Yeah Harper, tell us another one

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he won't be breaking his promise to Canadians if he calls an election this fall, a year ahead of the fixed date set by his own government. (emphasis mine - full article)

Oh really?? Anybody remember this? After all, it was only 3 months ago:

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody." (full article)

Yet again, the rules only apply when it's convenient for Stephen Harper. The rest of the time, ehhhhhhh, never mind.

"That's what you get" department

I saw an article today titled Internet-savvy voters shake up U.S. presidential election. The gist of it is that Obama is on top of his game and using the internet to his advantage, while McCain and his base are struggling to get with the program.

I thought that was amusing as hell.

For quite some time, Republicans have pandered to 1) big business, and 2) those who are ignorant enough to be more concerned with legislating morality and sanctioning discrimination than with getting serious about solving problems like poverty, homelessness, and lack of universal healthcare. Thus, two of the biggest factions in the Republican base are now rich people and ignorant people. How fitting that they are now struggling to get the latter up to speed, a crisis of their own creation.

For once, the good ol' boys club of rich old white guys find themselves at a disadvantage. Now that's refreshing! Thanks, guys, for a good laugh.

Let the U.S. war deserters stay!

Posted in response to this article:

Yes, these people did voluntarily enlist, but it is incorrect and unfair to just assume they are all cowards who simply don't feel like doing the job they signed up for. Many of them, Glass included, faithfully went to Iraq as they were supposed to do and served honourably for at least one tour of duty... and it was only after seeing the crimes against humanity occurring there that they could not in good conscience continue with this mission.

It is both patriotic and honourable to stand up against one's government when it is committing atrocities. It is a mark of their integrity that they served in the first place, and that they came forward honestly about the problems at hand, despite knowing the severe consequences they knew they could likely face by doing so. Wouldn't it have been much easier to compromise their integrity and weasel out with false claims of being gay or post-traumatic? I see no reason whatsoever to deport such people.

After having lived in the USA for many years, I know many who have been suckered, or nearly so, by recruiters' wild promises about their assignments and placement once they enlist. Those in the know got those promises in writing. The rest were shocked by just how badly they were duped into situations and assignments to which they never would have agreed.

It's also worth noting that unlike George W. Bush, not everyone has a rich powerful father to pull strings and keep them out of harm's way during a war, and then cover their absence with 'lost paperwork.' Mere commoners must face a court-martial. It is the height of hypocrisy to dodge deployment yourself, then be so quick to send others into an illegal war and court-martial them if they fail to comply.