about
archives
lite version
You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.
31 March 2003 
Freak Show
An anti-war demonstration was in progress across the street as I left work tonight. Actually, it looked more like an anti-war photo opportunity: just a couple dozen protestors standing there while the cameras rolled. The police and media came close to outnumbering them.
The guy on the left here seems to be getting his numbers straight from the home office in Baghdad. On the right, you can see how the CBC managed to pick out the, uh, brightest of the bunch to interview.
This genius neither needs nor deserves comment.
Update: These people were apparently protesting an appearance by Barbara Bush.
08:19 PM |
29 March 2003
Raines Poring
Times Watch picks up where Smartertimes.com left off a year ago. (Via Sasha Castel-Dodge)
10:39 AM |
28 March 2003
"Liberation" Subjective Says the Beeb
I don't think this is quite the kind of admission most people were looking for from the BBC:
[Senior BBC executive Mark] Damazer admitted one of the areas where the BBC had made mistakes was in its use of language, but that it was seeking to put this right.Unbelievable. (Link via Instapundit.)"If we have used the word 'liberate' in our own journalism, as in 'such and such a place had been liberated by allied forces', that's a mistake," he said.
"That is the wrong language to use without evidence of Iraqi people feeling as though they have been liberated," Mr Damazer added.
12:59 PM |
Calling all Torontonians
The Friends of America (not the one linked to on the left, but another one — yes, we have two!) is holding a rally next week. I'll be there; will you?
08:48 AM |
27 March 2003
Lawrence v. Texas
The United States is in a world-wide fight against fanatics who want to force their religious morality on others. At the same time, in that country's Supreme Court, two men who had consensual sex in the privacy of their home are fighting to overturn the law that made them criminals for it. Not only is this ironic, it's depressing. There really are politicians, lawyers, policemen, and judges who, in 2003, enforce and defend such outrageously intrusive laws. For once, I'm proud to be a citizen of the country whose future Prime Minister said in 1968, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." (Alas, just about everything else he said and did was not so pride-inducing.)
Andrew Sullivan links today to Dahlia Lithwick's good summary of yesterday's proceedings in the case. He also links to his own long article on the case. I haven't read it yet, but if I understand his argument, I disagree with it:
The case in front of the court is about the right to privacy, equal protection and so on. The case I make is something related but more fundamental. I try to argue that sodomy - i.e. non-procreative sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual - should not merely be defended negatively. It needs to be defended positively. It can indeed be an absolute moral good.Perhaps a case does need to be made for the morality of such sexual activity, but it isn't one that should be made to the government. All it needs to understand is that consensual sex infringes on no one's rights. Arguing on any other terms just concedes the mistaken and dangerous premise that politicians need only deem something immoral in order to outlaw it. For a proper case against sodomy laws, see this op-ed by Onkar Ghate.
08:35 PM |
Principles Without Context
From Dave Winer's Scripting News:
Presidential candidate Howard Dean gave a talk at Harvard last night. He asked an interesting question. Next year, how will we feel when China invades Taiwan because they think they have weapons of mass destruction? Has the new Bush Doctrine, pre-emptive wars, unleashed a philosophy of world power that we may not be so comfortable with?Yes, and I suppose we should also worry about policemen shooting violent criminals because of the slippery slope it puts us on. Has moral equivalence gone so far now that people don't see the difference between the dictatorship of Iraq and free, democratic Taiwan? Between Communist China and the United States of America?
11:38 AM |
25 March 2003
Black and White and Read All Over
Most of you will be aware of it already, but the excellent editorial cartooning team of Cox & Forkum have a new blog.
08:50 PM |
24 March 2003
Rumsfeld for President!
I loved Donald Rumsfeld's comeback yesterday to Wolf Blitzer's harping on what pictures of the bombing of Baghdad might do to incite terrorism:
BLITZER: [T]here are plenty of people out there, counterterrorism experts, who have already expressed fear that the images of this bombing, the Shock and Awe campaign, will merely ferment [sic] terrorism, create new recruits for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to go after American targets.Boy, do I wish this kind of statement weren't so rare.RUMSFELD: Wolf, I know there's lots of so-called experts opining on this and that. The fact is that the terrorists did not need any provocation. They attacked the United States of America on September 11, viciously killed 3,000 innocent men, women and children of every religion, of every nationality across the globe. That was not a response to an attack on Baghdad. It was an unprovoked attack....
[T]he idea that -- that this is provocative is wrong. Weakness is provocative.
10:06 AM |
A River in Egypt
Ian Hamet has a good post on people who refuse to see the obvious. A sample:
[W]hen Reality hefts a Louisville Slugger, assumes the stance, rears back and smacks The Anointed across the forehead, they blink once or twice, rephrase what they just said, and ignore it.Read the whole post to find out how Ian illustrates evasion (which Ayn Rand identified as the root of all evil) by drawing upon antiwar argument, Michael Moore, Ibsen, and Jaws.
09:51 AM |
22 March 2003
The Jog of War
Just got back from my run, which today I combined with political demonstration. Remembering that the antiwar protesters were supposed to be rallying here in downtown Toronto today, I grabbed my little American flag before heading out. Watch your nightly newscast for a black-clad runner waving the Stars and Stripes in the faces of heckling marchers on Queen's Park and in front of the US consulate.
04:32 PM |
Tragic Deaths Just Grist for the Bias Mill at CBC
You may have read about the CBC commentator who wondered, as the wreckage was still smoldering, if American arrogance might have been responsible for the crash of the Columbia space shuttle. Well, this morning I awoke to another example of the CBC taking still-raw tragedy as a cue to ask breathtakingly inappropriate questions.
As part of its steady stream of reporting on anti-war activities, CBC Radio's Anthony Germain interviewed a London war protester. The protester admitted that in these opening stages of the war, Prime Minister Blair was getting more public support. Germain then asked (I don't have the exact quote, but this is quite close): "But we've already heard about helicopters crashing and killing British soldiers. Does that give you hope that public opinion will be swayed against the war?"
I was too stunned by the question to absorb the reply fully, but I think even the protester had enough sense to express sadness over the deaths, not hope.
Here's the website for the CBC's Ombudsman.
07:56 AM |
20 March 2003
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
Inspired by Fredrik Norman, et al, journalist Jay Currie has founded Canadian Friends of America. Sign me up. (Via Colby Cosh.)
07:55 PM |
Winds of Change
Winds of Change looks to be an essential source for following the war.
03:30 PM |
17 March 2003
International Flaw
Lots of good things in Bush's speech tonight. One of them:
In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.That's the answer to those who screech about how "international law" prohibits military action unless a country is under threat of imminent attack. Well, that and "The 'international law' is an ass."And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense. It is suicide.
08:47 PM |
Why They Hate Us, Too
An insightful article by Peter Schwartz on the anti-war protesters' movitations observes:
The "anti-war" forces are not against an invasion of Iraq, if authorized by the U.N.; they just don't want the decision to be made by the United States. It is America's deferral to the U.N. that they frantically seek. It is American "selfishness"--the tenet that one has the moral right to uphold one's self-interest--that triggers anger and fear in them. It is the undercutting of America's sovereignty--the surrender of the principle of individualism to the principle of collectivism--that underlies the malicious glee with which U.N. dignitaries hail attacks on America, that motivates the spiteful cowardice of the "human-shield" volunteers in Baghdad and that constitutes the ideological goal of the "anti-war" movement.It's true. Aside from the complete pacifists, who don't deserve any comment, most of these protestors would be happy if Bush would just get everyone to agree with him first. But what effect would that agreement have on the one important issue, i.e., Saddam's threat to the US and its interests? None.
07:20 PM |
11 March 2003
NYT a Bullying Unilateralist
Eric Lindholm reveals the New York Times' true colors:
Soon after my daily subscription started, I received a bill from the NYT. I immediately complied with this request for payment by sending in $0.25. While this was not a "full" payment (as defined by you), it was clearly a signal that I intended to comply within the structure of our mutual agreement. This was followed up a week later by an additional $0.25 payment; once again, a clear indication that I was conforming to your demands.Wait till their op-ed department hears about this. (Via Tim Blair.)
09:01 AM |
10 March 2003
Worthwhile Norwegian Initiative
In an effort to distinguish themselves from some of their increasingly anti-American compatriots and encourage more rational views, the Norwegian Friends of America has formed. Fredrik Norman is one of the founders. Good for them. Considering the comments out of Ottawa lately, it may be time for a Canadian version of this initiative.
Update: I just remembered this ad from the weekend paper. Never let it be said that Norway is ahead of Canada in apologizing for the idiocy of its citizens!
07:44 AM |
9 March 2003
Impressed, One Reader
Doyler reached inside his shirt and tugged on the string that held his medal. Between thumbs and fingers he twisted the tin till it split in two. Jim saw the proffered half of St Joseph.'It's my pledge to you. We’ll have our Easter swim, my hand and heart on that. We’ll make them rocks together, Jim. Are you straight so?'
'I'm straight as a rush,' Jim said. He sniffed. 'I am too.'
'Old pal o’ me heart,' said Doyler.
'Come what may,' said Jim. 'Come what may.'
Doyler grinned. 'Come Easter sure. 1916.'
At Swim, Two Boys, by Jamie O'Neill, which I finished last week, is a novel set in First World War Ireland that follows the friendship of two 16-year-old boys, Jim Mack and Doyler Doyle. The poor, rebellious Doyler is the more obviously interesting of the two early on, but the inspiring transformation of the quiet, studious Jim into a positively heroic young man is what this story is about. The upper-class Anthony MacMurrough, recently back from England where he spent time in prison for crimes of the Oscar Wilde sort, provides an adult perspective on their relationship. His growth, too, from a cynical, shallow idler to a caring mentor who feels real (and painful) love, is a very moving aspect of the story.
I do have complaints about the book. Unfamiliar — and worse, unlookupable — Irish dialect and slang frustrated and distracted me until I gave up and lived with it. Also, I found it a bit slow at times. Lastly, I'm not 100% comfortable with the ending.
But these criticisms, as they say, are minor. The experience of reading the last couple of hundred pages of the book isn't one I will soon forget. The brilliance and beauty and power of it is indescribable, at least by someone with my feeble skills. A week later, recalling any of several scenes is still a dangerous thing to do in public. As it is, I hope you'll take my word for it that At Swim, Two Boys is well worth reading. If you're gay, I'd almost say it's required.
You can read the book's first chapter here. Check out the author's website for reviews and more.
07:47 PM |
2 March 2003
Choice Reading
Fate, free will, and determinism. Calvin and Hobbes and the New York Times weigh in on these topics today. While both are worth a read, my freely chosen opinion is that Calvin and Hobbes is the more edifying.
11:06 AM |
1 March 2003
Reductio Revamped
Check out the very clean redesign over at Reductio Ad Absurdum. The site also has a new subtitle: "A Conservative Review of Polictics, Books, and Culture." I've always thought it's more libertarian myself (in the best, small-l, non-Raimondo way). Whatever Kevin Whited, its creator, chooses to label it, it's worth bookmarking. And don't miss Kevin's weblog.
10:37 PM |
Everyday Heroes
Ayn Rand, when asked, "What can one person do?" answered: "Speak." Elizabeth Nickson's article in today's National Post nicely illustrates the power of speaking out. (Via Kathy Shaidle)
06:09 PM |