To all my loyal readers: I will be indisposed for the next week, so my apologies in advance about the lack of new posts. Please check back after the 27th of February for some new wit and wisdom courtesy of moi.

In the meantime, I thought I'd share with you one of Arthur's recent adventure shots. He's just emailed this pic from Anchorage, Alaska, where he and the boys are training for the Iditarod race. (click here to learn more about the most famous dog race in the world). The race starts in two weeks, and the pack is very excited. Here they are, taking a bit of a cat-nap at the end of a hard day of mushing.

Have a good week, everyone!

Thanks for visiting, come again!

I just couldn't help myself. Make sure to turn up the volume on your computer. And above all, enjoy, because shit this stupid doesn't happen every day.

Cartooning for dummies...

So, if you haven't already heard about the Danish cartoon scandal, you either a) live under a rock, b) need to start reading the newspaper, or c) probably live a blissfully ignorant existence. Either way, rather than recount the whole messy incident, let's just say that a Danish paper printed a bunch of rude comics depicting Muslims in pretty nasty ways. Free speech...uproar in the Muslim world...yada yada yada…you know how this story goes.

This is not a funny story. But what is funny, is that today, a leading paper in Iran, the Hamshahri, announced that in retaliation to the dirty Danish doodles, it will be launching its own contest for the best cartoon about the Holocaust. As part of its rationale, the paper asks:

"Does Western free speech allow working on issues like America and Israel's crimes or an incident like the Holocaust or is this freedom of speech only good for insulting the holy values of divine religions?"

So why, you ask, do I find this funny? Well, for many reasons. First, I find it funny that the retaliatory act against a Danish newspaper is to seek cartoons about the Holocaust. How are these two things at all commensurate? After all, it wasn’t a Jewish newspaper that printed cartoons that defamed the Prophet…

The other thing that I find really funny about the contest, is that by construing it as a test of Western free speech, the paper seems to be implying that anti-Semitism and holocaust denial would be outside the norm of its usual messaging. Thing is, it’s no secret that in Iran – and many other countries in the Middle East – anti-Semitism is pretty common, and Jew-hating, Israel-bashing cartoons are a regular part of the public sphere. Let's be honest- they don't need a contest to find the stuff. (Click here for some recent examples.)

Anyways…someone needs to call Art Spiegelman and tell him to forward the fine folks at Hamshahri a copy of Maus. As far as Holocaust cartoons go, I think his is pretty fantastic.

And in other news...

Wanna see some really funny (non-political) cartoons? Go to www.planbfunnies.com

To the person who recently called me a "pinko commie bastard"
(comment, Feb. 01), this one's for you.

This is one of Arthur's travel pic's from back in 2004. He was in Havana for the big meeting between Castro and Chavez.

Thanks for visiting, come again.

Harping on Harper's hypocrisy

I cannot WAIT to talk to my father-in-law the Albertan. (and by talk, I mean gloat.) Day one of Steven Harper's reign, and wouldn't you know it, he's already giving us quite the show. Our prime minister has picked his cabinet, and surprise! He's successfully wooed a prominent Liberal to the dark side, and contradicted two of his own campaign issues.

To begin with, he has selected Liberal MP David Emerson to be the new Conservative minister of international trade. This really isn't that big of a deal, after all, politicians cross the floor all the time. Why, I remember back in May when Belinda crossed the floor- Mr. Harper (and several other members of the Conservative Party) had some very nasty things to say about her defection to the Liberals. But that's cool- Harper sees something he wants in Emerson and apparently that something trumps his status as a Liberal. I can't help but wonder what all the good folks back in his Vancouver- Kingsway riding have to say about their (former) Liberal candidate.

But here's where it gets reaaallly juicy. So, the dude Harper decides to make minister of public works and government services (the cabinet with the biggest budget), is none other than the UNELECTED Michael Fortier. That's right people, despite campaigning against a) an unelected senate and b) the appointment of unelected ministers, Harper has managed to accomplish both with his appointment of Fortier; in order to jettison the unelected Fortier into a cabinet position, Harper first had to make him a senator. Did I mention that the unelected Fortier also happens to be the co-Chair of the 2006 Conservative campaign? So much for getting rid of cronysm in government, eh?

I'm not sure if Harper's really stupid or really callous, but one thing's certain; on day one of his job as prime minister he's shown the country that lack of accountability and broken promises aren't just maladies suffered by the Liberals. Apparently, hypocrisy is something that all Canadian leaders aspire to. For years my father-in-law the Albertan has been hoping for a conservative government that would exhibit the integrity that the Liberals lacked. Sadly, after day one of the new Conservative government, it looks like his long wait is far from over.

Is Bush telling tales?

Yesterday was a momentous day in America. Coretta Scott King - civil rights icon and wife of Martin Luther King Jr.- died at the age of 78. Last night, George W Bush delivered his address on the state of the American union to a joint session of Congress.

I watched the speech in shock and awe (pun totally intended). From my perspective, the picture he painted of America's role in the world is based on a totally mytholigized account of US history and current geopolitics. It was a fairy tale. Apparently, 30 million Americans tuned in to hear the address. Bush began his speech by confidently asserting that "the state of our union is strong." My question is, how many of those Americans believe his assessment?

The first portion of his speech (26 paragraphs) was dedicated to justifying the War on Terror. Employing mythic concepts of freedom, liberty, and evil, (and downplaying actualities such as loss of life and increased military spending) Bush attempted to boost public opinion for what is clearly a losing battle in Iraq. Bush's lionized description of the reconstruction effort was punctuated by applause led by the very same men who's companies have been hired to carry out the construction contracts.

The next 12 paragraphs were focused on the strength of the American economy. Bush communicated the importance of continuing tax cuts, while at the same time expressed the dire need to address the impending social security crisis. Does anyone else think that these are mutually exclusive and self-defeating actions? Why would the government eliminate tax revenues when it's running out of social security dollars?

There was one paragraph about immigration and border protection, outlining the need for a "humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty...", whatever that means. Interestingly, Bush forgot to mention the fact that the US House recently passed a bill that will permit the construction of a fence along it southern border, at an estimated cost of $1 million per mile.

There were 2 token paragraphs dedicated to problems in health care. As a Canadian observer, I understand that access to affordable and adequate health care has become a crisis situation for Americans. Corporations that support the backbone of the American economy (such as GM and Ford) are facing record cutbacks, partly due to the fact that on average, 60% of their budgets are spent on employee health care. How can the state of the union be strong when 1 in 6 Americans have no health insurance?

Amazingly, only 2 paragraphs were dedicated to the nightmare that has befallen the residents of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. However, the disastrous relief effort after hurricane Katrina signaled the critical and fatal failings of the Federal Emergency Response Agency. How many thousands of Gulf Coast residents are still homeless? I can't help but wonder what their perspective is on strength of the state of the union.

One could write an entire thesis about the content of Bush's address. Since I'm currently writing a thesis about something else, I must end my analysis here. However, I can't help thinking of Coretta Scott King. She was a woman who, for many, represented the important quest for social justice. She once said that "the greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members." If we use this wise woman's words as a standard, how well does Bush's tale about the strength of state of the union measure up?