The Crusty Curmudgeon

Worst phishing scam ever!

2008-07-23T19:04:00.001-04:00

Got this message in my inbox yesterday:

This is to formally notify you that we are presently working on the Carleton webmail, and this can close your webmail account with Carleton completely.

To avoid this, please send your surname and password to Carleton Webmail Care on: carletonwebmailcare@webmail.co.za

Please do this, so that your Carleton webmail Account can be protected from being close.

Your immediate response is highly needed.

PLEASE PROTECT YOUR CARLETON WEBMAIL ACCOUNT FROM BEING CLOSED.

Regards,
Customer Care Service.

Hy-larious.

It was apparently sent from a Verizon emall account named "CARLETON WEBMAIL CARE," but the supposed sender's initials and last name appear in he email address proper.
IT admins at Carleton University don't need to send admin messages from Verizon accounts.
Verizon doesn't even operate in Canada.
The Reply-To: address in the headers is to a webmail account in South Africa (the same one that appears in the message body). I'm pretty sure that if Carleton doesn't need Verizon for email access, they definitely don't need the equivalent of a South African Hotmail account.
Although my email account at the National Capital FreeNet is based at Carleton University (where the mail servers are housed), I don't have a "Carleton webmail account."
Admin-type broadcast messages typically tell you why, when, and how long they plan to "work on" the system, so that people who rely on the service have prior warning, e.g. "The Network Gods will be performing scheduled maintenance to the webmail server on Friday, July 25 at 5 pm. This software upgrade is expected to last for about two hours. During this time, your account will not be accessible. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Thanks to such routine precautions as redundant systems and regular backups, the possibility of my account being "closed" "completely" due to "work" is basically nil.
Obviously, in the unlikely event of an unintentional hosing of the mail server, the powers-that-be do not need my "surname and password" in order to restore the system from a previous backup.
While IT professionals are not always the most literate folks, I've never seen a broadcast message so poorly written. I don't want my account protected from being "close." I like it nearby, where it belongs.
A large Canadian university doesn't have "Customer Care Service."

So, needless to say, I wasn't particularly fooled. This was a more transparent attempt to phish for my personal info than the usual bank/eBay/PayPal scams you see, and those are pretty obvious too.

But unless it's a coincidence that someone else was running a more sophisticated phishing scam at the same time, someone was fooled:

The e-mail system at an Ottawa university was crippled this week by cyber criminals who tricked a user into providing access to a university e-mail account.

The system at Carleton University is now back to normal, Ralph Michaelis, the chief information officer at the university's department of computing and communications services, said Wednesday.

Earlier in the week, the criminals used a university e-mail account to send out tens of thousands of spam e-mails, clogging the system and forcing users to wait up to five minutes to send or receive e-mail, Michaelis said.

Which only goes to show that there's no trick in the book so old that it won't catch a new fish.

And now . . . this - July 9/08

2008-07-09T21:06:00.001-04:00

Stupid poetic justice!

A desperate five-day search for a 9-year-old boy abducted by his father in Southern California ended in Mexico, where the man died after being hit by a bus and the boy was found safe across town, authorities said Monday.

[Full Story]

The Proverbial Bus solves the Problem of Evil. This has to be the Christian apologist's biggest fantasy.

Here we go again, part 6.022x10²³

John Ganster has watched cars creep, crawl and park in front of his East Dallas stone company as their occupants try to catch a glimpse of a granite slab stained with what some think is an image of Jesus. . . .

At first, no one at the company noticed the image, Mr. Ganster said. Then a customer called and asked about buying the "Jesus slab," a 1,000-pound hunk of granite that comes from Brazil.

Uh-oh. It looks to me like he's about to stick that shiv into the giant skull on the left.

And now for some completely bad hermeneutics.

The stone had been in the company's Tulsa, Okla., store. It was moved to the Dallas office in December, after builders in the Tulsa area kept passing on it because of cosmetic imperfections.

"That's kind of ironic," Mr. Ganster said. "Christ said that he would build his church on the stone that the builders rejected."

[Full Story]

And that puddle on the floor is the puke my stomach rejected. Hey, I think I see an image of Jesus.

That's right, shoot the messenger

At least I'm glad to see that "human rights" kookery isn't limited to Canadian shores:

A Canton [Michigan] man is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Mental instability, eh? This lawsuit is Exhibit A.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in the lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Fowler filed the suit against Zondervan on Monday, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson, a Tennessee publisher. Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

[Full Story]

Translation: "'He's as fruity as a nutcake,' the judge wrote.'

(H/T: James White.)

And now . . . this - July 4/08

2008-07-04T18:02:00.001-04:00

For some people, stealing traffic cones isn't enough of a challenge

A 42-year-old Ottawa man has been charged with the theft of 25 sewer grates in the Elmvale Acres area — some of the 150 catch basin covers that have gone missing around the city in the past month.

Tim Argiropoulos was arrested Thursday afternoon and is to appear in court on Aug. 11, Ottawa police said Friday.

[Full Story]

Under normal circumstances, the city of Ottawa loses a handful of sewer grates every month. A few is pranksters; 150 of the things is some sort of conspiracy. No doubt the dramatic rise in thefts is due to the current high price of metals. Meanwhile, thanks to dimbulbs like Argiropooulos, we all run the risk of stepping off the curb into a 10-foot hole.

Always look on the bright side of life

Thomas Beatie, the transgender man who made headlines as the so-called "pregnant man," gave birth Sunday to a healthy baby girl, ABC News has learned.

The birth, at St. Charles Medical Center in Bend, Oregon, was natural, according to a source, who added that reports that Beatie had had a Caesarean section are false.

[Full Story]

At the risk of acquiring my very own Human Rights complaint for discriminating against the weird: "Thomas Beatie" is not a man, pregnant or otherwise. She is a woman whom an intensive regimen of hormones and surgery has messed up severely. Inevitably, this nonsense reminds me of this classic Monty Python scene from Life of Brian:

sigh . . . stupid world . . .

(H/T: Jill Stanek.)

The Order of Canada jumps the shark

2008-07-04T17:29:00.001-04:00

While everyone else was enjoying the big street party yesterday, Canada bestowed its highest civilian honour, quietly and underhandedly, upon Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a Holocaust survivor who believes he should be able to kill as many unborn children as he wants, without legal consequences.

The motto of the Order of Canada is Desiderantes meliorem patriam ("They desire a better country").¹ Has Morgentaler's legacy left us a better country? On the contrary, his advocacy has left Canadians polarized and divided over the abortion issue - to say nothing of the thousands of unborn infants that he and his kind have enabled to be slaughtered for any reason or none. Abortion is so often (and falsely) assumed to be a fundamental human right, that the student Politburos at several Canadian universities have taken steps to officially stifle the real fundamental right of free speech of those students who oppose it. At the very least, causing roughly half of all Canadians to suddenly take offense hardly makes Canada a better place. If Morgentaler's crusade for abortion rights has left Canada a better country, the benefits are, at best, invisible and dubious.

On the other hand, Morgentaler's crusade certainly has benefited Morgentaler. Lest we forget the circumstances of his crusade, it was about his right to open a private, for-profit abortion clinic in 1969. He doesn't seem to be too poorly off. Notwithstanding all the empty platitudes about "safe, legal, and rare" that fall from the lips of abortion advocates, the last thing a professional abortionist would want is for business to be rare.

At every debate on abortion that I have attended, inevitably someone (whether the pro-abortion advocate or someone from the audience in the Q&A) will argue that since men can't get pregnant, their opinion on the abortion issue isn't worth much. Of course, that argument only counts for men like Jojo Ruba or Scott Klusendorf, who are against abortion. When men are for abortion, like Dr. Morgentaler or the majority of Supreme Court judges who struck down the abortion law in 1988, they get honours, human rights awards, and honorary doctorates.

However, it's now official: The Order of Canada has jumped the shark. Like the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards, it's no longer about celebrating excellence that all Canadians can be proud of: it's about being one more soapbox for the political hobby horses of the not-so-intelligentsia. Shameful.

Footnote

¹ A motto, ironically, derived from the Bible: "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one" (Heb. 11:16, emphasis added). As a general rule, the authors of the Bible frowned upon the mass murder of infants.

Canada Day, 2008

2008-07-01T12:54:00.001-04:00

Today is Canada Day - more specifically, Canada's 141's birthday. (She doesn't look a day over 120 . . .)

It has been my practice, since my first Canada Day blogging in 2004, to tell the story of one Canadian patriotic song. This year, the song both isn't, and is, Canadian: "God Save the Queen."

This song is actually a British patriotic song. The author and composer are unknown. The phrase "God save the King" originated in the English Bible (specifically, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, though it was retained also in the King James Version). It was also employed as a naval watchword, the countersign to which was, "Long to reign over us."

The form we are familiar with originated in 1745, when it was sung in theatres (anyone else old enough to remember singing the national anthem at the movies?):

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

"God Save the Queen" is the unofficial national anthem of England, its usage having been established by tradition rather than legislation. Similarly, here in Canada it is the unofficial "Royal Anthem," played in the presence of royalty or the Governor-General, but has no legal standing. When I was in elementary school, it was sung after "O Canada" during daily opening exercises.

Two other, more politically incorrect verses, are rarely sung today:

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter thine enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen.

Though it isn't a Canadian song, in a sense it is, since Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and the Queen of England is also our head of state, designated the Queen of Canada. While pro-royalty sentiment in Canada may not be what it is in London, or what it used to be, naturally Canadians wish Her Majesty well.

In Canada the anthem has an additional verse, though again it is almost never sung. Admittedly, the reference to the British Empire is rather obsolescent:

Our loved Dominion bless
With peace and happiness
From shore to shore;
And let our Empire be
Loyal, united, free
True to herself and Thee
God save the Queen.

"God Save the Queen" is, I"m sure, familiar to all natives of English-speaking countries. In the United States, the melody is used for "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." It is well known even outside the English-speaking world: the melody has been used in the past for the national anthems of Germany (Beethoven once composed a "theme and variations" on it), Switzerland, and Russia; and is still used as the anthem of Liechtenstein, as well as the royal anthem of Norway and Sweden. (Britannia certainly does rule the sound waves!) So it seems almost redundant to provide the usual link to the tune in MIDI format. Nonetheless, here it is.

Happy Birthday, Canada. And God save our gracious Queen.

Previous Canada Day songs:

Mangoes, mushrooms, muesli, and marmalade are murder; or, Who will weep for the Brussels sprout? or, Switzerland jumps the shark

2008-05-05T23:40:00.001-04:00

On Friday I blogged about recent Swiss legislation that makes it animal abuse to house goldfish in a tank that is transparent all round or for small children to cuddle their guinea pigs excessively. This bit of nitwittery may be only the beginning.

Not to be outdone, the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology has released a report titled "The Dignity of Living Beings With Regard to Plants" [PDF]. In this document, the Committee admits, right up front:

For some people, the question of whether the treatment or handling of plants requires moral justification is a meaningless one. The moral consideration of plants is considered to be senseless. Some people have warned that simply having this discussion at all is risible. In their view, the human treatment of plants is on morally neutral ground and therefore requires no justification. (4)

The committee was unanimous that it was immoral to harm plants arbitrarily. By arbitrary, they mean "without rational reason," for example:

An example of arbitrary treatment used in the discussion was the farmer who, after mowing the grass for his animals, decapitates flowers with his scythe on his way home without rational reason. However, at this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer towards other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves. (9, emphasis in original)

Actually it remains unclear why this action is condemned at all. I have a certain amount of respect for God's creation: the plants and animals he made are "very good" (Gen. 1:31), and so I don't arbitrarily step on bugs that aren't pestering me, or peel the bark of birch trees if I can avoid it. But I don't demand that others come to the same conclusions as I do, and I definitely draw the line at questioning the ethics of picking flowers or eating my spinach. Something has to be at the bottom of the food chain, after all.

The great majority of the ECNH members holds the opinion that prima facie we do not possess unrestricted power over plants. We may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily. A minority of the members is of the opinion that prima facie we may use plants as we please, as long as the plant community or the species is not in danger and we are not acting arbitrarily. (10, emphasis in original)

Spokesmen for the plant community were not available for comment, apparently.

This committee cannot even reach a consensus on whether plants are sentient or not (14). The country that gave us Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Bernoullis, and Johanna Spyri gave us this group of geniuses? They should be embarrassed. Al Mohler gets it right: "The very idea of 'plants rights' indicates a loss of cultural sanity." What comes next? The dignity of sand? The right of a lake not to have stones skipped across it?

(H/T: The Weekly Standard.)

And now . . . this - May 2/08

2008-05-02T11:50:00.001-04:00

I've been too busy over the last couple of weeks for more than even sporadic blog reading, but you gotta break radio silence somehow.

It takes a village to raise a fish

And they say the Swiss obsession with rules and regulations is an unfair stereotype:

From guinea-pigs to budgerigars, any animal classified as a “social species” will be a victim of abuse if it does not cohabit, or at least have contact, with others of its own kind.
The new regulation stipulates that aquariums for pet fish should not be transparent on all sides and that owners must make sure that the natural cycle of day and night is maintained in terms of light. Goldfish are considered social animals, or Gruppentiere in German. . . .
The legislation even mentions the appropriate keeping of rhinoceroses, although it was not clear immediately how many, if any, were being kept as pets in Switzerland.
[Full Story]

That's it.I'm moving to Switzerland. I'm a social animal, and I need a beautiful blonde farm girl to bring me cheese. Anything else would be criminal.

No shortage of stupid criminals in the world

[A] 21-year-old North Texas man was arrested last week for trying to cash a $360 billion check, saying he wanted to start a record business, authorities said. Tellers at the Fort Worth bank were immediately suspicious — perhaps the 10 zeros on a personal check tipped them off, according to investigators.

[Charles Ray] Fuller, of suburban Crowley, was arrested on a forgery charge, police said. He was released after posting $3,750 bail.

"$3,750? No problem. Here, let me write you a cheque . . ."

In addition to forgery, Fuller was charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon and possessing marijuana, Fort Worth police Lt. Paul Henderson said.

[Full Story]

Sheesh! I'm beginning to wonder whether today's relative acceptability of pot smoking hasn't led to a bit of a brain-drain in the evil genius department.

Here we go again, part MCMLXXXIV

2008-04-16T17:45:00.003-04:00

Fred notes the story of the hospital in Orlando, Florida where apparently a window was recently Jesified. He wants to know who you see in this image:

My vote goes to the Green Arrow:

On the brighter side, since it's a Seventh-day Adventist hospital, it's a fair guess that hordes of Roman Catholic faithful won't be inundating the prayer garden with candles and other Jesus Junk - what with Sunday worship being the Mark of the Beast, and all.

FridayMonday in the wild: April 14, 2008

2008-04-14T19:16:00.002-04:00

Way back in time, about when I first hit my stride as a blogger, it was my weekly habit to post a weekly "Friday in the Wild," highlighting the best reading I had seen in the blogosphere in the previous seven days. I felt it was a good way to encourage others to read blogs I also found interesting, and it was a decent way to wrap up a week in case I didn't have anything to say over the weekend. Now that I'm starting to get back into the habit of regular (or at least semi-regular) posting again, I think it's time to start this again. Only this time, I'm starting the week this way, rather than ending it. For now.

Some of these stories might be a little old by now, but who cares?

When I teach Sunday school, contextualizing means I take my passage and explain the historical, social, political, or literary circumstances that surround its writing: pointing out, for example, that to understand the book of Jeremiah properly, it is necessary to know the following:

Jeremiah's ministry was to Judah about 100 years after the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel.
In his lifetime, Judah had five kings, all of whom were deposed or destroyed by foreign powers.
Israel was then a vassal state of the declining empire of Assyria.
To counter the rising threat of the Babylonian empire, the Hebrews were forging political alliances with old enemies such as Egypt.
The patriotic Jeremiah saw, firsthand, the destruction of his nation at the hands of Babylon in 586 BC.

Contextualization also involves bridging the historical and cultural gap between his day and ours: what similar circumstances are there between 6th-century BC Judah and 21st-century Canada that make the ministry of the prophet relevant to us?

However, Phil Johnson points out that contextualization means something quite different in our postmodern age:

In the early 1970s, left-leaning missiologists made contextualization into a religious shibboleth. They also turned the dictionary definition of the word inside out. They weren't talking about studying or explaining biblical truth in its own context; instead, what they wanted to do was adapt and stylize religious ideas and symbols to fit into the cultural context of their target audience - namely oppressed and marginalized people groups.
It wasn't long before hip, young evangelicals discovered and embraced the basic concept, and then franchised it. Instead of targeting impoverished and downtrodden people, however, they turned contextualization into a tool for attracting Yuppies.
[Read Context and Contextualization]

While this article is somewhat older (there's no way I can claim something published nearly a month ago is a highlight of my week!), it was the start of a series on Acts 17: Paul's apologetic before the Areopagus in Athens. Today, Phil closed off the series with a post on "charitableness," the definition of which will look familiar to anyone who's had to endure the works of Brian McLaren and friends:

"Charitableness" (the postmodern substitute for charity) is something altogether different. It's a broad-minded, insouciantly tolerant, unrelenting goodwill toward practically every conceivable opinion. Its twin virtue - often labeled "epistemic humility' - is a cool refusal to hold any firm and settled convictions. These cardinal postmodern moral values are both seasoned with blithe indifference to the dangers of heresy.

[Read Paul and Charitableness]

You can also read the entire series in one fell swoop. Good stuff.

John Piper posted C. S. Lewis' five rules of writing for children. While I've never read this list, as a professional communicator I have always tried to achieve the same goals, though not always successfully.

Suzanne of Big Blue Wave comments on a recent challenge to pro-life bloggers by feminist bloggers opposing Bill C-484, to "[f]ind one reputatable [sic], established organization working against violence against women that publicly endorses this bill." When I first heard of this, I saw it as a good example of the so-called No True Scotsman fallacy: the ones issuing the challenge are most likely the arbiters of what constitutes a "reputatable [sic], established organization." Suzanne says as much herself:

This "dare" by the feminists is ideologically motivated. They're trying to pretend that the feminists who are dominant in among those who combat women's violence are the arbiters of what is and is not in the best interests of women.

[Read The Only People for Whom C-484 is About Abortion are Feminists]

The best reason to support C-484 is not that "reputatable [sic], established organizations" also support it; it's because in addition to the harm to her own person, an expectant mother who is assaulted until she miscarries, or murdered, loses something very valuable to her. The increased severity of the punishment ought to be proportional to the increased severity of the crime.

Finally, Jay at the venerable LTI Blog has this to say about the Robert Latimer case recently back in the news:

Mark [Pickup] published the trial evidence that Tracy was not miserable all of the time and actually enjoyed life as reported by her own mother in a communication book. This is the same mother that characterized her daughter’s life as torturous meaningless suffering at the trial of her husband. Mark reports that Robert Latimer considered poisoning Tracy or shooting her in the head before deciding to gas her to death during his two weeks of planning the murder. Finally, Mark expresses the “uncharitable” opinion that Tracy’s disabilities did not define her value as a human being and that her father was wrong to murder her. . . .

Hey Latimer-heads, Robert Latimer decided that Tracy’s life was not worth the trouble and pain her living caused him and he killed her. He murdered his daughter and that is not heroic. Murder is not mercy. If you are too morally confused to see that, then I pray that you never find yourself an expendable inconvenience in another’s eyes. You may suddenly see the inherent danger in the precedent Latimer is now trying to set.

[Read Undisputed Fact: Robert Latimer is a Murderer]

Mark Pickup's original post may be found at HumanLifeMatters for reference.

On the search engine front

Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it: Awhile back, I remarked that the weird search hits seemed to have disappeared. I spoke too soon. Here are some of the ways that people have found help (I hope) on this site, and if not, it's an opportunity to make snide remarks about them.

organized and forced harassment through female seductresses: That turn of phrase sounds like a fluffy bit of empty rhetoric from a perky Women's Studies undergrad. Out of context, would you have guessed it was actually said about gay penguins?
waterman phileas cigar ring band does not go all the way around: Well, I just checked mine. Speak for yourself, buddy.
how to speak like a crusty old lady: Say "sonny" and "Heavens to Betsy" a lot.
what does it say about a women who has crusty feet: What does what say about it, sonny? Heavens to Betsy!
(See, I knew choosing this name for this blog would pay off eventually.)
pro choice abortion supreme court of canada sets a precedence: Well, no, actually, they didn't.
why is the battle on the plains of abraham the bloodiest battle fought on the canadian soil: Well, no, actually, it wasn't. The Battle of Lundy's Lane was, in 1814 in Niagara Falls. Maybe it's somehow related to how many people died.
in many of shakespeare's plays the women seem to loose their personality and become robotic stepford wives: Uh, maybe, if by "many" you mean The Taming of the Shrew, and by "women" you mean Katherina.
Brian McClare and the emergent church: Interestingly, most people mistakenly substitute McClaren for McClare; this is the first time I've ever seen it go the other way around.

So until Friday (or maybe next Friday), Share and Enjoy.

And now . . . this - Apr. 9/08

2008-04-09T22:42:00.001-04:00

Um . . . silence pollution?

A bill intended to protect blind people and other pedestrians from the dangers posed by quiet cars will be introduced Wednesday in Congress.

The measure would require the Transportation Department to establish safety standards for hybrids and other vehicles that make little discernible noise, including an audible means for alerting people that cars are nearby.

[Full Text]

Great! After 100 years of the automobile, we finally invent a silent car, and we're immediately forced by law to make it make loud "putt, putt" noises. Or maybe car owners should hire some sort of flagman, like the kind that had to walk in front of horseless carriages?

Everything's bigger in Texas

Booyah!

The brightest light on Earth now shines in a laboratory in Texas, one which will enable scientists to create a tabletop star. . . .

The laser is brighter than sunlight on the surface of the sun, but it only lasts for an instant, a 10th of a trillionth of a second (0.0000000000001 second). This is the key to the laser's power - it delivers modest energy in a microscopic unit of time.

[Full Text]

But avoid staring directly into the beam . . . unless you like watching your eyeballs evaporate and float away.

Yes, Arkansas . . . anyone surprised?

Arkansas' marriage-age crisis is over. A law that mistakenly allowed anyone - even toddlers - to marry with parental permission was repealed by a measure signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Mike Beebe, ending months of embarrassment for the state and confusion for county clerks.

Lawmakers didn't realize until after the end of last year's regular session that a law they approved, intended to establish 18 as the minimum age for marriage, instead removed the minimum age to marry entirely. An extraneous "not" in the bill allowed anyone who was not pregnant to marry at any age with permission.

The bill read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage."

[Full Text]

Yeah, I blew a lot of tests in school by forgetting the stupid minus sign, too. Hey, I'm an editor - let's discuss rates.

OK, one more. It's been awhile.

Good thing it wasn't a stoat

A New Zealand man has been accused of assault with prickly weapon - a hedgehog. Police allege that William Singalargh picked up the hedgehog and threw it several yards to hit a 15-year-old boy in the North Island east coast town of Whakatane on Feb. 9. . . .

Worst Ending Ever for a news story:

While using a hedgehog as a weapon in an assault is uncommon, Jenkins said, "People often get charged with assault for throwing things at other people."

[Full Text]

Yeah, words fail me too.

Charlton Heston (1923-2008)

2008-04-06T23:26:00.001-04:00

No sooner do I finish writing about the anniversary of my favourite science-fiction movie, than to learn that the star of another favourite has passed away.

Charlton Heston starred in many great epics, SF and otherwise - including Bible epics such as The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur (for which he won the Best Actor Oscar for 1959), historical drama such as Khartoum, and lesser SF classics such as Soylent Green and The Omega Man (one of three film adaptations of Richard Matheson's novel I Am Legend). In recent years my favourite film in which he appeared was Kenneth Branagh's incredible 1996 adaptation of Hamlet, in which Heston had a cameo as one of the players in the acting troupe.

But for me, the essential Charlton Heston role was as the misanthropic astronaut Taylor in 1968's Planet of the Apes.

In later years, Heston was probably better known for his conservative political activity, such as the presidency of the National Rifle Association, than his acting. Nonetheless, Hollywood has lost yet another of its legends. Rest in peace, Mr. Heston.

To infinity and beyond!

2008-04-06T07:09:00.001-04:00

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the theatrical release of the seminal "quintessential good science-fiction movie," 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with legendary SF novelist Arthur C. Clarke to create this film. Kubrick died in 2000, shortly after the completion of his final feature, Eyes Wide Shut. Sadly, Clarke, too, died only a few weeks ago, at the ripe old age of 90. Clarke was the last of the "Big Three" giants of SF, being predeceased by Robert A. Heinlein in 1988 and Isaac Asimov in 1992. (Understandably these were the first three SF authors I started reading as an early teen, as well.)

Viewers have been polarized by 2001, either finding it intensely profound or intensely boring. The latter find the plot boring or incomprehensible - primarily because the meaning of the action isn't spoon-fed to the audience, nor is it punctuated with violence or explosions. 2001 is one of those rare SF movies that simply requires you to think about what you are seeing. And in a sense the movie is less to be analyzed than simply experienced. Giant habitats float in space! Men walk on the ceiling! Spaceships fly to the farthest reaches of space! Like the Odyssey of Homer, 2001 is an epic that shows wonders and marvels its viewers have never seen.

2001 opens four million years in the past, with a tribe of cavemen who discover that a mysterious rectangular black monolith has been deposited in their midst. The seemingly intelligent monolith begins to teach them the use of tools, culminating in the tribe fighting off a rival tribe with bone clubs.

Flash forward to the year 2001, when American astronauts living on the moon discover another monolith buried 40 feet beneath the surface. When the sun's rays touch it for the first time, It transmits a radio signal to the planet Jupiter. An expedition, comprising astronauts David Bowman (Keir Dullea), Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), and three scientists in hibernation, is sent to Jupiter on the spacecraft Discovery to investigate. En route, the ship's artificial intelligence, HAL 9000 (voiced by Douglas Rain), becomes erratic, then psychotic when Bowman and Poole consider shutting him down. When HAL kills Poole, Bowman is left to deal with the murderous computer and learn the connection between Jupiter and the monolith.

Or, as I like to encapsulate the plot in a nutshell: 2001 is the story of mankind's evolution being directed by god-like aliens, as told by an author who doesn't believe in God.

It is now 2008, of course, and I am sitting in my earthbound basement, typing this article up on my 2003-vintage desktop PC, which isn't feeling very conversational. (Fortunately, on the other hand, it isn't trying to kill me, either.) Needless to say, as a predictive work, 2001 wasn't particularly successful. For example:.

No doubt the future looked a lot brighter in 1968, when NASA was on the brink of putting men on the moon. Had the space program continued at the same fervent pace as it did during the height of the space race, we could well have had giant hotels in orbit and passenger flights to the moon by now. As it is, however, we haven't set foot on the moon in well over 30 years; indeed, we haven't even left low-earth orbit, and the closest we've come to orbiting Hiltons is the rotating crew of the International Space Station.
2001 showed people in space solving the problem of zero gravity by walking on Velcro shoes that kept their feet on the floor (or walls or ceilings). Now that we actually have people living in space (albeit very few), as we've seen endless times on the news, zero gravity isn't a problem: astronauts have simply learned to float from place to place.
Kubrick and Clarke didn't foresee the microcomputer revolution or distributed networking. The computing paradigm of their day was timesharing on a powerful, central mainframe; hence HAL 9000 pervades Discovery and controls its every operation.
For that matter, they were over-optimistic about HAL's life cycle: he was supposedly brought online in 1992. How many 10-year-old computers are still state-of-the-art?
They didn't see the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War in the early 1990s, which rendered the political tension of 2001 obsolete.
How could they have predicted the bombing of Flight 103 over Lockerbie that ultimately led to the demise of Pan Am World Airlines, or the breakup of the telephone company in the early 1980s? Pan Am will never fly us into space; nor, when we get there, will we find a Bell video phone booth.

But even if 2001 failed as prediction, it is nonetheless prophetic. It seems to me that the primary theme of 2001 is not godlike aliens, or homicidal computers or even the Wonderful World of the Future. Rather, it is a warning about the dehumanizing effect of over-reliance on technology. The invisible aliens gave prehistoric man knowledge of tools so he could hunt for food; instead he learned to use it to kill other men. With HAL running Discovery, Bowman and Poole are practically only caretakers - indeed, since HAL is capable of carrying the mission out himself, they are redundant. The most "human" character is the machine, and it takes a fight for his own survival to break Bowman out of his complacency.

2001 stands as the milestone in cinematic science fiction. No more would space travel be attempted in unlikely chrome-plated rocket ships piloted by foil-clad spacemen armed with Art Deco ray guns. Alien beings weren't scaly, antennaed green monsters in foam suits anymore. Kubrick and Clarke went to great lengths to inject realism into the way their subject matter was portrayed. Douglas Trumbull's visual effects made their vision take shape; he later went on to make movie magic in other groundbreaking SF features such as Silent Running, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and, of course, Blade Runner.

I could say much more about 2001, but it will have to wait until later this year: I plan on blogging extensively on my list of favourite SF films - something I've been planning to do for many moons.

I love stats

2008-03-31T23:04:00.001-04:00

Conventional wisdom says that links are the currency of the blogosphere. Highly regarded sites such as the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, for example, rank blogs according to metrics such as page visits and inbound links. (I presently rank #10,826 which, considering there are millions of blogs out there, is in my opinion fairly respectable.)

I don't live by my stats - what I say or do on the blog depends on little more than what's on my mind that motivates me sufficiently to broadcast it to the world. But I do like to know who is visiting, where they are coming from, and what draws them to the Curmudgeon, and thanks to tools like Sitemeter and Google Analytics, I can do that.

I've noticed that in recent months, the kinds of search engine "hits" that have brought people to this blog have largely stabilized. I wonder whether an extended hiatus from blogging has somehow cut down on some of the oddball searches I used to get? Anyway, it gives me an opportunity to take a look at the biggest reasons people visit here, as well as the pages they visit most (apart from the root page). So, just for fun, here are the top five:

are matt stone and trey parker gay: Variations on this theme - I probably get half a dozen such searches daily - bring people to this page. In fact, I'm inexplicably the number one hit on the subject. Since I have made exactly two posts about Stone and Parker out of nearly 1,000 since 2003, the interest in this subject is disproportional to its relative importance to the blog overall. Moreover, the two posts were about South Park's treatment of Scientology. Reading the excerpt of the page that Google provides, I can understand why people would want to look here. Something tells me I need to take some steps to "bury" this one. Also, for the record: no, they aren't.
God's perfect will: I'm a little more satisfied with this result, as variations on this search bring people to this page, a bit of theological exposition that I'm happy with.
Gideon's fleece: Ditto this search and this page. Combined, this one and the above beat out #1. Still, I'd like to find a way to bump them both up to the top. The fact that people come to this blog looking for information on knowing and doing God's will is a motivation to continue to expound on that subject (as well as other theological topics in general). As I said, I don't live by my stats, but when I see someone responding to some of the better parts of the site, I want to do what I can to improve them.
if you want to leave take good care: I don't know why, but it seems that two people a day stumble across me while searching for this line from Cat Stevens' song "Wild World," for which cruel, cruel fate has made me the top site out of more than three million hits. They find this page, which again isn't particularly important. This seems to be another one of those statistical anomalies that can't be helped. Well, I hope you find a lot of nice friends out there.
life of pi analysis: Finally, people looking for information on, or an explanation of, Yann Martel's novel Life of Pi come looking, and find my review. I hope it is helpful; seeing these hits just keeps reminding me how much I enjoyed the novel (weird theme aside) and writing the article. Life of Pi seems to have some enduring popularity. And indeed, I've recently read some Canadian novels that I found very satisfying, whereas even 15 years ago I wouldn't give a book a second look at the library if it had a maple leaf on the spine. Maybe I should review more, if it encourages college students to read more closely.

So in a nutshell, people come to the Crusty Curmudgeon looking for celebrity gossip, helpful theology, and book reviews. Two out of three ain't bad, I guess.

Also fun are the searches I get where it's obvious someone is looking for me. Once in awhile I can even figure out who you are. Hello out there. It's good to know friends and acquaintances are keeping in touch, albeit indirectly. Don't be strangers.

Quelle coincidence!

2008-03-16T13:05:00.002-04:00

This from the Calgary Herald:

Several Muslims say their lives are at risk because they dared speak out in what has become an ongoing dispute in their community.

Yesterday, one of the people claiming to be victims of ongoing violent attacks, Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed, watched in horror as a car pulled up outside his Panatella Blvd. N.W. home and a man armed with a jerrycan and booze bottle got out, scaled the fence and set his home ablaze as seven children and three other adults slept. . . .

"Within two minutes, we had a big fire," he said.

[Source]

Dr. Ahmed's wife is one of the three women who filed a human-rights complaint against Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy, alleging discrimination within the mosque. She also happens to be the second of the three whose property has been invaded by violent persons in recent weeks. The first was Robina Butt, who was supposedly assaulted and beaten in her own home by burka-wearing thugs.

The article also says:

Arson Det. Scott Sampson said the family was definitely targeted and the fire could easily have been deadly. . . .

Cops are investigating several other attacks against members of the Muslim community with the help of RCMP, Services Alberta and the National Security investigation section.

There's a well-known saying about two and two that applies here, I should think.

Meanwhile, the third complainant, Qasira Shaheen, might want to look into hiring a few heavies of her own to walk around with her - strictly as a prudent precaution, of course, because as I said awhile back, I'm sure it is nothing but the purest coincidence that these attacks are taking place.

(H/T: Ezra Levant and Jihad Watch.)

It's on

2008-03-16T00:38:00.002-04:00

Jojo Ruba has confirmed (via mass email) that the abortion debate at York University between himself and Michael Payton has been rescheduled:

Event: Abortion - A Woman's Right or a Moral Wrong?
Day and Time: Tuesday, March 18th at 5:30-7:00pm
Location: Curtis Lecture Hall E, Keele Campus at York University; the building is by Scott Library

All the publicity over the YSF's 86ing of the original debate has surely earned them a greater audience, and I hope they're up to it.

Meanwhile, Jojo's colleague Stephanie Gray will apparently be debating here in Ottawa on Wednesday, at Carleton University. It's unfortunate that I'm otherwise occupied that evening (pesky Easter stuff!), because not only have I wanted to see her in action, but it, too, might be a significant event given the Carleton University Student Union (CUSA)'s attempt in 2006 to squelch the pro-life voice on campus.

Erratum: In my previous post on this topic, I called Kelly Holloway, Student Centre vice-chair at York, a "student blackshirt." I have since learned otherwise:

Kelly Holloway is a doctoral candidate at York University, studying women’s health care. She is a member of the International Socialists and active in the student, anti-war, and pro-choice movements. [Emphasis added]

[Source; H/T: Blazing Cat Fur.]

For the record, that makes Stalinism, not Fascism as originially implied, her particular brand of censorious totalitarianism. The Crusty Curmudgeon apologizes for the oversight, and will endeavour to keep its tinpot dictators straight in the future.

Global warming

2008-03-14T16:33:00.003-04:00

Get yer snow here!

Here's what the house looked like after the huge mess of white stuff was shoveled off the roof. We had to dig ourselves a pathway to the door:

And here's what the road looked like. It snowed on Saturday, but the roads didn't get plowed until Wednesday; there was a constant pile of cars in the entrance to our little subdivision because drivers couldn't get their cars in and out of their own driveways. Normally, it shouldn't be a problem for two cars to pass each other:

Ottawa hasn't had this much snowfall since 1971. Somewhere in my parents' musty-dusty files is a picture of me as an infant in a carriage, while my dad shovels the driveway between huge walls of snow. This comes darn close. It's the most snow I can remember in my lifetime, and I come from the north.

When "pro-choice" isn't

2008-03-13T23:51:00.004-04:00

My friend Jojo has, or used to have, a bumper sticker on the back of his car that read, "Some choices are wrong." He's mentioned that he sometimes gets some very dirty looks from passing motorists.

But for all their rhetoric about "a woman's right to choose," the ironic fact is that the so-called "pro-choice" camp also believes that some choices are wrong. The difference is, we pro-lifers are more up-front about it.

First the backlash, then the back-pedalling

A week ago, the Toronto Star published an article in which Kelly Holloway, York University student centre vice-chair and president of the grad students' association, defended her move to quash an abortion debate on campus last February 27:

Kelly Holloway did not mean to spark a debate on freedom of expression when she helped stifle an abortion debate on campus.

"I actually don't think this is very controversial," the graduate student at York University said of the decision to cancel a Feb. 28 event that would have shown graphic images of abortion and asked participants whether the procedure should be criminalized.

There is a saying that has been attributed to the late film critic Pauline Kael, on the occasion of the election of Richard Nixon to the White House. "I can't believe Nixon won," she supposedly said, "I don't know anybody who voted for him." Whether authentic or not, the point is that it is possible to surround yourself so completely with like-minded people, that the thought that someone might have a different mind on a subject is practically inconceivable.

Of course Little Miss Censorship didn't mean to spark a debate on freedom of speech. In the circles in which she walks, she is surrounded by people who don't believe any differently, so it is quite possible that she genuinely does not know that some of her intelligent, mature-minded schoolmates might actually have a varying opinion on the subject of abortion.

"Most people understand that every woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body and that moral considerations about abortion are a very personal matter for individuals to decide," said Holloway, who helped make the decision as vice-chair of the student centre where the debate was scheduled to be held.

This is, obviously, a prime example of the art of begging the question. Whether or not a fetus is part of a woman's "own body" is the very issue in question. Little Miss Censorship's assertion (which she and her echo chamber of friends and colleagues probably take for granted) assumes, without proof, that the unborn are not genetically distinct, living human organisms who happen to inhabit a uterus at the moment.

Establish what the unborn is, then we can know what rights a woman has regarding its disposition.

"The legal precedent in Canada is that abortion and those women who choose to have the medical procedure will not be criminalized," said Holloway, who is also president of the York University Graduate Students' Association.

It's worth pointing out, yet again, that the Morgentaler decision of 1988 sets no legal precedent. Moreover, the present legality of abortion on demand is due strictly to an absence of any law regulating the practice. This has happened, not because of any positive decision by judge or legislator, but because of a succession of spineless Parliaments (with one exception) that have failed to even attempt to draft any law regulating abortion - which that very same Supreme Court decision asserted was perfectly within Parliament's rights.

"So every York student has the right to make up their own mind and there is no need for an event, organized by anti-choice campaigners, that is disguised as a debate."

That's a hilarious bit of doublespeak that pretty much speaks for itself.

Holloway said banning discussions of the pros and cons of abortion was never the point. Her beef was with inviting the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, (CCBR) a Calgary-based pro-life group that compares abortion to genocide and pushes to make it illegal.

It's funny how this wasn't the argument she was using two weeks ago. Back then she was claiming that the abortion issue was not one that was up for debate, because debating the morality of abortion was the moral equivalent of debating the morality of wife-beating. Perhaps, in the meantime, she realized how foolish that sounded.

But if this is true, did either she, or the rest of the York Censorship Squad, ever try to raise their concern with Jojo? Did they ask him if he would limit himself to an oral presentation? I know that it is part of Jojo's standard routine to show abortion pictures during his opening statement, but his arguments don't hinge on them. I'm sure that if it meant the difference between a debate or no debate, he would have been willing to compromise. But I'll hazard a guess they never even bothered.

"They erected huge signs in full colour of fabricated fetuses alongside people dying in the Holocaust and also pictures of people being lynched," she said.

"So we set up a table outside of that display as the student union to encourage students to tell us what their reactions were so we could understand the effect it was having on students. We collected hundreds of statements from students who said they were upset, they were appalled, they were traumatized and they were worried about the fact that the student union hadn't taken responsibility to actually interfere in the matter."

Fabricated fetuses, eh? There's another assertion without evidence.

But so what? No one would seriously think that Steven Spielberg filmed actual disembowelled soldiers storming Normandy, yet his films such as Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List are considered so notable for their realism that they warrant being broadcast, uncut, on network television or shown in schools for their educational value. Whether pictures of aborted fetuses are real or simulated is really beside the point. Are they an accurate representation of the real thing? (Perhaps Little Miss Censorship believes that aborted fetuses happily march out of the vagina all pink and clean and smiling.) If a picture of a simulated abortion is offensive, how much more offensive is a picture of a real abortion - and if a picture of an abortion is offensive, how much more is an actual abortion?

"Just like we would not sanction the use of student space to challenge whether black students should be able to attend university, or whether homosexuality should be illegal, we would not sanction this particular debate over whether or not women should be able to have a choice concerning their own bodies."

You really have to laugh. When the CCBR compares abortion with racism (i.e. lynching blacks), Little Miss Censorship and her friends are "appalled" and "traumatized." But when a representative of the CCBR wants to debate abortion on York campus, it's the moral equivalent of racism (i.e. debating segregation). Remember, Dear Reader, this logical powerhouse is a graduate student.

Choices are not made in a vacuum. Real choice requires that all the relevant questions and issues are available to be considered and evaluated. Uninformed choice is not real choice. By unilaterally pronouncing one side of a controversial issue to be out of bounds, Holloway and her merry band of student blackshirts prove themselves to be not pro-choice, but anti-choice.

Fortunately, the administration of York U. feels differently, and has rescheduled the debate for a time and place outside of the control of the blackshirts - who, by their actions, have probably guaranteed the debate a greater audience than it would have had if it had gone forward at the original time. Rumour has it the new date is March 19. Hopefully this will be confirmed soon by a more reliable source than a blog. And the editor-in-chief of York's student newspaper, the Excalibur, has offered both Jojo and his opponent Michael Payton space to present their views.

And on the legislative front

Meanwhile, the abortion advocates are all in a tizzy about Bill C-484, the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime" bill. For example, Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada recently wrote, in a recent letter to the Ottawa Citizen, that "anti-abortion" advocates will "use the law as a foot-in-the-door to recriminalize abortion via future measures."

Abortion-rights advocates believe that women who are pregnant ought to be free to choose to terminate their pregnancy, and want the government to support that choice with the force of law. A consistent "pro-choice" position would argue that a pregnant woman ought to be free to choose to carry the baby to term, and want the government to support that choice with the force of law.

Put another way, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, there ought to be penalties for those who would forcefully deny her that right; if she chooses to have a baby, there ought also to be penalties for those who would forcefully deny her that right as well.

But, of course, no such symmetry exists in the mind of pro-choicers like Arthur. Even though C-484 is specifically worded to except abortion from its purview, she's worried that it will be a back door to restricting abortion. (Which, remember, is a perfectly valid legislative objective, according to R v. Morgentaler.) It's not about freedom of choice: it's about maximizing the opportunity for abortions on demand. I've said before that organizations like ARCC and CARAL are not "pro-choice," but pro-abortion. This is just another reason why.

(Incidentally, this isn't a pro-life or civil-liberties blog, all present appearances to the contrary. I just blog what's on my mind at any given time, and these issues just happen to be on the front burner these days.)

Saturday is cancelled

2008-03-08T22:26:00.002-05:00

I pretty much decided to stay home today.

Update: And so is Sunday, as the powers-that-be have apparently decided to declare a "snow day" for the church tomorrow. That's a first for me; I've seen occasional events cancelled, but never an entire Sunday. But as we inch toward a record winter snowfall in the nation's capital, that's probably not a bad idea.

Freedom of speech (just watch what you say)

2008-03-05T17:30:00.001-05:00

Typically in Ottawa, the only feature-length documentaries that get screened in theatres are major releases by Michael Moore or his Canadian counterparts such as Mark Achbar (Manufacturing Consent, The Corporation), or whatever Left-oriented fare the local repertory theatres decide to play. It is rare for anything from the Right to get any exposure at all here. So last year the Free Thinking Film Society was formed to bring balance to the nation's capital by bringing in a fewfilms representing conservative and libertarian viewpoints. On February 18, I attended a screening of Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary Indoctrinate U. with my Left-leaning friend Iain, in the auditorium of the National Library and Archives building, just up the street from Parliament Hill. I don't know the capacity of the auditorium, but it probably has at least 200 seats, and I estimate attendance at about 90% full.

Movie Review

Indoctrinate U.

Directed by Evan Coyne Maloney

On the Fence Films, 2007

90 minutes

The movie was introduced by local media personality John Robson, who gave a brief talk about fighting political correctness. His advice: Be firm, but do it with a smile.

Indoctrinate U. begins, more or less, with the case of Steve Hinkle: a California Polytechnic student who, in late 2002, entered the school's multicultural centre to post a flyer advertising a lecture by black author Mason Weaver. The contents of the flier comprised the usual time-and-place info, a picture of Weaver, and the name of his book: It's OK to Leave the Plantation. A group of black students holding a Bible study in the room saw the flier and, offended by the use of the word "plantation," called the police. As a result, the school charged him with disrupting a campus event. Despite the Bible study not being an officially scheduled event by a recognized campus club, Weaver flyer complying with campus posting policies, and Hinkle not actually disruptinging anyone (by taking offense, the Bible students had effectively disrupted themselves), Hinkle was found guilty of this trumped-up charge and ordered to prepare a written apology. Hinkle stood his ground and refused - and, with a little legal action of his own, compelled the school to expunge the ersatz "offense" from his record.

Meanwhile, at the University of Tennessee, a Sikh libertarian student journalist, Suhkmani Singh Khalsi, penned an editorial criticizing the "Issues Committee" (responsible for inviting guest lecturers to campus) for their political one-sidedness. Upon reading the article, one member of the Committee emailed the others: "If you see one of those ragheads, shoot him right in the f---ing face." Unfortunately for him, the Committee's token conservative member, who had just resigned but not yet been removed from the distribution list, saw the email as well, and made it public. For this blatant anti-religious bigotry (let alone the death threat), the offender was not disciplined. (A year earlier, by contrast, UT had suspended an entire fraternity because some of its members made the harmless, albeit unwise, decision to attend aHallowe'en party dressed as the Jackson Five, complete with black makeup.)

At a community college in Florida, a Christian fellowship was refused permission to host a screening of The Passion of the Christ on the grounds that it was an R-rated movie and there were underage students on campus. But another club was able to to stage a skit titled "F---ing for Jesus," about a teenage girl who masturbated to images of Jesus, in a campus theatre.

And so on and so on. In the 1960s, points out Maloney, students fought for, and won, the right to dissent on campuses. He was himself the progeny of two of these protesters, who taught him the importance of free speech and thinking for himself. Yet, at some point, campuses stopped being centres of diverse opinion and started to become organs of intellectual conformity, governed by stifling regulations and "speech codes." At some schools, satirical criticism of the affirmative-action admissions policy (by holding a bake sale with discounts for visible minorities) is verboten. One school bans the use of the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend," mandating instead non-gender-specific terms like "partner." Another university bans "inappropriately directed laughter." At another institute of higher education, all courses must address issues of race, gender, and class - even classes in decorative horticulture.

It's not just university officials that enforce this code: student unions and clubs get in on the action too. Piles of conservative school newspapers are routinely stolen fromnews boxes and destroyed. Anti-military activists vandalize ROTC offices and disrupt a job fair (at which the Army is but one invited employer) to the point that the whole thing has to be shut down. You no longer need to actively incite hatred to get in trouble with the authorities: someone merely feeling offended (and therefore "harassed") by you suffices. Ask Steve Hinkle.

Indoctrinate U. consists almost entirely of interviews with staff, students, and administrators at American institutes of higher learning: large and small, public and private. What they all have in common is an institutional culture that pays lip service to "diversity," as long as it is diversity of skin colour, culture, or sexual preference, but seem to work actively to stifle diversity of opinion. Frustrated by being stonewalled by officials who refuse to even acknowledge his requests for appointments, he attempts to meet with them in person, cameraman in tow. One extra-bureaucratic nincompoop, we discover, is the person responsible for scheduling the university president's appointments, and therefore the one guilty of not returning Maloney's calls. Asked if he could make the appointment on the spot, the pointy-haired drone refuses and instructs him to telephone - and instead of accepting the obvious absurdity of inviting the phone call but refusing to answer the phone when it comes, he instructs his secretary to call security. At another school, when Maloney wanders into the Women's Centre and asks directions to its masculine-oriented counterpart, they look at him like he is crazy. And when he tries to register a complaint at the "diversity office" about this obvious discrimination? "Call security."

Indeed, bureaucrats dealing with uncomfortable questions by calling the campus police turns into a bit of a running gag throughout I U.. Maloney, to his credit, takes Robson's advice and resists firmly but pleasantly: he is respectful of authority, leaves when asked, and never gets arrested. In fact, his dealings with the cops are always more cordial than with the people who call them. Rather than wring his hands and preach, Maloney just lets the absurdity inherent in the situations speak for itself. That, and the fast-paced editing, make this a light and optimistic documentary.

The audio quality (as well as video quality, to a lesser extent) is somewhat uneven, particularly during interview segments, where the subject's microphone could have been better placed. Many interviewees sound very hollow, as if the conversation was taking place in a big, empty room. Also, while Maloney points out the disconnect between the free-speech movement of the '60s and the stifled-speech movement of the 2000s, a reason why the free-speech mavens of yesterday are now the speech-code enforcers of today would have added considerable value to Maloney's presentation. Iain, a bit of a political science wonk, wanted to see more theory, but I don't know what that would have contributed.

I attended university from 1989 to 1997. I tend to think of myself as part of the last non-politically-correct class to enter the institute, because 1989 was not exactly a good year for political incorrectness on campus. At Wilfrid Laurier University, a traditional panty raid got out of hand (and was subsequently banned). At Queen's University, some male students' satirical response to the Canadian Federation of Students' "No Means No" campaign against date rape, in which they hung banners reading "No Means More Beer" and similar parody slogans, aroused the ire of feminists. And, of course, it was the year of the Montreal Massacre. So with respect to gender issues, at least, in hindsight it was possible to see which way the wind would be blowing in a little while. But while I was once marked down for using the generic "he" in a paper (a heinous act for which I remain stubbornly unrepentant), there really wasn't an attempt while I was on campus to formulate or enforce the kind of totalitarian speech codes we see in Indoctrinate U. - and to equate hurt feelings on my part with an act of harassment on your part was practically unthinkable. The idea of the university campus as a "safe space" where particular orthodoxies are left unchallenged (such as the morality of abortion, as we have seen on the campuses of Carleton, Lakehead, York, and other institutions in recent years) was non-existent.

Evan Coyne Maloney's film is a warning: if the student champions of free speech can become the adult commissars of approved speech, what more will we see on campuses when today's student governments, already little Stalinists, take over administering the universities? Welcome to the new Dark Ages.

Congratulations . . .

2008-03-04T17:35:00.003-05:00

to my friend Jojo on winning a debate at York University, about the morality of abortion on demand, last Thursday.

Too bad the debate never took place.

Jojo wins by default, simply because the student blackshirts of the York Federation of Students decided that they were the arbiters of the limit of free speech, and that holding this debate would be tantamount to debating the morality of wife-beating. (That is, unfortunately for the blackshirts, a very apt comparison, since the very issue in the abortion debate is the use of physical violence to cause harm to another human person.) An alternative location was quickly arranged, but the pro-choice debater, a member of a campus atheist club, apparently didn't want to darken the door of a Baptist church. (Maybe there was a lightning storm pending, or something.)

But get this: At the time of writing, the blackshirts' Web site has this button on their front page:

It links to a letter of protest [PDF] that the students' union at McMaster University has banned the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" on campus. This, we learn, is "a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent." "It is the position of the WFS and GSA," the letter continues, apparently completely missing any trace of irony that might happen to be present, "that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geo-political questions should be promoted, not stifled."

Sure, as long as the "difficult geo-political question" is on the blackshirts' approved list of subjects up for debate.

Meanwhile, tonight Jojo is supposed to be debating the same topic at @#$%head University, whose own censorious student nitwits recently banned pro-life clubs from campus. It was his debate at Carleton U. that precipitated this whole debate there in late 2006. So his very presence on two campuses has already caused two student governments to collectively wet themselves - will he hit the trifecta tonight?

This also serves to remind me that I have yet to complete my review of Indoctrinate U., which was screened two weeks ago here in Ottawa. Patience, patience.

"We'll meet again somewhere beyond the sky" - Larry Norman, 1947-2008

2008-02-25T21:39:00.001-05:00

Steve Camp reports that Larry Norman, arguably the finest Christian popular musician in my living memory, passed away Sunday.

I first heard Larry's music in 1992, thanks to a friend back home (and my former youth group leader), who was a big fan back in the day. Since my Christian music at that time was basically limited to Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, and Petra, hearing good Christian music that dated back to the early 1970s (if not the 60s) was like something completely new to me.

To this day, Only Visiting This Planet remains my favourite Christian album. Coincidentally, only a few days after hearing Planet for the first time, I heard Steve Camp play "Great American Novel" in concert in Sudbury. (Say what you want about Larry's politics - and he was probably a little too leftish for most Christians' tastes - but that is one fine tune.)

I had the chance to see Larry in concert twice. The first time was in Toronto, in 1994 - just him and his guitar. The second time, my friend Reed and I drove from Waterloo to Oshawa and back one Saturday, where he performed his first set solo, and his second with full band. Despite the fact that thanks to age and chronic health problems he didn't look as youthful as on his album covers, just hearing him play those old, familiar tunes was like taking a trip back in time.

Actually, while looking for a good picture to scan and use for this entry, I came across the notes I had made of his set list; it made for a good bit of nostalgia.

The concert kicked off with a quick "Testing, 1-2-3" and then Larry and his guitar opened with "Why Don't You Look Into Jesus."
"My Feet are On the Rock"
"Soul on Fire"
"U.F.O."
"God Part III"
"Six Sixty Six"
"Feed the Poor"
"Sweet, Sweet Song of Salvation"
"Great American Novel"
"Reader's Digest"
"Watch What You're Doing"
A song I've noted as "Been Reading," but can't identify now
After a 20-minute break, Larry came back and sang "Weight of the World."
"Let the Rain Fall Down"
At this point, Larry brought out his band, and they did "Why Don't You Look Into Jesus." (Again, I assume - it's been a few years!)
"My Feet are On the Rock"
"Soul on Fire"
"Long, Hard Road"
"The Rock That Doesn't Roll"
"One Foot in the Grave"
"Goodbye, Farewell" - Reed, a guitar player, scribbled down all the chord changes as he played.
"Rock the Flock"
"Elvis Has Left the Building"
"Woman of God" ("Don't just go looking for a woman with a beautiful face and a great . . . job," he quips)
"Outlaw"
"Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music"

Afterward, there was a reception (with cake), where I got Larry's autograph and asked a question about one of his songs, which he politely avoided answering.

The church has lost a treasure. He'll be missed. So long, farewell.

When dhimmis fight back

2008-02-22T12:09:00.001-05:00

It has been two years since the riots that resulted from the publication, a few months earlier, of the Dread Cartoons of Blasphemy.

In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten called for cartoonists to submit caricatures of the Islamic false prophet Mohammed. The request was meant as a commentary on self-imposed journalistic censorship, after a children's author couldn't find an illustrator for a book about Mohammed. The 12 submissions received, when published, touched off a firestorm of rage amongst Muslims living in Europe. But seeing that the rest of the Ummah wasn't seething enough, a few imams decided to fan the flames with a tour of the Middle East, Dread Cartoons in hand (along with a few rather obvious forgeries to really whip the gullible locals into the appropriate levels of frenzy). The result: riots, demonstrations, burnings, and dozens of killings - over a few harmless drawings.

Meanwhile, major news outlets showed their cowardice in the face of Islamic offense, reporting on the unrest but refusing to show the reason for the unrest. Only a few Western publications dared duplicate the Dread Cartoons, and in a few of those, their editors were disciplined for so doing. One of the few that did was Alberta's Western Standard. They didn't provoke any car torchings; rather, retaliation came in a more typically "Canadian" form. Syed Soharwardy, imam and head of the self-proclaimed Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed a discrimination complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission against Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, arguing that since he had "published cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as terrorist [sic]," he had "defamed me and my family because we follow and Related to [sic] Prophet Muhammad."

The Canadian Human Rights Commission was set up 30 years ago (and its provincial counterparts at various times) to protect people from genuine discrimination: for example, someone denied housing because of his race, that sort of thing. The HRCs weren't intended as a weapon for people who take offense to use against the controversial ideas that offended them - indeed, Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, who helped establish the commissions, has stated that "[n]obody ever thought the commissions would have anything to do with expressions of opinion or the dissemination of news reports. That wasn't on the table."¹ Worse, it costs nothing to make a complaint (apart from the time to prepare it), while the respondent must pay for his own defense, and the taxpayer of course foots the bill for the whole process.

In short, an HRC is an unelected, pseudo-judicial body (whose adjudicators are bureaucrats, not judges nor even necessarily lawyers) that is able to levy fines and penalties on respondents but is intrinsically biased in favour of complainants. This is the kangaroo court that Levant was subjected to by Soharwardy's complaint. But rather than be cowed into submission by the Star Chamber proceedings, he prepared a statement defending not the specific actions of defending the Dread Cartoons, but his Charter right to be as controversial or offensive as he wished. Moreover he excoriated the HRC and his inquisitor there in the room, questioning the right of the government to tell him what kinds of speech he could freely express, and even questioning the very legitimacy of the hearing itself. And then, having brought a camera to the hearing, he posted video clips of the salient bits to YouTube - where they became very popular in short order.

Seeing that popular opinion was with Levant, Soharwardy has since decided to drop his complaint against Levant. He now claims that

I was unaware of the ongoing debate about whether . . . such commissions are the right venue in which to argue questions about hate speech. . . .

[M]y complaint was beyond what I now believe should be the mandate of such a commission.²

Apparently, Soharwardy was also unaware that insulting the False Prophet Mohammed is not a crime in Canada, as prior to lodging his complaint with the AHRCC, he had tried to have Levant arrested.

It's not over for Levant, however. He believes Soharwardy has basically admitted to abuse of process, and intends to sue him to recover the cost of defending himself against this frivolous complaint. Additionally, another complaint, filed by the Edmonton Muslim Council, still stands. And, of course, we cannot forget the complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal by four law students working with the Canadian Islamic Congress against columnist Mark Steyn, after Maclean's published an excerpt from his book America Alone (which, by the way, everyone should read).

Soharwardy himself, ironically, is now himself the target of a human-rights complaint, filed by three Muslim women who say he treats them as second-class citizens in his mosque. Since this seems to me to be an internal religious matter, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in a secular hearing. Meanwhile, however, one of the complainants has been assaulted in her own home by a Muslim man and woman. I'm sure there's no connection whatever.

And I'm sorry, but in honour of the occasion, I just can't help myself:

Footnotes

¹ Alexandra Zabjek, "Defense of Free Speech Must Be Absolute: Advocate," Edmonton Journal, 22 January 2008, Canada.com, 21 Feburary 2008, <http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=449e1994-5d1d-4808-abca-aa7b1f096f66>.

² Syed Soharwardy, "Why I'm Withdrawing My Human Rights Complaint Against Ezra Levant," globeandmail.com, 15 February 2008, <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcomment0215/BNStory/National/home>.

Happy @#$% Family Day.

2008-02-18T12:54:00.003-05:00

Today is the inaugural "Family Day," a brand-new statutory holiday implemented by the provincial McGuinty Liberal government, for no apparent reason apart from there being no other stat holiday between New Year's day and Easter.

Ostensibly, the holiday is intended for workers to spend more time with their families - noble enough, I suppose. But only something like half of the people who work in the province are actually entitled to the day off. Federal employees work. Restaurants are open. Essential services (like police and firemen) are still on call.

Unfortunately, I am not one of those. I work in the private sector, and I work freelance, so I'm not entitled to holiday pay.

Worse, I'm single and living away from home, so I have no family to spend more time with. (I could hop the bus and go home - if I worked today and got paid.)

So I'm stuck commemorating a silly-named government holiday at my own expense. What should I do? I know, I'll go to the library. Oh, wait, library's closed. I'll go shopping. Oh, can't do that either - even at the stores in Ottawa's designated tourist areas, since apparently no one bothered to tell them they had to apply to stay open on Family Day, so they're closed. I need a haircut, but the barber shop is closed. I could just stay home and get drunk. Except that I'm out of beer and the liquor store is closed.

We don't need a special holiday to spend time with our families. We need a culture that values family and makes provisions for them to function as a family. That means employers not demanding ridiculous hours of overtime (and workaholic employees refusing to take it) so that families can eat together. It means parents helping their kids with their homework, and everyone staying home most nights rather than rushing off to 5,000 different extracurricular activities. It means Christian families sitting together in church rather than instantly segregated into a myriad of age-appropriate programs. It's the culture that needs changing, not the work timetable.

As for me, I'm bored as hell. I'd rather be working.