Vick Innocent!! (Of Gambling)

Last month, when Michael Vick was brought up on federal charges related to dogfighting, he declared "I'm innocent". And by innocent, he meant guilty.

In July he stated that he "look[ed] forward to clearing [his] good name". In perhaps one of the least effective attempts at clearing one's name, Vick today plead guilty to financing a dogfighting ring and executing underperforming animals.

Strangely, though he readily admitted to running a criminal enterprise and murdering dogs by hanging or drowning them, he bristled at the suggestion that he might have gambled on the "sport".

"Vick did not gamble by placing side bets on any of the fights. Vick did not receive any of the proceeds of the purses that were won by Bad Newz Kennels"

Of course not. He wouldn't want to sully the good name of illegal dogfighting by doing something as tawdry as gambling. Hey, Vick may be a douchebag, a criminal, and an animal torturer...but he's no Pete Rose!

Of Jellybeans and Statesmanship

So I succumbed and decided to watch the closing comments of the leaders at the Montebello Summit. And, as I knew he would, Stephen Harper didn't fail to disappoint. If anything, he's consistent.

When all three leaders were asked by a reporter at Fox News to address the concerns of SPP critics about a progressive loss of sovereignty, George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon spoke at length in vague generalities and empty platitudes about the benefits of partnerships and strategic alliances. You know, the usual leader-speak.

But our own Dear Leader took the opportunity to deride the Opposition in public, and he did so in both English and in French. Apparently, the CEO of a jellybean manufacturer complained to him that regulations for the production of jellybeans differed in Canada, the USA an Mexico. Asked Harper, "Does the standardization of jellybeans pose a threat to our sovereignty? Maybe Mr. Dion thinks so...".

That the increasingly rotund Harper would choose junk food as the launching point for his partisan attack was mildly amusing. But watching our portly PM conduct himself in this manner, I wondered why he has such a strong affinity for the low road. The airing of domestic political squabbles on an international stage is an embarassing act of petty vindictiveness. Harper should be ashamed of himself. But he won't be.

Another Travesty at Guantanamo

A group of doctors have expressed outrage over the force-feeding of prisoners at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In commentary published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the physicians expressed concern that doctors were violating medical ethics at the behest of the military.

"In medicine, you can't force treatment on a person who doesn't give their voluntary informed consent," said Dr. Sondra Crosby of Boston University, one of the authors. "A military physician needs to be a physician first and a military officer second, in my opinion."

According to CNN, 20 of 23 detainees on a hunger strike were being forcibly fed by nasogastric tubes. The tubes (pictured above) are typically inserted into the nasal cavity and run down the esophagus, terminating just above the stomach. They are used routinely in hospitals to allow liquid feeds to be given to patients who cannot safely feed themselves (due to level of consciousness, mechanical swallowing difficulties etc.). How does the military prevent patients at Guantanamo from simply removing the tubes?

Last year, the military started strapping detainees in restraint chairs during tube feedings to prevent the prisoners from resisting or making themselves vomit.

This may be seen by some as a contentious issue, but in this country (and presumably in the US), the law is quite clear. Any patient who is deemed capable of understanding the consequences of their decision, has the right to refuse medical treatment of any kind - even if that treatment if life saving in nature. Presuming a patient is deemed competent to understand the issue, any physician who administers treatment to a patient against his or her will is guilty of assault, and can be prosecuted in that regard.

The inmates at Guantanamo may be prisoners (or "detainees"), but to their doctors they are patients just like anyone else, and should be accorded the same standard of care. Pressure from the military is no excuse for a breach in medical ethics.

Arresting Developments

OK, here are three of the weirder stories from the weekend.

1. The day after they gathered information about the alleged killing of a Coptic Christian by police, two members of a Toronto-based Christian rights group were arrested in Cairo.
"They are being targeted. They are trying to kill our branch in Egypt," said Nader Fawzy, the founder of the Middle East Christian Association (MECA). (source: The Toronto Star)

Bottom Line: I have no idea if Mr. Fawzy's allegations are true, but am I the only one who finds it weird that his Christian organization is called MECA?

2. A suspected drunk driver pulled over in Walkerton, ON tried to avoid arrest by drinking contact lens cleaning fluid and eating his socks.

As the officer prepared breath test equipment, the suspect grabbed a contact lens case in his car. He then drank the solution, ate one of his lenses and tried to eat parts of his shirt and socks. Police eventually had to try and undress the man to stop him eating all his clothes.

Must be the tainted water...

3. Think eating your socks is weird? Try having sex with a goat!

Charging papers say a witness saw 63-year-old Arthur Lawton having sex with a goat May 8th in a barn at Eatonville's Pioneer Farm Museum where he worked. Lawton said he was trying to milk the goat.

The strangest thing is that Lawton isn't the first person in Pierce County to take a fancy to our four-legged friends. In fact, he's not even the second. (Prior victims were a pit-bull and a horse). Ouch.

Shorter Representative Bob Allen (R)

No, no, no! I'm not GAY, I'm just a RACIST!

No Child Left Behind

If you've ever felt that no child is too young to be a partisan conservative political hack, then author Katharine DeBrecht has a series of books for you!

How about "Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed"











Too scary? Try "Help! Mom! The Ninth Circuit Nabbed The Nativity"











Too religious? Then surely "Help! Mom! Hollywood is In My Hamper" is right for your little boy or girl.












DeBrecht is a mother of three and a member of the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women. In an interview at intellectualconservative.com (yes, the oxymoron is glaring), she declares that "liberals are a rather unhappy lot" who "don't have a sense of humour". Apparently unfazed by the absurdity of that statement, she then goes on outline the raison d'etre of her books:

[Liberals] took prayer out of the schools and replaced it with metal detectors; they have taken self-responsibility out of society and replaced it with an entitlement mentality and lawyers; they have tried to erase the beauty of the traditional family and replace it with high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births; they have attempted to crush the American Dream and replace it with Karl Marx.

No evidence necessary. It is so because...well...she says so. And to wingnuts like DeBrecht, it's about time children were made aware of these "truths".

In true bipartisan fashion, Jeremy Zilber has come up with a counter-offering of his own, entitled "Why Mommy is a Democrat".

In it, Zilber ensures that little kids understand

Democrats make sure everyone is treated fairly,just like Mommy does. Democrats make sure sick people are able to see a doctor,just like mommy does.
Democrats make sure everyone plays by the rules,just like Mommy does. Democrats make sure we all share our toys,just like Mommy does.

I'm not sure what the deal is with these people, but in my humble opinion, feeding young children this type of naked partisan political rhetoric represents a special type of perversion. Still, if your goal is to warp your child's mind at an early age, you could do worse.

Bad Idea

In my estimation, American foreign policy over the years has been little more than a series of remarkably short-sighted marriages (and divorces) of convenience. But, like Liz Taylor, the US never seems to tire of trips to the altar, and never seems to learn the lessons of past relationships gone sour.

The latest courtship comes in the form of a reported deal to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbours (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman) to the tune of 20 billion dollars. These arms would include advanced weapons such as satellite-guided bombs, and upgraded equipment for the Air Force and Navy.

The reason for such generosity is of course that George W Bush is becoming increasingly worried about the dominance of Iran in a destabilized region. That Bush himself is in large part the cause of the region's instability seems of little consequence to the blistering dunderheads who run the show. The solution, they have decided, is to dump more weapons into the other Gulf states. The Israelis, who are naturally alarmed by this prospect, are being assuaged by a 30.5 billion dollar arms package of their own. Keeping up with the Joneses and all.

The dangers of fomenting an arms race in the Middle East should be apparent to even the most inebriated of casual observers. To be sure, the Americans have tread on such dangerous ground before. It didn't work with these guys. Or with this guy. But hey, who's to say it won't work this time? After all, Iran is a menace and a threat to the Gulf, right?

As a columnist from the Malaysia Star observes,

More cruel dictators have happily and profitably supported US interests, with US assistance, than threatened them. Only when they become too independent, like Panama’s Noriega and Iraq’s Saddam, do they have to be “taken out”.
Would any US presidential contender end this policy of nurturing, in former president Harry Truman’s phrase, “our bastards”? That would make a real difference from existing policy, and energise US diplomacy
all-round.

Marriages of convenience may be bad ideas, but they have the advantage of being...um, convenient. At least in the short term. And so it's likely we will have to endure more such trips down the aisle. Weddings always make me cry.

Update: For another interesting look at lessons not learned, check out this post.