Book review: Duffy balloon goes up in spring

Nooo... Not that balloon of the infamously venal Senator from Kanata, former BFF of Canuck Prime Minister Steve Harper. That one was launched in July 2013 by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to protest the Puffster's (allegedly) fraudulent expense claims.

Did the porcine solon really defraud the Senate (thus Canadian taxpayers) when he billed them for per diem allowances while he was sunning his ample self on the beaches of Florida or for travel expenses for which he had already been paid by Conservative candidates during the 2011 election? These are just a couple of the allegations made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust which will come to trial in the spring.

Last month "Old Duff" (as he likes to be known) had his first day in court on said charges, and waived the preliminary hearing which normally precedes a trial on indictable offences. That means the cases will go straight to trial, beginning on 7 April 2015. 41 days have been set aside for the hearing, in two parts: April 7th to May 12th, then June 1st through 19th. Apparently unwilling to take his chances with a jury, Mr. Duffy (as Steve now calls him) elected trial by judge alone.

The trial is a potentially huge embarrassment for Prime Minister Harpoon and his alleged government, starting a short six months before a federal election, scheduled under Canada's new American-style fixed-date election law for mid-October. The Puffster threatens to take the stand in his own defence -- "I am not a crook!" -- and promises to name names, possibly even calling Steve as a witness. And Nigel Wright, Harper's former chief of staff and the man who gave Duffy a cheque for >$90,000 to pay back his ill-gotten gains and STFU, will likely be the star witness for... wait for it... the Crown!

All this is explained in a new(ish) book, Duffy: Stardom to Senate to Scandal, by journalist Dan Leger, who from time to time covered the same Parliament Hill beat as the Puffster. Mr. Leger recounts Duffy's unlikely rise to lamestream news media stardom. When he writes that Duffy liked to "suck up and kick down", he is quoting someone else. His account of Old Duff's appointment to the Senate and subsequent suspension is similarly fair and straightforward, including lots of self-serving quotes from Duffy himself, some of which were given in the course of an interview for the purposes of the book.

The only problem with Duffy, in Walt's opinion, is that it was published to soon. In the rush to be first onto the bookshelves, Mr. Leger and his publishers (Nimbus Publishing) have been forced to draw a line under the story, which ends following Duffy's suspension from the Senate (along with "former" Tory Senators Wallin and Brazeau) in October of 2013.

But the best part of the story is yet to come. Will the globular senator be not just suspended but dismissed? Will he be convicted of financial wrongdoing? Will the connection between Duffy and Wright prove to have been known to (and perhaps instigated) by Harper Himself?The denouement of the sordid affair is bound to be even more exciting [Politics exciting? Ed.] than the lead-up to it. Walt encourages Dan Leger to write a second edition as soon as the dust settles.

That is not to say that Canuck political junkies shouldn't buy or borrow Mr. Leger's book. It will be a useful backgrounder for the trial next spring. Ya can't tell the players without a programme, and Duffy: Stardom to Senate to Scandal is a fine summary of what happened in the previous episodes.

5 things you should know about the Umbrella Revolution

It is now the middle of the night in Hong Kong. The protesters are still in the streets of Central, Causeway Bay, Tsim Tsa Tsui and Mongkok. (The streets of Mongkok are always full of people, but even more so tonight.) There have been scuffles with the police, but no more tear gas or pepper spray. Not yet.

Yesterday, Hong Kong's CEO, Leung Chun-ying -- that's him on the poster -- offered the demonstrators a very small olive branch. While saying again that he would never resign, he did say that he would delegate one of his minions, Carrie Lam, to talk with the leaders of the "Umbrella Revolution". After thinking about it overnight [and over noodles? Ed.], the protesters rejected the offer. The standoff continues.

Walt has posted two articles on this extremely important confrontation between the supporters of democracy and the rulers of Communist China. See "Hong Kong's 'Umbrella Revolution' -- paying the price for democracy" and "Why Hong Kong's 'Umbrella Revolution' matters", published here Monday and Thursday.

For those who are in the dark about what's going on and why this is important, Walt recommends "Hong Kong protests: 5 things to know about the 'umbrella revolution'". Aleksandra Sagan, of CBC News, answers these questions:
- Who are the protesters?
- What are their demands?
- What is Beijing's role in Hong Kong's government?
- How has the [Hong Kong] government responded?
- What happens next?

Elsewhere on the Net today, a student leader summed up the whole issue in one pithy statement: "We are afraid that in a few years Hong Kong will become China."

On the other hand, if Beijing can be made to keep its promise of a free, one-person-one-vote election for HKG's next chief executive, that could be the chink in the armour of the Communist regime. Stay tuned.

Note from Ed.: Walt has been waiting since the Umbrella Revolution started to use that "chink in the armour" bit. I couldn't restrain him any longer. Please forgive the pun.

See what happens when you mess with the laws of God and Nature?

First, a refresher on the basics. In the Bible we're told God created two sexes -- men and women. He made them different, and vive la difference! And God told the man and the woman to be fruitful, go forth and multiply. He didn't give them any instructions about how to do that, but Walt is pretty sure in vitro fertilization was not an option. In any case, they figured out for themselves how to procreate, and now there are something like 7 billion of their descendants.

God also created three or four races -- possibly more, depending on how you define "race". He made them in different colours, so you could tell them apart. And he gave them different characteristics too. Although it's not PC to talk about such things nowadays, we all know who are the most clever ones, who are the best athletes and so on. And don't tell me strength and smarts are all nurture, nothing to do with nature! Everyone knows white men can't jump!

The miracles of modern science, and the follies of political correctness, have made it possible, even acceptable or desirable, for people to start interfering with God's plans for humanity -- the natural order of things. Mixing of the races is a fact of life, particularly in societies such as that of Brazil, where the majority of people are what we used to call "Heinz" -- "57 different varieties". Geneticists predict that in a few more generations everyone everywhere will be some shade of café-au-lait.

Homosexual liaisons, condemned in God's Holy Word, are now actually encouraged by the legalization of same-sex "marriage". It may not be God's law, but it's the law of the land. Even in the USA, where legislatures pass defence of marriage laws, those who think they know better refuse to go to court to uphold the quaint notion that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. (Farewell, then, Eric Holder.)

Of course, if two men or two women are legally married, they are legally entitled to adopt or otherwise get a child, since the main purpose of marriage is to produce children. Right? To rule that they're disqualified from parenthood just because they can't get children in the normal way -- "the old in-and-out" -- would be discriminatory. Right? That, too, is the law of the land.

Which brings us to Jennifer Cramblett, a white lesbian from Ohio who gave birth to a mulatto baby after having her ovum fertilized in vitro with sperm from a black man, given to her by a Chicago-area sperm bank. It was all a mistake of course. Ms Cramblett says she and her lesbian partner, Amanda Zinkon, chose "donor No. 380", who is white. Instead, she alleges in a lawsuit against the sperm bank, she was sent sperm for "donor No. 330", who is, errr, black. By the time the two ladies [?? Ed.] realized the error, it was too late.

Some mistakes you just have to live with. This mistake's name is "Payton"; she's a girl.

Or, of course, you could sue. Especially if you're a citizen of the Excited States of America, the most litigious nation on earth. Sure enough, Ms Cramblett is suing the sperm bank for "wrongful birth and breach of warranty". Our resident legal beagle says that "wrongful death" actions are common enough, but "wrongful birth" is a new one on him.

Breach of warranty (contract), however, sounds like a pretty well-founded claim. Writing on MyBrownBaby.com, Denene Millner says "If you spend all that time flipping through binders of dudes, checking out their backgrounds, education, height, cuteness and whatever else women are looking for when they’re trying to decide whose sperm they’re going to squirt into their bodies to make the kid of their dreams, you should get what you paid for. Simple as that."

"What I can’t wrap my mind around, [she continues] is that Cramblett is claiming the mix-up caused 'emotional and economic losses' brought on when she was forced to birth and raise a Black kid in her virtually lily-white town, amongst her racist, intolerant white family, in her all-the-way white home. In the lawsuit, she says she loves her 'obviously mixed-race' daughter, Payton, but she 'lives each day with fears, anxieties, and uncertainty' about both her and her kid’s future....

"Really? Really?! So basically what they’re admitting here, out loud, in public, for the entirety of the world—and, eventually, their baby girl—to see is that they think they should get oodles of cash money dollar bills y’all to deal with the filthy work of raising a Black child.

"Because really, who wants to drive to the Black side of town to get this kid’s nappy hair done? Who’s trying to pack up the entire house and move somewhere around Black people so the baby can feel like she belongs? Who’s gonna even begin to check grandpa at the dinner table when he goes on his anti-Obama rants and gets all red-faced talking about how niggers are ruining the goddamn country? Who signs up for that shit?

"Cramblett didn’t. So pay her."

There's more, of course, and Walt enjoyed reading every word of it. The real lesson here, it seems to me, is that there is a price to be paid for defying the laws of God and Nature. Ms Cramblett's sad story should therefore be a cautionary tale. Before they deviate from the norm, people should think through the consequences. Being human, they probably won't, but the lesson is there to be learned.

Why Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" matters

Walt Whiteman's World is "unavailable" in the People's Republic of China, unless a would-be reader can find a way through or around the Great Firewall of China. Freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom of association, even freedom of thought, are not allowed to the 1.4 billion people under the thumb of the Communist emperor.

I say "emperor" because, 65 years (and a day) ago, the Communists established an autocratic regime as bad or worse than anything China knew in the 1000s of years of imperial rule. The people of China are subject to totalitarian control that demands they bend their individual inclinations and welfare to that of the all-powerful state. And that's why Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" matters, not just to the Hongkongese, not just to the Chinese, but to the whole world.

Back in the bad old days, when Hong Kong was a British colony, its people enjoyed the freedoms we take for granted. And, under the deal made between Britain and the Communists for the handover of HKG to China in 1997, they were to continue to do for another 50 years. Hong Kong's existing social system was supposedly guaranteed, along with the rule of law, until 2047.

Even better, the "one country, two systems" deal provides that the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region" would become a full democracy. Under the British, there was an elected Legislative Council, which was to continue (and has), but the people were not entitled to vote directly for the "Chief Executive Officer" who would replace the British governor.

In the new fundamental law which governs the Hong Kong SAR, the Communists promised to institute a system of "one person one vote". When the present CEO, Leung Chun-ying -- "C.Y. Leung" to the Western press -- was "elected" in 2012 (by a committee of 1200 "representatives of the people"), Beijing said that "next time" (in 2017) there would be a direct election in which everyone could vote.

Too bad that the people of Hong Kong took that to mean that they could nominate and vote for whoever they pleased -- even (gasp) a non-Communist. (Mr. Leung is not officially a Communist, but it is thought that he keeps his party card in his other wallet -- the one he takes on his regular visits to the imperial capital.) As it turned out, what was really meant was that voters could choose among up to three candidates vetted and approved by Beijing.

Not much of a choice, then. Martin Lee, one of the founders of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, told a rally, "What's the difference between a rotten orange, a rotten apple and a rotten banana? We want genuine universal suffrage, not 'democracy with Chinese characteristics'."

That's a part of what the protests are about, but only a part. The greater battle is for the heart of Hong Kong -- its institutions and legal system -- as bequeathed to them by the British, whose ideas about the governed having a voice in how they're governed date back 799 years.

Let us support those who are risking arrest, injury or worse fighting for democracy in Hong Kong. As we do so, let us bring to the front of our minds the freedoms we take for granted, particularly the freedom to vote for (or against) whoever we like.

The next two months will see elections taking place in most American states and Canadian provinces, for offices ranging from senator down to dog-catcher. The people of China would love to have the freedom of the ballot. Some are prepared to die for it. If you have it and don't use it, don't be surprised if one day you lose it.

Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" -- paying the price for democracy

This past June, Joseph Cardinal Zen, the retired Archbishop of Hong Kong, reiterated his support for a democracy initiative in that "Special Administrative Region" of China. See "China -- not a good place to be a democrat or a Catholic". He predicted that the people of Hong Kong would "hit back if they are repressed and forced to be enslaved."

As surely as the red sun rises in the East, the Communist government of China announced in August that it would allow universal suffrage in Hong Kong when the next "Chief Executive Officer" of the SAR is elected in 2017. Just one catch though. All candidates for the office will have to be vetted and approved by the Communist Party of China. As they say in Harbin (where they actually do play hockey), the puck will be nailed to the stick.

The people of Hong Kong are not stupid. Although they never had universal suffrage in the days when HKG was a British colony, its people know how democracy should work, and what the Reds are "giving" them ain't it! So they've taken to the streets in their 1000s, in what started out as a peaceful protest. The "Occupy Central" demonstration turned into a near riot, as police assaulted the protesters with batons, pepper spray and teargas. As the picture shows, the protesters came prepared, raising umbrellas to deflect the noxious chemicals.

Leung Chun-ying, the po-faced incumbent CEO, surveyed the scene [That's a Chinese inside joke. Ed.] and declared the demonstrations illegal. The protesters were rioters, he said, and their demands for civic nomination of candidates for the position "lie outside the boundaries of the Basic Law" (Hong Kong’s mini-constitution).

Flanked by senior police officials as he spoke, Mr. Leung promised that protesters would be dealt with appropriately. The equipment carried by the special riot police on Sunday night suggests the authorities have access to much worse stuff than pepper spray and teargas, should they wish to use it.

Those brave enough to demonstrate for democracy and freedom -- most of them seem to be students -- may well fear for their safety, or even their lives. Remember what happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989! It's one thing to face up to cops on foot, wielding batons, but quite another to stand in front of a tank.

The big question today is how much longer the cat-and-mouse game between riot police and demonstrators can go on. As of the early hours of this morning (HKG time), police were still holding up warning signs, announcing that tear gas canisters would be fired, so giving protesters time to disperse and then regroup. That kind of "playing by the Marquess of Queensbury Rules" shouldn't be expected if Beijing sends in the so-called People's Liberation Army. PLA troops will likely to be brought from northern China, unable to speak Cantonese and less sympathetic than local police.

Mr. Leung is under intense pressure from Beijing to end the demonstrations before October 1st, when the Communist party celebrates the 65th anniversary of its seizure of power in power. Says William Lam (an old China hand) "If he can’t clear the streets and restore order he will be scolded by Beijing."

The last thing China's president, Xi Jinping, wants is to have one of the country’s most important cities in open revolt. The censors of the Great Firewall of China are working flat out to stop the spread of news about what is going on in Hong Kong. Key words have been banished from popular microblogging sites such as Weibo. [WWW is permanently blocked in China. Ed.]

The only thing worse than an openly defiant Hong Kong would be if protesters in other Chinese cities came out in sympathy. Unfortunately for Mr. Leung, he can't even begin to negotiate with the protesters, because he has nothing whatever to bring to the table. His masters in Beijing -- Mr. Leung does not admit publicly to being a Party member -- will not budge on their pronouncement about universal suffrage, which establishes a screening mechanism to ensure that only pro-Communist candidates need apply.

The Umbrella Revolution has already made a mockery of the concept of "one country, two systems", proclaimed when the British handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997. The people of Hong Kong aren't kidding themselves. The reality is one big country, one little "special administrative region" and only one system.

Further reading on WWW: "Church refuses to see tyranny of Chinese communism: Cardinal Zen"

Today the Senate, tomorrow the Élysée Palace!

This is the Le Palais de l'Élysée, the residence of the presidents of France. Quite an impressive pile, isn't it? More so than the White House, although I'll give you the latter's better lawns.

The Élysée palace is currently -- and temporarily -- occupied by one François Hollande, the most unpopular French president of modern times. But all that could change with the next presidential election, due in 1917. Walt is sending a tape measure (so she can measure windows for new drapes) to Marine Le Pen, leader of France's rightist Front National (= National Front) party.

Supporters of the FN were mightily encouraged this weekend, when the party won its first two seats in the French Senate, in what Mme Le Pen described as a "historic victory... beyond what we hoped for."

Half of the Senate's seats are elected by regional officials across the country every three years. Final results today are expected to confirm control of the Senate passing to conservative parties such as the UMP and UDI, and the ultra-conservative Front National. They are expected to share a majority of 10 or 20 seats in the 348-seat chamber.

The win comes on the heels of a strong showing by the FN and other Eurosceptic and right-wing parties in May's elections to the European Parliament.

Stéphane Ravier, one of the two newly-elected FN senators exulted, "There is only one door left for us to push and it is that of the Élysée." Vive le Front!

Further reading on WWW: "The next president of France? Could be!"

"Mary Had a Little Lamb" -- the true story behind the poem

Walt was preoccupied this weekend with the fight for democracy in Hong Kong. Agent 78 is helping with translation but the time difference is making it difficult to get blow-by-blow coverage. Yesterday it was pepper spray and tear gas. Today... rubber bullets? And tomorrow?

I'll get to the heavy stuff in a little while, but for the moment -- a warm-up exercise if you will -- the true story behind the creation of "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Walt names names and gives you the straight poop.

It seems there was a Mary, a girl by the name of Mary Sawyer, who lived in Stirling MA, not far from Boylston, Berlin and Bolton. Her father had a flock of sheep, one of whom Mary adopted because it was kind of sickly. She called it "Snow". Not very original and not very accurate either. Those who have seen them up close know that sheep are not even close to snow white.

One day in 1814, Mary's brother -- his name was Nathaniel -- left the gate open. Sure enough, the lamb followed Mary to school, where the kids were allowed to play with it before the teacher locked it in a shed.

One of Mary's classmates was a young lad (aged 13) named John Raulstone, a wannabe poet. He turned the incident into the now well-known and much parodied poem. Fast forward to 1830, when the children's teacher, Polly Kimball, sent the poem to Today's Magazine for Ladies. The poem was an instant hit, destined for immortality.

As for Snow, Mary's mother made a couple of pairs of stockings out of its wool. Then the family ate it.

Adapted from My Cross-Country Checkup, by Walter Stewart (Stoddart 2000) -- an account of the Stewarts' motor trip across Canada from sea to sea to sea, a little dated now but still a good read.