Daniel Alexandre Portoraro2013-06-19T08:26:53-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=daniel-alexandre-portoraroCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Daniel Alexandre PortoraroGood old fashioned elbow grease.For My Money, We'll Never See That Rob Ford Videotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33330962013-05-24T15:24:33-04:002013-05-24T15:26:21-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
Well, they're not likely to get it.
Last night, Gawker reported that they have been unable to get in contact with their Somali Deep Throat -- the owner of now-infamous video supposedly depicting Rob Ford smoking crack-cocaine. Their "confidence" in acquiring the video has "diminished."
If you were buying drugs, would you publicize it? Of course not.
If you were a 14-year-old trying to impress his friends with how "hard" he is, however, you might post a Facebook status about it.
And that's exactly what Gawker has done.
By launching the Crackstarter campaign, Gawker has almost guaranteed that the video -- this nugget of truth -- will never come out.
Like the 14-year-old who has never bought weed before, Gawker seems to have forgotten that drug dealers are not exactly the sort of people who enjoy publicity. And yet, Gawker has given this one thug just that.
And it's set him off running.
But the owner of the video is not the only one in this race. I bet Rob Ford is chugging along too, faster than he has on any football pitch. Now, this is simply speculation, but I can imagine one of two conversations happening between the mayor and this Somali Peter Parker:
"Here's $300,000. Now, fork over the video."
Or:
"Here's a baseball bat -- I call her Sally. Now, fork over the video."
By announcing to the public that this video exists, Gawker has given Rob Ford a head start in squashing any possibility of its acquisition -- should it be real. Had Gawker been a media group actually concerned with the truth, they would have waited until they got their hands on the video, and then started talking about.
But Gawker, like a 14-year-old boy, simply cannot hold it in. They could not wait for the attention, and the publicity, and the page views that this premature story would produce.
I don't buy for a second that they couldn't cough up $200,000 of their own money to buy the video, and that's why they had to go live with the story. And I should think, if push came to shove, they could have formed a syndicate with similarly sleazy sites.
You can't possibly be surprised that this gang member is proving hard to reach. Drug dealers don't like everyday deals being publicized. Imagine how they feel when all the media is talking about the selling of a video of Canada's most powerful mayor doing crack-cocaine they sold him.
If Gawker were after the truth, if they cared whatsoever about Mayor Rob Ford, and the city of Toronto, they would have kept their mouths shut until they got the video. But they don't care about the truth. They care about page views. For them, this is but a gag at the city's expense (literally and figuratively) from which they rake in advertising revenue.
Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe offering Canadian flags "defiled by Gawker owner Nick Denton's signature" for donating $150 to Crackstarter is actually a sign of how seriously they're taking our politics.
But regardless of any of this, rest assured that because of the circus that's been launched, because of all the vitriol that's gone into the idea of exposing Rob Ford for the crack-smoking mayor that he may be, the video may never surface.
Gawker may have unearthed this nugget of truth, but they've just as quickly buried it back into the ground.
Well done.
]]>You Have to Be on Crack to Donate to the Rob Ford Video Fundtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33032922013-05-19T19:33:23-04:002013-05-19T23:58:14-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
I am referring to what everyone has been talking about over the long weekend: Much despised Toronto Mayor Rob Ford allegedly smoking crack cocaine on tape.
Gawker reported to have met the man in possession of the tape. And the man -- a regular Peter Parker -- offered to sell it to them. But no, not for any reasonable amount, but rather, for a staggering six-figure sum. Gawker does not have the funds to pay the man so that the people may have the "truth come out." So instead, they have gone directly to the people and asked them to front the cash via an Indigogo campaign wittily called "Crackstarter." You know, just so you don't forget that this is hard-hitting journalism.
All this -- your giving money -- makes sense, right? I mean, after all, the truth shouldn't be free, or at least go for less than the price of an Aston Martin, correct?
But the fact of the matter is that no one cares about the truth right now. Rob Ford's detractors will continue to despise the man whether or not he has smoked crack. In fact, with the way people are talking, one would think that the mayor smoking rock is a foregone conclusion. People "know" he smokes crack; they now just want the gong show so they can pat themselves on the back.
The Gawker media group does not care about the truth in this situation either; they simply care about their page views. This goes without saying for most media outlets, fine, but when a collection of websites exists on headlines as sensationalist as those of a left-wing New York Post (you don't need me to list examples, you just need to type in their URL) it becomes more clear where their true objectives lie.
Nor does the man in possession of the video care about the truth. He just cares about his (your) $200,000. Nor does he care about the city either, why else would he be part of a criminal gang that strives every day to rip it apart?
This is how the entire situation boils down: You are giving your money to a website so they can give your money to a member of a gang which wreaks violence on your city so that they, the website, can make money for themselves. Does this make any sense to you whatsoever?
By contributing to "Crackstarter" you're contributing to violence. You're contributing to the murder of Toronto's citizens, and the bolstering of a drug gang's operations. I know the media cycle is quick nowadays, but have we already forgotten incidents such as the Eaton Centre shooting?
If you don't like Rob Ford, fine, don't vote for him. Smear him all you want. Insult him at every party. Call him a fascist Michelin Man. Frankly, I don't give a damn.
But for the love of God, please don't give money to drug dealers. Don't give $200,000 to a New York-based website so they can give your money to people who make your city, Toronto, a worse place to live in. If you sincerely care about Toronto, and believe that Mayor Rob Ford doesn't, then don't be a worse (or at least, just as bad) man than he and happily hand cash to criminals to get your "fix."
However, if you do wish to give money to individuals who murder Torontonians, by all means, go ahead. But then have the decency to buy drugs, as opposed to video tapes which make you think you're doing something noble.
]]>Trudeau Turns Cargo Shorts Into Political Leveragetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32304882013-05-07T12:39:38-04:002013-05-07T14:26:02-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
And a beautifully put-together one at that. Of course, I am speaking of the ad everyone is talking about in Canada: Justin Trudeau's quickly thrown-together web clip in which he thanks donors who have gathered a million dollars for the Liberal Party.
In the video, the Liberal leader looks like a college sophomore playing hacky-sack in the quad. He's wearing an evergreen v-neck t-shirt and a despicable pair of tan cargo shorts. If the camera had panned to his feet, we would no doubt have been privy to a pair of those sartorial disasters known as flip-flops. And that's exactly the point.
What Trudeau says in the video is of little import -- as so often is with the aspiring prime minister -- but it's how he presents everything that makes this ad -- initially (and easily) thought to be a joke -- so downright clever.
In late April, following Trudeau's coronation, the Conservatives immediately launched an attack ad mocking the candidate for his "strip-tease" for a charity benefit. They placed too little focus on what he said (or what he fails to say; that is, anything in the House of Commons; a locale as foreign to him as the top of the Kilimanjaro) and instead, on how he presented himself: taking his shirt off.
Needless to say, the ad was a poor one -- a sputtering stink-bomb which reeked of desperation and worry -- that had all the production values of a The Year That Was video montage shown at a high school prom. In fact, following the metaphor of high school, Trudeau's mother even went as so far as calling out the Conservatives for "bullying" her son, and then proceeded to make a fat joke about Harper. But Ms. Trudeau's ridiculous comments raised awareness of the Conservatives' B-level gaffe nonetheless.
So why then would Trudeau do the Conservatives one better? Why would he eschew shirt and jacket in favor of Muskokan outerwear? He's dangling fish bait on the line, hoping Harper and company will bite. Trudeau wants another superficial attack ad. He wants to be told he doesn't look like a prime minister. Already, the governing party drew heavy criticism for attacking the MP from Papineau on such ridiculous grounds; and Trudeau wants them to do it again, and with the only material that he gives them: his appearance.
Furthermore, put the ad in the context of recent politics. In it, Trudeau speaks of receiving over a million dollars in donations. That number is in stark contrast to the $4.5 million that the Conservatives raked in over the first three months of 2013. This amount smells of oil and corporate donors. Polar opposites: Everyday Canadians giving what little they can; big bad business bosses unloading trash trucks of cash.
But there's also another number in the minds of Canadians: the $3.1 billion unaccounted for by the government according to the Auditor General. The Conservatives have "lost" a boatload of money; Trudeau has gained a comparatively insignificant amount. But it comes from everyday Canadians, thus adorning his otherwise-unnecessary announcement with that "grassroots" appeal.
And here's another testament to the brilliance of the ad. It is shot in front of a home. Kelly McParland makes the joke that you can almost hear a child's voice cry out "Daddy, I have to GO!" as the video exudes domesticity.
This is Justin Trudeau, a man at home, kicking about in his cargo shorts who thought, on the spot, "You know, let's thank those good Canadians for giving me money." Again, this presents a strong contrast to the clearly planned timing of the Conservatives when they launched their ad (positive spontaneity; orchestrated negativity.) And to top it off, Trudeau on the Front Lawn is a direct jab at Harper's clearly staged "Day in the Life" photos.
But here's the real kicker. Since this ad looks so downright cheap, Trudeau is quite consciously bringing up another point vis-à-vis the Conservatives. They used taxpayers' dollars to send out attack ad flyers. "I'm not going to use your money for my ads," Trudeau is saying, "But I couldn't possibly comment on what the Conservatives are doing."
All this is bait. It's strategic carelessness like bed hair kept in place with gel. People on social media are already aflutter with attacking the ad. And I bet you a pair of Old Navy shorts that Trudeau knows Conservative supporters will mock the video on Facebook and Twitter, thereby showing unconvinced voters that the followers of Harper do little more than insult the appearance of other candidates, as opposed to their message. This is one of Trudeau's smarter ploys; not having policy to be attacked on forces his opponents to focus on petty matters.
It's a brilliant piece of marketing. But on its own, it serves no purpose other than to let Liberals know that the man who skips Parliament to line his pockets from public speaking engagements, really appreciates the money they've given him. The Conservatives already made a huge faux-pas by launching the first ad. If something is not a threat, you do not strike first. But Harper did, thus telling Canadians that he recognized that Justin Trudeau was a problem. The best thing that Conservatives -- on the Hill or Facebook -- can do now is not respond to the ad. It's bait. It's a trap. It's there for them to make themselves look bad in their reaction.
]]>Not All Abortions Are Born Equaltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29578592013-03-27T07:00:00-04:002013-05-27T05:12:01-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/decided not to discuss or debate Motion 408 put forth by MP Mark Warawa.
The member of parliament called on the House to condemn sex-selective abortions in Canada. That is, abortions which are performed because the parents did not like the sex of the child.
The sub-committee, however, wanted nothing of it. No talk of abortion. Case closed. It's legal. That's it.
Pro-choice activists applauded the censuring decision, using their usual argument that this was but a backdoor for Harper to outright ban abortion in Canada. Of course, this is regardless of the fact that time and time again, Harper has failed to be the Down South Politician his critics wished he could be on the issue.
But to fall on this simplistic argument is to miss the gradients of the topic. You don't need to bray Jay-sus at every chance you get when it comes to abortion. Nor do you need to be a bra-lobbing Tumblr feminist. There is a middle ground. There is a point at which one can support abortion, but in certain cases, point a finger and say "No."
And sex-selective abortion is certainly one of those cases.
There is no justification for aborting a fetus because one simply doesn't like its sex. Pre-born children are not like a pair of shoes you can return just because you don't like the colour.
Unfortunately, however, those who often elect to have abortions based on the sex of the fetus do not do so out of whimsy; rather, their decision is based upon cultural backwardness. Yes, cultural backwardness; and if we cannot call the belief that a male life is worth more than a female one "backwards" or "barbaric," then I'm at a loss for what meets those criteria.
In countries such as India and China, the practice is rampant. In the latter, the One Child Policy reigns supreme, and has led to countless girls having been aborted, or ditched in back alleyways to die of cold and starvation, or picked up by strangers.
The underlying belief is that a male offspring is worth more than a female one in such patriarchal societies -- he will provide greater financial security for his parents in the future.
In India, doctors advertise ultrasound scans with the slogan, "Pay 5,000 rupees today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow" -- the latter figure representing the daughter's dowry.
These chauvinistic beliefs have led to the infanticide of millions which has dangerously skewed gender demographics in both countries. The natural ratio of male to female is 105-100. In China, however, for every 100 women, there are 123 men, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
By 2020, one in five Chinese bachelors will not be able to find a bride because there literally won't be enough women. In India, in 1991, one district had the astonishing ratio of 125 males for every 100 females; by 2001, 46 districts boasted that number.
Unfortunately, however, sex-selective abortions are not merely a consequence of dire economic straits. Punjab, Maharashtra and Gujarat -- some of India's wealthiest regions -- also have some of the highest ratios. The higher the literacy rate, the higher the income per head in China, the more skewed these ratios are, as well.
Naturally, however, we do not face such a demographic upheaval here in Canada. But the fact remains that sex-selective abortions (we could call them SS Abortions, to add to their eugenic ring) occur within our borders nonetheless, and primarily amongst immigrants who have come from the aforementioned regions.
However low the number may be, the preference of male fetuses over female ones does not lose its chauvinistic zeal. No man, whether in Canada or abroad, should be able to consider himself a King Henry VIII.
And yet the Bureau of Economic Research shows that amongst first generation Asian immigrants in Canada, the birth ratio stands at a slight-above-average of 1.09.
However, in each subsequent birth in which the prior children were female, the ratios become more skewed. In Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean immigrants, the sex ratio for third births after daughters is 1.39. Indians "boast" a ratio of 1.90; almost two boys for every girl.
As stated, these numbers will not jeopardize the futures of bachelors in Canada. But that is not the point of condemning sex-selective abortion. The point is not to stand by while cultures that believe a woman's life is worth less than a man's abuse a system which is meant to curb unwanted births for reasons more legitimate than archaic forms of sexism.
Already nearly 66 per cent of Canadians polled oppose the practice. It's time the government does as well.
Now, many sex-selection abortion apologists will say that laws against the practice will do little to prevent this form of infanticide. To a certain degree, this is true; China and India are prime examples.
But nonetheless, a public condemnation of such a terrible act would at the very least stigmatize it, which might lead to a second-guessing on the families about to embark on the termination of a pregnancy because they don't like one of the letters in the chromosome. South Korea was able to reduce its level of sex-selective abortions by way of prohibitions, but also by way of a media campaign, which sought to reverse cultural beliefs on the worth of a daughter.
Another argument against condemnation is that a mother seeking an abortion could easily lie to her doctor as to why she's having the pregnancy terminated. But withholding ultrasound scans (unless in the case of sex-specific illness) until after 30 weeks into the pregnancy, as Rajendra Kale notes, might also help control the situation.
Naturally, there will come the argument "It's her uterus, it's her decision." But frankly, in cultural groups which dictate that sons are worthy of life and daughters can be chucked, the notion that it's the "mother's" decision seems implausible.
Whatever you may think of the issue of abortion, you would be very hard-pressed to justify, in good faith, the termination of fetuses because of a sex coin toss. These types of abortions do nothing to strengthen cultures. They weaken them, and allow them to continue to operate in a barbarically chauvinistic mindset that might have had its time in the Middle Ages, but today, is absolutely repugnant; especially in Canada.
MP Mark Warawa sought to discuss this debilitating problem which should stand as an affront to all Canadians who have the least bit of respect for human rights. And he should be able to, without people having to resort to the shallow extremes of the debate, let alone him being censured.
As I've noted previously, there is a middle ground on the issue, and the fact of the matter is, as crass as it may sound: Not all abortions are born equal. And it's time we talk about those with no respect for equality.]]>With Garneau Gone, the Liberal Party Is Truly Losttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28720972013-03-14T08:06:10-04:002013-05-14T05:12:01-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/withdrawal from the race for the party leadership, the "battle" is all but won for the Terrible Thing from Papineau.
Yes, there is still Martha Hall Findlay, and Joyce Murray is somewhere there, too. I hear there are another four candidates vying for the top job under the red tent, but recent medical reports suggest they might be suffering from delusions of political grandeur.
Everyone knows, come April, the leader of a party in dire straits, a broken-down party -- which is in desperate need of rebuilding its relationship with Canadians -- will be Justin Trudeau.
We all knew this from the start. But Marc Garneau offered a glimmer of hope for the optimists amongst us who wished to see a Liberal who might give the Conservatives a run for their money in 2015. As Jonathan Kay noted in his column yesterday, the once-astronaut, the once-president of the Canadian Space Agency, the once-naval captain, and physics engineer was a policy junkie's wet dream.
Garneau knew he could not win on flash -- he had none. So instead, he threw himself whole-heartedly in dealing with issues, economic and social, which affect us every day in the hopes that Canadian voters might think to themselves, "Hey, this guy might look like my father, but he's got some great ideas."
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
For one, he sought to fight the telecommunication companies; you know, those service providers that gouge you month after month for your insurmountably high cell phone bill. He wanted to open the doors to the competition, and let you -- yes, you! -- the customer get a better deal for your money. Garneau knew he could not tempt the female vote with brunette curls, so instead, he announced policies that would seek to minimize, if not completely abolish, the pay gap between genders (81 cents for every dollar a man earns). Furthermore, the MP from Westmount sought to create a woman's council to advise him on certain issues. This may sound like political hogwash, but I should think it is a somewhat more proactive way to deal with gender matters than to pose for photographs with fangirls.
Marc Garneau, November 2012 to March 2013, sought policies that would help curb youth unemployment by offering incentives to companies to hire young people. If there's one thing retarding the progress of my generation, it's students with bachelor degrees who are forced to brew coffee for a living. For immigrants, he came up with the idea of devising a loan system in which foreigners might turn their credentials into recognized ones in Canada. He sought to cut payroll tax for small businesses, as well as abolish taxes on capital gains for investments in start-ups so that companies such as Blackberry needn't be this country's sole claim to fame in the realm of technology (and what a pitiful claim).
But naturally, none of this was as attractive to the Liberal voter as, say, a man of 41 who can throw a right-hook. Think about this for a second. Liberals placed the future of their party in the hands of a once-drama teacher who can rile up a crowd (but not enough, clearly, to ensure that they register to vote!) instead of a man who, over the course of his 64 years, proved himself time and time again in various fields and who, if he met presidents and leaders of state, got to that point due to his personal accomplishments, as opposed to being the plus-one of a prime minister in life and in death.
But what the insistence of Trudeau's supporters has ensured is that, come 2015, the Liberal Party of Canada will not be the party in power. Garneau was the candidate who could have swayed lukewarm Conservatives to the red camp, but Trudeau is a man who forces voters to say, as a friend of mine did, "This might be the first time I find myself voting blue. I never thought I'd see the day."
We can envision the attack ads already: "Do you want an untested man leading the country?" "Would you really put your nation's future in the hands of a man who has no callouses? A man to whom everything was given, if not by his father, then by friends of his father?" "Are you sure you want those brown locks of social media to stand alongside the world leaders during the next G8?" "Will Trudeau share plan for foreign policy with the President of the United States, or just ask him to follow him on Twitter?"
Answer me this, does any Canadian want to hear from a cherub face that his country will go to war? Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it is one that will be stuck in the backs of Canadians' minds when they go to the ballots. Trudeau may exude attractiveness, but his is the type you might find intriguing at the bar, not when it comes to making serious political decisions. And at this point, the last thing Canadians want is an experienced leader heading a broken party. A leader, I'm forced to mentioned, which has yet to give Canadians a reason to say "No" to the Boys in Blue next election -- besides a smile, of course.
I have quite a few Trudeau supporters on my social media streams -- and yes, before you ask, they're quite politically-minded -- yet, I cannot remember a single instance in which one of them posted something about Trudeau other than a picture of him standing alongside the MP. Go on, ask one of your Trudeau-supporting neighbors exactly what it is about the man that makes him fit to lead this country. As I've noted in a previous piece, the Terrible Thing from Papineau is unable to answer the question himself, so maybe one of his diehard followers might be better suited.
But what truly makes Garneau's withdrawal and Trudeau's win by default so heart-wrenching is that it is a testament to the Liberals of my generation. Time and time again, millenials have been given the opportunity to make a name for themselves, to shove their stake in the soil of political history. There was Occupy, which turned into a wasted effort, an ideological abortion, which did nothing but turn parks into landfills and drive up Twitter traffic. There were the protests in Quebec which were squabbles over meagre tuition rises which ended with a quasi-fascistic minority government taking over the reins of the province. And now, there was an opportunity for millenials to help create a new Canada in 2015. They could have supported the quiet, steadfast, solid candidate who might not have been flashy, but would have shown the world that we can be a mature group that votes with its head, as opposed to a "Like" button. But to consider concrete policies would have been too complex. So instead, the millenials placed their bet with Trudeau, the archetypal politician who says nothing of value, but, God, he says it oh-so-well, and it feels so good to listen to him communicate about the importance of communication.
Garneau's receding into the political background should be the shame of Liberal voters everywhere. After all, they know full well their party must undergo a serious period of rebuilding its relationship with Canadians. Garneau had the acumen, skills, and -- most importantly --policies to do this; Trudeau has but the experience of seeing his name in lights. If this piece sounds like a eulogy, it's because it is; but not for Marc Garneau, but rather, for the prospect of the Liberals' brighter future in 2015.]]>Justin Trudeau: the "Terrible Thing" From Papineautag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28320132013-03-07T17:12:44-05:002013-05-07T05:12:01-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
In Contender: The Story of Justin Trudeau, Althia Raj portrays the MP for Papineau not as the faux-idiot, but rather as the underdog. At the beginning of her engrossing, detail-focused book, the HuffPost Ottawa bureau chief quotes Trudeau as saying, "I go [into the Sun News boxing match against Senator Brazeau] as a massive underdog, nobody expects me to do well at all. If I do well, let alone [win] everyone will realize that there is a possibility that Justin Trudeau knows what he's doing."
The now-famous boxing match acts as a recurring device in Raj's work, with the author jumping back to the fight as she narrates the genesis and rise of Pierre Elliot Trudeau's son. Over the course of its roughly 64 pages (that's the problem with e-books; all formats have different lengths), she interviews family members, fawning friends, devoted staffers, and the everyday citizen who basks in the glow of those brown locks when they're on TV.
She touches on all the major periods of his life thus far. His childhood: he was "a smart, caring kid, with great sense of humour, who loved being outdoors," his aunt says (wild card). His years as a young man and the requisite Find Thyself Trip: "'I think Justin learned a lot on that trip [...] because in the middle of the Sahara desert, no one cares about your name, no one cares who you are" (this soul-challenging period of existential anonymity lasted all of three months). His quick-and-easy marriage to Sophie Grégoire, and the death of his father, which some say Trudeau used the coffin of as a launch pad for his political career.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
But all throughout Contender, we really do hear the same thing over and over again. The Palin-like dodging of "Will he run, or won't he?" His immeasurable level of charm, his incredible humility, and also his desire to beat the odds. These are not Raj's words, but rather, those who surround Trudeau -- and they're empty, vapid, devoid of any meaning.
Strip Trudeau and his supporters of the expression "connect with," and you'll notice how little they have to say. Give the man a haircut, and see how quickly his Twitter followers dwindle. Strike a line through his last name and...well you get the picture.
All-in-all, Contender simply presents the reader with a man who's got drive and enthusiasm for rustling up a crowd, sort of like a popular DJ. And this is no fault of Raj, or her admiringly exhaustive research, but rather, the subject matter with which she is dealing.
For as much as people like to go on about how terrific Trudeau is, they really have a hard time explaining why he would be a wonderful leader. Even the candidate for the Liberal leadership has difficulty explaining to his opponents why he's suited to be prime minister. Lamely, at a debate, he stutters how he won his Papineau riding. And he repeats the same -- but with more gusto -- later at a fundraiser in B.C.:
"My experience is I win. I win in tough elections."
Well, that's a bit of a stretch. Trudeau has won two elections, and in the nation's poorest riding (why, wouldn't they like a high profile MP?) He had the help of an "army of people from Ottawa and volunteers from all across the country." And another hopeful candidate, Mary Deros, stayed in the race (though she knew she didn't stand a chance) because "It was good for Justin to have a battle [...] it was good for the party." But after clutching the election from the cruel claws of the Bloc Quebecois, would Trudeau go peacocking all over Ottawa? Oh, no; that's not Trudeau, at all. He "kept his head down and went out of his way to be a humble and hard working MP."
Again, those are Trudeau's words; not Raj's. For I doubt Raj would define "humble" as shouting "Fuck you" to the Minister of the Environment during a session in the House of Commons. And I doubt she would define "hard working" as not proposing a single piece of legislation over his two terms in office, and maintaining a pitiful attendance record while lining his personal coffers with money gained from public speaking arrangements.
What Contender is able to show the reader is that there are very good reasons why Trudeau's detractors focus on seemingly petty topics when they attack him; he has not given his opponents anything substantial. "Talking in generalities gives little ammunition to his opponents," Raj notes, and she is right.
But at the same time, one would be hard-pressed to agree this is but a move on Trudeau's part to guard himself against the nasty Conservatives, or his other fellow-candidates. By not proposing an actual political platform, by speaking in these fuzzy, feel-good platitudes, Trudeau is guarding himself against future failures. With no campaign promises, he cannot be held accountable for future fumbles. To me, that doesn't sound like the anti-politician's politician. It sounds like he's learnt from the best of them, albeit with two shirt-buttons undone, and the occasional Captain Morgan beard.
Marc Garneau -- the proven leader who is only now beginning to go on the offensive -- had it quite right when he wrote that Trudeau was asking voters to buy a car without having test driven it first. The MP from Papineau is begging for the benefit of the doubt. Trudeau is like the hopeful writer who asks a publisher for an advance for a book he has yet to write, but promises it will be a piece of staggering genius. Just trust him. After all, he's charming.
But while charm alone may make for a good one-night stand, the fact of the matter is that the Liberal party needs to get into a committed relationship with a leader who's proven himself as more than a haircut and photo-op. Marc Garneau is not flashy, I'll admit. But in Raj's work, the constant cycling back to the boxing match is meant to be the ultimate metaphor for Trudeau's perseverance and resolve. Imagine what could be said of a man prepping himself to go into space, and withstanding g-forces, as opposed to the jabs of a senator with a penchant for booze and skirt-raising? Furthermore, Garneau has had a career which took him from the tough Royal Military College to the gilded halls of the Imperial College in London. He's served his country in the navy, and was chancellor of Carleton University. Contrast this with Trudeau who feels the need to lie about spending a lot of time teaching at a B.C. public school in order to connect with British Columbians ("Nobody recalls him," the school principal says.) And this is nothing to say of the pick-up-then-drop way he's gone through careers his entire life.
And yet, people seem resolute on Trudeau, a man who has more experience with Facebook than he does with keeping his seat warm in the House. For some odd reason, this strikes millenials as Trudeau being "genuine," when in reality, he is nothing more than a carefully curated set of equations; he's a politician like any other. Only thing worse is that he puts on this act of being honest.
This might not be so bad if only Trudeau had something with which to show us he is good at something other than rustling up a crowd, or throwing a right-hook. But he isn't. He simply doesn't, and this point cannot be emphasized enough. The Liberals are hemorrhaging relevance, they're on their last legs. The last thing they need is to place all their faith in someone who is good at talking and basking in the limelight -- but little else.
There's a fantastic line near the beginning of Contender, which sums Trudeau up perfectly:
"I decided not to follow Justin without thinking about it next time," [a friend] says, "He's a good charmer. He can make terrible things look sometimes good."
And right now, that "terrible thing" is the MP from Papineau.]]>Don't Be Fooled By Chief Spence's Circustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24424372013-01-09T17:23:07-05:002013-03-11T05:12:01-04:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/Yan Roberts may very well say that "opinion is an emotion thing only," but thankfully, the majority of us observing the Chief Spence Circus actually give these developments some thought.
Yet when looking to Victoria Island (for that is where eyes are turned to now, not places like Attawapiskat) we apparently "risk the damage of becoming cynical [...] while looking for truths." Well, as difficult as it may be for Roberts to hear, how exactly are we not meant to be cynical when the supposed Martyr in Chief is as much to blame for the deplorable state of Indian reserves as the federal government?
When that Deloitte report was handed down from Harper Heaven on Monday -- you know, the lil' bit of paper that showed 81 per cent of transactions in Attawapiskat lacked proper documentation, and 61 per cent of had no documentation whatsoever -- the only peep to emanate from Spence's new home was "oh, the Conservatives are only trying to discredit us."
Well...yes. And why shouldn't they? The report demonstrates that -- for all the (justified) outrage of these Third World camps in a First World nation -- we ought to blame those who run certain reserves as much as we ought to blame those who run the country.
But of course, a view such as this one is too reasonable to put on a protest sign. Besides, how could anyone say anything bad about the leaders of the First Nations while one of them is bravely starving herself for her people? It seems no one can say anything at all, or even ask anything for that matter.
In the attempt to have an open dialogue regarding the state of the First Nations, Spence saw fit to bar the press from entering her holy shrine. She has guards outside! They stand tall and ask quasi-Sphinx-like questions: "Friend or Foe?" Natives are friends. The media are foes. Those who ask questions, who may be skeptical of she who clamours for better living conditions, but leaves boxes of aid unopened, are "foes." Those Liberals, like #JTru (a "hip" candidate vying for the leadership deserves a "hip" name and a hashtag to boot), for example, who offer non-statements such as "deeply moving," are "friends." The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- a gateway to an audience with the PM -- is a "foe."
And as mentioned earlier, all the attention is on that tee-pee. None of it is on the people who are suffering at the hands of the federal government and their now-Holy Chief. In fact, news crews are being told they are not allowed at Attawapiskat whatsoever! All eyes must be focused on the "suffering" Chief who is starving, barely surviving off water, fish broth, and medicinal teas. A Ghandi? Or someone doing a post-Christmas-feast cleanse?
Spence said she wouldn't stop the fast of solid food until she met with Harper. Harper agreed to meet her. She then said she would not eat until something "concrete" was done (a vague notion only Spence can define). But now that the Governor General -- the chap who symbolizes a symbol -- won't be attending the meeting Spence has crossed her arms over her chest and said loudly: "I won't go either." Hey, it's her party, and she can abstain if she wants to.
If Spence's intent were to change things for the better, wouldn't you think that having the man in charge of the country would be, well, enough? No, she wants all the pieces of the pie.
What we have here is a woman who bemoans the impoverished nature of her reserve while she is partly to blame for it; a woman who has the ability to make things better, but won't because not everyone has RSVP'd to her invitation. All the while, she allows those who have suffered, perhaps due to her own incompetence, to continue suffering.
What was once a justified pursuit to better the pitiful lives of the disenfranchised in First Nations communities has become a circus in which there is no possibility of dialogue unless every single demand is met.
These Indian reserves are like Third World nations within a First World country. Some of them, like Attawapiskat, are even run the same way: by leaders who are too caught up in their own media tornados to actually tend to their people and too egotistical to fix things unless everything is just right. Roberts is wrong; Spence is not a symbol to be admired. She oughtn't be a rallying point for this cause. She is but one of the myriad reasons why First Nation communities exist in the sad way that they do, and it's time for her to go.
]]>No Time for Emotions, Let's Talk About Gun Controltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23033482012-12-14T17:22:18-05:002013-02-13T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
These are the words that seem permanently affixed to any incident relating to shootings in the United States. Another keyword is "unthinkable."
These instances of violence are commonplace down south. They happen, the media plasters headlines, politicians "send their thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims," there is public outpouring of "sentiment" across all forms of social media and then...Nothing.
Nothing happens, nothing changes. The story fades into the background of the eternal news cycle, only maybe to be revisited on an anniversary with a title such as "Location of Massacre...One Year Later."
Like clockwork, this string of events happens whenever there is such an incident. What does not happen however, is actual change. There are no reforms to gun laws (positive ones, that is) and there is only a semblance of discussion. The usual lines pop out: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," often added with "now is not the time to argue the issue; we must stand united; I, for example, will go hug my children."
Well, if the people of the United States did not clamour to hang up their guns when they saw the tear-streaked faces of high school or university students, I would say the media should be showing the face of little Billy who was playing Batman and narrowly missed being shot. Maybe that innocent cherub face will finally wake the populace up as to what must happen to their gun laws.
We make the joke about the "gun-toting American cowboys." Well, in the westerns I've seen, the cowboys don't kill children or teenagers. It's maybe time for us to drop this humourous stereotype and come face-to-face that in the You Ess of Ay, when a man wields a gun, he wields it, not on a deserted Texas street, but in the play area of a school -- complete with Lego blocks, Play-doh, and drawings for mommy and daddy to pin on the fridge. I would say "We expect this type of barbarism in war-torn countries, but not south of the border," but quite sadly, that's not the case.
It's time for the supposedly sentimental to drop the notion that this is not the moment for discussion, but rather the time for emotion and prayer. As Hitchens titled his essay on the Virginia Tech shooting: Suck It Up. President Obama should not be crying, the flag should not be lowered; they ought to do away with temporary sentimentality, and finally take action regarding gun control.
After all, with so many of these types of tragedies under their belt, shouldn't the Americans be rather immune to this sort of thing? Shouldn't they be better able to finally sit down, and politicize the issue rather than mourn? If they finally did that, if they did away with the sentimentality and vigils, they might one day find themselves not having to grieve in the first place.
To find out how to help Sandy Hook Elementary School click here.
]]>Prank Calling DJs Don't Deserve Death Threatstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22946082012-12-14T12:40:35-05:002013-02-13T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/allegedly led to her death have been moved to safehouses this Thursday due to threats on their lives.
Let's be blunt, it's a tragedy that the woman killed herself -- as so far as any suicide is -- but unfortunately, it seems to be lost on many that the tragedy of an act does not validate it.
This may sound callous, yes, but when there are people sending the DJs death threats, such a tone should be taken.
There are two ways to look at Saldanha's suicide: the first (and most popular) is that her death was the result of the prank phone call. The second is that the prank phone was the hair that broke the camel's back.
Let's look at the latter first. One would have to be incredibly naïve to think that someone would kill herself over such a small thing. Saldanha was a wife, and mother of two; she had the mental faculty, and resolve, to become a nurse at King Edward VII hospital - certainly no small feat. Her suicide was likely the consequence of a cocktail of issues, and this prank that gained international exposure and her involvement with it simply threw her over the edge.
If we are to accept this reasoning -- as we ought to -- we still cannot place the blame on the DJs, let alone send them death threats. After all, how were they to know? Ask, in normal Australian accents, "Sorry, are you having troubles? We only ask because we want to play a phone call, you see, and don't want a situation which outrages the public more than, say, Assad massacring his own people every day."
The DJs had no way of knowing of her life, and we would be very much amiss if we were to think we can always know what others are going through. We cannot always put ourselves in the shoes of others. We cannot, and should not be forever walking on eggshells; unless, of course, we intend future generations to be emotional anaemics who second, triple, quadruple guess everything they're about to say.
But the more popular train of thought vis-à-vis Saldanha's suicide is far more troubling. Already, there have been stories questioning the end of prank phone calls, and certainly, if Saldanha's suicide note reveals she hanged herself (meat is hung, men are hanged) solely because of joke call, we can almost certainly expect to see a motion in the House questioning the issue.
But if this were the case, if the note did blame the DJs, under no circumstances whatsoever does that mean they are valid. The DJs ought to feel bad, but they oughtn't feel guilty. And under no circumstances should we allow this extremist reaction from a then-deeply troubled woman to dictate how we live and, yes, find humor. Again, the tragedy of an action does not validate it, however frigid that may be to hear.
In all likelihood however, the situation is closer to the former illustration. And yet, there are those who refuse to accept it. It is not interesting enough, I suppose, to accept that suicides are often the consequences of compounded action as opposed to instantaneous, one-time things. We seem hell-bent on living with blinders, always seeking to blame one group.
And there are times for such blame. When a gay teenage boys kills himself because he's being beaten every day, we can place the blame on a specific group; they who willingly sought to cause harm. When a girl purposefully overdoses and dies on pharmaceuticals because she's being constantly molested by an uncle, we can blame him, for he willingly sought to inflict pain.
But these DJs did nothing of the sort. Their intent was innocent. Their act itself was chaste, and childishly construed -- there was no dark matter in the prank itself -- and they do not deserve messages such as "[there are] bullets out there with your name on [them.]"
There are moments for anger, and there are moments for blame. This is not one of them. This tragic situation is being used by those with too much time on their hands (and rice paper skin) to feign outrage so that they may feel virtuous until next week's tragedy. This is a moment for silence in the passing of a troubled woman -- a victim of a series of occurrences, not just a phone call. And if those who seek to bubble-wrap the world had even a modicum of respect for the deceased, they would accept the sad situation, shut up and move on, giving the grieving Saldanha family the peace they deserve.
]]>Gen Y Politically Engaged? #GiveMeABreaktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22476102012-12-06T08:09:30-05:002013-02-05T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
This generation is politically engaged, argues Supriya Dwivedi, characterizing this by the claim: that we are "Constantly connected to Twitter and updating our newsfeeds."
Wait a minute, that's what it means to be politically engaged? Being on Twitter? Watching that digital tickertape, not of news, but of the very types of soundbites we seek to criticize, and mock every chance we get when it's one of the talking heads on TV who make them?
Dwivedi says "updating our newsfeeds." But updating our newsfeeds with what, exactly? Some Jezebel article where the word "fucking" is only outpaced by the word "the" and passing that off as feminism? Or is Dwivedi referring to being politically engaged in the form of creating Tumblrs once someone like Romney makes a non-comment such as "binders full of women"?
Maybe she is speaking of forcing our politicians to use social media to communicate with us? Surely, she is not referring to that much-publicized night when President Obama -- you know, leader of the free world and all that -- performed an Ask Me Anything on Reddit, only to be flooded with questions such as, "Mr. President, would you rather fight a hundred duck-sized horses, or one horse-sized duck?" An interesting thought experiment to be sure, but I hear the man's quite busy, oughtn't people be asking him something more relevant?
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe when Dwivedi says we are politically engaged, what she means to say is we turn presidential debates into drinking games, then complain that there weren't any "one-liners" or "zingers," even though we ramble on incessantly about how the media has destroyed any semblance of actual political discourse.
Get off it; this generation is no more "politically engaged" than any other before it. We simply give off the appearance of being so, by "sharing" and "publishing" articles from the New Yorker, Harper's, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy -- look at me, this is what I read! Aren't I an intellectual treat? We have more channels through which to voice our opinions; that doesn't mean our opinions are any more valid.
We've mistaken being politically opinionated for being politically engaged. An opinion doesn't mean a thing -- unless, of course, you're part of that dying field called punditry -- but a vote does. But young people aren't voting. Then again, I suppose it's a lot more interesting to refuse to vote and tweet about it, than to go to the polling booths and pick, to alter Churchill, "the least bad option."
"But why vote?" we, the Millennials, chime, "There's no one who reflects 100 per cent my God-given beliefs which are wholly sacred and not open to compromise."
Well, what beliefs are those? Are they merely the tired shopping list of abortion, gay marriage and global warming, which Dwivedi seems to stop at in her blog? Or do they also include the yawn issues of balancing the budget, taxation, and military funding which are sure to dull the senses of any cocktail party-goer? You know the type of stories I'm talking about; the ones that matter and then disappear from the front page once Kate Middleton makes the world-changing-oh-my-God announcement that she's pregnant.
But even if the Millennials saw the economy as meaning something other than jobs in the fields of their choosing, how could there possibly be a politician that reflects all of our values? How can there be a perfect political prince charming in this age of obscure, criss-crossing, contradictory "isms" which seemed to have been developed so that we always have something to take offense to? It says a lot about this generation that they fawn over that poor man's Captain Morgan, Justin Trudeau because he wears jeans and talks about Facebook.
We are not politically engaged. We are politically opinionated. But opinions, however well informed, are not a substitute for the democratic voting process. And the democratic process is by no means perfection; it's a game of compromise. The sooner we learn that, and the sooner that we stop pretending that 140-character messages makes us politically engaged -- as attending party conferences, and going to the voting booth do -- the better off our generation will be.
]]>Do These Anti-Abortion Activists Deserve Recognition?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20193032012-10-26T00:14:12-04:002012-12-25T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/
Furthermore, there are many ways to argue for the pro-life movement. But to run into the waiting room of an abortion clinic and pummel patients with dogma is not one of them. Yet, two women, Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, have been awarded Diamond Jubilee medals for doing just that.
In Canada, we are so very quick to accuse our Southern neighbours of backwards mentalities that stem from backwater America. Yet, it seems that Canada has an Okie of its very own -- MP Maurice Vellacott of Saskatchewan; that man who gave these two harpies their awards.
It is completely irrelevant that of these two anti-abortion activists, one -- Mary Wagner -- received the medal while being imprisoned for her "civil disobedience" which Vellacott has insultingly compared to the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. Many argue that this decision runs against the current government's hard stance on crime. That would be the political line to take as well as the wrong one.
Wagner, 38, is known to barge into abortion clinics and harass staff and awaiting patients. She does not merely stand outside with a placard, she gets in your face. Why is this an issue? Because it's downright disgusting.
All the intellectual posturing and feminizing that surrounds abortion in the media falls flat in that abortion waiting room. All the rationalization of "when does life begin?" or "Am I really 'killing' something?" is eroded by the smell of anti-septic. The fact of the matter is that suddenly, the waiting room becomes the antechamber for death.
Fine, you might not be killing a living thing, but you are killing, eliminating a potential. And while Ayn Rand -- oddly enough the everyday reading of anti-choicists Paul Ryan and Rosa Ambrose -- might argue that "Rights do not pertain to a potential," I do not believe women to be so callous as to feel nothing while about to off a potential offspring.
No amount of Mina Loy or Cindy Cisler can negate the maternal extinct that kicks in when the doctor calls your name. It might be difficult to stomach, but thousands of years of biology don't dissipate after a couple of classes on gender studies. Abortions are not easy decisions to make. They stay difficult right through to the end, and in certain cases, well after.
So for two "activists" to be rewarded for attacking women when they're at their weakest, their most vulnerable, and on top of that say that these two women are "heroines for humanity" is one of the most backwards things I have heard in recent times -- far more so than the Minister of Women Affairs voting to have a debate on when life begins.
To award these two miscreants whom Vellacott -- his name begs for a play-on-word not fit for print -- calls "precious women" is a complete and utter insult to the Diamond Jubilee medal. It is irrelevant whether or not one believes the award means anything; it's meant to be given to 60,000 Canadians who have contributed to society in a positive manner. Traumatizing women about to undergo a traumatizing operation is not a positive contribution.
And I do not very much care for the argument that the awards are given at the discretion of the MP. Because while we're at it, we might as well take a look at the Okie in question. Vellacott was educated as a pastor, is an opponent of gay marriage, argues that homosexuals wrongly blame their personal tribulations on homophobia (homophobia in the Prairies? No way!). And he also believes that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, and subscribes to intelligent design.
Not only isn't this right man to be giving away medals, this isn't the right man that a nation such as Canada, which prides itself on being the USA's more reasonable cousin, ought to have voting on life and death policies.
Suddenly, people like David Akin and Richard Mourdock aren't just names we read about in the Times, mock with our friends while drinking double-doubles, and say "Well! at least we don't have of those guys here!"]]>Censorship Is For Cowards, No Matter the Subjecttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18945712012-09-18T16:06:48-04:002012-11-18T05:12:02-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/latest piece for the Huffington Post. He's advocating for the banning and censorship of "Innocence of Muslims." Not in so many words, of course, but he's prancing so close to the burning bush that his fingertips are scorched.
While one may -- as I have -- deplore the fact that this irresponsible piece of trash ever came to fruition, the fact of the matter is that it exists. It exists, has made its rounds around the globe, and has had disgusting and disproportionate consequences.
To ban the film would be to ban the reason behind the deaths of a shocking number of individuals, and riots that overtook an entire region of the world, but have since quelled.
"Innocence of Muslims" is an artifact of hatred and ignorance. The events following it are of the same ilk. This is not something that ought to be censored but rather, understood and deplored by people all over the world to better understand the mindsets of religious extremists -- both Islamic and Christian, the latter being those who engineered and promoted the film.
When someone like Kasim applauds CTV and CBC for not showing segments from the video, one cannot help but think of a Christopher Hitchens CNN debate over the frighteningly similar subject of those Danish cartoons. The news station blurred out the images, and Hitchens rightly pointed out that they did not do it to avoid sparing the feelings of their Muslim guest, but because they were afraid of retaliation. To censor the clips, as was the case with the cartoons, is not an act of respect, but rather, one of cowardice of the worst sort.
While calling those who believe in freedom of speech "hypocrites of the highest order," he asks them the question: "What would be their reaction if an anti-Semite questions the holocaust? [sic]"
Well, I'm not quite sure how to say this, but I believe there to be a difference between denying a historical event that, objectively-speaking, happened, laid waste to 6-million Jews and a movie making fun of a religious figure who may or may not -- well, I'm not going to chip away at that dam right now.
While "Innocence of Muslims" contributes nothing whatsoever to the discourse surrounding "one of the world's greatest religions" to ban it would be, again, to ban the understanding of an inciting force that has had gut-wrenching consequences. And this is nothing to say of the terribly condescending argument that this film would offend non-extremist Muslims. Surely, those who are unlike the fanatics who lay siege to embassies would not themselves go torch cars, or allowed themselves to have their feelings "hurt;" rather, wouldn't they join the rest of the right-minded in condemning the makers of the film, and the criminals in Benghazi?
Everyone in his right mind would wish "Innocence of Muslims" had never been made, and would have liked to believe it would not incite such barbaric rage in the Middle East. But it has, and whether or not media outlets here in Canada decide to show it, the film is readily available on the Internet for all to see, provided of course, they do not live in a censored country.
This work is now a political and religious artifact which has set off the fuse to a deplorable set of events. To refuse to air clips of it to the general public would -- while being an act of cowardice, as opposed to one of "respect" -- prevent the populace from understanding exactly how thin the skin of religious extremists can be, and exactly why those types of believers are a threat to us all.]]>Nakoula: With Friends Like These, You Make Enemiestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18850422012-09-14T16:50:26-04:002012-11-14T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/Israeli Jew.
It has been reported that he is neither, nor is that his real name. The man who "wrote" and "directed" and duped Craigslist actors to act in his movie Innocence of Muslims -- the same movie which has led to the deaths of four U.S. diplomats, up to 10 Libyans who sought to protect them, four Yemenis in a "clash" outside the U.S. embassy, and one Lebanese in Tripoli -- in is fact Nakoula Bassley Nakoula, an Egyptian Coptic Christian living, or rather, hiding, in California.
Why would a Christian attacking Islam seek to lay the blame not only on Judaism, but on Israel? Had Nakoula merely described himself as a Jew, this would have been a purely religious affair. But he specified in his phone interview that he was an Israeli Jew, and that in itself introduces political motivations to religious ones.
One could cite any number of reasons why a Christian would wish to give Muslim extremists yet another reason to hate Judaism or Israel -- they blamed America for the film, so why wouldn't they blame Israel as well since it was one of their own who made it?
But what may help one better understand this artiste who fancies himself a Rushdie is to look at the company he keeps, namely, Pastor Terry Jones and Steven Klein.
Pastor Terry Jones -- a man who looks better suited for the Hell's Angels than for worship -- is known for his autodafes of the Koran, and for his hanging of an effigy of the President of the United States (no doubt, a Muslim). Oh, and he was also invited to speak at a rally for the English Defence League -- an Islamophobic fascist organization which even Haaretz suggests Jews abroad stay away from -- but was banned from entering the U.K. -- a sort of reverse Galloway, if you will. Jones promoted and showed the film on September 11 of this year.
And then there is the also-mustachioed Steven Klein, a self-described failed real-estate developer who now operates as an insurance salesman and who drinks beer while conducting interviews (one can already imagine him swaying in his rocking chair, caressing his shotgun, Bible open on his lap). He heads two organizations, both of which have been labelled as hate groups: Courageous Christians United, and Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment. These organizations have had their hand in staging protests outside abortion clinics and publish anti-Muslim propaganda.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention: he also trains paramilitary militias...in a church near Fresno. He and his crusaders are preparing for what they believe to be the inevitable holy war between Christians and the ever-present Muslim sleeper cells who seek to somehow overtake the most powerful nation in the world and impose Sharia Law. In true good ol' Christian form, he calls his critics -- critics of hatred, ignorance, and prejudice -- "wife-beaters and pedophiles." Must I point out the irony? He is also endowed with the sixth sense of being able to spot future suicide bombers in mosques; there are 500 to 750 of them in mosques in California. Klein was a sort of legal counsel Nakoula approached regarding the legality of the film, and is currently acting as a spokesperson for this year's most dangerous work of trash.
So here it is: the trifecta of the Innocence of Muslims, a group that is off their rockers. When asked how he felt about the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Stevens and company, Nakoula merely blamed lax security measures at the embassy. Klein says he is absolved of all guilt of the chain of events he helped ignite, claiming that these extremists are "pre-incited, they're pre-programmed to do this."
We can assume that Klein means to say these extremists have been brainwashed by religious fanaticism -- as they undoubtedly have -- but for Klein to say so would force him to consider exactly where he stands on the spectrum of religious beliefs.
No one would want to jump the gun a la Romney, but the fact of the matter is that considering the company Nakoula engages with in the proliferation of his politics, beliefs, or what have you, one must ask himself the question if the filmmaker's willingness to hurt other religions stop at Islam. Pretending to be a Jew from Israel is no accident, and certainly isn't without its consequence, and one must ask why Nakoula would incite such dangerous ones.
But at the very least, what these Christian cowards have shown us is that if there is a threat of religious extremism that will hurt America -- if it hasn't already -- it's not going to come only from the mosque across the street.]]>Libyan Ambassador's Death: Tragic End to a Bad Movietag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18780162012-09-12T13:54:35-04:002012-11-12T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/the murder of U.S. Ambassor Chris Stevens and three other U.S. diplomats in Benghazi last night. Taking religious offense to a message in a movie in not grounds for violence, having one's feelings hurt is no excuse for barbaric behaviour, in Libya, or in Egypt, or anywhere else in the civilized world.
But at the same time, there is no justification for the movie that led to these attacks.
The murder of those four Americans is the cause of the recklessness, ignorance and hatred of two parties: extremist Muslims -- but is that a surprise? -- and the film's writer and director, if such a thing could be said to have been written or directed, Sam Bacile.
The film in question: Innocence of Muslims was meant, according to Brave Bacile, who is now in hiding, to show the world the flaws of Islam. And certainly, there are flaws to the religion -- as there are with all -- but this is not the way to demonstrate them in a manner which would hope to illuminate the general public.
The movie (notice the gentle degradation of nouns) is a blatant, crass, vulgar slap in the face to one of the world's largest religions. But again, that does not justify the launching of rockets that killed four individuals that had nothing to do with the film.
The home video was a private endeavour, led by the Californian real estate developer -- who claims to be an Israeli Jew, though Israeli authorities deny him having citizenship -- supported by the backing of 100 investors. This was not a work supported by the American government, this was not a propaganda film released by the White House. This was the work of a private individual linked to that nutcase Pastor Terry Jones. This only goes to show the sheer brutalism, stupidity and tunnel vision of those who attacked the embassy in Benghazi.
Bacile claims that "Islam is a cancer, period." Wrong. Ignorance is a cancer. And it is this same ignorance shared by Bacile and those in Libya that has led to the death of an ambassador who sought to help a post-dictatorship nation rebuild itself.
The owner of the Sony Handycam claims that he did not expect such a vicious response to his work. Garbage. Did Bacile not read of the controversy and riots that followed the publication of cartoons of the prophet in a Danish newspaper? The riots were instigated by showing Muhammad. What did he expect to happen if he outright insulted the chief figure of one of the most, according to him, cancerous faiths? And was he not aware of the fatwah placed on Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 after the release of The Satanic Verses?
And here we come to an interesting point: that one must never censor oneself out of fear of the reaction one's work may generate. And this is absolutely true. One must stand by his work if its meaning is, well, meaningful. But unfortunately, this is not the case with Innocence of Muslims. It ain't no masterpiece, or award winning piece of work.
The School of Hollywood teaches us that the trailer of a film is often a compilation of its best parts. If that is truly the case, then watching the rest of the movie would be a form of torture fit for Gitmo. The writing is pathetic, the acting is atrocious; there is nothing redeeming of the work. It will not introduce any fresh, well-thought out arguments to the discourse surrounding Islam; it will not contribute anything worthwhile. It is merely a brazen, childish, irresponsible attack on a religion whose violent extremists are known to make a mountain out of an anthill. (again, look to the Danish cartoon incident.)
Innocence of Muslims will not point out the flaws of Islam. Rather, it will be the consequences of the "film," "movie," or what have you, that will. In short, Bacile instigated, provoked a group whose extremists he very well knew -- remember, "Islam is a cancer, period." -- would react violently and barbarically to a piece of trash such as this.
Maybe there is no work of art that is worth the loss of life, but at the very least, when individuals are killed over their work, we hope to be able to learn something from the creation in question, we hope that there is some consolatory value in an unnecessary sacrifice. Such is not the case here. These were unnecessary murders, and there is nothing to be gained from the incident save the reassurance that the cancer of cancers -- ignorance -- exists on both sides of the Atlantic.]]>Why Should We Be at the Mercy of Anonymous' "Lulz"?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18563242012-09-05T12:54:33-04:002012-11-05T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Alexandre Portorarohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alexandre-portoraro/holds in its hands 12-million Apple user IDs it acquired from hacking into an FBI agent's laptop. These IDs consist of of usernames, passwords, addresses, phone numbers -- in short, a bevy of personal information of iPhone and iPad users that has everyone asking themselves, "What the hell?" and chipping at the dam holding back the inevitable Orwellian cliches.
But thank God Anonymous has swooped down like Batman in Gotham City, and told us of this alleged invasion of our privacy. Right?
Wrong.
Anonymous has released one million of said user IDs. The hacktivist group refuses to explain the situation further, or release the other 11-million IDs until -- wait for it -- Adrien Chen of Gawkerposes on the front page of the site in a ballet tutu with a shoe on top of his head.
You can't make this stuff up.
This is what must be done, apparently, in order for the common man to find out if he's being tracked by the FBI: Someone must embarrass himself. Funny, to be sure, and not beyond the level of childishness one would expect of a group born of boys locker room humour. But if Anonymous, or any of its affiliates, are truly, deeply concerned for the rights of the common man and fighting for them while we sleep softly in the night, then why in God's name would they offer Chen the opportunity to refuse their offer, thus blinding the public further regarding this supposed attack on privacy?
One word: Vanity.
Chen is one of the few writers who doesn't fall into the seemingly necessary trap of praising the activities of Anonymous if one is below the age of 40. He's written skeptically -- and for good reason -- of their activities, and whether one agrees with him or not, the fact remains: Anonymous is clearly incapable of having anyone disagree with them. These are the supposed vanguards of our online freedom, and they threaten to retain information pertaining to the abuse of our freedom because their feelings are hurt.
Is this truly the sort of organization one wants to be protected by? Hardly.
There is quite a bit wrong with organizations such as Anonymous, and this Chen-FBI-Apple situation is but an example of the types of mind one can expect to find within the hacktivist group. One of the major problems lies in their name. In keeping their identities hidden, they absolve themselves of any responsibility. Say one of their "operations" is a resounding catastrophe; they can say it was someone operating under the Anonymous moniker independently -- as they have in the past, for example, with the Stratfor incident. But if the operation is a success, they can reap the so-called benefits. There is no accountability, and that is the chief benefit of holding back one's identity.
They are a short-sighted group that clearly does not think things through. Again, this can be attached to their seemingly limitless obsession with themselves; vanity makes for a wonderful pair of blinders. The Chen incident is one example. Another can be hilariously noted in one of their slogans: "We Are Legion for We Are Many." The quote -- meant to infer their omniscient power -- is taken from the Bible, spoken to Christ by a man possessed by a demon. What happens? Well, if the members of Anonymous -- who are supposedly many -- cared to read the next few short lines, they would have learned that Legion is purged by Christ into a pack of pigs who go crazy and then drown themselves in the lake. Hardly the sort of motto one wants to brag about: "We Are Legion for We Cannot Read," "We Are Legion for We Know Not How to Swim."
And clearly, Anonymous does not know to swim. They have been drowning in their own irrelevancy, gasping for air since the FBI's announcement that one of their cherished leaders from LulzSec had been working for them all along. Their claims to fame are "taking down" the websites of organizations such as the MPAA and Universal Music, but in reality, their actions are the equivalent of tearing a poster off a wall -- mere vandalism that's quickly rectified.
Gizmodo has already explained how, even if the hack were real, the information discovered isn't anything that might affect the average iPhone user. Naturally, if this is all true, it is still disconcerting for the FBI to have access to such information, however hyperbolized it's been.
But what is more disconcerting still is the fact that those who are supposedly fighting against Big Brother and company are the same group willing to withhold supposedly vital information all so that they can take some paltry, childish form of revenge against someone who disagrees with what they do. So much for for safeguarding -- let alone respecting -- freedom of speech.
Whether or not this FBI incident amounts to anything or not, the fact remains that Anonymous is not our savior, nor our hero. It's a shady, childish bunch who wish to be bereft of any of the responsibilities of the real world. These are not the type of people we want protecting our rights in the online one -- their motives may be admirable in certain cases, but their methods are egregious.
The FBI has already denied that any agent's computer was hacked, and Adrien Chen has, at the time of this writing, taken the photo of him wearing the tutu in good humour. Now, it remains to be seen whether Anonymous does have anything to give the public it strives to supposedly protect, or whether this was just another one of their pranks done "for the lulz," that is to say, for the stroking of their own vanity.]]>