Mistaken Quotes

"Don't let it end like this.  Tell them I said something."
-Citizen Kane

"I say nuke them from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure."
-Gargamel

"As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster."
-Napoleon

"Good?  Bad?  I'm the guy with the gun."
-Mohandas Gandhi

"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I've made."
-Julian Assange

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
-The Road Runner

Extreme Rice

This one caught my eye.

Merry Christmas, Everybody

Charges Laid in G20 Abuse Scandal

But don't get too excited, it's just one officer of the however-many who were caught abusing protesters.

A Toronto police officer has been arrested and charged with assaulting a protester during the G20 summit in June.
It is the first arrest of a police officer in connection with allegations of the use of excessive force during the summit.
Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani was charged Tuesday with assault with a weapon. The charges relate to the treatment of Adam Nobody by police on the evening of June 26, said a statement released Tuesday by the province's Special Investigations Unit.
Nobody was one of about 1,000 people arrested during the two-day summit.
During his arrest at Queen's Park, Nobody suffered a fracture below his right eye and a broken nose.

So far, police have been "unable" to identify anyone shown in the video - even themselves.

The blue wall at work.

You know, cops must absolutely hate technology. In this day and age, everyone and their brother is carrying around cell phones with built-in cameras and video recorders (even my bottom-rung phone comes with these features), which makes abuses of authority much more likely to be caught. Once upon a time, it was a lot easier to get away with this sort of thing - someone gets beaten by the cops, all they really had to do was deny it. The vast majority of the time, any ensuing investigation by any of the toothless oversight agencies would simply find no wrongdoing.

Cops don't snitch on their own, after all. Without video evidence, there's not much to be done.

That simple denial would be enough. I know in times past, I would have given the police the benefit of the doubt. I mean, they're police. Why would they go around beating people utilizing their lawful right to protest - a right the police are supposed to protect for all citizens?

Certainly, tales of abuse seem a lot more common these days. From beating off-duty soldiers outside a bar, to repeatedly stun gunning a Polish immigrant, to the many, many reports of the G20 abuses. But here's what I suspect - police abuses of power aren't any more common these days than they ever have been. It's just that police are that much more likely to get caught in the act.

And even with video evidence - blatant proof of wrongdoing that's plain for everyone to see - it's often not enough. The police playbook is pretty established by this point:

-Abuse somebody because it makes you feel like a big man
-Ignore the inevitable complaint (usually by claiming it never happened)
-Backpedal when the video gets put up on Youtube
-Claim the video has been edited or otherwise doesn't show what actually happened

Usually, it doesn't get past that fourth stage. Even with this latest incident, charges weren't laid until two other corroborating videos found their way into the SIU's hands. At that point, some cops finally started to talk - probably because they felt they had to.

So, all of those people who were abused and humiliated while in detention during the G20 summit... Well, don't hold your breath waiting for justice to happen there. After all, cell phones get confiscated (with their memories usually wiped) when their owner gets arrested.

Mimic Octopus

Us pathetic humans don't stand a chance, mark my words.  The Octopodi will rule the earth yet.

Politics and Self-Fellation

Every year the Hill Times runs a poll of various politicos where they nominate themselves as the most "effective" and "valuable" politicians at work today.  It's mostly a farce, of course, a way for those in power (since the ones in power tend to have the most votes available) to pat themselves on the back and try to dredge up some publicity.  It's also something for die-hard party supporters to point to when making arguments over whether so-and-so is an effective politician.

This year, surprising nobody, Stephen Harper came in first place.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who dazzled Cabinet ministers, MPs, Senators and staffers last Wednesday night in Ottawa when he held an impromptu rock concert for the Tories' Christmas party, was voted the year's most valuable politician, according to this year's 14th All Politics Poll: The Best and Worst of Politics in 2010.

Notice the language here? Harper "dazzled" cabinet ministers, resulting in 21% of the votes cast in the poll. This, the article claims, "in spite of an uneven year, as thousands of Canadians took to the streets to protest the decision to prorogue Parliament, academia, and NGOs slammed the modifications to the census, and the government took a battering during the fall on how it decided to buy $16-billion worth of F-35 fighter jets." But of course, the PM was nevertheless "respected by respondents of all political bents" for his economic policies and the like.

Contrast that sort of language with the article's write-up of the third place winner, Jack Layton.

In third place, and after a concerted campaign by NDP staffers who strategically voted in this year's unscientific survey, is NDP Leader Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.). While it may have been a whipped vote for the New Democrats, respondents had a variety of reasons for nominating their leader, including not whipping his party's vote last fall on repealing the long-gun registry.

Emphasis mine.

Harper won first place! What a wonderful survey that reflects reality as we know it.

Layton won third place. Well, that's just because of strategic voting. Also, it's an unscientific survey so, you know, whatevs.

(Harper also came in as the third least-valuable politician according to the poll, but the article doesn't really bother explaining why or how. Modern journalism, folks!)

An eye-opening commentary on the whole spectacle came from Megan Leslie, NPD-Halifax, who won "Favourite up-and-comer" with 21.6% of the votes:

"Whether it's The Hill Times or other polls, we have always seen women in up-and-coming categories because women who are up-and-comers are not threatening, right? If you look at who are the 'powerful people,' who are the 'skilled ministers,' it isn't women. And that's because we're talking about positions where there actually is power.

"To be an up-and-comer, you know, it's nice, it's cute, you get a pat on the head, and 'Isn't that great to see Megan rising up the ranks,' but it's still not threatening. So I think we still need to have a gendered lens when we're looking at these kinds of polls," she said. "It doesn't mean we've broken through."

Anyway, the first link in this post goes to the article reporting the circle-jerk in question. Go ahead and read it, it's worth a laugh.

Why Haven't I Heard About Rap News Before?

Because guys.  Seriously, guys.  This shit is awesome, guys.



Catchy, funny, informative, and relevant.  I think I'm in love.

So, Iggy's approval rating is now sitting at 14%.

Dion's rating, three days after leading the Liberals to defeat in the 2008 election, was 23%. That was considered bad enough that they gave him the boot.*

So, when's Iggy tendering his resignation?



*Okay, that's not quite true. He was given the boot as much because the "natural governing party of Canada" felt they shouldn't stoop so low as to enter into a coalition with the NDP as any other reason. In other words, they're delusional.

Double Standards

Paypal: "We cannot in good conscience support the whistleblower site Wikileaks. But the KKK is fine in our books."
Visa, Mastercard: "We concur. The poor governments of the world need protecting, but what's a few lynchings between friends?"

I know satire's been dead for a while now, but damn.

Hey, Remember Kyoto?

...because Harper sure doesn't!

From the Globe and Mail:

Federal Environment Minister John Baird arrives at the global climate summit Tuesday looking to administer last rites to the Kyoto Protocol, at least in its current form. But the funeral may have to wait for next year’s session in South Africa.

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the end of Canada’s commitment to Kyoto would achieve a long-standing goal, as he has opposed the accord since its inception in 1997 and distanced his government from it since taking office five years ago.

Harper refuses to support Kyoto because it's destined to fail. He knows this, because he does his level best to sabotage it. But don't worry, Harper knows that environmental issues are important to Canadians, so he'll make sure to come up with something better later... Maybe even something his big buddy the U.S. will sign onto!

Officially, the government denies it is aiming to kill Kyoto. However, it vocally supports the political deal reached last year in Copenhagen that would change key elements of Kyoto by demanding binding emission targets from major developing countries.

“We are seeking a legally binding treaty that includes all major emitters, which is what the Copenhagen Accord was all about last year,” Mr. Baird’s spokesman, Bill Rodgers, said. “That includes the emerging economies of China and India. It also includes the United States, which did not ratify Kyoto and has no intention of doing so.”

See, it's really important to get the U.S. on board because without the U.S. it's really just an empty gesture, so we'll follow their lead in whatever they OH WAIT!

The Harper government has no plans to follow a U.S. initiative to slash the greenhouse gas emissions of big polluters — even though Ottawa has pledged to harmonize its climate policies with the Americans.

The White House, stung by its failure to legislate a cap-and-trade bill before the recent congressional elections, has a Plan B set to be implemented within weeks.

The new U.S. rules — passed by executive order — are aimed at curbing emissions from large industrial facilities like refineries and cement factories. They go into effect Jan. 2.

Canadian climate experts say this country could contain the pollution growth from its own industries, notably the oilsands, by introducing similar standards north of the border.

But newly minted Environment Minister John Baird downplayed the plans from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “patchwork.”

Baird goes on to say that the Plan B south of the border is just too weak so we won't be bothering with it. They'll do something better, for sure. They just won't say what their better plan actually is.

They'll say what it isn't, though! Like the Kyoto protocols. Because the U.S. isn't bothering with that, so we shouldn't, either. But they're very serious about this issue, for reals. They really aren't just waffling and stalling as long as they can in the hopes of getting out of even limp-wristed emissions standards.

Promise.

Tories Boost Liberals in Byelection?

From the Hill Times:

A top Tory from Winnipeg told The Hill Times that had the Conservatives mounted the same candidate who ran in Winnipeg North in the 2008 election, Ray Larkin, whose daughter Marni Larkin is a senior director and organizer for the federal Conservatives in Manitoba, NDP candidate Kevin Chief would likely have won.

Instead, late last summer, after Mr. Lamoureux defeated a prominent member of the large Filipino community in the riding for the byelection nomination, the Conservatives dropped Mr. Larkin and selected a little-known member of the Filipino expatriate population, Julie Javier, who barely ran a campaign, avoided candidate debates and media interviews, featured a mobile poster mounted atop an automobile that sporadically appeared in the riding, and drew criticism from even Conservative party members for her lacklustre effort.

The end result gave Ms. Javier a paltry 1,647 votes, which NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) says came largely from a diehard knot of Filipino Conservative supporters who supported the tough-on-crime agenda Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) drew attention to on his only low-profile visit to the riding. Had Mr. Larkin been the Conservative candidate, after having won 5,033 votes and 22 per cent of the vote in the 2008 election, Liberal candidate Kevin Lamoureux, who resigned his provincial legislative assembly seat to contest the byelection, would have lost, the senior Conservative said.

It appears that despite allegations the Conservatives put up Ms. Javier to draw votes from the Liberals, the opposite was the case—Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives wanted Mr. Lamoureux to win.

Party insiders say there is one main reason: They want Mr. Ignatieff to be leading the Liberal Party into the next general election. Mr. Ignatieff has the lowest personal voter support ratings on the federal scene, perhaps since Brian Mulroney, although not for the same reasons, and he has been unable to bring the party's support above the 30-per-cent threshold in public opinion polls.

More at the article. This is really getting pathetic. Really, they traded Dion for this guy? And yet, they're still convinced they're the natural party of Canada, that all they have to do to win a majority is wait it out.

I wish it were true, but it isn't. You really do need to give people a reason to vote for you (besides "ooga booga scary tories," I mean.)

Craig Ferguson explains Dr. Who

In song!

Harper Advisor Calls for Assange's Assassination

Why are conservatives so hateful of transparency that they'd rather see people murdered than know more about what world governments get up to when they think the plebs aren't watching?

Mr. Flanagan, it's not "being manly" to call for such. It's being so incredibly insecure that you can't face the idea of an independent media revealing the truth.

Either that, or it's having a tremendously small penis and needing to call for assassinations on public television to compensate. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, here.

UPDATE: I really have to wonder... All those people (some of whom are in powerful positions in the media) calling for Assange's death, what was their stance on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Or are such calls okay when it's a white guy making them?