I love a Friday with someone new to hate

It is people like Michael Gorman that make me question my decision to become a librarian. Trapped in a bygone era and desperately clinging to the idea that they are not becoming obsolete. Surely if information is important, it must take you a long time to find it and will require the help of someone with special letters after their name. Right?

The man actually suggests that it is better to read a book in book form than in digitized format. And belittles bloggers who disagree with him. It is certainly my preference to read words off the printed page, but please do not suggest that the quality of information is somehow better just because trees had to die to get it into your mind.

The fact that he admits that he didn't really know about blogs until 2004 says about all that needs to be said. As an information professional, it really is your responsibility to know about new media. You don't have to like it, but you certainly can't revel in your ignorance and expect the respect of intelligent people.

"It is obvious that the Blog People read what they want to read rather than what is in front of them and judge me to be wrong on the basis of what they think rather than what I actually wrote. Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs. In that case, their rejection of my view is quite understandable."

I ain't never read none of them there complicated texts. Them books sure do gots lots of words. Thank the lord for the Drudge Report or I don't know how I'd get my news. It's hard for me to read the newspaper 'cos all the drool dropping from my mouth smudges the ink.

And clearly he is judging the 'blog people' by what they have written, rather than by what he thinks, which accounts for the fact that he has not just lumped an entire group of people into the category of idiots because he happens to not like the format in which they choose to share information. Because that would be the reaction of a mindless idiot!!

This is the mentality of the president of the American Library Association. He also thinks that Google should put the money they have been using to digitize and make searchable some of the contents of the world's great libraries -- to make them accessible to all of mankind -- into providing libraries for the poor children of California. Well, Mr. Gorman, if you're that concerned about those children rent a van, get some books and drive through the streets of East L.A. Do not presume to tell Google how to spend it's money. And I'm not sure who it is that insisted that the quality of your writing was such that it deserved to be in print. But perhaps you should get a second opinion.

It is fair to say that I hate this man and everything that he and his Castro loving organisation stand for. And somehow I doubt that next time someone asks me for information I will respond "let me just Universal Bibliographic Control that for you."

I am posting this to the internet now, without an editor or a censorship board (sorry Fidel).

via Instapundit

"Change the demography of Darfur and make it void of African tribes"

Nicholas Kristof Times column today discusses the archives being assembled on Darfur by the African Union.


"During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn't fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.

This time, we have no excuse. "

The international community's response? "Well, ya know, uhhhm China, Russia, uh Security Council, state sovereignty. Look, we're looking into it. Be patient and we'll let the International Criminal Court deal with it once they're done with the killing."

Ah, the Manolo, you truly are super fantastic!

I knew there was a reason I loved the Manolo!

Of course, if it was up to us they would never have happened

So, the U.N. has congratulated the Iraqis on holding successful elections. Okay, you know what U.N.? Shut the fuck up! If it had been left to the U.N. these elections would never have happened in the first place and Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I am so sick of all this sudden outpouring of support for Iraqi democracy from people who were perfectly content to leave a dictator in place forever. It's like you get to be this great supporter of democracy who also gets all the wonderful anti-war cred too. Except that the world isn't like that, unpleasant decisions need to be made so that good things can happen. Unless you're willing to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea -- you don't have to say it was perfectly orchestrated -- I don't want to hear a single word from you on these elections. Are we clear?

Let us be clear about this: we will do nothing to stop it

Since the U.N. decided that the attrocities in Darfur are not genocide, I keep reading that they want to put the people responsible for the not-defined-but-definitely-not-very-nice-behaviour on trial. So have we given in now? Is the U.N.'s official line "we will do nothing to stop this, but as soon as it runs it course, we will put those responsible on trial"? Then they will be brought to justice like those responsible for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia I guess.

Now, I love Sam Waterston, so my favourite part of Law and Order is when the Law stuff starts. But the Order bit is pretty important too. As in television, so in life. Unfortunately for the people in the Sudan, the U.N. is not the NYPD, so apparently we are just going to be crossing our fingers and hoping that this stops and that the Sudanese government has a change of heart and is willing to hand over those guilty of attrocities. Which makes absolutely no sense because they and their henchmen are the ones guilty of committing attrocities. Sometimes I really wonder what it must be like to be part of the U.N. Are you aware of the absurdity of your existence or do you just buy into all of it?

But I'm sure the suggested travel ban should really do a lot of good. Personally, I know a lot of people who were deciding between Darfur and Cancun for Spring Break this year.

They shoot horses don't they?

So apparently handsome Prince Charles is making an honest woman out of horsewoman Camilla. Which is a far cry from becoming her tampon, but I guess you settle for what you can get.

Look on the bright side: they're too old to spawn.

Get down on your knees and worship google

No more Mapquest!!!! God bless you Google!

Democracy: Fun for the Whole Family!

Thomas Friedman on the Iraqi Elections:

"....this election has made it crystal clear that the Iraq war is not between fascist insurgents and America, but between the fascist insurgents and the Iraqi people. One hopes the French and Germans, whose newspapers often sound more like Al Jazeera than Al Jazeera, will wake up to this fact and throw their weight onto the right side of history.

It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. "

They have also earned the right to ask those who suggest that people in the Middle East don't really want democracy and that it is somehow against their 'culture' to shut the hell up. To suggest that any group of people don't want to make decisions about their own lives and how their society is run is ridiculous and, frankly, smacks of racism.

Al Zarqawi does not speak for the people of Iraq and never did. Which, given that he is Jordanian, makes sense. Far too many people who would never tolerate the idea that Americans should speak for Canadians or the Germans for the French will tolerate the notion that a Jordanian terrorist somehow represents Iraqis because they are all Arabs. The majority of Iraqis have now made it clear that they do not want Islamofascists speaking for them. They have a voice of their own and it has now been heard for the first time. All democratic nations everywhere must now support the Iraqi people in their transition. For they are one of us now.

I've now picked a side in the NHL dispute... thanks Jacques

Jacques Rogge has come out against the players in the current NHL hockey dispute saying that Olympic athletes don't need big salaries, they do it for the love of the game. Because as we all know, the big payouts are for members of the IOC.

Of course, his point is complete nonsense because the Olympics are an amateur event and the NHL is a professional league. So, shut the fuck up Jacques! Bitter Lemon has now officially sided with the players.

A little bit of systematic killing never hurt anyone...

So, according to the Sudanese foreign minister, U.N. investigations have found no evidence of genocide in Darfur. Now, if forced to be intellectually honest (damnit!), I must acknowledge the possibility that genocide, as it is technically defined is not occurring in Darfur. Attempting to prove the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group is not an easy thing to do. After all, how do you prove intent?

Somehow, however, I doubt that the children who have been slaughtered in Darfur are well educated on the finer points of the definition of genocide. Unfortunately however it is going to make a big difference in their lives. Because it is not considered a genocide, the U.N. is not bound to act. Because it is not bound to act, it won't, except of course in the very typical U.N. fashion" "what's that, your home has been burned down and your daughters raped and killed? Can I offer you some water?"

The U.N. Charter needs to be changed to recognize that even in cases where genocide cannot be proven (often very difficult while the violence is occurring), the international community must be bound to act to protect people from the murderous violence of their governments.

"Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom"

Congratulations to the Iraqi people for successfully holding their first elections today. Initial reports are saying that 60% of the population voted, which is about the same number as voted in the last Canadian election and we did not have to face violence.

People stood in line to vote understanding the risks that were confronting them, so that their voices could finally be heard. As the Iraqi bloggers Omar and Mohammed have pointed out: the people have won.

For all of those claiming that these elections are irrelevant because of all the problems that remain, I want them to go to Iraq and speak to today's voters and tell them that after everything they've gone through, today didn't count.

Michael Ignatieff's piece in today's New York Times Magazine discusses western defeatism in the face of the election.

"Beneath the fire blanket of defeatism, everyone -- for and against the war -- is apparently preparing exit strategies. Those who were against tell us that democracy can't be imposed at gunpoint, when the actual issue is whether it can survive being hijacked at gunpoint. Other experts tell us how ''basically'' violent Iraqi society is or how tribal it is, as a way of explaining why insurgency has taken root and democracy is dying on the vine. A more subtle kind of condescension claims that Iraq has been scarred by Baathism and therefore cannot produce free minds. All this savant expertise ignores the evidence that Iraqis want free institutions and that their leaders have fought to establish them in almost impossible circumstances."

No, this will not make Iraq a perfect society overnight, but now the Iraqis have had a chance to speak and to say who they would like to represent them in building their new society. How can anyone claim that this doesn't matter? Especially those of us in the West who take that right for granted?

We are accomplices

"I remember: it happened yesterday or eternities ago. A young Jewish boy discovered the kingdom of night. I remember his bewilderment. I remember his anguish. It all happened so fast. The ghetto. The deportation. The sealed cattle car. The fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed.

I remember: he asked his father: 'Can this be true? This is the 20th century, not the Middle Ages. Who would allow such crimes to be committed? How could the world remain silent?'

And now the boy is turning to me: 'Tell me,' he asks. 'What have you done with my future? What have you done with your life?'

And I tell him that I have tried. That I have tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.

And then I explain to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent when and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Whenever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that must –at that moment– become the center of the universe . . ."

--Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech (1986)

60 Years

You who live safe
In your warm houses,
You who find, returning in the evening,
Hot food and friendly faces:
Consider if this is a man
Who works in the mud
Who does not know peace
Who fights for a scrap of bread
Who dies because of a yes or know
Consider if this is a woman,
Without hair and without name
With no more strength to remember,
Her eyes empty and her womb cold
Like a frog in winter
Meditate that this came about:
I commend these words to you.
Carve them into your hearts
At home, in the street,
Going to bed, rising;
Repeat them to your children,
Or may your house fall apart
May illness impede you,
May your children turn their faces from you.

-- Primo Levi, Survival In Auschwitz

And what have we learned?

I'm an energy sucking Canadian, you can't shut off my lifeline

So, 13 hours without power yesterday! Contrary to what all of the reports are saying, not everybody had their power back by 8 p.m, because mine came on at 9:15! And as much fun as it was watching all the lights come on in the buildings around us while we sat in the dark, it's one of those life experiences I could probably have done without. I suppose it was payback for us because we only went 7 hours without power during the big blackout.

The blackout in August 2003 wasn't a great hardship for me, I live and work downtown and my neighbourhood Pizza Pizza was open. And, most importantly, it was summer. But yesterday was painful. A Sunday without television and internet access is not a Sunday, it's like asking an evangelical to skip church. I worship the gods of media! I didn't even find out about Johnny Carson until nearly 10pm (which, frankly I blame on my parents.... the phone was working people! We knew the Aussie Open results! Apparently you have to specifically ask, "so, anyone important die?").

But it was greater than the sum of all the inconveniences (there was no heat and no hot water, damnit!). Somehow, the knowledge that there was no power had a psychological effect. I could have just resolved to spend the day reading, at least until it got dark, but I felt completely useless (luckily friends suffering the same afflication came over and entertained us for the day). It was as if I was disconnected from the grid along with all of my appliances.

And people keep pointing out that it makes you realise what you take for granted. But I'm fine with taking electricity for granted, I don't need to be reminded. I live in Canada in 2005, if I can't take a constant supply of electricity for granted, then what is civilisation for?

How does he get away with it?

Paul Martin is now claiming that he is willing to hold an election on the issue of gay marriage. Because he is all about human rights. He is and Stephen Harper isn't. Because as we all know, Paul Martin has been fighting for same sex marriage rights the early days of the battle. That's why he has now twice voted in parliament to define marriage as the "union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".

It is great to be a Liberal in this country. Seriously some days I wonder if it wouldn't be worth it to just give up my principles join the party and run for office. Because you can pretty much say whatever you want and nobody ever calls you on it.

Meanwhile in China this week Conservative Jason Kenney (who I have always thought of as a slimy weasel in the past) visited the home of Zhao Ziyang to pay his respects to the former Chinese politician who died last week. Zhao had been under house arrest since the Tiananmen Square Massacres, when he was the only Chinese leader willing to voice his opposition to the actions of the government. So, given that he is all about human rights, Paul Martin is falling over himself to offer Kenney praise, right? Well, no not exactly. It seems that Paul cares a little more about trade than he does about human rights, when it comes to China. He announced that he is "...quite disappointed that Mr. Kenney was not prepared to respect the family's feelings". Paul is pretending to believe the lie that Zhao's family has asked to be left alone, when actually it is the Chinese government who has been working to make sure that their is no public outpouring of grief for Mr. Zhao. It was the death of a similarly beloved reformer that led to the Tiananmen Square movement in the first place.

Listen Paul, I don't care if you want to be a weaselly sack of shit who cares nothing for people and only for money. That's your business. But then don't go around saying that the principles of human rights mean so much to you that you're willing to hold elections on them. Because (newsflash) things do not become human rights because the Supreme Court of Canada says they are. The very definition of Human Rights is that they are the inalienable rights of all human beings across the world, not just Canadians.

Just like in Chile!

So, apparently some in France think it would be a good idea to make former French presidents senators for life after they leave office. That way Jacques Chirac could avoid prosecution for corruption when his term is up.

Now, I'm not a big fan of French politicians, but doesn't this seem a little low even for them? Didn't Pinochet create the same position for himself before he left office? It would do Jacques well to remind himself what has been happening to good old Augusto lately.

Can someone please explain how I fixed my wireless connection?

Okay, I have been unable to access my wireless connection for over a week now. This evening I tried one more time to fix it. I tried nothing new, but this time it worked.

Perhaps the little man that lives inside my computer was on vacation. If so, welcome back little man.

Yushchenko wins

It is now official, Ukraine's Supreme Court has declared that Viktor Yushchenko won the December 26th election. The inauguration is expected to be this week.

Congrats!

Air Canada employees hold travellers hostage

An illegal strike by Air Canada ground crew disrupted flights and forced some passengers to remain on planes for hours on the runway at Pearson.

I don't give a shit what your problems with your employers are (though from what I've heard so far, I'm siding with management), you do not have the right to hold travellers captive as part of your labour dispute.

According to the union representing the workers, no disciplinary action will be taken as a result of the strike. Typical.

The Europeans get things completely wrong, as usual

So, Harry's decision to dress as a Nazi at a recent fancy dress party for the privileged and inbred has brought up the issue of banning racist symbols in Europe. Now, trust me when I tell you that no one is more disgusted by Harry's behaviour than I. But frankly what do you expect when you let cousins marry? I suspect that, unlike some of his ancestors, Harry is not a Nazi sympathizer (he is however a monarchist and they don't come off looking too good in my world either). The reason that what he did was so obscene is that, because he has been given such a privileged place in society by nature of his birth, he has to be held to significantly higher standards than anyone else (that's right, we own him. If he doesn't like it, he should renounce his position and become a commoner). But what he did was not a crime, nor should it be.

The proper response to this is not to ban the symbol. Silencing free speech is never the correct answer to anything, certainly not fighting fascism. I don't care what your first year semiotics class taught you, the symbols are not the issue. People have the right to believe what they want. Yes, I think that the Nazi swastika is a hate-filled image and that anti-semitism is indefensible. But if you start putting limits on speech then where does it end? And who gets to define what is acceptable speech? And what possible benefit is there to driving this kind of thing underground and further sidelining people who already have extremist opinions? People are allowed to have unpleasant thoughts, what they are not allowed to do is act on them. If Europe thinks that it has a problem with racism (and I have no doubt that it does), it should think about how to confront this problem. But it should not simply ban racist symbols and pretend that the problem doesn't exist.