ObstiNation

Are We Amused Yet?

2009-05-26T19:04:00.003-04:00

Yes! Yes! Canada is finally getting noticed!

No longer are we just a red (or grey, or brown) splotch on the map north of the 48 states. No longer is our news unreported, unworthy, unloved. And best of all no longer can Americans pretend to be Canadian when they travel abroad in order to be liked better.

What brought this on, you may ask?

Our Governor General ripped the heart out of a dead seal and ate it raw.

No, really.

When I first saw the headline on Twitter yesterday my reaction was, I don’t remember following The Onion.

My next reaction was, no way. Does not compute. Not is possible. Ignore it, maybe it will go away.

But sadly it is NOT A JOKE. Or if it is, somebody please tell me already and put me out of my misery. I haven’t stopped cringing for over 24 hours.

What was she thinking? Supposedly something to do with solidarity for the Inuit way of life, maybe a protest against the European ban on seal products, whatever.

Couldn’t she just issue a statement???

And I say this as someone who leans toward support of the seal hunt as a source of income for a society that desperately needs it. They no longer club those cute white fuzzy babies and by the way what did you have for dinner last night anyway?

But I don’t want to get into that debate here.

I was kind of hoping this story might go away but alas, it seems to have been picked up by mainstream media. I’ve seen articles on MSNBC and the BBC and honestly don’t have the heart (heh, pun not intended, but acknowledged) to go looking for more references.

Even the gossip website Gawker is having some fun with it, calling Michaelle Jean the “Sarah Palin of Canada”.

Come on that’s totally not fair or even accurate. There is a BIG difference between seal and moose. Jean never claimed superhero bionic x-ray vision to the other side of the International Date Line. Governor and Governor-General are not the same thing (see below). And, up until now at least, Michaelle Jean has been way more respected, especially by those who have heard of her.

So while the message is definitely OUT THERE, it may not be the message Michaelle Jean intended to send. This is after all a serious issue with both sides having passionate feelings about it. Making herself into an international laughing-stock adds nothing to the debate but only creates content for news shows and late night comedians.

Considering the feeble amount of news coverage given to Canada by most American networks, THIS may be the story of the year, leaving people with a rather odd view of us.

Why does this matter? Well when our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan (partly because Americans got distracted by Iraq and neglected the earlier war) perhaps that is a more important story.

When our country does not discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens in civil rights laws or even with regard to the right to serve our country in the military, that is a more important story too.

And perhaps someone should tell the Americans the truth about our *gasp* socialized medicine! While far from perfect, it doesn’t warrant the kind of dismissal politicians give it, when Americans, even those WITH insurance, are at the mercy of some guy in a cubicle whose job it is to find a way to deny them coverage.

This may not help our Arctic sovereignty claims either. But on the other hand.. who would want to pick a fight with us up north?

And you have to admit the woman has balls. Probably more balls than all the male Governors-General we’ve had, combined. And she’s not even our first woman GG, but third that I can think of.. let’s go see if I’m right.

Yup, Jeanne Sauve and Adrienne Clarkson were the others. Go me.

The Governor-General of Canada is not an elected official but is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. She is the Queen’s representative here and has a largely ceremonial role.

So far to my knowledge the Queen has not commented on the antics of her Canadian proxy. One can only assume that she is not amused.

Moving Forward...

2009-04-25T20:21:00.008-04:00

It took me awhile to get around to it, but here it is, the e-mail that got me so worked up in January:

Subject: You SHOULD be concerned

Our National Anthem - at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics

Please read and forward to as many Canadians you can think of. Thank you - WE ARE PROUD CANADIANS
Bruce Allen is on the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Committee and new Canadians (specifically Hindi's/Indian's) want him fired for his recent comments outlined below:

Pause to fact check:

1. Does Bruce Allen exist? Yes. He’s a Canadian entertainment promoter.

2. Is he on the 2010 Olympic Committee? Yes.

So far not too bad, eh? It continues:

I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Hindi - enough is enough.
Nowhere or at no other time in our Nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish,
Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration.
It was written in English, adapted into French, and should be sung word for word the way it was written.
The news broadcasts even gave the Hindi version translation - which was not even close to our National Anthem.

(The above, supposedly a quote of Bruce Allen’s "recent comments")

Fact check:

3. Did Bruce Allen make “recent comments”? Yes.

In September 2007 (recent, by email forward standards) he did make some anti-immigrant remarks on a BC radio show.

However.

Bruce Allen’s remarks did not include the above “quote”, nor anything related to the singing of O Canada in any language at any time. His comments have been picked over and dealt with and are old news but if you want to see them, go here and here.

4. The Canadian anthem was written in English?

Actually no, it was written in French and much later adapted into English. The English version has continued to evolve during my lifetime.

Furthermore, there is no law that prevents anyone from singing the Canadian anthem any way they wish. It is allowed, the only proviso being that alternate versions are not “official”. Which sounds pretty fair to me.
And the "not even close" Hindi translation? Nowhere to be found.

The email forward continues:

I am not the least bit sorry if this offends ANYONE, this is MY COUNTRY; My Grand Dad served in the military, other family members also served, as well as my wife & I served a combined total of 56 years between us. We made many sacrifices for our country and do not feel we should feel obligated to allow invited people we've welcomed with open arms to influence & change our society to better resemble the one they chose to leave to come here!!! - IF YOU AGREE ABOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY, SPEAK UP BEFORE ITS TOO LATE...

(edited out some repetitive stupidity)

...ARE you PART OF THE PROBLEM ??? Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, will we still be the Country of Choice and Still be CANADA if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in CANADA because it is the Country of Choice??????
Think about it!
IMMIGRANTS, NOT CANADIAN'S, MUST ADAPT.
It's Time for CANADIANS to speak up.. If you agree ? Pass this along; if you don't agree?
Delete it and reap what you sew (sic) because of your complacency!

I have left the spelling and punctuation errors in. They give the screed a certain “je ne sais quoi”.

Oops. Not English. My bad.

Okay so if Bruce Allen didn’t actually say the above then where did it come from?

This is good:

It’s an adaptation of an American rant concerning American immigrants wanting to sing the American anthem in Spanish! So the patriotic CANADIAN rant is actually a rip off of an American rant!
Those 56 combined years of military service between the ranter and his wife? American. Or imaginary.

What Bruce Allen "said"? Lifted and adapted from an American rant such as this one.

I actually was a bit disappointed in that. Can’t we Canadians, apart from Bruce Allen and a certain small Quebec town, work up some good xenophobic energy on our own?
Not like the Americans, apparently.

What I most object to here, though, is the bullying tone:

ARE you PART OF THE PROBLEM ??? Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, will we still be the Country of Choice and Still be CANADA… blah blah blah.

There is indeed a problem, but it's not immigrants who wish to sing a translated anthem of the country they chose.

The problem is how otherwise reasonable people just click and forward every piece of nonsense that comes into their inbox, thus putting themselves at risk of perpetuating an extreme agenda that, if they thought about it, they might not even agree with!

I'm all for free speech but THE SPEAKER HAS TO HAVE CHECKED HIS FACTS AND STAND BEHIND THE MESSAGE HE IS SENDING!

Sure, some email forwards are fairly harmless (can bananas really do all that?) but some are pure poison, complete with veiled threats about the consequences of not passing along the drivel.

Happily I'm not alone in my outrage. Sites such as snopes and about.com have comprehensive debunking services, although I'm not too thrilled about the way snopes tries to open pop-up ads.
I also found breakthechain.org, another site dedicated to eradicating this scourge.

And finally, another reason to object to this form of clutter: Once you do get it in your head that most of these forwards contain false information, you are likely to discount the rare one that is true, such as this warning about attempts to impersonate the Canada Revenue Agency to gain personal data.

The boy who cried wolf, digital edition.

It's All Evil.

2009-01-14T18:37:00.006-05:00

I have a new obsession, and it’s not a good thing.

I am obsessed, these days, with the evils of email forwards.

They are coming in even as I write this.

Now, I don’t so much mind the ones with cute animal photos although they are getting a little repetitive. And Maxine is pretty cool her own self.
I don’t even see them all since I refuse to click on any link to a website, a movie file, or anything that doesn’t actually load into the body of the email.
I say that’s on account of viruses but it’s really because I’m lazy.

Too lazy to click?
Yes.
Deal with it.

For awhile I was mostly getting the forwards that told me how much the sender valued me and my friendship which was kind of nice until I got to the part where it urged me to send it along to all my friends (including the ones I didn’t value so much because I was a bad person not to) and even send it back to the sender or else she would realize I didn’t feel the same way about her and though I usually did, both feel the same way AND forward it back, the guilt trip was getting on my nerves, not to mention, affecting my ability to write a sentence which doesn't run on forever.

But now, more and more I’m getting emails with an agenda. Part of the problem is that while the agenda is crystal clear, the source is usually not.
There is nobody behind these messages to argue with, blame, sue, stalk or otherwise punish for spreading their false information, lies, at times hate, and always, attempt to influence.

This really hit home recently when I received a forward from a close friend I’ll call Zelda (not her real name) whose intelligence and worldly sophistication I’d always admired. Zelda is well read, well travelled and far from naïve. What she forwarded was a right wing rant about the (perceived) threat of people singing the Canadian National Anthem in a language other than English or French at next year’s Olympic Games in Vancouver. Zelda even included her own comment about how she was going to contact her member of parliament in protest.

While the issue that reportedly sent off the ranter had actually occurred (albeit over a year ago) many of the arguments were based on misinformation and the tone was decidedly discriminatory.
To put it mildly.

To make matters worse, there was a threatening tone, well more than a TONE, it actually SAID that if I did not forward the letter for fear of offending someone, then I was part of the problem.

I replied to Zelda, explaining why I disagreed with the arguments in the email, and she agreed and even thanked me. But I was left with an uneasy feeling, and did a bit more research, the results of which steamed me up even more, and which I’ll cover in an upcoming entry.

The point is, I am becoming more and more concerned about the insidious effect that these emails must be having on our way of thinking. What happens that makes us suspend our critical thinking and just accept and forward these things like robots? What makes us think that just because it appears in the inbox, that it's true, correct, factual, and verified? We are nowhere near that gullible when it comes to what we read in the paper, what we see in advertisements or what our friends and family tell us.

How much are we internalizing the messages we see? This seems to me an updated version of how societies throughout history have been brainwashed only now it’s easier, just a couple of clicks will do it. Send this along to everyone you know or something bad will happen. Bullying, a nice touch.

I don’t care how inconsequential the subject matter. It’s the process that concerns me, and concerns me deeply. While Zelda was very gracious about my correction, others are losing patience with me. They don’t understand why I can’t let this go, why I have to check EVERYTHING out and take great pains to point out the errors to them. Some have stopped sending me stuff and while that might be good for my short term mental health, I’ve decided instead to take my aggravation and blog it.

Starting with the email that I vaguely referenced above, I will be posting the text of these forwards and deconstructing them. If nothing else, it will help lower my blood pressure.

Isn't THIS Nice...

2008-12-01T10:59:00.005-05:00

Am I hallucinating.. or did Canada really have a federal election JUST LAST MONTH?

In which, in my dreams or possibly reality, the Conservative Party won re-election with a larger minority than it had before the election.

Yes a minority. But they still won.

Now I know how minorities work, and how they can be overthrown, I was around during the Joe Clark debacle, etc. etc.

But it seems to me that overthrowing the recently-elected government with a COALITION of parties whose philosophies do not really coincide all that well, bypassing the election process, is a little much.

BUT IT GETS WORSE.

Who will lead this coalition of the insane?
The current leader of the strongest party therein?
The current leader of any of the other parties?
Any leader who was chosen as leader by a party of his or her peers?

No, the new Prime Minister would be someone who was never chosen as party leader and would lead a government that was not chosen by the people, according to a "senior Liberal source".

Oh yes I almost forgot.. this COALITION would depend for its very survival on:

THE BLOC QUEBECOIS, WHOSE PURPOSE IN LIFE IS TO TEAR CANADA APART BY ENABLING QUEBEC SEPARATION.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

And all this was set off by a "financial update" which contained a proposal to do away with public funding for political parties based on popular vote.
Oh they say it was because the update didn't offer enough of a "stimulus package" for the economy. Depending on what you read, this was either necessary, or not. But funding for the minority parties? DEFINITELY necessary.

Forget that Obama came out of nowhere, raised zillions one dollar at a time, and ended up President. Way too much work.

I have never joined a political party of any type. The last two elections, I voted Conservative. I don't entirely agree with their social policies but I felt that Harper was the best of a bad lot as leader, and I strongly support their policies with regard to the military and the Arctic.

However, if this thing goes through, I HEREBY PUBLICLY PLEDGE to join the Conservatives and do whatever I can as a volunteer to get Stephen Harper a majority government.

This is ridiculous.

Deja Vu

2007-10-13T22:01:00.000-04:00

News item:

Duceppe to make French his priority in Parliament

Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, had some intriguing words for students at the University of Montreal this week:

He wants to change the law to make French the official language of Quebec and to ensure that Quebecers work in the French language.

Say what?

If that sounds familiar it’s because it is. French IS the official language of Quebec and laws already exist that enforce the use of French in the Quebec workplace.

Quebec Provincial laws, that is.

Duceppe wants the Canadian Federal Government to enact parallel laws as well.

Now on the surface that might seem to make sense. Duceppe is a federal politician, leader of a federal political party, even though that party only fields candidates in Quebec.

However.

The party that Duceppe leads, the Bloc Quebecois, is a “sovereignist” party, meaning it is dedicated to the cause of Quebec separating from Canada and forming its own country. It was founded for the purpose of facilitating the separation process, were it to occur.

Now, since it doesn’t look like this process is set to occur anytime in the short term, the Bloc justifies its existence by claiming to defend Quebecers’ rights in Canada – that is, as long as you’re a Francophone Quebecer but that’s a whole other issue.

But how is it logical, for a movement that wants a certain goal – the formation of a separate country – to campaign for changes in the laws of the country that it wants to separate FROM? It’s tantamount to an admission of defeat, to ask for the laws of Canada to fall into place with the laws of Quebec, for it anticipates a long association going forward.

Listen up, citizens of Quebec, your purported leader is at cross purposes with the goals and spirit of his own party!

Quebec has the laws that it (or to be precise, its majority) wants. Dictating what another country (Canada) should do is as ridiculous as the US telling Canada to hand over detailed passenger lists for its aircraft flying through US airspace!

What?

Oh.

Nevermind.

A Fractured Fairy Tale*

2007-09-11T21:49:00.000-04:00

You know that old folk tale, where a man asks for advice from the village elder because his house is too small...

And the elder tells the man, bring six chickens into your home to live with you and your family.
The man does this, but it makes the problem worse and so he goes back to the elder, who tells him, now bring 3 pigs into your home as well...

And this repeats a few times, each time the elder telling the man to add other animals to the menagerie: some sheep, a cow, maybe a horse, whatever is around.

At some point the home becomes totally unbearable, and the elder then says, throw out the horse.

The man does this and reports how much better things are; then each animal is removed in turn, leaving the house ultimately the same as it was in the beginning, but with the people in it much more satisfied with their lot since it feels so much roomier and liveable now.

Well, US President Bush has just thrown out the horse.

A news item conveniently leaked – today – September 11 - by “anonymous administration officials” states that Bush plans to announce that he will reduce the troop levels in Iraq.

To the level they were at before the “surge”, 130,000.

By next summer.

Maybe.

Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting
that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that now-unforeseen events
could change the plan.

Doesn’t that house just feel bigger already.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yes it's a Rocky & Bullwinkle reference. What can I say, I'm old.

Why?

2007-09-10T21:50:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow morning, September 11, 2007, the MSNBC network plans to rerun the original NBC coverage of THE September 11, six years ago. CNN did the same thing last year but only online if I remember correctly.

Why? What is the point?

The usual answer to why media does anything is, ratings. Perhaps people will watch but again I have to ask, why?

Why put yourself through it?

Commemorate the day, of course.
Read the names of the 3000 dead slowly, one by one.
Assess the progress of rebuilding the Pentagon (done?) and Ground Zero (not done).
Assess what was heroic and what wasn't, that day and the days following.
Reflect upon the state of the US and the world and how we got from that day to this one.

Remember, of course. But relive? What on earth for?

Those newscasts have immense historical value; they should be viewed by future generations, but not necessarily by those who viewed them in 2001. There is no need to see it all again - it is permanently etched into our collective consciousness.
Will we learn anything from these reruns? Or will we just reinforce the fears that were born that day - the fears that enabled the US to be led down its current destructive path.

MSNBC calls it "living history". I call it self-serving sensationalism.

Facts and Arguments on Role Models

2007-09-06T21:48:00.000-04:00

It has long been a contention of mine that schools ought to prepare students for the real world. School society should, in an age-appropriate fashion, mirror adult societies such as the workplace.

For instance: nobody in a workplace is going to sit down with a bully and ask them nicely to stop it. Bullying exists, will always exist, and while teaching children not to do it is an admirable goal, it is also vital to teach children how to deal with it. Otherwise, they will leave their bully-proof school without the means to handle such an interaction on the outside.

Conversely, what is unethical in a school context must also be unethical in society as a whole, and teachers and other role models have a responsibility to acknowledge mistakes when they are made, and rectify them as much as possible.

This all has to do with a recent column in the Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, brought to my attention by a listserv discussion. Each weekday the paper runs a personal essay in a column called Facts & Arguments. I first heard of it several years ago in a writing seminar, when the seminar leader seemed impressed that one of my fellow classmates had already been published there. “It’s hard to get into that one,” she said.

A little more digging in google shows that the column has hosted numerous award-winning essays and has quite a prestigious reputation.

But it’s probably just as well that I never got around to submitting an essay there, because now I’d be considering removing it from my resume had it been accepted, and would be really really peeved if it hadn’t.

The essay in question is The English Assignment by Sharon Melnicer, herself a well-established author and artist. It revolves around a purported school writing assignment that Melnicer, a former teacher, claims was done by her students in 1997.

It is well-written, entertaining and thought-provoking – but somehow familiar? That would be because the central part of this essay, the work that the students supposedly submitted, has been floating around the internet for at least ten years according to the relevant entry at Snopes.com.

(Update: the Snopes page now includes Melnicer's claim to have written the original piece.)

Hundreds of other instances of the story turn up in google searches for distinctive keywords.

Of course the letters to the editor started rushing in; I later learned that the response I received was the stock response sent to everyone and since it has already been posted online I don’t feel the least bit uncomfortable about reproducing it here:

Dear Pauline Brock,
Thank you for your e-mail re the essay of Sept. 4.
The essay writer, Sharon Melnicer, tells me she first presented this article at a province-wide workshop for Manitoba English teachers in 1997. She says she had found the idea ( 'Writing a Tandem Story') as explained in the essay, in a professional journal . The first part of a sample tandem story (the "Outer Space" theme) as well as the teacher's instructions for students were provided in the article. Ms. Melnicer says she tried it out with Grade XI and XlI students, as her essay describes, then wrote up what happened and presented it at the workshop. Copies of that paper were distributed to the 50 or so participants who attended. Nothing further happened regarding publication of the piece until she picked it up again after retiring, did some revisions, and submitted it to F&A.
Ms. Melnicer says she knows plagiarism is a serious offence, and not one she would commit. I have no reason to doubt her.

Moira Dann
Editor
Facts&Arguments

Okay, I suppose someone had to have written the original story and while I have my doubts, I have no proof.

However.

What on earth was the editor thinking when she decided to use the story? If it’s not a real example of plagiarism it’s doing a darn good imitation of one, and is certainly not worth the potential aggravation!

Obviously there was no fact checking going on, or somebody did a really sloppy job.
The Globe and Mail is a major national Canadian paper. If I can’t be assured of the originality of their essay page, what can I be assured of?

I replied to the editor saying that if I had been aware that they accepted recycled stories that I had a few hundred of my own lying around to send in, and that I was disappointed in the Globe and in the column; to her credit she did bother to answer that email as well but only to say she was sorry that I was disappointed and that she had acted in good faith.

I am sure she did act in good faith however that is not the point. The point is she, or someone, should not have published the essay without some kind of disclaimer, and the paper should now publish some sort of clarification, if not outright apology.

Which brings me to the extra special bit of irony in all this:
Sharon Melnicer had used the example of the student writing assignment to illustrate a point, which was:

Every good teacher - every effective leader, for that matter - knows that it is from our mistakes we all learn. It follows, then, that failure is something to celebrate; it is the very soil in which learning grows and knowledge blooms.

Nice – and something that the editors at the Globe should take to heart. So far no correction, apology, or explanation has appeared, and it seems as if they are hoping the whole thing will just go away.

What on earth does it say when a former teacher puts herself in the position of appearing to plagiarize and the editor who lets it slip by makes excuses and doesn’t address the issue? How can a society that permits this expect better from its students? Schools rightly make a very big deal about plagiarism and must have the backing of those in real life or the lesson will surely fail.

If you can’t trust the integrity of your teachers... and your editors... who can you trust?

Deja Veto

2007-06-20T21:59:00.000-04:00

Bush vetoes stem cell bill.

The headline sounded familiar.

Indeed, it happened less than a year ago, in July 2006, when a Republican-led Congress passed a bill that aimed to loosen restrictions on public funding of stem cell research. Bush vetoed that bill, as yesterday he vetoed a similar bill presented by a Democratic-led Congress.

The will of the people? Not when it conflicts with the individual religious beliefs of he who has veto power:

"The Congress has sent me legislation that would compel American taxpayers, for the first time in our history, to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," Bush said.

Still, it is laudable when someone stands up for the courage of his convictions. Or it would be, in this case, were it not for the massive hypocrisy involved.

Taxpayer dollars are not to be used in a venture that results in the destruction of embryos that would never become children in any case; but it's PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT to use taxpayer dollars in a venture that results in the destruction of real, living children because some military "official" considered the target to be "worth the risk of potential collateral damage".

You can't inadvertently cause death in the process of saving many lives but you can cause it in the process of killing.

The mind boggles.

And the Award...

2007-05-13T09:27:00.000-04:00

...for the shortest* campaign in political history goes to...

GILLES DUCEPPE

Pauline Marois must have given him a really really big what-for!

*I don't know if one day is really the record but it's close enough.

Just Another Common Garden-Variety Outrage

2007-01-05T18:52:00.000-05:00

So, it turns out that while you were busy with the holidays last month, the President of the United States was busy too. Besides not listening to the Iraq Study Group, the Generals, the Troops, the Democrats, many of the Republicans, the pundits and anyone else who bothered to weigh in, George W. Bush made sure he COULD listen to you – if you are an American or send mail to one.

He had already established that he may listen in on your phone calls and emails; his latest signing statement claims the right to read your mail – without warrant – if he feels like it, or something of that nature. “Exigent circumstances” is the wording reported.

Another nugget of info that didn’t seem to be widely reported last month was that thing about the FBI being able to use your cell phone’s microphone to listen in on you – even if the phone is turned off. And they have actually done it to gather evidence for criminal trials, according to the report on ABC News.

That sounded too much like a moonbat conspiracy theory claim, so I did a little checking. Looks like it’s for real, since a caution about this technological quirk turns up on a website for US Government employees meant to instruct them on their own security issues. It’s part of the US Department of Commerce/Office of Security, Western Regional Security Office, Employees’ Guide to Security Responsibilities, specifically, the page relating to cell phone vulnerabilities.

As scary as the Bush Administration's continuing erosion of civil rights is, I find something here even scarier: it hardly even makes news anymore. Some of the reactions I’ve seen to the postal signing statement include, “Well you know there are people that want to kill us!” to “So what, they have been doing that for years, anyway.”

Maybe "they" have been doing it for years – but not legally without a warrant, and that makes a very big difference. The results of the recent election imply that more voters are waking up to the reality that the United States is becoming something other than what it purports to be; the President and his Administration need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that this perversion of rights and freedoms in the name of preserving rights and freedoms is an oxymoron that Americans cannot tolerate.

The Cartoon I'd Like to Draw

2006-12-30T14:16:00.000-05:00

If I could only draw...

This would be my political cartoon of the week:

A large housecat with the face of George W. Bush, presents a gift at the feet of his owner, George Bush I:

a dead rat with the face of Saddam Hussein.

Cats often present such gifts to their owners, unaware that the owners find them icky – to say the least – but to the cat it is the ultimate gift of homage and devotion.

The cartoon is meant to suggest that the current Pres. Bush was motivated not so much by a desire to make the world a better place, but by a desire for parental approval and revenge against Saddam who apparently had plotted to assassinate the former Pres. Bush. So while nobody is arguing that the rat should be spared, the gift of it remains, well, icky.

I'll spare you the other 800+ words - for now.

It's Already a Success; All it Has to do Now is Occur!

2006-12-29T12:46:00.000-05:00

Why I object to giving out *best of the year* awards before the year is actually over: this one is definitely a contender for

Best Attempt at Elevating Truthiness and Spin to a Whole New Level

It's about halfway down the page in this CNN transcript from Dec. 28, in which some reporters are interviewing one Fran Townsend, billed as a “Homeland Security Adviser”:

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

A success that hasn’t occurred yet.

Finding that quote about made my day. It is the one simple phrase that sums up the Bush administration’s philosophy: facts be damned, just stay the course and expect our goals to fall into our laps. Sooner or later. (And if they don’t, it’s the fault of our opponents.)

Will it work for me too? Shall I start shovelling the snow that hasn’t fallen yet from my front walk?
Perhaps I should take a trip to Oslo next year to collect the Nobel Prize that I haven’t been awarded yet, or start spending the lottery fortune I haven’t won. Yet.

That kind of thinking would get me thrown in the looney bin; in Washington, it gets you hired as a government spokesman.

Buyer beware.

Sex Offenders, Guns, and Jimmy Buffett, Oh My!

2006-12-19T18:48:00.000-05:00

Update on a news story I blogged about in October, in which an American teacher, convicted of a sex offense for fondling an underage student, was allowed by US authorities to serve his sentence as a parolee, living in his home with his wife and child in Canada:

The good news is, Canada has deported Malcolm Watson.

The bad news is, he remains here nevertheless, pending an appeal which could take as long as a year.

Part of the issue is what kind of *rights* Watson has, as a permanent resident. That is for the lawyers to figure out. What continues to irk me is how an American judge can unilaterally decide that a person convicted of a sex offense may return to live in another country. I’m sure the US is only too glad to be rid of him on a day to day basis, and if he were a Canadian I’d understand if he were to be deported back home, but he is not a Canadian, merely a resident married to a Canadian.

While Watson may or may not pose a realistic hazard to the Canadian population, it is not acceptable for this decision to be made by a foreign court, and if there is a loophole in Canadian law that permits this to occur, it needs to be closed. Immediately.

Somewhat better news, for those living near the Great Lakes on either side of the border:

The US Coast Guard has abandoned its plan to carry out live-fire machine gun training exercises from ships on the lakes. This was a bad idea for many reasons, one of the least obvious perhaps being that the accumulation in the lakes of ammunition containing lead is a serious environmental hazard. Unfortunately, some such training was carried out last summer but was then suspended pending public hearings.

According to this article,

the exercises were justified by the Coast Guard as essential if officers were to be properly prepared to defend the United States against terrorists who could attack by boat from Canada.

Essential? There is no other way to train people to fire guns from boats? A wave pool comes to mind...

Finally, singer Jimmy Buffett has decided that he cares more for seals than for working people and their families. He has joined the chorus of rich and famous celebrities who protest the annual seal hunt in Canada but apparently has it in not only for the sealers, but also for those in the fishing industry. How else to explain his restaurant chain’s boycott of Canadian seafood?

I just love how these privileged celebrities parachute themselves into an issue with the result that real harm may be done to hard-working families that barely manage to eke a living out of the land and sea. In contrast, those who carry around guns and shoot forest creatures for sport get a free pass to the point that in Texas, a law is pending that will permit the blind to hunt with special, laser-pointing-equipped guns. According to the bill’s sponsor:

This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that's great.

In a world in which the blind in Texas must not be denied the fun of hunting, but sealers and fishermen are to be denied the means to make a living, something is clearly wrong.

Obscure? Who You Calling OBSCURE?

2006-12-14T15:16:00.000-05:00

Poor Stephen Harper.

Scary in his own country, and now obscure outside of it, at least according to Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC political show, Hardball.

On Tuesday’s show, Matthews interviewed potential presidential candidate John Edwards and decided, somewhat playfully, to quiz him on foreign affairs in a similar manner to how then-candidate G.W. Bush was quizzed during the 2000 campaign.

The transcript is here; scroll down about a third of the way, or search for the word “Canada”.

Edwards did not do too badly, correctly naming the leaders of Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Germany and Italy but missing South Africa. But what really really REALLY has me steaming is this: Matthews, obviously impressed, remarked,

I‘m going to go back in my box because Harper is pretty obscure.

Obscure: Among other definitions,

of little or no prominence, note, fame, or distinction

far from public notice, worldly affairs, or important activities; remote; retired

Previously Matthews had called the country Italy obscure; I take exception to that as well, particularly since Italy, unlike Canada, was a member of the “Coalition of the Willing”. But how, how on EARTH can a (presumably) educated talk show host call the elected leader of one of the US’s largest trading partners (if not THE largest) and the country with which the US shares the world’s longest undefended border, OBSCURE?

Furthermore, Edwards then was unable to elaborate on Harper’s first name or, and this is important, POLITICAL PARTY.

Can you function as President of the United States without knowing the political leanings of your allies? That might make it difficult to know which countries indeed ARE your allies, wouldn’t it?

Now, I realize that anything, even a mushroom, would be an improvement over the current President. But we are looking ahead here and maybe trying not to repeat past mistakes?

After the little quiz, indeed immediately after it, Matthews launched into a discussion of why “America” is hated throughout the world.

I had to laugh.

Among many other reasons, some arguably valid and some invalid, perhaps “America” is hated because its citizens and its leaders can’t tear themselves away from gazing into their own navel long enough to acquire some sort of global perspective.
(That language substantially cleaned up from what I actually wanted to say.)

This is a long-running pet peeve of mine dating back decades: anything that happens or relates to anything outside of US borders is looked upon with disdain and indifference in the US if it is looked upon at all.

Several years ago, way before 9/11, I entered into such a discussion with an American acquaintance, asking why there was no interest there about events in Canada. She replied, because you are not a threat to us.

But how did she know that if she didn’t know anything about us?

Now that the unthinkable has happened, Americans are a little more aware that there IS an outside world but I feel they still do not attach enough importance to being educated about it – if not for themselves, as citizens, then at least for their leaders and policy-makers. It seems like the electorate champions mediocrity, while those like Al Gore just make people nervous.

This happens to be not only my opinion, but that of political columnist Roger Simon, who stated on the Wednesday edition of Hardball,

Americans distrust people who are too smart. Remember, Adlai Stephenson ran into this problem. If you seem too intelligent—Dukakis had this problem.

When questioned, in an incredulous tone, by Matthews, who pointed out that Bill Clinton has a very high IQ, Simon replied,

We want it both ways. Clinton was smart enough to hide his intelligence. He ran as a good old boy, the boy from Hope. He ran as a nice guy that you want to live next to.

Smart enough to hide his intelligence.

Doesn't that just speak volumes.

This phenomenon is also reflected in some of the responses I received for an abbreviated version of this rant, in the comments section of this Newsvine post. My favourite, "that's what staffers and briefings are for", neatly sums up why and how the US has gotten into the mess that it's currently in.

I don’t get it. I will never get it. People who tolerate and excuse ignorance end up setting an abysmally low standard for those they depend on to lead them and – dare I say it – keep them safe.

A New Front in the War Against Hugging

2006-12-10T20:40:00.000-05:00

Today’s news brings another skirmish in the global war against displaying affection.

Not to be outdone by the politically-correct Brits, this time it’s Americans who are asserting their right to be protected against unprovoked cuddles.

A four year old boy in a suburb of the appropriately-named Waco, Texas, served an "in-school suspension" for “inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment.” The incident is on the child’s record, much to the chagrin of his parents who are fighting it.

The crime?
He allegedly “hugged a teacher's aide and rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee.”

Yeah, and?

In some cultures, children are nursed until age four or five. Rather than a “sexual” impulse, rubbing his face in an adult woman’s chest probably meant he was hungry. Or maybe, just maybe, that he liked her.

People have a great tendency to anthropomorphize animal behaviour - that is, to ascribe human emotions and motives to what they observe animals doing. In this case, I fear the school district is adult-izing the behaviour of a four year old in exactly the same way. A child that age is not equipped to sexually harass anybody; they are too busy smashing their lunchboxes over their friends’ heads and disassembling small insects.

I had two boys of my own, and spent some time as a kindergarten lunchroom monitor.
I was hugged, and kissed. A lot.
By both boys and girls.

Perhaps I should have alerted the school that four year old girls were expressing homosexual tendencies by hugging me.
That would be as outrageous as what the Waco school has done.

I don’t remember it ever happening but if a child were to do something that made me uncomfortable, I would simply stop him (or her) and explain that it wasn’t a nice thing to touch someone in that place, using the same way and tone that I would if he (or she) were behaving inappropriately in some other manner.

Sexual harassment is a serious issue, one which society has tried to ignore. I fear that classifying a young child’s embrace as something of that nature is just another attempt to discredit the claims of those who have endured real harassment, by implying that their complaint is as ridiculous as this one.

Same Story, Different Spin

2006-12-08T14:11:00.000-05:00

Being obsessive, I subscribe to breaking news e-mail alerts from various news sources.

Two of these just came in, one from CNN and one from MSNBC, and I had to shake my head at the seemingly conflicting headlines:

From CNN:
Panel: Leaders did not break rules in Foley matter.

From MSNBC:
House panel: GOP leaders negligent in protecting teen pages.

Further reading revealed that both headlines were accurate; the panel did say there was negligence but that no “rules” were broken.

The obvious conclusion is, the rules need to be changed. Perhaps when they were drawn up, the possibility of members of congress pursuing inappropriate relationships with under-age pages was not foreseen; but it’s now a fact and, sadly, needs to be addressed even though such an issue really does insult the integrity of anyone in public service.

Beyond that, I was amused at the predictable but blatant spin accorded the news by these two sources. The story, from Associated Press, was clearly the same one although written a little differently by each site. I suppose they get a raw feed of information, or something, and then edit it. The spin mostly took place in the headlines referenced above and in the more complete headline on the story pages:

CNN: Panel: Leaders negligent, broke no rules in page scandal

MSNBC: House Ethics finds GOP leaders negligent - with subtitle, in smaller font: Republicans did not break any rules in Foley-Congressional page scandal

Interestingly (to me, anyway) Fox News had a more balanced front page headline:

AP: Ethics Panel Says No Rules Broken, GOP Negligent in Foley Scandal

but titled their full story,

No House Members Broke Rules in Ex-Rep. Foley's Congressional Page Scandal,

and toned down the word “negligence” to “could have done a better job” in the report.

Kind of not the same thing, I think.

For news consumers the message is, get your information from a variety of sources, try to separate facts from opinion, and let it all settle in your own mind, from which the whole story will eventually emerge, or as close to it as is possible.

Or if that takes too long, just read my blog.

News Item: Tories end tattoo program at federal prisons

2006-12-04T16:13:00.000-05:00

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced Monday that the government will not continue a pilot project that offered tattoos to inmates.

"Our government will not spend taxpayers' money on providing tattoos for convicted criminals,'' Day said.

"Our priority is to have an effective federal corrections system that protects Canadians, while providing inmates with access to acceptable health-care and treatment programs.''

Supporters of the pilot project say the move is a mistake. They say safe tattooing saves millions of dollars in health care and social costs by reducing the number of AIDS and hepatitis C cases.

It is a good thing this was cancelled before I found out about it or my head might have exploded.

MY tax dollars went for pay for PRISONERS getting tattoos? Whereas if my sons or I wanted a tattoo, being law-abiding citizens, we would have to pay - AGAIN - because we already paid for some convicted criminal's tattoo?

This is almost as bad as the program that provides free needles to junkies in Vancouver.

Look I like to think I am progressive but there is such a thing as TOO MUCH. I can't believe the government actually spent money to let prisoners get safe tattoos because if it didn't, the prisoners might use dirty needles and get sick, for which the government (i.e., my taxes) would pay for their health care!?!?!?

Prisoners. People who have been convicted of crimes serious enough to require INCARCERATION fergawdsake. They shouldn't be getting ANY tattoos, what is this, freakin' summer camp????

So people languishing in jail are to be indulged in their whims of vanity and encouraged to self-actualize, when money could be better spent in about a BILLION BETTER WAYS, for one, helping people such as this woman before she becomes so desperate that she kills herself and her young child.

Many points to the Conservative government for axing this ridiculous program.

Note to self: Maintain a scorecard. Election is coming...

Back to Reality

2006-12-03T18:05:00.000-05:00

It appears the jury is still very much out on whether the Liberals made a good choice in electing Stephane Dion as their leader yesterday.
I still feel he was the best among the choices given with regard to his policies and his personal style, vibe, that intangible whatever.

(Charisma? No. But I don’t expect anybody will ever top Trudeau in that department. Canada had its first love affair with Trudeau, and no subsequent love is ever quite the same.)

Dion might not be the most electable or winnable leader for the Liberals but I think it is to their credit that he came out on top instead of a Harper-lite (Iggy) or a recycled failed NDP Provincial Premier who was nonetheless supposed to be the *one most feared* by the Conservatives.

Editorials are understandably quite mixed: my local English paper, the Montreal Gazette, says the result will be “good for Canada”.

The Ottawa Sun’s columnist is less optimistic about the wisdom of the choice, naming Stephen Harper as the ultimate winner.

Many French Quebecois are not at all happy, even though Dion is part of their “Nation”, because he has a passion for a united Canada rather than a concept of an association of nations, such as Harper’s or Ignatieff’s.

I came across this article in the French media which expresses some displeasure (putting it mildly) at the result.

The Quebec Liberals would have preferred Ignatieff despite his having absolutely no history in Quebec and his hawkish neo-con leanings which generally do not go over well here at all. It must be because of the Quebec-Nation thing but I am disappointed that they would place so much weight on that and so little on important issues such as foreign policy and the environment.
After all, whether part of Canada or its own Nation, or both, Quebec still resides on Planet Earth and has to breathe, eat and drink what the rest of us do.

Finally, to inject a little perspective, the Liberal Leadership Convention was largely ignored by US mainstream media. Understandable in a way, since the Liberals aren’t even in power, but shouldn't it at least be worthy of a short mention?
CNN and MSNBC have nothing at all on their websites, while the New York Times and Washington Post do have articles but you have to search for them.

The Post’s write-up pretty well covers it, except for one thing: it claims Harper is fluent in French which is definitely not the case. As for Dion’s English, well he is vastly more comprehensible than Chretien and that is enough for me.

Dion Wins!

2006-12-02T20:15:00.000-05:00

A full day of political maneuverings and analysis with absolutely no idea of the outcome until the very end:

It was heaven.

I sat in front of that thing for nearly ten straight hours.

No commercials.

No blogging this afternoon either, as my internet connection was down, as was the TV cable. I almost went blind from watching the local channel through fields of snow. But far be it from me to complain.

I am pleased with the outcome. Stephane Dion is the new Liberal leader and it feels like the Liberal party is back.
If nothing else they sure updated their site in a timely fashion!

I am especially pleased that the environment is one of Dion's priorities. A little less pleased that his support of Israel is not on the scale of Harper's, but it's no worse than any other Liberal I suppose.

At least he's not accusing them of war crimes.

I’m not all that dissatisfied with Harper’s leadership but a party that embraces more of my values would be a refreshing change. The Liberals needed time off for renewal and they seem to be accomplishing it very nicely. I am very impressed with Dion’s passion and composure, his obvious intellect and mostly his love of Canada.

Choice, that is all I wanted.

A couple more observations from the CTV broadcast: the loose fish metaphor may have been overdone but it was nonetheless appropriate. The commentators referred to convention delegates who, for one reason or another were released from their obligation to support a certain candidate, as “loose fish” on the floor. Same thinking as “loose cannon” I suppose but in true Canadian form, a less violent image.
You never know where those darn fish will flop to.

Or maybe it’s on account of the delegates spending hours upon hours there – thus acquiring a certain odor?

Whatever.

The other thing was, I wondered if the representation of Michael Ignatieff on his posters had anything to do with his loss. He was shown with the top of his head cut off.
I thought this was rather strange, for a candidate whose prime qualification was supposed to be his academic experience and intellect.

Unintended subliminal message, perhaps? Or does he feel he can run Canada with only half a brain...

Happily, we don't get to find out.

Still Five... But Not for Long

2006-12-02T11:28:00.000-05:00

Leading up to second ballot results, a few observations:

Much is being made of Stephane Dion’s being *everybody’s second choice*.
While that is mathematically a good thing, it doesn’t resound well for the future federal election campaign. I can see the bumper stickers now.

I was amused by Scott Brison’s explanation of how he, a former Progressive Conservative, can endorse a former NDP Premier: He quoted the song, “Stuck in the Middle With You”, the middle being the Liberal Party:

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you...

I don’t know how many might have caught this but Mike Duffy is on the 3-coast bandwagon, coast to coast to coast - the third coast being the Arctic, which is in dispute as Canadian territory.
Good on Mike.

Most creative observation that I saw:

“The morning started off like kind of a damp squid for you”: Lloyd Robertson to Ignatieff.

Lamest explanation for a poorer-than expected showing on the first ballot:

Michael Ignatieff: because he was the last speaker, a significant number of his delegates failed to vote.

Yeah, right.

And the corollary, Ignatieff supporter and former Ontario Premier David Peterson: “there are two kinds of momentum, superficial and real...”

Latest news of the deal between Kennedy and Dion seems to be all kinds of momentum; and now Ignatieff and Rae are shaking hands. Uh-oh...

Eight Becomes Five...

2006-12-02T09:44:00.000-05:00

Random thoughts upon watching the Liberal Leadership Convention on TV:

The bottom three candidates have dropped out after the first ballot. That leaves five, and a minimum of one is eliminated with each further ballot.
Therefore the convention can have a maximum of four more ballots: 5 candidates, 4 candidates, 3 candidates, 2 candidates.
Someone please inform Lloyd Robertson who gleefully predicted it could go for five or six more.

Does anyone else find it extremely strange that Scott Brison, after his wonderful impassioned speech focused largely on environmental issues, decided to support Bob Rae instead of Stephane Dion?
Furthermore, it is a spectacle that possibly could occur only in Canada, that a former (Progressive) Conservative politician would ultimately endorse a former “Dipper”.

Great to see Mike Duffy again! He is back after months of recuperation from open heart surgery.

Personally I am rooting for Stephane Dion, although I will be satisfied with anyone but Iggy. Rae makes me nervous because Ontario’s economy was a mess while he was Premier. He says he’s learned but I’d as soon go with someone else.
I don’t know much about Kennedy; I do like Dion’s passion and his concern for the environment. The only qualm I have is that I have found NOTHING about his foreign policy position and that is important to me.

Why not Iggy? Don’t get me started. He is in my opinion, as inept as John Kerry and scarier than Harper.
I think he is a closet neo-con and with all the stumbles and gaffes I have no idea where he really stands and what I do see, I don’t like, not at all.

Just please send good vibes for my cable and internet connection which were out for 12 hours yesterday because of the wind and ice storm.

More to come, Videotron and the cable gods willing...

Apology Insufficient. Send Cash.

2006-11-26T21:19:00.000-05:00

Remember the old saying,

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”?

Well, forget it.

If we are to believe the lessons of popular culture, weapons such as sticks, stones and birdshot aren’t worthy of mention; however for words, saying “I’m sorry” is not enough.

We teach our children to apologize for the most minimal of transgressions, such as making their sister cry, even if they aren’t really sorry. It is part of the civilizing process.
The offended sibling, in turn, is taught to forgive.
Over and over.

That is how it is supposed to work.

Now, the decision on whether to make or accept an apology seems to depend upon how much equity you can hope to wring out of the occasion. In the case of the man whose face got in the way of Vice-President Cheney’s gun, the shootee ended up apologizing for the ruckus. But for the Michael Richards hecklers, who up until the moment they hired lawyer Gloria Allred were seen as victims, multiple apologies won’t cut it, nor will mountains of public sympathy.

Show them the money.

I would be interested in finding out how those two hooked up with Ms. Allred in the first place. Did they seek out a lawyer, smelling opportunity, or did she swoop in like a latter-day ambulance-chaser? There is surely money to be made for the *victims*, but even selling their story to the National Enquirer would be *taking the high road* compared to a lawsuit. Instead of their role as the recipients of a truly vile, uncalled-for tirade, they now appear to be opportunists of the worst kind, trying to cash in on hundreds of years of collective racial abuse.

What started out as a lesson in how not to behave has become a lesson in how to make lemonade out of lemons; unfortunately these lemons were never fit for human consumption.

Children, take note.

When the Work-Around Exacerbates the Original Problem

2006-11-16T22:01:00.000-05:00

Scientists in Britain are proposing a new method of creating stem cells for research: combining an animal egg (probably that of a cow) with the nucleus of an adult human cell to produce... ?

Whatever it was would then divide itself for six days, upon which time the researchers would try to harvest stem cells and then destroy the... thing.

According to this article in the London Times, the method is proposed as an alternative to the use of human eggs which are “in short supply” and mainly used in infertility treatment. The article doesn’t mention the existing supply of excess, unused embryos created in the course of that treatment, whose proposed role in stem cell research is creating controversy for ethical and religious reasons. Currently, those excess embryos are frozen, and are eventually discarded.

I can see where some might have a problem with creating human embryos for the express purpose of research. However the objection to using embryos that would otherwise be unceremoniously destroyed, is beyond me.

And the idea that creating some kind of sci-fi human-animal hybrid is a better solution to this problem, is totally insane.

While the plan is to use the proposed technology strictly to obtain stem cells, the potential for abuse is enormous. If an egg of this sort found its way into a womb – I don’t even want to speculate on what species of womb – what would be the result? What laws would apply? What unforeseen public health hazards might occur? Not to mention the moral, religious and ethical concerns which would be legion; much more complicated than the issue of destroying an embryo in the name of life-saving research rather than throwing it out in the garbage.

The march of scientific progress is like the flow of water: it will find its own level, and if blocked it will find a way around the obstacle, with sometimes tragic results. Those who try to impede progress need to take a good look at what potential abomination their opposition is creating.

This Will Not Do!

2006-11-11T22:45:00.000-05:00

Now that the US has taken the first step back on the path towards sanity, and before I turn my attention to the upcoming Canadian Liberal Leadership contest, I have to ask:

What is up with those Brits?

Two recent news stories have come to my attention and I think they reveal a very troubling trend.

First,

Birthday card could be 'ageist'

Somewhere in England, “new legislation” dictates that anyone sending even a slightly snarky birthday card could be liable for discrimination or harassment:

"Even sending a birthday card that says colleagues are 'over the hill and past it' could be taken as ageist behaviour," says a memo to staff.

What would be the point of sending a card if you could not gently poke fun at the recipient?
And what about the greeting card industry and the retailer? Is the industry to have separate catalogues to comply with laws of each jurisdiction?

Who is responsible for the content of the cards? Why carry them in your store if people are going to be afraid to buy and send them? And what of e-cards?

Most importantly, where can we find a donor for the sense of humour transplant that these bureaucrats clearly need!

Beyond being a nuisance, the other story, I feel, is just one more step towards turning out a generation of robots:

Stop hugging, school head tells his pupils

I suppose since bullying is no longer in vogue, children have turned to other means of communicating. Problem is, all that hugging makes them late to class and can lead to *gasp* other things.
Never mind that all manner of physiologists and psychologists agree that physical contact is essential for human well-being.
Students claim the school has gone so far as to punish students for hugging.

Headteacher Steve Kenning declined to comment on claims that pupils had been given detention or named and shamed.
In his explanation on the school website he wrote: "Hugging has become very acceptable amongst students and this has led to some students believing that it is okay to go up to anyone and hug them, sometimes inappropriately.
"This is very serious not only for the victim but also for anyone accused of acting inappropriately. To avoid putting anyone at risk please avoid hugging."

The VICTIM?

Call the authorities, I am the victim of a random hug.

The prisoner who now stands before you,
Was caught red-handed showing feelings.
Showing feelings of an almost human nature.
This will not do.
-Pink Floyd