http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:50:37 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php Angry in T.O.It is one of those rules in life that what is not said is often far more significant and telling than what is.In the case of Quebec, that which is not spoken of is "anglophone."It is a perennial event in Quebec politics to bemoan the lack of minority representation in Quebec's civil service. That time of year is upon us again, focusing on the city of Montreal:Out of 28,684 municipal workers at the city, 1,680 are members of cultural minorities.Another 1,603 city employees are visible minorities, the numbers show. So while the 2001 Canadian census says that 21 percent of Montrealers are visible minorities, they make up 5.59 percent of the city's municipal workforce.And while women are the majority in society, representing 52.1 percent of Montreal's population, they make up 39.07 percent of the municipal workforce, or 11,207 employees.I'm not going to get into how closely a municipal workforce must look like the city it serves, if at all. Then you start getting in issues like institutional racism or quotas or whatever, and no one is ever happy with whatever solution you select, assuming you can agree on the nature of the problem, or even if there really is one. But in a province where everything is seen through the prism of language, specifically how to rid the province of the English language and replace it entirely with French, this tidbit is remarkable:The census does not provide the representation of anglophones because that is not a group targeted in the provincial law.Talk about being a non-person. If we don't even count them, there won't be a problem of there being too few of them. If we ignore them, it'll be as if they weren't there. Maybe they'll get the hint and go away. Or not -- it won't matter, because we refuse to even see that they are there.Shakespeare being thrown down the memory hole. Politics27306@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:50:37 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/14/071303.php Angry in T.O.From The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear:Commissioner Anabell Brumford: I would like now to introduce a most distinguished gentleman. This week he is being honored for his one 1000th drug dealer killed. Ladies and gentleman please welcome Lt. Frank Drebin of Police Squad. Lt. Frank Drebin: In all honesty the last two I backed over with my car. Luckily they turned out to be drug dealers.This gag from the second (and I think the best) of the Naked Gun movies has been tumbling around in my head since the memorial for the fallen Mounties.I know it would appear to be inappropriate, but there is a reason, and if you bear with me, it'll become clear.I was thinking about the man who shot these brave officers, James Roszko, and how, if he had survived the ambush he had set, what he would have been facing now. At the very least, the ceremony yesterday would have constituted the mother of all Victim Impact Statements. You see, in Canada, as in all US jurisdictions, we recognize the use of Victim Impact Statements at sentencing:Canadian legislation concerning Victim Impact Statements was proclaimed in force in October, 1988. Under Section 722 of the Criminal Code, a Victim Impact Statement allows victims to describe in writing the harm done to them or the loss suffered as a result of the crime. Originally, the statement could be considered by the court for the purpose of determining sentence; the court was not required to do so. Bill C-41 was proclaimed in force in September, 1996, requiring Victim Impact Statements to be considered by the court in sentencing. Initially, Victim Impact Statements were not admissible in youth court. In December, 1995, Bill C-37 was proclaimed in force, allowing VIS to be presented in youth court. All Victim Impact Statements are to be prepared in accordance with procedures established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province.In Alberta, information about the Victim Impact Statement program is provided to victims of crime by police services and victim assistance programs. "The Victim Impact Statement program provides victims in Alberta an opportunity to have input into sentencing by describing in writing to the courts how they have been affected by the crime" (Victims' Programs Assistance Committee, 1997, p. 11).Is this right?I don't think so, and here's why.The problem with the VIS is that it is essentially additional evidence that is immune from cross-examination. If the victim of a crime was lucky enough to have had a close relative who is particularly eloquent, a devastating VIS might be prepared. But unlike testimony, the defendent does not have the opportunity to challenge the assertion that the victim was loved by his mother more than most sons are loved by their mothers, or that his work in the community was really so valuable. I know it sounds crass, but if you're not willing to subject the VIS to the same rigourous evaluation as any other evidence, then you probably should not be so eager to include it in court proceedings.Moreover, even if everything in the VIS is true, so what? Consider the crime of murder. Sure there are people who might appear to have had more value to society than others, their deaths felt more keenly. But murder is about the interruption of that person's life -- who knows what path he might have taken. The vctim who seemed like a saint might have fallen on hard times six months down the road, and in desperation, robbed a bank and killed an innocent bystander. The victim who had alienated his family and co-workers and neighbours might have had, six months down the road, a change of heart worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge, and donated all his hoarded wealth to a hospital to fund a new wing.Or not.Problem is, we don't know, so the law, until recently, avoided the sticky situation of estimating the value of a person's life. All lives are equally worthy of protection under the law. All those who take a life face equal punishment as a result.Now we subject crime victims to the indignity of having to convince the court that they or their lost loved ones are more worthy of consideration during sentencing. Why should I have to jump through this hoop? I should be able to sit quietly, say nothing, and expect the court to issue a sentence against the person who wronged me and the community at large, and expect that justice, blind and fair, be meted out.It is the math behind it that reveals the twisted logic. Imagine the crime X earns you sentence Y, all things being equal. But because of a particularly poignant VIS, the criminal earns Y+5. This is allowed when Y+5 falls within the range of sentences allowed, though at the high end. Now turn it around. Let Z equal Y+5. Crime X has the potential of earning a sentence of Z. But if the victim doesn't submit a compelling VIS, you end up with a sentence of Z-5.What if the victim was a real jerk?Which brings us back to the gag at the top of this piece. Drebin commits two counts of vehicular manslaughter. But in terms of a VIS, society would seem to be better off without these two people around. His guilt is not merely mitigated, it is actually inverted completely, and his punishment is replaced with adulation and an award.Someone would argue that the humour is in that it takes the notion of the VIS to an absurd extreme for the sake of a laugh. But what these people are missing is that whenever you see a joke based on taking some notion to an "absurd extreme", it is more often than not an absurd notion to begin with. The extreme treatment merely highlights the absurdity that is already there; it does not manufacture it.[Originally posted at Angry in the Great White North] Politics26705@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:13:03 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/28/080801.php Angry in T.O.The process of altering the fabric of a community against the will of its members will often result in a mass exodus of the original membership, with the resulting destruction of that community and a backlash against those who altered it. We've seen it before, we're seeing it now, and we'll be seeing it again in the future.From the New York Times (via Drudge), a story about the increased emigration from the Netherlands:There is more than the concern about the rising complications of absorbing newcomers, now one-tenth of the population, many of them from largely Muslim countries. Many Dutch also seem bewildered that their country, run for decades on a cozy, political consensus, now seems so tense and prickly and bent on confrontation.Some have decided to move, but not too far:Sandy Sangen has applied to move to Norway with her husband and two school-age children. They want to buy a farm in what she calls "a safer, more peaceful place."Other have decided to chuck the whole Euro-socialist dream altogether:Those leaving have been mostly lured by large English-speaking nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where they say they hope to feel less constricted.Ruud Konings, an accountant, has just sold his comfortable home in the small town of Hilvarenbeek. In March, after a year's worth of paperwork, the family will leave for Australia. The couple said the main reason was their fear for the welfare and security of their two teenage children."When I grew up, this place was spontaneous and free, but my kids cannot safely cycle home at night," said Mr. Konings, 49. "My son just had his fifth bicycle stolen." At school, his children and their friends feel uneasy, he added. "They're afraid of being roughed up by the gangs of foreign kids."Who do they blame for this? Refreshingly, they realize that there is blame to go around:Like the Sangens and Koningses, others who are moving speak of their yearning for the open spaces, the clean air, the easygoing civility they feel they have lost. Complaints include overcrowding, endless traffic jams, overregulation. Some cite a rise in antisocial behavior and a worrying new toughness and aggression both in political debates and on the streets.Blaming immigrants for many ills has become commonplace. Conservative Moroccans and Turks from rural areas are accused of disdaining the liberal Dutch ways and of making little effort to adapt. Immigrant youths now make up half the prison population. More than 40 percent of immigrants receive some form of government assistance, a source of resentment among native Dutch. Immigrants say, though, that they are widely discriminated against.Ms. Konings said the Dutch themselves brought on some of the social frictions. The Dutch "thought that we had to adapt to the immigrants and that we had to give them handouts," she said. "We've been too lenient; now it's difficult to turn the tide."This phenomenon has been seen before in the United States (and elsewhere, but to a lesser extent), but only on a local level. "White flight" gave birth to suburbia, when affluent city dwellers fled the cities to escape the influx of rural poor brought in by government programs of welfare and subsidized housing. The demographics tended to break along racial lines -- white vs black -- so the label "white flight" was coined.But it happens whenever a community or an organization is forced to include "the other". As an unintended consequence, the backlash can do more harm to "the others" than if things had been left as they were.There was that great episode of The Simpsons in which the the Stonecutters, a parody of the Freemasons, were forced to include Homer in their ranks. Lisa, the well-meaning busy-body liberal, used Homer's membership as an "in" to start to alter the fabric of that community. Previously concerned only with drinking beer and playing ping-pong, they now compelled to support social projects, much to their chagrin. Unable to toss Homer out, the entire membership left the organization to Homer and began a new organization whose founding principle was the exclusion of Homer Simpson, whether he followed the rules or not.Let's re-write that previous paragraph:There was that process in the Netherlands in which the people were forced to have unassimilated Muslims as neighbours. The government, made up of well-meaning busy-body liberals, started to alter the fabric of that country. Previously concerned only with Dutch culture, citizens were now compelled to support increased welfare for unemployed and unemployable immigrants, and put up with the associated violence, much to their chagrin. Unable to toss the Muslims out, large numbers of the original population left the country to the Muslims and began new communities whose founding principle was the exclusion of non-Europeans, assimilated or otherwise.Let's re-write that previous paragraph yet once more:There was that process in the Anglican Church in which the people were forced to recognize gay couples as blessed by God and to have practicing gays as clergy and bishops. The Church leadership, made up of well-meaning busy-body liberals, started to alter the fabric of the Church. Previously concerned only with Christian living in line with Scripture, the faithful were now compelled to support lifestyles that would seem to be explicitly condemned by Scripture, both Old and New Testament, much to their chagrin. Unable to toss the gays out, large numbers of the original Anglican congregation began to leave the Anglican Church and began new Protestant denominations whose founding principle was the exclusion of all homosexuals, whether they agreed to live by Christian principles or not. Culture26108@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:08:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/13/135709.php Angry in T.O.O. G. Pamp of Tweed, Ontario, writes in the December 30 issue of NOW Toronto:RE To Send or Not To Send (NOW, December 9-15). Canada should not act as a gofer for American-imposed elections in Iraq, which at best would be an obscene joke. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan needs democracy, but peace, and that can never occur until the American invaders leave.Let's leave aside the wrong characterization of the election as "an obscene joke". To be fair, no one in December really knew how things would work out. Of course, lefties would do themselves a favour by leaving themselves a bit of wriggle room, instead of speaking in absolutes ("at best"? You sure about that? No chance whatsoever that it might work out OK?)What I found most interesting was the bit about democracy versus peace. "Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan needs democracy, but peace." Maybe a recap of non-democratic regimes on this planet is in order.North Korea - not at peace. Iran -- not at peace. Sudan -- not at peace. Myanmar -- not at peace. Syria -- not at peace. Saudi Arabia -- not at peace. Cuba -- not at peace.The list goes on. In each case, these non-democratic countries could hardly be considered at peace. They are either at war with their neighbours, or at war with themselves. Even the ones that are relatively quiet, like Saudi Arabia or Cuba, are rife with discrimination and government abuse of their citizens.O. G. Pamp might have the formula for peace without democracy. Nice trick if you can pull it off. My read of history and current events suggests that whenever you form a society in which the people are ruled by those who do not subject themselves to the judgment of those same people, whatever peace you might have is false. The government-for-life inevitably begins to see the body of citizens as potential threats to its power. Potential enemies that must be tracked, controlled, turned against each other, and if necessary, punished.I'm not being deep. That sort of thing I leave to the philosophers. From the ancient Greeks, who knew a thing or two about democracy:A tyrant is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. PlatoDoesn't sound too peaceful. But leave it to the Romans to be more blunt about it:A bad peace is even worse than war. TacitusFinally, a quote from a man who fought for both democracy and peace:True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. Martin Luther KingToo bad Dr. King is no longer with us to help us against the "wise" O. C. Pamps of this world. Politics25458@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:57:09 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/10/172524.php Angry in T.O.The Cold War kept from getting hot in no small part because of MAD -- Mutual Assured Destruction. The idea that if one side attacked, even in a limited way, with nuclear weapons, the other would attack back with everything they had. That would mean the only viable attack for the aggressor would be an all out attack, but since that had no guarantee of destroying the ability of the other side of launching a devastating counter-attack (especially via nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, aka "boomers"), the attack would almost certainly result in the destruction of both sides.So no attack ever happened (not to say we didn't come close here or there).In fact, the system was predicated on the idea that both sides knew what the other was up to.Since only two sides (essentially) had the bomb, the scheme was stable. Both sides were rational, with rational goals, and so could be trusted to act in a predictable manner.Today there is news that the North Koreans have claimed to have a working bomb, and Iran is promising "burning hell" for any aggressive acts against its nuclear weapons program. Neither North Korea nor Iran could be easily labelled rational. Both are aggressive, almost rabid at times. In the case of Iran, there is the added motivation of other-worldly paradise for those who vanquish Allah's enemies -- America and Israel.Furthermore, both have a history of working with other nations or with terror groups to arm and supply them in order to improve their ability to spread terror and mayhem. What if North Korea never launches a nuclear weapon against Japan or the United States, but rather gives a warhead to a well-financed south Asian Islamic group? Iran is already the paymaster for Hizbollah -- they would have no problem finding people willing to drive a warhead into an Israeli city, or sail a warhead into a Mediterranean or American port, and then detonate it.In these scenarios, there is no launch of a missile that NORAD satellites can track. No way to know it was one of these countries that provided the weapon.Why couldn't the Russians or Chinese have done something like this during the Cold War? Well, they could have. The movie "The Fourth Protocol" explored such a scenario (the fictitious protocol being that both sides agreed never to do this). But strategically, such an attack would have little real effect. First, it's not like you could disable the entire nation by popping a single nuke. Second, the price to pay if the plan were foiled makes it too risky. Too risky for a rational nation, that is.One problem is that we are on the verge of having two rogue nations with nuclear capability in an environment in which too many nations already have the bomb. These nations can each blame the other, or blame rogue Russion nuclear bombs left over from the fall of the Soviet Union, or the Chinese trying to make it look like they did it, or Pakistan losing control over their arsenal, or even the French. Hell, some people would believe that last one.How do you respond?Well, as any parent knows, you send them both to bed without their supper. Or in this case, you make it clear to both Iran and North Korea that a detonation of a nuclear device as an act of terror anywhere in the world will be met with a full nuclear attack on both their nations. No excuses, no pleading, no finger pointing.But what if it was the Chinese? You bet North Korean and Iranian intelligence agencies would be working damn hard to make sure that didn't happen. Better yet, they might realize the only real protection is to dismantle their nukes altogether, because to hold on to even one or two bombs runs the risk of being blamed for something you didn't do, by a United States that is ready to really let the hammer down hard on someone.You think it was scary when your mom was mad? This gives MAD a whole new meaning. Politics25357@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:25:24 EST