Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC anchorman whose “special comments” blasting the Bush administration have gained him huge popularity, made his most powerful statement to date last night.

You can watch it for yourself, or read the full transcript.

When dissent is branded traitorous and most media are terrified of being called liberal, people like Olbermann stand out.

[tags]olbermann, bush, military commissions act, politics[/tags]

World leaders are aflutter now that North Korea has apparently tested a nuclear device for the first time.

Condemnation of the secretive state appears unanimous. Sanctions have been proposed.

Many people are searching for someone to blame for the failure to stop North Korea’s drive for nuclear weapons. Ever the bumbler, George Bush seems like the perfect patsy.

It’s true there’s much to fault him for, which I won’t go into here (summary: Bush’s ‘diplomacy’ is as effective as his military ‘interventions’), but it’s not all his fault.

He shares the blame with all of the other world leaders who chose, irresponsibly and unforgivably, to keep us living under the threat of imminent destruction instead of working towards eliminating nuclear weapons.

In 1968, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and 59 other countries signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which was designed to halt the production and spread of nuclear weapons. Today, 188 countries have signed the treaty.

Five of those 188 countries – the US, the UK, France, Russia and China – openly possess nuclear weapons. Article VI of the treaty they signed says they must disarm:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

None have.

So the blame for a world brimming with nukes rest squarely on the shoulders of all those who did not give up nuclear weapons – who did not “live up to their international obligations”, to use Bush-speak.

Blame all of them except for Pierre Trudeau. In 1971 he declared that Canada would be free of nuclear weapons; in 1984, the last of the nuclear warheads we possessed as part of our NATO membership were removed.

[tags]north korea, nuclear weapons, wmd, nukes, politics[/tags]

Robert Love, who occasionally comments here, has launched a website along with his friend Hamoon Fruzesh-Far. The website is called The Noble Lie. Check it out!

According to the Globe and Mail today:

The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage.

Although the former Liberal government claimed “existing laws and court rulings already protect the rights of religious groups not to be compelled to perform same-sex marriage”, there is “acknowledged uncertainty about the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour” such as “advertisements that quote scripture demanding that homosexuals be put to death”, according to the Globe.

This law ranks among the most cynical ever proposed in Canada and clearly demonstrates the Conservatives’ determination to subvert the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Its title, “The Defense of Religions Act”, is absurd. Clearly chosen to appeal to religious people on a gut level, it narrowly and incorrectly frames the issue of gay rights as a war against religion.

If anyone needs defending, however, it is homosexuals. I can’t think of many cases where a Christian was attacked by a group of gays and beaten to death. I can’t recall the last time a Gay Pride parade turned nasty and ended with a Christian tied to a truck, getting dragged down a road.

This would seem like an extreme analogy if it wasn’t for the idea that we need to examine whether or not ads quoting doctrines that advocate murder are okay. Short answer: they’re not.

Less severe than calls for their murder, but far more pervasive, is discrimination against gays who are seeking employment or housing. But Harper believes the real concern is the persecution of religious Canadians, a vulnerable minority comprising 84% of the population in 2001.

Harper’s Conservatives are seeking to shore up support among their Christian base, but they are also seeking support from religious groups that are not among the Conservatives’ typical supporters, like Jews and Muslims.

Since the Act will “defend” the beliefs of these religious groups as well, will it be lawful for Jewish or Muslim extremists to take out ads advocating attacks on Christians or on each other?

Will it be lawful for a Muslim clerk at city hall to refuse to issue a marriage license to a Muslim and a non-Muslim who wish to marry, on the grounds that interfaith marriages are against his religion?

Many great evils have been committed in the name of religion. Rather than defend these evils, we should defend against them.

[tags]gay rights, gay marriage, homosexuality, religion[/tags]

The Liberal Party of Canada has granted 30% of its leadership convention delegates to candidate Michael Ignatieff. The delegates are heading to the party’s leadership convention this December.

This is nothing close to a victory, and it probably says little about Iggy as a political leader. What does this number tell us? For starters, it tells us that 30% of Liberals just don’t get it.

Iggy may win a Liberal leadership convention, but he will not win the next federal election. You can swoon all you want about his intellect, his worldliness, his looks, and his shoe size. It does not make a difference. He will not win.

The fact that Iggy has lived most of his life somewhere other than Canada is a big deal. Some Liberal insiders, drunk by the prospect of his candidacy, are willing to tell you otherwise, but they are wrong. It will be a very big deal for many Canadians. What’s worse is that Iggy’s supporters have to try and create an answer to this little problem.

A friend of mine is supporting Iggy. She knows some of the spin-doctors and Liberal champs in Iggy’s backroom. I told her what I thought: “Many Canadians won’t vote for a Prime Minister who has lived most of his life outside of Canada.”

She answered, “Yes, but I also think many Canadians realize that, if you want to be successful, you have to leave Canada at some point in your life.”

Wow. This rebuttal has absolutely no appeal to me. It is as cynical as it is ironic. Could you imagine a candidate for Prime Minster campaigning, even vaguely, on that notion? If that’s what Iggy’s supporters have come up with, then they are in more trouble than I thought.

———
This post was written by alevo.

[tags]politics, Canada, liberals, liberal leadership, ignatieff[/tags]