Liberal views on Pluto

With the state of the universe in the balance, several liberal leadership hopefuls have joined in on the debate on the celestial status of Pluto.

Professor Ignatieff, known for his strong foreign policy positions, demanded Canadian action to protect Pluto. "Planets are just another form of nation," he quipped "and we have to assure that nations are protected." Joe Volpe Agreed. He likes to agree. "The position of our party has always been that the state of Israel has the right to defend itself from all external threats." When reminded of the issue at hand, Mr. Volpe quickly backtracked and said - "if Pluto is no longer a planet, where will the Canadian Nu-cle-ar industry get its plutonium?"

Former Environment Minister Stephane Dion regretted the reclassification, and vehemently disagreed with it. "Pluto should not be punished for reducing its greenhouse gases. As the planet with the least amount of gases, its work should be lauded, not punished. Canada has much to learn from its efforts. Pluto was the most affected by the issues surrounding global warming, and like Prince Edward Island, it would have suffered as a result of climatic change. Pluto should be rewarded for working to save itself."

Liberal outsider Martha Hall Findlay looked great.

Pluto native Dr. Hedy Fry lamented party rules that prevented her from signing up new members. Belinda Stronach, once heralded as a front runner, agreed. "Every liberal should get a vote on the status of the planet," she said from her roof-top observatory. Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae shared the concern, noting that Pluto was probably the only place he could escape the wrath of Ontario voters.

Ken Dryden, stoically looking up at the stars, noted he could not see Pluto. Unphased, he provided a seven hour seminar to the gathered masses about the relative merits of the competing scientific theories involved in celestial classification. "Pluto's ecliptic 248 year orbit makes it unique and may make it crash into Neptune in 2875. Reclassifying it is an insult to Clyde Tombaugh."

Former Ontario Education Minister Gerrard Kennedy lashed out at the printing industry. "The only beneficiaries of this are the publishing companies. In the past, they invented that base-6 crap so that we would buy new textbooks." Speaking to a crowd of supporters at a bingo hall, Mr. Kennedy called out the final number before concluding "G-57. When are we going to stop letting experts tell us what to teach our children?"

Scott Brison was less concerned with labels. Staring at himself in a mirror, Brison pronounced that "as a life long Liberal thinker, it is important that we recognize the substance. What Pluto used to be called isn't as important as what Pluto is now. Planet or comet, Liberal or Tory, we all share the same vision. And it is a vision that is completely antithetical to the one of the current government." Speaking under the condition of anonymity, Brison supporters see this as a divisive issue for their campaign "Greek labels can't be good for our campaign, we need to get off this issue as soon as possible."

Dr. Carolyn Bennett, a former Minister and admitted dark-horse candidate, laughed off the entire discussion. "It's ridiculous," she said from her constituency office, "the entire debate is premised on the idea that Pluto orbits the sun. Everyone knows that it orbits Toronto like everything else."

Unscientific certainty

I asked my eleven year old niece what Pluto was, and she looked at me funny and said "Mickey's Dog," and went back to staring at the stars through her telescope.

Apparently Pluto is not longer a planet. It is now a dwarf-planet. I thought they liked to be called "little people?" So, size does matter? It isn't the orbit that counts? The part that really irks me is that they voted on it. I'm sorry, I didn't know that democratic principles could be applied to science.

This tells me two things- 1) definitions matter and 2) even the most acute minds dedicated to a particular topic can vehemently disagree about concrete data. At the end of the day, there is still a 'thing' out there called Pluto, and whatever you want to call it doesn't change the fact that it is really far away and really cold. It is not like changing its celestial status is going to keep me from visiting the next time I am out that way. This is a semantic debate. I don't like semantic debates - I am an anti-semantite.

The other thing that this tells me is "They vote? Who? I didn't vote? How do I get a vote? Why are all the stars named after Hercules villains? Maybe we can rename the Big and Little Dippers after Jack and Olivia (NDP - Crazytown)?"

La Deception de Mr. Duceppe

I just got back from the Bloc Quebecois caucus retreat, where I may have once again been on the winning team at their annual golf tournament. The first time we won it, we were decried by Mr. Duceppe as federalists taking their spoils away to Ottawa like tax dollars. I don't know what he said this time, because we bolted to drive home right away.

Mr. Duceppe is a fantastically interesting person. He was the first person elected as a separatist to the House of Commons, though not under the BQ banner: the rules back then forced him to run as an independent in that by-election because the BQ was not an official party.

He may also be responsible for unwitttingly undoing the sovreignty movement for the foreseeable future.

When Mr. Landry stepped aside in 2005, there was a strong call for Mr. Duceppe to leave federal politics and take his place. The unions which Mr. Duceppe once ran called for his ascension to the position, but unlike Mr. Bouchard before him, Mr. Duceppe had other plans.

He was, and remains, the most popular politician in Quebec. He probably figured that if he stuck around until the next federal election, he could get to 63-65 seats and wipe the Liberals out of Quebec, except for the west end of Montreal and Gatineau. He probably figured that he could get the symbolic 50% plus one in the federal election. He probably figured he could be the Leader of the Opposition again, the ultimate of embarrassments for the Liberals. He politely declined, and promised his "appui" to whomever won the contest as a partner for sovreignty. Enter (from the rear or otherwise) Mr. Boisclair, the man-child from Harvard and saviour of the PQ. He won on the first ballot. Yay.

Mr. Duceppe's plans were screwed up by the seven most shocking election night victories in the country- Even *I* predicted three of them.

Almost a year later, Mr. Boisclair is, at best, a disappointment, and at worst, an embarrassment. It would appear that on November 13th, he will form another opposition and that many of the parties soft votes may flock to L'ADQ de Mr. Dumont. More about Dumont another day and my new theory about how work in Ottawa is like training for work in Quebec City. Regardless, what was once assuredly a PQ victory as a result of Mr. Charest's unprecedented unpopularity (he was less popular than George Bush in the province of Quebec) has evolved into a "well, the economy is booming, what is four more years anyway."

Suppose that Gilles did leave to become the leader of the PQ. We could assume that the Bloc wouldn't have won 51 seats nor would they have won 42% of the vote. Their soft support would probably have been split between the Tories and the Liberals. It is likely that the tories would pick up a few more seats in Quebec.

Emboldenned by a larger government, the Conservatives may not have been so eager to court Quebec in its first term. Or, they would have cuddled up to Charest anyway. Ultimately, they still would have had their two key problems in Quebec: Kyoto and Khandahar.

Now, imagine a whoppingly unpopular Mr. Charest having to deal with a seasoned opposition leader like Mr. Duceppe and his massive personal appeal, not to mention his ready-made and battle-tested electoral machine. I doubt Charest would have much of a chance.

With Premier Duceppe at the helm, it is unlikely that Ottawa/Quebec relations would be that great as the two aforementioned issues would be criticized from L'Assemblee Nationale. In a debate for sovreignty, Duceppe would be up against an anglo PM with no real love for Quebec's linguistic traditions, social values, or semantic debates. After four years of cautious Levesque-like government, Mr. Duceppe could rail against a neo-conservative Canada that has values so very different from the peace-loving, earth loving, gay marriage accepting, peuple du Quebec that its place in Canada is an affront to its own development as a nation, un peuple.

Oui, est ca deviens plus qu'un reve. Mr. Duceppe's mistake, if you want to call it that, is that he figured that the Martin Liberals would hold on. Another person who underestimated Prime Minister Harper. The list keeps growing.

Of course, if Duceppe had left to become Premier-to-be, Martin's Election strategy might have been "who is better to bribe Quebec into staying in Canada?" There is little doubt it would have been him.

Academy Award for the best use of the internet...

Al Gore's movie on Climate Change and Energy Use in North America is without a doubt the most important movie that was released this summer. It was only slightly more believable than Snakes on a Plane.

Go see this movie. Unless of course you are an Ophidiophobe or Aviophobic. This movie will just scare you.

I went to this movie expecting absolutely NOTHING except a few bad puns about the airline industry and the much heralded new battle-cry of Samuel L. Jackson. Having taken some time to think about it, I for one want those Mother F***ing snakes in another Mother F***ing movie.

This film is not the Red Balloon. Hell, this film is not Red Sonja. It is the perfect B-movie film. But, I will pronounce with no apprehension what-so-ever that in fifty years, experts will look back at this movie and how it has completely changed the way that the movie industry markets, distributes and even writes movies. This movie had a greater impact on the movie industry than Titanic. Bravo.

Yes it has serious plot holes. Yes it has some bad acting. Yes it actually made up an entirely new genus of snakes. So what- I can be nit-picky about every movie, book, play, short story or tale I have ever been exposed to. This was, to be blunt, "fun in the dark" from the 26 minute mark on. That was when they got onto the plane. For the first 26 minutes, it was just a bad episode of Hawaii 5-0.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't going to win an academy award.

At some point in our lives, we stopped thinking for ourselves and we were told what were were supposed to like. I have had lots of people tell me how *I* am the problem, and as long as I go see tripe, Hollywood will continue to make tripe. Well, maybe your problem is in how you define tripe. The Constant Gardener? That is tripe- here is a tip "GET OUT OF AFRICA YOU JACKASS."

There are a lot of great movies that are premised on plausible and believable things. There are also a lot of bad movies that are premised on plausible and believable things. So what if this movie had an implausible premise. I would like to remind you that Superman came from another planet. The only thing affected by the implausibility is SMJ's credibility as an actor- already in the toilet from the dinosaurs, the super-intelligent sharks, George Lucas on drugs, XXX- I don't know how it will ever recover. I mean seriously, how many super-implausible mega-hits can one career take? Et tu Ishtar?

Fast-forward fifty years, SOAP is going to be seen as the movie that changed the way that Hollywood did business, and it was almost completely by accident. The movie was dead- it was the "I need the movie- what do you want me to do?" movie that SLJ did in a week to kill time until he started his next plausible project. That was until the internet apparently exploded and the buzz generated by this film created a capital reinfusion, a rewrite, a re-cast, a re-booty, and through the magic of "FWD: RE: RE: Snakes on a Plane!!!" had more free advertising than every film except Pamela and Tommy's home movie, also known as "Snake on a boat."

If you don't like snakes, fine. If you don't like predictable movies, fine. If you don't like plots with more holes in it than Sonny Corleone at a toll booth, fine- but don't say it is stupid out of hand. I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film despite its faults, and at the very end I was on the edge of my seat in anticipation of what would happen next. As best as I can tell, the only real measure of success for movies is how much I liked it. I liked this movie a lot more than the ones that I am told to like by everyone. What do they know about me anyway?

Vive L'Ottawa Libre

Franchement, les test federaux pour la bilinguisme son pour les oiseaux.

I have spoken French my entire life. I can understand French. It is not a complicated language. As result of my parents influence on insisting that I learn French, I am a Habs fan instead of a Maple Leafs fan. I am not kidding.

There is NO doubt in my mind that there is a double standard that is applied to language testing in Ottawa. I have seen the English test- simply put, it is easier than the French one. There is no doubt that this is the ultimate sop to Quebec- as more than one third of all federal employees are originally from Quebec, now living in Ottawa, Gatineau or Orleans, as the case may be.

For the record, I wonder how many policy initiatives have stalled, or in the very least have been delayed because of the time it took for translation...

I have YET another friend who has failed her language requirements. Her last name doesn't end in X or ault. I think that we desperately need to re-evaluate the policy. Let me state three things from the outset:

1) It is important that Canadians be able to approach their governments in both official languages.

2) It is important that the Government of Canada attract the best and brightest workers who have the capacity to learn both their subject matter and a passable understanding of a second language.

3) Policy expertise should never be sacrificed because of an inability to speak EITHER official language.

The current policy precludes the second point, and is unabashedly antithetical to the third. I know this first hand. Let me be clear when I say- there is exactly ZERO need for every senior functionary in the federal government to be bilingual.

For me, bi-lingualism means "I can understand you, and you can understand me. Es-ce que tu veut un biere?" The perfect Canadian conversation was like the one I just had with a colleague where she spoke French to me, and I replied in English (Reference to the flag of England, not Canada!) We both understood everything that one another was saying. Merveilleux, passez la salt.

Assuming the evaluation method is fine, the measurement goal of the test should not be based on current language capacity - rather it should focus on the ability to improve from a strong base. There is no way that a written test with fixed answers can effectively rate someone's ability to improve. We are hiring people for their careers, right? Well, in the next couple years, if the candidate has the aptitude to learn a new language, they will do so in an immersed environment with both languages being used interchangeably. Applicants probably don't have that opportunity in Calgary. Cependent, a Montreal, however...

Similarly, and I don't know how to say this without sounding like a bitter Anglo- the oral tests are completely unaccountable. You are in a room with one other person (who is fluent in their language) and they rank you arbitrarily A, B, C or E based on a 15 minute conversation. The English tests are often conducted by people whose names end in X or ault. Puh-lease, or should I say "Suh-VP."

Symbolisn't

So the Japanese Prime Minister is attending at a monument that celebrates the day of surrender and honours their war dead. For reasons that should be obvious to everyone else, this has infuriated the South Koreans who have long held the memory of an Imperial Japan.

Maybe their response should be to erect a monument that lauds the achievements of the pilots of the Enola Gay.

Or maybe we should all just relax a little bit.

Every symbolic act has a downside. If it is "Victory in Europe" we are reminded of the boost it gave to the Soviets and subsequent attrocities. If it is a "9/11 memorial" it reminds us of the total failure of the CIA (or their plan to wage war in Iraq, as the case may be). If it is peeing on a national monument, it reminds us how great it was to be young.

Ultimately, I don't really care that much about symbolism. I think it is nice to have events that make people feel better about themselves, but at the end of the day, wouldn't you rather have the important people who are involved ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING that helps out the aggreived? You know that the Japanese PM knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it would annoy the South Koreans, yet he did it anyway because he wanted to make some really old constituents smile one last time.

I suppose the two could be combined - announce a pension for the Grandchildren of the Veterans of World War II at the national war memorial and then have an event at the strategically located D'arcy McGees right next door. I would gladly attend brandishing the first installment of that pension.

I think everyone who lamented Harper's absence from the Worlds Aids conference (how WAC is that, heh) in Toronto would have been even more upset if he showed up and THEN announced he was not extending the exception under the Contolled Substances Act therby closing the only safe injection site in the world because he disagreed with it when it was opened. At least this way they can say "he wasn't listening." Sadly, he knows exactly what he is doing. Location of the site- Vancouver-Kingsway, home of David Emerson (C - Et tu, Brute?)

Don't get me wrong, I think that symbolic actions can be cathartic to some people- but why do people have to complain about how somebody else's symbolic action makes them feel? Instead of being annoyed, be positive about your own ideas and history. In the words of Bissondath- the world's culture fair is about integration, not confrontation. Celebrate your own history rather than lament the impact of someone elses.

Give Harper a break!!!

When Stephen Harper missed the "Outlympics" he was labelled a homophobe.

When Stephen Harper missed the "Worlds Aids Day" he was labelled as unsympathetic to a blight on the world by Stephen Lewis.

When he misses his son's birthday party, he will be labelled a bad father.

Seriously, give the guy a break. He is too busy to go to every event he is invited to. God, I am too busy to go to every event I get invited too. Maybe YOU think these are important events, but he doesn't. Are you shocked that he didn't want to go to the Outlympics?

This guy has sent his Ministers to stand in his stead, which is more than he had to do. He runs the most top down government from (forget Trudeau) Ceasar Augustus. I would rather have him getting briefed on his government's priorities and working with stakeholders about the next legislative agenda rather than hopping about the country and cutting ribbons.

Editted to say: It also bothers me that this is what is getting reported- the people complaining about Harper's absence is detracting from the good work that is actually being accomplished. The real message is being lost- focus people.

When fiction blends into reality

What did Liberal Leader Bill Graham say when one of his caucus members became a special advisor to the Prime Minister?

http://khaaan.com/

Captain Kirk for the Liberal leadership.

The seventh sigh

When he fired half the deputy Ministers, everyone said it was because they were to close to their former masters.

When he changed the cabinet structure and streamlined it for efficiency, it was to make government simpler.

When he axed about a billion in descretionary spending it was for fiscal prudence.

But now, Stephen Harper (C - Idiocy Unbound) has a new problem. Blackberries on a plane.

I can understand why Mr. Harper has trouble thinking that a blackberry he can buy at Radio Shack (props to Toby Zeigler - D East Bronx) can mess with the instrumentation on a highly sophisticated aircraft, but when he was politely asked to turn it off by the pilot at the end of the flight he FIRED THE PILOT. I only wish I was making this up.

Just so I have this clear, he fired the pilot because he was too concerned for the safety of the passengers? or was it because he was wrong to even suggest that Harper Jong Il did not know that the Dear Leader's blackberry could cause problems when the dear leader most certainly already knew the risks associated with blackberries on a plane. Foolish servant.

Circularity of the war on terror

It is a pickle. You take a principled stand with your allies to help them defeat an affront on democracy. In so doing, you yourself become a target in the "war on the west."

Presently, Canadian views on the ongoing struggles in the Middle East can be categorized into five relatively simple views:

1) Pro-Israel and the right of a sovereign state to defend itself against all outward threats
2) Pro-Palestine and the rights of the dispossessed to find a voice that ensures they are heard
3) Anti-terrorists but pro-peace - why can't we all just get along?
4) Ambivalent towards the entire quagmire - be it Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq or the further nuclearization of Iran.
5) GAH! My husband/wife/son/daughter is in the military!!!

As you can see, it isn't really that simple after all.

Frankly, I am as ambivalent as it gets on this as a political issue. Canada is one of the only countries in the world that actually benefits from further instability in the region. As an exporter of oil...

But is this a voting issue? There are competing schools of thought - I had the chance to talk to a handful of interested parties (read: Jews) over the weekend, and while there was universal respect for the way that Harper was handling the situation, there was exactly zero of these people who would switch their vote on the issue. "How can we trust a man who would have invaded Iraq," they said. Of course, the two events are not directly related. Kind of like a degree in political science and the right to vote.

On the other hand, there are not many Muslims who are comfortable with the government's position either. Statistically, Muslims have NOT supported Conservatives in the last few elections, but interestingly, they tend to vote Republican in the states because of the social views of that party. Pockets of Muslims in Ottawa (by way of example only) have supported Senator Harb and high profile NDP candidates who share their faith and have their husbands stolen by the CIA and shipped to Syria. I think it goes without saying that there is now ever dwindling support for the Conservatives within this community given the government's actions in last few weeks. But where will they go? The Liberals might not be their first choice either. If anything, they might vote Bloc.

So, for the rest of the country who don't have a secured interest in the issue, is this going to change their vote? I, for one, do not like a foreign policy that allows further aggression into the area by "guarding" foreign lands already conquered by Americans. I am also not a fan of blindly repeating the same tired catchphrases without a full understanding of the consequences of them.

Of course, my view of foreign policy is a modified W5 - "War? Wanna trade? Why not? What about Wheat or Water? W?

See the first paragraph- when will our foreign policy lead to event at home that will force us to remain squarely in the camp in which we are already rooted? For our own sake, I hope it never happens but I am told that we are simply lucky that it hasn't.

Snakes on a Plane

The countdown is on.

If you don't know what I am talking about- Shame.

http://snakesonaplane.varitalk.com/

Suing Out the Dead

I was strolling down the street in Newfoundland wondering what would happen if my friend, a young attorney from Boston by way of Saskatchewan, Calgary, London, and Washington got hit by the negligent driver who was doing so with blatant disregard for the rules of the road. We giggled about it for a few minutes, and reminded her that she had no dependents, and as such, the only real loser would be the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because they would lose forty years of tax revenue. Then we both giggled, talked about how funny it would be if the Commonwealth of Mass intervened in the lawsuit I would launch and then we stopped laughing because, to a certain degree, it just made a lot of sense that the state would work to protect its interest in my friend’s future income.

A cursory review of Waddams on Damages shows us two things. First, in Ontario, settlements and damage awards are not taxable in the hands of the victim/recipient, but the disbursement of a settlement and the payment of any damage awards is in fact a deductible expense associated with the ordinary conduct of business. In other words, it isn’t taxable but it is tax deductible. Second, dependents are allowed to sue the individuals who negatively affect their cash flow.

So, just so I have this clear- Despite my grief over my dead friend, it is my settlement award that is reduced because she would have paid taxes on it had it been ordinary income. The corollary is that since I don’t actually have to pay taxes on the settlement funds proper (just the investment income it generates) the person who commits the tort actually gets out of paying me a sizable amount of damages and a greater percentage of that award depending on my tax bracket? REEDICULOUS.

I think the government should get the taxes that are deducted from my settlement by operation of law. I also think the government should be listed as one of my dependents.

Think about it- the government has an expectation that I would contribute to the consolidated revenue fund as a result of the taxes that I would have otherwise had to pay. How do I know this? Well, they do manage to draft budgets that are based on expected earnings in all forms of revenue, including my meager income.

To that end, why should the person who wronged me gets a break in the settlement they have to pay and then government will have to make up for the lost revenue by raising everyone else’s taxes? The correct answer is that they should not. The negligent tort feasor should have the damages owed assessed in full, and then paid out to the two victims – myself and the government of Canada and Ontario.

My friend’s domicile just makes it more interesting- the governments of the various cities/provinces/states/commonweaths where she would have lived could each make a compelling case about the revenues they would have received. During the assessment phase of the trial I would testify under oath that it was my friend’s intent to live in Boston until the next time the Red Sox won the Pennant- in other words for the rest of her natural life. Her will leaves everything to me in trust for her cats. Cat people, they are all crazy.

Middle of the East Road?

The prism of politics has shifted very squarely to focus on the Middle East like the Eye of Sauron on the little ring bearer. One of the people in the focus is an complete innocent thrust into duty by his uncle, one is his blindly loyal friend who is literally following his friend to doom. The other is a social reject/pariah who everyone else wants to blame for their problems. Never mind that right next door, the forces of good are fighting the forces of evil for control over something else entirely.

There is little doubt that the positions taken by the leaders of the world have little to do with what is right or wrong, but is rooted squarely in domestic politics. The US hates terror as the most overt victim in recent memory. The United Kingdom sides with the US because of the troubles over there. Domestic politics drive foreign policy. It is rare that principled foreign policy will change the mindset of the people. In Canada, for example, editorials are raging about the likelihood of a shift in Jewish voting allegiances, which is nothing short of absurd. But ultimately, our domestic pressure comes from being aligned with our two closets allies, which in this particular case happen to be aligned with each other. France and Quebec, however.

It is my sincere belief that leaders refuse to take a position that is even partially critical of the state of Israel out of fear of being labeled an anti-Semite. By way of example, about three years ago in a letter to the editor, I noted that reported voter turnout in the last Israeli election were not entirely accurate because of the incomplete census of the Arab population. I concluded that in order to participate in the electoral process, Palestinians had to tacitly acknowledge the existence of a state which they did not believe should be recognized. For this, I was labeled by three major Jewish organizations as an anti-Semite; three organizations which all received space on a letters page to respond to a letter from a drunken law student. Privileged access indeed.

Wthout saying too much, let's just say that I am a lover of Semites. In fact, I have my own J-Date profile. That said, I can laugh off being labeled an anti-Semite. The Prime Minister or President does not have the same luxury. That is a label that can haunt you in public life and if you have to waste one second defending yourself against that label, you are already falling down. As such, even the hint of anti-Semitism has to be avoided at all costs. The result is a policy to a) say nothing b) say something that Israel will agree with or c) say something so convoluted and nuanced that it is effectively re-slotted into the first category.

The end result is that there can be no lasting peace, or even a discussion of it, because of domestic pressures lording over the best would-be negotiators. Not the alleged power, control or the money that the Jews possess, but the irrefutable label. As long as London and Washington (and Ottawa) are unwilling to objectively mediate the discussion, nothing will ever happen. It is not just Hezbollah that needs to "cut out this shit."

That said, if I had lauded Rabin for his land for peace deal maybe I would have gotten shot as well. I would like to remind everyone that Rabin was killed by a Jew. Not a suicide bomber. A Jew. In all honesty, it is possible that middle of the road opinions are precluded from forming in Israel because of the same label: Uncle Shalom's Cabin on the West bank? Tolerated until they are implemented and then quickly, ahem, removed from office.

You will notice, however, that in Scandinavia "anti-Semitism" is rampant. Is it because Scandinavia was over-run by Germany? Is it because that they do not take a larger world view and don't care what other countries think. Is it because of the significant Saudi investment into their respective economies? Or is it just fair comment in truly open liberal democratic society where the key voting issue is the age state-funded daycare begins and foreign policy is pegged to the price of oil?

Similarly, Paris is the new Mecca (pardon the pun) of pro-Arab thought. That is not because the President's name has an Arab country in it, and it is not because of its historic ties to the region because the French are as racist against Arabs as the rest of the world (see L'Etranger by Camus). It is because being labeled as an anti-semite in a country with very few Semites is nothing when compared to being anti-American in a country full of anti-Americans. Charte devant le cheval.

Catjet

My battle with the State controlled airlines persists. Not only was my bag not the first of the plane despite my written request, and not only was I not allowed to sit in the cockpit of the plane despite my written request, when I got to my seat I was seated next to a cat. It was in a bizarre purse that was made out of the same stuff they used to make hockey jersey's out of, but it was clear that she was looking right at me.

According to Canjet policy, up to five small animals are allowed into the cabin of any flight. If I had an allergy to pets, I should have notified the ticket agent. Their test is "will the pet fit into a piece of luggage that could be stored safely under a seat."

Ok- I didn't tell her about my bee allergy because it is my understanding that bees are not allowed on flights either. In their defense, Canjet did move me to another seat. In their not-defence, they allowed a carnivore onto one of their flights.

But, just so I have this perfectly clear, I can't wear cologne on an airplane or have peanut butter M&Ms, but a cat can sit on his owner's lap as long as it is in a perfectly porous bag?

Cat people. You are all nuts.