Section 2

Pat Robertson v. Hugo Chavez?

No matter what you think of the flamboyant Venezuelan president, it's hard to find anything remotely sane or acceptable in the comments issued by Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson with regard to the controversial populist.

Calling for an assasination of a democratically elected leader of a foreign state -- a leader who is not a murderer, not a dictator -- is extreme. Robertson's bony finger links Chavez's communist/socialist leanings to Muslim fanaticism, claiming that the creation of a Godless, communist state in Latin America will convert it into a hub for Islamic terrorists.

I'm sorry, but, what? Come again? How d'ya figure?

Will somebody please escort Mr. Robertson (he, who has miraculously removed the brain cancer of patients who did not even know they suffered that affliction) to the padded room?

P.S.: In today's NYT, the Rev. Jesse Jackson is quoted as saying (about Robertson's comments on his television program), "this is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame,"

Hilarious. Really.

CP Handbook okays f*@k

(Excerpt from a CP story, August 14)

In a sign of how commonplace profanity has become in our society, the newest edition of Canada's venerable editors' handbook, The Canadian Press Caps and Spelling, includes for the first time one of the most notorious four-letter words in the English language. In the edition being published Monday, editors will now find the expletive right between FTP and Fudgsicle.

"We found the word was creeping into our news stories on a fairly regular basis, probably because people are saying it more and more in public, and various media pick it up on their microphones and recorders," said Patti Tasko, editor of Caps and Spelling.

Its entry in the 40th anniversary edition of the 215-page guide - the only vulgarity included other than "damn" and its variations and s.o.b. - is designed to give editors guidance. In short: avoid it for the most part. And if it must be used because it adds a valuable news element to a story, spell it out. No f and three asterisks. No "eff word." No freakings, friggings or firkings either, for that matter.

41 Days in Jail and Counting

As of today, Judith Miller has spent more time behind bars to protect privileged information than any other New York Times journalist. Reporters from other news organizations have endured longer jail time in the same important cause over the years, but for us and we hope for others, it should be clear after 41 days in a Virginia jail that Ms. Miller is not going to change her mind. She appears unwavering in her mission to safeguard the freedom of the press to do its job effectively.

An investigative reporter for The Times, Ms. Miller was ordered to testify as part of an investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is not yet clear where the investigation is going, or why Ms. Miller's testimony was demanded by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor. Intentionally revealing the identity of a covert operative by a government official is a crime, but at this point, the only one serving time in jail is a civilian, Ms Miller.

It is true that some journalists have abused and overused unnamed sources over the years. But in the main, the secret source is not a convenience for the news media or a shortcut for an easy story. He or she is the backbone of a free and independent press. Think about the civil servant who sees a superior lying and breaking the law. Think about the employee who sees a manager whitewashing a report on a hazardous product.

On July 6, as she was standing in a Washington courtroom preparing to go to jail, Ms Miller told the judge, "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press."

Ms. Miller has spent 41 days trying to preserve that guarantee. That is far too long, for her, for us and especially for a country that prides itself on exporting its belief in a free press to the rest of the world.

Sovereignists' attempts to discount GG feeble

As was to be expected in the wake of the appointment of Michaelle Jean to
the post of Governor General, the muckrakers are out mining the garden for
politically poisonous weeds, hoping desperately to cast aspersion on the
qualifications of the Queen's new representative.

While BQ leader Gilles Duceppe could not find fault with Jean herself, but
only with the monarchical trappings of the job, other Quebecois have
snickered about the not-so-secretive links between Jean and her husband,
filmmaker Jean-Daniel Lafond, and members of the FLQ. Those snickers are
beginning to reverberate outside of Quebec, where conservatives are sounding
alarms at the possibility of a sovereignist ally occupying Rideau Hall.

And in an article published in Thursday's Le Devoir, which was circulated
online earlier this week, Quebec screenplay writer René Boulanger, himself a
well-documented sovereignist, expands on Lafond's ties to the men behind the
October crisis. Boulanger recounts a personal exchange with Lafond, which
took place at the couple's home in Montreal, in which Lafond delighted in detailing
his friendships with leading FLQ hardliners such as Jacques Rose. Boulanger was treated
to Lafond's tour of the couple's Montreal apartment, complete with anecdotes
about how Rose, charged in December 1970 with the kidnapping and murder of
Pierre Laporte (though later acquitted of both charges), helped with recent
renovations, even offering to construct a hidden compartment for the safe
storage of arms.

Surely, as Boulanger writes, such connections could not have eluded
bureaucrats on the GG selection committee.

In the face of such impossible to ignore links, Boulanger wonders what
motivated the Prime Minister's people to overlook the evidence and proceed
with its recommendation of Michaelle Jean. He is however unbothered by the
fact that the English media will skewer the couple for being separatist
allies, and relishes the potential consequences for the government.

Conservative columnists and bloggers, who will likely seize upon the
revelations, are already in full-fledged McCarthy mode, lambasting the Prime
Minister for having the gall to consider a separatist sympathizer for Governor General.
The National Post's Adam Daifallah began sniffing for clues last week,
posting suspicions of the GG's leanings, although conceding that she could
be a Quebec nationalist without being a separatist. But Daifallah concludes,
not unlike Boulanger, that Jean's separatist associations could prove
disastrous for Team Martin. The numerous online replies to his posting
suggest that there are more than a few Canadians, living primarily to the
west of Ontario, who concur.

But let's review the facts: Michaelle Jean has never, publicly, advocated
the separatist cause. Whether her husband has, through his film, is a matter
of opinion. It is Ms. Jean who will hold the post of Governor General, not
her husband.

Futhermore, that Ms. Jean engaged in conversation or debate with FLQ members
or other sovereignists renders her all the more qualified for the position
she has accepted. It is only through dialogue, unfiltered by media biases,
that one can begin to understand another's point of view or philosophy. We
don't know how she voted in the 1995 referendum, but we do know that her
decision was one that was well informed by sources on both sides of the
solitudinal divide.

And isn't that okay? Appointed representatives are not meant to live in a
vacuum, they are meant to have insight that allows them to represent us all,
no matter our stripes. Claiming that association with those who hold
sovereignist beliefs should preclude Michaelle Jean from representing Canada
only perpetuates the cycle of disenfranchisement that cultivated the
separatist movement in the first place.

There can be no doubt that this is a politically motivated appointment, that
the Prime Minister desperately needs to recapture the hearts and minds of
Quebec, to quell the inevitable Gomery flames that will plague the next
election. As the press releases acclaimed, Jean represents the "new Quebec",
the multicultural, progressive society that it has become. But the new
Quebec is not divorced from the "old" Quebec, and sovereignty is an idea
whose time has not completely passed. Having someone who has footing in both
Quebecs, and who has an understanding and ability to communicate on behalf
of both, should not be cause for alarm - it should be cause for celebration.

Many thanks, Peter.

Peter Jennings, a fine, fine journalist, succumbed tonight to lung cancer.