Something Up With Which I Will Not Put

L. Ian McDonald trashed the Prime Minister today regarding Chretien's remarks before the UN and in various other venues. Chretien said, in reference to 9-11, that poverty in the rest of the world breeds contempt for the richer nations. McDonald and other critics have been blasting him for this, claiming that he's blaming the victims.

What these critics are overlooking is the fact that Chretien is right. Granted, Bin Laden and many members of his organization and others like it are at least comfortable, if not wealthy. But it's not that simple. I've heard reports that while Palestinians in the West Bank have to ration their water, their Jewish neighbors in the Israeli settlements are obliviously washing their cars, filling their swimming pools and watering their lawns. The average Palestinian is not Bin Laden-wealthy, and aside from having to live in poverty, suffers the indignity of watching the neighbors live high on the hog (kosher restrictions notwithstanding). To make matters worse, Israel is consistently portrayed better than Palestine in the Western media. No wonder extremist factions thrive!

My almost-five-year-old son, Colin, has a habit of not listening to my husband and me. Very frequently, we find ourselves screaming at him. Then he gets upset because we're yelling. The point is, if he listened the first time (or the second or third, for that matter), we wouldn't have to resort to screaming. Perhaps if more efforts were made to understand the situation in the Chretien context, fewer counter-efforts would be required.

And what's the deal with Alexa McDonough and her handy blue box? Are we supposed to think that she was actually inspired by the speech to pop into a nearby office and grab a conveniently empty recycling box?

I thought the NDP were above such theatrics. While the point may be valid, I for one was completely unimpressed with McDonough's use of props. Does she think that we need a visual aid to understand her point? The fact that just about every non-Liberal MP and most pundits used "recycled" as the key word to describe the Throne Speech just made her seem all the more small-time when she held up her plastic pal for the cameras. No one else felt it necessary to provide a physical manifestation of their point.

He's done it again
So, L. Ian MacDonald has managed to get me riled again. In today's Gazette, he claims that only in Canada would the non-renewal of the contract between a sportscaster (namely, Ron MacLean) and a network (i.e., the CBC) get front-page coverage in both national newspapers, taking precedence over the Throne Speech. As a comparison, he questions whether U.S. president GWB's State of the Union address would have been overshadowed by a similar falling out between some guy I've never heard of and FOX.

But, I ask you, what if the American counterparts were Bob Costas and NBC? I suspect that Americans are as blase about their politicians as we are about ours. Not to mention that, as MacDonald himself points out (as did many others a day earlier), the Throne Speech was not exactly the Magna Carta, given that there's not much new or radical or particularly explosive in what Chretien has laid out as his "legacy" plan.

Hmph.

I've never really been passionate about the whole 'one island, one city' debate. My life as a Montrealer and a Verdunite has not changed significantly since the infamous merger. It likely would not change if the newly-elected Liberals make good on their almost-promise to inflict demergers on us.

However, double dealing gets my goat (and my tax dollars). Apparently, Montreal mayor Gerald Tremblay and his executive are now mulling over the idea of extending taxation powers to the boroughs (which is what we're now calling the former municipalities).

As I said, this issue has never been a hot one for me - but I do vaguely remember that one of the pro-merger arguments was that the island residents would be taxed on a more or less standard, proportionate, universal rate. Extending the perogative of taxation to the boroughs effectively destroys that argument - so we're left with the same old disproportionate taxes, but without municipal muscle to back it up. Dollard-des-Ormeaux will be able to fix its potholes and so on, but will still be a little borough in a big city.

As a Quebecer, I'm naturally gunshy when it comes to referenda, but in the municipal merger case, I've always held that the problem is lack of public consultation. Pro- and anti-merger factions should be compelled to make their argument to the people who actually live on this island, and those arguments should include dollars and cents - just how much have we spent on mergers? What would it cost to implement demergers? What are the real, quantifiable benefits of 'one island, one city?' Give us some input, some facts, and some power beyond voting for 'anyone but Bourque.'

Also in today's paper: rich people say "money does, in fact, buy happiness. Also, nya na na na na."

Interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times from Robert McNamara, who served as secretary of defense under JFK and LBJ. In the piece, McNamara admits that as SoD he was responsible for some pretty gruesome activities in Vietnam, including Agent Orange. His point is that the US should participate without reserve in the International Criminal Court and should operate under an international set of rules of war.

Chances are, of course, that McNamara's voice will go ignored. The US has resisted participation in the ICC because it fears not only that American soldiers be under scrutiny and vulnerable to indictment, but also that "the court might prosecute the president or other civilian or military leaders." In other words, US presidents would be afraid to order "legitimate but controversial uses of force to protect world peace."

McNamara, who obviously believes that he personally could well be prosecuted, nonetheless advocates American participation, because he also believes "that the human race desperately needs an agreed-upon system of jurisprudence that tells us what conduct by political and military leaders is right and what is wrong."

According to McNamara, the Bush league is concerned that the US administration, from top to bottom, could find itself hopelessly mired in "frivolous or unfair" ICC cases. McNamara points out, however, that it is possible for the US to get on board and then negotiate protection against such cases - which is apparently what Clinton had in mind when he signed the ICC treaty on Dec. 31, 2000.

Canada's participation in the ICC, beginning with the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, is perhaps one more reason the US perception (when there is one) of Canada is less than generous. Militarily, Canada is an international, if underfunded and disregarded, player. We participate in UN-backed coalitions, for instance. And, if our cooperation with the ICC is any indication, we're willing to subscribe to and live by an agreed-upon [international] system of jurisprudence.

But what do we know? We're just a bunch of pot-smoking fag hags, right?

Douglas Farrow, a professor of Christian Thought at McGill, states in today's Gazette that marriage "is about children and what's best for children." He continues: "the hidden premise of so-called gay marriages... is that children are a secondary issue at best." (my italics)

I have already submitted my letter to the editor, but there's plenty of rant to go around.

If marriage is about children, what happens to childless heterosexual couples in Farrow's world? Do their marriages automatically dissolve after a prescribed amount of time without offspring? Despite Farrow's definition of marriage, hetero couples do get married for reasons beyond procreation; in fact, many straight couples deliberately opt out of parenthood. There are also plenty of frustrated couples who cannot, for one reason or another, have children - does Farrow propose to compound their unhappiness by telling them they shouldn't be married?

As for gay marriages and children, it seems to me that gay parents have a better motivation to marry for the sake of their children. Children of straight couples are related biologically to their parents, and therefore require no legal definition of parenthood, family or marriage to protect their interests. Children of gay parents, on the other hand, cannot be biologically related to both parents. What happens if disaster strikes - the biological parent dies or disappears, leaving the other, nonbiological parent with potentially horrible legal battles to maintain the relationship with the child.
I'm not sure what Farrow believes is the "hidden premise" of gay marriage - apparently it's hidden from him as well - but surely there are plenty of gay couples who's prime incentive for marriage is to provide a safe, stable, socially recognized family unit for their children.

It's disappointing to read statements like these from a professor of Christian Thought. One would hope that some one with that level of education, not to mention "Christianity," would (a) be more tolerant and accepting, and (b) at least be able to present a rational argument, rather than resorting to the language of intolerance. For instance, he makes sarcastic comments about the intellectual capacity of Martin Cauchon, to whom her refers as our "minister of justification." A few more examples from Farrow's article:

- "the word 'fishers' [was created] so as not to offend that largely fictional character, the lady fisherman"
- "the grand farce that is being played out in place of a marriage debate"
- "the great drama of gay rights"
- "the innocuous-sounding Act Respecting Marriage"

I have said before that the debate on marriage, gay or straight, should be considered outside the realm of religion. Churches, sects, congregations, and so on should have the right to choose not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. But they should stay out of the legal debate - that's what the separation of Church and State is all about.

Sharon's right-hand man, Ehud Olmert, says that killing Arafat is definitely an option. This follows Israel's threat to force Arafat into exile. It also follows widespread demonstrations, in reaction to the exile idea, from Palestinians and others in support of Arafat.

Prior to the initial threat of exile, many Palestinians would have been nonchalant about the voluntary resignation of Arafat, and would likely have rallied behind a new leader in the hopes of finally resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. 'Let's get back to the so-called road map' was the prevailing sentiment.

Not surprisingly, at the first hint of an imposed exile, Arafat is newly popular, a beloved leader that Palestinians are 100% behind.

Imagine what their reaction would be if Israel makes good on the assasination threat.

First of all, removing Arafat is a useless gesture that will only serve to ascerbate the situation and create a martyr around whom the anti-Israeli movement can rally. In the introduction to her newest edition of The Demon Lover, Robin Morgan makes the point that removing the leader from a terrorist organization will no more end terrorism that would Bill Gates' having a heart attack end capitalism - nor, as a friend commented, would it end Microsoft.

Secondly, many would argue that the only difference between Arafat and the hawkish Sharon is international recognition - and that the only difference between the Palestinian war effort and that of Israel is tanks and uniforms. Can the Palestinians reply that sure, they'll dump Arafat, provided the Knesset ousts Sharon? We'll depose our leader if you depose yours? How can the Israelis legitimately call for a clean slate on one side without putting forth some of their own representatives who are a little more flexible and a lot less retaliatory?

It all makes me wonder if the Israeli leaders are even remotely interested in the famous road map. Maybe what they're really looking for is an excuse to eradicate the problem - if we can provoke a big enough Palestinian revolt, we'll have no choice but to go in there, guns blazing, and just get rid of the problem once and for all. After all, if there are no Palestinians, there can be no Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Canada has bid a farewell, fond or otherwise, to Jean Chretien, after more than a decade at the helm. His successor, Paul Martin, is currently experiencing the pendulum swing of media favour. During the federal election campaign in 2000, rumours were rife that Chretien was planning to retire practically as soon as he was sworn in - and that Martin was the presumed heir to the Liberal throne. In other words, a vote for Chretien was a vote for Martin - and the votes were cast.

Now, however, there seems to be a growing sentiment of "well, we didn't vote for you, buddy." Particularly in light of the most recent little oopsie: in February 2003, the government reported that it had paid about $137,000 to a shipping company owned by Paul Martin. The numbers, as it turns out, were a little off.

By a factor of 1,175.

New figures released this month show that in fact, the government gave the shipping company contracts worth $161 million.

Martin's response? He said he knew immediately upon hearing it that the $137,000 figure was wrong.

"I was appalled when I saw what the original answer had been," he said.

So, about a year ago, he saw the number, knew it had to be wrong, and didn't say a word???

Well, I didn't vote for you, buddy.

Meanwhile, away down south, Senator John McCain is putting the blame for Iraq on - wait for it - Bill Clinton. According to McCain, it was Clinton who was snowed by faulty intelligence, and since Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act in 1998, the Bush league cannot be held accountable.

That's right - the Democrats did it.

It recently occurred to me that what's missing from the current Democratic primary race is sex.

Let's look at this historically: in the last 50 years, the most successful US presidents (Dem.) are Kennedy and Clinton, both of whom were plagued by sex scandals, and the more we learn about them, the steamier they get.

Carter kept the "lust in his heart" and the beast in his pants - and lost his reelection bid to some actor from California.

LBJ, meanwhile, branded all the females in his entourage with his initials, but although he followed through on several Kennedy initiatives, such as civil rights and the space program, he failed to keep up, well, "it."

Kennedy and Clinton, on the other hand, were randy buggers who, it seems, were willing to boff anything in a skirt (or a blue dress). I'm willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to American presidents pre-1960, but I bet there are even more examples of the Democratic Ass gettin' some.

So, Democratic candidates, listen up - get out there and get dirty. Your country needs you (note the very, very subtle wordplay. Shakespeare did it first).

Recently, I suggested that what was missing in the US Democratic primary race was raciness.

Well, the Drudge Report, which brought us the Lewinsky scandal, is now pleased to report that John Kerry, the current front-runner in the race, may have what it takes.

This scandal has all the ingredients - a Democrat, an intern, and an apparent cover-up. At this point, it's strictly rumour and innuendo.

Timing is everything - Kerry now needs to keep the rumour going, yet unproven, until he's safely ensconced in the Oval Office. If the allegations prove true prior to the election, Kerry will be the new Gary Hart. But if he can keep the whole thing under wraps until he's redecorating the Lincoln bedroom, he'll be the new Bill Clinton.

Update:
According to the Sun, who interviewed the alleged other woman, “He invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it.”

Woo, steamy stuff.

via Alternet

Here's a first - L. Ian MacDonald made me laugh this morning, and not in the usual derisive, cynical way:

Paul Martin said he was unaware, because as finance minister and chief financial officer of the government at the time, he was out of the room when it all happened.

This is, of course, in reference to the so-called Quebec Sponsorship Scandal. What I love about this scandal:

Now that Kerry has clinched the Democratic nomination, the Republican party is gearing up for the campaign. There are three new ads to remind people what a great guy George W. is - two of which include images from 9/11, which the Bush league had promised not to use for political gain.

According to Alternet, on a CBS morning show, "Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters that using images of Ground Zero was fair game because '9/11 was the defining moment of these times. Because of that day, America is at war and still is.'"

I'm not a fan of Bush (I know, the surprise is a little underwhelming), and I am not at all surprised that his campaign is exploiting the images of Ground Zero - but after watching the ads, I did wonder that no one has commented on the complete lack of Arab Americans in the ads. There are blacks, Asians, Latinos, whites (naturally), but not a single person of discernibly Middle Eastern heritage. Hmmm...

Anyway, as I said, I'm not surprised, or even particularly put off by the use of 9/11. After all, Mehlman is right; it was a defining moment in Bush's first term, and arguably the catalyst for the current war. It's certainly a more compelling argument for war than, say, going to war cuz Dad did first. Given the perceived American collective self-image as a country born on the battlefield, images of war are just part and parcel of any evocation of patriotism; as such, using images of the WTC devastation is no better or worse than relentlessly using the Star Spangled Banner in the ads (which they do, believe me).

On the other hand, if you promise that you're not going to do something, don't do it.

"Now that is a bad idea," said Simi Nakbari, a teacher and mother whose husband reluctantly allowed her to attend the meeting.

Thanks to Francois for the heads up

I saw another Bush league campaign ad the other day - this one was anti-Kerry, rather than pro-Bush. According to the ad, Kerry is "wrong on terrorism" because he supported the idea of waiting for UN support for an Iraqi invasion.

What a bad man.

The latest Republican slur against Kerry, in the ongoing attempt to make him look bad, is that people outside of America like and support him. That can only be bad, right?

Specifically, the GOP accuses Kerry of having family in Europe - France, damningly - and of having the support of the European media:

Recently, I pointed out that the Bush campaign ads feature blacks, Latinos, whites and Asians, but no Arab faces.

I was wrong.

This ad, released March 11, does feature a Middle Eastern face - just when the voice over says John Kerry wants to "weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America."

Oops, my bad.

"We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they are going. Some things are going well and some things obviously are not going well. You're going to have good days and bad days." On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good moments."

So saith Donald Rumsfeld, during a Pentagon briefing on the American invasion of Iraq.

"Conservative MP Scott Reid resigned as the party's official languages critic after saying bilingual services would be reduced if the Conservatives form the next government."

Maybe Reid and Parizeau can reminisce over vodka tonics on the patio while the other politicians are busy campaigning.

For the undecided among us, comes a quiz to help determine which federal party best speaks for our interests.

Apparently, I'm actually an NDP-er, 100%.

Close second? The Bloq, at 80%. I scored 73% Liberal.

The only reassuring result was the 7% I scored for the Conservatives. So I can continue to sneer sardonically at Harper. Phew.

Via Shatnerian

How do you vote?

Ok, yes, you pick up a pencil, make an x, fold the ballot...

But I mean, what factors influence your vote? Family tradition? Duceppe's blue eyes? Promises?

This question has been on my mind, so I have done something about it - tada, polling now available. Take a second to make your mark. Think of it as practice for the big day.

If you have suggestions for other polls, or amendments to this one, leave a comment.

Results will be posted when I figure that part out.

So the polls are open, the pundits are primed, and no one knows what the heck to expect. Sure, we'll end up with a minority government, but who? In cahoots with whom? Suffice it to say we're headed back to the polls soon, mark my words.

One last thing, for those who would vote for the Green Party:

Just because a party calls itself "The Fluffy Bunny Party" does not make it a good party. Similarly, "The heroic white hat wearers" - not necessarily good guys.

The Green Party has a good name. C'est pas mal tout. Yes, the party supports Kyoto, but that's neither here nor there, since there's not much to Kyoto beyond a display of global goodwill. The Greens are fiscally and socially conservative. We're talking Harper in a Greenpeace t-shirt.

Thus endeth the rant.

Go vote!!! For whomever you want, just do it. Remember - no vote, no bitching.

Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's is still working to expose Bush - the most recent form of protest is "a 3.7 metre-tall effigy of ...Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants."

As in 'liar, liar pants on fire.'

You can even sign up to drive the Pants on Fire mobile, or provide parking while the effigy is in your town.

As you are all no doubt aware, there is an election next Tuesday in the U.S. of A. Most Canadians I know are anxious about this election, given that when it comes to the Bush League, we waver somewhere between hysterical terror and terrified hysteria*.

Various polls show a dead heat, at least once the margin of error is factored in. Gallup has Bush ahead 51-46. A poll in a San Francisco paper has revealed the surprising** news that Arab Americans are more likely to vote to Kerry. The only poll I've seen that shows a clear majority is this one.

Anyway, I figured since I can't actually vote in this election, I'd create the illusion of participation.

*note the new, improved and essentially Billy Idol-free text. I am, however, still looking for a word, preferably an adjective, to express the very specific kind of emotions Canadians feel toward Bush. Contemptuous? Amused? Disdainful? Our-eyeballs-hurt-from-rolling-so-much? Any suggestions are welcome.

**as in not surprising at all.

According to Slate, it's a tie. A tie will likely mean Bush will be declared the winner, given that Congress is Republican. There's a good article that spells it all out here.

Whatever the eventual outcome, chances are that nothing will be firmly decided by midnight tonight. We'll be lucky if there's a clear winner within the week.

I'm trying to be philosophical about it - I can't vote, so regardless of the outcome, it's not my fault. I just wish it were not my problem, but let's face it, for better or for worse, the leader of the USA is the guy in charge.

By the way, Clinton is still the clear winner in the SUWWIWNP poll.

We build a wall.

Now that we know without a doubt how things are, we need to be proactive.

So, c'mon Canada - let's all meet at the border and have a Wall Raising. I bet we could get materials and funding from the US, who would no doubt be happy to help delineate exactly where we begin and they end. After all, border control is a big issue. What if a cow inadvertently meandered across the currently invisible border into Montana?

Think of the advantages*:
- Jim Carey and Celine Dion would be permanently on the other side of the wall.
- There would be loads of jobs created in wall building, wall maintenance, and graffiti removal.
- Graffiti!
- Bush League and other prominent targets safely on other side of the wall, thus reducing possible shrapnel-related injuries.
- No more brain drain (except of those smart enough to get over the wall).
updated suggestions from Vinny:
-easy practice for tennis players
-Meryl Streep can try to bring her children across another wall in another movie
-brick stocks will shoot through the roof
-if we build it high enough, we won't be able to see their humvee2 vehicles
-can finally develop a semi-charming national accent.

*Suggestions for other advantages are welcome, invited, and will be posted in updates.

And apparently it's true that Canada's immigration site has received record numbers of visitors in the wake of Tuesday's election - and for those would-be Canucks who can't wait the required six months, there's a helpful site to speed up the process.

George W. is in the midst of his second inauguration. Yesterday's "celebrity-studded, flag-waving extravaganza, “Saluting Those Who Serve," was a roller-coaster of emotional ups and downs. For instance, "family members of soldiers killed in combat had brief speaking roles, and satellite links enabled U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to participate as well."

This morning, I was woken by the CBC news coverage of this event, including a clip of a young boy, who gave his name, and that of his father, who was killed in Iraq. Call me a cynic, but doesn't this kind of presentation just feel like blatant propaganda? Bush is just lucky that none of these family members, in their brief speaking roles, chose to say "my dad is dead, and it's your fault." Regardless of whether or not one supports the general idea of the War on Terror, using the family members of the dead is nothing short of exploitation. :P

Ok, math is hard. Goodness knows, I'm not stellar when it comes to personal finances, as Dr. T will attest (most likely while clutching his heart and becoming even paler). But even I can't lose $9 billion US. This is no doubt why I haven't been recruited by the "U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the invasion up until mid-2004."

The $9 billion whoopsie was discovered in a recent audit of the CPA. One particularly interesting finding in the audit shows that "funds went to pay the salaries of 8,206 Iraqi guards, yet the audit could verify the existence of only 602 guards."

The other side of this potentially missing coin is the issue of so-called combat pay. Alternet reports that not only are front-line soldiers earning a mere $225 a month - which is about$7.50 a day - for their part in G.I. Joe, the Reality Series, but that other military personnel, hundreds of miles from the action, are making the same wage. So the soldiers who are getting shot at, blown up, and stoned in the streets are making the same as the ones who are polishing the general's shoes, somewhere that isn't in the streets.

I suppose one could argue that front-line soldiers are there because that's where they were sent, and the same is true for those holding down the fort miles from the danger zone. This is true - so perhaps the front-liners shouldn't be making more, since the fort-holders didn't choose not to fight. But $7.50 a day? How is this justifiable?

That's exactly what I asked myself, and these are the answers I found:

According to Military.com, those qualified for "Immanent Danger Pay" are also exempt from taxes on that pay. Also, the IDP is paid on top of the minimum $1,142.70 per month earned by an enlisted soldier with less than 4 months experience. Militarypay.com also reports that "Most soldiers... get more than just basic pay. Those on active duty are given an allowance for housing and subsistence, incentive pay, medical and other benefits." Incentive pay is given for things like speaking foreign languages, flying, diving, and so on.

So it's essentially misleading for Alternet's reporter to suggest that the US soldiers are earning $7.50 per day - the truth is, the $7.50 is a bonus for being involved in the conflict. There are also allowances for clothing, housing, education, and, for the soldiers in Iraq, a special allowance for the families they've left behind.

It's still not much - you certainly couldn't get me to slip into fatigues and dash off to the streets of Bagdhad, not even for an additional $7.50 a day.

Now, for $9 billion, I'd consider it.

Yesterday was former PM Jean Chretien's turn on the witness stand in the Gomery Commission inquiry into the 2003 sponsorship 'scandal'.

"Chrétien ended the day by taking a theatrical shot at inquiry commissioner Gomery, who said in a controversial year-end media interview that he found the fact the Prime Minister's Office had golf balls made up with Chrétien's signature to be "small town cheap."

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien holds a golf ball during his testimony at the Gomery inquiry. (CP photo)

A smiling Chrétien proceeded to pull from his briefcase golf balls that he said he'd received from people from small towns, including U.S. President George W. Bush and former president Bill Clinton."

One might say he now has a pair from Mr. Gomery, too. Gomery did try to stop Chretien, who refused to stop because "it's too much fun."

As part of his testimony, Chretien also said it was misleading to refer to the ad agencies who allegedly benefitted from the affair as "Liberal-friendly" - he claims the agencies are in fact "federalism-friendly" and that the alternative would have been "separatist-friendly" companies.

Ah, well, that's alright then.

Interesting things are afoot down south.

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, have introduced new legislation concerning the Freedom of Information Act - including a special mention of bloggers:

The Cornyn-Leahy legislation is not just pro-openness, pro-accountability, and pro-accessibility - it's also pro-Internet. It includes a hotline enabling citizens to track their requests, including Internet tracking, and grants privileged FOIA fees for bloggers and writers for Internet outlets, providing the same status as traditional media.

Great! Now hand over them Nixon tapes, please.

Former flame Belinda Stronach? She's a dog (granted, he's still in denial about that one).

Fellow Nova Scotian MP and former NDP leader Alexa McDonough? She should "stick to her knitting."

So, you ask, what does our quick-witted, silver-tongued Foreign Affairs Minister have to say about the Saddam Hussein verdict?

"I think it would be pre-emptive to be passing any judgments or making any firm public declarations," is what.

Now, is it just me, or does that response reek of "we're waiting to see what kind of response we can come up with that the Americans will like but that won't make Canadians gag"? Or maybe it's a stall, and we'll give a response after the American elections.

Perhaps I'm just a dogged knitter with my knickers in a twist, but it seems to me that we need a Foreign Minister who (a) understands why you're not supposed to make remarks that many, many, MANY people will find offensive, (b) can recognize that references to female politicians as either knitters or Setters are among those remarks, (c) is grown-up and professional enough to admit that s/he's messed up, without blaming it on his/her grandmother (the knitting remark) or denying it altogether despite evidence on tape and sworn affidavits to the contrary (the dog reference), and (d) is confident in his/her postition as the person who's supposed to know all about all the foreign stuff to comment on something pretty frickin major, foreign-wise.

There - I've said my piece, and I can get back to my plot to take over the country knitting.

It's official.

So apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury is all for integrating Sharia law into the British courts, and his saying so publicly has drawn a barrage of criticism from just about every direction.

Frankly, I'm not prepared to take a stand one way or the other (well, yes I am, in the sense that it's pretty clear to me that a secular, democratic nation, be it the UK, the USA, Canada, or any other nation that claims to be one, should by definition remove any non-secular references from its legislation, beyond the inclusion of religious belief being a fundamental right of the citizenry - but I digress). Nor do I want to make any comment along the lines of "isn't it funny how a nation whose history over the last half-millennium has been primarily shaped by its rejection of the papacy sticks a different funny hat on a different aging priest, particularly one whose eyebrows are, frankly, outrageous, and considers it front-page news when this guy throws in his two pence."

My actual rant is about the Prime Minister (theirs, not ours), who in reference to the A of C's "support" of Sharia law in Britain said that "British laws should be based on British values."

Ahem.

It seems to me that if there are enough people in Britain for whom the Sharia issue is relevant, which is a fair assumption, then perhaps, just maybe, the PM might consider that the values of these people - traditional (read white Christian) values notwithstanding - are, at least in part, British values. No?

As I said, I am not trying to get into whether or not there is a place for religious law in national courts. In fact, there seems to be a fairly strong indication from vocal religious groups that they're not really interested in redefining British law. But to arrogantly say "we're not doing the Sharia thing cuz it's not British" is tantamount to saying "you can be Muslim, or you can be British, but you can't be both."

Harumph.

Ok, I'm done now - told you I'd find something to rant about.

Ah, new year, what do you have in store for me?

Another election? Probably.

Oh, and here's my take on the Ignatieff leadership: Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy and the rest of the contenders didn't so much step aside to allow the coronation of Iggy as they did suspend their campaigning for now. By letting Ignatieff take the interim leadership, they're also letting him be the guy who has to deal with Harper, the economy, the post-prorogue Parliament, and the snow. Then in May, when everything's warm and sunny, they'll be back, armed with new ammunition based on Iggy's mishandling of all of the above.

Of course, this strategy assumes he will, in fact, mishandle things. This is not an altogether preposterous assumption - after all, this is the guy who thinks we can finally deal with the whole constitution crisis thingie once and for all, and move on. Frankly, only a guy who hasn't lived in the country and hasn't been paying attention can make a broad statement like that with a straight face.

I'm willing to give Iggy a chance, really, because he scares me less than Harper, and these days Layton comes across as the creepy uncle who keeps asking you to sit on his knee at the family reunion. Having said that, there are several obstacles to overcome:

1. Harper is still, technically, in power
2. No one seems to really like Ignatieff
3. We're all sick to death of elections and campaigning
4. We're all more interested in Obama than our own government, and all these crises are a little distracting
5. The media don't seem to like Iggy, as evidenced by the fact that they keep posting the worst possible photos of him
6. His name - no one seems completely sure how to spell it, and I have yet to hear it pronounced the same way twice
7. His background - we are fine with Russian aristocracy in an abstract way, but do we really want to live through years of headlines about Count Canuck or Czar Iggy?
8. Eyebrows. They didn't help Dukakis, either.