Establishing a "Yokel Index"

Earlier this week, over at we move to canada, there was some debate over which Canadian community a gay couple from Boston(?) should move to, when they finally get their act together enough to actually do it.

Factors important to the couple included proximity to New England, population size, nearness to nature, and most importantly a local Roman Catholic church with a relaxed attitude. (And good luck with the last one, by the way...)

What I think was unaddressed in that discussion is what I refer to as the "Yokel Index".

Canada may very well have the reputation of being a tolerant, progressive society. However, taking a Saturday night stroll along the promenade of, say, Bowmanville Ontario will quickly challenge this presumption.

A town might have everything Steve and his husband say they are looking for: scenic, near the New York border, within easy driving distance of Toronto and with lots of jobs.

At the same time, this idyll's population could be largely composed of knuckle-dragging, gay-hating neanderthals.

There are lots of places I could harangue gay immigrants about avoiding: any place where agriculture is still an important part of the local economy; any place there are factories; communities with lots of bearded men (aside from Cabbagetown).

Being an immigrant anywhere is hard enough. In lots of places in 'tolerant' Canada, being a gay AND an immigrant would probably push locals into the "angry crowd carrying torches" demographic.

How to determine this "Yokel Index"? One quick way would be to rule out moving to any ridings that voted Conservative in the last federal election. In this scenario, places like Guelph or Kitchener-Waterloo would be acceptable, while Cambridge, Peterborough or Barrie would not.

The other possibility, which I favour, is making note of how many "support the troops" bumper stickers you see whilst driving around.

For example, where I live in downtown Toronto, it is exceptional to see a troops bumpersticker. Inevitably the driver will be some old coot, presumably visiting from Barrie, Maple, or Sutton. Not even worth the energy it would take to despise them.

In Peterborough, just 120 minutes away from Toronto, it is much different. I would say that 1 in 10 vehicles have war magnets on their cars, all of them one of the three displayed at the top of this post.

If you go to Orono, which I frequently do because its LCBO is handy when I am on the way to visit my mother for the weekend, you see that Orono's main street has yellow ribbons wrapped around the telephone poles.

If we are creating a "Yokel Index" for people like Steve and his husband, I think each wrapped tree spotted should count as the same as a spotted bumper magnet. By the same token, a vehicle with three war magnets should count as 3 spottings, not one. (No joke I saw one like this on the 401 today!)

The "Yokel Index" will be a hard instrument to calibrate [that's what she said-ed] but I think it is possible.

Just because I saw more yellow ribbons in Orono than I did war magnets in Peterborough doesn't mean there are more yokels in Orono than Peterborough. Orono has an old-timey vibe, a couple of antiques stores for example. Orono would be OK for Steve and co.

On the other hand: Peterborough, where young guys with bad haircuts actually still drive hotrods around? Almost by definition locals have war magnets on the back of their pickups.

Steve and his husband deserve a useful set of metrics before they make their decision. Noting car badges is decidedly a non-scientific way of collecting data, but it is obvious, and cheap.



d

Harper of Afghanistan

By MacKAY, lampooning Lawrence of Arabia, perhaps the best movie of all time. Liberated from the website of this is just to say.

Note how MacKAY has caught Harper's undead-like complexion. It is almost waxy in its iridescence.

Highway of Heroes?

In an act of political bravery unmatched in modern times, Premier Dalton McGuinty has announced that a section of Highway 401 is to be renamed the "Highway of Heroes".


What is a hero, anyway? At dictionary.com, the top result for 'hero' is

a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

Ignoring the sexism explicit in the dictionary.com definition, I still have to wonder what courage, ability, deeds or qualities the fallen soldiers exhibited to warrant being referred to as heroes.

The act of showing up?

When I think of what a hero is, I think of someone who lost their job whistle-blowing government and/or corporate malfeasance, or someone who drowned jumping into a swollen river trying to save a kid, ie. someone who knowingly made a conscious decision to do the right thing, regardless of his or her own probable doom.

While they are all volunteers, news items (no links available) I have read seem to imply that Armed Forces members are eager to serve in Afghanistan because they can increase their income significantly.

Surely, that makes them fallen mercenaries, rather than fallen heroes?

Still, let's be charitable and assume that they weren't there for the cash, but were instead answering the eternal Call of Duty, where young men and women sacrifice their lives for the Greater Good.

To me, they would still seem victims, not heroes. Perhaps that is what heroes really are, not doers of brave deeds but useful PR instruments for recruiting future potential Heroes.

Anyhoo, here are a few suggestions for the renaming that I feel might be more appropriate:


Promenade of the Pawns

Civvie Street (the hard way)

No Life Like It Lane

Being a classy guy, I hesitate to submit:

Suckers' Street

McGuinty should be ashamed, and for all the right reasons...

From GABLE at the Globe and Mail: "The Changing of the Story"

Hah! Good one. I can't recall a greater example of federal shilly-shallying (but then again I have short-term memory 'issues'). Could the Conservatives (I refuse to refer to them as 'Tories') be handling this issue any more incompetently? It is hard to imagine how they could.

One thing, though, at least they are not stone-walling. They are doing the opposite: making up whatever pops into their silly heads at any given moment.

This is just the sort of entertaining keystone-kops style incompetence that I was anticipating when The Conservatives first formed their government.

It took a while, but now I feel I can finally just sit back and enjoy it.

This break will give Dion some time to work on his english elocution, and J-Lay some more time to hang around Toronto, glad-handing hapless passers-by.

NDP intentions clarified!

Thanks to a responder from my last posting, I was directed to a weblog with some inside info on the negotiations that went on between the Liberals and the NDP prior to the Tuesday vote (a motion to curtail Canada's military participation in Afghanistan by 2009).


According to ceasefireinsider,

The Liberal motion was uncritical of the military mission and supported its continuance unchanged, yet called for the government to notify NATO that our troops would be withdrawn from the combat mission in Kandahar when the current commitment ends in February 2009.

(snip)

In politics, the wording of a motion is important. When I first read the Liberal motion last week, I feared that it was D.O.A., or Dead-on-Arrival. The motion let the Conservative government off the hook by not expressing any concerns at all about the failing mission, did not call on the government to change the focus from war-fighting to peacebuilding, and missed what is becoming an obvious solution to the war: a diplomatic settlement.

We urged the Liberals to make a small amendment to their motion in order to win NDP support, and Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Peggy Mason actually suggested specific changes to the language that would likely have been palatable to both Liberals and the NDP. We sent the suggestions to every Liberal and NDP Member of Parliament. The NDP even proposed an amendment during the debate, but the Liberals rejected it.

Whew!

That is a relief. If this account is factual, though, it only increases my still relatively small fear that Dion is listening to the wrong people.

He must have some sort of workable strategy! I am even possibly prepared to accept some triangulation at this point.

Also, it lets me off the hook for my potential 'J-Lay' confrontation. As a Canadian, of course, I reflexively recoil from anything confrontational.

WTF is up with the NDP?

After lunch, on the way back to my cubicle I was informed by my main news provider, the Elevator News Network (ENN), that the Conservatives had defeated a Liberal motion that Canada withdraw from Afghanistan by 2009.

They accomplished this through the support of the NDP. What is that all about?

If the NDP is up to their old trick (infuriatingly obvious during the Harris years, here in Ontario) of supporting the Tories for short-term political advantage, I am going to have some sharp words to share with 'J-Lay' the next time I happen upon him relentlessly glad-handing hapless passers-by.

If the bill had gone through, it would quite possibly have made our part in the occupation of Afghanistan the big issue in the next election.

And what sort of "progressive" entity wouldn't want that? The mind boggles...

The NDP, apparently.

Insurgents rain on Harper's parade

Afghani insurgents killed six Canadian sepoys on Sunday, stealing the limelight from Steven Harper's Vimy Ridge photo op.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had invoked the Afghan campaign in a speech to veterans Sunday by drawing direct parallels between Kandahar and Flanders Fields, was careful yesterday to avoid any mention of the latest losses in his address to the crowd before the memorial.

My first thought when I heard the news about the deaths was: how could this possibly happen? Who could possibly conceive that Canadians would continue to be killed in this pointless exercise in national chest-thumping?

My second thought was that this news would mean less chance of a spring election since it reminds the Canadian public (a majority of whom oppose extending our involvement in the Afghanistan debacle) of the costs involved.

Then I had a third thought, which directly contradicted my second thought: this latest incident will make a spring election more likely, not less.

Pretty soon, it is going to be the 22^e Regiment (based in Val Cartier, QC) that will be taking over duties in Afghanistan. Harper would be wise to have an election before this happens because once francophones start dying (N.B. none have yet), his popularity in Québec will drop like a stone. Goodbye majority!

In related news, it is good to see that the pro-war Canadians out there have a good grasp of why we are in Afghanistan. Crooked in Canada, for example, seems solidly non-ironic when he or she wrote:

I think its time to do in Afghanistan what should have been done a long time ago, bomb the hell out of it until the Taliban have nowhere left to run or hide. I think people have had enough time to flee the war torn country by now, and I see no reason as to why the war in Afghanistan shouldn't be stepped up a helluva lot more now.

As you can see, Crooked in Canada has really thought things through. The civilian population has had more than enough time to flee the country by now, so the odds are that everyone remaining hates us for our freedoms, and deserves to die.

That being said, I don't mind blowing the f*** out of country to keep the bad guys from getting in and out of the country. Afghanistan needs to be cut off from the rest of the world in order for the war against terrorism, and the Taliban to be won. That's what I think anyway.

Apparently, Crooked in Canada lacks even a basic understanding of what creates insurgents. The use of military force against civilian populations only creates more insurgents. I could look for a link buttressing this last statement but I am too bored.

Luckily, the Canadian public is less obtuse (shoutout to WKRP!) than Crooked in Canada. A CTV poll shows

When asked about the likelihood of Canada being a terror target because of its military presence in Afghanistan, 56 per cent said we are more likely to be attacked.

This represents an increase of 18 per cent compared to one year ago. Thirty-four per cent say the military presence has no bearing; while five per cent say having soldiers in Afghanistan make us less susceptible to an attack.

Yes, if I was Harper I would definitely call an election sooner, rather than later. Before le merde hits le fan in Québec!

Is it just me, or is the Globe & Mail trying a little too hard to push pro-occupation propaganda?



Articles from today's print edition include:

"The Afghan mission is not a failure" by boring, boring windbag Lewis MacKenzie

"The Afghan mission is not a failure" by only slightly less boring windbag Afghan ambassador Omar Samad

Nota Bene: The Toronto Star has a similar setup of pro/con columns in their editorial section, just like the G&M's. The difference with this G&M innovation is that it is a pro/pro discussion. Everyone wins! The G&M op-ed page debate: "Lewis, the Canadians are doing hard work." "Omar, I know it. Let freedom ring!"

"Love the soldiers? Love the soldiering" by cop-meat, hockeyplayer-meat, now soldier-meat lover Christine 'dry doe' Blatchford

"Canada's valuable role in Afghanistan's fight" by a nameless editorial writer, presumably whoring White House stooge Marcus Gee

And these 4 articles were all on the same 2 page spread!

When the G&M amasses this level of mental firepower on one subject in one edition, you know something big is going on. The only power player missing was Margaret Wente! (Maybe she was too busy pulling yet another hapless citizen out of a ditch with her SUV. Zing!)

To quote Diane from Cheers: "Methinks thou doth protest too much".

Well, "methinks they doth protest too much". They know the Canadian public is increasing turning against our involvement in the occupation of Afganistan, so the shadowy forces that inexplicably favour foreign interventions are growing increasingly desperate.

We can expect more displays of this sort.

Assholes of the world, unite!

A turbulent week in Canadian politics was capped off by a speech to parliament by noted racist Australian PM John Howard.

The other highlights?

-A chick got killed while preforming her duty as an FOO (forward observation officer). This is an extremely dangerous job so why the breast beating? Should local insurgents have given her some slack or whatever because she is female?

-Harper demanded a snap vote on extending Canada's involvement in keeping Afghanistan safe for US oil interests, and barely won, 149-145.

-Harper's choice for the new Public Appointments Commission chariman was voted down by the Government Operations Committee. Apparently not understanding that this sort of thing will happen when one is running a minority government, Harper in a fit of pique has decided to disband the Public Appointments Commission. It seems I was wrong. Even if you are a minority government, you can still fuck up Canada plenty!

BTW, let us all pray to Allah, or what ever figurative deity(s) you pretend to worship, that Christine Blatchford catches a stray one in Afghanistan. Also, inshallah, maybe Leah McLaren and Margret Wente might decide to sample the Afghani lifestyle for a week or two.