You’d better sit down for this.
Call it a Christmas present for gay and lesbian couples. President Bush signed the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA) two days before Christmas. The new law makes it mandatory for businesses to roll over retirement benefits to a same-sex partner in the event of the employee’s death. …
You wonder how somebody decent was substituted for George Dubya at this late date. Maybe it’s a secret part of the Obama transition; they got to insert a human being as a placeholder till Obama could make it official.
Whatever the case, this is no deathbed presidential conversion. Gays and lesbians are rejoicing, but I’m wondering, in the back of my mind, what the catch is, that hasn’t been publicized. I hope I’m wrong.
Still. It’s a step forward. Can’t wait to read about Bush’s base tearing into him with every vicious fang they possess. Should be fun.
Oh. my. GOD!
Campbell’s implies that gay people eat soup!!
Campbell Soup bought two 2-page ads in the December and January issues of The Advocate, the nation’s largest homosexual magazine. The ads promote their Swanson line of broth, and one of the ads highlights the lives of two lesbians, who are portrayed as being married, along with “their” (**) son. Other ads feature chefs from New York City.
Gay people eat soup! How dare they? Why doesn’t someone stop them? How did things get to this point?? Why hasn’t someone stopped them before they went this far?!?!
Won’t anyone think of the children??
(** By the way, a word to the Very Stupid People at the American (Anti-Every-)Family(-But-Theirs) Association: the son is as much “their” child as any adopted child even in your brand of family. Remember that, bigots.)
(Also by the way – I like this article much, much better: Campbell’s Soup Covers Itself With Honour.)
Matt Gurney’s National Post article on December 16, 2008 (Senate seats on sale in aisle five — Canadian or American, take your pic), summed it up pretty well:
In Ottawa, years of Tory disdain for the unelected upper chamber of the Canadian Parliament has been swept away by a sudden frenzy of interest in parachuting in loyal Conservatives while Stephen Harper still holds the reins of power. … Pushed to the edge by the prospect of the Liberal-dominated upper chamber being reinforced by the insertion of up to 18 more by the still-scary Liberal/NDP Coalition, Harper has decided he better fill those seats with Tory bottoms before it’s too late. Continue reading
The Yes on 8 campaign wants to invalidate 18,000 same sex marriages – they’ve filed a brief with the California Supreme Court to that effect today.
With Ken Starr – yes, that Ken Starr – as their lead counsel
What an obsession that man has with the genitals of strangers!
Don’t you wish the right-wingnuts would get counselling for this constant, never-ending, all-encompassing, completely and utterly preoccupying, enthralling, frantic, fervent obsession with everybody else’s genitals??
One of the instigators of the most evil, fascist political movements we’ve seen in North America in decades (and of which we’re now seeing the devastating economic results, worldwide) has died.
Weyrich was one of three founders of the Moral Majority and later had a hand in creating the Christian Coalition.
Nuff said. If Weyrich was right about the existence of an afterlife, I suspect he is now in the middle of a Very Big Surprise.
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46)
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:22,23)
RIH, Paul Weyrich.
Nineteen years ago today, a gunman walked into a class at L’Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, let the men go, and then lined up fourteen women and shot them. According to information he’d left behind, he said he was “fighting feminism.”
If there’s a heaven, these fourteen women are there: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte, and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.
If there’s a hell, he is there. And I hope we women get to watch.
A rather amusing – and very enlightening – exchange today on The Current, CBC Radio One’s national morning news program. There were lots of interviews while everyone was waiting for Stephen Harper to finish his meeting with Michaelle Jean, the Governor General.
We know that language and how it’s used is very important. People are very conscious of that. So we generally prefer not to use words like “negro” or “faggot” except in very particular and approved circumstances. We choose less inflammatory terms where possible, and when we use more inflammatory terms, it’s generally deliberate.
So Anna Maria Tremonti asks Conservative strategist Tim Powers why the Cons have now started using the word “separatists” for the Bloc and their supporters, after having used “sovereigntists” for 20 years or so. “Separatist” being the more inflammatory word, and the change in the choice of language clearly being deliberate.
So what is Tim Powers’ response? He starts. talking. down. to. her. in. short. syllables. like. Anna. Maria. is. five. years. old. And dodges the question of why they deliberately changed language, pretending language doesn’t matter because these guys are separatists, after all, so that’s that. (Though that didn’t seem to bother the Cons when they made their own deals with the Bloc in the past, to govern together if they could bring down the Liberal minority. But I digress.)
And when asked, therefore, why in his TV address last night, Harper used “separatists” when addressing English-speakers but used “sovereigntists” when addressing French-speakers — what was Powers’ response? “Oh, I don’t speak French. so I can’t answer that.”
THIS is a Con strategist. But by golly, don’t ask him to answer any questions about, you know, strategy or stuff.
Or he’ll act like you’re five years old and totally stupid, and he won’t even answer your questions.
You wonder why the Cons have gotten squeamish and so virulent in the last eight years.
Why, in 2000, when they made that little coalition deal with the Bloc, they didn’t just want the two parties — Alliance and Progressive Conservative — to govern the country while the Bloc promised to stay on the sidelines and support them in Confidence votes but otherwise go its own way.
No, my lovelies, no. They didn’t keep the Bloc at a distance, as the progressive Liberal-NDP cooperative government would promise to do this time.
Read their “Consensus Leadership for a New Century” (**) document, and pay particular attention to the following paragraph:
Canadians also made it clear by their votes that they desired ______ Members of Parliament from the Canadian Alliance, The Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party TO GOVERN. This is a majority of the Members of Parliament. In order to govern effectively, we will be required to govern by consensus. (emphasis and caps mine)
Do you get that? Do you GET that??
The present-day Conservative Party of Canada (i.e. the Alliance plus Progressive Conservative parties who would sign this document) would partner with the Bloc Quebecois alone (no other parties in their coalition), and the Cons and the Bloc would GOVERN. Both of them. No arms’ length here. THE BLOC WOULD GOVERN.
Later in the document they leave blanks to specify which percentage of Cabinet seats would come from the Alliance and which percentage from the PCs. They never specify that the Bloc would get none. It could easily be assumed that the Bloc would get whatever percentage was left after the other two. But whatever the case, the document specifies that the Cons and the Bloc would govern together.
“Don’t do as we do — do as we tell you.”
(** If the title of the above document rings any bells, there might be a reason.)
Alliance Leader Stockwell Day, November 2000.
The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper’s government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.
The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government’s line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc.
Bloc officials said that well-known Calgary lawyer Gerry Chipeur sent a written offer before the votes were counted on election day on Nov. 27, 2000.
According to prominent sovereigntist lawyer Eric Bédard, who received the proposal, Mr. Chipeur identified himself as being close to Mr. Day, the leader of the Canadian Alliance at the time. [snip]
…the agreement included room at the bottom for the signatures of Mr. Day, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Mr. Clark, to be signed the day after the election.
At the time, the Alliance was ready to fly Mr. Day from his BC riding to Calgary to pick up Mr. Clark on the way to Ottawa, where the deal was to be presented to the Governor-General in the event of a minority Parliament.
The Alliance government promised in the event of a coalition to “respect the legitimate jurisdictions of Canada’s provinces, including Quebec.”
“We agree that we will support Stockwell Day as Prime Minister of Canada,” said the draft agreement, which would have hinged on Bloc support. [more] (“Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance,” by Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, December 3, 2008)
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, September 9, 2004.
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the
Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons
fail to support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give
you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising
your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
But hey. It’s eeeeeeeevil when someone else does exactly the same thing.
In other words, when the Cons reap the benefit, it’s all hunky dory and legal and legitimate and ethical and moral and shit.
But when the Cons suffer from someone else doing it — it’s OMG WTF TEH EVOL!!!1!
Fascist anti-democratic pig-dogs.
Go there. Sign.
Once the system has your location, it will bring up the name of your own MP, with links to her/him as well as to other groups in your area that you can work with to bring this about.
Let’s turf the anti-democratic neo-Con regime out NOW. Let’s get a government that 62-64% of us actually voted for!
(And since I’m colossally busy and can’t give this nearly the time it deserves, go to Canadian Cynic for regular updates on the latest developments – with entertaining snark as dessert.)