Pride was terrific as well, as usual, but there were two things I noticed that deserve special attention: (1) the commercialism and (2) the politics. Commercialism, of course, is going to be rampant at Pride celebrations most anywhere, and it’s easy to understand where much corporate presence comes from. Corporations know, for the most part, which side their bread is buttered on, and know that there’s lots of money to be made by self-promotion and advertising in the gay community. To that end, you get lots of things like banks handing out promotional literature and coffee companies offering samples of new concoctions. (This also reinforces my suspicion that the only thing you need to do—indeed, the only thing usually done—to advertise to the gay community is to put the word “gay” in front of anything, as in “gay credit card” or “gay holiday to Europe”. Also, sometimes there’s a shirtless man in the advertising.)

As for the fact that this was one of the most political Pride celebrations I’ve seen in a long time, I’m referring specifically to domestic politics. What with a possibly looming federal election come this fall, all three left-wing parties are trying to brand themselves as the “gay party”, with varying degrees of success. This is especially evident in Vancouver, where there was a recent by-election which the Liberals won by an extremely slim majority. The Greens and NDP are threatening to make a strong stand again in the riding of Vancouver Quadra, as well as in Vancouver Centre, and to this end all the potential candidates showed up to Pride to promote their political parties. It’s also interesting to note that in the United States, you often see the Republican Party or Log Cabin Republicans at Pride celebrations—another example of knowing which side your bread is buttered on—but the Conservatives were nowhere to be seen in Vancouver, at least this time. A similar effect was evident with the two organizations running candidates for mayor of Vancouver, Vision Vancouver and the Non-Partisan Association. At any rate, it was interesting to see this phenomenon at work, and it’ll be interesting to see which of these parties emerges as the “gay party”, if any, or at least the best on gay issues.

(Two brief side notes. First, if the Single Transferable Vote system were implemented—as there was certainly very strong support for doing in evidence at Pride—the fact that there are three major left-wing parties in Canada (four, if you count the Bloc Québécois) might not have such a negative impact on actual left-wing representation at the provincial—and hopefully, one day, the federal—level. Second, I was chatting briefly with Hedy Fry, the Liberal MP for Vancouver Centre, when one of the 9/11 Truthers, who had a strong presence as well at Pride, loudly interrupted and started making a scene at her. I felt kind of bad for her, but she is the MP…)

At any rate, you can check out all my photos from Vancouver Pride at the Xyre Gallery. Enjoy!

Also, I now have a new computer after Apple very graciously decided simply to replace my old, broken MacBook after having replaced both the hard drive and the logic board several times each. So I apologize for my absence for the last few days—but I’m connected once again, and back to writing all those essays I had promised to post. Whee!

(X-posted to Feministe.)

(N.B. I am back from the road trip, the last several days of which were spent without Internet. I’m going through all the photos and will post them, as well as individual entries for each day of the trip, as soon as I’m able. Hopefully later today.)

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube — even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.

Good on Google for not letting themselves get bullied by Joe Lieberman, and for striking a blow for free speech and open debate. How did Lieberman turn into a despicable douchebag?

Hat-tip: Think Progress

So. When will Bush and McCain denounce Israel, just like Bush denounced Barack Obama—on the floor of the Knesset, no less—as an “appeaser” for declaring his intention to talk to America’s enemies? Israel is actually doing it. Where’s the condemnation?

Oh, right. Talking to and “appeasing” terrorists is okay when the American government or its allies does it, but when their political opponents even suggest it, they’re morally equivalent to Hitler.

That these outrageous comments and beliefs are still confined to a small corner of the online world and haven’t been getting the kind of press that Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright has been enjoying, I can only attribute to (a) the so-called liberal media’s ongoing love affair with McCain and (b) the incredible wealth and power of Hagee’s ministry and media empire.

Money quote: “How did [the Holocaust] happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, ‘My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.’ Today Israel is back in the land … They are physically alive but they’re not spiritually alive.”

Full transcript and video (YouTube video of audio recording of sermon) after the jump.

Again he said unto me, “Prophesy unto these bones, and say unto them: O you dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!” And he spoke to them and they stood and they became an exceeding great army—meaning they physically came to life.

Now how is God going to bring them back to the land? The answer is fishers and hunters.

The answer is given in Jeremiah 16, verse 15 and following. God says in Jeremiah 16: “Behold I will bring them (the Jewish people) again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers”—that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—”Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them”—that will be the Jews—”from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.”

If that doesn’t describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust… you can’t see that.

So think about this—I will send fishers and I will send hunters. A fisher is someone who entices you with a bait. How many of you know who Theodore Herzl was? How many of you don’t have a clue who he was? Woo! Sweet God!

Theodore Herzl is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew that at the turn of the 19th century said, “This land is our land, God wants us to live there.” So he went to the Jews of Europe and said, “I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.” So few went, Herzl went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the Holocaust.

Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter.

And the Bible says—Jeremiah righty?—”They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks.” Meaning: there’s no place to hide.

And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended: I didn’t write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, “My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Today Israel is back in the land and they are at Ezekiel 37 and 8. They are physically alive but they’re not spiritually alive.

Now how is God going to cause the Jewish people to come spiritually alive and say, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He is God”?

Via Bruce Wilson at The Revealer

Via TPM/Veracifier and Think Progress.

David Froomkin’s special column in the Washington Post is a must-read, full of excellent invective, highlighting the hypocrisy of this generous and selfless act on the part of a president who still bikes, works out, goes on vacation more than any president in history, and has no trouble sleeping nights. And also, Keith Olbermann’s latest Special Comment is absolutely right on the mark. His analysis is thoughtful, provocative, and a must-watch. He doens’t even stoop to the low level—as well he could have done—of playing that idiotic clip of Bush saying “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.”

Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you, six-and-a-half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people but the war in Iraq is Not. About. You.

Crooks and Liars has a full transcript plus downloadable video, or just watch the YouTube version:

Part 1:

Part 2:

This level of disappointment is perfectly ridiculous. Both Clinton and Obama are strong on choice, strong on women’s issues, and strong Democrats. Yet the race for the Democratic nomination has gone on way too long and is, thank goodness, almost over. The Democratic Party should start to corral its support and start the battle against McCain. Clinton said today that it would be a “terrible mistake” if voters chose McCain over Obama, a muted recognition of the fact that earlier comments she made implying McCain’s preferability over Obama may not have been in the general interests of the party. And that’s what it’s really about at this point: the interests of a party that should be focussed on beating the other party. The Republican Party has been there for a while already; the Democratic Party is lagging far behind.

The astute reader will note that I have not said Clinton should drop out. On the contrary, there are several compelling reasons for Clinton to stay in the race, at least until the primary elections are over, the most convincing of which is that it would look extremely bad for Clinton to drop out and then win several of the remaining primaries, especially Kentucky, which she has been predicted to win for a long time now. However, the Democrats as a group need to focus on what is going to bring victory to the party in November, and right now that means starting to coalesce behind one presidential candidate. NARAL’s endorsement is right in line with this, as is John Edwards’s recent endorsement of Obama. And if you’re a Clinton supporter who is too affected by the sour grapes of not being in a winning position, let alone not winning NARAL’s endorsement, chill out. It’s not personal.

Real posting resuming soon! Thanks for the holiday, internet.

“Yesterday has been a very good day for Liberals,” Mr. Dion announced at a Toronto news conference.

Okay, sure, that’s where the spin is going, I see that. But it gets crazier:

Mr. Dion seemed particularly pleased about the win in Vancouver Quadra, B.C., where former provincial environment minister and onetime tree planter Joyce Murray took the vote, despite heavy losses to the Green Party.

Conceding that “the main point in Quadra has been the Green vote,” he dismissed suggestions the increase in Green support was a concern for the Liberals, who have sought to distinguish their environmental policies as more far-sighted than the Conservatives’.

Just have another look at those numbers from yesterday’s elections returns. The Liberals scored 36% of the vote, down from 49% when they last took the riding in 2006. Meanwhile the NDP and Greens took 13–14% of the vote each. The whole platform of the Greens has been that neither the Liberals’ nor the Conservatives’ positions on climate change and the environment were far-sighted or aggressive enough enough. Joyce Murray’s laughable assertion that ‘The public has spoken and it’s about the environment’, as we discussed on Monday, is flatly contradicted by the polling numbers. When 13% of the voters choose the Green Party over yours, you can bet your boots it’s about the environment. Just not in the way you think.

The Liberals saw their share of the vote in Vancouver Quadra fall to 36% from 49% in the 2006 election, despite devoting weeks in the House of Commons to questions on the Cadman affair, which the party hoped would resonate in the riding.

Oh, so that explains why the Liberal leadership have been wasting time during each and every Question Period to asking the same questions and getting the same non-answers from Harper and Moore and other Conservatives about the Cadman affair. I’d wondered about that: why were they letting the Bloc Québécois and the NDP ask real question about real matters, such as NAFTA-gate or, y’know, the environment. These then end up looking like pet political issues because the official ‘opposition’—if the Liberals truly deserve that moniker—won’t take them up. Instead, they devote their time to making the Conservatives repeat the same half-truths about ‘financial considerations’ because they think this will resound in Vancouver Quadra.

Well, the Cadman affair didn’t resound in Vancouver on Monday. The environment did.

[The scene: a father reading a newspaper, talking to his son of about ten years.]
Billy: Dad, why is Stephen Harper suing Stéphane Dion?
Dad: Well, Billy, the Prime Minister had no choice but to sue Stéphane Dion. Mr. Dion said some pretty nasty things about him.
Billy: But he’s the Leader of the Opposition. Isn’t it his job to do that?
Dad: To a point. But if you damage someone’s reputation, well, then that’s libel.
Billy: But what about Dion’s reputation? Harper ran all those ads saying he’s not a leader. He looked like a total tool.
Dad: Yes, yes he did. But that’s not libel.
Billy: Why not?
Dad: Well, if it were, Mr. Dion would sue Mr. Harper.
Billy: Oh.
Dad: You see, Billy, suing people makes Stephen Harper feel good inside. Like when you score a goal in hockey.
Billy: Is that why he’s also suing Ralph Goodale, and Michael Igna…
Dad: Ignatieff. I believe it’s Russian. Always sue everyone, Billy, remember that.
Billy: Thanks, Dad.
Dad: Take no prisoners, Billy. [The two of them high-five.]
[Shot of Parliament at night, with inset of Harper.]
Voice over: Stephen Harper is bringing change to Ottawa. Strengthening democracy. Through lawsuits.
[Back to scene of home.]
Billy: [whining] Dad, Stephen Harper’s suing me now!
Dad: Well, it’s your own fault, Billy. You asked too many darn questions. Should have kept your mouth shut.
Billy: [Grunts, falls backward onto couch.]
[Conservative Party logo.]
Voice over: The Conservative Party of Canada. Consider yourself warned.

You can watch the original video here (season 5, episode 18, second item: ‘Mercer: Consider yourself warned’).

Turnout was abysmal: 28,165 of 83,121—a mere 33.9%—of registered electors voted. Still, this is a higher turnout than any of the three other elections held today, none of which even hit 28%.

Joyce Murray takes the seat for the Liberals, but by a margin of only 151 votes. This is a stunning result because the seat was considered so safe for the Liberals, even with many voters expected to vote for the NDP and the Greens, thus causing a spoiler effect. Furthermore, the counting showed a clear and consistent lead for Joyce Murray right up until the end. As this CBC article makes clear, the election was called before the results got really close, and the celebration was a hair’s breadth from being premature.

Murray said Monday night’s victory in Vancouver, and Liberal wins in byelections in Toronto, will make the Liberal Party more effective in holding Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper accountable in the next weeks and months.

“The public has spoken and it’s about the environment,” she said, promising to be a tireless advocate for the reduction of greenhouse gases and to push for social housing for those in need.

Yeah, not quite—if the Liberals had owned the environment issue, 28% of voters wouldn’t have voted for the NDP or the Greens. As I pointed out in my previous post, this should send a stunning message to Stéphane Dion and the Liberal leadership. The fact that over 28% of voters who might have voted for the Liberals did not do so stands for a stunning repudiation of the Liberal Party. There are a zillion issues on which he and his party appear not to have connected with voters, especially here in liberal (small l) Vancouver, B.C. The environment. Government transparency. Western alienation. The opposition’s failure to be effective against the ruling Conservatives in Parliament. These combine to give enormous appeal to parties like the NDP, and especially the Green Party, which finished only 0.2% behind the NDP in Toronto Centre.

Here’s another good quote from Joyce Murray:

“Tonight we are sending a very clear message to Stephen Harper: The Liberals are strong.”

The Liberals’ failure to own any of these issues—especially the environment, which Murray cited as the reason she won so, er, resoundingly and convincingly—is spoken to by the huge percentages of the vote being split by the NDP and the Green Party. If the Liberals are smart, they’ll take these issues far more seriously in the future, especially before they plunge the country into another federal election. Losing a seat in Saskatchewan to the Conservatives is a blow—not a huge one, but a noticeable one nonetheless. Coming within 151 votes of losing in Vancouver Quadra, a heretofore reliable Liberal riding in the wealthy heart of the Vancouver west side, is a victory, but only in a narrow technical sense. Today, the Liberals did not demonstrate that they ‘are strong’, in Joyce Murray’s words. This victory is one that must make the party leadership sit up, take notice, and take a good hard look inside themselves.

Basically, these election results allow all sides to claim (read: spin) victory. The Liberals can claim that three out of four is a good hold, they held on to traditionally Liberal territory, this election sends a clear message to Harper’s government that people are fed up with its lack of transparency and distance from the common people, and is a good recovery from the Liberals’ failure during the by-elections in Québec last year. The Conservatives can claim that the Saskatchewan pickup is a vindication of their policies and their government, the Liberals should have run the table because the candidate there was hand-picked by Stéphane Dion, and if the people were really so fed up with the Conservatives, the Liberals should have picked up the seat. The NDP and Greens can claim, especially with the very high numbers they received in Vancouver Quadra and Toronto Centre, that both major parties are flawed and incompetent. For my part, I think Stéphane Dion really needs to take a long, hard look at himself and his leadership of the party.

More on this later. Analysis and actual numbers when Elections Canada finishes counting the votes, and I (and the rest of the country) have had a chance to sleep on it all.

Anyway, I’ll have some updates later in the day about the results of the by-elections. Look for the Liberals to make a few pickups, especially in urban areas like Vancouver and Toronto, due to dissatisfaction with the current government. Meanwhile, a few interesting links:

• How do you prove you’re gay when applying for refugee status?
• Religious groups are trying to shut down a Russian television channel because they show programming that is ‘anti-religious, violent as well as promoting homosexuality’, such as South Park.
• The hilarious malapropisms of Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley, such as ‘I deny the allegations and the allegators.’

Well, what a great week in Ottawa, hey, if by ‘great’ I mean ‘filled with scandal’. There was a new one every day, most of them involving the Prime Minister. Jack Layton was on Lou Dobbs, for god’s sakes; you don’t see that every day. But if I had to pick my favourite scandal it would have to be the Cadman affair. Did the Conservative Party offer Chuck Cadman, a Member of Parliament who was dying, a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote? Because that’s what his widow says. But you don’t have to take her word for it. Stephen Harper is on a tape saying yes, ‘financial considerations’ were offered to a dying man. Well, if you buy the adage that where there’s smoke there’s fire, there’s so much smoke coming out of this sucker you can see it on Google Maps.

And so what’s the Prime Minister say now? Forget my voice on the tape, the only thing we offered Chuck Cadman was a chance to join the Conservative Party. Stephen, no offence, that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life. Can you imagine, if you were on your deathbed, a couple of Tories came over to your house to try to buy you off and they offered you a membership in the Conservative Party? Because apparently a lot of people on their deathbed think, ‘Hmm, I wish I’d spent more time with the Tories.’

And so what’s Harper’s reaction once the opposition started asking questions? He’s suing. He’s suing the leader of the opposition. Never before in the history of Canadian democracy has a prime minister sued the leader of the opposition, but that’s what Harper’s doing. Suddenly, he’s like that guy on TV from upstate New York who’ll sue anyone anytime for anything. This coffee’s too hot? He will sue. Ask him a question outside of Question Period? He will sue. A lawsuit, by the way, that’s going to cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. Our money being spent to ensure the Prime Minister won’t answer any questions that should be answered. Yes, it’s been a crazy week. And it could also be a tipping point, because Stephen Harper has always had one ace in the hole: his reputation as a straight shooter. Well, you can wave that goodbye, because when it comes to preserving reputations, Conrad Black had a better week.

Don’t get me wrong. Jews—and yes, I am one of them—worry for a living. Their history compels them to and to be always vigilant. Yet in America, where they have achieved a level of security, acceptance and power unparalleled in their history, their existential worries paradoxically seem to have grown even greater. When Jimmy Carter writes a book—a bad book, incidentally—comparing Zionism to apartheid, many American Jews go crazy. When two university professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, write another bad book—about what they call “the Israel lobby”—many Jews react as if the sky is falling.

Essentially, what’s going on is a severe overreaction to any perceived threats against Israel. Israel is equated with the Jewish people both there and in the Diaspora. Never mind that the ultra-Orthodox elements in Israel, which have de facto control over the country’s civil life, hate—to the point of considering Not Jewish—liberal Jews, or even Orthodox Jews who don’t wear the right hat. (In case you missed it, Gershom Gorenberg had an excellent piece in last Sunday’s NY Times Magazine demonstrating the extent of this ultra-Orthodox control and craziness when it comes to ‘proving’ your Jewishness for the purpose of marriage in or immigration to Israel.) Back to Miller:

This “us versus them” mentality still runs deep, and it is particularly harmful when it comes to the Arab-Israeli issue. That conflict is not some kind of morality play in which the forces of evil do battle against the forces of light. It is a conflict in which both sides have legitimate needs and requirements and do both good and bad things in pursuit of them.

This point, unfortunately, is correct in its essence. However, as we’ve learned time and time again, nuance simply doesn’t sell. And if your message is at all nuanced—not 100% rah-rah Israel, all Arabs are terrorists, etc.—then you are, by definition, an enemy not only of Israel but of the Jewish people. How pathetic is the discourse, how sad is the conversation? There is neither discourse nor conversation, because the attitude is ‘us versus them’—nuance equals betrayal.