Water Cooler Convo this morning

This is what life is like.

“Microwaves, eh?”

“What’s that?”

“They always heat things so unevenly.”

“Oh.  Yeah, I guess so.”

“Sometimes I heat up my lunch and it’s only hot on the top.”

“I see.”

“And then other times it’s boiling on the bottom and cold on top.  Weird, eh?”

“Yeah.”

Brief silence.

“I thought I heard a Welsh maiden of a departed age whispering in my ear through the mists of time this morning, but it turned out it was just the baby I keep wombed in my desk drawer.”

Terms of Ensmearment: A Love Story

Marzak and Glibaka were both successful prefects of the All-Ingesting Inter-Galactic Hivelord of Zizax Prime when they were introduced through the dating site www.feculentmate.gax.

The Outlanders fled when the Bloodsnake invaded, devouring all in its path, and only Marzak remained to contend with it.  Glibaka was in the third trimester of her cryogenic ovulation cycle; she was obviously unable to spurt the gastrointestinal acids that formed her first line of defence, and was thus rendered helpless.  Marzak, seeing her plight, bit off four of his own scrota and rendered them in his belly, creating a natural acid that seared the pincers off the Bloodsnake. 

In an orgy of destruction, shrieking rage and unspeakable filth the Bloodsnake was driven back to its squalid lair.  Glibaka smeared Marzak’s exoskeleton with fecal enzymes in gratitude.

With Glibaka's ovulates festering safely in her scumsack, Marzak offered her his remaining scrota, on which she gently gorged for the remainder of his dormancy.  He wasn’t the ideal mate - he lacked the full protein spectrum of an uninjured male - but they made it work through hard work and lots of slimy goo.

It was love at first ooze.

Rivers of Blood

They should stop calling them “battles” and start calling them “blood orgies”.  

The hippies used to say:  “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”  

But if you asked, "What if they had a blood orgy and nobody came?" it would be a double-entendre.

Tee hee.

Cowardice is underrated

This isn't true, but it is "true"

Note: I don't actually have an ancestor who surrendered to the Germans in World War I.  I only wish I did.

To my surprise, I recently found out that one of my distant relatives served in the Canadian army during the First World War.  That in itself isn't surprising - my family has deep roots in this sour-pussed, whinging pseudo-Scotland - and it is natural for this ancestor of mine to have served in the army of the day.  Everybody was in the army back then.  For four years, they walked face-first into bullets as their heads went "Gazpacho!"

Gazpacho!

Evidently, it occurred to precisely no one that anything other than a full-frontal infantry assault was possible.  The tactic was akin to attacking a refrigerator with a raw pork chop:  very messy; not very effective.

But that's not the point.

This ancestor of mine turned out to be a very committed socialist, and was one of the very few who continued to have no love for his masters even after their masters in England declared war.  While the rest of the proletariat was jumping off the socialist bandwagon and onto the nationalist firewagon, my ancestor decided he wasn't going to turn the inside of his skull into gazpacho.  He went through the drills, saluted his officers, learned to shoot his gun, sailed to England and then to France, settled in the trenches, and at the first opportunity he crawled solo across no-man's land and surrendered to the Germans.

What is bravery, really?  He could easily have been killed making his way across the festering mud-and-gut swamp, sniped or blown up or trampled.  He was convinced, however, that if he stayed in his trench and followed the orders being given by his social betters, he would definitely die.  Weighing the options, he chose to be what in those days was called a "coward".

He managed to successfully surrender to the dreaded Huns, whose prisoner of war camps were a hell of a lot nicer than the trenches.  My ancestor reasoned, quite rightly, that he didn't want to fight, at least not for whatever his betters were fighting for:  some kind of Austrian duke, from what he could understand, and the freedom of Belgium (which wasn't a real country and never should have been).  He found the only people in the entire world who were more than happy to let him not fight - in fact, they wanted him to sit in a camp far away from the fighting and do nothing at all – were the Germans.  It was an easy calculation:  hero, die; coward, live.

In this day and age, that kind of commitment is everywhere.  People today will refuse to fight for just about everything.  But my ancestor, I like to think, was a real pioneer.  

It's the Senate; What Did You Think Was Going To Happen?

This isn't some standard "Harper-is-the-devil-incarnate" post. My main man Jean Chrétien used Senate appointments to reward party stalwarts all the time. That's what, at this moment in our history, the Senate is for.

Frankly, the current slate of ideas for Senate reform doesn't interest me. We don't need more government, especially elected government - democracy is too clouded for the casual follower as it is. Voting for the Senate every four years when we cast our ballots for the Commons would just increase the number of shrill, partisan voices in Parliament.

I could see the Senate being an effective chamber if the emphasis, as in the United States, was less on proportional representation and more on regional representation. Give every province ten senators - even PEI. What the hell? They're a province too. The US Senate has survived with California and Rhode Island being equal; we should remember that Canada is a confederation of provinces, not a unitary federal state.

Elect them for ten year terms. The purpose of the Senate is "sober second thought", so let's give them the democratic leeway for that sobriety. You might also find a lot more senators voting their conscience if they know they have a decade to make their mark.

A positive aspect of the Senate is that it is somewhat immune from the sudden surges of electoral politics. Only five years ago, we had a Liberal government, and the country hasn't changed so much that this reality should not still have a voice. With ten-year terms, the Liberal influence would eventually die out should they not rebound.

With this system, senators could truly be the senior statesmen they are supposed to be. The Senate can only delay, not block legislation, but there would be some moral weight behind their objections if they were elected.

As for Harper: this is a truly hypocritical move but I'm not in the least surprised. The mere fact that he appoints senators isn't remarkable, since there is currently no mechanism to elect them. But that he appointed three losing candidates - ouch.

That's a whole boatload of disrepect for democracy right there. Not that anybody will care, apparently, since a plurality of Canadians can't be bothered to find out what the Harper government has done to our civil institutions, and why it's a bad idea regardless of ideology.

But Steve! Don't you give a shit anymore? Think about your crystal-clean image!

Geert Wilders - A Xenophobe Redeemed

letter to the Ottawa Citizen - published May 15, 2011

What makes Geert Wilders so odious is that he attacks an entire group based on ethnicity and religion. Meanwhile, Ezra Levant and other hard-right commentators are making a naked attempt to rehabilitate a very bigoted man by citing freedom of speech.

Levant in particular is guilty of this. If he had written an article saying, “You may not agree with everything John Gotti says, but there are a lot of Italian-Americans involved in organized crime” that would be viewed as racist.

In fact, Levant referred to this repulsive demagogue as "the bravest man in Europe" during what was doubtless a command performance at the N.A.C. The Sun media reporter has very skillfully hidden behind Wilders to promote beliefs he clearly shares. Of course, if Levant had the courage of his own convictions he would simply state himself that the Koran should be banned and burned and that Muslims are backward, violent and stupid.

Now, if he had instead stated Islamic extremism is a major issue and needs to be discussed, fine. But he goes beyond expressing that legitimate (though problematic and simplistic) opinion. The right-wing media hides behind free speech to promote a man who is an extremist himself. What does the subjective observation that “Our (Western) civilization is far superior” to the Islamic one contribute to the discussion?

Wilders offers a simple solution to a nervous Dutch nation unsure of how to cope with immigration. But the Netherlands is an established, ethnic nation-state, and Canada is a country of immigrants. We can deal with this – there is no “Islamic tide”.

The fact that this anti-Islamic tide - which is barely-disguised racism - is starting up while thousands in the Islamic world put their lives on the line to fight for freedom and government accountability is astonishing.

Let’s remember how the Irish were once viewed in North America – drunken, violent, criminal-minded and shifty. They were marginalized whenever possible. The fact is, there was a lot of crime and violence in that community once upon a time. But it wasn’t because they were Catholics, or because they spoke the Irish language, or because they were genetically pre-disposed to be criminals.

It was because of poverty, lack of education and opportunity. And that’s the true source of all extremism since the dawn of time – except perhaps Ezra Levant’s.

Reform Party (aka Tory) Majority - Bridge Jumping Time

I really hope we all keep in mind how strongly we (most of us) felt in this election, and keep that same level of engagement for the next four to five years. Now more than ever we need to keep up the public pressure on a government that refuses to engage with the media, the public and the institutions our country has built up over 150 years.



For the next five years we will have no progress on the environment, no progress on social justice issues, no rational revision of our foreign policy. We'll keep selling asbestos and muzzling civil institutions and we'll show no leadership on any of the alarming issues, environmental and social, this planet faces.



There will be no bold moves on anything besides the economy as Canada stagnates under a government that is far more extreme than many people who voted for them now realize.



It's not going to be fun, but it will be very instructive. I think four to five years of a Tory majority will finally expose them to Canadians as what they truly are. But that's the future.



Remember: 60% of Canadians did not vote for "The Harper Government", and most of them never will. Social progressives, activists, educated urban dwellers, the artistic community, civil servants, trade unionists and the entire province of Quebec have almost universally rejected the Conservatives. Millions of working-class and rural Canadians did likewise. There is a broad, massive consensus against this kind of government, this kind of regressive policy and the politics of fear and division.



The Big Blue Machine won this election fair and square and we now have to deal with the consequences of the shortsightedness, arrogance and ineptitude of our progressive political leadership. Vote splitting lost this election and needs to bring about a necessary merger of the centrist consensus in this country.



The Liberals and NDP will never co-operate unless we force them to, and this election is just a step on the road to reclaiming our country and restoring the fair-mindedness that makes Canada more than a pale reflection of America and Britain.



So please, people, stay engaged and hold the Tories to account - because their record is clear.



They won't make it easy on us!