Today in upsetting statistics...

To boycott or not - the new Israeli question World The Observer: "Driven by daily images of violence and destruction of Palestinian society, and fed by the enormous disparity in the fatality figures (in 2006, 27 Israelis were killed while more than 650 Palestinians, 120 of them children, died) the question being posed to unions, churches and individuals has become: boycott or not?"

Consumer Whoring

I need this shirt.

Unimpressed with the Anglican Church of Canada

Yesterday, the 2007 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada decided not to bless same-sex unions.

The motion "needed a triple majority of bishops, clergy and laity to pass. The laity voted 79 to 59 in favour and clergy voted 63 to 53, but bishops voted 21 to 19 against." In other words, two clergymembers sunk the whole progressive battleship, despite a clear majority in favour of blessing the unions.

Why would they do this? Well:

The bishops' action will spare the Canadian church from censure by leaders of other branches of the global Anglican Communion, almost all of whom are vehemently opposed to blessing same-sex unions and permitting priests to be in open homosexual relationships.

But it will anger many Canadian Anglicans, particularly in large urban centres, and isolate the U.S. Episcopal Church, which alone in the worldwide Anglican Communion has approved a liturgy for same-sex blessings and appointed an openly gay bishop.

I have to say, as a nominal Anglican, this looks like cowardice to me. As far as Christian sects go, I felt the Anglicans did a masterful job of changing with the times, rejecting the old where it had lost its purpose but without the sorts of reactionary purges (ideologically speaking) most of the mainline protestant churches came out of. And in 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster proved it by approving same-sex blessings. More specifically, parishes were allowed to choose whether or not to perform such blessings. Now that has been kiboshed (does this mean the unions already blessed are unblessed?)

The only silver lining is that the synod did not close the door on a future reconsideration of the issue, ruling beforehand that "the blessing was 'not in conflict with' core doctrine ...by a vote of 21 to 19 in the House of Bishops, and 152 to 97 by clergy and lay members, who voted together." (Diocese of New Westminster)

The timing of the decision was, in my opinion, particularly poor, as the Globe points out:

The Anglican's vote coincided with Gay Pride Day in Toronto - where prominent Anglicans Bill Graham, the former foreign and defence minister, and Bob Rae, former premier of Ontario, attended a service at Toronto's gay Metropolitan Community Church.

One downtown Toronto Anglican parish, Holy Trinity, passed a resolution prior to general synod stating it would approve the blessing of same-sex unions regardless of what synod decided.

A lot of Anglican churches in Toronto are inclusive, so I doubt this decision will be quietly accepted. As an aside, I'm amused the Globe described the MCC as "gay" when queer-allied is more apropos.

---

A quick (and slightly tongue in cheek) breakdown of other religions' views:

• Haredi Orthodox Judaism: "homosexuality is a sin" = no same-sex marriage, ever
• Modern Orthodox Judaism: "we thought homosexuality was a sin, but if it's genetic/inherent, we'll reconsider" = no same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future
• Conservative Judaism: American and allied rabbis: "homosexuality hasn't been a sin since 2006" = acceptance of partnerships and ordination of homosexuals, but no performance of marriage rites; other rabbis "uhm, no, still a sin" = no same-sex marriage, ever
• Reform Judaism: "we've been cool with it since the 1980s" = same-sex marriage since 2000, although up to the congregation to decide
• Reconstructionist Judaism: "we're more reform than reform" = as above, but congregations are strongly encouraged
• Adventist: "you can join, but we won't ordain, bless, or marry you" = no same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future
• Baptist: ranges from "evil!" to "we support your right to a civil marriage" = fence-sitting (not always a bad thing)
• Lutheran/Reformed: "okay by us" = differs from country to country, but many allow same-sex marriages or blessings
• Presbyterian (U.S.): "blessings are okay, but they are not marriages" = more fence-sitting (not always a bad thing)
• United Church (Can.): "okay by us" = local option, if your parish is okay by it you can have full marriage
• Quakers: "seriously? we love everyone...it's kind of our thing" = probably
• Mormons/LDS: hahahahahahahaha...no.
• Eastern Orthodox Christianity: "love the sinner, hate the sin" = no same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future
• Methodist: "you can join, and we'll ordain you, but no blessings or marriage" = wait for it
• Metropolitan Community Churches: "it's in our mandate" = hells yes
• Roman Catholic: "we miss the last Pope...he really sold the whole 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing" = as if--they're a long way off from ever approving same-sex unions
• Islam (apparently the one thing all the sects are united on?): "evil!" = could they be worse than the RCs?
• Hinduism: "theoretically we're okay with just about anything...theoretically" = no same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future
• Buddhism: "dude, there's like 20 kinds of Buddhism" = your mileage may vary
• Sikhism: "we have no scriptural authority for this, but we're pretty sure it's bad" = no same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future
• Confucianism: "you have to get married and have kids, but what you do for fun is your own business" = probably no same-sex marriage, but I can see at least three ways around this
• Taoism: "we're pretty married to the yin/yang thing" = officially no same-sex marriage, but as above, open to interpretation

The thing that always gets me is the sects that allow openly LGBT members and even ordains them, but is not ready to marry them. Thereby forcing them to live in sin, even if you don't think they're sinning...awesome. Well played.

---

The General Synod was liveblogged: no, really!

• http://generalsynod.blogspot.com/
• http://johnoakes.blogspot.com/

Galway Post 2: Why Does Everyone Hate Signs?

Location: Corrib Village, Galway, Ireland

Date: Monday June 11, 2007

Time: GMT 22:00

Monday 11 June 18.00 Registration (Siobhan McKenna Theatre, Arts Millennium Building) 18.30 Keynote Introductory Address Judge Sang-Hyun Song 20.00 Welcome Reception at the Irish Centre for Human Rights

The disaster continueth. I was finally, finally able to check my bags in at Manchester, only to find they hadn't assigned us a gate (and this maybe 45 minutes before wheels up). So I wandered through the departure area, and as luck would have it, was fairly close to Gate 9 when told that was where I should be. I sat there and waited to board...and waited...and waited...and was suddenly jolted out of sleep by a flight attendant hollering "Final Boarding Call for Galway" about three feet from my ear (I'm not complaining...it was clearly done to wake me without looking like she had to wake me, and for that I am thankful). So I dashed for the plane, and thankfully people were still stowing their baggage and whatnot, so I didn't look the total fool.

I slept the hour to Galway, and then took a cab to Corrib Village, the residence all the attendees were lodged at. It was shockingly hot and humid. The cab driver was chatting with me as we drove, and seemed amused that I would "come all this way for a lecture."

A shot of Corrib Village at night.

Once at Corrib Village, I showered (7 hours on planes, plus 6 sitting in the airport--yuck) and put on some semi-dressy clothes to go to the opening lecture and reception. I took the River Path pointed out on the e-mail we had received, blindly trusting it to take me to my destination...

And thus commenced and hour and change of me wandering around the National University of Galway campus, in humidity which occasionally became mist or even rain. Also, I might add, in mounting panic. I'm hardly known for my ability to be on time, but I would have been, in this case, if not for getting late. I kept telling myself Well, maybe I'll miss the registration, but I'll make the speech and then Well, maybe I'll miss the speech, but I'll make the reception and occasionally I should really just go back to Corrib Village...if I can find it. There was not a single map to be found on campus, nor did I pass anyone who looked likely to be able to direct me (e.g. staff).

The silver lining, and it's not a small one, was that during this desperate wandering, who should I run into (almost literally--Irish sidewalks are narrow) but Emily from highschool! Now I must say, as I caught glimpse of her, I did think That looks like Em...I guess of all the people to run into, she'd be the most likely since I knew that her S.O. Brian was Irish. Nevertheless, I was relatively certain she was studying primateology in Toronto, and knowing that she was doing some sort of complicated mega-degree, I assumed she was still there. But no! It was Emily! Much more surprised to see me than I her, for the reasons listed above (tragically, I do not have a charming Irish S.O.). We exchanged the usual "Oh my God! What are you doing here!" Hilariously, though only in retrospect, she could not tell me where the Arts Millennium Building was, since she only used the gym on campus. But she gave me her number and we arranged to meet later in the week.

Finally, I found a sign (not even a map, mind you, just a sign) that pointed to the Arts Millennium Building, wherein I might find the Siobhan McKenna Theatre and the rest of the conference.

Arts Millennium Building

I scuttled in and picked up my rather snazzy conference package, containing, to my delight, a carry case and a copy of An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, and to my chagrin, a detailed map of campus. I missed all but the very end of Judge Sang-Hyun Song's introductory speech, although I did get to hear him speak later, at the Reception.

Judge Sang-Hyun Song (from the ICC website)

On the way to the Reception I met up with my "sponsor", as it were, Professor Williams. She'd been worried about my absence, so I was able to explain to her my "adventure" as we walked the few blocks to the Irish Centre for Human Rights. The Centre is, properly speaking, the host of the conference, although this was the only time we spent there, owing to its size. It's a pretty yellow building on a canal, right across from the gorgeous Galway Cathedral.

Irish Centre for Human Rights

Galway Cathedral

And then I walked home, couldn't get into Corrib Village (all the gates were locked) and so had to circumnavigate the entire, massive compound, and had dinner a la vending machine before collapsing into bed.

Galway Post 1: Adventures in Air Travel

Location: Terminal 1, Manchester Airport, UK
Date: Monday, June 11, 2007
Time: 09:30 GMT

Although relatively painless, the first—and longest—leg of my trip was not a painless as I could have hoped. I was not packed when my parents arrived at the apartment this morning (yesterday morning, in fact) as I had been holding off any potential anxiety about the trip by my signature method of ignoring its existence until the last minute. I slept in; I had breakfast and drank my coffee; I faffed about on the internet until an hour before they came, and then I dashed about my disaster-area of an apartment tripping over bags and discarded cook books in a panicked attempt to shove everything in my bags. When it was finally done and we were a black away, I realized I’d left my pill case on the couch. Cue more running and gasping and profanity hissed at inanimate objects.

At the airport I had lunch with the parents, and my good mood was restored; actually, a little too restored, as I was fairly giddy and traded entirely inappropriate barbs with Mom and Ron, laughing so hysterically that most of the Swiss Chalet was looking askance. Ah well, I’m long past being embarrassed by my booming laughter, and mostly I just take a perverse pride in it

Mom had strongly suggested I pre-book my seat, or at least do it when I got my boarding pass, but as usual I made a half-hearted attempt to follow her sage advice and then failed to follow through. I got a window seat, but since the Thomas Cook staffer mentioned that the flight was far from fully booked, I wasn’t concerned and decided to risk the window seat. (Generally, you see, you want an aisle seat when you fly alone, so you needn’t bother—or talk to—your aisle-mates when you need to powder your nose.) Well, true enough that the flight was not full—there were plenty of passengers with three seats to themselves, stretched out and sleeping. My row, however (15, right over the wing of the Boeing 757) was occupied by a family of five, including one toddler. Now, thankfully they were British children, and therefore shockingly well behaved, but I didn’t get more than 20 minutes of sleep on the trip (I was planning on sleeping the whole time) and nearly injured myself waiting for an opportune time to excuse myself. Also, just before takeoff the sweet mother offered me a Werthers (presumably for my ears) and I was caught unawares, stuttering out and “Oh! No, but thank you so much,” that I felt was less than gracious and which irked me for a good 15 minutes. Generally I can tell when someone is making a genuine offer, but my knee-jerk reaction is to demur, and I worry that I might offend people out of latent shyness

On the up side, the meals were edible. Dinner was a Lilliputian roast beef dinner, with a doll-sized Yorkshire pudding I was honestly sorry to eat. I asked the slight attendants beforehand if the dinner had mushrooms in it (meaning, “is it mushroom-stuffed-mushrooms-in-mushroom-sauce,” not “was it once stored in the same warehouse as some mushrooms”) which elicited a brief panic from the cabin crew. Breakfast was equally amusing, a fusion-cuisine marvel of “Streaky Bacon Panini” which reminded me strongly of the Two Fat Ladies

The family and the cabin crew were returning to Manchester, rather than setting out from exotic Canada, and I fell in quickly with their accents and speech patterns. I speak like a Brit anyway, in terms of colloquialisms and sometimes syntax, which I blame on a childhood of East Enders, Coronation Street, Are You Being Served? and so forth. Of course, I don’t want people to think I’m mocking them, so I stamped down on the impulse to say sentences like “Is she not keen on the breakfast?” or “Do you fancy a pillow?” as well as, of course, calling people “love” more than necessary. I shudder to think how much I’ll absorb the speech patterns in Galway, and what I’ll have to stamp down on by the end of my week there.

Arriving in Manchester, I was terrified by the total lack of signage telling me where to find Aer Arann departures, but I finally figured out it was directly above me. Mush good it did me—there was some malfunction in the baggage check equipment, and possibly because of this I cannot even check in until 11:05, and that means that instead of catching a nap in the six hours I’m, I get to spend the first five trundling my suitcase behind me, unable to sleep or shop, and the last one in a mad dash to get through backed-up security and to my gate on time. Part of my concern about that comes from the fact that I’m concerned my luggage—carry-on and checked—might be over the Aer Aran allowance. If I had time, I’m sure I could figure out a solution, but I’ll be pressed and I am not looking forward to any potential nasty surprises.

As a final note on this day’s Comedy of Errors theme, the pounds my mother gave me this morning, which I foolishly assumed had recently been exchanged at the back, must have been holdovers from a previous trip as they were rejected with extreme bemusement when I tried to use them to get my brekkie. The problem—that they were too old—had to be explained by the patient lady behind me, since the cashier just handed them back with a puzzled “I can’t take these” as though I had tried to pay with Canadian Tire Money. Thankfully they took Visa. Plastic is the universal language, and I’m reasonable fluent, thank god.

Fun with TB

In response to the recent "Oh my God, that man had TB and was on several international flights" scare, WedMD offers: Tuberculosis: 17 Questions and Answers

TB X-ray

So anyway, I find TB "hilarious" (in the very dark, cynical, "Sure, worry about bird flu and SARS, its not like we don't have enough things after us now..." way). According to the WHO,¹ a third of the world's population--mark that, a third--is infected with the bacteria that causes TB (of course, unless immuno-compromised, relatively few of those will develope the illness). Unsurpriseingly, given its high proportion of immuno-compromised (e.g. people with HIV) and generally poor health care infrastructure, Africa has the highest prevalence² and mortality³ of any continent. That doesn't mean that every country in Africa is that bad, nor that other countries aren't worse, as "continent" is a hell of big sample size.⁴

In happier news, WHO also thinks the global incidence of TB peaked in 2005,⁵ thanks to world-wide efforts to control the incidence of infection.

TB is of course a disease with a long and colourful history, which Wikipedia summarizes here.

---

1. Fact sheet N°104, Revised March 2007 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs104/en/index.html.
2. Ibid. 511/100k population, more than twice any other continent (SE Asia is next with 290) or the world average of 217/100k.
3. Ibid. 74/100k population, three times the world average of 24/100k.
4. Cf. Bangladesh (prevalence 406/100k, mortality 47/100k); Cambodia (703, 87); Philippines (450, 47); Russia (150, 20, which isn't all that bad accept that it's a growing problem in a country that used to have excellent nationalized healthcare): WHO, Global tuberculosis control - surveillance, planning, financing, WHO Report 2007, WHO/HTM/TB/2007.376, online: http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/2007/en/index.html.
5. Supra note 1.

xkcd for the win!

xkcd for the win!

Senator Leahy Gives Gonzalez What-for Re: Arar

Thank you, Archbishop Tutu

BBC NEWS Africa Anglicans 'obsessed' by gay issue

O. M. G.

FARK.com: (2823158) LOLPRESIDENT!!!1 Add your own in thread (with voting - link goes to samples)

Human rights 'eroded worldwide'

Okay, so this is less "news" than "known facts", but I feel this report on Amnesty's review of human rights is interesting if only because it is so scathing and blunt. Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan said:

The politics of fear are fuelling a downward spiral of human rights abuses in which no right is sacrosanct and no person safe.

Ouch. Yes, world at large, we suck. Some other lowlights:

During the Lebanon war, the report says, it took the UN weeks to call for a truce. Some 1,200 civilians lost their lives in the conflict.

...the world "showed no stomach" in tacking human rights abuses resulting from severe restrictions on freedom of movement of Palestinians, attacks by the Israeli army and also the Palestinian infighting. ...

Ms Khan described the continuing conflict in Sudan's Darfur region as a "bleeding wound on the world's conscience".

The report says that armed groups in the region waged a campaign of terror in 2006, clearing whole communities from their villages. ...

The thing I hate about these broad indictments is that they don't offer any suggestions other than STOP THIS FROM CONTINUING. I've obviously hewn out a space in the world where I can try and fix some of these things, but its hardly accessible to everyone.

---

Other pieces of not-really news:

Chronic Pain May Dim Memory (WebMD)

Using drugs as weapons 'unsafe' (BBC)

To which all I can say is:

This xkcd is love

xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

Here in Toronto, if you say "serial killer" everyone thinks Paul Bernardo. And there's no question--none--that Bernardo is a crazy, evil monster who seriously tests the conviction of Canadians against capital punishment (or say, lynching). But I find it interesting that the same high profile has not accrued (at least in Toronto) to the Pickton case.

A brief summary...starting in the early 1980s, women from Vancouver's Lower East Side began disappearing. However, because they were often transient, prostitutes, heroin addicts, or Native (or more likely, some combination) the disappearances were considered "normal." Robert Pickton, a Port Coquitlam pig farmer, is currently being tried for the murders of six of the disappeared: Sereena Abotsway, Mona Wilson, Andrea Joesbury, Marnie Frey, Georgina Papin and Brenda Wolfe. Charges have been laid against him for another 20 murders.

For perspective, Bernardo was a serial rapist, but only three murders have been confirmed as his handiwork. Clifford Olsen, heretofore considered Canada's most prolific serial killer, murdered 11 children in the early 1980s.

Although all those cases are horrible in their own special way (Bernardo was an obvious sadist who taped the torture of his victims with his wife as a willing accomplice, Olsen was a pedophile who killed at an astonishing rate) the alleged details of the Pickton case are grisly on a level previously associated with Hollywood movies and television crime drama (it was referenced on a recent episode of CSI). Pickton owned a pig farm, and it is alleged that he used it to dispose of the bodies. He may have fed the meat of his victims to his pigs. He may have ground up their meat along with pork and given it to family and friends.

It's interesting, how we rank our evil by proximity, rather than scope...

It's either laugh or cry...

As reported by one of my fav bloggers here: Joe. My. God.: South African Churches Line Up For Gays, now that S. Africa has okayed gay marriage, churches are deciding on whether or not to perform them. The mainstream denominations haven't thrown their hats into the ring (obviously the Catholics won't, but I did sigh with regret when I saw the Anglicans on the list...c'mon Anglicans! Seriously!) but mostly I like to the post because Joe echoed one of the all-time best Jon Stewart/daily show quotes:

When South Africa approved gay marriage, I recall Jon Stewart reporting the story, saying, "Just to reiterate, America is now less progressive than South Africa."

Dear United States: What on earth are you doing?

BBC NEWS Entertainment Moore courts Cannes controversy

So Michael Moore made a movie about the American healthcare system. And he filmed part of it in Cuba. Specifically, he took 9/11 rescuers to Guantanamo to compare the healthcare detainees receive.

And now he's being threatened with jail time and the confiscation of his film for going to Cuba without a permit.

Question: do the American authoritites read newspapers? Like, ever? Do they not have internet access? Because they appear to be ignorant of a few key facts, like the fact that everyone else thinks they're bizarre ban on Cuba is childish, or that silencing a film-maker for criticizing the health care system is Taliban-esque.

They just keep digging that hole...

Hutterite Brethren driver's licences freed of 'graven images'

globeandmail.com: Brethren driver's licences freed of 'graven images'

Well this is interesting...I can never decide which side of this debate I'm on.

...oh hell, another decision I'm going to have to read...

The 2007 Hall of Shame (Human Rights Watch, 16-5-2007)

Well this is...horrifying. But enlightening.

The 2007 Hall of Shame (Human Rights Watch, 16-5-2007)

BBC NEWS | Americas | Seven charged over US bones theft

BBC NEWS Americas Seven charged over US bones theft

Whoa...what?

So I was in the waiting room yesterday and I read this column in Chatelaine: Chatelaine.com : Dr. Morgentaler and me. Apparently, you can't get an abortion in PEI and you can barely get one in New Brunswick.

...wait....what?

As the article mentions, access to abortion is considered a constitutional right in Canada, and has been for decades. But apparently two provinces have decided "eh, to hell with the Charter."

No matter what you views on abortion, the provinces can't just disregard the law, for heavens' sake! Of course, I don't see the feds getting into this debate, given the reigning party's stance on abortion...

"...you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fishsquirrel--congratulations!"

-- Mrs. Garrison (South Park Season 10 Episode 12 "Go God Go")

Oh how I do love a good South Park one-liner. And you can't look down on a show that features Richard Dawkins, even if most of its humour is (deliciously) scatological. Other recent winners include:

Cartman: If you had a chance right now to go back in time and stop Hitler, would you do it? I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he was awesome, but you would, right?

Clyde: I'm just going to stop playing.

Cartman: When Hitler rose to power, there were a lot of people who just stopped playing. You know who those people were? The French. Are you French, Clyde?

Clyde: No...

Cartman: Voulez-vous coucher avec moi, Clyde?

(S10 E8 "Make Love, Not Warcraft")

Chef: Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?

General: I don't listen to hip-hop.

(South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut)

---

Well, what else is going on? Not a whole lot....so its time for a summary...BULLET STYLZ

• Last Thursday I nipped over to the field at St. Mike's to try and catch part of my brother's football game. I couldn't find him...because he was on the other side of the field, being held down by the team medic, with a possible T1-T2 injury. He was okay in the end (sore of course) but it made for an interesting evening.
• I am currently catsitting my parents' tabby/mongrel, Lucy (a.k.a. Lucifur). She spends most of the time under my bed, as she is terrified of my apartment. Er, or disgusted by it...I still haven't repaired the exam period cleaning moratorium. She is loud, and constantly scratches at the floor around her food and water. I am researching to see what is up with that.
• I have a cold. Not good, people.

News Briefs

News of the Random:
BBC NEWS Americas Shining Path leader to wed lover

Okay, I know I usually stay away from the RL-related posts. I've made a concerted effort to stick to the "objectively interesting" as opposed to self-absorbed wankery....but I really have to tell this story. And then go wash my hands a million (more) times.

I just cleaned a dead squirrel off my exterior window ledge. It was squishy. Then there was a roach in my apartment....only one, which is sort of inevitable in a building this old, but *shudder*

Eugh. Okay. Today is officially the grossest day ever.

LOL Cats

I'm sorry, I know they're cliched and silly and cutesy...but I heart LOL cats to an unhealthy degree. Here's a good batch: lolcats2

BTW, how much raw cookie dough is too much? I'm testing that theory right now.

Hahaha, ok, getting good again - Vid 6

YouTube - Misheard Lyrics - I'm Like a Bird

Video 5: Sugar We're Going Down Misheard Lyrics

YouTube - Fallout Boy Sugar We're Going Down Misheard Lyrics

Video 5: Sugar We're Going Down Misheard Lyrics

YouTube - Fallout Boy Sugar We're Going Down Misheard Lyrics

Video 4: Fall Out Boy misheard lyrics

YouTube - Dance Dance - Fall Out Boy misheard lyrics

Video 3

YouTube - MIKA - GRACE KELLY ANIMATION MUSIC VIDEO

Not quite as good...still hilarious

YouTube - Nelly Furtado- Say It Right (Misheard Lyrics)

Laughed until I cried...still laughing...OMM-FG

YouTube - Fall Out Boy Misheard lyrics - This aint a scene Arms race

Semantic Conundrums

So I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Euphemisms, and I came across an interesting point: the phrase "crippled" is not inherently more derogatory than the phrase "handicapped" or "handi-capable" or whatever your PC term of choice is. In fact, other more euphemistic phrases minght be, objectively speaking, more perjorative, because to say someone is "crippled" (or "deaf" or "visually-impaired") is to describe them as having one characteristic, whithout commenting on their other characteristics. Conversely, to call someone "differently abled" or say "wheelchair dependant" is, seemingly, to limit the range of characteristics he or she might have.

In the early 1960s, Bill Veeck, who was missing part of a leg, argued against the then-favored euphemism "handicapped", saying he preferred "crippled" because it was merely descriptive and did not carry connotations of limiting one's capability the way "handicapped" (and all of its subsequent euphemisms) seemed to do.

It's semantic, sure, but I love semantics. And I've always felt that some of the terms which have taken on (and sometimes lost) credence in my lifetime are silly.

For instance, I can see why we don't call people "Indians". European explorers thought they'd arrived in India, and so called the people Indians, and they were very wrong. Okay. But why can't we use "Native" anymore? I suppose I understand the argument from ambiguity--as a seventh-generation Canadian, aren't I also native?--but that would seem to be cleared up by the use of the capital N. Besides which, the same ambiguity crops up with the use of "indigenous", and I can't shake the feeling that "aboriginal" is inextricably connected to "aboriginee" and other derogatory terms used against native/indigenous/aboriginal Australians.

It would be ideal of course if we could refer to people by their specific origin (tribe or nation) when appropriate, but there is no denying a commonality of experience amongst "First Nations", and also amongst an un-named category which includes the First Nations as well as the Inuit, Metis, et cetera. True, we don't want people to be limited by the labels we apply, but the fact is that to discuss anything we need words for it. And the labels must be accurate, first and foremost.

Coined by Winston Churchill campaigning in the 1906 election, and repeated by him in the parliament,

The conditions of the Transvaal ordinance ... cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological inexactitude. — in the parliament 22 February 1906 (quoted in Nigel Rees, Sayings of the Century, 1984)

This first usage has only the literal sense of inaccurate terminology, but it was almost immediately taken up as a euphemism meaning an outright lie.

Hahaha...

Awesome Timing, Thanks Universe

So on Saturday, I went up to campus, was starving, and thought "Oh look, that sausage cart is open! Let's have lunch there!" I was, of course, talking to myself…

At any rate, that's where I decided to eat. Within six hours, I was regretting it.

 

Which brings to mind one of my favourite quotations, "Je weniger die Leute darüber wissen, wie Würste und Gesetze gemacht werden, desto besser schlafen sie nachts."†

 

So my thirty page paper on transplant tourism goes to hell, as I crumple up in my bed with the cold shakes, unable to eat or drink.

 

Didn't go into work on Monday, so poor DC had to run the office itself. I was going crazy with guilt about it, and between that and feeling like death I didn't get the essay finished by the time it was due. Thank goodness I e-mailed Prof CS, and he graciously gave me two days, so I shall hand it in tomorrow. It's almost entirely done, just needs some tidying.

 

In other news, I have been reading a delightful webcomic called Questionable Content (which has been around a while—clearly I am behind in my game).

 

And finally, I am testing of the MS Word 2007 blogging feature. We shall see what we shall see…

 

 

 

†    Usually translated as "If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made."
But more accurately: "The lesser the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night."

Generational humour

Grandparents are interesting creatures. I have so much in common with mine that it sometimes scares me. Other times, I get e-mail forwards like this:

A woman wrote the best 'Letter to the Editor' in ages!!

She cuts to the quick and explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.


Her letter said:

Recently, large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that parliment is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that Canada might actually want to protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, make it harder (as an illegal immigrant) to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Then, when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, 'I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and done the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work) because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking-in part.

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my illegal right to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest, um, except for well, you know. And what a deal it is for me!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me! English is too hard for me to learn. You should also allow me to vote - in my own language, since I live in your house!

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is? Only in Canada!

Oooohkay, wtf? Let's break down the problems with this, shall we?

Perpetuating Stereotypes

According to the author:

• immigrants are only good at domestic labour
• immigrants do not speak passable English
• immigrants refuse to learn passable English
• all illegal immigrant came to Canada with the intent of material benefit with no regard for our laws
• immigrants contribute far less to Canada than they receive from state-sponsored benefits

Lies Mistakes of Fact

• "Recently, large demonstrations have taken place across the country...": how odd that this would receive no news coverage...oh wait, that's right, it hasn't happened. In fact, off the top of my head I cannot think of a single example of popular unrest at the thought of turfing real illegal immigrants, excepting the occasional case-specific situation involving terminally ill children or government mishandling of deportations.
• "...protesting the fact that parliment [Parliament?] is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.": No, see, Parliament has always addressed this issue. We deport a small but steady stream of people out of Canada all the time, and we have for decades. The "problem" is that we do it right, so there are rarely massive raids that make headlines. We're also less active in seeking out illegal immigrants, because it's simply more efficient for us to wait for them to come to us. Eventually, one will always get a parking ticket or some regulatory or criminal charge that lands them in jail (and by jail I mean a motel out by Pearson).
• "Let's say I break into your house." Let's not. Let's instead acknowledge that this metaphor is not a good one for illegal immigration. House ≠ state.
• "According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family...": Given that health and education are universally recognized rights, I have an extremely hard time resenting illegal immigrants for requiring them. Oh plus? Thanks to the bureaucracy that is my beloved welfare state, randoms can't access these benefits. If you're accessing them, the government knows who you are. Or it could if it wished to know. Unless you're committing fraud, which is a whole other issue.
• "I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep...": again, house ≠ state. And everyone only contributes "a fraction of the cost" of their keep in Canada. I think our economy benefits more from illegal immigrants who are contributing than Canadian-born slackers who aren't, and rarely do we get funny e-mail forwards suggesting we evict all of them.
• And finally, my favourite: "Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me! English is too hard for me to learn. You should also allow me to vote - in my own language, since I live in your house!" Unless the author considers francophones to be illegal immigrants, I have no idea what she's talking about. We don't even force people to learn both official languages, let alone minority languages. It's possible she's referring to mono-cultural neighborhoods where most of the signage is not in English, but honestly, you may have to learn some Lebanese Arabic if you want a really good falafel. If you can order a venti café latte or quiche Lorraine, but get offended by non-English signage, then you really need to suck it up. Furthermore, unless you speak a First Nations' language fluently, I hereby order you to shut your cakehole.

We're (almost) all immigrants, and the country has bigger problems than that to contend with, so calm yourself down.

And welcome to the real Canada.

We have excellent falafels.

[Insert noun] is people!

Have you ever read an academic article with which you disagreed?

...Okay, perhaps that's a stupid question. What I mean is, have you ever read an article by someone who is clearly well-regarded, an expert in his or her field, years ahead of you in education and experience, and yet been so fundamentally opposed to every argument made that you have to pause at the end of every paragraph to blink and shake your head and mutter "Oh no she didn't". Where your marginalia, instead of cogent points like "Cf. x's article on y" and "key point!" and "is this supported by the evidence" is replaced by unhelpful but sincere scribblings of "bitch, please!" and "wtf, mf?" and, bien sûr, "oh no she didn't".

This is the dilemma I'm finding myself in while doing research for my International Human Rights Law paper on organ theft and transplant tourism (well, one of the dilemmas...the other involves finding some way to work in a Soylent Green joke). One of the main writers on the topic, a go-to person if you will, is so hypocritical, biased, and unanalytical in her writing that I'm seriously considering writing a reply and trying to get it published.

Points of angry-making:

• Un-ironic use of the term "neocannibalism" to describe people who go from Western/developed countries to get organs from other countries. Why is this a problem? Well, if you've known me for any length of time, you have no doubt heard my rant about the post-colonial lit prof I had in undergrad (also, btw, a world-renowned expert) who, among other statements with which I disagreed, told us that cannibalism is no different from communion, and we only felt uncomfortable about or sickened by it because we were culturally biased and euro-centric and could never understand anything outside our own terminally white experience. I tried to point out to her that while cannibalism might be a morally neutral activity (I'm talking ritual religious cannibalism here) it was an objectively negative or otherwise pathological activity because it causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (I was wrong, actually it causes Kuru...close enough).
• Constantly problematizing the idea that the poor of India/Turkey/Brazil/wherever are capable of making the free "choice" to sell their kidneys, since their choices are constrained by the grinding poverty in which they live. Now, that is not in itself a problem; usually I find anti-paternal-arguments-from-autonomy suspect for the following reason: poor people are stupid--not because they are poor, but because they are people. However, when rich people fall on their asses, they are protected by a fat wad of cash, whereas poor people shatter their coccyx. I developed this theory through a childhood lived in uncomfortable proximity to the poverty line. At any rate, what bothers me is that the author goes on and on about the constraints poverty places on free choice, while seemingly ignoring the constraints on choice that come from the fact that your organs are failing and you are dying.
• Begging the question left right and centre, particularly on the issue of whether the dead have an interest in their organs sufficient to make presumed-consent regimes objectively harmful. Let me repreat this, for clarity: she (and she is not the only one, by any means) sincerely contests that dead people have a right to coporeal integrity that is based on...their right to corporeal integrity. No religious or practical reason for this right is given--it appears to be a freestanding and inalienable right.

I have spent weeks trying to wrap my head around that last one without any luck. This paper is going to be...interesting.

---

And now, in a show of pop-culture solidarity unrelated to the above, a favourite quote from a favourite television show:

(After swiping a glass of water off a table in anger)

Ghost Dean: Dude, I full-on Swazyed that mother!

Announcements and Feuds

FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT:

I am going to Galway June 10th to 17th. For reals, yo.

SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT:

I am working for the Journal this summer!

---

Okay, so the "bad" news is that the Journal is only 12 weeks of work. Boo hoo and all that jazz. Yes, it involves a paycut. However, I am forcing myself to remember several key things:

1. I ♥ the Journal to a possibly unhealthy extent.
2. I will be able to complete the insane summer workload at the office without dying.
3. I will actually have some time off in the summer, an event that occurs with roughly the same frequency as Halley's Comet.

So, my brain can please shut up about the paycut or whatever I'll be taking. Please. That would be awesome, thanks.

---

The Washington Post reports that a rare congenital disorder may have been a factor in the famed Hatfield-McCoy feud. The best/funniest part is that certain experts on the feud are denying the importance of the fact that the McCoys have a disorder which makes them irrationally angry (or, more specifically, makes them blindly furious where healthy people would just get a little irked).

This is the Hatfields, not the McCoys...but they don't look irrationally angry, do they? Of course, they have chosen to include guns in their family portrait...not sure what that's all about...

I'm sorry, what? What possible point could there be to that? How obviously a connection do you need? No one is saying the feud was caused by the illness, only that its severity and length were probably the result of the fact that the McCoy's were medically predisposed to going apeshit at the mildest provocation. How do you respond to that with derision? Ahhh!

Props on the blog...yo

J.B. just gave me props on my blog (props...that what the kids are saying now, right? prop-ez?)

I just wish people would comment more *cough* *cough*...

ANYWAYS, on Tuesday evening, getting off the 196, I nearly stepped on a new-looking 128 MB USB key. I looked around to see if anyone had obviously lost it, and saw nothing. So I carried it home, checked the contents, and found a resume with a name and address, indicating that the owner was a York undergrad. I e-mailed said undergrad, telling her I had her USB key and asking where I could drop it off for her. 48 hours later...and no response. Quoi? Huh? When I lost my USB at the beginning of the year (along with almost all my notes) I wanted to stab myself and could not believe that some idiot had found the flash drive in a USB port in a computer in the law library, not 6 feet from the circulation desk, chock-a-block full of identifying info, and decided "Hey, score, I'm going to keep this!"

And now when I try to do someone a favor I was denied, I get nada.

---

Last Saturday the Toronto Star had an interesting article on the gradual decimation of the civil rights of the Bahá'í in Egypt. Wikipedia has a summary here, and everyone and their brother is pimping this blog. It reminded me of Pakistan's Ordinance XX, targeted at Ahmadis. It's interesting--usually governments do their best to talk the talk of equity and human rights, meanwhile secretly acting or permitting the actual persecution of minorities. These are instances of the reverse: religious minorities who do not face the worst persecution, relative to other groups/places, but who have explicit laws passed against them.

The hysterical thing is that Ahmadis are not automatically considered refugees in Canada. Because there's a thin (imaginary?) line between outlawing a religion and outlawing core elements of its practice. Apparently. *rolls eyes*

Prisoner fights her way to freedom?

Prisoner fights her way to freedom?

All I have to say is: best. story. ever.

I want a movie of the week made about this like, yesterday.

April Fools = worst. holiday. EVER.

First of all, apologies for the sketchy posting of late. We're moving on to the wholly-crap-I-have-two-term-papers-an-exam-and-job-applications portion of the year, and posting goes down a little, in the priority department--this is hilarious, because all of my other procrastination techniques get ramped right up.

Today is April Fools' Day, a.k.a. my most hated of all days. The first person to "prank" me will get maimed. I'm not sure why I hate it so much (the collective mean-spiritedness?) but Wikipedia claims the name for it is Aphrilophobia...unless that's an April Fools' joke. K

However, I must admit that the English Main Page made me smile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

---

I've been dying to blog about the British naval personnel being held in Iran, but frankly, it's all politics and posturing. Here's the BBC timeline (in maddeningly reverse chronological order). More helpful is this summary of the legal issues at hand. Long story short, a lot depends on whether they were in Iranian territorial waters, although even if they were, ships have a right of peaceful passage.

As far as I'm concerned, the only real question is: has Iran finally and irrevocably lost its mind? Do they think they're speaking truth to power or some similar malarkey? Do they even remember the last time they took hostages?

Woke up this morning ...

(...got myself a gun...no wait, that's the Sopranos theme song...)

Ahem. I woke up this morning to a thunderstorm. As occasionally happens, I found myself literally, physically unable (despite a big ol' cup of coffee, and eating breakfast) to wake up. Fine motor control? Nyet. Eyes focusing? Ne pas. Muscle tone? Halo.¹

So I go back to sleep for an hour or so because frankly? That's the only thing that ever works. And as I'm downing my second mammoth cup of coffee, I check my newsfeeds, and it appears that my beloved Slate has an article on sleep.²

The character Mike from My Own Private Idaho (River Phoenix). We have one thing in common...and it's not hustling, smoking, or road-tripping with Keanu Reeves...

Well, the article doesn't tell us much we don't already know, or at least, much I already don't know. I've become something of an armchair sleep doctor (and seriously, that specialty needs a better name...I suggest hypnologist) since developing narcolepsy in undergrad. Still, I find the synchronicity amusing.

---

Also today in Slate, William Saletan mentions a new study (ooh, shiny!) about the damage daycare may do to young kids. It's brief enough that I'll cite the whole shebang:

A big study suggests preschoolers who get non-parental child care are more likely to become disruptive in fifth or sixth grade. Non-parental child care includes nannies, day care, and "anyone other than the child's mother who was regularly scheduled for at least 10 hours per week." Caveats: 1) Kids who get good child care also do better on vocabulary tests. 2) The differences are small. 3) Parenting quality and genes are bigger factors. Conservative spins: 1) If you put your kid in day care, you're inviting the other kids to raise him, so they all become silly and disruptive. 2) Moms should stay home. 3) The problem will get worse as more parents dump their kids into day care. Liberal spins: 1) The study has no control group. 2) It doesn't adequately distinguish good child care from bad. 3) Kids who learn freedom and responsibility in good day care may be labeled disruptive by elementary-school teachers, because elementary schools treat kids like prisoners. 4) If you really want a generational disaster, try forcing moms to deal with kids all day on top of their paying and non-paying jobs.³

Now, I was a daycare baby from an early age (two single parents on opposite sides of the country) so I do take a very small and possibly irrational bit of offense at this suggestion. Which does not, of course, mean that it's untrue (I especially like Saletan's Liberal spin #3). Personally, however, I've always thought that daycare was an important step in naturally acquiring immunity, and in group socialization. I suspect that, as this NY Times article posits, there are a host of other considerations: the underfunding of the daycare system, the fact that the relationship is correlative as opposed to causative as the groups were self-selecting and there was no control group, et cetera. I think daycare kids are likely more prone to having to "fight" for adult attention, but suspect we are also better at entertaining ourselves. It's purely conjecture, of course, but that's what my common sense tells me.

Besides which, the whole idea that childhood is supposed to be some sacrosanct utopia, or that a happy child is mutually inclusive with a passive, obedient child, are weird Victorian remnants (thank you, Neil Postman). How about we work on feeding and educating all our kids before we start criticising the working poor for putting their children in daycare? ...Just a thought.

---

Finally, this morning I also found out that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Head of the Church of England, has stated that the Church is considering reparations for its part in the slave trade.⁴

What?

How in heavens name would one calculate such a payment, much less figure out who should receive it? And how would you calculate the extent to which the public service of the Church should or should not mitigate such a payment?

And how would you reconcile the cheapening effect of paying meaningless "damages" with the immense spiritual and historical scars of the Atlantic slave trade?

Apologies, yes. Doing everything one can to ameliorate the situation of the descendants of slaves, of course, yes. But monetary reparations strike me as a tacky lose-lose situation. It makes me sad that the overly litigious greed of North American society has moved into international affairs.

---

1. "Halo" means no in Chinook Jargon, my favourite language. I'm trying to learn it, or at least some of the vocabulary. I also don't think it's a pidgin as much as a creole, since my impression is that there are native speakers (i.e. those who speak it from birth--clearly there are Native/Aboriginal Canadian speakers).
2. A few years ago, they also did an article on the narcoleptics pharmaceutical of choice: http://www.slate.com/id/2079113/
3. From http://www.slate.com/id/2162652/
4. Reported by the BBC, here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494243.stm
   

I'm going to be critical of Israeli domestic policy here...please avert your eyes if you can't handle it...

The Associated Press reported (all over the internets, but here's a link to the Toronto Star version) that a UN expert has submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Commission which characterizes Israeli domestic policy towards Palestinians as "apartheid."

...Cue crazed uproar about anti-Semitism...

Anyways, the investigator is a South African who--having actually lived under apartheid--should know whether or not something is apartheid. UN Ambassador from Israel Itzhak Levanon called the report "'utterly one-sided, highly selective, and unreservedly biased.'" The one sided-ness may well come from the fact that Dugard (the expert) was only given a mandate to look at the treatment of Palestinians. I haven't read it yet, but I doubt very much his report says that Israelis spend their time dancing about the flowers eating cake and drinking champagne. Nothing about highlighting the criminal treatment of Palestinians negates the possibility that Israelis are also suffering under the situation, for instance, getting kidnapped and bombed, et cetera. Both sides in a conflict can suffer, Mr. Levanon, and in fact, I'm pretty sure that's usually the case.

Levanon also said Dugard used: "'inflammatory and inciteful language' which did not contribute to a constructive dialogue on the Middle East question." I'm assuming by this he means the use of the term "apartheid." Let's assess that. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, apartheid means the following:

a·part·heid (ə-pärt'hīt', -hāt') n.

1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
   
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
   
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
   

[Afrikaans : Dutch apart, separate (from French à part, apart; see apart) + Dutch -heid, -hood.]

Well, option 1 clearly does not fit the situation, I must say that option 2 is pretty much spot on. And it's not like Dugard was making wildly speculative accusations:

The 24-page document ... catalogues a number of accusations against the Jewish state ranging from destruction of Palestinian houses to preferential treatment for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

Separate roads, the need for checkpoints and passes, and the security fence/wall--these all say apartheid. Now, a lot of the criticism of that term has been based on the argument that the Israel/Palestine situation is not "as bad as" South African apartheid, and that calling it "apartheid" necessarily implies that it is. To me, this is an incredibly hollow argument. Criminal acts involve a threshold, on one side of which is acceptable behavior, and on the other is the unacceptable. Now, the spectrum of unacceptable is broad, ranging from just inside the threshold off into the distance. There is, for instance, a hell of a difference between intentional murder, being a serial- or spree-killer, and committing genocide.¹ All of these are, however, criminal. Israeli apartheid needn't be "as bad as" South African apartheid to constitute a serious human rights problem, apartheid per se.

---

1. I am not suggesting in any way that Israel is committing genocide. That is an untrue and perhaps offensive allegation which has also been thrown into the mix, but unlike the argument for apartheid, there is nothing with which to back it up.

War crimes prosecutor slams 'muted' European response to Srebrenica genocide ruling - International Herald Tribune

War crimes prosecutor slams 'muted' European response to Srebrenica genocide ruling - International Herald Tribune

Same-sex Unions Recognized in Mexico City

The capital of the massively Catholic nation¹ approved same-sex civil unions as of Friday, says the BBC. The northern state of Coahuila has also legalized same-sex unions. Parts of Mexico therefore join a growing complement of nations with a significant level of recognition for same-sex unions. This list includes South Africa (2006),² Israel (2006),³ Belgium (2003), Czech Republic (2006),⁴ Germany (2001/2004), Hungary (1996!),⁵ Netherlands (2001),⁶ Portugal (2001),⁷ Slovenia (2006), Spain (2005),⁸ United Kingdom (2005),⁹ Canada (nationally, 2005), the state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil (2006),¹⁰ the province of Rio Negro and the autonomous Buenos Aires in Argentina,¹¹ Colombia (2007),¹² and New Zealand.

In the United States, only Massachusetts fully recognizes same-sex marriage. Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey offer civil unions, and California, Maine, the District of Columbia, and Hawai'i have laws protecting same-sex domestic partners with regard to property, benefits, and so on.

Now, you might ask why I list the Catholic-ness of a lot of the above nations, and the reason is this: the new Pope Benedict XVI has restated (yes, again) that the Catholic Church is not now, nor will it ever, be open to certain reforms, including same-sex marriage.¹³ He also gave tacit support to Bishops choosing to deny communion to Catholic politicians supporting any of these causes, e.g. John Kerry in the last US presidential race. Kerry supported abortion rights.

Now, it must be acknowledge that the dearly departed Pope John Paul II held many of the same doctrinal beliefs. In a sense, Benny16 is just following the party line JP2 set out. But here's what I see as the fundamental difference between the two (and the reason I maintain a personal affection for JP2 while having no warm-and-fuzzies for Benny16): Pope John Paul II sincerely believed that the primary medium, message, and methodology of his religion was love. He believed that faith and reason could be reconciled, that women were equal to men notwithstanding that they could not be ordained as priests. His affection for non-Catholics was both ecumenical and personal. His stances on abortion, homosexuality, priestly celibacy and other matters might run in opposition to what I believe (in some cases, what most of the world believes) but they were honestly held, stemming from centuries of teachings, and I think it is horrendously arrogant and narrow-minded of us to criticize him for not reversing the core beliefs of his faith. Through some miracle of personal strength, some super-humanly deep well of charity, Karol Józef Wojtyła managed to actually do what so many religious figures can only purport to do: he did, in fact, hate the sin and love the sinner.

How can such a beacon of light not shine particularly bright in a world where we increasingly insist that people pay lip service to accepting the "sin", while secretly but virulently hating the "sinner"?

I find the question increasingly relevant to my own crisis of faiths. I am a baptized-but-unconfirmed-High-Anglican, who grew up semi-practising lapsed Catholicism, with strong neo-pagan beliefs and a deep commitment to small-u universalism. In short, I am a member of the Church of the Census Taker's Worst Nightmare. And now the Canadian Anglican Church is considering reversing its heretofore positive/permissive stance on same-sex unions, an action which would compel me to permanently cut ties with them. As a philosophical or spiritual action, this would have little effect on me--I don't believe I need the Church or its sacraments to attain...well, whatever it is we attain. However, as a personal matter, I would be heartbroken to lose the history, the family connections, the collectivity and rituals I grew up loving.

---

1. 89%, according to the CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html
2. Since the recent Fourie case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Home_Affairs_v._Fourie
3. Oddly enough, Israel can only recognize same-sex unions legalized outside the country. As I understand it, this is because of a highly peculiar internal system whereby there is no secular family law. So until the Sharia courts, Rabbinical courts, or ecclesiastical courts give same-sex unions the thumbs up, they can't be performed in Israel.
4. No adoption rights, however.
5. Hungary's common-law partnership laws have included same-sex couples since 1996, but full same-sex marriage is still being tweaked by legislators.
6. The first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage! Raise your hand if you are at all surprised...yeah, me neither.
7. Civil unions are okay, and while same-sex marriages aren't officially legal, there's a case going forward and they're constitutionally protected, so it seems likely. I would also like to point out that Portugal = Catholic, with a whopping 94% identifying as such (according to the CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/po.html
8. Also 94% Catholic: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html
9. Technically only civil unions, but functionally equivalent. I mention this mainly because the government kept insisting they were not "marriage".
10. 73.6% Catholic: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html
11. 92%, though many non-practicing: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.html
12. 90% Catholic: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/co.html
13. Halifax ChronicleHerald: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Religion/565140.html
    

Does anyone remember when bananas were yellow?

Does anyone remember when bananas were yellow?

Well, of course they're still mostly yellow, but the ones we buy now (at least in Canada) tend to start out green-yellow at the store and end up sort of a dark goldenrod with raw umber splotches, or black splotches, without ever passing through the "perfectly ripe and delicious" phase.

Of course, this is partly because of the rigours of unnatural "ripening" they are put through to get here to the great white north. Wikipedia describes the appetizing process thusly:

Export bananas are picked green, and then usually ripened in ripening rooms when they arrive in their country of destination. These are special rooms made air-tight and filled with ethylene gas to induce ripening. Bananas can be ordered by the retailer "ungassed", however, and may show up at the supermarket still fully green.

Mmm, yummy. Ethylene is an anasthetic, by the way, but largely harmeless and with a solid history of use by people without third eyes developing.

Banana Scary Fun Facts

• The primary banana variety in export markets is the "Cavendish"
  
• The Cavendish varietal is a "genetically modified food" (not really) in that it is a crazy franken-hybrid in that it can only reproduce through farmer-assisted vegetative reproduction (really) which means they're all clones (really) which means a disease that will wipe out one could wipe out all of them¹
  
• This already happened once to the previous most-popular-for-export varietal
  
• This would crush the banana production sectors of many developing countries in Latin America and the Carribean, as well as Asia and Africa, which could indirectly lead to massive famines²
  
• This could also happen to varieties used as local food crops in many (all?) banana-producing regions³
  
• Bananas are a very important staple food crop, analagous to potatoes in oh so many ways, including their starchy goodness and their prevalence in former colonies
  
• Oh look! It's the Irish Potato Famine! But with fruit...
  

---

1. Read the Wikipedia article on Bananas if you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas
2. See Mike Davis's horrendous Late Victorian Holocausts for how/why: http://www.amazon.ca/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Mike-Davis/dp/1859843824/ref=pd_ka_2/702-3397357-2007261?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174045238&sr=8-2
3. Ask the UN Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/13120-en.html

Books r fun

I just finished reading the latest Kathy Reichs book Break No Bones . I will fully admit to being a voracious consumer of the works of Reichs and similar authors like Jeffrey Deaver

and Patricia Cornwall. I love me some forensic anthropology/pathology, apparently. D.R. and I often discuss how she should go into forensics because you get to work with really hot people and the soundtrack is awesome (e.g. BONES, the CSI franchise, et cetera).

It is just possible that I have been unduly influenced by television.

What is far more exciting is that the conclusion of Break No Bones was directly related to the paper I'm writing for Scott's International Human Rights Law course, In fact, Reichs mentions Nancy Scheper-Hughes in her epilogue, and directed me to the NGO Organs Watch, which in all my Google-fu and so on I had not found. So I guess leisure reading has its uses after all. J

Raouf Abdel Rahman claims asylum

Raouf Abdel Rahman,¹ the Kurdish-Iraqi former chief judge of Saddam Hussein's one-and-only trial,² has apparently claimed asylum in Britain. All I can say is, I hope like hell they give it to him.

As Human Rights Watch has reported in detail,³ the Coalition Authority and the Iraq government have both failed miserably at keeping court staff, witnesses, et cetera safe during the trial. I'm not surprised Abdel Rahman left, and I would hope the fact that he is at risk of death in Iraq is not just accepted but accepted quickly, and with a minimum of dangling for the family. Britain has less-than-awesome recent history vis-a-vis its refugees, including letting legal residents/asylees like Bisher Amin Khalil al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna languish in Guantanamo because they weren't citizens (a legally suspect and hideously unethical argument). And the whole Belmarsh debacle.

In other Iraq is now a hell-hole news, the Beeb reports that "Iraq's Mandaeans 'face extinction'". Sabian Mandaeans form a small Judeo/Gnostic religion which I believe fits pretty snugly into the category of dhimmi. But that's just me...

---

1. a.k.a. Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman
2. Regarding the Dujail massacre; Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein
3. Judging Dujail report from HRW, availible here: http://hrw.org/reports/2006/iraq1106/

Noam Chomsky is not light reading...unless you are Noam Chomsky

Dear sweet and fluffy lord,

So, long time no blog. It's been a helluva week: shakeups at the office, the Journal, family medical emergencies, birthday parties, and all manner of such things. It's shocking that Reading Week is over, and it's THURSDAY for heaven's sake.

Right now I'm reading Failed States by Noam Chomsky. It's um...interesting. It's also the teeny-tiniest bit...let's say...strident. Also, it references not only Chomsky's previous works (a pet peeve of mine; however, when you're Noam freakin' Chomsky, or otherwise one of the most prolific authors in any given field, you will have to reference yourself) but omits footnotes in favor of end-notes referencing citations in his previous works. *grinds teeth in editorial frustration*

Other sizable pet peeves...I've fallen behind in a number of my "stories" and so an dl'ing them...I'd watch them on the network site, but I'm not allowed to because I'm in Canada. Anyway, I always get into this situation where I've got, say, 5 of the 6 episodes I've missed, but it's the first one I'm missing, so I can't watch the others, and the first one is trickling in at a few kB/s. Even at school, where I get pretty excellent connections, the episode is rare enough that I can't get a good speed going.

And I can't buy it either. See above, re Canada. Gah.