldwater might say.

Crisis In the RCMP: A Musical Run-around

A Canadian Icon, the world around. Photo Credit: Mrs Logic

The RCMP are not just a police force. They are an iconic organization, inextricable from our collective identity as Canadians. 

We expect them to do far more, with far less, with more scrutiny than others and we expect them to do all this while serving as one of the great symbols of our nation. 

The great difference between police in other nations (and indeed, even other Canadian police forces) and the RCMP is that to some degree, people think of police in general as "them," while somehow, the RCMP are seen as "us."

Astonishingly, this works. More often than not, members of the RCMP live up to this impossible standard with elan. And while everyone knows it's an impossible ideal, that could only be achieved in film and story... it's amazing how far trying can take you.

So, when the RCMP fucks up, when it's members do things that are very much beneath the standards of outcome that we expect... well, if you happen to be an American... imagine having your flag spit on you!



We. Are. NOT. Pleased.

This leads me to a couple of open questions which seem to be illustrated by problems within the RCMP. There do seem to be long-standing issues that needed to be addressed. But things are clearly becoming worse, rather than better and that the result of the Steven Harper Government and it's Authoritarian brand of Conservatism, a philosophy which seems more and more radical and autocratic as each day passes.

You see, in Canada (and I would like to think that would be true in all civil contexts), respect is earned, authority is granted to the able and worthy; trust is cultivated and traditions that maintain and enhance trust in institutions that are worth trusting are diligently maintained and preserved.

Progress in all realms, social and political, is made by building upon foundations well-laid in the past. The RCMP are one of our cornerstones. There is more than a little concious myth-making involved here. These are the stories we tell each other that state who we are as a Nation, as a People, as Canadians. It is what we want our children to aspire to. It is an example we strive to live up to. It speaks to us of our commitment as a people to what outcomes we expect.

We do not wish to have an adversarial relationship with our police, nor may they ever become the iron fist of autocratic power.

Peace. Order. Good Government. THAT is our ideal. There can be no peace, order or good government when government sees itself as above their fellow Canadians, indifferent to their welfare and without need of their good will.

So when a civilian bureocrat is appointed as the "top cop" by a Canadian Prime Minister, you would reasonably draw a number of conclusions.

First, that the institutional structure of the RCMP is considered to be part of the problem, and that "fresh eyes" are in fact honouring an exception to the rule in the breach of it.

And second, despite his outsider status and perspective, that person would be selected due to being an exemplar of the values we hold; someone who was willing and able, conciously and tempermentally, to earn the trust and respect of this iconic force. Someone extraordinary, in other words, with the skills, perspectives and background to bring such an important institution back on track.

Well, no such luck there. The CBC reports:

Senior RCMP members have complained about Commissioner William Elliott to some of the highest levels of the federal government on two separate occasions in the past seven days, CBC News has learned.

Senior RCMP members have complained about Commissioner William Elliott to some of the highest levels of government on two separate occasions in the past week. (Canadian Press)
The complainants, possibly as many as 10, include some of the force's top officers, including deputy commissioners Tim Killam and Raf Souccar.

They have accused Elliott of being verbally abusive, closed-minded, arrogant and insulting. One complaint described Elliott, who became the first civilian to head the Mounties in July 2007, in a rage, throwing papers at another officer.

The Prime Minister's Office didn't deny the complaints were made but declined to comment Monday. Neither Elliott nor the deputies would comment.

"The RCMP is a very hierarchical organization, where people respect the rank," said Linda Duxbury, a professor at Carleton University who wrote a study on the Mounties and their command.

For members to go outside the force with "a complaint against the head of the RCMP means that many people have been pushed beyond a point where they're willing to tolerate it," she said.

Fate rests with PM

The apparent protest against the commissioner comes a month after Canada's top spy, CSIS director Richard Fadden, made comments to CBC News that the agency had two provincial cabinet ministers and a number of municipal politicians under surveillance for their relationships with foreign governments.

Both Elliott and Fadden were appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and their fate rests with him. The CBC's Brian Stewart, who has followed the Mounties for decades, said the RCMP protest is unprecedented.

Harper will have to sort out whether this is a valid protest by top RCMP staff or whether Elliott has made a lot of enemies trying to reform the organization, he said.

"That's what the prime minister is probably going to have to sort out very quickly and then decide, I think, which force is going to have to go: either the commissioner or the group protesting against him," Stewart said.

Now, I'm sure there are many problems and I'm equally sure there is more than enough blame to go around. However - and of all people, Mr. Harper should understand this - how you go about dealing with a problem, and how your approach is perceived by the people and institutions you see as being problematic may well make it impossible to do anything useful whatsoever.

Further, I think it a fair observation that, given the nature of Mr. Harper's missteps, his vision of what Government is and who it is intended to benefit is to some measure divergent from the ordinary Canadian. In particular, his repeated Prorogues of Parliament have been seen, by this writer, at least, as an unwillingness to be held to account.

This leads me to suspect a lack of accounting skills as well as a willingness to be seen as a cheat, so long as the cheat happens to work for a while. A man, in other words, unwilling or unable to live up to the expectations of his station. Not a leader, an overseer. Not an authority, but an Authoritarian. One who expects the tug of a forelock as his due.

I'm starting to think of Mr. Harper as being not so much a bad Conservative as a moderately decent Republican, sharing the general Republican distaste for a government that might inconvenience powerful sponsors and donors.  He seems willing to advantage cronies and the like-minded without any regard to an overall understanding of or respect for our traditions, our history, or the rather marvellous and beautiful place that Canada has become. And his response to criticism is at best evasive, and at worst amounts to, "oh yeah, whatcha gonna do about it?"

Canada became what it is despite people like Steven Harper. I very much do not wish to see us go down the path our southern cousins have taken, where the mere suggestion that the fortunate have some investment in or measure of duty toward their less fortunate neighbours is assailed in terms so ugly and intemperate that I can barely abide reading it. What decent person would wish to live in a society defined by the Sarah Palins and Andrew Brietbarts of this world, who think of these reprehensible and uncivilized persons as exemplars of citizenship? How could you be comfortable with any end that could be achieved by such means?

No doubt the lure of power without the need for proper accounts of it's use is tempting. It is ever so much easier to rule a people who see the abuse of power as being emblematic of power, and wish you to do more of it on their behalf, in order to justify their own lack of character.

To me, I'm reminded of people who spend twenty or thirty thousand dollars "investing" in a commercial grade kitchen, to be used only for microwaving hot-pockets and noodle cups. I'm not interested in voting for a man who's every ambition is fulfilled by being called Mister Prime Minister and who will consider his legacy complete by having had the opportunity to repay a few old grudges or engage in some theatrical warfare. There must be a substance evidenced by the appearances - and I do not believe our current crop of Conservatives understand as a party that there is a distinction to be made there.

But that brings me back to the RCMP an institution that is entwined with our entire concept of the rule of law and our high expectations of ourselves. We need them to find themselves again, for their loss in that regard is ours; clearly, we need a leadership that actually understand how and why our nation has been governed as it has long been, and to what ends and to what ideals and for who's benefit that governance is each Canadian's rightful due.

We have no need and will gain no benefit from a slavish imitation of how things are done by a rulebook written in a borrowed stateroom of a yacht owned by some US Neo-conservative think tank. A man who would be welcomed at the C-Street Church has no place within any proper Canadian political party.

I anticipate the next election with no little pleasure.

The Canadian Census Flap

Excellent article, fascinating discussion thread.

Libertarians and the census

The announced reasons for making the 2011 census long form voluntary is that it is 'intrusive' and that it is 'coercive' to make it mandatory. If this were the the position of a principled, reality-based libertarian government, then it would be a powerful argument. But it isn't.

But that's a policy wonk blog. Very perceptive - indeed, perhaps too perceptive to quite grasp the Harper government's essential thinking... to be charitable about it.

From the Globe and Mail:

while many voters won’t notice or care about what happens to the census, “it will resonate deeply with certain swathes of voters by communicating to them that this government shares their suspicion of stats and the pointy-headed, out-of-touch academics who analyze them,” he writes.
Because, for conservative activists and intellectuals, what is “truly infuriating to them is the suspicion that these types of knowledge play a role in actively cultivating non-conservative values and a public philosophy that acknowledges a role for government in addressing and reducing certain structural inequalities of society,” Prof. Saurette writes.

“The less visible these structural issues are, the less likely it is that advocacy groups will be able to persuade Canadians that government programs are necessary. The less government programs seem necessary, the less government itself seems valuable. And the less government itself seems valuable, the more likely it is that conservative market-oriented values and principles can flourish.”

Of course, a conservatism that depends upon being insulated from reality and which takes steps to gut meaningful review of it's policies is barely distinguishable from an autocracy.

I, for one, am beginning to look forward to a federal election.

It reminds me of Mulroony

The CBC reports:

Industry Minister Tony Clement has dismissed growing calls for him to reverse his decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, saying he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are on the same page on the issue.

"There's not a micron of difference of opinion between myself and the prime minister on this," Clement told the CBC's Rosemary Barton in an interview on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.

During the interview from London, Clement said the government has taken a "compromise position" between privacy concerns and ensuring usable data from the next census in May 2011. Clement's comments came a day after Munir Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada, the national statistical agency, resigned in protest over the move to scrap the mandatory survey.

Meanwhile on Thursday, the Liberals and NDP slammed Clement's "ideological" decision, saying it has thrown Statistics Canada into "chaos" and will leave policy-makers and organizations across the country flying blind.

The Conservatives have been on the defensive since Clement announced at the end of June that the long-form part of the 2011 census would no longer be mandatory because of privacy concerns. Canadians who receive the long form would be able to refuse to fill it out.

The furor escalated after Sheikh cancelled a planned town hall meeting with Statistics Canada staff, then announced Wednesday evening on the agency's website he was resigning over the issue.

In his statement, Sheikh insisted a voluntary survey cannot be a substitute for the mandatory form.

I'm philosophically opposed to pandering to our tin-foil party fringes. And that is all this seems to be about. Considering how well things have gone south of the border with that strategy.

Lies, Tony Clement, and Statistics

Canada's Conservatives have been trying to turn the Conservative Party into The Northern Tea Party, but unfortunately for them, Canadians do not tend to polorize along idiologial fracture lines as easily as do people in the US. Therefore, "Red Meat Treats," such as the Harper Government's decision to reward the Social Conservatives of the Prairie Provinces has rather backfired. (When only Alberta fails to disagree with you, in a conditional sort of way, it's not exactly a sign of broad consensus support.)

The Alberta government, however, said it backs the move, but wants to see details about how the quality and availability of data will be maintained – particularly so that it can still be compared to past records.

“We don't have a problem with removing threat of prosecution for the long form. We really don't. Quite frankly, it seems kind of heavy-handed,” said Cam Hantiuk, spokesman for Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach. 

And I'd agree with that. But it does go rather farther than that. It's not just making it voluntary. It's changes in the sampling rate, and also changes in what data is being gathered - and with little to tell me (or more importantly, the people with direct need for the data in order to plan budgets) what public good might be served. 

You see, we really do like having facts at hand when making decisions. And the Census - well that's the entire point to the damn thing. Of course, it does bring with it the possibility of providing demographic and economic information regarding government policies that a particular government might devoutly prefer to disavow.

But that's the entire point to the damn thing. Inconvenient truths. 


We have considerable aversion to autocratic and whimsical decision making, particularly when major stakeholders in the process and the results are pointedly ignored. The Globe and Mail (Canada's Grey Lady of Journalism, generally reliable in it's support of moderate conservatism,) grilled Industry Minister Tony Clement regarding the logic behind it. It's not in the least deferential. 

Blogging at Politicususa

I'm glad to belatedly announce that I'll be blogging regularly at Politicususa, concentrating on ethics and the consequences of being led by and living next to those who lack them.

I've already got a few posts up covering political, religious and media ethics.

It's not difficult to find something to write about these days, the difficulty is not slitting one's wrists while doing the background research. But there's something even MORE difficult.

Keeping it under a thousand words; THAT is hard!

I have not been asked to moderate my viewpoint, and I'm a devoutly anti-authoritarian pragmatist. I'll admit to being nearly reflexively anti-authoritarian, but in large part that has come from a lifetime of seeing simplistic, authoritarian responses to complex social and economic issues - and seeing them fail catastrophically - from the Right AND the Left. That, and a few hundred less political and more personal examples led me to believe that you can't change what people are; you can only help them be whoever they are better. 

In Canada - we pay lip service to authoritarians, often trying out such approaches - but then quietly and without much fanfare, simply adjusting our course toward the centre and to the benefit of the vast majority of Canadians. This is why our banks are properly regulated, our halt and lame are well-cared for and still considered valued members of our communities, and both of these things mean that we have a secure middle class, for they are less at risk from being robbed by the rich or the poor.

Of course, the thing about being genuinely nice and smug people is that it takes work. You really have to invest in the things you wish to be smug about. We like being known of as a decent, inoffensive people. God help you if you mess with that, we will fuck you up.


You Yanks - maybe you ought to think on what you wish others to see you as.


For, well, most of you ARE terribly concerned about "what people might think," but paradoxically, completely oblivious to what other people who are not actually subscribing to the same websites and attending the same churches really DO think of you. 


It is neither complementary, nor is it without cause. 

I'm Canadian; I Have No Time For This Bullshit

Ole Ole Olson, writing at News Junkie Post concludes (with graphs!) that what folks like me have been saying all along is true; that the bullshit to the right of us is so deep that you need a diving suit and a support vessel to find any useful nugget of truth. And to the left - well, it's still a challenge, but you don't need life-support.

Now, I'm probably too stubborn for my own good, still shouting out from time to time that I am, indeed a Conservative. An anti-authoritarian, to be sure. A minarchist to a degree. Occasionally I add that I'm a "Progressive Conservative," just to add a Canadian tinge of irony to my quixotic insistence on upholding the values of Burke, moderated by a good span of practice that has given us many ideas that seem well worth preserving. On occasion, this has been in the face of our dearest instincts and assumptions about economics and human nature.

But to a genuine Conservative, facts are facts and the truth is the truth. When something works, it works, and if it works despite your philosophy, it's your philosophy that must adapt.

Pro vs. Con. Are Both to Blame?

These blatant examples of conservative truthiness and propaganda will of course be dismissed by my critics on the right as nothing more than a biased partisan analysis in and of itself. They will try to claim that both sides do it, that it is only politics. Unfortunately, much of the public will again believe this, despite what the truth is. So let’s examine that premise. Does equal fault lie in the pro vs con debate?

When comparing the progressive and conservative sides of the political spectrum, we find that there is not a parallel. This is not just politics. Although there are certainly too many instances of distortions coming from the left, it appears to be the exception to the rule instead of the rule itself. According to an analysis of the date provided by Politifact, the non-partisan fact checking organization devoted to evaluate the truth behind the claims of politicians and important spokesman for the parties and political ideologies, there is a clear differentiation here.

As you can see, 40% of the claims made by conservative spokesman are lies, nearly double the rate of progressives. Only 30% of their claims are mostly true, compared to 50% progressives. Of course, these numbers may be tilted slightly by the disproportional numbers of compulsive liars in the conservative movement like Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and John Boehner, but a clear pattern is still present.

Predictably, whenever any person or organization speaks out against right wing truthiness, they are usually subject to a character assassination campaign or at least verbally attacked. Despite their non-partisan nature, Politifact has not been immune from this assault. Besides Politifact, there have been attacks on Factcheck.org (even though they are owned by the conservative Annenberg Foundation), fivethirtyeight, NPR, Snopes, and even the CBO (nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office). Conservatives even started their own Wikipedia competitor to counter this imaginary liberal bias called Conservapedia, which contains such gems as:

“An apparent Muslim, Obama could use the Koran when he is sworn into office.”

“Liberals support the legalisation of marijuana and other drugs, which are major causes of psychiatric illnesses”

“studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems”

“…pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah’s Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning”

“All the prevailing, atheistic theories of the origin of the Moon were completely disproved by the lunar landings and studies of the lunar rocks afterwards.”

This seems to be a pattern among conservative websites in general, as well as with media outlets such as talk radio and Fox News, the latter having organization such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters (MMFA) focused exclusively on debunking the truthiness.

The reasons for the contrast between progressives and conservatives are still unclear. There have been a couple interesting psychological reports released in the last couple years, one which demonstrates that conservatives are more prone to bow to strong authority figures. Another indicates that:

“a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives. The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.”

Of course, as the case with non-partisan or bipartisan organizations who speak out negatively about them, conservatives are sure to dismiss or attack the results of these findings. This might explain why only 6% of all the scientists in the US are Republican (usually the party of conservatives in America). From the crowd estimates at Becks 912 rally to health care reform, from science to the birther movement, conservatives tend to believe that a ‘truth’ is known intuitively. It is something “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

Now, let's read that last paragraph again. We have left the realm of politics. There is no "left or right" here. There is no possible way to intelligently discuss the merits of a free market solution to Health Care Reform, as opposed to, say, a Social-Welfare or a Mixed-Economic approach with people who lie and gibber. Indeed, we cannot even seem to have a sensible discussion as to what a good outcome would look like, when the most influential Conservatives seem incapable of comparing their delusional assumptions to actual, real, publicly available numbers.

Support for the food stamp program reached a nadir in the mid-1990s when critics, likening the benefit to cash welfare, won significant restrictions and sought even more. But after use plunged for several years, President Bill Clinton began promoting the program, in part as a way to help the working poor. President George W. Bush expanded that effort, a strategy Mr. Obama has embraced.

The revival was crowned last year with an upbeat change of name. What most people still call food stamps is technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
By the time the recession began, in December 2007, “the whole message around this program had changed,” said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that has supported food stamp expansions. “The general pitch was, ‘This program is here to help you.’ ”

Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs.

In the promotion of the program, critics see a sleight of hand.

“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.

Now, to call the restrictions on US welfare "mean spirited" would be a conservative understatement indeed. But aside from that, any time you have 12 percent of your population in need of extra food, it's not due to a sudden epidemic of laziness. It's because there's insufficient work. That is rather obviously true from other indicators.

And yet, Mr. Rector is one of many delusional sorts that are of the opinion that if you or your children become hungry enough, somehow a Job will Appear from On High - despite, of course, the obdurate opposition of folks who fund the Heritage Foundation to actually doing anything that might actually create those jobs.

The idea that if a person is Virtuous, a Job will Appear, and if they are Not Virtuous, they deserve nothing at all (and they are proven Not Virtuous by the fact that they are jobless and starving) is a peculiar and vicious artifact of the Calvinist poison that has infected our body politic. Recall, it IS an article of faith. It has no foundation in fact at all.

Oh, and of course, let us not forget that in the hindbrains of these xenophobic approximations of humanity, the term "poor" and "black" is interchangeable. Indeed, the very idea that a black man could be successful, deserving of any outcome other than a life of miserable toil and obscurity is an affront to them.

When exceptions happen - well, see for yourself:

Via the BBC: The US Secret Service says it is investigating after an effigy of Barack Obama was found hanging in the home town of former President Jimmy Carter.

 TV footage showed the doll hanging by a noose in front of a red, white and blue sign that reads "Plains, Georgia. Home of Jimmy Carter, our 39th President".

Witnesses said the effigy had President Obama's name on it.
Plains Mayor LE Godwin III said the fire department had been called to take it down.
In Washington, US Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan confirmed that the agency was investigating the case.

Footage on local television station, WALB, showed a large black doll hanging over the sign, which is located above a shop on the main street in the rural town.

Residents who saw it thought the effigy must have put in place during the night, WALB reports.
One Plains resident said the Secret Service had already interviewed local people.

"We wish it hadn't happened. It's not the kind of publicity the town of Plains likes," Jan Williams, who runs a hotel, was quoted as saying by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

She described Plains, which has a population of fewer than 700 people, as a "nice, quiet town".

...clearly, some remarkable exceptions to "nice" exist.

But, back to the dangerously "liberal" presumption that feeding hungry people is an inherent good.

It takes a remarkable lack of common sense and compassion to think that the average person would abandon all hope and ambition in exchange for a hundred thirty bucks worth of groceries. Aside from being delusional, it is vile. And facing attitudes such as that, it's really no wonder at all to me that a significant fraction of the American people prefer the risk of jail to the prospect of starvation. But then, all black/poor people are criminals, aren't they? Might as well just get ahead of the curve!

Would I grow pot, smuggle meth, steal cars or participate in a gang, if the alternative to starving alone in an alleyway in a cardboard box? If course. So would you. And hell, we are speaking of the foundations of civilization. People "ganged together" to ensure their mutual survival. If you exclude people from belonging to the "Ahumurikin" gang - because "poor people" don't deserve to belong - they won't just starve politely. They will band together to mess you up, take your stuff and, ultimately, do unto y'all what the Vandals and Visigoths did to Rome. And you will deserve it.

If you want to keep people from taking "illegitimate" jobs, you have a damn obvious responsibility to make sure that legitimate ones are plentiful.  Domestically. Indonesia and China can take care of their OWN damn poor people.

I do hope (and rather expect) that some fraction of the karma these people have earned by mindlessly forestalling sane public policy and any humane approach to poverty, health care, the economy and a thriving, job-creating middle class will come directly home to roost in a way where the casual relationship is personally, directly and unavoidably instructive.

Let's start with the obvious sociopaths.

When such people are underfoot,  it makes developing a sane or sensible public policy position about anything impossible. So the first step is to stop wasting any time upon them. They are some combination of evil and stupid, and it's up to them to figure out how to behave in public among civilized people. We certainly need not treat their spew as if it made sense.

Take John Shelby Spong on that point. In his manifesto, he was quite blunt about where he sees his duties, and they don't include any necessity to entertain the missaprention of vicious, mean-spirited fools.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture’s various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the “Flat Earth Society” either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union. I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church’s participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: “New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth.” I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.

He's speaking toward the fight over the exclusion of homosexuals from the body of the Church, but to me it's all of a piece.



It's the same people, with the same little minds and the same fear-ridden dispositions who demand that middle-eastern males be strip-searched, that howl that the application of the Constitution and the Rule of law will result in the inevitable fall of Civilization, who insist that the genome be purged of such inferior stock as myself, for fear of... what? They don't know. But in every single case, they use "toleration" and "compassion" as if they were words even worse than "motherfucker" or even "liberal" while claiming a religious right to impose their will on those of us who think being kind to one another IS a fundamental "Principle."

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." I believe that IS how it goes?

And in point of fact, in my experience, after fifty odd years of life, I've learned that that approach to life works very well indeed, particularly when coupled to a strong acquired allergy to lies and self-delusion. "As you have sown, so shall ye reap," so I'm careful about what seed I buy, from whom, and I'm very attached to facts. I've learned that operating on a basis of wishful thinking can have embarrassing, if not starkly dangerous outcomes. So I've come to love facts - whether I particularly LIKE the facts in hand or not.

Now, let's get back to my Canadian Progressive Conservatism. I'm a typical Canadian in many respects. I am attached to the middle of the road. I do not hark back to a glorious past - because I'm conversant with history, which includes many more lice and bedbugs and far fewer unalloyed glories than the magical thinkers would suggest. I value a stately progress of Civilization. I adore such things as railroads, the Enlightenment and indoor plumbing. I particularly revere the remarkably successful collision of fate that is Canada, a chimerical construct that is neither Conservative nor Liberal, but spots of each and each most treasured where those sorts of ideas and the minds that hold them do the most good.

We have very LIBERAL welfare and medical care. We have extraordinarily CONSERVATIVE banking laws. And the reason we have both - and will continue to have both - is in great part due to the horrible examples provided by our neighbors, who have achieved the exact opposite.

That is not because we are free of such fools. We just don't allow them to speak with the expectation that their ideas are "just as good as anybody's." If they have ideas "just as good" they could prove it. Indeed, our current government is arguably Conservative, though it's starting to try my patience. 

Honest causes and honorable persons need neither lies nor bullshit - nor do they tolerate them on either side of the issue. That is part of the secret to maintaining a civil society - tolerance up to the point incivility makes civility an unsustainable prospect.


So don't listen to known and famous liars. It's a waste of time you could spend far better in almost any imaginable way.

Our society, our nation - in concert with many other civilized nations that value jusctice, human rights and compassion as being fundamental and unquestionable positive values - thrives. Canada IS her people, and her people are Canada. All of them. Even those such as I.

We are neither bankrupt nor are we enslaved. Indeed, the average Canadian enjoys a greater degree of practical freedom and an arguably better standard of living than the average American - and we certainly enjoy a far higher assurance of personal security and safety, at a far lower price in blood and treasure. That is due in part to the fact that those of us who do deal directly with issues of national security are expected to live in full contact with reality. Ordinary citizens may enjoy the luxury of wishful and uncritical thinking. People who's job it is to govern and defend our nation may not permit themselves more "preferential reality" than what is humanly unavoidable.


Perhaps due to that conservative preference for fact over fancy, we are rather more reluctant to blow people up more or less at random as one of our "principles" of foreign policy. This is - I assure you - quite unrelated to the concept of "liberal squeamishness." It's a very conservative reluctance to add a very large number of unaccountable random factors to a situation. This is the entire REASON for "due process."

Aside from that, we believe that even dangerous people with whom we disagree with on many levels nonetheless have both inherent human rights and some - albeit self-limited - inherent value to society, and that any limitation is best addressed with deliberation, and certainly with every consideration toward the feelings and concerns of those, who, due to family or other ties, may feel affection or obligation toward them.

Or to misquote the Mythbusters. "We are professionals. But you really might want to try this at home."

Prorogues With Sour Grapes

When returning to Canada, I had the hope that I would be returning to a nation governed by grownups, people promoted and selected for their competence, and those who viewed politics as being both a referendum and a sport, to be played upon the field of public opinion.

Instead, I came home to the Steven Harper government, who has made more prorogues than Hunky Bill.

I will certainly make a point of voting against Steven Harper at the earliest opportunity. I may even become sufficiently motivated to actually Write Letters and Make Phone Calls. I could even volunteer to stump for my various non-Conservative candidates. You see, that's how Parliamentary Democracy works.

Sweet Goddess On High, I'm glad I'm back in Canada. Two years now, and I'm STILL kissing the ground. For as bad as Steven Harper is - and he's approaching the levels of arrogance established by William Vander Zalm - his sort of opportunistic politics would not even raise an eyebrow in the Disunited States of Uhmurika. Which is why Steven Harper and his govenment may take this throat-clearing as being Constructive Criticism.

It's not that he's being Too Conservative. The man is barely corrupt and cynical enough to be elected as a Democrat in the US of A. We entrust our public servants with a great deal more latitude than our American Cousins because, by and large, we insist on far higher standards of competence. We expect our public servants to be aware of the letter of the law, but to adhere first to it's spirit - even when doing so leads to "Just Watch Me" moments.

That is the essence of conservatism - a profound appreciation for the quality and importance of the individual entrusted with any small portion of responsibility regarding our common weal.


But this is not "just watch me," It's "Pay No Attention to The Man Behind The Curtain."

My Fellow Canadians, it's our reflexively conservative approaches to Finance and Governance, our insistence on a Conservative appreciation of the dotting of the Ayes and the crossing of Tees in favor of the Citizenry and not the "First Citizens" that has spared us the embarrassment of our cousins to the south, who are largely governed by people who seem likely to fall for Nigerian email scams.

It's that he's starting to approach the degree of cynical abuse of process required of being an American Republican In Good Standing. Which is to say, a lying ignoramus with pretensions of godhood, and in no sense a Conservative.

And that, Sirrah, is something up with which I will not put. Not because I am Liberal, Sir, or a Green or a member of the NDP, whom I respect for their intentions if not their effects.

No, sir. I oppose you because your cynical abuse of process makes you unworthy of appearing before Parlement. A person deserving of the office would not be afraid of Question Period. I do not recall an instance where Mrs. Thatcher visibly flinched at her duty to defend contentious policies. Indeed, she often came away with the rhetorical testicles of those who had the effrontery to ask when she had stopped beating her husband. It seems your standards of Conservatism owe more to George Bush than the Iron Lady.

As a former and natural Progressive-Conservative, Mister Harper, I do not believe it unreasonable of me to ask you to be half the man Margret Thatcher was.

If you must collude with a tracticable appointee to evade the oversight of Parliament in order to achieve your goals - very well. But let it be observed that you had to collude and machinate and manipulate and contrive your way to your "success." It has been noted. And, as has happened before, there will be a price to pay. And if I really must vote Liberal to achieve that end - I shall do so unflinchingly.

I voted for John Chretien because I know who he was and for what he stood for - which was continuing to be the Prime Minister. In order to achieve that goal, he knew that he had to ensure that certain things were done well enough to please me and millions like me well enough. Fortunately, he had few "principles" that would get in the way of doing his job.

Peace. Order. Good Government. These are OUR essentials, Sir.

And should your "principles" interfere with your ability to deliver peace, order and good government, than I suggest your principles are likely incompatible with my own and many other Canadians of diverse views - all of which are protected eccentricities under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You wish to be Large And In Charge and Be In Photographs With World Leaders; well, in order to do this well enough to not be snickered at by your peers, at home and abroad, should you not be held to the same standards as a police officer or a sanitation worker? Good Government, Sir, does NOT involved the abrogation of the rights of Persons of or Parlament when it might frustrate your personal ambitions.

In order to be Right, sir, first you must be Correct. When you are incorrect - as does happen from time to time to the best of us - an honorable leader corrects themselves long before the apparent lack of honor comes to the notice those such as myself.

Canada Above the Fray Rondel by EhCanada  design your own t-shirt at zazzle

In praise of SMART boondoggles.

From Griper Blade, a blog I wish I'd known of earlier.

Griper Blade: Shooting Down Missile Defense: "Since Obama's election, Bush loyalists have been quietly freaking out that he may not really be willing to waste money hand over fist on missile defense anymore. The military has never been very excited about missile defense (Pentagon officials refer to civilian MD advocates as 'missile defense moonies'), so it's not like they see any worth to the systems. But those Bush loyalists sure do. And they've made repeated attempts to get you to panic at the thought of abandoning it."

A commenter wryly observes that, while utterly unlikely to succeed in shooting down missiles that are unlikely to materialize in any case, is as worthy as any other make-work program in these troubled times.

However, the end result is a great deal of very expensive and useless stuff, when for far less, we could achieve far more. I'm speaking, by the way, to people in the Canadian Parliament and defense establishment. I recall reading earlier today - and my apologies, I forget where, - that in terms of defense technology, and specifically in terms of the F22 program - that due to the usual practice of selling air-superiority technology to allies, the US (and a rather significant number of Canadian subcontractors) are, in essence, competing with themselves.

My initial thought as I closed the article was "what a stupid boondoggle."

And then, in reading this, something clicked. You see, what we need is to concentrate on intelligent boondoggles. Useful and plausible boondoggles intended to generate useful side-benefits. It's nice to have something useful at the end, but if enough useful byproducts come along the way, it may not actually matter in the end.

One absolute priority is to keep very skilled people doing fairly much what they are doing. We really do not wish to see highly skilled weapons systems designers becoming available on the open market.

From several perspectives an ultimately pointless employment that, while unlikely to produce a useful weapons system nonetheless requires all kinds of amazing and useful technical spin offs is worth a certain level of support. And, of course, it doesn't end up producing some simple, easily deployed and cheap pain in the ass - as Gerald Bull (cite above) was casually able to achieve once he was forced to - erm - set his sights lower.

So, while it might seem obvious to cancel boondoggle missile defense programs - please. Think of the Children. We truly do not want to see that staff and technology wander off into unpredictable and horrifyingly effective "practical applications" in the "real world."

More to the point, think of all that lovely technology and all those systems that have come astonishingly close to actually achieving something. Indeed, what if the effort were intentionally expanded to explore practical applications using technology already developed? What if it were adapted to several fairly important long-term priorities - clearing space junk and producing some sort of asteroid defense?

Indeed, what about using the technology to create an anti-junk defense for the international space station - which could then be refined to be applied to communications and resource satellites?

Remember that these are inherently useful goals and which will absolutely have all kinds of high-tech industry spin-offs.

This, by the way, is the primary value of Big Science efforts, like a manned Mars mission - it's not the goal so much as what needs to be figured out in order to send a man to Mars that is the the compelling argument for doing it.

Weapons programs work much the same way. One of the beautiful things about any weapons system is that it's a fairly straightforward application of technology, the R&D is covered by military budgets, and there is a simple, defined development path. That's why cutting edge applications are first seen in military use. I'm quite certain that the initial development costs for the wheel were written off by some military or another. And it was retired soldiers who spread it into the civilian world, because even a former grunt won't grunt any harder than he has to.

So what we should be thinking, as part of the entire military procurement and supply planning process, is what technologies we'd like to advance and what sorts of systems and applications we would like to familiarize soldiers with, both in terms of application and in terms of a trained first generation pool of persons directly familiar with the basic technology. It's difficult to plan for spinoff applications that arise due to the solution of problems in unexpected ways, but you will have a rough idea of the general nature of those unexpected goodies.

It's not difficult to think of several technologies that absolutely must be developed - and soon. Robust and reliable high-density batteries and fuel cells, coupled with flexible, rugged electrical generation systems that can suck energy out of whatever is available - from sunlight to sugarcane. If you think that's a silly thing, ask any field commander how much any operation depends on maintaining a fuel train. Reducing that train by even a few percentage points is an extraordinary valuable thing, and it becomes worth doing LONG before it makes economic sense in civilian hands.

But we will need them as civilian ready units. Climate change is going to increasingly impact our ability to reliably keep energy running through wires and it's going to change what gets moved from where - even if no other unforeseen emergencies occur. Developing such capabilities must be seen as an urgent, national security priority throughout the Northern Hemisphere. We are going to have to solve all kinds of logistical problems and, as a matter of practical reality, the place logistics is most universally emphasized is within the military and various Coast Guards.

And then we must look at the certainty of some degree of rise in ocean level. We absolutely must develop amphibious technologies, because many of us are going to be living in amphibious communities.

And then there's an issue that Ottawa does not seem to be taking as seriously as it deserves - the emergence of the Northwest Passage as a practical reality. Realistically, this is not something Canada can offload on other powers. Aside from issues of sovereignty, take a look at the map.

The majority of potential North American deep water ports with shortest great-circle paths from Asia are Canadian. That means the shortest path between the two single largest economic powers - the United States and Japan - is right though Ontario.

We are about to become vital to international trade, as opposed to being perepheral. And we must, absolutely, as a matter of the most elemental self-preservation, control that crossroads. It must be secure, and if we do not secure it, I assure you, someone else will.

Current projections suggest that the Arctic Ocean may well be navigable, year round, by 2013. This absolutely mandates some sort of concentration of presence there, if only for the obvious necessity for an Air/Sea Rescue capability.

We need to learn how to feed, house and support large populations up there in ways that don't add fuel to the Climate Change fire, because those populations will develop as a matter of necessity. The shortening of trade-routes is so economically compelling that Canada's only real choice here is how to accommodate it. And, seriously, we must start now.

These are things that cannot become economically viable until you figure out how to make them work well enough to figure out how they should work. This is one of the great unspoken values of military applications. And in the case of Canada, we have more high arctic terrain than anyone else. I rather think it a good idea to be prepared to provide peace, order and good government.

Otherwise, we could be doing it unprepared, half underwater, while freezing in the dark.

Krispy Kreem; Mae West and Wingnuttery

Krispy Kreme to Give Out Inaugural Donuts; Right-Wingers Go Nuts | PEEK | AlterNet

"Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be."

Sounds good. A free-donut campaign to coincide with Inauguration Day celebrations seems like a tasty promotional gesture.

But Krispy Kreme used the "c" word, and the American Life League is outraged. "The unfortunate reality of a post-Roe v. Wade America is that 'choice' is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand," the group's president, Judie Brown said in a statement. ALL added, "President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda. Celebrating his inauguration with "'Freedom of Choice' doughnuts -- only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion -- is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy."

There are many things one could say about this reaction. "Bizarre" springs to mind. "Contrived" is one other thought. But then something about the page itself struck me, and I realized it was truly a Mae West moment.



In these days of context-sensitive advertising engines, Mae West's observation about publicity is more true than ever:

"I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right."

Actually, it's a gift from God, as far as I'm concerned - and no doubt to the good people at Krispy Kreem, who may well remember just how Florida Orange Juice (Due to spokescreature Anita Bryant's anti-Gay Crusade) became a touchstone for the Gay community in the 70's and 80's. It no doubt contributed to market share on the west coast. Gay activists credit her for inspiring the political activism of the gay movement today - in the same way as the Dredd Scott decision and various lynchings brought about the Civil Rights Movement in a direct line to Martin Luthor King and Barack Obama.

Well, now, thanks to Winguttia, Krispy Kreme may well be positioned to become an iconic snack of pro-choice voters, thanks to human perversity. But even if that doesn't happen, or is simply a passing ironic social comment, it's still worth noting - as a revelatory "tinky-winky moment."

That is to say, a moment wherein someones belief system - or more usually, their beliefs about someone else's beliefs - leads them to say something so utterly absurd that it provokes disbelief and reconsideration of that person's status as an authority about anything.

There's a precept I was taught long ago that can be summarized like this; "that which you accuse others of doing most frequently is what you are most guilty of yourself."

I think it extremely unlikely that Krispy Kreem would be so foolish to try and market their donuts just to "pro-choice" people. In this case it's pretty clear that the word is intended in the usual, English sense - of celebrating democracy and freedom of choice on inauguration day.

Likewise, I doubt very much they were trying to use "subliminal" or "coded language." That is much more the style of the right wing - who in condemning it as vile and deceptive when they see it in others, name it for the manipulative and dishonest practice that it is. Nonetheless, it's Right Wing - and particularly religious Right Wing people - who give the seminars on the practice. They may see it in the harsh light of day as being a little bit wrong - but not nearly so wrong as permitting the easily led to think for themselves! Nor am I being sarcastic in the slightest.

If you deeply, genuinely fear that people, given a choice, will always make the wrong choice because they are inherently evil, then "choice" is a very bad word indeed, and it makes perfect sense to associate that word with as many things you hold to be depraved as possible - if you believe that choice inherently leads to damnation.

This is, in fact, a fundamental tenant of many of the religions nearby or squarely within the Dominionist camp. All persons are evil, are saved only by coercion and self-denial. All things beautiful and pleasurable, interesting and fun are probably, if not definitely Tools of the Devil, particularly if they contain that most lethal of substances - "Ideas."

Speaking of books that contain ideas, you will not find that doctrine in the Bible. You have to do some pretty bizarre contortions and selective readings to come up with it. But it's accepted as Gospel - heh - within the Right Wing Church.

They believe that people, even children and particularly women are evil. By definition. (The Doctrine of Original Sin)

The only people who may not actually be working evil deliberately are your coreligionists. And of course, one of the greatest proofs of being Not Evil is discipline and Obedience to Proper Authority.

You know, people like Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell. Nor are they exceptional, or "bad apples." They are both pretty typical examples of their sort - grifters, scam artists and profiteers.

The more that I've looked into it, the more I've come to realize that under the rhetoric, the issue of when life begins is immaterial; a mere tactical convenience that allows for visceral emotional, thought-stopping appeals. If that were actually the driving issue, it would imply certain other beliefs and calls to action which either do not exist at all, or do so with little or no support from the hard core "anti-choice" wing; social supports and mechanisms that would make it far easier for women to bring a pregnancy to term and support a child regardless of their personal circumstances.

Couple that to the same people objecting to the idea of birth control measures - even condoms and sex ed - and we realize what the real "choice" they object to is:

The issue is the right to choose to have sex at all, as opposed to an assumed duty to obey someone who's been issued a "fucking licence" by the dual authorities of Church and Male Parent; even when that obedience requires a sacrifice of one's own self interest and individuality.

The issue here is that people are not supposed to have the unquestioned right to choose. Sexual choice in particular; the early church fathers were obsessed with sex to a degree that would point to clinical disturbance in this day and age - but really, the idea of any individual choice is deemed frightening. Consider the practices of various religious orders that exist to make it possible to go through weeks and months, if not years without ever having to make a single, individual decision.

(Religous orders can be good or bad, of spiritual benefit or a system of brainwashing. Arguably, it's difficult to achieve the one without a degree of the other. But it will always turn out for the worse if the practice is accepted from authority as revealed without examination.)

At most, they may expect to have one or two permissible options, but never without the input of an Authority, for - and this is according to the doctrinal underpinnings of right-wing American Protestantism - people are literally incapable of making correct choices without the benefit of "grace," so, those who do not share that faith are obviously, consciously and clearly "of the devil."

By the way, from a theological standpoint, from any reasonable reading of the texts, it's complete nonsense. But it's terribly convenient nonsense, for it makes an authoritarian structure unquestionably necessary for salvation! Disobedience will, absolutely, lead to hell - if you believe the Authorities, who are more than willing to send you there, lest your arguments seem persuasive. Those who disbelieve are either freethinkers - such as myself - or members of various priesthoods. Which one becomes, after actually reading the Bible and the arguments for such silly doctrines really depends on one's ability to stomach hypocrisy in the name of personal advantage and/or "The Greater Good."

That's why it is so important to question authority, to provoke such authorities into making statements; to see if they actually ARE authoritative or are "just playing an authority on television."

As much as I pelt Augustine and Paul with bitter fruit from fallen trees, they had lots of good stuff to say as well. So long as you realize they were human, the products of their time and philosophical context and therefore limited in their ability to give absolutely correct guidance in all matters.

But first, you have to realize that even if the bible WERE the "Inerrant, Literal Word of God," it would still not support such constructs as Reconstruction Theology, Original Sin, Marionism, Calvinism or Augustine's views on the place of women within the Church.

Once you give up the Magic Fairy Dust Theory of Inspiration, the idea that despite centuries of translation, cultural shifts and linguistic difference, the King James Edition is absolutely and literally true, you find that the Bible is one of the more concentrated sources of wise and human advice known to mankind - and that the King James the most beautifully poetic way of expressing it - in the English Language, of course, and In My Humble Opinion.