Heart of Canada

On Dogs, Breastfeeding, and Ethics

If you clicked over here from Nicholas Packwood's Ghost of a Flea blog archive to see the post about the New Zealand woman, first of all, welcome. Nicholas originally posted links to me after I criticized him for regularly posting girlie pictures on his otherwise interesting blog. I felt, given his high level of professional training in his particular area of study, that he might be more sensitive to issues of sexual objectification. He banned me from commenting on his blog and subsequently wrote the update that brought you here.

Before I go further, I would like to note something of importance to me, which is the definition of "sublimation." If you have read Nicholas's post, you will know why I am making this point. Sublimation is one of the more adaptive defense mechanisms in psychoanalytic theory. While we all use defense mechanisms, some are healthier than others. Sublimation is a fairly complex concept; however, fundamentally, sublimation is the unconscious transformation of an unacceptable, instinctive urge into a prosocial or socially acceptable activity or endeavour.

I'm not sure what Nicholas's point about sublimation is, but you, at least, should understand what it means. If he is saying that it is socially acceptable to post a picture of a pregnant woman breastfeeding a dog for the purposes of discussing why that act is wrong, then, yes, I quite agree with him, which, of course, has little bearing on why he consciously or unconsciously does or does not post pictures of Kylie Minogue.

However, Nicholas implies that it is wrong to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding a dog, and he questions whether it's okay for a clinician and a Christian to look at, post about, and discuss such topics. I'm left with the feeling that he doesn't particularly care about those issues as much as he desired to post something personal about me.

I have serious concerns about the fact that the woman in the story breastfed her puppy, as you will have seen when you read the post about it. I also believe that Christians and non-Christians, clinicians and non-clinicians -- all of us -- need to be able to discuss all kinds of important matters, whether they affect our morality, our health, or our children's well-being.

Nicholas wrote that he would never show his students a picture of a woman breastfeeding a dog. If I thought a legitimate reason existed for doing that, then I would show the picture in a broader context of discourse within the classroom. As you will have seen from the comments on my blog about the picture (and around the web), for most people (me included), the picture is quite disgusting on a number of levels.

Nicholas originally banned me from his comments when I made a mildly humorous point about his frequently posting pictures of women on his blog. I also posted *yawn* a couple of times to his "blog-panting" over them. It wasn't as much the posting of the pictures that concerned me as the demeaning sexual commentary that he and other commenters sometimes made about them. I liked reading his blog, but I was fed up with all his girlie pictures. I was not the only one.

Apparently, for The Flea, calling women "free ice cream" (and other things I don't want to mention here) is preferable to discussing whether breastfeeding a dog can cause cross-placental and other kinds of infection, as well as danger to infants. To his credit, he did, over a year ago, voice an opinion in support of educating people about breastfeeding in New Zealand.

I used the word "objectification" in my post about the issue, and, for a while, he had (maybe still has?) kind of a running thing on his blog about objectification of women, men, objects...you get the idea. We posted a few things back and forth, and now he's giving me all kinds of free advertising. This is the kind of thing that happens to both men and women when they speak out against sexual objectification. I haven't asked Nicholas to remove his rather contumely comments about me. Instead, I have posted this information to add some context to his words, as, from time to time, I get a few click-throughs from his site.

If you'd like to read about my Christian ethics, check out the religion category of my blog. If you'd like to know more about me, check out the "about me" link on the main page of my blog. If you really must see the saga of the flea, click here (and the remainder of the posts are under my "Weblogs" category). I don't work any more for the organization Flea has linked me to, and, if you have any questions about my article in Christian Ethics Today that he linked to (a review of a book on the topic of pedophilia and priests), please e-mail me.

Interestingly, many news forums and blogsites still carry the story of the New Zealand woman. However, very few have documented the concerns and consequences that arose as a result of her actions. I have documented some of these concerns and consequences briefly, and, as such, my post stands as a small form of public education about this rather unusual, yet serious, matter.

Amen(d)

At the age of 12, after I came within a hair's breadth of beating one of my seventh-grade teachers at chess, he told me that someday I would be prime minister of Canada. I'd like that. However, I'd also like this (choose your player):

WM

Quicktime

Real

Amend for Arnold also means amend for people like me!

[Via Tiger]

Would I Make A Good President?

What are the two most important personality traits for a good president? Stubbornness and disagreeableness!

Here, all this time, my rather uncollegial detractors were thinking these were bad qualities in themselves!

Democrat Dollars

For all Kerry's talk about big-business Republicans and worker Democrats, I found it very interesting that the Democrat electoral college votes came largely from "old-money" New England and "new-money" California.

Ok, ok, before all you Democrats jump on my back, I'll agree that PA and IL carry a considerable union punch. It's just pretty hard to ignore that eastern old-money and western new-money influence in the Democrat vote.

A Sad Day

He may have been controversial, but now he's a martyr.

Election Coping and Distraction

If you just can't take it, if the American election has completely gotten to you, and you just cannot wait for the results, try using this little bit of weirdness to distract you.

Must. Have. More. Data.

Only a true political junkie could capture the data fervor that many people get into pre-election. What a small "bit" of compositional brilliance by Paul Wells.

My Old Stomping Grounds

Peter, read my lips: Wilkes-Barre, not "Wilkes-Barry"

Steyn, Columnist Without Fear

So, I'm looking for my daily dose of The Monger, and I find he points me to this no-holds-barred piece by Steyn, who gives Americans his take on the war in Iraq and Canadian healthcare in one breath:

     One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in
     Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers
     are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy,
     decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive      Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border.
     If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the
     Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than
     government health care.

He also says something that I've been thinking for a long time:

     As for this Bush-failed-to-get-bin-Laden business,
     2-1/2 years ago I declared that Osama was dead
     and he's never written to complain. There's no more
     evidence for his present existence than there is for
     the Loch Ness monster, which at least does us the
     courtesy of showing up as a indistinct gray blur on a
     photograph every now and again. Osama is lying low
     because he's in no condition to get up.

If Osama isn't dead, well, please stand up, nice and tall, so we can do something about that. I think Steyn's right. Besides, we have ample proof about Osama from this. Really, I saw it today. Team American killed him. No kidding.

Steyn takes no prisoners and neither do Parker and Stone. I hope no giant socialist weasels try to take over.

Gary? (ratatatatatat) Gary?

Postscript: In her razor-sharp way, Kate takes on Ebert regarding Team America. Definitely worth reading.

Presidential Pageant

So we're giving a buddy of ours a lift to work the other day, and the conversation turns to politics. We start discussing the presidential debates, but, really, the conversation's just too deep for 8:30 am -- I think only John Gormley is licensed to think out loud that early in the morning.

Anyway, the conversation had waned and trailed off to silence when suddenly our buddy says, hey wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of a debate, they held a kind of pageant? You know, the candidates would have to parade around in business suits and, like, have to wrestle each other or something.

Heh.

American electioneering goes on so long, it just gets silly!

Postscript: Ooo! Bush and Kerry will be going head-to-head in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, otherwise known as the center of the universe! Think I'm joking? It's one of my favourite places and it's in the Keystone State, but pu-leeze don't say "Wilkes-Barry"! Everyone knows it's pronounced Wilkes-Bear!

*pout*

I miss Boscov's!

The Return of the Crusades

"Senator Kerry, and all pro-choice Catholic politicians, who publicly call themselves Catholic yet who blatantly violate canon law by continuing to profess heresy and receive Holy Communion, must publicly reject their abortion advocacy for the sake of their own souls, and the others they have scandalized," Mr. Balestrieri said in a statement. "They have been excommunicated." [Link, via Pogge]

Confess! Confess, I tell you!

Apparently, however, the re-opening of the Crusades isn't official.

Oppressing Iraqi Students

Women fleeing college under Islamist threats
The Washington Times

     BAGHDAD -- Islamist extremists are targeting the
     city's universities by threatening and even attacking
     female students who wear Western-style fashions,
     setting off bombs on campuses and demanding that
     classes be segregated by sex.

     At least 1,000 of an estimated 3,000 women who want
     to postpone their studies for fear of violence will be
     granted leaves of absence, a student affairs official
     here said.

     Guards at al-Kindi University in Baghdad last week      arrested a man carrying nearly 10 pounds of TNT in
     a bag....

     Pamphlets found on campus declared: "If the boy
     students don't separate from the girl students, we
     will explode the college. Any girl student who does
     not wear a veil, we will burn her face with chemicals...."

     The campaign of intimidation already is leading to an
     exodus of students from campuses.

American detractors are going to find a way to blame the USA for this situation. You can read the entire article at the Washington Times site.

A Mid-Debate Moment of Realization

I was watching the debate between Bush and Kerry intently. Kerry got a few licks in over outsourcing, and Bush pummelled Kerry over his voting record and keeping money in workers' pockets. Kerry hit back. Bush launched another successful volley. Back and forth, back and forth, baaack and foooorth. Bbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack and fffffffffoooooooooooooorth, and then, suddenly, I realized...I had fallen fast asleep.

Thank God For Good Neighbours

"A U.S. vessel has taken over towing HMCS Chicoutimi, a move that could triple the disabled submarine's speed and get it to port by Sunday evening."

Thank you.

What have we done for them lately?

Strategy Monger

The Monger writes about the debate that wasn't...but should have been. Then, The Monger explains the slam dunk.

If you don't read The Monger everyday, remember A Monger a day keeps vociferous complaining in play (or something like that). Check it out -- it's snappy.

As a follow-up, here's a three-part question I'd enjoy posing to Mr. Kerry:

"Mr. Kerry, in answer to a question about abortion being murder, you talked about not legislating your faith on others, and then you said,

     'That's why I think it's important for the United
     States...not to have this rigid ideological restriction
     on helping families around the world to be able to
     make a smart decision about family planning - you'll
     help prevent AIDS; you'll help prevent unwanted
     children, unwanted pregnancies....'

Mr. Kerry, how does abortion prevent AIDS, how does your abortion policy involve other nations, and do you really think abortion is a good method for family planning?"

I guess -- I hope -- that's not what he meant, but that's how it sounded. Plus, his smooth accent wasn't able to cover up the odd, rather academic, vacuousness of some of his responses. Like Bush, I'm still trying to decipher them. I am sure of one thing, though: we don't want an idealistic academic running the largest, most resourced nation in the world.

Definitely not an idealistic academic.

[Aside: I guess this post won't win me any Brownie points for getting on Becky's blogroll, even though I keep her on mine because

(1) I read her blog despite our differing political opinions;
(2) she's a Saskatoon blogger; and
(3) she's such an overall sweetie.]

Anyway, on a final note, I was happy to hear Bush reiterate this: "I signed...the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice." I also admire Bush's ability to say that he will not use federal taxpayer's money to fund a moral issue that divides the nation, although I'm not convinced he's always that morally consistent -- and don't hold up Iraq as an example of inconsistency because that action was officially approved.

Nevertheless, on abortion, Bush checkmates Kerry in an interesting way. Kerry says he won't legislate anyone's beliefs, but he'll use everyone's money to fund the procedure, which defacto legislates the pro-choice movement's beliefs. Bush says that he won't use anyone's money to fund the procedure, but he'll let the procedure remain legal, supporting both sides.

However, Bush's answer still begs the question of whether free clinics for abortion-on-demand could exist without federal funding. What do you think? Are you in favour of people being able to choose whether their money goes towards abortions, and do you think many people or organizations would be willing to fund these kinds of clinics?

Remember The Big One?

A couple of decades ago, Mount St. Helen's literally exploded. I was in Edmonton during that time. A few days after the eruption, I remember looking up to watch this soft, grey stuff drift down on me from the sky. I put my hands out and realized that the soft stuff was ash.

Apparently, the current eruption of the mountain will not have the same kind of impact,

thank God.

Flip. Flop.

Here's my summation of John Kerry's message in the first of the presidential debates:

"We need allies. We must honour our great military warriors. We must fight terrorism everywhere, um, except in Iraq, where we're fighting the wrong war with insignificant allies, and our troops are floundering, in need of desperate help."

After seeing today's news about the dozens of children who were killed by insurgents' terrorist* bombs in Iraq, a thought ran through my head: Why doesn't Canada want to help the Iraqi people?

*Credit to John Gormley for reminding us on the radio this morning that these people are not "insurgents."

Postscript: Having said all that, I'm still very happy to see this, and I still love this.

Surviving

I'm blogging from Edmonton now. Thanks to everyone for their condolences and well wishes. The week was, in a word, stressful. Also empty, numb. I brought stuff to do while in Alberta, but couldn't really focus on much yesterday, so I kind of just randomly drove around, checking out old haunts. Last night, we saw a porcupine on our deck. The rotter was raiding bird feeders and climbing up the sattelite dish! It snooted around for a while, with bats swooping a mouse zooming around, and then crawled into a tree to sleep. It was an interesting show. I have pics but can't download them until I get home. I was supposed to be back already, but complications have arisen, so I'll be here for a few days yet. At least I'm all plugged in electronically, which, oddly, makes me feel like a real person again.

I have to get caught up on things now that I'm coming out of my general daze. More interesting blogs ahead....

BTW, did you see Howard Dean on Wolf Blitzer this afternoon? What is that thing he does with his eyebrows?

Crisis in Sudan

This is what that young high school student was asking Paul Martin about during the election.

Where's the Beef? Ok, I Have One

I'm more of a doer/solver than a whiner, but today I'm going to whine. Where are all the female columnists in the national and local newspapers? I know, there are a few, but, really, it seems pretty much like a male-o-centric enterprise. Even the radio stations that I listen to have programs hosted by men, men, and more men. If you look at the blogosphere, the political debate blogs tend to be dominated by male writers and male commenters. And, please, don't tell me men are just more interested in politics. I don't believe it. On top of it, a lot of the national newspaper columns (including a few written by women) are awful. They score big zeros for being b000ring. Yaaaaawn.

I mean, I'm just sayin'. Gawd, it reminds me of academia, where more than 50% of the students are female but the full-time faculty and administration are overridingly male. Don't listen to the "we're catching up" stories. Most of the new hirees are part-timers and sessionals --both male and female -- and students don't exactly get a discount if they're being taught by someone making $10 per hour rather than $45 per hour. Then, again, I also don't see newspapers charging less every time they publish a column worthy of being a birdcage liner either.

Hmmm...that gets me to thinking...I think I'm going to start a university anomalies category, like the one I just mentioned. Tuition going up...part-time hirees going up...part-time benefits drying up. Yes, I like that. I think I'll work that one up a bit more and get back to you on it.

Happy Birthday, Neighbour

When people started discussing what to do about the large, empty space where the World Trade Center used to stand, I didn't really know which side of the discussion to take. A part of me knew that everyone had to move on, that a gaping, 16-acre hole in the middle of any city was too stark a reminder of what had happened and just how much had been lost. Another part of me had a hard time imagining what could possibly replace those tall, amazing towers which took my breath away when I first looked up at them. I remember standing on the Staten Island ferry looking over at them as the Goodyear blimp hung in the air, seemingly in their midst, wondering at their size and the human achievement evidenced by their existence.

Then, that terrible morning, when I literally launched myself out of bed and straight to the television after hearing the CKOM crew announce that a plane had hit the first tower. I watched that second explosion in speechless horror, thinking, "It's an attack."

Today, nearly three years later, The City, as we used to call it, laid the cornerstone for the new Freedom Tower. I found myself feeling a surprising sense of relief. Somebody was doing something to fill that gigantic hole in the heart of the Big Apple. I didn't really know how I'd feel about it, but somehow, that cornerstone felt right, fitting into my own sensibilities as well as it fit into the new tower's design. It was the right thing to do.

Some will say that the tower is a symbol of America's arrogance yadda, yadda. For me, the tower complex being erected is a symbol of a people's strength and renewal. As a people, New Yorkers are strong. This tower will symbolize that, as well as the recognition that even a wound as terrible as 9/11 can heal over. While the grief is not gone completely and will never be forgotten, yet we move on.

"Remember, rebuild, renew"
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation

America, what better way to celebrate your independence and your spirit as a nation? As your northern neighbour and as a former resident of NY, I send you my love and congratulations.

Happy Independence Day!

Cornerstone Photo:AP

Here's Hoping (re: both sides)

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq:

“I am fully committed to thorough and impartial investigations that examine the role, commissions and omissions of the entire chain of command, and that includes me. As the senior commander in Iraq, I accept responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghraib, and I accept as a solemn obligation the responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again." [Link]

Wouldn't it be nice to hear the heads of current extremist groups saying things like this? Of course, their ideology, itself, guarantees that they never will. Extremists aren't noted for their self-reflexive critique.

Peeler Throws a Punch

Yesterday, my husband and I were watching the news, when we saw the clip about Anthony Peeler throwing a punch at Kevin Garnett.

Image: Fox News

Here are our reactions:

Me (frowning): "Woah!"

My husband (smiling): "Ooo! Nice one!"

Sheesh.

Does Tabloid Blogging Uphold Freedom?

All those site hits on Heart of Canada coming over from Wizbang. How pleasant. Perhaps people coming here will get some perspective on why they shouldn't watch, link to, or upload the snuff video of Nick Berg's murder.

It's interesting that people think watching the video or enabling others to watch it protects their freedom. You know, just because you're free to do something doesn't mean you should do it. You have the freedom to engage in ethical decision making and personal restraint, too, and doing so in no way compromises your freedom. In fact, deciding not to do something can be an act of freedom as much as deciding to do something might be -- the freedom is in the capacity to decide. People who post the snuff video argue that everyone should have the freedom to decide on their own. Let's explore that idea.

One person, in defending "freedom" through watching snuff called me a "canuck." He said:

Tabloids are filled with lies and exaggerations. Wizbang has posted something that is the absolute, unadorned and unedited truth. If you don't want to see it, fine. Feel free even to attempt to convince people they shouldn't see it either. But for the love of Freedom...Get over it you canuck. Oops, I think I pulled my angry mussle...it's been busy lately. Posted by Tom May 14, 2004 11:59 PM at Wizbang.

Saying "you canuck" to me really went a long way towards convincing me that his arguments were reasonable. Uh-huh. Sure it did. I'd point out that watching the video doesn't give anyone the "unadorned and unedited truth" for the simple reason that people don't really know what they're watching. Sure they see the murder, but what they don't see is the propaganda or other intentions behind the video's creation, including the symbolic meanings or gestures that might be contained in the video and how the video fits into a larger plan for terrorizing others. There are many other things that people who see the video might not understand, not the least of which is that they might not appreciate how war propaganda really works.

I wonder if the people who make the "watching snuff films protects your freedom arguments" have thought about how people who make these videos, like the one of Nick Berg or the one of Daniel Pearl, do so for reasons of propaganda. Posting links to the videos de facto becomes a means of furthering the group's propaganda. Here's a short article about that, in particular the use of these kinds of videos for fear-mongering, recruitment, and demonstrations of power (as I said yesterday). I'm wondering if Al Qaeda is happy that the video is being released so broadly. I'm guessing they are because they're the ones that posted it in the first place. If they like the results of what they've done and how people have reacted, they'll probably do it again. You can argue that Americans who watch the video might become "enraged" and support the war more -- or not. Conversely, some might just become utterly overwhelmed by the sick nature of all of it -- the war, the video, everything. In that way, this video is a type of psy-op on anyone who watches it.

I guess Tom didn't like me saying that Wizbang was turning itself into a tabloid blog. He says tabloids are filled with lies and exaggerations. Perhaps, but they are also sensationalistic and exhibitionistic. So, Wizbang, if the shoe fits...well, just call me a canuck, then. It would fit with that other thing one of your readers said -- you know, that people who think what happened recently at Abu Ghraib is abuse are all "women," "girly-boy," "pansy-ass crybabies" who would have "moved to Canada." Remember that? I mean, readers are entitled to say what they want in comments, but I didn't see anyone over at Wizbang trying to correct or temper these views either. By the way, don't interpret what I'm saying as being anti-war. I'm not a pacifist, but I am against murder, snuff, torture, and abuse in all its forms, as well as the sensationalizing of these despicable acts.

Marianne Pearl called the publicizing of Daniel Pearl's murder despicable. USA Today reflected on mainstream media's decision not to show Nick Berg's murder. Not everyone feels that showing snuff films is right. Not everyone feels that limiting the release of the video is a violation of anyone's freedom. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Do you feel, for example, that you have the "right" to invade other people's privacy? Perhaps in watching Nick Berg's death, this is exactly what you are doing -- disrespecting his privacy and his dignity -- do you feel you have the "freedom" to do that? His father suggested that publicizing the details was an invasion of privacy -- he was hoping the details of Nick's death weren't going to be made public (let alone the actual video). The video, after all, isn't just about history; it is about one moment in a person's individual life -- the video doesn't even tell a good story about that person, and people watching it can very easily end up objectifying Nick instead of seeing his humanity and personhood.

Another good reason for limiting the release of the video is that people don't necessarily appreciate how viewing it will affect them. This isn't like watching a horror movie with special effects. Once you see a film like that, it can affect you for the rest of your life. If you surf around the web, you'll read people's accounts of how they became physically ill, tormented, haunted, horrified, traumatized, and more by watching the murder.

For mental health and psychological reasons, then, the right to see and show the video should be tempered with the responsibility for appreciating how watching the video could actually be psychologically harmful to people -- not to mention the fact that unsupervised children and youth might end up seeing it. I know, some of you are going to say, "well their parents should be watching them." However, the sad reality is that not all parents do that. You can also say that my point is true for anything on the web; however, I'd argue that this particular video, being snuff, exceeds the horror of anything else online. Snuff is in a category all by itself. If some other snuff film were circulating on the web, likely ISPs would refuse to show it. So, in showing the video, you (and the ISPs) take on some responsibility for its effect on others, even if that responsibility is moral and ethical rather than legal.

Some media have shown non-violent stills, video excerpts, or audio excerpts of the snuff video without showing the murder or linking to the entire film. I'm neutral about that -- this is what news shows do, and they usually do it in a responsible manner. A very short, non-graphic excerpt or still doesn't do much to advance the film as propoganda or hurt anyone, but showing the entire video does.

MuDandPHuD says that people looking for the video are looking for "honorable reasons." I don't know how he feels he can make that judgment. I also don't know if there are many "honourable" reason for watching this film -- people in the media might need to watch it to decide whether it can be shown or to help them guide discussions or edit articles about the murder. However, to say that all those millions of people who are looking for the video over the net are doing so for honourable reasons seems like a bit of a stretch. Of course, if you read my post yesterday, you'll already know how I feel about that.

People who have come to my blog in the last few days have found it a number of ways, many by these search terms:

actual video of nick berg execution
actual video nick berg
nick berg and murder and commentary
"watch the video" nick berg
berg execution video
head of nick berg pics
nick berg's execution video
i have seen the nick berg video
nick berg video pics
nick berg video
actual nick berg video
nick berg video pics
'actual video' nick berg video
"nick berg video"
nick berg + video
nick berg execution pics
"nick + berg + video"
nick berg is seen here
nick berg video file
nick berg cover-up
actual video of nick berg's death
berg's father insane
live video of nick berg viewing
nick berg scream

I wonder what the honourable reason was for searching out "head of nick berg pics" or "berg's father insane" or "nick berg scream."

By the way, you know all the kerfuffle in the media about the double-standard in not showing the Berg video but continuing to show the Abu Ghraib photos? First of all, they're hardly comparable, since one is snuff and the others are not. I've already expressed my view in an earlier blog post that the faces of humiliated or deceased prisoners of war should never be shown. In any event, however, there probably is a double-standard going on in the media -- the Abu Ghraib pictures probably shouldn't be dwelt on so much, particularly since the military is also doing good things in Iraq. Balanced reporting is always welcome, so some of each should be shown and discussed. One purpose of the press in a democracy is to criticize public institutions, so posting the photos does that, as long as balanced reporting remains the order of the day.

Wiz-Boo and Insta-Statistic

I love the blogosphere for the same reason that I like talk radio: all participants are entitled to their own opinions -- both blogger and reader (or listener and talk-show host). You don't have to agree with the blogger/host -- hell, you don't even have to be a fan of or like the blogger/host -- in order to appreciate the discourse value of the medium. In that sense, the blogosphere really isn't about "the blogger"; it's more about the venue. A blog outside of the blogosphere would be like a talk-radio show without the audience -- one really can't exist very effectively without the other -- they make each other up.

What's even better about the blogosphere and talk radio is that, not only are participants entitled to their own opinions, but they're also entitled to represent their own opinions for themselves, without tertiary intermediaries or second-hand representation by a reporter. That's the beauty of both radio talk shows and blogs -- you can even retract if you revise your opinion later -- the forum is open, casual, and dynamic.

Now, I'll demonstrate this principle in action. Wizbang is a very popular blog that I read from time to time. Yesterday, Wizbang had 237,000 visitors, not, however, because the blog is that popular. Wizbang rose in site hits because Wizbang blogger, Kevin, first posted a link to the video and then, later, Wizbang blogger, Paul, put the actual video of Nick Berg's murder on his back-up server.

They posted a snuff film, just like Al Qaeda did. Now, before you get all bent out of shape over this comparison, let me point out my awareness of the following:

- nobody made anybody watch the video off Wizbang
- history needs its witnesses
- the blogosphere, in linking to the video, did nothing more than what the net has always done -- cross-posted

Based on the numbers of hits the site got after posting the video, Wizbang blogger, Kevin, concluded the following:

"What has happened here is the media has really missed the Nick Berg story in a big way. Go read this post and follow the linked trackbacks to this post and see all of the other bloggers getting insane (for blogs) amounts of traffic. Even Glenn Reynolds [Instapundit] is wondering where his 200,000 page views yesterday came from. Since I can't access e-mail at all until this evening I can't send him a note and tell him, but most assuredly it's the Nick Berg link he had two days ago.

There are millions of people looking for news on the Nick Berg execution today, and big media is not serving them. Those millions of people are visiting blogs today instead of The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc."

Kevin, at Wizbang, thus concludes that mainstream media has failed its audience and that the blogosphere has rallied to provide a unique service to millions. After initially seeing all the hits on his site, Paul from Wizbang wrote:

"My first instinct was to delink the video. But then it hit me. Everyone of these people that find "us" via google are new blogosphereonians. (surprise, my spell checker did not know that word) This is why we are here. We can do what the big guys can't. If the blogosphere is to ever obtain the status so many people want it to obtain, it is events like this that will propel us there."

So, Paul rationalizes that linking to the snuff film is doing a service to the blogsphere, in part by bringing in new potential blog readers and/or bloggers. No word from Paul or Kevin about exploiting the death of a person in order to bring people into blogdom, and no distinction made between posting news "about" the execution versus posting the execution, itself. Of course, no discussion of ethics either. Instead, we see how easily blogs can become tabloids, with paparazzi-esque zeal. I wonder if their site stats are going to stay at 200,000 or plummet back down to where the stats usually are once all these "new" people have viewed the film.

Later, after rationalizing posting the video to bring people into blogdom, Paul accuses the father of Nick Berg of exploiting his son's death for political purposes, namely, Bush-bashing:

"Then when something like this happens, rather than morn [sic] quietly, he steps on the body of his dead son to bash Bush. No matter how long I live, I'll never understand people that hate Bush this much."

It's hard to criticize the words of a father consumed by grief, maybe even rage, over the death of his son, no matter what your or his politics might be. But, "steps on the body of his dead son" -- what a sick thing to say about this man, who just lost his son in a most horrific way. If Nick Berg's father doesn't like Bush or the war, that's his perogative. Not everybody does. Nevertheless, Wizbang shouldn't use Nick Berg's death to bash anti-war people, either, especially not his family.

What I see over at Wizbang are double standards. On the one hand, Paul's saying it's okay to post a snuff film as a service to the blogosphere. On the other hand he's saying that people shouldn't "use" Berg's death to criticize the American administration. You can't have it both ways -- especially when you're benefiting from posting the video in terms of site stats (not to mention the "donation" option on the Wizbang and Instapundit blogsites).

Reflecting on Wizbang's "logic," I'd like to now ask what service bloggers are providing when they choose to link to (or upload) this snuff film. You probably won't like my answer.

I think they filled, at best, some people's morbid curiosity, and, at worst, some people's blood lust. I have yet to talk with a person who has seen the film and who was glad they watched it. Every person I know who decided to watch it has regretted doing so. You can argue that watching the film informs you about "what these people -- Al Qaeda -- are like." However, you can also understand what they're like by learning what happened without actually viewing the man's death. Al Qaeda wants people to watch the video. Did you ever wonder why?

Now, remember when I said bloggers are entitled to their own opinions and are free to disagree with each other? Well, now I'm going to disagree with myself, play "devil's advocate," by asking, "Don't public executions have a purpose?" Perhaps the witnessing of history is something that everyone should be entitled to do, have a "right" to do, which includes watching the murders of people like Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl.

Perhaps you believe that the line between the personal and the historical just doesn't matter because an execution is somehow a public event. Here's Charles Dickens's reaction to observing an execution, done in public to "make an example" of the criminal:

"Nobody cared, or was at all affected. There was no manifestation of disgust, or pity, or indignation, or sorrow. My empty pockets were tried, several times, in the crowd immediately below the scaffold, as the corpse was being put into its coffin. It was an ugly, filthy, careless, sickening spectacle; meaning nothing but butchery beyond the momentary interest, to the one wretched actor. Yes! Such a sight has one meaning and one warning. Let me not forget it. The speculators in the lottery, station themselves at favourable points for counting the gouts of blood that spirt out, here or there; and buy that number. It is pretty sure to have a run upon it.

The body was carted away in due time, the knife cleansed, the scaffold taken down, and all the hideous apparatus removed. The executioner: an outlaw EX OFFICIO (what a satire on the Punishment!) who dare not, for his life, cross the Bridge of St. Angelo but to do his work: retreated to his lair, and the show was over."

Let me reiterate. Dickens wrote: "Nobody cared, or was at all affected. There was no manifestation of disgust, or pity, or indignation, or sorrow." That's how people tend to react when they're curious about something but not really personally affected by it. They don't watch because they care about the person. People who care about the person have a very hard time watching that person be executed; they might rather turn away in shock and horror. Sometimes, they collapse.

Impartial observers, on the other hand, the people who don't care, want to look. They look, they talk, and then they shrug and move on to write about the latest fad. Fundamentally, they're not going to do anything to stop the event because, hey, it would mean they might have to take a personal risk and, hey, it doesn't really personally involve them anyway. They just wanted to watch. When others closer to what happened get worked up about it, impartial observers can write them off as a little weird or too emotional -- or suspicious. If the impartial observers find something, even one thing, questionable about the victim, the execution can suddenly seem explainable or justified, at least in their own, self-righteous and gossipy minds.

Dickens went to the execution out of curiosity; the monks and executioners in charge were making "an example" of their victim, perhaps attempting, in doing so, to strike fear of sinning into observers' hearts (fanatical people in power like to do that -- threaten, intimidate, and strike fear into people's hearts). I ask, is the present web-situation with Nick Berg so very different, with Al Qaeda trying to demonstrate their power and viewers, in turn, idly fulfilling their own morbid curiosity? For those who watched and were repulsed, what did they learn from the experience beyond what Dickens also learned -- that it was a morbid spectacle having most meaning only to the person who actually died? What purpose does our "right" to witness this man's murder really serve?

There is a difference between "providing news" and promoting a morbid spectacle. I'd say the mainstream media did the former; Wizbang and Instapundit did the latter, and it wasn't in the service of anything but their own site stats. However, since the blogosphere is so dynamic, they have the opportunity to change and retract by deleting the video and delinking to external sites that are carrying it. They could donate monies made off their sites in the past few days to a worthwhile charity to assist victims of violence or war. Wizbang and Instapundit, there's always hope and a chance to lead the blogosphere in a direction that supports human dignity instead of degrading it. I'd like to feel that's why we're here.

Archaeology and Human Rights

Remember how I said that I didn't like the idea of displaying people's remains in public museums or taking things from established grave sites?

On the other hand, this particular function of archaeology is very important, but I wish nobody ever needed it.

Nick Berg = "N. B." = Pay Attention

"I have seen the Nick Berg video; I have seen the Daniel Pearl video; I have seen the video of the four Americans massacred, their body parts hung from a bridge to burn. I have watched them not because they’re enjoyable, but because they remind me we are fighting a battle for humanity more than for “democracy in the Middle East.” It’s nearly impossible to give a damn about the nude pyramid and the guy on the leash when you’ve seen a man scream until the exact moment his head is removed from his body." Intellectual Conservative

I do give a damn about abused prisoners, and I do give a great big damn about Nick Berg. I read Nuremberg.

History repeats itself.

We saw Nazism and tried to eradicate it. We saw Stalinism and nearly ignored it. Canada, what about Al Qaeda?

Your Life = Someone's History

Becky grrrl put up a blog post about seeing the simultaneously interesting and freakish "bog people" exhibit at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary. She writes, "Part of me couldn't help feeling voyeuristic as I gazed upon the preserved bodies of the dead." I can relate. I don't know if I could have gone to see the exhibit. A number of years ago, when I was teaching at the University of Alberta, a mummy exhibit came through the Ring House Gallery. My friends wanted to go, so I went to the exhibit and looked at everything but the actual mummy. Why?

A mummy is a person. Granted, a mummy is a person who has been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. Nevertheless, a mummy is a person. Becky mentioned that the Glenbow's selling "bog people" t-shirts with pictures of the bog people on them. Reflecting on mummies and bog people, I'm compelled to ask this question:

Where is the line between the personal and the historical?

Let me make the question more clear: How would you feel if someone decided to put a picture of your dead relative's face on a t-shirt? What if someone did that just a few days after the funeral? How about giving them away at the funeral? Now, I don't mean a picture of your relative on a t-shirt...I mean a picture of your relative, "as dead" on that t-shirt.

Somehow, it just doesn't seem appropriate does it? I'd object.

So, when does the personal become historical? When, I ask, does it become okay to print a picture of someone's remains on a t-shirt or view someone's remains in a museum? After a year, a hundred years, a thousand years? I really can't, myself, answer this question, except to say that I think the line might be at a person's remains.

I felt this way when pics of Uday and Qusay Hussain were published and also when pics of prisoners killed at Abu Ghraib were released. With regard to the tortured and humiliated prisoners -- I felt that their faces should have been blocked out of the photos -- it's bad enough they were abused without the entire world witnessing their degradation, too.

About the bog people, I'd be in favour, maybe, of displaying wax replicas or facial reconstructions instead -- as long as the person's remains weren't exploited or sensationalized in the process of obtaining them. I'm not against studying the bog people -- mummies might be another matter. To me, going through pyramids is like grave digging (or robbing). Sorry, I guess I'm not the biggest fan of ancient archeology when it involves people's final resting places. Then, again, maybe it is important to know about their sense of fashion.

Obviously, I won't be going to see the bog people.

P.S. I just clicked the Ring House Gallery link and found out the gallery closed in 1988. Has it really been that long since I taught there??? How time flies. Was I having fun?

Democracy and Transparency

I rarely comment on international politics, but I do want to post this. These words, from American President George Bush, Jr., struck a chord with me:

"It's also important for the people of Iraq to know that in a democracy, everything is not perfect, that mistakes are made. But in a democracy, as well, those mistakes will be investigated and people will be brought to justice. We're an open society. We're a society that is willing to investigate, fully investigate in this case, what took place in that prison....

We have nothing to hide. We believe in transparency, because we're a free society. That's what free societies do. They -- if there's a problem, they address those problems in a forthright, up-front manner. And that's what's taking place....

The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as the Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that. And, therefore, there will be a full investigation, and justice will be served. And we will do to ourselves what we expect of others."

I hope the investigations are as thorough, transparent and up-front as the American President is saying because I found his words in this interview to be very meaningful. You can read the full interview online.