Jailing Journalists in Canada

"Stephen Harper's back-benchers are mostly lunatics." That is the type of biased and distortionary comment that Conservative back-bencher Colin Mayes thinks should have me thrown in jail. He is clearly a sane and intelligent man.

The Globe and Mail has reprinted sections of a brilliant and well-thought out article which was published by various smaller newspapers in his glorious home riding.

It is a fact that Mr. Mayes stated the following, “maybe it is time that we hauled off in handcuffs reporters that fabricate stories, or twist information and even falsely accuse citizens.”

It is also a fact that he said, in what appears to me (subjectively) to be a jovial tone, “boy, would the public get accurate and true information if a few reporters were hauled away to jail!”

He then, being the shrewd politician that he says, went on to suggest that these sort of moral and upstanding policies could never be implemented “because the media would cry ‘censorship' and ‘authoritarian state'."

I would observe, quite factually and without any distortion, that most authoritarian states do in fact jail journalists, whereas most free and democratic states do not. Not that I'm implying anything, Mr. Mayes sir.

Beyond that dear readers, you are on your own. I've spent some time in the joint and I tell you what, I ain't going back! How much time you ask? Have you heard of the Count of Monte Cristo? That was me. The man in the Iron Mask? Me as well. The Unabomber? Oh... clearly that wasn't me. Another man is in jail for that, so, uh, he must have done it.

Swabmeat Swapmeet!

For those of you who have read Margaret Atwood's prescient and deliciously apocalyptical novel 'Oryx and Crake,' wherein chicken breasts are grown by the dozen upon bizarre entities with legs that are engineered into roots, mouths that are always open and fed with a constant stream of nutrients, hearts and lungs, but no brains or wings or feathers, the idea of science blurring the boundaries between plants and animals will come as no great surprise. For those of you who have not, prepare to empty your stomaches upon your keyboards! The future is here, faster and more disgusting than we ever imagined.

According to the globe and mail (YUCK!), scientists are now capable of growing meat in a petri dish. That's right, they can grow a slab of steak out of thin air without a cow anywhere in sight.

And you laughed when I wrote about pork moss!

One of the leading scientists in the field dreams of placing a new appliance upon your counter-top, right next to your toaster oven. In honour of EZ-cheeze and the EZ-bake oven, I hereby proclaim that it shall be called the EZ-Meat Oven!

"Home chefs could make meat in a countertop device the size of a coffee maker. Before bed, throw starter cells and a package of growth medium into the meat maker and wake up to harvest fresh sausage for breakfast."

Perhaps you have been completely disgusted and are left without an ouce of gust in your entire body. Perhaps you are so thoroughly nauseated that you can no longer think clearly. Well dear reader, do not fear, I have steeled myself against nausea through years of training. Once, while trapped under the collapsed capstone of an ancient Mayan gateway, I survived for three years, unable to move even far enough to forage for berries, by collecting and eating the maggots that were growing in my own wounds. It is experiences like this that have made me the master of omens that I am.

Immediately upon reading this article I realized that EZ-meat would decimate the cult of vegetarianism. Indeed, do not the dirty vegetarians always propound their ethical arguments?

"Meat is murder!" they say, but it no longer seems to be the case!
"Don't eat me I'm cute," they cry, but what in God's name is cute about a steak that clings to the edges of your sink and continues to grow when you try to throw it out!

Those of you who feel guilty killing living things for your food certainly must agree with me, that EZ meat, while disgusting, would be in a different ethical category.

Listen readers, clearly EZ-meat is the beginning of the end for vegetarians, and it seems clear to me that our Lord and Saviour has promised the people Texas that he will return when they host a BBQ in Jerusalem that is attended by everyone on the planet. What else could explain Texas?

And just when you thought it couldn't get any more disgusting: SHAZAM!!!!

"One group, which he would not name, did offer him money, but they wanted him to grow meat from human cells, so they could grow pieces of themselves to eat."

If this process removes the ethical barriers that keep many people from indulging in the delicious flesh of animals, then why would human EZ-meat be any different?

Chew on that, dear reader, CHEW ON THAT!

Or this:

"In 2003, scientists in the United States announced that they had successfully grown a rabbit penis in the lab."

Yours truly,
Matteus Von Mustard
The Undisgustable Undertaker of the Unfathomable

Neo-con-omics

If you've been reading the Toronto Star you will have noticed some articles about the plight of Portugese immigrants in Toronto. While the evidence is mostly anecdotal, there is a conviction among members of this community that the rate of deportation has spiked since the Conservatives took over office.

This includes immigrants who originally entered the country illegally or over-stayed various kinds of visas, but who now have jobs and homes and cars and (may or may not) pay income taxes. [Ed. -- The more I read about this, the less clear I am on whether or not these people are paying income taxes] Many people are being deported with only two weeks notice. While there are arguments for deporting people who have entered illegally because it is unfair to people on waiting lists hoping to immigrate legally, even if those arguments are valid it's inhumane to make families pack up their life and leave within two weeks.

What makes this case interesting is the fact that a high-percentage of these immigrants work in the construction industry in various skilled trades. There are shortages of people with these skills in Canada as it is and a number of high-profile developers have made a plea to Mr. Harper to consider the type of amnesty for gainfully employed immigrants that the liberals were considering before they left office. Deporting these people will hurt the economy and yet, the conservatives are going ahead with it anyway. This may seem strange to you, as we typically think of conservatives as being economically and fiscally responsible. However, Stephen Harper is a neo-con (like Harris and Bush) and for neo-cons social issues trump fiscal and economic responsibilities. Harris and Bush both ran up extraordinary deficits and if Canada weren't drowning in oil money right now, Stephen Harper would probably do the same damn thing. The deportation of important workers in a booming economic sector is the first sign of 'moral values' (xenophobia) trumping the economic well-being of Canadians. What's more!, neo-cons are afraid of many things besides foreigners, including gays, women, drugs, atheists and intellectuals -- so they will have lots of opportunities to put our economy at risk to advance their agenda.

Some of you might wonder why this is. What has happened to the conservatives we used to know and love? Never fear dear readers, I shall explain; people are motivated to enter into politics because they have strong feeling about ISSUES. Leftists want to see the fair treatment of the poor and other marginalized members of society. It used to be the case that various taxes, tarrifs, regulations and government policies made it difficult to do business. This was an issue and so people were motivated to run for office to fix it. These were the old-school conservatives.

Now however, the global economic system as a whole runs quite smoothly. Anyone interested in business goes into BUSINESS -- not into government. For this reason the conservative parties are left to pick and choose amongst candidates motivated by social issues. All the intelligent, reasonable right-wing people are picked up by corporations and conservative political parties are basically left with the kids nobody wants on their baseball team. While they may claim to be economically conservative, they are primarily motivated by social issues and when they are forced to choose they will always choose pushing their social agenda over the economic well-being of the country's economy.

Very little would benefit our economy more (especially the tourism industry) than legalizing and taxing marijuana -- and yet what is the likelihood that this will happen with a conservative government? Nothing could be worse for the US debt-crisis than the war in Iraq and yet that's exactly what W. wanted and by lying through his teeth, that's what he got. It is in effect a $300 billion dollar version of rolling up in a saloon and saying "I'm looking for the man who shot my pa."

The strange thing is that liberals have come around to the idea that a strong economy with targeted redistribution of wealth, particularly in the areas of health and education, is actually the best way to help the lower and middle classes. The issues that motivated them to enter into politics demand that they maintain a strong economy and for this reason, they are actually MORE likely than neo-cons to balance the budget and address economic issues. So, in conclusion, if you want an economically responsible government, you should vote Liberal. If that isn't a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is. We are indeed living in a brave new world.


_______________________________________________
To be fair, the Conservatives are suggesting that the deportation rate hasn't changed since they took office, but they can't explain why they won't consider the sort of amnesty that the Liberals were planning to put forward.

Iraqtional Thinking

Dearest readers, those of you who have been paying attention will surely have noted that I enjoy poking fun at American ignorance, I like to pull poll numbers out of a hat (it is of course, a hat filled with the fruits of my rigorous research and study) and show you what the average American believes. Many of you will be surprised to learn that ignorance and unreason are not confined within the borders of America! I merely focus on Americans because they can and do back their ignorance up with the biggest, baddest, best-equipped army in the world.

Today though, I was reading the Globe and Mail and I came across some similar polls regarding the beliefs of the average Iraqi. To numbers in particular caught my eye.

1) Only 13% of Iraqis believe that it is no longer necessary to have US troops in their country. Not so surprising, there is clearly a lot of work left to be done in the so-called rebuilding. Now, let's say that ten percent of Iraqis are undecided on this issue. That means that 77% of Iraqis believe that it is still necessary to have US troops in their country.

Keep this in mind and think about the fact that --

2) 47% of Iraqis approve of the attacks that are being made on US troops by the insurgents.

So, let's be generous and suggest that the entire 13% of Iraqis who believe US troops are no longer necessary also approve of the attacks. That still leaves 34% of Iraqis. And the undecided ten percent, subtract them too. That means that 24% of Iraqis -- one in four -- believe BOTH 1) that the US troops MUST STAY in Iraq AND 2) that the ought to be attacked.

That is like believing both that the steak needs to cook a little longer AND that it will help the steak I pour ice into the barbeque. [In truth both of these statements are false, ice in a barbeque has never helped anyone or anything and steak is always already cooked enough -- so take it off right away.]

I'm not even trying to make a statement here on whether or not US troops should stay or whether or not their is an ethical defense for the insurgency, I'm just saying whatever you choose to believe, for god's sake, at least make the effort to keep your beliefs logically consistent!

George Bush should forget about the war on terror. Terror is the least of our problems, it's idiocy we should be worried about.

I, Matteus Von Mustard, hereby declare an all-out war against idiocy!

Executive Order 13397

Oh Lordy-Lay! Oh Lordy-Lie! We are in deep deep doo-doo!

Recently Pope George W. issued an "Executive Order" demanding that the Department of Homeland Security set (us) up (the bomb)... i mean set up some sort of sub-department for the sole purpose, i'm not making this up, of coordinating their efforts (presumably to secure the homeland) with the efforts of "faith-based community initiatives."

You can read the entire Executive Order here.

Actually, I'm just going to put the whole thing up for you to peruse. Honestly, if anyone can fathom his intentions, please, please post and help me out. Cause I really can't see what a basement full of church-grannies are going to do for the DHS. Can you even knit kevlar?

Please take a look at Section 3b, which as far as I can understand orders the Homeland Security Department to do whatever is within their power to give "faith-based community initiatives" the opportunity to participate in their activities... such as, I guess, having church choirs jump on the line during wiretaps? Or having priests interogate people at the border?

Please god, honestly, what the hell is he thinking?

___________________________________________________
Executive Order 13397 of March 7, 2006


Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland
Security With Respect to Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives

By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, and in order to help the Federal Government
coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities
for faith-based and other community organizations and
to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's
social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as
follows:

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland
Security.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)
shall establish within the Department of Homeland
Security (Department) a Center for Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives (Center).
(b) The Center shall be supervised by a Director
appointed by Secretary. The Secretary shall consult
with the Director of the White House Office of Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI Director)
prior to making such appointment.
(c) The Department shall provide the Center with
appropriate staff, administrative support, and other
resources to meet its responsibilities under this
order.
(d) The Center shall begin operations no later than
45 days from the date of this order.

Sec. 2. Purpose of Center. The purpose of the Center
shall be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate
regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic
obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other
community organizations in the provision of social and
community services.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of the Center for Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives. In carrying out the purpose
set forth in section 2 of this order, the Center shall:

(a) conduct, in coordination with the WHOFBCI
Director, a department-wide audit to identify all
existing barriers to the participation of faith-based
and other community organizations in the delivery of
social and community services by the Department,
including but not limited to regulations, rules,
orders, procurement, and other internal policies and
practices, and outreach activities that unlawfully
discriminate against, or otherwise discourage or
disadvantage the participation of faith-based and other
community organizations in Federal programs;
(b) coordinate a comprehensive departmental effort
to incorporate faith-based and other community
organizations in Department programs and initiatives to
the greatest extent possible;
(c) propose initiatives to remove barriers
identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order,
including but not limited to reform of regulations,
procurement, and other internal policies and practices,
and outreach activities;
(d) propose the development of innovative pilot and
demonstration programs to increase the participation of
faith-based and other community organizations in
Federal as well as State and local initiatives; and

[[Page 12276]]

(e) develop and coordinate Departmental outreach
efforts to disseminate information more effectively to
faith-based and other community organizations with
respect to programming changes, contracting
opportunities, and other agency initiatives, including
but not limited to Web and Internet resources.

Sec. 4. Reporting Requirements.

(a) Report. Not later than 180 days from the date
of this order and annually thereafter, the Center shall
prepare and submit a report to the WHOFBCI Director.
(b) Contents. The report shall include a
description of the Department's efforts in carrying out
its responsibilities under this order, including but
not limited to:

(i) a comprehensive analysis of the barriers to the full participation of
faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and
community services identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order and
the proposed strategies to eliminate those barriers; and

(ii) a summary of the technical assistance and other information that will
be available to faith-based and other community organizations regarding the
program activities of the agency and the preparation of applications or
proposals for grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and procurement.

(c) Performance Indicators. The first report shall
include annual performance indicators and measurable
objectives for Departmental action. Each report filed
thereafter shall measure the Department's performance
against the objectives set forth in the initial report.

Sec. 5. Responsibilities of the Secretary. The
Secretary shall:

(a) designate an employee within the department to
serve as the liaison and point of contact with the
WHOFBCI Director; and
(b) cooperate with the WHOFBCI Director and provide
such information, support, and assistance to the
WHOFBCI Director as requested to implement this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be
implemented subject to the availability of
appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.

(b) This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the
United States, its agencies, or entities, its officers,
employees, or agents, or any other person.

(Presidential Sig.)B

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 7, 2006.

Can Bush possibly Gitmo hypocritical?

Last week the names of the detainees being held in guatanamo bay were finally released. Or at least some of them were. Who really knows, it's not as if the Bush administration has any problems lying to the world.

What I found particularly repulsive about this whole scenario was that the White House was fighting to keep the names secret using precedents from succesful privacy trials.

Let that sink into your head.

They were arguing that it was a violation of these prisoners privacy rights to publish their names.

They steal people from their homes with bags on their heads in the night, fly them in unmarked planes to a military base on the shores of a nation they despise, they torture these people and hold them for years without even charging them with crimes AND THEN they turn around and claim that they are worried about their "right to privacy" when probably the thing these people want most in the world is that their families know what happened to them.

This is the same government that tapped an untold number of its own citizens phones illegally. They even had the legal right to apply for a warrant up to two weeks after they started the wiretap so it's not as if they did it because they had to act quickly on new intelligence. They just didn't give a shit about US law.

This is no longer a question of a government that has different ethical priorities than my own. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all their little lapdogs have no moral compunctions whatsoever. They believe that international conventions are a joke. They believe that the Law is a game and they are willing to stand up in court and spout brazen lies at the drop of a hat. This is how totalitarianism begins.

And it gets better still, Canada is just about the only developed country that hasn't criticized the Bush administration about the unlawfulness and immorality of Gitmo. In fact, in Afghanistan OUR MILITARY regularily hands people over to the US so that they can bag and drag them out to be tortured in the Caribbean. Every Canadian voter has blood on their hands and Stephen Harper is only going to make things worse. We need to write to our MPs and our Prime Minister and demand a condemnation of Guantanamo bay. Read the article that I have linked above.

APPENDUM -- March 9th 2006
Dear Readers! There is partially good news! I have just received word from my man-in-the-field Rear Admiral Clarence Scorpus that, before handing the reigns to Mr. Harper, Mr. Martin quietly passed a law declaring that Canadian troops would hand over prisoners to the Afghan government and not to the U.S. Unfortunately however, some pessimists believe that in many cases the Afghanis will just hand these prisoners to the US (or execute the Christians and hand the rest over...). Still, it looks like one more decent thing that the Liberals have done for us.