Read it an weep! Here is a responsible leader who rejects fear mongering and cynical politics!
Taken from Andrew Sullivan.com

CANADA SPEAKS
"We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this - not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: 'Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.'" - prime minister Paul Martin of Canada, blazing a trail for civil rights, in the Canadian parliament yesterday.

Unauthorized copy. Read it, and think about what has been said!
January 31, 2005OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Form Follows Fascism: MARK STEVENS
THE death last week of Philip Johnson, the nonagenarian enfant terrible, brought 20th-century architecture to a symbolic close. Even Mr. Johnson's friends sometimes doubted that he was an architect of the first rank, but friend and foe alike agreed that he was an emblematic figure of his time.
But emblematic of what? In death, his role in American culture will come into sharper focus, and it's a darker picture than many have thought.
Traditionally, Mr. Johnson is presented as the great champion of modern architecture - organizer of the landmark 1932 Museum of Modern Art show on the International Style, and architect of the Glass House on his Connecticut estate, which quickly came to symbolize American modernism. He is equally celebrated for abandoning classical modernism in the late 50's and adopting in the decades that followed a succession of styles that mirrored the changing taste of the time.
It hardly mattered that many of his skyscrapers were corporate schmaltz; he was an enlivening, generous figure, a man who charmingly described himself as a "whore" as he picked the corporate pocket. Always ready to challenge the earnest, Mr. Johnson, who understood Warhol as well as Mies, became both an icon and an iconoclast.
Only one aspect marred this picture: His embrace of fascism during the 1930's, which was mentioned only in passing in most obituaries. He later called his ideological infatuation "stupidity" and apologized whenever pressed on the matter; as a form of atonement, he designed a synagogue for no fee. With a few exceptions, critics typically had little interest in the details, granting Mr. Johnson a pass for a youthful indiscretion.
Then, in 1994, Franz Schulze's biography presented this period of Mr. Johnson's life in some depth. Mr. Schulze's account was as sympathetic as possible - and many reviews of the book still played down the importance of Mr. Johnson's politics - but it was clear that views of Mr. Johnson's import for American culture would change significantly.
Philip Johnson did not just flirt with fascism. He spent several years in his late 20's and early 30's - years when an artist's imagination usually begins to jell - consumed by fascist ideology. He tried to start a fascist party in the United States. He worked for Huey Long and Father Coughlin, writing essays on their behalf. He tried to buy the magazine American Mercury, then complained in a letter, "The Jews bought the magazine and are ruining it, naturally." He traveled several times to Germany. He thrilled to the Nuremberg rally of 1938 and, after the invasion of Poland, he visited the front at the invitation of the Nazis.
He approved of what he saw. "The German green uniforms made the place look gay and happy," he wrote in a letter. "There were not many Jews to be seen. We saw Warsaw burn and Modlin being bombed. It was a stirring spectacle." As late as 1940, Mr. Johnson was defending Hitler to the American public. It seems that only an inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation - and, presumably, the prospect of being labeled a traitor if America entered the war - led him to withdraw completely from politics.
Today, any debate over an important figure with a fascist or Communist background easily becomes an occasion for blame games between right and left. Mr. Johnson is no exception. Morally serious people can have different views of his personal culpability.
But what's essential is to let the shadow fall - to acknowledge that fascism touched something important in his sensibility. Throughout his life, he was an ardent admirer of Nietzsche. His understanding of the great philosopher was surely deeper than that of the Nazis, but he was overly enchanted by the idea of "a superior being," "the will to power" and Nietzsche's view of art. And he loved the monumental.
In an interview published in 1973, long after he renounced fascism, Mr. Johnson said: "The only thing I really regret about dictatorships isn't the dictatorship, because I recognize that in Julius's time and in Justinian's time and Caesar's time they had to have dictators. I mean I'm not interested in politics at all. I don't see any sense to it. About Hitler - if he'd only been a good architect!" In discussing Rome, he contrasted the poor artistic achievements of the democratically elected Republic with those of earlier regimes. "So let's not be so fancy-pants about who runs the country," he concluded. "Let's talk about whether it's good or not."
Mr. Johnson's observation was refreshingly hard-nosed about art's relation to politics: good politics is not now and never will be a prerequisite for good art. But his emphasis on the aesthetic as the only important value in art was remarkably cold-blooded. His main regret seems to be that contemporary republics have failed to create monuments that ravish the senses.
He never became a fascist architect. But he was probably one of those artists - among them many Communists - whose philosophical sensibilities were gutted by the experience of the 30's and World War II. Afterward, he lived more than ever for the stylish surface, appearing uncomfortable with large-minded ideas even when his buildings reached for the sky.
Perhaps as a consequence, his imagination developed no particular center. Nothing was intractable or non-negotiable. He was remarkably free. He could toy, sometimes beautifully, with history. He liked a splash. He was a playful cynic, cultivating success even as he winked at its vulgarity. If someone should complain, well, the problem lay not in the artist but in the fallen world.
Philip Johnson now seems like an emblematic figure partly because he appears to have been happily, marvelously, provocatively, disturbingly hollow. It is an underlying fear of Western culture, one that has lasted since World War II, that there is no larger or ennobling content to mine. Mr. Johnson's main flaws as an artist - his tastes for razzle-dazzle and overweening scale - are equally the weaknesses of American secular culture. His main strengths - his openness to change, playfulness and urbane rejection of the Miss Grundys of the world - are equally it strengths.
The beautiful Glass House will remain Mr. Johnson's signature work. It is the transparent heart of a collection of eclectic buildings in New Canaan, Conn. It's a dream house, a stylish stage set. It floats upon the land, eliding boundaries between inside and outside. It seems full of emptiness. It's not really a place to live, but was still Mr. Johnson's essential home. That uneasy stylishness deserves emphasis. Philip Johnson lived in a glass house. He threw stones, too.
Mark Stevens is the art critic of New York magazine and the co-author of "De Kooning: An American Master."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help

The rain has returned to San Francisco. I am mildly depressed. Reading blogs and sensing a growing helplessness to world events. The lies and deliberate manipulation of events! Kids being eaten by neighbors in Mexico, English interns killing little kids in hospitals for shear sport. The Bush Administration calloused attitude toward death and slaughter in Iraq and US media silence concerning the tribal warfare in Afghanistan. Here in SF the psychopath Chris Daly is still on the Board of Supervisors. He is the next Dan White. He will assassinate Mayor Newsom before it's over. And why not? This looser runs amuck in City Hall and the fools just laugh! Dan White did all the same and then got five years for two premeditated homicides! Chris Daly will soon realize that no one is listening and he will have a loud exit. The path has been followed so many times before. Why would this psychopath be different?

I am tired of scamers and street grifters coming into Starbucks and willfully creating loud disturbances! SF has become a asylum for the hustler and mentally troubled.

New York City has a better attitude toward the characters.

The rain will stop and life will go on. Well, maybe!

When I was a boy, Johnny Carson came along and he offered the country a quality product, not as smooth a Jack Paar or as hip as Steve Allen, but better. Carson had class, the real thing. He gave as good as he got and he never willfully injured anyone, even the arrogant actors that occasionally abused him on his show. Jerry Lewis was a bore and Carson soothed the rage, transforming Lewis into a tolerable presence. Carson gave time to near greats and has beens, treating them with polite ease and never making them feel hopeless. He gave a generation a gold standard and left a legacy that will be hard to top.
Dr. Drew Pensky on LoveLine said Sunday night "Carson was the last power of his generation, he hands off the future to us; we are all orphans now." I agree. Johnny Carson gave us ideals and great whimsy when we needed it. Now we are up to bat to prove ourselves.
And we will. Jimmy Kimel, David Letterman and even Jay Leno in his slapstick style will do well.
Letterman said "After Carson we're all pretenders!" Well, maybe.
Jack Benny and Stan Laurel are happy now, a much awaited friend has arrived.
Thanks Mr. Carson, you were splendid.

Thank God for the British. They can always be counted on to give an absurdist tinge to the day. The noise over Prince Harry coming to a costume party as a Nazi is priceless. The world needs a laugh. In truth we all need to stop this relentless rant over Nazi's. They lost the war and that was 60 years ago! Get over it. Attacking a boy born 40 years after the wars end, and abusing him is stupid. The British Press seems unwilling to allow youth to be what it is, innocent and insensitive!
Prince Harry should tell the media to drop dead and get on with his life. He has done nothing wrong, except be a bit of a tease. Maybe the real issue here is that he is young, and will be around long after his gray haired critics are dead and forgotten?

In recent days I've detected a growing sentiment in the blogsphere from all sides, left and right, that the Bush Administration is little more than persistent liars. Conservatives who have lambasted liberals for their phoniness and self absorption are now growing quiet as they sense they are being had by GW Bush and Co..
Liberals are stunned at the boldface antics and are getting set to pounce. After the inaugural things will get partisan fast. Do we need this? The GOP should be offering a way out. Further political agitation will solve nothing and divide the country further. I am amazed at the willingness of the Republicans to squander any good will they had.
The Bush Camp acts as if we all forget each day at sun set. The willingness to give explanations for physical abuse at Abu Ghrab as well as Guantonimo can not be defended. Either you have a moral foundation recognized by most of society or you don't!
Perceptions rule. Blaming the "Other Guy" or trying to dismiss the importance of an issue just antagonize the perception of willful lying.
The Liberal Left is showing signs it sees a pattern in Bush Administration public statements. Think about WMDs and the long train of statements, all appearing not as cynical in hindsight, but as foolish and perhaps reflecting a delusional mindset.

The President again makes statements about faith that are feckless and should not have been made.
Andrew Sullivan has covered the abuse trials and the faith statements, all are good coverage.

Was Abe Lincoln Bi Sexual or Homosexual? Who cares? The man has been dead almost one hundred and fifty years! Let him rest in peace! Saying he was Homosexual will not change attitudes in the 21st century!

Cobb County Georgia got slapped down again today. They have to remove anti evolution stickers from text books. (See Atlanta Journal Constitution article)
Creationists never learn the big lesson, honest ideas don't need stickers in text books!

I sense a whiff of smoldering anger developing across the political spectrum. The Country wants the second Bush Administration to be different and fears it won't.
The president should ease up on the Social Security reform package. This will bite the GOP big time. Mr. Bush has a developing credibility problem. Hustling the country on Social Security could erase any good will and inflame the Democrats. Bush should concentrate on Iraq a few months and then with new trust built up, offer Social Security reform.
My gut says that by May the country will be in fits over a bungled Iraqi withdrawal, a fumbled domestic agenda, and a miscalculation on the faith issue.
2005 may prove to be the undoing of GW Bush.

I'm sitting in Starbucks in the Nikko Hotel, here in San Francisco. The weather has been cold and wet. Topic A has been the tragedy in Sumatra and the tragic loss of life. The Bay Area has several casualties to contend with. Long term assistance and serious financial aid will be a must for years to come. The United States should establish a small loan service with minimal interest payments. Most affected are neighborhood cafes, convience stores, and shops of all sorts. In a few weeks the novelty of the tragedy will fade and the folks just starting to recover will go broke and end up destitute. Feeding the hungry is a honorable deed, but long term success is dependent on money and plenty of it.

I respect GW Bush decision to employ his father and President Clinton. I do hope these wise men will keep pressure on Congress to help next year and the year after. We all will benefit. Tamel guerrillas in Sre Linka and Mao guerrillas in Indonesia are waiting for the international help to dry up. They as well as Al Qaeda will feed on the desperation.

All of this is a bit obvious, but it needs to be said again and again.